date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2012/11/09 | 883 | 3,821 | <issue_start>username_0: I recently submitted a paper to a conference whose notification of acceptance/rejection is due to 3 months from now. However I realize that I can extend my results in such a way that it gets much more general and such that the results of the previous paper follows as a special case. The generalization however is non-trivial, in the sense that I will need much more advanced and esoteric techniques, and somewhat more 20 pages to write it properly. It also fits in the scope of a conference whose deadline is in 2 months. Here are my options.
1) Put the first paper at arxiv. Write the second paper citing it and showing where things get different. Submit the second paper. But then the second paper doesn't get self contained enough.
2) Put the first paper at arxiv. Make the second paper self contained by rewriting all results that I need from the first one, but specifying that it is a generalization of the first one. Submit the second paper.
3) Write the second paper and wait for the result of the first conference. If accepted, write the second paper as an independent extension of the first one. If rejected, merge everything into a new piece of work and resubmit to a new conference whose deadline is in 5 months.
Problems:
a) There are two groups working in a very related subject, and I'm afraid putting the first paper in arxiv would lead them to a similar generalization before me. So I wonder If I should wait to put the first paper on arxiv until having finished the second one.
b) If I write the second paper and put it at arxiv before the notification from the conference, could this make the first paper be rejected because the program committee would argue that there is a possible generalization of it? Even though highly non-trivial?
c) If I submit the second paper to a new conference but don't put it on arxiv, would I fall in the case of double submission?
What is the best way to proceed in this case? I believe several researchers might have faced similar situations.<issue_comment>username_1: Firstly, [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/4837/can-i-present-the-results-of-a-paper-that-is-currently-under-review) is relevant to your considerations.
In my community it is quite common to publish a (possibly extended/revised) submitted work as a technical report or a pre-print right after, or before the conference submission. The idea is to get a useful reference for future work falling exactly in the period between submission, notification and hopefully publication. ArXiv, or a TR with ISSN is fine for that.
Having said that, the option 2 is something I myself often resort to. Also to consider with this option, if the publication date of the "generalization" is after the submission deadline, such a rejection would be baseless.
As you yourself note, option 1 leads to a non-self-encapsulated paper and option 3, even though fine and correct, prolongs the period between invention and publication.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I had the same situation where we proposed a method and then generalized it later.
What I did (not the best option though) is wrote two papers (yes they overlap in almost 30% of the content) then submitted them for two different conferences.
still waiting for the feedback.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: Researcher does not just stop because you submitted a conference paper. In many fields arxiv is not an option. Waiting when you do not need to is not an option either. But you have another option. Incorporate enough of your first paper in a second one for it to be understandable, and cite the unpublished work for the details. By the time the second paper is published, the first one should be out and the full reference can be included.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/11/10 | 881 | 3,620 | <issue_start>username_0: I have just finished an honours degree in Psychological science in Australia - this is a 3 year bachelors with an additional selective entry 4th year involving 50% coursework and research. In addition to this I have about a year of research experience across a few different labs and areas. I'd like to move to somewhere in central / western Europe (e.g. Berlin). The aim is to eventually do a Phd there (although nobody there ever seems entirely certain whether my degree is eligible or if I need a masters), but ideally I'd like to get some involvement in a lab / institution first.
Does such an aim seem reasonable and achievable, or would I be generally expected to just pursue a Masters / Phd path? What is the best way to go about finding such a position?
I am pursuing the networking angle, but don't have many contacts in that direction. I have a sporadic collection of mailing lists and web sites I check, and will turn to 'cold emailing' academics of interest at some point.<issue_comment>username_1: From my experience, EU citizen and familiar with Australian degree system, you will have a hard time getting into a PhD program. The honors bachelor cannot be considered at the same level of the Masters degree. Regarding employment in a lab in Europe your first hurdle would be getting a working permit. This might be hard unless you already have someone who can sponsor you. I think you are better off trying to find some field technician or volunteer position to collaborate with some of the labs and then perhaps start networking from there.
Otherwise you could try and move to Germany with the tourist visa for 3/6 months and start network that way. However German professors seem quite reachable by e-mail, I would start contacting some of them for which you have an interest in their research and see what they suggest.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: As somebody working in Germany, I can assure you that starting a doctoral program is **not** possible unless you have either a Master's degree or a degree considered "equivalent" to the Master's degree. In most cases, this means that you have to have a Master's degree. To enter a Master's degree program in Germany can also be tricky, because most "traditional" programs require proof of German skills as well as a bachelor's degree that is "equivalent" to the bachelor's degree as offered by three German university in which you wish to enroll. The qualification process for a foreign degree can be very tedious to complete.
However, there are a number of "non-consecutive" Master's programs in various disciplines at most universities. Admission to such programs is not contingent on having a bachelor's degree in the same field, and many of these programs are conducted in English. The [DAAD](http://www.daad.de) can help you to find a suitable program.
If you are a Master's student, you will typically have to do a thesis project to complete your degree. Until then, however, you won't be able to do full-time research. However, you will be able to act as a part-time worker in a research group. What duties this entails varies greatly from research group to research group.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I came across this memorandum of understanding between Germany and Australia on academic degrees a while ago - among other things it says that Australian honours degrees *are* eligible to begin phd studies in Germany, and I did so last year after some time in an assistant like role.
<http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/pdf/ZAB/Bilaterale_Erklaerungen_KMK_HRK/austr.pdf>
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer] |
2012/11/10 | 1,579 | 6,604 | <issue_start>username_0: I have applied to PhD programs in ecology in Europe (Germany, Denmark, UK) and Oceania (Australia/New Zealand). Now the deadlines for US programs are coming up and I am debating whether I should apply there as well. Aside from the exorbitant costs when applying to US programs I am interested in comparing the pros and cons as far as career opportunities go.
I have already a MS from a major US university and I will turn 31 soon. My career goals are to pursue a teaching/research position. I am assuming that the potential advisors satisfy my requirements (good publishing track, personable, successful students, international connections) and that there will be funding. I will consider "rest of the world" and USA.
**Rest of the World** (at least for the programs I am considering):
* can be completed in three years, in this case I will have gained two years for a possible Post Doc, and also make use of my Masters.
* I will be able to just focus on research without being a teaching assistant, from what I understand publications would count more than teaching assistant experience even for a 50%/50% research/teaching position
* it might be harder in case I want to find a job in the US, especially since I will not be located within the country
* there are no obligations to complete courses
* pay rate is generally decent compared to cost of living
**USA**:
* I am under the impression that a PhD from a top US institution is well-regarded internationally and it would be easier to find a job in Europe or Australia.
* the teaching experience could be useful to me as I would like to also be involved in education alongside with research.
* there is more time to explore and think about research questions and goals, as opposed to Europe where you join to develop a certain project.
* the stipend in the US is very low compared to the living costs, especially on the West Coast. It would mean five years of financial sacrifice.
* more chances to perhaps be involved in other projects, it seems there is more of an open research community within departments.
* it might be productive to take some classes that are taught by top profile professors.
Is the extra time spent and the financial sacrifice for a US PhD worthwhile for my career goals and my preparation as a successful educator/researcher? Will my international mobility be limited based on where I graduate?<issue_comment>username_1: I think the key question is: What do you want to do after the PhD?
There are some points that you may consider to choose a programme if you want to stay in the academia. The advantages or disadvantages of the length of these programmes depend on your training/background.
1. **Your background**. If you are familiar with the topic you are planning to work on, then you can probably start checking the relevant literature immediatly, in this case a 3 years program may be what you need. But if the topic is unfamiliar to you, then you would probably have to attend lectures and to read textbooks, in this case a 5 years program may be better.
2. **Your CV.** A work in the academia usually involves teaching and research. If you have teaching experience, then you can focus on developing your CV in terms of research. In this case I would go for a 3 years programme and get involved full-time on research. If you do not have teaching experience, then you might want to consider a 5 years PhD where you have the opportunity to teach and develop your CV in both lines.
3. **The topic.** Some research projects by their nature itself require different amounts of time to develop. For instance if you are going to work on modelling a specific data set *vs.* having to obtain the samples directly in the Amazon.
Regarding the mobility, I think after the PhD what really matters is your CV. Either if you graduate from Oxford or the University of Tuvalu.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I can talk from experience there, because 3 years ago I had the same conundrum.
I also did my PhD outside the US, in Japan, where it also lasts for 3 years (usually).
AS long as you do your PhD on some University "with a name" outside its country is ok for your future if you wish to move away from said country.
Example, here in Japan everybody knows what Keio and Waseda Universities are, and for sure you'll get a nice paid job in the japanese industry if you finish on either one of them, but if you wish to go out of Japan, outside of Tokyo Univ, Kyoto, and maybe Osaka, nobody knows of other universities.
If you wish to pursue a career in US, it helps more to do your PhD over there than overseas, but if you do good work overseas, you have a very good chance to pursue an Academic career as well.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: I think PhD programs differ in three main aspects: duration, teaching, and coursework. I would prefer not to try and generalize how these aspects vary amongst different countries. That said I think a PhD program with limited coursework and teaching are beneficial, especially if you already have an MS. Some teaching might be useful if your personality is such that at job interviews there would be questions about your ability to engage students. Picking up teaching experience is relatively easy and I would not consider the ability to gain teaching experience as positive in deciding on a PhD program. Similarly for coursework; the ability to take courses is not a positive.
Duration on the other hand is a big factor. The longer the duration the better. As hard as it is to be a PhD student, it only gets harder. Putting off becoming a postdoc, and then again the tenure track, for as long as possible is a good thing for your research output and will help you eventually get tenure.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: It depends on your subject, interests, and future career goals, IMO. The US presents the best educational services all around the world, especially in graduate levels (almost all agreed on this); on the other hand, the student life in the US is relatively hard, mainly due to low rates of stipend and scholarships and high rates of life cost. Unlikely, PhD students in the Europe are usually enrolled as if they are employed by the university. A high value of salary and no additional works, such as teaching and etc.
However, keep in mind that future job opportunities in the US are definitely higher than that in the Europe and Oceania. Studying in the US is similar to mountain climbing; when you conquered the crest, the remaining of the way is downhill, hopefully :).
Upvotes: -1 |
2012/11/11 | 3,223 | 12,628 | <issue_start>username_0: I am a new lecturer in the field of Computer Science. I got my MSc and I would like to go for a PhD. However, I would like to improve my teaching methods and way of thinking before I pursue this goal. Any recommended books or articles?<issue_comment>username_1: The way I learned how to lecture was just drawing on things other professors did that were beneficial to me. If you are going to get a PhD however, teaching will be secondary. The focus on the program you go in will be teaching you how to conduct research and write papers for publications.
That being said the best way to improve, in my opinion, is to record yourself giving a lecture. Just audio is fine, make sure you are covering the context... Every lecture I give I make sure I have the following components in it:
1. I get to class early to talk to students as they come in and make sure I have all of the equipment ready to go.
2. I bring some anecdotal humor into the lecture. I don't sit there and tell knock knock jokes, but I make it relevant to them.
3. Use previous material to frame the new material.
4. Let them go early if I finish early.
In addition to that I use an Audience Response System, or clicker, and that helps keep the students actively engaged (class of 350 freshmen).
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In my University they had a feedback system for every professor at the end of the semester, where you could evaluate their performance through the semester.
I always find that copying is also a good thing, think which teacher do you think were really good or with which teacher did you really learn, and try to figure out what did they have in common.
This is a bit out of the box, but I found that teaching to little kids (5-6) is one of the best ways to learn how to engage an audience, since if they are bored they will tell you on spot and if they don't like you they will tell you as well.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: As a beginner lecturer, the University (or other institution) that employs you may offer training courses. In fact, depending on the law of your country, they may even be *required* to do so. In all cases, it is in their best interest to help you become a better teacher, so they should be able to accommodate requests for such training. Ask your teaching supervisor or head of department. (One might argue that, even if they can't help you, they will appreciate the fact that you voluntarily working on improving your teaching performance.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: It may work very differently depending on the group size, their skills and engagement. My only experience (when it comes to lecturing, not - giving a talk) is with teaching gifted high-school students, for other cases (less skilled or less motivated students, or stricter plan) it may not hold.
**Never assume that students follow you**, just because they are silent, nodding agreeably, saying that they follow you or even (especially?) repeating your phrases. By interaction see if they get the idea, sort of get the idea, or don't get it at all.
(And "make it slower" is not an universal remedy, because either they may be totally lost at this point, or they may not follow because it is already to slow to keep them awake.)
After giving a course ask a few students is person to **name 3 strongest and 3 weakest points** of it. (It's important to do it, i.e. to force to give 3 weak points, because otherwise they may be not that willing to do so. All courses have >=3 flaws. The questions is if they are minor or serious. And beware that a mean grade of a course (e.g. student gave you on average 7.6/10) is almost meaningless, even if split into categories; only text based comments make sense.)
**Be inviting so they ask questions** (compare: *"exams are a sick thing, when the more knowledgeable person asks question the less knowledgeable one"*. ) Don't kill the natural curiosity. And remember, if they knew everything, then it would be not point fort them to attend your course.
(BTW: One of my friend was giving a candy for every student asking a valid question, regardless if simple or hard.)
If the material goes slower that you want, never (once again: **never**):
* cut breaks (without a break many could leave the other part, learning not less),
* just run faster (it makes it even more incomprehensible).
Just plan better the next one, given you have some feedback. Writing a lot of stuff on a whiteboard may trick *you* into believing that you explained them, but in fact you did a chaotic, unpleasant lesson. Compare (excuse me for an entropy joke):
>
> Efficiency of teaching is measured by mutual information between you and your audience.
>
>
> Not by entropy of your blackboard nor entropy your created in their minds.
>
>
> Both are poor upper bounds.
>
>
>
Other things:
* watch others giving a lecture,
* record yourself giving a lecture.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: In the field of engineering, <NAME> is very highly regarded. He has a lot of papers on how to be a good teacher/professor. You can check out of some of his articles on google scholar.
Also, the book *[The Effective, Efficient Professor](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0205337112)* by <NAME> has a variety of good advice for future faculty.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: There are three books that I found quite useful.
* [McKeachie's Teaching Tips](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0495809292) - this is small but dense, packed with good ideas (good to re-read from time to time)
* [The Joy of Teaching by <NAME>](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0807856037) - good for new teachers
* [Teaching Unprepared Students](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1579222307), by <NAME> - good if you have students who are not really strong academically and you want to help them
Aside from books, you could consider getting a PGCHE (post graduate certificate in higher education) which is normally a 600 hour / one year course specifically on teaching to adults. You can get one via distance learning, if you're not in the UK.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: You may want to take some direction from how education schools teach the art of teaching to future teachers. Generally, the curriculum involves:
1. Coursework covering education theory
2. Practice designing semester-long (and sometimes years-long) curricula, as well as individual lesson plans
3. Student teaching, where the teacher teaches in the presence of an experienced educator and receives regular feedback
While you'll probably want all three to some extent, note that (2) and (3) involve other, more experienced educators giving you regular feedback, rather than books and articles. I don't think you'll be able to set this up yourself; this is a very involved process which requires a significant time commitment from the mentor. I would speak with your department and see if you can get backing to run a program like this, even if just for yourself.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: As [JoshRagem](https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2765/joshragem) said in the comments of the question, **don't lecture**. [Bloom published it scientifically as "The 2 Sigma problem"](http://www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/Courses/ILT/ILT0004/TheTwoSigmaProblem.pdf).
Some ways I found to make a class less of a lecture (items marked with a \* are covered in [Lecture 6 of Teaching College-Level Science and Engineering](https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/teaching-college-level-science/id385156658)):
* wait 5 seconds after a question (this is an eternity in front of 30+ students)\*
* use a feedback sheet every class meeting, to learn about your students\*
* use conceptual multiple-choice questions (individual or small groups)\*
* use conceptual multiple-choice with lots of discussion (entire group)\*
* [buzz groups](http://www.keele.org.uk/docs/PreparingToTeach.pdf#page=49) (although not easy to do when you're starting out)
* keep traditional "lecturing" to maximum 10-minute bursts, followed up with questions, exercises, etc.
[Interactivity Engagement](http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/models/IntEng.html) takes time during the course, which takes away from presenting "content." The solution is to *not* teach all the content during class time. You'll have to expect students to do the reading for the most material, and use lecture time to validate, reinforce, personalize, etc.
Although I'm definitely not the best instructor, I know I have improved a lot thanks to some other points:
* Get an evaluation from the "pedagogical resource" person at your institution (hopefully this person exists!). The evaluation was full of small, useful details about teaching. You might want to *check your ego at the door*, however, when you get the feedback.
* Tell your students that standard lecturing is not efficient, and that you want to raise the bar. But to do that you expect them to be prepared (to have done the reading) when they come to course for the interactive part. If I find they've not done the reading, I start to give small quizzes on the reading at the start of every course (I have 3-hour courses, so it's once every 3 courses if you have a 50-minute course period). These quizzes are multiple-choice and the questions can be used as the conceptual questions as above. The value of the quizzes is minimal in their final grade, but it engages the students.
* Tell your students that making mistakes is essential when learning. Encourage them to vote on multiple-choice questions. Sanjoy Mahajan states that "clickers" allow anonymous voting, which socially doesn't engage the students. It's important to get them to vote, but also to make them feel that being wrong is "more than OK" (because it's how we learn).
* Keep training yourself about pedagogy; try to stay motivated to teach well. [Pedagogical patterns](http://www.pedagogicalpatterns.org/ "Pedagogical patterns project") may be of interest. My students have often said they can see I'm motivated and find it refreshing. They are generally more forgiving when they know I'm trying.
* Relate material being taught to what students have learned before and will learn/use later. Anecdotes based on your real-world experience (if you have it) are useful. My students always ask me for more of that in my evaluations.
* Apply the "repeat without repeating" pedagogical pattern (Google fails me on finding a reference). Basically, it means that different learner styles (are more likely in large groups) respond to different examples, so it's helpful to repeat the same concept in multiple examples.
**EDIT** I recently bought this book and found it very useful because it covers many dimensions of teaching that might not seem obvious to first-time teachers. It's in a kind of check-list style, with references to external sources if you want gory details on certain techniques: [Davis, <NAME>. Tools for Teaching. 2nd ed. Jossey-Bass, 2009.](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0787965677)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_9: I taught high school physics for seven years before heading to PhD school, and the most important method for improving my own teaching was to **observe as many other teachers as possible.** In both my teacher education masters program and at the high school where I taught, it was mandatory for new teachers to observe other teachers multiple times per week. In fact, new teachers were given class observation duties that replaced other duties (e.g., cafeteria or study-hall duty) because it was deemed so important.
I found great value in observing all teachers, from the terrible (I once watched as a teacher ignored all raised hands and simply lectured in monotone for the entire class--the students looked like they wanted to jump out the window because they were so bored) to the outstanding, and everything in between. Obviously, you'll incorporate certain teaching methods into your own teaching based on your own style, but the more you observe, the more you'll see different variations and methods.
By the way, if you do want to figure out who the best teachers are at your school, you just simply have to ask the students. It isn't a secret, and the students see so many teachers every year that they will gladly tell you who is the best (and worst).
Finally, if you do want to visit other teachers' classes, it is probably best to ask ahead of time. While I wouldn't say it is rude to show up and ask to observe, it is courteous to do so ahead of time in person.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/11/12 | 1,006 | 3,874 | <issue_start>username_0: **I’m looking for a way to manage the text of the quotations that most certainly I will use (i.e. quote) in the future**. I’m a philosopher, so this is specially handy —and even required— for the classical texts.
I'm currently using [Mendeley](http://www.mendeley.com/) to manage my references, which is fine for citations on daily working, but does not allow to add quotations to the library items.
I have checked [Wikindx](http://wikindx.sourceforge.net/) (a PHP-based manager which allow this), but it doesn't seem very consolidated… Currently, I keep my quotations in a mediawiki installation, but it is complicated and unoptimized (but at least gives me readability and long term security of accesibility).
Does anyone of you have the same trouble? Which manager can you recommend? Anyone knows if Mendeley has plans to add something like it?<issue_comment>username_1: [TextCite: Publication Quotation Manager](http://textcite.sourceforge.net/) looks like a thing you are looking for (haven't tried, only googled it):
>
> TextCite is a program for organizing and commenting textual citations from texts (books, articles, or other published works) for use in producing scientific or academic publications. You can organize by publication, author, category, or outline. It works with bibliographic management programs like Citation, EndNote, RefWorks, and BibTeX, providing important text/citation management capabilities that these programs lack, while still allowing for rapid footnote and bibliography generation by means of your favorite bibliography manager. It also exports to PDF and Word (RTF).
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_1: When it comes to using [Mendeley](http://www.mendeley.com/) for that purpose, there are two ways to do that:
* using notes for books (i.e. in each book you can copy and paste fragments to notes attached to that book) - a warning, though: there seems to be a maximum character limit to this field; text that gets too long is silently trimmed
* using single entries (`File -> Add Entry Manually`) e.g. as "book sections" with the quote in the "abstract" field (yeah, I know, it's on the verge on hacking the system).
When it comes to less specific solutions, you can use e.g. [Evernote](http://evernote.com/) (or any other note-taking software), each note for each textual citation.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Try [Citavi](http://www.citavi.com/en/features.html). It is a bibliographic (reference) manager and a knowledge manager. Citavi organizes references and respective PDFs (or other files) like Mendeley. Additionally, it stores quotations that you can directly copy from your PDFs (which links them automatically to the right reference), pictures and your own ideas. Furthermore, it has a Word Add-In and a so-called "Publication Assistent" which can also paste your quotations and references into OpenOffice or your favored TeX-editor.
The Citavi Free version can only edit Citavi project files with up to 100 references, but you can have as many projects as you want.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: If you use the latest version [Citavi 5](http://www.citavi.com), the quotes taken from PDF documents stay linked to the exact position in the PDF. You can also add comments or summaries to paragraphs or chapters, all of which stay linked to the PDF, so you can jump from the quotation back to the PDF.
Additionally, you can also add you own ideas, and organize and sort everything into categories. Those categories are going to be the chapters of your book or paper.
(BTW, I work for Citavi)
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: It [seems](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/75549/38524) like [JabRef](https://www.jabref.org/) does the search in annotations. And, [unlike Citavi](https://secure.citavi.com/635/purl-academic5), it's completely free.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/11/12 | 1,375 | 5,057 | <issue_start>username_0: I've just started using git for tracking changes in a LaTeX paper I'm writing, and for collaboration with co-authors.
However, I cannot find easily private git repositories with reasonable plans for scientific collaboration (I'm not asking about discounts, just about a different workflow, so no "one team of n developers", but there are "many small project, with different people").
There is [ScribTeX](http://www.scribtex.com/), but unfortunately they are going down :/.
Other:
* [GitHub](https://github.com/plans) free [academic plan](https://education.github.com/discount_requests/new) with unlimited private repositories and number of collaborators
* [Bitbucket](https://bitbucket.org/plans) free [academic plan](https://www.atlassian.com/software/views/bitbucket-academic-license.jsp) with unlimited private repositories and collaborators
* [Assembla](https://www.assembla.com/plans) free: priv, but no bug-tracking; next ($9/month): n=3
So, is there a (La)TeX-oriented [Git](http://git-scm.com/) (or, say, [Mercurial](http://mercurial.selenic.com/)) repository service?
That is, I'm looking for a repository (free or reasonably priced - i.e. for one with a PhD student salary, not a programmer salary :))
* allowing for:
+ many collaborators,
+ many private repositories,
* but can have strong limits on:
+ users *per* repository,
+ repository size.<issue_comment>username_1: Consider asking your research institute/university IT services.
* In terms of fees, I'd consider such a tool as necessary for scientific work as your office chair, or backup disks/servers. My personal experience with asking for a git repository on a file server was that our director immediately answered "if that's what is needed for work, it needs to be installed." - that was it.
* The far more important concern is, where research in progress and possibly data will end up. Storing such sensitive data outside the collaborating institutes is by default a big **NO**, even though lots of people send their research data by skype or dropbox.
You'd be totally screwed up if you run into ownership/privacy problems.
Even Bitbucket (who have "academic license") have write in their terms such statements (there are other statements about you retaining ownership of your data, privacy etc.):
>
> End User hereby grants Atlassian a non-exclusive license to copy, distribute,
> perform, display, store, modify, and otherwise use End User Data in
> connection with operating the Hosted Services.
>
>
>
* For some areas of research it is even more **NO**, e.g. I work with patient data...
* `git` works very well with distributed systems, even if they are only seldom connected. Worst case, people can email patches.
* But installing git on a server is easy and people may get an ssh login, and that is all you need to have for your private git repository inside your institution IT structure, which avoids all that privacy trouble.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Aditya's comment should be the accepted answer:
Bitbucket offers [unlimited private repos for academic users](http://atlassian.com/software/views/bitbucket-academic-license.jsp).
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: [Overleaf](https://www.overleaf.com/) (used to be writelatex) now [works with git](https://www.overleaf.com/blog/195-new-collaborate-online-and-offline-with-overleaf-and-git-beta#.Vk-c8jH4g28). Latex is fantastic for typesetting academic papers properly, and Overleaf is great for writing latex collaboratively.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I always found it difficult to teach people how to properly use repositories when collaborating on a manuscript. I have found [www.authorea.com](http://www.authorea.com) to work much better. Unfortunately, authorea suffers from the same problems you discussed in your question. Lack of private repositories.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: If your collaborators aren't software developers themselves I wouldn't subject them to learning Latex.
It is not an easy task, believeme I've tried.
What you need is something like Google Docs that saves history of the document and allows you to collaborate.
Thankfully there is: <https://www.sharelatex.com/>
>
> LaTeX, Evolved
> The easy to use, online, collaborative LaTeX edito
>
>
>
I'm not affiliated with them... just a happy user.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: If you really want to use Git. Then I recommend you install your own git server. There are two worthy clones of github: [GitLab](https://about.gitlab.com/?gclid=CjwKEAjw9OG4BRDJzY3jrMng4iQSJABddor1K-ruYrDn3oNdRYQdM5fnPJ5_tbu4xvjFpBTwH8j7khoClhXw_wcB) and [Gogs](https://gogs.io/).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Dabac.png)
>
> Gogs - Go Git Service
> A painless self-hosted Git service
>
>
>
I prefer Gogs since it is just one file install based on GoLang and looks very pretty and has all the functionality you would expect: Code History, Issue Management, Wiki pages
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/11/13 | 827 | 3,499 | <issue_start>username_0: I have been contemplating studying some subjects by watching video lectures, more specifically Topology and Quantum Mechanics. I was wondering, if anyone has tried studying a subject on his own by watching just lectures. Alternatively, I could work systematically through a book. What are the advantages and disadvantages of learning by watching lecture videos, compared to reading a book? I am more concerned more about courses in Maths and Physics.<issue_comment>username_1: For postgraduate research, neither watching video lectures nor just reading a book are going to help you enough.
You're going to have to actively engage with the subject matter, by solving problems, and keeping up with current research literature in journals.
Following on from the OP's comment: I do understand that your question is "which is better - books or videos". And the answer to your question is **neither**. It's a false opposition.
Neither are necessary, and neither are sufficient. **You have to learn the core content of maths and physics by solving problems**. And to do postgraduate research, you have to keep up with the current research literature in journals (including preprint archives where appropriate).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The most important advantage/disadvange IMHO is personal preference.
* Advantages of video lectures:
+ a good video can teach the important ideas in a very fast way. It is not that a book couldn't do that, but it may be easier to start with a introductory video and then dig more in-depth into a book.
+ some things (experiments in natural sciences) can much better be shown by video (and even better in reality)
+ lectures by design come in "digestible" pieces
+ It may be easier to schedule time for video, as it is known how long it will take.
* Advantages of books:
+ you can better set the pace
+ you can better decide where to stop in between
+ easier flip back/forward to recall things.
+ things that take much thinking/working time of you fit better with the concept of books. E.g. calculation of examples/excercises. In depth study that derives the formulae. Few lecturers take the time to develop the exact formulae.
+ I find it easier to have a number of books open for quick reference (and papers).
+ The screen is not only needed for video, but possibly also for editor (sorting notes, computing examples, etc.), web pages etc.
Looks rather complementary than exclusive to me. Additional self-study (by book) is usually recommended also for (live) lectures. I think it even more important for video lectures, because you cannot ask questions. It will depend on what level of understanding you want to achieve, though.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I have studied through difficult math topics using basically three approaches:
* Videolectures
* Books
* Tutorial Papers
To get the basics of the topic you are studying and "leveling up" with the other people in the field, I think this three resources are very good. I do not see why would you single one out in favor of the other. I've basically seen like 4 Machine Learning Summer Schools, 3 Online Courses, 3 books, and that was only to be aware of what was happening around me.
After that I had to engage a lot on Online communities, conferences, papers, etc.
I find that a good practice is to set alerts for authors that you wish to follow and are prolific in the specific area you are doing your research on.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/11/14 | 1,701 | 7,724 | <issue_start>username_0: I have a question about copyright. When I make a presentation based on my research (together with co-authors from other countries), who owns the copyright of the presentation? I think, only I have the copyright since I give credit to my co-authors.
The problem is now that the university (I'm living in Germany, if that is important) tells me that they have to copyright on my talks since they pay me.
Do you have any answer for this or any comments?<issue_comment>username_1: I'm going to answer this question based on my understanding of copyright law in the United Kingdom. The general principles are likely to be the same in German law, however, for a definitive answer, you should consult an expert in German copyright law. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice in any jurisdiction.
The author of a literary work - in this case your presentation - is usually the first owner of the copyright in that work.
However, if that work was created **in the course of employment**, then the copyright in the work belongs to the employer.
The phrase **in the course of employment** requires careful consideration in such cases. I assume that you are an employee of your university, and that you were employed to conduct research. I suspect that you were also expected, as part of your employment, to create presentations of your research. I assume that these expectations were put in a contract **of** service - the usual case for a university researcher. This is distinct from obligations under a contract **for** service - which would be more common if you were commissioned to produce a specific piece of work.
If you were employed to conduct and report research as part of a contract of employment - the most likely case given what I know of your situation - it would appear that any copyright in your presentation rests with your employer, the University.
You mention co-authors. I assume that these are co-authors of the publication(s) regarding the research which you are describing in your presentation. If this is the case, and your co-authors did not contribute to the creation of the presentation itself, then the copyright **in the presentation** rests with solely you as first author or, by virtue of employment, solely with your employer (the most likely situation, as I read it).
If, on the other hand, your co-authors contributed to the creation of the presentation itself, then they - or their relevant employers - may be entitled to be considered joint owners of copyright in the presentation.
I have been discussing the copyright of the presentation - not the copyright arising in any research publication. I assume that you have included in your presentation items such as pictures, plots or graphs which appeared in your research publication. It is most likely that copyright for these works vests with the publisher of the research article.
If this is the case - that your research has been published (including, for example a graph) and that the copyright in that publication has been assigned to the publisher (again, the usual situation), then the use of that work in another work - e.g. using a graph from that publication in your presentation - may be considered an infringement of the copyright in the publication.
There is an exception to copyright infringement in several copyright laws which permits the use of copyrighted works for educational or research purposes. In this case, your University may well lay claim to copyright in your presentation as a literary work by virtue of their employment of you, however, they may also have to consider that they are able to use the copyrighted works included in that presentation (the plots, graphs etc, the copyright of which is held by the publisher of those works, e.g. the research journal) **if the use is for research or teaching purposes.** If, for example, the University decides to include your presentation - including a plot published in your original research paper - in a book, and then sold that book, the University is likely to require a licence from the journal which holds the copyright in the plot.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Post-scriptum: in addition to the answer below, there are a few things that are crystal-clear:
* The copyright of figures already published has probably been transferred to the publisher; copyright transfer agreements *usually* allow you to reüse them for academic talks and the like, but you don't own copyright for those.
* If you use text or figures produced by others (and not already published), then you don't own copyright for those.
---
**Such questions are *very* specific and are best answered by a professional, also known as *lawyer*.** In fact, it certainly depends on the country your work in, but also the type of contract you signed with them. But, anyway…
**Under US law**, the copyrightable by-products of research (articles, talks, book chapters, etc.) are generally not considered as work-for-hire, and thus **you retain authorship**. Citing [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire):
>
> However, articles published in academic journals, or work produced by freelancers for magazines, are not generally works created as a work for hire, which is why it is common for the publisher to require the copyright owner, the author, to sign a copyright transfer, a short legal document transferring specific author copyrights to the publisher. In this case the authors retain those copyrights in their work not granted to the publisher.
>
>
>
(I don't regard Wikipedia as a particularly authoritative source, but it happens to match the existing practice of requesting *authors* to transfer copyright to journal publishers, not their universities.) It's somewhat of a gray area, in that some institutions actually claim such ownership, and the merits of such claims have not (to my knowledge) been much tested in court.
Note that situations can be more complex than that. For example, it seems that in [German copyright law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Germany) employment grants the employer an exclusive license to your work:
>
> While exclusive licences are almost as powerful as copyright transfer, the author always retains some rights to the work, including the right to prevent defacing and to be identified as the author. Employment agreements are frequently construed as granting the employer an exclusive licence to any works created by the employee within the scope of his obligations.
>
>
>
In practice, an exclusive license is pretty much equivalent to a copyright transfers, because the only rights you retain are minor.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: German copyright is very different from UK or US copyright. In German law, copyright always belongs to the author(s), and cannot be given away. What you can give away are the various rights of use.
The question here thus should be whether your university has a right to use your presentations, potentially even an exclusive right to use them. In the case of computer programs, §69b of the German copyright law explicitly states that the employer has the exclusive right to use the work.
I am not sure whether a lawyer could argue that your presentation is a computer program - maybe he could if it is a tex file :). Otherwise, as username_2 writes, it depends on your work contract. If there is not an explicit statement in your work contract that the university has the right to use any copyrighted works that you authored during your employment, they will generally not have such rights. In the typical employment contracts at German universities, such statements are not included.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/11/15 | 3,793 | 15,381 | <issue_start>username_0: I am following the advice of @<NAME> in [Is there an internet Git-like repository for collaboration on a paper?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/5253/14341), and I want to ask about version controls: how beneficial are they (specially under LaTeX settings) for writing papers compared to Dropbox and [SugarSync](https://www.sugarsync.com)?
I have been using SugarSync for almost a year with no pain.
Usually, I create the paper folder and invite other authors to join, so we can see and edit the last version of the paper.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> how beneficial they are (specially under Latex settings) for writing papers compared to dropbox and SugarSync?
>
>
>
I am a long time user of version control systems, in fact everything I have (my $HOME folder) is backed up in a VC.
I tried hard to use various version control systems for writing many (10+) research papers all of them written in LaTeX. *My experience with using VCs for writing research papers is however mixed, if not outright negative.* Besides the easiness of synchronization with a VC, the main problem is merging the updates. Unlike source code of programs, merging LaTeX is not that straightforward mainly due to line breaking issues. Secondly, even though I have no problem with various VCs, my co-authors (very heterogeneous mix of people) not necessarily have experience with the one I use, or use different one outright, or have no clue about this stuff. Add the quirkiness of setting up passwords, ssh tunnels, installation of client-side software etc. and you see that all in all, using a VC is not a smooth experience (at best).
Recently (3 papers so far), I gave a try to Dropbox and I am pretty pleased with the result. While it does not solve all the issues, it seems to me to solve at least some:
* almost zero set-up, also layman have no problem installing the client
* no explicit sync, everything just works instantly (no svn/git/bzr/... add/remove/move/... command line stuff involved)
* merging issues are about the same as with a version control system - even with a vc in place I always tended to send explicit write lock notifications to co-authors by e-mail, or IM
* dropbox has some rudimentary version control, for my purposes it's pretty sufficient. Writing papers is not about branching, right?
* moreover, no repository setup is necessary. You just share a folder with a selected group of co-authors and that's it. Nobody else can see it. Few clicks, almost zero hassle.
As you see, **my advice would be to stay with Dropbox-like solution**. For my purposes, at least, it turned out to be the best solution so far.
---
As a follow-up to comments received: consider also the requirements you have for writing a research paper. Why to use a heavy-lifting solutions, such as a distributed version control, when we are speaking here about 1-10 text files, a handful of images and possibly a repository of data (binary, or text blobs). Do you really need to go through all the hassle with a DVCS for that? Maybe, if your research is rather a special case, most of the time, I guess, not. To me, easiness and accessibility to laymen of solutions such as Dropbox by far outweighs the advanced technological features, such as branching, tagging, etc.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm not entirely sure how dropbox and sugar sync work, but their main aim is not to monitor change, but to keep files in sync over a multitude of platforms and to provide backup. In addition, a good version control system allows you to **keep older versions**, but also to **comment on the changes** explain why they where made. The version control is also guaranteed to keep the chain of change of a tex file even over very long periods of time (say submitting to journal a, getting rejected, submitting to journal b, getting reviews, new version, acceptance: such a cycle could easily be 1.5 years).
Also, in a Version Control System (VCS) **you decided when you want to save a version**, in dropbox I can imagine that the system makes that decision. Being in control yourself is important, for example to be able to generate a difference file when resubmitting a paper (see also my answer to [this question on TeX SE](https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/1325/using-latexdiff-with-git)).
Using a VCS you can also **collaborate easily with people**. Just create a private repository at bitbucket (supports mercurial and git), arrange for the other authors to have read and/or write access to your tex files in the repository, and they can change the paper or add to it. The VCS will take care of the merging.
I use Mercurial myself for version controlling papers. However, for version controlling a tex file, a VCS might be overkill. I would still recommend Mercurial though.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Given the praise received by version control systems in the existing answers, I’ll play the devil’s advocate here for a second and underline what I think is a very important point: **it strongly depends on what your co-authors are comfortable with**.
I use version control for most of the projects I do on my own, from code to papers. However, you have to realize that not everyone is familiar with this paradigm, and those who are familiar with it may not be familiar with a given piece of software (I myself am a heavy Subversion user, but have never used Git…). This is particularly true of people who don't develop software, as those tools come from the field of software development. So, check out what your co-authors use and what they are willing to learn. **The great thing about a simple synchronization solution (such as DropBox) with no version control is that its learning curve is flat**: just agree on a few rules (date-stamp all files, add initials, always send an email when you have created a new version). Anyone can understand that in a minute.
Finally, I'll add another remark: the need for tracking revision history in the short term needs not necessarily require that you record the revision history for the posterity. For example, my incremental backup system (Apple’s Time Machine) creates snapshots of my files history every hour for a day, every day for the past month, and so on. This covers some of the need for tracking older versions in the short term.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: There are many good points in the other answers, but I'd like to add another one, concerning the time/project management. Although you can do version control with Dropbox, the main strength of Dropbox is that everybody works on the same file(s) at the same time, which makes it fast and always synced, and it's quite good for a "rush", where n people have to work together over a given period of time on a given objective.
However, I'm currently working on 5+ papers at the same time, with different time constraints, different deadlines, and different involvement, and I appreciate to easily have the history of the paper, who committed what/when, and I like to have to commit contributions to a paper. Hence, I know that the version on the main repo is consistent, and I can leave some parts hanging on a local repo without breaking everything, and when I commit, I need to make the effort to understand what has actually changed and what's the interest. In this regard, the fact that you can easily associate a issue tracker to a repo (for instance with [BitBucket](https://confluence.atlassian.com/display/BITBUCKET/Using+your+Bitbucket+Issue+Tracker)) can be also quite helpful (for instance, you can add an issue "cite this other paper", attach the paper, and solve the issue when you commit the paragraph actually citing the paper.
This project management approach might be a bias coming from my programming background, and might be overkill in some cases, but in the end, there is no killer feature from one approach or the other, it's also how comfortable it makes your life.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: tl;dr: **Version control is harder to set up, but makes it safe to work on the same file, and makes it easy to track history (i.e. previous versions).**
Pros and cons of syncing files
------------------------------
Yes, the biggest advantage of things like Dropbox (I use it as well for backuping and synchronizing my files) and SugarSync is their easiness.
They may work for collaboration on files, but:
* they are not meant for two people editing the same file at once (no merge functionalities - so one guy changing a file can overwrite changes made by other guy, even without knowing that),
* you get no history, i.e.:
+ did anyone worked on that file I want to work know?
+ did anyone added or modified any other files?
+ which changes were made?
+ can I go to a previous version, the one I sent to my supervisor?
Depending what you do, it may not be an issue. For example, if only one is editing `tex` file, while others are only reading or uploading figures - it's perfectly fine.
And also, look at my answer on [Simplest way to jointly write a manuscript?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1261/simplest-way-to-jointly-write-a-manuscript/1263#1263) with a not technically-inclined collaborators.
Version control
---------------
Version control systems require some technical skills.
Two the most common version control systems are [Git](http://git-scm.com/) and [Mercurial](http://mercurial.selenic.com/) (with the second one being more Windows-friendly and, arguably, easier to start).
Both by standard comes only with command line access, but there are some graphical interfaces as well (I really recommend starting with [SourceTree](https://www.sourcetreeapp.com/)).
So, if the collaborators are techie, just teach them how to use it. If not - there is a way around.
You can keep track of version control by yourself, without engaging others (I'm doing it just now with 2 collaborators).
Just you start a repository inside folder you share (the examples are with Git):
```
cd ~/path/to/the/folder
git init // start git repository inside this folder
git add . // say git to track all files inside it
```
Now, every time you or your collaborator make some changes (e.g. add some files, correct typos, revise a chapter, ...) you do:
```
git commit -a -m "Fixed typos in Seciton 3"
```
Later, you will be able to go back to this version; and also compare, e.g. the current version of your file with the previous one (by default - by line, here - by words):
```
git diff HEAD~1 --color-words my_file.tex
```
See also:
* [Got 15 minutes and want to learn Git?](https://try.github.io/)
* [git + LaTeX workflow](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6188780/git-latex-workflow) at StackOverflow
* [Writing the PhD thesis: the tools Part I](http://copiancestral.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/writing-the-phd-thesis-the-tools-part-i/#more-372)
* [Collaborating with LaTeX and git at ShareLaTeX blog](https://www.sharelatex.com/blog/2012/10/16/collaborating-with-latex-and-git.html) - a great and comprehensive tutorial
* [What are the advantages of using version control (git, CVS etc) in LaTeX documents - TeX.SE](https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/1118/what-are-the-advantages-of-using-version-control-git-cvs-etc-in-latex-documen)
* <https://tex.stackexchange.com/search?q=version+control>
And real world example from using diff (it makes my life so much easier :)); commit messages in Polish, but I guess you get the idea:
Otherwise ([a strip from PhD Comics](http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1531)):
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_6: I do not have experience with what I'm about to suggest, but it might be helpful. **Use both**; use both `Dropbox` and some `VCS`. *How?* Well, in the `Dropbox` folder that you want to share, start a `git` repository (see @PiotrMigdal answer). As far as I recall you can exclude a directory from being synced in the `Dropbox`, and you should exclude the `.git` (hidden-)directory since it is of no interest to your collaborators.
This way, you and you collaborators can easily share the data over `Dropbox` and you personally can enjoy benefits of real full scale VCS.
However, as always with shared-digital work, one of the most important issues is to set the guidelines - they should be clear to all participants.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_7: I strongly recommend using version control for writing a paper because my advisers have never been very good at using computers. They often edit the wrong versions of documents and then send them to me. Then I have to figure out what they changed and manually reenter it into my latest version. I work around this problem by keeping track of what version I emailed to them and then comparing what they sent back to me using release tags.
**Don't assume the boss will ever use your version control system. He doesn't need to.** But it's still extremely useful to use version control! Our papers are prepared in MS Word because that's all that the boss knows how to use, and that's the file format the journal wants. He often forgets to use the "Track Changes" feature, but you can use the "Compare and Merge Documents" under the Tools menu to determine what he edited. (Just "merge" it with the version you emailed, and the resulting document will display the differences using the "Track Changes" highlighting.) I never have to compare timestamps or worry about which file is the latest version, and even when MS Word destroys one of my figures I know that I can easily recover it.
**You can keep all of your raw experimental data, post-processing code, figure files, and lab notes under version control, too.** Then you can backup the whole repository and be really sure that you'll never lose anything. I apply repository-wide tags to indicate when I do new experiments, which helps to keep the code in synch with the data; this answers the old question about which method was used to generate the figures. ("Was it method A? We last used that six months ago, but it could've been similar method B that we started developing around that time. Maybe we used A.1? Great, we'll have to do it all over again...")
**You can use the repository-pushing feature as a type of distributed backup system.** I use [TortoiseHg](http://tortoisehg.bitbucket.org/download/index.html) (a Mercurial GUI for Windows) to push/pull the repository to a USB flashdrive to carry between my home and work computers and also to a network share as a backup, and I never overwrite the wrong files or make extra copies of the files. By the way, forget about using the branching and merging features -- they don't really make sense for binary files, but it's valuable to know whether they got accidentally changed. Mercurial works quite well, even with huge binary files in vendor-proprietary formats.
Summary: **Real world science experiments produce too many files to version manually, and the boss might not be very tech-savvy.** Version control fixes these problems, and you'll never again have to sort through filenames with random dates hardcoded in them.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/11/11 | 688 | 2,403 | <issue_start>username_0: I have a very brief question: Can a professional mathematician publish philosophy papers, essays, etc.? For example, would a leading philosophy journal, nowadays, consider publishing a paper or an essay about philosophy of mathematics written by a mathematician. If so, does any one have proof of such instances? I am of course aware of the fact that numerous mathematicians were philosophers and vice versa, but the standards have changed, so I seek recent publications (as proof).
Edit: Suppose I wanted to write an article about geometric fallacies and why geometric arguments fail, in general, when we use infinitesimals, limits, etc. or something of this nature. Would this be considered for a publication in a philosophy journal?<issue_comment>username_1: Just randomly browsed Philosophia Mathematica and found [To Diagram, to Demonstrate: To Do, To See, and To Judge in Greek Geometry](http://philmat.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/1/25.abstract) written by Montelle, who lists his employment as in the department of mathematics. It's from Feb 2012, so recent.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Why do you consider that fields of research have to be separated by clear boundaries well-defined? It's not the case, and there are plenty of examples to prove it. Read about [<NAME>](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell) for example, is he a mathematician or a philosopher?
If Russell is too old, what about Godel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt\_Gödel), Hofstadter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas\_Hofstadter)?
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Shallit) is "a computer scientist, number theorist, a noted advocate for civil liberties on the Internet, and a noted critic of intelligent design." He has a B.S. and a Ph.D. in Mathematics and is currently a Professor in the School of Computer Science at the University of Waterloo. He co-wrote a paper with <NAME> [(Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski’s “complex specified information”)](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-009-9542-8) which was published in *[Synthese](http://www.springer.com/philosophy/epistemology+and+philosophy+of+science/journal/11229)*, "An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science" on January 2011.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2012/11/16 | 618 | 2,730 | <issue_start>username_0: I am an Early Stage Researcher in a bigger project. I am non-native speaker of English and I find my level of English in my articles not satisfactory, especially when I consider that it is not just my reputation but also the reputation of the project.
I am thinking about hiring a proofreader for my future articles or other texts for publication.
My long term goal is to improve myself enough so I would not need a proofreader in the future. **Does the possibility to see your corrected text help you improve your writing skill in the long term, or are English classes necessary?**<issue_comment>username_1: I would recommend both, for exactly the reasons you stated. Hire a proofreader to maintain a high quality *current* professional image, and take English language lessons to ensure that you can maintain a high quality *future* professional image (and to ensure you're not paying a proofreader for the rest of your career).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: What improves most your English level (or help you maintain it if you have reached a certain level which you deem satisfactory) is **usage of the language** in all its forms: listening, speaking, reading, writing. This is especially easy in this age of globalization and technology: just keep reading texts of all kinds, listening to the radio, watching TV programs in original language (BBC news, series, …), professional podcasts or videocasts, etc.
In addition, comparing the proofread text of articles with your original version can help you better understand some of the mistakes you make, the invalid constructions you may use and
the [shibboleths](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth) that give you away as a non-native speaker. However, unless you write (and get proofread) a large number of papers, this might not be enough to improve significantly.
Another possibility is to **pay a teacher to actually review with you, on a regular basis, texts that you have written**. Although it takes quite a bit of time, I believe it is one of the best ways to improve your written English, along with reading a lot.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: If you do decide to get a proofreader, make sure he understands the field you work in. Different fields have very different jargons, and a proofreader who is not proficient in your field will make things worse, not better. I have seen what a native English speaker (but non-psychologist) can do to an English psychology manuscript written by non-native speakers, and the results were not pretty...
It may actually be better to identify someone with strong English skills who may not be a native speaker but knows your field's specific jargon.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/11/16 | 1,544 | 6,390 | <issue_start>username_0: What types of methods are available to students today who want to find a University for a Master, PhD, or postdoc program that supports the student's obscure/specific area of research?
For example, I am looking for PhD programs that specialize in software engineering metrics analysis and process improvement. I have looked at the websites of about 15-20 universities that offer PhD's in Computer Science. Sometimes, I'll find "software engineering" listed vaguely as a research area, but as I research the publications and activities of the faculty, there will be just a single faculty member who does work in an obscure aspect of software engineering, like applying CASE tools to data modeling, validation of aeronautic systems, etc.<issue_comment>username_1: **Look at affiliations in papers**.
When I was looking for a PhD position, I systematically did [an extensive literature survey](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/5074/1033). I didn't really read the articles, looked mostly at the abstracts, but I particularly looked at *affiliations*. At the time, I simply wrote down all academic institutes I found that were in Europe. In a more extended version, one could somehow assign a score based on the number of papers coming from a certain institution and the impact of each paper.
The big advantage of this is that one will find mostly groups doing active research in the field. Whether we want it or not, published peer-reviewed papers are (at least in my field, atmospheric sciences) *the* method for determining impact. I won't find groups that fail to publish using this method, but I probably don't want to do my PhD there anyway, so nothing is lost from my perspective.
For my PhD I ended up staying exactly where I already was, but now I'm about to do the same for finding institutes with a post-doc. It's one degree more complicated now because of the [two-body problem](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/2633/1033), but even there: my significant other and I both make such a list, then we'll plot them on a map and look at pairs that are close to each other. But it all starts with:
**Look at affiliations in papers.**
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I have just been going through what you are describing. There is no specific way to go about it. I will be painful and daunting when you don't start from any specific point. I can tell you what I did:
1. Location: if you have certain preferences that might help you make some preliminary decisions. For example initially I decided on certain countries/cities and looked at all major universities there. Then I extended the range to locations that were not a preference. I did find some nice programs , for example in Alaska, but I could not force myself to apply there, I just can't imagine living 5 years in Anchorage.
2. Publications and google scholar: I am in ecology so what I did was going into google scholar and type certain species with which I would like to work and a few other keywords "conservation", "GIS", "spatial modeling", etc. I read the abstract and the authors affiliations. I also limited the search to the last 5 years because people change affiliation and also I want to look at latest research. Then I only investigated the ones that were in places/universities where I want to go or interested in.
3. Specialist groups: not sure how this translates into computer science (even if I am a computer scientist myself), but there are special groups that work with certain species, that was another great source of people.
4. Job posting websites: this came in later but I did manage to find a few positions that were related to what I wanted to do. For example the ecological society of America as a bulletin with PhD position advertised by university directly, nature.com, findaPhd.com.
5. Ask people in the field about good research labs, they should know a few.
I know these are mostly related to ecology but should give you some ideas. I also wasted time going through school's websites one by one and unfortunately there was no way around that. It was time consuming and not the most productive way but I didn't want to have any regrets or places I missed. Also, I know have a personal database of labs I like for my future career and I will have to do minimal research for my post-doc, etc.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: The relevant professional societies may maintain databases of graduate research.
For graduate programs in chemistry in North America, the American Chemical Society maintains a [database of graduate research](http://dgr.rints.com/).
The database is searchable by faculty name and institution. However, there are fields for specific topics in the faculty search. If you leave the name fields blank, you can search by topic. For example, a search of "repeating sequence copolymer" gives one hit - my PhD adviser.
If you are looking for a *very* specific project in chemistry in North America, you can find it. It's not perfect. A search for [olefin metathesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olefin_metathesis) doesn't find [<NAME>](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Grubbs), who received a Nobel Prize for his work in it.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: A surprisingly effective method (I've tried it) is mailing the people working in your field of interest, something like: "I'll be applying to grad school, I'm interested in areas X, Y and Z. What places for PhD studies can you recommend?" At worst, your email will get ignored [1]. Often, however, you can get quite detailed answers even if you don't know the person you're writing to. Esp. if you are specific in what area you'd like to work in - some people are eager to help prospective grad students.
[1] To avoid being tagged as "spam", send the mails one-by-one even if you're mailing a larger group of people at once ;)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: In the CS field, Microsoft academic search, google scholar and DBLP are good resources to give a general overview of different *pioneers* in the field.
Also, look for the research interest of the faculty members and the research groups in the department.
One last thing is: **follow with the top conferences in your area** (i.e. ICSE) and see who's doing something interesting to you. Then search for them; see how their past students are doing.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/11/16 | 1,123 | 4,791 | <issue_start>username_0: My earliest PhD graduation date is 10 months away. Funding permits me to stay 1–3 months longer, so the final date is still uncertain.
It is never too early to make contacts for possible post-docs. But how long in advance is too early to formally apply to post-doc job openings or funding opportunities? Depending on the bureaucracy, the path from applying to starting can probably be anything from a week up to a year — someone I know is applying with [ESA](http://www.esa.int/) which had the opening advertised in August, application deadline in October, will have interviews in December/January, and the commencement of work only in September, 13 months after the initial job advertisement. My personal guess is that the long time between interviews and starting is to create a level playing field between those who do and those who don't need to go through a visa application procedure.
If I'm too early in applying for a post-doc, a hosting institution might prefer someone who can start earlier and where the graduation date is more certain. For example, in my case the graduation date is still uncertain, so there is a risk in accepting even if they are willing to wait. Project funding might also require the money to be spent rather soon.
If I wait too long, there might be a considerable period where I'm between jobs. Having a long (>6 months) period between jobs is a disadvantage for me. Maybe it's also a disadvantage for a hosting institution (I'm not sure).
How do I find the balance? For example, considering the duration of funding and visa applications, does it make sense to apply e.g. [8 months in advance](http://www.vsp.ucar.edu/cgc/2013/2013_Program.html)? Or is it in any case virtually inevitable to have at least several months before my PhD graduation and the start of a post-doc?<issue_comment>username_1: It depends on the type of funding associated with the postdoc position:
1) If the funding is already there and has a limited duration (for instance a one-year funding within a one-year research project), then indeed, the recruiter might not want to wait 10 months for you, since it would mean that an important part of the funding might be "wasted".
2) If the funding is already there, but can be used later on (for instance a one-year funding within a five-year research project), then it could be possible to start only in 10 months.
3) If there is no funding yet, and you need to get it yourself, then you have to start as early as possible, since it can take a long time for the whole process to finish.
Note that case 3 is usually a process you started with a potential advisor, rather than answer to a particular announcement. In any case, it's always a good thing to informally contact potential advisors directly to see about the specificity of a particular position.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It doesn't hurt to apply. Sure, in some cases the hosting institutions might want to consider someone with a definite graduation date, but that's their decisions. It could also be that the hosting institution loves you and is willing to wait until whenever you are done, given that the funding will be available later still (I have seen one case like this). Just be honest/realistic about when you expect to graduate. Post-doc positions are pretty competitive these days and it is better to look for more options than less.
If you are not comfortable applying formally early on, then at least make sure to use your informal contacts so that they know you are actively looking.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Positions are often advertised on an extremely short notice, at least in my field (computer science). So applying much ahead of the graduation is not strictly necessary in my opinion.
Other positions are not (yet) advertised (e.g. the PI has some money and considers whether to pay for 2 PhDs or one postdoc etc). For those it is more important to be in some exchange with people in the field: typically through conferences/workshops; but also 'boring' project meetings organized by funding agencies are good opportunities to network. Other ideas include: contributing useful software to the community, internships, giving talks at other universities when you are traveling, etc...
If you do some of this, you will not have difficulty finding a postdoc position. Your application will only be a formality, after everything else is already decided.
Also, why not have a break after the PhD? Traveling the world? Decide for yourself for some while what to do with your time?
In my experience, employers both in academia and industry want good candidates to start rather earlier than later, and are often not planning far ahead with their personnel decisions.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/11/18 | 488 | 2,263 | <issue_start>username_0: I presented my psychology thesis at an undergraduate conference, an international conference in France, and am now interested in submitting it to be presented at the 2013 APA conference in Hawaii. Since it's been presented to different audiences at each presentation is this unethical? Also, the first two presentations were simply poster sessions. If I elect to present the paper as a 10 minute talk rather than a basic poster session, would that be unethical?<issue_comment>username_1: It might depend on the field.
If there are no conference proceedings, there is no publication whatsoever. Therefore, it should be no problem to present the same work at multiple conferences. In fact, this is commonly done to reach a bigger audience.
If there *are* conference proceedings, the situation may be a bit more complicated. It depends on how proceedings papers are considered in your field. In my field, they're not really counted as anything at all, therefore it is still fine to present the same work at different conferences. But if they are counted and considered as relevant in your field, the situation may be different. In this case, I would recommend contacting the host of the session to ask for clarification.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: **Ask the conference organizers.**
The ethics of multiple presentation, parallel submission, and multiple publication vary from field to field, and even from venue to venue within any field. Only the conference organizers (aka program committee or steering committee) can answer definitively whether they would encourage, allow, accept, discourage, or forbid speakers to present results that have been presented before.
If the conference has an explicit call for submissions, read it carefully; it may include specific language addressing this issue.
One thing you should absolutely **not** do is attempt to hide the fact that you've presented this result before. Do not seek forgiveness instead of permission. Even if the submission policy clearly allows you to submit a previously presented result, you should make its presentation history clear when you submit. If the organizers accept your submission even with this data in hand, you're clear!
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/11/19 | 1,333 | 5,249 | <issue_start>username_0: I have a good GPA (over 3.5) from a top 5 CS school. I also have lots of research experience and a few publications. I also expect to have very good recommendations. The only problem is that I did badly on the GRE general exam (just under below average). The exam seems like a big scam, so studying for it felt like a waste of time.
One of JeffE's [blog posts](http://3dpancakes.typepad.com/ernie/2005/03/re_phd_with_low.html) mentions that schools filter applicants into three piles based on GPA and GRE: MAYBE, PROBABLY NOT, and NO. Will my GRE scores land me in the PROBABLY NOT pile, even though I have an otherwise excellent record?
Will my GRE hurt my chances of getting into CMU and Stanford? Should I try to retake them, even though it's getting late? Application deadlines are around December 13.
**Edit:** should I say something about my bad GRE scores in the statement of purpose, or do something else if I don't end up retaking them?<issue_comment>username_1: Despite being nearly the exact opposite question, I will give the same answer that I gave about the importance of [GPA](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/3506/929)
>
> The importance of any single metric is binary and its value (important
> or not) depends on the size of the department. If the department is
> big, admissions committees use metrics to weed out candidates.
> Basically anyone with GPA/GRE below X is triaged (doesn't matter what
> school you went to, how good your references are, etc). Smaller
> departments generally look at all applications. Once your applications
> is looked at, it is considered as a whole. There is no formula by
> which good GRE scores can offset a bad GPA. Obviously a better GPA
> doesn't hurt, but you really want to worry about the things you can
> control. For example, good research experience tends to trump
> everything else.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Personally I think if a department throws out a person just based on GRE scores, you should neither apply to such department nor feel bad that you were not accepted. You will be better evaluated somewhere else. I am not sure how the GRE is supposed to rank good researchers. And for admission purposes it is used only in the US.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: If you can re-take the GREs without undue burden -- yes, re-take them. You'll feel better, knowing that you did everything you could have. (Why spend the rest of your life wondering about "what could have been"?) And, it might help you a little bit, by eliminating a potential red flag.
That said, even if you don't re-take the GREs, if you have great qualifications, you'll probably be fine. If you have great research experience, great letters, and the rest of your application package is strong, it's unlikely that the GREs will hurt you much. Great research experience and publications will almost always trump poor GREs.
What your bad GRE scores *will* do is raise the eyebrows of the reviewers. The reviewers may then read the rest of your application package (contact your references, etc.) that much more carefully, to try to understand why you bombed the GREs. For instance, if you bombed the verbal GREs, then reviewer might start wondering: can this person write? are they completely inarticulate? am I going to have to spend the next 5 years teaching them how to write and remedial English? And they'll peruse all available information to try to figure out what's going on. So, if you have any explanation (even if it's just "I screwed up and didn't take the GREs seriously; in retrospect, I know it was a dumb move"), it might not hurt to share this story with your letter-writers so one of them can slip that into their letter, to minimize that sort of speculation. The other approach is to mention it in your statement of purpose -- though for some people it may feel a bit less awkward if one of your letter-writers does it.
P.S. A 3.5 GPA is not a great GPA. My sense is that it is a bit on the low side, for PhD studies in a top-5 CS PhD program. That said, grades are not the most important aspect of your application, and will be outweighed by research experience and great letters describing research potential. Research experience that has led to publications is great and a huge plus for your application file.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: As far as I experienced last year, a high GRE score by itself **may not** directly bring you an acceptance from a grad school. However, low or moderate scores **may** result in an early elimination in the process. I think this is often the case for other standardized tests such as TOEFL (for an international applicant). Plus, you can consider GPA in this respect as well.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Many PhD programs in computer science (like my own) don't require GREs; read the application instructions carefully. If it's not a requirement, just don't submit your GRE scores.
Even when you are required to submit your scores, do not mention your GRE scores in your statement. You want the admissions committee to focus on your **potential for research**, where you seem to have a very strong case, not your ability to take standardized tests.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/11/19 | 1,637 | 6,828 | <issue_start>username_0: I use a version control system (formerly subversion, now git) to write papers, which for me works very well and is convenient. A few times, I even worked with branches for different logical versions of a paper, such as versions submitted to different journals. However, I found branching of little use for paper writing. When I used different branches for different journal submissions, I found myself working only on the "latest" branch anyway, since I can anyway only submit one version per time, and, if it is rejected, will not continue to work on that particular version at a later time. I didn't find any other good use of branching in paper writing, and later skipped it completely.
Is there any advantage of working with several branches when writing a paper with a version control system? How should one organize the writing process in order to profit from such an advantage?<issue_comment>username_1: Personally, I've never used branches (for papers), and would certainly *not* use branches for different chapters (WTF? like keeping different branches for different files in a programming project; except for the case when different collaborators edit different parts of documents, then - maybe), but maybe it may work for:
* arXiv/non-arXiv version (or e.g.: working version with notes vs release candidate) of a paper (the exact use-case of projects with some differences, from minor to e.g. also additional sections, see also [arXiv preprint and final paper differing by sections and appendices](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1864/arxiv-preprint-and-final-paper-differing-by-sections-and-appendices)),
* [Beamer slideshows](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beamer_(LaTeX)) for different talks based an similar slides.
Related: [git + LaTeX workflow at SO](https://stackoverflow.com/a/6190412/907575) (so, use "advisor" branch):
>
> Branches are also extremely helpful if you are a graduate student. As any grad student will attest, the advisor is bound to have numerous corrections, most of which you don't agree with. Yet, you might be expected to atleast change them for the time being, even if they are reverted later after discussions. So in such cases, you could create a new branch advisor and make changes to their liking, at the same time maintaining your own development branch. You can then merge the two and cherry pick what you need.
>
>
>
;)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I use HG, but it is essentially the same as GIT, in that branching is easy. I branch all the time when working with coauthors. The branches tend to be short lived and merged pretty quickly. Basically, I distribute a copy to my coauthors and each set of comments I get back form different branches. This lets me see each authors comments individually. I then work on merging the comments back into the main trunk. Sometimes the merge is easy and the branch is one commit long. Other times it might take longer if I need to work out something (e.g., math, model, or analysis) which might require a couple of revisions before it is ready to go into the main trunk.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: In principle, branches seem like a good idea. A potential use case would be:
* working on a draft of a paper
* as we get close to the conference deadline, putting the paper in the conference format and reducing to the prescribed size
* finding typos in this version and fixing them
* merging the typos back into the "main version"
In practice, I've never done this, because I'm not organized enough. Also, svn is not as friendly to this workflow as git is, for other reasons.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: An alternative to branching in some cases, especially for short lived branches like for journal submission, is using patch queues. Mercurial has `mq`. I believe Git has similar things, but I'm not a git user.
As the question says:
>
> When I used different branches for different journal submissions,
> I found myself working only on the "latest" branch anyway, since I can
> anyway only submit one version per time, and, if it is rejected, will
> not continue to work on that particular version at a later time.
>
>
>
I have had similar experiences when using different (named) branches for submission to different journals. The problem is that one ends up having dead branches which correspond to journals the paper was rejected from, or perhaps journals you never ended up applying to. These live forever in history, which is annoying and sub-optimal.
The advantage of using patches, at least with `mq`, is that one can maintain multiple patch queues, each of these can be managed as a distinct mercurial repository, and they do not become part of the main repository's history unless you want them to, though of course you can push them to remote since they are regular repositories. Also, one can use them with general non-vcs tools like `patch` and `quilt`, which is occasionally useful.
However, when applied, these patch queues are a bona-fide part of a mercurial repository, and can be treated as (anonymous) branches. So, suppose one has two patch queues `Q1` and `Q2`. Then if wants to work with both versions simultaneously, one can make a clone of the main repository, thus resulting in two identical copies of the repository. Then one can apply Q1 and Q2 to the copies, and then work with them as one would with regular branches, using mercurial's merge machinery and so forth.
Another use of patch queues which is very useful, and not specific to paper writing, is to queue up small changes in the queue till one is ready to commit them. I usually just stick everything in one patch, though one could divide the changes into multiple patches. Then, when one is ready to apply some or all of the changes, one can do
```
hg qref -X . # apply the patch as local changes, making the patch empty
hg qpop --keep-changes # pop the patch
```
This results in
a) the patch being applied as local changes to the working directory
and
b) the mercurial queue patch becoming empty and being removed (popped) from the repository.
Since the patch is now local changes to the working directory, we can easily commit what parts of it we please. When done one can resync the patch with
```
hg qpush --keep-changes # push the patch back onto the repository
hg qref # put the local changes back into the patch
hg ci --mq # commit the changed patch (to the mq repository)
```
Then the patch is recreated with the portions of the local changes that were not committed.
See the loosely related questions [What's the Git approach to publish a patch queue?](https://stackoverflow.com/q/5016862/350713) and [git equivalent to hg mq?](https://stackoverflow.com/q/952651/350713).
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/11/19 | 1,702 | 6,693 | <issue_start>username_0: Say a prospective PhD has a high reply rate (90-95%) to first contact emails with potential superviors. He/She has a well thought out e-mail, but a particular professor (here: USA) that is in the top preferences does not reply after two to three e-mails that were sent within a time frame of three months. I also followed the instructions on the professor personal website in the section "prospective PhD students". The student has already contacted some of the advisor students and has received positive feedback about the professor.
Should the student just give up and move on? Should the student keep trying?
Aside from the obvious "I have too many incoming e-mails to answer" or "I am out in the field", what could create a no response behavior from the professor?
I have seen the simplistic answer "move on, bad advisor, doesn't have time, etc". But this seems a contradiction in this case. The PhD students like the professor and say he/she is personable and no e-mail response after a few well written emails.<issue_comment>username_1: * Consider the possibitity of ending up in the spam filter. (I know a professor whos emails were regularly considered spam by his own university)
* (As students of the supervisor are known: could any of those ask the prof whether any of the emails arrived?)
* Students of the supervisor are known: this points to the group not being far away. Drop by in person?
* One may use other communication channels ("just wanted to make sure, my emails didn't get caught in the spam")
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I would say MOVE ON .. Some professors are *full* of students. They are not looking for new prospective students in the next year or so.
Therefore, the simple action to do is ignoring prospective students emails.
The best to do is to phone him/her if s/he didn't answer in 3 months after 2 or 3 emails. Try to meet him in conference and try to contact his/her current PhD students..
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: To try to make a clear point: there is a range of opinions about how to respond to "cold calls" from people I don't know, etc. I myself find it easy to make a one-or-two-sentence response politely thanking an inquirer for their interest, but (if so...) that I "have no open positions in my group at this time" or whatever is suitable. For me, although I get a good number of these of various sorts, it takes less than 5 minutes a day, and I take the viewpoint that it is a good professional-social gesture to make that quick response (perhaps more worthwhile than yelling over the phone at phone-solicitors on old no-caller-id phones).
At the same time, at the other end, I know many people who take the viewpoint that sending them email no more obligates them to a response than do credit-card offers and other advertisements. And, indeed, given the ease with which we can mass-email, even with customizations, this is a fair, not unethical, not harsh reaction. Perhaps if my in-mails of this sort reached 10+ per day, I'd give up "trying to be polite", but my own current scale of "spam on behalf of earnest beginner in the business" is pretty low, so I can easily afford to be (superficially) "gracious" enough to respond.
In case people don't reply, I'm afraid you can't hold it against them, even while we admit that it would be great if they *did* respond, ... because there just isn't a general social principle that demands a response to all possible inquiries one may receive. Yes, it'd be nice, but it is simply not required.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: I am going to assume we're talking about a student who plans to *apply* to the PhD program that the faculty is affiliated with, but has not yet been admitted. (You didn't say explicitly, but reading between the lines, that is my assumption.)
If that's the case then the student should not expect a response and should not read anything into the lack of a response from the faculty member. Many faculty do not have time to respond personally to all enquiries from prospective applicants.
Please understand that some faculty receive dozens or hundreds of enquiries from prospective students. For example, my understanding is that many Indian or Chinese students are under the mistaken impression that they should contact faculty, or think it will help their case for admission somehow (not true; but they don't know, or have been given bad advice, so they write). Anyway, as a result, many faculty cannot possibly reply to all such contacts. I've even seen a few faculty post a FAQ on their web page which explains why they cannot respond to such inquiries from prospective PhD students who are interested in applying. In many cases, it is likely that few or none of those who contact the professor will be admitted, so professors may understandable decide that they cannot afford to to spend time responding to such contacts until after admission, in most cases.
To learn more about this, I can recommend some additional reading:
* [Advice for Prospective Research Students](http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/advice/prospective.html) - a FAQ one professor posts, about how to contact professors
* [Writing to me](http://science-professor.blogspot.com/2011/10/writing-to-me-reprise.html) - Advice from Female Science Professor (a pseudonymous professor/blogger) about how prospective grad students should write to her.
* In general, anything from FSP is worth reading. Here are some additional posts of her that are relevant, and that may help to understand the professor's mindset:
+ [Mad Libs Gone Mad](http://science-professor.blogspot.com/2011/11/mad-libs-gone-mad.html)
+ [You Can Lead a Horse to Water](http://science-professor.blogspot.com/2011/10/you-can-lead-horse-to-water.html)
+ [What They Don't Tell You in the Non-Existent Training for this Job](http://science-professor.blogspot.com/2012/08/what-they-dont-tell-you-in-non-existent.html)
---
If I have misunderstood the status of this student:
If the student has already been admitted into the PhD program where the faculty is affiliated with, but has not yet accepted the offer of admission, the lack of response probably indicates lack of interest or lack of time on the part of the faculty member. In this case, my advice would be to move on. As far as I can tell, though, this response would be a bit unusual: if the student has been admitted, it typically means that at least some quorum of faculty think highly of the student.
Finally, if the student is current enrolled in the faculty's PhD program, the student should go visit the faculty member in person. Faculty have office hours; go use them.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/11/19 | 357 | 1,359 | <issue_start>username_0: I need a book for my teaching and/or research, but my university's library doesn't have this book. I don't think I'll use it enough to justify spending money out of my own pocket to own it. What other ways should I try? I searched Internet, there is no "free" (in whatever sense) PDF of it either.<issue_comment>username_1: Usually I try to
1. Aks to profs. at the university. Most are happy to lend them for a short time.
2. Public libraries can be nice, but for some scientific literature I must admit they are not optimal
3. A somewhat grey area is buying them used books online. A online interface to physical 'used books' shops is use often is [abebooks.com](http://abebooks.com). Buying them a tenth of the price with shipping from Asia most of the time in comparison to the price at the university bookstore does feel like cheating but meh.
The last option could become illegal in the US depending of [this court case](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/a-supreme-court-clash-could-change-what-ownership-means/), but for now it seems legit.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: **Ask your university librarian.**
Usually universities libraries collaborate with each other. They can look whether the other universities have the book (I know this happens within Canadian universities)..
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/11/20 | 356 | 1,310 | <issue_start>username_0: Let's consider two papers, one by authors A1, A2, A3 and one by authors B1, B2, B3. In the case of two publications by the same research group, some of the authors may be the same, some may be new… Typically, the senior author/team leader is the same, which means that A3 = B3 (in fields where the senior author is typically listed last).
Now, my question is: **in which cases is it okay to refer to the earlier work by the words *“the authors”, as in “the authors have shown in [ref] that…”*?** Is it only okay if the two author sets are strictly equal? Or is it used when A ⊂ B or A ⊃ B? Or when the first author is the same?<issue_comment>username_1: I would avoid "the authors" unless it is exactly the same set of authors (preferably in the same order).
I don't see anything wrong with "B1, A2 and B3 have shown that..." even when A2 is one of the authors of the present paper. It seems a little strange at first, but is quite common. I have also seen phrases like "B1 and the second author have shown that..." to refer to a paper by B1 and A2 while avoiding mentioning A2 by name, but in more complicated examples it gets pretty unwieldy.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: What about the passive
>
> It has been shown that ... (refs)
>
>
>
Upvotes: -1 |
2012/11/20 | 2,230 | 9,030 | <issue_start>username_0: As illustrated by the recent [NY Times article](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/education/colleges-turn-to-crowd-sourcing-courses.html?pagewanted=3&_r=0), Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) have recently gained a lot of attention because of their new model for educating students.
What are the main concerns regarding academic dishonesty in Massive Online Open Courses? It appears to me that academic dishonesty may be difficult to police for an online course. Is this correct?<issue_comment>username_1: One of the biggest challenges is to perform assessment. To scale, the most natural approach to assessment is to use purely automated methods, i.e., automated grading. However, building good automated graders is difficult.
The path of least resistance is to use multiple-choice quizzes for assessment. However, multiple-choice quizzes with a fixed question set are inherently vulnerable to cheating: it is easy for people to pool their answers or copy off each other, and difficult to detect such cheating.
One can think of ways to defend against this, but in general, I expect that providing high-quality (yet not gameable) assessment may be one of the non-trivial challenges facing MOOCs.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> An obvious contrast to the peer grading efforts in Dr. Chuck’s Class
> title ‘Internet History,Technology and Security’ and ‘Science Fiction:
> The Human Mind, Our Modern World’ exists.
>
>
> 1) ‘Internet History, Technology and Security’ has a far more lenient
> rubric to follow in comparison to the ‘Science Fiction’ class.
>
>
> 2) I’ve observed that the essays in ‘Internet History,Technology and
> Science Fiction’ are far more thoughtfully written and at-least follow
> the question for the peer response instead of a brief recap of work
> covered in the reading.
>
>
> I’ve had to evaluate responses which describe in a way such as ‘I read
> Alice in Wonderland was my favorite story when I was small…….’, for a
> question which clearly states that you need to form a thesis(or a
> perspective view) for the reading material/novel/assignment for the
> week.
>
>
> 3) A major reason for this might be the obvious. ‘Science Fiction’
> class releases videos of possible interpretations *after* the peer
> response whereas the ‘Internet History,Technology and Science class’
> releases videos on the topic, therefore equipping its students to
> tackle the peer responses.
>
>
> Also a funny thing occurred on the Coursera forums where ‘I was
> accused of cheating(plagiarism) from my own blog when I merely
> submitted my Peer Response anonymously while posting my copy on my
> Personal blog. The other students did not have an idea of who I was
> ‘since the peer grading’ process is anonymous.
>
>
> However, there were students smart enough to recognize that it was
> perhaps the blog of the ‘person who submitted ‘ and the issue was
> clarified.
>
>
> Thanks to [person] for bringing this to my notice and arguing the
> case in my favor. Also a note: Coursera’s plagiarism check systems
> should probably account for these when it does come into place.
>
>
>
The above block-quote is from my blog. I find it to be relevant to this question.
This accusation of plagiarism happened with me as well. I was luckily contacted by one of the other students taking the course and I could talk the other student out of down-grading me.
This could be a problem even with OpenAccess accounts as some people may like to post work which they did in classes elsewhere.
I also took part in the programming-based classes such as Machine Learning and Natural Language Processing. NLP was tough, with real life problems to be solved. However, despite being forbidden to share their programs online, a lot of students did so, because it seemed to be the only way to make something out of the course(the certificate would not count).
The reasoning being, that if I learn some concepts from these courses, I could use my github account to appeal to an employer about my skills.
'By sharing programs online, I mean people started public repositories from which any student could cheat and get a working program for submission.' Not even the best auto-grader could possibly prevent this from happening. I don't think this can be stopped in universities as well. Sure you have a honor code, but people can copy parts of code from all over the web. Make it a little original perhaps.
There's also the 'theory' that 'don't re-invent the wheel'.
For example:
>
> 'Most students would not bother with programming a separate module for
> Fourier Transform calculations for part of a academic program. or
> doing this they may use a library from elsewhere to directly import a
> function.' Would this be considered as copying or plagiarism? Probably
> not?
>
>
> However, some universities(which include mine) think that programming
> Fourier Transforms is an important part in understanding them. So my
> university gives us programming assignments in a computer lab without
> access to the internet. All we are allowed to rely on is the already
> available libraries on the system. The systems are wiped clean every
> time.
>
>
> This becomes frustrating when we need to move from AM to FM to delta
> modulation and so on. We need to repeatedly write the same piece of
> code for fourier tranforms and this drastically reduces our
> efficiency.
>
>
>
So getting an optimal solution between preventing plagiarism and 'not re-inventing the wheel' is pretty important if Coursera or any online program would need to get. Right now, there is too much focus on plagiarism and not enough effort to realize the problem of redundancy in the system.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I think that the question is somewhat misleading. Ethics only factor into a very small percentage of students in Massively Open Online Courses (MOOC's). Most students who participate in MOOC's are only taking the course to learn something. Academic integrity is more of an issue when the students are taking the course for some external reason.
Some possible external reasons are:
* Enrolled in the course through the university, and receiving credit for the course
* Required to take the course by an employer
* Taking the course as a pre-requisite for another course or program
In each of these situations, the role of verifying learning seems like it would be outside of the course itself. If students choose to cheat, it does not necessarily reflect poorly on the course or the program, but rather reflects poorly on the student.
TL;DR - Ethical concerns only matter for students who are required to take the course. The people requiring them to take the course are responsible for ensuring their academic integrity.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: While I tend to agree with @username_3, I would go a step further. I think the issue of academic integrity is a bit misguided. This is true not just in MOOC's but in more traditional institutions as well.
Some people want to think that when they see a candidate has a degree from XYZ University that they no longer need to put in any effort into the interview (or whatever) process. Most humans are naturally lazy and if they can skip digging, they are happy to do so. The problem comes in that those people are making some very big assumptions which likely should not be made.
I would argue that the hiring process is one of the most important processes in any company. A bad hire can haunt you for a very long time and a good hire can save you in so many ways. Still, people want to skip as much of the hiring process as they can (on both sides) so if someone has the right degree they are assumed to have the knowledge which goes with that degree. The problems is, they might not have that knowledge.
The knowledge might not be there for several reasons:
1. They might have learned and then forgotten due to workload
2. They might have had someone else take an exam for them
3. They might have cheated during the exams and never learned in the first place
Regardless of the reason, if the knowledge is not there, it is not there. So, why make any assumptions? The only reason I can see is for those who do not understand to manage those who do understand. However, even in that case, if you don't understand and your subordinate does, then you better give that subordinate a pretty free hand...because you can't check anyway.
I know, it's a long answer but I think the entire question about academic integrity is not a huge issue. As a teacher, I care a great deal if students are cheating. That said, with the number of students I teach, there is no way I can effectively monitor them all. Even if I could, it doesn't solve the underlying problem. If someone is going to hire someone (or promote someone) based on their taking a course or gaining a degree, then they should be willing to do the work to ensure that what was taught was retained.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/11/12 | 1,609 | 6,571 | <issue_start>username_0: [Mendeley](http://www.mendeley.com/) is (mainly) a proprietary social network to share basic citation data and research papers. [see also](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendeley)
**Are there any free and open source substitutes for this service?**
A technical possibility: users could collect BibTeX data and a hash and share this information.
It would be very useful to have such a free service because every journal provides the citation data in a different format. That includes false field entries, broken files and hidden download buttons on the website.<issue_comment>username_1: The only alternative that comes to my mind is [Zotero](http://www.zotero.org/):
* It is open-source,
* it comes as a standalone application or as a web-based version with Firefox, Chrome and Safari connectors,
* it integrates with Word or OpenOffice,
* it syncs with the Zotero server,
* it has BibTeX export,
* and more.
The Zotero standalone client is cross-platform and open-source ([AGPL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License) licence), and it can be run on its own or synchronized with the web version. The web service is free to use up to a fixed storage quota, with paid storage available, and there is an [open-source implementation of the dataserver](https://github.com/zotero/dataserver) available if you want to roll your own. The local client stores its data in SQLite format so in principle your data is not locked in, but the database is relatively hard to trawl externally; however, since the client is open source there are relatively few future-proofing concerns.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: I really liked Mendeley's potential but got frustrated with both their pricing model (maybe I just never learned how to use the software correctly) and it consistently butchering imported BibTeX entries.
I've been a pretty happy [BibDesk](http://bibdesk.sourceforge.net/) user for a long time, it is true open source software, but unfortunately it has not been ported outside of the OS X environment, so this is only a qualified answer.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Finally I found `I, librarian` on <http://i-librarian.net/> which is a kind of mixture between Filestorage-Server, JabRef and a personal open source Mendeley server.
Interested users may try the demo account on the website.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Docear
======
Haven't tried it yet but <https://www.docear.org/> seems to stand out as one of the leading open-source alternative to mendeley.
Docear is basically a marriage of [JabRef](http://jabref.sourceforge.net/) and [Freeplane](http://www.freeplane.org/). It uses JabRef as a backend for its reference management and Freeplane to organize references, annotations you make in the pdf, and any other information (including images, links and crossreferences) in a mind-map.
As the original author of this answer pointed out it is indeed open-source—licensed under the GNU General Public License.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: No, there isn't anything that is an exact copy of Mendeley, the server, the clients, the API, and the content, but all composed of 100% open source software.
For the record, Mendeley does contain some open source and the API is freely available, so if you wanted to build an application of service to the scholarly community, you'd probably be better off building your own open source client but leveraging the messy and difficult bits that we've already solved and make available via API, such as the metadata extraction and impact tracking bits.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: I have tried any number of reference management programs (from EndNote to Mendeley and back), and have come to the conclusion that the most important criterion is that the reference manager *directly*, *natively* writes in `.bib`, or some other text-based, open-source format.
This has several advantages:
* no proprietary or otherwise lock-in
* future-proof
* fast and robust
* if all else fails, you can always fix it "by hand" in a text editor
* works well with LaTeX, no "lost in BibTeX-Export" problems
* works nicely with versioning software (such as git), which requires text files for meaningful diffs.
* especially with git, you have maximum peace of mind about just what exactly is happening with your library.
This leaves a pretty small number of editors:
* <http://bibdesk.sourceforge.net>: OS X only, rock solid, development seems to be done
* <http://jabref.sourceforge.net> for all plattforms (haven't tried it)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: We have developed an open source solution, downloadable from GitHub at <https://github.com/scientilla/scientilla>, that allows users to collaboratively share and refine their scientific bibliographic metadata.
The system relies on a "peer-to-peer" and "open-data" approach as well as on a "clone-and-refine" algorithm. It can import data from external web services.
The more the system is used, the more the information that flows on the network become clean.
Moreover, using Scientilla, any user can obtain the whole metadata shared through the network.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: In creating such a system, the cost of the software and the expense of running the server(s) to host the data is microscopic compared to the expense of the army of knowledgeable people checking out references, cleaning up the barely legal (and semantically often complete nonsense) BibTeX entries offered by some journals, knit them up from scratch where not even the above is available.
Better create *your* central database, share it with your research group. Have *everybody* chip in by adding references to interesting papers found while browsing, whatever they cite in their publications/theses, and perhaps keep another file with publications generated locally (comes handy when asked for "publications of the group last year" or so). Publish guidelines, enforce them, perhaps occasionally organize a refer-thon to clean up entries and fill out missing details. If you ask everybody who reads a paper/document to add a short (3-5 lines) summary/abstract (they'll have to write one anyway for "state of the art"), a URL or other pointer where to find the document, you create an (at least locally) very valuable resource.
If it grows enough, or as a side product of the work, publish it on the webpage of the group. Might even ask for contributions from outside while you are at it.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/11/20 | 2,151 | 8,495 | <issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD student from central Europe and I am teaching an introductory class on programming at my university.
I know that in the US, humour or a joke is often used at the beginning of a presentation. My first 2-3 sentences are right to the point, but I would like to include also a small joke or humour at the beginning.
But what would be a good joke in this situation? A friend of mine suggested to start with "welcome to bird watching 101", just some ridiculous wrong title, or starting with a fun fact about myself.
Any suggestions on how to start with humour?
Background info: Last semester my class received a nice award as among the top 5 classes of my rather big university. To some part it was due to the tips I got at stackexchange.com :-) But I would like to constantly improve my teaching.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not particularly funny, so I don't try to push jokes that I know are not going to come across as witty or well done, and instead will just make an awkward situation.
Instead, I just tell stories that try to relate a disengaged audience with the topic I have at hand.
For example, if you are going to talk about -for- loops, you might try and start talking about the necessity of having a guy doing the same work over and over, but with the capability of counting up or down.
If you are introducing pointers (man I hate pointers), you might try giving a real life example of how a pointer would work in a city for example.
I've learned that if you try and be funny the results can be bad, but these short stories will allow your students to have a better idea of why the topic is relevant.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I use humor extensively in class. I do not try to get off topic though. I think it is important that the students see the teacher as 'serious.' I do believe that a teacher can use humor but still be serious.
I don't think I ever *start* a class with a joke. I'm much more likely to start quite directly, giving an overview and stating the importance of the course.
Remember to target your choices to your audience. For example, if your audience is 18-21 then relating something to dating is usually fun for them. For example, if you're discussing for-loops, then you might want to talk about what happens when trying to get someone to go on a date with you.
```
For counter = 1 to 100 (or if you are a girl, perhaps just 1 to 3)
if prospect(counter).AcceptsDate then
exit for
Loop
```
Keeping on topic is important but there is no reason why you can't keep it fun.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Think about what's the purpose of starting with humor: a useful rule in teaching is that you need to pick up students where they are now. You have to engage them by attaching to something that is already on their mind or that they already know about, and then you can gently lead them towards what you want to teach. Also, if you manage to create emotions in students during a lecture, they are more likely to remember also the academic content.
So humor in a class can serve two ways: To link the content of your lecture to students' everyday lives, and to engage them emotionally. To achieve this, you should pick jokes that in fact link everyday things to the content of your lecture. For example, in a class on research methods I once taught, I started each lecture with a strip of [PhD comics](http://www.phdcomics.com/) that fitted to the topic of the lecture. Also username_2's answer has a nice example how to relate students' everyday live to a programming topic.
Also, if you can't come up with a suitable joke, don't worry: there are a lot of other ways to achieve the same purpose. For example, you could link to a recent story in the news, local events on campus, or in fact anything that most students are aware of and that you can somehow link to the content of your class. For example, already some years ago, Mercedes had problems with cars falling over in zigzag driving tests. That would make a nice start for a lecture about vehicle dynamics: "Today we are going to learn how to avoid this..."
Concerning the emotions, humor creates fun, which is a good emotion to help remember things. Think of other emotions, and how you could create them in a class.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: (to an extent, this echoing one of the advice by username_3)
What I always liked on those better ones of my teacher and what I found myself doing as well (though not preparing for it really) was to cast examples connecting the discussed matter to real world and then twist it in a humorous way. This definitely doesn't mean opening with a joke. I do not find it necessary to capturing the audience with a joke already at the beginning. I need their focus and attention later on, when the discourse becomes rather dense. I am sure in any field it is possible to come up with examples for discussed matter which relate by a metaphor, or in a hyperbole to everyday situations in family, among friends, or in recent news.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: This question seems long answered but here are two things I've done:
1) I've given out an impossible syllabus, requiring students to be fluent in at least two languages, adding deliberately indecipherable requirements, etc., etc. When invariably someone protests "This is not at all what we were expecting!" I say "Well then what were you expecting?" When they answer I say, "Oh! Well then I guess I'll just teach that instead!" and then tear up the syllabus with a flourish.
2) I started teaching at graduate level when I was 28 (can't really get away with it any more) and I would sit in the back of the class on the first day. Students would come in and do their usual first day things. I'd wait until I was maybe five or ten minutes late and let some comments drop along the line of "Where IS this teacher?!" rolling my eyes. Finally I would jump and say "Screw this, I'll teach the class myself!" before launching into the lecture.
In both cases the goal was to let the students know that I'm on their side, one of them, approachable, and not to take things *too* seriously. Got pretty good results every time.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Memes are funny, and popular, and students these days tend to identify with them. You can easily create course-related memes and stick them in your lecture slides, or on a handout or the syllabus, etc.
[Here is a good place to go make a meme and then download it](https://imgflip.com/memegenerator). Like this:
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: Two tricks
----------
A couple of years ago I attended the PhD defense of a fellow student. That was in the overly stern math department of a fairly stern university. Therefore, any venture into making jokes had to be carefully pondered.
Although his defense talk was projected as attendees were entering the room, the PDF viewer’s window *wasn’t maximized* so that one could openly see other elements from his desktop.
I thought to myself: “Weird, why would he go through the trouble of plugging his computer and beaming his screen but not having his talk fill the screen?”
As I and many others had arrived early to get a good spot, I started exploring his screen that he had skillfully filled with many small **Easter eggs**, key among which was the PDF file name that you could read in the window title bar. It read something like:
>
> Rocky\_VI\_the\_Return\_of\_the\_golden\_Uppercut.pdf
>
>
>
When time came for him to get started, he just maximized the window and gave his talk. I hardly remember any other talk I attended but this one struck me.
---
Another one, which I did myself when giving a seminar talk, was the introduction a blue slide in the middle of my talk. I just knew that my talk would be boring as hell to those uninitiated attendees (> 99 %) and I hated it when, as a speaker, you see the audience’s attention drifting away. So I carefully reproduced the blue image shown when the projector has no input signal. When I hit the slide, I could see everyone happy at the idea that the talk would be shortened. Yet the next slide said (still on a blue background):
>
> This is the projector speaking:
>
>
> Your talk is easily the most boring one I’ve ever projected, please wrap it up soon.
>
>
>
Of course everyone laughed and bore with me until the end.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/11/20 | 553 | 2,358 | <issue_start>username_0: Say a candidate has met with a potential PhD supervisor and it was rather evident that he would be willing to take on the candidate. You have emailed a lot and met in person a few times, but nothing has been formalised yet.
Suppose now the candidate decides to take it into a different direction simply because there are better options.
What is the most polite way to withdraw ? Is it polite to send an email and explain, or does this come across as arrogant since a PhD candidate is not really in the position to turn down a Professor ? Would it be better simply not to get in touch again ? Is there some standard etiquette in the US and/or the UK ?<issue_comment>username_1: Just send a polite email stating that you found another position or that you simply prefer to take a different direction. Be sure to thank the professor for the time he has put into you. The email does not have to be long, but it should give a reason. You do not need to be overly elaborate, though. And don't forget to be polite.
The thing you do not realise is that the professor wants to find a student who will be committed to his topic for several years to come. If you are not such a student, it is best for the professor to know that before taking you on as a student. In a sense, you are doing the professor a favour by withdrawing.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I had to write a few such letters in the past and the best way is to simply and politely let them know that you've decided to go in a *different direction*. Professors (should) understand that you're looking at a few options during this courting process so in my case, I also mentioned which Professor I ended up working for.
As @user4050 alludes to, I knew that the other professor would be in the same building as I. Thus, it was extremely important to not burn any bridges. I mentioned something along the lines that I hope that our paths would cross again and that we would continue to interact. To this day, if their lab needed anything from mine, I was usually the point person.
This advice is also true when corresponding with Professors of other Universities while looking at potential graduate schools and post-doc advisors. The world is small enough and I have certainly crossed paths with former potential advisors at conferences.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/11/20 | 2,299 | 9,555 | <issue_start>username_0: What is the academic approach when your supervisor goes off-topic? In other words, what is the academic reaction for a PhD student when his supervisor starts attacking the student's religion?
I must say the fact that I'm an international student coming from a different culture. I looked over his publications/current students and everything seemed to be fine. He even interviewed me for admission and everything went fine.
When I started my degree and first met him, I thought we would discuss *research* oriented projects but surprisingly the meeting took another direction when he started discussing with me my religion beliefs and how do I view the world!
Discuting this was the start. In several subsequent occasions, *he started to tell me what he sees good to me and why my culture is a bad one* .
Right after the interview, I was thinking about withdrawing from the program and finding another supervisor in another school (Yes I answered him in an honest and polite way what I belief).
I have nothing against him and he is a very kind professor but I feel I'm not comfortable in his environment. Now, I'm planning to go somewhere else. If it counts, I pay my tuition fees and he pays me nothing.
The question is: **What to do when your supervisor goes off-topic and discuss your personal issues?** Not only this but also send you several emails about it.<issue_comment>username_1: I can tell you as a personal experience that if you do not feel comfortable, and feel you have no future doing research there, you go before is too late.
What is too late? You may realize you've wasted 2-3 years and achieved nothing, or you may realize the research you are doing is not really of interest to you.
Since you are just starting, I do think is intelligent to seriously assess whether staying there is worth your time.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: There are different parts in your question:
* In general, I don't think it's a problem that your advisor wants to discuss "religion beliefs and how do [you] view the world". After all, academia is a place where you can meet people coming from different places, and a nice part of it is to exchange and discuss about cultural differences.
* If you're not comfortable discussing this topic, then you should tell directly your advisor. If he ignores it and/or attack you on it, then, as JeffE said: don't walk, run.
* On a completely different topic, if he's never available for you, and doesn't even answer your emails, then, don't walk, run. But that's unrelated to going off-topic at your first interview.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: For some scientists religion is hard to mix with science. Science is based on hard facts and on rational thought. Religion on the other hand deals with beliefs which might be impossible to prove. In a scientific environment you can expect to have these kinds of discussions, try to not take remarks too personal and just calmly explain what you believe. If people are respectful the discussion will end with you and the other agreeing to disagree. If you have the feeling your prospective supervisor is not going to stop and will continue to make this a point of discussion, this could be a negative point and play a role in your choice. As an additional test to see what your potential supervisor will do after you are hired is to just confront him with your reservations. If he responds well, you can take that as a postive sign, if not, that confirms that you might not want to work there.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: No matter what the advisor's beliefs are, it's not OK to discuss a student's differing beliefs **AND** criticize them. It's the criticism that takes this from honest exchange of views into a more dangerous territory: your advisor is in a power relationship with you by definition and it's impossible to have a discussion "as equals" while this relationship is active.
If you think that the relationship and his continuing advising would be beneficial to your career, then you might try to have a chat with him where you indicate that these topics need to stay out of bounds. And I'd erect a high bar for "beneficial".
But if your assessment of value does not cross that high bar, then I'd follow JeffE's advice and run.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: Try a general approach to Conflict Management called DAN.
* **Describe** the situation to your supervisor, trying to be as objective as possible. Tell him that you came to his lab to do research, and that you didn't expect him to make comments on your religion.
* **Assert** your feelings, explaining that you feel uncomfortable when he talks about your religion, and that it makes it more difficult for you to work.
* **Name** what you want him to do, telling him that you would like him to stop talking about your religion, and concentrate only on the research aspects of your work.
It is possible that your boss is testing you, to see if you are able to react in a negative situation.
In any case, see this conflict as an opportunity. If you are able to solve the problem, you will become stronger, and your supervisor will learn to respect you.
So, go to your supervisor and remember the three points: Describe, Assert, and Name. Don't let him speak before you finished all of them. Good luck, and be strong :-)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: In general I agree with the "run away" advice (the more so, as I don't really understand how the student can perceive a professor at the same time as being nice and attacking cultural/religious roots that are are deeply integrated in the personality, i.e. perceiving a personal attack), however, there are IMHO some points to consider (also to maybe avoid ending up with similar problems again)
* There is a possiblity that a particular religion conflicts with certain notions of science or creates a conflict of interest. See e.g. Fuhrmanator's comment at the question.
* Or religious notions of one person that are not even necessarily integral parts of the religion. E.g. how will someone cope with doing statistical anayses that try to judge whether an observation occured accidentatlly when (s)he personally and firmly believes everything is predestined?
* There can also be cultural difficulties. A famous one:
>
> Chinese students in particular often struggle to adjust to Western notions of plagiarism as deference to expert opinion is a deeply routed cultural norm in Chinese society. Indeed, referencing sources has been seen [in Chinese society/culture] as disrespectful to both reader and 'expert' as it presupposes that the source is not widely known and that the audience is unable to recognize source material.
>
>
>
[source](http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/education/lts/lunch/lunch8.html)
See also e.g. [here](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.98.7086&rep=rep1&type=pdf) (lots more papers on these topics).
I think nowadays international student's offices or international student groups know which points can be critical and can name them. This means that the student can ask himself whether these are an issue and how to deal with them. That would in turn allow the student to have a very informed position and tell the (or: a future/prospective) prof that he/she is aware of these points, considered them carefully and they are no problem because...
Or also that (s)he will e.g. not conduct animal studies for ethical reasons (I think there are usually either a) enough alternatives of doing research and b) if there aren't I think the question is why the student did apply for a position that is not compatible with his/her personal ethics in the first place).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: Welcome to academia in the U.S.
What most posters here are avoiding mentioning is that what you are describing is pretty common in some departments (Philosophy, Religious Studies, Biology, Cosmology, and most others ending with -ology or "Studies"), and pretty uncommon in others (Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, Mathematics, Linguistics).
Also, on some campuses it is more common than on others.
You should discuss it with other PhD candidates in your department on your campus, **just** to find out how common it is there. Only then can you know whether it's a good idea to "make it an issue." If it is common, making it an issue will almost never improve your situation, and you should either learn to tolerate and minimize it, or else find another place. If it is not common, you have a chance that making an issue of it might improve the situation, but even then, I suggest trying a gentle approach first, since if it works, the results are better.
Personally, I found that **never** responding with a judgement of my own about *their* practice or lack of practice (which certainly seemed silly to me), and as much humor as I could muster, over (a fairly short) time greatly reduced the frequency of obnoxious comments. If you are consistently "classy", *most* people will sooner or later realize they are being low-class, and at least moderate their behavior.
With humor, be very sure to avoid being even slightly nasty. Keep it in good taste. Never joke about the other person's religion, no matter how harmless the joke is. Never.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: Do not talk, turn around and start working on computer or the like. Respond immediately if the supervisor changes the topic. This is normally enough. Never start a talk of this kind yourself.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/11/21 | 989 | 3,645 | <issue_start>username_0: I still have 2-2.5 years of my PhD program, but it want to try my skills in programing, especially in the taste of data science (needless to say, I do it overnight for some hobby projects and I like it a lot).
Moreover, as working in companies may seem as one of the options "what to do after getting PhD", I would be nice to test how does it work for me in practice, and to learn skills, network, etc.
Is there such a thing as internships (e.g. in data science or programming) for PhD students?
If so, where to search for them?
(If it changes anything, I'm doing PhD in EU; but US would be a nice target.)<issue_comment>username_1: **Yes.** Almost every PhD student in my (US computer science) department has at least one summer internship between admission and graduation. In fact, most PhD students go through multiple internships.
Off the top of my head, I know CS PhD students who have interned at Google (Mountain View, Manhattan, and Shanghai), Facebook, IBM, AT&T, Yahoo, Motorola, Microsoft Research (Redmond, New England, and Bangalore), Disney, Zynga, Los Alamos, Sandia, Argonne, and Livermore. Most of these places regularly advertise for interns on the web.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: (Perspective from Germany)
* I've been programming for an IT start up as undergrad student (got in contact when one of the founders gave a presentation in a series of business start-up talks) and later done data analysis a few hours a week as PhD student for another company. It is done, also in Europe.
* Big companies offer positions on their web pages, e.g. [Merck](http://www.merckgroup.com/en/careers/global_job_search/global_job_search.html?jobLanguage=en&collapse=true&keyNumber=&searchString=&jobField1=&jobField2=&jobField3=&job1Location1=&job2Location1=&job3Location1=&jobOrganisation1=&jobOrganisation2=&jobOrganisation3=&jobDate=&searchType=advanced&tab=0%2C1&jobHot=&jobType2=Internship&jobType3=Cooperative&jobType4=Summer+Job)
* However, if you receive funding for your PhD project (scholarship), that often forbids further work for hire.
* The PhD may technically be your "private fun", depending on the field/university/country. If that is the case (here), you often get a teaching assistant part-time job assigned to earn some money. The institues have a real problem of getting the teaching done (to the point that I heard rumours that some departments want to make "did so many hours of teaching" a prerequisite for getting the PhD). These job offers are often not offers the student can take or leave. Refusing to teach may create a lot of bad blood (with the prof, who anyways doesn't have enough people to cope with the teaching workload, and with the colleagues who get a slice more of this work). But it will usually go right to the limit which you need to obey in order not to loose the student status. So in fact, you cannot go for a paid industry job, neither. More importantly, the vacations are the only time when you can continuously work on your research.
* These rules, however, do not forbid to volounteer in e.g. in open source projects.
* You may consider [Google Summer of Code](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Summer_of_Code) and similar programs (e.g. [Season of KDE](http://teom.org/blog/kde/announcing-season-of-kde-2012/)).
It may be easier to convince your funder/employer that participating in such a program has much more importance than just earning some money, and that your contract with them could go dormant for the months in question.
*Disclaimer: I've been mentoring at GSoC before and hopefully will again. :-)*
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/11/21 | 637 | 2,208 | <issue_start>username_0: I once jokingly included in a thesis:
>
> The equations of motion [1] for a rigid body can be reformulated as…
>
>
> [1] <NAME>, *Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica*, 1687.
>
>
>
While citing Newton's work for his equations of motion might be over the top, there is a valid underlying question: what criteria can one use to know when a work is “such a classic” that it doesn't warrant citation anymore.
I'll give example in my field:
* [Ewald summation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewald_summation) is a neat trick, and very widely used by people who perform molecular simulation of charged species. It was initially published by <NAME> in 1921.
* [Density functional theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_functional_theory) in the Kohn-Sham formalism, published in 1964 (Hohenberg & Kohn) and 1965 (Kohn & Sham).
* [Nosé–Hoover thermostat](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nos%C3%A9%E2%80%93Hoover_thermostat), 1984<issue_comment>username_1: What they taught me, is that the main criterion is:
>
> is there a standard textbook covering the topic I want to cite?
>
>
>
If there is, then rather point to it than to the original paper. And only don't point to it, when you are sure, that the reader is familiar with the topic (e.g. equations of motions).
However, when you want to point to a very specific observation on discovery, still you might like to point to the original paper.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: The ultimate question is what would the average well-informed bachelor's or master's degree-holder in your field be expected to know.
Something that comes up in an undergraduate textbook, or is a commonly known and easily demonstrated fact (for example, the definition of the error function), probably doesn't need to be cited, because everyone in your field would be expected to know it. On the other hand, if you're publishing in a "general interest" journal, then you might want to assume a lower "base" of knowledge, and cite a commonly available source.
However, if it's something that's a very specific tool or fact (or a derivation, etc.), then it probably merits a citation in any case.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer] |
2012/11/21 | 1,615 | 6,750 | <issue_start>username_0: I was reading the other day this [blog post](http://matt.might.net/articles/how-to-peer-review/), about "how to peer review", and one passage struck me:
>
> **Don't review like a grad student**
>
>
> Reviews written by graduate students are among the most negative.
>
>
> Grad students are often on the receiving end of negative reviews, because they are just learning how to write papers.
>
>
>
So, even though I'm no longer a grad student, I sometimes have the feeling that I tend to be a more negative reviewer than others, but it's actually hard to measure (maybe I'm just reviewing mostly bad papers?!), since I don't always have access to the other reviews of the papers I'm reviewing (due to the fact that I've been more often acting as an external reviewer than as a PC member).
I believe that the quality of my writing has improved with the feedback I've received from the reviewers of my paper, but because I don't have any feedback on my reviews, it's hard to know if and how I can improve them. So my question is: **is there a way to measure my own reviewing bias?**
The first thing that would come to my mind would be a set of papers reviewed by many other reviewers, and a result like: "you're in the x% more negative reviewers". Of course, I'm not implying that I would be automatically less severe when reviewing, but sometimes, in case of doubt, it's good to know one's own bias.<issue_comment>username_1: There aren’t many ways for your to evaluate how your reviews stand against others, but there is at least one. You can keep a tab of the papers you have reviewed, and look for them a year or so after the review. See if your reviews correlate with the publication (or lack thereof) of the papers in the respective journals… **if papers you have suggested to reject are frequently accepted by the editor**, then you give typically more negative reviews than other reviewers of your community.
Of course, this is a very black-and-white picture (rejection/publication). But, I don't think you can actually do much better, because “negativity” can hardly be measured quantitatively.
---
PS: I wouldn't call it a *reviewing bias*. A review is the editor asking you your frankly assessment of a publication. Toning it up or down because you fell that you do not conform to the “mean” of your field would probably diminish your value as a reviewer. If the editor does not think your reviews are helpful to him, he’ll just stop sending you paper to review!
I'll finish with an anecdote: there's a journal for which I have recently given a series of quite negative reviews (well documented, and justified in my eye), and I have actually received some positive feedback about my reviews from the editor.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Two possibilities, both not ideal:
1) If the paper is revised and resubmitted, it often comes along with detailed replies to each reviewer as to how the authors addressed each review. You may get at least these replies to the other reviews, which will allow you to judge whether they were more or less severe than you. In addition, editors often send the reviews back to the author in ascending order of severity, so "reviewer 1" will be the most enthusiastic and "reviewer 3" the least. If you are significantly more often "reviewer 3" than "reviewer 1", this may say something.
2) You can always gather anecdotal evidence by simply asking the editor to provide a little feedback on your review. Of course, the best of all editors provide this feedback (in a constructive manner) without having to be asked.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> is there a way to measure my own reviewing bias?
>
>
>
Why should even think about such a thing, like "reviewing bias"? Isn't scientific pursuit striving for the maxim of pushing the knowledge of humankind? The only thing we should care for then is whether our critique provided in the review is valid, whether its underlying argumentation is correct, to the point and appropriate with respect to the objectives of the field we are in, etc. - that is, as objective as we can do at the moment. There shouldn't be any bias involved. A review should strive for a pure argument why the presented work advances the state of the art (which should be as close as possible to "has an impact on a scientific pursuit in a given field"), or it doesn't.
Now having said that, of course even for the same honest review you can sometimes come up with two different final recommendations in the case the paper is borderline. In that case, I consider whether I myself could fix the paper to a clearly acceptable state. If so, I provide the constructive advice to the authors and lean rather to the positive side. If not, the critique stands. We are not in this game to play our career games. We are here to advance the knowledge of the humankind. Point. Of course, sometimes emotions tend to overrule our reason, if that is the case, the reviewer is most probably in a conflict of interest.
I would strongly oppose to "measure" ones "reviewing bias". We should rather measure correctness and validity of our argumentation for, or against the presented submission. If 100 reviewers of a given paper give it a thumbs up, but you can by no means agree or get in line with their argumentation, why should you try to accommodate? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of peer-review? I am not saying we shouldn't learn from such encounters of course.
Disclaimer: I really appreciate your question. Of course I do share your concerns very much and very often. But it helps me to put the maxim stated above before this concern.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I'll tackle the other question: "maybe I'm just reviewing mostly bad papers?!"
I think with the same "right" that lets you ask for your personal bias, you may also ask whether there is an "assignment bias":
Possibly the "nice" papers are reviewed by the more famous people (who refuse to review everything that does not sound extremely interesting because they are always suggested) leaving the not-so-exciting-looking stuff to younger not so famous researchers.
However, the first thing is maybe to calculate whether you really do *more* negative reviews.
Assuming a jounal accepts 1/3 of the manuscripts, and has the policy that if the first 2 reviews conflict, a third is done. Majority wins.
This situation is in accordance with 50 - 70% of the reviews being negative:
* 50%: PP for the accepted, PNN for the 2 rejected thirds
* 70%: PPN for the accepted, 2 x NN for the rejected
Do you return less than 2 positive for every 5 negative reviews (or whatever is the acceptance rate for the jounals you review for)?
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/11/21 | 391 | 1,694 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm in Germany studying a Master of Computer Science, and the program has options of Dual Degrees with other Universities from outside of Germany (US, Europe, Asia). I'm thinking of applying to the Dual Degree, but i have doubts about the purpose of getting two degrees.
Is there a defined purpose or career profile for such double degree programs? In what case should I apply or in what case I shouldn't?<issue_comment>username_1: I think you should apply if you find both the degrees interesting, and they are complementary. For example, Physics and Computer Science if you aim at writing very good quality physics models (e.g. climate models). Maybe it is hard for you to say what you really want, and therefore it might be hard to judge whether or what dual master (if any) would work for you. On the short term I would try and see if you are drawn towards both masters. If so, you could get a dual degree. Do mind that I suspect two degrees is more work. If you are up to it, and willing to dedicate the time, it could be worth it. On the other hand, I would not recommend just doing it because you feel it might look good on your resume.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: *I believe the main questions here are:*
* is the knowledge you will gain from the other degree is of your interest?
* does it will help you to become a better researcher?
If the answer is yes for the both then definitely worth to try it and work hardly to make it.
I found this is useful *specially in Computer Science* (as there are many multi-discipline research areas these days). Some Examples are Computational Biology, Decision Science and of course mathematics.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/11/22 | 1,369 | 5,837 | <issue_start>username_0: My professor recently had a problem, and he asked me for my help to solve it, and of course I ask for yours.
He was made the School of Engineering Dean, an while it sounds important it takes most of is time through an administrative black hole, also, because of this his office is now in another building so he cannot come to the lab as often as he would like to.
He started noticing less and less people come to the lab, and some only come for a space of a couple of hours and then leave, while he perfectly understands that research can be done everywhere, he is very big on cooperation and discussion among lab members, which can't be done if there is only one guy in the lab.
Do you impose any kind of restrictions on students going to the lab for a specific time? If you are not able to monitor it, how can you ensure they will come. I was looking into some companies that have IP based checking in systems, but seems like an overkill for a 10 person laboratory.<issue_comment>username_1: Since you said that the "research can be done everywhere", the same can be said about collaborations. As long as things that needs to get done *are* done, you can't really complain. So: make "cooperation and discussion among lab members" one of the things that needs to get done. Enforce a culture where during the weekly meetings you begin by asking a random member of the lab to describe what some other random member did during the past week. If the goal is "cooperation and discussion", it shouldn't matter whether the lab members do it in the lab, in the office, or over a cup of coffee in the break room.
If, on the other hand, the goal is really to make sure that people come in to the lab and not slack off, then the best way is to tell them to their faces (during the weekly meeting, for example), that "they should come in to the labs regularly and not slack off". Give them an expectation of "working hours" and chew them out for not following it (if he can notice that fewer people are coming in, he can surely pull out 10 minutes every two or three days to do lab inspections during the expected working hours).
If the members of your lab cannot be trusted to behave like responsible adults, then you either really need new lab workers or you should just install one of them [video baby monitors](https://www.google.com/search?q=video+baby+monitors). `:-)`
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There’s one obvious way: **to send a signal that lab presence is important, the research group leader and permanent staff must be more present in the lab**. Most students are looking for opportunities to increase interaction with professors and advisers, thus by being “accessible” in the lab for discussions, you will increase lab presence. In addition to inciting students to come, that will be a even greater stride toward “cooperation and discussion among lab members”.
This also works with post-doc and the more experienced grad students: you need to avoid the idea that “lab presence” is only for the newbies, while the grown ups get out of there as often as they dare!
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Two anecdotes that might be useful:
* **9:15 coffee time**: When I was a PhD student, our professor (or the lead assistant) would round-up everyone for "coffee" every day at 9:15am. It was usually only 15-20 minutes, and nobody cared if you went home at 11am. You weren't excused from missing "coffee," even if you worked all night and went home at 5am. Of course, there was some flexibility for jet-lag, vacations, article submissions, etc. The prof was paying our salaries and this kind of request was simply a question of not being insubordinate. The positive side effect was that people were fairly disciplined and there was a good exchange of "status" during those meetings. It made the lab feel like a family. Everyone knew more or less what was going on.
* **Use it or lose it**: My current university has card-access to all the lab spaces. A few years ago, one of our labs was "physically downsized" by the administration, and their argument was it wasn't being utilized enough, and other researchers needed the space. They had the hard data to prove it. So, many of our students complained they had no more cubes for their books, etc. But in the end, I said it was partially their fault for not "occupying" the space, partially our fault for not forcing them to. It's an argument I use to explain the necessity to be in the lab every day.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I cannot stress enough that you need to take a positive atitude towards this. The people, including the students, are there to learn something and do good work. On the whole, these people are motivated, and if they are not, strict enforcement of some rules will not get the motivated scientists you want. Therefore, reward postive behavior, not punish negative behavior.
For example @username_2's suggestion, make the lab a stimulating environment where it is nice to work. This means having senior members (professors, postdocs) present, and stimulate interaction. This can for example be done by organizing literature groups where someone prepares a good paper and the group discusses the content. Or organize weekly sessions where people present their work to each other and discuss it.
In addition, make the students and employees part of the solution. Explain that the attendance has dropped, and tell them why you think this might lead to less coorperation and productivity. Suggest and discuss possible solutions with them, and try to improve the situation.
These things said, at some stage people need to get freedom, especially the PhD's and postdocs. Judge people on their output, not their attendance. Although master students might need more monitoring...
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/11/22 | 584 | 2,321 | <issue_start>username_0: How should one "address" the person for whom I am writing a recommendation letter *in* the letter?
Scenario:
* I have known <NAME> for many years and am familiar with his work. We address each other on a first name basis. I've been asked to write a letter supporting John's application. When I write about him, should I write
>
> Dr [or Mr, in case of undergraduates] Doe's works are well-written ...
>
>
>
or can I get away with
>
> John's works are well-written ...
>
>
>
Personally I feel a bit strange writing Dr Doe for someone I know so well, but I wonder if it is better to err on the more formal side?
---
For what it is worth, the field is Mathematics. And for future reference, I do not want to limit the question to a particular level of application (for graduate school, fellowships, or for jobs); I suspect that shouldn't make a difference in the answer, but if it does, feel free to indicate.<issue_comment>username_1: I have seen both used in recommendation letters, regardless of the strength of the recommendation letter itself. I would, myself, recommend Dr. <NAME> / Dr. Doe for most professional relationships, except when it is clear that you have formed a close professional relationship (PhD student, or long-term collaborator or post-doc). In case you go for the surname, I would still use the full name at the first mention:
>
> **Dr. <NAME>** was a student of mine at the University of X, where I teach Y, …. He later joined my research group as a Masters, then PhD student. **John** is an extremely bright student, …
>
>
>
(Of course, that's merely an example and not a good letter wording, so do not look at the wording itself, only the use of names…)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Since you specifically asked about math, let me say that in my experience (as a mathematician, reading recommendation letters written by other mathematicians), the pattern of
* use the applicant's full name once.
* use their first name (generally what you would call them in person) after that.
is close to universal amongst mathematicians in the US. One does find exceptions, usually replacing the applicant's first name with their last name (so, writing "Doe's work has been..."), but they are actually quite rare.
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/11/22 | 722 | 3,273 | <issue_start>username_0: I am a senior computer science student and I am working on my senior graduation project. My supervisor said that I should implement a job search web portal as a graduation project. But I want to make some research oriented project rather than raw coding. My supervisor insists on this because he won't have to spend time with me.
So I have decided to get involved in research myself without his help because he is not helping me. I had to register for his project class because other slots were full. He does not want to deal with students but due to school constraints he had to open this class.
I have never done research or I don't know what exactly it means. How do I start this myself ?<issue_comment>username_1: Since *you have never done research and do not know what exactly it means*, I would suggest **Attending Seminars and invited Talks in your school** before anything else.
Try to understand how they are related to different subjects you have taken.
This is a good way to start *thinking about research* and identifying interests. You may not like it and directly pursue a career in the industry after graduation.
* One way to fulfill your supervisor requirements and start being
researcher is to look for the *researchy* problems associated with
*portal implementation*. A good start in this direction is googling with "portal implementation site:.edu". Try to understand what are the problems in implementing portals and what are the current solutions to them.
This might seems difficult. But remember if you want to become researcher you have to read **a lot** others' work . Actually some master students they graduate by *implementing* some systems. At the end, doing implementation is part of many research projects in Computer Science.
* Another better approach (specially if you are interested in theoretical Computer Science) is to try to find another supervisor for your
project that has research projects for undergraduates.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Firstly, note that, from my experience, your senior advisor isn't by any means a research advisor. What you're looking for, admirable as it may be, is a good deal more than he's signed up to provide to students. I wouldn't be too hard on him.
If you want to simple familiarize yourself with "what research entails", I recommend simply talking to people. Ask any graduate student if you can meet them for coffee and just ask them what they do all day (other than surf the web and drink coffee). Search through the faculty profiles on your department's website, find someone who looks interesting, and send an email asking to meet with them for 15-30 minutes to talk about research as a career.
If you're more interested in actually doing research, all of the above still apply, but there are two more steps. First, talk to the undergraduate coordinator for your department and try to set up a research internship over the next semester/summer. Secondly, when you're talking to faculty whose research interests you, ask whether they'd be willing to take undergraduate researchers in their lab. Doing research with them, even if just for a few hours a week, will give you the exposure you need to really understand what research entails.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/11/22 | 803 | 3,212 | <issue_start>username_0: I am writing my first research paper in field of computer applications and artificial intelligence. I have following doubts, please answer them to help me out..
a) When explaining my research, do I need to include the whole code or just algorithms ?
b) Do I have to upload my code somewhere so that people can verify my research and give link of that code in my paper ?
c) I don't know any professor very well. Is it required to get it read by somebody because I am still an undergraduate ?
Any other suggestion from your experience ??<issue_comment>username_1: 1. Definitely not the whole code.
2. It is a conference-specific and depends on the conference area. If the
paper is more data related (which is the case in Data Mining field
for instance) you are required at least to comment on the data usage
and from where you get it. If your paper is about a new *web
system* usually referring to it in the text will be
helpful.
3. It is not required but ***highly recommended*** since they will be able to
provide a constructive criticism for your work. You do not need to know them *very well* and usually they will be happy to help students.
Generally, students (specially undergraduates) publish papers with the help of a faculty member in the school. This said, there is nothing limit them to publish by their own. It is just more helpful to you to be attached to one of the faculty members and do research under his/her guidance.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> a) When explaining my research, do I need to include the whole code or just algorithms ?
>
>
>
The complete verbose code wouldn't fit into the paper anyway, or would it?
Seriously, what you need to ensure is that
1. you **clearly communicate** your ideas and the contribution to the state of the art you claim to have made;
2. the evaluation that your proposals are feasible and really as good as you claim is plausibly **reproducible**. In the simplest form, that means that you describe all the conditions and steps which when repeated should yield the same results as you obtained.
>
> b) Do I have to upload my code somewhere so that people can verify my research and give link of that code in my paper ?
>
>
>
You don't have to, most of the time it is not being done. However, myself, I strongly believe it is beneficial and I hope the field will turn more towards this practice. For ideas about this see also the [Science code manifesto](http://sciencecodemanifesto.org/), as well as [Matt Might's CRAPL license](http://matt.might.net/articles/crapl/).
BTW, think the same about your datasets you used for the evaluation in your paperr.
>
> c) I don't know any professor very well. Is it required to get it read by somebody because I am still an undergraduate ?
>
>
>
It is not required, but very much advisable. If you feel ideas are worth anything, try to approach somebody in the field (e.g., an author of one of the most prominent references your work builds upon) and give them time to digest. You might get some good feedback. But even if not, try to submit to a conference/workshop where it would fit, you'll get plenty of feedback in reviews.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/11/23 | 648 | 2,889 | <issue_start>username_0: I want to know how can I get some participants for an empirical research study I would be conducting. Does universities have systems in place to call/recruit participants or do I have to find them myself?<issue_comment>username_1: I am not aware of any university run participant pools. I am aware of many departmental run and research group run participant pools. Some charities and companies also run participant pools.
It is quite possible that you will not have to recruit the participants yourself. Your supervisor and/or colleagues would be a good place to start asking about participant pools. Failing that, all universities have an institutional review board (IRB) or independent ethics committee that might be aware of participant pools in your research area.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You will almost certainly have to recruit study participants yourself. As others have suggested, speak with your advisor to out whether there are any participant pools he's used in the past. If you find others that he hasn't used before it's a good idea to make sure he's OK with the pool before you dive in, so to speak.
Note that, in some fields, the pool of participants can be a significant limiting factor to the generalizability of the study results. Think very carefully about exclusionary criterion before settling on something. Note also that your IRB may require you to provide justification for exclusion/inclusion of certain populations (i.e., children, pregnant women, drug users). Try to make sure your population sample is as inclusive as possible.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: At the universities I've worked in North America, human-subject studies (esp. those funded by taxpayer-funded research) must be approved by a [research ethics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_ethics) committee. The ways to recruit participants is something that must be stated and approved. Over the years, committee members have offered lots of advice about how to recruit subjects, as they have seen many projects and many experiments. A professor has to submit a project for approval, so you'd have to coordinate it with an adviser. You can probably consult with committee members before you submit the request.
The studies I've managed have recruited participants in simple and effective ways: e-mail lists, university newspapers, facebook, flyers posted on campus, etc. As others have pointed out, the means of recruitment will affect the generalizability of the study results.
I saw one project that had trouble finding enough participants via the declared means (flyers), but it was not possible (because of the ethics committee re-approval) to use another means to recruit (e.g., last-minute facebook campaign) to try to find more participants. Be careful not to lock yourself into a way that's too limited.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/11/23 | 603 | 2,495 | <issue_start>username_0: From [this MathOverflow question](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/45185/pseudonyms-of-famous-mathematicians):
>
> <NAME> published a result under the pseudonym Student. (Because his employer, the Guinness brewing company, did not allow their employees to publish for fear of divulging trade secrets.)
>
>
>
Why isn't publishing under a pseudonym a breach of academic ethics? It seems that the common idea is that publishing under a pseudonym is ethical, *unless they are deliberately used with intention to defraud or deceive*. But, given that we don't know who a pseudonymous author is, how can his peers have any trust in that (or even check it)?<issue_comment>username_1: The worth of scientific work is in the content, not in who wrote it. Therefore, I think publishing under a pseudonym is not necessarily unethical. In the example the OP presented the author was prevented from publishing if he used his own name. If the research was sound and reproducible, I would be fine with this. In practice I would like to know who wrote the paper.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I don't think there's an absolute answer here. Ethical questions generally have lots of "grey areas" associated with them.
I think the biggest question to ask—and the one you indirectly are headed toward—is "why is someone using a pseudonym?" If the answer is "to get around a contractual agreement that both parties have agreed to and accepted," then it's likely that the use of a pseudonym is probably unethical. (Although one could argue that if this were intended to "correct" a more serious problem, then it might still be ethical—even if contractually messy.)
If, on the other hand, the answer is "to avoid potential review bias," or "because publishing under one's own name would make one's life less convenient" (for instance, there's a negative stigma associated with publishing outside one's "home" field), then it's less clear that there's an ethical violation in progress.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: There are various views of the usage of pseudonym. I'd say a prevalent one in Europe is that its part of the special protection of authors in the sense of freedom of speech. I do not know how this is handled in the US or otherwhere, but in many European countries there is a constitutional right of protection of pseudonyms (which implies the right of publishing under a pseudonym if desired for any reason).
Upvotes: -1 |
2012/11/23 | 5,386 | 21,925 | <issue_start>username_0: What are objective advantages or disadvantages of using the markup language [LaTeX](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaTeX) instead of a [WYSIWYG](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYG) word processor like MS Word or LibreOffice Writer?
Please use objective arguments to prevent a flame war...<issue_comment>username_1: Word
====
*Advantages:*
* Minimal learning curve
* [WYSIWYG](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYG)
* Ridiculously high install base; almost guaranteed that anyone can read/edit your file without modifying anything
* Easy-to-use reviewing tools (view changes, add comments, etc)
*Disadvantages:*
* Layout can be a real bear to get correct
* Math is difficult, slow, and often ugly
* Included bibliography editor is virtually unusable for most scientific writing; you'll need to buy a third-party solution to manage your bibliography
LaTeX
=====
*Advantages*:
* It's just text; anyone can edit your file
* You don't have to worry about layout, it's all automatic. Just put the words down there and you're golden
* Produces aesthetically beautiful documents
* Easy to use math, symbols, etc
* Once learned, much faster and more intuitive (e.g., `\label` and `\ref` for referencing, as opposed to Word's fairly kludgy "Cross-referencing" window which requires way too many clicks to insert a single reference)
*Disadvantages:*
* Fairly steep learning curve
* Collaborators unfamiliar with LaTeX will have difficulty reviewing your manuscripts
* Many features require libraries, which you have to find/be made aware of (view changes, etc)
* Layout changes are difficult (i.e., will require time for you to hunt down solution and implement it)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: LaTeX is better at:
* **Dealing with mathematical notation**. Layout and entry are generally easier using LaTeX than some other sort of equation editor.
* **Consistent handling of intra-document references and bibliography**. As of a couple of years ago the major WYSIWYG editors still had problems with re-numbering cross-references and bibliography items. This is never a problem with BibTeX or LaTeX.
* **Separation of content and style**. In principle this means that you can write your document without caring how it is formatted, and at the end of the day wrap it in the style-file provided by the journal publisher before submission to conform to the house style. In practice some of the journal publishers demand special formatting commands that partially moots this process. Furthermore recent versions of Word and LibreOffice Writer, when properly used, should be able to keep track of various levels of section heading separate from the body text, and apply uniform styling to each level. The gap is somewhat closing.
* **Tables and illustrations**. With PSTricks or TikZ, one can produce high quality illustrations *within* the document (though the learning curve is a bit steep there). And I've found LaTeX to be better at preparing complex tables.
WYSIWYG (especially Word and Writer) is better at:
* **Collaborative editing**. Without using an online site for collaborative LaTeX editing (such as ShareLaTeX), working collaboratively on a LaTeX file ideally requires some sort of separate revision control software. Word and Writer have very good comments/annotations and edit-tracking features. When a large number of authors are commenting on the writing of one file, this can be very useful.
* **Spell check**. Admittedly most text editors one uses to edit TeX files also do spell check. But this is generally conveniently built into WYSIWYG editors.
* **Compatibility**. Unless you work in mathematics, computer science, or physics (and sometimes even if you work in those fields), it is more likely that your collaborators will know what to do with a Word or Writer file than a LaTeX file.
* **Minimum barrier to entry**. If you just care about getting the ideas down on paper, you can use a WYSIWYG editor just like a typewriter. Sure, it may be tedious to fix the formatting later on, compared to LaTeX where one need to first figure out how to setup a bare-minimum file before using, it may be an attractive point.
A wash:
* Most journals provide templates for both Word and LaTeX, so there's no real winner there.
---
Suggestion: if you want to convince someone to start using LaTeX, start them out first in one of the WYSIWYG environments designed for LaTeX first (for example [LyX](http://www.lyx.org/)). This will help somewhat to ameliorate the scary entry barrier.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: As primary author I usually use LaTeX, most colleagues use word, so I (have to) use that when contributing to papers.
Advantage of LateX:
* Mathematical equations were mentioned already.
* More important for me is that pure-text formats work better with literate programming tools like [Sweave](http://www.stat.uni-muenchen.de/~leisch/Sweave/)/[knitr](http://yihui.name/knitr/) (I do data analysis in R)
These tools also produce graphics and automatically put them into the paper
* pure text formats work well with version control
+ I use `latexdiff` to produce versions with highlighted changes automatically
+ `git diff --color-words` is good for seeing changes and is not confused by changes in the line.
* Lightweight in terms of computational resources for typing
* Publishers have document classes that will format the text. Allows to produce nicely readable author's versions.
By loading few packages (or even only setting some option) you can switch back and forth to the ridiculously unreadable format the publisher demands.
* Bibliography styles: changing the style allows to switch back and forth between e.g. references with title and linked doi and the journal's requested format without.
Disadvantages:
* many coworkers don't use/know it
* believe it or not, but even pdf files can be problematic wrt. printing/display.
Side Note:
* Lyx provides [WSIWYM](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYM) on top of Latex.
Advantages of Word
* Almost everyone has it
Disadvantages
* Resource demanding
* No/difficult literate programming (Openoffice works, though not as nicely as LaTeX)
* Problems between versions
* (Problems with merging versions which is supposed to work)
---
### Literate programming and paper.
[Here's an example.](http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.1323) I didn't go the full length of literate programming for the whole article: the simulation in section 3 took some week on our server blade, so that was done separately and I just pulled in the result graphics. But I wrote section 4 in Sweave, so the calculated numers end up automatically in the text. A slightly modified .Rnw file of the calculations in section 4 (`knitr` version) is `supplementary-code.Rnw` in the sources.
* *(I just saw that I forgot to upload the .Rnw for the whole paper to arXiv, and it wouldn't let me do it when I just tried - I'll correct this, probably when I have the final volume/pages for the journal)*
* Why `Sweave` and `knitr`: I prepared the document in `Sweave` (and without any caching as two of the coauthors use R as well. So they automatically have `Sweave`. I wanted to keep the dependecies low. However it turned out that they did not wish to run it. Next paper will use only `knitr`, and cache longer calcluations.
* It is a trade-off: typing in the numbers is faster than the lengthy `Sweave`/`knitr` code. But then you need to re-read the paper so carefully to make sure you have no typo somewhere in there, which takes a lot of time, too.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: LaTeX
-----
1. Open source free software. Even the [FSF thinks so](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses).
2. Stable: The current version of LaTeX is from 1994, the underlying program (TeX) is from 1982. You can easily process a document made with LaTeX 2.09 in 1987 with a modern TeX distribution on modern hardware
3. Runs on any modern operating system on any hardware
Word
----
1. Closed source expensive proprietary software (MS Word)
2. Unstable: The document format of Word is constantly changing. You will be hard pressed to open a document from say Word 2003 with a recent version; getting all your formatting from a Word 5.5 document (1991) [will probably be impossible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Word#Attempts_at_cross-version_compatibility). [ODF](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ODF) created by Open/Libre Office helps here.
3. Runs only on Windows and OSX (Word) or Linux (Open/Libre Office). Porting Open/Libre Office to a different operating system is a major undertaking.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: I am currently studying for a PhD (engineering, almost done) and I supervised some student projects (diploma thesis and so on). Therefore I experienced both the typical Word and LaTeX workflow.
Most of the points are already mentioned in the very good other answers. I just want to add some general comments. Since I am not a geek I think that I can give roughly an average opinion.
The Typical Word User
---------------------
* Almost every student was complaining about mysterious behaviour like disappearing pictures or lost formatting.
* In addition, it happened quite often that large documents get somehow corrupted and it wasn't possible to edit/open it again. Then the students had to fall back on one of their backups.
* The larger the document the harder it is to keep the typography consistent. Because it is so easy to edit the text manually (this one bold, that one italic and so on) the students usually pay little attention to the systematic use of style sheets (don't know if that's the correct English term).
* Dealing with complex mathematical expressions is painful.
* Many of the settings are done using some menu entry and so it is very hard to document the settings or to make comments on how or why someone did something.
* Only one out of 100 students knows that you can work with vector graphics (in this case EPS) in Word. So most of the figures are ugly.
* In the last days of the thesis it is an advantage in Word that you can -- in the case of an emergency -- just draw anything everywhere in order to meet specific goals.
* It is hard to reuse content in Word -- I mean reuse it that way, that a change at one instance affects all instances.
* ...
It is not important whether all this happened because of a unprofessional use of Word -- the point is, that it happens.
The Typical LaTeX User
----------------------
* You need a friend!: It is almost suicide to start using LaTeX on your own when you start writing your last and most important thesis at university. This can only work if you have a friend or colleague (like me) who can give you a template and a crash course.
* Almost all students who decided to use LaTeX reported that they had fun using it! I think the main reason is that the documents look very professional without doing much.
* In addition, students find it "cool" that the output is directly a PDF with hyperlinks and so on. Most of the normal WORD users don't create cool PDFs.
* Students like the fact that they can easily input PDF files like datasheets to the appendix. This way they even appear in the table of content (TOC). I have never seen a Word document with a detailed TOC for the appendix. This is especially important in the field of engineering.
* Using/creating bibliographies is not fun. But after they figure it out it works fine.
* The concept of using a distribution like MiKTeX or TeXLive is new to most of the students and confusing at the beginning. In addition they sometimes can't distinguish between LaTeX itself and the LaTeX text editor (e. g. Texmaker). Therefore I made a video tutorial for that ;): <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL15I-6NQFQ>
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: I am a freelance writer, writing mostly articles and fiction, and I prefer LaTeX over Word for a few reasons:
* I work much faster in Vim, which is perfect for editing LaTeX markup
* I write in a modular fashion, so LaTeX's \input{} (command/markup/whatever) is indespensible.
* I can convert LaTeX markup to any format I need, most of the time directly: pdfs, docs, html, epub, etc.
* Word's graphical nature is too much overhead when I can simply open vim, type what I need, add a preamble, some markup and a style file, run the document through aspell and be done.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: The following is based on [*LaTeX and Friends*](http://csweb.ucc.ie/~dongen/LAF/LAF.html).
**Cons**
* *Difficult to learn and use.* True, but it will save you time in the long run, even if you're writing a minor thesis.
* Not WYSIWYG. True, but there are many IDEs. For example, [TeXWorks](http://www.tug.org/texworks/), [TeXMaker](http://www.xm1math.net/texmaker/), [MacTeX](http://tug.org/mactex/), [LyX](http://www.lyx.org/), ....
* *Little support for physical markup.* True, but this is a good thing. It ensures your document style is consistent. Also it saves time because fiddling with style *will* cost you time.
* *Using non-standard fonts is difficult.* This used to be true but nowadays installing new fonts is relatively easy.
* *No spell checking.* True, but some IDEs support it. Also you can spell-check at the command line level.
* *Too many packages.* Yes, it may be difficult to find the right package. However, asking a question in [*TeX Stack Exchange*](http://tex.stackexchange.com) or [`comp.text.tex`](https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/comp.text.tex) will quickly give you an answer. Also you usually only need a few core packages, which you can package as a user-defined library.
* *LaTeX is for techies only.* False, LaTeX is used in mathematics, computer science, physics, life sciences, humanities, ....
* *Encourages structured writing.* Some people don't like this. Others do.
**Pros**
* *Separation of style and content.* LaTeX is a procedural markup language sitting on top of a typesetting engine. You make the purpose of your writing explicit by annotating (marking up) your writing. LaTeX uses the markup to typeset your writing in the right style.
* *Trust.* In a recent *TUGboat* (Volume 33, Number 3, 2012) <NAME> writes an interesting paper that shows that using *Computer Modern* (the default LaTeX font) increases the level of trust people have in written statements: it came second, closely following *Baskerville,* which came first. At the lower end of the scale of trustworthyness is *Comic Sans*. (Results based on results from Morris.)
* *Generation of plots and tables.* LaTeX has packages that automate the generation of plots and tables. You provide the data and the packages do the typesetting. If done properly, this ensures that all plots and tables are typeset in the same consistent style.
* *Technical diagrams.* LaTeX has packages that can generate technical diagrams such as trees, state transition machines, petri nets, and so on. Using these packages guarantees a consistent presentation.
* *High-quality typesetting and good automatic hyphenation.* This inludes kerning, real small caps, common and non-common ligatures, glyph variants, .... LateX's hyphenation is second to none.
* *Many conferences and publishers accept LaTeX.* This is useful because it guarantees your paper will comply with the conference's formatting guidelines.
* *Turing-complete programming language!* This lets you compute things that you can then typeset (similar to a spreadsheet with input and output columns).
* *Write notes/book/presentation in same source file.* This is related to the previous item. LaTeX can make decisions and this lets you write several output documents in one input document. For example you may have a presentation version and a notes version. You can share text for both versions and use some text for just one version.
* *LaTeX is highly configurable.* For example, you can define your own book/paper style and package the settings as a library so you can use them over and over again.
* *You can translate LaTeX to `html`, `ps`, `pdf`, `DocBook`, ...*
* Automatic numbering of sectional units, figures, ... This guarantees consistency of the output document. In addition LaTeX provides a consistent and easy cross-referencing mechanism.
* *Excellent Bibliography support.* LaTeX automates the typesetting of the citations and the generation of the bibliography/references. It lets you control the style of both citations and references. The result is a perfect bibliography and consistent citations.
* *Very stable, free, and available on many platforms*. Who doesn't want that?
* *Large and active, friendly, and helpful user-base.* Ask a question in [*TeX Stack Exchange*](http://tex.stackexchange.com) or [`comp.text.tex`](https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/comp.text.tex) and you usually get a detailed answer in minutes.
* *LaTeX has comments.* So you can remember why/how something worked.
* *Can produce [coffee stains](http://hanno-rein.de/archives/349) on your papers.* So you have *consistent* coffee stains on your papers!
* *Most importantly: LaTeX is fun!*
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: I've recently switched to LaTex whilst at university and the response has been great. I have written an number of reports regarding projects and tutors were happy to see somebody using the proper software.
I have found that with larger projects that it can be split up into sections and I'm currently writing a document that is split up into a number of chapters which is very easy to manage the document.
With regard to technical documentation such as tables, diagrams and equations it does require some learning but it is very useful indeed.
Another thing to note is that the document structure is kept consistent throughout, sections and chapters are correctly numbered as well as the references, footnotes and figures all being correctly numbered.
Also, use BibDesk as it helps out tremendously when using a number of citations.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: An additional advantage of LaTex that I haven't seen listed among the many answers here is that:
LaTex source files can be (fairly) easily generated by a script or other program. In some research areas, you might be generating lots of data that needs to be put into tables or figures in your text. In my case, I had a computer simulation that generated the data. I programmed the simulation output to add a little bit of LaTex instructions here and there in the data and the output file then became part of my LaTex source document. No cut-n-paste. No danger of re-typing a value incorrectly. If I found a bug in my simulation (hypothetically speaking, of course), then I can easily regenerate the data and associated markup very easily.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_10: I'll post my take on this, as a Word user who has oft pondered switching to LaTeX but has decided not to (but has collaborators who do):
**Word**:
*Advantages*
1. Universality. While Microsoft Office isn't 100% ubiquitous, I'm willing to say that very nearly everyone has the ability to modify Word or Word-like documents in some form. A Word file can by and large be sent under the assumption that the recipient will know what to do with it. I'd be similarly willing to bet that the installed base of any sort of TeX distribution is far lower.
2. Non-technical. There isn't much of a learning curve to Word, and there is a pretty steep one for LaTeX. I collaborate with a lot of non-technical colleagues, who will be writing or commenting on policy or clinical questions. Getting them to use Doodle to schedule a call is hard enough, I cannot imagine what LaTeX would be like. On the other hand, virtually everyone who can use LaTeX can also use word.
3. "Track Changes" is a decent reviewing tool, and may be considerably more intuitive than looking at diffs in a version tracker or something like that.
4. In some fields, Word will be the assumed-upon format for journal submissions. This is, of course, not universally true, but it's worth noting in the sometimes computation-heavy world of Stack Exchange that academia as a whole doesn't necessarily use LaTeX.
*Disadvantages*
1. Word. Is. Not. Layout. Software. Attempting to use it as such is an exercise in frustration.
2. Word definitely emphasizes text over mathematical notation. While it has been getting significantly better, and isn't actually an impediment in my work, for very equation-heavy documents, it will become tiresome.
3. Citation management requires a third party package of some sort - the one that is built-in is criminally poor.
**LaTeX**
*Advantages*
1. LaTeX is just better for math typesetting. Whether this is important or not is a question, but that LaTeX is better at it is something about which reasonable people can't so much disagree.
2. As text-based documents, LaTeX files play really nicely with version control software.
3. The overall layout tools available for LaTeX are vastly superior to Words, and much more amenable to templates, standard code, etc. You could write a script to automatically put in all the preambulatory info (affiliation, headings, etc.) for a LaTeX document. Doing that in Word would be...hard.
*Disadvantages*
As a disclaimer, some of these are fairly subjective.
1. Anything listed as one of Word's advantages. The biggest for me is the high probability that a collaborator will go "What am I supposed to do with this?" and we'll end up in Word anyway.
2. In my experience, compilation errors and the like definitely crop up when trying to pass LaTeX files between multiple authors.
3. Laying out an adequate LaTeX document is easy. Laying out a *nice* LaTeX file is hard. I often encounter a sense that "Once it's in LaTeX it's done", and while that's more true than it is for a Word document, it's a far cry from something that's professionally typeset.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/11/24 | 801 | 3,278 | <issue_start>username_0: I am presently doing MSc (Information Technology) in India. I really like teaching and have a passion for it. Based on my Masters degree I will get a designation of Assistant professor (hope so I get it!), but to be a Professor we need a PhD degree, so I was thinking of doing a Phd (Computer Science) not right after the Masters but after some years of teaching experience. At present I don't have much knowledge about PhD (nearly zero).
I know we need to publish the thesis in PhD,but my question is do we have to publish books (about courses like Java, Operating System etc, since I am talking about IT/CS i gave these subjects) in PhD? This is because right now in my Masters I was thinking of publishing a book for a local course of Bachelors (BSc IT) in my region.
So if we need to publish certain number books in PhD, then I should wait for writing and publishing that local book till I join a PhD or should I start writing and publish it right in my Masters and this published book will be considered in my PhD?<issue_comment>username_1: Regardless of when the book is published, if the book is relevant to your doctoral studies and displays a high level of scientific skill, then it is certain it will influence positively the opinion of your eventual PhD defence committee.
But a course book is not a thesis. You will still need to write a separate thesis
Also, the chances that your doctoral research topic will be related to the topic of your book are small.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: A PhD should be based on an original contribution to knowledge. This is generally published at research conferences and in journals.
Material, such as a book, treating topics that already are well-known generally do not contribute to the PhD dissertation. The only exception is if you were to write an excellent synthesis of a field, then that could be included as a part of your PhD dissertation, as such a thing would be an original contribution to knowledge.
Writing a book may actually hinder your progress to obtaining a PhD, because it too will take a lot of time. That said, I do not wish to encourage you on this issue. But there are already plenty of books about Java and Operating Systems, and I questions the value of writing more.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: No. Absolutely not.
-------------------
**Do not even start writing a book until you have tenure**, unless publishing a book is a requirement for tenure (which would be *very* strange for computer science). Writing books well is *extremely* hard; it requires significant time away from your research (which you need to finish your PhD, get a job, and get tenure), teaching, paper-writing, professional networking, job-hunting, proposal writing, and advising. And writing books badly can only hurt you.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: The magazine "The Scientist" has recently published an article about writing scientific books:
- <http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32654/title/So-You-Want-to-Write-a-Book-/>
I recommend you to read it. It says that writing books requires a lot of time and involvement, and that it is better to wait until you have tenure. I think that the suggestion makes sense.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/11/24 | 440 | 1,668 | <issue_start>username_0: >
> **Possible Duplicate:**
>
> [What tools make it easy to maintain (or avoid!) the N versions of your CV?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/4903/what-tools-make-it-easy-to-maintain-or-avoid-the-n-versions-of-your-cv)
>
>
>
When writing a CV (applying for an academic position, workshop or a scholarship), it's important to include one's list of publications, conference talks and posters, awards, etc.
Moreover, the list need to be tailored to the respective scope (and with the appropriate fine-graining).
The question is, **is there a specific workflow (or software) to keep tracks of one's academic records, so that later it's easy to cherry-pick the relevant stuff?**<issue_comment>username_1: On my website I keep a list of my academic achievements. This only includes journal publications, official reports, and conference proceedings though. When I need to make a list of my most relevant publications, I take a look at that page. A nice way to tracking your papers and such is to create a Google Scholar Citations page. This automatically looks for your publications and keeps record of the number of citations you receive.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: [Google Scholar](http://scholar.google.com) and [Microsoft Academic Research](http://academic.research.microsoft.com) (also [DBLP](http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/index.html) for computer science) collect a decent amount of one's publications (in particular Google Scholar).
If you are writing your CV in Latex/LyX, I would suggest finding/creating BIBTEX entries for your papers then import the *.bib* file into your CV.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/11/25 | 433 | 1,926 | <issue_start>username_0: We've been having this discussion about what actually formulates 'contribution to knowledge' when doing a masters or a PhD in a particular field.
For an example from my field (Computer Science), say an MS student finds a particularly good algorithm that has not been used to solve a problem in disaster management. He then goes ahead and builds a solution that uses this algorithm to find position of a cell phone in a disaster situation.
However, while the student has solved a problem of high interest to many people, he has not contributed to the field of Computer Science, per se. Or has he? Some say that since he didn't contribute to Computer Science as a field, he should not get a Masters degree in CS.<issue_comment>username_1: **Contribution to knowledge means creating new knowledge based on the previous available knowledge by doing extensive and innovative research.**
Look up this related illustrative post by [<NAME>](http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/) on what is a PhD.
And for the said MS student, he should get his degree ***without any problem***, because he showed a new & original application of the CS algorithm in a new field. Hence, new knowledge generated.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I think of a contribution to knowledge as being a body of work that could be published as a journal article.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Finding a new and good way to solve a problem in the field of interest is definitely counts as a contribution. What makes it as an *official* contribution is publishing it and making it visible to the peers.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: When a researcher uncovers an evidence hitherto unknown to a large number of people within and outside the Academia, this could be seen as a contribution to knowledge because it is a discovery or an uncharted course made possible
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/11/25 | 444 | 1,923 | <issue_start>username_0: I was wondering if someone who is reapplying to the same program after it was not accepted the previous year is seen as a negative thing.
If in the application form I am asked if I applied the program in the past, should I state that I did or would that look bad on my application?
Why is this question been asked? And does not really matter what my answer is? The university clearly states that all application material is destroyed after a few months. Thus the admission commitee look at this question?<issue_comment>username_1: Lying on an application form is a really bad idea, it would probably destroy any chance you could have to be accepted. So, if the question is asked, you probably should answer truthfully.
As for why it is asked, it also depends on how a program works. If it's a very competitive program, maybe your application was good, but there were just better candidates than you. In that case, it could be worth applying again. If, on the other hand, the committee just decided that your application was not good enough, then applying again is risky. In any case, you would have to demonstrate that you have significantly improved your application during the last year.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: [EMBL](http://www.embl.de/training/eipp/index.html) explicitly tells people who haven’t been accepted in the first go (but who passed the initial aptitude assessment) to apply again next year.
They *do* keep record of your application so lying about it would be very stupid, but re-applying definitely doesn’t harm your chances a priori. In fact, at EMBL you wouldn’t even need to re-take the assessment.
Certainly this is a quite institute specific answer but I’d think that it’s a good rule of thumb. Even if your particular University handles this differently (destroy application material), chances are, somebody will remember you.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/11/25 | 655 | 2,921 | <issue_start>username_0: I understand that schools are trying to gauge the chances of an offer being accepted by a potential candidate. Similarly to what has been described for job applications and other questions that a lower ranked program might not offer admission to someone who applied to just top schools.
How much should a candidate divulge about the other schools he/she is applying to? If applying to a top school will it decrease your chances if you are stating you are applying to another top school?
I find this kind of questions a bit intrusive and that might even compromise to some degree my application. Perhaps some people that have been in admission commitees can shed some light on the dynamics related to applicants that applied to several schools.<issue_comment>username_1: There is no really good reason for schools to ask what other schools a student is applying to. I personally make it a point as much as possible *never* to ask people who I'm interviewing or whose applications I'm reviewing what other programs they're considering. I *do* ask, however, if they are actively considering other options, this is something that can affect our internal decision-making process, so I ask if students are entertaining offers, but not where.
Schools are likely to be using this answer to gauge what schools you're applying to, with a view towards planning whom to admit. But again, I do agree that this question is invasive, and isn't really necessary. In addition, schools shouldn't be checking up with other graduate schools about their admissions, so I would answer in whatever way you feel comfortable.
Moreover, you can always claim that your answer was accurate at the time, but changed following the point at which you submitted the application.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I never seen a question like *Are you applying to other schools* when applied to different universities.
I do not think you are required to expose such information. The committee should evaluate your application ***regardless*** of your status in other schools.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: Repeat after me:
“I'd rather not tell you.”
--------------------------
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: It looks as it is a practice out of the work environment, here in Japan usually they'll ask you which companies are you applying to, and in UK I got to see similar practices.
I do not think you'll get down points for not putting anything, I do not really think Admissions Officials are really accepting or rejecting people on the basis of to which Universities are they applying.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: They generally ask such questions, if your university is a member of an association of universities. For instance, "Ontario Universities" in Canada and so on.
Otherwise, I don't think those questions are relevant and hence better not to answer.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/11/26 | 420 | 1,885 | <issue_start>username_0: While I know that students are encouraged to "tailor" their applications to the particular school or program they're applying to, does the same hold true for the people writing letters of recommendation on their behalf? In other words, is it possible just to change the "addressee" portion, and use a greeting such as "Dear Members of the Admissions Committee," or is more personalization required?
Just to clarify here, I'm referring to the "pro-forma" parts of the letter, rather than the actual content of the recommendation *per se*.<issue_comment>username_1: Although it really depends on the culture you are in and the culture you are applying, tailored recommendation letters are generally 'stronger'.
Especially in the USA it is recommended to put also the university/department/lab name in the recommendation letter instead of just stating that the student is very good. Even changing the addressee requires the author spend some extra time, which means you are valuable for the author of the letter.
Keep in mind that most of the recommendation letters are not really read. They are there to show whether you can get them. In this perspective, tailored letters mean you have stronger relations with 'worthy people'.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: I have two levels of customization. Firstly, if the letter is for an internship at a lab, or an application to grad school or a job, I tailor the qualities that I emphasize and link those qualities to the specific job.
A second level of customization is if I have any connection to the institution (for example, when writing letters of recommendation for AT&T Labs - where I used to work - I might mention this explicitly in order to convey that I understand the local culture)
This is above and beyond the usual pro-forma customizations for the addressee etc.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2012/11/26 | 311 | 1,444 | <issue_start>username_0: In what ways would a Professor's LinkedIn Recommendation differ from his Recommendation for Graduate School(Masters/PhD)?
In other words: In what was does the visibility of a Recommendation change a Professor's Recommendation?<issue_comment>username_1: I believe they are totally different.
* LinkedIn recommendation is more towards the visibility of student's soft/technical skills in general while the official letter of recommendation should address the student skills in a more academic/depth way.
* Their audience is different. Recommendation Letter is intended to particular institute/committee while LinkedIn is more to the public general and industry recruiters in particular.
* LinkedIn recommendations counts nothing for the admission committees while might have good impact on industry recruiters.
In short: Academia:- Recommendation Letters. Industry: doesn't hurt to let your supervisor recommending you - if they do have account on LinkedIn :-)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Viewing LinkedIn recommendations may require to register and login. Just because you have a LinkedIn account, does not mean your employer has.
As a result, I would suggest to include the full text of the LinkedIn recommendation, not just a reference to it. But then it becomes not much different from just an ordinary recommendation that is just placed for public viewing on some website.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/11/26 | 590 | 2,472 | <issue_start>username_0: A professor once said to me: ***publication is about intelligent copy paste from one field to another***. His claims were right in a sense that he knew what results already exist in one field and apply it to the other non-mature yet field. Ofcourse he didn't mean a literal copying.
>
> If you are working in a cut-edge research (a new obscure area) and
> already familiar with another stable mature-enough area, is utilizing
> one's techniques to the other is a good approach for making
> contributions to the field?
>
>
>
is it count as a *good* contribution?
is it common in Academia? (specifically for Computer Science field)<issue_comment>username_1: Computer Science has many subfields, I remember that there was a running gag in NLP that people just took algorithms from the 1980's and pushed papers out like a treadmill.
Other fields like Statistical Machine Learning has a more math oriented approach and you do have to come up with novel stuff most of the time.
However, when you do interdisciplinary research, it is very often that many good techniques just don't get tested because many people do not know how to use them, or do not have the time to understand them very well.
But to answer your question, I think is a pretty valid practice, very good researchers have great papers where what they did was basically apply a widely known math tool to a novel problem that few people were working on.
An example that comes to mind is how Factor Analysis, a widely known CS method (1993) was just applied in 2007 for the problem of discovering Connections in Gene Networks, not only that, people were using linear regression on that just 10 years ago.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: What is important in each scientific work is that it adds to the knowledge that already exists, i.e. there needs to be a new element. Applying a known method from another field into a new field, if this has not already been done before, can be a valid new element. In my view, this is a good contribution. Also, this happens quite a lot in research in general. For example, copula's where very populor already in Financial modelling, but only recently got attention for spatial interpolation.
People who come up with radically new ideas, e.g. Einstein, are very rare. Most of us researchers can be happy to add our little addition to the large pool of knowledge, mainly building on existing material.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/11/26 | 1,488 | 6,410 | <issue_start>username_0: I have been in my current teaching/research position for 4 years. I have just been informed that my contract is research only. I think technically this means I don't have to be teaching. My School and HR want to issue a new contract (which I am sure will take months/years). I would prefer to be research only. I think if there was a screw up and I was listed as teaching only, getting moved to teaching/research would be a real fight with HR. Do I put up a fight about the change? To what extent do contracts matter?
**EDIT:** I took the job with the expectation of doing both teaching and research. I have had a standard teaching load consistent with other new hires on teaching/research contracts. I have been under the impression that I have to teach as part of my job. The contract doesn't say anything about teaching (in fact it says little about specific job duties). This didn't strike me as odd when I signed the contract. Now on an unrelated issue I have learned that this is odd and means I do not have to teach. The university would like to modify my contract to include teaching duties (which I am already doing and am happy doing).<issue_comment>username_1: This sounds like a potential big screw up. If your contract says one thing and you were promise another, you should put up a fight. Certainly, put up the fight before signing anything.
Contracts matter when someone tries to get you to do something you would rather not do. If you don't want a heavy teaching loads, then your research-only contract would help you avoid that. If you don't have such a contract, then you've lost your leverage.
Informal agreements do not stand the test of time, especially if there is a contradictory written agreement (signed by you).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: **Yes, contracts matter**, as they define the legal obligations between you and your employer. Note that it is not the contract only, but also the legal framework on which it is built (laws and decrees directly applicable to your situation). But, you have correctly identified the correct question to ask: **even if the law is on your side, is it worth picking this fight? You can only answer by a careful analysis of risks and benefits**. I list a few ideas below…
---
>
> *I have just been informed that my contract is research only.*
>
>
>
Haven't you been handed your contract when you signed it? If not, that's a serious misconduct on their part and gives you leverage you can use.
>
> *I think technically this means I don't have to be teaching*
>
>
>
This probably depends on the exact details of the contract, which we don't know. Read it and have it read by a lawyer, or at least a union representative or counselor.
>
> *Do I put up a fight about the change? To what extent do contracts matter?*
>
>
>
What is missing most importantly here is your current relationship with your hierarchy (department chair, dean, whatever) and what is their position/wishes on this issue. **Standing up to the bureaucrats is one thing**, and while you may not get into their good graces, it can be a fight worth fighting. **Standing up to your department chair can open a whole new can of worms**.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: If I am understanding your situation correctly, when you were hired you had a certain understanding with your department and university about your duties, which included both teaching and research. Since you don't say otherwise, it sounds like there are "standard" such duties in your department. Also there was a standard contract, and by some strange mistake you were given and signed a different, nonstandard contract. After four years of fulfilling your standard duties, the nonstandard contract has been brought to your attention. Do I have all that right?
Now you are asking whether you should "put up a fight" about the fixing the mistaken contract. If your question is a legal one, of course get a lawyer who is an expert in the specifics of your situation.
But are you really contemplating fighting against what you verbally agreed to when you took the job and the job you have been actually doing for the last four years because a contract you signed says otherwise and the difference may work out in your favor? To me that sounds like horrible behavior. If your bank had noticed after four years that they had mistakenly added a zero to your account balance, would you also fight the correction of the error? Do you not have any ethical qualms about this?
As a justification you say that you wonder that if the situation were essentially reversed, correcting the oversight would be "a real fight with HR". First of all: is this guess grounded in any kind of history with the HR department at your university? Have they in fact been difficult with you in the past? If not it seems like you are simply assuming bad faith. Here's what *I think* would happen if you discovered your contract was all teaching and no research and tried to change it: there would be plenty of red tape, the entire process would take an order of magnitude longer than you felt that it reasonably should and would occupy too much of your time, but the final outcome would not really be in doubt due to the essential goodwill of the various parties, including people like your department chair/head who would come out on your behalf.
Aside from being ethically highly suspect, a decision to fight the change of your contract is likely to earn you the ill will of HR and other administration in your university and -- probably more importantly -- of the department chair/head and other faculty members. You are contemplating not doing your share of the departmental work because of some technicality that you wonder whether you might be able to get away with. To me that sounds like you are contemplating whether to reserve the right to try to screw over your colleagues at some later time. Unless that is your actual goal, I would steer well clear of this.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I agree with "This sounds like a potential big screw up. If your contract says one thing and you were promise another, you should put up a fight. Certainly, put up the fight before signing anything." It never works out when you don't put up a fight. At the end of the day, whoever said that they need to give you a new contract, is correct.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/11/26 | 14,694 | 59,280 | <issue_start>username_0: I was recently asked to review for an [MDPI](http://www.mdpi.com/) open access journal. Is this a reputable publishing company? Their website suggests that they are 15 years old, and only do open-access publishing. The journal has a 3-year impact factor of around 2, which is not unreasonable for my field.<issue_comment>username_1: Based on the amount of spam that I receive from them (mostly calls for papers in special issues), the fact that their automated emails do not feature a “unsubscribe me” link, and the fact that I did not manage to be removed from their lists after several complaints, I would say that **they are not a respectable publisher**.
I don't know how long they have been around, but most of their journals in my field (chemistry) were very recently created: see [there](http://www.mdpi.com/about/journals) for a full list, which you can sort by journal creation date. Their older journal, *Molecules*, has a less-than-stellar impact factor of 2.4. Its editorial board, apart from the occasional celebrity or two, is unremarkable.
As a conclusion: I think they surf on the popularity of open access journals, but I don't consider them serious players.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_2: The peer review process generally differs between predatory and non predatory journals.
* Given that they have solicited a review from you is a positive sign.
* If you don't know the authors and the work before hand, then that is
another positive sign.
* If the article you are reviewing is good, then that would be a third
positive sign.
* Finally, if you make comments in your review and the authors address
them in the published version, that would be a final positive sign.
If on the other hand you know the authors and work, it is crappy, and the comments are ignored, that would be a bad sign.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: In my **very personal opinion** MDPI is an reputable publisher, but their journals are not first-class. I did a review for them once, and the peer review process was smooth. Also, I knew the field of the reviewed paper very well, so I guess they selected me as a reviewer carefully. But I really can speak only for one of their journals.
On the other hand, I won't publish in their journals since they charge quite a bit for the open access, and there are other options in my field which are free for authors and subscribers. Also I don't like to be spammed with their "newsletters".
**Added:** I have recently seen [this post](http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/12/17/instead-of-a-peer-review-reviewer-sends-warning-to-authors/) reporting a problematic peer-review case with an MDPI journal. This lets me doubt, if my initial judgement was right. I suspect, it might depend on the journal.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: About a year ago, I was asked to become editor-in-chief for one of their journals. I asked myself the same question. After doing some background research, I came to the conclusion that MDPI was, albeit rather "young", a reputable publisher.
I have worked with them for a little while now and have just started as editor-in-chief on another journal under MDPI with a specific focus on my area of research. My interaction with the editorial manager is very efficient. Surely, we will not compete with Nature and Science for high profile manuscripts, but I am absolutely convinced that both journals will do well with high quality papers and manuscripts.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Having more than 10% of your journals in ISI is more than an achievement. Most open-access journals don't even care because it is impossible to them. I think it is wrong to take open-access as fake or low quality, traditional journals are also becoming open-access and there are very serious open-access journals like PLOS. MDPI journals fall short compared to PLOS but they are respectable and are building their reputation. Charges are proportional to the journal reputation and most times can be waived if the author makes its case of lack of funding and it is completely independent of the review process.
The recent overview of the impact factors for various journals in MDPI: [impact factors](http://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/1335) , show that there is significant credible scientific scholarship being disseminated. (eg. 'Catalysts' 3.4, 'Energies' 2.6, 'Entropy' 2.3). As of 2017, 'IEEE Access' has an impact factor of 3.5, [impact factor on front page](http://ieeeaccess.ieee.org/) and its reputation is accepted and acknowledged.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I recently reviewed a review article about a specific disease for an MDPI journal. I did not know the authors, who were from an institution in China. I was absolutely an appropriate reviewer, as most of my publications in the last 8 years or so are on the same disease.
I won't say that the article was great, but it did carefully cover the topics well and pulled in some of the current challenges. The journal and authors were certainly responsive to review comments and efficient in processing them.
In summary, everything about the process indicated that MDPI is acting like a reputable journal--making a real effort to do good work and provide a venue. What I hope new journals can do is build a good set of publications and solid review process that is perhaps less subject to some of the biases in big-name established journals. Bias, for example that lets a big name in the field get by with an easy review, but is unreasonable or simply rejects new players in a field.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_7: I think that there is no definitive answer to this question.
I have recently published in a MDPI Journal (Materials) and **my personal experiences** with the journal were okay:
The review times were short and the reviewers' comments were in no case different from other journals I previously published in. Communication with the editorial office went smoothly and without further complications. The editors of the special issue I published in are were well known in my field and reputable.
Unfortunately, since my paper was published, I am bombarded with spam mails. I don't want to speculate if this has to do with MDPI or could be a general problem of open-access.
What I have heard from others and read on the internet, however, differs greatly from my personal experience. From all of this, I personally got the feeling, that it is more about the individual journals and less about MDPI itself.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: MDPI is an academic publisher with a relatively unique model (among major publishers) that fits a specific need in the marketplace. (Full disclosure - I have mid-authored several papers that ended up in MDPI journals, although I won't submit there)
That need is volume. There are several countries which disproportionately weight volume of publications for promotion and funding. The large majority of MDPI papers are published from these countries. MDPI publishes quickly, with a very small minimum publishable unit, and reasonable apcs.
As you can imagine, the quality is overall poor. However, they do peer review, and at least attempt to avoid publishing complete garbage (there are highly reputable journals which aren't any better at keeping out utter nonsense PNAS I see you over there). The editorial staff isn't strong scientifically but do a good job of moving manuscripts through (they are **very** author friendly). Many of the journals are indexed, but I don't think I've ever cited anything from a MDPI journal - not because I won't or can't, just because there's nothing worth citing in my field.
Should you publish there? Well, if you're looking for funding from the NIH your biosketch is limited to a handful of papers, which means publishing a bunch of MDPI papers is pretty useless for you. If you included an MDPI paper in your biosketch it probably would hurt your investigator score. Mostly I see people dump dead projects into MDPI journals so students can get some publication. If you're in one of the funding systems where a large volume of papers is good for your career, go nuts. If you have actually good science you think other people will want to read, you can and should send it to better journals where it will be better peer reviewed.
Also the comments on the other answer about getting spammed with rfcs and review or editorial requests once you're in their system is spot on. I ended up just making it a spam filter problem cause I kept getting added to journals (most of which I could contribute nothing to because they're like oil exploration or something that's entirely out of my field).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_9: **tl; dr: probably reputable, but they are controversial, and a significant number of academics don't like MDPI**.
I used to work in publishing so this answer cuts much closer to the publisher's world than the academic one. It's also going to be very long, so I'm splitting it into sections.
**Size**: MDPI has grown very large. It's approximately the fifth largest publisher in the world by paper volume, publishing >100k papers a year. It's still growing very quickly and might have overtaken Taylor & Francis at this point. This number is large enough that it's improbable they are all bad papers based only on number. E.g. for comparison OMICS, which is much more commonly regarded as disreputable, is not nearly the size of MDPI. How did MDPI grow so fast? The main reason appears to be ...
**Review time**: MDPI claims a median time from submission to publication of [only 39 days](https://res.mdpi.com/data/2019_web.pdf). From the perspective of other publishers this time is absurdly fast, in fact many publishers won't even calculate this number because the time taken for peer review is not something that's under their control. MDPI got this fast by accelerating their production time to nearly zero (more on this later), and by attempting to control the time taken for peer review anyway. From my conversations with an MDPI employee & by looking at the blogosphere of academics, they appear to do this by:
1. Requesting reviews very quickly. When reviewing for MDPI you could be asked for a review in 7(!) days. This doesn't mean they are compromising on review quality however: after all, most students will always submit their assignments just before the deadline, and most reviewers will do the same with their reviews. In other words, the request effectively says "are you free to give a quick review? If not, we'll ask someone else." MDPI are able to ask this question because their reviewers are invited by the editorial staff, not editorial board members. Full-time editorial staff can do things like react instantly when a review is submitted, or invite new reviewers the moment one declines. MDPI also have a staggering number of editorial staff per journal - I'm told in the vicinity of ~30 for a journal that publishes ~3000 articles per year - to provide 24-hour coverage. Adding fuel to the fire is that the editorial staff will usually [hold advanced degrees](https://mdpisingapore.teamtailor.com/jobs) in the field of the journal. See also the review process bullet point below.
2. Authors are also requested to revise their articles quickly. Their editorial staff tailors the amount of revision time to the difficulty of revisions requested. They can do this because they usually hold advanced degrees in the field of the journal. The time given to revise can be as short as 2 (!) days, although it can also be significantly longer if new experiments are requested.
3. Finally, they accelerated their production time to nearly zero - taking only a few days from acceptance to uploading XML files online. This timetable is crazy; for comparison at other publishers I worked at, the target is 25 working days. The only way to get it to go faster is by having more manpower, which MDPI appears to have done - each journal also has hundreds of production staff that literally start working on the paper the instant it arrives on their desk. The MDPI employee who told me the above claimed MDPI has >10,000 employees. This doesn't match their [history page](https://www.mdpi.com/about/history), implying that most of these >10,000 employees are freelance and/or part-time, which makes sense given that the workload in journal publishing ebbs and flows.
Their astonishing speed does mean they can claim a legitimate competitive advantage over other publishers. It also means that if you submit/review/edit for MDPI, you can expect very fast response times. It's fairly common on Academia.SE to get questions about how long peer review seem to take at some journals ([example](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/163445/3-weeks-with-required-reviews-completed)). The way MDPI is set up means this will never happen to them.
Summary of this section: I don't see any evidence to think MDPI compromised their peer review process to achieve this speed. They're trying to work around the process in ways that defy industrial standards, but can conceivably work.
**Review process**: The MDPI employee I talked to said the typical review process goes like this:
1. Paper is submitted.
2. Paper is shown to an editorial board member specializing in the field of the paper (remember the journal staff have advanced degrees), who makes the decision whether to send it for peer review. If the decision is no, desk reject.
3. The journal staff invites reviewers (remember the journal staff have advanced degrees).
4. Editorial board member makes the decision based on reviews received.
The argument for doing it this way is that MDPI wants to reduce the workload of their editorial board members as much as possible. To do #2 and #3, they hire at advanced level. Other publishers I worked at tended to leave #2 to the editor-in-chief and #3 to the editorial board member assigned to the paper.
This kind of arrangement definitely cuts the time taken for peer review, but the impact on review quality is hard to quantify. I *want* to think it isn't worse (because I've done it before and the reviews received didn't seem worse), but some academics will be [critical](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/107618/are-editors-ok-if-the-publisher-invites-reviewers).
This also explains why MDPI's editorial boards often have hundreds of people without an editor-in-chief, and can also explain why people seem to have divergent experiences with MDPI's peer review process (because if my experiences elsewhere are anything to go by, journal staff are more variable than editorial board members).
Summary of this section: I don't see anything organically wrong with how MDPI do their peer review. At least, their intentions are benign. However, some people will object to the editorial board not handling everything ([example](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/52007/how-much-does-it-cost-the-publisher-to-publish-an-academic-article/109076#comment285544_109076)).
**Production process**: Same as standard, except they engage [advanced degree holders](https://mdpisingapore.teamtailor.com/jobs/2035031-english-editor) in the relevant field to do copyediting. This is expensive, but doable; many professional copyediting companies offer this. From my conversation with the MDPI employee, I know they are outsourcing their copyediting a lot (apparently there was even one editorial board member who wanted to be involved with copyediting). I don't know if they are engaging these copyediting companies, however.
**Article processing charges**: MDPI charges about 1000-2000 Swiss Francs per article. Relatively speaking this is somewhat lower than average among big publishers.
They are rather open about [how they spend the APC](https://www.mdpi.com/about/apc). Based on my knowledge of publication fees, their numbers are believable: there are fixed costs that cannot change, but journals that charge less also get less of a marketing budget, and they also have less leeway to provide discounts/waivers. The numbers indicate that the less expensive journals are making a net loss per paper, and the more expensive journals are subsidizing the less expensive ones - which is also my experience. Production costs are a bit higher than they have to be, but given that they're hiring an army of advanced degree holders, it's not surprising.
For the people who associate "predatory/disreputable" with "high profit margin", the numbers indicate their profit margin is 1-6% per article, which is definitely on the low side.
**Special issues**: the MDPI employee I talked to appeared to have a different conception of "special issue" than the common one, which is an extra "special issue" of a subscription-based journal with a set number of issues per year. MDPI's special issues simply appear to be collections of papers on that topic with an invited guest editor. The special issues are often very generic (e.g. this special issue with theme ["Focus on Dark Matter"](https://www.mdpi.com/journal/universe/special_issues/focus_dark_matter) could very well be its own journal, and [indeed is](https://www.journals.elsevier.com/physics-of-the-dark-universe/)).
From my perspective the special issues are simply a way to get more academics to collaborate with MDPI.
**Publishing metrics**: MDPI does well on many of the standard metrics publishers look at. All numbers in this section are from [this source](https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/08/10/guest-post-mdpis-remarkable-growth/).
* Overall rejection rate of 60%, which is not high but also not low.
* Their citability is improving. "In 2016, only 27 of its 169 titles were indexed on SCIE (Science Citation Index of Web of Science) and were on track to get an Impact Factor. By 2019, its leading journals were generally as citable as the average articles in the fields where they compete (more on that below). In summer 2020, 71 of MDPI’s 250 titles had an Impact Factor." (For those unfamiliar with this, to get an impact factor the journal needs to be indexed by the Science Citation Index, which is very hard; clearing this hurdle puts any new journal on very solid footing to be self-sustaining.)
* "All ten titles improved their citability for content published in the same year (Immediacy Index) from 2015-19, and eight of them improved their citability from 2018 to 2019. Six of the titles had a better Immediacy Index in 2019 in their leading research category than articles of other journals, and two of them had a better Immediacy Index than articles of the selective ERA 2018 journals (25,017 journals in the Excellence in Research for Australia 2018 journal list)." (Immediacy Index here is how often the articles in the journal are cited in the same year they are published)
* They don't have a higher retraction rate than the rest of the industry. "[MDPI] reported 19 retractions in 2019, equivalent to 0.5 retractions per 1,000 papers (assuming that retractions refer to year t-2). As a point of contrast, I could locate 352 papers on Elsevier's ScienceDirect that included the phrase 'this article has been retracted' in 2019, implying 0.5 retractions per 1,000 papers (again, assuming that retractions refer to year t-2)."
* They are not reliant on either a single country or a single subject area (see Fig. 6 & 7 of source).
Summary: from other publishers' point of view, as long as one neglects the name, MDPI is a healthy publisher, maybe even one to be envied.
**Controversies**: MDPI is controversial primarily because <NAME> blacklisted them back in 2013. Although they were removed in 2015 after appeal, Beall still called them a "borderline case". I wrote more about Beall's list in [this answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23719/why-do-open-access-consortia-affiliate-themselves-with-questionable-publishers/115704#115704); the brief summary is that it's not a given that any unbiased observer will agree with Beall's assessment.
One can still look at the controversies themselves on [MDPI's Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI#Controversies). In general it seems like MDPI have increased their publication standards and have gotten less controversial since 2013. Post 2015, the only really controversial incident one could associate with predatory publishing is the [2018 resignation of several editorial board members](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/open-access-editors-resign-after-alleged-pressure-publish-mediocre-papers). Examining this in more detail the board members argue they were being pressured to accept mediocre papers. However, from the article it's clear that the argument is a well-known one in publishing, and has to do with whether one should demand novelty in articles. I wrote as much in the answer above:
>
> Many OA journals do indeed review lightly. For example I once attended a talk by a Springer spokesperson who talked about a journal which reviews for correctness, not novelty (can't find the journal now, but [PLOS ONE has the same policy](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information)). Viewed one way this is laudatory - it makes peer review less random by eliminating one completely subjective facet! Viewed another way, this is terrible - it makes it seem as though the journal will publish old results known for hundreds of years as long as the author is willing to pay. Which is closer to the truth? You'll have to come to your own conclusions.
>
>
>
If you believe that this style of reviewing is terrible, as the *Nutrients* editors apparently did, then you'll conclude MDPI is predatory. If you take the other view that this style of reviewing is laudatory, you'd ignore the entire incident as much ado over nothing. It's not clear-cut; some academics have even published [an article](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11017-012-9233-1) defending another journal that outright didn't conduct peer review.
Aside from the above there is also this:
>
> <NAME> questioned the quality of MDPI's peer review based on his experiences as a reviewer for the publisher; he wrote that he was only given one week to review a paper, that he recommended rejection, that the paper was then simply published without further comment, and that he never was in contact with any editor.
>
>
>
But this also doesn't look like very problematic, because [editors can choose to accept a paper that reviewers recommend reject](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/32397/why-do-editors-sometimes-accept-a-paper-even-if-a-reviewer-recommends-rejection), the one week review time is part of MDPI's standard operating procedure, and given that the journal staff are inviting peer reviewers, it's not surprising that <NAME> was never in contact with a member of the editorial board.
There doesn't seem like much else in the controversies section post-2015, so I conclude by *argumentum ex silencio* that there is no smoking gun that they're disreputable. At least, they've raised their standards since Beall blacklisted them in 2013.
**Email spam**: This is perhaps the most annoying thing about MDPI. Submit or review a paper and they send you all sorts of emails about X or Y, some of which there is no realistic chance you'll be interested. Odds are this contributed to MDPI's growth actually, simply because it's how spam works.
If you believe that only disreputable publishers spam, then MDPI are clearly disreputable. On the other hand if you believe that "disreputable" = "bad peer review", then their spamming doesn't seem related. At least they seem to [respect requests to unsub](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5466/is-mdpi-a-reputable-academic-publisher#comment440246_163449) (but see lighthouse keeper's comments below).
**Finally**: Many people approve of MDPI - their sheer size is an indication. They have hundreds of thousands of authors, and tens of thousands of editors. Equally, many people disapprove. I have no numbers for this, but [here](https://twitter.com/dutchscientist/status/1296898280606097410) [are](https://twitter.com/slavov_n/status/1291695852722040832) [some](https://twitter.com/udemsar/status/1191390977044471810) [examples](https://www.researchgate.net/post/Im_gonna_ask_whether_publishing_in_MDPI_journals_is_good_or_more_specifically_how_is_publishing_in_International_Journal_of_Molecular_Sciences). Therefore however one looks at it, MDPI is controversial. You might want to make up your own mind on them.
For further information I recommend [these](https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/08/10/guest-post-mdpis-remarkable-growth/) [three](https://danbrockington.com/2019/12/04/an-open-letter-to-mdpi-publishing/) [articles](https://danbrockington.com/2020/07/23/mdpi-journals-2015-to-2019/).
**Update**: a former colleague of mine recently joined MDPI. From conversation with her, there's no question that MDPI are seriously reviewing all papers that are submitted. In fact they might have gone overboard, because they've implemented strict guidelines for editors when inviting reviewers. Some, such as "you must have at least three reviewers per paper", are quite normal. Others are more controversial: "your reviewer must have h-index at least 5", or "your reviewer must be at least an associate professor", or even "your reviewers must be from different countries - and some countries are blacklisted". (MDPI are clearly contributing to the discrepancy for many countries in [number of papers submitted and number of papers reviewed](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/164352/is-it-common-for-chinese-nationals-to-turn-down-review-requests).)
My former colleague tells me that it is a hassle to register new reviewers, because the editorial management system they use requires lots of things such as the reviewer's research interests, their institutional webpage, an institutional email address (generic ones like gmail are not permitted) and so on. My colleague further says that this is unrewarding because there're apparently a lot of academics who 1) don't believe in author-pays open access, or 2) believe MDPI is predatory. Furthermore, management keeps a close eye on what their editors are doing: they are expected to write daily (!) reports about their progress. My colleague has more than 10 years of experience in journal publishing, but she says she's still very stressed by the work.
I think this explains why MDPI seems to send spam reviewer invitations - when the editors are stressed and busy, when they spend a couple of hours researching new reviewers who all decline, and they are struggling to meet their daily targets, then the easiest thing to do is to invite previous reviewers regardless of whether the research interests match. However, I'm also told that MDPI have protocols about this: you cannot invite someone who has been invited in the previous month, for example, and the data of who has been invited is stored in a common database. In other words, it's very possible someone else in the company has already invited the person you want.
In conclusion, I think MDPI are aware of the problem and taking steps to fix them. Their methods result in less flexibility for their editors (my colleague cited this as a major drawback of working at MDPI), but I don't see any other realistic alternative. If they want to address the problem, then they have to do something like this. At least with these protocols in place, the next time there is a peer review failure (and those are virtually inevitable) they'll be able to defend their work ([recent example](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/review_report) when one of their journals accepted a paper that claimed COVID vaccines lacked clear benefit).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_10: A lot of papers in my field are published in MDPI journals (higher ranking ones like Sensors and Materials). Most editors of those journals are respected and renowned experts.
I have published there myself, and as other have stated, the process was smooth and in many aspects very much like with other, more "reputable" journals. There were several rounds of peer review with competent and constructive feedback from the reviewers. The whole process is just noticeably faster than with most other journals I have submitted to, which - considering that the review process is not of bad quality - is in my eyes a good thing.
And yes, you do receive quite some (unsolicited) email from them, **but** in contrast to emails I receive from what I would definitely call disreputable journals,
* the emails are always correctly adressed to me, my full name and correct title
* they are always from journals within the MDPI range that fit my expertise
* they often include an offer to publish for less than the normal open access fees and at times even an offer to completely waive the open access fee for a speciall issue or similar
So, from my experience, and the experience of others in my field, MDPI is not a disreputable or predatory publisher, although some of their actions might rub some people the wrong way.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: In my humble opinion, and quite extensive experience in academia, MDPI is **not a reputable publisher**, in general, and on average, in the sense that:
* having papers in an MDPI journal does not strengthen one's CV (and tenure, and promotion cases, on average), and also
* publications in MDPI do not correlate high enough to papers that constitute important or even reputable scientific progress.
My opinion is based on the following data/information:
* I am not aware of any result of even slight importance or relevance to contemporary research in my field of study (STEM, basic research, mathematics) that appeared in an MDPI journal.
* I am not aware of any reputable academic in my community serving as an editor there.
* I have very bad experience with spam received from MDPI.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_9: I'm adding another answer because I recently decided to join MDPI, giving me an insider view. As of time of writing, I've been here three months. I won't edit my previous answer which was written from the outside, but I will refer to it.
**tl; dr: not predatory in the traditional definition of the word (i.e., does not conduct peer review and accepts everything). Potentially predatory if you use a different definition.**
**tl; dr #2: Most of the processes are fine, but the execution can be incompetent.**
I'll start by adding comments on statements in my previous answer, which was surprisingly accurate considering it was written from the outside, although some of its statements are wrong.
**Review process**: This is actually described on [MDPI's website](https://www.mdpi.com/editorial_process), which agrees with what I've seen from the inside. The traditional definition of "predatory" does not apply; we work very hard to adhere to the stated review process. This honestly seems obvious enough that I won't spend more time on it.
There *are* parts of the "standard operating procedure" that can be mildly discomfiting ([example](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/194125/when-multiple-editors-make-a-decision-on-a-paper-is-it-normal-to-not-reveal-the)), but nothing I have seen that would raise a red flag. This shouldn't be surprising, because there's a "science committee" made up of advanced degree holders doing repair work each time something goes wrong (and a lot of things have gone wrong in MDPI's past). These people then leave instructions to avoid the error happening again. The result is that there are noticeable scars at MDPI caused by previous errors. More on this later.
**Production process**: The production process moves very quickly. It's common for me to send an "accept" decision, and then be contacted by the production staff within a few hours. The names of the people who handle each step are listed. I Googled for a person doing copyediting and it seems they are a PhD student, so the statement in my other answer that MDPI outsources copyediting to advanced degree holders is partially correct (since PhD students are not yet advanced degree holders). However, I also met a MDPI English editor who says there are about 100 English editors worldwide, most of which are fresh graduates in non-technical fields, so the other answer is also partially wrong. Some papers are outsourced, some are not.
The English editors work at a rate of 40k words per day, which is shockingly fast, and implies they can't be doing much editing. However, it's not really feasible to do non-trivial edits without specialist knowledge anyway (see [example](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/15595/why-are-there-so-many-papers-written-in-bad-english/193457#193457) in another answer of mine) so I can't be too critical.
**Advanced degree holders**: My previous answer said that MDPI has 1) lots of advanced degree holders managing their journals, and 2) 24-hour coverage. Both these statements are incorrect. For the journals I handle, the great bulk of the editorial staff are in the East Asian timezone. We have night shifts, but not 24-hour coverage. Most of the other staff also use Mr. or Mrs./Ms. as their salutations, implying they do not have PhDs, and interacting with them it's clear that many (most?) of them don't have significant expertise in the field of the journal - one person told me they studied postgraduate English, while others are not very confident answering questions like "is this paper a review or a research article?" even though it's apparent from reading the introduction. However, several of my colleagues are passionate, conscientious, and do surprisingly well even without subject knowledge. Recently they've started asking me if so-and-so paper is worth sending out for review, and every time they do so, 1) I can see why they are concerned the paper might be a crank paper and 2) they research the authors' background, affiliation, list of publications. It's impressive.
Also, although it's not the case that every journal staff has an advanced degree, it is true that there are many advanced degree holders in the company handling papers. Most of these are PhD holders, with some MSc holders as well. I just don't know what proportion. It seems like in my local office the proportion is more than 50%, but most of us are handling different journals.
As for why everyone is in the East Asian timezone: I'm not in HR, but I was told that Americans are expensive, don't work very hard, and repeatedly say X cannot be done when it can. Journals assigned to them would consistently struggle. Apparently MDPI used to have an office in the US, but closed it as a result (there is an office in Canada, however). South Americans are allegedly even worse. East Asians on the other hand are willing to work on weekends, providing 7-day coverage for the journal (although during the weekends coverage is still weaker since fewer people are working). I dislike the stereotyping, but I can appreciate the difficulty with getting good employees. More on this later.
(East Asian does not mean Chinese - MDPI has offices in [Japan, Thailand, and Singapore](https://www.mdpi.com/about/contact).)
---
Now to the new stuff: one way MDPI could be predatory is that MDPI compromised its peer review process somewhere. However, I don't see evidence for that.
**Speed**: MDPI is very fast. This is evident from how they measure the MPT (median publication time). With the exception of IEEE Access, MDPI is [comfortably faster](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-022-04586-1) than all other major publishers (Fig 3 of link). MPT figures heavily in the leadership's thinking, with some justification, since it's apparently a major reason (Fig 4 of same link) why some researchers choose to publish with MDPI.
MDPI is this fast because reviews are requested quickly, because the many full-time editors means the journal office monitors every submission very closely, and because of certain time-saving techniques. I'll address the requested review times first. As mentioned in my other answer, the standard is to ask for reviews in 10 days. Here my other answer is right in that MDPI editors generally think this is OK and reviewers should decline to review if they cannot make the deadline. It's a view I've come around to, because:
* [Research indicates that setting shorter review deadlines does not decrease review quality](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.28.3.169). This meshes with [the reviews I've seen personally at MDPI](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/192900/).
* [Research also indicates the time taken to actually conduct a review is a few hours to a day.](https://www.stm-assoc.org/2012_12_11_STM_Report_2012.pdf) It might take 10+ days to find the time to review, but the review itself does not take 10+ days.
* If we get enough reviews, it's common to ask other agreed reviewers if they want to cancel their reviews. Most of the time, these other reviewers will not have started their reviews (even if it's due tomorrow) and they are OK with cancelling. This meshes with what I've seen at other publishers. Most students will submit their assignments just before the deadline, and most reviewers will also submit their reviews just before the deadline.
* Some reviewers will feel (with some justification) they are being abused, and MDPI expects them to drop everything to review at once for them. If so, they should decline. There is no obligation or expectation to review. If one is not available to do a quick review, decline.
What about equally fast deadlines for authors to submit revisions? This is actually a mirage, since if the authors ask for more time we routinely grant it. It's just a matter of asking for it. (To some extent this also applies for reviewers, although if we get enough reviews we will cancel the late review and move on with the paper.)
As for time-saving processes, there are unsettling things that MDPI will do in the quest to reduce MPT. Examples:
* We *will* make decisions without waiting the go-ahead from the editorial board, with the intention to backtrack if the editorial board takes an unexpected position. For example, after two revise reviews are submitted, it's possible we will send a revise decision *while simultaneously* asking the editorial board member for a decision. I've yet to see what happens if the editorial board member says "reject". I imagine we retract the decision and send apologies to the authors.
* In the same vein, we will invite reviewers before the editorial board member does the pre-check, with the assumption that editorial board member will approve the paper for review.
* We also send reviews to the authors/EBMs while there are still reviews promised and ask them for a revision/decision. I had one author reply with the very natural question: "what am I supposed to do if the third review contradicts one of the first two reviews?". From what I've seen, the hope is to either cancel the missing reviews, or to send the review to the authors when it arrives (+ change the revision due date if the authors ask for it).
The time saving from these techniques can be substantial. I just saved four days on one of my papers this way.
Although these things can be unsettling, none of these things actually compromise the quality of peer review. We are very good at predicting Editorial Board decisions. As it turns out, Editorial Board decisions are very predictable if you read the reviews, which we definitely do. Hell, when the reviewer says cite X paper, we check that paper to see if X paper is written by the reviewer (we send requests for more detailed reviews if the answer is "yes").
**Accuracy**: I use this term to describe reaching the appropriate reviewers for the paper.
Here MDPI leaves a lot to be desired. One example I encountered while trawling the SuSy database was a physicist being invited to review a *Cancers* paper. That probably happened because the physicist had *[Bremsstrahlung](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung)* listed as a keyword in their profile (*Bremsstrahlung* is a physical process where a charged particle emits electromagnetic radiation such as X-rays). Although this explains why the invitation was sent, it doesn't excuse it. The person who sent the invitation ought to have realized the reviewer was inappropriate, but they sent the invitation anyway. It's troubling.
The scale of the problem seems pretty severe. While searching through the profiles in SuSy it's not uncommon to encounter reviewers who received 5+ out-of-expertise papers in a row, not to mention distressing messages from academics about the never-ending spam they're getting. I've also heard colleagues say their 25% "out of expertise" rate is OK, when it is many times worse than the rate [other editors get][9].
One thing I will point out is that it's not really fair to criticize the entire journal. An analogy is with banks. Here the bank (publisher) might have several branches (journals), each of which might have several tellers (journal staff). Getting a bad teller does not imply everyone other teller at the branch is bad, and a bad branch does not imply every other branch is bad. For big journals, there will be multiple editors assigned and any of them can send the bad invitation (we do not discuss with each other before sending the invitation). The invitation email does name the person who's sending it. If one is going to criticize, that is the person to direct it at, not the journal.
Another thing I will point out is that no matter how low you get the "out of expertise" rate, as long as it is not zero, you *will* occasionally reach someone who is inappropriate. That someone can easily get a worse impression of the problem than is actually there. The problem might be bad at MDPI, but it's not the case that MDPI spams random people hoping one of them will accept.\* In fact my guess is that most people have some idea what caused the bad reviewer invitation (e.g. being the fourth author on a paper, and the first author would indeed have been an appropriate reviewer).
This suggests that the "solution" is "hire better people". More on this later.
**Update**: recently there was an initiative to use an AI (as far as I can tell, based on [SPECTER](https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.07180)) to recommend reviewers. The AI appears to be fairly decent, although sometimes the recommended reviewers are only tangentially working on the paper's topic. Still, that's better than hitting completely unrelated reviewers. I don't know how widely-adopted the tool will be (I'm certainly using it liberally especially for papers I don't really understand), but if it is widely adopted, it should greatly reduce/eliminate this problem.
\*Most of the time. If one is sitting on 30 reviewers where most have declined saying they don't have time, then one might start getting desperate and spamming tangentially-related reviewers.
**Spam**: this is closely related to the above, since some people feel that review invitations that miss the mark qualify as spam. Here I'll deal with other kinds of invitations. Without question there's some level of spam going around, as well as some amount of anti-spam.
MDPI has strict policies on how often one can invite someone to review an article. SuSy will automatically stop reviewer invitations if the reviewer was invited within the past ~10? days (I don't know the exact time, but it's more than a week & less than two weeks). It is possible to override the block, but it takes advanced permissions (i.e., only a senior editor can do it). The official guidelines also say that if a reviewer declines because of lack of time, one should wait longer than two weeks before inviting them again.
The reviewer's activity is logged in SuSy (when they were invited, for which paper, did they actually review, how good was the review, etc.) and all that information is available to the next editor. Distressingly, some editors seem to use this information as a sign to send more invites. Like, if a reviewer reliably responds, then they would absolutely send that person more invitations as long as they have some reason to believe the reviewer's field is related. The upshot is that if you build a track record of writing good reviews for MDPI, people will notice and send you more reviews. Doing this is actually good for the editor on a personal level, since responsive reviewers drive down the MPT, which is a key performance indicator for editors. This is why I've heard conversations alluding to the "competition" between editors for good reviewers. I've even heard of editors who use an alarm clock to warn them (right down to the minute) when the cooldown is up, so they can invite the reviewer before anyone else can. If you reliably get one review request every two weeks from MDPI, you are such a reviewer.
I've yet to encounter editor invitations firsthand (as opposed to reviewer invitations), but I'm told there are two basic styles: either you choose a narrow topic and then find an editor, or you choose a broad topic and ask an editor to narrow it. The latter style can definitely feel like spam. However, I'm also told they are similar to reviewer invitations - there is a "cooldown" after the previous invitation when you cannot send new invitations to that person.
For Call for Papers, MDPI editors definitely try not to spam. I've attended training sessions where the trainer speaks about how to identify appropriate people. The methods (such as searching Web of Science with keywords, checking what papers are citing an on-topic paper, etc.) are fine, but as with reviewer invitations, are heavily dependent on the skill of the person applying the methods. Since many MDPI editors struggle with identifying appropriate reviewers, many MDPI editors also struggle with identifying appropriate people to invite.
Finally, I can say with some confidence that MDPI will stop spamming you if you request it. You need to say clearly you do not want to receive any more such emails, and then MDPI should block you. An example is this image. The person who wrote it is blocked not just by the journal in question, but publisher-wide. Only editors with advanced permissions can override the block. The caveat is that it still takes the person reading the request to implement the block. If they forget, are in a bad mood, don't know how to do it and doesn't ask, etc., then they might not do it.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ykhzD.png)
**Quality**: I use this word to mean "is the reviewer actually qualified to review the paper?". Here MDPI has some hard guidelines and some soft ones. Hard guidelines include "the reviewer must have a PhD". Soft guidelines I can't reveal, but suffice to say they're controversial.
These guidelines are the only real thing I dislike about MDPI. I disagree with the "reviewer must have PhD" guideline because I think senior PhD students ought to be able to review papers ([I'm not the only one who thinks so](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/191206/)). As for the soft guidelines, I actively hate several of them. It's especially silly because MDPI knows full-well the guidelines are controversial (that's why I'm barred from naming them), and yet they are there. I don't get it. If we're going to have a policy on who can review, we should have one that can be defended in public.
I'm told the reason why these guidelines exist is that there is a correlation between the data we look at and how comprehensive the submitted reviews are. Which doesn't change how it's gross discrimination. Again, I can't name what the soft guidelines are, but they make me want to tear my hair out.
Another possible interpretation is that MDPI is traumatized by the amount of controversies that have happened in the past, and are relying on these guidelines to avoid them in the future. Some signs of this can definitely be seen in the explanation given whenever the guidelines are changed. I have to admit they are helpful whenever something goes wrong. An example is in 2021, when the MDPI journal *Vaccines* published a paper claiming a lack of clear benefit in Covid vaccines. The media [got involved](https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-quit-journal-board-protesting-grossly-irresponsible-study-claiming-covid-19), and there was an investigation. When this happens, it is really helpful to be able to say that one reviewer for the article is a director of a research institute in Germany, as opposed to a PhD student at an Iranian university nobody has heard of. It might not be fair, but subconscious bias isn't fair.
A third possible interpretation (which I think has some degree of truth) is that MDPI management is aware their employees have invited unqualified reviewers in the past, and are taking action to stop that from happening again. Because many MDPI editors aren't very good, the guidelines need to be clear and unambiguous. As unfair as these guidelines are, they are clear and unambiguous, and if adhered to, they should exclude the worst mismatches.
Finally, one thing I like about the quality aspect is that we will check the review's contents. If a review is poor (for example, if it says nothing except for some English fixes or requests for references), then we will reject it and look for another review. This is quite costly, because inviting new reviewers increases the MPT, but we will do it.
**Controversies**: MDPI hasn't stopped attracting controversy. [This](https://predatoryreports.org/news/f/list-of-all-mdpi-predatory-publications) is the most recent controversy, which was widely discussed internally. Pretty much everyone I know independently decided to disregard it, albeit for different reasons. The one I subscribe to is that none of the three "problems" they cite are actually problems:
* [This](https://predatoryreports.org/news/f/is-mdpi-a-predatory-publisher?blogcategory=MDPI) is 1) plagiarized from Wikipedia, 2) quotes ChatGPT as evidence (???), 3) appears to equate success with being predatory, 4) appears to equate fast with being predatory (I wonder if the author realizes it's painfully easy to slow down - just sit on the paper for six months before working on it. If they genuinely think that's a good idea I dare them to print that on their blog.), and 5) alleges that MDPI articles cite themselves more, which is dealt with in the next bullet point.
* [This](https://predatoryreports.org/news/f/mdpi-self-citation-problem?blogcategory=MDPI) is the source for the claim that MDPI articles cite other MDPI articles more. The claim comes from an article with some serious issues (some of them are mentioned in the comments [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/173889/is-it-ethical-to-obliquely-cite-articles-published-by-a-predatory-publisher#comment468143_173889)), and the article is also under an expression of concern from the journal it's published in, which the blog authors are either unaware of or willfully ignoring.
* [This](https://predatoryreports.org/news/f/mdpi-peer-review-problem) is the only source that is potentially problematic. However, there are several reasons to not be overly concerned. First, [editors *can* accept a paper even if reviewers recommend reject](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/32397/why-do-editors-sometimes-accept-a-paper-even-if-a-reviewer-recommends-rejection). Second, MDPI publishes several hundred thousand articles a year, implying there are more than a million reviews. With this number of reviews, we should expect peer review failures, so a single incident is not enough to be concerning. I would be interested in statistics if whether MDPI experiences more peer review failures than other publishers, but it's not in the blog, and the only other source I'm aware of ([this](https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/08/10/guest-post-mdpis-remarkable-growth/), linked in my previous answer) indicates that MDPI doesn't have a higher retraction rate than its peers. Third, I have handled several articles where some reviewers recommended minor revisions and we rejected the article anyway, including those which are charging full APCs (i.e. APC is not waived), and I didn't experience any kind of pressure to accept those papers. Finally, I handled an article recently that received 2 minor revision and 2 reject reviews. The guest editor wanted to accept regardless (it led to [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/194125/when-multiple-editors-make-a-decision-on-a-paper-is-it-normal-to-not-reveal-the)), and I saw firsthand that MDPI's editorial management system stops me from accepting the article until the second editorial board member has given a decision. The setup is such that there can be no accident. One must get a second editorial board member to approve the decision before a paper with outstanding reject reviews can be accepted.
* One thing that can be said is that after a paper is accepted, the editorial board member or guest editor who made the decision is usually known. You can find them in the citation on the bottom left of the first page if you're viewing the PDF file, or on the left if you're viewing the webpage:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/F1QXA.png)
For this paper, <NAME> is the person who made the accept decision. If Sergey Gromov (the person who alleged the peer review failure in the bullet point above) talks to the listed Academic Editor and finds that the Academic Editor did not actually make an accept decision, he has a significantly more compelling case. However, I think it's more likely he'll get an explanation of why the paper was accepted anyway, invalidating his argument. (It's even possible the academic editor pre-empts the question by getting the journal staff to email the reviewer with their reasons to accept - happened to my paper.)
Another recent controversy was two of MDPI's biggest journals [getting delisted by Clarivate](https://www.science.org/content/article/fast-growing-open-access-journals-stripped-coveted-impact-factors). If you read the article, the reason was apparently the journal publishing content that is not related to its aims & scope. My reaction to this one was amusement, because it's a stupid way to get delisted and indicates an issue with MDPI's internal key performance indicators. However, publishing out-of-scope content does not indicate it wasn't peer reviewed properly. There is no evidence in the article for that. The news article quotes a lot of people who had doubts, but no evidence. If they actually come up with evidence that 1) there are a lot of papers published without proper peer review and 2) this happens at MDPI at a rate that is significantly higher than at other publishers (including non-OA ones), I'll reconsider.
(Incidentally MDPI is in the process of a major internal investigation in response to Clarivate's delisting. As I wrote above, there are a lot of advanced degree holders doing repair work each time something goes wrong.)
Finally one thing I want to address is [<NAME>'s claim that MDPI plagiarized his colleague's call for papers](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5466/is-mdpi-a-reputable-academic-publisher?noredirect=1&lq=1#comment304046_11859). Based on what I've seen, this is a believable claim, and it implies gross incompetence by the person who did it (more examples I'm aware of below). However, it's still not sufficient for me to be concerned. There are in the vicinity of 100,000 MDPI special issues. A single plagiarized call for papers is not on its own a sign of deep problems, any more than a single student caught cheating in an exam does not indicate there is mass cheating going on (or the entire cohort are cheaters, which is apparently how some people view MDPI).
**Other**: Sometimes MDPI editors will do painfully bad things. I saw one email chain where a reviewer answered the "did you detect plagiarism?" question in the review form with "yes", but didn't elaborate. The editor handling the paper wrote to the author with "the reviewer detected plagiarism, now you have to say where you plagiarized". Really?! Then there was another case where the [guidelines on MDPI's website](https://www.mdpi.com/about/article_types) says "[research articles have] a suggested minimum word count of 4000", and the paper had less than 2000 words. The editor wanted to tell a reviewer that the minimum word count is 4000, and enlist their help to find things for the author to add. Finally, I witnessed one person arguing that X is not a suitable editorial board member to handle Y paper, because Y is written by Russian authors and X has a Russian name (even though he's currently based in the UK). I don't want to know how X would react if he ever learns of that reason.
I don't know what to make of these incidents. They are of the gross incompetence kind that indicates the editors have no clue about academic norms. On the other hand, I have also had a frank discussion with an editor about a guest editor's decision. The paper in question had one reject review and one minor revision review, and the guest editor chose minor revision with some rather controversial reasoning based on the identity of the author. My colleague was troubled, but agreed with me that if we didn't trust the guest editor's judgment, we ought not to have invited them to guest edit in the first place. I take that to mean my colleague does care about doing the right thing.
**Conclusion**:
I don't see any evidence MDPI has compromised its peer review process. Some guidelines are annoying, some are unsettling, but (aside from the soft guidelines for who is an appropriate reviewer) they're all defensible. However, these processes place a lot of stress on individual editors, and we simply do not have enough skilled editors. This is exacerbated by the fact that there is a fairly high turnover rate (presumably because of the stress - many of my colleagues have been in publishing for less than 2 years). My colleagues are well-intentioned people, but sometimes they just lack the necessary expertise. This is, I think, the root cause of most of the "disreputableness" of MDPI.
This suggests the solution is "hire better editors", which would be great but for one thing: it's not easy to find people with the skill set. Management tries (c.f. the [advertisement](https://mdpisingapore.teamtailor.com/jobs) linked in my previous answer), but it's one thing to advertise for PhD holders and another to actually get them. There are very few people with PhDs *and* editorial experience considering a job in publishing.
This means that if you hold an advanced degree, are interested in a job in publishing, and are based in (or are willing to relocate to) a city in which MDPI has an office, odds are MDPI will be happy to hire you. Editorial experience is an advantage but not required. If anyone reading this is interested, you can let me know and I will refer you.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/11/26 | 535 | 2,171 | <issue_start>username_0: I am writing a paper with a co-author. I need to explain some terms in the preliminaries section. I am copying the definitions from my co-authors previous paper. Afterwards, I want to include the paper into my thesis. If I use the same definitions word for word in my thesis, would that be considered plagiarism?<issue_comment>username_1: You could take two approaches:
* Modify the text slightly, rewording, to make it different.
* or, easier, just refer to the other paper, i.e. "I use the definitions of Doe (2011), which for convienience I repeat:".
In that way it is not plagiarism.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You need to clearly reference the definitions.
For example, **Definition 1 [paper\_reference]:** or **Definition 1 ( as in [paper\_reference] ) :**
By this, it is clearly your are copying the definition of the other paper..
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: 1. If you are going to use their definitions verbatim, then use quotes, or otherwise make it very clear that the words are not your own.
2. In any case, cite the sources.
If you use other peoples' words in your thesis, without making it very clear that they *are* other peoples' words, then yes, you would be committing plagiarism.
Granted, this case would not be extreme, compared with say, including a chapter from someone else's thesis in your own, but it does meet the definition. Given that many universities have adopted draconian anti-plagiarism policies in recent years, you should be very careful to avoid even minor infractions.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Your question sounds like you're asking about a math paper. Definitions in mathematics are a bit of a strange corner case for plagiarism issues because they're not supposed to be "in your own words." My understanding of normal behavior is that you would never put a definition in quotes (unless you're writing about history), that you can nonetheless reuse definitions verbatim, but that you need to either cite the original source or say that they are standard definitions. A typical way to do this would be by saying "We recall some key definitions from X."
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/11/26 | 989 | 4,117 | <issue_start>username_0: Certain schools give you specific details about their statement of purpose. For example a maximum of a certain number of words, double spaced, two pages maximum, etc. If a school does not provide any of the above-mentioned details, what would be a good lenght in terms of number of words to engage the admission committee? Is a single space statement of purpose too compressed, or is it acceptable?
I know that brevity and conciseness are important, but I find it hard to fit all the information they want in a one page. And I have to list relevant experiences, future goals, research interests, and which people I would like to work with in the department.<issue_comment>username_1: Depending on the program I would keep it between 1.5 to 2 pages. I framed mine to answer the following questions:
* Why am I applying to this school.
* What are my research interests.
* Previous academic accomplishments.
* Previous professional accomplishments.
* Personal story of triumph (optional, I talk about having to drop out of high school to support my family)
* What is your goal after graduation.
Addition:
I would also target schools that are pumping out the research that matches with your interests... this will help when you are stating why you are applying like:
>
> A major factor in helping me choose Awesome University was Professor Awesome's research on being awesome. I feel that this aligns well with my research interests, and would make for a great fit between me and the department.
>
>
>
Also, if you talk about any abstract ideas be sure to elaborate on them to give a level of specificity. They want to see you be able to translate abstract ideas into specific thoughts.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If you have a statement of purpose written for one school, you should be able to adapt it to other schools, too. Writing a fully customized SoP is a waste of time, unless you are applying to just three places (and then you are either overconfident, or just don't know what you are doing). If you've done a 1.5-2 page SoP, as JohnB suggested, just change a couple of paragraphs, and that should do it.
First paragraph: define yourself professionally ("I am a professional golf player who likes to deal with computers. I assembled my first PC at the age of 7, and hacked the school district network at the age of 12. Since then, I have been receiving straight As throughout the school")
Second paragraph: define where you want to be after Ph.D. ("I want to become a physicist to understand the nuances of friction between the golf ball and the air, and the ball and the grass. I also want to get involved with biology on the side, so that I could understand the ecology of the golf courses better.")
Two-three paragraphs: describe why this department is a particularly good fit. It's here where you describe the work you've done, and how it relates to the work other people in the department have been doing. ("I have found the work that <NAME> has performed on the stability of beer foam as a function of ambient temperature and concentration of fine particulate matter (cigarette smoke) in pubs of Ireland to be very intriguing, and cited his papers on the topic in my own research on flotation of potato chips on beer surface, see Appl. Phys. Letters forthcoming in 2013").
Conclude with re-stating that you think this is a great program, and you think you are a great fit for it.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Just some clarifications that the other answers seem to have missed. No school needs you to tell them how awesome you think they are (I believe you are better than Harvard) or how much you love their location (I love being by the ocean / I've always dreamt living in Manhattan). Explain why they will not regret accepting you. Show them what you're good at and why you will be a good fit for their department. Describe your plans and ambitions for after you've graduated. Overall keep it short but well-written. Don't waste their time with long formal introductions and greetings. Don't be repetitive.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/11/27 | 551 | 2,362 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm currently a Ph.D. student. I'm applying for a post-Ph.D. faculty job, and so is one of my two Ph.D. co-advisors. I think we have a good relationship, and I am thrilled they are applying, and truly hope they get the job. I think this is mutual.
They recently decided to apply. Prior to their decision, they agreed to review my application and be listed as a reference.
Now that we are both applying, they have agreed to review my application, but only after they have finished with theirs, to keep them independent. Furthermore, they suggested they should not be a letter writer, but then said they would remain as a reference if I want, since I don't have that many others to choose from (being somewhat earlier in my career, having collaborated with others a bit less).
I've asked the Search Committee head if they are OK with me listing them as a reference. If my advisor and I agree to do it, does the committee have a problem with it? Their reply will guide my answer.
But I seek advice here too. Is it OK to keep the advisor as the reference? I trust them to write a good letter, even in the unlikely event that we are both selected, or I alone am selected. Is this unwise?<issue_comment>username_1: I would personally try and find a different reference. There just too much potential for conflict. The situation is somewhat comparable to borrowing a lot of money from family. Your former advisor is working in the same field, so you will be meeting fo the years to come. If this turns out badly, it will remain a nuisance for a very long. Short answer: just prevent the potential conflict of interest and find a new reference.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It is helpful that you and your advisor have been in contact and have honest communication about this subject. It's commendable, and doesn't happen nearly often enough.
That said,, for this particular job, if you want to have any realistic chance of getting this particular job, you really need to have someone else replace this particular co-advisor. Otherwise, a rather confused hiring panel may take a look at both applications, wonder what the heck is going on, and throw out *both* applications.
However, for any job in which you're not in direct conflict, I think it would probably be OK to have your co-advisor as a letter of reference.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/11/27 | 1,102 | 4,012 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm writing a scientific article and a dissertation in biology, for which I used Python for simulations. Some people in our department, especially the "non-computer-people", don't know what Python is, so I want to reference something helpful. Open-Source scientific tools such as CellProfiler usually tell you how to reference them, but Python doesn't.
How is the Python language properly referenced? Are there any articles in journals available I could link to?<issue_comment>username_1: In order to cite a programming language, a possible way is to cite the reference manual, including the version of the language you use (your approach might no longer work with the version of Python available in 20 years ...).
For instance, you can have a citation like:
>
> Python Software Foundation. Python Language Reference, version 2.7. Available at <http://www.python.org>
>
>
>
According to [this thread](https://web.archive.org/web/20161206043833/http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/python/python/105846), you can also cite the original CWI TR:
>
> "<NAME>, Python tutorial, Technical Report CS-R9526,
> Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica (CWI), Amsterdam, May
> 1995."
>
>
>
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: A common choice I have seen is to cite the software by name and give a link to the website or name the company (for proprietary software) or both. For MATLAB, a mathematical programming language, I have often seen:
>
> ...for the simulations we used Matlab (The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, United States)....
>
>
>
Likewise in citation lists and also in text, you often see something like:
>
> MATLAB and Signal Processing Toolbox Release 2012b, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, United States. <http://www.mathworks.com/>
>
>
>
Note that it is often good to include libraries or toolboxes as well as the languages used. Most computer languages used in academic research are not used alone but depend heavily on add-on components. For these, there may be explicitly given papers to cite or the authors may provide preferred citation rules. The most important component of citing a software package is the website, especially if it is open-source, as that allows others to dig into the details of your work but actually using the same tools!
For open-source software like Python, you could name the organization or give the website:
>
> ...for the simulations we used the Python programming language (Python Software Foundation, <https://www.python.org/>).
>
>
>
Obviously, check your schools formatting demands for dissertations/theses, and note that most style guides have explicit rules for software, and those would apply to computer languages as well.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I think it should be standard to cite programming language and used libraries. To cite Python you can use this citation:
```
@book{van1995python,
title={Python tutorial},
author={<NAME>, <NAME> <NAME>, <NAME>},
year={1995},
publisher={Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica Amsterdam, The Netherlands}
}
```
This citation can be found also here <http://www.citebay.com/how-to-cite/python/>. At this website there are citations for many Python libraries, that are widely used (numpy, scipy, etc.).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: This is probably a late answer but now Python's official [FAQ](https://docs.python.org/3/faq/general.html#are-there-any-published-articles-about-python-that-i-can-reference) page has information regarding 'Are there any published articles about Python that I can reference?'.
>
> It’s probably best to cite your favorite book about Python. The very
> first article about Python was written in 1991 and is now quite
> outdated.
>
>
> Guid<NAME> and <NAME>, “Interactively Testing Remote Servers Using the Python Programming Language”, CWI Quarterly, Volume 4, Issue 4 (December 1991), Amsterdam, pp 283–303.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/11/27 | 1,598 | 6,719 | <issue_start>username_0: Is it possible to apply for a graduate program in theoretical physics without having a bachelor's degree in physics or mathematics?
I'm completely self-taught. I'm half way through Jackson electrodynamics and Peskin QFT. These books are taught to students at a graduate level, let's say that I can pass the GRE exam and graduate level examinations. Is it possible that this would substitute for an undergraduate degree?<issue_comment>username_1: Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? Maybe not.
A lot will depend on your undergraduate program. If you've done something "related," such as mathematics or physical chemistry or some engineering disciplines, then it will be easier to convince an admissions committee that you have the requisite background. Otherwise, it will be up to you, in your letter statement of purpose, as well as your letter-writers in their letters, to make the case why you should be admitted to a rogram in physics when you don't have a background in the subject (or anything close to it).
This is a big risk for a department, and especially if the department you're applying to is small and therefore needs to be more selective in who they admit. Anything you can do to show that you won't be a risk for them will help your application.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> ...but I think I'm well aware of my areas of weakness and strength.
>
>
>
I don't dispute that at all. But you'd be in the minority. Most students coming into grad school think that they can handle any material, and once they're in a class, find themselves completely swamped.
The admissions committee's point of view is this:
* Will this person be at sea in their breadth requirements because we have no idea whether they have the right background ?
* Will they be a drag on instructors in their classes, and in general bring their cohort down (it can be dispiriting to have many students in a batch struggling to make it through the program: conversely, it's great when a batch has a number of bright spots who can pull the others up)
* Should this person be chosen **as opposed to someone else** who has a more well-defined profile ?
If you can address the third point clearly ("why should you pick me") and the first ("I really do know my stuff"), then that will go a long way towards alleviating their concerns. For example, if you can point to independent research projects that would demonstrate your command of the material, that would be even more valuable than course credits.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I agree with the other answers — admitting a student without formal academic background is very risky.
As a first step, I suggest contacting graduate programs asking if they allow **non-degree students** to take their classes. If so, taking classes as a non-degree student will let you build up a formal academic background and strong recommendation letters in your chosen field, making your case for admission much stronger. And if you're admitted to the PhD program at the same university, you may be able to use the classes you've already taken toward your degree.
Taking classes will also give you a sanity check on your self-assessment. From personal experience, it can be *really* hard to spot gaps in the knowledge you build from self-study, simply because you don't know enough to ask the right questions.
But once you get your foot in the door, do *not* just take classes; do whatever you can to get involved in research!
One significant downside to non-degree classes is that you'll almost certainly have to pay for them out of your own pocket.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Depending on the field and department you are thinking of applying to, one piece of evidence that you have independently acquired a strong background in the proposed field of study can be a strong score on the GRE Subject Test in that field.
In computer science, a number of graduate programmes I've looked at recommend this for applicants that don't have a CS degree. For instance, cf. UC San Diego's PhD admissions FAQ: <http://www-cse.ucsd.edu/node/195> under "Should I take the Computer Science GRE Subject Exam?"
I do not know for sure to what degree this would apply in Physics.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: The answer to your question regarding the GRE is "it will help". You have not specified if it is for a PhD or Master's. However what will count the most is your research experience if you are going for a PhD. If you want to apply to a Master than it will be definitely easier to get accepted with high GRE scores.
Sometimes students with different backgrounds are actually well seen by the department, especially if it is a interdisciplinary one. However you have to substantially prove how you will be able to apply your knowledge into your new field and how this makes you competitive. Students with a different background might provide insights and different perspectives on how to approach research topics.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_6: >
> Is it possible to apply for a graduate program in theoretical physics
> without having a bachelor's degree in physics or mathematics?
>
>
>
Yes, I believe it is.
>
> let's say that I can pass the GRE exam and graduate level
> examinations. Is it possible that this would substitute for an
> undergraduate degree?
>
>
>
First, depends what you mean by "pass" the GRE. I'd hope that you had very high scores (90th+ percentile) on at least the Quant. and Analytical parts of it, but hopefully all three.
Also, I'd edit your question to be clear that you do have an undergraduate degree already; just not one in physics.
My guess would be that *if you find the right program* they would be willing to really consider your application favorably if you could provide something like the following list of goodies:
* Very high GRE scores
* A glowing letter of recommendation from a physicist or some "hard" science prof speaking to your abilities to do heavy duty physics.
* A pristine statement of purpose that goes into specific details about your research interests within theoretical physics and your program of self-study. Here you'd really want to emphasize your *aptness* for that particularly graduate program in physics, based on your interests that match well with what (at least one of) their researchers do.
* Some research experience, if you can get some.
* A very strong academic transcript with a significant amount of hard science and math courses and mostly As (or the equivalent) in those subjects.
If you can't provide most of a list like this, one might reasonably question why you would want to go on to graduate school in this field.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/11/27 | 276 | 988 | <issue_start>username_0: I'd like to know the connection of researchers. Similar to the connection of LinkedIn. In the field of computer science, the [DBLP database](http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/) seems to be useful. Does anyone know a tool to generate a FoaF graph out of DBLP data and a FoaF (Friend of a Friend) graph rendering tool?<issue_comment>username_1: [Microsoft Academic Research](http://academic.research.microsoft.com/) can do something similar for you, you just need to have Sliverlight plugin installed in your browser. Search for the first author, click on it's name (orange background), click "Geanology Graph", Click "Co-author Graph", enter the name of the other person on the right and press enter.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: A bachelor thesis of interest for you:
<NAME>, Ebony - Visualizing the DBLP Database. University of Lugano, 2010
url : <http://www.inf.usi.ch/faculty/lanza/Downloads/Lemm2010a.pdf>
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/11/28 | 492 | 2,154 | <issue_start>username_0: I have BSc in computer science and entrepreneurship background with strong technical skills (software) but low GPA and no publication. I have bean away from university for few years and have not been working as employee so I can't provide any letters of recommendation.
As my previous businesses have not been successful (partly because of country I live in, it is one of the top worst) I'm thinking about starting over by applying for a master program and moving to a better place (preferably US). It can also help me find better ideas and like-minded people for future ventures.
All I can provide are few links to my previous works, some of them shiny.
Do you think I have any chance to get admission and grant from a good university? How should I prepare myself for it?<issue_comment>username_1: In some countries like Japan, it is ok to apply even if you do not have a good publication record. They care mostly about the entrance examination, which is focused on math and computer science.
You could apply to some Universities as well as to the Mumbukagakusho Scholarship, which depending in the country might be really easy to get (about 50% chance) or really hard (about 1% chance).
Good Luck
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In some countries, e.g. the Netherlands, for a lot of masters there is no problem to get in, as long as you can pay. Ofcourse some have restrictions in terms of prior knowledge you need to have.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: At least for admission to strong CS departments in the US, I strongly recommend that you **take the GRE, especially the subject test in computer science, and do well**. Otherwise, the evidence that you would complete an MS program is rather thin.
Also, **you *must* have recommendation letters**. Otherwise, your application may not even be reviewed by the admissions committee. (In my department, for example, incomplete applications are automatically flagged by our admissions database system, and applications that are still flagged several weeks after the application deadline are automatically rejected without review.)
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer] |
2012/11/28 | 2,103 | 8,228 | <issue_start>username_0: Is there a non written rule to which person to use in the PhD thesis, 5 years of using "We" in the papers have brought me to the innate necessity to do it every time I describe something.
Recently, though, one of my lab-mates told me that I should use I, since it is your work, if the thesis were co-written, then it would be a different story.
Is there any standard in your universities, or do you have any preferred practice.<issue_comment>username_1: I generally avoid "I" in scientific texts altogether, though some authors are in fact using it if they are the sole author. I can't remember seeing it in a thesis though. In texts with a sole author, I usually understand "we" as meaning the author and the reader, and I'd suggest that it's fine to use it in places where it can have that meaning. For example something like "When substituting a by b, we get ..."
A generally useful advice would be to read into some of the theses written in your group, department, and university (in decreasing relevance), and see whether there is a common pattern.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The first rule, as usual, is: **what is expected of you?** Ask your advisor, read earlier theses from your group, etc. to get an idea of what is the established practice.
The advice I give, and which I try to follow myself, is to mix the use of *“we”* and *“I”* depending on context. Most of the experimental or simulation work is a team effort, so *“we”* makes a lot of sense to describe that:
>
> From the results of the simulation, we have calculated the spatial dispersion of ∆, which is presented in Figure 42
>
>
>
However, a PhD thesis should show that the applicant has a clear understanding and autonomy in a given research project, and thus is capable of making technical and strategic decisions (though not always alone, of course). As such, **I encourage the use of “I” to describe such decisions**, orientations and reflexion. I try to give an example:
>
> After consideration of the points discussed above, I decided to focus my effort for the most part in optimizing the gigawattage of the circuit, which I consider based on all the data gathered to be the factor with the largest potential for improvement.
>
>
>
---
Silvado gave an answer that is, in my opinion, perfectly applicable to mathematical derivations, and the discussion of results. In those cases, you can safely use *“we”* to mean “the author and reader”, as in “we thus derive theorem X from lemma Y”, or “we see on Figure 42 a clear correlation between A and B”.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Summary:
**Think about the habits and traditions in your field, think about the nature of your field and do not hesitate to take responsibility for your own (possibly not that great) ideas.**
---
Now, let me elaborate more:
The question encourages personal opinions for a good reason. Various sources on writing research papers differ vastly, though it seems majority does not favor the first person "I" form. For one of the more serious in computer science not in favour of "I", see e.g., [Knuth's Mathematical Writing](http://tex.loria.fr/typographie/mathwriting.pdf) (pg.4) - although later on, the material also discusses the opposite (pg.62 and 113).
Now to a personal position. I do make use of "I" in some contexts. Namely, when I write a paper as a single author and I did so in my PhD thesis. At the same time, you should have clear rules when to mix it with "we" and how. For the dissertation, I explained those rules very early on in the preface: I use "I" whenever the text speaks about my own decisions and choices I made and is the default voice. It means, that it's me who is to blame for whatever incorrect decisions exposed in the thesis. Only if I can show that there is an external force which would push anybody on my place to take the same route, I would use "we" to mean the (research) community, or humankind. I use "we", whenever the discourse is explanatory, such as an exposition of a proof. Therein, "we" stands for "me and the reader". I also strictly use "we", whenever I speak about an insight, or a result which was produced in a collaboration, such as developed in a joint research paper with somebody else. As a side-effect, since this voice is not the default one, occurrence of such "we" always enforces a citation to the joint work, which is a *Good Thing*.
My personal opinion also is that third person is very bad writing style, since it
offloads responsibility for the presented results to some external entity. As if it wasn't me who made the stupid decision to push that other guy from the cliff, but the guy was (somehow) pushed from the cliff. In my opinion, "we" solves that problem only a little bit, because now the writer admits a bit of responsibility for the act, but still dilutes it by taking into the game somebody else (either the reader, or the abstract research community). Saying "I did this and that and by doing it I personally found this and that" for me is fully taking responsibility for my results. It's not about bragging, or so. Now in some fields, this might be inappropriate, e.g., in pure mathematics, one studies a problem and is not pushed into any arbitrary decisions (e.g., regarding experimental setup), so a style "we" = "the two of us, you, the reader, and me, the writer" is more appropriate.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: I always view "we" as "you and the reader" and you and your reader journey through the subject together.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: It is interesting to see what <NAME> did in his scientific writing.
[**According to Serendip Studio:**](http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/3832)
>
> Darwin usually speaks in the first person plural when analyzing
> empirical evidence he has collected and only uses the first person
> singular when he is specifically speaking about his own actions, such
> as, "..many special facts which I have collected," or when he is
> speaking about his own qualms, such as "I am well aware that there are
> on, on this view, many cases of difficulty, some of which I am trying
> to investigate." However, when analyzing his evidence, he always uses
> "we", such as "we notice", or "we understand"(2). Darwin's change in
> footing when he is explaining his theory places himself and the reader
> on the same level and makes him a more "humble" presenter, allowing us
> to suspend disbelief for at least the time being and trust him.
>
>
>
When Darwin is speaking as the scientist, he uses *"we"*, and when he is speaking as the human being, he uses *"I"*. I really like that distinction.
I find the forced use of *"we"* when you mean *"I"* misplaced. It is important to sound as natural as possible in your writing - just look at [<NAME>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman). You don't have to use convoluted language to win a Nobel prize. Clarity is king.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: I was told that my PhD thesis should be written in the third person. In cases where it was nessacery to reffer to ones-self the term "the author" could be used but use of this term was discoured. The theory goes that the emphasis in acadmic writing should be on what was done rather than who did it.
Personally I dislike this style. IMO it makes it much harder to be clear about what you did verses what is already common knowlage.
My PhD was in Electrical Engineering at the University of Manchester in the UK.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: I am a retired professor. I was taught, and I always required, that theses and dissertations be written in 3rd person or, on rare occasions, in 1st person plural. Towards the end of my career, I had students increasingly writing in first person singular. This grated on my nerves enormously. Why? It seemed arrogant and ignored the substantial assistance provided by the committee and the funding agency. Also, it flew in the face of unspoken tradition: that scientists did their work with humility for the betterment of society. Any recognition of the scientist should come later from society at large and the community of scientists.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/11/28 | 2,017 | 8,137 | <issue_start>username_0: Reading this very interesting question ([*"How long before PhD graduation should I start applying for post-doc positions?"*](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5301/how-long-before-phd-graduation-should-i-start-applying-for-post-doc-positions)) about "**when**", suddenly I started to reason on the "**how**" issue.
Imagine you were going to finish your PhD program and wanted to **contact a professor** to express interest for a possible PostDoctoral contract within his group, and wanted to know more information about it.
How approach him/her in the **best way**?
What to write in the email to send him/her?<issue_comment>username_1: Depends on whether you know the person, or not. If you know him/her well, you might go for an informal inquiry. In the case the person is not your acquaintance, you better formulate it as any other job seeking inquiry.
To the style, this template always worked for me well (as advised in some job-seeking training course I took):
>
> Salutation,
>
>
>
> ```
> 1.- me
> 2.- you
> 3.- us together
> 4.- conclusion and a kind request for a reply.
>
> ```
>
> salutation.
>
>
>
Each of the points above should be a single paragraph.
Firstly, you introduce yourself, possibly mentioning how you know each other if that is the case and most importantly articulating the purpose of the e-mail/letter, that is that you are seeking a job. In passing you should mention what you are doing now, position, affiliation, expected date of graduation, etc. Basically you want to motivate the other party to read further.
Second paragraph should be about the other party. What you know they do, or did in the past and highlighting whatever other positive aspects of their work, which are a relevant reason for your application. Possibly, you can mention that you learn from somebody else/opening, etc. that there is a possibility of an open position in the group, etc. The purpose here is to prepare the ground for articulating why you fit for them in the subsequent paragraph, as well as to show that you mean it and you made your homework well (e.g., read their papers).
The third, most important paragraph, should be about you as a fit for the position, or the group. It all revolves about how you can contribute to their work and why it should be their interest in hiring you. Here you expand on the relevant experience/projects you did, about your abilities to publish papers in top journals/conferences in the field, your abilities to solicit external funding, teaching, whatever. Still you should consider how much bragging is appropriate. The message should be clear and concise: "there is a potential fit between the two of us".
Finally, I would close the letter by explaining what can be found in the attached documents and possibly what other constraints you might have. When appropriate, I also make it clear that this is of course an unsolicited application, but still I would be glad if the person would find time to review my background and reply.
Attach your CV and the statement of your research interests.
Worked for me. Also you should be as concise as possible. The length of this reply is probably already at the edge of acceptable length.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: I would treat it like a networking exercise.
1. Do you know each other -- Contact them directly
2. Does your advisor know him/her -- Talk to your advisor and get the scoop on the potential advisor. Talk you your advisor and devise a contact plan. Maybe your advisor can provide an introduction at the next conference or a suggestion for a lab visit for you.
3. Do you know someone in common -- Talk to that person. Get the scoop on the potential advisor. Then contact the potential advisor dropping the common person's name and saying how he/she thought the potential advisor would be a great fit for you.
4. You know no one in common -- Networking fail. Go meet more people.
a. Have you cited the potential advisor in a paper -- Send them a reprint as an introduction
b. You don't know the potential advisor (or anyone who knows him) and have never cited him -- Before contacting the person, you need to know why you want to work with him/her. If you are confident, send an email introducing yourself. If you are hesitant, ask your advisor for an email introduction.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: If I reply to some open position that was announced, I usually keep the email quite short, as I consider it more like a statement of interest, rather than as informal application. I usually assume that the person in charge is busy, and I'm always afraid that a long email might be classified in the folder "to be read later".
My email would look like this:
>
> Subject: Informal query about the position XXX
>
>
> Dear XXX, I'm writing to you about the position XXX that was posted on the mailing-list/website/forum XXX. I believe I could be interested in applying to this position, because it seems to fit within my research interests. Indeed, I'm currently working at XXX on the topic of XXX, and the topic [of the position] is something I would like to work on in the next years.
>
>
>
Then, it depends on how precise the announcement was written, but I usually ask all questions I have about the application process itself. Would there be further material to read? If a research statement is asked, what is expected it to contain? If the dates are not given, when would it start? (in particular if you have commitments on your side).
Many open positions have a formal application process, established by the university/research-centre, so it's also important to keep such an email to an informal level. You can of course finish your email by saying that you are available for any further information.
In the past, such emails have been useful for me for two reasons: it made me realize that some positions were actually not really within my research interests, and it allowed me to establish a first contact with the recruiter, and understand better what was expected of me in the application.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I came a cross a short but interesting editorial note from American Chemical Society written by a potential postdoc supervisor. She raises lots of advises like send few thoughtful emails rather than tones of thoughtless copies and pasted emails. I think it is quiet useful for every postdoc applicant regardless of his major.
Couple of interesting quotes from the author is of value
>
> Funding issues aside, the majority of the
> postdoctoral applications I receive do not capture my interest,
> and I am sure this is true for most faculty.
>
>
> Many email requests that I receive appear to
> be sent by someone who has taken a long list of faculty names/
> emails and sent off their application with little thought. I usually
> do not even read such requests after the first few sentences
>
>
> My advice to potential applicants: send far fewer but personalized
> emails. Read about a faculty member’s research and tailor your letter
> to the group. Obviously, include your CV,
> prior research accomplishments, your career plans, and how a
> position in the group would help move you toward your goals.
> Provide details that help sell you, including important
> interactions with colleagues, the skills that you bring to the
> position, and other key points that may set you apart.
> When writing an email to me, for example, I like to know
> why you selected my group: was it on the advice of a mentor,
> because you like a particular aspect of my research, or hope to
> gain a specific skillset? Next, explain what you can do for me.
> Most applicants list a myriad of reasons why getting hired is
> good for them. Perhaps not surprisingly, I hire people because
> it helps my research program. I want an outstanding researcher
> and also someone who has good communication skills. Reading
> your email is my first opportunity to judge your ability
>
>
>
You may find the whole text of less than a page [here](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ac402163j)
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/11/29 | 1,146 | 4,528 | <issue_start>username_0: Following ArXiv rules I contacted with an well-known expert in thermodynamics (he is author of a known monograph) we discussed my work during several days and finally he endorsed me. When my work was ready to appear a moderator removed it, alluding to technical problems with my submission (a embedded font problem), although more latter moderators asked me personal and even economic questions! I never answer such questions and forgot the whole issue
The paper is accessible in my page at [academia.edu](http://www.academia.edu/2216383/Non-redundant_and_natural_variables_definition_of_heat_valid_for_open_systems)
I have participated in an Essay Contest with another work, and it has been selected as one of the finalists. It is cited [here](http://fqxi.org/community) together other three finalist essays.
I submitted this new work to ArXiV, it has been removed and I received the next response:
>
> Your submission has been removed upon a notice from our moderators, who
> determined it to be inappropriate for arXiv. Please find another forum.
>
>
> For more information on our moderation policies see:
>
>
> http: //arxiv. org/help/moderation
>
>
> --
> arXiv moderation
>
>
>
ArXiv already archives several essays submitted to the same Essay contest, such as 1209.0023, 1209.1257, 1211.1917, 1210.3575
Therefore it is not a problem with the Contest or with the format. Notice that only one of above four has been selected as finalist.
According to the moderation policy I cannot ask to moderators about the details on their decision. The excuse is that "*moderators are not referees*", but this looks a bit childish, because it seems that they are accepting that moderators cannot sustain logically the decisions that they take about others' work.
Would I write to the advisory committee chair? Would I take some other action?
EDIT: Finally the first work rejected by Arxiv mods was published in the International Journal of Thermodynamics. I no longer care about ArXiv.<issue_comment>username_1: As said in the comments, the situation seems to be different for each of your papers. The font problem is understandable, but it's hard to see what you mean by "personal and even economic questions". However, if you didn't answer the questions, it's not surprising that your paper was not published in arXiv.
Concerning the essay, I quote from the [FAQ](http://arxiv.org/help/moderation), "arXiv accepts only submissions in the form of an article that would be refereeable by a conventional publication venue.", and in particular, " This excludes [...] papers that contain inflammatory or fictitious content, papers that use highly dramatic and mis-representative titles/abstracts/introductions". I'm in no position to scientifically judge the content of your essay, but at first glance, it seems quite provocative (assumptions that are not fundamental).
If you believe that your essay is "refereeable by a conventional publication venue", then the moderation appeal is there for this. Although the moderators do not have to motivate their decision as a reviewer would do, by bringing sufficient support that your paper meets the criteria required by arXiv (in particular by demonstrating that it doesn't fit in any of the categories listed under "inappropriate format", the fact that other essays have been published in the past is not really relevant, you would have to show the quality of your content on its own).
In general, arXiv moderators are human moderators, and it could be the case that the rejection of your paper was a mistake. However, keep in mind that publishing in arXiv is not a granted right, and that "arXiv reserves the right to reject or reclassify any submission".
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Of course, arXiv.org is the best place to go without peer-review. Many papers that appear in arXiv are of the highest quality. Be polite with moderators, never challenge them as they have the right to reject any paper without any explanation. Try to appeal. If this does not help, address this issue to Chair. If again no result, go to vixra.org and publish your paper over there without headache. Vixra.org is the best solution when you unable to publish it in arxiv.org.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_3: If arxiv rejects your paper, go to vixra.org. You can also publish it in researchgate.net Don't get upset and try to be fast with your publication. Remember, any submission you've made is a potential leak of your idea!
Upvotes: -1 |
2012/12/01 | 2,499 | 10,265 | <issue_start>username_0: I took a class with graduate students as an undergraduate student. The grading was on a curve and combined (as in graduate students were graded along with undergraduate students).
Is this normal in US universities as well? Won't the undergraduate students have a disadvantage competing against graduate students (pursuing 2nd year of Masters/PhD) for a good grade.
What ended up was:
1 A Grade
12 B Grades (7 of which went to graduate Students and 5 to undergraduate students)
20 C Grades
10 D Grades
3 E Grades
For a class of 25 graduate students and 21 undergraduate students.<issue_comment>username_1: There is no uniform set of regulations; every college (and perhaps even every department within a college, or even every instructor) might have its own regulations.
However, the existence of classes open to both undergraduates and graduate students is in fact quite common, and I know I certainly took several graduate classes as an undergraduate.
In general, the difference comes in when the class is really a graduate-level class that is also open to advanced undergraduates, or when the course is truly designed to be open to both undergraduates and graduates. When the class is really a graduate-level class, undergraduates are generally not treated with "kid gloves," and are expected to compete head-to-head with the graduate students. For a truly mixed class, the options are more varied.
With respect to the specific distribution of grades, I can't really comment on that, as those choices are specific to your course.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: In the past, I've graded the pool together, and have also graded grads and undergrads separately. Ultimately this is a decision made by the instructor, who probably spelt this out in their syllabus before the class started.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: In the US, unless a class is strictly made as a undergrad/graduate mix class, graduate classes are made mostly for graduate students. Some universities require the instructors consent to enroll and you won't be able to enroll independently online, other will only let you enroll if there are seats left after graduate enrollment. Since in these cases it is up to the instructor or student discretion to take a course, then there is really no special treatment.
In my opinion seniors are more or less on the same level as master's students when starting a class, as usually both wouldn't not have any advanced knowledge of graduate level content. So the gap is not as wide as it might seem.
As far as the grading, that is highly subjective, and can change a lot. I know some instructors even have separate assignments.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: In math graduate programs in the U.S., it is typical (although not universal) to be quite lenient about grading. The philosophy, for better or worse, is that it should be the student's privilege to decide how important the class is.
I have never seen such a strict distribution of grades in any class with math graduate students in it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: As an undergradute I took a computer architecture class in the spring of my junior year though it is recommended to be taken during spring of senior year. It is listed as an "upper-level" course. The class had 22 students, of which, 8 were grad students. The grad students got B's and C's and the majority of the undergrads got A's.
What the teacher told me after the class when I was talking with him (I had made some off handed comment about the undergrads beating the grad students) was that most of the grad students were doing research or working in industry. As long as they kept a C and understood the foundation of what he was lecturing on they would be fine.
It was more important for the grad students to work on their research. They did not need to Ace the classes.
In your case the class specifically required instructor consent for you to enter. They were allowing you the privilege of being able to take a class that is normally denied to you. If you feel the instructor erred and you were not proficient enough to be able to undertake the class then it is the instructors fault. If you did not study hard enough or go into it knowing that this class was on another level then it yours.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Actually, you'll have an advantage in your grades if you are taking course with graduate students(assuming that you are someone who puts a moderate effort on your courses). Most graduate students measure their success by their published papers rather than by grades. To this end, they don't give much attention to course work and they study it for a day or two before the exam. This was the case with many of the grad students in my school and the undergraduates put every effort to be part of the courses as they spent most of their time in course work and chasing the "A" letter.
The only exception is that when the course is related to the research area of the graduate students. In that case, the grad students might know better than you. But graduate class professors mostly have labs and are busy advisors. Which means that they repeat the same exam questions year after year and you only need to solve these problems to get A+ (at least at my university). The drawback of this is, you won't learn much out of the course as the grades come easily. That is one of the reasons I don't understand why courses are given in the first place at graduate level.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: In the US there tend to be to models by which undergraduates take graduate level classes. The first are jointly listed classes where the undergraduate class might be 401 and the graduate class would then be 501. In these cases the graduate level class usually includes extra assignments or different examinations and the students are graded separately. For the undergraduate student the undergraduate class is listed on the transcript.
The second way is a single class (e.g., 502) with the same work and same grading for everyone. In this system the graduate level class is listed on the transcript. Sure, the undergraduate might be at a disadvantage, but it comes with the advantage of having a graduate level class on your transcript. It would be very misleading to see a graduate level class on a transcript for a class that was tailored and graded to undergraduate standards. If you don't want to compete with the "big boys" stick with the little kid classes.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: In brief, to supplement other answers and remarks: first, I do try to think of "grades" as giving information to students, primarily, so that the "running grade" during the term provides some feedback on my perception of peoples' success. Significantly, I do not imagine, nor position, my courses as "filters" or "challenges", but as informational, provocative, invitations to mathematics that is within my professional scope (after all these years). So I do not want to express (directly or indirectly) "skepticism" that people *could* (if they wanted, and were interested) follow and assimilate what's going on. That is, "it's not that hard". Sure, nearly anything, even senseless, pointless activities, can be turned into filters or challenges, but... why?
Srsly, if courses are meant to primarily test natural ability (as some of my colleagues have adamantly insisted) then we shouldn't charge tuition, pretending that we're teaching something. That is, if a thing works well, and is do-able, it should be teachable to interested parties.
Then, to the question at hand: if the issue is communication and explanation, probably I'm not grading harshly anyway, and take into consideration *everyone*'s context, not just the undergrads. Duh! That is, my aim is not to declare winners and losers, but to give useful feedback to the people who self-selected to hear what I was talking about. The situation does not demand a competition among them "for limited resources". Certain resources, such as my approval, are not "limited" in any sense that should/could function for external entities who'd wish I'd declare winners and losers.
It does start to be uglier when people are in the room against their will/interests. "Required courses"? Well, ideally, things are required (brush and floss...) because they're "good for you". The imputed virtues are not always easy to see, and are sometimes hijacked for various ideological purposes. Nevertheless, I do try to sway/convert people who're grudgingly present, that the "burden" is actually a "help/opportunity", despite sadly-all-too-common presentations that make everything lugubrious and awful.
To reiterate: sure, I do grade people in different contexts differently, because the grade is an item of communication. Not the only one, in my classes. The central administration does seem to collapse to wanting a single number... but I try to ignore that, and not harm the students who have some curiosity about what I offer to discuss with them.
(So, indeed, as in other answers and comments, the various mechanisms of self-selection present people with a great variety of motivations and interests. Responding to them individually, say with a class of 15-25, is not so terrible at all, and quite interesting, and, I fancy, a good deed. To "rank them" seems on most occasions to be not sane... Or maybe that's just a special case of the insanity of the bureacratic-school pressure to do this. True, many students pre-emptively operate in that context, but I do not take that as a mandate to sink to the same sad level. I.e., it's not that we "don't leave any child behind" by not moving forward, but that we gather them up and *do* move, etc, blah-blah-blah).
Or, sure, cold mountain-slopes for babies, ... single combat ... :)
Srsly, I do think that in upper-division, much less grad-level, people should not be beat-up grade-wise. They volunteered to be there! Even if they're not so very good at what they'd like to do, "giving a bad grade" is not helping them. The far-subtler issue is how to help a person who wants to do something that they're currently not-so-good-at. Various misunderstandings create fake incompetencies!
Upvotes: -1 |
2012/12/01 | 793 | 3,292 | <issue_start>username_0: Is publishing papers before the evaluation of thesis is a good idea?
Isn't there a risk of making the idea public?<issue_comment>username_1: You should try to publish before you finish your thesis. An idea in a published paper will be recognized as yours, there are more chances of an idea getting stolen from a thesis.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Actually, publishing paper(s) is a requirement for defending your thesis in some universities.
The best thing you can do for your thesis and the field is to make your ideas public *through* publications.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Four reasons why it's generally a very good idea to publish papers before you submit your thesis:
1. The earlier you publish, the less likely it is that your idea will be *scooped* [1], i.e. that someone working in the same area actually publishes the same idea/result before you.
2. Once ideas are published, they are not stolen: they are used, built upon, *with proper attribution* (usually in the form of citation). This is not theft.
3. The goal of an academic is actually to disseminate new knowledge, not to lock it into your desk drawers.
4. Having papers published (or at least accepted for publication) is very very important for your CV. It may also be a requirement (formal or unspoken) for defending your PhD.
5. If said publication includes peer review, the peer review is likely to improve your work, both by vetting it thoroughly and giving you new points of view on your arguments. (I edited this in after reading username_4’s answer; it is an important point.)
---
In some specific cases, good arguments can be made against publication before thesis submission. Most are actually not specific to the thesis itself, but generally apply to delaying publication of a research:
1. If research is performed as part of a contract that requires an embargo on publication (say, imposed by one industrial partner). This is a very awkward situation, but it does happen in some fields.
2. Sometimes, a delay in publication is necessary to protect intellectual property, e.g. in the case of delaying publication until a related patent submission is complete.
---
Ref. 1:
[](http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=789)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: I'd like to add one important point that hasn't been raised yet: if the research that lies at the basis of your PhD has already passed through peer review, that makes it easier to defend against an opponent. You've already replied to two or more reviewers and improved the manuscript and possibly the underlying work. This makes it much less likely that awkward things turn up during the actual discussion with the opponent or the examination committee.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: By publicizing an original idea at earliest possible moment, you increase your chances of being the first one to publish it, and thus make it known that this is your idea. So, in fact, this prevents it from being
Also, I don't think published ideas can be stolen. The worst that can happen is they can be used without attribution but that is always a possibility wherever you publish them.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/12/01 | 648 | 2,724 | <issue_start>username_0: I am currently doing my M.Tech in Computer Science and Engineering in India and I want to do a Ph.D. in the US. Are any scholarships available for Ph.D. in the US that take care of all the expenses there (similar to DAAD scholarships offered for pursuing secondary education in Germany)? If there are other similar scholarships for other countries please inform me.<issue_comment>username_1: Normally, if you're doing a PhD in the United States—at least in the sciences and engineering—you shouldn't have to worry about having a scholarship. The department or advisor should be responsible for paying your tuition as well as a stipend for your living expenses. So there aren't a lot of "scholarships" in the same sense as for undergraduate study. However, while there are fellowships which provide "portable" funds for graduate study, these tend to have stringent citizenship requirements, and I can't ever recall seeing one for which Indian students were eligible.
Your best bet is probably just to apply to the graduate programs in which you're interested, and see if they have funds to support your graduate work.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There are at least 2 such scholarships, which are specifically aimed at international students:
* [Fulbright Scholarships for International Students](http://scienceandtech.fulbrightonline.org/eligibility) (applications have
to be done more than a year before, and its extremely competitive - though now I find applications for 2013-14 have been suspended)
* [Aga Khan Foundation International Scholarship Programme](http://www.akdn.org/akf_scholarships.asp), which has the following selection criteria:
1. Excellent academic records,
2. Genuine financial need,
3. Admission to a reputable institution of higher learning and
4. Thoughtful and coherent educational and career plans.
Candidates are also evaluated on their extra-curricular interests and achievements, potential to achieve their goals and likelihood to succeed in a foreign academic environment. Applicants are expected to have some years of work experience in their field of interest
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Contact potential advisors, if you are really *worth it* for them they will provide fund for you (when accepted).
The same when apply to universities: most universities give graduate students scholarship ( with the acceptance letter) in form of Teaching Assistant (TA) or Research Assistant (RA).
Some of them *don't offer funding* with the acceptance letter but the bottom line is: ***if you are good you will get scholarship (either from Gradstudies Office or from department, from supervisor..etc) while you pursue your degree.***
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/12/01 | 1,573 | 6,284 | <issue_start>username_0: When writing papers (and even more - when revising after collaborators', or reviewers', remarks) it's hard to keep track what is done, what needs to be fixed, what cannot be fixed, when opinions of authors are equivocal (and when an issue raised by one author is not supported by the others).
Moreover, it generates to a lot of e-mail traffic, often with a short remarks.
The question is, **is there a issue tracking software (or workflow) suitable for reviewing academic papers?**
(As a side note, I'm familiar with [JIRA](http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira), but never used it for papers. I'm the most interested in answer when someone actually uses a given method, not "well, I never tried but here is [a link to a random issue tracking software]".)<issue_comment>username_1: It sounds like you want to use a version control system, combined with a bug tracker. Luckily, Mercurial combined with an online [bitbucket.org](https://bitbucket.org/) repository provides a nice workflow. When remarks or notes appear, you add them to the issue tracker at your bitbucket page (note that bitbucket provides private repositories). See [this example](https://bitbucket.org/paulhiemstra/scm-latexdiff/issues?status=new&status=open) from one of my software projects.
When working on the paper you can select one of the issues, fix it, add to your repository, with a mention of the issue number in the bug tracker. This sounds like it could provide you with two important things: managing of the growth of your paper, and organizing your workflow of handeling the interaction with the other authors.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: If you are using LaTeX to write your papers, some simple macros can be used to add comments by each author. Moreover, the macro can be put within an `\ifdraft` so that all comments can be omitted from the final version by setting `\draftfalse`.
Examples below:
```
% define a new \if to certain things in draft mode only
\newif\ifdraft
\drafttrue
%\draftfalse
\newcommand{\mycomment}[3]%
{\ifdraft \textcolor{#2}{{\bf\textsc{#1}:}~~#3} \else \fi}
%% individual reviewer macros.
\newcommand{\alice}[1]%
{\mycomment{alice}{blue}{#1}}
\newcommand{\bob}[1]%
{\mycomment{bob}{green}{#1}}
```
Use in the main `.tex` as:
```
Thus P=NP. \alice{I dont think this is a real proof.}
```
Advantage of this technique over issue trackers is that everything appears in the draft.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I use [Trello](https://trello.com/) which is really a generic list app, there I use [Kanban](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanban) methodology ([1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanban_board), [2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanban_%28development%29)), so for each project there are four lists:
* TODO
* Doing
* To Verify (means that task is done according to person who did it, and someone other should verify it)
* Done
How you can use this methodology:
* Split process of preparing manuscript into tasks (this is possible after you have decided outline of the article). Tasks could be: "Prepare image depicting architecture of our system", "Prepare section about data acquisition equipement we use" and so on. At this phase you should have most of needed results, but not necessarily all.
* You can assign tasks to particular persons, but this is optional.
* All tasks start in TODO sections.
* When someone starts doing a tasks they drag it to Doing section (you should minimize amount of tasks in this section).
* Done tasks are moved to Verify section where someone (may be senior member of team --- depending of the aragements) checks them and moves to Done.
* You might need add section: Waiting, where tasks is being done but is waiting for something external to happen (like editor response, or some computation to get time share)
* When in review phase you should add changes requested by the reviever/editor to TODO tasks. And then maybe add column: "For the next communication with reviewer".
But really Kanbaan's heart is: "Start with your current workflow, and then change it to increase throughtput and minimize amount of work done concurrently".
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm testing GitHub ( with GitHub Desktop and Atom )
Not really adept in it, but looks like a potential candidate to me.
Here's a project of mine, if you would like to see how it looks right now-
[CTM](https://phinixgreen.github.io/Critique-of-CTM-V.2/)
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: Unless you are doing massive compendiums, I recommend just to babysit things by the first author. Think collaborative writing programs or tracking are more of a pain than they are worth.
Have anyone sending proposed edits do so in MS Word with track changes. To you, first author, directly, not to the group. Use separate mailings, not group ones, to avoid reply all spam. Sometimes, they will need to send numbered suggestions or the like, but just process those than.
Use numbered version control for the files for each generation of the paper. Compile the suggested edits, drafts, reviews etc. in an electronic folder (subfolders if needed.) I really doubt you need to go back to the suggested edits much, especially if you process things in turn, but at least they are there. If people don't rename the Word file (often they won't) than you do so when you save (usually with some name and date associated with the review/collaborator). If they have emails with edits or the like save those into the folder also or into Word files (again renaming to be clear).
Resist the impulse to let a paper become a committee report. Have a clear leader (first author) and make decisions. It is fine that reviewers or collaborators got to make suggested edits, but you should view that as enough of a gift and then make the hard decisions. Sometimes you can even blame it on conflicting edits (truthfully or not).
Of course, you should carefully consider input and use it. But DON'T be a reed in the wind. Be a leader. Papers need that. That is a gift also. Truly.
[All of this applies to joint work product in the corporate world as well. Give people a chance to "have input" so they feel a part of the process. But be an owner/leader of the end product and not a compiler.]
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/12/01 | 917 | 3,894 | <issue_start>username_0: I am currently working as a software developer. I have a degree in computer science. However, my country, Turkey, is not a technology favoring country, and research in the fields I am interested in is very rare, and only available at a few select schools. From job, location and opportunity perspective (too many applicants for too few places), getting an advanced degree at these schools is next to impossible for me.
I want pursue Ph.D. badly but I need a MS degree first because I don't have any research experience. So I have decided to apply for US schools and do some research there applying for a Ph.D.
Is paying for a master's degree a good idea and will I be able to do quality research there? Do master's students convert their degrees to Ph.D., if so is it easy or difficult? What to expect from a MS for getting good research experience?<issue_comment>username_1: In principle, a masters degree is the first steps towards a scientific career. At least in my studies it was the first time I really did a major scientific project:
* Defining a research question
* Coming up with a plan how to answer the research question
* Doing the actual research
* Writing it down in a scientific report
In a lot of countries, excluding the UK, it is obligatory to get a Master degree before you are admitted to a PhD position. So, in answer to your first question, if you want to get into science, you need to do a MS. Depending on your financial situation, and how badly you want a career in science, paying for your MS might or might not be a good idea.
Your next question deals with difficulty. In general, if you really enjoyed your Masters research this is a good indicator you would like a PhD position. If you like doing research, a PhD is a nice job, but certainly not an easy job. However, if you enjoy it, it should generally be possible to finish your PhD.
In regard to if a masters is a good preparation for a PhD, it heavily depends on where you do your masters. But in general they train you in being a scientist.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: In principle, yes, that's a viable plan. But there are a few stumbling blocks to be aware of.
First: **There are two types of MS degrees in computer science in the US.** Research master's degrees have a significant research component, usually ending with a formal thesis. Professional master's degrees require only taking classes; this is no expectation and little opportunity to get involved in research. A successful research MS is good preparation for a PhD program, and *many* CS PhDs started by getting a master's degree first. (I'm one of them.) But a professional MS is generally considered a terminal degree, even with a 4.0 GPA.
Second: **PhD applicants with MS degrees are held to higher standards than PhD applicants with only undergraduate degrees,** because they have had an extra year to build up a research portfolio. In my department, for example, strong applicants with master's degrees *but no formal publications* are usually rejected. See the previous point.
Third: **Strong graduate programs in the US also get too many applicants for too few positions.** Competition at the top departments is fierce. Even getting a research MS is no guarantee of being admitted to a PhD program.
To address the first three points, I *strongly* recommend asking the following question of any MS program you apply to:
>
> What fraction of graduates from your program go on to get a PhD?
>
>
>
Fourth: **If you don't have any research experience, how do you know that you want a PhD?** Getting a PhD is not like getting an undergraduate degree; doing research is not like taking classes — it is much more open-ended, much more self-directed, and much *much* riskier. This is not a question to answer *here*, but definitely something to address in your application statement.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/12/01 | 2,179 | 9,117 | <issue_start>username_0: As noted in [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/5426/1033), academics should write research articles. In many fields, these are way more important than books. It's original research that counts for getting a PhD position, a post-doc, a tenure-track position, grants, etcetera. Writing a good textbook about an advanced subject is very difficult and very time-consuming. Its advanced nature means it won't sell many copies, so the money can't be much. Then why is anybody writing advanced scientific textbooks at all? What are the incentives?<issue_comment>username_1: People around me that wrote a textbook almost always do that because they want to share the course material they developed for, say, an introduction to hydrology course. They are proud of the material, and feel that the specific approach their material takes is not yet represented in the current textbooks. So, I think for a lot of people they feel it is a significant addition to their field. Mind that these almost always already have tenure.
In addition, in the German system there is an additional reason to write a book. Writing a book (or monograph) is one option to get your habilitation. This is an additional step to take in addition to a PhD thesis, often written with at least 10 years of experience.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Another reason to write an advanced text is that you have developed a body of research around a topic, and it's stabilized enough that you can present the material in a structured form. The incentive here is that the distilled understanding helps you understand your field, and it helps others work in the area as well. In addition, a well-written book can get you lots of citations, impact, and recognition (the same kinds of things you get with papers, but possibly even more).
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: One case is where you already have the material (course notes, material you gathered from organizing a tutorial on a topic, etc): publishing it as a book used to make it widely available, a lot more than photocopies. Now, with the advent of the WWW, printed books might be less relevant for diffusion, however.
Another incentive, in case you don't have the material ready, might be the same as for writing reviews: if your book is successful, it will be highly cited and enhances your status in your field. Also, you can try to imprint your own ideas and vision for the field in the next generation of researchers.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: In the [Wiki page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman) for <NAME>,
>
>
> >
> > Feynman has been called the "Great Explainer". He gained a reputation for taking great care when giving explanations to his students and for making it a moral duty to make the topic accessible. His guiding principle was that, if a topic could not be explained in a freshman lecture, it was not yet fully understood. Feynman **gained great pleasure** from coming up with such a "freshman-level" explanation.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
My undergrad major is math. Among all the mathematicians, the ones I remember most (good and bad) are the authors of the math textbooks I used in college.
As for the more advanced scientific textbooks, I believe that the efforts putting all the research results together and organizing them are **no** less valuable than the individual articles.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: As someone who is working on an advanced textbook, I've had to ask myself that question. It's certainly not for the money (which I expect will be not nearly enough recompense for the time spent working on it). Here are the answers:
1. **Citations:** Not a big factor for me, since I expect citations to my book will displace a lot of citations for my older papers and shorter expository work on the subject, but as other people have noted, for a lot of people it is an important factor. A book that becomes the "standard reference" for a topic can garner huge numbers of citations. (Also true of review articles.)
2. **Creating a textbook:** It can serve as a textbook for a class I have taught before and may well teach again. This is a class for which there is no existing good textbook. In this sense, for a big investment of time now I make my life easier in the future by creating a good resource for students taking my class.
3. **New research ideas:** Writing it presents an opportunity to organize my thoughts about the field, and to go through and find and fill holes -- or just things I think haven't been done the right way -- in the existing literature. In this respect, it is an extension of my existing research program and inspires new research to fill the holes that I find.
4. **Understanding existing literature:** Writing the book also provides a good incentive for me to go back and understand other peoples' results that I think should be included in the book. There's one paper in particular which is important, but very difficult to understand, and I've put off making the effort to figure it out for many years. The book provides an additional motivation to actually do it, and furthermore make it accessible to others as well.
5. **Teaching new people about my field:** This is partially altruism and partially self-interested. The altruism part is probably self-explanatory. The self-interest part is that if I can provide a good introduction to the field, I may convince more people to work on an area I am interested in, and furthermore can get them to think about it in the ways I like.
Just one or two of these reasons would probably not be enough by itself, but the combination makes it, I think, a good use of my time. I've written these answers as they apply to me, but I think the same mix of reasons, with different weightings, apply to other people who write advanced textbooks.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: While this SE website mostly attracts people from more technical and scientific fields which progress through research articles, there are whole areas of academia where the first question that comes up to junior faculty is, "So, what is *your* book about?". In social sciences (at least in the less technical programs) and humanities, you are expected to publish your dissertation work as a book, so by the time you go for tenure, you need to have at least one, better two -- another one based on your more recent work (which, by the way, is called *scholarship*, rather then *research*). You can easily tell by looking at the CVs of professors in say sociology whether they are in a *research* department or *scholarship* department: the former list papers first on their CVs, while the latter put books first (and may not have any papers at all).
Having said that, in the technical fields, it is often valuable to have the material summarized in one source, sometimes even for your own reference. That's how some of the advanced textbooks are formed. Some books are produced as edited collections of invited papers from a specialized topic conference, and it may have been a part of the grant funding that you, as the conference organizer, promised to the funding agency, so that your results are disseminated as widely as possible to the people who could not make it to the conference. (Other people mentioned other obvious ways for the books to shape up, mostly from lecture notes.)
A lot of books are written on sabbaticals, when top folks move away from the daily routine and can concentrate on what they enjoy most: playing in their dirt, moving around their Greek letters and integral signs around, etc. Publishers often approach high profile people and suggest to send their books to them; even I get these generic emails from Wiley or CRC or Springer from time to time. Of course, for publishers that's their business and a way to generate money; I don't think the authors are compensated even remotely enough for the trouble of writing a book. At my consulting rate, writing a book is an undertaking worth a new BMW X5; if somebody else is paying for that, as is the case with sabbatical professors, then this may be an entirely different business :).
If your own field moves through research papers, then you simply won't have the time to work on any books, unless this has been discussed with your chair and faculty, and everybody unanimously agreed that you are so good and so famous in your subfield as to afford spending a whole year away from the programmatic research writing a stupid book.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: There are many possible motivations for writing a textbook. A few textbooks bring in very large amounts of money for their authors. E.g., <NAME>, the author of a home-run calculus textbook, used $24 million from the book to build a [house that is famous](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123872378357585295#project=SLIDESHOW08&s=SB123869600484183257&articleTabs=article).
Probably the most common reason for writing textbooks is the reason that I've done it: because I thought the books already on the market were crap.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/12/02 | 577 | 2,474 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm starting to do some research in Asia, however, I don't know the local language. I do have some contacts, all of whom speak English, but I'm worried about finding earlier research which was published in the local language. For example, if I don't speak Thai and I am doing research in Thailand, how can I find existing research which was published in Thai (with the intent of contacting the researcher or finding a translator to translate it into English)?
This might be a futile exercise, and I might need to remove the question but in case anyone out there has a creative idea, I would love to hear it.<issue_comment>username_1: Only thing I can suggest you right now is to use google translation services; for instance you can add to your browser some "add-on" that automtically translates from Thai to English. Good luck
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Accessing research in a language that you don't speak is pain. If something seems interesting, just ask the author for any related material he/she may have in English. That should help you in a lot of cases. Otherwise, go listen to him/her at English-speaking conferences.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I would ask a colleague who does speak Thai, and ask them if there are any relevant Thai publications you need to be aware of. Of course, this colleague needs to be in the same field you are interested in. If they don't know of any relevant literature, this might indicate that you are not missing any relevant research.
In addition, when you are looking for papers yourself, I would Google translate the titles of the papers, and if they seem interesting, I would ask a native speaking colleague to translate the abstract. If it still is interesting, then you ask your colleague to read the paper together with you.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: The answer depends also on the fact that you will work on your subject for only a few months or for a very long period of time. Ultimately, in the second case, you will have to learn additional languages.
In sciences and economical/social sciences we are not very used to that, but it is rather common in humanities. For instance, my wife works in Egyptology, and she had to learn (at least for reading) German and Italian in addition to French (mother tongue), English (that we all learn at school) and 3 or 4 ancient languages in order to be able to read the literature of the field.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/12/02 | 1,180 | 4,499 | <issue_start>username_0: I want to include a **glossary** in my **master’s thesis** explaining some technical terms.
My university doesn't make any specifications about the usage or position of glossaries. So I'm asking myself:
* Is it better to **put the glossary at the beginning of the thesis?** (e.g. between the Table of Contents and the main content) That way the reader would see it first and either read it or keep in mind that he can look up unfamiliar terms there. But it would disrupt the reading flow between Abstract, Table of Contents and Content.
* Or would it be better to but the **glossary in the appendix?** Maybe with footnotes refering to it, each time a new term is used for the first time.
The current structure of the thesis is:
```
- Titlepage
- Abstract
- Table of Contents
- [INSERT GLOSSARY HERE?]
- Main Content
- Chapter A
- Chapter B
- ...
- Chapter N
- Appendix
- Appendix A
- Appendix B
- Table of Images
- Table of Tables
- Table of Literature
- [INSERT GLOSSARY HERE?]
```<issue_comment>username_1: Put the glossary **after any appendices and before the index**.
**EDIT:** This advice is simply based on a very quick survey of the textbooks that I had close to hand. The sample size is therefore small, possibly subject biased (physics, mathematics, astronomy, economics), and therefore subject to argument. Thanks to aeismail for the comment prompting this edit.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It is utterly a matter of style. Just put it where it makes more sense to you. If you expect people actually NEED to read it before they can read your thesis, just put it in front. Otherwise, put it after the main text.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: I suggest to follow the order reported on [Wikipedia – Book design](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_design).
Here is the suggested order (skip all that is not needed in your thesis; colophons are only needed in published works, and your publisher will take care of them):
* front matter
+ title page
+ colophon
+ contents
+ foreword
+ preface
+ acknowledgment
+ introduction
+ dedication
+ prologue
* body matter
+ content – optionally divided into volumes, books, parts, chapters, sections
* back matter
+ epilogue
+ outro
+ afterword
+ conclusion
+ postscript
+ appendix
+ glossary
+ bibliography
+ index
+ colophon
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: The other answers already contain the conclusions of my answer. However, I'll try to give some reasoning behind.
* **Glossary, Nomenclature, List of Symbols, Index, References, etc.** -- all these are *indexes*, and should go to the backmatter.
* **Table of Contents, List of Figures, etc.** -- these specify the *contents*, and should go to the frontmatter.
The difference is that *indexes* are have in general logical sorting of some type (alphabetical or other), whereas the *contents* strictly reflect the order of the text in the document.
As for the order of them: *the more used* they are, *the farer away from the mainmatter* they go (i.e. first in frontmatter and last in backmatter). This depends a lot on your reader. The reason for this is that the closer to the cover they are, the easier it is to reach them. In general, the most used index in a thesis are the references, so they go last. In textbooks, the General index goes last, since it's more interesting for the reader.
The rule above is, on the other hand, less important than the fact that **Title, half-title, dedication, preface and colophon** have priority, and are obviously the outer-most elements of the work.
So, in the end, you might get to this order:
```
FRONTMATTER
Title
Half-title
Dedicatory
Preface
Table of Contents
other "Contents"
MAINMATTER
BACKMATTER
Appendicies
Various indexes (Glossary, Nomenclature, ...)
References / Bibliography
Colophon (if placed in backmatter; it can go before
half-title on the verso page as well)
```
In the end, *none* of these rules is very strict.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: A glossary in the front before the main body has less context and disrupts the flow -- people want to read the body, not get to a list of definitions first. I attended an editorial seminar once and the instructors recounted anecdotes of leading tech companies who requested user studies on content placement like LOT, LOF, TOC, glossaries, and so on. The verdict: Just give me the content first and make it lean.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/12/02 | 681 | 2,774 | <issue_start>username_0: >
> **Possible Duplicate:**
>
> [University rank/stature - How much does it affect one’s career post-Ph.D?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90/university-rank-stature-how-much-does-it-affect-ones-career-post-ph-d)
>
>
>
Do rankings of universities matter while pursuing research or should I be more concerned about finding a suitable supervisor irrespective of the university or institute rankings?<issue_comment>username_1: I think the importance you have to attach to this criterion (university ranking) when finding a new research job (from your question, it appears to be a PhD) is limited, because:
* What counts if our research output: your results, and how you communicate them to your community. You want people in your field to recognize you as someone who can tackle difficult problems and design creative and efficient solutions.
* Of course, your research may not be so stellar that everyone has heard of you. So, coming from a well-known group with a proven track record is important. You want your research group to be famous, because it reflect well on you.
* But it's not that simple… not all group leaders are superstars! Failing that, it is better to be affiliated with a well-known department (or university). You want to be in a university/department that people think is good.
* But not all people know all universities well enough to be able to judge them. Those who don't rely on externally published rankings.
See how rankings are introduced only as item #4 in the above list. Thus, even considering only the career advancement side of your question, university ranking is not a primary concern. Sure, it plays a role, but lots of students overestimate that role compared to, say, the importance of your own work and results.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In terms of employers, you will face two types of them:
* One is interested in only *good universities* and will make it as a negative point if your university ranking is not that good. Usually those know nothing about your research. It is also subjective and vague for *what is a good university ranking*? *is there any threshold to specify good and bad rankings?*. Things are not clear here.
* Another type of employers (specially in academia/research positions) they admire your research (if you did good research) and have zero weight on where you come from.
The bottom line here is: ***if you see your supervisor is going to help you to be better researcher (and thus publish in good journal/conferences) then why not?***
There are plenty of good professors affiliated with *not-so-good* university ranking.
If you could make the two (good university ranking + good supervisor) then this is the perfect solution.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/12/03 | 2,076 | 8,484 | <issue_start>username_0: I am considering pursuing a PhD in computer science one day.
I guess specializing in (is that the way to put it)?
What I want to focus my research efforts on.
I am interested in:
1. Manned/unmanned space exploration (writing guidance/navigation systems for the next Mars rover, etc).
2. Finding cures for diseases (folding @ home).
3. Computer models of climate change, as I am very much a person that thinks "Global Warming is real and needs to be dealt with yesterday".
But this questions isn't "what should I do research in" but more of "how can I decide what I should do research in."
I know a lot of people will counter with "if you don't know what you want to research then you shouldn't be considering getting a PhD", but I don't believe in that line of reasoning. I want to do research and to be involved with something that expands the boundaries of Computer Sciences as we know it. Just because I am not exactly sure what avenue I should go down in doing so, doesn't in any way change how much I know that I do want to do it.
So where do I start with figuring out my specialization?
What are my theoretical options?
Where can I see if "getting my PhD to write software to guide probes to Jupiter" is even a viable option?
Must I choose a area that is currently being researched at the university I attend, or am I free to come up with my own?
Can/should I be reading recently released papers on Computer Science topics for some inspiration, and if so where do I go to find those?<issue_comment>username_1: This is one of the harder questions you'll have to ponder, and one of the most useful. First off, realize that your choices are not (completely) irrevocable. Many researchers shift areas every 5-7 years or so - the changes are not dramatic, but over time you can make useful contributions in a number of different areas.
Having said that, what you are looking for is a broad topic that will presumably take you through the 5-6 years of a Ph.D. To look at your questions one by one:
>
> Where can I see if "getting my PhD to write software to guide probes
> to Jupiter" is even a viable option?
>
>
>
Do you know of people working on this ? maybe at NASA ? Where did they do their Ph.D ? what kinds of topics do they publish in ? What I mean is that one way to figure out if "Ph.D in X" is viable is to see if there are people doing X, and then figure out what their trajectory was by looking at their publications, CV etc
>
> Must I choose a area that is currently being researched at the
> university I attend, or am I free to come up with my own?
>
>
>
It depends. You're in an MS program, and you haven't mentioned whether you're planning to apply elsewhere for a Ph.D. An MS is a good time to explore your options with people at the university, burnish your research credentials, and build some background in areas of interest. Obviously it helps if your area of interest is covered, but even if it's not, figure out related background that you need, and maybe look for someone doing research in a related area. Also see which places/people you'd like to do a Ph.D at based on the area, and that will give you a sense of what kind of extra reading/prep to do.
>
> Can/should I be reading recently released papers on Computer Science
> topics for some inspiration, and if so where do I go to find those?
>
>
>
But of course ! but you should try to focus your search a bit. There's a large body of work in each of the topics you listed, and google is your friend. Once you find even a few papers, you can figure out where they were published, and then look at other papers in those venues, and repeat.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I know that I'm going to get downvoted for this, given the preponderance of computer-science people here, but my advice is:
Don't do a Computer Science Masters.
Quickly work out which are you want to do programming in, and switch to a Masters in that.
So, in your case, a Masters in Climate Science. Or rocket science.
Domain knowledge is really crucial for building **useful** models. Academically pure programming will help you write code to please the computer-science purists. But if you don't have the domain knowledge, it will be useless.
I've worked on many many dozens of successful applied programming projects. **None** of the **useful** models were written by people with postgraduate qualifications in computer science (but several of the useless ones were).
Alternatively, finish your Masters in Computer Science, and then do a Masters in Climatology, or rocket engineering, or whatever.
Then you'll have the best of both worlds: domain knowledge **and** postgrad-level programming skills. The best universities are developing in-house Research Software Development capacity, which seek to unit the two, and you could be part of that.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I would like to put in my two cents here. It looks like the type of areas you are interested in are related to Artificial Intelligence. I am not suggesting you jump the AI bandwagon but I do recommend starting to read on this area alongside your normal studies. Find some of the latest AI journals and skim through (at least) the abstracts to see what people are doing nowadays. Global warming and unmanned vehicles are huge issues. You would need to narrow this down to a particular area and make your contribution there. You can't solve world-scale problems all in one MS/PhD.
Read up and make a small contribution to the existing knowledge. Maybe you'll one day make a huge difference but, as the saying goes, even the journal of a hundred miles start with a single step.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Some opportunities that you are likely to have:
* Attend seminars, especially those given by outside visitors. Ask "stupid" questions after the talks.
* Go to dinner with the speakers after the talk. In math we always take visitors out to dinner, and usually the attendance is quite poor, even when the speaker is famous. Needless to say, this is an opportunity.
* Talk to Ph.D. students. Find out what they are doing. Does it sound cool?
* Talk to postdocs and junior faculty, who are likely to have recently come from elsewhere. How was their experience? How did their previous departments differ from your current department?
* Do an excellent job in your coursework, or whatever other requirements you have now. This will prepare you well for your future, and it will also prod professors to help you out and open doors for you.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: One way is to do projects in several different areas. You'll like some projects better than others, and then you can study the corresponding field.
Alternatively, you can talk to current grad students about their work, and try to get a sense for what their lives are like. Ask them what projects they're working on and see if you find them interesting. I would also ask them about the most interesting or fundamental papers in their field, and take a glance at those.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: I am a Ph.D. Student in Bioinformatics with a previous background in Computer Science. Everything is going computer-based in today and near-future world. Even wet lab stuff going online/cloud and becoming yet another type of coding. Knowledge is cheap and interdisciplinary endeavours are the key to the future. The title of degrees is not as relevant as what you actually want to do.
If your questions are coming from other domains, you might need to pursue your research in programs that are more interdisipilanty. If you want to cure disease go study under drug discovery and computational biology programs. If you want to do aerospace research, go do it in an aerospace program, etc. Your background is being valued very much as long as you show passion to learn more about the specific domain of knowledge you want to pursue.
Classic computer science departments, depending on the university, of course, could be disappointing for people with applied, multidisciplinary interests. The level of abstraction people follow can be a bit disheartening if you want to make a real difference.
Also some colleges, departments, etc don't see the computer scientist "migrants" as one of them in a sense that they do not consider you a "real biologist", or a "real climatologist", etc, etc. That is another for another time though.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/12/03 | 2,147 | 9,123 | <issue_start>username_0: The title is fairly generic in nature, so I'm trying to elaborate in the body. I'm interested in answers pertaining to Theoretical Computer Science (TCS), but I'm certain the question would be equally relevant in fields which have been around for more than a couple of decades, and hence I hope to get responses from researchers in other disciplines as well!
What I'm trying to understand is how researchers (who have been working for quite sometime) in any specialized field (like TCS) keep track of results that have already been published - not just seminal results, but also results which have a lesser (but not insignificant) impact on the field but were published years or decades before. At the same time, one has to keep track of results being published in (at least) the notable conferences in the current year as well, in order to absorb the new ideas presented there and incorporate/extend them in one's own work.
I find it kind of incredible to believe that all of the above is possible without any kind of disciplined approach to reading and subsequent assimilation of the ideas on a regular basis - which is why I'm asking members of academia about their experiences/practices on this. In particular:
1. How frequently (if at all) do you revisit "classic" results?
2. Do you keep written/electronic notes on a regular basis to keep track of continuing progress in a field (say, for instance, inapproximability results for geometric problems) - or do you prefer to keep it all in your mind?
3. To keep track of current state of art, do you only attend/read Tier-I conferences, or do you get useful ideas from results published in Tier-II/III conferences as well?
4. What kind of time/resources would you typically set aside for reading, as opposed to working on a problem?
In short, I'm trying to find what kind of things would you expect a top researcher to "know" off the top of his head, and at what level of depth - and how would you go trying to maintain that level of perception over the years?
(I understand that the question **IS** subjective, but I'm hoping that it satisfies the guidelines for a "[good subjective](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/)" question!)<issue_comment>username_1: I'm very bad at keeping track of things, so maybe all I can share is what NOT to do :), but I find it easiest to keep track of ongoing work in the community (and I'm in TCS too) in three ways:
* By working on problems and being willing to indulge in flights of fancy (which allows me to read beyond the narrow scope of the problem I'm dealing with)
* By perusing the list of accepted papers at a conference when it's announced.
* (more recently) subscribing to relevant arXiv feeds and saving papers to read on my IPad - this works only partially, but I always have things ready to read when I feel like it.
This system is not perfect - I still miss lots of interesting papers - but I've slowly come to accept that it will be impossible to keep track of all interesting results in the field (let alone the flashy ones). For breadth beyond the above I rely a lot on surveys and slides that I can quickly browse.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: **Read review articles** in your field. That's where someone else already did the hard work of reading and summarizing the literature. Tenured-track professors have a strong incentive to write invited review articles because it's prestigious and gets them a lot of citations.
**Maintain a library database of papers you've read** along with the dates you read them. Add your own keywords to them so you can find them later and cite them. Keep this database separate from the new databases you'll make when you start writing a new paper (don't make the mistake of trying to keep it all in the same file -- you'll never find anything when it gets too big). I do this in Endnote, though obviously you could do it in bibtex or some other program.
Put a repeating monthly reminder on your calendar to **send you an email when the new issue of each journal comes out**. You can do this easily on Google Calendar or MS Outlook. Delete the email after you've looked through the new articles. (Remember to put the important ones you read in your library database!)
Also put semi-annual reminders on your calendar with **abstract submission due dates** for the relevant conferences for your field. I'd suggest putting two email reminders about a month and also a week before the actual due dates.
Carry a notebook (not a laptop or other device) with you at the conference and **write down titles of the important events and what was important about them**. Yes, handwritten notes! You won't have time to type up pretty documents. Managing battery life and surfing the internet is a waste of time when you could be networking with the best researchers in your field. You'll have time after the conference to go back through your notes and then add those presentations to your library database.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I am not *experienced researcher* but I will say what I usually do:
* **Subscribe for Google scholar alert.**
I found this very helpful specially for new topics and to keep you updated. Once google scholar indexed a paper contains your word, it will send you alert. *It is simply an awesome feature to know almost every new paper in your subfield.*
* **Subscribe in ArXiv**
My goal here is to see the general field papers. (I am subscribing to Artificial Intelligence and Game Theory). You will get the abstracts along with the paper title. If you found this paper is interesting then google it.
* **Follow up with Top-conferences and journals**
*(in Computer Science)* Sometimes visiting the new DBLP page for the conference/journal might be useful. Same goes to visiting the pioneers DBLP pages.
I do maintain a plain text file contains some (crazy) ideas/strong statements/question related to the papers I read. When it is the time to look for new project/idea, I usually consult this file.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: You don't need to know everything. Older results only matter as much as they're relevant to what you're researching and writing about now. Also, since research is about discovering NEW things, older results can pretty much just sit there and gather dust until they become relevant for current research.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: Here are a few additions to username_1's list (converted from a comment at TCSgrad's suggestion):
* **Don't even try to remember details.** Just remember that somebody published something related, and use Google (or Mendeley or Papers) to find the paper again when you need it.
* **Chase references.** Interesting papers tend to cite other interesting papers. When you read any paper, also look at the papers in its bibliography.
* **Chase citations.** Interesting papers tend to be cited by other interesting papers. When you read the paper, find other papers that cite it (via Google Scholar, for example) and look at them, too.
* **Follow whims.** If you see a paper with an interesting word in the title, or an interesting figure on the first page, at least read the abstract.
* **Don't try to read everything.** That's impossible. Just try to read a little more.
* **Stop reading.** Eventually you have to do your own research. Don't worry about reinventing the wheel; sometimes the best (and even fastest) way to understand what someone else did is to ignore them, figure it out yourself, and *then* read their paper.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_6: At some point in your academic career you have to be pragmatic. By this I mean you will *read* a paper when you need to, and you often read the papers only in parts. Still you will read plenty of papers: research, teaching, refereeing there are many occasions.
On the other hand you have to keep your eyes open. You should have a rough idea what is going on in your field. But you don't have to know the details, since you don't have the time for this. Many ideas how to do this were already posted. Here is what I do (I also work in TCS and Discrete Math).
* Subscribe to the arxiv's rss feed you are interested in.
* Read the important blogs, they will also list paper accepted at main conferences.
* If you are interested in a journal, subscribe to the newsletter.
* Talk to your peers.
Often I just scan the titles, and the list of authors. If I find something interesting I have a look at the abstract and try to understand the statement of the main result. If you don't already use a rss reader I strongly recommend to use one to keep track of everything in one single place.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: [Research Lei](http://cs.stanford.edu/people/karpathy/researchlei/) was an interesting attempt at visualizing groups of people working together, clustering documents with similar subjects of work, using a simple python interface. I am not sure if it still works but making such graphs and reviewing your community gives you a global view of work being done in the field.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/12/03 | 1,184 | 5,221 | <issue_start>username_0: It seems that more and more schools are encouraging their faculty to apply for (and secure) external funding. I have not yet been awarded any research grants. If I'm applying for jobs at research schools, should I include on my CV my unfunded grant applications? The obvious argument against this is that these applications were *unfunded*, and will be viewed as failures. The obvious argument for this is that many administrations are eager to have their faculty applying for grants and reward them (very modestly) even for unsuccessful applications. Which view carries more weight?<issue_comment>username_1: Unfortunately as you already mentioned there is no clear answer. One time I was at an AAG conference at a workshop about job hunting, applications, and CV building and the speakers were a mix of young and old academics. The majority I think agreed on not listing failures and avoid to list grants you were awarded but refused. The latter might be used when you don't have many grant application but might show a signs of bad planning. As far as your question perhaps it might be useful to list only if you applied to a very competitive grant. In alternative you could briefly talk about it in your cover letter but just highlight that you have already gone through the process. Even getting a small grant ($1000) is better than an unfunded application.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: ```
Success stand for itself, failure needs to be qualified. (A wise man)
```
Only, include failed applications if it tells a story about your research and where it is going. For example, saying that you failed 5 years ago but then hit the jackpot and proved all your detractors wrong.
Unless you have a very good reason, I think it only serve to confuse people. Most importantly it will may remind folks your area of research is undeserving and uninteresting.
That is the absolute worst message that you can send.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: When applying to a TT position at a research intensive school, the search committee is going to want to know want your first research project is going to be and who would likely fund it. A failed grant application along with an explanation can go a ways towards providing that information. One line on a CV probably isn't helpful and I would not include failed applications on my CV for such a position. I would however mention one of the proposal in my cover letter. Being able to say that you have a proposal and have identified potential funders (which comes first is a little bit of a chicken and egg thing) is a good thing. Being able to say you applied to funding scheme X and while you didn't get funded got useful feedback and you are now revising the application for funding scheme Y is even better. Obviously tailor this if the funding scheme gave a scores/percentiles/stage and/or allows you to resubmit.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: You should ask yourself, who will read my CV and what do I want to achieve by tailoring it.
In your case the CV is part of an application for a position in academia, it should make an impression on the people in the search committee. From my experience people usually list only funded proposals in their CV. So including unfunded proposals will be considered as something odd. I don't say this is strictly forbidden, but you should have an extremely good reason for doing this. And I can't think of any. An unfunded proposal will be (from my experience in committees) not considered as an *achievement*. On the contrary, if you have a lot of funded proposals you might want to include the unfunded, too show your "success rate". But I wouldn't even recommend this.
If you want to prove that you can write about prospective future research, you should write an excellent research statement. You could address your experiences in this place.
Again, their is no right or wrong. So this is my very personal opinion.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: No.
---
Definitely list *pending* grant proposals. But *rejected* grant proposals should fall into the memory hole.
Also, do not list your rejected journal submissions, the awards you applied for but did not win, or the graduate schools that did not admit you.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_6: It depends on the nature of the grants you haven't received and the type of institution you are applying to. For example, it is very, very difficult for young researchers to get NIH funding now, so it's no disgrace to fail there, but applications do show you are motivated, and might show you have good collaborators, plans etc.
Don't forget that CVs can have free text. You might just put a line in such as "Further experience in applications to NIH, NSF. Details available on request." Particularly if you are proud of a grant proposal & are planning to resubmit it, or have a good story to tell about how it might be further developed, or might be more successful coming from the institution you are applying to. If you can talk intelligently about the reviews you got and what you have learned from the experience, then give your potential employees a prompt to bring that up in the interview.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/12/03 | 815 | 3,510 | <issue_start>username_0: I have received an offer to visit a lab for 4/5 months that could lead into a fully funded PhD. In the meantime I have other applications in the pipeline from which I will hear back in either a few weeks or a couple of months (just different educational systems).
I am excited about going to this lab but I want to wait to have all my offers on the table before commiting to a program. Also I am not sure yet if I will be able to develop in this lab the project I have in mind. However the PI of the lab is highly regarded in the field.
If I were to leave the lab I would want to leave in the best note possible not to burn my bridges with this person and institution.
I am sure the PI knows I might have applied elsewhere and also although it is likely that this visit will turn into a PhD there is also a small chance it will not.
What would be the best way to handle this situation in an ethical and correct way, and not disappointed anybody?
PS: I will get paid in this period but not as much as PhD student. Let me know if more information is needed.
EDIT: So apparently by the end of the visit I will present a PhD proposal, so I hope that at that point it will not be too late to answer other offers.<issue_comment>username_1: In general, I think so long as you and the PI in question are forthright about your mutual expectations, there should be very few problems.
If the PI who is offering you the position is planning on having you become a PhD student, then that should be made clear. Similarly, if you'd like to consider other options, then you should let your potential advisor know that a "competition" will be taking place.
However, since you said you'd be writing a PhD proposal, it's not clear that you'd automatically have a guaranteed offer for a position at the end of this position if successful. This should also be cleared up before you make a final decision.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: This will depend on all of the institutions involved, but I expect it should work out for you. I am sure the laboratory making the offer must be familiar with this situation, so the first thing I would do is talk to them about the various contingencies. Then for the other offers, as they come in, you will have to explain you are getting experience in this laboratory and give them the date you expect to know whether or not you can accept their offer. If they insist on knowing sooner, then you can take it up with your PI.
It may not be easy emotionally (decisions between good offers can feel very hard even though really neither choice would be "wrong"), but I think it is very unlikely that you will be disadvantaged by taking the opportunity to work in a prestigious lab. Some of the other offers may be willing to wait, and for the ones that can't, they may allow you to reapply if you don't receive the offer you want.
There is a slight chance that the PI is taking advantage of you this way, but if so I'm sure they will have a reputation for that, and the first person to make you another offer would let you know you are better off leaving even if it does "burn a bridge". Then you may need to ask around a little more to be sure who to believe. But it is more likely you are in a win/win situation – you get experience either way, and if a really nice offer comes along from another lab, probably your PI will be OK with you taking it, and you can finish their work up before going and taking up the new offer.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer] |
2012/12/04 | 497 | 2,217 | <issue_start>username_0: if a current PhD student applying to another university *within the same country*, is it required to expose the fact that he/she is currently enrolled in another university?
is it a right for the grad studies office to know my current status? if yes; why? what is the difference?
Specially in case if the student does not want to transfer the credits he/she has taken in the previous university.<issue_comment>username_1: **Yes.** If you are a student, you should say so in your application. Otherwise, your CV will have an unexplained gap for the time you've been at your current department. Unexplained gaps raise red flags with admissions committees.
In your statement, you also need to explain *why* you are applying to the new department instead of completing your PhD at your current department. Moreover, you must do so *without* disparaging your current department, *even if you have legitimate cause to do so*; nobody likes a whiner. Good reasons to move include a change in your own research interests, your advisor moving or retiring, following a spouse.
Above all, do everything above board. If possible, you should also request at a recommendation letter from your current advisor; if not your advisor, some other faculty member in your department. **If you apply secretly, you risk burning all bridges with faculty in your current department.**
Credit transfer is a completely orthogonal issue.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Absolutely. A PhD is a long-term relationship, taking two people's valuable time – not only for the duration of the dissertation but forever afterwards you will be linked to each other, affecting each other's reputations with your own. It is an expensive and rare opportunity. You should be completely honest on an application, and this certainly includes explaining any previous commitments you've made. You need to explain exactly how and why you have broken them. Frankly, I took one student who had stopped a previous PhD, and he stopped mine too, so I would be very unlikely to take such a student again. Though a strong and clear letter of recommendation from the previous supervisor might convince me.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/12/06 | 559 | 2,368 | <issue_start>username_0: In my master's thesis I am building on two earlier works of myself.
-> One is a study project I've done together with two fellow students,
-> the other one is an assignment I did on my own.
**If I'm using results from these, should I include them in the Bibliography?**
Arguments against including them might be:
* They are not published, a reader of my thesis therefore wouldn't be able to
look these sources up.
(They don't qualify as quotable)
* Also the effort involved in this works was much less than the amount
of work I'm doing for my thesis.
(Some doubts on them beeing worth quoting)
* And finally I am the author or one of the authors of these works.
(I am not using foreign thought material)
Nevertheless it feels somehow incomplete to just leave them out.<issue_comment>username_1: Are these works available in any published form or any other permanent online form, such as a technical report? If so then cite. If not, then there's nothing to cite. In my opinion, it would look strange to cite a project done in some previous course.
What you can do is put an acknowledgment in the back of your thesis/paper to your previous "co-authors".
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In your particular case it would have no sense to cite your previous projects. As username_1 wrote, the reader would have no chance to access the materials anyway, there were not published and probably **there are not recognize by society as a scientific work**. Of course, you should mention the co-authors contributions in the thesis, it is polite.
---
However, if we would like to generalize the question a little.
**If you are building your results on your previous work, you have to cite or you would commit *auto-plagiarism*** which is not acceptable in scientific writing. Simply, to present the same results more times is not allowed even if there are not published in a journal.
In case you know that the **reader would not be able to access your previous work** (archive of your University where your thesis would be) **you still have to cite**. In this case, you can mention for example the chapter, or the picture you are referring to and put the important fact/results from you previous work to the text you are writing.
In this case none of the 3 arguments you mentioned is relevant.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/12/06 | 1,184 | 4,742 | <issue_start>username_0: Impact factors of journals are one the most commonly use indicator of their quality. As a consequence when someone is looking for a journal in which publish his results, the highest the impact factor, the better. However, over the years journal's impact factors change depending on the quality of their article.
My question, that is more theoretical then practical, is twofold:
1. Should I care about the **future impact factor of the journals** I publish in (similarly as when buying stock market).
2. Would it be advisable to **keep track of the impact factor** at the time of publication in a list of paper (a bit like saying "I know to impact factor of the journal I published in five years ago is bad, but it was better then").
This question is somehow related to the fact that I hear once or twice about examining boards considering only the papers published in journals above a certain impact factor when assessing the quality of a candidate. In other words, papers published in low impact factor journal are not even worth noticing.<issue_comment>username_1: I would be wary of going with Impact Factors as a good metric.
There has been recently a couple of Journals that got into trouble for artificially blowing their IFs, they basically asked any submitter to cite at least 3 articles of the same Journal.
However, it is true that good Journals like Nature, IEEE Transactions, Elsevier, etc will give your paper a lot more credibility than unknown Journals.
In my experience, all of that was good for a pre-Internet era, where Universities had to pick and choose their subscriptions, but now, with all the plethora of information available that is probably less the norm than ever.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Related to your last comment:
>
> boards that considered only the papers published in journal above a certain impact factor when assessing the quality of a candidate
>
>
>
I think that such borders are not doing well. As you said, the IF (Impact Factor) varies in time (regardless if we consider it as a relevant measure).
According to me, there are 2 points of view by which the IF which should be considered in your question:
1. The point that **you** tried (and **succeeded**) **to publish a paper in a journal with high IF**. What would that fact say to me (if I would be in a committee)? That you were confident about your results and you **trusted your work to be published in a good journal**. (BUT(!) it does not meat that the journal or the paper is good, it just reflects you, the candidate). In this case relevant is the **IF by the time your article was accepted**.
2. The point that the **IF of the journal you published rises in the next 2-3 years after the time your paper was accepted**. Why? Lets take a look [how the IF is calculated](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor):
A = the number of times articles published in 2006 and 2007 were cited by indexed journals during 2008.
B = the total number of "citable items" published by that journal in 2006 and 2007.
2008 impact factor = A/B.
However, can we say that articles published in 2006 and 2007 will be cited in 2008? Just very small amount of them. Someone reads your article (month 1), then does the part of research related to your article (2-3 months?), approved by co-authors (another month) and goes through the acceptance procedure (12-14 months). It takes about a year and a half to print the citation of your article. So, if the editors decide that they will accept just good articles the resulting rising of IF will be visible in 2-3 years in the future. So if I would be a committee member I would like to know how was the IF 2-3 years after the article of the candidate was printed. That can tell me that by the time the article was printed, also a considerable amount of good articles were printed as well. But keep in mind that IF consider citation just within 2 years back, and that is just too short. I think it should be 3 years at least.
So, to answer your questions:
add 1.: YES, for the next 2-3 years as it is effectiveness time of IF.
add 2.: YES, because it reflect the actual state of the author by the time he decided to publish.
---
But please, all this can help as a indicator but is should be taking into account with caution. I should also say that IF is very tricky and it can be easily misinterpreted (self-citation, how many review articles the Journal publishes,...). If you want to take a look at other evaluating tools, you can visit:
[Eigenfactor](http://www.eigenfactor.org/) or
[Journal Ranking](http://journal-ranking.com/ranking/web/index.html)
and:
**What really matters is how much your article is cited(!)**
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer] |
2012/12/07 | 1,428 | 6,275 | <issue_start>username_0: A lot of universities nowadays expect professors to be able to provide research experience to their undergraduates. i.e. in job applications for new hires. What do they actually expect- Publications? Senior projects? Funding opportunities for undergraduates? While I agree research 'experience' is a great thing for undergraduates in principal, realistically the vast majority of undergrads aren't going to be able to make progress on real problems - so how will this reflect on a new professor?<issue_comment>username_1: Faculty in such situations might be expected to provide research experiences commensurate with the size and scope of the institution. Undergraduates usually cannot devote the time to a project that a graduate student does, so the outcomes are different. Publications are not generally expected; conference presentations are more common. Most importantly, the undergraduate gets experience working on a complex problem and develops transferable research skills. What the faculty member gets is [not the same as what he or she would get from graduate students.](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/592/do-professors-benefit-from-undergraduate-research)
What an undergraduate does as research depends on the facilities, infrastructure, and culture of the institution. At a major research institution, undergraduates should be working on the same types of problems graduate students work on, but perhaps in a more limited scope. When I was a grad student, we had several undergrads in our lab, one of whom was grad student quality and got some publications. The others contributed valuable (if not always publishable) work to our projects.
At a smaller institution that maybe does not have a graduate progran (like where I am now), you give an undergraduate student work commensurate with the type of grants you are expected to write. My institution (and my department especially) does not emphasize pursuit of large external grants, and so the types of projects I can give to my students are more limited. At the undergraduate stage, [the process is more important than the results](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2115/how-to-ensure-a-research-idea-has-not-been-explored-previously/2121#2121). I regularly send my students to regional and national conferences, and I hope to eventually have them publish something, but I am not given low evaluation marks. However, if you are expected to apply for and get big grants, then your undergrads should be doing work at that level.
All in all, in the chemistry departments I have been a part of (large and small), most faculty have one or more undergraduates doing research and most undergraduates get the opportunity. However, not all undergraduates choose to, nor would their be enough opportunities to support them if they did. The onus is on the undergraduate to choose to do research, not on the professor to guarantee an opportunity is available to all students even if they do not want it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: My perspective is mostly Australian on this (with a bit of UK thrown in). "Research Experience" for undergrads here typically means exposure to and training in the methods of research. On one side this includes simply exposing undergraduates to the latest (important) results, but also incrementally introducing them to *how* to be a researcher, capped in the final year with an offering of a small research project. Such a project would not be expected to produce new results, but to demonstrate the student's capability with methodology.
Having said that, there does seem to be an implicit push to get people publishing earlier, which seems to filter down from the increased pressure to publish on academics - but that's another story.
Still, in general, it tends to be in my experience about exposure, rather than an expectation that the undergraduate will actually perform (individual) research. The ones that do are just a bonus.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: ~~There's always the masters thesis, which in some instances might include original research.~~ Also, at my university, some undergraduate TA's gets involved in research a bit by professors giving them some problems to work on, usually involving doing numerics.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: Note: my perspective is from doctorate-granting biology departments in the USA
Undergraduate research experience comes in two flavors -- work-study (paid) or for class credit (often a senior/honors thesis). Both are valuable, and I expect that most departments do not have very specific expectations for professors aside from some basic effort to provide undergraduate research opportunities. Professors at these institutions are judged based on both research and teaching, and undergraduate research is just a small part of the teaching that these professors do.
You can see how universities present undergraduate research opportunities to the students (e.g. [Harvard](http://uraf.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do), [UC Berkeley](http://research.berkeley.edu/)), but I doubt that you will find publications describing how these programs influence faculty promotions. Faculty can receive [awards](http://research.berkeley.edu/distinguished/) for undergraduate mentoring. Such awards are nice to place on one's CV when applying for promotions, but that this is secondary to research, graduate student mentoring, and teaching classes.
Here is my personal opinion on undergraduate research. Even if an undergraduate is only washing dishes and making media (sterile technique!), they are still being exposed to the laboratory environment and learning what level of rigor is required to do research. Given their other commitments (such as class), their inexperience, and their limited conceptual preparation, undergraduates should not be expected to accomplish anything of note. Their inclusion in research projects should be structured to support and advance the work of full-time lab members, with the expectation that undergraduates will learn from any exposure to research projects. Finally, they can provide graduate students and post-docs with the opportunity to learn how to be mentors themselves, which is an essential part of their training.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/12/08 | 442 | 1,811 | <issue_start>username_0: My department requires dissertations from all honours students (being England, that's basically all of them). Some of these are extremely good, even though they are written by undergraduates. My department for some years created a tech report series, which included undergraduate dissertations with high enough marks and the agreement of the supervisor, but now this system has gotten lost in a morass of web redesigns etc.
Is there any new norm for archiving good undergraduate dissertations? We were thinking of just putting it in arxiv.org, is that considered acceptable? We are writing an article and want to cite the dissertation for the full implementation details.<issue_comment>username_1: Yes.
----
Any research writing (paper, report, monograph, dissertation, preprint, etc.) approaching publishable quality is welcome on ArXiv, whether its'written by tenured faculty, postdocs, graduate students, undergraduates, high school students, or hamsters.
(I am the ArXiv moderator for cs.DM and cs.CG. I have not, as far as I know, accepted a paper from a hamster.)
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Seconding the main point of username_1's answer, ArXiv is "only weakly moderated", and makes no demands about status, rank, university affiliation, etc.
However, there appear to be mild expectations about format. Beyond the lowest-level TeX/LaTeX requirements, it seems that papers should be in the format of a paper submittable for publication-in-a-refereed-journal. I can imagine the possibility that formats for undergrad dissertations might or might not be enforced, and/or might be substantially different (even if conforming to a formal requirement).
But/and I'd think that a rewritten version of a good thesis would easily be arXiv-able.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/12/10 | 611 | 2,810 | <issue_start>username_0: Does someone know what are the different roles between a Program Committee (PC) member and Reviewer for conferences (e.g., in the field of machine learning)?<issue_comment>username_1: PC = reviewer + administrative work.
They are responsible for:
* Assigning papers to reviewers (marriage problem).
* Nominate papers for best paper award/journal track.
* Set up a program for the conference.
Usually different PCs monitor different subareas. Also, I believe they contribute on solving conflict of interest issues - if there is any. These are my observations, never been PC myself
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: The responsibilities of a programme committee member and a mere reviewer could easily be the same, or differ. All depends on the particular conference/workshop setup. E.g., in computer science/AI there the difference is mainly a result of the venue size. Large first-tier conferences, such as e.g., IJCAI have a four layer programme committee structure. Here PC chairs, the top layer, govern the whole process from recruiting the various types of PC members, through conflict-of-interest handling, bidding on submissions, to notification and proceedings composition and publication. For such conferences the PC chairs recruit Senior PC members who are responsible for larger batches of submissions, or small sub-areas and report to PC chairs. For some conferences, the SPCs recruit regular PC members who in turn report to them and are responsible for the reviews. Regular PC members normally do the reviews themselves, but it's relatively common that they sometimes "subcontract" the job to other reviewers they recruit. These lowest level reviewers would do the review and get credit too, but the actual PC member is ultimately responsible for the review and the discussions among the PC members. Upon completing the review and discussion phases, SPCs give final recommendation for acceptance/rejection and possibly write meta-review summarizing discussion to each submission. The PC chairs would distribute the notifications and handle the proceedings and programme schedule composition.
Now, for mid-size conferences, or workshops the senior PC members layer is usually missing and regular PC members report directly to PC chairs and take over the tasks of SPCs for large conferences. The mechanics of sub-reviewing stays the same.
For small-size conferences and workshops, there are virtually no administrative tasks left for the PC members, so they do just the reviewing (possibly recruit sub-reviewers) and the PC chairs finally decide about acceptance and rejection of the individual submissions on the basis of the received recommendations.
What I describe above is regular scheme of things in "applied computer science".
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer] |
2012/12/10 | 965 | 4,035 | <issue_start>username_0: I am a junior PhD student in electrical engineering and I need ideas about how to handle my mentor. Whenever I go to her with an idea she rejects it saying it is wrong or not interesting. But after a few months she comes back with a slightly modified version of my earlier idea and takes credit for the full idea. She asks me to do experiments with her version of my idea. Then when we have results, she publishes them in a conference (includes me as an author), but she gives the talk at the conference saying she came up with the idea and I only did experiments.
I don't want to stop working with her because I have been working with her for two years and leaving will set me back by at least one and a half years. Can you suggest how to avoid this?<issue_comment>username_1: Continue working with her until the end without giving too much ideas. In the meantime, work on your own ideas, but wait the end of your PhD to publish them.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I suspect the advisor is relative young and probably not fully even aware of the problem. Her perception of events may be completely different. She may feel that she contributed the essential part of the idea to make it valuable. She may not even remember that the idea came from you originally. But that does not mean that she shouldn't be corrected and give credit to you.
This can probably be solved by communicating with her, or by communicating with someone more senior, who could have a talk with her. Are there any annual progress meetings where this could be done?
Not dealing with the problem will only exacerbate it.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: It's a common psychological thing that people treat their own ideas, and others' ideas, on a different grounding. And even there is a strategy of convincing people to make them believe that they genuinely came with the idea. The thing is that in academia, it's not only about "making things work" but tracking who came with the idea first.
So:
* I disagree with JeffE's "Don't walk. Run" (perhaps for the first time),
* I would talk to her, especially referring to e-mails or something when you explicitly cam with this idea, but starting a discussion, not an attack.
Surely, there are chances that:
* the idea was different (seemingly subtle differences are actually big), at least in her eyes,
* she honestly forgot that she came with this idea (but it is also not that impossible, that she got rather inspired and not only you, but a number of guys),
* she actively wants to get all/most of the credit (perhaps not that uncommon for a group leader, but definitely bad for you).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I would approach this the same way I would have done in any workplace:
* In future, all proposals from you to her would be initiated by an email, with explicit copies to an external, personal email account *of yours*.
* In the event of any offline conversations, write a summary of your discussion and send it to her (and yourself) in the form of an email - end the email on a note that this is a formal "notes of the meeting minutes", and that she should reply if there are any discrepancies in it.
* In the extreme case, if all of the above do not work, write your idea in the form of a draft paper, submit it to arxiv, wait for it to get accepted (takes a couple of days I think), *and then* initiate the proposal (through an email, of course!)
To clarify, I wholeheartedly agree with JeffE - an adviser is your mentor for life, and if this is the foundation of your relationship, you should break it off ASAP (no matter how many years you lose - your peace of mind isn't worth it!). Also, note that while the above steps may stop her from plagiarizing your ideas, she would still be in a position of power and can screw you over in *n* different ways (your defense, recommendation letters, feedback on faculty hiring committees etc). So, use my suggestions in the short-term till you find a different mentor!
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/12/10 | 3,748 | 15,931 | <issue_start>username_0: Is it common to supervisors to email their students papers to review (which were apparently assigned to the supervisor, and not to the student). The field is Computer Science, but I would also like to hear from the other fields.<issue_comment>username_1: For a conference, PC members are responsible for reviewing papers. However, it's very common that they can use sub-reviewers, that is, delegating their review to another person. They nonetheless remain responsible for the final review. Some reviewing system, such as Easychair, have an integrated mechanism for asking a sub-reviewer, so there is an official "proof" of the review delegation, and some conferences include in their proceedings the additional reviewers (without saying for which paper, of course).
As for the frequency of such practice, it's hard to tell. Some supervisors might easily use that as an easy way to not do the reviews, others can use them because they believe the student might be more qualified (and more interested) in the particular topic of the paper, others can do it because reviewing is an important task of an academic, and one has to learn at some point. However, if the student does not feel qualified enough to review the paper, he/she should mention it and refuse the review.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_1: It is not uncommon for the advisor to ask a student to review a paper. Let's face it — reviewing is a chore, takes a huge chunk of your time and most people do it not out of interest for the paper, but rather a necessity (it factors in promotions within the organization and recognition within the society) and probably some feigned interest in the "role of an academic" and "giving back to the society".
Usually, the papers that an advisor passes on to their students are
* tangentially related to their interests
* only mildly interesting or borderline stuff
* are not from top-tier journals
As a student, you should never pass up on these opportunities. It can be a very rewarding experience to review a paper and discuss with your advisor. Some of the things you'll learn are:
* that you didn't catch on to some inconsistency/mistake after a month of review, but your advisor did it in 15 mins of casual reading.
* to write an effective critique while at the same time not putting the authors down. Contrary to what many may think, a review is not all about "your math sucks!". While yes, it should be pointed out if it indeed sucks, there are ways of saying that. If you spend a lot of the review finding faults, then it is also "fair" to throw in a couple of nice things about the paper and balance it.
* you'll also learn to not nit pick on minor quibbles and focus on the technical content (I hate it when a reviewer makes a huge deal of 'data *are*' vs 'data *is*').
* You'll learn to do this while juggling other activities, so it's also an early lesson in time management.
In the end, the quality of the review is partly your advisor's responsibility and he's not going to allow it if it is completely shabby. So, take this as an opportunity to learn about how to write a review.
Speaking for myself, I reviewed a couple of papers for my advisor in my early years and now, after I have a few publications to my name, I get invited to review papers on my own (i.e., not via my advisor). Recently, there were a couple of opportunities that my advisor passed on to me, but the difference this time, is that he trusts me to do a decent review and so requested the editor to *officially* ask me to review, so that I'll get credit for it.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It's common in neuroscience. In my limited experience (consisting of two such reviews), the idea was that it's a learning experience for me. My supervisor did his own review independently, then we compared notes, and he put together the final version. In both cases, he mentioned me by name to the journal editors. In one of the two cases I also saw that it's part of the journal's policy that any such PhD students should be mentioned. This, I would say, is a strong indicator that it's common practice.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: It is also common for mentors to hand off reviewing tasks to specific group members that work in a field related to the manuscript.
That way, a win-win situation is created, since the group member gets to stay on top of current research in their field of interest.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I would never ask someone else to write a review and then put my own name on it, and I don't know of instances of that happening in my field (applied mathematics). If I am unable to referee a paper, I usually suggest alternative referees to the editor. Those suggestions might include one of my students, but it would be up to the editor whether to ask the student to referee.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: This is partly a response to john k's answer.
>
> In the end, the review will go out only under your advisors [sic] name
>
>
>
Farming out a review to someone else -- especially someone who is subordinate to you -- and then putting only your own name on it is a practice that the vast majority of academics would view as unequivocally unethical. In fact it is essentially plagiarism.
I wish answerers here would not endorse this practice. As <NAME> points out in a comment, if this is done only between the student and the adviser then the editor will not even know about it so certainly cannot be viewed as allowing or participating in this.
>
> So, take this as an opportunity to learn and do not worry that you won't get credit for it.
>
>
>
I certainly do worry about the practice of advisers passing off their students' work as their own.
>
> and he's [the advisor] not going to allow it if it is completely shabby.
>
>
>
If the advisor is going to be involved in the refereeing process anyway, then passing it off to the student is not a clear time savings. However it sounds like a recipe for a bad refereeing job: one very junior, possibly not fully qualified person actually reads the paper, and then the more senior, qualified person mostly looks at the report that the junior person has written. There's a lot of room for something to fall through the cracks.
Here is what I would suggest instead:
1) If as an adviser you actually feel that your student is fully qualified to referee a paper that you have been sent, and if you feel that it will in some way be more useful for your student to do it than you yourself (e.g. you view it as a learning experience for the student), then contact the editor and suggest your student as an alternate referee, *while identifying them as your student*. Most editors will be happy with this because:
(i) Graduate students can make unusually conscientious and quick referees. I refereed one paper as a graduate student. I was very flattered to be asked to do so, so I carefully read every line and even spent a substantial amount of time gaining background knowledge [for the mathematicians: I had to read part of SGAVII in order to do what I felt was a thorough job]. I also did this over a period of slightly less than a month.
(ii) It's better than asking a very junior person to do the refereeing job out of the blue [as in fact was the case with me in the above situation] because the student can consult with her adviser if necessary, either to ask a key technical question or just to ask for advice about writing the report and dealing with the editor.
I (formally) passed off a referee job to a PhD student of mine about a year or so ago. I think it worked out well: he did a good, fast job, and he did consult me a bit for help. As I recall, most (or all) of the questions he asked me were not about the content of the paper -- on the contrary, after he read it I asked him some stuff out of my own interest and curiosity -- but rather about the mechanics of the referee report: what standards to impose, how to reply to the editor, whether it was okay to request that the authors make a revision doing X and Y, and so forth. I think this latter part was at least as valuable an experience for him as simply vetting the paper for correctness.
2) If you can identify a part of a paper that is sufficiently independent of the rest so as to make it possible to read and judge only that part, then it seems reasonable to contract a "subreviewer" for that part. Maybe this subreviewer is your student and asking her to do it is saving you some tedium. Maybe this subreviewer has expertise that you lack and it is because of them that you feel capable of writing a report at all. With respect to this, I would say:
(i) Of course you need to identify by name all subreviewers that you use.
(ii) If you take on a subreviewer, it should be very clear exactly what the subreviewer is vouching for. You are still the one who is vouching for a paper as a whole. You need to be extra careful that you are not leaving any gaps. For instance, if a paper concerns arithmetic geometry and spectral graph theory, then there will probably be a part in which problems in arithmetic geometry are translated to problems in spectral graph theory, or vice versa. There needs to be at least one referee who understands both of these topics sufficiently well in order to do a credible job.
(iii) If the issues in (ii) are at all complicated -- e.g. if you find yourself wanting to enlist more than one subreviewer -- then it may be better to have this subcontracting process done by the editor. S/he can then, if desired, solicit multiple reports, add/change/remove subreviewers, and so forth.
I have never enlisted subreviewers, and I have refereed more than 30 papers. But I could imagine for instance being given a paper which had a substantial computational component, and then I might ask to see the code itself and give it to a student of mine who has substantial programming expertise. The difference here is that doing so would improve the referee process (it is very unlikely that I would look at the code myself in any detail, and even less likely that any good would come of my doing so). Passing something off to graduate student when you think or know you would do a materially better job already seems slightly ethically suspect.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: It is definitely common in our group, but it is more seen as an exercise for the PhD student, as we generally discuss the review with our supervisors and they make sure it's suitable. That way, the PhD student gets practice in paper reviewing and the supervisor has less work (hopefully).
I absolutely agree with some of the other answers that sticking your name on an **unread** review by someone else or having your supervisor send off your review without discussing it first would be negligent.
(Edit: computer science.)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: 1. You will not get any credit for doing someone else's work.
2. You might get some knowledge and a little experience working on the project, which some how is good for self satisfaction `as you are not getting any thing else`
3. You can ask for some courtesy to the one whom you are shadowing, for bit of your publicity, mentioning your name at end of the day, but again it all depends on him/her.
4. You can work yourself, put your own name, and at the end of the day you might loose a friendly relationship with a guy.
Ultimately I will conclude : Never get involved in a work that you don't want to do, or the one for which you deserve some credit and you are not getting it. And if somehow if you get indulged in such an activity then forget the credit or forget the relationship, sacrifice needs to be done at that end.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_8: In my experience from applied computer science, this is very common. Typically, the situation seems to be that professors receive a batch of ten or more manuscripts for an upcoming conference, to be reviewed within a few weeks.
From that point, there are two reasons that make it a logical choice to redistribute at least some of the reviews within the lab:
* Conferences normally deal with *somewhat* narrow subfields, yet submissions are normally still diverse enough so different people in the lab are best suited for reviewing some of the manuscripts.
* Professors are usually swept with all kinds of different tasks, so expecting a single person to thoroughly referee ten or more papers (when each review takes, say, at least a day) within a few weeks is not realistic, anyway.
Concerning the issue of getting credit addressed in some of the other posts, at least my personal perception is that it is a non-issue. Again, I can see three (possibly field-specific) reasons for this:
* In the fields I am most acquainted with, blind reviews are the norm. Consequently, reviewing is perceived as an activity that is performed anonymously (contrary to, e.g., publishing papers that visibly show the authors' names along with the result of the work). The rare occasion where a conference publishes the list of reviewers may be a nice touch, but I have never seen this done in a prominent way. Hence, the general assumption is that no-one (outside one's lab/group and the small circle of conference organizers) will ever learn that researcher X reviewed papers for conference Y. With this in mind, either conferences would provide an obvious way to indicate subreviewers to the editors - which supervisors will then gladly do -, or they wouldn't, in which case the expected gain is simply not sufficient for anyone involved to go through the hassle of even writing an e-mail to inform the editors about the subreviewers.
* Connected to the above point, it seems that not only does the fact that X reviewed for conference Y usually remain unknown to the public, no-one is really interested in that piece of information. My impression is that it is simply taken for granted that each doctoral candidate has their share of reviewing experience, as it is expected they get some manuscripts forwarded by their supervisor for reviewing every now and then.
* Lastly, mirroring the above points, my impression is that reviewing papers is not one of the activities typically associated with getting credit in the first place. It is rather somewhere between the "chores" that someone has to do (and thus, it is understood that it is both fairer and more comfortable for everyone in the group to spread the workload somewhat evenly across the entire group) on the one hand and a good opportunity for expanding one's experience and thus training to improve one's reviewer skills on the other hand - come to think of it, in both aspects, quite similarly to fulfilling one's teaching duties.
Again, the above reflects my personal impression and is probably quite field-dependent (and maybe even a bit culture-dependent, as internal organisation of groups of researchers differs wildly around the globe).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: There is whole lot of benefits if you are reviewing the manuscript. Your supervisor is a well-known person and active in the field. So he got a paper to review. When you are reviewing the paper you will get the benefits like the following:
1. Writing style (claims, what to include, what to avoid while writing paper)
2. How to give negative comments in positive way (although you have to spend some time on this stage)
3. New methodologies
4. If you have any confusion or doubts, you can always reach your supervisor for that purpose and learn many things.
*Remember, its not always about getting credits. Its about learning something new everytime you do something.* Else the whole research world will not grow, given the fact that the PEER-REVIEWERS spend a lot of time for reviewing someone (unseen/unknown) author's works. However, view points might differ. But this is the positive things for me.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/12/10 | 601 | 2,542 | <issue_start>username_0: Tenured staff are [virtually impossible to fire](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/186/1033), why is the urge to find funding so strong? For post-docs and other untentured scientific staff I can understand, for their job depends on it. For a tenured professor it would rather be the joy and honour of doing important research. Apart from a reduction in joy and honour, are there any consequences if a tenured professor fails to get grants?<issue_comment>username_1: In many departments, tenured professors can use bringing in external funds to the department as a means of "buying" their way out of some of their teaching and administrative commitments. Similarly, other departments might use additional committee assignments and teaching loads to "punish" people who *don't* bring in grants. They may also have less flexibility in selecting teaching assignments.
In other countries, such as Germany, a long-term shortage in funding can lead to the consequence of a chair not being "succeeded" when the holder retires; in that case, the institute (equivalent to a US group) the professor is in charge of is wound down rather than finding a new leader for the group.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Most tenured faculty enjoy research (else why would they take a job that requires it?) and most research costs money. In particular: Faculty who benefit from working with students (or postdocs, or staff) need money to pay them, and faculty whose research depends on specialized equipment or travel need money to pay for it.
This is the carrot; @username_1 is describing the stick. I imagine both motivations can be found at every institution.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Tenure implies you're difficult to fire. It doesn't say anything about needing to pay you. @username_2 described @username_1's answer as the stick, but there's a bigger one. Especially in soft money positions, a significant portion of your salary, much of the funding for your lab, etc. all come from grant funding. While they might not fire a tenured professor who isn't "pulling their weight" with grant funding, they may find themselves losing lab space to better funded or new faculty, not having the resources to maintain a functional research group, etc.
As long as you're comfortable with you, your office, and whatever salary is hard money being the entirety of your research group, you don't need to ever find funding. But if you want more than that, the money has to come from somewhere.
Upvotes: 4 |
2012/12/11 | 2,229 | 8,912 | <issue_start>username_0: I'll be teaching a graduate-level mathematically oriented class with probably less than 20 students. I have to grade the students (our system doesn't allow for pass-fail grading), and while I don't want to be overly fussy about the grades (this is after all advanced level material and mostly Ph.D students), I would like to provide some incentive structure so students will do the classwork and hopefully learn something in the process.
One possibility is "coarse-resolution" grading where in each homework, the possible grades are +, 0, -, where + denotes having done about 75% or more of the work, 0 is between 50 and 75%, and - is below 50%.
At the end of the semester, the number of +/0/- determines the grade, with "mostly +" getting an A, "mostly 0" getting a B, and mostly - getting a C.
Is this likely to be effective ? Is there something else I should do ? I'm open to the idea of not grading at all and giving out dummy grades, but I do think that people who put in effort should be rewarded in some way.<issue_comment>username_1: One approach is to have a number of clear learning objectives. For example:
>
> *At the end of this course the student will be able to differentiate functions of a single variable.*
>
>
>
Then for each of these provide a description of what it means to obtain each of the various grades available.
>
> F: *The student does not grasp anything about differentiation.*
>
> D: *The student is able to differentiate simple functions.*
>
> C: *The student is able to differentiate many functions, but has difficulty with composite functions.*
>
> B: *The student is able to differentiate most functions and employ the chain rule.*
>
> A: *The student is able to differentiate all functions and can apply first principles.*
>
> A+: *The student employs novel approaches to differentiation.*
>
>
>
Of course, you'd need to tailor these to your course and make them more precise than mine.
The learning objectives and the descriptions of what each grade means can be given to the student. A course may have different learning objectives, each with their own description. Your assessment can be tailored to measure the learning objectives based on these criteria.
The idea, apart from making your job of assessing more objective, is to replace scores by learning objectives, so ultimately the course will not be about scoring points, but learning.
You could even disassociate the grades from the learning objectives and replace them by *unsatisfactory*, *satisfactory*, *good*, *very good*, *excellent*, and *fantabulous*.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I had mixed experiences with a three point grading scheme.
On the positive side, grading is easier for you. Also you have very clear rules for who gets which grade. On the downside students tend to find the system unfair. The main concern was the following. When a student was able to solve, say 70% of the assignment correctly, he only gets the second highest grade. The complaint was that they solved 20% without getting credits for it. (I had a slightly different system, I think 1 point for 50% and 2 points for 80%). Let me add that this is not my point of view, since they also get the full score when they only solve 80%. So in the end these effects will cancel out. The next term I used a more granular system and giving up to 15 points per assignment. All students that took both classes preferred the 15 point system. For me it was not much difference (grading was done by TAs), so I stayed with the 15 point system.
I think it depends very much on your students. The first time I had the 3 point grading at MIT and it worked great. In Germany I had these more negative experiences.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: You are describing a [rubric](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubric_%28academic%29). Some rubrics are qualitative, using words like "novice", "proficient", and "expert" to delineate student achievement. Some have numerical values attached. Both need to be provided to the students at the beginning with a description of what each level of achievement looks like.
For my upper level courses and my courses with large independent projects, I use a five-point rubric (technically six, since I can assign a Zero):
* 5 - Exemplary
* 4 - Above Expectations
* 3 - Meets Expectations
* 2 - Below Expectations
* 1 - Deficient
* 0 - Absent, Missing, or Irrelevant
With the above descriptors, most students earn a 3 with good students earning a 4. A 5 is difficult to earn. However, since I provide my students with examples of each level, I give out very few marks of 2 and even fewer marks of 1. I reserve zero for when the student did not do what was asked, or turned in something else entirely. For example, if you ask for Problems 1, 7, 8, and 11-15 from Chapter 6, and the student turns in several problems from Chapter 5, that warrants a zero for not following directions.
Now, you have a simple and rapid grading scheme that still has numerical information. You can average over all of a student's scores (or weight them or whatever) to then assign a final grade. For an entry level undergraduate class, maybe the following is appropriate:
1. F
2. D
3. C
4. B
5. A
For an upper level undergraduate or a graduate level course, the expectations are higher (and the grading should reflect that, i.e. it should be hard to get a 4 or 5), the following might be appropriate:
1. F
2. C
3. B
4. A
5. A+
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Why are you grading at all? Do you expect students to learn anything from your grading efforts, or only from attempting the problem on their own?
If you intend to give your students feedback on how they did in their homework, then you will have all the information you need to produce a more accurate numeric grade. Giving detailed feedback can make the students feel that the quality of the work is important.
If you are not going to pay much attention to the homework, and the three-level grading scheme reflects that you won't know enough to do more, how can you expect your students to care much more about the homework? If *you* care about the quality and accuracy of the homework, your students will. If you don't, well, you might induce some to, but you'll be fighting a losing battle.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: The one seminar in which I put in most effort and most continuous work (and, not surprisingly, learned most) had as incentive not a grading scheme, but the following set of rules.
* all calculations were done during the seminar (tutor realized that we wouldn't/couldn't put in much effort at home - I found that true throughout my studies, but few seminars would take this into account).
* The work was handed out at the beginning and had to be handed to the tutor at the end of each seminar. He corrected it till the next seminar.
* The most important rule was: if all groups over the whole semester have at least X% (IIRC 80 %) correct, no written exam was necessary. *This was the incentive that kept us continuously working hard.*
I think the required level needs some experience - our tutor probably had some decades of experience with this seminar when I took the course.
* We formed groups of 3 people at the beginning of the semester which did not change for the whole semester. The 80%-overall-rule makes these groups quite similar in expected performance: there are very good reasons why someone good should be in each group. And why the bad students not cluster together, so that the 80% cannot be reached...
* For each task, one of the group had to declare himself responsible. There was some rule, that everyone had to be responsible for roughly the same number of questions. And anyways, there were too many tasks for even the best students to solve within the available time frame.
* Usually it took the form that everyone started at "his" task, got the layout of the question and the rough scheme for solving. Then this was discussed in the group. Next step was actually doing the calculations, then explaining to the others. Then showing the result to the tutor, who'd accept the solution or point out mistakes. Then either get the next task, or help some group mate who was stuck (not to waste those precious 20% of "allowed" mistakes...). In between he went around and had a look that we were progressing with the calculations (I since realized that not needing a written exam is also a strong incentive for a tutor ;-) )
This was just a pass/fail seminar, but I think the tutor could have given marks for everyone at the end at least as easily as any school teacher can. I think you'll get a very good idea of the level of understanding if you just listen to a few explanations. And it is far easier to make everyone explain things to just a group of a few fellow students than make them come to the blackboard.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/12/11 | 456 | 2,042 | <issue_start>username_0: I am an undergraduate student applying to grad schools this year.
I was recently told by my friend (who is already in a PhD program now) that I should consider underlining some key sentences in my SoP, and put them in bold font, since the admission committee most likely won't have the time to read every whole statement, and this would be a good way to catch their eyes on the key points I want to express. It can also expedite the reviewing process so in this sense it is also helpful to the admission committee.
I think this makes sense, but I am still a bit hesitant since I'm not sure if this would be viewed as a poor writing style. Would this be welcomed from the viewpoint of an admission committee?<issue_comment>username_1: If it's your opinion that your readers won't have time to read your whole document, you might want to consider adding an executive summary at the top of your document. This would take the form of a short paragraph which essentially includes all the key phrases or sentences that you would otherwise have highlighted in bold font throughout your document.
If you make your summary pithy, punchy and exciting, you are more likely to entice your reader to read through the remainder of the document.
One might indeed say that highlighting key phrases throughout your summary is a touch lazy. I wrote a similar document and went through and highlighted key phrases, just as you are considering. Then I wrote an executive summary section as the first paragraph, reusing or paraphrasing the key points. I removed the text formatting in the main text body, rewriting the phrases relating to the key points given in the summary to avoid repeating them word for word. To my mind, the result looked more professional and read much better.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: **No**. Never underline anything. Underlining is left over from typewriters. It instructs the typesetter to put things in italics. Nowadays, you should put things in italics yourself.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/12/12 | 462 | 2,054 | <issue_start>username_0: I have a Bachelor's in EE and Master's in Automation and 3 years experience, including 2 in software development. For me, an academic career would be both more meaningful and professionally rewarding in its flexibility.
I think someone with experience but without formal qualifications could teach a subject such as mechatronics well.
How I might switch to teaching mechatronics? Should I stay in industry for a few more years and then move straight to being a full-time professor? Or, should I work part-time for a lest prestigious college and try to progress incrementally?
Note:
I don't want to obtain a PhD. Rather, I'd prefer to obtain the necessary qualifications while part-time, while working as a professor.<issue_comment>username_1: If it's your opinion that your readers won't have time to read your whole document, you might want to consider adding an executive summary at the top of your document. This would take the form of a short paragraph which essentially includes all the key phrases or sentences that you would otherwise have highlighted in bold font throughout your document.
If you make your summary pithy, punchy and exciting, you are more likely to entice your reader to read through the remainder of the document.
One might indeed say that highlighting key phrases throughout your summary is a touch lazy. I wrote a similar document and went through and highlighted key phrases, just as you are considering. Then I wrote an executive summary section as the first paragraph, reusing or paraphrasing the key points. I removed the text formatting in the main text body, rewriting the phrases relating to the key points given in the summary to avoid repeating them word for word. To my mind, the result looked more professional and read much better.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: **No**. Never underline anything. Underlining is left over from typewriters. It instructs the typesetter to put things in italics. Nowadays, you should put things in italics yourself.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/12/12 | 1,144 | 4,830 | <issue_start>username_0: I am looking for any indication of how long should it take to write, let's say, a paragraph, for a non-native English speaker (with a good knowledge of English). I know that for the writing process of a paper or essay one should take in account also the time required for research and mind-mapping, which is not easily quantifiable. I am interested in some reference for the time needed to translate the mind map to a paragraph. The only time indication I found was in <http://www.scripps.edu/milligan/em-journal/pdf/Scientific_Writing.pdf> (e.g Introduction: 3 days) , but the author clarifies that it is a personal opinion, and anyway it includes the mindmapping procedure. I can spend half an hour writing and editing a couple of sentences (already knowing which concept I need to express), how can I know if this time it's abnormous?
(meta: Feel free to move to personalproductivity if it's the case, I was unsure but then I thought of posting in academia because I am specifically talking about scientific writing)<issue_comment>username_1: That's a brilliant link - thanks. And you have a good question that worries lots of people. I wrote an answer to a similar question on my blog at [ScholarWriter](http://scholarwriter.com/news/thu-22112012-1054/how-much-can-i-realistically-write-one-hour).
I believe that most people would say that you are jumping to the editing task far too soon.
1. Decide on your outline - are you writing a narrative, an exposition, a persuasive piece or a scientific paper - and decide what each section is for.
2. Do your research and add the "facts and figures" for each section getting as specific as each paragraph.
3. Then write.
Edit your work the following day. Don't try to "polish" and write at the same time. Equally writing is much easier if you know exactly what you are trying to convey and have the correct information in front of you.
There is one other use for writing, though - to reveal connections and insights. As much as you know what you think when you say it, you know what it is possible to think when you write it. Often you only realize what is your main point after you have written a paragraph or section. So you go back to the beginning to structure everything again. Though that is a lot of extra work, in this situation you are pleased that to do work because now you are so clear about what you are trying to convey and which information it is important to include.
Hope this helps - and good luck!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As a teacher who has taught many non-native speakers subjects in English, I am quite confident when I say that the time will vary by the person. Some people are quite strong and write faster (and better) than some native speakers but others write very, very slowly.
To have anything meaningful, there must be some quantifiable tie back to English level (what does 'good knowledge of English' mean to you? [IELTS 8](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IELTS#Band_scale)?)
It seems you are interesting to know if you are performing well enough compared to some standard, but we would first need the standard (and it does look like you're trying to find the standard) and that standard must take into account more than just the information you've provided (how much experience do you have writing in general? how good is your English? what kind of writing are you doing?).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Estimating the time to "write" a paragraph is hard since the paragraph isn't really done until you submit it. There can be many revisions before a paragraph is submitted, many of which have nothing to do with the paragraph itself (i.e., something else changed).
In my field conference abstracts are small (250 word), one-off, self-contained paragraphs. In my time estimates I assume that during the writing you are not collecting new data or conducting new analyses and that you understand the data and analysis that you have already completed. Obviously collecting data and understanding it can take huge amounts of time.
Grad students, both from observations and personal experience, take about 14 hours to write an abstract with it taking about 8 hours for the first draft, 4 hours to revise based on feedback from co-authors, and 2 hours to finalize after a second round of feedback. Post-docs go faster taking about 6 hours for the first draft and 2 hours to revise and finalize. They tend to only need one round of feedback. PIs go the fastest with about 4 hours to write and 15 minutes to revise based on feedback. Getting the feedback from co-authors takes times, but I don't consider that part of the writing process. There are a few people out there that can write beautiful technical prose at a rate of 500 words an hour, but they are the exception and not the rule.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/12/12 | 1,068 | 4,129 | <issue_start>username_0: I am an Computer Science undergraduate student and I am looking for my potential mentor for my PhD study. I guess besides research interest, personality etc., h-index is an important factor one should consider. So I wonder whether there is a way to find out about the precise h-index of an arbitral author.
I've been using [Microsoft Academic Search](http://academic.research.microsoft.com/). It's cool, it often finds the right person and gives you his/her h-index. However, I believe that this tool has **underestimated** the h-index of many researchers. (I think so because I've tried typing in some very famous professors' names and the h-index that Microsoft gives is about 10~20 lower than the actually value).
Moreover, since I am mostly interested in Human-Computer Interaction so I am also referring to [ACM SIGCHI's Most Frequent Authors Page](http://hcibib.org/authors). The page is awesome: it gives you the most brilliant professors ranked by their number of publications. However, I think h-index is a better metric than the number of publications alone.
I could, of course, go to the professors' websites and read their publication list. But I want to know whether there is a better, more efficient way of finding h-index.<issue_comment>username_1: the h-index is an interesting measure, but it changes all the times
* microsoft search does it
* Google author search does it (see an example [here](http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=cluDFKcAAAAJ&hl=en))
* the freely available tool [PoP](http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm#download) does it
you could try and triangulate the numbers that you get and find the average, as a possible solution
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: *h-index* is not an important factor to consider potential supervisors rather recent projects and publications count more for me. Also, *h-index* **might misguide you** (it has its limitations).
For example, if a new professor published 10 articles each cited at least 200 times the h-index will be only 10 ! .. Also, old researchers have advantage over young ones.
Returning to the question:
>
> So I wonder whether there is a way to find out about the precise h-index of an arbitral author
>
>
>
I am not *aware* of any engine/program gives a precise *h-index*. There is no precise h-index out there and finding a mechanism to find it is an interesting work..
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: **There is *no such thing* as "the precise h-index".**
The h-index is defined as the largest integer h such that at least h of the author's publications have at least h citations each. But what's a publication? Do first-author publications carry more weight? Do ArXiv, technical report, conference, and journal versions of the "same" paper (all of which may have citations) count as four papers or one? Or does it depend on the difference in content between versions? (How do you measure that difference?) Does the quality of the venue matter? If so, which venues count as "real" publications? Do survey articles count? Popular science articles? Blog posts? StackExchange questions?\* Do self-citations count? If so, does a citation to a paper by X and Y, in a paper by Y and Z, count toward X's h-index? How much (and who) are you willing to pay to make sure you've *really* counted **every** citation to **every** publication?
The different sources of the h-index make different well-reasoned decisions about each of these issues, none of which make sense for ALL areas, even within computer science.
>
> *I think h-index is a better metric than the number of publications alone.*
>
>
>
This is a pretty low standard. You can do better.
---
\*At least one of my StackExchange questions has more citations than at least one of my papers.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I believe for the UK's upcoming 2014 REF exercise the bibliometrics are based on the [Scopus](http://www.scopus.com/home.url) database (http://www.ref.ac.uk/background/bibliometrics/). This likely has to do with both Elsevier political power and the quality of the database.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/12/12 | 2,671 | 11,712 | <issue_start>username_0: I have just found that a student has posted one of their assignment questions on a forum and is seeking help in getting a solution.
I have a good idea who the student is, but no definitive proof. How would you handle this situation?<issue_comment>username_1: Identify the offline equivalent of the observed behavior, and then act as you would normally. Remember, that the burden of proof for academic dishonesty likely resides with you. This includes verifying that the poster is indeed the student you accuse.
I find this situation to be pretty common: <https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/2753/how-to-derive-partial-gas-equation>. Most stackexchanges have a [homework](https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/homework) policy. I would consider homework questions posted to stackexchanges to be no worse than asking students who have taken the course before you or asking another professor. How you deal with it is up to you.
What would your response be if you saw a student collaborating on the problem in a study group? How do you respond if you find out that your student asked another instructor or a grad student in your department for help? If you learn the student worked on that problem with his/her tutor? If the student looked up the answer in the textbook or the solutions manual? All of these are common and to varying degrees accepted (if not liked).
I would guess your irritation over this is somewhere more than the student asking one of your colleagues (who being nice will actually do the problem) and somewhat less than the student stealing another student's answer. Identify the offline equivalent, and then behave as you would normally.
**EDIT** - I missed the last part of the question.
>
> I have a good idea who the student is, but no definitive proof. How would you handle this situation?
>
>
>
If you do not have proof, then suck it up and let it go - this time. Next time put something in your syllabus. Either write a pretty severe sounding policy that exists to deter the behavior (because your policy will be basically unenforceable), or write harder questions and encourage them to use online forums with the caveat that they document all of their interaction. The second option shifts the burden of good behavior to your students.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: **This is an answer to [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/30008/what-is-the-best-strategy-to-deal-with-a-situation-where-a-student-asks-all-of-h). The question was closed as a duplicate while I was typing my answer.**
This is a really key issue for university courses assigning homework. In my opinion it cannot be satisfactorily addressed after the fact. One has to design the homework and the grading scheme with the knowledge that students can easily, freely and virtually immediately get expert-level homework help online. Here are some ways that I have adjusted to this reality.
1) I no longer assign take-home exams in undergraduate courses. I had a bad experience with this ten years ago as a postdoc at McGill University, and the internet was not then what it is now. It only takes one or two students to cheat and get the highest grades on an exam for the entire class to feel resentful.
2) I think very carefully about the percentage to which homework contributes to the course grade. If you want students to do the homework, then making it less than 10% typically (depending upon your grading system, of course) discourages it. I think that most undergraduate-level STEM courses should have at least one midterm and an in-class final and that the midterms and the final should contribute at least 60% of the course grade.
3) I grade -- or, if I'm lucky, instruct the grader to grade -- homework in a generous way which emphasizes effort and participation. If the majority of the course grade is coming from in-class exams, the purpose of the homework is to get practice, and if someone is writing good-faith solutions to most of the problems then they are getting the practice you want. When students feel like their inability to solve difficult homework problems is hurting their course grade, it is very tempting for them to seek outside help (I find this very understandable).
4) I allow students to get some level of outside assistance on their homework -- i.e., don't regard each problem set as a separate take-home exam -- but insist that they document the aid that they got in an assiduous way. If I get students in the habit of saying *something* about the help that they got, then it feels much more like lying for them to all of a sudden totally omit reference to the fact that they typed their questions in to a stackexchange site. Also, be clear about what kind of help is allowed. Perhaps for instance you are okay with them looking through the internet but not asking your specific homework problems on the internet: if so, say so.
5) If I don't want students to be able to look up the solutions to homework problems easily (beyond say the freshman/sophomore level) then I make sure to write my own problems and not simply assign problems from a course text. Writing distinctive problems also makes it easier to track whether my problems are being asked on the internet.
6) I realize that how much independence to spend in doing one's homework is, within an agreed upon tolerance, a decision that individual students have to make for themselves. In the OP's case homework is worth only 10% of the grade, it does not sound very onerous, and the OP spends class time discussing the homework. In this case the old adage that a student who is not doing the homework independently is "only cheating himself" seems to be largely true. The trick is to design the homework and the course so that you feel that the students who are punting too much of their homework to the internet are indeed merely missing out on educational opportunities...and not getting better final grades than those who do most or all of the homework on their own.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Analysis of the Issue raised in [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/30008/what-is-the-best-strategy-to-deal-with-a-situation-where-a-student-asks-all-of-h)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought about this a bit over lunch and came to a realization that we may be looking at this problem from the wrong direction.
Premise: A student is getting assistance for homework from an online forum.
Now, the internet may have made this process easier, but it certainly existed before online forums. The only difference now is that the online forum shows a proven record that a student is doing it.
Before the internet was invented, I'm pretty sure people in school asked friends for help even when it was explicitly stated that homework was to be personal work. Maybe some students paid people to do their homework. Whatever the case, that issue would be private to the professor's view, because the agreement would never move beyond those two people.
In this case, we have the internet indicating that such an event actually took place. If this took place on a phone, or in a conversation between two students, we wouldn't have noticed it, but the transgression would still have happened.
So the internet is facilitating the aspect of "academic dishonesty" and providing it in public view.
We can't ban reasonably students from using the internet, nor can we lock them up outside of class to do homework, so there is no real way to regulate what they choose to do outside of class.
As a result, the only practical way to determine whether homework is a student's work is to observe their progress in class.
Possible Solutions
------------------
### Surprise Quiz
As I suggested before, a surprise quiz with the same questions will likely help you determine who is learning and who is not. Collect the homework, and devote 5 minutes of the class to solving one of the problems. maybe an easier one. People who know what they're studying will be able to answer this, and you lose a minimal amount of studying time. You only have to do this once or twice. After that, the possibility of another surprise quiz will likely convince the person to actually learn the material.
### Small Groups
Have students work in small groups on their homework. Students working with each other may frown upon use of Stack Exchange. By encouraging class collaboration, you can reduce the amount of reliance on the Internet, because then at least you know one of the people in the group is teaching the others.
### Unique Homework for Unique People
This is more of a "finding the person" approach rather than discouraging. As I've mentioned before, I'm not a fan of this strategy as it is really a witch hunt technique, but it is a possibility that you may wish to consider if nothing else works.
You can assign different people in the class different homework questions. Sort by name or whatever. Maybe a set of 15 questions where each person in your class has a unique subset of questions. This will help you identify the person in question if they post their unique subset to the StackExchange. I would recommend you use this information to *gently* remind the person that what they're doing is not in the spirit of the course, and to not do so in the future.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I've started assigning homework a couple of years ago, and my policy is the following:
1. Homework consists of one or two exercises similar to those that students will find at the exam.
2. Homework is graded as though it were a real exam exercise, but homework grades are just informative, that is, they do not enter in the calculation of the final grade. The aim of the homework is just to allow the students to have additional practice and to understand how I grade.
3. Homework is optional. In this way, non-motivated students can avoid searching the internet for help.
In the few occasions in which I required to write lab reports, their marks contributed for at most 10% of the final grade; in case of cheating (to my judgement), the contribution is zeroed.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: In my opinion there is nothing wrong with posting a question online unless it specifically says / suggests that others should do the work for the student.
If you are that concerned about this then you should reconsider the format of your exam to reduce this risk.
Your only option would be to show that the student colluded or plagiarised the work which I believe are concepts well understood in academia.
For example if the students relatives or associates in life are an expert(s) on the topic in question question, how would you know if the work is the student's or not.
Therefore you will need to wait until the work is submitted to decide what to do next.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_6: Depending on the subject of your course, actually going online to find answers should be something you encourage, especially in engineering. If at the end of the day the student understands what you wanted to teach him, then your goal has been achieved, and you test that through examination. And in many fields, it is impossible to know everything anyway, this is why we have books and other data storage methods. Your course will probably be insignificant in the long run anyway, but their ability to quickly find working answers on the internet is a valuable skill they will actually need when joining a workforce.
Upvotes: -1 |
2012/12/12 | 392 | 1,611 | <issue_start>username_0: Our advisor is getting married over winter break. None of us are super close to him and the wedding is going to be a very private event that none of us are invited to.
Should all of us (his graduate students) chip in for a wedding gift for him?
What is the etiquette for this?<issue_comment>username_1: I laughed here; can't imagine my supervisor getting married. It is just nice to see the supervisor involving in life..
For the question, *Why not?* It is a big day for your supervisor. Just make sure the gift come from *group of students* not only one student. If you missed the first day after his return (assuming he's going on vacation for marriage), then no need for a gift. Either ways, a verbal congratulations is a must here :)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: You must do something. Building social relationships with your work colleagues is really important. If other students are organizing the collection and suggesting an amount, I would give that much. If they are organizing the collection, but not suggesting an amount, I would chip in two beers worth of cash. In some cultures two beers will be on the generous side, while in other cultures it will be on the cheap side. It won't be out of place in any culture. If no one is organizing the collection and you want to take charge, then I would suggest asking people to chip in one beer worth of money (all students should be able to afford this). If no one is organizing a collection and you don't want to take charge, go out and buy a card and get the other students to sign it.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer] |
2012/12/12 | 2,193 | 8,565 | <issue_start>username_0: I'm currently a post doc in theoretical computer science and I have a double digit number of conference publications, about half of which are at so called "tier 1" conferences (SODA,STOC,...). Unfortunately I only have 1 journal publication so far, mainly due to coauthors dragging their feet.
Will the lack of journal publications have a great impact when applying for a faculty job in cs-theory at some point, and is it advisable to try to up this number before applying? Or is this fully compensated by having sufficiently many conference papers?<issue_comment>username_1: CS people know that CS conferences count for more than conferences do in other fields, and although they count a little less than journals in CS, this should not be a problem. Of course there are still rankings between the various forums.
The fact that CS rank conferences higher than other disciplines only becomes a problem if you are compared against non-CS people, which often happens when competing for funding and promotions, in my experience.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't think this will be a problem for your first faculty position. In TCS people will appreciate it if you publish journal versions of your conference proceedings. However nobody will expect, that you will do this immediately. Also, imho, having SODA/STOC and FOCS publications is what counts. Other things (teaching experience, grants, making a journal publications out of your conference contributions) are important but secondary criteria.
It is likely that many non-theory CS people are in the hiring committee. In other fields of CS journal publications count even less.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Since this was a [point of discussion on my answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/18354/7746) here, I felt this might be a good place to offer an extended analysis (since it also serves as an answer to the current question).
I had stated:
>
> While in some fields, conference papers are akin to talk abstracts, in areas like computer science, conference papers can be very meaty and there is a high churn of papers in conferences. Top conferences can have acceptance rates around 10%, and as such, A+ conference papers are often held in high regard within the community: these venues are far more competitive than many of the good journals. Still, even in the CS area, metric-wise (for hiring, positions, funding, etc.), journals will often still count for more than a conference following the norm in other academic fields.
>
>
>
To which Suresh countered:
>
> the last line of the answer is just not true at all.
>
>
>
and later:
>
> It's based on my experiences (at different levels) evaluating work and people, and watching how others do it, and how people talk about research work. It's not an absolute statement, but CS departments have spent many years in battles with deans convincing them that conferences count for more than journals.
>
>
>
And JeffE:
>
> "even in the CS area, metric-wise (for hiring, positions, funding, etc.), journals will often still count for more than a conference" — Speaking as the chair of the faculty recruiting committee in a top-5 CS department: This is simply incorrect. I don't recall anyone on my committee ever pointing out a CS journal paper in any junior candidate's CV. (For interdisciplinary folks, it's important for research to be published in journals in the other area: Biology research in biology journals, for example.)
>
>
>
This is counter to my own experience in applying for jobs, and in my current department, where journal papers are held in higher esteem. I know there are Computer Science Departments with their own by-laws and policies whereby conferences can be given as much weight as journals, but this is why I said "often", not "always". It is also my experience that such departments tend to be the more famous ones: the ones with enough clout to have their own policies. Smaller/less-well-known departments (which are by their nature more numerous) often have to abide by wider faculty/collegial policy.
In any case, to try to put some meat into the answer, I tried Googling for some tenure-track and hiring criteria in Computer Science. I'll pick out relevant quotes:
1) [Department of Computer Science at the University of Vermont: Guidelines for Tenure-Track and Tenured Faculty](http://www.uvm.edu/~cems/cs/RPT/RPT-TTT.shtml)
>
> Publication of refereed articles in both journals and conferences is very important; in many areas of computer science, publication in top-tier conferences is considered as prestigious as publication in top journals.
>
>
>
2) [Department of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Minnesota: Criteria for Promotion and Tenure](http://www.academic.umn.edu/provost/faculty/tenure/pdf/IT/7-12CSE.pdf)
>
> A 1994 NRC Committee on Academic Careers for Experimental Computer Science stated “The requirements for good research and engineering in experimental computer science and engineering (ECSE) are different from those of many other academic disciplines” and then added “Because conferences are the vehicle of choice in ECSE for the dissemination of research, well-refereed conference proceedings (as well as work published in refereed private journals) should be given as much weight as archival journal articles in evaluating a candidate's research portfolio for promotion and tenure”. Certain proceedings articles should be weighted equally or even more heavily than archival journal articles when evaluating the candidate's research contributions
>
>
>
3) [Duke University, Computer Science Department, By-Laws](https://www.cs.duke.edu/department/resources/bylaws.pdf)
>
> [...] recognising the important role played by conferences, book chapters, and other non-journal research documents.
>
>
>
4) [University of Stockholm: Tenure-Track Position, Department of Computer Science](http://jobs.zeit.de/jobs/stockholm_tenure-track_position_assistant_professorship_96136.html)
>
> The quality of the research should be documented by presentations at well-established conferences and publications in high quality international journals and conferences.
>
>
>
5) [Computer Science Department: Appalachian State University: Criteria for Promotions and Tenure](http://compsci.appstate.edu/faculty-staff/promotion-tenure)
>
> Scholarly Activity
>
>
> Examples of Indicators of Excellent Performance
>
>
> 1. Publishes an article in a refereed journal.
> 2. Publishes a textbook.
> [nothing about conferences]
>
>
>
6) [Wright State University, Department of Computer Science By-Laws](http://www.wright.edu/curriculum-and-instruction/college-and-department-bylaws/department-of-computer-science-engineering-bylaws)
>
> Primary indications of quality normally include, but are not limited to, the following:
>
>
> * publication of research results and of extended scientific and engineering reviews in peer-refereed journals of acknowledge stature (particularly those of scholarly professional societies such as the ACM and IEEE);
> * ...
>
>
> Secondary indications of quality include, but are not limited to, the following:
>
>
> * refereed conference proceedings;
> * ...
>
>
>
The first two departments explicitly state that conferences can be considered as highly as journals, the next two state that conferences will be considered alongside journals without any explicit ranking, and the last two state that conferences count less than journals.
These are six examples, and are biased due to having "Computer Science" in the title, meaning that they are CS-specific criteria (whereas I suspect many smaller departments would fall under more generic by-laws).
Though many CS departments (esp. the more prestigious ones) have won the battle of giving conference papers their due weight, it is still my understanding that other departments have not, and must fall in-tow with faculty/collegial guidelines.
So to answer this question:
>
> Journal vs conference publications when looking for a job in in computer science
>
>
>
It depends. Though I may not have fully substantiated this here with only two anecdotes, I still hold by the position that in many CS departments (particularly smaller departments), journal articles *often* (not *always*) count for more than conference papers by merit of simply being journal articles.
([Some related discussion here](http://tagide.com/blog/2013/04/conferences-vs-journals-the-hidden-assumptions/).)
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/12/13 | 412 | 1,776 | <issue_start>username_0: 1. In writing my thesis in geosciences I have a number of figures with a fair amount of text content. Is there some limit I should adhere to -- say for example max 5 lines -- before I should just write 'refer to text'?
2. A related question is where citations should go, especially in the case of several needed for one figure (e.g. a plot of n sets of data from n different sources). Again, is there some point where I should say refer to text for citations?<issue_comment>username_1: I would imagine this may vary from field to field, but in the biological sciences the caption text in *journal* publications is often verbose to the point of absurdity. That being said, I would simply use common sense; If the description takes more than a paragraph, you should definitely "refer to text". Generally speaking, the caption is simply a textual guide as to how to read the plot, with (maybe) a sentence drawing the reader's attention to a particular feature of the plot. It should mostly *describe* the plot, and only sparingly *discuss* it.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: An expert in the field should be able to understand most of the content of the figure from the figure and caption alone. The caption should be long enough to admit this, but no longer. If your captions seem to need to be pages long, then you need to work on making your figure adhere better to standards in the field or to be intuitively clearer.
If you run out of time to make it comprehensible, keep the caption comfortably smaller than the figure itself; having a tiny figure with a huge block of text just looks wrong. It takes a long time to make really clear figures, but you can at least get the superficial style right quickly enough.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/12/13 | 1,219 | 4,962 | <issue_start>username_0: After having written a manuscript and formatted it to the publishers specifications, are there any additional things you do before submitting it (or right after submitting it) that make the review process easier. For example, for journals that I know the approximate time it takes to review, I make a note in my diary to check on the manuscript around that time. I also print out a hard copy and move the digital files into my lab notebook. Are there other things that I should be doing?<issue_comment>username_1: Pat yourself on the back, put the manuscript in a drawer, put it out of your mind, and move on to the next thing.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: It is of utmost importance that, immediately after the submission of the manuscript, you bake a cake and offer it to your co-workers. You might also want to invite close family and others who have indirectly suffered from your hard work. Invite all co-authors that are close enough to reasonably travel to your place and celebrate!
Picture from [Wikimedia commons](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pound_layer_cake.jpg), user *Scheinwerfermann*.
Otherwise, you don't need to do anything. That's the nice thing about submission: from there on, everything will happen automatically. Reviews, proofs, etc.: everything that comes back comes with a deadline, which means you will do it. Until submission, you can postpone things indefinitely. After submission, you can't.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Relax for a bit.
Also, pretend you're a reviewer and ask yourself if there's a really obvious question to ask (control experiment, comparison with another method, etc.). If so, maybe you want to get started on it before the reviews come back, so the turnaround is faster then. But send it out first, then relax, and *then* get to work on the obvious experiment.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Upload your manuscript to the [arXiv](http://arxiv.org).
Note: you should check [The Romeo website](http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/) to make sure that the journal you're submitting to won't object to this.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: **Send it for approval to all co-authors**.
Maybe this sounds obvious, but there are so many examples of people breaking this rule in either small (“they read the penultimate version two days ago”) or very big way (there are many examples of people actually learning when the paper is published that they are a co-author), that I think it is good to state.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_6: Putting together also some advice from the previous answers, here is my suggested checklist:
1. Run a spellchecker :)
2. Prepare a cover letter. If the manuscript has a previous history (e.g., it is a modification of a rejected papers; overlaps partially with a conference proceeding), you should state it. Some may want to suggest possible referees in the cover letter; I find it ethically dubious, so I never do it. In case, you may want to suggest referees to *avoid*. (maybe we should have a separate question on this point).
3. submit a preprint, either at your institute or on arXiv, or at least think about it. Check the terms of the journal you are submitting to ([this](http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeoinfo.html) is a great resource) to make sure you can; often the submission is the best moment to do it, since the journal can have no reasonable copyright claim on what happened before it.
4. Even if you don't submit a preprint, make a backup copy of the .tex and .pdf files. If you use source control, tag the latest version as "submitted". This way it will be easier to recover that exact version when the referee report mentions "line 4 on page 2".
5. Send a copy to your co-authors, for backup and self-archiving.
6. Relax and celebrate.
You speak about applying the journal style in the manuscript; I suggest *not* to do it at this point. Referees won't care; it is really needed only after the manuscript is accepted, or if an over-zealous editor asks you to do it. You might spend lots of time without reason, resizing figures and line-breaking formulas that will be dropped after the referee comments.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_7: In addition to all the other excellent suggestions I would like to add something. When you submitted your paper you could invest some time in ordering your files/notes/scripts. Make sure they have a logical structure, enabling you to easily start working on the paper again when the reviews come back. Especially scripts that you use to process data and generate figures can be hard to understand if they are messy, e.g how did I generate figure 3. Ofcourse, it is much better to organize your files/notes/scripts during writing the paper. But if you have not been disciplined (busy, busy), this is a very good time to correct that mistake as everything is still fresh in your memory.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/12/13 | 455 | 2,035 | <issue_start>username_0: I am no longer affiliated with a University. In the instance that I publish a paper (co-author or otherwise), **is it appropriate for me to e-mail my old University and ask them for a staff e-mail?** This journal is highly ranked. I don't know how the University rankings work so maybe they will look favorably upon this if more publications under that University's name means a higher ranking expectation.
I used to have a staff e-mail but they destroyed it when my contract terminated.<issue_comment>username_1: I'd say whether asking is appropriate depends on whether the paper is still related to what you did at that university.
Whether the university gives you such an email address is quite a different question. My experience is: probably not.
That is, when I moved to my new institute I asked whether I could have a `.forward` to my new institute for some time. This was not possible, not even with the prof's statement that he would like this, too (the address got prolonged another 6 months, then it was deleted).
The reason for asking was that I wrote a software at my old university and published it with that email address. So it would have been quite in the interest of the old university to stay associated with the software.
I'd think re-activation of an already deleted account is even less probable.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There's nothing stopping you asking for your staff email to be retained. You've lost nothing by asking. In particular, some universities have various forms of affiliate academics, which may allow you to maintain an email. And as you say, if you make the case that this is needed for a publication, then this may add an incentive to approve the request.
More broadly, your affiliation for a publication is distinct from your email address on a publication. Thus, if you still felt it was appropriate you could still put your former university down as the affiliation, while using a different contact email address.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/12/13 | 1,054 | 4,384 | <issue_start>username_0: Suppose that I've written 10 academic papers. Which CV is the best for academic appointments?
* 5 publications in mid-high ranked journals, 5 in low ranked (but nevertheless peer-reviewed) journals.
* 5 publications in mid-high ranked journals, 5 working papers that you disclose on your CV and publish on your website/University profile (assume that these could have been published in low-ranked journals but you chose not to).
* 5 publications in mid-high ranked journals, 5 papers that you've written that you file draw away when you figure out they you're not going to be able to publish them in a top quality journal (assume that these could have been published in low-ranked journals but you chose not to).
The third dot-point may be *unethical*, I'm not sure.
Feel free to play with the definition of "mid-high ranked" and "low ranked" in your response.
Feel free to do a scenario analysis where you consider PhD -> postdoc/assistant prof, postdoc/assistant prof -> tenure as separate cases requiring different analysis.
FYI this is for economics/finance/statistics, but also feel free to talk about your own areas where you've had the experience.
I started wondering about this when I came across some extremely high quality working papers that aren't published and that have hundreds of citations. This makes me suspect that the 1st option is not optimal.<issue_comment>username_1: the 'working paper' notion in economics appears unique to that area, so I can't comment on that. The problem with your phrasing though is that it ignores quality issues. Assuming therefore, that the 10 papers are fixed, and the only question is which of the three options to use, then the answer is probably (1).
For people who want to know about the work, either of (1) and (2) are fine, and (3) makes little sense (I also don't understand why that would be viewed as unethical). but even then, there's some low-quality non-zero positive information associated with publication in a journal the reader hasn't heard of.
For people who prefer to look at CVs to infer quality, then (1) is superior to (2) (again (3) doesn't make sense).
One way in which (2) is superior to (1) is if you're hoping that you get the benefit of the doubt for unpublished work that has no "quality signal" like the name of the venue it appears in. This is unlikely to happen unless you're in an area where it's common to have unpublished manuscripts circulating and valued.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: My take is that yes metrics count but people often overlook the kind of engagement (and, often the citations) that you get from *relevance* over *ranking*. Personally I would consider:
1. The relative **rating or impact factor** of the journal compared with others relevant to the same field; *and*
2. The **relevance** of your material to what the journal typically publishes and their audience.
The **citations you are likely to get** will be influenced by both the profile of the journal and the relevance of the material to its readership, and at the end of the day its citations that boost your H Index, not necessarily the prestige of the outlet alone.
Its therefore perfectly feasible (and sensible) to publish material in a 'lower ranked' journal if the research you are looking to publish **has greater relevance** for that audience.
BUT - if the research in question is genuinely only a **1-shot-at-goal** only situation when it comes to publication - then you would usually be inclined to go for the highest rated journal that you can as these outlets can be very selective.
Be aware however that, for better or worse, most academics will now '**salami slice**' the output from their research, or different aspects of it, for different outlets. This is not always a bad thing (and may not actually constitute 'salami slicing'). For example, a paper emphasising theoretical or methodological aspects to the research may go to a different outlet to one that is more applied or gives greater emphasis to context, findings or implications in practice.
This final point does however flag that if you are only ever publishing in one journal it does convey a relatively narrow focus in terms of how you convey the relevance of your research and your willingness to engage a broader audience even if that journal is highly ranked.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/12/13 | 1,291 | 5,564 | <issue_start>username_0: I studied math and economics at a poorly ranked university, and I will graduate in the near future. I have a position lined up at a prestigious, data-heavy research institution, where I'll work with numerous economists for a few years before applying to top PhD programs (Berkeley, Chicago, MIT, Harvard, etc.) I took two courses in analysis and did well, although per the quality of my institution, the courses were not challenging.
I also worked as a research assistant and conducted self-guided researched (not published outside my university), so I have several professors willing to write detailed recommendations for me. Apart from a few hiccups in non math/econ courses, my grades are perfect.
Will the fact that my undergraduate degree comes from an unranked institution affect my chances of attending a top PhD program? Will it affect my chances even though my experience after undergrad should speak in my favor?<issue_comment>username_1: As the commenters have pointed out, a lot will depend on your ability to get good letters of recommendation. However, there is an important issue to note: a good letter of recommendation does **not** mean the same thing as "a letter from someone famous." You can get a letter of recommendation from a big name that is completely useless, if it doesn't provide any real information of value about the candidate.
Instead, what you want are people who can testify that you are a good student, and show evidence that you can become a good researcher. Since you have excellent records, and are working with a research group before applying to graduate school, I think you have the right groundwork for getting good letters. To make sure that you do so, you'll want to meet with the people who will be writing the letters, make sure that they are willing and enthusiastic about writing the letters (hint: if they are at all hesitant, do *not* get a letter from them!), and then provide them with the necessary material they'll need (CV's, samples of writing and research work, citations and awards, etc.) to write the letter.
Ultimately, the only way attending an unranked school will affect your chances of getting in as a graduate student is if the admissions committee at the school you're applying to shows such a bias. If you're concerned about such a possibility, and have the resources (time, money, motivation) to do so, setting up a meeting with the person in charge of graduate admissions at the department you're interested in probably can't hurt.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: *It will probably affect your chances. But it's not a show-stopper.*
Coming from a top school means students are more likely to get that second look and it means that students are more likely to have recommendations from people than the folks on the admission committee already know and trust. For those reasons, coming from a top school affords a real advantage over unranked schools. It's not fair but there are lots of reasons to believe that an applicant from a top school will get more bites than an identical one from an unranked school.
That said, if you think you can put together a solid application, you shouldn't get too hung up about the status symbols you won't have and others might. Nobody is making decisions based *only* on where the applicant went to college.
If you have great test scores, a history of excellent academic performance (sounds like you do), a demonstrated ability to do solid research, and a glowing set of letters from a good set of letter writers, you have a good chance at a top program. Focus on the things you can change, improve, and build on and not on the stuff you can't.
FWIW: I did my undergrad at an unranked liberal arts college and graduate school at a top school — although not in economics. Moving up the status hierarchy is always harder than lateral or downward moves, but it happens all the time.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I would advise to develop a relationship via email with professors at your target schools. Dig in and learn about their research and show how interested you are in working with them. Also target assistant and associate professors at those schools as they are more likely to be in the admissions committee paying their dues. They might be the difference if everything else is good.
I know Penn accepts some students from schools I had never heard at all. They try to diversify, just the odds might be different.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: I have been in your situation several years ago (in 2011). I graduated BA in Economics and Business Adminsitration from anranked university from one of the developing countries in Eastern Europe. But then I enrolled in Master's Program where I had a chance to meet highly respected Economists who were professors in US programs as well. Neither my Master's Program was ranked. They were just funded by the World Bank and had enough money to invite US professors. By getting As and A-s in all of their courses and being engaged with the professors I earned quite good reputation and showed them that I was motivated and knowledgeable enough to study in some 30-40 US programs. Despite the fact that my school was not ranked after getting recommendation letters from these well-known US professors I was admitted in top 30 programs in the US.
The take away from my story is that the rank of the university does not as far as you get strong recommendation letters from well-known and well-published economists, researchers.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/12/13 | 848 | 3,578 | <issue_start>username_0: Last year, I applied to a university which is in Europe so a research statement is a crucial part of the application. I was interviewed by two faculty members and then finally got a rejection letter.
In my research statement, I had a particular idea and described a roadmap for it, though I did not get into technical details. But the idea was there and clearly stated. Recently, I came across a publication where the title is the same as my idea (wording is a little bit different) and is co-authored by one of the members of the interview panel.
The publication has technical details which were not part of my research statement.
I believe there is no clear proof here whether my ideas got used or not.
My questions are:
* Is this suspicious?
* Is this valid and acceptable?<issue_comment>username_1: Contact the department chair, with a well-documented chain of events, and ask him to verify using the admission materials you ahd submitted to the department prior to the interview. Even if the plagiarist got away this time, he would know that he/she could not pull it off again, as people around him/her had gotten to know of this - and no one would want to work with someone who can potentially steal your ideas, right?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There is of course the possibility that the person you've accused actually had the same idea independently. It's certainly suspicious, the moreso if when you were interviewed that person did not say "I like your idea and have actually been working on something similar". I agree with the suggestion that you contact the chair and raise the issue, but *be polite and nonconfrontational* about it. If you say "I think this guy stole my idea" it could be less effective than "I came across something similar to what I had proposed ... since Prof X didn't indicate he was working on this, I found it interesting that he published something so similar to what I proposed."
The thing to keep in mind is that it is a very gray area... this person might have come across your idea, forgotten about it, and later decided to pursue this idea without actually being consciously aware the idea came from your proposal. And, you say much of the work goes beyond what you actually proposed. So I think the chair should be informed, but I wouldn't expect much to come of it unless he's known as a repeat offender.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: The other answers (at this time) all take at face value that plagiarism likely or potentially occurred.
While it may have, before pursuing a line of action predicated on this, I would as dispassionately as possible ask an Occam's Razor question:
>
> Is the timeline -- your application/interview, time to perform the research, time to write it up, peer review, publication -- such that your contributions are likely to have played a significant role?
>
>
>
By all means pursue it if there was likely misbehaviour here. But accusations of plagiarism in the style of <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobachevsky_(song)> won't win you friends in the field -- or future potential collaborators -- if it turns out your idea was fermenting in many people's minds, and active research programs, for some time. And it depends on field and topic of course, but your statement your interview was "last year" sets off alarm bells for me a bit, because that would be a very short timeline (in my field at least) for something truly significantly influenced by it to show up in print.
Good luck and sympathies regardless!
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/12/13 | 1,475 | 6,266 | <issue_start>username_0: I hope to enter a PhD program in economics in the next few years, ideally at a top US school (Berkeley, Stanford, MIT, Harvard, etc.) Are there usually opportunities to study abroad during such a program? For example, if I attended Berkeley intending to focus on macroeconomics, would it be possible to study abroad with some of the macro theorists at Cambridge or U of Edinburgh?
This would not be an opportunity to "experience the local culture," which many undergraduate study abroad experiences focus on, but more a chance to gain multiple perspectives from academics in different countries. In my opinion the rigors of a top PhD program rule out the former.<issue_comment>username_1: In the mathematics milieu, there'd be little motivation to do this, and several motivations to *not* do it. E.g., if one is in a top-ranked program, contact and connections with the faculty *there*, e.g., one's thesis advisor, are critical, not only to eventually generate letters of recommendation but, presumably, to be exposed to their ideas, their ways of thinking, and many intangibles.
A scenario in which I could imagine "travel abroad" would be professionally useful would be in which one found oneself in a "second tier" program, but somehow had the opportunity to "visit" a "first tier" program for a substantial bit of time. *Then* the point would be to pay attention to the ideas and viewpoints of the faculty there... obviously... and eventually elicit letters, maybe?
Otherwise, merely dislocating oneself from one's base is pointless.
Edit: quite apparently (in light of JeffE's comments and whoever's downvotes and such) there are varying viewpoints on the benefits-or-not of "study abroad". Presumably this is related to one's mental model for what happens in grad school, especially the role of the advisor, but also the "maturity/responsibility" of grad students. Also, while "travel is broadening", depending on one's model "broadening" may not be the goal of grad school. Sure, the extent to which "travel" makes provincial prejudices harder to maintain, one might hope that being at one of the best places avoids that already. If one's model views advisor/student as master/apprentice, disconnection seems undesirable. If the model views the advisor as merely an older colleague who's been successful, then very different actions seem reasonable. The latter sort of model-feature is arguably a corollary of the "grad student as independent thinker" principle. (My preferred tweaking of this is to "critical thinker".)
To my mind, the bottom line is that some of the most interesting projects/issues have enormous and informative backstories very badly documented in the formal literature, so that even a very good grad student has tremendous difficulty assimilating things. Optimistically/ideally, one can get different perspectives on these issues by talking to different "top experts", hence motivating "travel". However, a key bottleneck is that it may take a few years of full-time attention to catch on to a mature expert viewpoint. If there were a unique, objective such, then one could get variations on it from various experts. However, it is not at all clear to me that there is such a unique, objective unifying "story".
In fact, the *variations* on what might have been "the standard story" appear to often be fairly critical, and the variations and nuances thereof take a long time to get a grip on. Thus my raising the "apprenticeship" model.
As hinted at, if grad school does take "several years", maybe there is more room to fit in residence elsewhere, but some of the elite programs like people to finish in three or at-most-four years, and then it's harder to see how this would work out.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't think what you're describing is all that common, and I've never heard of any sort of systematic program, but it does happen. I ended up spending two months abroad during grad school to participate in a once off trimester program in my area of specialty. There weren't any standard arrangements in place, though: my home university (very generously) moved things around so I could do it. I think I've heard of other cases, all similarly involving unique circumstances like faculty moving around or particular personal connections.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: It is possible but very rare. Professors think, if you want to work with us in your dissertation why could you possibly want to go abroad? Some people do internships abroad during the summer while they are studying. Others begin to work with a professor who then moves to a university abroad and the student follows the professor to the new school. That usually implies that the student ends up graduating from the second school and it is a major move.
Finally, some students get a scholarship which sustains them for a year or two to study with a researcher at a top school. At Penn some professors received European students on a regular basis for a year or two, to work on papers together and the students then went back and graduated from their school having done their paper and network at Penn. But if you wanted to go from there to Princeton or MIT, good luck.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: It seems like you are talking more about economics in your question, but in fields closer to engineering, doing internships at company research labs seems almost mandatory for excellent PhD students. Visiting other universities is less common, but certainly not unheard of. As such, I would not agree with the general tone of most answers here. I would say, **for engineering**, spending significant time outside of "your" lab is both common and beneficial to your further career.
I even know of (some) formal exchange programmes that are established to send students abroad. For instance, in Singapore, programmes exist for both incoming and outgoing visiting PhD students. These exchanges can last between 3 months and 2 years, as far as I know, and are supported by government grants. The government of Austria (my country of residence) also has multiple funding programmes running that scholars in various career stages can apply to for funding research visits.
Upvotes: 0 |
2012/12/14 | 584 | 2,312 | <issue_start>username_0: so I've found a [few open lab notebooks such as this](https://web.archive.org/web/20130513220209/http://www.carlboettiger.info/2010/11/07/welcome-to-my-lab-notebook.html) online. I think the philosophy is great, basically an extreme form of open-access. I work in theoretical neuroscience as a fresh post-doc. I'm also continuing to work for my PhD supervisor, but I plan to look for a position elsewhere ASAP to 'fly the nest' so to speak. I don't have any of my own publications yet, just the publications that came from my PhD. As a general career move I would either like to start publishing myself or with new collaborators.
My question is about the advantages vs disadvantages of starting an open lab notebook. A few pros would be:
* Increased scientific visibility
* Extra motivation
* Possible feedback, discovering new research directions
The the big danger are:
* Getting 'scooped'
* Getting sidetracked from current post-doc
If anyone has any advice for a person in my position, I would like to hear your viewpoint. Specifically, it should relate to an early career researcher looking to make a name for himself.<issue_comment>username_1: If you are worried about the cons and excited about the pros, why not take a "middle-of-the-road" approach? At first, you may want to avoid publishing everything—at least until you get a manuscript or two accepted. At that point, it will become a lot easier to go ahead with a more "open" approach, because you'll already have some material "in the can," so to speak.
You could also take a "staggered" approach, so that you wait a while before putting a given unit of work online. In this way, I think you're honoring the commitments of open research, while still maintaining some control over the release schedule in a way that will make it more difficult to get "scooped."
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I really like that you put 'scientific visibility' on top of the list. That is one side of open notebook science (ONS) that is often overlooked. Also, one thing I would like to add to the pros part of the list is how ONS really facilitates collaboration between researchers. If you are going to keep several projects going and collaborate with different groups, then I think you'll find ONS really helpful.
Upvotes: 3 |
2012/12/14 | 348 | 1,399 | <issue_start>username_0: How are bad first year marks (i.e., ranked around average among my peers) but outstanding 2nd-4th year marks (i.e., top 2%) perceived by PhD admissions committees in the U.S.? What emphasis is placed onto first year marks?<issue_comment>username_1: There's no absolute universal standard as to how this will be perceived, but it's definitely better to be in the situation you describe than the reverse (good in general courses, mediocre in the major)!
One of the issues is where the first-year grades are bad. If you have some poor grades in "general education" classes unrelated to your major (for example, an engineer who gets a "C" in American history and English literature), that hopefully won't matter too much if the admissions committee is actually looking at the transcript, rather than just the overall GPA.
Ultimately, it comes down to how rigid the admissions committee is about reviewing things, as you can see [in this thread](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/324/how-do-you-get-a-bad-transcript-past-ph-d-admissions).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: As long as you are able to justify what went wrong during the first year in the personal statement,for example, you had a major illness that caused you to miss many classes and thus resulted in average performance, I think adcom will not take it too seriously.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/12/15 | 1,071 | 4,809 | <issue_start>username_0: I am currently applying for post-doctoral and asst. professorship positions. One of my letter writer is most likely to submit the letter a week late. Some of the positions I am applying to clearly state that "applications submitted after the deadline cannot be considered". Couple of people (my fellow grad students/post docs) whom I talked to, seemed to indicate that the reference letters can reach late. However, I would appreciate if someone (preferably one who has been part of the search committee and/or has reviewed applications for such positions before) can throw some light on this.<issue_comment>username_1: Unless the search committee is swamped and is looking for reasons to reject a candidate, a late letter will not tank the application. But here's what can happen: letter requests are sent out for candidate A and B. B's letters are delayed. In the meantime, A's letters come back and they are quite good. The committee starts going ahead with interviews for A. Then, for other reasons, the committee feels that A might suffice to cover the area that A and B both overlap in, and they might move on to other candidates.
This would only happen if the letter is REALLY late (multiple weeks). And if candidate B has any level of interest, there's always someone who'll chase down the letter writer.
So overall I'd say not to worry greatly, but make sure the letter isn't more than a week or so late. Also it wouldn't hurt to check with the committee on the "hardness" of the deadline.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The pure and simple answer to your question is answered by asking a question to the committee: when will you start reviewing the applications? Usually it's not the day after the deadline, likely a few days later, and maybe a week later.
The same happens for PhD applications, some departments don't start until two weeks after the deadline. If all your material is in then I am sure they will look at your application regardless of one missing letter.
Just call the department and ask when they start reviewing.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Different universities take different approaches to letters of recommendation. Some departments request letters of recommendation for every candidate; others only request letters when they're highly interested.
In general, however, the difference here is that the letters of recommendation are not normally considered as part of the application itself. Thus, a little leeway is certainly possible, particularly when you'll have "N – 1" letters of recommendation in on time. But again, as others have mentioned, the best advice is: when in doubt, *ask*.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: The policies for late letters may vary, depending on the sort of position. My impression is that for most universities (certainly the ones I have been at), slightly late letters are fine as long as they arrive before they are needed. I.e., your application may suffer if people read it before the letter arrives, but they are unlikely to read it on the day of the deadline. This is in agreement with the other answers here.
However, there may be certain cases where a single late letter will lead to absolute rejection. For example, government funding agencies sometimes have very strict rules about deadlines, in order to guarantee a sort of formal fairness. They may say that nothing will be accepted after the deadline and no incomplete applications will be considered. (I don't know how common this is, but the NSF graduate research fellowships work this way.) If you are applying for a postdoctoral fellowship from a funding agency, then I strongly recommend asking what their policy for late letters is.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Upvoting and reiterating @username_1's comment: a letter just a little late does not seriously *disqualify* you (except, as Anon Math'n notes, perhaps for government agencies, NSF grants...), but may allow other people into the pipeline before you.
The strategy on job offers is typically to make more offers than a dept expects to have accepted, *and* to have quite a few of the first offers rejected, because often the most-attractive [sic] candidates have several offers and cannot take them all. Thus, if the delay in your letters is a week or two, it will probably have no impact.
However, the potential for trouble grows sharply as the delay increases, insofar as scheduling for interviews is made as early as possible... and unexpectedly high acceptance rate may use of all the offers unexpectedly early. (Not bad from a dept's viewpoint, but bad from not-yet-interviewed applicants' viewpoints, since, in effect, they didn't have the same chance... but through the early error of incompleteness in their file.)
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/12/16 | 6,212 | 24,984 | <issue_start>username_0: I just finished all of my coursework for my PhD program, and am entering the research phase of my degree with a topic already in mind. I've already started the research, but I'm already finding that I end up procrastinating a lot of my time away. When I was taking courses, I felt like i didn't have time to procrastinate because of the pace of the classes and I felt like I had to always keep up with the pace. But now that I have no specific constraints, I feel like its harder to pace myself.
Of course, I know it's a bad habit to procrastinate and I should probably devote most of my waking hours to my research. Sometimes, (especially when I get stuck) I find it's so easy to get distracted on the computer (websites, youtube, text messages, etc.).
What are some effective strategies to avoid procrastination during this research phase? How do you stay on task, especially when you get stuck?<issue_comment>username_1: I have found (and continue to find) two kinds of strategies that have some success in preventing me from procrastinating.
**Silly, but scarily effective:**
* As silly as this might sound, implement a blocker like [Leechblock](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/leechblock/) or [Chrome Nanny](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/nanny-for-google-chrome-t/cljcgchbnolheggdgaeclffeagnnmhno?hl=en) and block sites that you waste time on. I used to scoff at such things, but once I installed them, I found myself being forced to spend more time working.
* Along the same lines, disable email alerts. Once I did this, I found that I could spend many hours working without getting distracted by random emails.
**Less silly, and also less effective**
Much of the procrastination when starting research in grad school comes from the lack of clear structure (as you indicate). So the trick is to **create structure**. For example, if you're working on one problem, and you've spent a little time generating a few ideas, write them down, and methodically start working through each of them one by one, going as deep as you need to go in order to test out an idea. When you're doing so, try to forget about the larger problem, the context, your Ph.D, your future career, and all other "big picture" matters.
More likely than not, the idea won't pan out (most don't!). In that case, move on to the next one.
The problem with early-stage research is that it doesn't look like you're making any progress, so it's easy to slow down and waste time. But if you can measure progress not in terms of "papers published", but in terms of "ideas tried", you'll get some sense of the amount of effort you've put in, and that can help motivate you to try more ideas, and so on. All these failed ideas are teaching you valuable things about your project, and they will eventually be useful because of what you've learnt.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_2: A strategy to try is to create/set a "work" environment in a specific location.
* Remove as many distractions as possible from this location (e.g., if you can get away with no internet connection, do that, don't put any decorations or distracting electronics in the area unless they're specifically work related, etc.)
* If you're going to put anything in that location, make it motivational to work. One of my officemates put a background on his work desktop that said, "Don't be stupid. Do your work."
* Create a "work schedule" now that you don't have classes. Set a time when you're due at "work" and a time you get to go home. During your work hours, you go to your work environment/office/lab and you stay there until your work hours are over.
Having this separate location will put you in the mindset of working while you're at that location. Setting a schedule for going to that location will force you to sit somewhere where it's hard to distract yourself and where you'll start to form a habit of being productive.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: IMHO to keep the pace, the most important thing is *not to work alone*.
First, when I talk about my project on daily basis (which, sadly, it's not the case now), it naturally makes me working (as I don't want to make others wait, and it would be kind of awkward to say "I did nothing, because I was reading blogs").
Second, often getting stuck happens for a reason - and just 'working harder' does not help. Then it's important to have some other "seed", or a broader perspective, or just to learn that "it is not me who is stupid - this problem is hard for everyone".
But in case you cannot yourself from procrastinating (sometimes I know that it is not a day when I am good at thinking), try do some "white procrastination" - i.e. procrastinate from your duties, but in a way, which is constructive (e.g. learning a new programming language, reading papers in a different discipline, mastering your skills in something else, etc).
EDIT: In a longer run, it turned out that some of "white procrastinations" were more valuable than my "standard stuff". Remember, that not always you know in advance what will be fruitful in the future.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_4: I am in the same situation as you are and tried several things to improve my situation in my PhD. I am sharing few ideas that work for me:
* **Time Slots:** I use the concept of time slot or chunk of time (say 1 hour each) for a task where I will only focus or do that task or work. Single-entry-single-exit, no distractions allowed. I know, it's not easy not to get distracted, but I convince myself by reminding that I have other slots for other activities. Large slot of focused work helps me more than small chunks.
* **Most valuable task first:** Doing the most valuable and productive task early in the day makes a lot of difference and it feels great. I observed that as the day progress, I also do better at other tasks.
* **Leverage on self:** I have found few ways to make me act. Some of my favorite ways are: letting the person I hate most (and who would be most happy in my failures) know about my state; being an example of such habits to my most loved ones (say kids) etc
* **Change physiology and tone :** I found the way I sit (posture) and the tone of voice with which I speak to myself has lot to do with procrastination. Changing the posture or position, and tone of my internal voice makes a difference. I just emulate a posture and tone when I had been most productive in my life.
* **Divide and conquer :** I divide large task to manageable small tasks (of 1 hr or less). When I brainstorm, I list them in reverse order (with the goal/final result in mind). To get results, only taking actions will matter.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_5: In addition to the other excellent answers, spending most of your waking hours on anything is not good in my opinion. The amount of hours you can really concentrate on research is probably around 8 (maybe even less). I think working 12 hours or more per day (6 days a week) on your research is not really effective. Working these kinds of hours is going to lead to procrastination.
To be more effective (and less procrastinating) you could focus less time on research, but try and impose more structure and be more effective in those hours. This will make you feel more effective, and preserve a better balance between research and your private life. Especially with hard problems, you'll find that you don't need to spend more time researching, but some time runnng/reading/etc to clear your mind.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: I come with one special technique.
The procrastination may have many causes, but often it is from fear of failure, or because the task looks too long / too hard / too boring.
The special technique is to train for your performance like an athlete. Your mind can be trained into knowing for sure you will crack any such task like nothing.
One way of training is to face all your fears. What is the nastiest, most horrible, worst possible task you have been avoiding for ages? DO IT!
You won't believe how much easier the task is than you thought.
Now the hardcore part. Sign up to the most hardcore gym in your area, near your house, and start working out through the limits. Soon you become good at breaking physical limits which gives you a lot of fuel to break any psychical limits. You can try weight-lifting, running, boxing, military training (i.e. warrior classes in a top gym / club), and more.
This strengthens your body and your mind so much, that there will be nothing that makes you procrastinate. Procrastination is in other words "giving up".
Hard training is the best option. The best is one workout early in the morning and one after work.
EDIT: If you get stuck, go for a workout. It won't help you with the task, but at least you are building your physique and a tougher mind for this challenge to figure it out. (Otherwise, ask your advisor if you are really stuck)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: To the many excellent answers, I will add:
* "Just get started," which is a prerequisite to "Just do it." When a task seems too difficult at first, if you start trying to solve it, you often find it's a lot easier than you imagined.
* [Not all procrastination is bad.](http://www.paulgraham.com/procrastination.html) It can sometimes be good to delay important decisions until you have enough information. It can be good to work on the more pressing things, and put off the things that are less important.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_8: Read *Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance* by <NAME>. Read the whole thing. But pay particular attention to the discussion of gumption traps.
You will spend many hours reading the book. However, if you absorb its lessons, you will save many more hours in the future.
You must learn to understand your problem before you can hope to understand the solutions
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_9: Oh, you think you're in trouble now? JUST WAIT TILL YOU ARE WRITING IT! Or worse, doing revision #523...
My strategy was switching time zones. I went to bed at 8pm, woke up at 2 or 3am, got a ton done while it was dark and everyone else was asleep. You may think it hard to go to bed at 8pm - but that is just because you didn't wake up at 2am. :)
There are a ton of other motivational hacks; like starting the day with an easy task (warm start) you could have done the night before. And yes, email/internet off.
Take explicit time wasting breaks. Try <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomodoro_Technique> or whatever. Mostly, be clear about when you are working and when you are having a break.
Mostly, though, I think you need to find your groove. If you are bored now, maybe you need to reconsider your topic and find something that lights you up.
This book is pretty awesome (also, the cover lies), but the main point is you need to get at least a solid 15 (actually +1 hour) of time working on your topic a day. The main idea is that consistent momentum gets you done - working on it one day a week will get you absolutely nowhere.
<http://www.amazon.ca/Writing-Your-Dissertation-Fifteen-Minutes/dp/080504891X>
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_10: I write both weekly and daily 'to do' lists if I'm stuck in a procrastination routine. The weekly lists are more general, the daily ones as detailed as possible, with essentially everything I should do that day, however small it seems. It feels good to tick things off - it shows me that I made progress and gives me incentive to go on. Usually there's one or two things on the list that I really should not postpone for tomorrow, and many less important ones. I sometimes do the big stuff first, sometimes last, it really depends on my mood that day. I also allow myself to push the smaller things to the next day if I don't feel like doing them. That way I feel that I have some wiggle room, but it's constrained to the stuff that doesn't matter much anyway.
I also noticed that I tend to be more efficient when I have something planned at the end of the day, i.e. I know have to leave the office at five and stop working until tomorrow. This gives me a feeling of a small deadline, and deadlines are good at eliminating procrastination.
Finally, as someone mentioned already, nothing beats working with people. Having weekly meetings with my supervisor, where a decision is made on what I will achieve until the next meeting, tops it all.
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_6: I personally found this [link](http://www.structuredprocrastination.com/) to be really really useful.
The main point of procrastination is procrastination is easy, and hence, it is difficult to do not do it. But that automatically implies that avoiding procrastination is a high-energy thing, and it is then obvious that you cannot keep up that high energy forever, and hence, you end up minimizing procrastinating by consuming large amount of energy, and hence then you need a break or you end up actually increasing procrastination.
However, as the author of the link suggests, you can use procrastination to your advantage by using it do important things at relevant times. However, one problem with this is that you have to keep in mind thousands of to-dos and that is very exhausting. My solution to this is to use some very good calendar/to-do system and integrate it with your phone/laptop. This way, you can easily track your to-do list and suddenly, you will find that you have a lot of time to actually do stuff rather than thinking of what to do, which will help a lot in preventing getting distracted and avoid procrastination.
How this works is as follows. Everytime you have a deadline or work, make an entry of it in your calendar with an appropriate date and then reminders. Also, some calendar software allow you to put priorities on your to-dos. Kontact/KOrganizer also allows you to attach files to your to-do or events. So, you note everything you know at the time you get info. And then, whenever you open your to-do, you see a list of all the things you **have** to do.
Then, there is atleast some which interest you, pick the one with the highest priority and the most strict deadline, and do it. This way, you don't have to worry about keeping track of your deadlines since that task has been now transferred to your computer. Also, having all the options of to-dos available in front you **always**, make you more efficient.
Some people use the post-it notes in their office, but it is an inferior solution as compared to mobile/computer/cloud sync as you can access the latter anywhere, even when you are waiting for you doctor's appointment etc.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: You should figure out the reason behind your procrastination and set up a time management to overcome it. You're an engineering username_4, you should engage yourself to an organization and create projects and portfolio, it'll would make you more productive and it'll help you gain network of friends and develop your skills. Find the motivation to do this and I’m sure it'll be easy for you to overcome procrastination.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_12: Here is one thing that helps me:
Block out **work time** and allocate *relaxation time* for each day (relaxation does not mean sleep). You cannot work 100% of the time, but you need to be vigilant about *not* engaging in leisure activity during a work time block.
Intersperse designated *play time* in between work times, **but do not let the two types of time periods overlap and become blurred**. If you find an interesting website during working hours, *bookmark it and come back to it during the next play time period*.
Basically work during the work time, play during play time, and maintain consistent waking/sleeping patterns (try to go to bed on time).
Another thing I forgot to add was *don't squander your prime time hours*, whether it's by self-distraction or by others distracting you.
So for example if you get your best work done in the morning *before* noon, schedule all appointments and meetings in the *afternoon*. Minimize breaks during your prime hours, since you probably don't need as many. If you're an evening type of guy, then take care of events and social activities earlier in the day whenever possible.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_13: If you are doing a PhD, I can recommend you to read the book "The clockwork muse". This book has good pieces of advice to progress in your writing and avoid procrastination.
It is true most of the things that other have written to you. It is not good thinking that you have to spend all your waking time studying because if you do not have time for yourself, you will find that your body will take it by itself.
So, work 6-8 hours per day (roughly 40 per week), it is good time. So, you can relax your body without feeling guilty.
I read all the comments and it is helping to me too. Thank you for writing about that.
Claudia
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_14: I agree with most answers above. It IS important to create a working environment. I, for instance, simply can't work at my home computer without being distracted. Here are the simple techniques that worked for me:
1. **set up a 'home office.'** For me it was the simple fact of getting-out-of-my-comfort-zone that kept me going.
2. **try working from a coffeeshop**. Apparently, it was discovered that the ambient noise of 75 dc (approx. the pleasant buzz in a coffeeshop) is the best for productivity.
3. **schedule the breaks**. Breaks are as important for your productivity as the intensive work, so I found it most helpful to actually set an alarm clock for a 10 min break every 1.5 hrs.
4. **keep a "success diary."** Basically, it's a to-do list where you can tick the items you've completed. So, first, break down your workload into smaller tasks (for me it was smth like "write min 3000 word today," "finish that damn introduction already," and so on) and then tick them one by one. I guess, you can do it in an actual paper diary, but I used a task management app. It kept me on my toes.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_15: I use a tool to block certain applications (like Facebook and Twitter). Furthermore I set goals for myself and hold myself accountable (created a [weekend project](http://www.bohrresearch.com) for that).
Monthly meetings with my supervisor help as well.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_16: first of all, you are not alone in this, as many other people already wrote. I have procrastinated to read your post and opened five other tabs. so this means, we procrastinate, even when we are utterly interested. procrastinating an exciting task resembles pleasure delaying. when i discovered this, it helped me a lot. try to take procrastination as a game you play with yourself. Devoting all waking hours to research is somehow not realistic and in my opinion not necessary. Having a long chat with a friend may seem like procrastination but you never know how your mind wants to unfurl: a friend of mine discovered the topic of her masters thesis during one of our chats. now she has a full grant.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_17: The unpleasant feeling of procrastination comes from feeling you have to do something but not being able to do it. This creates a feedback that reduced your ability to do things. One trick to deal with this is to have smaller more specific goals. Finishing them creates a positive feeling that leads you to feel confident that you can do things. But there is the trap of feeling good about doing things but those things are not helping you in any way to move towards your bigger goals. So these small steps should move you towards your goal and as time passes they should become more challenging.
My second advice is that it is difficult for humans to hold themselves responsible. It is a mental conflict of interests and as it is known people are not good at handling conflicts of interest well. An external party who checks what you do and gives advice on your progress is much more effective. Someone who can regularly check your progress without a conflict of interest. Your supervisor is ideally supposed to be your mentor (like coaches in sports). In reality most supervisors are not up to this ideal. Most of them are either reactive in place of proactive or don't have the success of their username_4 as primary goal (e.g view username_4s as a means of publishing papers). Find someone you trust to care about your progress to keep you up to your plans. It is OK if you don't completed your plans sometimes as long as there has been good reasons for it.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_18: Time accounting is a good way of making yourself aware of procrastination and consequently reducing it.
Here is how I do time accounting. I have an Excel document where
* lines are for different activities (working on thesis, teaching, studying stuff that isn't directly related to my work, useful pauses (walking outside, eating lunch, etc.), and "fun time" (watching Youtube, chatting with colleagues, etc.)); the last couple of lines are sums of lines related to productive time and total time
* columns are days of the month
* sheets are months
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YGxhb.png)
Every day I register the time when I come to work and when I leave work.
I register everything I do at work up to a precision of 15 minutes. I do that approximately once every hour so that I do not forget when I did what. I put comments to cells in which I describe more precisely what I did (e.g. when working on thesis, did I read, write, program or what else).
In the progress of the day, I look at the bottom lines that sum my productive and total time to see the proportion of time I have spent productively. When the proportion drops, I try to work harder and take fewer breaks and especially spend less time unproductively. Sometimes when I have successful days I would leave early once my average amount of productive hours is reached. Sometimes I would stay at work longer to reach that average.
I have have monthly averages in the rightmost column. That helps see long-term trends in time use and assess whether I am heading in the right direction.
E.g. last Monday
* I came to work at 08:05 and left at 17:20.
I spent
* 4 hours 15 minutes working directly on my thesis (there is more detailed information in the comment there),
* 1 hour discussing research with a colleague (which was not directly related to my thesis but still productive),
* 15 minutes printing things,
* 2 hours 30 minutes walking outside, having lunch, etc.
* 1 hour 15 minutes "fun time" (e.g. visiting Academia Stach Exchange)
That was a relatively OK day, but I know I could have cut on "fun time". Once I see figures above 1 hour in the line "fun time" I feel I need to control myself better. (Yes, this month I have been wasting too much time!)
My point is, just knowing how much time you waste and being forced to admit it multiple times per day may help.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_19: Here is a concrete piece of advice I have heard recently, which has been surprisingly helpful:
**Try to allocate 2 to 3 hours every day of unbroken time to devote to your most pressing task.**
I like this advice because it simultaneously does a few things:
* *It keeps your expectations realistic.* Like many graduate username_4s, I have often find myself plagued with the thought that (as you put it) `I should probably devote most of my waking hours to my research`. This attitude is not only discouraging, it's completely unrealistic and actively harmful. Even very successful professors end up with so many *meetings, emails, teaching duties*, etc., that 2-3 hours of time to devote solely to their research can be rare, and is always very welcome.
* *It helps you prioritize.* Unwisely, I often start out the day with a list of 3-5 big, pressing things to do. Then I feel like a failure if I do not accomplish them all, or (just as likely) I manage to procrastinate and accomplish none of them, which fuels further discouragement and procrastination. Thinking of it in terms of 2-3 hours of unbroken time makes me realize I cannot do all of them at the outset, so I pick 1 or 2 things to get done, instead of 3-5.
* *It ensures a little bit of progress every day.* Ensuring merely that one 2-3 hour task gets done is often enough to prevent a project from standing still. I would rather make a little bit of progress every day than spend a week procrastinating followed by some long late-night hours trying to catch up.
It is a hallmark of chronic procrastinators that we start out with vastly inflated expectations, followed by long periods of no work and short bursts of way too much work. We would get more done if we just set our expectation consistently at 2-3 hours per day.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/12/16 | 1,393 | 5,893 | <issue_start>username_0: I never tried to avoid becoming a sub-reviewer, and still, [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/5662/3926) made me wonder. How much time should I, as a PhD student, spend on a review of a paper that my advisor gave me to do? Does the answer depend on whether I'm getting credit for the review or not, that is whether I'm a sub-reviewer or not?<issue_comment>username_1: There is no clearcut answer to how long a review takes. I would say that the amount of time spent on it is the time you need to understand the paper and provide good advice on wether or not it is a paper that can be accepted, with some changes or as is. In general, this should take you around a full working day. How long this exactly becomes depends on:
* The level and clarity of the paper (very bad paper takes less time, mediocre paper takes more time, very good paper takes less time).
* Your familiarity with the subject (less familiar more time).
* The requirements of the journal/conference you are reviewing for, is it a full review, or just a go/no go.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You should do slightly more reviewing work for the community than the community does for you. So, as a rough estimate, assuming every paper you write and submit needs three reviews and your average paper has three authors, you should review slightly more papers than you submit.
There is no way to predict in the abstract how long a paper takes to review; that varies from field to field, subfield to subfield, and even paper to paper. Answering a similar question in [Theoretical Computer Science Stack Exchange](https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/a/1902/111), I wrote:
>
> Expect to spend about an hour per page, mostly on internalizing the paper's results and techniques. Be pleasantly surprised when it doesn't actually take that long. (If it takes significantly less time than that, either the paper is either exceedingly elegant and well-written, you know the area extremely well, or the paper is technically shallow. Don't confuse these three possibilities.)
>
>
>
No, the answer does not depend on whether you get credit for the review. If you're not going to write a thorough, professional review, just say no.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Read the entire paper in one go. For a 12 page\* paper, that should take you an hour at most. This is the first pass. From this you can now decide how to proceed, now that you have (quickly) covered all the sections. (edit: The goal on this first pass is not to understand all the details, but rather get an overall feeling of the paper, quality and organization of ideas)
If a paper is terribly written and difficult to understand you should reject it outright for being so. It should not take a reader 12 hours to read a 12 page paper - and indeed, many papers are badly written and do take this much time - and you are still left wondering because it was not clear.
If the basic claims seem sound and sufficiently interesting/important and the idea is clear enough to understand, then you need to dig in. Depending on the type of paper this means looking at definitions, proofs, or experimental design, hypothesis testing and the analysis of the results. Likewise for any related work you know of that should be cited (and not just your own - that is too cliche! - if you do recommend your work as a citation at least include some others!).
All along, help people out with typos and readability. As a reviewer, you are the last chance to make this a good read before it is published.
And even if you reject it, don't just shoot people down. Give them ideas about how to make the paper stronger, suggestions for different directions, etc. Remember that it is most likely some other student who will receive your review back - so try and help them make the next paper better.
(\* 12 single column pages. A 6 page paper with two columns can often contain the same amount of text as a 12 page single column paper)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: It depends on how many reviews you've done and what your experience is. If you're just starting out and have never reviewed a paper before, you should expect it to take a minimum of several hours to do a decent to good review.
Your mileage may vary depending on what discipline you're in, but a good review generally will consist of:
* a summary of what the contribution of the paper was
* a brief list of 1-3 strengths and 1-3 weaknesses that the paper had
* several paragraphs explaining those strengths and weaknesses in greater detail along with constructive suggestions of what would be needed to improve the weaknesses
* a brief listing of any related work that you feel is missing from the paper
* a recommendation to the reviewing committee of whether or not you believe the paper should be accepted
* usually there is a part for a numerical evaluation of your expertise and whether or not it should be accepted
The more reviews that you do, the less time that you should need to spend on doing the review. It seems like many professors can knock out a review in an hour or less, but most of the graduate students I've seen will tend to spend at least 1-2 hours per review if they're doing a good job.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: Take enough time to find most (~80%) of the important strengths and weaknesses of the paper and to describe and explain the weaknesses thoroughly and clearly **but** if you encounter one particular non-core aspect or section of the paper that would take excessively long to do this, just skip it and be frank: *"I have not reviewed ((aspect X)) thoroughly, because my expertise in this area is too shallow."*
If the editor is worth her salt, this will actually *increase* her confidence in the rest of your review.
All of your reviews should be careful but none of them need to be perfect.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/12/15 | 616 | 2,597 | <issue_start>username_0: A few days ago, I read an article that I found through Google. I analyzed it and find that article is correct, and then I prepared a paper of my own built on the basis of that article.
But when I tried to complete the references section, I realized that the source article had not been published.
Now I do not know what to do. On the one hand, the article is correct, but on the other hand, it has not been formally published.
How to send my article based on another paper that has not been published?<issue_comment>username_1: Actually, the paper in question *has been published*, otherwise you sure couldn't read it :)
I admit that may sound stupid and unhelpful, but I think there is more to it that you recognize. The paper you built upon has been published, but not through conventional means. It doesn't mean you can't use it, but a few specific “rules of thumb” have to be observed:
* Refer to the paper by its URL and, if identifiable, the owner/editor/publisher of the website. Example:
>
> “Link between *al dente* cooking time and a change of slope in the pasta fractal length”, <NAME>, <http://bigpasta.com/paper42.pdf> (publisher: Pasta Inc.)
>
>
>
* Because this content may have a shorter lifetime than academic publications, you should quote directly all necessary claims made into this work in your paper, rather than merely using the reference on a vague claim. Your paper should be standalone, and fully understandable even if the other one disappears.
* You may also contact the original paper author, if possible, to ask how they would like to be cited. Perhaps they have another related work which you missed, that was published in a more conventional way?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It's unclear from your description whether you've just written your own version of the earlier paper, with no new results of your own, or whether you've significantly extended the results in the earlier paper. In the first case, you **cannot** publish your paper. In the second, you **must** cite the earlier paper, using whatever information would be necessary for your readers to find it, just as username_1 describes.
In either case, I strongly recommend contacting the author of the earlier paper and asking *them* how *they* would like to proceed. They may invite you to be a coauthor on their paper. They may invite themselves to be a coauthor on your paper. They may use your email as a kick in the pants to *formally* publish their paper, but without you as a coauthor, leaving you to publish your new results on your own.
Upvotes: 2 |
2012/12/16 | 643 | 2,851 | <issue_start>username_0: Recently, after submitting a manuscript for publication, I received the following response:
>
> Your manuscript, referenced below, has been considered for publication in XXX: "Article Title"
> Unfortunately, this manuscript on a fundamental topic does not fall under the range of topics that are covered by XXX, which focuses on the applied physical sciences. We recommend that you consider submission to an alternative venue.
>
>
>
My question is, what is the meaning of the sentence "We recommend that you consider submission to an alternative venue". To me, it sounds like a terse "good luck with *that!*" sign-off. However, that's an odd sentence, as they usually just write "no" in those cases. Does this imply anything particular about my submission?<issue_comment>username_1: The journal is telling you that the paper you wrote does not fit the type of topics that they aim for. The recommendation at the end is to resubmit your paper to a journal which does fit the topic of your article. Looking at the comments, they are more an applied journal, while the paper you wrote deals with more fundamental issues.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: From what you've said by itself, it's ambiguous. That is, if your paper really is on a topic not usually covered by that journal, then their remark is completely bland, just meaning what it says. If, at the other extreme, you are pretty sure that your paper's topic is exactly what is covered in the journal, then, yes, their "recommendation" is just a polite form of rejection.
If you are a beginner at this, it is possible that your understanding of what your own paper is about may have some quirks or limitations, or you've presented it in a way that dis-served you, or you've presented it in a way that confused or mis-directed the editors/referee, etc.
For example, giving inappropriate/inaccurate keywords can get a paper sent to an inappropriate referee, who may think the paper is misguided, while if you'd given different keywords, a different referee might think it was mainstream and wonderful.
Similarly, unfortunate choices in title, abstract, and introduction can set things off down the wrong path. Getting an opinion from an experienced person about the actual appropriateness of your paper for that venue is necessary before it's possible to understand the situation.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: The sentence "We recommend that you consider submission to an alternative venue" clearly means that your paper does not match the scope of the journal and should be submitted elsewhere. This indicates that your choice of journal was probably not right. There is a possibility that the editor was trying to suggest that you choose a journal that does not cater exclusively to the applied physical sciences.
Upvotes: 1 |
2012/12/17 | 573 | 2,326 | <issue_start>username_0: I've always been under the impression that you're only allowed to publish 1 result in 1 journal. However, [Economics Letters states](http://www.elsevier.com/journals/economics-letters/0165-1765?generatepdf=true):
>
> For instance, a theorist could submit to Economics Letters a
> thought-provoking example before the analysis is extended to a general theorem in a fully fledged paper that will go elsewhere. Similarly, an experimentalist or an empirical researcher could submit to Economics Letters some important preliminary results, where perhaps the threshold for robustness, thoroughness or completeness of the analysis is not as high as it would be for a complete paper.
>
>
>
Is this stating that you're allowed to submit early results of paper X to Economics Letters, then improve paper X until paper X is longer and more like a full paper, followed by a submission of paper X to an alternative journal? If it is what they mean, why don't more academics do this to boost their publication count? Economics Letters is actually [ranked quite highly](http://lamp.infosys.deakin.edu.au/era/?page=fordet10&selfor=14).<issue_comment>username_1: *Taken from the comments as per request*
This is fairly common. For example, in CS, one might publish preliminary work at a conference, and then flesh it out for a journal (there's a "30% new material" rule in many journals to cover this situation). But to answer your question, doing this doesn't boost publication count except for very dumb ways of evaluating a publication list. Most people (except university bureaucrats) will list the conference and journal paper as one entity.
Note that it is upto the journal editors of the second venue to decide whether the paper is sufficiently different from the first one. They are free to reject it even if you think the latter paper is a nontrivially expanded version of the first one.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Indeed. Economics Letters is a journal where people read summaries of papers and get a good idea of the literature coming out in different specialties of economics, before moving on to reading full technical papers in other journals. So yes, it is quite understandable to submit a summarized watered-down version of a paper to Economics Letters.
Upvotes: 0 |
Subsets and Splits