label
stringclasses 2
values | request
stringlengths 110
2.68k
|
|---|---|
A | POST: How common is it for postdocs or PhD holders to switch research interests? So I was just thinking, are all PhDs all set for life when they did their research back in their grad student days/post doc days? How rare is the switching of research interest after getting the degree. For example your research interest is environmental microbiology, then after some time you wanna delve in immunology or any of the likes?
RESPONSE A: Its actively encouraged to do this to some extent, especially if you wish to stay in academia. It shows your ability to diversify and take up new projects. I have several projects in my postdoc which are only loosely if at all related to my work as a PhD student.
RESPONSE B: I don’t know about other areas, but in engineering type disciplines it seems there’s a lot of cross over. My PhD work was in nanoscale optics/organic photovoltaics. I worked as a research scientist for a few years and worked on a few areas adjacent to my graduate work and eventually ended up doing a lot of computational optics, which led me into machine learning. Now I’m working as a data scientist in the materials industry. Ostensibly I’ve moved from chemical engineering (what I have my PhD in) to data science/materials science (most of my colleagues’ backgrounds). Also caveat that I’m not really a researcher any more, working on interesting problems, but more of an applied scientist.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: How common is it for postdocs or PhD holders to switch research interests? So I was just thinking, are all PhDs all set for life when they did their research back in their grad student days/post doc days? How rare is the switching of research interest after getting the degree. For example your research interest is environmental microbiology, then after some time you wanna delve in immunology or any of the likes?
RESPONSE A: Its actively encouraged to do this to some extent, especially if you wish to stay in academia. It shows your ability to diversify and take up new projects. I have several projects in my postdoc which are only loosely if at all related to my work as a PhD student.
RESPONSE B: I switched pretty drastically in terms of the object of study, but not in the broader approach, when I acquired my own postdoc financing. It is rare but not impossible!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How common is it for postdocs or PhD holders to switch research interests? So I was just thinking, are all PhDs all set for life when they did their research back in their grad student days/post doc days? How rare is the switching of research interest after getting the degree. For example your research interest is environmental microbiology, then after some time you wanna delve in immunology or any of the likes?
RESPONSE A: I have personally done it between postdocs (maths) and it surprised both my supervisors and colleagues at the time. While I had initially done it out of desperation for a job, it turned out to be a great decision. My first topic was more interesting to me but the second was more on the rise and attracting a lot of funding/new job opportunities. Now I can present myself as a "specialist"/knowledgeable on both and it shows that I am not a one-trick pony. However, I had to learn the topic in a very short time in order to prepare for the interview and sometimes I feel that I know a bit less than people who have dedicated their careers from the very beginning for one or the other topic. That being said, I feel confident that this will dissipate with time and I am still able to work/publish on both topics. In my field, it is also not so uncommon to have people even completely switch fields (and not only topics) from physics to maths.
RESPONSE B: Its actively encouraged to do this to some extent, especially if you wish to stay in academia. It shows your ability to diversify and take up new projects. I have several projects in my postdoc which are only loosely if at all related to my work as a PhD student.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Senior PhD students: What will you do differently in your postdoc? What did you learn?
RESPONSE A: Not do one. I learned that the academic work done my field is not nearly fulfilling or important enough to justify the insane lack of a work-life balance or working with egotistical colleagues. Ymmv.
RESPONSE B: not much. though I am slightly more confident in my opinions. Basically I learned everything in my PhD lab, so my experience was not unique there, but at the new lab, my experience is pretty unique, as no one is from my previous lab. so I have certain abilities/knowledge which is often useless, but not always.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 3 year postdoc in a new lab abroad or a 2.5 year non-tenure track assistant profship at the same place I did my phd? As the title more or less says, I am in a bit of a positive conundrum. I got my phd in september 2016 and did a one year postdoc on the same research project. I did my bachelors, masters and phd at the same institution. The question is, what now? Lets disregard family affairs and all but the scenarios are these: - I have a firm offer for a three year postdoc at new lab at a great European Technical University that would allow me move forward and do something new - same field, but more focused on one specific area of application as well as some things that are completely novel to me. Its also in another country, so that would mean I moved. - This has lead my current institution (and alma mater) to pool some money and offer me a non-tenure track assistant professorship for 2.5 years. This is a university that is about on par with the one from the previous offer. Both places want an answer now, obviously. I am very tempted by the first offer, but obviously the stability and surety of my home institution is alluring... and its a certainty that many publications will flow from the assistant professorship as well. So... what would you choose, dear redditors?
RESPONSE A: Abroad 100%. Why incest? Get broader experience.
RESPONSE B: What do you want to in 3 years? What is keeping you from doing that right now? New and fancy sounds great, however, it's not obvious to me how that would or would not move you forward. If you're on track to crank out a bunch of papers right now, you might not want to lose that momentum by pivoting to something new. If the European lab has a history of allowing new post-docs to immediately help out on papers and get their names on them, then it might not slow you down too much.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: 3 year postdoc in a new lab abroad or a 2.5 year non-tenure track assistant profship at the same place I did my phd? As the title more or less says, I am in a bit of a positive conundrum. I got my phd in september 2016 and did a one year postdoc on the same research project. I did my bachelors, masters and phd at the same institution. The question is, what now? Lets disregard family affairs and all but the scenarios are these: - I have a firm offer for a three year postdoc at new lab at a great European Technical University that would allow me move forward and do something new - same field, but more focused on one specific area of application as well as some things that are completely novel to me. Its also in another country, so that would mean I moved. - This has lead my current institution (and alma mater) to pool some money and offer me a non-tenure track assistant professorship for 2.5 years. This is a university that is about on par with the one from the previous offer. Both places want an answer now, obviously. I am very tempted by the first offer, but obviously the stability and surety of my home institution is alluring... and its a certainty that many publications will flow from the assistant professorship as well. So... what would you choose, dear redditors?
RESPONSE A: abroad postdoc. move. see something new. do something novel. get fresh insights.
RESPONSE B: What do you want to in 3 years? What is keeping you from doing that right now? New and fancy sounds great, however, it's not obvious to me how that would or would not move you forward. If you're on track to crank out a bunch of papers right now, you might not want to lose that momentum by pivoting to something new. If the European lab has a history of allowing new post-docs to immediately help out on papers and get their names on them, then it might not slow you down too much.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Some positivity for this sub! Profs, Postdocs, PhD students, why do you love what you do?
RESPONSE A: I get an unusual amount of satisfaction from writing math equations on a white board.
RESPONSE B: I'm finishing a PhD right now in theology. The only real negativity I've experienced in my PhD program has been the almost-inevitable stress involved in trying to finish a dissertation, teach, and hunt for a job all at once, while worrying a bit about the "what ifs" of the future. Beyond that, the whole experience has been an amazing reward in itself. I mean, I got to weather a recession (with so many of my friends and family around me out of work) by actually getting paid a modest but not-terrible salary for reading, writing, and talking about some of the stuff I enjoy most in the world. I've had opportunities I never could have imagined growing up in rural Indiana in the lower middle class: people have actually paid me money to visit Europe and the Middle East on four different occasions, I've gotten to meet some of the most influential religious leaders in the world (the Dalai Lama, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, several Catholic cardinals), I've shared a platform at conferences with some of my academic heroes and have essays coming out in a few books alongside theirs. I work mostly independently, make my own hours for my research, and get to design and run courses as I see fit, because people have confidence in my expertise. All this, coming from a family in which most people's highest aspiration is to hopefully land a decent union job and not lose it for showing up drunk too often. Maybe next year, when it's all over, I'll end up in adjunct hell, but I already feel like I've gotten more out of life than I deserve, so I'm immensely grateful for the experience. Plus, almost everyone in my department is amazing and truly wants the best for me. I think that helps a lot.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Some positivity for this sub! Profs, Postdocs, PhD students, why do you love what you do?
RESPONSE A: I get an unusual amount of satisfaction from writing math equations on a white board.
RESPONSE B: I love teaching a mentoring students. I love changing an individual's lives with clinical research. I love the feeling of being proud of a grant application. I love the feeling of getting funded. I love having a little flexibility with when, how, and where I work. I love college campuses. I love that I get to learn something new so often. Much of the negativity comes from when you cram all this stuff you love into a really small amount of time.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Some positivity for this sub! Profs, Postdocs, PhD students, why do you love what you do?
RESPONSE A: I get an unusual amount of satisfaction from writing math equations on a white board.
RESPONSE B: First-year post-doc in biochemistry and functional genomics here. I have a love-hate relationship with my work, but I think that's normal. Let's focus on the love. I love that I am actively contributing to a small-ish field and starting to make a name for myself working for major players. I love that I get to be the very first person in the world to realize/discover something based on my hard-earned data. I love that my work is a nice balance of hands-on and desk work. I love that I have contributed to the education and mentorship of undergraduate and fellow graduate students, and that I am setting a (hopefully) good example to my peers and supporting them in their graduate careers.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Some positivity for this sub! Profs, Postdocs, PhD students, why do you love what you do?
RESPONSE A: I get an unusual amount of satisfaction from writing math equations on a white board.
RESPONSE B: Ever read an /Asksocialscience thread and say I want to learn more about that and teach it to others. I get to do that for a living. People often think professors are experts and just regurgitate their immense knowledge. I'd say 2/3 of my day is learning new things. Sure, as an economist Im not going to start reading about art history because I like a painting by Monet. But if it's relevant to economics and I can build a research project or class around it, I can.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: PhD / Postdocs / Professors, how do you come up with novel concepts for your projects on a daily basis? I'm a undergrad chemistry student who's been in a chemical biology lab for the past year and a half, and it's nothing but amazing to be working with a bunch of people who are pretty much experts in their own field. My mentor is a brilliant guy and throughout the year he has been giving me inputs on his plans and his works so i could help him, and everytime i talk to him i'm floored by how he, and my PI, or pretty much everyone in the lab group comes up with these novel, ingenious ideas. This severely freaks me out for grad school in the future because eventually I'll have to do the same thing, and in all honesty i do want to do it - i mean, after all the whole idea of research is to work on stuff that no one has really tried before. I've tried asking my own mentor on this and he pretty much tells me it eventually comes from reading. I'm not saying i doubt him, but i'm guessing he did leave out a lot of anguishing, frustrating and arduous work in his process of describing how he works these out. So academics of reddit, how do you eventually learn to develop novel ideas and concepts on a continuous basis? How long did it take for you to get used to it?
RESPONSE A: On a daily basis? I have never met a professor who had more than one or two novel ideas in a lifetime.
RESPONSE B: I think some people here are missing too is that not every idea we have is novel. The key (for me, at least) is to practice being curious on every topic you come across, from biology to philosophy. Also important is giving yourself time with zero distractions to allow yourself to think.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: and it's nothing but amazing to be working with a bunch of people who are pretty much experts in their own field. My mentor is a brilliant guy and throughout the year he has been giving me inputs on his plans and his works so i could help him, and everytime i talk to him i'm floored by how he, and my PI, or pretty much everyone in the lab group comes up with these novel, ingenious ideas. This severely freaks me out for grad school in the future because eventually I'll have to do the same thing, and in all honesty i do want to do it - i mean, after all the whole idea of research is to work on stuff that no one has really tried before. I've tried asking my own mentor on this and he pretty much tells me it eventually comes from reading. I'm not saying i doubt him, but i'm guessing he did leave out a lot of anguishing, frustrating and arduous work in his process of describing how he works these out. So academics of reddit, how do you eventually learn to develop novel ideas and concepts on a continuous basis? How long did it take for you to get used to it?
RESPONSE A: I think it's really just about time spent. You've spent years thinking about whatever this field is, and as you go you come up with things you'd like to do but don't have time for. Eventually you end up with this growing list in the back of your mind, and then eventually, when you do have time and need a project, you've actually got a few to choose from. The longer you've been doing what you're doing, the longer that list gets, because you're constantly finding things you'd love to explore but for one reason or another cannot. They get added to the list faster than you finish whatever actual projects you're really working on. You're not actually coming up with these ideas every day. You don't have to, because they're all queueing up over time anyway.
RESPONSE B: I find it helpful to read a lot, over a wide range of topics/fields and try to connect dots that seem separate!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: PhD / Postdocs / Professors, how do you come up with novel concepts for your projects on a daily basis? I'm a undergrad chemistry student who's been in a chemical biology lab for the past year and a half, and it's nothing but amazing to be working with a bunch of people who are pretty much experts in their own field. My mentor is a brilliant guy and throughout the year he has been giving me inputs on his plans and his works so i could help him, and everytime i talk to him i'm floored by how he, and my PI, or pretty much everyone in the lab group comes up with these novel, ingenious ideas. This severely freaks me out for grad school in the future because eventually I'll have to do the same thing, and in all honesty i do want to do it - i mean, after all the whole idea of research is to work on stuff that no one has really tried before. I've tried asking my own mentor on this and he pretty much tells me it eventually comes from reading. I'm not saying i doubt him, but i'm guessing he did leave out a lot of anguishing, frustrating and arduous work in his process of describing how he works these out. So academics of reddit, how do you eventually learn to develop novel ideas and concepts on a continuous basis? How long did it take for you to get used to it?
RESPONSE A: I find it helpful to read a lot, over a wide range of topics/fields and try to connect dots that seem separate!
RESPONSE B: For me it comes a lot from reading and formulating my own ideas. Reading reviews and current publications keeps you informed on your topic and what is going on/fundamental concepts. So, when I see a new piece of literature that is showing me some data, I draw on what I already know about the subject to try and decide what the information means to me, and I think about what questions I have after going over the new publications. From those questions, I start doing more reading to formulate my own hypothesis for testing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: brilliant guy and throughout the year he has been giving me inputs on his plans and his works so i could help him, and everytime i talk to him i'm floored by how he, and my PI, or pretty much everyone in the lab group comes up with these novel, ingenious ideas. This severely freaks me out for grad school in the future because eventually I'll have to do the same thing, and in all honesty i do want to do it - i mean, after all the whole idea of research is to work on stuff that no one has really tried before. I've tried asking my own mentor on this and he pretty much tells me it eventually comes from reading. I'm not saying i doubt him, but i'm guessing he did leave out a lot of anguishing, frustrating and arduous work in his process of describing how he works these out. So academics of reddit, how do you eventually learn to develop novel ideas and concepts on a continuous basis? How long did it take for you to get used to it?
RESPONSE A: I think it's really just about time spent. You've spent years thinking about whatever this field is, and as you go you come up with things you'd like to do but don't have time for. Eventually you end up with this growing list in the back of your mind, and then eventually, when you do have time and need a project, you've actually got a few to choose from. The longer you've been doing what you're doing, the longer that list gets, because you're constantly finding things you'd love to explore but for one reason or another cannot. They get added to the list faster than you finish whatever actual projects you're really working on. You're not actually coming up with these ideas every day. You don't have to, because they're all queueing up over time anyway.
RESPONSE B: I think some people here are missing too is that not every idea we have is novel. The key (for me, at least) is to practice being curious on every topic you come across, from biology to philosophy. Also important is giving yourself time with zero distractions to allow yourself to think.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: with novel concepts for your projects on a daily basis? I'm a undergrad chemistry student who's been in a chemical biology lab for the past year and a half, and it's nothing but amazing to be working with a bunch of people who are pretty much experts in their own field. My mentor is a brilliant guy and throughout the year he has been giving me inputs on his plans and his works so i could help him, and everytime i talk to him i'm floored by how he, and my PI, or pretty much everyone in the lab group comes up with these novel, ingenious ideas. This severely freaks me out for grad school in the future because eventually I'll have to do the same thing, and in all honesty i do want to do it - i mean, after all the whole idea of research is to work on stuff that no one has really tried before. I've tried asking my own mentor on this and he pretty much tells me it eventually comes from reading. I'm not saying i doubt him, but i'm guessing he did leave out a lot of anguishing, frustrating and arduous work in his process of describing how he works these out. So academics of reddit, how do you eventually learn to develop novel ideas and concepts on a continuous basis? How long did it take for you to get used to it?
RESPONSE A: For me it comes a lot from reading and formulating my own ideas. Reading reviews and current publications keeps you informed on your topic and what is going on/fundamental concepts. So, when I see a new piece of literature that is showing me some data, I draw on what I already know about the subject to try and decide what the information means to me, and I think about what questions I have after going over the new publications. From those questions, I start doing more reading to formulate my own hypothesis for testing.
RESPONSE B: I think some people here are missing too is that not every idea we have is novel. The key (for me, at least) is to practice being curious on every topic you come across, from biology to philosophy. Also important is giving yourself time with zero distractions to allow yourself to think.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 5th year, so a masters degree seems like a very bad return on the time I’ve spent. But I’m simply at the end of my rope. Besides seeking professional help, does anyone in academia have strategies for recovering from burnout? TLDR: I’m a depressed grad student who needs to finish up. How best to push through?
RESPONSE A: Speak to a counsellor! At an R1 university, you most likely have access to a therapist or counsellor on campus. It can help you immensely in dealing with burnout. At the same time, a therapist can't really help you with research, you also need to find someone who's a scientist and is willing to talk to you about your project. With an unsupportive advisor, you don't learn the right skills to do research. So just pushing hard just by yourself often leads you nowhere. Do you have a thesis committee? Schedule a meeting with them and talk to them about the requirements for graduation and how you can get there. Can you think of anyone else who might be willing to sit down with you? A former postdoc? A collaborator in another university? For careers, go to your career center! My university's career center has several career counsellors and it's very easy to make an appointment and go talk to them. They should be able to help you with non-academic careers.
RESPONSE B: This was me in my 5th year too. I nearly left the program. What helped me was a long vacation away from everything. I set up an out of the office email message, went outside the country for about 3 weeks or so, and didn't look at my email even once. I was nervous about taking that much time off at first, but then realized that I wasn't getting anything done sitting at the desk not working anyway. I think I would have dropped out if I hadn't taken that reprieve. When I returned I was refreshed enough to start again. I actually fell in love with the project all over again. I also talked with my committee chair, and asked her to hold me more accountable for progress as we moved forward. I hope you come out of the fog. I know how much it sucks. Best of luck to you.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What's the deal with putting stuff on ResearchGate? It has come to my attention that some people upload their dissertations, theses and other non-peer reviewed work on Research gate. I've also seen that these get their own DOI number and also appear on google scholar. What is the deal with this? Is there any downside to uploading interesting research findings in this way?
RESPONSE A: What others have said, and also, it tracks citations better and faster than Scholar. It even tracked the citations for my unpublished PhD dissertation which Scholar isn't able to do
RESPONSE B: I store all my publications on RG. It is my personal archive. I get a lot of requests from researchers who cannot access a institute library such as lay scientist. I loved tracking my citations as well. But since last month they have hidden this function behind a paid subscription. Turns out they are using some European countries to test this paywall....
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: not only undermining their importance but is also unethical because we don’t have sufficient evidence for such a connection. I recently got back the reviews for my second paper, and the major criticism the reviewers had was that we were portraying our results as a function of molecule-x without sufficient evidence. I completely agree with the reviewers but when drafting the response to the reviewers my PI again asked me to convince them about the importance of this molecule. I think part of the problem may be that all his grants are based on studying this molecule. I feel it will be much easier (and more scientifically accurate) for me to publish my results without linking them to molecule-x but my PI keeps insisting I don’t ‘dilute the importance’ of this molecule by focusing on other things. I understand this is a one-sided post and my PI’s side is not represented here but I am asking about this as an interpersonal issue about how I should approach this with my PI rather than about who is right or wrong. I also am not sure whose opinion matters more when it comes to how the research findings are published. My opinion as the first author or his opinion as the corresponding author? I dont want to publish something I dont believe in but also dont want to rock the boat.
RESPONSE A: I have trouble to unterstand your PI on that matter. Just because he works on molecule X does not mean research from his lab on molecule y is pointless. On the contrary it’s a chance to broaden up my PI during my postdoc started in something different than what the lab is doing now. Nothing wrong with that. Further he can be happy when it’s time to discuss which part of your research is yours and what you can take with you ton establish your own lab he has nothing to give up from his research. I would try to find out where his actual problem is, because I do not see it.
RESPONSE B: Have the argument. I tell my Ph.D. students that they are getting ready to graduate when they win our arguments about their research, but if we just disagree, I win. They can only win by proving me wrong. You now have proof. Go ahead and disagree. Win the argument.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: in my tweets and I received 0 support from family and friends. I had nobody to turn to. Going through my PhD and post-PhD life right before the pandemic was so hard and going through an abusive relationship (where she monitored my social media and at one point forced me to post pics of us together) made things worse. During my PhD I also struggled to survive and had 2 jobs during my studies, just so I could afford to eat. At one point I couldn't afford bus or train fare, so I never went to many conferences at all. All this affected me. I stayed off social media for a long time and I struggled to get a job, ended up working in a warehouse to survive and just wanted to end it all. Now at the moment I'm in a better position as a civil servant in a position (kind of) related to my subject, but I want to go back and embrace my researcher side again. I feel now i understand the rules of academic Twitter and how to use it. Now I want to use it like LinkedIn. I want to start again. I feel I'm in a better mental state now and I wish I could go back and start the whole networking thing again. I want to start writing again too. ** What I just wanted to rant about is that I just feel that PhD supervisors and universities in general are out here telling early career researchers/PhD students that being on academic Twitter is very important, but they don't pass on enough knowledge regarding how to use it. They talk like academic Twitter is a different place, but at the end of the day it's still first and foremost Twitter. Most conversations I seen amongst academics on Twitter are just standard conversations on the platform with field
RESPONSE A: I don't have any knowledge of this because i don't think this was a thing when i was in college, i just wanted to say that I'm glad that you're in a better place, I'm sorry that you didn't have the support you should have had, and ultimately the decision is up to you and whatever you decide isn't wrong and it's not the end of the world.
RESPONSE B: Just delete academic Twitter and don’t restart it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: and going through an abusive relationship (where she monitored my social media and at one point forced me to post pics of us together) made things worse. During my PhD I also struggled to survive and had 2 jobs during my studies, just so I could afford to eat. At one point I couldn't afford bus or train fare, so I never went to many conferences at all. All this affected me. I stayed off social media for a long time and I struggled to get a job, ended up working in a warehouse to survive and just wanted to end it all. Now at the moment I'm in a better position as a civil servant in a position (kind of) related to my subject, but I want to go back and embrace my researcher side again. I feel now i understand the rules of academic Twitter and how to use it. Now I want to use it like LinkedIn. I want to start again. I feel I'm in a better mental state now and I wish I could go back and start the whole networking thing again. I want to start writing again too. ** What I just wanted to rant about is that I just feel that PhD supervisors and universities in general are out here telling early career researchers/PhD students that being on academic Twitter is very important, but they don't pass on enough knowledge regarding how to use it. They talk like academic Twitter is a different place, but at the end of the day it's still first and foremost Twitter. Most conversations I seen amongst academics on Twitter are just standard conversations on the platform with field
RESPONSE A: I don't have any knowledge of this because i don't think this was a thing when i was in college, i just wanted to say that I'm glad that you're in a better place, I'm sorry that you didn't have the support you should have had, and ultimately the decision is up to you and whatever you decide isn't wrong and it's not the end of the world.
RESPONSE B: I've never seen a faculty hiring committee say "this is a great candidate for a tenure track position except he doesn't have the required 4 trending posts on twitter." Grants, patents, publications. Everything else is noise.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Academic Twitter - any tips for getting started? My supervisor recommended to me recently that I create a professional academic Twitter account to help build a profile for myself and to connect with academics. I haven't used Twitter before and I could do with some tips on how to get started, who to follow, what sort of things to post about, etc. I research Holocaust representation in literature and I'm a research Masters student preparing for PhD applications. All help and advice appreciated!
RESPONSE A: It’s not really difficult. Make a profile, put a representable pic (doesn’t have to be a professional one), follow people in your area and tweet about your research and interesting trends.
RESPONSE B: - post in your lane. If you study the holocaust post about holocaust articles. Try to stay away from long rants about Trump being a nazi though, that will attract the type of people you don't want hanging around your twitter - refer to your research as much as possible. Like "My research shows x y z about this news article" - retweet other people in your area and follow them
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Academic Twitter - any tips for getting started? My supervisor recommended to me recently that I create a professional academic Twitter account to help build a profile for myself and to connect with academics. I haven't used Twitter before and I could do with some tips on how to get started, who to follow, what sort of things to post about, etc. I research Holocaust representation in literature and I'm a research Masters student preparing for PhD applications. All help and advice appreciated!
RESPONSE A: haven't read it myself but seems to get good reviews: Mark Carrigan's book
RESPONSE B: - post in your lane. If you study the holocaust post about holocaust articles. Try to stay away from long rants about Trump being a nazi though, that will attract the type of people you don't want hanging around your twitter - refer to your research as much as possible. Like "My research shows x y z about this news article" - retweet other people in your area and follow them
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Academic Twitter - any tips for getting started? My supervisor recommended to me recently that I create a professional academic Twitter account to help build a profile for myself and to connect with academics. I haven't used Twitter before and I could do with some tips on how to get started, who to follow, what sort of things to post about, etc. I research Holocaust representation in literature and I'm a research Masters student preparing for PhD applications. All help and advice appreciated!
RESPONSE A: I don't follow this advice, although I am nominally an academic on twitter, but I think it is good anyway: don't try to educate anybody about anything other than your research area. The amount of time I have wasted trying to reason with idiots. It's just not worth it.
RESPONSE B: It’s not really difficult. Make a profile, put a representable pic (doesn’t have to be a professional one), follow people in your area and tweet about your research and interesting trends.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: I really believe this goal aligns with my long term goals and career (besides my personal goal). So what I'm looking for are watchouts, tips, and similar stories of people who underwent the same journey or currently there. I understand its going to be challenging thats why I''m trying to look for some inspirations specially on how I can self manage (mental health, etc.), tips for studying, things i might miss or tools i could use. i'm open to just read and listen to everyone. Thank you for your wisdom
RESPONSE A: I think the main thing for me is that like it's a very different experience to undergrad. Like imo in undergrad you tend to get closed ended questions where there is a right answer and you just need work until you understand that and do the exams. You pace yourself against the material. Whereas a PhD is an open ended thing, there's always more you can do, always more to learn, a vast field which seems so daunting. So IMO yeah the most helpful thing is to look at your feet rather than looking at the mountain. Like if you think about how much there is to do (or heaven forfend how much you could do) then it's easy to get panicked and upset. It's also really hard for people who are used to getting regular positive feedback to do something really unstructured. However also a PhD is mostly an attendance award, just show up in your work hours and do a bit of serious work and then forget about it. Do that for 4 years and you will pass. People freak out about "ooh what if I fail the viva?" but that would be a massive disaster for your supervisor and the department, everyone is on your side. So yeah just keep walking, keep calm, do a few hours of work in your work periods and just do the time. That's all you have to do. It's really super simple on that level.
RESPONSE B: Hi, What really helps me to stay focussed ist writing a research diary. Ever day I write down the steps I Made and also I can look up descisions I made later. Secondly, try to get connected to other PHD students. That helps to get through this whole very tough process.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: After arbitration, Ryerson University can no longer use student teaching evaluations when determining promotions and tenure. What do you think? https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/arbitration-decision-on-student-evaluations-of-teaching-applauded-by-faculty/ ​ I feel like this has potential to lead to widespread change internationally, especially since they cite "serious human-rights issues" as one of the reason.
RESPONSE A: https://www.aaup.org/article/student-evaluations-teaching-are-not-valid#.W4cQRJNKhJk *"The common practice of relying on averages of student teaching evaluation scores as the primary measure of teaching effectiveness for promotion and tenure decisions should be abandoned for substantive and statistical reasons: There is strong evidence that student responses to questions of ‘effectiveness’ do not measure teaching effectiveness.”This is a startling conclusion, given that SET scores are the primary measure that many colleges and universities use to evaluate professors’ teaching."* Primary measure, folks.
RESPONSE B: Effects internationally? Tenure isn't a thing everywhere. And while student evaluations are useful they're certainly not a prime concern for promotion here in the UK.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: After arbitration, Ryerson University can no longer use student teaching evaluations when determining promotions and tenure. What do you think? https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/arbitration-decision-on-student-evaluations-of-teaching-applauded-by-faculty/ ​ I feel like this has potential to lead to widespread change internationally, especially since they cite "serious human-rights issues" as one of the reason.
RESPONSE A: https://www.aaup.org/article/student-evaluations-teaching-are-not-valid#.W4cQRJNKhJk *"The common practice of relying on averages of student teaching evaluation scores as the primary measure of teaching effectiveness for promotion and tenure decisions should be abandoned for substantive and statistical reasons: There is strong evidence that student responses to questions of ‘effectiveness’ do not measure teaching effectiveness.”This is a startling conclusion, given that SET scores are the primary measure that many colleges and universities use to evaluate professors’ teaching."* Primary measure, folks.
RESPONSE B: I think we all know the flaws of course evaluations from students. But as a counterpoint: what other options do we have? Having colleagues evaluate each others' teaching just puts another load on everyone's heavy dept service plates and sounds like a recipe for disaster given the micropolitics of the average department. Having staff from university admin come around and evaluate everyone sounds cost prohibitive and a "big brother is watching" scenario. We could do something more evidence based like pre-semester exams and post-semester exams, but once again, this approach is highly dependent on the work ethic of the students and may not work as well for small class (sample) sizes. And ask a grade school teacher what teaching to a test is like. Because it's not good.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: After arbitration, Ryerson University can no longer use student teaching evaluations when determining promotions and tenure. What do you think? https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/arbitration-decision-on-student-evaluations-of-teaching-applauded-by-faculty/ ​ I feel like this has potential to lead to widespread change internationally, especially since they cite "serious human-rights issues" as one of the reason.
RESPONSE A: https://www.aaup.org/article/student-evaluations-teaching-are-not-valid#.W4cQRJNKhJk *"The common practice of relying on averages of student teaching evaluation scores as the primary measure of teaching effectiveness for promotion and tenure decisions should be abandoned for substantive and statistical reasons: There is strong evidence that student responses to questions of ‘effectiveness’ do not measure teaching effectiveness.”This is a startling conclusion, given that SET scores are the primary measure that many colleges and universities use to evaluate professors’ teaching."* Primary measure, folks.
RESPONSE B: This is going to do eff all in the US
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: " as one of the reason.
RESPONSE A: I think we all know the flaws of course evaluations from students. But as a counterpoint: what other options do we have? Having colleagues evaluate each others' teaching just puts another load on everyone's heavy dept service plates and sounds like a recipe for disaster given the micropolitics of the average department. Having staff from university admin come around and evaluate everyone sounds cost prohibitive and a "big brother is watching" scenario. We could do something more evidence based like pre-semester exams and post-semester exams, but once again, this approach is highly dependent on the work ethic of the students and may not work as well for small class (sample) sizes. And ask a grade school teacher what teaching to a test is like. Because it's not good.
RESPONSE B: I personally think that it has both positives and negatives. One reason it may be good is that it prevents some students who may be angry with their professor from unjustly writing a bad review. This isn't the case for all bad reviews, but it can be a factor. It also takes into account that students are not the best judge of what they know, how they are learning, etc. Most students (still being young and learning) usually can only explain a professor as being bad or good but not really go into more detail. Also, they also confuse an easy class/professor with being a good class/professor. And for that matter, sometimes they confuse the difficulty of the class material with the pedagogy of the professor. Now looking at the negatives: it gives students less say when they genuinely feel that their professor is holding them back or when they feel that the professor is doing a poor job of teaching. For me, the negatives can be summed into the fact that the influence that these students will lose is given to the administration in regards to promotion and tenure. This, by itself, is not a bad thing, but it also creates room for abuse of power. For me, I think its just which is the lesser of two evils. After all, nothing is completely bad or good. We just pick whichever we think is slightly better or that we will regret less.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: After arbitration, Ryerson University can no longer use student teaching evaluations when determining promotions and tenure. What do you think? https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/arbitration-decision-on-student-evaluations-of-teaching-applauded-by-faculty/ ​ I feel like this has potential to lead to widespread change internationally, especially since they cite "serious human-rights issues" as one of the reason.
RESPONSE A: I personally think that it has both positives and negatives. One reason it may be good is that it prevents some students who may be angry with their professor from unjustly writing a bad review. This isn't the case for all bad reviews, but it can be a factor. It also takes into account that students are not the best judge of what they know, how they are learning, etc. Most students (still being young and learning) usually can only explain a professor as being bad or good but not really go into more detail. Also, they also confuse an easy class/professor with being a good class/professor. And for that matter, sometimes they confuse the difficulty of the class material with the pedagogy of the professor. Now looking at the negatives: it gives students less say when they genuinely feel that their professor is holding them back or when they feel that the professor is doing a poor job of teaching. For me, the negatives can be summed into the fact that the influence that these students will lose is given to the administration in regards to promotion and tenure. This, by itself, is not a bad thing, but it also creates room for abuse of power. For me, I think its just which is the lesser of two evils. After all, nothing is completely bad or good. We just pick whichever we think is slightly better or that we will regret less.
RESPONSE B: This is going to do eff all in the US
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 'll be able to teach while pursuing my PhD because the research lab I work for is paying for my tuition and stipend and in return I'm supposed to treat my education as if it were a job (so I cannot take on any other jobs, including teaching or grading positions). I'm thinking maybe being an adjunt professor after obtaining my PhD and teaching one class per semester would help me get teaching experience. **TL;DR:** In your experience or from what you've heard, what could someone do to maximize their chance of being selected for a tenure-track professor position in a school of similar of less prestige as a 4-year state university? Thank you!
RESPONSE A: Can you clarify what you mean by 4-year state university? I ask because there is a wide spectrum of schools that match that term and thus will be looking for different things. At a large state university such as University of Michigan, they will be looking at primarily research. At a smaller state university such as the University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire, they will be looking primarily at teaching. Beyond research and teaching experience, I think most schools look for "fit". That is, how well do you fit into the department. Can you collaborate with the people there? Can you teach courses that need to be taught? What do you add to the department in terms of teaching, research, and service?
RESPONSE B: I believe they will assess your application thusly: (1) Do you have funding to bring? (2) How many publications? (3) Where published? (4) Assess research statement for "fit" with dept (5) Assess research statement for clarity, fundability (6) Letters of recommendation (7) Have you had grants in the past (8) Invited talks you have given . . . (14,572) Will there be a spousal hire involved? (14,573) Teaching experience They aren't hiring you to do research, they aren't hiring you to mentor or teach, they are hiring you to get grants and build a good collegial environment for them (other professors), and maybe raise the profile of the school overall (which will lead to more funding). The more you teach, the fewer papers you write, and the fewer grants you can apply for and get.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: before I pursue a professor position. From what I understand, the biggest thing universities look for in a tenure-track professor candidate are quality and number of publications. Beyond that, I'm not too sure what else they look for. I'm sure teaching experience would be a plus. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be able to teach while pursuing my PhD because the research lab I work for is paying for my tuition and stipend and in return I'm supposed to treat my education as if it were a job (so I cannot take on any other jobs, including teaching or grading positions). I'm thinking maybe being an adjunt professor after obtaining my PhD and teaching one class per semester would help me get teaching experience. **TL;DR:** In your experience or from what you've heard, what could someone do to maximize their chance of being selected for a tenure-track professor position in a school of similar of less prestige as a 4-year state university? Thank you!
RESPONSE A: I believe they will assess your application thusly: (1) Do you have funding to bring? (2) How many publications? (3) Where published? (4) Assess research statement for "fit" with dept (5) Assess research statement for clarity, fundability (6) Letters of recommendation (7) Have you had grants in the past (8) Invited talks you have given . . . (14,572) Will there be a spousal hire involved? (14,573) Teaching experience They aren't hiring you to do research, they aren't hiring you to mentor or teach, they are hiring you to get grants and build a good collegial environment for them (other professors), and maybe raise the profile of the school overall (which will lead to more funding). The more you teach, the fewer papers you write, and the fewer grants you can apply for and get.
RESPONSE B: Can the candidate bring in money? Preferably large grants. Are they not going to rock the boat? Don't want anyone causing trouble in the department. Published in journals with high enough impact factor? We need to pass those government assessments to keep getting funding! If the answer to these questions is yes, you're in. </cynicism>
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: be able to teach while pursuing my PhD because the research lab I work for is paying for my tuition and stipend and in return I'm supposed to treat my education as if it were a job (so I cannot take on any other jobs, including teaching or grading positions). I'm thinking maybe being an adjunt professor after obtaining my PhD and teaching one class per semester would help me get teaching experience. **TL;DR:** In your experience or from what you've heard, what could someone do to maximize their chance of being selected for a tenure-track professor position in a school of similar of less prestige as a 4-year state university? Thank you!
RESPONSE A: I believe they will assess your application thusly: (1) Do you have funding to bring? (2) How many publications? (3) Where published? (4) Assess research statement for "fit" with dept (5) Assess research statement for clarity, fundability (6) Letters of recommendation (7) Have you had grants in the past (8) Invited talks you have given . . . (14,572) Will there be a spousal hire involved? (14,573) Teaching experience They aren't hiring you to do research, they aren't hiring you to mentor or teach, they are hiring you to get grants and build a good collegial environment for them (other professors), and maybe raise the profile of the school overall (which will lead to more funding). The more you teach, the fewer papers you write, and the fewer grants you can apply for and get.
RESPONSE B: I presume, from the way you asked the question, that you are talking about R1 universities in the US. While it's true they will be looking primarily at research and your ability to fund your research, they won't hire you if there's clear evidence that you are incompetent in the classroom. In other words, you should teach a class per semester while you are doing your PostDoc (ish, depending on the institution; my brother was only expected to teach one a year at Princeton), and get good evaluations for those classes. If what you really want is a tenure track R1 job, you should avoid adjunct teaching like the plague in favour of research fellowships.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: In your field, how would you design the ultimate digital paper-reading assistant? For example, in computer science it might be helpful to have a tool that will keep track of variable name definitions in equations (i.e., highlight all instances of the variable and give definition upon hovering). That way, you don't have to keep searching backwards for what *z* represents. I'm curious what the most annoying part of papers in other fields are. We have so many cool tech tools at our disposal but reading PDFs of papers is still pretty non-interactive.
RESPONSE A: I’d like to have a FOSS version of LiquidText, with support for local syncing, mathjax support, image-to-latex.
RESPONSE B: In biology, I'd love a tool that fetches the relevant text when the materials and methods says "X was performed as previously described [cites old article]". We too frequently have to jump back through a decade of papers to find small but important methodological details. It would be even better if more journals actually enforced writing clear methods sections in the first place, and stop including them in word counts...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: the binding values, what concentrations were used, detailed results data. Admittedly, they are important literature for the project, but he's made some comments lately about us not understanding the literature at all. Feels like I try to keep up with reading and am dedicating a chunk of time currently to reading to get back up to speed, but I'll never remember all the bits he wants :( and on top of that, remembering more broadly the different papers that I've read is a whole other issue! Any advice?
RESPONSE A: A few things to consider. Sometimes reading papers with a clear purpose helps remember. For instance, it sounds like your PI is expecting you to read this handful of papers with the purpose being to find out what specific chemistry assumptions they used, why, and what the effects were. In that case, I'd gloss over the rest of the paper and focus on those. Maybe make a table of just those critical values from just the directly related papers. If there isn't a clear purpose in reading it, then if I want to remember it in any sort of detail, I have to read it like I'm doing a peer review. You're a year 2 so I imagine you haven't done any real peer reviews yet, but just imagine you are a detective wanting to see if their story has consistency, and you really have to dig deep into the methods / results for that; intro/discussion are far less important (after awhile you realize almost all intros in a subfield are basically the same, and the caveats which should be in a discussion can be appreciated in better detail by a very careful examination of the methods/results--the discussion is just a shortcut for this, and a shortcut to hear how the authors' interpret their results, which could be wrong). I'll be honest though, I'm 14 years past-PhD, in a researcher role, and I still don't remember many paper details except when I am currently using them as justification in a paper I'm writing.
RESPONSE B: Try something a bit more visual than an excel spreadsheet. Maybe something like notion or obsidian coupled with Mendeley or Zotero for references.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: How can I read *and remember* papers? Second year PhD in Chemistry, UK. I know this gets asked a lot, how to read papers or organise your notes etc. I have a reasonable system for organising paper notes (an excel spreadsheet method), but I find that I simply can't remember details of papers after reading them. I can go back and look at my notes but then they don't mean as much as reading the paper again so I find I've just been doing that instead. In the recent project meetings I've had with my supervisor he's been quizzing me and my colleague about detailed aspects of papers: what pH ranges did they try, what were the binding values, what concentrations were used, detailed results data. Admittedly, they are important literature for the project, but he's made some comments lately about us not understanding the literature at all. Feels like I try to keep up with reading and am dedicating a chunk of time currently to reading to get back up to speed, but I'll never remember all the bits he wants :( and on top of that, remembering more broadly the different papers that I've read is a whole other issue! Any advice?
RESPONSE A: Try something a bit more visual than an excel spreadsheet. Maybe something like notion or obsidian coupled with Mendeley or Zotero for references.
RESPONSE B: I also struggle quite a bit with this! At the start, I was also using excel spreadsheets, but like you said, I would almost instantly forget details. I've started a B5 sized notebook (so the page is a bit bigger than half an A4), and use 1 page/paper and hand write notes about the paper! I make sure to have a header on each page including the authors, date, and any critical information like pH values or binding energies. Then the rest of the page is for general notes about the paper, and the bottom last 2 lines are for a 1-2 sentence summary of the paper. So far, this system has really helped me out! I think that hand writing notes probably helps me quite a bit (at least more than typing my notes on a computer). Good luck!!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What software do you use for reading papers? To take notes, highlight, tag etc. I have tried various PDF readers but they are not specifically designed for research papers. I recently came across Paperly (https://paperly.app/), which is close to what I was looking for, but unfortunately it is not available for Linux. Any suggestions?
RESPONSE A: I use adobe reader to view the PDF, and microsoft word to write my thoughts about the paper directly into a literature review. Anything else is wasting time.
RESPONSE B: I still print mine out but this looks like a much better substitute! Thanks for sharing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What software do you use for reading papers? To take notes, highlight, tag etc. I have tried various PDF readers but they are not specifically designed for research papers. I recently came across Paperly (https://paperly.app/), which is close to what I was looking for, but unfortunately it is not available for Linux. Any suggestions?
RESPONSE A: I use adobe reader to view the PDF, and microsoft word to write my thoughts about the paper directly into a literature review. Anything else is wasting time.
RESPONSE B: ReadCube for me
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What software do you use for reading papers? To take notes, highlight, tag etc. I have tried various PDF readers but they are not specifically designed for research papers. I recently came across Paperly (https://paperly.app/), which is close to what I was looking for, but unfortunately it is not available for Linux. Any suggestions?
RESPONSE A: I use adobe reader to view the PDF, and microsoft word to write my thoughts about the paper directly into a literature review. Anything else is wasting time.
RESPONSE B: on linux I use Okular for pdf reading, though evince has gotten more advanced...i can use it with Zotero and import comments and highlights.... overall though, readable’s pdf expert for ipad and with Zotero’s zotfile add-on, it lets you sync your pdfs to a cloud service and pdf expert will save your comments and highlights back...and zotfile syncs them in as notes in your zotero library attached to the citation... and
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What software do you use for reading papers? To take notes, highlight, tag etc. I have tried various PDF readers but they are not specifically designed for research papers. I recently came across Paperly (https://paperly.app/), which is close to what I was looking for, but unfortunately it is not available for Linux. Any suggestions?
RESPONSE A: Adobe Reader for reading and annotating the pdfs and Microsoft Onenote for taking quick notes. Onenote can be used for searching your notes instead of searching the pdfs.
RESPONSE B: I used to use Mendeley, but have slowly moved to just printing out dead trees. For some reason stacks of physical paper are easier to "organize" for me than trying to maintain an organizational system digitally.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What software do you use for reading papers? To take notes, highlight, tag etc. I have tried various PDF readers but they are not specifically designed for research papers. I recently came across Paperly (https://paperly.app/), which is close to what I was looking for, but unfortunately it is not available for Linux. Any suggestions?
RESPONSE A: PDF Xchange Editor
RESPONSE B: I used to use Mendeley, but have slowly moved to just printing out dead trees. For some reason stacks of physical paper are easier to "organize" for me than trying to maintain an organizational system digitally.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are possible career options for an astronomer/astrophysicist outside of academia? Hello Reddit! Long time lurker, first time poster and in need of advice about life outside of academia. For context, I am based in northern Europe. I (31M, BS in physics, MS in astrophysics) have obtained my PhD in observational astronomy last year and I am now in the last month of my first postdoc. For a variety of reasons (lack of motivation, loneliness, not willing to relocate often etc.) I decided to leave academia. What I am struggling with right now is not having a clear idea of what are possible career path to undertake, which is holding me back from dedicating myself fully to the job hunt with a positive outlook. So here I am: I would like to ask people that are/have been in a similar position, what career opportunities did you find, where are you now?
RESPONSE A: As long as I know, areas related to Data Science and Financial Market would be pretty easy-going for anyone with a strong background on math.
RESPONSE B: I’m doing my PhD right now in astroparticle physics. I actually don’t mind the relocation, but I hate how academia treats women. I have a lot of other interests around other physical and data sciences. Im going to stay in the field for a while, but after post doc, my number 1 goal is to try to get a permanent appointment at a telescope in Hawaii or the canaries, and if I can’t do that, then I can see myself moving into GIS, like government NOAA or oceanography type stuff. I know a lot of Astro people who leave also go into data science and finance stuff. There’s a lot of money in finance stuff. I won’t do it personally because it seems boring to me and doesn’t really align with my personal values. But if you’re interested in making bank, I would check that out
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are possible career options for an astronomer/astrophysicist outside of academia? Hello Reddit! Long time lurker, first time poster and in need of advice about life outside of academia. For context, I am based in northern Europe. I (31M, BS in physics, MS in astrophysics) have obtained my PhD in observational astronomy last year and I am now in the last month of my first postdoc. For a variety of reasons (lack of motivation, loneliness, not willing to relocate often etc.) I decided to leave academia. What I am struggling with right now is not having a clear idea of what are possible career path to undertake, which is holding me back from dedicating myself fully to the job hunt with a positive outlook. So here I am: I would like to ask people that are/have been in a similar position, what career opportunities did you find, where are you now?
RESPONSE A: As long as I know, areas related to Data Science and Financial Market would be pretty easy-going for anyone with a strong background on math.
RESPONSE B: Another vote for data science, from an extronomer.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are possible career options for an astronomer/astrophysicist outside of academia? Hello Reddit! Long time lurker, first time poster and in need of advice about life outside of academia. For context, I am based in northern Europe. I (31M, BS in physics, MS in astrophysics) have obtained my PhD in observational astronomy last year and I am now in the last month of my first postdoc. For a variety of reasons (lack of motivation, loneliness, not willing to relocate often etc.) I decided to leave academia. What I am struggling with right now is not having a clear idea of what are possible career path to undertake, which is holding me back from dedicating myself fully to the job hunt with a positive outlook. So here I am: I would like to ask people that are/have been in a similar position, what career opportunities did you find, where are you now?
RESPONSE A: I've lots of colleagues with astrophysics backgrounds at the national labs. Astrophysicists tend to have generalist backgrounds that make them well suited for joining multidisciplinary teams.
RESPONSE B: As long as I know, areas related to Data Science and Financial Market would be pretty easy-going for anyone with a strong background on math.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are some words you use everyday that's only used in your field/academia?
RESPONSE A: Aliquot, aliquot, aliquot. It's such a useful word! Why it isn't more common outside of academia is a complete mystery to me.
RESPONSE B: Peer and aspirational schools. People are all about what other institutions are doing. Original ideas don't get much traction, but if another school is doing it, well that's something worth thinking about.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are some words you use everyday that's only used in your field/academia?
RESPONSE A: Angiogenesis, vasculogenesis, tubulogenesis.
RESPONSE B: Aliquot, aliquot, aliquot. It's such a useful word! Why it isn't more common outside of academia is a complete mystery to me.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are some words you use everyday that's only used in your field/academia?
RESPONSE A: Stoichiometry: relating to the elemental content of organisms or water Autochthony: internal system primary production Allochthony: external system primary production They're all fun to say too :-)
RESPONSE B: "Thingness". And yes, it's a thing.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are some words you use everyday that's only used in your field/academia?
RESPONSE A: Hermenutic. Contingency. Agency. Causality. Historicize. Not field-related, but "calendric" comes up often in faculty meetings: "We'll have to consider the calendric impacts of changing the lab schedule."
RESPONSE B: Kairos, phronesis, uptake...
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: PhD Poli Sci- What are/were your backup plans if academia doesn't pan out? Hello , applying to poli sci phd this year, specifically in the field of qualitative IPE study. My undergrad advisor professor warned of how difficult tenure academia positions are to find, and recommended I ask current Poli Sci PhDs about their "backup plans" if academia doesn't pan out. I have a genuine love for political theory and research and really only see myself working in an academic research setting, so I'm curious to hear what I might have to settle for if things don't pan out. Thank you!
RESPONSE A: I was very interested in EU Studies, especially towards External Border Management. I did my MSc thesis on Frontex, but overall I wasn't good enough to get considered for paid PhD positions or junior research positions at think tanks. After getting a few rejections, I simply didn't have the financial background to keep applying, so I found an internship in the private sector that is promising for my career development. Not as fulfilling, but have to be pragmatic after a certain point.
RESPONSE B: Don't do it. Get an MPP, or an M.S. in economics or applied statistics. Libraries have books on political theory that you can read for free.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are some of the best movies about Academia?
RESPONSE A: Real Genius is the only acceptable answer here.
RESPONSE B: David Attenborough's documentary where the lion chases the baby Gazelle and it really has no chance to survive but every once in a while there's one who does and you're really hoping this one will have a happy ending but it doesn't and humanity is destroying the world. A bit heavy on the metaphor, but very well done.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are some of the best movies about Academia?
RESPONSE A: I thought _Tenure_ (2008) was amusing at times. I don't know if it's the "best." But if you're trying to explain to someone who doesn't know what academia is how it works, it gets some parts of it surprisingly on the nose.
RESPONSE B: David Attenborough's documentary where the lion chases the baby Gazelle and it really has no chance to survive but every once in a while there's one who does and you're really hoping this one will have a happy ending but it doesn't and humanity is destroying the world. A bit heavy on the metaphor, but very well done.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: What are some of the best movies about Academia?
RESPONSE A: Not a serious movie, but oddly rings true at some parts: Real Genius.
RESPONSE B: David Attenborough's documentary where the lion chases the baby Gazelle and it really has no chance to survive but every once in a while there's one who does and you're really hoping this one will have a happy ending but it doesn't and humanity is destroying the world. A bit heavy on the metaphor, but very well done.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are some of the best movies about Academia?
RESPONSE A: David Attenborough's documentary where the lion chases the baby Gazelle and it really has no chance to survive but every once in a while there's one who does and you're really hoping this one will have a happy ending but it doesn't and humanity is destroying the world. A bit heavy on the metaphor, but very well done.
RESPONSE B: The paper chase is on my to watch list, but I don't think that quite counts.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: What are some of the best movies about Academia?
RESPONSE A: David Attenborough's documentary where the lion chases the baby Gazelle and it really has no chance to survive but every once in a while there's one who does and you're really hoping this one will have a happy ending but it doesn't and humanity is destroying the world. A bit heavy on the metaphor, but very well done.
RESPONSE B: A documentary by BBC Horizon called Fermat's Last Theorem was great.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: from the past. It just feels really weird. In advanced classes I can at least try to balance my examples, but in introductory classes that are rooted in late 19 century science I quickly start to feel really guilty. I don't want to hide from this topic, I want to comment on it. But I also really don't want to be "mansplaining" things or saying things that are not true. I thought that maybe if I read 20 books dedicated to women in academia, it could give me a more natural approach to this topic. I read a lot about what is going on in the academia _now_, and obviously I talk to people, but I feel like I need to learn the history of sexism and anti-sexism in academia much better. So I'll be grateful for your suggestions! Thank you! (I'll probably x-post to /r/professors)
RESPONSE A: A decent collection of personal essays about being a "geeky" woman (mostly about being professional scientists) is *She's Such a Geek!: Women Write About Science, Technology & Other Nerdy Stuff*.
RESPONSE B: Historian here-- I always teach a biography of Rachel Carson in my environmental history classes, which often enroll female science majors. Linda Lear's *Rachel Carson: Witness for Nature* is the best, but it's 600+ pages. I can highly recommend Mark Lytle's *The Gentle Subversive: Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, and the Rise of the Environmental Movement* as a much shorter alternative. In between in length, and most recently published, is William Souder's *On a Farther Shore: The Life and Legacy of Rachel Carson, Author of Silent Spring*. Students really enjoy Carson's story and her battle against the petrochemical industry after *Silent Spring* was published, fought as she herself was dying from cancer. But the art of her life before *Silent Spring* is just as compelling, and none of the students know that going in-- she was a groundbreaking scientist in many ways, and struggled throughout her career due to her gender in a field dominated by men.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Anyone else seeing lots of trolls in subdiscipline subreddits? I don't know if this happens in subdiscipline subs, but both r/genetics and r/evolution have a lot of (I assume outsiders/trolls) baiting people into discussions of either eugenics or "if evolution is true why does X happen". It's so frequent that it makes academic Twitter seem more friendly. Does this happen in other disciplines, for example do social science subs get hit with troll bait around "Cultural Marxism" or CRT?
RESPONSE A: Also happens in meteorology and weather about climate change.
RESPONSE B: AskHistorians is awesome... but they have the strictest moderation in existence, which leads to 1) the highest quality on Reddit and 2) literally countless abandoned and deleted threads, to the point where purged comments outnumber actual content 80:1.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Anyone else seeing lots of trolls in subdiscipline subreddits? I don't know if this happens in subdiscipline subs, but both r/genetics and r/evolution have a lot of (I assume outsiders/trolls) baiting people into discussions of either eugenics or "if evolution is true why does X happen". It's so frequent that it makes academic Twitter seem more friendly. Does this happen in other disciplines, for example do social science subs get hit with troll bait around "Cultural Marxism" or CRT?
RESPONSE A: AskHistorians is awesome... but they have the strictest moderation in existence, which leads to 1) the highest quality on Reddit and 2) literally countless abandoned and deleted threads, to the point where purged comments outnumber actual content 80:1.
RESPONSE B: I would posit that it's essentially ignorance on their part. Specifically, they don't realize how complex these issues are and how scientific theories are created, tested, and modified or how scientific evidence is gathered, evaluated, and compared with theoretical predictions. With regards to, for example, evolution, it's not a binary yes or no. We do have a wealth of evidence for it, but suppose we did find some evidence that disagreed with what we believe to be true. We would not just throw out the entire theory on a whim. Instead, we have to realize that we've got some aspect of our theory that's too simplistic and overgeneralizing or making some other sort of error. In other words, the phenomenon is more complex than previously thought. Another example of this is Einstein's theory is general relativity and Newton's theory of gravitation. Newton's theory holds for many circumstances, but for certain phenomena, Einstein's theory gives values that align more accurately with reality.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Anyone else seeing lots of trolls in subdiscipline subreddits? I don't know if this happens in subdiscipline subs, but both r/genetics and r/evolution have a lot of (I assume outsiders/trolls) baiting people into discussions of either eugenics or "if evolution is true why does X happen". It's so frequent that it makes academic Twitter seem more friendly. Does this happen in other disciplines, for example do social science subs get hit with troll bait around "Cultural Marxism" or CRT?
RESPONSE A: Must be nice to be in a discipline popular enough to even attract trolls lol
RESPONSE B: Also happens in meteorology and weather about climate change.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Anyone else seeing lots of trolls in subdiscipline subreddits? I don't know if this happens in subdiscipline subs, but both r/genetics and r/evolution have a lot of (I assume outsiders/trolls) baiting people into discussions of either eugenics or "if evolution is true why does X happen". It's so frequent that it makes academic Twitter seem more friendly. Does this happen in other disciplines, for example do social science subs get hit with troll bait around "Cultural Marxism" or CRT?
RESPONSE A: Must be nice to be in a discipline popular enough to even attract trolls lol
RESPONSE B: I would posit that it's essentially ignorance on their part. Specifically, they don't realize how complex these issues are and how scientific theories are created, tested, and modified or how scientific evidence is gathered, evaluated, and compared with theoretical predictions. With regards to, for example, evolution, it's not a binary yes or no. We do have a wealth of evidence for it, but suppose we did find some evidence that disagreed with what we believe to be true. We would not just throw out the entire theory on a whim. Instead, we have to realize that we've got some aspect of our theory that's too simplistic and overgeneralizing or making some other sort of error. In other words, the phenomenon is more complex than previously thought. Another example of this is Einstein's theory is general relativity and Newton's theory of gravitation. Newton's theory holds for many circumstances, but for certain phenomena, Einstein's theory gives values that align more accurately with reality.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Advice sought on job application Hi all. About 12 months ago I interviewed for a mid-career position (and my dream job) at a UK university. Although the interviews went well, I wasn’t offered the role. Obviously disappointing, but the head of school was kind enough to give me some very useful feedback on my interview performance. Recently the same university advertised a similar role: a role for which I’d be equally qualified. Given how far I got last time, and given that I’ve had some pretty significant additions to my CV over the last 12 months (additions that should offset at least some of the shortcomings in my previous application), I’m intending to again submit an application. However, I’m not sure what the norms are in a case like this: whether my previous application will prove a problem (formally or otherwise), or the extent to which I should highlight that this application differs from the last one, or whatever else. Given that, I’m wondering if anyone has any experience applying to a job under these circumstances. I’d really appreciate your thoughts; thanks!
RESPONSE A: AFTDJ. Apply for the dam job.
RESPONSE B: I’ve been on several search committees where our second or third choice has been a great catch, and we’ve thought “wish we had a second opening to offer #2” or “hope they see that ad we will post next year. “ Apply!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Advice sought on job application Hi all. About 12 months ago I interviewed for a mid-career position (and my dream job) at a UK university. Although the interviews went well, I wasn’t offered the role. Obviously disappointing, but the head of school was kind enough to give me some very useful feedback on my interview performance. Recently the same university advertised a similar role: a role for which I’d be equally qualified. Given how far I got last time, and given that I’ve had some pretty significant additions to my CV over the last 12 months (additions that should offset at least some of the shortcomings in my previous application), I’m intending to again submit an application. However, I’m not sure what the norms are in a case like this: whether my previous application will prove a problem (formally or otherwise), or the extent to which I should highlight that this application differs from the last one, or whatever else. Given that, I’m wondering if anyone has any experience applying to a job under these circumstances. I’d really appreciate your thoughts; thanks!
RESPONSE A: It's normal to get repeat applications. No need to do anything different or even mention it in your application materials. It's not going to hurt your chances (i.e., applying again), it might help.
RESPONSE B: Even if the advertised role is similar, the expectations might be different or your application reviewer could be different this time. Also, we at times romanticise too much with a job which we didn’t get before. Of course the OP needs to apply without thinking too much about it. The OP will either get the job, or will find out what was missing in their CV or will realise that this role is a fantasy and something better is out there.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Advice sought on job application Hi all. About 12 months ago I interviewed for a mid-career position (and my dream job) at a UK university. Although the interviews went well, I wasn’t offered the role. Obviously disappointing, but the head of school was kind enough to give me some very useful feedback on my interview performance. Recently the same university advertised a similar role: a role for which I’d be equally qualified. Given how far I got last time, and given that I’ve had some pretty significant additions to my CV over the last 12 months (additions that should offset at least some of the shortcomings in my previous application), I’m intending to again submit an application. However, I’m not sure what the norms are in a case like this: whether my previous application will prove a problem (formally or otherwise), or the extent to which I should highlight that this application differs from the last one, or whatever else. Given that, I’m wondering if anyone has any experience applying to a job under these circumstances. I’d really appreciate your thoughts; thanks!
RESPONSE A: It's normal to get repeat applications. No need to do anything different or even mention it in your application materials. It's not going to hurt your chances (i.e., applying again), it might help.
RESPONSE B: I do a lot of recruitment (mostly senior non-academic roles but also faculty). A good application, tailored to the job and hitting all the right points is a good application hitting all the right points. If you'd bombed previously, I might have reservations, but just because you didn't get the job doesn't in itself mean I wouldn't be interested in you for another role. I just did a recruitment this week - we interviewed four candidates and I would happily hear from the 2nd and 3rd ranked candidates again.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Advice sought on job application Hi all. About 12 months ago I interviewed for a mid-career position (and my dream job) at a UK university. Although the interviews went well, I wasn’t offered the role. Obviously disappointing, but the head of school was kind enough to give me some very useful feedback on my interview performance. Recently the same university advertised a similar role: a role for which I’d be equally qualified. Given how far I got last time, and given that I’ve had some pretty significant additions to my CV over the last 12 months (additions that should offset at least some of the shortcomings in my previous application), I’m intending to again submit an application. However, I’m not sure what the norms are in a case like this: whether my previous application will prove a problem (formally or otherwise), or the extent to which I should highlight that this application differs from the last one, or whatever else. Given that, I’m wondering if anyone has any experience applying to a job under these circumstances. I’d really appreciate your thoughts; thanks!
RESPONSE A: Don't bother highlighting any differences, just apply to it like any other job with your strongest cover letter/CV etc. Nobody reading it will remember the details from the last time. However, if the feedback indicated particular areas for improvement which you feel you have subsequently made, you could focus on these in the cover letter etc. Also, nobody else commenting here has bothered to read what you actually asked, lol
RESPONSE B: Even if the advertised role is similar, the expectations might be different or your application reviewer could be different this time. Also, we at times romanticise too much with a job which we didn’t get before. Of course the OP needs to apply without thinking too much about it. The OP will either get the job, or will find out what was missing in their CV or will realise that this role is a fantasy and something better is out there.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: a mid-career position (and my dream job) at a UK university. Although the interviews went well, I wasn’t offered the role. Obviously disappointing, but the head of school was kind enough to give me some very useful feedback on my interview performance. Recently the same university advertised a similar role: a role for which I’d be equally qualified. Given how far I got last time, and given that I’ve had some pretty significant additions to my CV over the last 12 months (additions that should offset at least some of the shortcomings in my previous application), I’m intending to again submit an application. However, I’m not sure what the norms are in a case like this: whether my previous application will prove a problem (formally or otherwise), or the extent to which I should highlight that this application differs from the last one, or whatever else. Given that, I’m wondering if anyone has any experience applying to a job under these circumstances. I’d really appreciate your thoughts; thanks!
RESPONSE A: In the US this wouldn't make a difference-- apply again as if you'd never applied previously. Don't mention having applied before; the search committee will almost certainly be different. If we *rejected* someone in the past the odds are they'd be rejected again, but if they were short-listed and the new position is a similar fit for their qualifications they'd likely make the cut for the interview. There would be no prejudice or impact from a prior interview otherwise in most cases, though I've seen situations where someone who came in 2nd or 3rd in a prior search made a really good impression and people are glad when they apply for a later posting. I have no idea how things work in the UK though.
RESPONSE B: Even if the advertised role is similar, the expectations might be different or your application reviewer could be different this time. Also, we at times romanticise too much with a job which we didn’t get before. Of course the OP needs to apply without thinking too much about it. The OP will either get the job, or will find out what was missing in their CV or will realise that this role is a fantasy and something better is out there.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: 2) Teaching a new class (which means all new material), 3) Service work (I'm president of a student org), 4) Prepare for qualifying exams (have to write a survey paper and give an oral defense by next Fall), 5) taking 1 class This workload seems to be pretty standard. Not everyone is teaching a class, but most are TA's so they still have teaching responsibilities. Not all students are involved in service so they might not have that. I'm wondering how similar this workload is to the workload of a tenure-track position at a teaching or a research university?
RESPONSE A: I agree, it's been more work. I'm in my fifth year, and am going for early tenure this term. This term I have five classes (including two 45 seat online grad classes), a pretty heavy research agenda and my usual service load (I'm on seven committees, but only three are a real time commitment) plus a search committee in my department. Honestly, it doesn't even feel like a lot at this point. You also get more support (technology, travel money, etc.) to do your work, and I've found my research more gratifying in general.
RESPONSE B: I'd like to provide a different perspective. I'm an assistant professor of chemistry at an R1 research university in the U.S. I have a research group of ~8-10 people (depending on the month). I'd say that my work-load now is equal to that which I put in as a grad student (i.e. ~8:30 to ~5:30 weekdays; no work on weekends). Of course, it's *very* different work, as I haven't stepped foot in the lab (to an experiment) for a long time. I teach 1 class per semester and serve on 1-2 committees, so the vast majority of my work is mentoring my students/postdocs, writing papers, and applying for grants. A lot of how hard you work depends on how you feel about writing. If you don't like writing, you're gonna have a bad time. I *love* it, so it never quite even feels like work.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Publishing in an unknown journal? I can't find much information about this journal and the articles I could don't seem to have much citations. There is also a fee of $100. As I don't have a lot of experience with journal publishing, would it be better to publish here or not (that is, would it help or hurt my PhD chances)? Also is the fees an egregious amount or standard? Does it seem predatory?
RESPONSE A: Based only on a cursory glance of the website, I would stay well clear of this 'journal'. Just the list of topics of interest is comical honestly, way too broad and unfocussed.
RESPONSE B: Generally, peer reviewed journals don't charge fee unless you want to make it open access. Check in Scimago/Scopus whether it's a recognized journal or not. It's better to improve the work and publish in a standard journal rather than sending it to a bogus journal.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Publishing in an unknown journal? I can't find much information about this journal and the articles I could don't seem to have much citations. There is also a fee of $100. As I don't have a lot of experience with journal publishing, would it be better to publish here or not (that is, would it help or hurt my PhD chances)? Also is the fees an egregious amount or standard? Does it seem predatory?
RESPONSE A: Are you currently in undergrad? Are you working with a professor? Generally, the professor you do research with will take care of any journal fees…
RESPONSE B: Based only on a cursory glance of the website, I would stay well clear of this 'journal'. Just the list of topics of interest is comical honestly, way too broad and unfocussed.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Publishing in an unknown journal? I can't find much information about this journal and the articles I could don't seem to have much citations. There is also a fee of $100. As I don't have a lot of experience with journal publishing, would it be better to publish here or not (that is, would it help or hurt my PhD chances)? Also is the fees an egregious amount or standard? Does it seem predatory?
RESPONSE A: First of, taking a look at the 'accepted papers' shows that they only have a single article. Compare that to the long list of the members of the editorial board, and it looks very off. Also the official journal email adress coming from yahoo does not really point towards a very professional journal. This is either a journal which will scam you out of 100$ or a very new journal which is trying to be part of the scientific publication market, neither of which you'd want to publish in. It is always a good idea to look for journals in which your colleagues publish or where a lot of your citations come from.
RESPONSE B: 1. The scrolling bar at the top which says "only good quality papers will be accepted" 2. The name makes no sense in English 3. A PO box in Bangalore. 4. A yahoo email address for contacts
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Publishing in an unknown journal? I can't find much information about this journal and the articles I could don't seem to have much citations. There is also a fee of $100. As I don't have a lot of experience with journal publishing, would it be better to publish here or not (that is, would it help or hurt my PhD chances)? Also is the fees an egregious amount or standard? Does it seem predatory?
RESPONSE A: 1. The scrolling bar at the top which says "only good quality papers will be accepted" 2. The name makes no sense in English 3. A PO box in Bangalore. 4. A yahoo email address for contacts
RESPONSE B: Adding to what's been said, there are also all kinds of typos on this site, each of which you should see as a red flag warning you to stay away.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Publishing in an unknown journal? I can't find much information about this journal and the articles I could don't seem to have much citations. There is also a fee of $100. As I don't have a lot of experience with journal publishing, would it be better to publish here or not (that is, would it help or hurt my PhD chances)? Also is the fees an egregious amount or standard? Does it seem predatory?
RESPONSE A: 1. The scrolling bar at the top which says "only good quality papers will be accepted" 2. The name makes no sense in English 3. A PO box in Bangalore. 4. A yahoo email address for contacts
RESPONSE B: Generally, peer reviewed journals don't charge fee unless you want to make it open access. Check in Scimago/Scopus whether it's a recognized journal or not. It's better to improve the work and publish in a standard journal rather than sending it to a bogus journal.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it okay to do a personal/side project in a full-time postdoc position without letting the supervisor know? I am doing a postdoc in computer science. I kind of lose interests in the project after 1.5 year, but I still keep trying to be productive (2 papers accepted). I was doing a side projectby myself from like half year ago. The side project is not quite relevant to the funded project. The result is interesting and I think it's publishable. I am considering submitting it to a conference without letting him know, as I am concerned that my supervisor would be upset as he might think it's a full-time job and I should not do any other side project. Any advice? thanks
RESPONSE A: Unless you have a contact saying you can't do outside work, there is no reason you can't do that. Just do it on your own time and don't use your lab's resources.
RESPONSE B: I am actually flabbergasted that this needs to be discussed at all. The funding agency, and through them the supervisor, employs you to do a job. You can’t just “lose interest” and do something else — it’s not like a PhD where the only one who bears the consequences is yourself. The supervisor is in it with their good name and the promises they made to the funding body. The grant output may be evaluated — it therefore matters wether it is 2 or 3 papers for example. Tbh, this all sounds like very shitty behaviour of yourself. I can only hope the supervisor is completely happy with the progress so far. Grant holders constantly worry that they can pull off everything they promised, and a post doc that subtly sabotages the work by secretly giving less than they are paid for is a massive problem.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it okay to do a personal/side project in a full-time postdoc position without letting the supervisor know? I am doing a postdoc in computer science. I kind of lose interests in the project after 1.5 year, but I still keep trying to be productive (2 papers accepted). I was doing a side projectby myself from like half year ago. The side project is not quite relevant to the funded project. The result is interesting and I think it's publishable. I am considering submitting it to a conference without letting him know, as I am concerned that my supervisor would be upset as he might think it's a full-time job and I should not do any other side project. Any advice? thanks
RESPONSE A: I am actually flabbergasted that this needs to be discussed at all. The funding agency, and through them the supervisor, employs you to do a job. You can’t just “lose interest” and do something else — it’s not like a PhD where the only one who bears the consequences is yourself. The supervisor is in it with their good name and the promises they made to the funding body. The grant output may be evaluated — it therefore matters wether it is 2 or 3 papers for example. Tbh, this all sounds like very shitty behaviour of yourself. I can only hope the supervisor is completely happy with the progress so far. Grant holders constantly worry that they can pull off everything they promised, and a post doc that subtly sabotages the work by secretly giving less than they are paid for is a massive problem.
RESPONSE B: This will come back to bite you. Why not involve your advisor?
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it okay if my undergrad research unrelated to desired graduate research? I’m a junior neuroscience major with zero research experience who just accepted an offer to work at a lab in the fall. The lab is doing research on a completely different organ than the brain/NS (I don’t want to be too specific and risk doxxing myself). I am very excited about this research but am concerned that I will have trouble getting into neuroscience masters/PhD programs because I am not working in a neuroscience lab. Should I be concerned? I’m worried that I won’t even have time to work at a lab doing neuro research since I’m already a junior.
RESPONSE A: Lots of schools don't even have an undergrad neuroscience major, so any research experience you have will be helpful.
RESPONSE B: My PhD research is unrelated to my Master's research which was unrelated to my undergrad research. Relax
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it okay if my undergrad research unrelated to desired graduate research? I’m a junior neuroscience major with zero research experience who just accepted an offer to work at a lab in the fall. The lab is doing research on a completely different organ than the brain/NS (I don’t want to be too specific and risk doxxing myself). I am very excited about this research but am concerned that I will have trouble getting into neuroscience masters/PhD programs because I am not working in a neuroscience lab. Should I be concerned? I’m worried that I won’t even have time to work at a lab doing neuro research since I’m already a junior.
RESPONSE A: I changed my field of research after my PhD (a major change), so I guess it wouldn’t be a problem.
RESPONSE B: My PhD research is unrelated to my Master's research which was unrelated to my undergrad research. Relax
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Is it okay if my undergrad research unrelated to desired graduate research? I’m a junior neuroscience major with zero research experience who just accepted an offer to work at a lab in the fall. The lab is doing research on a completely different organ than the brain/NS (I don’t want to be too specific and risk doxxing myself). I am very excited about this research but am concerned that I will have trouble getting into neuroscience masters/PhD programs because I am not working in a neuroscience lab. Should I be concerned? I’m worried that I won’t even have time to work at a lab doing neuro research since I’m already a junior.
RESPONSE A: I changed my field of research after my PhD (a major change), so I guess it wouldn’t be a problem.
RESPONSE B: For the most part, research experience is research experience. You will learn important lab skills working in a biology/physiology lab that will translate to working in a neuroscience lab in grad school. If anyone during an interview asked you about your choice working in that lab, you say what you said in the other post, this was the lab that was hiring at the time. It can be hard to find a position so everyone will understand that you have to take what you can take sometime. The important thing is that you get in a lab and do your best. My undergrad research experience before going into a neuroscience grad program was in an organic chemistry lab and then doing survey research in a psychology lab.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it okay if my undergrad research unrelated to desired graduate research? I’m a junior neuroscience major with zero research experience who just accepted an offer to work at a lab in the fall. The lab is doing research on a completely different organ than the brain/NS (I don’t want to be too specific and risk doxxing myself). I am very excited about this research but am concerned that I will have trouble getting into neuroscience masters/PhD programs because I am not working in a neuroscience lab. Should I be concerned? I’m worried that I won’t even have time to work at a lab doing neuro research since I’m already a junior.
RESPONSE A: For the most part, research experience is research experience. You will learn important lab skills working in a biology/physiology lab that will translate to working in a neuroscience lab in grad school. If anyone during an interview asked you about your choice working in that lab, you say what you said in the other post, this was the lab that was hiring at the time. It can be hard to find a position so everyone will understand that you have to take what you can take sometime. The important thing is that you get in a lab and do your best. My undergrad research experience before going into a neuroscience grad program was in an organic chemistry lab and then doing survey research in a psychology lab.
RESPONSE B: Yes it’s fine. No don’t be concerned.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it okay if my undergrad research unrelated to desired graduate research? I’m a junior neuroscience major with zero research experience who just accepted an offer to work at a lab in the fall. The lab is doing research on a completely different organ than the brain/NS (I don’t want to be too specific and risk doxxing myself). I am very excited about this research but am concerned that I will have trouble getting into neuroscience masters/PhD programs because I am not working in a neuroscience lab. Should I be concerned? I’m worried that I won’t even have time to work at a lab doing neuro research since I’m already a junior.
RESPONSE A: For the most part, research experience is research experience. You will learn important lab skills working in a biology/physiology lab that will translate to working in a neuroscience lab in grad school. If anyone during an interview asked you about your choice working in that lab, you say what you said in the other post, this was the lab that was hiring at the time. It can be hard to find a position so everyone will understand that you have to take what you can take sometime. The important thing is that you get in a lab and do your best. My undergrad research experience before going into a neuroscience grad program was in an organic chemistry lab and then doing survey research in a psychology lab.
RESPONSE B: Perfectly fine. I would even say breadth is encouraged as you're developing your research interests.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Professors (and students), did you ever cheat in undergrad? Did you ever do something you regret in terms of academic honesty? Were you punished for that, or did it go unnoticed? Has that informed the way you deal with academic dishonesty in your own classes?
RESPONSE A: No, but as an anecdote, the course I TA'd the most in grad school had more instances of cheating than all other phys courses combined. It was Physics for Life Sciences, a lot of first years in pre-med and stuff who thought: a) they were already medical doctors, b) physicists were impressed by medical doctors. So there were a lot of students who went through this disconnect between, I think, their view of themselves, and the fact that they were terrible at physics. Anyway, the thing that bugged me the most wasn't the cheating, but HOW BAD THEY WERE AT CHEATING. It was seriously facepalm city and there were a number of incidents where the whole thing was so stupid I didn't even bother reporting it. Like, three of them would be sitting in a row and all super obviously copying off each other. The department's policy was to let them finish and just make a mark on their papers when they hand it in and then decide what to do. So I collect them all and mark them and they all have the same answers and I mark it all up and... they all got 63%. Like what was the point in that? I coulda turned them in to teach them some life lesson or something but I couldn't be bothered with the effort. You idiots know you're supposed to copy of a smart person right? Like that's pretty basic. So anyway, having TA'd that course over 8 times I'm still not sure if I'm more concerned at the amount "future doctors" cheat, or how they can be so comically bad at it.
RESPONSE B: No. And I expect my students not to cheat either.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Professors (and students), did you ever cheat in undergrad? Did you ever do something you regret in terms of academic honesty? Were you punished for that, or did it go unnoticed? Has that informed the way you deal with academic dishonesty in your own classes?
RESPONSE A: No, but as an anecdote, the course I TA'd the most in grad school had more instances of cheating than all other phys courses combined. It was Physics for Life Sciences, a lot of first years in pre-med and stuff who thought: a) they were already medical doctors, b) physicists were impressed by medical doctors. So there were a lot of students who went through this disconnect between, I think, their view of themselves, and the fact that they were terrible at physics. Anyway, the thing that bugged me the most wasn't the cheating, but HOW BAD THEY WERE AT CHEATING. It was seriously facepalm city and there were a number of incidents where the whole thing was so stupid I didn't even bother reporting it. Like, three of them would be sitting in a row and all super obviously copying off each other. The department's policy was to let them finish and just make a mark on their papers when they hand it in and then decide what to do. So I collect them all and mark them and they all have the same answers and I mark it all up and... they all got 63%. Like what was the point in that? I coulda turned them in to teach them some life lesson or something but I couldn't be bothered with the effort. You idiots know you're supposed to copy of a smart person right? Like that's pretty basic. So anyway, having TA'd that course over 8 times I'm still not sure if I'm more concerned at the amount "future doctors" cheat, or how they can be so comically bad at it.
RESPONSE B: No.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Professors (and students), did you ever cheat in undergrad? Did you ever do something you regret in terms of academic honesty? Were you punished for that, or did it go unnoticed? Has that informed the way you deal with academic dishonesty in your own classes?
RESPONSE A: No. I realized if my goal is to get a PhD, I need to shape up for it. No shortcuts.
RESPONSE B: I once used some secondary sources as primary sources in an undergrad paper... we'vegotabadassoverhere.jpg
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: hang out right outside professors' offices? I hate living alone and don't get any work done in my house, so I like to bring my laptop and books to a nearby academic building (the one for my major), stake out a couch or table and work there for hours. I do this most days. I've chosen my major's building as my 'headquarters' because I like it. Now, for me, it's kind of fun to bump into professors and say hello. But, I never see other students hanging out in this building, and I'm afraid the local professors now think I'm a stalker. Professors, if you see your student camped out with their laptop on a couch just a few doors down from your office almost every day -- like, late at night and for hours at a time -- would you feel slightly uncomfortable? Would you feel like they were stalking you? Should I stop doing this, or is there any appropriate way to say, "hey, prof! FYI I'm not stalking you!"
RESPONSE A: absolutely no problem at all. A friendly 'Hello' or a wave is nice. However, if you say "hey prof i'm not stalking you' then it gets a bit weird, imho. You can also find other places too, libraries are great, your cafeterias, student halls, etc. You might meet more people in those areas as well, and make some great friends.
RESPONSE B: I’ve had students who were broke and couldn’t afford the textbook. I had them come to office hours and read it there or I’d make copies of the chapter needed and they’d read it there. In my building there are tables where students are welcome to study on the second floor aka where all the offices are. That said, I’m the kind of person that asks people out to lunch and offers to drive people to the airport. I’m all for people hanging out and creating a more collaborative space. But I’m also sure there are jerk professors in some departments that would yell at the idea that someone in the building is talking. They’re the kind of people who slam their doors instead of putting on headphones.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Is it weird for an undergrad to hang out right outside professors' offices? I hate living alone and don't get any work done in my house, so I like to bring my laptop and books to a nearby academic building (the one for my major), stake out a couch or table and work there for hours. I do this most days. I've chosen my major's building as my 'headquarters' because I like it. Now, for me, it's kind of fun to bump into professors and say hello. But, I never see other students hanging out in this building, and I'm afraid the local professors now think I'm a stalker. Professors, if you see your student camped out with their laptop on a couch just a few doors down from your office almost every day -- like, late at night and for hours at a time -- would you feel slightly uncomfortable? Would you feel like they were stalking you? Should I stop doing this, or is there any appropriate way to say, "hey, prof! FYI I'm not stalking you!"
RESPONSE A: absolutely no problem at all. A friendly 'Hello' or a wave is nice. However, if you say "hey prof i'm not stalking you' then it gets a bit weird, imho. You can also find other places too, libraries are great, your cafeterias, student halls, etc. You might meet more people in those areas as well, and make some great friends.
RESPONSE B: My department is packed with students who ‘camp out’ in any available spot for hours on end. (Our building is cozy and nice) I’ve been spending a lot of time in a a different building on campus this semester though and it seems like absolutely no one spends any time there and I feel weird being the only person there for hours on end sometimes. Overall though it’s definitely not weird. Some buildings are just less congregational than others.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Can I teach student courses using material taken from the internet? I don't see anything against it... But I know that academia is "weird" about re-using material. Basically, I've been asked to tutor a lab course about introduction to image processing in python. As you know, preparing all the course material from scratch is something which is super-long and tedious. I've found two perfect courses, with a full set of exercises and data to run the exercises on, on github, from a very reputable source. The material has a MIT license so I can re-use it freely, as long as the author of the material is concerned. What about my side? Am I (legally or "morally") required to write all the material by myself?
RESPONSE A: As others have said it's fine if there's no licensing or permissions issue. That said, if your students find out you can expect really poor class evaluations so you may want to think of some way of mitigating that - I'd suggest being open about the basis of the materials, clear about why reuse is ok in this instance and supplementing the basic material with some additional stuff. You only have to spend a few weeks on this sub and I guarantee you'll see a post from an unhappy student whose professor is using material sourced from the internet. They're paying high fees and rightly or wrongly expect more than what they could get free from the internet.
RESPONSE B: My Chemical Informatics lab had lecturers do this. They provided us with links to the original material and encouraged further reading using it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Can I teach student courses using material taken from the internet? I don't see anything against it... But I know that academia is "weird" about re-using material. Basically, I've been asked to tutor a lab course about introduction to image processing in python. As you know, preparing all the course material from scratch is something which is super-long and tedious. I've found two perfect courses, with a full set of exercises and data to run the exercises on, on github, from a very reputable source. The material has a MIT license so I can re-use it freely, as long as the author of the material is concerned. What about my side? Am I (legally or "morally") required to write all the material by myself?
RESPONSE A: As others have said it's fine if there's no licensing or permissions issue. That said, if your students find out you can expect really poor class evaluations so you may want to think of some way of mitigating that - I'd suggest being open about the basis of the materials, clear about why reuse is ok in this instance and supplementing the basic material with some additional stuff. You only have to spend a few weeks on this sub and I guarantee you'll see a post from an unhappy student whose professor is using material sourced from the internet. They're paying high fees and rightly or wrongly expect more than what they could get free from the internet.
RESPONSE B: I think that's even better, an opportunity to discuss re-use and open-source.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: Can I teach student courses using material taken from the internet? I don't see anything against it... But I know that academia is "weird" about re-using material. Basically, I've been asked to tutor a lab course about introduction to image processing in python. As you know, preparing all the course material from scratch is something which is super-long and tedious. I've found two perfect courses, with a full set of exercises and data to run the exercises on, on github, from a very reputable source. The material has a MIT license so I can re-use it freely, as long as the author of the material is concerned. What about my side? Am I (legally or "morally") required to write all the material by myself?
RESPONSE A: There are multiple classes and colleges that use my recorded lectures as required, recommended, or reference materials for their classes. My Youtube channel gives me the domain names of the visits, and I can tell from the systematic uptick at certain times plus the domain names that these clicks are coming from classes (and sometimes a Google search will further verify this). I don't mind. I have my pieces up on the Youtube channel for anyone who wants to watch them. I do toy with the idea of adding these courses to my C.V. in some way.
RESPONSE B: I think that's even better, an opportunity to discuss re-use and open-source.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: Can I teach student courses using material taken from the internet? I don't see anything against it... But I know that academia is "weird" about re-using material. Basically, I've been asked to tutor a lab course about introduction to image processing in python. As you know, preparing all the course material from scratch is something which is super-long and tedious. I've found two perfect courses, with a full set of exercises and data to run the exercises on, on github, from a very reputable source. The material has a MIT license so I can re-use it freely, as long as the author of the material is concerned. What about my side? Am I (legally or "morally") required to write all the material by myself?
RESPONSE A: I just gave a lecture/class on Brazilian agriculture that mostly used slides I pulled from Statista over lunch. I cited them all. No reason to do anything more. I'd say the same applied to OP's material-- cite it and use it. Ultimately I took a half-dozen slides and we spent 45 minutes discussing them, so I certainly did my part.
RESPONSE B: This sounds like typical "open source textbook" territory to me. There is no reason to reinvent your own materials if they are freely available for this purpose. In fact, a lot of CIS and math courses are taught with open source texts these days.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: looking early. I mentioned this to my supervisor as well. When I told my supervisor that I'm starting to look for jobs she said it's too way too early, I'd need to be prepared to start within weeks which would forfeit my scholarship and force me to study part time which would cause problems for my PhD, etc. She also noted she's waiting on the result from multiple grants (to my knowledge, only the one I assisted with would fund a postdoc, though I will clarify) which she'd be able to use to hire me, and she'll be able to keep me on part time in my RA position until the end of next year anyway. I'm a bit surprised by how quickly she made the assumption that I would start a job before the end of my scholarship, and how bluntly she told me to not apply yet. We have a reasonably good relationship and she's usually pretty easy going so I actually expected support even if she also told me her true opinion. She obviously values having me in her lab and wants me to stay, but I don't want to put myself in a position where I've wasted time waiting around for her grant results that only have a 10-25% chance of being successful. My question is: **can I still apply for jobs anyway**, keeping in mind that I might not be able to use her as a referee if I get to that stage until we agree on it not being too soon anymore? I already decided I won't accept a job offer before we hear back on the grant I helped with (results to come "in 4th quarter" this year), and that I won't take anything starting before my scholarship ends in June 2021. I feel like it's unlikely I'll get to the final stage within my first few applications and it's good to get used to the process while I don't have the stress of needing of job ASAP.
RESPONSE A: Also, for what it’s worth, postdoc in the same lab as your PhD is not going to do you any favors later on. Hiring committees generally want to see diversity in your training. It’s generally better for your development too.
RESPONSE B: Yes, but I'd caution you about advertising it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: scholarship and force me to study part time which would cause problems for my PhD, etc. She also noted she's waiting on the result from multiple grants (to my knowledge, only the one I assisted with would fund a postdoc, though I will clarify) which she'd be able to use to hire me, and she'll be able to keep me on part time in my RA position until the end of next year anyway. I'm a bit surprised by how quickly she made the assumption that I would start a job before the end of my scholarship, and how bluntly she told me to not apply yet. We have a reasonably good relationship and she's usually pretty easy going so I actually expected support even if she also told me her true opinion. She obviously values having me in her lab and wants me to stay, but I don't want to put myself in a position where I've wasted time waiting around for her grant results that only have a 10-25% chance of being successful. My question is: **can I still apply for jobs anyway**, keeping in mind that I might not be able to use her as a referee if I get to that stage until we agree on it not being too soon anymore? I already decided I won't accept a job offer before we hear back on the grant I helped with (results to come "in 4th quarter" this year), and that I won't take anything starting before my scholarship ends in June 2021. I feel like it's unlikely I'll get to the final stage within my first few applications and it's good to get used to the process while I don't have the stress of needing of job ASAP.
RESPONSE A: It is probably a bit early to be looking now unless they explicitly say in their ad they are looking for someone to start Aug 2021. Now could be a good time to simply reach out and network. I don't know how it is in Australia, but in the US, many post-docs are not really advertised, but instead come from someone reaching out to a PI and the PI finds the CV interesting. Probably start really looking about 5-6 months out.
RESPONSE B: Yes, but I'd caution you about advertising it.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: My PhD supervisor's wife sent me a Facebook request. What should I do about it? My professor and I are friends on Facebook, but our relationship is clearly just professional (duh). I know he prefers to keep his professional and private life separate, and I completely agree, which means I don't know much about his family, I have never even formally met them (I have seen him with his wife and children at a conference a few years ago, but he never introduced me to them). Now his wife sent me a Facebook request completely out of the blue today, and to be honest, I find it a little weird. Should I ignore it? Should I accept? Am I overthinking?
RESPONSE A: I wouldn't accept it, as it could easily be an accident. Since you are fb friends with supervisor, you probably came up in her "people you may know" and she may either 1) be one of those people who adds everyone in "people you may know" or 2) have clicked the add button on accident, which is pretty easy to do, especially on mobile devices. I would just ignore it, nbd
RESPONSE B: I accept those kinds of requests but change the privacy setting for that person to "restricted". Then they see that you accepted their request, but all they see on your page are your public posts (,just as if you haven't friended them).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: eeing Title says it all. It was my first time being asked to referee a paper. Reading the paper for the first time, it was clear that the paper was not up to the standard of the journal they were submitting to (not enough new stuff, a bunch of claims that were more like hunches, missing a lot of important points, etc etc). I wrote my report and recommended a rejection. The editor of the journal told them to resubmit with changes and half a year goes by and I saw the changes they made along with their response letter. The authors was very professional about the criticism from the referees and they had clearly put in a lot of work to get some extra results and make some changes. I would say the quality of the paper (in terms of writing, additional results, clarity) improved a lot. However, I still felt that there were a bunch of stuff that were not addressed and things that were missing. After taking some time to think about it, I put my hand on my heart and decided that I had to recommend a second rejection, despite the amount of changes that was made (which looked like it took a ton of effort). As I typed out and submitted the report, I just felt horrible cause I was reminded of being in that position myself and about how crushing such a situation was.
RESPONSE A: If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. But seriously, i always go in looking for the good and expecting to accept. Yet I wind up rejecting more often than not. I usually look at the other reviewers comments and decision. If I'm in line with those, i don't feel bad about rejecting. Keep in mind a paper doesn't have to be perfect. If the conclusions are supported by the data, and the boy of evidence is good enough, accept. Just because you thought of another experiment that could have been done, doesn't mean it should have.
RESPONSE B: Just to be clear here, you’re not rejecting the paper. You’re giving a recommendation to the editor, which they may or may not agree with. Whether this paper is rejected or accepted by the journal isn’t your fault and there’s no reason to take it personally.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: feel horrible for rejecting a paper that I was refereeing Title says it all. It was my first time being asked to referee a paper. Reading the paper for the first time, it was clear that the paper was not up to the standard of the journal they were submitting to (not enough new stuff, a bunch of claims that were more like hunches, missing a lot of important points, etc etc). I wrote my report and recommended a rejection. The editor of the journal told them to resubmit with changes and half a year goes by and I saw the changes they made along with their response letter. The authors was very professional about the criticism from the referees and they had clearly put in a lot of work to get some extra results and make some changes. I would say the quality of the paper (in terms of writing, additional results, clarity) improved a lot. However, I still felt that there were a bunch of stuff that were not addressed and things that were missing. After taking some time to think about it, I put my hand on my heart and decided that I had to recommend a second rejection, despite the amount of changes that was made (which looked like it took a ton of effort). As I typed out and submitted the report, I just felt horrible cause I was reminded of being in that position myself and about how crushing such a situation was.
RESPONSE A: If they chose not to respond to or implement your suggested changes from the first review, that is fine. However, if they are missing things that you never suggested in the first place, this seems a bit like you moved the bar on them.
RESPONSE B: If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. But seriously, i always go in looking for the good and expecting to accept. Yet I wind up rejecting more often than not. I usually look at the other reviewers comments and decision. If I'm in line with those, i don't feel bad about rejecting. Keep in mind a paper doesn't have to be perfect. If the conclusions are supported by the data, and the boy of evidence is good enough, accept. Just because you thought of another experiment that could have been done, doesn't mean it should have.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: My paper got desk rejected again Just want to vent. My review paper just got desk rejected a second time after waiting for 2 weeks. My first paper also got rejected 3 times before settling on a new open access journal that is a sub-journal to a famous one. Sometimes I feel overwhelmed by academia :(
RESPONSE A: It happened to me too multiple times. I feel you. I re-worked my paper and submitted again to another journal and am fingers crossed. Academia is a lot about not giving up even though sometimes you want to.
RESPONSE B: There can be lots of reasons for a desk rejection and it doesn't necessarily mean that you work is poor. Most of the time it can be as simple as your paper is a wrong fit for that journal. Sometimes it might be that you're aiming too high. In my field, there are some journals such as Survival that are extraordinarily difficult to get in unless your paper is astounding and you have a big name in academia already. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: My paper got desk rejected again Just want to vent. My review paper just got desk rejected a second time after waiting for 2 weeks. My first paper also got rejected 3 times before settling on a new open access journal that is a sub-journal to a famous one. Sometimes I feel overwhelmed by academia :(
RESPONSE A: I love desk rejects. 2 weeks? No problem. The double revision 2 year reject sucks.
RESPONSE B: I had an article get desk rejected after they sat on it for *6 months!!!* 2 weeks is *nothing*. Especially in this bizarre still-Covid post-Covid academic world. I have been in and out of therapy to help with those feelings of being "overwhelmed."
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: My paper got desk rejected again Just want to vent. My review paper just got desk rejected a second time after waiting for 2 weeks. My first paper also got rejected 3 times before settling on a new open access journal that is a sub-journal to a famous one. Sometimes I feel overwhelmed by academia :(
RESPONSE A: I think reviews are usually by invitations only in most fields so maybe if you r just cold submitting it might harder then research articles.
RESPONSE B: I love desk rejects. 2 weeks? No problem. The double revision 2 year reject sucks.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: My paper got desk rejected again Just want to vent. My review paper just got desk rejected a second time after waiting for 2 weeks. My first paper also got rejected 3 times before settling on a new open access journal that is a sub-journal to a famous one. Sometimes I feel overwhelmed by academia :(
RESPONSE A: I love desk rejects. 2 weeks? No problem. The double revision 2 year reject sucks.
RESPONSE B: It happened to me too multiple times. I feel you. I re-worked my paper and submitted again to another journal and am fingers crossed. Academia is a lot about not giving up even though sometimes you want to.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: My paper got desk rejected again Just want to vent. My review paper just got desk rejected a second time after waiting for 2 weeks. My first paper also got rejected 3 times before settling on a new open access journal that is a sub-journal to a famous one. Sometimes I feel overwhelmed by academia :(
RESPONSE A: > My first paper also got rejected 3 times before settling on a new open access journal that is a sub-journal to a famous one. This kept happening to me with my most recent paper. Desk-rejected three times for not fitting the scope (even though it very much did), and then transferred to a new open-access sub-journal to the much larger journal I had submitted it to last. Publishing can be a real drag.
RESPONSE B: I love desk rejects. 2 weeks? No problem. The double revision 2 year reject sucks.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: I wouldn't have been surprised with major revisions. What has surprised me, is that the rejection letter seemed to indicate that they felt the paper wasn't suitable for the journal. The editor said (I'm paraphrasing) "the reviewers feel this paper is not suitable for publication in [this journal] and I agree, so we are rejecting the submission at this time". They then gave me the feedback from the reviewers, which I largely agree with, and can see their points—effectively they said the paper needs work and isn't ready for academic publication, although the research does offer a useful contribution to the field. Still, it sounds like the outright rejection was on the basis of the article not being appropriate for the specific journal; which I don't believe to be the case. My question is this: Should I write to the editor, thank them for their time, let them know I will be applying the recommended changes, and ask if I can resubmit once these changes have been applied? Or should I accept the rejection, still make the changes, and find another journal to submit to? I don't want to waste anyone's time or annoy the editors/reviewers if it's inappropriate to resubmit to the same journal. What is the etiquette here? Thanks in advance :-)
RESPONSE A: Most journals allow authors to appeal editorial decisions, which generally has a very low rate of success. In your case, the best course of action is most likely to resubmit to a different (lower-impact) journal.
RESPONSE B: Your first ever rejection - have a drink! Assuming you stay in academia, you'll have plenty of rejections (and hopefully many accepted papers) in your future. Remember that reviewers are not specific to a journal, so even if a journal seems to be a good fit for your manuscript, you may still get rejected if the reviewers just don't like your paper. It's ok, it happens, and it'll happen plenty of times in the future. Don't take it personally, just move on and submit to the next journal (if you think the reviewer comments are helpful, you could make some appropriate changes first).
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: - next steps Hello AA community, I woke up this morning to a rejection letter from a journal I submitted my manuscript to. I submitted this paper about 3-4 months ago, so I was genuinely expecting acceptance with minor or major revisions. I'm in a pretty niche field (between sociology and environmental science) and I felt that the journal in question was the perfect place for my paper. They've actually accepted very similar research papers before, so the rejection was super surprising for me. Now, this is my first ever submission to a journal - so I wouldn't have been surprised with major revisions. What has surprised me, is that the rejection letter seemed to indicate that they felt the paper wasn't suitable for the journal. The editor said (I'm paraphrasing) "the reviewers feel this paper is not suitable for publication in [this journal] and I agree, so we are rejecting the submission at this time". They then gave me the feedback from the reviewers, which I largely agree with, and can see their points—effectively they said the paper needs work and isn't ready for academic publication, although the research does offer a useful contribution to the field. Still, it sounds like the outright rejection was on the basis of the article not being appropriate for the specific journal; which I don't believe to be the case. My question is this: Should I write to the editor, thank them for their time, let them know I will be applying the recommended changes, and ask if I can resubmit once these changes have been applied? Or should I accept the rejection, still make the changes, and find another journal to submit to? I don't want to waste anyone's time or annoy the editors/reviewers if it's inappropriate to resubmit to the same journal. What is the etiquette here? Thanks in advance :-)
RESPONSE A: Most journals allow authors to appeal editorial decisions, which generally has a very low rate of success. In your case, the best course of action is most likely to resubmit to a different (lower-impact) journal.
RESPONSE B: Don't contact them. A rejection sucks, but it is part of the game.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: niche field (between sociology and environmental science) and I felt that the journal in question was the perfect place for my paper. They've actually accepted very similar research papers before, so the rejection was super surprising for me. Now, this is my first ever submission to a journal - so I wouldn't have been surprised with major revisions. What has surprised me, is that the rejection letter seemed to indicate that they felt the paper wasn't suitable for the journal. The editor said (I'm paraphrasing) "the reviewers feel this paper is not suitable for publication in [this journal] and I agree, so we are rejecting the submission at this time". They then gave me the feedback from the reviewers, which I largely agree with, and can see their points—effectively they said the paper needs work and isn't ready for academic publication, although the research does offer a useful contribution to the field. Still, it sounds like the outright rejection was on the basis of the article not being appropriate for the specific journal; which I don't believe to be the case. My question is this: Should I write to the editor, thank them for their time, let them know I will be applying the recommended changes, and ask if I can resubmit once these changes have been applied? Or should I accept the rejection, still make the changes, and find another journal to submit to? I don't want to waste anyone's time or annoy the editors/reviewers if it's inappropriate to resubmit to the same journal. What is the etiquette here? Thanks in advance :-)
RESPONSE A: Most journals allow authors to appeal editorial decisions, which generally has a very low rate of success. In your case, the best course of action is most likely to resubmit to a different (lower-impact) journal.
RESPONSE B: My first paper got rejected too and I felt the same way... fast-forward several years later and if I read the submitted manuscript now as an editor/reviewer I would reject it too. Best course of action is to target the weaknesses outlined in the reviewer's report and submit it elsewhere. Research is rarely (or never) so niche that only one decent journal is suitable.
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
B | POST: expecting acceptance with minor or major revisions. I'm in a pretty niche field (between sociology and environmental science) and I felt that the journal in question was the perfect place for my paper. They've actually accepted very similar research papers before, so the rejection was super surprising for me. Now, this is my first ever submission to a journal - so I wouldn't have been surprised with major revisions. What has surprised me, is that the rejection letter seemed to indicate that they felt the paper wasn't suitable for the journal. The editor said (I'm paraphrasing) "the reviewers feel this paper is not suitable for publication in [this journal] and I agree, so we are rejecting the submission at this time". They then gave me the feedback from the reviewers, which I largely agree with, and can see their points—effectively they said the paper needs work and isn't ready for academic publication, although the research does offer a useful contribution to the field. Still, it sounds like the outright rejection was on the basis of the article not being appropriate for the specific journal; which I don't believe to be the case. My question is this: Should I write to the editor, thank them for their time, let them know I will be applying the recommended changes, and ask if I can resubmit once these changes have been applied? Or should I accept the rejection, still make the changes, and find another journal to submit to? I don't want to waste anyone's time or annoy the editors/reviewers if it's inappropriate to resubmit to the same journal. What is the etiquette here? Thanks in advance :-)
RESPONSE A: Most journals allow authors to appeal editorial decisions, which generally has a very low rate of success. In your case, the best course of action is most likely to resubmit to a different (lower-impact) journal.
RESPONSE B: Revise the paper based on reviewer comments and resubmit to a different journal. Your paper was rejected by peer-reviewers because it needs work. Rejection is a large part of the game. Get used to it, and keep moving. Everyone gets rejections. Good luck!
Which response is better? RESPONSE |
A | POST: actually accepted very similar research papers before, so the rejection was super surprising for me. Now, this is my first ever submission to a journal - so I wouldn't have been surprised with major revisions. What has surprised me, is that the rejection letter seemed to indicate that they felt the paper wasn't suitable for the journal. The editor said (I'm paraphrasing) "the reviewers feel this paper is not suitable for publication in [this journal] and I agree, so we are rejecting the submission at this time". They then gave me the feedback from the reviewers, which I largely agree with, and can see their points—effectively they said the paper needs work and isn't ready for academic publication, although the research does offer a useful contribution to the field. Still, it sounds like the outright rejection was on the basis of the article not being appropriate for the specific journal; which I don't believe to be the case. My question is this: Should I write to the editor, thank them for their time, let them know I will be applying the recommended changes, and ask if I can resubmit once these changes have been applied? Or should I accept the rejection, still make the changes, and find another journal to submit to? I don't want to waste anyone's time or annoy the editors/reviewers if it's inappropriate to resubmit to the same journal. What is the etiquette here? Thanks in advance :-)
RESPONSE A: Revise the paper based on reviewer comments and resubmit to a different journal. Your paper was rejected by peer-reviewers because it needs work. Rejection is a large part of the game. Get used to it, and keep moving. Everyone gets rejections. Good luck!
RESPONSE B: It might sound callous to say "Get used to it". But get used to it; this is the rule, not the exception. Read the reviewers' criticisms, and see if there is any substance there. In the very unlikely case that the bulk of their comments are orthogonal to reality, then you should contact the editor to let them know that there are bad reviewers. Address what is addressable and move on to the next journal.
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.