label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
A | POST: How do I nicely tell a student she needs to pay attention in class? I teach Anatomy and Physiology at a large, public University. I have a student in my class who just switched majors from fine arts to Nursing. My class is hard and also required for the students to continue in the major. I am always sure to remind them of due dates, upcoming assignments, and tests in class and through our class website. The student in question seems nervous and anxious when she speaks to me. She asks questions in class after I just explained and gave the answer. She is always asking about due dates after I specifically go over them. She is always venting to her classmates about how hard her workload is and how "lost" she is. I do not want my class to be the reason someone cannot continue in their major, but at a certain point it is on the student to pay attention and keep up with these things. She is a nice girl and I can tell she's studying and actually trying to succeed. Any advice on how to kindly tell her to pay attention?
RESPONSE A: Do you permit audio recording in your classes? This is something that has helped people in my class (peers) to concentrate better; knowing that they can revisit things via the audio recording allows them to better engage in class than worrying about every detail. If you have given a test already, how has she performed?
RESPONSE B: A kind referral to school services can be of help. Ex. I noticed you seem to have a lot in your plate. I have found some students benefit from... and offer counseling, tutoring, or even a class on how to take college classes (they exist). Another way is to offer students to pick a study partner or group to quiz each other and ask questions of what was missed. This is more common with lower grades, but can be useful. A couple of sessions and a suggestion that students might want to continue the practice on their own time. Hopefully she will find peers that she can be more open with and find support.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do you tell if a journal is a junk journal? I was recently invited to review a paper for a journal. I'd never heard of it before and upon searching for it online, something just feels off. It's published by Taylor & Francis which I read has had some strange goings on in the recent past. Also, the paper is extremely poor quality (I was able to read it before making a decision to review or not). I am happy to contribute to peer review, but not for a scam journal that publishes junk research. How can i know if I'm being taken for a ride? For context, I'm in the first year of my postdoc and so I've very little experience with being invited for peer review. Thank you for your advice!
RESPONSE A: First red flag check: Have I heard of this journal before? Second red flag check: Check their top three cited papers (almost always advertised on website). Do you recognize any names? Third red flag check: Scholar those three and check cited by. Again, do you recognize the names? Fourth red flag check: Check the Editorial board. Big research Unis or small ones? Fifth red flag check: Scan author guidelines. Is there a processing fee (i.e. pay to publish)? No single red flag is a junk journal, but once you hit 🚩🚩🚩 then you probably want to back out.
RESPONSE B: Check Beall's list of predatory journals https://beallslist.net/
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do you tell if a journal is a junk journal? I was recently invited to review a paper for a journal. I'd never heard of it before and upon searching for it online, something just feels off. It's published by Taylor & Francis which I read has had some strange goings on in the recent past. Also, the paper is extremely poor quality (I was able to read it before making a decision to review or not). I am happy to contribute to peer review, but not for a scam journal that publishes junk research. How can i know if I'm being taken for a ride? For context, I'm in the first year of my postdoc and so I've very little experience with being invited for peer review. Thank you for your advice!
RESPONSE A: First red flag check: Have I heard of this journal before? Second red flag check: Check their top three cited papers (almost always advertised on website). Do you recognize any names? Third red flag check: Scholar those three and check cited by. Again, do you recognize the names? Fourth red flag check: Check the Editorial board. Big research Unis or small ones? Fifth red flag check: Scan author guidelines. Is there a processing fee (i.e. pay to publish)? No single red flag is a junk journal, but once you hit 🚩🚩🚩 then you probably want to back out.
RESPONSE B: Have you heard of the Norwegian list that categories the quality of journals?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do you tell if a journal is a junk journal? I was recently invited to review a paper for a journal. I'd never heard of it before and upon searching for it online, something just feels off. It's published by Taylor & Francis which I read has had some strange goings on in the recent past. Also, the paper is extremely poor quality (I was able to read it before making a decision to review or not). I am happy to contribute to peer review, but not for a scam journal that publishes junk research. How can i know if I'm being taken for a ride? For context, I'm in the first year of my postdoc and so I've very little experience with being invited for peer review. Thank you for your advice!
RESPONSE A: Check Beall's list of predatory journals https://beallslist.net/
RESPONSE B: Have you heard of the Norwegian list that categories the quality of journals?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do you tell if a journal is a junk journal? I was recently invited to review a paper for a journal. I'd never heard of it before and upon searching for it online, something just feels off. It's published by Taylor & Francis which I read has had some strange goings on in the recent past. Also, the paper is extremely poor quality (I was able to read it before making a decision to review or not). I am happy to contribute to peer review, but not for a scam journal that publishes junk research. How can i know if I'm being taken for a ride? For context, I'm in the first year of my postdoc and so I've very little experience with being invited for peer review. Thank you for your advice!
RESPONSE A: Have you heard of the Norwegian list that categories the quality of journals?
RESPONSE B: There is also Scimago SJR rankings, you can search this journal there. It's pretty good and covers lots of discipline. Anything in Q3 and Q4 I consider a waste of time. https://www.scimagojr.com/
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do you tell if a journal is a junk journal? I was recently invited to review a paper for a journal. I'd never heard of it before and upon searching for it online, something just feels off. It's published by Taylor & Francis which I read has had some strange goings on in the recent past. Also, the paper is extremely poor quality (I was able to read it before making a decision to review or not). I am happy to contribute to peer review, but not for a scam journal that publishes junk research. How can i know if I'm being taken for a ride? For context, I'm in the first year of my postdoc and so I've very little experience with being invited for peer review. Thank you for your advice!
RESPONSE A: Not a comment on the key question, but sometimes handling editors for otherwise decent journals send stuff out for review that should have been a desk rejection. This can be because they're busy and didn't read the paper, or sometimes an abundance of caution (don't want to miss out on a paper the reviewers might improve), or lack of expertise. I sometimes see it when reviewing for (e.g.) a clinical journal that focuses on disease X: the handling editor receives a paper applying methodology Y (my area) to disease X. The editor is an expert in X but not Y and so may not spot glaring errors in Y, or feel like they want the comments of peer reviewers expert in Y before they make a rejection.
RESPONSE B: Have you heard of the Norwegian list that categories the quality of journals?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What do you wish you knew--about your field, the job market, the costs of doing a grad degree--before you began your PhD program? I'm organizing a roundtable and info session for my program's undergraduates, and since it's been a few years since I was in school, I wanted to hear a more current perspective: **what do you wish that somebody had told you about graduate school before you went, or before you even made the decision to go?** Field-specific answers are fine! I imagine most issues will translate to some degree across the disciplines.
RESPONSE A: One thing I wish I'd been told is that there's a huge difference between being adequate and being good, and that it can be quite difficult to figure out which standard you're at. I mean that in academia, there are official stated requirements for milestones like passing a comprehensive exam, getting a PhD, and so on. If you meet those requirements, you're adequate, but you are not setting yourself up for long-term success in the field. To set yourself up for success, you have to make your work truly stand out when compared to your peers. That effectively constitutes another, more stringent set of requirements, which are unofficial, unwritten, and often unclear, even to people like your advisor who you'd think would know how well you're really doing. The net effect of all this is that it's possible to be getting very positive feedback from your advisor and people you're working with even though you really don't have much potential to be a researcher at all. Or conversely, you could be getting negative feedback and still be a star. --- Another thing I wish I'd been told is the importance of networking at conferences. In fact, the main purpose of conferences IMO is not listening to the talks, it's bonding with fellow researchers who you might want to work with or ask for help in the future. (As well as just making friends!)
RESPONSE B: Unless it is EXACTLY your area of interest, don't even start. And it's nearly impossible to combine it with a job and being a single parent.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What do you wish you knew--about your field, the job market, the costs of doing a grad degree--before you began your PhD program? I'm organizing a roundtable and info session for my program's undergraduates, and since it's been a few years since I was in school, I wanted to hear a more current perspective: **what do you wish that somebody had told you about graduate school before you went, or before you even made the decision to go?** Field-specific answers are fine! I imagine most issues will translate to some degree across the disciplines.
RESPONSE A: I wish someone had slapped me and told me to get an MD instead or in addition.
RESPONSE B: One thing I wish I'd been told is that there's a huge difference between being adequate and being good, and that it can be quite difficult to figure out which standard you're at. I mean that in academia, there are official stated requirements for milestones like passing a comprehensive exam, getting a PhD, and so on. If you meet those requirements, you're adequate, but you are not setting yourself up for long-term success in the field. To set yourself up for success, you have to make your work truly stand out when compared to your peers. That effectively constitutes another, more stringent set of requirements, which are unofficial, unwritten, and often unclear, even to people like your advisor who you'd think would know how well you're really doing. The net effect of all this is that it's possible to be getting very positive feedback from your advisor and people you're working with even though you really don't have much potential to be a researcher at all. Or conversely, you could be getting negative feedback and still be a star. --- Another thing I wish I'd been told is the importance of networking at conferences. In fact, the main purpose of conferences IMO is not listening to the talks, it's bonding with fellow researchers who you might want to work with or ask for help in the future. (As well as just making friends!)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: PhD program? I'm organizing a roundtable and info session for my program's undergraduates, and since it's been a few years since I was in school, I wanted to hear a more current perspective: **what do you wish that somebody had told you about graduate school before you went, or before you even made the decision to go?** Field-specific answers are fine! I imagine most issues will translate to some degree across the disciplines.
RESPONSE A: oh look it's time for my standard answer http://chronicle.com/article/Graduate-School-in-the/44846 http://chronicle.com/article/Just-Dont-Go-Part-2/44786/ http://chronicle.com/article/The-Big-Lie-About-the-Life-of/63937?cid=rclink
RESPONSE B: One thing I wish I'd been told is that there's a huge difference between being adequate and being good, and that it can be quite difficult to figure out which standard you're at. I mean that in academia, there are official stated requirements for milestones like passing a comprehensive exam, getting a PhD, and so on. If you meet those requirements, you're adequate, but you are not setting yourself up for long-term success in the field. To set yourself up for success, you have to make your work truly stand out when compared to your peers. That effectively constitutes another, more stringent set of requirements, which are unofficial, unwritten, and often unclear, even to people like your advisor who you'd think would know how well you're really doing. The net effect of all this is that it's possible to be getting very positive feedback from your advisor and people you're working with even though you really don't have much potential to be a researcher at all. Or conversely, you could be getting negative feedback and still be a star. --- Another thing I wish I'd been told is the importance of networking at conferences. In fact, the main purpose of conferences IMO is not listening to the talks, it's bonding with fellow researchers who you might want to work with or ask for help in the future. (As well as just making friends!)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What do you wish you knew--about your field, the job market, the costs of doing a grad degree--before you began your PhD program? I'm organizing a roundtable and info session for my program's undergraduates, and since it's been a few years since I was in school, I wanted to hear a more current perspective: **what do you wish that somebody had told you about graduate school before you went, or before you even made the decision to go?** Field-specific answers are fine! I imagine most issues will translate to some degree across the disciplines.
RESPONSE A: The motivation it takes to finish a PhD is probably enough to start a small, profitable web company.
RESPONSE B: I wish someone had slapped me and told me to get an MD instead or in addition.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What do you wish you knew--about your field, the job market, the costs of doing a grad degree--before you began your PhD program? I'm organizing a roundtable and info session for my program's undergraduates, and since it's been a few years since I was in school, I wanted to hear a more current perspective: **what do you wish that somebody had told you about graduate school before you went, or before you even made the decision to go?** Field-specific answers are fine! I imagine most issues will translate to some degree across the disciplines.
RESPONSE A: The motivation it takes to finish a PhD is probably enough to start a small, profitable web company.
RESPONSE B: oh look it's time for my standard answer http://chronicle.com/article/Graduate-School-in-the/44846 http://chronicle.com/article/Just-Dont-Go-Part-2/44786/ http://chronicle.com/article/The-Big-Lie-About-the-Life-of/63937?cid=rclink
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What do you typically do with grants in the humanities that don't involve travel? Hi all, I received a $12k grant a year ago, which was delayed due to covid. I'd like to get started buying research materials, but I'm wondering if I should try to delay the grant further, because travel still isn't happening and I don't really want to gamble on that fact changing. I can use a small portion of it for a summer stipend, but I cannot use it for a course release. I had $7k of the grant dedicated to travel. Are there any creative ways of spending grant money for folks in the humanities? If there were no restrictions, I'd spend it all on course release and research materials.
RESPONSE A: Research materials — every book you'll ever need A new computer Undergraduate student workers A good camera for taking pictures of documents Audio equipment for a multimedia experience or whatever A really awesome webcam Editing services (if you have something to edit) Manuscript consulting services Archival reproduction services Web server space for a few years A really bitchin' tattoo of whomever you are studying (just kidding)
RESPONSE B: Student research assistant, software licenses for the lab (e.g. Slack, SPSS, etc) and other ICT equipment (e.g. laptops), books, journal open-access fees, etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Questions to ask at job talk I have a TT job talk tomorrow with an R1 which means all day interviews. What type of questions should I be asking the search committee, the department chair, and the dean? I'll be interviewed by each one for an hour with time for me to ask questions.
RESPONSE A: I asked whether I was expected to build my own little mini-empire with some grants and students, or whether I was expected to collaborate and build consortiums with other researchers at the department. I much prefer the latter myself, but it was also a way for me to show that I understand how research works.
RESPONSE B: I would also ask, in addition to these other comments (especially those of u/boilerlashes and u/Superdrag2112), what kind of service are you expected to perform, whether there are internal pockets of money for research, whether they have an official mentorship program, what specific classes you are responsible for. If you are more socially minded, you could also ask about university-wide initiatives for gender and race equality, diversity, etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Questions to ask at job talk I have a TT job talk tomorrow with an R1 which means all day interviews. What type of questions should I be asking the search committee, the department chair, and the dean? I'll be interviewed by each one for an hour with time for me to ask questions.
RESPONSE A: I would also ask, in addition to these other comments (especially those of u/boilerlashes and u/Superdrag2112), what kind of service are you expected to perform, whether there are internal pockets of money for research, whether they have an official mentorship program, what specific classes you are responsible for. If you are more socially minded, you could also ask about university-wide initiatives for gender and race equality, diversity, etc.
RESPONSE B: Specifically how does the tenure process work at your uni, what resources are provided (especially pre-tenure) to be successful - like mentoring, small grants, guaranteed TA lines, etc - how long do you have to spend your startup (I had till tenure, since then it's been changed to within first 3 years at my uni), are there rules about what startup can and cannot be spent on, and how do pre-tenure reviews work... just off the top of my head. The pre-tenure reviews and the tenure process questions are big ones, I think. At my uni, the union mandates annual reviews that are substantive and with critical feedback from tenured faculty - you could conceivably have a union grievance if you are denied tenure but all of your annual reviews are positive. I liked this, because I got iterative feedback frequently, rather than having a big formal 3 yr review (and no official feedback aside from that).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Questions to ask at job talk I have a TT job talk tomorrow with an R1 which means all day interviews. What type of questions should I be asking the search committee, the department chair, and the dean? I'll be interviewed by each one for an hour with time for me to ask questions.
RESPONSE A: I would also ask, in addition to these other comments (especially those of u/boilerlashes and u/Superdrag2112), what kind of service are you expected to perform, whether there are internal pockets of money for research, whether they have an official mentorship program, what specific classes you are responsible for. If you are more socially minded, you could also ask about university-wide initiatives for gender and race equality, diversity, etc.
RESPONSE B: I would have a frank discussion on publication/grant expectations. I would also ask them if there are regular merit-based raises. A lot of universities have been struggling with this recently, and it’d be good to know if it’s even a possibility. Probably not a deal breaker if not, but this can impact your quality of life down the road. I’d also ask to have someone drive you around to see what housing is available near campus or within a half hour drive. I’ve been set up with realtors for this when interviewing. Good luck!!!! Exciting.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Questions to ask at job talk I have a TT job talk tomorrow with an R1 which means all day interviews. What type of questions should I be asking the search committee, the department chair, and the dean? I'll be interviewed by each one for an hour with time for me to ask questions.
RESPONSE A: I would also ask, in addition to these other comments (especially those of u/boilerlashes and u/Superdrag2112), what kind of service are you expected to perform, whether there are internal pockets of money for research, whether they have an official mentorship program, what specific classes you are responsible for. If you are more socially minded, you could also ask about university-wide initiatives for gender and race equality, diversity, etc.
RESPONSE B: I am guessing this is all virtual because if the pandemic. It’s a good idea to also ask lots of questions about non-academic things: how’s the town, etc. If they make you an offer, these are things you’ll want to consider. And asking them shows you’re genuinely considering moving to this place if they make you an offer, which is a good thing. Also, don’t forget you’re interviewing them too.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How to answer questions about why do you choose this school? Why do you think you're the best fit for this position? Well, I'm applying assistant professor positions in social sciences, and I found that the hardest interview questions that I'm facing now is how to answer the questions such as why do you choose to come to xxx university? Why do you think you are the best fit for this position? ​ From what perspective should I answer this type of question? Thank you!
RESPONSE A: It's all a matter of confidence and self-affirmation. Answer truthfully and they will see you for your intentions.
RESPONSE B: Before you go to the interview, do some research about the school and the department and see what you find interesting about it. Some things to look for: * Where is is located? City vs rural, what part of the country/world, what physical climate / geography. What can you do in the area in your down time? * How big is the school? * What is the school known for? * What is the school’s mission statement? * How big are class sizes? * What research is being done in the department? * what courses do they offer? * among those courses, what is one you’d really be looking forward to teach? * among the courses they *don’t* offer, what is one you’d like to develop and teach for them? * are you more interested in teaching grad or undergrad courses? Intro or advanced undergrad? * who is faculty in the department? Do you know any of them personally or professionally, like have you met them at conferences or read their work? Who would you most want to collaborate with? * How does your research fit with their research? * What facilities do they have (teaching or research) that you’d be looking forward to using? Do your HW - honestly half of these are useful to find out before applying even - and it’ll help you to answer those specific questions and others.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: position? Well, I'm applying assistant professor positions in social sciences, and I found that the hardest interview questions that I'm facing now is how to answer the questions such as why do you choose to come to xxx university? Why do you think you are the best fit for this position? ​ From what perspective should I answer this type of question? Thank you!
RESPONSE A: Before you go to the interview, do some research about the school and the department and see what you find interesting about it. Some things to look for: * Where is is located? City vs rural, what part of the country/world, what physical climate / geography. What can you do in the area in your down time? * How big is the school? * What is the school known for? * What is the school’s mission statement? * How big are class sizes? * What research is being done in the department? * what courses do they offer? * among those courses, what is one you’d really be looking forward to teach? * among the courses they *don’t* offer, what is one you’d like to develop and teach for them? * are you more interested in teaching grad or undergrad courses? Intro or advanced undergrad? * who is faculty in the department? Do you know any of them personally or professionally, like have you met them at conferences or read their work? Who would you most want to collaborate with? * How does your research fit with their research? * What facilities do they have (teaching or research) that you’d be looking forward to using? Do your HW - honestly half of these are useful to find out before applying even - and it’ll help you to answer those specific questions and others.
RESPONSE B: They want to know that you know how special they are, that you understand their mission and are committed to it. It's your opportunity to suck up, in a way. The best way to answer, I've found, is to read up on the mission statement of the university and the department. Also check out their branding pages to see if you can pick up things from there. And if you're applying to a land grant, definitely mention that. Those land grants love their missions! (mostly kidding)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How to answer questions about why do you choose this school? Why do you think you're the best fit for this position? Well, I'm applying assistant professor positions in social sciences, and I found that the hardest interview questions that I'm facing now is how to answer the questions such as why do you choose to come to xxx university? Why do you think you are the best fit for this position? ​ From what perspective should I answer this type of question? Thank you!
RESPONSE A: These questions serve no legitimate purpose aside from weeding out people who can't even *pretend* to be a team player -- it's a litmus test for people who lack professional common sense.
RESPONSE B: It's all a matter of confidence and self-affirmation. Answer truthfully and they will see you for your intentions.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How to answer questions about why do you choose this school? Why do you think you're the best fit for this position? Well, I'm applying assistant professor positions in social sciences, and I found that the hardest interview questions that I'm facing now is how to answer the questions such as why do you choose to come to xxx university? Why do you think you are the best fit for this position? ​ From what perspective should I answer this type of question? Thank you!
RESPONSE A: These questions serve no legitimate purpose aside from weeding out people who can't even *pretend* to be a team player -- it's a litmus test for people who lack professional common sense.
RESPONSE B: They want to know that you know how special they are, that you understand their mission and are committed to it. It's your opportunity to suck up, in a way. The best way to answer, I've found, is to read up on the mission statement of the university and the department. Also check out their branding pages to see if you can pick up things from there. And if you're applying to a land grant, definitely mention that. Those land grants love their missions! (mostly kidding)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How to answer questions about why do you choose this school? Why do you think you're the best fit for this position? Well, I'm applying assistant professor positions in social sciences, and I found that the hardest interview questions that I'm facing now is how to answer the questions such as why do you choose to come to xxx university? Why do you think you are the best fit for this position? ​ From what perspective should I answer this type of question? Thank you!
RESPONSE A: It's all a matter of confidence and self-affirmation. Answer truthfully and they will see you for your intentions.
RESPONSE B: Do not answer "Because I need a job"--even joking. Source: I did not get the in-person interview.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Reddit Professors: When you were an undergrad, did you think about your profs, "there is no way I could know as much / be as smart as this prof"? and how have things changed?
RESPONSE A: As a past lecturer I could say that I never though about it this way but I though that they really are patient while dealing with dumb (those who don't ask questions or persist in asking ' clever' questions after getting outed as a novice) people over and over again each year. That's how I understood that I should't be a professor.
RESPONSE B: I was in no way the best in my class and I still feel inferior to a number of my academic colleagues. I'm just making my way through the best I can. People like me because I am polite and I am rarely late.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Reddit Professors: When you were an undergrad, did you think about your profs, "there is no way I could know as much / be as smart as this prof"? and how have things changed?
RESPONSE A: As a past lecturer I could say that I never though about it this way but I though that they really are patient while dealing with dumb (those who don't ask questions or persist in asking ' clever' questions after getting outed as a novice) people over and over again each year. That's how I understood that I should't be a professor.
RESPONSE B: **It is still true**: there is no way I could know as much, or be as smart, as some of my former professors, or some of my current colleagues. On the other hand, I know that I am doing my job well, so I am ok with the above fact. I think of this as a common phenomenon for anyone in the 99th percentile of something (call it "Z"). Picture a graph with percentiles on x-axis and "ability in Z" on the y-axis. The graph probably looks something like this, with the ability starting low, slowly rising at first, and then speeding up towards the end. Now if you are in the middle of the pack (say, 50th percentile of ability), everyone around you looks kind of like you--some a little better, some a little worse, but no big deal. However, if you are out in the 99th percentile, the people around you look very different, and there is someone right in your neighborhood that is significantly more able that you. Same thing happens with wealth, by the way, except the graph is much, much steeper at the end.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Reddit Professors: When you were an undergrad, did you think about your profs, "there is no way I could know as much / be as smart as this prof"? and how have things changed?
RESPONSE A: I agree with many people here in thinking I didn't hold professors in such high regard. A few professors stand out as being especially brilliant. Most professors, however, simply don't have a chance to demonstrate their expertise given that they teach mostly required courses which aren't their specialty. For example, you could have a French Revolution scholar teaching European history or Western Civ. That professor gets one day out of the term to show off. It's not enough to make an impression most of the time.
RESPONSE B: As a past lecturer I could say that I never though about it this way but I though that they really are patient while dealing with dumb (those who don't ask questions or persist in asking ' clever' questions after getting outed as a novice) people over and over again each year. That's how I understood that I should't be a professor.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Reddit Professors: When you were an undergrad, did you think about your profs, "there is no way I could know as much / be as smart as this prof"? and how have things changed?
RESPONSE A: As a past lecturer I could say that I never though about it this way but I though that they really are patient while dealing with dumb (those who don't ask questions or persist in asking ' clever' questions after getting outed as a novice) people over and over again each year. That's how I understood that I should't be a professor.
RESPONSE B: I was always that cocky asshole that thought he knew more than everyone else (including the professor). Now that the shoe is on the other foot, I realize how insufferable that student can be.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Professors of Reddit, have you ever worked on a project/thesis with a student and were dissatisfied with their progress/work ethic? If so, how did you handle the situation over the term?
RESPONSE A: Yes, I told them of they didn't shape up they would fail. A bit of tough love,academic rigor, and frank discussion goes a long way.
RESPONSE B: In the twelve and a half years I've been directing senior capstones at my current university, five have flunked. That's out of about forty in that time. I've had to give probably half of those forty a very pointed and detailed come-to-Jesus speech about how far behind schedule and below expectations they were, and what precisely needed to happen if they wanted to graduate on time. The five who flunked were the five who didn't act on it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Professors of reddit, do you enjoy teaching 8AM classes? Do y'all enjoy teaching 8AM classes? Do you professors get to choose your teaching schedule or does the department, college, or school decide for you?
RESPONSE A: Had to teach a 7:45am lab last semester. Also couldn't have food or drink in the classroom, so that means no coffee. It was the worst.
RESPONSE B: If you like teaching early classes, you essentially set your schedule once word gets out that you'd prefer these times. Word will also get to students, and you'll often find the classes more engaged and energetic than later ones. If you don't like teaching early classes and get them anyway, it can be a shitshow.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Professors of reddit, do you enjoy teaching 8AM classes? Do y'all enjoy teaching 8AM classes? Do you professors get to choose your teaching schedule or does the department, college, or school decide for you?
RESPONSE A: Had to teach a 7:45am lab last semester. Also couldn't have food or drink in the classroom, so that means no coffee. It was the worst.
RESPONSE B: no
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Professors of reddit, do you enjoy teaching 8AM classes? Do y'all enjoy teaching 8AM classes? Do you professors get to choose your teaching schedule or does the department, college, or school decide for you?
RESPONSE A: no
RESPONSE B: I actually love it. The bad students stop showing up by the 3rd lecture so its just people who want to be there.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Professors of reddit, do you enjoy teaching 8AM classes? Do y'all enjoy teaching 8AM classes? Do you professors get to choose your teaching schedule or does the department, college, or school decide for you?
RESPONSE A: My supervisor is very much a morning person, and they would love an 8 am class. But they know that students aren't really awake then, so they prefer 10 am class as the "sweet spot" time.
RESPONSE B: no
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Professors of reddit, do you enjoy teaching 8AM classes? Do y'all enjoy teaching 8AM classes? Do you professors get to choose your teaching schedule or does the department, college, or school decide for you?
RESPONSE A: no
RESPONSE B: If you like teaching early classes, you essentially set your schedule once word gets out that you'd prefer these times. Word will also get to students, and you'll often find the classes more engaged and energetic than later ones. If you don't like teaching early classes and get them anyway, it can be a shitshow.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: , was wondering what it's like. Do you normally have to start from scratch when preparing for lectures? Or did you have a contact from whom you received some help? How long did it take?
RESPONSE A: The first time you teach a lecture course it is a huge amount of work. Multiple hours of preparation for every hour of lecture. This is the case even if you have some kind of textbook or other materials (e.g., someone else's lectures) to base it on, assuming you aren't just doing a complete copy-paste job (which makes for bad teaching). It's a major endeavor. After that, though, the preparation for subsequent years is much less — looking over, making some changes to what worked/didn't work (keep notes!), adding new things, etc. But there's no way around the fact that the first run take a lot of work, as it probably should: you're figuring out for yourself how you want this class to be, and even with the help of others that's going to be a lot of work.
RESPONSE B: Sharing materials is normal, especially if it's a class that's been taught before. I've taught multiple courses where other instructors at my institution have shared their materials and I modified from there; these still take several weeks to modify to your liking, especially if you have a different teaching style than them. I like to use a lot of active learning activities so spend a lot of time adjusting the syllabus and each lecture to include more out of class work, less material in lectures, and at least a couple activities per class period. When developing new courses for my institution, I've generally still been able to share materials with friends who teach similar things and modify from there. Since this is more piecemeal, the modifications take longer. I've also developed a class completely from scratch, which took a lot of time. This particular class is skill-based, rather than content-based, so there were less lectures and such to prepare. Before the semester, I planned a syllabus, course schedule, and developed rubrics for each assignment. Then I prepared my class activities as I moved through the semester (generally 1-2 weeks before they were scheduled).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: publications just through contacting enough people in Europe for internships, though the work was not exactly related to what I was primarily interested in, I had to take those opportunities because the other option was sitting duck at home. I've been contacting PIs in America since the last month for Phd positions and have somehow been receiving positive responses, with them not really caring about my previous work being slightly detached from what I'm currently interested in and what they're doing, I don't know how I am in a position to say this but I have multiple Professors at amazing places like UCLA and Stanford who are somehow really really interested in their own words, in the questions I approached them with and have told me they'll do everything in their power to get me into the program. Since reading those SoPs I'm confused about my position, even if I do end up making the jump from a poor nobody from a poor country to a grad student at an elite university, will I ever fit in with the rest of the people there who come from places and experiences which seem completely alien to my imagination? Would I be just another diversity hire who would struggle to find their place? I did use to think about the fact that I'll never be able to compete with people coming from immense privilege, but today for the first time I was pure intimidated. Is academia for people like me?
RESPONSE A: Also, many people who grow up in very privileged circumstances also feel imposter syndrome. They know they’ve been allowed to coast here and there. Please don’t worry about all of this. Get out there and do ecology!
RESPONSE B: First, it seems like it would be easy to write a SoP by starting out talking about how you grew up in a small industrial town and had never been to a proper forest. Second, even if the internships weren't exactly what you wanted, surely you learned something from them about what you want to do. Nobody gets exactly what they want but it seems like you have enough to form a narrative. Finally, I don't know if you'll fit in. Do you care? If that's what's really important to you you can always get a job in your hometown doing the same things as the people you grew up around.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: in America since the last month for Phd positions and have somehow been receiving positive responses, with them not really caring about my previous work being slightly detached from what I'm currently interested in and what they're doing, I don't know how I am in a position to say this but I have multiple Professors at amazing places like UCLA and Stanford who are somehow really really interested in their own words, in the questions I approached them with and have told me they'll do everything in their power to get me into the program. Since reading those SoPs I'm confused about my position, even if I do end up making the jump from a poor nobody from a poor country to a grad student at an elite university, will I ever fit in with the rest of the people there who come from places and experiences which seem completely alien to my imagination? Would I be just another diversity hire who would struggle to find their place? I did use to think about the fact that I'll never be able to compete with people coming from immense privilege, but today for the first time I was pure intimidated. Is academia for people like me?
RESPONSE A: First, it seems like it would be easy to write a SoP by starting out talking about how you grew up in a small industrial town and had never been to a proper forest. Second, even if the internships weren't exactly what you wanted, surely you learned something from them about what you want to do. Nobody gets exactly what they want but it seems like you have enough to form a narrative. Finally, I don't know if you'll fit in. Do you care? If that's what's really important to you you can always get a job in your hometown doing the same things as the people you grew up around.
RESPONSE B: If that's what you want to do, stick with it and soon enough you'll see that you truly belong there, and end up carving out your personal space. Your first interaction is daunting, but what I've learnt from many professors and students is that they all feel like they don't live up to the "ideal" of their occupation, but you have to realise there's something equally special and different about your own story. Goodluck and be happy to be you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: , though the work was not exactly related to what I was primarily interested in, I had to take those opportunities because the other option was sitting duck at home. I've been contacting PIs in America since the last month for Phd positions and have somehow been receiving positive responses, with them not really caring about my previous work being slightly detached from what I'm currently interested in and what they're doing, I don't know how I am in a position to say this but I have multiple Professors at amazing places like UCLA and Stanford who are somehow really really interested in their own words, in the questions I approached them with and have told me they'll do everything in their power to get me into the program. Since reading those SoPs I'm confused about my position, even if I do end up making the jump from a poor nobody from a poor country to a grad student at an elite university, will I ever fit in with the rest of the people there who come from places and experiences which seem completely alien to my imagination? Would I be just another diversity hire who would struggle to find their place? I did use to think about the fact that I'll never be able to compete with people coming from immense privilege, but today for the first time I was pure intimidated. Is academia for people like me?
RESPONSE A: Also, many people who grow up in very privileged circumstances also feel imposter syndrome. They know they’ve been allowed to coast here and there. Please don’t worry about all of this. Get out there and do ecology!
RESPONSE B: OP, I really identify with that feeling of being out of place. I grew up as a genuine hick in rural Alaska and for sure had no STEM opportunities in high school or only got research experience in my final year of undergrad (went to small state school). I also ended up in an elite university and felt wildly out of place when I started my PhD, as many had more experience than I did. But I can guarantee that you won't be the only one feeling out of place, you will find other grad students to connect and build support with. Also, trust that if those professors see something in you and your passion for ecology, than you belong there just as much as those with more privileged backgrounds.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: somehow been receiving positive responses, with them not really caring about my previous work being slightly detached from what I'm currently interested in and what they're doing, I don't know how I am in a position to say this but I have multiple Professors at amazing places like UCLA and Stanford who are somehow really really interested in their own words, in the questions I approached them with and have told me they'll do everything in their power to get me into the program. Since reading those SoPs I'm confused about my position, even if I do end up making the jump from a poor nobody from a poor country to a grad student at an elite university, will I ever fit in with the rest of the people there who come from places and experiences which seem completely alien to my imagination? Would I be just another diversity hire who would struggle to find their place? I did use to think about the fact that I'll never be able to compete with people coming from immense privilege, but today for the first time I was pure intimidated. Is academia for people like me?
RESPONSE A: OP, I really identify with that feeling of being out of place. I grew up as a genuine hick in rural Alaska and for sure had no STEM opportunities in high school or only got research experience in my final year of undergrad (went to small state school). I also ended up in an elite university and felt wildly out of place when I started my PhD, as many had more experience than I did. But I can guarantee that you won't be the only one feeling out of place, you will find other grad students to connect and build support with. Also, trust that if those professors see something in you and your passion for ecology, than you belong there just as much as those with more privileged backgrounds.
RESPONSE B: If that's what you want to do, stick with it and soon enough you'll see that you truly belong there, and end up carving out your personal space. Your first interaction is daunting, but what I've learnt from many professors and students is that they all feel like they don't live up to the "ideal" of their occupation, but you have to realise there's something equally special and different about your own story. Goodluck and be happy to be you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What is life in academia like? I've completed my undergraduate a 2 years ago and has been working full time since last year. Recently, I've been thinking about pursuing further education (Master's or even a PhD). Felt like I wanted to learn and study more, and partly for immigration reasons. I think a lot of what's holding me back is confusion on where to start. I have essentially no research experience (aside from a thesis project I did during my bachelors), and have no idea what it would look like to be doing research in the scale of a grad programme. I have so many questions! Any insight on how I can get a clearer idea of what I would get myself into? What is life like in academia? Idk if this is relevant, butI'm looking to get into something food science or agriculture related
RESPONSE A: Lots of people have little experience at this stage. You can always look for internships/summer jobs during your masters’. That will not only give you an idea what working in the field feels like, but also provide the opportunity to learn some new skills. Nobody expects an Bachelor with real expertise (but ofc, having it doesn’t detract)..
RESPONSE B: I personally think some professor would prefer people who working experience as grad student. I find for me as PhD directly from my undergrad (engineering) that I lack a lot of skill that could have been improved had I spend sometimes working, both soft skill or job related. But on the plus side, my required knowledge remain sharp. But then academia for me is tough, long hour, little pay (which is a norm, and i actually my stipend as among the better one), which are ok, but the worst is a lot of frustration because you are in on your own, few people can help you with your very specific problem in your research.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What is life in academia like? I've completed my undergraduate a 2 years ago and has been working full time since last year. Recently, I've been thinking about pursuing further education (Master's or even a PhD). Felt like I wanted to learn and study more, and partly for immigration reasons. I think a lot of what's holding me back is confusion on where to start. I have essentially no research experience (aside from a thesis project I did during my bachelors), and have no idea what it would look like to be doing research in the scale of a grad programme. I have so many questions! Any insight on how I can get a clearer idea of what I would get myself into? What is life like in academia? Idk if this is relevant, butI'm looking to get into something food science or agriculture related
RESPONSE A: Academia = poverty and lots of stress but also…summers off (so that you can work your summer job tending bar or something)
RESPONSE B: Would not recommend unless you’re absolutely certain it’s what you need to break into a field you want to be in. Generally, it sucks, but the outcomes can be great.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What is life in academia like? I've completed my undergraduate a 2 years ago and has been working full time since last year. Recently, I've been thinking about pursuing further education (Master's or even a PhD). Felt like I wanted to learn and study more, and partly for immigration reasons. I think a lot of what's holding me back is confusion on where to start. I have essentially no research experience (aside from a thesis project I did during my bachelors), and have no idea what it would look like to be doing research in the scale of a grad programme. I have so many questions! Any insight on how I can get a clearer idea of what I would get myself into? What is life like in academia? Idk if this is relevant, butI'm looking to get into something food science or agriculture related
RESPONSE A: Would not recommend unless you’re absolutely certain it’s what you need to break into a field you want to be in. Generally, it sucks, but the outcomes can be great.
RESPONSE B: There's so much to academia, and it also depends on various factors like your role and field. It's a very busy job regardless if you're part-time or full-time. Are there people in your field that you might want to approach and ask? They might be able to provide specific information on major conferences, journals, types of research, expectations, etc. As for myself, I'm supposed to be off in the summer but am actually working on my research and writing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What is life in academia like? I've completed my undergraduate a 2 years ago and has been working full time since last year. Recently, I've been thinking about pursuing further education (Master's or even a PhD). Felt like I wanted to learn and study more, and partly for immigration reasons. I think a lot of what's holding me back is confusion on where to start. I have essentially no research experience (aside from a thesis project I did during my bachelors), and have no idea what it would look like to be doing research in the scale of a grad programme. I have so many questions! Any insight on how I can get a clearer idea of what I would get myself into? What is life like in academia? Idk if this is relevant, butI'm looking to get into something food science or agriculture related
RESPONSE A: Would not recommend unless you’re absolutely certain it’s what you need to break into a field you want to be in. Generally, it sucks, but the outcomes can be great.
RESPONSE B: I personally think some professor would prefer people who working experience as grad student. I find for me as PhD directly from my undergrad (engineering) that I lack a lot of skill that could have been improved had I spend sometimes working, both soft skill or job related. But on the plus side, my required knowledge remain sharp. But then academia for me is tough, long hour, little pay (which is a norm, and i actually my stipend as among the better one), which are ok, but the worst is a lot of frustration because you are in on your own, few people can help you with your very specific problem in your research.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What is life in academia like? I've completed my undergraduate a 2 years ago and has been working full time since last year. Recently, I've been thinking about pursuing further education (Master's or even a PhD). Felt like I wanted to learn and study more, and partly for immigration reasons. I think a lot of what's holding me back is confusion on where to start. I have essentially no research experience (aside from a thesis project I did during my bachelors), and have no idea what it would look like to be doing research in the scale of a grad programme. I have so many questions! Any insight on how I can get a clearer idea of what I would get myself into? What is life like in academia? Idk if this is relevant, butI'm looking to get into something food science or agriculture related
RESPONSE A: I personally think some professor would prefer people who working experience as grad student. I find for me as PhD directly from my undergrad (engineering) that I lack a lot of skill that could have been improved had I spend sometimes working, both soft skill or job related. But on the plus side, my required knowledge remain sharp. But then academia for me is tough, long hour, little pay (which is a norm, and i actually my stipend as among the better one), which are ok, but the worst is a lot of frustration because you are in on your own, few people can help you with your very specific problem in your research.
RESPONSE B: Miserable
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: way too stressful for me. In the background of all this, for the past ten years I have been taking care of elderly and ill parents. My father passed away two years ago, and my mother has full-time care now, so for about year now I have had most of my life back, but I am very burned out from trying to maintain my career and taking care of them (until last summer, for the five previous years, I always had a parent either getting so ill they were heading for long term hospitalization, having a parent in the hospital, or having a parent needing special care arrangements after a hospitalization.) I am battling really severe burnout, I have a good psychiatrist and am on medication, which helps, but even he said there is only so much psychiatry or psychology can do for me if I keep getting hit will illnesses and deaths in my family (my aunt and my husband's brother also died in this period) and job losses. I am looking for a good therapist. I have several projects still going with the opportunity for publication if I can really focus and get it done. I love these projects, but can't work unpaid for long, and it is still a lot of work. I am sorry this was so long, I just didn't know what details were relevant. I know long posts are really bad form, it took a lot for me to actually even come here for help, and my editing skills and focus are not the best these days.
RESPONSE A: Also, government agencies hire scientists (in the US, NIH agencies, for example). Many of our post docs and PhDs go there to continue doing science. Another chunk go off to make even more money at companies that either work with data, or tech. We lost a faculty member to Netflix, and another to Google.
RESPONSE B: For further information, can you state if this is in Europe/UK (when you said Royal Society it was what I had assumed). I find it surprising that the provost was the one that shot down the position, especially when it takes his/her permission to set up the search. I wonder if there is a way around that, cause that is certainly surprising (or maybe it happens far more often than I think)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: ten years I have been taking care of elderly and ill parents. My father passed away two years ago, and my mother has full-time care now, so for about year now I have had most of my life back, but I am very burned out from trying to maintain my career and taking care of them (until last summer, for the five previous years, I always had a parent either getting so ill they were heading for long term hospitalization, having a parent in the hospital, or having a parent needing special care arrangements after a hospitalization.) I am battling really severe burnout, I have a good psychiatrist and am on medication, which helps, but even he said there is only so much psychiatry or psychology can do for me if I keep getting hit will illnesses and deaths in my family (my aunt and my husband's brother also died in this period) and job losses. I am looking for a good therapist. I have several projects still going with the opportunity for publication if I can really focus and get it done. I love these projects, but can't work unpaid for long, and it is still a lot of work. I am sorry this was so long, I just didn't know what details were relevant. I know long posts are really bad form, it took a lot for me to actually even come here for help, and my editing skills and focus are not the best these days.
RESPONSE A: For further information, can you state if this is in Europe/UK (when you said Royal Society it was what I had assumed). I find it surprising that the provost was the one that shot down the position, especially when it takes his/her permission to set up the search. I wonder if there is a way around that, cause that is certainly surprising (or maybe it happens far more often than I think)
RESPONSE B: Sick computational skills tend to be relatively transferable across disciplines. Our computational faculty (social sciences) are always hanging out in physics, computer science, etc. It's worth considering making a jump to an industry job that will let you do research. I've known computational folks who ended up doing management consulting, working for Juul analyzing massive health data sets, working with any company with an online business model....
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What do you think of reviewers implying to cite "certain" papers? I recently received my reviewer response for one of the papers I submitted as a postdoc. One of the reviewers says: >There are some latest...... papers the authors should pay attention to The reviewer lists 3 papers that have one identical author. Additionally, they are not related and can only be referenced in the introduction section, although these papers use a similar method that I am using. I usually satisfy these requests not to risk my publication, but personally, I'm not too fond of this forced "Hey! you should cite these (my) papers." I wonder what are general thoughts about this, and how do you handle these kinds of reviewers?
RESPONSE A: It can be annoying but at the end of the day it's fairly inconsequential, not really worth fighting it. Plus I've had people suggest very appropriate references so I don't think it's always a bad thing.
RESPONSE B: Sometimes it’s legit, sometimes it’s ego. I’ve frequently told authors to cite papers that aren’t mine. On occasion, I’ve told authors to cite papers that are mine.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What do you think of reviewers implying to cite "certain" papers? I recently received my reviewer response for one of the papers I submitted as a postdoc. One of the reviewers says: >There are some latest...... papers the authors should pay attention to The reviewer lists 3 papers that have one identical author. Additionally, they are not related and can only be referenced in the introduction section, although these papers use a similar method that I am using. I usually satisfy these requests not to risk my publication, but personally, I'm not too fond of this forced "Hey! you should cite these (my) papers." I wonder what are general thoughts about this, and how do you handle these kinds of reviewers?
RESPONSE A: It can be annoying but at the end of the day it's fairly inconsequential, not really worth fighting it. Plus I've had people suggest very appropriate references so I don't think it's always a bad thing.
RESPONSE B: Happened to a paper I've co-authored recently. The reviewer listed 4 papers all with the same first author. We cited one of them but the others were not relevant and we explained why in the response. Don't have the outcome yet though.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What do you think of reviewers implying to cite "certain" papers? I recently received my reviewer response for one of the papers I submitted as a postdoc. One of the reviewers says: >There are some latest...... papers the authors should pay attention to The reviewer lists 3 papers that have one identical author. Additionally, they are not related and can only be referenced in the introduction section, although these papers use a similar method that I am using. I usually satisfy these requests not to risk my publication, but personally, I'm not too fond of this forced "Hey! you should cite these (my) papers." I wonder what are general thoughts about this, and how do you handle these kinds of reviewers?
RESPONSE A: Bad if the papers are unrelated to your work. Worse if it’s obvious the reviewer is just trying to inflate their own citations. You don’t have to follow the recommendation, at least in full. The editor (probably) will not reject the paper off of such a trivial review point. However, suggesting relevant papers can improve the manuscript and it may be pretty reasonable to suggest multiple papers from one author if they’re related, since authors tend to work on a chain of related projects.
RESPONSE B: My philosophy is to control only what I can control—which means making sure I don’t do that BS when I’m a reviewer. I think it’s fine to ask them to cite one of your papers if it’s really relevant, but it’s rare that multiple papers really apply. When I tell people to add citations, I try to list 3-5 authors that I think might be useful to them (with the expectation that they add one or two, but not necessarily all of them). I’ll include myself in the list if relevant, but usually I’m not in that list. I can really only think of one time when one of my papers truly applied and deserved to be cited—the rest of the time there are more appropriate articles or authors for them to look at.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What do you think of reviewers implying to cite "certain" papers? I recently received my reviewer response for one of the papers I submitted as a postdoc. One of the reviewers says: >There are some latest...... papers the authors should pay attention to The reviewer lists 3 papers that have one identical author. Additionally, they are not related and can only be referenced in the introduction section, although these papers use a similar method that I am using. I usually satisfy these requests not to risk my publication, but personally, I'm not too fond of this forced "Hey! you should cite these (my) papers." I wonder what are general thoughts about this, and how do you handle these kinds of reviewers?
RESPONSE A: Unless they are all super relevant, I limit referee's requests to one paper per first/last author in their suggestions. After that, I will actively find other references which are more relevant to whatever point they are raising.
RESPONSE B: My philosophy is to control only what I can control—which means making sure I don’t do that BS when I’m a reviewer. I think it’s fine to ask them to cite one of your papers if it’s really relevant, but it’s rare that multiple papers really apply. When I tell people to add citations, I try to list 3-5 authors that I think might be useful to them (with the expectation that they add one or two, but not necessarily all of them). I’ll include myself in the list if relevant, but usually I’m not in that list. I can really only think of one time when one of my papers truly applied and deserved to be cited—the rest of the time there are more appropriate articles or authors for them to look at.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What do you think of reviewers implying to cite "certain" papers? I recently received my reviewer response for one of the papers I submitted as a postdoc. One of the reviewers says: >There are some latest...... papers the authors should pay attention to The reviewer lists 3 papers that have one identical author. Additionally, they are not related and can only be referenced in the introduction section, although these papers use a similar method that I am using. I usually satisfy these requests not to risk my publication, but personally, I'm not too fond of this forced "Hey! you should cite these (my) papers." I wonder what are general thoughts about this, and how do you handle these kinds of reviewers?
RESPONSE A: Unless they are all super relevant, I limit referee's requests to one paper per first/last author in their suggestions. After that, I will actively find other references which are more relevant to whatever point they are raising.
RESPONSE B: Yup, it's a big sign saying "cite me!!!!" I currently have a paper where the reviewer did that twice. My record for someone doing that is 5 times. She tried to squeeze loads of citations from me lmao
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: doc campus interviews were back to back. Last week, they emailed him that post doc #1 was a no. He looked torn and upset and I invited him out for dinner so he could blow off some steam but I felt so guilty (we are in the same lab and he knows I secured a post doc in March). I just sat there and let him rant and cry and be heart broken which made me feel so terrible and anxious for him (he also has a family that depend on him). Post doc #2 interview was for an internal departmental hire for our program. He got invited to interview and he really had his hopes up for this someone since he has a good rapport with the chair, has a good chunk of publications/research experience, and is one of the best grad students in our department). I heard from my supervisor this afternoon that the Chair already offered the post doc to someone else and the other candidate accepted it. They haven’t said anything yet to the other job candidates but I feel terrible for him. How could I continue to be supportive at this time? I was involved in his material preparation (helping him with his CV, cover letter, research/teaching statements, attending his job talk practices) and I know he is qualified to do all the jobs he applied. How should I proceed next time he tells me he didn’t get his last post doc opportunity?
RESPONSE A: Still haven’t figured it out after a couple years. :(
RESPONSE B: > How should I proceed next time he tells me he didn’t get his last post doc opportunity? Take him for a beer, then tell him he needs to start looking for opportunities outside of academia. Government labs, financial sector, industry R&D. Maybe even think about getting a teaching certificate and going to teach. The dirty truth is applying for jobs *is* a full time job. I remember looking every Friday for new postings and applying. Post-doc positions have unfortunately become "stop gap" positions that someone like us has to go to every 2-3 years in the hopes they land that TT track gig. And even then, the TT requirements at some schools is becoming more and more ludicrous.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: he knows I secured a post doc in March). I just sat there and let him rant and cry and be heart broken which made me feel so terrible and anxious for him (he also has a family that depend on him). Post doc #2 interview was for an internal departmental hire for our program. He got invited to interview and he really had his hopes up for this someone since he has a good rapport with the chair, has a good chunk of publications/research experience, and is one of the best grad students in our department). I heard from my supervisor this afternoon that the Chair already offered the post doc to someone else and the other candidate accepted it. They haven’t said anything yet to the other job candidates but I feel terrible for him. How could I continue to be supportive at this time? I was involved in his material preparation (helping him with his CV, cover letter, research/teaching statements, attending his job talk practices) and I know he is qualified to do all the jobs he applied. How should I proceed next time he tells me he didn’t get his last post doc opportunity?
RESPONSE A: life isn't fucking fair, you had better get used to it. you have no idea how many people I helped along the way, and all I got back is just them walking all over me. you got it, mate. it's not your problem someone else did not.
RESPONSE B: I landed a TT job while ABD and was the only one in my cohort to do so. Two years out I'm still the only one to have done so. We graduated from a top program that historically has a good placement rate; the market just sucks. It's tough and I never know what to say to my friends about it. Usually I just listen to them talk and offer them whatever encouragement I can, without saying anything unrealistic (like "I'm sure you'll get a job next cycle"). I've also developed better friendships with students in cohorts below and above me, at my alma mater and elsewhere, who got TT jobs early. Survivor's guilt is real. It's helped me to spend more time with people who understand that.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: blow off some steam but I felt so guilty (we are in the same lab and he knows I secured a post doc in March). I just sat there and let him rant and cry and be heart broken which made me feel so terrible and anxious for him (he also has a family that depend on him). Post doc #2 interview was for an internal departmental hire for our program. He got invited to interview and he really had his hopes up for this someone since he has a good rapport with the chair, has a good chunk of publications/research experience, and is one of the best grad students in our department). I heard from my supervisor this afternoon that the Chair already offered the post doc to someone else and the other candidate accepted it. They haven’t said anything yet to the other job candidates but I feel terrible for him. How could I continue to be supportive at this time? I was involved in his material preparation (helping him with his CV, cover letter, research/teaching statements, attending his job talk practices) and I know he is qualified to do all the jobs he applied. How should I proceed next time he tells me he didn’t get his last post doc opportunity?
RESPONSE A: One bit of advice that hasn't come up yet: Don't complain about your job to these two, find someone else to give you support. It's like going on an hawaiian vacation and complaining about the beach sand to someone who can't afford a vacation.
RESPONSE B: I don't know if I feel survivor's guilt, but it was/is certainly difficult to wrap my head around. One guy in my cohort was a total, complete asshole. Rude to everyone, professors included. He wasn't even particularly intelligent. He mostly belittled people. He had some garbage publications in pay to play journals and very little teaching experience. Landed a TT job on his first outing in the market. That's what's hard for me. I've seen some absolute goof balls sail into academic positions and seemingly thrive. I want to appeal to some universal justice, but I've been around long enough to know that many cheats never get justice.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: you get jobs but not cohort/lab members (post PhD) Just wanted to hear your thoughts on how you manage survivors guilt when you get job offers in your PhD program and your lab mates/colleagues don’t. My comrade/lab mate applied to a bunch of jobs and got a couple of interviews (3 phone interviews [1 TT, 2 Post Docs] and 2 on campus, post doc interviews) and got no offers. Actually his post doc campus interviews were back to back. Last week, they emailed him that post doc #1 was a no. He looked torn and upset and I invited him out for dinner so he could blow off some steam but I felt so guilty (we are in the same lab and he knows I secured a post doc in March). I just sat there and let him rant and cry and be heart broken which made me feel so terrible and anxious for him (he also has a family that depend on him). Post doc #2 interview was for an internal departmental hire for our program. He got invited to interview and he really had his hopes up for this someone since he has a good rapport with the chair, has a good chunk of publications/research experience, and is one of the best grad students in our department). I heard from my supervisor this afternoon that the Chair already offered the post doc to someone else and the other candidate accepted it. They haven’t said anything yet to the other job candidates but I feel terrible for him. How could I continue to be supportive at this time? I was involved in his material preparation (helping him with his CV, cover letter, research/teaching statements, attending his job talk practices) and I know he is qualified to do all the jobs he applied. How should I proceed next time he tells me he didn’t get his last post doc opportunity?
RESPONSE A: One bit of advice that hasn't come up yet: Don't complain about your job to these two, find someone else to give you support. It's like going on an hawaiian vacation and complaining about the beach sand to someone who can't afford a vacation.
RESPONSE B: I've been struggling with this same question.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: were back to back. Last week, they emailed him that post doc #1 was a no. He looked torn and upset and I invited him out for dinner so he could blow off some steam but I felt so guilty (we are in the same lab and he knows I secured a post doc in March). I just sat there and let him rant and cry and be heart broken which made me feel so terrible and anxious for him (he also has a family that depend on him). Post doc #2 interview was for an internal departmental hire for our program. He got invited to interview and he really had his hopes up for this someone since he has a good rapport with the chair, has a good chunk of publications/research experience, and is one of the best grad students in our department). I heard from my supervisor this afternoon that the Chair already offered the post doc to someone else and the other candidate accepted it. They haven’t said anything yet to the other job candidates but I feel terrible for him. How could I continue to be supportive at this time? I was involved in his material preparation (helping him with his CV, cover letter, research/teaching statements, attending his job talk practices) and I know he is qualified to do all the jobs he applied. How should I proceed next time he tells me he didn’t get his last post doc opportunity?
RESPONSE A: I know it's difficult because your position is precarious, too. Don't piss off the wrong people as you will be going up for tenure soon. That said, when/if you hear faculty talking about how those people didn't try hard enough maybe gently remind them about the brutal job market. I love this video where Thaler includes himself in the Non-econs who may not have been smart enough or worked hard enough to save for retirement. https://youtu.be/A1M9VSgsSW4
RESPONSE B: One bit of advice that hasn't come up yet: Don't complain about your job to these two, find someone else to give you support. It's like going on an hawaiian vacation and complaining about the beach sand to someone who can't afford a vacation.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do you handle reviewers? I'm not sure what it is, but I can't handle reviewers comments. They terrify me, and I just get extremely embarrassed and hurt. I know I shouldn't but it's hard to not take it personally. For example, just got a review back for a symposium submission. Accept pending revisions but it was one of the hardest things to read. Took me three days to send it to my colleagues, being totally ashamed. They responded how nice the review was and how great the comments were and were very happy with it. What! I dont understand how they can take it so well. How do you handle reviews?
RESPONSE A: Oh, I've totally cried when a rigorous reviewer made me work hard and then ultimately rejected the article. That article quickly got accepted into another journal. I'm writing a book chapter right now and the editor is pissing me off and I feel like I have to argue back why I want to keep something in MY chapter. However these comments whether given nicely or not do help improve my work and bring it to a level I didn't anticipate. I'm speaking of this as newer researcher (Asst Prof Level). I collaborate with Associates and above and they complain mostly or just say reviewer always think of something. If you want to feel better, go check out https://www.facebook.com/groups/reviewer2/
RESPONSE B: Reviews are a chance to make your work better. Think of them as collaborators... hopefully their tone doesn't kill that notion for you. When you respond to reviewers, be enthusiastic, thank them for their suggestions, and compliment their ideas if they improve the manuscript.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do you handle reviewers? I'm not sure what it is, but I can't handle reviewers comments. They terrify me, and I just get extremely embarrassed and hurt. I know I shouldn't but it's hard to not take it personally. For example, just got a review back for a symposium submission. Accept pending revisions but it was one of the hardest things to read. Took me three days to send it to my colleagues, being totally ashamed. They responded how nice the review was and how great the comments were and were very happy with it. What! I dont understand how they can take it so well. How do you handle reviews?
RESPONSE A: Oh I can relate to that feeling. Over the years, though, I have come to see it differently. Usually, I feel that the reviewer comments are awfully correct. So, they represent issues that have to be fixed in order for my manuscript to be closer to perfect than it already was. So, I try to see it as good advice and nothing more. Although I would sometimes wish that the language used by reviewers would be more polite. But in the end, my accomodating the criticisms means that my article improves in quality. That is in my interest, so when I write my reply, I try to be polite and appreciative of the advice. When they are straight up wrong, I simply document where the aspect was already mentioned in the article, and inserts another sentence to stress the point within the manuscript. If the reviewer says that something was not mentioned even though it was, I must assume that it was not presented in a way where it made an impact for the reader. So I change wordings or insert additional text. So, I guess I just see it as any other advice from supervisors or colleagues, which is not so bad :).
RESPONSE B: Your PhD in social psychology leads me to believe we're being experimented on...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: My advisor intends to leave my program for another school-I’m still halfway through my PhD! What happens now? I overheard my Advisor talking with HR about leaving my program. I am halfway through my program, and I still am dependent on my advisor for the majority of our future projects - we’re even writing a grant right now! What happens if my advisor leaves? And how can I not have a panic attack about it? I’m in a molecular biology PhD program in the US at a tier 1 university.
RESPONSE A: I was in the exact same situation. Nothing good came from it. I decided moving to the new university was better than starting over after 2.5 years. It was also from top R1 to an even more prestigious one. I remained a student at the 1st place cause new university wouldn't accept any classes or quals. If it happens feel free to message me and I'll give you some tips of questions to ask and things to look out for. My favorite was getting a letter 6 months later that I owed 10,000 in tuition cause my advisor transfered all his grants to the new school and had no way to pay my tuition anymore. That was a shit show to resolve.
RESPONSE B: I have never experienced anything like that but my friend did. It was not only different uni but also in different country. There were two options for him to choose. First, transfer to new university with his PI, which mean he had to redo all of his phd program (at that time he did two year of PhD). Second, stayed with his university and grad school will find him another advisor (he has two advisor for his PhD). He decided to take the first one. :D . The reasons were that: new uni is same prestigous, larger scale (size-wise), less competititve but more work life balance, he is still him, the research can be done again and get published with just 3 months lag. It is unlikely that a professor from top tier univ would leave for a lower tier uni. Hope that helps to ease you anxiety
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: My advisor intends to leave my program for another school-I’m still halfway through my PhD! What happens now? I overheard my Advisor talking with HR about leaving my program. I am halfway through my program, and I still am dependent on my advisor for the majority of our future projects - we’re even writing a grant right now! What happens if my advisor leaves? And how can I not have a panic attack about it? I’m in a molecular biology PhD program in the US at a tier 1 university.
RESPONSE A: 1) Don't panic until you know for sure. Your supervisor could be talking about future plans, expressing frustration, or speaking hypothetically, and you only overheard some of what they said. 2) Talk directly to your supervisor, but not about this. Instead, you can schedule a fairly ordinary meeting to discuss your PhD's progress, your long term plans, asking for advice for planning out the next year. If your supervisor has actual plans to leave, they will likely disclose them at this point. 3) If - and if only - you know for sure that they are leaving, you can have a conversation with them about whether you move with them, or to another supervisor. At this point if your supervisor isn't helpful, you go to the head of your department. Don't panic yet, although this situation is scary (I speak from experience - I've been in a similar situation). Take it one step at a time. Generally also, be careful about who you approach regarding this - you don't want to be in a situation where you're caught gossiping about unverified information concerning your supervisor.
RESPONSE B: This happened to me! I had 4 options: 1, quit; 2, switch labs and start all over; 3, transfer to advisor's new institution and start all over in terms of credits/qualifying exam/etc but continue with the project; 4, physically move to advisor's new institution but remain a student at old institution. I chose option 4 for a variety of reasons. Hopefully, your advisor won't be an absolute asshole about the move.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: germany) i am currently facing the classic romantic dilemma regarding where i should do my masters thesis. on the one hand i've always wanted to get into gene therapy. the associated research group at my university however could only offer me a very fundamental and tedious project, relatively far from any application. on the other hand, i have an opportunity to do my masters thesis in pharmacology, where the project is pretty translational and tied to actual patients, plus i would get **paid** to do it. now i am constantly reminding myself that money cant be the deciding factor here, but ultimately i don't know what kind of an impact this choice will have on my future paths, whatever these may be. so if anyone could offer any insight or opinion to my situation, i would appreciate it very much
RESPONSE A: If you can tell a story as to why you did the research and how it provided additional clarity/ tangible skills that will help you do what you eventually want to do then it's worthwhile. If both do that, then it's not a bad idea to take the paid position. On the other hand, if you're more excited to do the unpaid research and can swing it financially then do what you love - also if this is your first foray into wet lab research don't be surprised if it turns out you might only like the idea of doing that research rather than the research involved. Also can be an insightful experience. -poor PhD student
RESPONSE B: I do not find any correlation between the subjects that were chosen by my MSc students and their final jobs in industry. There is more of a correlation between the MSc and the PhD, but that's because these students decided to stay with me because they liked the subject. What matters in the end for your later job is not so much the specifics of the research you did but the overall skill set that you acquire. And that skill set is much broader usable than the specific specialist knowledge of the subject of your degree. In other words: in the bigger picture of things the main purpose of the MSc or PhD thesis is to demonstrate that you *can* become a specialist in a certain area and in a given amount of time rather than the content of the thesis itself.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do people in academia as a whole feel about the low pay compared to most other similarly skilled occupation? What are they doing for a better change? I keep on seeing threads on how academics are paid so little with very low lifetime earnings. Yet, academics bring in a lot of value to the contemporary generation of people and the next generation as well who keep on benefiting from their work to various degrees. From what I have read on Reddit and elsewhere I feel that academics are grossly underpaid which I feel is unfair. Especially given the years of education/training needed, the talent needed and the years of hard work at low pay etc. Other occupations would have paid much more at such a high skill and educational requirement level. What do academics feel about this low pay as a whole? Do they believe its unfair? If so what are they doing to change the system?
RESPONSE A: If you're going into academia for the pay you're doing it wrong. I do what I do because I love research, talking to like minded people, and pursuing lines of thought for purely academic reasons.
RESPONSE B: This depends too much on the area in which you work. I am in a STEM field that has a lot of industry pull, and feel horrifically overpaid. The high-paying jobs are created out of industry pressure. I could do far better in industry, and I pay a price to enjoy the lifestyle. If Art History PhDs could make a killing in industry then you would see higher pay for academics; instead, there are far too many PhDs relative to the number of jobs. Everybody knows this going in, so it’s hard to get angry at the system. If you want to get a PhD purely out of love, that’s something I can’t directly quantify the value of, but spending that time following your passion does not mean society owes you a high paying job. There is an odd sense of entitlement behind that thinking: we are given the choice between making a ton of money or following your passion, and feel we deserve both, whereas most people in the world get neither of hose things.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do people in academia as a whole feel about the low pay compared to most other similarly skilled occupation? What are they doing for a better change? I keep on seeing threads on how academics are paid so little with very low lifetime earnings. Yet, academics bring in a lot of value to the contemporary generation of people and the next generation as well who keep on benefiting from their work to various degrees. From what I have read on Reddit and elsewhere I feel that academics are grossly underpaid which I feel is unfair. Especially given the years of education/training needed, the talent needed and the years of hard work at low pay etc. Other occupations would have paid much more at such a high skill and educational requirement level. What do academics feel about this low pay as a whole? Do they believe its unfair? If so what are they doing to change the system?
RESPONSE A: Some public schools make their salaries publicly available if you are ever curious and want to look up your professor's salary. Postdocs are underpaid, making 40k-50k generally, nontenure track faculty are also underpaid, but tenured faculty are very comfortable. I'm in the life sciences and even at my undergrad in the midwest, I saw some faculty making 80k, some 200k, and some even 400k+, all of which are very very extremely comfortable salaries for the midwest where a nice house might cost only 200-600k.
RESPONSE B: The thing that worries me most about a career in academia isn't the pay, it is that it is so difficult to have any job security, or ability to plan ahead. I'm currently doing a PhD, and I've been told that I'll probably spend around 10 years being an "academic hobo", doing temporary postdoc positions in different universities until I can finally get a permanent position. I suppose that won't actually know until I actually finish and have to experience it, but the fact that I cannot plan my life ahead right now really sucks. Like, can I actually look into the future and say "I want to get married and have kids"?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do I keep myself from falling into an infinite rabbit hole when trying to read a paper? I'm new to reading research papers in my field, and **I don't know how anyone does it.** When reading a paper, sometimes (actually, quite often) I come across something I don't quite understand. If I'm lucky, the author cites the source. Then I go check out the source. Uh oh, another roadblock. Rinse and repeat. The number of papers or textbooks I must read before comprehending anything in academia feels like an exponential battle. For every paper that I want to 'get', it feels like there are 23 others that I need to go through first. Any tips? Does this get better with time?
RESPONSE A: How new are you to this field? It will happen a lot in the beginning and in a way it's a good thing. A paper will most likely be addressing a very specific question. To understand it's background and implications, you need to read way more. It gets better. After a point simply reading figures is enough to understand the contributions of the paper. Tips: 1. Start with reviews. This will give you a narrative backbone to fit research papers you read in future. 2. When reading research articles, summarise vital points directly related to figures/main data crux (or directly relating to your study). 3. Going down rabbit holes is fine, but I suggest map it out. After reading a paper, make a list/tree of what topics you really need to read more about. Prioritise those. 4. Read abstract of papers you encounter in the rabbit hole. Unless necessary, you shouldn't waste time reading further. 5. Most important, don't go down rabbit holes before finishing paper in hand.
RESPONSE B: It definitely gets better with time. Based on your struggles, while you say these are "papers in my field," you're really not in the field quite yet. Read more, perform more experiments, and soon enough, you'll be able to comprehend most papers in the field without going into a rabbit hole. At that point, you'll be "in the field."
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Supervisor don't like publishing in open access Im nearing to defend my thesis and in dire need to have my paper published somewhere. Its been rejected a few times and now there is a journal I wanted to try and its a good journal but its open access. Supervisor don't like it because its open access. My supervisor is in very good relationship with me. I was wondering how I convince him to go for it? I need to defend soon so really need publications. Should/could I directly say that I am willing to pay the charges of journal from my pocket? It seems very awkward to ask this.. any help?
RESPONSE A: Do you mean a MDPI journal ? There is a vast debate among academics whether MDPI open access journals are predatory journals or not. From my experience you can get easily published there but the quick peer review is very poor and usually these journals are not among the top journals in the field.
RESPONSE B: I see no reason why they’d hate on open access itself. Just unwilling to pay? Are they falsely equating open access and pay-to-play predatory journals. If it is a respected in-field journal then I think it truly is a matter of educating your supervisor on how things have changed. If you are, maybe with good/personal reasons, seeking out MDPI or frontiers journals, which generally have very fast but also very lax (read: sloppy) peer-review, which the editors don’t listen to anyway, then I agree with your supervisor. Imo, I’d go with lower impact but long-established journal over some 4-year-old journal that accepts most anything. People in the field know.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Supervisor don't like publishing in open access Im nearing to defend my thesis and in dire need to have my paper published somewhere. Its been rejected a few times and now there is a journal I wanted to try and its a good journal but its open access. Supervisor don't like it because its open access. My supervisor is in very good relationship with me. I was wondering how I convince him to go for it? I need to defend soon so really need publications. Should/could I directly say that I am willing to pay the charges of journal from my pocket? It seems very awkward to ask this.. any help?
RESPONSE A: What is the journal?
RESPONSE B: I see no reason why they’d hate on open access itself. Just unwilling to pay? Are they falsely equating open access and pay-to-play predatory journals. If it is a respected in-field journal then I think it truly is a matter of educating your supervisor on how things have changed. If you are, maybe with good/personal reasons, seeking out MDPI or frontiers journals, which generally have very fast but also very lax (read: sloppy) peer-review, which the editors don’t listen to anyway, then I agree with your supervisor. Imo, I’d go with lower impact but long-established journal over some 4-year-old journal that accepts most anything. People in the field know.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Supervisor don't like publishing in open access Im nearing to defend my thesis and in dire need to have my paper published somewhere. Its been rejected a few times and now there is a journal I wanted to try and its a good journal but its open access. Supervisor don't like it because its open access. My supervisor is in very good relationship with me. I was wondering how I convince him to go for it? I need to defend soon so really need publications. Should/could I directly say that I am willing to pay the charges of journal from my pocket? It seems very awkward to ask this.. any help?
RESPONSE A: What is the journal?
RESPONSE B: >Supervisor don't like it because its open access. Is their rationale for not liking it just the cost difference? > I was wondering how I convince him to go for it? Ask them to suggest journals they would be willing to submit to. >Should/could I directly say that I am willing to pay the charges of journal from my pocket? Whatever you do, don't do this.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why academic paper are so expensive to purchase? I'm not in academia, but I've been told many times that authors don't get paid. Hence, why prices are so high? Some cost $45
RESPONSE A: Academic journals have some of the highest profit margins of any business.
RESPONSE B: It's complicated, but the main reason is that digital academic publishing is an outgrowth of print academic publishing. Print journals are expensive to produce because the only people who buy them are university libraries and academic professional organizations. Now, we have much cheaper ways of publishing online, and the public is more interested in reading academic research, but the private publishing companies still own the rights to the vast majority of the journals that have built up a strong reputation over time. They charge that much because they can, and because they really want to sell bundles of journals (research databases) to libraries rather than individual articles to members of the public. Starting a new open-access journal is very difficult because you have to build up the reputation by getting quality submissions, readers who will cite the articles you publish, and reviewers and editors who are leaders in their fields. Forcing existing publishers to move to an open-access model requires government action, and in many countries, there's no political will for this sort of change. That said, if you want to read an article and it's behind a paywall, email the researcher and ask if they'll send you a copy for free! Often, they'll send it to you because they're happy that someone is interested in their work, and it's not like they get a cut of the publishing company's profits anyways.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why academic paper are so expensive to purchase? I'm not in academia, but I've been told many times that authors don't get paid. Hence, why prices are so high? Some cost $45
RESPONSE A: Because it’s a business more than anything really. There’s a lot of debate now regarding this topic; now open-source (i.e. free) journals are becoming popular as well. The big-time journals take money so the researcher can have a paper in a journal with a good impact factor and thus show the significance of their research. There are some online resources using which you can get a paper for free, it’s just a google search away. Also, the researcher has a right to send you their paper for free if you email them! It’s so weird: research is done using tax payer’s money, but if you want to see what has been done, you need to pay A LOT OF money. Doesn’t make any sense 😟 It’s a very interesting topic really, I advice you to look more into it! It’s quite fascinating imo 🤪
RESPONSE B: Short answer (because plenty gave the long one): because publishers are greedy little gremlins. Use Sci-hub, save a life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Why academic paper are so expensive to purchase? I'm not in academia, but I've been told many times that authors don't get paid. Hence, why prices are so high? Some cost $45
RESPONSE A: Just email the author. I love sending my articles out when anyone asks. Often that is over researchgate now.
RESPONSE B: Short answer (because plenty gave the long one): because publishers are greedy little gremlins. Use Sci-hub, save a life.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Why academic paper are so expensive to purchase? I'm not in academia, but I've been told many times that authors don't get paid. Hence, why prices are so high? Some cost $45
RESPONSE A: Short answer (because plenty gave the long one): because publishers are greedy little gremlins. Use Sci-hub, save a life.
RESPONSE B: Publishing racks up massive profit margins, it's nuts, and aggravating. If you have the free time, go down a Google-hole and read about Elsevier and their publishing practices. But like the others have said, don't pay for an article unless you absolutely need it! Email the corresponding author to ask for a pdf, I bet the return on this is above 95%. I sent a paper to someone via email this morning actually.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: share their advice on this aspect? Or is this something that I need to work on in a more personal level, as I'm not a good conversationalist as well outside of academia. Thanks so much in advance.
RESPONSE A: I think you need to reflect on what it is you're trying to get out of a conversation. Just having a conversation for conversatons sake is nice, but when time is limited, you need to work out why you are trying to talk to someone. It sounds like you're judging the success of a conversation by how long it lasts. When I approach someone at a conference it's usually because I want to talk to them about a research idea - usually because it intersects with what both they and I are doing. Or I'm approaching someone to introduce myself for some other reason. The third type is usually where I know someone well, we've not caught up in a while and we're just shooting the breeze. In the two other types though, the conversation has a goal. I'm not just wandering up to people to have a chat and hoping to keep their attention for a while. When I'm at a conference I'm there to talk to people and have these conversations but the corollary to that is that if a conversation has run its course, I'm moving on to find the next one.
RESPONSE B: Unfortunately everyone at a conference is trying to network "up" -- you're trying to network with people who are advanced PhD students or early-career professors, advanced PhD students are trying to network with professors, early-career professors are trying to network with established and famous professors... You probably do well with people who are doing the same kind of work as you because you can offer something else to them (information) as opposed to the social capital of networking. I'm not sure exactly what stage you're at or who you're trying to network with, but I suspect that this is part of the equation. People don't network for fun -- everyone is trying to get something. As an ECR you don't have social capital to offer yet. Getting people to recognize your face with a few minutes of conversation is already pretty good, even if they run off soon.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: tends to be about our informants, our fieldwork sites, etc. Would a more experienced scholar share their advice on this aspect? Or is this something that I need to work on in a more personal level, as I'm not a good conversationalist as well outside of academia. Thanks so much in advance.
RESPONSE A: I think you need to reflect on what it is you're trying to get out of a conversation. Just having a conversation for conversatons sake is nice, but when time is limited, you need to work out why you are trying to talk to someone. It sounds like you're judging the success of a conversation by how long it lasts. When I approach someone at a conference it's usually because I want to talk to them about a research idea - usually because it intersects with what both they and I are doing. Or I'm approaching someone to introduce myself for some other reason. The third type is usually where I know someone well, we've not caught up in a while and we're just shooting the breeze. In the two other types though, the conversation has a goal. I'm not just wandering up to people to have a chat and hoping to keep their attention for a while. When I'm at a conference I'm there to talk to people and have these conversations but the corollary to that is that if a conversation has run its course, I'm moving on to find the next one.
RESPONSE B: The thing I picked up on here is how you focus on your conversation partner's research and interests. It's good but don't overdo it - conversations are two way interactions after all. Don't be afraid to share your own interests and opinions and establish common ground. A blank slate isn't an interesting conversation partner. And not all interactions need to go on for ages. Sometimes a quick chat is enough, esp.when mingling with strangers. And finally, often people, even experienced people, are uncomfortable talking to strangers and feel that they're pretty bad at it, so that might also motivate them to leave. Not your fault and nothing to be done about that unfortunately. Source: I'm not an experienced scholar but OK socially :p
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are some well know problems in academia and research? I want to understand the main challenges that folks in academia face since one of my goals as a software developer is to leverage technology to build tools for people working in this space.
RESPONSE A: 1) some sort of program that will parse emails for keywords and sort them into categories (e.g. grade grubber, plagiarism, committee, etc.). Outlook Rules and folders are not enough when you get 200+ emails a day. Even better, a third-party app through the LMS that will auto-answer emails with links to the syllabus or provide a brief FAQ then invite students with content or grade questions rather than “where can I find” or “what happens if” or “how do I do” questions to reply with their question. 2) Some sort of plug-in that auto tracks research submissions: which project, to which journal, on what date, first response time, R&R time with expected re-submission, etc.
RESPONSE B: classism, racism, sexism, discrimination against people from developing countries, precarity, abuse, neoliberalization
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are some well know problems in academia and research? I want to understand the main challenges that folks in academia face since one of my goals as a software developer is to leverage technology to build tools for people working in this space.
RESPONSE A: Career progression: it is not uncommon that you're stuck in a postdoc position for 10 or more years (in the UK), on 1-3 year fixed term contracts. From what I've seen, it is actually most likely. I've seen brilliant people (excellent teachers and simultaneously genius scientists) being kept as postdocs for over 10 years and then they gave up and went to industry. Striving for a permanent research-related position in academia is like striving to be an astronaut. Theoretically it is doable, practically, very unlikely.
RESPONSE B: 1) some sort of program that will parse emails for keywords and sort them into categories (e.g. grade grubber, plagiarism, committee, etc.). Outlook Rules and folders are not enough when you get 200+ emails a day. Even better, a third-party app through the LMS that will auto-answer emails with links to the syllabus or provide a brief FAQ then invite students with content or grade questions rather than “where can I find” or “what happens if” or “how do I do” questions to reply with their question. 2) Some sort of plug-in that auto tracks research submissions: which project, to which journal, on what date, first response time, R&R time with expected re-submission, etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are some well know problems in academia and research? I want to understand the main challenges that folks in academia face since one of my goals as a software developer is to leverage technology to build tools for people working in this space.
RESPONSE A: Research: the oligopoly of Elsevier and other publishers that act as middlemen between researchers, survive on volunteer work, and then proceed to charge insane sums of money for providing what are otherwise very basic services.
RESPONSE B: This great article on the market failures in science could spark some ideas: https://milan.cvitkovic.net/writing/market_failures_in_science/
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are some well know problems in academia and research? I want to understand the main challenges that folks in academia face since one of my goals as a software developer is to leverage technology to build tools for people working in this space.
RESPONSE A: Research: the oligopoly of Elsevier and other publishers that act as middlemen between researchers, survive on volunteer work, and then proceed to charge insane sums of money for providing what are otherwise very basic services.
RESPONSE B: 1) some sort of program that will parse emails for keywords and sort them into categories (e.g. grade grubber, plagiarism, committee, etc.). Outlook Rules and folders are not enough when you get 200+ emails a day. Even better, a third-party app through the LMS that will auto-answer emails with links to the syllabus or provide a brief FAQ then invite students with content or grade questions rather than “where can I find” or “what happens if” or “how do I do” questions to reply with their question. 2) Some sort of plug-in that auto tracks research submissions: which project, to which journal, on what date, first response time, R&R time with expected re-submission, etc.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are some well know problems in academia and research? I want to understand the main challenges that folks in academia face since one of my goals as a software developer is to leverage technology to build tools for people working in this space.
RESPONSE A: Something like the New Green Book app in Dear White People but for sociopathic PI's to avoid, that'd be great if you could around the libel issues.
RESPONSE B: Research: the oligopoly of Elsevier and other publishers that act as middlemen between researchers, survive on volunteer work, and then proceed to charge insane sums of money for providing what are otherwise very basic services.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: When I speak to people about going into Academia I always hear negative responses. Researcher/professors - what are some of the benefits or positives of your job that make you love it? It's very discouraging always hearing negatives about academia as a student nearing the completion of a BS. I want to hear about the things that make it worthwhile to push through to a Phd. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: The flexibility of my schedule. I typically work around 50 hours a week, but if I want to take an afternoon off to go see a movie, I can. If I want to go have a fancy lunch, I can. If I want to sleep in, I can. Definitely one of the best perks of the job not related to being intellectually rewarding.
RESPONSE B: Several good things: (1) My schedule is flexible and largely under my control. This is a huge benefit not just for the fun side of things, as /u/DrKittens points out, but also for living the kind of life I want: I am able to spend time with my family and be at family and school events, for example, and I can easily schedule medical appointments or take care of various business errands. (2) I don't really have a boss. Of course, I teach and do research and serve on committees, but I am in charge of how I do those things. (3) I get to spend my days in an environment with interesting colleagues, not just in my own department, but outside it as well; I can have meaningful conversations about a huge range of subjects. (4) Travel to conferences. Conferences give you a chance to go somewhere and just focus on your field for several days, while also getting to see more of the world and meeting new people. It's sort of like going to camp for a little bit. (5) And, of course, the standard academic/intellectual rewards of the job: When your research enables you to see something new about the world, it can be genuinely thrilling. Seeing students grow as thinkers as you work with them is something many of us find rewarding.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: When I speak to people about going into Academia I always hear negative responses. Researcher/professors - what are some of the benefits or positives of your job that make you love it? It's very discouraging always hearing negatives about academia as a student nearing the completion of a BS. I want to hear about the things that make it worthwhile to push through to a Phd. Thanks!
RESPONSE A: I have a hybrid clinical / academic post. I love my job. I have plenty of research options - I don't have time to write up all the interesting stuff that comes through my door. I help people, and contribute to a team that saves lives. I have a small, but important niche in the world. My postdoc training was difficult to get into, and not a lot of people are aware of it. What it allowed me to do was qualify for a subset of the academic jobs that most people can't get into. A backdoor into academia if you will. I had two institutions contact me for interviews, had two offers, and picked one. Keep your eyes and ears open. My luck pretty much came down entirely to good contacts. Without a specific postdoc supervisor, I would have never stumbled down this career path.
RESPONSE B: I was talking about this with my husband earlier - I love the fact I can see my finger prints on the students I've 'molded' over the years. There are people in dream jobs, or pursuing dreams because of me. This is the awesome drug of academia for me, watching students develop over 3 or 4 years is awesome.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Senior academics of Reddit, what advice do you have for people who wish to improve the communication skills. Whether it be written or spoken communication.
RESPONSE A: Communications professor here. Don't mean to sound like a smart Alec but have you considered taking a communications class? We actually teach the stuff, research on it, even practice it. By class I mean something as simple as a workshop. Our college, for example, offers workshops for STEM faculty to improve their classroom oral and visual communication skills. Maybe there is something similar on your campus
RESPONSE B: If you're talking about communication to students, other academics, or lay people, it's important to consider the audience. You should have a basic form of your talk/written communication for lay audiences, more technical with students, and most technical with other academics. However, consider other academics might not have the same background you do. If you can explain it to someone with a 7th grade understanding (most Americans with science), you can beef it up to any audience. Start simple then work your way up.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you think there was an ethical dilemma with U of M researchers knowingly submitting malicious code to the Linux kernel project to carry out a research project? Some researchers at the University of Minnesota tried to submit code which introduced security vulnerabilities to the linux kernel as part of a research project. They were caught, and their university is now banned from the project entirely. Do you think the IRB failed here by exempting their study? https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/linux-bans-university-of-minnesota-for-committing-malicious-code/
RESPONSE A: The big problem here is the lack of disclosure that the patch was computer generated, using a new tool that might not be giving accurate results, and that instead of diclosing this fact, submitting it as a patch to be reviewed. Again, I don't know whether or not this was submitted in bad faith --- but the point is, Aditya belongs to research group which has previously submitted patches in bad faith, without disclosure, and his supervising professor and UMN's IRB doesn't see any problem with it. So it's a bit rich when Aditya seems to be whining that we're not giving him the benefit of the doubt and not assuming that his patches might have been submitted in good faith --- when the only *responsible* thing to do is to assume that it is sent in bad faith, given the past behaviour of his research group, and the apparently lack of any kind of institutional controls at UMN regarding this sort of thing.
RESPONSE B: I am unsure how you can look at this study and see it was ethical. This whole situation is baffling. What also really grinds my gears is that there was an update document and it has the grad students as the first author, seeming like they are taking responsibility for this. Personally I think the professor should have taken responsibility. The grad student was also the one emailing with the Linux kernel folks, not the professor. Overall this is so embarrassing for that University and I hope the other grad students in that dept dont face any repercussions for this.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: a month researching my thesis before I began my own work. However, by the time I started writing the thesis, I couldn't remember the contents of the papers I had read. True, I read a lot of papers and I shouldn't expect myself to remember every paper, but I've seen some papers with almost 200 references, with a reference in every other sentence. I don't understand how such a thing could be done. How does one write every paragraph with 5 references from 5 different papers for instance? Basically, what I'm asking is how does one go about writing a paper with more than 100 references? Do you read all 100 papers before you begin writing? I'm looking for ideas to improve my writing efficiency.
RESPONSE A: The way you are asking this makes me think you don't really understand how research works yet. Because no, you don't just read 100 papers, and then write down something, and remember everything you read. Research is not a report of stuff you read (I suppose STEM are reports about their findings, but humanities is not this, and I think you are in the humanities from what the little you have said). >Do you read all 100 papers before you begin writing I mean, hell no. That is the way to fail. You need to be writing and reading all at the same time. Your research raises a particular question, so you seek to answer it. You seek out papers that might explain this. You find five that seem to satisfy the question. That is one paragraph. On to the next. Etc. If you only read until you think you know everything and are ready to write, you will never write.
RESPONSE B: Skimming, and learning that some articles are useful literally for one sentence so you can cite it (but sometimes finding that sentence takes a while, but you can usually narrow down where in the article it is) will save you much unnecessary reading time. You need some way of note-taking that is searchable. Many of the software-based reference managers (such as end-note) allow you to put notes about articles with the citations. I'm old school. I have word docs based on overall general topics and that's where I stick my notes. Ultimately you'll find a way that works for you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: ? I'm looking for ideas to improve my writing efficiency.
RESPONSE A: I’ve only broken 100 references in review papers, and that’s going to be IN MY FIELD so I obviously know my papers and my near-ish peers papers really well and that’s normally a few dozen really fast If I’m intentionally trying to branch out into a newer field, I will keep a word document where I can make notes (like an undergrad review) and use EndNote to add citations. This way I’m reading the papers, later I can quickly review what I learned, and know what papers support what findings From there, I normally end up getting the last few because I will *KNOW* “Fact” is true and I’ll go back and hunt down some of the papers that originally showed that “fact” is real. So, I end up getting 2-5 references to support something I know ( to make sure I’m actually right about fact, so more sources the less I trust my knowledge and the sources I find), and I’m really just speed reading those papers to make sure I’m citing them appropriately (ie if I’m saying the sky is blue make sure it’s actually the paper that figure 1 shows a sky, fig 2 shows the color blue, and table 1 established that the sky is blue on many days)
RESPONSE B: The way you are asking this makes me think you don't really understand how research works yet. Because no, you don't just read 100 papers, and then write down something, and remember everything you read. Research is not a report of stuff you read (I suppose STEM are reports about their findings, but humanities is not this, and I think you are in the humanities from what the little you have said). >Do you read all 100 papers before you begin writing I mean, hell no. That is the way to fail. You need to be writing and reading all at the same time. Your research raises a particular question, so you seek to answer it. You seek out papers that might explain this. You find five that seem to satisfy the question. That is one paragraph. On to the next. Etc. If you only read until you think you know everything and are ready to write, you will never write.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How to write a paper with more than 100 references? I am currently about to finish my masters and will be starting my PhD soon after. I spent about a month researching my thesis before I began my own work. However, by the time I started writing the thesis, I couldn't remember the contents of the papers I had read. True, I read a lot of papers and I shouldn't expect myself to remember every paper, but I've seen some papers with almost 200 references, with a reference in every other sentence. I don't understand how such a thing could be done. How does one write every paragraph with 5 references from 5 different papers for instance? Basically, what I'm asking is how does one go about writing a paper with more than 100 references? Do you read all 100 papers before you begin writing? I'm looking for ideas to improve my writing efficiency.
RESPONSE A: The way you are asking this makes me think you don't really understand how research works yet. Because no, you don't just read 100 papers, and then write down something, and remember everything you read. Research is not a report of stuff you read (I suppose STEM are reports about their findings, but humanities is not this, and I think you are in the humanities from what the little you have said). >Do you read all 100 papers before you begin writing I mean, hell no. That is the way to fail. You need to be writing and reading all at the same time. Your research raises a particular question, so you seek to answer it. You seek out papers that might explain this. You find five that seem to satisfy the question. That is one paragraph. On to the next. Etc. If you only read until you think you know everything and are ready to write, you will never write.
RESPONSE B: You don’t always read the entirety of every paper you cite, but if your question is how you become familiar enough with the literature in your field to cite extensively, then at least in STEM, there are often review papers that cite the important references in specific subfields, and there are often discipline specific sites, such as Mathematical Reviews, that allow you to search for papers which address a specific problem.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: a lot of papers and I shouldn't expect myself to remember every paper, but I've seen some papers with almost 200 references, with a reference in every other sentence. I don't understand how such a thing could be done. How does one write every paragraph with 5 references from 5 different papers for instance? Basically, what I'm asking is how does one go about writing a paper with more than 100 references? Do you read all 100 papers before you begin writing? I'm looking for ideas to improve my writing efficiency.
RESPONSE A: My masters thesis has well over 100 references (Zotero *hates* my thesis document 😂), although I wouldn't say my process is efficient. As I'm reading, I have a Google Doc open with some subheadings depending on what I'm wanting to write, and I'll make some notes as I go. As the process continues, I'll start grouping these notes into more granular categories (which will eventually become paragraphs under the subheading). For my thesis, I knew these documents would be long so I made separate documents for each major theme. And then when I'm ready to start writing, I already have a skeleton of sorts with notes from the various articles already organized. Not that efficient, but I definitely couldn't have written my thesis lit review without it.
RESPONSE B: The way you are asking this makes me think you don't really understand how research works yet. Because no, you don't just read 100 papers, and then write down something, and remember everything you read. Research is not a report of stuff you read (I suppose STEM are reports about their findings, but humanities is not this, and I think you are in the humanities from what the little you have said). >Do you read all 100 papers before you begin writing I mean, hell no. That is the way to fail. You need to be writing and reading all at the same time. Your research raises a particular question, so you seek to answer it. You seek out papers that might explain this. You find five that seem to satisfy the question. That is one paragraph. On to the next. Etc. If you only read until you think you know everything and are ready to write, you will never write.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: dealing with a PhD student”. Lately I’ve been asked to take up non-urgent tasks on the weekend, and I also get berated on things I have no control over, such as the progress in a students project. (The project is something I help with but the direction and tasks are assigned by my PI). I am the only Postdoc in this lab and I am isolated from pretty much everyone. Attempts to reach out to other postdocs are thwarted by her (I was told to never collaborate with others but dedicate 100% of my time to producing papers) and she refuses to collaborate internally with other faculty. When I joined this lab the PI claimed she had a collaborator in a highly prestigious institution which turned out to be completely untrue - no meetings or projects ongoing with any collaborator. Quitting is not an option for me, since I need to consider my child’s schooling and more importantly, the laws are skewed towards my employer. My employer may legally ‘fine’ me for up to 3 months of pay, which I can’t afford (I only got to know this law once I had been onboarded). I take records of all our interactions. I am trying to cultivate mental toughness so that her behavior does not get to me. What should my output be in biomedical research as a postdoc, specifically in my field? I’m thinking that since I work overtime a lot during my weekends I might as well reach out to external faculty for guidance and work on a small paper of my own instead to prop up my record and get a letter of recommendation. Is this a good plan of action? Thanks in advance.
RESPONSE A: >What should my output be in biomedical research as a postdoc, specifically in my field? Classic toxic academia has won again! You're blaming yourself, and it's clearly not your fault. I honestly don't understand why quitting isn't an option. Are there not other postdoc/jobs available to you? You're in a very hot field at the moment.
RESPONSE B: You need a new job. You cannot let children dictate your career especially small children. I would change universities or careers. She will not change- you must change.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: poor and that I am in danger of termination. I’ve been told this 4 times over the past year. When I request help with understanding her expectations I am rebuffed and my PI becomes aggressive. It’s common for her to bang the table, question my credentials and use verbal put-downs like “are you kidding me! I feel like I’m dealing with a PhD student”. Lately I’ve been asked to take up non-urgent tasks on the weekend, and I also get berated on things I have no control over, such as the progress in a students project. (The project is something I help with but the direction and tasks are assigned by my PI). I am the only Postdoc in this lab and I am isolated from pretty much everyone. Attempts to reach out to other postdocs are thwarted by her (I was told to never collaborate with others but dedicate 100% of my time to producing papers) and she refuses to collaborate internally with other faculty. When I joined this lab the PI claimed she had a collaborator in a highly prestigious institution which turned out to be completely untrue - no meetings or projects ongoing with any collaborator. Quitting is not an option for me, since I need to consider my child’s schooling and more importantly, the laws are skewed towards my employer. My employer may legally ‘fine’ me for up to 3 months of pay, which I can’t afford (I only got to know this law once I had been onboarded). I take records of all our interactions. I am trying to cultivate mental toughness so that her behavior does not get to me. What should my output be in biomedical research as a postdoc, specifically in my field? I’m thinking that since I work overtime a lot during my weekends I might as well reach out to external faculty for guidance and work on a small paper of my own instead to prop up my record and get a letter of recommendation. Is this a good plan of action? Thanks in advance.
RESPONSE A: You need a new job. You cannot let children dictate your career especially small children. I would change universities or careers. She will not change- you must change.
RESPONSE B: Have you ever heard of the French Revolution?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: year. When I request help with understanding her expectations I am rebuffed and my PI becomes aggressive. It’s common for her to bang the table, question my credentials and use verbal put-downs like “are you kidding me! I feel like I’m dealing with a PhD student”. Lately I’ve been asked to take up non-urgent tasks on the weekend, and I also get berated on things I have no control over, such as the progress in a students project. (The project is something I help with but the direction and tasks are assigned by my PI). I am the only Postdoc in this lab and I am isolated from pretty much everyone. Attempts to reach out to other postdocs are thwarted by her (I was told to never collaborate with others but dedicate 100% of my time to producing papers) and she refuses to collaborate internally with other faculty. When I joined this lab the PI claimed she had a collaborator in a highly prestigious institution which turned out to be completely untrue - no meetings or projects ongoing with any collaborator. Quitting is not an option for me, since I need to consider my child’s schooling and more importantly, the laws are skewed towards my employer. My employer may legally ‘fine’ me for up to 3 months of pay, which I can’t afford (I only got to know this law once I had been onboarded). I take records of all our interactions. I am trying to cultivate mental toughness so that her behavior does not get to me. What should my output be in biomedical research as a postdoc, specifically in my field? I’m thinking that since I work overtime a lot during my weekends I might as well reach out to external faculty for guidance and work on a small paper of my own instead to prop up my record and get a letter of recommendation. Is this a good plan of action? Thanks in advance.
RESPONSE A: Are you from Mexico? Genuine question (I'm from there and all of this sounds like the average postdoc bs you endure here)
RESPONSE B: You need a new job. You cannot let children dictate your career especially small children. I would change universities or careers. She will not change- you must change.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How do you store and keep track of all the papers you read? I've heard of some people using Evernote to save papers, tag them, and make some notes to come back to later. What other apps/websites/strategies do you use to keep the papers you've read organized and to find them again in times of need?
RESPONSE A: Endnote-- the desktop version, not the web version. I have about 5K references in my database at this point, with keyword tags so I can find batches of related sources. Works pretty well for me, and it's very easy to generate bibliographies.
RESPONSE B: If my advisor is any indication, you don’t. A few weeks ago, I showed him a paper I’d found. He said it sounded a little familiar and that he must have read it and forgotten it. Yesterday I was browsing MathSciNet, and I found the article there; turns out my advisor was the reviewer!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How do you store and keep track of all the papers you read? I've heard of some people using Evernote to save papers, tag them, and make some notes to come back to later. What other apps/websites/strategies do you use to keep the papers you've read organized and to find them again in times of need?
RESPONSE A: If my advisor is any indication, you don’t. A few weeks ago, I showed him a paper I’d found. He said it sounded a little familiar and that he must have read it and forgotten it. Yesterday I was browsing MathSciNet, and I found the article there; turns out my advisor was the reviewer!
RESPONSE B: I saw a conference on how to use Nvivo to catalog the notes you take from papers, it's an amazing system that I think will save a lot of time when you want to go back to stuff you read a while ago and not read the whole thing over. I think there are YouTube videos presenting how to do this.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Possible to do a PhD in different area than undergrad research is in? As the title mentions, I am wondering if it is possible to get accepted into a PhD program if my background is in a different area than what I want to pursue. For context, I have 3 years of research experience in areas like neuroscience/stress response systems, and have done 2 independent research projects (including a senior honors thesis), and i’ll be a co-author and first author on the papers for these projects respectively. I also have done well academically (3.95 gpa). So despite my background, I want to pursue a PhD in cellular/molecular biology. Do you think it’s a big red flag on my application that I don’t have research experience in the exact field I want to pursue? Or will admissions committees just be happy to see that I got involved in research and learned skills applicable to any field? Is there anything I should mention on my app about acknowledging that I don’t have cellular/molecular specific research? I’d appreciate any advise/help because I’m worried that I would be wasting my time applying to molecular/cellular programs if there’s no way I’d get in, and so instead should just stick to neuroscience even if I don’t like it as much.
RESPONSE A: I think you'll be fine! It doesn't sound like a waste of time to apply.
RESPONSE B: Undergrad research in the same field is obviously preferable, but most of the time *any* undergrad research will be extremely useful. The point is less to show that you can do research in the specific field in question, and more that you are familiar with actual research practices and/or peer-reviewed publication *in general*.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do you go to conference dinners? (If so, how many glasses of wine before it becomes enjoyable?)
RESPONSE A: Man, I now feel really weird compared to you guys. I always go to the conference dinner because it’s a great way to get to know people better who I’ve only met at the conference. Then of course there’s always an after party! I guess I’m fairly extroverted for an academic?
RESPONSE B: If there is an interesting reception, sure. Otherwise find my friends and go blow our budgets on a fancy dinner elsewhere.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do you go to conference dinners? (If so, how many glasses of wine before it becomes enjoyable?)
RESPONSE A: Man, I now feel really weird compared to you guys. I always go to the conference dinner because it’s a great way to get to know people better who I’ve only met at the conference. Then of course there’s always an after party! I guess I’m fairly extroverted for an academic?
RESPONSE B: I generally skip the conference dinner unless there's special entertainment. It's usually awkward as all get out, no matter how much you drink, and awful food for too much money.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you go to conference dinners? (If so, how many glasses of wine before it becomes enjoyable?)
RESPONSE A: two, three
RESPONSE B: Man, I now feel really weird compared to you guys. I always go to the conference dinner because it’s a great way to get to know people better who I’ve only met at the conference. Then of course there’s always an after party! I guess I’m fairly extroverted for an academic?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Do you go to conference dinners? (If so, how many glasses of wine before it becomes enjoyable?)
RESPONSE A: Man, I now feel really weird compared to you guys. I always go to the conference dinner because it’s a great way to get to know people better who I’ve only met at the conference. Then of course there’s always an after party! I guess I’m fairly extroverted for an academic?
RESPONSE B: I tend to find the SVs and hang out with them as some sort of funny but awkward uncle, so 0 to start with and then nine deep when I go home :)
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Do you go to conference dinners? (If so, how many glasses of wine before it becomes enjoyable?)
RESPONSE A: two, three
RESPONSE B: I don’t. I typically take the opportunity to go out to an actually nice dinner with colleagues i don’t see often.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What's the academic path in your country? I'm always intrigued by how different it is in every country. I'll start! Brazil: 3 year high-school -> 4-6 year bachelor's (engineering and psychology take 5 years and medicine takes 6) -> 2 year MPhil (you must porsue a masters in order to apply for a PhD) -> 4 year PhD Thanks!
RESPONSE A: Canada: * Undergraduate degree (3-4 years) * Master's Degree (2 years)—optional in many situations * PhD (5+ years) * Optionally (but most likely) followed by a post-doc (1-3 years) before getting a tenure-track position; this is *not* a degree (it's just some time doing research and improving your CV)
RESPONSE B: Austria: 1. Matura, a standardised high school leaving exam after 12 (for general/academic track) or 13 (for specialised/vocational track) years of schooling 2. 6 semesters bachelor 3. 4 semesters master = mandatory prerequisite for doing a PhD, there’s no shortcut like in Anglo countries OR: up to 12 semesters total for certain degrees like medicine or law, but no bachelor prerequisite, it’s “law school” or “med school” from day one 4. 6 semesters PhD minimum 5. to become a tenured professor, you need to write and defend an additional thesis called Habilitation after your PhD
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: -analysis, or case study. I usually skim the intro, then look at the characteristics of the sample, and jump straight into the results. I refer to the methods when I don't understand something. I read discussions when its a topic I don't know well enough. I also keep an excel file organised by: Author; Article name; Keywords (related to my research qn to help with organising what articles are closely related); Study design; Background; Variable definitions; Findings; Notes on cool info *Edit: formatting.
RESPONSE A: For a paper I'm broadly interested in I'll read intro and results. If it is a paper I really need to understand in-depth, I like Jennifer Raff's method (https://violentmetaphors.com/2013/08/25/how-to-read-and-understand-a-scientific-paper-2/). It is a guide for non-scientists, but it still works. I keep notes in evernote, although I'm thinking of switching to OneNote. I tried using readcube to organise my PDFs for a while. Forget why I stopped using it. At the moment I keep seperate folders for different keywords with papers saved under First author, year, title.
RESPONSE B: I read a blog once that changed the way I read the literature, in that I should "read like a mongrel". Meaning, first identify what information you need from the paper and glean exactly that information and no more. How you do that will depend on your goal. You might skip or skim entire sections, or part of the results might not be relevant to you. Also, for every paper I read I right down a concise list of notes in a large document. That way I can look at the notes instead of the paper if I need to refer back later on, or if I forget what info came from which paper, I can skim that list instead of slogging through the papers again. When citing I always go back to the paper itself to double check the information, though. I use mendeley to organize everything. I'm not sure if it's the best option or not, but it works well enough.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What is your strategy to read and digest academic literature? Relevant link: http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/03/how-seriously-read-scientific-paper This article got me curious about the methods that the r/AskAcademia community uses to read, record, and digest whatever they've read - whether it be a study, review/meta-analysis, or case study. I usually skim the intro, then look at the characteristics of the sample, and jump straight into the results. I refer to the methods when I don't understand something. I read discussions when its a topic I don't know well enough. I also keep an excel file organised by: Author; Article name; Keywords (related to my research qn to help with organising what articles are closely related); Study design; Background; Variable definitions; Findings; Notes on cool info *Edit: formatting.
RESPONSE A: I read a blog once that changed the way I read the literature, in that I should "read like a mongrel". Meaning, first identify what information you need from the paper and glean exactly that information and no more. How you do that will depend on your goal. You might skip or skim entire sections, or part of the results might not be relevant to you. Also, for every paper I read I right down a concise list of notes in a large document. That way I can look at the notes instead of the paper if I need to refer back later on, or if I forget what info came from which paper, I can skim that list instead of slogging through the papers again. When citing I always go back to the paper itself to double check the information, though. I use mendeley to organize everything. I'm not sure if it's the best option or not, but it works well enough.
RESPONSE B: You might enjoy Zotero.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What is your strategy to read and digest academic literature? Relevant link: http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/03/how-seriously-read-scientific-paper This article got me curious about the methods that the r/AskAcademia community uses to read, record, and digest whatever they've read - whether it be a study, review/meta-analysis, or case study. I usually skim the intro, then look at the characteristics of the sample, and jump straight into the results. I refer to the methods when I don't understand something. I read discussions when its a topic I don't know well enough. I also keep an excel file organised by: Author; Article name; Keywords (related to my research qn to help with organising what articles are closely related); Study design; Background; Variable definitions; Findings; Notes on cool info *Edit: formatting.
RESPONSE A: Generally? Find all the newer reviews first to get an overview. Understand the processes in general term. Start finding more focused reviews. Once those are finished, get into research papers on individual issues.
RESPONSE B: For a paper I'm broadly interested in I'll read intro and results. If it is a paper I really need to understand in-depth, I like Jennifer Raff's method (https://violentmetaphors.com/2013/08/25/how-to-read-and-understand-a-scientific-paper-2/). It is a guide for non-scientists, but it still works. I keep notes in evernote, although I'm thinking of switching to OneNote. I tried using readcube to organise my PDFs for a while. Forget why I stopped using it. At the moment I keep seperate folders for different keywords with papers saved under First author, year, title.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What is your strategy to read and digest academic literature? Relevant link: http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/03/how-seriously-read-scientific-paper This article got me curious about the methods that the r/AskAcademia community uses to read, record, and digest whatever they've read - whether it be a study, review/meta-analysis, or case study. I usually skim the intro, then look at the characteristics of the sample, and jump straight into the results. I refer to the methods when I don't understand something. I read discussions when its a topic I don't know well enough. I also keep an excel file organised by: Author; Article name; Keywords (related to my research qn to help with organising what articles are closely related); Study design; Background; Variable definitions; Findings; Notes on cool info *Edit: formatting.
RESPONSE A: You might enjoy Zotero.
RESPONSE B: Generally? Find all the newer reviews first to get an overview. Understand the processes in general term. Start finding more focused reviews. Once those are finished, get into research papers on individual issues.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: did. I think this is taking so long because he's unusually busy this semester. He's normally very busy, but this semesters he's developing a class from scratch in addition to his standard research load. I do not want to keep asking my advisor to help me push out this paper; he is always respectful of my schedule and never forces me to work at a pace I feel uncomfortable with. I would like to extend the same courtesy to him. At the same time, I want to get this done, and I think relatively little work is required from him to do that. What is the best way to handle this? Should I wait until my advisor helps me through the submission processor on his own time (maybe with occasional gentle reminders), or should I be more forceful with my requests? I lean towards the former, but I wanted more input.
RESPONSE A: Is it safe to assume you have already gently reminded him a few times? Sent an email saying "I hate to pester you when I know you are having such a busy semester, but is there any chance you've gotten around to taking a look at that paper I sent you? I'm really eager to submit it."
RESPONSE B: My advisor and I have a different relationship than others I think but I just threatened to submit on occasion. In a nice way, of course. "I have read and edited the manuscript x times and believe its ready for submission to x or y journal. I'm leaning towards x journal because blah blah blah. If you have any concerns about the manuscript or the journal let me know by x date when I plan to submit". In fact he gave me this suggestion to use on my committee and I'm not sure he expected me to use it on him haha Major caveat here being that I don't know if everyone could pull that off with their advisor. Sometimes you have to be a little harsh to get shit done. And really this is your training and your education. They won't be as concerned as you should be. Your top priority should be publishing so I would hound. If emails aren't working I would wait outside their office. Advisors will wait forever if you let them!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.