added
stringdate 2025-03-12 15:57:16
2025-03-21 13:32:23
| created
timestamp[us]date 2008-09-06 22:17:14
2024-12-31 23:58:17
| id
stringlengths 1
7
| metadata
dict | source
stringclasses 1
value | text
stringlengths 59
10.4M
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.718722
| 2022-08-15T15:46:03 |
187780
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"EarlGrey",
"Peter K.",
"TimRias",
"Vicent",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/108889",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/128758",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/3965",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4132",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/980",
"paul garrett"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9402",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/187780"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
When you know a reference is plagiarism but you are unable to find the original source
I am writing up an essay, like a sort of project. It is not an academic paper, but it will be read and judged by some fellows.
I am trying to document or base my statements on a topic by including some proper references, and I am really in a bit of a hurry, so I do not have much time to search for 'the best' references.
Recently, I found one book (at Google Books) which seemed appropriate to me. I was somewhat suspicious because both the author and the publisher were unknown to me. I performed some additional searches at Google Books and at Google in general, and I found another book from the same publisher (and different author) which had overlapping paragraphs with the first book. And I also found some paragraphs of the first book in several websites, even Wikipedia.
I have not been able to determine whether there is an initial source or a mix of original sources.
So, this is the situation. My question: I would like to use the 'plagiarist' book as a reference. Is it appropriate to do so? Do you think I should add a sort of footnote stating that the reference is valid despite it seems to be plagiarising from other sources?
EDIT
Regarding the authorship, it seems pretty convenient to me that, in the copyright page of these two books (which happen to be included among the preview-available pages at Google Books), you can find the copyright symbol before the publisher, but not before the name of the respective authors.
On the website of the publisher, you can read a short bio for each author, but you cannot figure out which university or company they work for. They seem made-up texts to me. So, maybe, the authors are totally fake!
@AnonymousM I had not thought about that, but I can do it, I think.
@AnonymousM Librarians are the best! :-)
It’s pretty common to encounter weird issues in the academic literature (whether it’s plagiarism, incomplete material, sources that are unavailable or only partially available, sources that contradict each other, etc) when one is reading up on a research topic. The general principles that govern how to deal with this sort of situation in your own writing are:
Do not hide information that you found in your search because of fear of embarrassment or because you believe this information will make you look bad.
That means that if you want to cite a source that in your view suffers from credibility issues, you must explain what those issues are, and also explain why you still find the source appropriate to use despite those issues. Not doing so could be seen as dishonest. Adding the explanation in a footnote sounds appropriate.
Do not think you have a responsibility to completely sort out every weird issue you run into.
My understanding is that there are two sources and it appears that one of them plagiarized from the other, but you can’t be sure exactly of the extent of the plagiarism of or who copied from whom. Well, don’t worry about it too much. It’s not your job to sort it out and would seriously distract you from the actual topic you are writing about if you had to start digging deep into the issue and solve this mystery.
So basically, if you think the two references together provide the information your essay’s readers will need, cite them both, and as I said, include a note explaining the possible plagiarism issue. Lay out the facts, but don’t jump to conclusions you are not sure about. (E.g., for all you know, the two references could even be by the same author, who is a person who changed their name at some point.)
It’s okay not to have time to do a perfect job.
There are best practices for academic writing, and for example in an ideal situation you might not want to cite a source that you weren’t able to obtain a copy of and look at in full instead of just snippets on Google Books. However, if you are in a situation where time constraints are preventing you from following such ideals, that’s another thing that it’s appropriate to be transparent about. E.g., you can write in a footnote that you didn’t have time to obtain a copy of the second source but still found it credible based on the parts that were available online. I am sure your professor and other readers would not find this at all shocking or surprising or think that such an admission reflects poorly on you, assuming that in other respects your essay looks like a thoughtfully written piece that you invested the appropriate amount of time writing.
Yes. Basically, "be honest", and, although a serious, good-faith effort is always required, perfection is impossible.
Thank you for your very complete answer!
The thing you maybe encountering here is the practice of bundling a bunch of Wikipedia content and "publish" it as a print-on-demand book without much (or any editing). This typically doesn't violate Wikipedia's licensing condition, as it allows commercial use of their content as long as attribution is given. For this reason you will often find a very minimal "source: Wikipedia" somewhere in the book. (Whether that really is sufficient attribution for the licensing standard as somewhat questionable, it certainly isn't enough for academic plagiarism standards.)
If this is the case, it is probably better to stay away from this source, as you have no way of judging the reliability of this source. Even citing the Wikipedia page might be better (there at least you have access to the version history).
I think you might be right, since I found some of the paragraphs of these books at Wikipedia (but I thought that they were copied from elsewhere; I mean, I still thought that there was an original source to be found).
Concerning the authorship, I am adding extra info in my question.
The original source could very well be Wikipedia. The real fun starts, when someone adds these types of sources as references for the statements found on Wikipedia.
@TimRias citogenesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.719207
| 2013-11-07T05:53:53 |
13912
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Alaa Sadik",
"Arild Faxvaag",
"Calculated",
"Christoph Wehmeyer",
"Henry B.",
"JeffE",
"Joe",
"Keagon Louw",
"Nobody",
"Peter Jansson",
"codex",
"eykanal",
"gw90",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/35865",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/35867",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/35869",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/35870",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/35903",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/35908",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/35939",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/35940",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/35946",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4146",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4394",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/546",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/73",
"paginated"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9403",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/13912"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Can a PI take someone's idea
Lets say a member of a lab has an entirely theoretical idea like "wouldn't it be nice if we wrote software that does X?" The member did give a talk showing how such code would work if implemented. Due to general skepticism about the idea, nothing ever comes of it.
The member never actually writes any of the software while in the lab.
After leaving the lab, the member uses publicly available data and implements the software, as well as developing the mathematical theory.
Is the member required to acknowledge his former lab in authorship? Is this a breach of ethics?
What if the former lab member had previously agreed to letting the PI use his idea in a grant proposal, but the PI then forced him out of the lab and thus out of the grant proposal.
1. Can the former lab member write up his work for publication? 2. Does he have to make the PI a co-author if he does?
Extra Information:
The idea was documented as a presentation to the lab. A small simulation with fake data was used to argue this could work. There was some discussion of how it would work when the grant was written, completely the member just saying to others how this idea worked and so the idea was written up in the grant. The PI does not have any training in this area. However, there are plenty of emails where the PI refers to this as the former lab members idea etc. I feel certain everybody in the lab would acknowledge this was the former lab member's idea.
The former lab member didn't actually write any of the grant as the PI claimed to want to collaborate with someone with greater mathematical expertise. So the collaborator wrote the grant, with occasional emails to ask the former lab member questions.
Was the idea ever documented in some way while the member was with the lab? Or was it only verbally communicated?
This is two separate questions.
"What if the former lab member had previously agreed to letting the PI use his idea in a grant proposal, but the PI then forced him out of the lab and thus out of the grant proposal." This is entirely too specific to your situation. I recommend removing this so the question is more applicable to the general public. Something this unique should be handled by your university.
As far as I can see "member" has developed everything from idea to finished product. There is very little sign of anyone else being involved other than possibly as a discussion partner at the lab. To allow someone to use the idea still does not take away the intellectual property held by the member unless there has been important feedback from someone. So I would not hesitate to try to move forward towards publication with the idea. I simply cannot see any ethical issues based on the details you have given.
Having given the green light, there will always be the issue of personalities. You allude to some level of conflict in terms of the move by the member. It is not inconceivable that the PI may have a different view and this view may not even be anchored in reality. So even if you do everything by the book and have all rights, that does not preclude the PI from doing all the things you express, it really depends on the PI's personality.
In the end member should think through if anyone has contributed to the work to the degree that merits co-authorship. Member can, for example, use the the post What are the minimum contributions required for co-authorship to set the authorship in perspective.
There is the possibility that rapid publication of this idea will scoop any papers coming from the grant (or the PI will probably see it that way).
The personality issue is one that will always be present but as you stated, the idea was rejected at first so if it scoop other papers, it seems a gross oversight by the PI. I do not see any simple solutions. Talking to the "enemy" or not doing sounds like "damned if you do, damned if you don't". It seems any advise would fall because I do not know the people involved and cannot in any way judge possible outcomes. So, intellectual property is what it comes down to.
There are actually at least three(3) persons involved: the member, the collaborator and the PI.
There are two parts in the work: the software and the mathematical theory.
Based on the information described in the question, the member definitely owns the software because the original idea was his and he implemented it.
The real question is, who is responsible for developing the mathematical theory? Based on the info, So the collaborator wrote the grant, with occasional emails to ask the former lab member questions., I think the collaborator plays a role. But, how much is his contribution? Anyone else contributes to the development of the theory?
There is another question, did the lab ever receive the grant? Grant proposal and the grant itself are completely two different things. Did the lab ever start to work on the grant (not the proposal)?
In my opinion, the ideal solution is for the collaborator to write the paper if he is the one who develops the mathematical theory. The member will be the co-author. Whether or not the PI is another co-author depends on how much his contribution is.
If the member develops the whole thing including the theory without much help from the collaborator and/or the PI, then the member should be the main author. Who should be the co-authors depends on the invidual contribution.
The above is my opinion based on the limited information I know.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.719709
| 2014-03-26T12:35:06 |
18554
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bill",
"Kuba hasn't forgotten Monica",
"RAJNEESH",
"Rajesh N",
"Tyler",
"aeismail",
"ersbygre1",
"halirutan",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13554",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4021",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/50323",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/50324",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/50325",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/50362",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/50619",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/80414",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/80415",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/80416",
"kscheng",
"superdevman",
"user2645649"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9404",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/18554"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Where should be original quotations be type-set in a translation?
I'm writing a scientific manuscript in German and since I want to give the German readers the opportunity to understand everything of it, I will include translations of all foreign quotes.
How would I do this? Let's assume the following hypothetical English text, where I want to include the original German quote (Es geht nicht um ein Stück vom Kuchen; es geht um die ganze Bäckerei.):
Most politicians will happily confirm what was already pointed by Dota Kehr and million others "it's not about the cake, it's about the whole bakery." [DK 2009]
The question is: Where do I put the original quote in German and do I have to point out that I translated it?
My current solution is as follows:
Most politicians will happily confirm what was already pointed by Dota Kehr and million others "it's not about the cake, it's about the whole bakery.¹" [DK 2009]
¹Original: Es geht nicht um ein Stück vom Kuchen; es geht um die ganze Bäckerei.
There's no single answer. Every publisher will likely offer different guidance. However, you can usually acknowledge that the translations were yours in a footnote.
@aeismail I had hoped that there is at least a guide anywhere, because I haven't seen this in publications (maybe this exists more often in books). Currently, I have the translated quote included in the running text and the original as footnote.
There must be German style guides. By "style guides" I mean books, usually reprinted many times and gone through many editions, and used as a default go-to in matters of style of writing, professionally applied.
Some style guides (Chicago, MLA, etc.) have rules for how to do this; if you know that you are required to follow some specific one of these, then the advice there will be authoritative. That said, there are still several different options for how the original quotation and the translation are presented: the choice is yours, and then the various manuals may give you "implementation details" about such vital matters as the placement of punctuation. (For example, the 16th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style has extensive guidance in 13.71-13.79, but stops short of presenting the One True Method of including dual-language material.) I'm afraid I do not know which style manuals might be preferred for German-language texts.
Your basic choices are:
Whether the original, or the translation, is the primary version.
Whether the secondary version appears in the body text, in a footnote, or in an endnote.
In your case, you have decided that the translated version is primary, which makes sense if most readers don't care about the specific wording of the original, but may still want it to be available. You've also chosen to place the original text in a footnote, which makes sense for a "mid-length" quotation. If you only wanted to gloss a few words, it would be more natural to do this inline. If you had a more extensive quotation, then putting it in an endnote - or even an appendix - would avoid the problem of the gigantic multi-page footnote which can be so hostile to readers. So I think your choices are perfectly defensible.
In the case where both the original and the translation are from an external source, it is clear that both should be cited. Otherwise, you would not be giving due credit to the author and translator.
Here, the translation is your own, and in principle you should note it as "my translation" in whatever way is compatible with your citation style. For example, perhaps your footnote would say:
1 My translation; original: Es geht nicht ...
or perhaps you would write in text:
... the whole bakery." [DK 2009, my translation]
The specifics depend on which style guide you are following, if any.
Some of these "my translation" notes could be omitted, though that really depends on the quantity and variety of sources you are translating. If you have many translated quotations, some by you and some by others, then it would be clearer to retain the notes. If there is only one source which you quote repeatedly, then you could note "my translation" the first time and then not mention it again.
Another option is an explicit note early in the document, saying that all translations are your own unless indicated otherwise.
In books where I have seen a very large number of quotations with authors supplied translations a statement was made in the introduction or preface that "except as otherwise indicated all translations are mine." These were books where there were commonly three or four translated passages per page. They were mostly books written in English about medieval literature written in Old French or Latin. Even in these cases the original or translated text would be provided in a footnote since you would expect readers to want to refer to the other.
The point being that the exact choice of style might depend on the number of translated passages you will be working with.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.720104
| 2016-05-23T09:46:03 |
69144
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Esumi Ogar",
"GANDAMALLA AMBEDKAR",
"Igy",
"Mersiha Mahmić-Kaknjo",
"Mohsen Pourabbasi",
"halirutan",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/195384",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/195385",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/195386",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/195398",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/195404",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4021"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9405",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/69144"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Researchgate and Elsevier sharing policy
We already have a similar question but it does not seem to address the issue I have. Assume I have a manuscript that is accepted for publication. When I look at the sharing policy of Elsevier, I see that I "can share my preprint anywhere at any time".
The moment my manuscript is accepted, there seems to be a different set of rules. Why is that? Can I still share my preprint wherever I like?
I would like to share something through researchgate.net. Can someone help to clear these two specific questions?
Regarding the rules of Elsevier, can I share my personal pre-print (not the final publication) at any time, no matter if my manuscript is accepted or published?
Can I upload the graphics or images from the pre-print to researchgate since they have such functionality or is this not allowed?
Take Elsevier's definition of the preprint:
This is the author's own write-up of research results and analysis that has not been peer reviewed, nor had any other value added to it by a publisher (such as formatting, copy-editing, technical enhancements, and the like).
The preprint is the manuscript version that you initially submitted to the journal, and it stays the preprint version even if later versions are being revised through peer review, are formatted by the publisher, and are the published formally. Elsevier's policy makes clear that you can share the preprint anytime. They just "encourage" authors to put the DOI link on the preprint once the final version is published.
As you're allowed to share the full preprint anywhere, I don't see what could stop you from sharing portions of it (like graphics) anywhere as well.
This is how I understood it as well, but I was unsure because of the phrasing. Thanks for your answer +1. I'll keep it unaccepted a while so that people come here and vote up.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.720333
| 2016-07-20T06:31:08 |
73045
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Andrew Lin",
"Ben Cowell",
"Bereket Derese",
"Cape Code",
"Catherine Cooper",
"Cornman",
"Elmer Yonatan Blancos Ito",
"Henry Brown",
"JeffE",
"Jeromy Anglim",
"Maryam Shokrollahi",
"My Denver Therapy",
"Significance",
"Simrandeep Bahal",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10643",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/206001",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/206002",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/206003",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/206007",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/206008",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/206009",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/206168",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/206252",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/219058",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/219071",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/219081",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/219092",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/48584",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/62",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"sunish pulikotil",
"yared tumelsan"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9406",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/73045"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How to obtain average and total impact factor of publications for an academic?
For a while ResearchGate provided something called impact points. It was calculated as the sum of the impact factors of all the publications an academic had. For example, if an author had been an author on four papers with impact factors 0, 2, 4, and 3. They would have 0 + 2 + 4 + 3 = 9 impact points. They've recently stopped reporting this value because supposedly they no longer believe impact factors are valid indicators of an individual article (of course, as a side note, they continue to report their own mysterious ResearchGate points which in addition to publications also weights things largely irrelevant to the research community, but relevant to encouraging behaviour on the site that they desire).
If you also knew the number of publications someone had, you could also quickly determine their average impact factor per publication.
I found the combination of average impact factor and the sum of impact factors to be a really useful metric when getting a quick feel for an academic's publication track record. In addition, I think that impact points seemed to provide a reasonable starting point for discussing some of the trade-offs in publication strategies between quality/significance and quantity.
Given that this site includes many who are mindful of the problems with metrics for evaluating academic output, allow me to justify why I like the combination of average impact factor per paper and the sum of impact factors (i.e., impact points):
Person-specific citation based metrics (e.g., h-index, total citations, and so on), which are often cited as preferable, are heavily influenced by time. Citations accumulate over time. Thus, a young researcher a couple of years out of their PhD may have been publishing high quality work in top journals, but may have very few citations. In contrast, a researcher may have been publishing lots of publication at the mid-tier level for many years, and may have a lot of citations. This connection with time is more than the linear increase in publication output you might see given a research with consistent output each year. Instead, In a simplistic model, it is a multiplicative effect of average number of publications per year, time since first started publishing at that level, and average time between publications and now.
While journal impact factor is field dependent, you can start to adjust for this mentally, if you know your field. For example, I'm in psychology, and it tends to have lower impact factors than psychiatry due to various citation practices. As an aside, it would also be useful to use other journal impact metrics to form the average or sum that are less field dependent (e.g., the SNIP or SJR).
Probably the biggest issue with impact points is that some authors have publications with many more co-authors, or have more or less first-author papers, although this is less of an issue if you focus on average impact factor per paper.
So my question is, given that ResearchGate has stopped reporting impact points, is there an alternative provider where you can quickly obtain the sum or average impact factor of the publications of a given academic?
Incoming comments about how useless bibliographic metrics are in 3.. 2.. 1...
if an author had been an author on four papers with impact factors 0, 2, 4, and 3. — What does it mean for a paper to have an impact factor of 2? Impact factors are usually defined as average citation counts over all publications in a particular journal in a particular time window. By that standard definition, individual papers do not have impact factors.
@jeffE For the purposes of calculation, papers get the impact factor of the journal they are published in.
I'm sorry, but that's just silly. If you insist on counting something, why not count citations to the individual paper, using Scopus or Google Scholar, for example, instead of an aggregate statistic to which the paper only makes a minuscule contribution?
@jeffE because citations are confounded by time since the paper was released. So, an older academic automatically looks so much better. For example, you might have a new academic with 10 papers all released in the last couple of years in top journals but with only a few citations. Then you have an more established academic with 20 papers in low tier publications with 100s of citations. I agree that 10 years after a paper is released citations start to become meaningful indicator of impact/potential, and there is a sense in which total citations are measure of "achieved fame".
But if you want to get a bibliometric measure of quality then I think that in the short term, something like the impact factor of the journal (or some other indicator of quality) is more useful than citations.
You mention that IFs vary by field but that if you know your field you can adjust for that. If you know your field, though, you will know the journals the author is publishing in and have an opinion about them that is probably more meaningful than their IF, so why not just scan the authors' publication lists?
@Significance I agree partially. A few counter arguments (a) impact points is a very quick synthesis (i.e., it's a single number that means you don't have to look at the journal of 30,40,50 or more publications to get that sense); (b) there are a lot of journals in my field and even people that are kind of in your area may cross-over with other subfields; (c) at the level of a discipline like psychology, say you're trying to judge your competitiveness for promotion, job or grant, you may be comparing yourself to people who publish in quite different journals.
@JeromyAnglim I think in that case, IFs aren't very useful either. In psychology, for instance, I would bet that psychometrics journals will have quite different IFs from child development journals, regardless of the quality of the work. My field is hydroecological modelling. If I publish similar work in a good ecology journal, it should have a much higher IF than a good limnology journal, which is likely to have a higher IF than a good modelling journal.
@JeffE aggregate statistic to which the paper only makes a minuscule contribution That's not the idea here. The highest the IF of a given journal typically the higher the acceptance standards. That does not always work but in some contexts it's actually a pretty accurate proxy for individual article quality..
@CapeCode The highest the IF of a given journal typically the higher the acceptance standards — [citation needed] [data needed]
@JeffE I know you don't like the impact factor. No use chanting that gospel to me a hundredth time. I said "in some contexts" but you probably had IF rage before reaching that part of my comment. Here's an article for you: http://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOECOLJ-1-1-14 But the IF of the journal isn't that high, so apply caution.
@CapeCode Acceptance rates are not a good proxy for quality, either; an argument that bad proxy A correlates with bad proxy B is not convincing. In theoretical computer science, first-tier conferences have acceptances rate around 25%; whereas, second- and third-tier conferences tend to have acceptance rates around 25%. The main difference is self-selection: People submit stronger papers to better venues.
@JeffE I guess you don't have citations and data to show what makes a conference first-tier or whether it's effectively self-selection that is happening? My point is you know these things because you work in that field. In my field people also do self-selection based on journals IF, and sometimes settle for lower IFs upon rejection. The rule of thumb seems to be that under 2 the IF is mostly noise.
I'm not aware of any specific tools like ResearchGate which provide an average impact factor for a researcher - maybe others know of something? However, you could fairly painlessly generate the average SJR/SNIP value for a researcher through SciVal in Scopus.
If you add a researcher in SciVal, then click on the benchmarking tab, and then click on View list of Scopus Sources for the selected Researchers and Groups this will bring up a list of journals the researcher has published in. You can then click on Export and download the list of journals, with their SJR/SNIP values into excel, where you can then just use the =AVERAGE formula to calculate the average. I just did this and it took me 3-4 mins max.
Back to your specific question, you could use InCites to follow a similar process as above to calculate a researchers average Journal Impact Factor (Thompson Reuters) however it's not as straightforward as SciVal. As far as I know, you can't generate an XLS list of journals a researcher has published in within InCites (so you would need to get this list somewhere else). You can however export a list of journals from InCites with their impact factors but you would then need to link your researchers list of journals with the incites list to collate the relevant impact factors. you could use excel VLOOKUP to do this and then calculate the average. This is a lot more effort though, so it would depend why you want this average measure of research impact in the first place and whether it might be enough to just use the scopus impact metrics.
Thanks. Yes. SciVal works. They also provide IPP which is similar to impact factor.
An alternative to looking at impact points that indexes a similar concept is citations in the last full year. This can readily be obtained for anyone with a Google Scholar profile. Author search on Scopus also shows it.
E.g., see the 2015 column below (e.g., go to this example, hold mouse over to see value):
Impact factor is essentially the mean number of citations per article per year in a given journal (where for example if the year for gathering citations was 2008, the publication years would be 2006 and 2007). But there is also a five year impact factor which extends the number of years articles are considered (e.g., 2003-2007). Depending on the life cycle of citations in a given field and journal, expanding the window of time for considering articles may alter the estimate of mean citations per year. My main point is that the underlying construct that is being measured is mean citations per article per year.
Thus, in a rough sense, the impact factor provides a rough guide to how many citations per year an author can expect from a given article published in a journal with a given impact factor. Of course, the distribution of citations in articles is positively skewed, but as we aggregate over many papers, the central limit theorem will begin to kick in.
Thus, citations per year in the previous year is in some senses addressing the same concept as impact points (i.e., the sum of the journal impact factors of the papers that an author has published in). In particular, it doesn't double load on years as an academic (i.e., total citations double loads for both the time you had to publish more articles and time that those publications have had to accrue citations). There are of course a few differences:
It is based on how much people cite the particular author rather than the journals that they publish in. In many respects this is a positive, because it is more aligned with the authors achievement.
It is typically based on a smaller sample size than journal impact factors. So there is greater scope for outliers to skew the distribution. I.e., one or two papers with hundred or thousands of citations may distort the underlying pattern.
It uses the full history of articles by the academic. Thus, depending on the citation patterns of the field and how old the authors articles are, this may introduce particular distortions. For example, older academics may have articles that have stopped being cited particularly in fast moving fields. In fields with citation half lives that are often over 10 years (like mathematics, psychology, and the social sciences), this should not be a problem for most active academics.
As an aside, all citation based metrics including impact factors are contingent on the database or articles used to specify articles and used to source citations. Google Scholar is quite inclusive. ISI Impact Factor has greater quality control and is less inclusive. So, from casual observation, It seems like Google Scholar picks up a multiple of between 2 and 5 times more citations than ISI or Scopus. Thus, any comparisons need to be mindful of that.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.721630
| 2016-09-19T00:41:59 |
77067
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Adrian C",
"Ahmad Tarique",
"Sajad Dehnavi",
"Shanika Perera",
"Spammer",
"Wistanomic",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/216371",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/216372",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/216373",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/216384",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/216394",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/216403"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9407",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/77067"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How long after submission of revisions should you wait before it is reasonable to enquire about manuscript status?
The following question asks about how long after making a submission you should wait before contacting the editor to enquire about the status of the submission. (i.e., When / how should I ask about a manuscript's status in review? ). Many people suggested that after around 6 months, it was reasonable to contact the editor to enquire about the status of the manuscript.
I have a manuscript where we received a positive set of first round reviews. We submitted revisions. It has now been five months. So my question is:
When is it appropriate to enquire about the status of submission of revisions?
Would you use the same rule of thumb that you use for initial submissions (e.g., 6 months or so)? Or is it reasonable to enquire about the status of the manuscript sooner? Alternatively, would you be less inclined to enquire about the status because there is more to lose by irritating the editor?
When is it appropriate to enquire about the status of submission of revisions?
At any stage of the publication process, you should feel free to check in whenever you think the referees / editors / typesetters / whoever have taken a reasonable amount of time to do the job, and you are beginning to worry that your paper is not being processed in a timely way. I don't think that is any fixed amount of time: in particular six months was suggested by one pure mathematician for papers in pure mathematics. It happens that I also use six months as a rough guideline (I am also a pure mathematician), but I will adjust in either direction if it seems reasonable. For instance, if the paper is so short and easy that a qualified referee could do it one sitting then six months doesn't make any sense. If the paper is 50 pages long and hard even for me to read, six months doesn't sound like enough time. Of course what I think is an appropriate amount of time is a subjective judgment but informed by my own refereeing experiences.
Would you use the same rule of thumb that you use for initial submissions (e.g., 6 months or so)? Or is it reasonable to enquire about the status of the manuscript sooner?
If it seems clear to you that refereeing the revised version should take much less time than the original version then sure, inquire (or "enquire," depending upon where in the anglophone world you are) sooner. In my experience, most referees do turn around minor revisions much faster than the original report. The flip side of this is that the editor will of course try to get the same referee to do the revisions, and the referee might have become busier in the meantime. Anyway, all you can do is ask.
Alternatively, would you be less inclined to enquire about the status because there is more to lose by irritating the editor?
I am feeling a bit jaded about the publication process right now -- the quality of service that an author can expect from their submission experience varies so wildly as to seem like a fairness issue -- but I am not so jaded to think that editors would allow their feelings of "irritation" at this (completely appropriate and expected) authorial behavior to influence their processing of the paper. I have seen a lot of weird stuff happen over the years, but I've never seen that. However, I've witnessed many, many instances of authors who don't stand up for themselves and get victimized because of it. So I think it is much sounder strategy to "irritate" editors more rather than less often. Either that or cultivate a kind of inner peace that allows these kind of delays to, truly, not bother you. For that I think it helps to do a fair amount of refereeing of one's own!
Disclosure: I am frequent reviewer and a member of an editorial board of SCI-indexed journal. The clear answer would be: you MAY ask at any time, but I suggest that you wait for the period that usually takes papers in that particular journal to be accepted. This information is, AFAIK, not systematically collected, but many journals publish "Submitted on:" and "Accepted on:" dates with the accepted papers, so it is sufficient to browse few papers for the last year to get an insight how long does it usually take.
In my field (engineering) most journals give reviewers one month to complete the reviews, I have seen deadlines as short as two weeks and as long as three months.
So if you are waiting for the next iteration for five months, it is fair chance that one of the reviewers did not complete his review (yet) and the editor should really be kicking him hard to do his duty (which he may be doing it, but behind the scenes).
So: YES, do ask after waiting five months.
It also might depend on the publisher's/journal's policies. While the journal can never garantee a review time the editor can influence the time of review. In all review request's I so far received I was also questioned if I could perform in timeframe XY.
Usually I find in the author's guideline an average review time of the last three years or so. This should give you a rough hint to your question.
Apart from that I personally consider a revision review of five months a quite critical time frame already in general. The reviewers have read the manuscript before and documented critical paragraphs. It costs a lot less time to:
a) re-read the whole manuscript, the reviewer already has understood the underlying theory
b) check if the suggestions have been implemented and if not to check if the author's defending arguments are reasonable
By no means I can imagine that a friendly written email about the status can be considered as spam or unethical pressure from the authors' side. Remember despite what I said there can always be reasons for an extended review time. The reviewer can get sick for example.
To conclude: I would recommend spending again a reasonable time on the journals homepage to check if you find useful informations about the review time. If not you can check also previously published papers too see if your time is an outlier. After that prepare a well written email to the editor if you do not find any reasons not to do so.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.722089
| 2012-05-04T23:49:45 |
1412
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"JeffE",
"Pooya Mahmoodi",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/45361",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9408",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1412"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What are the most important points to emphasize while pitching for a dissertation to be published as a book?
An editor for a major publishing house is visiting our institute, and some PhD students will get the chance to have a 15 min talk with them and discuss the publication of their dissertation as a book.
I would like to pitch my dissertation (a few months from completion) as a potential book for their publishing house. I am in the social sciences in Europe and there is no tradition of the authors getting any financial benefits out of their books, indeed sometimes we have to pay the publishers. But I would like to convince this one to
a) Publish my diss
b) do it for free
What is the sort of information that this editor would be the most interested to have regarding my dissertation? What important criteria do such editors consider in coming to a decision regarding the publishability of Ph.D. dissertations?
Just to clarify, this is not a formal book proposal but only a short informal conversation, but one which I hope can be useful to both the editor and me.
(1) If possible, invite the editor to give a short presentation answering this question to all the PhD students (and faculty) in your department. (2) Have you asked your advisor? (3) Have you asked the editor?
Editors need books that will have an audience, a point, impact, and a connection to their "lists".
In a conversation you should be able to briefly summarize your manuscript -- and in this summary make clear its central argument / narrative, scope / evidence base, and its what is novel, important, and exciting about it. You should also summarize the audience for the manuscript, -- how it fits into the market: what other books are competing for this audience, and what distinguishes your manuscript. These summaries should be honest, and direct -- avoid both negativity and overstatement. Choose language to appeal to a smart, and critical, but not specialize reader -- avoid jargon, and if you have to use specialized terms, define them briefly, in common-sense terms.
For a written prospectus, follow the same model, but expand to two pages; and include an outline of the work, list of figures/tables, and note any special features such as data, or an accompanying website.
For more details, see: Germano, From Dissertation to Book and Luey, Handbook for Academic Authors
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.722378
| 2012-11-28T06:54:22 |
5500
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"410 gone",
"Amala",
"Cuong Nd",
"F'x",
"Floris",
"Ian Sudbery",
"Katzman Humble",
"Lucian Sava",
"Luke Mathieson",
"Martina Rosenkranz",
"Mod Particle",
"Nourhan Ibrahim",
"Pharap",
"Ryan Dougherty",
"Shane O Rourke",
"Stefan Surkamp",
"TheMathsGeek",
"WetlabStudent",
"ZeroTheHero",
"aeismail",
"apriori",
"geometrian",
"henning no longer feeds AI",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10225",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10582",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11883",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1265",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1370",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14238",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14239",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14240",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14244",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14253",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/142694",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14292",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15062",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/192934",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19685",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22628",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2700",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/31917",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38857",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/3890",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/44979",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/56609",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/78434",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8101",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/82972",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8560",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/90441",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96",
"keshlam",
"silvado",
"tom_q",
"user41026",
"user44979",
"walkmanyi"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9409",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5500"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Use of first person in a PhD Thesis
Is there a non written rule to which person to use in the PhD thesis, 5 years of using "We" in the papers have brought me to the innate necessity to do it every time I describe something.
Recently, though, one of my lab-mates told me that I should use I, since it is your work, if the thesis were co-written, then it would be a different story.
Is there any standard in your universities, or do you have any preferred practice.
What does your university style guide say? What does your supervisor say?
But using we makes us feel so royal . . .
Use the first person singular for acknowledgements: ``we thank our parents'' would be distinctly odd, even if `we' are not an only child.
This one strongly objects to being forced to refer to itself in the third person, and will avoid such references completely in preference to needless circumlocution.
I suspect this is where programming discussion gets the 'we' thing from.
I generally avoid "I" in scientific texts altogether, though some authors are in fact using it if they are the sole author. I can't remember seeing it in a thesis though. In texts with a sole author, I usually understand "we" as meaning the author and the reader, and I'd suggest that it's fine to use it in places where it can have that meaning. For example something like "When substituting a by b, we get ..."
A generally useful advice would be to read into some of the theses written in your group, department, and university (in decreasing relevance), and see whether there is a common pattern.
I also personally prefer "we", though I agree with silvado that the best advice is to check what is done in your research area. That is, in principle, the audience you're writing for, and the ones that will read it for your examination.
When you discuss an experiment being done, you can hardly use “we” as “author and reader”. Compare “we can derive B from A” to “I synthesized 3 grams of product K”.
@F'x: I'm typically not writing about experiments, but reading sometimes, and I hardly see the use of either "I" or "we" in this context. To me it appears that most authors use passive voice in such descriptions. I think the reasons is that these protocols should be "de-personalized", focussing on the activity, not the person that does it.
I think we is usually meant in this way "the author and the reader" in theoretical papers where the reader and author are in essence working through the math/concepts together. It however, would be a bit odd to interpret it this way for an experimental paper.
@MHH I agree. Generally the style of experimental papers is very different from theoretical papers.
@begueradj I would still use "we" since it includes the author(s) and reader. It makes the reader feel like he/she is part of the discussion (i.e. the paper that is being read).
More often than not, people use "we/I" for stuff like "we instructed the participants to..." or "we selected this model because..." as opposed to your example ("When substituting a by b, we get ..."). Of course one may still use the passive voice instead ("the participants were instructed to...", "this model was selected because..."). However, I just wish researchers would drop that silly habit of refusing to use "I" when they really mean "I". There is no justification for it - it is an arbitrary rule that enforces bad writing.
Summary:
Think about the habits and traditions in your field, think about the nature of your field and do not hesitate to take responsibility for your own (possibly not that great) ideas.
Now, let me elaborate more:
The question encourages personal opinions for a good reason. Various sources on writing research papers differ vastly, though it seems majority does not favor the first person "I" form. For one of the more serious in computer science not in favour of "I", see e.g., Knuth's Mathematical Writing (pg.4) - although later on, the material also discusses the opposite (pg.62 and 113).
Now to a personal position. I do make use of "I" in some contexts. Namely, when I write a paper as a single author and I did so in my PhD thesis. At the same time, you should have clear rules when to mix it with "we" and how. For the dissertation, I explained those rules very early on in the preface: I use "I" whenever the text speaks about my own decisions and choices I made and is the default voice. It means, that it's me who is to blame for whatever incorrect decisions exposed in the thesis. Only if I can show that there is an external force which would push anybody on my place to take the same route, I would use "we" to mean the (research) community, or humankind. I use "we", whenever the discourse is explanatory, such as an exposition of a proof. Therein, "we" stands for "me and the reader". I also strictly use "we", whenever I speak about an insight, or a result which was produced in a collaboration, such as developed in a joint research paper with somebody else. As a side-effect, since this voice is not the default one, occurrence of such "we" always enforces a citation to the joint work, which is a Good Thing.
My personal opinion also is that third person is very bad writing style, since it
offloads responsibility for the presented results to some external entity. As if it wasn't me who made the stupid decision to push that other guy from the cliff, but the guy was (somehow) pushed from the cliff. In my opinion, "we" solves that problem only a little bit, because now the writer admits a bit of responsibility for the act, but still dilutes it by taking into the game somebody else (either the reader, or the abstract research community). Saying "I did this and that and by doing it I personally found this and that" for me is fully taking responsibility for my results. It's not about bragging, or so. Now in some fields, this might be inappropriate, e.g., in pure mathematics, one studies a problem and is not pushed into any arbitrary decisions (e.g., regarding experimental setup), so a style "we" = "the two of us, you, the reader, and me, the writer" is more appropriate.
I second that and would add: Think about the habits and traditions in your country respectively language area. In my case, I'm a computer scienctist from Germany, using "I" and "we" in scientific works is an absolute no-no. In contrast, I've seen quite a lot articles in English language which use "I" and "we".
@StefanSurkamp I wrote the original answer being a computer scientist who did his PhD in Germany :-).
@walkmanyi Using "I" in the contexts you outlined is absolutely appropriate for a CS PhD thesis written in the English language.
It is interesting to see what Charles Darwin did in his scientific writing.
According to Serendip Studio:
Darwin usually speaks in the first person plural when analyzing
empirical evidence he has collected and only uses the first person
singular when he is specifically speaking about his own actions, such
as, "..many special facts which I have collected," or when he is
speaking about his own qualms, such as "I am well aware that there are
on, on this view, many cases of difficulty, some of which I am trying
to investigate." However, when analyzing his evidence, he always uses
"we", such as "we notice", or "we understand"(2). Darwin's change in
footing when he is explaining his theory places himself and the reader
on the same level and makes him a more "humble" presenter, allowing us
to suspend disbelief for at least the time being and trust him.
When Darwin is speaking as the scientist, he uses "we", and when he is speaking as the human being, he uses "I". I really like that distinction.
I find the forced use of "we" when you mean "I" misplaced. It is important to sound as natural as possible in your writing - just look at Richard Feynman. You don't have to use convoluted language to win a Nobel prize. Clarity is king.
The first rule, as usual, is: what is expected of you? Ask your advisor, read earlier theses from your group, etc. to get an idea of what is the established practice.
The advice I give, and which I try to follow myself, is to mix the use of “we” and “I” depending on context. Most of the experimental or simulation work is a team effort, so “we” makes a lot of sense to describe that:
From the results of the simulation, we have calculated the spatial dispersion of ∆, which is presented in Figure 42
However, a PhD thesis should show that the applicant has a clear understanding and autonomy in a given research project, and thus is capable of making technical and strategic decisions (though not always alone, of course). As such, I encourage the use of “I” to describe such decisions, orientations and reflexion. I try to give an example:
After consideration of the points discussed above, I decided to focus my effort for the most part in optimizing the gigawattage of the circuit, which I consider based on all the data gathered to be the factor with the largest potential for improvement.
Silvado gave an answer that is, in my opinion, perfectly applicable to mathematical derivations, and the discussion of results. In those cases, you can safely use “we” to mean “the author and reader”, as in “we thus derive theorem X from lemma Y”, or “we see on Figure 42 a clear correlation between A and B”.
Mixing "we" and "I" can be very confusing, particularly if they're in proximity to one another. The use of "we" can often be omitted through clever rewriting: "Using result A, X leads directly to Y." The use of "I" is probably harder to eliminate, and I would argue it shouldn't be.
Mixing “we” and “I” is confusing if you use them interchangeably, but not if there is a logic to it. I have now seen it used in quite a few theses, and it works fine. I agree with you that clarity is the one true criterion.
@aeismail That "clever rewriting", to use the passive voice, almost always makes prose harder to understanding and less clear, thereby reducing the value of the piece of writing.
The use of first person singular is essential to correctly identify in a thesis the work of the candidate and dissociate it from the work of done in collaboration.
I always view "we" as "you and the reader" and you and your reader journey through the subject together.
I think this was already covered quite well by @silvado. Also, as I noted below his answer: when you discuss an experiment being done, you can hardly use “we” as “author and reader”. Compare “we can derive B from A” to “I synthesized 3 grams of product K”.
I was told that my PhD thesis should be written in the third person. In cases where it was nessacery to reffer to ones-self the term "the author" could be used but use of this term was discoured. The theory goes that the emphasis in acadmic writing should be on what was done rather than who did it.
Personally I dislike this style. IMO it makes it much harder to be clear about what you did verses what is already common knowlage.
My PhD was in Electrical Engineering at the University of Manchester in the UK.
Third person - masculine or feminine?
I am a retired professor. I was taught, and I always required, that theses and dissertations be written in 3rd person or, on rare occasions, in 1st person plural. Towards the end of my career, I had students increasingly writing in first person singular. This grated on my nerves enormously. Why? It seemed arrogant and ignored the substantial assistance provided by the committee and the funding agency. Also, it flew in the face of unspoken tradition: that scientists did their work with humility for the betterment of society. Any recognition of the scientist should come later from society at large and the community of scientists.
We sound like a retired professor.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.723378
| 2012-12-18T03:01:46 |
5828
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"410 gone",
"Brian",
"JeffE",
"Lagerbaer",
"Leon palafox",
"Lonerli",
"Michael C",
"Rex Kerr",
"commando",
"cpjobling",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15080",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15082",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15090",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15094",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15095",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15116",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15159",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15218",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2806",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/669",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96",
"kunal saxena",
"sus_mlm"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9410",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5828"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How to skim through Phd Theses
My adviser asked me to go over some PhD theses over the weekend, and by some he meant three 200~ pages theses.
Is there an effective way to skim through theses that you have figured out, as more experienced academics. I could not go over all of them without taking most of my weekend doing so.
Go over/skim for what purpose? To familiarize yourself with the format, the style, and the level of detail? Or to get a brief overview of the actual results? Or to scare you into starting to work on your own thesis already? Or something else?
I'm already over with my thesis, but we are starting a new project, and he told me those theses were relevant
@Leonpalafox please can you edit your comment into the body of your question; together with a clarification (if possible) as to why they are relevant (if your advisor has said why) - is it the writing style, the results, the methodology, the discussion, the bibliography, the "further research"? If in doubt, ask your advisor.
They are relevant because it's a new topic that we are delving with and the theses seem to be frequently cited by most papers.
Do you know how to do this with papers? If yes, why is a thesis harder? Also, are you certain it's not intended that you spend most of your weekend understanding the relevant work in a new topic? Personally I'd want to spend quite a bit more time than a weekend on that.
Of course, you can use existing theses just like you would a journal article where you extract information to guide your research. However, I'd like to focus discussion here on the role of theses as a tool for teaching you how to write your own thesis.
Choosing theses to deconstruct:
Assuming you are writing a PhD thesis yourself, it can be really helpful to find a selection of other PhD theses in order to give you a sense of what the overall product can look like. Three is a good start, but I would be aiming to find about six or seven. The best theses are probably those that are
on a similar topic or at least in the same discipline as your thesis and with a broadly similar methodological orientation
follow a similar structural framework to your own (e.g., similar length, same in terms of whether it is a large thesis or PhD by publication)
well written
Things to learn from deconstruction: Carefully deconstructing such manuscripts can teach you a lot about both what a thesis involves and also what are some of the alternative modes of presentation. For instance you can look at things like:
How was it formatted
How many chapters were there and how was content distributed
How were aims presented and how was the importance of the thesis justified
How was literature, method,results, and discussion distributed (e.g., some in each chapter or over separate chapters)
How extensive or focussed was the literature review
What was the overall scale of the thesis (e.g., amount of data collection, sophistication of analyses, etc.)
What is the standard expected of a thesis (e.g., seeing the imperfections of theses that have passed can be helpful should you fall victim to perfectionism)
When in candidature to spend time deconstructing:
In fact, examining and deconstructing theses can be a useful exercise at multiple stages of your PhD candidature.
At the very start of your PhD it can give you a broad feel for what it is that you are aiming to produce.
When you are moving towards setting out the overall structure of your thesis in terms of chapters and sections it can give you a feel of whether you are on track
When you are making formatting and stylistic decisions, existing theses can provide a useful frame of reference.
I would just start from the table of contents. Usually, the whole thesis is not applicable to your current research, but only a pocket full of sections are. Identify the handful of sections that are most relevant to your research, and just read those. Also, if your advisor specifically requested these particular theses, he/she suspects there's something in particular about them that is of value to your research. Ask him/her what it is about these theses that is most fascinating/relevant to your research and just read that part.
Bottom line: Don't try to understand everything in it... just find the parts that most apply to you and your research and get the main idea, not the details.
This is probably field dependent. In my field tables and contain the majority of the information.
Print the abstract, table of contents, list of figures, list of tables, conclusions, and any lists of symbols/nomenclature. You will need these a lot and it is easier to be able to mark them up.
Read the abstract and table of contents. Ideally looking for the things that are interesting to you. If the thesis seems to be well written and well organized, then reading the first paragraph of each chapter might be useful.
Work you way through the figures and tables. Ideally you will only need the information in the captions, but you may need to refer to the methods for additional information. Use the printed table of contents and the search function to efficiently. Don't read the methods, only use them when you have a specific question.
Read the conclusions. Anything that you don't understand/agree with go back to the figures and tables. If you still don't get it, search the results/discussion for references to the corresponding figure/table. If you still don't get it, decide if you really need it. If so, mark it down to figure out later.
It is hard to assess.
What is your advisor's expectations? is it a detailed review of the hypothesis, methodology and results of the theses? or it is just to know thing?
For not spending too much, I would suggest going directly to the Abstract. Then there is one or two core chapters discussing the ideas. General sense of what is going on these chapters is good enough.
Again, it depends upon your advisor's expectations. This said, i'm newbie to academics.
Every PhD should at least exhibit explicit contributions and some validation of them. The devil is in the details, but you can start from those two dimensions.
I back up what Paul said, but as I had to do something similar just a few weeks back, here's what worked for me: I found most relevant publications (articles) by the same author.
Typically, there's not that much publications related to a thesis, and there's a possibility that most of the papers are just extensions to the first one. Here's what I think from a Computer Science perspective.
Read the first publication by the author related to the thesis topic
Some of the following articles are probably application focus for the (novel) technique presented in the first article, or provide a heavy math background - these are not really needed to understand the idea
There might be an article or two improving the construction algorithm (the concept stays the same, but some implementation improvements)
In the end, you'll end up reading the first + one or two other articles and that will give you a good idea of what the whole thesis is about
Now that you understand the concepts presented in the thesis, you understand the Table of Contents fully. You can easily identify chapters interesting to you, and read only the selected ones.
It is still a lengthy process, but I think faster than trying to read the whole thesis, and gives a lot result-wise: you not only understood the concepts you needed, but did literature research as well, and know exactly where to look for every type of extra details you might need.
This all said, this is the process that worked for me when I needed to understand the concept presented, the main idea (but not the details) of implementation, and wanted to be able to apply the concept "by hand" and "on paper" for small mock examples.
I think the process can be adapted for whatever goal you have in reading the thesis: you almost certainly are not interested in absolutely everything presented in the thesis on your first read-out. So, if you are, for example, interested in the application domain, you'll read the application focus articles instead, and not math profs.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.724190
| 2013-12-27T17:06:01 |
15122
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Andreas Blass",
"Dusteh",
"Falgun",
"GradSoon",
"JeffE",
"John Doe",
"aeismail",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14506",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/39385",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/39386",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/39387",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/39390",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/39395",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"tmarwen"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9411",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/15122"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What should be the order of references in a research text?
In many research articles numerical values are used for citing references in the text. I have seen the numbering of such references in pretty weird orders.
In some texts, the references are sequenced as they are cited in the article. For example,
Case 1:
Statement X[1], says that the technique ABC[2] solves the problem by utilizing the Y method[3]
While in a few, they seem to follow random ordering like
Case 2:
Technique X[95,46,38] has been long used for solving the problem
discussed in [12]
In some others
Case 3:
Technique X[56] has been used in [23] to solve Y.
Are there any standard conventions or best practice for ordering the references ?
(My field is computer science)
The order is determined by the standard applied by each journal to their publication. In some cases, references are listed alphabetically in the reference list. In this case, the order of appearance of the numbers in the text may seem random (this is equivalent to your cases 2 and 3). In some cases, references are listed in the order they appear in the text. This yields the first example you provide.
So there is no right or wrong, there are different standards and which you need to follow is given by the journal in which you aim to publish.If you are concerned with which system to use in a report or your thesis, you should simply check with your department or organization to see which they follow. If there are no guidelines, I would suggest the system you find most commonly used in journals that lie close to your subject but you could essentially select whichever one you want as long as it is consistent and logical.
In any case, the middle example would be less than ideal, since it puts the reference numbers completely out of order. That might work with "Harvard style" references which give the authors' name, but not in numerical references. So you'd want to use your bibliography software's tools to make sure you take care of issues like that (rather than trying to manually organize it yourself!).
\usepackage{cite}
@aeismail I don't understand what's wrong with the middle example. Provided reference [95] chronologically precedes [46] and [46] chronologically precedes [38], this looks OK to me (except for missing spaces).
@AndreasBlass: The issue is that people do not expect to see numbered references "out of order" like that—and there's no inherent expectation that numbered references are ordered chronologically. Harvard references, yes; numbered references, no.
@aeismail I agree that, if the references in a cluster like [95, 46, 38] are out of numerical order and also out of chronological order, then something's wrong. But I'm not at all surprised when I see such references in chronological order (and out of numerical order).
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.724470
| 2014-07-04T11:29:35 |
24377
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Alos",
"Chris Obiero",
"New teacher",
"Piko",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/18186",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65402",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65403",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65404",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65409",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65410",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65416",
"tsjerry",
"user27583",
"user55926"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9412",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/24377"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Should chapter introduction and conclusion be included in the table of contents?
In my thesis, I have five chapters, each of which includes sections and subsections. Each of the five chapters has an introduction and conclusion.
Should chapter introductions and conclusions be included in the table of contents?
If yes, should they be formatted as a first heading, like that of the APA style?
The overriding response here has to be "consult your supervisor, or any documentation that you university says on how they want things to be formatted".
However, if neither of those gives useful information, I would simply include them if you are including other headings at the same level. So if each chapter has multiple sections of which the introduction and conclusions are examples, I would format them the same as other sections and include all of the sections in the ToC.
Yes, Introduction and Conclusions are core parts that need to be included in a ToC. Note that it is not necessary that the chapters have these titles although in the vast majority of cases they do.
The Introduction sets the perspective for the chapter and the Conclusions summarizes the important conclusions reached in the discussion. Hopefully the Conclusions tie in with the perspective(s) set in the Introduction since they constitute the head and tail of the chapter and the partial conclusions reached therein.
In cap off, if you have a heading within the main part of the thesis it should be in the ToC and this includes Introduction and Conclusions. In the case of a chapter, it may be worth providing a more meaty, descriptive title for the introduction that ties in with the theme of the chapter. This is in my opinion less so concerning conclusions.
I think there is misunderstanding. "In my thesis, I have five chapters ... Each of the five chapters has an introduction and conclusion." Moreover, I said, "Should chapter introductions and conclusions," that is the introduction of a chapter, not the chapter as an introduction.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.724673
| 2012-08-10T14:54:25 |
2810
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Cipher",
"Irwin",
"KLnoon",
"Mert Karakaya",
"Sklivvz",
"einpoklum",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/48931",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5944",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7079",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7080",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7081",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7087",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7319",
"vissi"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9413",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2810"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How to ask someone (outside the department) to be on the thesis committee
I have to request a faculty member outside of my department to be on my thesis committee and I was wondering how I should go about doing this. To be frank, I don't really see why someone would be willing to be on the thesis committee for someone outside their department and even field - apart from the altruism of wanting to help others in academia and all, but I assume professors are busy! Therefore, I imagine that it's hard to convince someone to do this?
In any case, I was wondering:
what information about myself should I aim to include in an email request to a potential thesis committee member outside my department?
In addition, while I need to find someone to file my candidacy papers, but I have only a vague idea of what my final thesis will look like (I know the field, but not the particular question it will address.)
Some things I have come up with include:
a rough description of the subject area
'expected' graduation date and number of years spent in graduate school so far
if they have been on the thesis committee for someone else with a similar thesis (by looking at the thesis committees of former students who worked with my advisor)
Your advisor may also help you identify people outside of the department that might be interested in your work.
"Hey, Professor Smith, are you busy next Tuesday? No? Good, cause I got this thing, see..."
From my experience, having cross-department committee members is very common, and can actually be very beneficial to the student, as you gain access to expertise and perspective you might otherwise miss. There's usually at least some connection between the research being done and the expertise of the faculty member. To use myself as an example, my research involved behavioral neuroscience, but I had both an electrical engineering faculty with signal processing experience and a psychology faculty on my committee, and they both gave very useful advice with my project. That being said, I had a committee member who was completely unrelated to my work (my focus shifted midway through my PhD career), and he requested to still stay on despite the lack of direct research connection; he was happy just to give advice and provide feedback.
You can find potential committee members by talking to other graduate students, and by looking at what theses professors have worked on (as you suggest above). I definitely recommend talking to other students; some professors are more difficult to work with than others, and you likely won't get that type of information from your advisor.
Regarding how to go about talking to the professor, I would just send a simple email asking for a meeting about this topic. If they're simply not interested, they'll say so, and you'll save yourself time. If they are, meet to discuss the following:
who you work for
what you're researching (both the ten-year research goal, if there is one, as well as your specific project)
why you think this faculty member can help you
why this person should be interested (this should be tacit; i.e., you shouldn't have to say it explicitly, he should understand it from the above items)
As eykanal mentioned, this is very common. Likely the same requirement exists in the other departments at your institution. Your request will not get rejected solely because you are from a different program. They may still decline if they feel that they know too little about your field.
If you want to maximize your chances of identifying a professor who will agree, then approach professors who have participated in the committees of other members of your group. Which professor(s) sat on the committees of recent graduates? Which professors have your fellow group members gone to? Perhaps your adviser has an unofficial reciprocal agreement with one or more faculty members in different departments. Mine did.
If there is already a connection between your group and a professor, then an email from you like the kind eykanal describes will not actually seem so random to that individual.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.725020
| 2014-06-23T15:33:26 |
23864
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Clémence.Z",
"Dean C Wills",
"Displayname",
"John Gunnar Carlsson",
"Lost1",
"Muhammad Usman",
"Robert",
"StrongBad",
"Trylks",
"Usman",
"apetros85",
"hoffmale",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10156",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14115",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/42952",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63816",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63817",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63818",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63828",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63829",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63830",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63831",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63835",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63920",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63925",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7571",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929",
"nivag",
"user382773",
"user63830"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9414",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23864"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Will you be expelled if you commit a crime as a student in the UK?
I initially thought this was off-topic but StrongBad told me this is not, so thank you.
A friend of mine has been a victim of fraud by someone at an university. This was investigated by the police and will almost certainly lead to a conviction and probably a prison sentence. My question is do universities (automatically?) expel people for committing criminal offenses whilst a student?
The specific University in question here is Cambridge.
I'm a bit confuzzled by the question, in my mind the concern for being expelled from a university is several orders of magnitude below of the concern for being imprisoned.
@Trylks in this case, perhaps not. Given this person is not actually British, he can just leave the UK. No criminal record. The prison sentence is probably not going to be more than a couple of month...
Even if the University does not expell him, his student visa can be revoked (if he is here with a student visa). He should check that.
I am aware of no University that automatically does anything. That said, most Universities, have policies in place to protect their reputation. At Cambridge, both Christ's College and Griton College have almost identical policies which makes me think there is an underlying university policy that I cannot easily find. To quote Griton's policy:
Additionally, the University has a number of sanctions for behaviour impinging on the image of the University, while the most serious breaches, including all criminal behaviour, will be referred to the local police.
Basically, Universities should be reporting any criminal activity to the local authorities. They also have the right to follow their own policies, of which expulsion is a possibility. Universities like to protect their images (e.g., the recent sex offence scandals in the US). So what the University will do may depend on if the victim of the crime was another student and how vocal the sides are.
I also searched and found nothing, being a student from Trinity myself. The victim is not a member of the University.
@Lost1 it is likely buried some place in here: http://www.cam.ac.uk/current-students/rules-and-legal-compliance
I looked at these things and found nothing. You have been most helpful.
For cambridge general university rules are here http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2013/chapter02-front.html although I think most things fall under the colleges. These rules generally are called college/university ordinaces.
Short answer they definitely can expel you. Although they will generally have a process to follow. I suspect for most offences resulting in a jail sentence expulsion is highly likely.
Here are the rules for Imperial College http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/secretariat/collegegovernance/provisions/ordinances/e2 (I suspect most institutions have similar rules written somewhere).
Important points are:
6e: Misconduct of a nature which is likely to affect the good name and standing of the College is an offence. This likely covers any criminal activity.
10c: Summary punishment is available for minor offences for serious offences there are various boards/committees to deal with punishment. College Discipline Committee covers offences under 6e.
16-24: There are various proceducures covering how the committee must hear evidence and operate.
30f: Expulsion or suspension from college is a permitted punishment.
33: The committee shall take note of any external prosecutions.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.725394
| 2015-02-24T23:50:57 |
40532
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Ardhian",
"Corvus",
"D.W.",
"Dr. Demento",
"EarlGrey",
"Faheem Mitha",
"Faisal Khan",
"Frank Li",
"Hrithik Diwakar",
"Ibrahim Kognon",
"Nicholas Mancuso",
"Plopounet",
"Ramesh",
"Stephan Kolassa",
"Wrzlprmft",
"fileunderwater",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109175",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109176",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109177",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109185",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109187",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109189",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109192",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109197",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109201",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109224",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109225",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109226",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109227",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109228",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109251",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/128758",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1471",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1566",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/27900",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/285",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4140",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/705",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7223",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7734",
"ik1ne",
"karthikt",
"octothorpe",
"qurious",
"sedrick",
"trmaphi",
"userFarkill",
"yo'"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9415",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/40532"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Are you permitted to forward the reviews from a rejected manuscript when submitting to a new journal?
Suppose I have a paper rejected from a top tier journal. The anonymous reviews highlight a number of strengths of my paper, but ultimately judge that the paper does not merit publication in that lofty journal. When I resubmit to a lower-tier journal from a different publisher - presumably after addressing some or all of the reviewer's substantive concerns - can I include the entire original reviews as part of my submission? How about including excerpts from these reviews in a cover letter?
On one hand these reviews might be seen as the property of the journal that rejected my manuscript and as part of a closed correspondence. On the other, in my role as an editor I do think everyone would be better off if we were more open about where we'd submitted and what feedback we'd received. That is useful information for an editor trying to assess the merits of a paper and decide whether to desk reject or to proceed with a full review.
I'm interested both in formal policies (I don't see any for the journals I frequent) and in general thoughts about the ethics of doing so.
Addition: To clarify, I am more interested in whether it is allowable to forward these reviews than I am in whether it is advisable to do so. The latter question depends so much on the particular circumstances that I cannot imagine a single universal answer - though it is interesting to read the thoughts of the community on this issue as well.
Not a definite answer, but I wouldn't dare do that. In general, you don't wanna them know that the paper was rejected elsewhere.
Sometimes -- perhaps even often -- that may be the case. But let's suppose that I don't mind them knowing the paper was rejected elsewhere. Presumably the editors of PLOS One or Scientific Reports or Science Advances know perfectly well that the Nature-length papers that they receive were previously rejected elsewhere, for example.
Tangent to your question, but forwarding reviews has been suggested as a solution to the "tragegy of the reviewer commons" problem (e.g. http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/references/S0169-5347%2812%2900031-6 and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01276.x/full), and is also similar to how Peerage of Science is functioning.
Some of the comments here are showing their age. This is already well-accepted practice in some fields/journals now. It is common for editors to pass along reviews from more prestigious journals to other "in-house" journals upon request.
It seems the question is on the copyrights of the review, rather than on resubmission&co. . Feel free to change the question to reflect this.
Anyohow, why would you do so?
I have done this a couple of times (but not always going down in the journal hierarchy). In my cover letter I indicated that "the paper was previously submitted to [blah], but was rejected because [...]. A copy of the report can be obtained by writing to [editor name]."
The motivation for not including the copy of the report is that it keeps me honest. I can't just select the bits I like.
I have never had any problems with this approach, and I believe it to be the right thing to do. It saves editors' and referees' work.
+1. I'd change the wording to "For a copy of the reports, please contact [editor name]." After all, that editor might decline sharing the reports. (And the fact that your approach allows the rejecting editor to decide whether or not to share the report is a very good point!)
Personally, this isn't something I would do. And honestly, the transparency argument is a little bit of a non-starter unless you're also going to quote the reasons for the rejection of the paper.
Instead, I would try to take the spirit of those reviews and work them into the cover letter, in your own words, to talk about the strength and importance of the paper.
You certainly can but what is important for the receiving journal is to have an account of how you have revised your manuscript after rejection to improve the aspects on which it was rejected. Hence providing the reviews in full may not be the best way.
As an editor, I am very happy when I receive a re-submission that clearly states why and where it was rejected followed with such an account of revisions and also why the author believes the manuscript is now publishable. What I am looking for is some tangible evidence that the reasons for rejection has been followed up. There are of course several reasons for rejection that are easily declared such as unsuitable for the journal, or rejection from a high impact journal that rejects even what would normally be major revisions (i.e. journal does not allow anything but minor revisions).
What is not appreciated are sob stories about mistreatment even though mistakes happen. No journal publishes articles because they are sorry for the author. A focus on the scientific improvements is therefore key and providing a thorough account of revisions is a solid basis for the receiving journal to consider the manuscript for review.
Wholehearted agreement about the sob story thing. The last thing I need to deal with as an editor is an author who already thinks he or she is being mistreated by the world.
In theory (in a better world) this might be a reasonable thing to do. In the world we live in, I think this is a bad idea. To start with, including rejection notices to a journal that you are hoping to get your paper accepted in just comes across as negative. Also, maybe the journal you are submitted to would be insulted that you got rejected from that other journal but are hoping to be accepted here. There are just too many downsides, and I don't see an obvious upside. Fix your paper based on the earlier reviews, and resubmit. Don't talk about those reviews.
This is helpful general advice, but it appears the question is asking about what is allowable, not what is advisable, so it doesn't seem to answer the question that was posed.
@D.W. Yes, so the poster said. If people think it is not useful, I could delete it.
I see no reason why it wouldn't be allowed to include previous review reports unless the original journal publisher explicitly states that all reviews are confidential and remain their property (and I have never seen this before when submitting papers). Similarly, as a reviewer, I have never ticked a box stating that the publisher retains copyright of my review reports.
For a single case example: I have submitted previous reviews when resubmitting to a different journal (my field is ecology). However, I didn't cherry-pick selected bits, but included the full report with all my responses.
The manuscript was accepted by the second journal. I'm not sure whether they even read the previous reviews or whether it influenced their decision, but I can assure you that it didn't do any harm in my case (the manuscript was accepted, after all).
However, the circumstances of this submission were very specific, so I'm not sure this advice applies to the majority of other scenarios.
In my instance, I received positive reviews from the anonymous reviewers at the first journal, but the manuscript was rejected by the handling editor because it was supposedly too complex for the broad readership of that specific journal (not because of any inherent flaws in the research itself). At first, my co-authors and I appealed this decision (after asking the Editor in Chief for permission to do so) and resubmitted a revised manuscript in which we (a) tried to make it more accessible for a general audience and (b) corrected all the minor issues raised by the reviewers. Included in this resubmission, was a detailed (>15 pages) response letter to the first round of review. Unfortunately, even though the manuscript was reassigned to a different handling editor, it was rejected again.
When I resubmitted to a different journal, I didn't have to change anything in the manuscript (the minor issues were already rectified). I also had a long, detailed response letter, which I just added as a 'additional file not for publication' in the online submission platform (as one would add related unpublished works for additional background).
Some extra notes:
In my field, ecology, there is a general understanding that most
papers have been rejected previously before they are eventually
accepted (examples: here, here and here). Perhaps being rejected previously has less of a stigma than
in other fields?
The second journal in my experience actually had a higher impact
factor than the first, which was older and, therefore,
considered more prestigious (hence my decision to submit there
first).
In my case, the reviewer at the first journal signed his review
report (and was positive about the submission). I knew that he was on
the editorial board at the second journal, hence my motivation to
disclose why the manuscript was rejected previously.
Lastly, and most importantly, I included the ENTIRE review report,
not just the few parts that were positive. I would not advise this
strategy if you receive negative reviews, obviously.
The reviews are certainly copyrighted works as copyright is automatic (you do not have to claim it) and is not lost by dissemination. Now, it is debatable and probably dependent on legislature whether forwarding a review is covered by fair use or similar exemptions to copyright or whether it is dissemination at all, but that’s independent of boxes ticked and warning statements.
Whether it is allowable to submit previous reviews depends, in my opinion, on whether the reviews were anonymous. With anonymous reviews I see no ethical problem: these reviews are supposed to be written by professionals impartially assessing your work. As such these are pure pieces of scientific knowledge and rather than sink into oblivion in your mailbox they could be used to inform other people as well.
If a review is signed, I would approach the referee if he or she does not have objections. If they do not respond, I think it is allowable to submit the review if only it can be fully impersonated just by removing the signature. For example, if the referee quotes many papers of their own (or solely those papers) and then sign his/her name, I would not submit such a review.
The reason for respecting privacy of the referee is that this referee may have views that run counter to his or her boss. So disclosing his or her attitude could harm the referee.
A special question is to whether to submit the editor's decision, which is always signed. Unlike the referee, the editor is a public figure who should bear responsibility both for papers that get published in their journal as well as for rejected ones. So I would think it is allowable to submit the editor's decision.
However, you should bear in mind that there are journals explicitly prohibiting publication of the reviews. One example is Proceedings of the Royal Society Series A: A Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. I had an argument once with the Editor-in-Chief who rejected our paper based on feedbacks of five referees three of whom were positive. I approached him with a request that I would like to post the reviews, as well as his own comments, on a blog and answer them openly. The Editor rejected firmly albeit without giving reasons. While I strongly disagree with this attitude, respecting the journal I never disclosed the reviews.
On the other hand, many journals including those of the European Geophysical Union, strive to keep the reviewing process as open as possible and some of the reviews are published while the paper is under consideration. In this case, apparently, there is no problem in submitting these reviews or linking to them in your next submissions.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.726507
| 2014-03-10T21:28:22 |
18027
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"A.Almu",
"Darren Ong",
"Nate Eldredge",
"Novice Physicist",
"Nythiennzo",
"PREDATOR",
"Pete L. Clark",
"Ravinder Singh",
"cbeleites",
"cloud three",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1010",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11047",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/48656",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/48657",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/48658",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/48662",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/48666",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/48668",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5674",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/938",
"posdef"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9416",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/18027"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How to acknowledge contributions of anonymous referee in new paper?
I'm in mathematics, just in case that matters.
I submitted a manuscript to a journal, and got an extensive referee report from referee X. After sending the revision, the paper got rejected, so I sent it to a second journal where it got accepted.
Later, I got a note from the editor of the first journal saying that referee X found a way to improve my results, and the editor gave me a pdf file from referee X outlining his/her ideas. Unfortunately, since my manuscript had already been accepted for publication I could not change it at this point.
Nevertheless, the improvement that referee X suggested is significant enough to merit another paper. I asked the editor to pass on an invitation to referee X to work on a joint paper with me, but the editor refused, saying that he didn't want to violate referee anonymity.
I think the paper needs to be written, but I feel it would be strange for me to write a single-author paper when the most significant idea does not originate with me. (Referee X only gave me a vague sketch of the idea, there are things that still have to be worked out. I still have to do a lot of work, but the most important insight would be referee X's). I suppose I'm just going to write a few paragraphs in the introduction explaining the situation. I was wondering if there would be another way to handle the issue.
Did the editor not even consider asking the reviewer in question whether or not s/he would like to collaborate with you? (also related, if not possible duplicate: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8509/acknowledging-a-reviewer-from-a-journal-from-which-the-paper-was-rejected)
I was told that putting me on contact with the referee would violate referee anonyMity. To clarify, the peer review was not double blind
Also related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/13765/how-to-offer-a-reviewer-to-be-co-author
@DarrenOng putting you in contact with a referee would indeed violate the referee's anonymity. However if the editor passes along your contact information to the referee, then the person in question can choose to stay anonymous or not, then it's up to the referee to decide.
You can state something like "I am indebted to an anonymous reviewer of an earlier paper (give ref) for providing insightful comments and providing directions for additional work which has resulted in this paper. Without the anonymous reviewers supportive work this paper would not have been possible." The exact wording is of course up to you and what you see fits reality best.
I think it is a pity the editor does not want to forward your invite (I assume the review system is not double blind?). Asking is not a breach. I can, however, see that an editor does not necessarily want to become a messenger.
With a clear statement in the acknowledgement you have done what you can and I am sure the reviewer will pick up on it sooner or later and maybe after your new paper get in touch. After all, there is really not much you can do about it.
From my understanding of the details of the situation, the editor is not acting well in refusing to pass along your invitation to the referee. Doing so does not violate anonymity in any way (I am confident that the review process was not "double blind" -- i.e., the referee knows the author's identity -- in my experience, no mathematics papers are reviewed in this way.) Maybe what the editor is thinking is that in order to accept your offer the referee would have to violate anonymity.
However, is this an ethical issue? I have always held it to be the case that a referee can disclose her identity to an author at any time, and I have done this more than once as a referee. I can vaguely see some ethical problems which might arise if this process of referee-self-disclosure were very widespread, but it seems like a bit of a stretch. I would be very interested if someone can explain to me why this is a real concern.
Against the highly nebulous previous paragraph one must balance the ethical issue that academic ideas are not gifts that one person can freely bestow upon another. I wrote the previous sentence in full awareness of the fact that mathematics in practice does have some degree of noblesse oblige: one often encounters very eminent and senior mathematicians giving ideas away to younger / less experienced / less eminent mathematicians without wanting anything in return: in mathematics we are inculcated to have a view that certain contributions are "below our level" and thus not worth taking credit for. That is fine if "not taking credit" means not becoming an author on a paper. But if it means not disclosing your contribution at all -- with the consequence that the begifted junior mathematician gets "too much credit" for work that had a significant component that was not his own -- well, that is hardly a victimless crime in our current highly competitive job-market. In fact it seems to be a form of plagiarism.
[The situation brings to mind Karl Iagnemma's short story "Zilkowski's Theorem". This was anthologized in the Best American Short Stories of 2002. Remarkably, this was only one of two short stories in that anthology in which the main character was a practitioner of the mathematical sciences. The other is Leonard Michaels's "Nachmann from Los Angeles". Both were excellent!]
Perhaps you should write back to the editor to express these ethical concerns. Getting the editor-in-chief of the journal involved (if this is not already the editor you are dealing with) is also a good idea at this point.
If you really don't know the identity of the author, then you need to indicate clearly the circumstances in whatever paper you write. You may also want to make it known in your circles that you would very much like to know the identity of the mathematician who helped you write your next paper. Depending upon how small / tightly knit your particular subcommunity is, you may have more or less luck with that, but it's certainly worth a try.
+1 for "spread the word in your subcommunity". That seems fairly likely to succeed. Especially if, for instance, you mention it when you give a talk on your work in a conference or seminar.
On the subject of referee self-disclosure, see http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9523/is-it-acceptable-as-referee-to-contact-an-author-on-a-paper-you-review and http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/15739/is-it-appropriate-as-a-referee-to-contact-an-author-after-the-editor-rejected-th
@Nate: Thanks for the references. I read through both of them and saw some convincing points against identifying yourself as a referee and/or directly communicating with the author during the processing of the submission. The disclosure that the OP is asking about, and the kind that I am talking about, takes place after the submission has been accepted or rejected. Everything I read on those other questions is supportive of this (except one line allowing that "some people don't approve of this"). Did you see anything more specifically against, or do you have any thoughts on it yourself?
I guess from your phrasing and mine, it may have looked like I was providing objections, but I just meant to point to some prior discussion on the matter. I don't know of any specific objections nor have any of my own. One could make the argument that if referees often unblind themselves, it could cause others to feel pressured to do the same, but that doesn't strike me as compelling.
Even if the review had been double blind: it is over as the original manuscript was rejected and the paper is now published somewhere else. So the only concern that could still be an issue is whether author or reviewer want to stay anonymous. But the editor knows that the author is willing to give up the anonymity. I don't see anything speaking against forwarding the invitation to the reviewer in this situation (who can decide whether or not to give up anonymity, as has been pointed out already).
@cbeleites: Good point. That helps to make my answer more broadly applicable than just to mathematics.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.727165
| 2015-03-10T17:12:03 |
41416
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"A. Howells",
"Andrew Koster",
"Caner Aykul",
"CodesInChaos",
"Curtis Fenner",
"Davidmh",
"Mr. Xcoder",
"Paul",
"Pete L. Clark",
"Promila",
"Raphael",
"Shatha Almagzoub",
"Trevor Wilson",
"boldsoon",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111750",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111751",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111752",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111760",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111779",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111787",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111810",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111811",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111888",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12587",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1419",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28064",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5666",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8937",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/938",
"user111751"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9417",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/41416"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
As a TA, how should I address the professor's difficult curriculum?
This is my first semester being a TA for this course. However, the professor has changed since I took the course. The content seems to have grown in difficulty since I originally took the course, and I feel that the professor has been giving inadequate or unnecessarily difficult problems to get across relatively simple concepts in lectures, which I then have to explain in tutorials.
I have compared to my previous notes and although the major concepts are the same, the examples used are overly complex, and I can see some students are falling behind as a result. Is there an appropriate, professional way to get this message across to the professor without sounding like I am not familiar enough with the material for the position as an assistant for this course?
The level is the professor's to determine, so it's probably better to back off there. However, the lecture (and prior courses) should enable students to cope -- if there is an imbalance, that you can bring up with the professor. Maybe they'll realize they have been overly optimistic, or they can fix something so students can reach the desired level. (Don't discount the idea that maybe your iteration of the course was of too low a level, and that some students fall behind because they are not competent enough.)
Begin with the assumption that there are good reasons for the change: professors rarely make a large change in a course without thinking about why (it's just too much work to bother). Rather than beginning with your judgement (which might or might not be justified), open with an observation and a question, something like:
I was looking at my old notes, and I've noticed that the examples have changed a lot and gotten significantly more complex. I was wondering if you could tell me a little bit more about how you've changed the course and why?
Maybe the professor actually wants the class to be harder; maybe they just wanted it to be more current and don't realize it became harder as well; maybe you are overlooking something... all of these are possible, and until you understand how the professor is thinking about it, you don't have enough information to figure out how to proceed.
And I would add, the best way of figuring out the reasons is talking with him. He will probably welcome the feedback, and the TA can understand the point better.
Contrary to your first sentence, it seems likely to me that the new professor doesn't have a specific reason for giving examples that are harder than the old professor did, but simply doesn't realize that his or her examples are harder.
You're assuming that the professor changed the course using the existing material as basis. With the few courses I retook, I had the impression that different professors created their own material with little regard to how other professors taught the course before them.
In my experience, the difficulty of a course can vary quite a bit depending on who is teaching it. Part of this may be that some instructors are more inclined to be demanding than others. Part of it may be, as @TrevorWilson points out, that the instructor does not realize that the material is more difficult than it used to be. I have found this to be especially true with junior faculty; they are "all over the map" in terms of course difficulty. Some are too demanding and others not demanding enough. It takes them a while to figure out what a reasonable difficulty level is.
Is there an appropriate, professional way to get this message across to the Professor without sounding like I am not familiar enough with the material for the position as an assistant for this course?
Yes: just send a short and polite e-mail to the professor mentioning that a lot of the examples seem to be too difficult for many of the students. There's no need to overthink it. If you make it clear that you are just passing along information rather than asking the professor to change the way he or she teaches the course, then I don't see how this could be objectionable.
I think your worry about "sounding like [you are] not familiar enough with the material for the position as an assistant for this course" is unfounded. I always like getting e-mails from TAs about how the course is going, and my reaction to such e-mails has never once been to think "sounds like this guy doesn't know what he's doing."
+1: I think the key idea is to phrase it as relaying information from the trenches -- "these students seem to be having trouble with many of the examples from your lectures" -- rather than the more judgmental "Your examples are more complicated than the ones that Professor Y did when he taught me the course." Maybe the professor means for the examples to be as complex as they are; but the issue is that if the students aren't getting them very well at all, he needs to know that and be given the chance to adjust accordingly.
Every teacher has his or her own approach to a problem at hand and sometimes the viewpoint can be quite different. I believe it is good manners for a teaching assistant to give feedback to the teacher about the progress of their students.
I assume you have access to the lecture notes and can check on what level explanations are given there. If you do not have access, that might be a good point to start, asking for them. Make sure when you tell the teacher, that you notice your students are falling behind. It might also be worthwhile talking to your colleagues about this situation, if they notice similar trends in their classes.
Another good way is to ask the teacher for more examples and or exercises (or literature thereof) on a more fundamental basis. These can then be seen as leading up to the more complex problems. Especially when teachers are giving a course for the first time, it can be a little rough around the edges, and some might the misjudge the principle level of their own exercises.
When I was a student, we had a similar problem with a new professor for mathematics. My teaching assistants talked to him, and successively to the other staff, about these observations. Unfortunately he was improvement resistant, even though it then came from other professors of the same field, and the whole problem had to be resolved by the faculty dean. But this is only the worst case scenario. When I was a TA myself I had vivid contact to the lecturers and they always appreciated the input.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.727820
| 2019-12-15T13:00:49 |
141619
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Based",
"Behrouz Beheshti",
"Buffy",
"Chan-Ho Suh",
"Chris H",
"CramerTV",
"David Richerby",
"Dmitry Grigoryev",
"IloneSP",
"J.Doe",
"JBentley",
"JeremyC",
"John B",
"Kevin Carlson",
"Kimball",
"Martin Bonner supports Monica",
"MarySaraf",
"Norman Gray",
"Qix - MONICA WAS MISTREATED",
"Sabine",
"Strawberry",
"TimothyAWiseman",
"eps",
"gented",
"henning no longer feeds AI",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10340",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109495",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10983",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/110488",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111845",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/112007",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/117403",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/117477",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15249",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19607",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/31917",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32934",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/36339",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/42802",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43745",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/47464",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/57737",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/57981",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5926",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/67068",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/74293",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75368",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84464",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84889",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8494",
"wimi"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9418",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/141619"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Being overqualified as a barrier for getting a job
I have a PhD and whenever I apply for a librarian job I am told that I am overqualified for this position. How can I overcome this barrier?
I'm curious about why a librarian job, unless Library Science is your field. Is it just the general economic situation in your country? A bit of additional information might lead to more helpful answers.
It should be obvious to someone with a PhD that not mentioning you have a PhD solves this problem.
@Based I had the same problem several years ago (not quite as bad, though, because there are challenging "developer" positions out there). In my case (Germany), not mentioning my PhD would have either left me with a four-year-gap in my CV or the CV showing four years of work at the university without the expected outcome - neither was an option....
@Buffy Yes. I am from a library background.
We recently hired a couple of PhD's as science librarians at our university, so it certainly wouldn't happen everywhere. Are you applying for university technical librarian positions?
I don't see how this is on-topic: it's not about academia but, rather, about trying to get a job with a particular set of qualifications. It might be on-topic at [workplace.se].
Note that, in many cases, "overqualified" constitutes indirect discrimination based on age, since older applicants are more likely to have more qualifications.
@Based "What did you do in this 4-year gap on your CV?"
I suppose you could point out that Jorge Luis Borges, J. Edgar Hoover, and Benjamiin Franklin were all librarians, so you are at least in good company.
A Ph.D. degree is just a part of your resume, and (except for a job that requires a Ph.D. degree), it shouldn't play a significant role. A good employer checks your skills and interests, with or without your Ph.D. degree.
@Based lying about a possibly 6-10 year gap on your resume probably introduces new problems, which someone in the situation would recognize.
When they say you are overqualified, it probably means:
They are afraid that someone with a Ph. D. will demand a higher salary than they can afford to pay;
They are afraid that you will get bored with the job and quit after a few months because the work won't be challenging / intellectually stimulating for someone with a Ph. D.
So, in your cover letter, you have to tell a good story that addresses the above two items (i.e., tell them why you know you will love this job and not get bored with it). If you search around on google, you can find many articles / blog posts giving more detail.
There's a third fear that may be in play here, a fear of upsetting them during rejection. other causes e.g. A lack of work experience might be replaced with overqualified on a rejection letter. "Overqualified" sounds a lot nicer when you are writing a rejection letter than "not enough experience" even when the second answer would be more useful to be told directly.
The first point makes no sense. So what if they demand a higher salary? They can say no, and that's the end. Or they can make a counter-offer and the applicant can accept or reject. I don't understand why this would be a problem - salary negotiation is a standard part of any job application. In my experience, it's the second point that is almost invariably given as an explanation when you ask for reasoning.
@JBentley because there is a non-trivial cost in interviewing someone. In the best case, you have used an interviewers time, and interviewers tend to be highly placed in the organization. In the worst case, the company may pay travel expenses and use up a lot of time of several highly placed interviewers. Most companies are also reluctant to make more offers than they have positions, so a rejected offer slows the process and lengthens the time the position is open. You don't want to make those investments unless you think there is a reasonable chance you will actually hire the person.
@JBentley "salary negotiation is a standard part of any job application" - quite often not if you are applying for an entry-level position in a government run organization (which libraries usually are). In that case, it will be advertised as a "a Grade 3a" position, and the salary will be fixed. Even if the employer does say "no", you are still back to the other fear: that the OP will leave for a better paid job after six months.
@MartinBonnersupportsMonica Yes, but I wasn't disputing the second fear, only the first. If the salary is fixed, then demanding a higher one doesn't enter into the equation in the first place (in relation to the first fear).
Regarding point one, they may even be legally compelled to give you a higher salary under the pertinent collective labor agreement.
I would argue that saying someone is "overqualified" is like a meta-reason. It's a way of alluding to the two reasons you gave while possibly masking a horde of other, less-savory reasons, e.g. fearing someone more intellectually competent than you, not wanting someone older, or simply recognizing this person has little in common with you and thus not liking them.
Some ideas are:
Apply to better libraries. I doubt that the Bodleian Library has a problem with PhDs.
Apply for other jobs that are a good match for your qualifications. Some libraries hire Researchers, and an advanced degree might be a help there. Such people help others find obscure resources. And, of course, academic jobs are made for you. Perhaps there are high level, busy, academics who would hire you as a researcher. This could be a pathway for an academic position of your own.
Finally, I was once in a similar situation (I assume) in which jobs were very scarce at my level and was advised by a professional employment advisor to prepare a CV that mentioned my MA degree, but not my PhD. Some employers would be more comfortable hiring someone with lesser qualifications than more. Sad, but true.
I hope this is only necessary as a fill in while you work out a career that does, in fact, match your qualifications. Good luck.
Can you really hide a PhD from prospective employers? It is going to be difficult to explain that 3-5-year gap... apart from being dangerous if they find out later.
Actually @wimi, I questioned it at the time. I don't recommend lying if asked, but just omitting it. You can always just say you were in school, I suppose. But answer honestly to a direct question. And there are situations in which a person is fairly desperate for a job. I had two kids in a very poor market at the time. We needed to eat.
It's quite dishonest to hide your PhD.
@JohnB it is not necessarily dishonest. The lady who tends to my feet, a podiatrist, actually has a doctorate in biology. She does not advertise that fact because she thinks that it would mislead her patients if she called herself Dr, when her doctorate has nothing whatever to do with her current profession.
@JeremyC I hope that we all are talking about a PhD in the area of the application. Otherwise the discussion has no sense! Sorry, it was not my opinion on the dishonesty, it is simply a fact.
@JohnB, If I'm asked for my highest degree I have to answer PhD. If I'm ask what qualifications I can bring to the proposed position, I can answer honestly without mentioning it. Precisely because they don't consider it a qualification, but possibly a disqualification. But if I have to assume that, then I can never apply to a lot of jobs for which I'm properly qualified.
I agree, except perhaps with the use of "CV" for this, if we're speaking American English. In the US, a "resume" is a short document listing your qualifications, accomplishments and skills most relevant to the position, so it would be a mistake to list an irrelevant degree. A "CV" to me would usually mean a document for academia listing all education, all publications, all conference participation, etc etc, but presumably this non-PhD-listing document was not one of those.
@KevinCarlson In UK English (and commonwealth?) the term 'CV' is used for both (but I didn't know that US English does use 'CV', with the more specific meaning you describe, rather than using only 'resume').
@JohnB, I have several resumes that highlight different aspects of my education and experience. The one applying as for Software Engineer positions does not mention my program management training. My Program Management resume does not include my website building skills or my Cisco CCNA certificate. Tuning one's resume for particular position and not including all experience and education (or certificates) is not dishonest. I get that this is an academic site but the question at hand does not seem to deal with that subject specifically.
There's a huge difference between tailoring a resume for a particular job and omitting something as big as a PhD. I'm confident most employers would be interested in knowing that and would find it deceptive if it was left out, which indeed is the reason people are suggesting that it be left out.
I've seen this a few times where hiring panels have given the response of 'overqualified for the position' as a slightly dishonest cop-out answer to avoid giving more accurate feedback. In these cases, what is actually meant is 'we don't think your academic experience is valuable in this workplace environment, and may actually be detrimental'.
Note that I'm coming from an engineering/computer science perspective, and experiences may be different in other fields, but often there is a stark difference between academic and commercial practices in the same industry. Someone who has advanced to the point of achieving a PhD may be seen as being too ingrained in the academic world to adapt to the commercial environment. This could be the balance between doing their work perfectly and doing their work quickly, for example.
The other case is sometimes that a person is very qualified in an academic sense, but has very little workplace experience, even outside of the industry they're qualified in. Some academics have never worked outside of a university, and there is a good chance that someone who has never worked at any job will take quite some adjusting to a working environment. This is a risk employers can avoid by hiring someone less academically qualified (if the qualifications are unnecessary) but with more working experience.
It sounds like in your case, you're applying for a role where your PhD isn't valued, so you may need to explore what else is on your resume. Would your resume impress a prospective employer even if your PhD wasn't mentioned at all? Have you included things that will be valued - such as working experience, even if not in the industry you're applying for? This could be part-time work done while you were studying, particularly any internships or secondments.
Lastly, it could be helpful to demonstrate (either through an application letter or in an interview) that you understand what the daily duties are of the role you're applying for, and importantly how they are different from your experiences in academia.
Anecdotally, I would argue that the engineering/computer science fields are unique in that anyone can be a "qualified professional" anymore given enough time and money. The hiring world for CS positions is much, much different than most other fields. The market is saturated and it's been proven time and time again that, unfortunately, a degree doesn't equate to skill (and vice versa).
You could simply leave the fact that you have a Ph.D. off of your résumé:
If your Ph.D. was 100% inside a university, you could mention it as work/internship (it that matches the contract you had).
If your Ph.D. was done in cooperation with a company, you can simply mention your experience at the company.
For someone applying for a librarian job a gap in the CV doesn't seem inadmissible either.
Leaving a PhD off of a CV is basically lying, a CV should contain all info about your academic background.
@eps Your CV should contain everything you want your employer to know. Nothing less, nothing else. Leaving a PhD off your CV isn't lying. It just doesn't matter for the position.
This is terrible advice, to say the least.
@eps It would be lying if the job application form specifically asks for "the highest degree you hold" or something similar. If the employer asks you to "describe your education", or you simply provide a CV, you're free to mention only the parts you deem relevant.
Well, the resume should be tailored to each individual job you apply for anyways, because you are trying to use it to show yourself in the best light with relevance to each individual position.
So the question is, is your PhD relevant to the librarian position? If it is, I'd leave it on there and see how you could leverage the skills to stand out among other candidates for the librarian position. But most likely it isn't, so you'd be better off leaving it off the resume, especially if you could easily replace it with something that is (much) more relevant to the librarian position that you are applying for.
Agree, but might be subtle, though. You have to do some research into the organization to guess. But you should do that research anyway.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.729342
| 2019-03-21T08:40:59 |
126826
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Alexey B.",
"Brian",
"Chris Cirefice",
"Clumsy cat",
"Daniel R. Collins",
"David Richerby",
"JeffE",
"Jouni Sirén",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Kuba hasn't forgotten Monica",
"NKCampbell",
"Solar Mike",
"Tasos Papastylianou",
"Todd Wilcox",
"Trang Oul",
"Voo",
"WetlabStudent",
"alephzero",
"computercarguy",
"corsiKa",
"doneal24",
"eckes",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/101594",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/103503",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/104283",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/105007",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/105842",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12796",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13554",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15360",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17834",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24431",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/27365",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32961",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/33018",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/34315",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/348",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/36744",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43544",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/44314",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/52615",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53576",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/58441",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/58645",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/61467",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/70455",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/72411",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/72855",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/74677",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/78754",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8101",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/82626",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84439",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/877",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/98787",
"jamesqf",
"joojaa",
"krubo",
"leftaroundabout",
"lucasgcb",
"rackandboneman",
"smcs",
"thosphor",
"unit_with_a_soul",
"user2699",
"user4052054",
"user71659",
"yourfriendlyresearchadmin"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9419",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/126826"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
The IT department bottlenecks progress. How should I handle this?
I'm currently working as a PhD student.
I am not working on a tech-oriented PhD. However, my project requires a lot of programming. This involves both working on a computation cluster, servers, and working with a variety of software. These are provided and maintained by our faculty IT support.
Now on the reason why I post: the first problems started when working on our server, maintained by our IT staff. I required some software essential to do my work, but because I have no administrator rights, I cannot install what I need. I asked IT very politely (I'm the new one after all), and they let me know that they would handle it as soon as possible.
Two weeks later, I still did not have access to the software I desperately needed to do my work. I had to ask my promotor (luckily a huge help in this matter) to ask IT, and finally the software was installed.
The following cycle continued until now:
I notice that software is missing / outdated / not working properly
I ask IT to fix the issue, because no other options are available
IT ignores my requests, leading to me having difficulties to meet deadlines
Someone with better credentials has to pressure IT into fixing the issue
Like I mentioned earlier, I absolutely love programming and computers in general, so I can fix almost all issues myself. However, my hands are tied because I have no administrator rights, and IT goes to great lengths to avoid that a non-IT person does something / installs something on one of the computers...
Does some here have similar experiences, and do you know how to smoothen this out? I obviously don't want to cause a ruckus in our department, but I also believe it to be unfair that we are blocked from doing our job. I'm not the only employee who was bottlenecked by IT, so I guess all suggestions are welcome!
Is there any chance of you installing your required software in your home directory rather than as root?
Having been on the IT department side of this, and in case you're curious, the most likely reason for their behavior is that they have a lot of more urgent work that they are catching up on, and only once someone higher up the ladder makes your request urgent does it get ahead of all the other things. To the detriment of the work on other things. So for what it's worth, they are probably not ignoring you for any personal reason, they are just scrambling to keep the servers running.
In the meantime, you could try to have things working in your computer, with a smaller dataset. This way, you know exactly what you need to make your thing work and you can go to your professor to ask them to ask IT to install all you need at once, instead of doing the cycle you describe.
This situation is very common. Have you talked to other PhD students and other staff? How do they handle it? If no procedure is in place I suggest you get familiar with installing software manually (either from source or from binary packages) in your home directory. I’ve ended up doing this at all institutes I worked at. Depending on your cluster, you might also have permissions to spin up Docker instances.
@user4052054 Yes I do that most of the time, or I try to find ways to work with what is already available (even though that might not be the most straightforward solution sometimes).
@ToddWilcox I understand that, everyone tries to do what they have to do. It's just that the contact between the researchers and the IT department is not always as effective as we want it to be. This leads to miscommunication, or in the worst case: frustration. That was the aim of this question: to find a way out that allows for everyone to do their work as effective as possible, without causing a ruckus / disturbing other people's work
@KonradRudolph Most researchers I heard talking mention that they have to mail / pass by several times before action is taken. Supervisors help out more than once (by being in cc, or actually meeting with IT) to arrange help. The home folder and virtual environments have helped me out so far indeed. It's just that I would like to handle this situation without risking difficult social situations
A lot of IT departments are like that. It is likely that over time you'll make some connections with people there and they will become more helpful. At the same time, plan to do as much as possible without admin rights; for example, if we're talking about a single Linux machine, a lot of software you can compile and install manually, without using the package repositories.
Does anybody not have this experience? This is what IT departments do. It's the easiest way to meet their objective of "reducing expenditure."
If you do manage to find a solution to this, let me know. It plagues Academia, Industry, Government, and basically every institution with an IT department.
Sometimes you can request to become a administrator of your machine. Atleast its possible in most of the universities i have visited. Thing is though, you need to know to ask for this. They dont usually go around telling about this option. However, thay do require you to be remotely competent at what you do and it may have some consequences on the legal side. This is what i have done, though i would prefer not to. Anyway once you can show you can handle yourself, thay can then expand you to a network admin on a subset.
The only thing you can do is to try to prepare a complete list and have it installed by escalating your request. Building personal contacts also helps in these matters. And of course trying to avoid the need for root. It’s also a good idea to remind IT that you are waiting.
to go along with the generally correct but unfortunate stereotypes being lobbed at IT depts, they also have their own policies and procedures to follow, especially regarding federal security and compliance statutes, and industry level compliances that must be maintained that require extensive documentation and understanding before they can just be installed as though it were your home computer. Also remember it's probably a team of less than 20 people serving your entire university. Maybe cut them a little slack or ask for a dedicated environment that is hosted off the primary network....
To follow up on NKCampbell's comment, IT and the end users have different requirements placed on them. I have been pure research (Ph.D. in a physical science), mixed environment (embedded IT support in a research environment), and now a pure IT position (IT in a government national laboratory). I have governance policies that I have to enforce even if they impede the science. I would like to give you whatever you ask for but I can't. I also have to consider the 500+ other users on the systems so when your request will break other applications you put me in a bind for the greater good.
I once asked my IT administrator for permission to use an extension cord, so I could plug my laptop, because all the existing sockets were used due to all of us there using dual monitors (we were doing medical imagine research and need to visualise complex datasets effectively). The reply was 'perhaps we should reconsider our dual-monitor policy'. I never asked IT for anything ever again.
The big issue of IT departments is that they think they are in charge and forget that they are a service to the other departments...
@Chris you have to brave out slow responses due to IT understaffing OR you can actually opt out, and be your own IT - you get more flexibility this way but the tradeoff is you get even less support. See my answers below for details on ways to install software yourself.
@SolarMike The big issue with certain users is that they forget IT is a service to all the other departments and not just to them or their group.
Related.
This is a partial solution I've used myself, and it assumes a few things:
You access your clusters remotely through a connection (like other answers pointed, cloud servers or remote), so where you work isn't exactly the bottleneck.
The software you use isn't OS dependent or has any special licenses
You do not have a ton of things hooked up from serial ports to measuring equipment and whatnot.
One thing I've done in this situation is, when you finally grab a ticket from IT, ask them to install a virtual machine like VirtualBox and have them enable virtualization in the BIOS. Most processors allow this nowadays. Make sure they install it properly or they will ghost again.
This basically allows you to install any Linux distribution you want (you need Licenses for Windows images), so it is an operating system where you have all admin rights. This completely removes the IT middleman if your case is just coding and clustering the data crunching since you don't need their permission to do things in the VM, and also shouldn't impact performance significantly.
If IT is worth half a dime, they will appreciate the solution, since:
It takes gargantuan effort to compromise the Host Machine through a VM if you are not malicious
Resulting lack of tickets from you needing something updated/installed.
Worst case scenario you can still alternate between both Operating Systems, and do small things in the VM with your admin rights.
Thank you for this information, also a valuable solution indeed! Both the cloud idea and this one might come in very handy!
I'm not sure about university IT departments, but in other areas, a user that does not have admin rights to a server cannot have a VM on that server with admin rights on the VM either. In other words, I've never worked in an IT department where this request would be granted. Something that would work in my experience is getting approval from your department or program for money for a virtual machine on a cloud service like AWS or Azure.
@Todd: In principle, anything a user in as an admin guest OS can also be done as a user host OS. Depending on how the IT department models threats, this sort of request might be granted. Where things get problematic is with VM-based security systems. E.g., Windows 10 environment has a feature called Device/Credential Guard. This security feature tends to prevent VM software from functioning. Even if the IT department is willing to toggle the BIOS virtualization settings, they'll probably be far less willing to disable Device/Credential Guard.
If the only time you need admin rights is the installation then a singularity container should do the trick. One of these things; https://www.sylabs.io/docs/ afak they are cli only, but otherwise they are basically a virtual box with better pass through. You can set it up as admin on your own machine then move the image to the cluster and run it there as a normal user.
@Todd Wilcox: As of a couple years ago, you could get a free student account on AWS. Depending on what the OP's computation needs are, that might serve.
Considering that a great many "servers" these days are virtualized to begin with, it's not that simple to ask for a VM any more. Nested virtualization has a whole lot of challenges. Also I don't understand what tools people are running that require admin permissions. I've worked on tons of clusters where I simply installed all my programs for the my user.
@Voo The difficult part is usually installing the dependencies needed for compiling the software without using a package manager. It's possible to learn to do it properly without admin rights, but it tends to take longer than finishing a PhD.
With a hypervisor cluster like oVirt or Proxmox, it's easy to delegate some resources (storage, virtual CPUs, RAM) to unprivileged users and they can then run their VM(s) on the cluster. The cluster itself consists of identical nodes, perhaps hyperconverged virtualization and storage, and nobody manages the association between VMs and hypervisors manually: it's all automated (say by oVirt engine). Any user can be granted some resources, and how they partition those between the VMs under their control is up to them. Admin access on VMs is then irrelevant: they are isolated from everything else.
I think this is a fairly common occurrence in many companies. There is a big disconnect between the researchers trying to do their work and the IT staff who may be under-resourced, under-trained or limited by administrative policy. In my experience there is often lots of worry about researchers installing software without fully understanding the security implications. In short, I would not expect you to be able to change this policy and it may well be in place for sound reasons.
One solution that has been suggested to me is that academics can apply for time using different cloud compute solutions (e.g. Google compute https://cloud.google.com/edu/, Microsoft Azure https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/education/, any many more). If successful you will be given compute time in a virtual machine where you will have appropriate administrative rights to install any software you want.
Thank you for your reply. I understand your point, a lot of people just install random software without thinking through what it does to their computer (or the network the computer is connected to). The cloud is indeed a solution I did not immediately think of (I thought it was always a paying service, but I see that they also award grants for using the cloud in academic settings). I will definitely look into it!
This might come in very handy but be aware that there might be data security implications. Uploading research data to anywhere outside of my institution's network, especially to US-based servers, could very much be a punishable offense where I work. Of course this might depend on the project, type of data etc and it might well go unnoticed, but it's worth mentioning I think.
@speedymcs Absolutely. OP needs to get permission from the relevant people, in writing. One web app I maintain at my old university has to be restricted to one university building, and faculty who want to connect outside the building have to use the university's VPN. It's locked down even to me (VPN + 2-factor auth) as the developer. Universities take data exposure very seriously, so make sure you can actually use the data and protect it in the right way!
We had this issue with some Silicon Graphics machines - we removed them from the IT department's control, with the support of the supervisors whose budgets had paid for them, and then controlled everything ourselves.
It went much better; we had more uptime and fewer issues than any other group / team on campus.
We learnt a lot about compiling & installing etc.
Not sure if you can go that route.
Note, the software we were using was CFD and the IT dept had no experience of what was needed.
Thank you for your response. Well, the problem is indeed that it is not possible for us to separate ourselves from IT using budget. The infrastructure we are working on belongs to the university, and the maintenance is a job for department IT. We indeed try to do as much as possible when it comes to the software we use (and this indeed works quite well), but being completely free from IT is really difficult I think.
How long ago was this? Today, I'd expect the response to be that the IT support team can't afford for you to be the ones who learn a lot about what happens when you get hacked. Also, nothing in the question suggests that there's money available for duplicating facilities provided by the department. (The asker is using central resources, not resources that belong to the group but which are centrally managed.)
@DavidRicherby They were on an internal network - no external hacking possible.... Funding was by particular research projects not "central" .... Unless you can hack via the power cord...
@DavidRicherby It's extremely rare in the US to not have group computers self managed, where the only thing IT requires is current antimalware. They're going to have to adapt quick: had several cases recently where instead of using a university HPC cluster, we just went to Amazon AWS or Microsoft Azure since there you install anything you want on your VM, get the right amount of RAM, cores, storage and GPU, and don't have to wait in line.
@user71659 OK but the computers in the question aren't group computers, and there's no indication whatsoever that the group can afford to buy their own computers to replace the central ones.
@SolarMike An air-gapped internal network also means no network-based software updates (and burning a CD to run an update is a pain), installing extra software and the prerequisites for the software is difficult, getting to a login prompt is usually hard. Email and network shares are out of the question. Unless you're running FISMA-high data, I would not recommend going in this route.
@DougO'Neal A cd is far better than trying to do a back-up from a tape drive...
@SolarMike I agree. But when you're under FISMA regulations, a GAO audit, and a government department pushing you out as a guinea pig for the GSS audit, one gets concerned about how often you can update your servers and how hard it is to do so regularly.
At many universities, you can actually go through a (rather secret) bureaucratic process that allows you to install your own software on the university computer, even though this is not the default option.
If this option exists, it will likely include signing forms that may limit (or even eliminate) future IT support for that computer. Basically, you are agreeing to be your own IT in exchange for flexibility. However, if you are constantly downloading software it is often worth it.
The University doesn't want to encourage this option, because it can be a perceived security risk, so you will have to directly ask administrators in your department and IT, if this option is available, as it likely won't be published online anywhere. And you may have to assertively push for it.
This process was available to me at two of the three universities I've been based at over the years (in the USA and Australia). The one that didn't allow it actually theoretically did, but the form also said that you would no longer be able to connect to the Universities wired internet network, which wasn't worth giving up for me. Read the forms very carefully before you go down this route to make sure you are comfortable with the tradeoff you are making.
Upvoted and agreed. I was at my current academic position for about 10 years before I accidentally discovered (arising from similar complaint to my chair) that we could request having my office computer be "unlocked" so I could install my own software. Meanwhile, my chair was surprised that this hadn't been done for me years earlier (CS department here).
Whilst others have focused on giving you some technical advice on alternatives to using your institution's infrastructure, I want to note that your problems are not uncommon. In my practice I opted to installing the software myself (a lot of software packets I used do not need root privileges for installation, make sure that admin access for yours is really a must) or asked supervisor for help.
If you are on good terms with your supervisor, you can always ask him for help, going from as little as cc-ing him in software installation emails that you send to your IT department to directly asking him for help when those request emails are ignored. In many organizations it's not easy for junior members to be listened to and that's just something you have to get over with.
Thank your for answering. Yes, I execute several applications as 'non elevated' user because that will give me what I need in most programs. My supervisor is indeed a big help and, for now, asking the supervisor is the best workaround. Yes, I understand that this is not a rare problem, especially for new employees like myself. However, what annoys me is that the things I ask are really not that difficult. I'm usually merely asking to install a certain software update or library that could come in handy, which is not something that takes weeks to complete.
Upvoting for the second part here - always CC someone with more leverage whenever you report issues. Just that frequently moves it up in priority a surprising amount.
Will chime in that as an admin (non-IT), receiving a cc with the PI is essentially "failing at your job". It is the form of accountability that staff relies on. So as much as we groan when we are at fault, it's absolutely the go-to for reminding other staff that we aren't doing this for our health--other, more important people care about this too. We have a million competing priorities, so unfortunately the squeaky wheel gets the oil... running from emergency to emergency...
Upvoting for the second part here. On the one hand, it is your advisor's job to make sure you have the IT resources you need. On the other hand, your advisor has actual leverage with the IT admins; you don't. Always CC your advisor, and ask your advisor to follow up immediately with "I concur with / approve this request."
You should also be managing your requests.
I mean: track when you raised the request, ask for news after a reasonable period of time (two working days), repeat that max three times. In the first follow-up you can make it clear why this is important to you. For IT staff it might sound like 'I want this tool installed', but if you detail the deadline you have and why this ticket is crucial for your work, they might understand. After the third time, get your supervisor involved. Ask him/her to escalate the request in a conversation with an IT service manager.
Don't be happy with simply solving the ticket, try to see if IT can communicate what time of service level agreement they aim to respect. Maybe installing something requires internal permissions (release management) which, for instance, makes it impossible to install stuff on a Friday, or an afternoon, or if you don't have a rollback (meaning you have to backup the entire server setup before touching anything), etc.
Managing the request also means making sure your requirements are superclear. If you think you might need a package ask them to install it. Run these installations yourself in a VM that is identical to the production setup and provide them with the commands to actually install the tools. All these things you can manage.
At all times, and I must stress that, be nice. Just be nice. Unless you have reasons to suspect someone is trolling you, you have to give them the full credit for having to tackle many such requests at the same time. Being nice will get you further on the long run. It will also show to your supervisor that you are capable of creatively handling difficult situations.
Tagging onto this answer: When following up, use multiple modes if possible. For example, start with the ticketing system, but do the first follow up by phone. Being nice and tech-savvy on the phone can work wonders with some IT departments.
As an experienced computer tech, I'd have to add that the IT dept. might already have an agreed upon Service Level Agreement (SLA) as to how soon tickets need to be addressed. Some can be as long as a week or to. The OP stating they need to get their software in only 2 days may require extra steps, signatures, or could just be flat out denied due to this prior SLA. I'd suggest the OP finds out what the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is before stating any time limits. And being nice is always a good way to stay off the bad side of the IT dept., cause that's a bad side to be on.
And you need to remember that the SLA is based on the worst-case workload that IT can reasonably expect. In my organization, we promise through an SLA that a reasonable VM will be created within two weeks. In practice, the timeframe is generally within two day and that's only because we have to depend on two other outside groups for part of the process. Also, if installation of your software involves installing multiple cutting-edge packages that affect other users, understand that IT has to support everybody, not just your research needs.
Since you're not in a "tech-oriented PhD", I'm guessing the cluster is 10 machines or less? If so, consider setting up your own cluster on any of the big cloud providers. AWS and Azure come to mind, but Google and IBM are still trying to hang on in those markets.
Thoughts on pricing:
You don't have to have the cluster up all the time, so you don't have to pay for 24hrs/day for a full month. You would have to figure out how to save/load the data and install some programs quickly (docker?), if you opt for shutting down some or all servers.
If you have fellow students or professors who are in the same boat, consider sharing your cluster and its expenses.
Depending on your research, you might (eventually) be able to get special pricing from some vendors.
On AWS, reserved instances are cheaper than spot instances.
Look at how much your time is worth, and how much these delays are impacting your research. If IT delays cost you 1 week of delays every month, then it's probably worth setting up things yourself. (Remember to back things up, and test your backup strategy. Put your code and data in github)
And lastly, are you using their ticketing system for your requests, or just asking them verbally? If there's no ticket, it'll surely be forgotten 5 minutes after you spoke to them.
This answer may apply, but I don't see where you take the logical step from “not-tech-oriented” to “probably cluster <10 nodes”. In fact, to me, needing a cluster at all while not doing tech actually suggest more likely that lots of nodes are involved. Science or data science applications tend to be really computation intensive. Furthermore, many of these applications are quite latency-critical and only perform properly when run on an actual physical cluster with native MPI support and a suitable file system like Lustre.
Doesn't AWS EMR allow for there to be clustering on demand in this case?
Adding this since nobody's mentioned it yet: You could ask your supervisor about having a meeting between you, your supervisor and someone from IT. Maybe even invite them to lunch if it's appropriate to your institution and situation. In case they're overwhelmed by tickets and/or they feel like your tickets come in from a faceless ticket-generator, it could help to meet the real researcher behind them. And you can meet the real person handling the tickets, and see if there's any way you can make your tickets more straightforward for them.
Talk to your supervisor ("promotor"?) about the issue, and suggest that you should get a server that you manage. Depending on circumstances, you can agree on a physical server, an upgrade to you workstation / laptop to make it usable as a server, or even a server instance which is completely external to your institution, like Amazon AWS.
If your supervisor insists that you must use the existing IT infrastructure, send your support requests to them the next day after contacting IT. Don't wait for two weeks. Either helping you with these requests is not much of a burden, or your supervisor will grow tired of this and do something about it.
Was this a phone call or an email? I find things usually get done faster if you call rather than email. If the communication is time-sensitive you should especially always call instead of email. An email can easily be missed or ignored until after the deadline.
When it comes to technology most people expect instant gratification. Technology is supposed to speed things up and make our lives easier, isn't it? Perhaps it does for the end-user but from an IT perspective it's a much different story. Life is much more complicated for the developer or IT professional who has to set it all up and maintain the systems. It takes time. Technology is never a 100% perfect solution and there's a lot of complicated and time-consuming stuff going on behind the scenes that most end-users aren't aware of.
+1 for synchronous communication. Unlike an e-mail, a phone call cannot be ignored until later (possibly forever). Even better, visit the IT team physically (if both you and them don't work remotely).
my.back had a good answer, and it sounds like this may be the way to go when working through a bureaucracy where some of the solutions which involve some variation of "use your own hardware" just aren't practical. To add to this, I've found the following technique useful when dealing with a department or person who is willing to help, but does things on their own time.
CC your supervisor on every request. This gives your supervisor a chance to give you feedback if you request something that you might not have realized was not necessarily what you need, or should be asking, but also lacking a response from your supervisor, it let's the person doing the thing that needs to be done know that your supervisor is aware of the request. (make sure you follow the advice given by my.back when making this initial request as far as why you need it, and when you need it)
When you don't get a response within a reasonable amount of time, send the request again, but make sure you that you put in the request itself "Second Request", making sure to again cc your supervisor on the request. This lets them know that you still do need this thing to be done, it tends to have an effect of increasing the urgency of the IT professional for your task. Repeat as necessary, making sure to put your request number in the request each time.
In my experience a second request is generally all that is needed when using this technique unless the department is just completely swamped. The tricky part is to figure out what time frame is reasonable to complete such a request, and since organizations differ, it's not one that can be answered here. I would suggest getting to know the folks who are completing your task, so that you can get an idea of what they go through, and so they can see you aren't just asking for ridiculous things and just being demanding all the time, because sometimes it's hard to see the world through other people's eyes without some context.
As a 2022 answer, I suggest using a controlled environment for your software.
For example, you might be able to lock down all of the programs you need with Conda (which, does not require admin install rights on many machines).
Or, ask IT to install and setup a container program like Singularity or Docker.
Also, consider looking elsewhere.
You might be able to use Open Science Grid or similar program depending upon your country and university.
Lastly, look for advanced computing centers or similar programs at your university such as Wisconsin's Center for High Throughput Computing or the High Performance Computing Center at Texas Tech.
A simple solution, just always make the requests through your promotor. Maybe explain to them the pattern you have noticed if they ask why you are going through them consistently.
Alternatively maybe they are doing something different, ask them how they get the IT department to resolve the issues quickly.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.731916
| 2012-06-06T09:08:35 |
1911
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5674",
"posdef"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9420",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1911"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How to manage the web presence of a research group
Given the importance of web presence how does one manage the web presence of a research group? The simplest approach seems to be to use links to the personal webpages of the group members to supply content. Is it worth creating content specifically for the group and if so should it reflect the interests of the current group membership or the interests of the PI, which will need updating less frequently?
There are many things that could be useful for the web presence of a research group, namely:
A brief presentation of the aims of this research group
The members of this working group (past and currents) with a link to their homepage
a list of publications by this research group
if there are working groups organized by this research group (for instance a presentation every two weeks by one of the member of the work done)
Other results such as software ...
Maybe a link to the people funding this research group, a little advertisement never hurts.
To add to Gopi's answer,
A list of lab alumni and optionally where they currently are working, it can help lend credibility to the lab ("look at how awesome we are, former postdocs from our lab are now working at MIT")
In the publications section, I would add downloadable PDFs of your papers, as that's the most common reason people will be visiting your website
Regarding your mention of content for the lab specifically (i.e., an intranet), we had such a page in our lab, and we used it solely to distribute (and keep historical records of) papers discussed in lab meetings.
Re: In the publications section, I would add downloadable PDFs of your papers, as that's the most common reason people will be visiting your website - not sure you're entirely allowed to do so. Is it generally applicable, or does that comment only cover Open Access articles.
In addition to the components listed by eykanal and Gopi, my group webpage includes pages for
Software developed by the group
Open positions (Ph.D. studentships and post-docs) available within the group.
These things could be maintained on my personal webpage (as PI), but I consider the group to be more than just "people who happen to be working with Prof. X".
In case it is helpful to have an example, here's mine: http://numerics.kaust.edu.sa/. I could give other examples of group sites I think are better than mine, but I don't know if they would like me advertising them as such.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.732210
| 2021-11-24T05:36:47 |
178344
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Allure",
"Austin Hemmelgarn",
"BCLC",
"Barmar",
"Buffy",
"Dave L Renfro",
"Denis Nardin",
"GEdgar",
"GoodDeeds",
"J...",
"JRN",
"Nuclear Hoagie",
"ScottishTapWater",
"Snijderfrey",
"TRiG",
"Tom",
"ddkk",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111956",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/130070",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/138892",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/149667",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20760",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21026",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24304",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/34226",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4484",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/49593",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/64",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/68109",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/72211",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/74339",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75368",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/78858",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/80256",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/80335",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/81424",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84834",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/898",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/92334",
"kaya3",
"nick012000",
"toby544",
"upstream",
"user3067860"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9421",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/178344"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Do I need to list any references for common knowledge?
When writing a book about a subject, if all your text is in your own words, and, contains only commonly known, fundamental, well established knowledge about the subject, which can all be seen in tons of resources, do you need to show any references or bibliography at all - even if you looked at other places while gathering that information, but took only the commonly established knowledge?
If you do not list any sources, can someone come to you and say "OK, you didn’t copy anything from me, but what if you looked at my book (which also has that common knowledge), since you do not list any sources"?
I am asking in terms of avoiding a legal issue. Not in terms of "citing is better for your text to be more reliable" in an academic field, etc.... This is an introductory to intermediate level book I am talking about. It is not something that claims to be at an academic level.
https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/2192/68109
Are you talking about a scientific book?
Does this answer your question? On citing "common knowledge" statements
@Snijderfrey It is not a scientific book, but an introductory to intermediate level book about some engineering subjects. anyone can read it, it is written in plain english with minimal to no math. It also has good information for engineers at many places, although sometimes it will be too redundant for them. Nothing at academic level.
What kind of "legal issue" are you talking about? Citations don't protect against patent infringement or copyright violation. And you can't violate copyright if you're stating common knowledge in your own words, you have to actually copy something.
The worst thing you could be guilty of is academic misconduct, which is not a crime.
If your book contains only common knowledge - i.e. things every reader already knows - then what is the purpose of the book?
@kaya3 ‘common knowledge’ is usually domain specific. For example, it’s ‘’common knowledge’ among (well educated) chemists that you need to be really careful working with metallic lithium, but I would not expect, for example, a carpenter to know that. Also, everyone has to learn common knowledge somewhere, so a decent primer on a subject (which is what it sounds like the OP is trying to write) is still worth writing.
Generally, scholarly books have citations (footnotes or endnotes), non-scholarly books don't.
See related question Is there such a thing in the academic world as "common knowledge"?
If the knowledge you're looking of really is common knowledge (the example in the linked question is "the sky is blue"), then it's arguable that you don't have to cite it. But it's still only arguable - reasonable people can press the opposite argument that you still should cite that the sky is blue.
Ultimately, when in doubt, cite it.
Are you saying people should cite a source for "the sky is blue"? If so, I do not agree.
@toby544 you wouldn't be the only one to disagree. However, if you look at the answer to the linked question, there are people who think you should cite "the sky is blue". Some of the objections are not trivial, also - e.g. the sky might be blue, but the night sky is black.
The colour of the sky is culturally conditioned. Ref: Through the Language Glass, Guy Deutscher. It's not as common knowledge as you think it is.
@TRiG “The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel.” - William Gibson, Neuromancer. ;)
@toby544 - But the sky isn't actually blue... that's an optical illusion. So, yeah, going to need a source
@TRiG Or, for the TLDR version : The surprising pattern behind color names around the world
Yes, obviously, "the sky is blue" is not actually a simple and straightforward statement of truth. I know that. I was just asking Allure whether he/she meant that people should cite a source for it. I guess the answer depends on the context.
Edit: I am asking in terms of avoiding legal issue.
Legally, you just have to not commit copyright infringement, which should be easy by writing in your own words.
But there are still good reasons to include citations. One is to give a pointer for further reading on the topic for readers who are interested.
Some statements that are "commonly known, fundamental," and "well-established" now were not so in the past. For example, the statement "tobacco smoking causes lung cancer" should have a reference (say, this), in my opinion. If I were to make the statement "one is not a prime number," then I would cite, say, this.
It would get rather tedious to write a book in this way, as you would have to either a) cite absolutely everything (eG. the earth rotates around the sun, humans die, etc.) or b) draw an arbitrary line regarding what needs to be cited an what not (eG. cite that 1 is not prime but not that the earth rotates around the sun).
While true, I'd wager that the corpus of "common knowledge" tends to grow and fairly rarely shrinks. Something that is common knowledge now is likely to be common knowledge 50 years from now. I don't really see the relevance of the fact that the knowledge wasn't common at some point in the past, since nobody will read the text in the past - the knowledge is common now, and very likely will be in the future. I expect it would be rare to omit a citation for common knowledge and then have someone in the future not know what you're talking about.
@NuclearHoagie Well, technically....common knowledge shrinks all the time--if you look at people working with vintage sources (for example, sewing patterns) a lot of instructions are simply not included because it's assumed that the reader knows them...because most people did know that stuff when the pattern was written. That said, going too deep with common citations is still silly. We can cite Aristarchus of Samos for "earth goes around sun" but who do you even cite for "sky is blue"?
Are we seriously discussing citing "1 is not a prime" in a mathematical paper? Knowledge that has been common for at least seventy years (if not more) should be fair game (and note that all the references after 1910 to 1 being a prime in the paper you linked are highly suspect or very marginal)
@DenisNardin, I agree that "1 is not a prime" is not needed to be cited in a mathematical paper. One of my fields is mathematics education, and some students who may wonder why 1 is not a prime number may find my reference useful.
Literally, no. Common Knowledge is held in the commons. Generally speaking if you find it in an encyclopedia or in an undergraduate textbook it is likely to be common knowledge, though the specific expression can be covered by copyright.
But there is another reason for citing some things in textbooks. The reader/student may want to know more and go deeper into the things you write.
One alternative is the fairly typical "Further Reading" section at the ends of chapters. Some of these are more than just a bibliography, with a sentence about what the reader might find there to enhance their learning.
You need to avoid plagiarism also, so don't write in a way that the reader might assume that you originated the ideas. Sometimes you want to name some names of the originators of certain ideas. You might also want to give dates of discovery if not complete citations. "Albert Einstein, in 1899, ...".
"Albert Einstein, in 1899, ..." --- Not that it really matters, but 1905 or 1915 would probably be a better year than 1899. (This caught my eye because I read most of this book yesterday while waiting roughly 4 hours for work on my car to get done at an auto shop, plus I've read many biographies of Einstein over the past 50 some years.)
Einstein's earliest article was published in 1901 (although it's no longer a well-known paper).
@DaveLRenfro, actually I was referring to the time period in which he developed the insights, not the publication dates of the papers. He pondered the questions that led to special relativity for about ten years.
Your book should be held to the same standard as a Stack Exchange answer in a similar field
I think that the level to which we hold Stack Exchange answers accountable for sourcing facts should be at least the minimum to which we would hold more traditional books. After all, the body of answers for a given site is often seen as encyclopedic in nature and utility for future readers1 and that's roughly what a book is.
Why do we encourage sourcing of fact assertions? For reasons cited in other answers here
it helps to build overall credibility of the post
it provides interested readers with resources to read further
it helps us spot answers that are just making stuff up by their failure to source
I think the first two can also apply to your book.
The book may be likely to be reviewed and recommended (or not) for use in libraries or in teaching, so if it's well-sourced this might contribute to a better review, which may mean more money in your pocket, wider readership and a better result for your publisher, which may contribute to future "book deals".
This is Academia SE and so view-based answers don't always cite sources
I've ironically fabricated one out of thin air below, but for your "introductory to intermediate level book" I recommend you find the SE site that best matches your topic and review the best received-answers and see how they support their assertions of "common knowledge" with sources, and consider this as your floor, your minimum.
1While SE answers collectively are encyclopedic in nature and utility, individually they also should answer the OP's specific question or attempt to "solve their problem". This is universally known as the "SE is both a floor wax and a desert topping" doctrine.
I think you should consider not just whether you need to cite sources, but also whether you should.
There are multiple purposes to cite sources. One is to properly credit ideas, to avoid appearing to take improper credit for those ideas (plagiarize). This is probably the purpose most associated with "need".
Another is to support your own arguments and statements, by either directing your readers to see the grounding of those statements in other places (which can't be recapitulated every time they were mentioned, otherwise every published item would be longer than the one before it and soon would be completely impossible to digest) or at least presenting the appearance that your ideas have other support[1].
Yet another is to connect your readers to additional reading according to their own interests. It may be common knowledge in a given field, but if a reader wants to know more, where should they go next? What if they want to understand why something is true, rather than merely that it is true? What if they want to understand how that piece of knowledge came about?
I think it may be difficult and overly pedantic to include these sorts of citations to every element of very base knowledge in an academic paper, but if your purpose is to introduce a field to your readers it may be worth giving them branches to more reading rather than just setting them out on their own with little more than Google to help. I would not recommend using the absolute bare minimum of citations according to "need", but rather balancing the level of citation with the level of content you present. Keep your audience in mind when writing, no matter what level you write for.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.733182
| 2021-12-30T14:21:21 |
180714
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Aly Abdelaziz",
"Anonymous Physicist",
"Anton",
"Buffy",
"Caleb Stanford",
"Dilworth",
"Ed V",
"Hi hwsjai",
"Lodinn",
"Mast",
"SeF",
"Servaes",
"Tom",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109931",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/120328",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13240",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145124",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/151739",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21558",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22733",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/42558",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/66079",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/68137",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7368",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75368",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/86944",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8760",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/92334",
"jakebeal",
"rbaleksandar"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9422",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/180714"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
I spotted a paper with an absurd amount of self citations. Is this normal?
I spotted a paper with around 106 citations, around which 86 are just the author citing himself. Now I understand that people do this to work on their previous studies, but 86? That's around just 20 citations you've received for your paper. Another paper of his has 96 citations with 87 being self. Is this normal or excessive?
It would depend on the paper. Are they lots of citations for a few papers, or for many papers? Is he working in a very small subfield? Is there an alternative to these citations? After all, self plagiarism needs to be avoided. By itself, the number means little.
@Buffy it's not a vague field. It's a quite popular one I'd say. But regardless a whole of 86 citations ? And this number is constant for most of his papers? Isn't this self citation abuse?
Ask, rather, are the citations needed. Also ask whether other things should have been cited also or instead. See the answer of Dilworth
The worst I ever saw was 55 references, of which 54 were to the author’s own publications.
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/21797/how-to-discourage-irrelevant-self-citation
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/99875/curious-case-of-self-citations-and-how-to-monitor-self-citers?rq=1
The question is whether the citations are relevant or not. Some authors work in a specialized field, or with specialized approaches in a popular field. So it is relevant to cite themselves. The problem is different in this case: if they are the only one working in their subfield or using their approach, then maybe it's not a good approach?
@Dilworth Thank you
Can be normal, I just read an preprint and 30% of the citations are self-citations. This is probably the limit of justifiable number of self-citations in an article.
A while ago I peer reviewed a paper with 22 self citations, which does seem a bit like they are playing ''the citations game''.
I voted to close but I do not agree with the stated close reason. The corect close reason is duplicate of this
@6005 why are you always so insistent on closing the question? Is there some problem?
As I said: I do not agree with those voting to close for "strongly depending on individual factors" (does not apply here), and I did not vote to close for this reason. I voted to close to provide additional visibility to the duplicate question.
To clarify: there's no problem with your question and it is a good one. The closure is an artifact of the software which closes the question on 5 votes despite that I do not agree with the stated reason. Let me know if it is still not clear.
@6005 and other close voters: I disagree with the close votes and have voted to reopen, since the heuristics I give allow one to assess situations like these without knowing the individual papers and since the linked questions are different enough that the answers do not provide such heuristics.
Self-citations are valid, but too much is a bad sign:
On the one hand, an author with an ongoing research program will generally have significant prior work that needs to be cited.
On the other hand, all scientific work exists in a larger intellectual context for which Joy's law applies: lots of other smart people are doing related work that needs to be acknowledged.
High rates of self-citation thus generally indicate authors that are either:
intellectually isolated,
delusionally arrogant, or
deliberately manipulating citation statistics.
But how high is too high?
As a rough heuristic, I have come to regard 1/3 as a useful upper bound on reasonable self-citation. That means that most citations are elsewhere, even for papers with very strong prior work to cite. I also generally find that the higher the total citation count, the lower the fraction that are self-citations (i.e., volume of prior work scales more slowly than complexity of scientific context). Conversely, the ratio may break down entirely in short works with artificially limited citation counts, e.g., in extended abstracts where all but a few absolutely mandatory citations are pruned for reasons of space.
Applying these heuristics to the cases that you describe, I would assess the citation ratios 86/106 and 87/96 as almost certainly indicating deliberate manipulation of citation statistics. If the fractions were similar but the citation count was small (e.g., <20 total), then it might be legitimate or a result of intellectual isolation. Even with lots of prior work, however, there is almost never a reason to cite so many different pieces of it, as a prolific author will generally also write review papers that are better to cite than the individual papers that went into them---and review papers have limited self-citation because they are describing other people's work as well. The author might be delusionally arrogant too, but there's a lot more citation manipulators out there than researchers who are both delusional and highly prolific.
Bottom line: probably deliberate citation manipulation.
Agreed. And who would want to read such self aggrandising stuff anyway?
Those three bullet points for high rate of self-citations are so on point!
+1 Spot on. Although your last claim: "... there's a lot more citation manipulators out there than researchers who are both delusional and highly prolific" seems true for hard sciences (or STEM in the US), the rate of delusional researchers is a lot higher in the humanities, e.g. anthropology and sociology.
With regards to the humanities: are the researchers that you would consider delusional also highly prolific? In the STEM world, the ones that I have encountered typically have low rates of publication due to their isolation, and thus would not have a large number of publications available to cite.
These numbers can't be accurately explained by someone (over-)cautiously avoiding self-plagiarism? Hanlon's razor comes to mind.
@Mast Almost certainly not, else a) they'd have a lot more to cite from other people too, and b) they should have review papers to cite.
Citations are neither a competition, nor a prize. They are simply a tool to refer to previous scientific work in order to establish the scientific case of the paper.
The fact that some people have decided that citations are in fact a good measure for "success", or a good case for "promotion", does not mean that citations should be perceived as anything else than a scientific tool, rather than a merit, prize or a favour.
Thus, there is nothing "excessive" in itself in loads of self-citations. Each citation should be evaluated solely based on the scientific justification of the cited work and its relevance to the current work, and there is nothing in your question that provides a witness for an unjustified citation. In other words, it is impossible to answer your question based solely on numbers and percentage of self-citations.
In other words, the question about many self-citations is whether the citations are relevant or not. Some authors work in a specialized field, or with specialized approaches in a popular field. So it is relevant to cite themselves. Overall, the problem of high percentage of self citations is different: if they are almost the only ones working in their subfield or using their approach, then maybe it's not a good approach?
"Citations are neither a competition, nor a prize." This is the case in principle, not in reality.
Well, if it is a "prize" as you contend, then I don't blame the author for generously awarding themselves with such prizes!
The prevalence of self citation also creates a funny situation in the double-blind review. Almost all of the few papers I had reviewed, the anonymous authors (or research group) that wrote the paper was very easy to spot.
@SeF, yes, but it's completely justified scientifically to self-cite your own work assuming you continue with the same research direction you've been doing in recent years.
Dilworth , I never said it is not justified.
You both have a point. Lots of (self-)citations are not going to make fellow scientists think better of that person, in some cases it's quite the opposite... But funding agencies like to think otherwise. Obnoxious as the chest-thumping might be, this is how they survive and keep on getting resources to produce more results. Thankfully, it is still possible to get reasonable funding without resorting to that.
I strongly disagree with "Citations are neither a competition, nor a prize" too. My institute (among the top three largest ones in the largest scientific society in Europe) has multiple KPIs related to publishing (PPH = papers per head, Scopus, number of citation etc.). There are many researchers, who also love playing the system in order to boost their own ego.
I am not sure if the h-index is influenced by self-citation. From what I recall it counts whenever other authors are citing you but I am not sure if this applies to other MAIN authors or all authors (you can be at the very end of the list of authors :D). If the latter, then I would imagine that self-citation can provide a nice boost of your h-index.
86 self-citations out of 106 is definitely abnormal. Most (all?) editors would want to investigate. It's not necessarily malicious, but it's something to check out.
If it's been published, the editor had a say, as did the reviewers. And "unusual" might be a better term than "abnormal". Just as "huge" might be better than "absurd", which implies a judgement has been made already.
There are certainly cases where a researcher is a pioneer in a specialty field, where they may have produced a large volume of work on a "niche" topic that comprises a large fraction of all of the work.
There are certainly cases where a researcher is invited to write a survey or review paper or one that covers the evolution of a specific research topic.
It is possible that these two could be concurrent.
So asking about a single instance without describing the nature of the paper along those two axes leaves open the possibility that this is by design, i.e. what the journals' editor(s) hoped for.
However:
Another paper of his has 96 citations with 87 being self. Is this normal or excessive?
Ya, could be, unless the concurrence happened twice; the author was invited to write two survey or review papers and you happened to find both.
Yes, it is normal and it is the equivalent of doping in sport.
If your competing organisation is self-citing, and both your competitor and you are equally piffle in doing research, then the only way to survive for you is to self-cite as well.
This has two interesting consequences:
the larger the research group the higher the number of artificial citations the participants can get.
the doped paper that go through blind peer review is de facto not anonymous (the self citation points eloquently at the authoring research group): two competing organisations can help each others to dope up the number of citations (I approve yours self-citing paper, you approve mine).
The positive note is that this mechanism is only doping up the bottom. Honest and really breakthrough research work have a number of citations that is unreachable for the self-citing research groups.
For example the paper by Nakamoto, "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" has alone more citations than the total number of citations of the self-citing professor in his whole career.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.734173
| 2022-12-28T02:00:49 |
191986
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Dawood ibn Kareem",
"G. Putnam",
"Greg Martin",
"It all makes cents",
"Jon Custer",
"Neuchâtel",
"Peter Mortensen",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12846",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14938",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15477",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/157609",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/165775",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/166274",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/473",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/62187",
"justhalf"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9423",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/191986"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How should I talk to my advisor about changing the research topic after already choosing one?
I started an engineering PhD program this year with an excellent advisor that I get along well with. I just finished my first semester where students are mostly required to focus on coursework with minimal research work.
When I first started, I was asked to choose either project A or B for my PhD. Both projects are funded, but project B is actually a joint project and is not fully the area of expertise of my advisor and requires co-advising from another professor who is the main investigator of the project. I preferred project B to project A so I chose it.
However, as the semester started, I emailed the other professor and he responded positively, but he then stopped responding completely when I asked to meet him. I tried to send him multiple friendly follow-up emails throughout the semester, but there wasn't any response at all. After I met his graduate students and talked to a couple of alumni, I got the hint that I will have a hard time working for him. Is it ok to change the project after choosing one?
How can I bring it up to my advisor that I want to change my project from B to A without burning bridges? I am afraid that I will disappoint my advisor and be perceived as flaky and not serious.
I changed the format of your post. However, there is an important question. What is your question? Please add the question to the title and also to the body of the post.
I suggest the title "How to talk to my advisor about changing the research topic after already choosing one?". What do you think about it? A good title will attract more viewers, making it more likely for you to receive useful answers.
You have, of course, been informing your advisor of the difficulties trying to collaborate on B?
Hopefully this will reassure you: of all possible reasons to want to switch topics, this is one of the best ones an advisor could hear. "I liked both these projects, my student chose B, but now wants to switch to A—a project I still like—for real reasons that aren't my fault. No problem!"
I emailed the other professor and he responded positively then stopped responding completely when I asked to meet him. Review your correspondence with a friend to ensure that nothing was said that could be perceived as unprofessional. Regardless, this is an issue best handled by management. Talk to his/her manager - the dean. Then request that all three of you sit down for a meeting. You're paying to attend this school.
It's much better to have this kind of conversation with your advisor as soon as you realize the issue. I remember as a student being reluctant to discuss this kind of issue with my advisor, but now as an advisor, I'd much rather a student bring it up early.
Let's consider the case in which you wait. Will you make as much progress on project B if it's not your expertise and you need help from the other advisor? If it's difficult to meet with them (e.g., they're really busy) you will probably have trouble learning the techniques yourself.
Now, it's possible that your advisor might want you to stick on project B. Maybe they need the funding, or they need the collaboration with the other group. In that case, I think it's on your advisor to help get the project off to a good start, either by arranging a meeting with the other professor, or finding out which member of that group can help get you started.
Your concern about your advisor's perception of you is, I think, unfounded. Coming with valid concerns about getting a project off to a successful start is (IMHO) a very good sign in a student.
The way to handle this is to just do it, preferably with a sit-down meeting in which you can discuss options and your reservations. If your advisor agrees to a switch then let them deal with the other professor. There is no need to "burn bridges" with anyone.
There is little worse than setting out on the wrong path, knowing that it is the wrong path. Let your relationship with your advisor carry you over the murky bits, both in this and in the research.
Yes, it is OK to switch. Some of us actually switched universities in order to find a happy home. Face to face, though. A conversation.
That's true. He/she should always do things that makes him/her happy.
First, a couple preliminaries/considerations that don't directly answer your question
Have you tried anything other than emails and gossip?
Not trying to be harsh, just some people respond much better face-to-face.
Are there office hours for the professor?
Is there money involved?
Has the funding explicitly/implicitly already paid for your tuition?
Has the funding paid for anything else?
Will it go away if you switch, or at least require significant behind the scenes money shifting?
Is project A still available?
If I was a professor, and had a student choose B, then I'd look for student for A.
Research doesn't stand still, and often there's a limited time window.
Given these, resolve Question 1:
if( !(Tried anything other than email) )
then: Attempt to have a meeting with the 2nd professor anyway, even without an email response. Or trying calling them and leaving a voice message. Or go to their building and try to arrange an appointment (maybe a receptionist?). Or, show up at the office hours and introduce yourself. Talk about your concerns politely, yet honestly, especially if you feel there's a need for significant research guidance.
Resolve Question 2
if( know money is involved )
then: Show far more care about changing. If you do meet with your Advisor or 2nd Professor then its definitely something to discuss. It's not so much an issue of flakiness, as whether your education will suddenly stop having funding.
elsif( don't know )
then: Find out. If your Advisor is easier to find and talk with, then its a point that probably needs to be comprehended.
elseif( money is not involved )
then: Far less issue with changing research topics.
Question 3 resolution should be fairly obvious
if( project A was assigned )
then: You're probably out-of-luck. Especially if student on project A has already started working and performing research.
else: Far less issue with changing research topics.
Personally, I think I'm slightly less positive on switching than the other answers (especially if you've only tried email). You're in a profession where you're expected to track down answers, and pursue (somewhat) independent lines of study. I'd expect that person to at least meet the other professor. That said, understand the issue as I had a PhD experience with very distant advisors, and many undergrads => PhD's go from lots of advice => "nothing".
If you try meeting 2nd professor (even without an email confirmation) and it still does not work, and there's limited risk for education support (money), and Project A is still available, then its probably acceptable to request a project change.
Meet with your Advisor. Get their opinion on the situation, explaining what you've tried and your concerns. In their position, I would probably pick up the phone and try calling 2nd professor. If you're set on switching, try to make the switch as painless as it can be, and offer to do whatever legwork is necessary. IE: Don't just dump it on the prof. and expect them to deal with it. Personally, I find that passive aggressive. Also, I cannot stress this enough - try more than just email. Do you want to go to your Advisor, and they'll ask "what you have tried?" and your response is "I sent some emails."
There aren't supposed to be questions in an answer (this is not a forum), not even rhetorical ones. There are seven questions in this answer.
Ok. Did not realize there was a prohibition against asking the question starter questions. Also, confused, since contributors on StackOverflow often ask clarification questions. Most can be rephrased in anti-Jeopardy language.
@G.Putnam I think your answer is fine. You're pointing out that certain questions are things that OP needs to consider, before deciding exactly what to do. I don't see any reason to object to including secondary questions in a response to a question; and I certainly don't believe there's any kind of prohibition against doing so.
Yep, agree with Dawood here. Peter's take is too harsh. The supposed questions in this answer is a fine answer.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.734867
| 2017-08-20T22:16:59 |
94807
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Nick T",
"Solveit",
"Srinivas Reddy Thatiparthy",
"Weckar E.",
"astronat supports the strike",
"gnasher729",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11873",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24118",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/49043",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/51415",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/56566",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/78759",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/949",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/980",
"mlk",
"paul garrett"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9424",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/94807"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Is solving all of the exercises in a textbook a good idea?
Is solving all of the exercises in a textbook a good idea? I'm particularly concerned with textbooks on mathematics. I have this obsession that I should solve all of the problems that a textbook has. It takes a lot of time and energy but usually I'm satisfied with the end result being me having a better understanding of that particular subject.
Any similar experience of this sort? How's this going to work in the long-run?
If it's helping you learn and not taking up too much time, then I don't see any negatives.
At some point, the exercises help more with memorizing vs conceptualizing. I've forgotten almost all of my integral tables, but I know how integration works and can massage an equation into something I can look up.
There is also the question of what you count as solving. If you are doing it only for yourself anyway, there are some shortcuts you can take. Say you are looking at the hundredth integral in a long list in some book and you immediately see a working substitution which reduces it to something you know how to integrate, without even picking up the pen. Then you should count it as solved and move on to the next, in the hope of finding something more interesting. Sure, you may not have inserted the boundary values, but after a hundred integrals, this part is purely mechanical anyway.
The Art of Computer Programming has a good number of unsolved research problems among its exercises. Fermat's Last Theorem was among them, but it was downgraded because it's not unsolved anymore.
It depends enormously on your personal objectives, apart from your personal predilections. For example, if a significant goal is to advance your understanding of mathematics, then obsessing over exercises (many of which are contrived busywork in undergrad textbooks, and sometimes in grad-level textbooks in the U.S.) is a dubious investment of your personal resources.
For one thing, apart from the articiality of some of the exercises, many of them will be semi-incomprehensible if you've just read the chapter they appear after... but obvious after you've read further! A significant reason for this is that mathematics has developed with various goals in mind, so that the most important enduring concepts and facts refer to important phenomena... not just to some artificial choice of linear logical development as is the common style in textbooks.
On another hand, if you do not aim to be a professional mathematician, or if somehow you have a lot of spare time, sure, why not do whatever you want? Indeed, another common trap of studying mathematics is being too obedient about following some syllabus or textbook, as opposed to following one's own curiosity and interests. It is subtler to parse the situation that your impulse is to do all the exercises... :)
Another practical point is that, at some point, probably soon, unless you severely restrict what books you look at, there's no way you'll have time to do all the exercises in detail, even if you are a whiz-kid. There are too many, and sometimes they are prankish. For example, the "exercises" in Atiyah-MacDonald's "Commutative Algebra" (a misleadingly slim volume) are mostly "theorems" one would find in other books on the same topic.
And, then, there's the point that novices' "solutions" to difficult exercises are often severely suboptimal, even if "successful". Sure, it's good to think about issues, but, at the same time, you'll be able to approach those questions far more wisely later (if you still care, and the things haven't become completely obvious anyway!).
But certainly no one is "required" to do all the exercises, despite some propaganda on the internet. For that matter, it is probably not optimal for most peoples' circumstances and goals. Still, taking an extreme stance, maybe the world will end tomorrow, and if you want to spend the evening doing exercises that you find enchanting, I'd be the last one to try to discourage you. :)
You have patreon account?
@SrinivasReddyThatiparthy .... :) .....
There is no right answer here, although you need to think about the time commitment involved. For instance, I doubt you need to solve every problem in an introductory calculus book. However, in a textbook where the number of problems per section or chapter is limited, it may be instructive to you to solve the problems that aren't assigned.
However, ultimately, this is a function of how you as an individual learn best. For some people, additional repetition of skills can help; for others, they can pick it up much more quickly, in which case the additional problems may not yield many benefits.
No, it's not. All questions are not equally good exercises. You'd be better served to purchase 2 books on the subject (ideally that take different approaches to the subject matter) and solve 1/2 the questions (picking out the better ones) in each text. This is of course contingent on wanting to learn a particular subject very thoroughly, and that solving questions helps you a lot. In many cases, it'd be a better use of your time to look at other related subject rather than spend so much time on one in particular, but I leave that to you.
Frankly, I can imagine few exceptions to this. The one that I can think of is that a text is very sparse in the questions is has and all the questions are good, but even then, you should evaluate a question's usefulness independently of others. A blanket policy like just doing all the problems in a text is very likely to to have a lot of redundancy in the problems you're solving. Textbooks aren't cheap, but there's a lot of material online nowadays as well if cost is an issue. If you're studying a field that's so small that there simply aren't many textbooks on the subject, chances are you'd be well served to read papers rather than textbooks.
This raises the question of how a novice can pick out the better problems.
As a student of mathematics, I like to state that none can learn mathematics without solving mathematical problems in hand. Exercises in textbooks are a collection of mathematical problems. A good book contains beautiful problems. When you are learning a branch of mathematics you must select a good book to solve its exercises as much as you can. Solving problems is more important than reading the text.
Surely we can still learn the concepts without solving problems? We may not be as adept at applying them, but that seems secondary in some cases.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.735735
| 2013-02-22T05:09:07 |
8134
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Federico Poloni",
"JeffE",
"Michael McGriff",
"OutFall",
"Piotr Migdal",
"Suresh",
"displayName",
"gmuraleekrishna",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19648",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19649",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19650",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19651",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19656",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19658",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19664",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19667",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/346",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/49",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/958",
"ransom",
"rubensoleao",
"tiger",
"user3568884"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9425",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8134"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How to quickly get complete list of citations to all my papers?
I need to get citations (with complete info including authors, journal, date) to all my papers. What's the best way (hopefully without too much manual copy & paste) to do this?
What i so far tried:
Google Scholar seem to give more complete list of papers that cite my paper that it includes papers in non-English language journals etc. But i can't see how to get authors, journal title, volume number etc quickly from the Google Scholar search output.
I haven't used it, but this might help: https://github.com/tonybreyal/Blog-Reference-Functions/blob/master/R/googleScholarXScraper/googleScholarXScraper.R
If you are using Google Scholar, you'll have to filter out lots of false positives and edit the reference files for wrong fields (e.g., wrong journal names). Google itself hasn't managed to do it properly yet, so if you know a way to automate this you might want to contact them with an offer. :)
@DaveClarke I'm sorry, it seems that I misunderstood the question. I'm not a native speaker and it sounded like "citations to [include in]" instead of "citations [pointing] to" (/"citations of"). I deleted my previous comment.
You can use Scopus to do that, but only if you / your institute has access.
Search for an article that you (or someone else) has authored, click on the author name, then click on "citations".
Scopus screenshot, author page
If you click on the 13 link, you will see a full list of documents citing Gerrit Holl:
Scopus screenshot, author citation page
In my experience, Scopus doesn't have many false positives, although it might miss publications in new or unknown journals.
I'm not sure if Scopus deeplinking works, but try this for a direct link.
but only if you / your institute has access — and you only care about citations in venues that Scopus indexes.
As an alternative to scopus, you can use Web of Science. It's also subscription based though, and your institution may or may not have access.
Go to http://apps.webofknowledge.com , select the tab labelled "Web of Science", and enter your name in the search field for the author. When the results show up, you should see a link labelled "Create citation report" near the top right corner of the results list. Follow that, and in the results table you will see an element "Citing Articles[?] : nnn", where nnn is the number of citing articles. Click on the number, and you are taken to a list of all citing articles from the Web of Science database.
In case the result list after searching for your name has false positives, you can exclude them from the citation report either by setting a year range, or manually excluding them one-by-one.
Harzing's Publish or Perish software is the tool which will probably help you most. It is a Windows application, which allows you to specify queries and then goes to Google Scholar to retrieve and sort the references, citations, etc. Besides computing h-index and a host of other bibliometric indices, it allows you to produce reports from your searches and this is what you seem to be after. Even though running only on Windows, installing Wine emulator to run it is worth the hassle.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.736035
| 2012-11-29T00:01:52 |
5522
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"JeffE",
"Josh Wang",
"Mce128",
"cutrightjm",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1265",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14295",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14297",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14298",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4207",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/532",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"lukth",
"seteropere",
"walkmanyi"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9426",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5522"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What is a good research experience
What kind of research experience is a good or satisfactory research experience for grad school admissions ? There are tons of venues even IEEE has some easy to get conferences which has its name attached to.
So when someone says he has research experience it is very subjective and differs from reading a few papers about ones field to publishing in national level to mediocre international level conferences.
Also there are places where a professor at a respected institution may get his paper rejected.
So I am totally confused which research experience is really a research experience ? How do you set the thresold ?
What happens if I have easy to get >5 IEEE conference papers which are may be unheard or new ones such as 2nd IEEE conf on X ? Will I get an edge over other people with no publications or who does not want to publish at such places ? Should I lean towards this approach ?
Good letters from MIT will be a good indicator but what if you have no such recommender or he is tottaly unknown ?
you are evaluating one's research based on IEEE conferences. This is unacademic. IEEE is not the primary venue for many fields, for instance, in Artificial Intelligence (AI), you will not hear the word at all.
@seteropere: Well, except for IEEE PAMI, but I guess that's a journal.
@JeffE there are decent number of well-known AI conferences and journals in IEEE but IMHO in general IEEE does not represent the main venue for AI researcher (AAAI press and Elsevier do) that's subjective I know :-)
@seteropere: if you are into applications of AI for robotics, you would hear about IEEE a lot. Both IROS and ICRA are IEEE sponsored and accept a good deal of topics you would read about in Russel&Norvig.
What kind of research experience is a good or satisfactory research experience for grad school admissions?
How do you set the threshold?
There is no threshold. Instead, graduate admissions committees judge research experience on a continuum. At one end are things that hardly count at all (e.g., independent textbook study described as research). At the other end are extremely impressive publications. Most undergraduate research is somewhere in the middle, and how meaningful it is can be difficult to judge. To help the committee, you need to explain what you did, why it is interesting, what your contributions were, and perhaps what you learned from it or got out of it (especially if it didn't lead to a publication in a high-quality journal or conference). It's also important to have a letter of recommendation that addresses this research, to evaluate your contributions. If you just mention a paper on your CV, without giving this sort of background information about it, then it probably won't help your application much.
Will I get an edge over other people with no publications or who does not want to publish at such places?
It's hard to predict. Nobody's going to be counting papers or setting thresholds for impact factor. Instead, the committee will be looking for two key things:
Have you demonstrated the ability to do research? (Some people get wonderful grades but do not succeed at research.)
Do you have enough experience to know what you are getting into in graduate school? (Some people think they want to do research, but when they discover what research really involves they change their minds.)
Instead of worrying about thresholds and quantities, I'd suggest focusing on making sure your application satisfies these criteria.
I see what you mean but no one in comitee believes just words or a reflection of this. Mostly school name and the size of recommenders balls make an application pass through.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.736332
| 2017-05-26T15:48:55 |
90059
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"aparente001",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32436"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9427",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90059"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Transitioning out of a PhD program and into research in industry
After a bachelor's and the master's degree I decided to do the PhD and now I'm a first year CS PhD student in a very good University in Europe. However, I'm not living a good period of my life since I'm not finding motivation in this path, both for personal and work issues. I'd like to work in another country and find a good company where I can code that it's what I really love in this field.
However, I wouldn't like to do the task of a programmer where usually someone above you asks to develop a particular software for a client. Instead, I'd like to implement software that could be used inside the company by using personal or technical paper's ideas. It looks like this kind of work is more suitable for people who already have a PhD or who have experience with research.
With this two premises I would like to ask a couple of questions.
Is the interruption of a PhD a disadvantage for the applicant?
Is it possible to find a research work without a PhD?
"someone above you asks to develop a particular software for a client" -- I can imagine a couple of different reasons why this might not appeal to you. Could you say a bit more? // There are no shortage of jobs requiring lots of coding. How important is it that you be working with personal ideas or ideas from a technical paper? That's the part that I'm not sure whether you would find immediately.
TL;DR ... 1. It is not much of a disadvantage, if any, and yes, it is possible to find research work without a PhD.
I've worked in four industrial R&D computer science organizations after getting a Ph.D. Three were considered "research labs" while the most recent one is closer to the development side (but still has a strong foot in the academic research community).
Only one of these companies hired virtually only PhD-level employees. The others had a mix of Ph.D.s and M.S.-level people.
So I would modify @dan1111's comment to say that some don't care about a Ph.D. and some do. And many will hire an M.S. (with or without any time spent in a Ph.D. program), though some won't.
We've certainly hired people who left a Ph.D. program with just an M.S. after changing their mind. I don't see this as an obstacle for industry, at least in computer software.
In other disciplines, who knows?
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.736634
| 2014-12-21T16:56:15 |
34640
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9428",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34640"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What is the proper email etiquette when contacting potential supervisors on short notice?
I am currently an MSc student in the UK and am hoping to apply for PhD at the same institution. I have found some potential supervisors but was wondering what is the correct way of wording my email given that I have only about 3 weeks till the application deadline and it's currently the holiday season (end of term). Some things to note: 1) my current field of study is immunology and I'm hoping to apply for a PhD in Medical Sciences, 2) it won't be possible to meet the supervisors in person since I'm back in the States for the holidays.
The first few tips is be cordial and be brief and to the point.
Make sure you use the correct title and spell the name correctly, in fact make sure the entire mail is spell checked and grammatically correct, anything else sends a bad signal.
Begin by stating your purpose for the mail and provide a short but detailed reason for why you approach the person in question. In your case you should also explain the "short notice" and excuse yourself very concisely for the inconvenience this could bring on.
Follow up by providing a brief statement of why you are interested in the subject but also the school and/or research group. Continue by describing your background and how you see your background being an asset in working in the PhD field.
All this should not be more than 2-3 paragraphs of maybe 5-10 sentences. A short e-mail which manages to say the essentials will be more likely to succeed than a long and very long-winded detailed account (that no-one would take the time to read).
The tone of the mail should be respectful but do not excuse yourself or play "underdog", be confident, brief and to the point. that will impress more.
Finally attach a CV and provide any MS thesis papers you may have.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.736831
| 2014-07-12T02:23:49 |
25775
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Aakash Jog",
"JeffE",
"Kapten-N",
"Mansuro",
"Pete L. Clark",
"Raphael J.F. Berger",
"Steven",
"Steven Zammit",
"Tuty",
"aaminu",
"enthu",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10483",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15723",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/68603",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/68604",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/68605",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/68611",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/68614",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/68632",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/68633",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/76390",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/938",
"just-learning"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9429",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/25775"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
When is it proper to add someone to your research paper?
I am an undergraduate working on a research project that is going to be published. My research adviser wasn't completely able to help with a certain portion of the research, so I contacted another professor (in a completely different department) at my university who was more than willing to help.
It seems that this other professor is going to be providing a huge amount of help. Should I offer inclusion in the paper? Should I bring this up with my main adviser and/or should I be upfront with the secondary adviser?
As far as your project is going to be published, I suggest that before you start any contact with that new professor, it is better to talk to your own professor and let him know that you want collaboration with that person. What if your own professor do not agree to collaborate with a new person in his research group?
I think you misspelled "Must I offer inclusion in the paper?" And the answer is yes.
To me it seems you forgot in the first instance to discuss with your research team that you are going to approach someone outside your team for help (before you do so). Thats in general of utmost importance and may save you from all other issues in this respect.
You should discuss the issue with both faculty members. I would bring it up with your primary advisor first...if only for linguistic reasons (i.e., the meaning of the word "primary").
When you say that the project is "going to be published", do you mean that it has already been written and accepted for publication? (If not, how do you know?) In general it is a good idea to discuss issues of coauthorship as early as possible. If you are already writing the paper it is on the later side, and if you have already submitted it then it is very late (but maybe not too late).
That's all I can think to say on general principles. It depends a lot on the field and what kind of work has been done.
tl;dr: As an undergraduate, you can't know the subtle expectations regarding coauthorship in your discipline. So err on the side of graciousness and inclusivity. The worst that can happen is that you get a "Aw, how cute: he thinks I want to publish with him" type of reaction. If so, you will definitely not have offended the faculty member and you'll probably engender a lesson about how publication culture works in your field: no problem there.
+1. But wouldn't it be better, however, if the OP could arrange a meeting with BOTH faculty members at once and discuss it there?
Not necessarily. That could be more time-consuming and might or might not be desired by the faculty members themselves. If they do want to talk: they are at the same university, so they know how to get in touch with each other.
A good starting point is to consider the points set up in the Vancouver protocol and augmented by, for example the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal editors) stated as
Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
AND
Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
AND
Final approval of the version to be published;
AND
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Note the AND in this list. It is well worth noting that these points indicate how things should be but some field-related traditions and, more commonly, personal opinions differ.
I think the above should make for a good basis for assessing whether or not anyone, the professor you have solicited included, should be on the paper. A gut feeling from your explanation says he should be asked. Not to discourage you, but authorship questions can be among the hardest questions you encounter in academia since authorship is such an important aspect for assessing excellence, success, or whatever you want to call it. This is also why the list quoted above has been assembled so that inflation in authorship can be combated. Please look at other posts under the authorship tag to get more aspects of this issue.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.737239
| 2014-11-13T19:42:00 |
31681
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"410 gone",
"Andy",
"Anup Bhat",
"Chris Rogers",
"Djan",
"Federico Poloni",
"Miguel",
"Ran G.",
"Ross",
"Royce N. Carrero",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"eykanal",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14695",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1471",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/324",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/440",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/73",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/87986",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/87987",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/87988",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/88043",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/88048",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/88059",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/88060",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/88061",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/958",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96",
"user3680782",
"user88059",
"yo'"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9430",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/31681"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How best to present long equations in two-column papers?
How best to present long equations in two-column papers?
I've tried splitting them in two or more lines along operators, but that still looks a bit weird to me, especially when parentheses have to be carried along across the lines. Also, I've considered stretching them across both columns, but that seems only an acceptable solution if the equation is of outstanding importance, e.g. the final result and not some middle section of a proof.
This might fit better in Tex.SE. See e.g., https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/117051/split-up-several-equations-into-smaller-ones/
This might also depend on where you publish. For instance, wide equations (that cross over the two columns, with separating rulers) are very common in Physical Review journals.
What does the style guide for your target publication say? What did the editor there say? What have other papers in your target journal done?
To expand on what @RanG. said: revtex (Physical Review's latex class) provides explicit support for this and generates pretty good looking output.
It is, however, only reasonable for [tex.se] if the OP is using or contemplating using a TeX based stack to prepare the paper. Of course, I'd recommend doing so.
When I have had occasion to deal with obnoxiously large equations, I find that there are four strategies that do well for me. In order of readability, they are:
Shrink the font: if you are allowed (any many venues do allow this), you can usually shrink the font on an equation a few points without affecting readability.
Map separable terms of the equation to new variables, which can be given their own independent definition lines. This can really help readability in a complex equation as well.
--- The line of desperation ---
Break the equation across two lines: this works up to about 1.6 lines worth of smaller-font equation. When combined with adjusting font size, you can often adjust where the break occurs to make it look reasonable.
Move the equations to a full-width figure, where you can play all of the same games.
For extremely long equations (e.g. I have one in my thesis that occupied a whole page) one might also consider to place the equation in a rotated (horizontal) page.
When I see Option 1 being used, I'm en train de getting my knife and finding your address /sarcasm Now seriously: That is the worst thing ever, the equations get completely unreadable in small print and the result never looks good.
@yo's assessment is a bit harsh, but I do agree... shrinking font size is often a pretty poor choice. Multi-line is much preferred.
I suggest you check chapter 3.3.4 in the book Mathematics into Type published by the American Mathematical Society (AMS).
The book sets up specific rules for breaking the equations and also how to align these after breaking. The rules are too complex to be reproduced or duplicated well here so anyone interested should download the book using the link above for reference.
What a programmer would do is break the formula into sub-functions along boundaries that reflect the way the formula itself breaks up into individual concepts, define those, and then define the top-level formula in terms of those. I can't see any reason that wouldn't work here, at least to some degree...
(This is like @jakebeal's suggestion to define new variables, but taking it one step farther to point out that when several of those variables are of the same form, you can define a parameterized function rather than having to spell out every one.)
In my experience, what a pure mathematician would do is the same thing, but they'd call their functions operators and assign them symbols rather than names. :-)
"Operators" are only a very specific kind of mathematical function. When working routinely with things like "functions that take functions and return other functions", one feels the need to call them in different ways, to be more expressive and keep their sanity. :)
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.737668
| 2015-03-07T15:03:45 |
41224
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"A Super Social Worker",
"AP30",
"Aaron Hall",
"Alohajoe5",
"Bill Barth",
"David Richerby",
"Eric",
"HealthCareCompliance Spam",
"Huan Ying",
"Ismael Correa",
"Jack Smit",
"John K.",
"Klaus Draeger",
"Mark Plotnick",
"Martin Drozdik",
"O. R. Mapper",
"QuantumChris",
"Reid",
"TheAhmad",
"Yingqi Li",
"Yuval",
"bmargulies",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10173",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111158",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111159",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111160",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111162",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111168",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111170",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111177",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111244",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111260",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111263",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111264",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111412",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111415",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111416",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/112647",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11600",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14017",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14651",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1471",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17961",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/18199",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20424",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20580",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6722",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/9518",
"larens imanyuel",
"misheck dube",
"rishipuri",
"xiaoyu chu",
"yo'"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9431",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/41224"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Should I review a paper that violates the maximum length limitation?
I am reviewing a conference paper that violates the maximum number of pages by more than 10%. I believe that this is enough reason to outright reject the paper.
However, maybe the authors would welcome reviewer comments anyway. But I do not want to waste a day's work, in case nobody cares about my comments. What is customary and ethical in such a situation?
Just to make sure: Do the guidelines for reviewers provided by the conference say anything specific about that?
@O.R.Mapper That is a good point. There is no mention of page limit in the reviewer guidelines.
I see - in that case, please don't take that as a hint that you are supposed to ignore the length even if it bothers you (reviewers are not supposed to be robots that mechnically follow a checklist), just that there is no general procedure defined, or that editors want to react on a per-case basis.
Was this paper given to you after being processed by the program committee?
@MarkPlotnick Yes, it was. I already wrote them a mail to ask if my comments will be useful for them anyway.
I cannot believe that it is left to the reviewers to count words. Either someone upstream from you has decided to ignore the requirement, or someone upstream from you isn't doing her or his job.
@bmarguliesm, it's a page limit not a word limit. It should be pretty obvious how many pages the paper is.
Is the paper otherwise formatted according to the instructions in the call for papers? E.g., if the ultimate format is supposed to be max 8 pages of dense 2-column IEEE format, and they submitted a single-column double-spaced manuscript, it might be the case that it will be under the page limit after producing the final draft, and that the program chair has factored this into their decision to send it out for review. I think that checking with the program chair/committee is the best strategy.
Does this paper include an appendix? In cs, these are often not counted towards the limit (but should then not contain anything vital)
@BillBarth The formatting is the way it should be and there are no appendices.
Some conferences (like STOC) does not count titlepage and bibliography and has a 10 page limit. Are you sure it is not within the range if you count according to the submission guidelines?
Is revise and resubmit an option? Is it possible the paper could have material excised and thus be approved? Do you have time to provide such a direction (I would think you would, since you're already intending to review a paper less than 90% this one's length)? If yes, review it with that in mind. Else reject it.
As a disclaimer, I have not been in this exact situation: in my field (mathematics) there are few conference papers, and the number of journals with strict length requirements is small enough that I have never reviewed a paper which violated the requirements. Nevertheless:
In my experience it is customary in academic and professional contexts that if you submit something that does not adhere to the rules of submission, then you should expect that your submission will be rejected for that reason alone. Now it may be the case that rather than definitively rejecting your submission you are told, "Hey, please fix X so that your submission can be considered"...and it may not. There is much talk of grant applications that are rejected because something in the fine print of the submission rules was not followed.
In your case, you have noticed that one of the submission requirements has been violated, apparently in a nontrivial way ("by more than 10%"). In my opinion your clearest ethical obligation is to convey this knowledge to the editors. It is really unfair if the requirement gets completely ignored and the paper gets published anyway whereas some other authors are either getting dinged for not following the same rules or are working much harder (and perhaps, trading on the quality of their paper) in order to follow them. So I think your first step should be to point this out to the editors.
If you like, you can convey your willingness to look at a new version in a timely manner. You could even say that you are reading the version that you already have and are willing to work on a report under the assumption that the authors will later submit a version which is essentially the same but meets the length requirements. But I think that's about as far as you can go. If the submission really is permanently rejected based on the length then the authors will resubmit to another conference/journal and they'll get their feedback at that time (possibly even from you!). Viewing the fact that you received the paper and are not at this time writing a report on it to the authors as some kind of disservice to them is probably the wrong way to view it: this is really part of the usual business of academic refereeing.
Added: As long as you point out the failure to meet the length requirement, I certainly see no ethical problem with passing on whatever evaluation of the paper you want. In fact, when communicating with the editors if you think that the paper is otherwise very strong then it would be useful to say that. However, it seems to me that it is possible that the editors might decide that since the length requirements have been violated the paper will be rejected and the authors will not receive a referee report. Thus your careful comments are not guaranteed to be conveyed to the authors. This seems like a good argument for checking in with the editors before writing a full-blown report.
The advice to discuss with the editor/programme committee is absolutely correct. It's unlikely that the authors will be given the opportunity to submit a second version since, just as it's unfair to judge this too-long paper against ones which may have had to cut content to meet the limit, it's also unfair to allow the authors of this paper extra time that the other authors didn't get.
There is only one possible answer: Ask the Program Committee chair. It is an almost-one-line mail:
Hello Jeffy,
one of the papers I've got to review for the ABC Congress doesn't fit in the page limit given, it's: John Doe et al.: Study of DEF in context of XYZ, link:
http://sciencesconf..../link-to-the-paper-in-the-review-system
Should I still review it or is exceeding the length itself a reason for rejection?
Cheers, Tom
It saves troubles in the thing I think. It may be fine in some conferences (when the page limit is taken loosely) and may be a problem elsewhere (when it's strict for instance because the proceedings publisher is strict about it, or for whatever reason). You can't know this, there's the PC chair to know this.
You should mention the page length in such an e-mail. The program committee will react differently to an 8 page and 2 line paper than to a 15 page paper when the page limit is 8 pages.
@Eric Yeah, you can, but the PC chair (1) knows the limit and (2) will have to open the PDF file anyways and check.
Answering a question about the rules does not require the chair to validate the premise of the question. Just provide the necessary information directly.
It's not uncommon to have vague descriptions of maximum length (do references count? acknowledgments? tables? all of these can vary across conferences). Maybe the maximum length is not as you interpreted.
If you suspect that the paper is overlength, I would petition the program committee and wait for their response before putting any effort into reviewing, but I would not vote for rejection myself.
In my opinion, deciding on desk rejection is up to the editors/PC, not the reviewers. If the paper was sent out for review, I assume that it passed initial screening, but ofcourse it is possible to have slipped through the cracks.
Commonly the PC chair (or whoever assigns the reviewers) doesn't check the files in detail. I wouldn't be optimist to assume the paper passed any true pre-check more than "it's not a blatant spam".
Technically speaking, you have the right to immediately vote for rejection because of the length constraint violation.
If you want to review the paper and leave helpful comments, you are obviously welcome (for example, if there is some section in the paper you think is not necessary and can be removed to make the paper both in the correct length and good enough for the journal / conference then you might point that out).
Maximum length alone should not be a criterion for rejection. If the paper has merit, then final acceptance should be contingent on bringing the length down.
EDIT: Maximum length should still be within reason and often there is some flexibility for one page over the limit. If the maximum page limit is 8 pages and the paper is 15 pages, it should be rejected. For an 8 page limit, 10 pages is about the limit of what could be condensed to something less than 9 pages without losing content.
The problem is that the final version isn't re-refereed. So requesting a major change such as "cut 10+% of the length" means that the paper that will be published is substantially different from the one that was refereed. You'd have to reject a 100 page paper if the limit was 10 pages because you'd have no idea what the 10 page paper would look like. At the other end of the scale, it would be idiotic to reject on length alone a paper that was ten pages and one line. But the situation described isn't as clear-cut as either of those.
@DavidRicherby True but the same goes for any edits suggested by reviewers. You can usually take a page out of an 8 page paper just by condensing things and using terse language without significantly changing the actual content.
Sure, and then you could just condense things and use terser language to get it down to 6 pages. And then do it again to 5 pages... Obviously, there's a limit. If you've already condensed and "tersed" to get to 8 pages, it's unlikely that you can knock off another page without losing actual content.
@DavidRicherby Sure, there is a limit to what you can condense before you need to cut content. The first things to do are abbreviate your references, shorten the introduction (usually at least one paragraph can be dropped), tackle dangling lines with one or two words on them, shrink figures, and use a bit smaller font in tables. Then you work on shorter language in longer sections and as a last resort shrinking spacing between items. It's not a fast process (which is why it can't be done 10 minutes before the deadline) but you can do a lot.
Re the edit, the flexibility of the page limit presumably varies between fields (so, again, check with the PC member who sent the paper to you). I've never heard of a theoretical computer science conference being flexible about page limits. After all, if word gets round that one person was allowed an extra page, everyone will want one.
@Eric: You might do those things, such as abbreviating references, tackling dangling lines, shrinking figures, etc., unless ... they have already been done. Removing a paragraph from the introduction can mean the difference between a paper considered quite good by a reviewer and one considered incomprehensible due to a lack of basic information. Using terse language can successfully reduce paper length, but it can also lead to complaints by reviewers about "spelling mistakes" when you write iff and they think it's meant to say if. ...
... at latest when you start tinkering with font sizes in tables, you're in a realm where you can get easily rejected just for violating formatting constraints. tl;dr: All of your points make sense, but only if the authors haven't yet done everything possible to shrink the paper, which is not a given.
The rejection is not up to you. The fact that the manuscript (MS) has gone out to review despite being two long can be for two reasons: (1) the length was not spotted by the editors and was thus sent out without identifying the problem and (2) the editors know it is too long but do not think it is a problem. Now you do not know which of these apply. If you refuse to review it and number (2) is the case, you are not doing the editors any favours. If you review the MS and (1) is the case, then it is still not certain you can see what will happen since any decision is up to the editors. It is possible they will reject the MS once they know it is too long but it is also possible they will require the authors to take the reviews and both revise according to suggestions and shorten the MS to a proper length. It is of course possible they let MS through despite breaking the length.
So options are plenty. Therefore, if you think your work may be done in vain, you simply drop a line to the editors pointing out the fact that the MS is longer than expected and ask whether or not they still want you to do the review. An editor should be quite happy to respond to such a heads up mail question.
Given that it is a conference paper, I would assume that by the time the reviewer sees it, the submission deadline has already passed. The authors would therefore not be able to submit any modifications. Hence the only viable action is to contact the chair of the program committee, as yo' suggested.
This isn't quite true. At least in the computer science conferences I submit to, if a paper is accepted then the authors are expected to revise it in light of the referees' comments. The problem here is that the revised version isn't refereed again because the changes are expected to be minor. In this case, the changes required (cutting 10+% of the length) aren't particularly minor.
Ask them to re-write it properly or if they refuse reject the paper. Schools work on a basis of you teach this person and they adhere to you're guidelines not vica versa. As they are opposing this is the basic contract of teaching discluding money and limitations such as not permenantly confiscating or prosecuting.
I feel this answer is somewhat besides the point. This is about a conference paper, not about coursework. Usually, reviewers for conferences are in no position to "ask [authors] to re-write" something and wait till they have. Also, while the reviewer is expected to provide an expert view, I would see it as quite presumptuous to categorize the relationship between a reviewer of a paper and its authors as that of someone teaching someone else. Reviewers provide their (educated) opinions, which are valuable, but not infallible - that's why there are usually several reviewers, their ...
... statements may contradict each other, and the goal is that the paper is improved based on the reviewers' input, not that the authors learn how to write a paper specifically for reviewers X, Y and Z. Lastly, I really don't understand your last sentence.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.738956
| 2014-08-28T15:18:20 |
27743
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"9tTn9B",
"Anirban Mitra",
"Denis",
"Nate Eldredge",
"PENGUINLIONG",
"Pete L. Clark",
"Stephan Kolassa",
"david",
"davidwebster48",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1010",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4140",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/74834",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/74835",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/74836",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/74837",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/74838",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/74850",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/74878",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/74879",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/938",
"shishir Ahmed",
"vonludi"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9432",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/27743"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How to review a major revision of a paper?
A few months ago I reviewed my first paper. The authors submitted a major revision and I am asked to review the paper again. I received a long cover letter where my comments and the comments of two other anonymous reviewers have been answered.
The paper is relatively long (40 pages) so I am trying to avoid unnecessary work. Should I:
Re-review the entire paper as if I saw it the first time,
Just check if all comments have been addressed, or
Just check if my comments have been addressed?
I am afraid that if I just check the comments, it is possible that the authors have made some other changes, or that their changes might have broken the integrity of the paper as a whole. On the other hand if I re-review the entire paper it might be unfair to the authors.
Just a quick comment: there may be defensible reasons not to re-review the entire paper, but "unfair to the authors" is not one. You have been asked to review the paper...again. Doing so is completely fair! I would in fact consider the opposite: whether failing to read the entire paper again might somehow be unfair to the authors.
This sort of dilemma illustrates why it is good for authors to include a detailed list of changes with each revision submitted.
After "a few months", I usually don't remember enough of the original submission for looking at comments & replies to make sense without the context of the whole paper...
When a major review has been requested, I think you really do need to go through the whole paper, for exactly the reasons you cite—the changes you've requested may conflict with the changes another reviewer has requested, and therefore the authors may have had to exercise significant discretion on which one to formally include in their revisions. Similarly, there may have been other changes that arose from your comments or those of your fellow reviewers.
Minor reviews require a lower level of commitment, unless the authors have indicated more substantial changes have been made.
Anytime you are asked to review a paper, that is what you should do. If the editor asks you to provide feedback on how your own comments have been dealt with, then that is what you do. As aeismail states, the comments from several reviewers have been considered by the authors which means the paper is at least partially new. An example: it is not uncommon that reviewers opinions differ, which means authors have to decide what they believe is their preferred direction forward, following all points proposed by all reviewers may be impossible. As a reviewer you may then need to re-argue your view point and possibly find other ways to make these view points count. There are hence good reasons for making a second thorough review of a paper that has been given a major revision by the editors.
This is difficult and, to some extent, a matter of opinion. So, my opinion is this: Your job as reviewer is to identify problems and make critical comments that will improve a paper. In the first round, hopefully this is what you did. The editor then looks at these comments to decide whether to offer an opportunity for revision. In many (most?) journals, an offer of revision is a 85%+ chance of the paper eventually being published. So, when the paper comes back to you, it has already received a round of review and has already been deemed nearly ready for publication. You need to check to make sure that your comments and concerns have been adequately address. Particularly with major revisions, you also need to make sure that no significant new errors have been introduced. This can be a lot of work, but that is precisely your job; you put in effort now in hopes that others reviewing your paper given the same level of effort. If a paper addresses your concerns and introduces no new errors, your job is to recommend to the editor to publish the paper (possibly with minimal additional revisions to address new or lingering concerns).
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.739434
| 2014-10-08T05:40:55 |
29583
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"223seneca",
"Dooo",
"WalterInc",
"dinesh",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/81410",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/81411",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/81412",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/81417",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/81418",
"lk21"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9433",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29583"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Are replies from editors automatically generated?
I never reply to editor's and conference organizers' mails, since I somehow always thought that they are automatically generated and replying just to thank would be considered as spamming, since they probably write to hundreds of people.
But is this really true? Do editors prefer not to get trivial replies to their email? Are their emails really automatically generated, or just some parts of them?
In the case of editor's mails, some will need some form of response, some will not. If you receive mails from an editor requesting information concerning a manuscript you have submitted, you will obviously have to reply.
Since most journals use electronic manuscript handling systems, many mails will be generated automatically as reminders or to tell you something about the status of your manuscript. Unless there is a specific question for you to respond to, you do not have to respond. Editors handle lots of manuscripts and and the automated systems generate lots of mail for each as information to authors, reviewers and the editor. Responding to mails that do not request information is not wrong but completely unnecessary and the editor will likely glance at it and go on. Obviously the situation would get out of hand if everyone responded to all mails in such a system so just focus on those that request a response, that is all that is expected.
As for conferences, I would expect a similar scenario. Many mails will be information and only those that request information need to be answered.
The bottom line is, you need to make sure you answer the mails where you are requested to do so but the rest can safely be left as the information they were intended to convey.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.739649
| 2014-11-06T16:47:55 |
31266
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Abhishek",
"Bartosz",
"Farid ",
"JeffE",
"Joseph Mathew",
"MechtEngineer",
"Wrzlprmft",
"Yes",
"aaa90210",
"einpoklum",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10529",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/18107",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/23964",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/67258",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7319",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7734",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/86652",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/86653",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/86654",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/86655",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/86656",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/86657",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/94390",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/94391",
"ironduke97",
"max",
"mhwombat",
"sgf",
"user381186"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9434",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/31266"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Publishing my work without advisor
Two months ago I submitted a manuscript to my advisor for reviewing and submitting to a journal. He didn’t reply to that and when I asked him about it, he said we should think about publishing after two months and we don’t need to rush. He didn’t even bother to look into my paper.
I feel very anxious and have written a second paper this time with no discussion or involvement from him. I have put his name in the acknowledgement section for allowing me to use his lab computer. Do I stand a chance in publishing it without his name? The idea was never discussed by us and his involvement in this paper is almost not existent.
I have only a year to graduate and am worried for job hunting without publications. (About the quality of paper: Last year, when I came up with an idea, he rejected it claiming it was not good enough; six months later I saw it published by someone else. This time I am confident of getting accepted in reputed journals.)
Do I stand a chance in publishing it without his name — As opposed to what? Adding him as a coauthor would be unethical, since he didn't contribute. Students publish without their advisors all the time. (I did; my advisor did; my students do.)
Thank you @JeffE. I am worried if he will screw my PhD defense and reco letters for Asst. Prof. jobs
That's a separate question. If you don't trust your advisor not to screw you over, you need a different advisor.
OK @JeffE thanks for your response, I have used his server for running and generating data for my present paper. Does that force me to put his name as a reviewer or author? Or acknowledging it in the end of the paper is sufficient?
You should take a look at existing questions on authorship and advisor issues. Either way, your biggest issue will be the reaction of your advisor (unless he is sufficiently incompetent not to notice your publication) – which completely depends on your advisor and is thus not predictable for us.
Does that force me to put his name as a reviewer or author? — That is a discussion you should have had with your advisor years ago. In my opinion, merely giving you access to a computer does not merit coauthorship, but the correct answer depends on publication norms in your field. Also, please keep to just one question: This is not a discussion forum.
@Joseph That's a separate question, which has been discussed extensively on this site. See for example http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/644/when-should-a-supervisor-be-an-author, also http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/authorship
Thank you all, I didnt see JeffE's answer on http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/644/when-should-a-supervisor-be-an-author, also clarifying the coauthorship...thanks a lot...
I would say against submitting the paper without your advisor's name. According to your description, no offensive, your advisor seems not "upright". To deal with this kind of people, the best policy is to forbear; for you just do not know where or when in the future you will somehow meet him or her. In short, if you are still young, then it is not worth annoying your advisor just because of a paper. You may pretend to follow your advisor's rule, and then stand aloof to him or her after graduation. When your status gets higher than his or her, then your advisor cannot effect your developments.
The straight forward answer is that you can publish the work as you see fit. A well-written sound manuscript submitted to an appropriate journal is always welcome.
That said, however, your actions is not likely to smooth out any existing "conflict", for lack of a better word, between you and your advisor. And, just because one can does not mean it is the best solution. I am not about to judge who is is right or wrong in your situation, only someone close to you plural) would know. But, one question that immediately pops if you really have tried to discuss the matter in detail or if you have the position that your adviser should solve the problem. Lacking your advisor's side, only you can make such an assessment.
If you are in the position that your adviser is one-sidedly not communicating with you, the situation is difficult. I understand your eagerness to publish but will also mention a few things that can cause the actions to back-fire. First, you will most likely want letters of recommendation from your advisor so publishing work done in the advisor's lab without sanctioning from the adviser can become a negative aspect. You really need to objectively assess this proposed action. Second, if you are close to finishing, the timing is perhaps not optimal to ignite a conflict with your adviser. Again, you need to really assess your situation to know what ramafications can come from your actions. One partial solution, is of course to try to talk to other faculty for whom you have more confidence.
In the end, I can only see one solution: communicaton; and I can only advise to tread carefully over possibly mined territory so make sure you prepare your map carefully before running into solutions out of frustration or even anger.
Do I stand a chance in publishing it without his name?
Very possibly. In most fields, the merit of the work matters more than the identity of the authors.
However, that's not the question you should be asking, which is:
Assuming the paper could get published without my advisor's name on it - can I take his/her name off?
Not really. Even if he is not pre-reviewing it now, he has had enough influence and contribution on your development as an academic and the development of your research, even your individual research, that it can probably be argued he should be be listed as an author; and it is customary in many fields to include your advisor as an author.
So if you do feel you must act:
Inform him you intend to submit the paper, with both your names, qualifying that with "unless you tell me otherwise" or some such phrase.
If he says he should not be listed as an author, remove him; otherwise keep him as an author.
Your advisor can always ask the conference or journal to withdraw his/her name - and that is not automatically considered something fishy, especially if he does the withdrawal and his reason is "I didn't make a significant contribution".
However, note that doing this can adversely effect your relationship with your advisor if he would rather you wait for his input.
it is customary to include your advisor as an author This apparently is true in some fields and not in others. What is yours? he has had enough influence and contribution on your development as an academic and the development of your research that it can probably be argued he should be listed as an author If that's true now, isn't it still true in 30 years? So every academic always adds his former supervisor as co-author?
@sgf: About your first point: Edited to reflect that. I was under the impression it was more universal. About your second point: Philosophically not an easy question, but practical very easy: When you conclude your course and are awarded your degree, further work is independent enough of your former advisor's mentorship to not merit adding him/her as an author (unless you continue working together as regular collaborators).
I agree, my second point was more aimed at the logic of having your supervisor always be co-author than at the decision of having him be co-author in any specific case.
especially if he does the withdrawal and his reason is "I didn't make a significant contribution". — In my field, this would be considered extremely fishy. If you didn’t make a significant contribution, then how did your name get onto the paper in the first place??
@JeffE: Courtesy/deference by a graduate student.
Do I stand a chance in publishing it without his name?
Yes, you very much do. Your supervisor may genuinely wish not to be associated with the main idea in the paper, for their own good reasons, and if they are a decent sort (not a given in academia) they will let you proceed as long as their name is not on it, and also not try to stab you in the back later. I have been in this position as a PhD student, and luckily my supervisor turned out to be the good sort.
Now, if your paper gets accepted into a top-journal, the supervisor may turn around and demand to be on it. They may even insist it was their idea all along! They may write a nasty letter to the editor claiming that you are a rogue student. In that case you will probably have to give in to their demand to be included in the author list.
So you could be in for a rough ride. Many academics are not nice people and behave in dishonourable ways. But you can, most certainly, publish without a supervisor. In fact, the publishing itself will be a lot easier for it.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.740344
| 2014-11-25T13:51:11 |
32241
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9435",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/32241"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Master's Thesis Adviser Co-Authorship?
I have just completed my Master's Thesis and am hoping to publish an abridged version. My adviser has been very supportive of this and upon approving my thesis asked what I would think about her being a coauthor. I don't really know what to think about this. She was very helpful, but she certainly didn't contribute to the research questions or methodology. On the other hand, I also don't know why it would be bad to have her name on it with me. Any information would be appreciated.
From a formal point of view co-authorship should involve a certain definable contribution. The Vancouver Protocol makes the following definition (here in the form presented by the BMJ:
Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND Final approval of the version to be published; AND Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
You state that your advisor did not contribute much to the research questions or methodology. I further do not know your background so I can only judge from your question and provide general comments on your question. Writing up your research from a thesis to a publishable manuscript is a skill which is normally learned through graduate school. I am therefore thinking that you may still need quite a bit of guidance to manage the transition of your thesis material to the manuscript format. If your advisor is willing to help you with this part and the scientific input required to do so then co-authorship may well be warranted. So the co-authorship question should be answered on the final product and the contributions that went into it, and not necessarily what went into just your thesis.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.740537
| 2014-12-22T06:25:22 |
34665
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"David Richerby",
"Szabolcs",
"enthu",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11907",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15723",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22733",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/3890",
"jakebeal",
"silvado"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9436",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34665"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
When shall one write a mathematical expression as a separate line in a paper/Ph.D. thesis?
When do we write a mathematical expression on a separate line, and when do we write it inline with the text?
I believe that the answer is the same for researching papers and Ph.D. theses, or maybe even textbooks; but please correct me if I am wrong.
Here I am referring to a paper/thesis on mathematics. When one writes a mathematical paper, sometimes one writes a mathematical expression in a separate line such as in the following example:
We know that the identity
a2+b2=c2
holds true if ....
While sometimes one writes the mathematical expression inline with the text, such as in the following example:
Let f:X->Y be a one-to-one map, ...
My impression is the longer the expression is, the more likely it is written in a separate line. But is there any (possibly unwritten) rule for it?
I can remember that there was a question about when to use inline or display mode for equations on either Academia.SE or TeX.SE websites; I searched for it but I can not find it...
Don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Make sure your paper is clear and easy to follow. That's what matters.
Most people read more papers than they write. The papers you read should give you a good feel for what should, and should not, be displayed.
In the areas in which I work, there are no formal rules and it is left up to the author when to separate an equation and when to embed it in the text. When I am writing, I find that there are three fairly straightforward principles that work well for me in determining whether an equation (or other mathematical statement) deserves its own line or can be inline with the text:
Will I need to refer to the equation elsewhere? If so, it needs its own line, and equation numbering as well.
Is it more than ~1/3 of a line long? Anything so long that it is likely to get broken across lines and otherwise be a typographical mess should be pulled out onto its own line. Numbering is not required.
Do I want the reader to "pause" and contemplate the equation, or do I want it to "flow" as part of the sentence encompassing it?
This last needs a little bit more explanation... let's elaborate on one of the examples from the original question. If I write the sentence this way:
We know that the identity a^2+b^2=c^2 holds true if the system is in condition X.
then the equation should be inline, because the sentence is really about condition X, rather than about the equation. If, on the other hand, the reader's attention should be directed to the equation, then it is better to use something like the following form, with the equation on its own line:
We know that if the system is in condition X, then the following identity holds:
a^2+b^2=c^2
Note: these principles reduce to a similar effect as the style guide given by @silvado
When numbering equations, keep in mind that reviewers may want to refer to equations even if the author doesn't. Thus I'd recommend numbering most equations in display.
@silvado I find that it really depends on the type of paper. When the paper is math-centric, I completely agree with you. In certain cases when there are only a couple of equations in an otherwise entirely experimental paper, it may make less sense. Regarding reviewers: don't forget that many journals put line numbering on drafts, which means equation numbering superfluous for this purpose.
The book "Handbook of writing for the mathematical sciences" by N. J. Higham shortly discusses that point in Section 3.7 ("Displaying equations"). I cite the first sentence of that section:
An equation is displayed when it needs to be numbered, when it would be hard to read if placed in-line, or when it merits special attention, perhaps because it contains the first occurrence of an important variable.
In all other cases, equations should be put inline (being a mathematician, the book author does not mention this explicitly).
You may want to check the book Mathematics into Type published by the American Mathematical Society (AMS). See particularly section 2.5 in the Updated version (1999).
There are basically no fixed rules for what should be typeset as so-called display (on a separate line) versus run into the text. Length of the equation as well as importance are key parameters in making such a decision.
Length. Long equations will be difficult to set and to read if set into the text. Hence they need to be set in display mode.
Importance. If an equation is important to the text then it is likely better to set in in display mode since it will be easily seen.
Running everything in display is not useful. in-text equations save space while display equation break up the text. From this it is evident that the mix should also consider the length of the final text and the readability of the text.
There may of course be specific instructions for individual journals so check, in your case earlier PhD theses for hints, perhaps with the book mentioned above in one hand.
As with any style question, work through these rules from the top, and stop when you have an answer:
Read the style guide / advice to authors carefully, and follow its advice. It will often contain the answer.
Ask your editor / supervisor, and follow their advice.
Copy the style from recent works that are in the same category as yours; so if yours is a review article to the Journal of Studies, copy the style from recent reviews in the Journal of Studies; if it's a PhD thesis to the Institute of Thinking, copy the style from recent PhD theses to the Institute of Thinking. This will only be successful if there's an obvious pattern present. Look at several works, don't just pick one: you're looking for a pattern, not just a single precedent.
Follow best practice in typography and graphic design. If your own eye isn't yet trained, ask someone who does have a good eye for these things. One way to assess this is to try several things, and pick whatever's clearest to a reader new to the material. But don't do this too often: you don't want to exhaust the goodwill of your style-checkers.
(you might wish to swap around numbers 2 and 3, e.g. if you know that the rules have not changed recently)
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.741043
| 2018-09-11T11:16:33 |
116726
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Buffy",
"Federico Poloni",
"JWH2006",
"egst",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5786",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75368",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/92814",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/958"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9437",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/116726"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Recommendations for maths courses choice to study AI
I study computer science at the Charles University. The undergraduate study (baccalaureate) in "general computer science" programme provides several focus areas, which are followed by corresponding programmes in the graduate study (master). I chose to go for mathematical linguistics in the undergraduate and artificial intelligence (Probably with machine learning focus, but I'm not sure yet.) in the graduate study.
My problem is: There are some mandatory maths courses and some optional. Some of the optional ones are recommended, but not for specific focus areas. So I wanted to ask for some advice on which areas of mathematics are recommended for this area.
Most courses are split into multiple semesters and completing only the first few is usually mandatory, continuation of the other ones is optional. So far (first year of undergraduate), I have completed these mandatory courses:
Mathematical analysis I, II
Discrete mathematics (Continues as Combinatorics and Graphs.)
Combinatorics and Graphs I
Linear algebra I, II (No more courses available, only applications in computer graphics etc.)
Mandatory courses for next years:
Probability and Statistics
Propositional & Predicate logic
Algebra I
List of some available optional courses:
Mathematical analysis III
Combinatorics and Graphs II
Set theory
Numerical mathematics
Algebra II
You really need to find a way to add probability and statistics to that list of course you plan on taking. That or self educate. That said, picking up set theory will let you at least let you learn the language of probability and machine learning. Learning statitistics and a programming language of your choice is a strong start to understanding where all that math you are learning is applied.
Yeah, sorry I forgot to mention the statistics, they are mandatory.
I did not intend to ask about CS related courses, as I had those figured out mostly. But based on what you are saying, is a Probabilistic Algorithms course a good choice?
And are statistics that important, or is it more about the probability? (I love mathematics, but unfortunately, statistics is the only area I still have problems with, so I just want to know if it's worth changing my view on statistics as something important to my future interests, rather than something I just need to know, but don't really want to.)
statistics is a core portion of machine learning. I think a better question on deciding what you want to take is what you plan to do with machine learning? Do you plan on participating in the exploding field of machine learning applications? If so, that is, at its core, stats/programming.
Well, what I want to do exactly is a complicated question. What I expect from the "formal education" is a more general and theoretical view on the machine learning and similar AI related concepts, before actually applying this knowledge in projects that I will come across by "self education" - by practice and experimenting on my own. So for now I'm just gathering all the basic areas, that I cannot miss out, before actually deciding where to aim my interests. Anyways, thanks for your recommendations.
No optimization in the course list? That would also be an obvious candidate.
There is a "Discrete and Continuous Optimization" and several other more in depth courses. I did not list it, as its more related to computer science. I needed an overview of the more abstract mathematics courses, that were not that obvious to me, as to what extent they will be useful.
Mathematical analysis III
Probably overkill, but it depends on the actual content. You will need some multivariate analysis (partial derivatives, Jacobians, Hessians), but I suspect it's already in the first two courses.
Combinatorics and Graphs II
Maybe not specifically for AI, but in general it should be a useful course for a computer scientist. Again, it may depend on the actual program; if it is set up as a very abstract course then it may be overkill.
Set theory
Not so useful. Probably more abstract stuff that you'll ever need as a computer scientist.
Numerical mathematics
Very useful. Matrix computations, stability and the floating point model, basic root-finding and optimization algorithms... That's all stuff that you will probably need.
I'm surprised that it is not mandatory for a computer scientist (but I work in that area, so maybe I'm biased).
Algebra II
Not so useful. Probably more abstract stuff that you'll ever need as a computer scientist.
Other courses: look out for a course on optimization (it might also fall in the "numerical mathematics" category). Neural networks are based on optimization/fitting algorithms.
There are several courses on optimization. I only needed someone else's view on the more general maths areas, as I was getting biased by my personal preferences in the areas, which is not very useful, when using mathematics as a tool rather than just exploring what I like.
I thought about your list as well and have taken those courses. My internal question was "Which of these will help the OP build models". I thought that Abstract Algebra probably does this best of the ones you mention, but it is a jump from theory to practice.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.741448
| 2012-11-18T15:07:30 |
5318
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Barath Bushan",
"CKing",
"F'x",
"TeaDee",
"Vítor E. Silva Souza",
"aleatha",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13723",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13724",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13725",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13726",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13734",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2700",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4046",
"user22251"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9438",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5318"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What are the pros and cons of applying for graduate study in multiple disciplines?
My first attempt at this question was voted to be closed. Here's another attempt at the same question which I have broken into two different questions/posts.
I am an application programmer with 3+ years software development experience. I already have a Masters in Computer Applications from a reputed university in India. I am planning to apply for universities in the US and UK for the 2014 fall semester as I feel that my job is getting stagnant and I have always wanted to study abroad.
I am really not sure whether I want to take up another masters degree or apply for business school instead. Considering my indecisiveness regarding what I want to study, I have decided to appear for both the GRE as well as the GMAT and keep my options open. The first step for applying abroad is to take the GRE or the GMAT and I want to get done with this step by keeping all my options open.
I am planning to appear for the GRE by March 2013 and the GMAT by June 2013. That will give me enough time to apply for masters as well as business schools abroad. I understand that many business schools have started accepting the GRE but appearing for the GMAT will broaden my options.
Given the above information, What are the pros and cons of applying for graduate study in multiple disciplines? Has anyone taken this path and applied for a masters and an MBA in the same year?
Hi bot, I believe this is a good question, and a much better fit for the site than your earlier attempt. Thanks for staying and improving it!
I had to roll back the edit because I feel that the background information and the conclusion adds more meaning to my question.
The main issues against such a path are the time and expense involved in doing so. Effectively, you have to complete two different sets of testing requirements, and you'll need to write two very different sets of essays. You'll also probably need to get different letters of recommendation, as the emephasis for different fields are probably not likely to be similar. If you apply to US schools, there is also the cost of applying to the additional schools in the other discipline.
Since you're an international student, it isn't likely that you'll be asked to fly in for interviews, so that wouldn't be a big drain on your time.
As for the pros, if you aren't sure which path you want to pursue, this will definitely give you more options. But other than that, I can't think of a "real" advantage to splitting your efforts in such a manner. (I guess one other exception is if there's a special "dual master's" program at one of the school's you're interested in; however, this requires reviewing the information available from each school.)
I didn't really think that far. You make a very strong point which I never considered. Although I feel that I don't mind taking the extra effort in getting dual recommendations from the same person and spending more money on applications if it helps me keep my options open.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.741846
| 2015-07-06T17:53:55 |
48385
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Ish Kav",
"Ranga",
"Sergio Piccione",
"Vishal Singh",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/133911",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/133912",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/133913",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/133915"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9439",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/48385"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How to ask the editor of a journal whether our manuscript fits the scope or not
I am interested in submitting a manuscript to a certain scientific journal, because it is well ranked. The problem is that I am not sure if my manuscript totally meets the topics and requirements (e.g. lenght, etc.) of the journal.
I would like to send a letter to the editor of the journal in order to find out whether or not they believe my paper can be interesting to the readers and may fit the scope and conditions of the journal.
I have been told that, in cases like this, this option is better than just submitting the manuscript and getting it rejected.
So, my question is: Could you recommend me a letter model to this purpose?
In addition, in this similar question: [ When is it appropriate to contact the editor before submission to avoid rejection without review? ] they talk about even sending the whole manuscript to the editor in this pre-submission step! Actually, I was thinking of not even including the abstract of my work (but just a description) in this letter to the editor. Should I really include it?
Broadly, I would encourage you to review the information for authors provided on the journal's website in greater depth. First, it seems that some of the feedback you are seeking is related to the format of the manuscript (you mention asking about length, for example), and as these requirements are generally laid out online in the journal's instructions to authors, the presubmission inquiry is not an appropriate venue for getting those types of questions answered.
Second, many journals that regularly field presubmission inquiries will have a description on their website of what this inquiry should include and where to send it, although the level of detail they provide may vary. I refer you to PLOS Biology's Presubmission Inquiries page for a good example (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/presubmission-inquiries), as the points they ask authors to include in their inquiry could, I think, be broadly applied in cases where the journal has not provided much guidance regarding what they're looking for. Bear in mind, however, that it is necessary to do your own research regarding your particular journal's guidelines; Nature, for example, wants a fully referenced first paragraph of your article.
Final point--a positive response to a presubmission inquiry does not guarantee that you will receive a favorable review, or even get reviewed at all. It is a good start to the review process, but just a start.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.742092
| 2016-12-02T16:54:30 |
80908
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Vicent",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4132"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9440",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/80908"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Standard way to specify roles in authorship
This question is not really about who can be considered a coauthor of a given journal paper —or maybe it is, after all— but rather about how to specify the different roles, levels of implication or contributions of each of the coauthors, in case this would mean to be done.
My question is: Is there any standard about how to specify the different roles or contributions of the coauthors of a given journal paper? I do not mean the importance of coauthors that can maybe deduced from their order in the author list (see What does first authorship really mean?, Authorship allocation - is it common to grant equal credit to two last authors?, for instance), but a way to explicitly specify the implication of each of the coauthors, in a sort of standard way.
I remember someone saying this could be added at the end of each article, as a way to make the contribution of each coauthor clearer.
Actually, my question is highly related to this previous one: Revamping Paper Authorship, *or* Should Papers Roll Credits, which has only received one answer and is still open at the moment of writing.
I have found some interesting webpages and articles dealing with this subject:
Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors)
The ICMJE's definition of authorship is illogical and unethical (David Shaw)
Is it time for a new approach to authorship? (Leash E.)
A New Standard for Authorship (Paul J. Friedman)
So, maybe my question is actually about the state of the art of this subject: how to credit authorship in a standard way or standard authorship crediting.
Other related questions in this site:
What are the minimum contributions required for co-authorship
Is it ethical for advisors to automatically coauthor papers?
If you make a substantial contribution should you be given the opportunity to satisfy the other requirements for authorship?
Should undergraduate students be included on papers containing data they collected?
Indicating co-PI status on a paper
Can I claim authorship on work I wasn't personally involved in, that uses a framework I developed for my research?
There is now a (reasonably) standard way of specifying author contributions, at least in some fields: a CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) statement, see http://credit.niso.org/. It was first introduced by Brand et al. (2015), and there are quite a few follow-up publications about it. E.g., Cell Press, Wiley and Elsevier do not seem to require it for all journals but at least endorse it. It uses a precisely defined taxonomy of 14 different contributions an author could have made. The roles are the following (screenshot from the above link):
Detailed descriptions of the different roles can also be found under the above link.
A typical statement might look like this (screenshot from the Elsevier page linked above):
Notice that it is perfectly fine to list contributions by people who are not authors of the paper.
In case someone is interested, there is even an R package by Shixiang Wang allowing to create a chart to visually show credit assignment for a paper: https://shixiangwang.github.io/home/en/tools/contribution-table/.
There is no standard way, not even in the same field or sometimes even the same journal.
But when people put contributions at the end, it typically looks something like this:
Author Contributions
AB conceived the project. CD and EF designed the experiments. AB and GH performed the experiments. CD and EF analyzed the data. AB wrote the article with input from all the other authors.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.742395
| 2012-12-04T23:25:09 |
5612
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"410 gone",
"Daniel",
"Fred Douglis",
"Merlynfry",
"Suresh",
"Vinay",
"cr1lle",
"hamedcse",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14522",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14523",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14524",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14526",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14531",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/346",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4246",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/90039",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96",
"samjhana joshi"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9441",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5612"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
reuse of text between publications (CS)
This probably depends on field, but in Computer Science it is common for people to publish similar material in workshops, then conferences, then journals. Each time it is acceptable to reuse some material from one level to the next as long as there is some new material (journals sometimes will publish verbatim but that's anohter matter).
So, is it acceptable to borrow significant text from one conference paper to use in a second conference paper? In my experience the answer is no, but I'm curious if there are any guidelines, and if so, whether they vary across disciplines.
BTW, after posting I came across this: Attitudes towards self-plagiarism ... certainly related to this. I commented there, and should have mentioned here, that a complicating factor with regard to reuse of text arises from the use of blind submission: if you can't say who you are, you can't admit to copying your own text.
Whether or not it's acceptable, it does appear to be rather common, especially when the fragments are motivational, or describe common notation.
effectively a duplicate of Attitudes towards self-plagiarism, and the answers there adequately cover this variant of it
EnergyNumbers, I had edited this to point a that other page. I think they are related but I disagree those answers cover this. In that case, someone wanted to submit several overlapping things in parallel, I thought. Here it is a paper from the same event in an earlier year.
I would say it depends:
Some papers go from Abstract to Extended Abstract to Full Paper. In this case I see nothing makes it unacceptable. The same goes if you are extending your own results.
I often see the same material copied in the Background (and
sometimes in the literature review) section with the same authors for
different papers. That is in addition to Definitions and common
notations as @Suresh said.
I believe in this case it is ethical and valid since Background (or Definitions) is not the paper contribution. This ,in turn, has a disadvantage (and I really suffered from this): if you were not able to understand some parts of the background in the first paper, you will stuck there. In other words, you will not find another wording of it.
Returning to the question:
is it acceptable to borrow significant text from one conference paper
to use in a second conference paper?
If the significant text is not significant part of the contribution then IMHO Yes. The word significant here is the key and it is ambiguous but let's say its 40% of the paper.
The bottom line is:
Removing the borrowing text, does your paper have a contribution by its own?
I have seen the opposite where some papers are very similar to others and I think this is a bad habit. At the end, you are trying to discover new things not to copy them.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.742987
| 2013-07-29T03:33:57 |
11486
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Brendan Jackson",
"Dew",
"F'x",
"Hpfan28",
"J.R.",
"JRN",
"JeffE",
"Marcel Hebing",
"Mike Bird",
"Nathanael Farley",
"Nick S",
"S M Abrar Jahin",
"Sibbs Gambling",
"Student",
"TCSGrad",
"The Trice",
"Tim Croydon",
"XYZ",
"Xin Shuai",
"antmw1361",
"cbeleites",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2700",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28702",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28703",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28704",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28705",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28708",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28714",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28715",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28716",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28723",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28724",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28725",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28736",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28760",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28773",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28774",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28847",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5644",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/64",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7624",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/780",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7953",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8079",
"mahtab",
"mb7744",
"onmyway133",
"silvascientist",
"tikiribanda"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9442",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11486"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Authorship determination for a paper in IEEE journal
I finished my bachelor project and my supervisor suggested to work with me on publishing a paper about my work which is an encryption algorithm, Now my supervisor helped me with some remarks along my bachelor project and helped me with the paper (like grammar mistakes and such) but I am the one who made encryption algorithm and I am the one who wrote the paper:
Now should I include my supervisor as a 2nd author as he wants? (I can refuse, and then publish the paper on my own) He is a senior IEEE member and has published papers (where he was also 2nd author taking credit for others' work). Should I mention him just for the sake to get my paper accepted or protect it from getting stolen?
From my point of view, what he deserves is to be mentioned in acknowledgments but not as a second author.
And will the ownership of the paper will be 50% to me, while 50% to him ?
So, you did your project on your own, without any inputs from your supervisor?
In engineering, I think it is commonly accepted that the adviser of a student project is always a co-author of any papers resulting from the project, whether or not the adviser contributed to the paper or to the project.
But wont people think he contributed in making the cipher ? , i mean i did the cipher , while he concentrated on how should bachelor thesis looks and how should paper looks(which i am grateful) , but he didn't contribute to the encryption algorithm.
And will the ownership of the paper will be 50% to me ,while 50% to him ?
No. Ownership of the paper would be 100% to you and 100% to him. Or perhaps more accurately, 0% to you, 0% to him, and 100% to the publisher.
Given how your comments are rife with punctuation, grammar, capitalization, and spacing errors, I find it hard to believe that you got a paper acceptance-ready all on your own. Perhaps you did the bulk of the technical work, as you claim, but your overall spirit seems remarkably ungrateful for any assistance you may have received. Seeing that he is an IEEE senior member, he probably has a good idea of what qualifies for co-authorship, and what is more appropriate for recognition in the acknowledgements. I strongly recommend that you defer to his expertise in that area.
Oh lord... he seserves one... Perhaps you didn't see how other co-authors contributed in other papers. That is enough effort from an advisor
As I read through your question and some of your comments, I get the impression that this faculty member has already done some work on your paper, presumably believing that he would be a co-author.
If so, I think it would be wrong to submit a solo paper with his improvements incorporated into the work. If you want to be sole author, then you should do ALL the work, including the proofreading, etc. – or at least have let the professor know up front that he would only be listed under the acknowledgements, so he could make an informed decision about whether or not it would be worth his time and effort to make those improvements. Proofreading and correcting is not a trivial feat.
More importantly, though, your question reminds me of a similar situation I experienced during graduate school. During a computer graphics course, my lab partner and I did a lot of work on an algorithm, and we ended up getting a paper published. Our instructor was also listed as a third author.
My partner and I developed and tested the algorithm, and our instructor did little but give us the problem. Did I feel slighted? No, and in hindsight, I now better understand his vital role in our work. These problems don't just pop up like dandelions, or infiltrate our email like spam – they are usually the result of extensive study, along with collaborative research with industry. In other words, without us students, he wouldn't have had an answer, but, without our instructor, we would not have had a problem of any meaningful significance.
If I see an IEEE paper with two authors, instead of presuming that the work was split evenly between those two, I'd probably assume that one author's principle role was to identify the problem, while the other worked the solution. That's so common that it's almost a given – such symbiotic relationships are ubiquitous in academia.
In other words, I think you misunderstand the nature of coauthorship in research. Your instructor thought the work you did was good enough for the two of you to get something published together. You ought to be appreciative of his guidance, happily put his name alongside yours, and get off to a good start in the realm of academic research.
But remember that standards of co-authorship vary significantly between different subfields of computer science. In theoretical computer science (my subfield), acquiring the grant, suggesting the problem, and offering feedback on the manuscript are not usually worth coauthorship. Even in an IEEE journal.
@JeffE: That's a good point. However, I'm assuming that, if the faculty member assumes co-authorship is a given in this case, then it's probably the right way to play it. (I suppose that could be an erroneous assumption, but I wanted to point out that the O.P.'s situation is hardly considered unusual in many branches of research.)
Mentioning the problem , alothough i changed the title of my bachelor later to be to make a new encryption alogrithm rather than IMPROVING an existing one , he did point me to the direction of cryptology . Ok well but i will point out to him (since he want to submit paper to the journals himself) that he will guide me in the submitting part but everything will go through me.
Thanks your previous problem is similar to mine . Thanks and thanks for all others who helped me in my decision.
@Trice: Except I never considered it a "problem" – I always regarded it as an "opportunity."
You have many questions as about authorship, and I am afraid some of your questions/comments indicate a certain level of confusion about authorship. You could browse the authorship questions on this site, and it may Enlighten you to some extent.
Regarding your specific questions:
Should I include my supervisor as a 2nd author as he wants?
First, you should check the policy on authorship directly from the publisher. IEEE Publication Policies states that:
Authorship and co-authorship should be based on a substantial intellectual contribution. It is assumed that all authors have had a significant role in the creation of a manuscript that bears their names.
Therefore, the list of authors on an article serves multiple purposes; it indicates who is responsible for the work and to whom questions regarding the work should be addressed. Moreover, the credit implied by authorship is often used as a measure of the contributors’ productivity when they are evaluated for employment, promotions, grants, and prizes.
The IEEE affirms that authorship credit must be reserved for individuals who have met each of the following conditions:
a. Made a significant intellectual contribution to the theoretical development, system or experimental design, prototype development, and/or the analysis and interpretation of data associated with the work contained in the article;
b. Contributed to drafting the article or reviewing and/or revising it for intellectual content; and
c. Approved the final version of the article as accepted for publication, including references.
Unless you performed research entirely without any input from your advisor, it seems unlikely that he did not make a “significant intellectual contribution”. Possible types of contribution include proposal of research subject/project, any guidance in the choice of method to pursue the project or on intermediate results, guidance on how best to interpret results and present them, etc.
Will the ownership of the paper will be 50% to me, while 50% to him?
No, co-authorship does not necessarily mean equal contribution (and is not understood as such by the readers). To go even further, some journals offer the option of writing an explicit statement quantifying (to some extent) the respective contributions of the coauthors.
Won't people think he contributed in making the cipher?
Not necessarily, as above. They will think he contributed to some extent to the research project, but will understand that he may not have been the one who came up with the idea.
I'll end by adding that you should be really wary not to dismiss your advisor's role too much. Even if you had the breakthrough idea and implemented it yourself, surely the guidance offered by your teachers and supervisors are to be credited, maybe more than you realize right now. Also, that he gave you the opportunity to pursue a worthwhile research project, and then helped you transform that into a publishable (quality) paper, are important contributions.
There was no guidance , i had to discover the mistakes in the algorithm and fix them! , because he is that into cryptology i had to study and make algorithm , i updated him with what i am doing but he didn't show me my mistakes , he was agreeing with anything presented.
His guidance was in the appearance of the paper and how it should be written and presented .THAT'S IT , so would that fall in category (b) IN Your marked passage or that doesn't fall ?
Thanks for help and marked passage(yellow box)
Yes, that would definitely fall into the (b) category.
And would (b) be enough or does he have to meet all 3 requirements ?
Since he's your advisor and you consulted him through out the project, then you definitely need to put his name as a co-author (unless he refused to be a co-author).
Taking into account that this is your first paper and he's a senior IEEE member (I don't know what this really mean but IEEE love its members), I believe it is a plus for your paper to be co-authored by him.
His consultation was never ever used to change anything in the encryption algorithm , I mean when some one writes a book and sends it to someone to check its spelling mistakes and how it should look , they are mentioned in acknowledgments abut not as 2nd author , or am i wrong ?
@TheTrice So if I understand right, you got this idea of the encryption algorithm by yourself, encrypted everything alone in a dark room and never discussed anything with your advisor...
@Nicks, not only that - his advisor must also have told him that he won't do anything but proofread for typos, and particularly not check the content of paper and thesis. Off course there may be a slight problem with the paper as no second person ever thought through the idea of the student before the publication was submitted...
IMHO the "magnitude" of the contribution "supervision and checking [not the spelling but the experiments, content and reasoning]" by the prof does not depend on whether the student does a very good job or needs lot of corrections. (If I get crappy papers for review that also isn't honored differently from reviewing very good papers.) Also, the student not noticing the guidance of the prof can be result of a very good guidance by the prof: instead of telling "do this and that" the prof leads the student to thoroughly understand the problem and thus derive a solution "himself".
So all of you think "I am not that smart to see the guidance the doctor provided me? "
To end discussion :
Thanks for your help , although some were not(but that's to be expected), Yes i went in my dark room spent days making my algorithm , with every step taken or idea coming by i was updating my algorithm based on my thinking and i updated doctor just for the sake of notification( no ides came from the doctor at all , as he has many work to do) As the answer i have chosen as a solution i will just mention him as a 2nd author to help me publish the paper.
, although this is because the IEEE and the world we live don't care about the work than about appearances , because if all what mattered to publish in a journal is the work presented , then i would never put his name as an author and just mention him in my acknowledgment as reading the paper and telling me his remarks.
@TheTrice No. Is just that often people overestimate their work on a project and underestimate other people contribution. If it was indeed all your work without any input whatsoever from your advisor, then you should not put him on your paper. BUT, knowing how the system works, it wouldn't surprise me if it was the SUPERVISOR not you who chose this particular topic to investigate, and you probably had some talks before starting work, and he probably made some suggestions. And most probably he gave you some materials to read about it...
If you don't think your supervisor deserves to be a coauthor, just tell him so and submit without him. You don't need our approval. But be prepared for a backlash; in particular, don't expect him to want to continue working with you or write you a glowing recommendation letter later. Single-authorship may look like the best short-term solution, but generosity usually pays off better in the long run.
The rules for what co-authorship mean vary by field: in math it would be unusual for an advisor to be listed as a co-author under the circumstances, while in engineering, as others have notes, an advisor is normally included.
One of the reasons is that fields like engineering list authors in an order conveying information about the contributions: you'd be listed as first author, and your advisor as last author. Readers understand that this means you had the main intellectual contribution and your advisor acted as a supervisor.
It appears to me that you are looking for validation for not including your supervisor. A supervisor is not supposed a person whose brain emanates marvelous and groundbreaking ideas which are later developed by a horde of pawns. Research does not work like that. It is about collaboration at different levels.
If you cannot admit he has contributed to some extent, that's fine. My point of view regarding this sort of ego-fights is: is it worth creating a whole circus and fighting for being first/solo author of a paper that is not going to change the world? Time will pass and you will understand ... Hopefully.
Good luck.
I have same feeling about this discussion "It appears to me that you are looking for validation for not including your supervisor."
If he wants to be an author, add him, and use that as leverage to improve your paper.
Being first author is plenty of credit for you; in fact, in your situation being sole author could be an indication that you are unable to work with others, which is a negative in most cases. People are highly accustomed to crediting the student with all of the value of the work (because they did the work), and the professor with all of the value of the work (because they enabled the work in various ways), and the credit can count twice because the student and professor almost never are competing for the same things. I'm assuming that the professor actually did do something enabling.
In any case, before you publish the paper you should get someone to read it carefully, and if they say things like "this passage is unclear" or "this needs more background" then your professor ought to be able to give advice and/or help fix it. There's nothing like having a highly experienced co-author to make short work of a request to place this work in the context of the field! If your professor cannot help improve the paper in this kind of situation (and help write a good cover letter, etc.), and they didn't actually enable any of the work, then even if it would help you, it is probably not ethical to include him as an author. Otherwise, there are only positives for all involved.
Thanks for your answer , He does the reading , as i said that's the only thing that he does ,reading the paper and telling me remarks about some passages or grammar mistakes , but work to do algorithm was done solely by me.
I updated him with every step in making the algorithm ,but he never mentioned any remarks since he doesn't understand encryption that well , so i had to discover my mistakes in the algorithm and work on my own on them.
So his name will only be used to help me publish the paper,Since IEEE care more about appearances more than the work presented.
IEEE doesn't really care one way or the other about your paper. The decision whether to publish will be made by an individual editor, based on the recommendation of independent referees, who may not even be IEEE members, much less representatives.
In engineering, it is common (accepted) for students to put their advisor's names as authors. This does not detract from the student's efforts; in some respects it can enhance the reception of the paper because the wider community will probably know the supervisor more than the student.
Be aware that if you try to publish it without your advisor's name, then the reviewers or editors may contact them and ask what is wrong (and also decline to publish the paper).
My advisor told me that the work I was doing was worthless, and not worth publication. I moved universities (and advisors), completed the work and submitted it without my original advisor's name as author. The IEEE editor rejected the paper until my original advisor was added as author.
Yeah its all about appearances and connections rather than work presented .
One day a more scientific community will be presented rather than IEEE.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.744484
| 2014-05-25T03:58:16 |
21407
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bob",
"Brian Borchers",
"EuWern",
"Fariz Giga",
"Geremia",
"Patrick",
"Steve",
"guest-201607290000",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4453",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/58670",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/58671",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/58683",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/58733",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/58743",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/64035",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/9425"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9443",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/21407"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Is it bad practice to submit the entire manuscript for an initial book proposal to a publisher?
In a previous book I wrote, I submitted the entire manuscript along with a couple page proposal to a few different publishers. Both editors never responded to me.
In my current book, I sent the entire manuscript with a short description to an editor at Springer, and it has been two weeks, and I have heard nothing, not even an acknowledgement of receipt.
Am I doing something against proper procedure?
Update: I emailed the editor again asking her if she received the manuscript, and she said she did. She was just on vacation. (I guess Europeans take longer ones than those in the U.S. are used to…)
Did you follow the book proposal guidelines for Springer? It does not include sending the entire manuscript but does include items like:
Author
Author CV
Any other contributors (include CVs)?
Who's the audience including undergraduate or graduate
What book do you see as the main competitor?
3-4 paragraphs describing the contents of the book
Unique Selling Points (why should someone buy this book)
etc.
Note: I'm not sure that I've linked to the book proposal guidelines for your area, but they surely exist.
Second Note: Geremia provided a link to the book series webpage. Poking around on the page and tracing links, I did find a general manuscript preparation page, but nothing on what the proposal should look like. I maintain that unless they tell you explicitly to send the entire manuscript, you should send a brief proposal or even a query ("are there guidelines I should follow?") to the editor first.
Based on blogs and articles that I've read by fiction editors and agents, not following published guidelines for a submission is one of the top pet peeves and a quick way for your submission to get deleted or tossed in the recycle bin.
I'm submitting to Springer-Velag, and the series I'm submitting to doesn't have much explanation, just one editor's contact info with no more explanation than "Please send your proposal to…".
In my experience (and I have coauthored two editions of a textbook published by Academic Press), the part of the book proposal that you'll be asked questions about (which is presumably what they care about) is the marketing stuff- who is the intended audience, and how will this book be better for that audience than competing books. If you haven't gotten over that bar, no editor is likely to send the manuscript out for review.
I am pretty sure the author meant different Springer:) if there is no reply, try calling the editor you find via contacts listed for each discipline at springer.com
In any case, do always mention that the proposal was also sent to xxx, so as to avoid more editors arranging reviews for the same proposal
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.744765
| 2014-08-01T05:28:45 |
26665
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Cristina Scielzo",
"Geremia",
"Inquisitive",
"Martinsos",
"Motaka",
"Peter Jansson",
"Salma ",
"askewchan",
"goingaround",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/27985",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4394",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/71458",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/71459",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/71460",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/71463",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/71470",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/71472",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/71473",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/9425",
"j_diaz"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9444",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/26665"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How was higher education done before the university system?
I know the university system as it is understood today dates at least as far back as the 13th century or perhaps even to the time of Charlemagne, Alcuin of York, et al., but how was higher education handled before universities? Was it by private tutoring?
There was the Great Library at Alexandria. It was immediately adjacent to "The School of Hard Knocks".
As with many things the history of higher education is not well known since accounts may be scarce or missing altogether. Early evidence indicate that schools existed in Egypt where, primarily, boys would learn to read and write etc. One has to remember that such skills were not for the masses. Religiously connected schools also emerged where religious texts were handled and copied. Theological and medical teaching was also done but very little else. evidence of mathematics have been found so there were also schools, perhaps aiming at architecture, astronomy , etc. relevant for the culture. None of these has a degree at the end but was likely based on apprenticeship and mastery evaluated by the teachers. Similar evidence for teaching exists in all older cultures and seem to focus on maintaining order in the social and cultural basis for society.
There seems to be a big step when considering Greek education which was far more comprehensive than the pragmatic education earlier. In the city states of ancient Greece specialized schools emerged where teaching circled around very specific topics such as the Hippocratic school of medicine on Cos. This specialization seems to have continued with the well known Greek philosophers/scientists such as Aristotle, Plato etc. and teaching progressed in directions envisioned by these founders. In other words, there was no single systematic way for schools to teach and operate.
In the Roman world subjects were ordered in groups that we can recognize today: I grammar rhetoric, dialectic; II geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, music; III medicine, architecture. This was how the liberal arts (defined as theoretical and intellectual activities by the Greeks) were seen. The subjects have of course survived to modern times although organisation has changed. So education became more organised but the education was not open and still served a purpose for maintaining government rule. Out of the post-Roman world came the first universities as stated in the question where education became even more organized and eventually including fixed degrees.
This answer is loosely based on the excellent book: The first universities by Olaf Pedersen, Cambridge UP, 1997. I strongly recommend it!
The only educational history book I'm familiar with is Patrick J. McCormick's History of Education, but I want to check out The First Universities! Thank you for the reference
Yes, there are probably several books so thanks for the one you mention. I am interested in the subject so I will also check that one out.
It depends on what you mean by higher education.
Degrees are highly inflated nowadays, now practically everyone and his dog has a PhD, or at least a BSc.
100 years ago passing final exams in high-school practically was the terminal degree for most administrative positions. Much fewer people went on universities, mostly engineering, doctors and such.
If you go back a couple of hundred years you realize that very few profession actually needed university degree, and universities were mostly scholarly centers for philosophy and religious studies. Most engineering didn't even exist 500 years ago, and what existed was taught by professional communities through apprenticeship, not by universities. So what you call higher education is defined very much by the post-industrial area.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.745147
| 2013-05-02T02:16:14 |
9773
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"AJed",
"Alexandru Daniel Raduca",
"Amatya",
"August",
"Dnuorg Spu",
"Ferran Salguero",
"Fomite",
"Irwin",
"JeffE",
"MacMillan",
"Saharsh",
"Santi Santichaivekin",
"Superbest",
"T-Series Music",
"Trylks",
"Vishnu",
"aeismail",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/118",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24035",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24037",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24038",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24059",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24067",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24068",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24072",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24074",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/244",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38715",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38718",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/44430",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4472",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5944",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6674",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7571",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/9538",
"rastack",
"user3149699",
"user38715"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9445",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9773"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Prolonging a PhD to improve research CV, is this good ?
I am in my 4th year of PhD. Few months ago I presented my thesis proposal which already included some of the results (that are actually published). I proposed to add another chapter (call it Chapter x).
One of the committee members told me that the results presented are sufficient for a thesis. He said that chapter x is not necessary, or it can be replaced by a literature survey (instead of presenting original work - as I proposed during the thesis proposal). He said that original work can be done during a post-doc instead. My thesis supervisor agreed.
Right now, I am in the middle of of the Chapter x [and some other stuff] (and I think I have original results that are not complete - they would be complete, if everything goes fine [which is never the case in research]).
My question is: should I write my thesis without novel results in Chapter x and then do a postdoc based on Chapter x ? Or: should I continue working on Chapter x even if this will result in a longer PhD ?
The source of my confusion:
Wouldn't adding novel results in Chapter x improve my research CV ? but at the same time, will the long period of PhD negatively affect the research CV ? Plus, will I find the chance to work on this topic as a postdoc !
What field are you in? In my field (computer science), it's rare for anyone but the committee to read the thesis itself.
He said that original work can be done during a post-doc instead. My thesis supervisor agreed. — If I ever heard a professor say this to a PhD student, I'd be seriously tempted to slap them. (The professor, not the student.)
@JeffE: I am in Computer Science as well. When I said that I will include a new chapter in my thesis that contains original work, I meant that this original work solves a problem related to my thesis and this work will be published at least in a conference. My thesis already contains results [I have 3 long chapters other than Chapter X, each of which have original results published in at least one conference or journal, this is why they thought it is sufficient - I believe this is the source of your confusion, though I'd have loved someone slapping some supervisors in my school :)].
@JeffE maybe that's the case for Chapter X, I consider that is likely if it's the 10th chapter, which is about time to write a bit about related work and future lines. I'm not sure about the meaning of "X" here.
@JeffE A member of my committee told me to tie things up and sort out the lingering strands left during my postdoc, and it was some of the best advice I've ever been given.
As Irwin suggests, prolonging the PhD to improve your research track record is a standard strategy, especially for students who are interested in pursuing an academic career.
The minimal requirements to get a PhD are fundamentally weaker than the minimal requirements to get an academic job. Despite all high-falutin' talk to the contrary, the only real requirement for completing a PhD is convincing your thesis committee to sign the requisite paperwork. Most faculty have an image in their heads of the necessary work; for example, in computer science, a minimal PhD thesis is roughly equivalent to two solid conference papers.
On the other hand, the academic job market is a true competition. Only people with truly outstanding research records (and strong recommendation letters) get invited to interview for faculty positions, or accepted for research postdoc positions. It doesn't matter whether you're "good enough"; lots of people are "good enough". What matters is how you compare against other people on the market. So it's actually quite rational to delay completing the PhD past the point where you have a viable thesis, in order to improve your research record.
That said, phrasing the delay in terms of "making your thesis stronger" is totally missing the point. Your PhD thesis is an administrative hurdle. At least in computer science, if you're lucky, three people will ever read your thesis, including you and your advisor. (The standard joke ends "...and your mom.") Your colleagues will see and judge your track record through your peer-reviewed publications in conferences and journals.
So, the short answer is: Do more original publishable research, and then publish it. And then I guess you could show off to your committee by including those results in your thesis, but whatever.
Also, please slap your advisor for me.
Thanks for the answer. I will slap my previous advisor for u (the current one is cool), but only if you accept me in your lab after they fire me from the university ! :)
Even your mom won't read your thesis. Even your mom...
@JeffE "showing off to your committee" is terrible advice. Odds are that if OP is not at Harvard or MIT and even if OP is in a top-5 school, that OP is not a star of the department. The truth is that OP's thesis is never gonna be anything to write home about. OP needs to run his own race and not try to prove a point to his/her advisers or to anyone else.
"if you're lucky, three people will ever read your thesis, including you and your advisor" …And if you're unlucky, your faculty hiring committee/potential postdoc advisors will look at it during the application process. So at very least, take some time to write a nice introduction.
@Amatya I really don't understand your objection. Of course PhD candidates should show off their research accomplishments to their committee. Of course PhD students should try to prove a point with their advisors, and that point is "I deserve a PhD". I do not mean that they should exaggerate the importance of their contributions, but that they should cast them in the best possible light. A PhD defense is no place for unnecessary modesty.
@Amatya Also, I think your elitist defense of mediocrity is completely inappropriate. I have seen truly excellent research produced by PhD students at rank-100 schools. I've also seen truly mediocre research produced by PhD students at MIT and Harvard.
@JeffE Perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes. My point is that you should only do research because you enjoy it greatly and not to prove your worth. 99% of graduate students will never produce any work that is of the caliber of what it takes to get tenure in a top-20 school and most tenured faculty will never be considered to have made a significant contribution to their field and most top 20 faculty will never be in the running for a fields medal or a Nobel. It is better for a student to try to be the best version of themselves and have fun and be productive.
@Amatya "Many people fail, so you should never try." - Questionable advice, unless you have a way of knowing whether a given person in particular will fail or succeed.
@Superbest perhaps you would prefer: "most people don't win the lottery but you might so go ahead" . It is not my intent to discourage any one. People should have fun with their work and try to be the best versions of themselves. They should just understand what they're getting into. It is statistically unlikely that there is one Feynman between those of us pointlessly arguing here and it is damn near impossible that all of us are of Feynman caliber.
@Amatya Good point, but by saying that, you are arguing that much like lottery players, aspiring scientists are unable to control their scientific potential. I don't think that's true. Practically every famous scientist, including Feynman, says that they do possess no innate "knack" for science (beyond above average intelligence), but have become good at it through perseverance, hard work and making good use of the occasional stroke of good luck.
@Superbest You can think that the information uncertainty is about your (and the world's) knowledge of your own potential. You can invest your time and life in trying to find out if you can hack it at the highest level or not. Once you've made this investment of time and effort, you will slowly (or quickly) discover how productive you are. Most of us ex-ante believe that we have innate ability, but ex-post some of us are proven right and most of us are proven wrong. If you only look at at what Fenymans went through in grad school then that biased sample would be unrepresentative of reality.
As a grad student myself, I can't be entirely sure, but I would look at it like this: based on the information you've given, it sounds like the only significant difference between the two options is whether this new research is part of your PhD thesis or not. In the long term, I don't think it will matter. The project will show up on your research CV either way, whether you do it as a PhD student or as a postdoc.
But if you choose to do it as a postdoc, then you will be partway through a postdoc in, say, two years, whereas if you choose to do your research as part of the PhD, you will not yet be a postdoc in two years. All other things being equal - and I think they are in this case - I would think it is better to advance through the stages of your career (PhD, postdoc, professorship) more quickly. By this logic, you should go with your committee's recommendation and omit this project from your thesis.
I have also read things which suggest that completing a PhD more quickly is correlated with greater academic success later in life, although I can't remember a link to give you. I'm not even sure it matters, though, since there isn't necessarily a causal relationship.
interesting ! +1 for the last paragraph .. I will make my own research about this point.
"I would think it is better to advance through the stages of your career" What's the rush? Unless money, lifestyle, etc., are a major concern, I can think of no compelling reason to finish in four years instead of five. Five years is not a long PhD in any discipline that I know of. Likewise, finishing in four years might help convince someone that you are a promising, hardworking academic—but not nearly as much as another publication or two. I say correlation, not causation.
There are a lot of details left unmentioned in your psot:
How many papers have you already published? Is it only the three chapters of the thesis?
How long would you extend your PhD program to add the additional work?
How many publications or conference papers would you get out of this work?
If you already have four or five major publications after four years, then prolonging your stay for, as an example, two years for one paper might not be worth the time. However, if you only had to extend a year to get two or more publications, and you know that they will be accepted into top conferences or journals, then it would well behoove you to take the extra time.
However, there might be other reasons behind the sudden change in attitude. Do you know how the remaining time would be financed? Is it clear that your advisor would be able or willing to support you for the remaining time you'd want to spend?
your answer consider all details. I think prolonging would be the best decision. It's only few months though (one term maximum).
One semester doesn't really make much of a difference. The only obstacle to check with then is financial—if you have support for the extra semester, then you should go for it.
@aeismail One semester doesn't really make a difference…unless the postdocs in your field run on a specific calendar cycle.
I'm a bit late adding this, but another reasonable option is: let the market decide for you.
Apply for postdocs this year, based on the research you have already finished. If you get offered something good, then write up your current results and defend. If you don't, then spend another year in grad school improving your research, and hopefully you'll be in a better position to reapply then.
Of course, you'll want to have your advisor on board with this plan, and make sure you have funding available for the extra year.
I've known of a few cases of people prolonging their Ph.Ds to improve their CVs.
I have spoken with professors and students who "felt their students had not published enough" and held them longer to ensure that their CVs would be strong enough so that someone would hire them for a postdoc or a faculty position - the reasoning being that if someone zips through their Ph.D in a few years but doesn't have enough work on their CV, then that student is going to be damned as far as an academic career goes.
Thus, one thing to ask yourself is if that work you're doing for your dissertation will eventually become a paper that might have some impact. In other words, if you write about this in your dissertation, will you eventually publish it?
Also, as part of your academic "development" so to speak, you should have a good idea of how much is "enough" as well, and that is to know what is "important" and what is not. In your stated case, maybe X isn't that important of a research gap if both of them think that you can investigate it with related work instead of doing research work to that end.
Another possible reason that it's mentioned as not being necessary is because they both feel that it will take much, much longer (in other words, the investment isn't worth the reward). Or, if the results merely incremental, they may not be enough of an improvement to warrant a new publication.
I realize that this isn't an answer and it's more of "things to consider" but I hope it helps you eventually come to a decision.
Let the market decide. If your results are ready when the job market comes along then your adviser can feature them prominently in his/her letter, whether or not it's a part of your thesis. You can complete the high quality work as a post-doc as well. If your adviser can see that your chapter-x has potential then so can the professors in schools trying to hire you.
Staying in school a year longer only makes sense if it will significantly impact how you are valued by the market and if it enables you to significantly improve your portfolio of working papers. Your committee member's comment that "original work can be done in post-doc.." makes me think that he/she was being euphemistic and was perhaps worried that you maybe be trying to delay facing some harsh job market truths in the guise of doing "original" "chapter-x" stuff .. if everything goes fine "which is never the case in research".
The point of a thesis is to get a job to enable you to contribute in research. If your current thesis gets you a job then move on and don't look back.
Just do what your advisors told you. They are going to grade you anyway and give you letters of recommendation. Why would you want to do something different after already asking for what you are proposing? Would you want to annoy them just to get more material in your dissertation. Do you think it actually advances your career opportunities?
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.746321
| 2013-07-08T09:40:27 |
11019
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Alfiya Ziganshina",
"EKO SUHARTONO",
"J.I. MASAMBIA",
"JeffE",
"ROBOKiTTY",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/27360",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/27361",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/27362",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/27363",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/27366",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/27479",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/42976",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5674",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"posdef",
"user2352497",
"user45922",
"zziccardi"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9446",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11019"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
When is a good time (during graduate studies) to start thinking about writing the thesis?
A significant number of colleagues had their thesis defense in the past year and talking to them got me thinking about my own dissertation to come in about 2 years (I am approximately half-way through my graduate studies).
Based on my experience, the norm appears to be so that the focus of a PhD student shifts from initial getting-used-to-things, to getting-papers-out, do your coursework/teaching (if applicable), getting-papers-out (repeat)... until you are a couple of months away from the dissertation date, and you panic your way into writing your thesis. The panic then leads to stress and errors, which I witness with many colleagues.
Seeing as my projects are particularly detached from one-another, it would perhaps be good to start thinking about some structure, and perhaps even start jotting down some text; not long paragraphs but at least some bullet points on the points I want to mention, statements I want to make in my thesis.
Seeing that I am only half-way in, is this a reasonable approach? ... or am I stressing way too early? Does one need to leave the thesis writing to the end when the stress is maxed-out, or are there smarter ways to handle the writing? I imagine one drawback of starting now, is that I do not yet have the "bigger picture" but yet again, since the projects are not built up on one another, I don't know if it's a real issue in my case.
Any perspective on the matter is welcome, of course.
Short answer: Today. (And where were your colleagues' advisors?)
@dd3 My field is kind of hard to define; I would say biomedical research with quite a bit of bioinformatics. (I agree that an edit would make the question more clear, fixed it just now)
The revision doesn't change my short answer.
@JeffE i figured... It would have been nice to have a longer answer that touches the subject of balancing the workload between carrying out projects, getting published and patching/weaving the thesis.
But you're presenting a false choice; writing and publishing are integral to "carrying out projects". Always be writing. Always be publishing. Always be working toward a bigger picture. Then when it's time publish, most of the writing is already done, and when it's time to make a thesis, you only really need a stapler.
@JeffE hmm it appears as there is a slight but crucial difference in the approach towards the thesis (could be field-oriented), our theses are composed partly of the papers, and about as much (if not more) of semi-theoretical discussion of work that you've done during your PhD. In other words, the publications are no more than half of the thesis.
Then you should be writing the "semi-theoretical discussion" as you make progress, and then (since your field apparently requires it for some reason) removing it before submitting anything for publication. My main point stands: Always. Be. Writing.
@JeffE message received :)
I think it is a good idea to start writing down parts of your thesis early on. You need to consider possible structures for the thesis as well so that you know what you might need to write.
Starting early will, however, not remove the need for significant efforts at the end because the thesis evolves and it is only when you have your last papers/experiments/equivalent done when you really know how the text will have to look. This means you should write down text early on with the clear understanding that this text will likely undergo lots of revisions. While this may seem like a waste of time, I have found it useful to have the thoughts down on paper, it also provides a sense of fulfillment, "that you are on your way". In some cases I have had to scrap the texts altogether and start over but I see this as part of the iterative process of scientific work.
By going through the iterations your text will improve and the last efforts will be ever closer to a final product than were you to start from scratch at the end. I went through this myself and I have seen countless students do the same. Being prepared and realising that much awaits ahead is just a realisation that must be clear. Going blindly into the final stages without having a grasp of what is needed is what causes extra and unnecessary stress.
What many folk find difficult is recalling what they did at the start of their thesis work - the literature review. They come to start writing their literature review with all the experience of the in-depth, detailed analysis conducted during their research phase and have perhaps forgotten all those papers that they read, reviewed and used to fill in the background and inform their research.
I suggest that, right from the start of your literature review reading, make short notes about each paper, perhaps at the top of the first page. e.g. "Great introduction to the field, a bit basic though"; "Good for a thorough review of method X"; "Not relevant" etc.
This makes the job of sorting through your massive (!) pile of literature easier when it comes to setting out the path you took through it to come to your research idea.
It is not clear from your post whether your dissertation will just mostly be a collection of your papers, perhaps with some filler material added, or whether it will require a substantial amount of writing from scratch. I've heard that publishing papers as a grad student and assembling them into a thesis is done depending on one's academic discipline, and perhaps depending on the university.
If you are just putting papers together there will be less work involved. Regardless, 2 months sounds like a very short amount of time to be writing a thesis in. Are you sure you got that right? I suggest you talk to other students who left it till late, and ask them if they regret doing so.
I would certainly recommend getting started on a draft immediately, if you haven't already. Things to keep in mind, depending on your area, is that heavily mathematical writing is very time-consuming. Computer calculations, writing software and so on, are also very time-consuming. I would also include graphs and figures in writing software. Figures, in my opinion, are best handled by writing code, making it easy to alter after the event, and giving the best results. Actually, graphs are a good thing to try to get set up early, because they can be a pain. Even if you don't have actual data to work with, you can use dummy data, as long as you know roughly what your final structures will look like.
If your work has significant components of either, you need to allow extra time.
You definitely don't want to be in the position of frantically debugging your code a month before your defense to get some important result out, for example. You should also not rely on your adviser(s) to tell you what schedule to keep. It is not their thesis on the line.
Two months before submission is the time for reviewing the thesis for errors, hopefully with the assistance of your advisor, and getting ready to hand it over ot the thesis committee. My impression is that the norm is to allow the committee some time to read it, like a month. They may not read it, but that is considered polite.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.747067
| 2020-08-27T16:29:37 |
154474
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Captain Emacs",
"Crazymoomin",
"Dan Romik",
"Daniel R. Collins",
"Patricia Shanahan",
"Richard Erickson",
"academic",
"cag51",
"cbeleites",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10220",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/40589",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43544",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/45857",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5843",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63267",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79875",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84223",
"wizzwizz4"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9447",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/154474"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
As faculty, can I bring about changes in our outsourced campus bookstore?
I am tenured faculty at a state university in the US. Our campus bookstore is not run by the university; instead, it is owned and operated by a large, well-known corporation, and has a contractual agreement with the university to "be the official bookstore" and to operate in the center of campus.
Over the years, I have grown increasingly frustrated by the poor service offered by the bookstore. To name only the problems I've encountered this fall:
A full week into classes, many of my students have not yet been able to obtain their books. Neither they nor I have been told when their books will be ready; bookstore staff are not answering their email, and their phone goes straight to a recording.
A complaint on their Facebook page reads: "Please get more people working the registers, kids are waiting in line shoulder to shoulder with others for hours because there’s only one person working the register!" This, in the middle of a deadly pandemic!
My question is this: As a faculty member, do I have any ability to coerce them to improve their service? For example, if I were to join the relevant Faculty Senate committee, and pester a bunch of people in my university's administration, would I be able to bring about change? (And, if so, what would be the best way to proceed?). Or, would I merely be driving myself crazy?
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. Please read this FAQ before posting another comment. Finally: this question asks for specific information that only those familiar with high-level university administration can provide; this is not a question for common sense solutions.
While there may be some excuses this fall (2020) in the middle of a pandemic that supply chains for books are messed up (as they are for many other things), here are a few things that you could do.
Choose textbooks and materials that are readily available through other outlets, even suggesting places they can be found. (Neither of my kids generally buy their textbooks from the campus bookstore anymore - just easier to order from the comfort of their dorm/apartment and have them show up in a day or two.)
Prepare and teach your course such that any of several recent editions of the textbook could be used. This way it will be easier for students to find a used copy that would still apply. (One of the organic chemistry profs at the local university does this - organic chemistry texts new are ~$400, used are ~$50 since new editions come out nearly yearly in an attempt by the textbook publishers to destroy the used market.)
Provide much of the material yourself in the form of lecture notes, with pointers to material on reserve at the library (wait, is that a thing anymore?).
Work with your department to apply these suggestions across more classes. Talk to colleagues in other departments as well. They likely have similar frustrations.
In summary, I think local, then grassroots, efforts are likely to be more impactful than trying to fight city hall.
Strongly agree on picking materials that are available through other outlets.
Thanks for this, I appreciate it. For sections where I'm the only instructor, and get to choose the book, I definitely do this -- for example, the book for my other class can be bought for less than $10 online (and that's why I chose it). Also, last week I volunteered to serve on our calculus textbook selection committee, and I intend to fully investigate OER options. For the moment, I'm stuck with a crappy situation: we are using one of those "custom editions", together with some bundled software, and if students buy elsewhere they have to pay twice as much.
Good answer. One other suggestion: Use or write open source/open access text books.
Denying the bookshop business and profit is probably the best way to affect change. They'll be pressured to improve their service if students stop buying their books.
@academic Why can they only use one piece of software? (If it's Autograph – I know it's great, but Geogebra Classic 5 can do everything it can apart from that fancy arrows mode.) If it's possible, consider finding a free alternative; then they won't need to buy the custom edition.
As a faculty member, do I have any ability to coerce them to improve their service?
I wouldn’t use the word “coerce”, since in the literal sense of what you are asking, no, you can’t coerce anyone to do anything. But if things are as bad as you describe, you certainly ought to have the ability to effect change, provided you are willing to make a substantial commitment of time and effort, and spearhead and champion a multi-year (probably) effort to raise awareness of the problem, recruit allies, and build up support for your cause.
After all, determined individuals have done much greater things than improve service at a local bookstore, starting popular movements that led to much bigger changes at the city, national, or international levels. If Malala Yusafzai can win a Nobel Peace Prize at 17 for her activism for human rights and education of women and children, and Greta Thunberg can become an international icon for her climate and environmental advocacy, it does not seem a stretch to imagine that you too can be an agent of change.
But just joining a senate committee by itself won’t achieve anything. You have to be willing to work much harder than that and at a much broader level. You probably will encounter resistance due to administrators’ incompetence, indifference, and maybe even outright corruption. So to succeed, I think the key will be to raise a massive level of support from faculty and students that will leave decision makers with no choice about the need for reform. Some obvious steps are to gather data, document the extent of the problem, and then work on communicating what you know in the most persuasive way you can to as many people as possible, through blogs, social media, emails, personal conversations, or any other way you can think of.
Good luck! Note that this answer, and your question, are opinion-based, and thus in my opinion the question is not answerable to the standards usually expected on academia.se. But I hope these thoughts are still helpful in a modest way.
Yes, the good old "preferred supplier" problem. That's usually a turnaround time of several years to get changed if one is persistent (yes, been there, done that, multiple times). Going through the students is probably your best bet. I do not think that the comparison with Climate Change or Female Education is warranted. These are already global issues with visibility and activist structure. Trying to get an apathetic administration to change a (for them) "minor" nuisance is quite a different ballpark of difficulty (and I am only half-joking). Still +1 for the overall advice.
@CaptainEmacs if you’ve been there and done that multiple times, I bet OP would appreciate an answer telling about your experiences in more detail. I personally would also be quite interested in this, so you have a promise of at least one guaranteed upvote.
It's very convoluted and not easily generalizable and not suitable for an answer. To be successful, one needs to very precisely understand the structure of your institution and its dynamics; respecting how it is as opposed to how one wants it to be. Even with everything being above water, good faith mechanisms/people can drastically obstruct productive work. You need to seek to align these mechanisms with your productive goals. I cannot go into more detail. Even so, it requires a reptilian level of patience. To change things like that take a long time, there are no quick fixes.
Thanks for this. I'm not sure that I dare to believe that, if Malala Yusafzai or Greta Thunberg can do it, so can I. But I appreciate your answer!
Having repeatedly attempted in less chaotic times to replace the needlessly expensive "popular" texts with at-cost in-house notes for calculus... I have the impression that many faculty don't care about cost-to-students. Second, from the top down, as far as I can tell, the university makes decisions about bookstores without any info about what faculty or students want. They will occasionally appear to try to accommodate, but appearance is not substance.
Yes, I'd predict that you'd mostly just be driving yourself crazy with frustration by being on faculty committees or whatever, to try to influence the central administration, unless in your univ (unlike mine, sadly) the faculty senate actually has power. Here, about bookstores, health plans, and most other things, we definitely do not, and neither do students.
Assign Open Educational Resources instead of proprietary textbooks. This will bring about the end of your campus bookstore. Open educational resources are free, redistributable, and modifiable. They eliminate all the problems with campus bookstores.
Examples: https://openstax.org/subjects/view-all
+1 Came here to say the same thing. I think this answer could be expanded/improved a bit by: (1) highlighting strategically that it will be easier to affect change locally on the department level than with university admin/outside contractors, and (2) linking directly to the fine OpenStax calculus text: https://openstax.org/details/books/calculus-volume-1
It seems that the students are already complaining about the situation on facebook, but maybe moving those complaints to twitter and adding mentions to state representatives (since it is a state school) might be enough to shame the bookstore into doing better.
Faculty and students can also can complain to their department chair, dean or provost. There is no need to be a member of a senate committee.
Having said that, vendors have been given a lot of leeway during the pandemic, so there is a chance the university and bookstore will simply say "Sorry, we are doing the best we can." (See for example the story about food in NYU dorms: https://abc7ny.com/nyu-food-new-york-university-dorm-coronavirus/6382186/)
A full week into classes, many of my students have not yet been able to obtain their books.
This happens at my campus too. It's not likely to change, because it's an inventory management/cash flow strategy for the bookstore. Come October, they don't want to be left holding any unsold books. Those books represent a huge cash outlay, and shipping them back to the publisher costs money and uses labor. Many faculty don't assign any work from the book for the first week, so the bookstore finds it convenient to act as if all classes are that way. Some students are shopping for classes, so the store wants to take their returns and sell them to other students in the second week.
My question is this: As a faculty member, do I have any ability to coerce them to improve their service? For example, if I were to join the relevant Faculty Senate committee, and pester a bunch of people in my university's administration, would I be able to bring about change?
Not likely. Your campus outsourced this function for budgetary and administrative reasons. In particular, if your campus workforce is unionized, then outsourcing the bookstore lets them avoid paying union workers, whose wages and benefits are expensive. Because it's outsourced, they can't directly control the store's operations, and they outsourced precisely because they didn't want to control them.
Although this issue has both educational and management aspects, it's primarily a management issue that happens to impact education. Your faculty senate only deals with professional and educational issues. Its job isn't to get involved in the operation of the campus. Sometimes a faculty senate does succeed with an expansive interpretation of its mandate, but in my experience that gains sufficient momentum only when it's an issue involving wages, benefits, or working conditions, and they can act in concert with a faculty union.
You do have some control over this at the individual level. You can use open educational resources. Although I'm an OER enthusiast and use them exclusively in all my classes, you should not be under the illusion, as suggested by some other answers, that this will cause a prairie fire of resistance that will fix the whole problem. Most faculty want the convenience of the publisher's ancillaries, including the test bank, etc., that they already have set up and are used to. Few faculty care at all about either the price or the didactic quality of texts. Most will express attitudes that these are irrelevant: -- that the students wont buy the book anyway, or won't read it, or will use it only as a supplement to the prof's own (superlative) lectures.
Keep in mind also that that there are likely to be campus financial interests involved. E.g., on my campus, the bookstore has a 37% markup (which they prefer to describe as 27% of the retail price), and any profit goes to sports teams. And although I haven't seen any reliable evidence of direct cash kickbacks to faculty, it is indeed common with the big-bucks freshman survey texts that there will be "soft" kickbacks. E.g., on my campus, the publisher of the freshman calculus text invites faculty on trips to Florida to meet the author.
What happened to good old fashioned campus activism to promote change? I guess it’s not the 60s any more, but take a lesson from ‘60s activists’ playbook when conditions were unacceptable and change was slow in coming:
Organize with like-minded individuals
Prepare a list of demands of the book store and publicize the demands
Find a charismatic, telegenic spokesperson among the dissatisfied
students
Boycott the store
Picket, sit-in, protest loudly but non-violently
Reach out to the shareholders of the parent company if publicly
traded
Petition the school administration to cancel the bookstore’s contract
for cause
Propose a co-op, non-profit bookstore run by student employees with
faculty advisors
Editorialize in campus publications, websites, social media
Involve outside media (radio, TV, newspapers)
The time for timid suggestions is long passed. Activism gets results.
You don't have the ability to impact how the bookstore does business, but you certainly have the ability to impact the students' reliance on the book store.
On your syllabus, and on your course website, you should plainly show the course materials that the students need for your course. If there is good open-access material that would serve your purpose, you should consider using it, but even if there isn't, or for some reason you don't like the open access model (and I have no urge to enter that debate), this gives the students an opportunity to purchase their materials somewhere other than the bookstore. Be VERY careful about actually linking or recommending alternative and cheaper commercial sites, though, as that likely violates the school's contract with the vendor. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, though, that textbooks can be found at much lower cost than the campus bookstore, whether a student is purchasing new, used, or wants to rent.
Keep in mind that there may be some actual benefits to bookstore services. For example, they may take purchase orders from the school, or somehow interact with the bursar's offices for students who might need to purchase their books through financial aid. They remove the excuse for students claiming "I couldn't buy the book" (assuming the staff is doing their job, unlike your case). There's probably another reason or three that I'm sure you'll figure out if the bookstore decides it can no longer profitably operate on your campus and leaves.
I can think of three ways of tackling this:
The official route: finding out what the contract says, finding out who in the University is responsible for managing it, examining the contract to see whether they are in breach of it, establishing when it comes up for renewal, and ultimately getting it terminated.
The activism route: basically making their life sufficiently miserable that they change their ways, by boycotting them, giving them bad publicity, etc.
The persuasion route: find out who the bookstore manager's boss is; get on their side; explain that its in both your interests to improve things; get them to replace the current manager with someone competent.
My suspicion would be that the cause of the problem is an incompetent local manager, and that the bookstore's head office is probably as keen to sort the situation out as you are. You need to find out whether that's the case, because it will affect the strategy for solving the problem.
The other answers here focus on how to make the bookstore change.
I'd like to add a thought on how to change the situation at the bookstore now.
From what you write, one particularly annoying issue right now is that many students have to spend a lot of time in the line at the bookstore. It may be worth while if you as teacher of the course suggest to the bookstore to make one "bulk" purchase: have your students sign a list if they want to buy there, if needed collect copies of their student IDs, place the order with the book store and schedule an appointment when to collect the books or when they deliver the books to you (without the need to line up). All this can be done by your students, although I think that when calling the bookstore to agree on such a procedure you as the lecturer may have more weight than a student calling them.
That being said, I still find the culture of having one mandatory textbook strange for a university course.
Typically,
We have several textbooks to choose from (so each student can work with the textbook(s) that they get along with best)
Old editions are typically fine as well (I've sucessfully worked with several textbooks that were 30 - 40 years old in my first years at university)
We'd have been quite upset if the textbooks that were recommended as directly relevant hadn't been available in the library in sufficient numbers (we weren't that many, though). Many if not most of us started by using textbooks from the library at least until we knew which textbook suited us personally. That was also the recommended procedure for buying textbooks.
(Buying in student editions of software was either done at the university IT department, or directly from the software company.)
The first two points are something you can work towards in future when doing the next iteration on your lecture.
The third point is also something to bring up at your department and/or library, but may require quite hard negotiations. It is probably difficult to negotiate, but I noticed that substantial sets of textbooks had stickers saying that they were funded by certain foundations. But maybe you can find such money, and get the donor to tie the purpose to buying textbooks for the library. With the decision for faculty and/or library being textbooks vs. nothing, I'd think the textbooks have a good chance.
Thanks for this. Some thoughts. First of all, your suggested "bulk purchase model" is indeed what our bookstore pushes on our students. Indeed, I since learned that my students' books had been on the shelves all along. Apparently their software fouled up, my students were told that their books were not available, and there was no way to contact them. I had to escalate all the way to the provost before someone would tell me what is going on.
As far as your culture comments, I think that "using one book" is tied to the culture of American academia. Typically we try quite hard to keep everyone on the same page; homework (often just "Problems 2,3,5,9,11,14,15,19,22 of Chapter 4") is required and counts for a significant proportion of the grade; and students expect to be told explicitly what material the exam will cover. What you describe sounds very interesting, but also like it's adapted to a system very much different from ours.
I don't know the US system first hand, but from what I've heard, yes ours is quite different (and I think it used to be even more different). We typically have a curriculum stating which topics are relevant, possibly naming a few textbooks to give an idea of the required depth. Homework excercises are usually/often not graded but are seen as opportunities for self study offered to the students. Seminar excercises are more often graded. Both are distributed as sets of actual questions rather than references. In school, both ways are used.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.748734
| 2015-01-22T21:00:47 |
37368
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Ahmed Nour Jamal El-Din",
"Brad",
"Chris H",
"Chris Hartgerink",
"Compass",
"Davidmh",
"G. Bach",
"Gimelist",
"Graph Theory",
"J.R.",
"JalfredP",
"Kenneth Ayrey",
"Knight wants Loong back",
"Mohit Garg",
"Omar Al-Atrraqchi",
"P.T",
"Petter",
"Randy Shelton",
"Rayne",
"Saania",
"SanSolo",
"Sid Dabholkar",
"Sumyrda - remember Monica",
"Szabolcs",
"Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen",
"WestCoastProjects",
"Zuriel",
"aeismail",
"afaust",
"dionys",
"ggirtsou",
"guest",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/101742",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/101743",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/101744",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/101751",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/101752",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/101760",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/101762",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/101781",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/101782",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/101841",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/101843",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/101847",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/101884",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/102073",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/102084",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/102143",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/102167",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/102239",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11907",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12587",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13013",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13138",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21371",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22013",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22213",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22520",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/23745",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24285",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24832",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5943",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/780",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8494",
"treentom"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9448",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/37368"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How to make thesis-writing feel less tedious?
I'm about to finish my master's thesis on a TCS topic (algorithms). I'm quite happy with my results; the most engaging part of the thesis was grappling with getting up to speed on the state of the art, then taking that and developing new and/or more efficient algorithms for the specific model I'm working on. Proving that the algorithms actually work has been very satisfying as well.
However, I'm having a hard time sitting down and TeXing it all; it feels very tedious. I did write out the most important bits very soon after I had them figured out so I could give them to my advisor. Yet for the better part of the past two weeks, every day I considered getting down to it and putting it all together into a presentable thesis, eventually deciding to put it off for another day. As I'm hoping to do a PhD afterwards, I thought I should nip this in the bud so I won't be wasting time like this for too long.
What are effective methods to motivate myself to do what is necessary in research as efficiently as possible so I can focus more on the actually interesting, creative parts?
(I could not figure out how to tag this; feel free to edit tags)
There is a number of great answers speaking to organization and extrinsic motivation by now; I was wondering if anyone has had any success in finding/improving their intrinsic motivation with regard to writing? Possibly a change in attitude, maybe a point of view that may not have occurred to me that makes writing appear more useful?
If you burn out easily from writing, take breaks every hour to do what you want to do and after you're done, get back to writing. Sometimes, it's just tedious, but it can be mitigated.
What do you mean by "tedious"? Is it just boring? Or do you have writers block and find that even after sitting in front of the computer for hours nothing gets done? I'm assuming the latter, as the former really doesn't sound like a serious problem ...
It is more a motivation issue than one of not being able to produce new results. I would prefer to only work on ideas and not having to give them a presentable form (which is of course not how this works). Obviously, proofs and algorithms need to be thought through and noted down formally to a sufficient degree to be sure they are correct - but that's a long shot from putting everything together publication-ready, so to speak. I have strong intrinsic motivation to do something new. When I try to do the necessary labor of documenting it tidily, I get little done (except in infrequent bursts).
Most of the time, this is because I have a number of ideas for solving new problems that my results brought up, and I would much rather be working on them. But since there are deadlines on many things that's not a way to work, and I was hoping others have had similar issues and might have found useful techniques to efficiently get the labor done so there is more time to be working on new things instead of wasting time (trying to, but not actually) documenting results.
There is a lot of hard and frequently tedious work in getting from notes written on napkins to a finished product accessible to others. Learning this is a very important part of your education as a scientist. Also practice helps. A lot.
Is your motivation problem related to writing (as your title suggests), or related to TeXing (as your second paragraph suggests)? If it's the latter, you might be able to write in some other way, and pay someone to TeX for you.
It's the writing itself; I actually find latex itself to be quite fun.
I actually find latex itself to be quite fun. So get off SE, get some text in and only come back when there's a real problem - or at least that's what I had to tell myself frequently. And if the writing is going badly get on with figures (in my case always sit down in the morning with the goal of writing something).
Am wondering if the question is more suitable for personal productivity S.E. than here...
tl;dr: Divide and conquer. – aeismail♦
The Balloon Analogy
I used to hate writing with a passion. Trying to squeeze a 5 page paper out of me was like trying to juice a rock.
Eventually, though, I figured out the root cause for my procrastination.
The biggest sense of daunting I found when writing a paper is that you start with nothing, and have to end up with a significant something.
So, let's look at what you have set up. You create a new Word/TeX document, and it's there. Page 1 of 1. A blank page with that blinking cursor.
Pretty intimidating and most likely the reason why we push it off till tomorrow until it's due next week and then we've wasted forever. This is basically like us trying to inflate a big weather balloon. You do a little work, and it doesn't seem inflated at all.
I eventually got over this intimidation by reducing the size of the problem to its individual parts. Imagine trying to fill up a dozen individual party balloons with the same amount of air as the weather balloon. Each bit of inflating goes a long way, and a fully inflated mylar balloon is much easier to achieve.
Transforming one Big Balloon into a Bunch of Smaller Balloons
A strategy that we all learned in K-12 is outlining, which actually helps more now than it did then. Now, it doesn't have to be a formal outline. However, the idea behind the outline is that it can transform into a full-sized paper much more easily than a blank slate, for little actual effort in.
Stub out each individual section of your paper. If you have a glossary, add that. If you have a bunch of subsections, create them, and add the titles. Don't be afraid to dedicate an entire page to a chapter with no content, if you feel that eventually you will need it.
For basically 12 or so lines of typing, you've turned a single blank sheet into perhaps 8 or so pages with a rudimentary summary of what you're going to talk about. Filling out a single page or two is much less daunting than that previous 20-page paper we were fretting about before. This dividing and conquering of pages has turned 1 very large paper into 8 relatively easy to populate short papers.
Inflating the Balloons
After that, pick a section, any section, that you want to write. It doesn't have to be the introduction if you're drawing a blank. That's perfectly normal. I rewrote my introduction all the way to the end of my paper because the rest of the paper was evolving to include additional topics. Some sections needed more meat or could be expanded, others could be shortened or removed.
Now, type away at the keyboard on the section you've assigned to yourself until you fill it up or have run out of ideas. Wanted to write Chapter 5: Potatoes in Artwork? Go for it! Chapters 1 to 4 can wait until you're sufficiently inspired to do them, or have enough information from Chapter 5 to help give substance to the other chapters.
When you're done with the small subsection you're working on, you should evaluate whether you feel you can do more. Sometimes, after doing a relatively easy section, I enjoy tackling a somewhat harder piece and getting that out of the way. Other times, I'll need a break, and take one.
Basically, my strategy is that one shouldn't plan to, or even reasonably expect to, write the paper front to back.
Breaking the paper into parts, giving them sufficient weight so that you can see the progress as you go, and slowly but steadily inflate and become a full paper.
Author's Note: Yeah, for some reason now I write really long posts even when I don't mean to.
tl;dr: Divide and conquer.
On the first day of a new writing project I only plan to set up compilable Latex document with all the sections. The next day it is a lot easier to start. Then the next day, if I have figures I'll add them too.
@aeismail That's boring q.q
Of note: this works for pretty much anything where lots of words need to end up on a screen. I program by writing what I want to do in comments first and add in the actual methods and logic later.
"The biggest sense of daunting I found when writing a paper is that you start with nothing, and have to end up with a significant something." That seems like a reasonable description of what I'm having trouble with as well; it seems like a lot of work , and I can muster little motivation to do that work since it feels like I'm just writing stuff down I already figured out. The d&c approach should be a good technique for the logistics of writing. Do you maybe have any pointers on how to increase motivation for it? It sounds like you went from "bah humbug" to "meh, could be worse" yourself.
It's more of a change in a way of thinking. For my 50 page paper in grad school, our professor set a bunch of checkpoints along the semester to gauge our progress. Set up some with your adviser so that you are motivated to have some actual progress by a certain point, rather than just a 100% progess point a few months away.
@G.Bach it's also helpful to try and not visualize all writing as a chore. This post, for example, I didn't feel obligated to write that much and genuinely enjoyed putting my thoughts on it.
For people doing anything with geometry: if you have figures on napkins or scratch paper, go ahead and take a snapshot with your cell phone and put that in. You then have something to write about right there in your document which makes writing that section much easier. You can replace the snapshots with the real figures later - this will save you from sinking too much time into improving your figures before you write anything.
@G.Bach I find outlining the thesis to be quite fun. What is the main point I want to tell? What background do I need? How do I sort the theory and implementation? I end up with the full skeleton of sections and subsections after one day.
@Sumyrda I genuinely had not thought of putting in dummy figures up until now; it did always slightly irritate me to have to do figures very soon since for some reason I can argue about them much better if I see them in the pdf instead of on my notepad.
This is quite a nice post. It is not revolutionary. But it provides a mindset. And it helps to "feel" that the approach has allowed success to someone else. Also the specific tip about leaving the intro to later is personally a good one - i often write a good intro to a paper/doc that never gets off the ground.
While it doesn't speak to me in terms of motivation, I expect this to be the most useful answer in terms of making writing feel less laborious; thanks for the advice!
If you often get stuck with writing, you can try two things:
Try free writing. Forget about your thesis for a moment, and just start writing. It doesn't matter what you write, just keep writing. It doesn't need to produce usable material. It doesn't even have to be on the topic of your thesis, if you feel you just can't do that at the moment. But do keep writing. This helps overcome writer's block for many people.
When I first heard about this, I considered it very silly, but it turned out to work for me. Very often I end up with a text that turns out to be usable after all, or relatively easy to polish to the required quality. Not having the pressure of having to write good quality material helps me be more efficient.
Sit down with your colleague and explain to him or her what you are going to write before you write it down. This will help you organize your thoughts and write in an easier to understand manner. It also helps eliminate the tedium and get you more excited about your work.
I'd recommend talking to someone first (2.), then sitting down right away and writing down your thoughts, without the intention to use the text as-is in your thesis (1.).
I don't like writing either. It feels very clumsy. And it is hard, especially if you haven't done much writing. Sometimes it felt that I learned a lot more about writing during my PhD, than actual subject.
I did find that some sections are easier to write than others. I find that describing results easier than describing the method. And describing the method is easier than writing introduction. So, I work backwards sometimes.
Now, this is a funny thing, I cannot start an introduction of a new paper by just typing in. I found that using good-old paper and pencil, away from the desk, are much more productive in creating the first paragraph or two. Then it starts flowing from there.
The introduction is typically written last.
@ThorbjørnRavnAndersen wouldn't the last thing to write be the abstract?
The divide and conquer approach applies to time management and writing location as well as content, in my experience. For instance, when writing up my PhD thesis I found myself rotating between my home office, work office, and the "coffice" (starbucks!), usually any two in any given day. I also gave up trying to write in the late afternoon, because I noticed that it always felt like even more of a drag, and rested instead, often having a productive evening session as a result. I probably got about 5-6 productive hours a day with this approach, but I found that to be plenty to make encouraging process day by day. I think that being encouraged by one's progress is an excellent motivator!
So, in addition to all the other good advice here, try changing scenery during the day and think carefully about how you work at various times of day.
I have run into similar cases where I had to deliver written evaluations of my team members. I typically knew what each person had accomplished, their strengths and weaknesses, and areas for improvement. I could sit down with them and talk to them 1:1 and give the feedback. However, it needed to be captured in written form.
I tried several approaches to getting the write-ups done, but found unless I physically put myself in an environment that offered no opportunities to do something else I just couldn't get it done.
Using my laptop to draft the write-ups never worked as the laptop itself offers too many ways to get distracted (an email in instant message comes in, playing with formatting in a Word document, browsing the web for correct spelling of a word and then ending up searching for other things).
Two things helped my get the task done:
Isolate myself from everyone and everything that may interrupt or distract me. A local library in the middle of the day is typically fairly deserted and quiet, and was ideal for me.
Hand writing the initial draft with pen and paper. This allowed me to avoid the distractions a computer offers, and I didn't worry about perfect grammar/spelling/sentence structure/formatting/etc getting in the way of being "creative."
Once I had the hand-written draft, I was able to work much more mechanically to type up the evaluations.
Have you tried the "pomodoro technique"? It's just a form of what's called time boxing: you set aside a limited amount of time to work on something (in this case, 25 minutes) followed by a short break (5 minutes). You use a timer to tell you when the work and break times are up, and periodically take a break. There are tons of online timers, phone apps, and so on for the actual timing part.
I found all the extra rules and writing down goals and stuff to be too much, but the basic method of telling myself that I only had to work on this for 25 minutes and then I could go do something else was really useful.
A small percent of the overall effort is the creation, say 5%.
The bulk of the effort, perhaps 95%, is what it takes to adequately describe the work so others can understand.
The 95% is our payment for the joy of creation and for the privilege of doing it again and again.
What is the form you're most comfortable with ? mind maps can be turned into text with less effort than writing text right from the start. Reading out loud powerpoints can be recorded and then written back.
Welcome to Academia SE! I assume you are somewhat familiar with the SE format, but what makes a good answer here can be a little different. Please read through this meta question for some tips about writing good answers for Academia SE.
A couple of points, which I thought might be helpful (despite being rather obvious as well as you having some great, albeit non-brief, advice in already posted answers and comments):
What people in some previous comments and answers called a "divide and conquer" strategy or "the balloon analogy" strategy, I call an "extended plan" or, better, "extended outline" approach. IMHO, it's self-explanatory.
For motivation, you have to feel excitement about the topic. If you don't have such or lost it, try to revive the enthusiasm for, at least, some aspect of the topic.
I would recommend you to write plain text first for everything (maybe with simple formatting, such as Markdown or similar syntax) and only then convert the content into the LaTeX format.
Perhaps you need a different mental image/metaphor... If you were on train-tracks, and you could hear a train coming in the distance, you'd move... You'd not linger, as a pedestrian, crossing a busy highway. Now, yes, these comparisons seem to miss the long-term grind aspect of "writing a thesis", but they do aptly convey the failure-mode. The "problem" is that, happily, many people in grad school have a relatively easy-enough life that day-to-day there's no connection between sweat and food, or sweat and rent-payment, etc. I'd not advocate that people be so stressed that they see every day as a battle to merely survive. However, the (happy!) opposite extreme does seem to subliminally confuse many people, unsurprisingly.
The difficulty of understanding viscerally "passage-of-time" might be well suggested by thinking of "something slipping away". Sure, at any moment, the change is small... but every moment wasted contributes to a negative situation, etc.
If you're at all competitive, imagine that every moment you're not doing the write-up, your competitors are... or, at least, the best-self-disciplined of them are, and they will be the ones that get the post-docs... (??!!??)
Another tack: "it's fine to be demotivated, and it merely shows that you're failing a diagnostic test..." That is, depending on your motivation and worldview, you could castigate yourself by observing that the very failure to write is not merely inconvenient, but is a literal failure of a certain academic-survival(-ist) test. "The bear ate you."
Of course, among other issues, thesis-writing comes at an awkward time of many peoples' lives, among other awkwardnesses that of finding that "being smart and quick" is completely insufficient for thesis-writing, for example. A sort of smart-person's trap/disappointment.
And, in the latter context, if "find motivation in previous terms" is the goal, I think there is none. Maybe some fakes, but, srsly, at some point things are not so completely "kid games" as earlier school might have been for smart, quick people. That is, there is some heavy lifting to be done, and it can't be bluffed-through so easily.
Intrinsic motivation to write up your results can very well be a hard thing, especially if you're distracted with further consequences of your work. Here are a couple of ideas:
Further consequences of your work will likely be addressed once you start your doctoral studies, possibly leading to good papers, so it might be a good idea to postpone working on them until then.
Try to imagine teaching others what you've done using techniques you find the easiest (conversations, slides, blackboard banter, whatever). Did you like the feeling of them learning about your work? Use that feeling as a spark. (If you didn't like them learning about it, we might have pinpointed the problem.)
Try to imagine you following your own work years later. You'll know the high points, sure, put perhaps some details will get fuzzy or the reasoning for certain choices you made may be unclear. Save your future self frustration and get it all down while it's still fresh in your mind. (Like commenting code you know you'll need to revisit later.)
Sometimes the act of documenting helps you discover problems with your approach (okay, not the most desirable outcome, but better to find them now rather than later), as well as give you ideas for other directions you haven't yet considered.
Good luck!
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.750796
| 2015-11-06T04:00:03 |
57653
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Charon ME",
"Cuisiness",
"Dan Romik",
"Daniel R. Collins",
"DeAun",
"Duc Nguyen",
"Masrafi123",
"Nate Eldredge",
"Nobody",
"Shigufta Ali",
"aparente001",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1010",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158333",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158334",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158335",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158336",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158337",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158454",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158581",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158582",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32436",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/40589",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43544",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43898",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/546",
"mikeqfu",
"redredrover22",
"user19501821"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9449",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/57653"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Eliminating ambiguity in a grading policy
In a particular course, there will be one final exam and an online activity.
Say the final exam is worth 50 points and the online activity is worth 5 points.
Based on the following statement, how should the course be graded?
"Online activity points added to the course cumulative score."
For a sample case, we will assume a 49/50 on the exam, and 5/5 on the online activity.
While I know what the above statement means, is it ambiguous to others? If so, how can I remove the ambiguity?
EDIT1: The course grade is only made up of the final exam and online activity. There are no other sources of points.
EDIT2: I bring this up for two reasons: A student has interpreted the grading policy to mean he should get 54/50 (using the example numbers) in the course. He feels that if the points are added to the course cumulative score, they should not increase the total number of points possible (54/55). In order to prevent this misunderstanding in the future, I'm trying to reword the policy.
My understanding of the example you provided is the student gets 54/55. If this is not your calculation, then there is some difference between our understandings.
At least get a verb in there so the statement isn't a sentence fragment?
Good point. The existing wording of the policy was inherited, and I'm trying to clear things up.
Maybe the best way to eliminate the ambiguity is to add a concrete example to your syllabus:
The final exam is worth 50 points and the online activity is worth 5 points. Therefore, if a student scores 48 on the final exam, and earns 4 points in the online activity, then that student will have scored 52 out of 55 points possible.
That seems much less confusing and ambiguous than:
Online activity points [are] added to the course cumulative score
I recommend that you work with weighted averages, as being less confusing. For example: the final exam will be worth 50% of the grade; online participation will be worth 5% of the grade. (I just made those numbers up -- you get to figure out what your scheme is.)
I got "final exam 91%, online activity 9%" (rounded to the nearest percent).
And, of course, you will want the percentages to add up to 100%...
Yes, total must = 100%. I was leaving out the midterm, the homeworks, the project and presentation, etc.
Thanks for the comments. I just edited the description above to reflect that the only graded work in the course is the final exam and online activity.
aparente001: How does working with the percentages make it less confusing? Is there something that could be misinterpreted about the original grading statement?
Is there something that could be misinterpreted about the original grading statement? Yes. // By Nate's calculation, it sounds like you'll want something like a 90/10 split. But I think you'll find that putting that much weight on a final exam is very hard on students, especially students who have any sort of special needs. It sort of looks like laziness on the instructor's part (whether it is or not -- that is the appearance it gives me).
@aparente001 The points for the exam and online activity can change (i.e.: They can both have 50 points each), but I'm more interested in ensuring the grading statement is unambiguous. Does it seem though it could be misinterpreted?
Does it seem though it could be misinterpreted? Yes. The points for the exam and online activity could vary -- the weighting takes care of that. Whatever percentage the student earns in his exam must by multiplied by the weight factor.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.751139
| 2012-04-17T23:19:53 |
1165
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Creasixtine",
"JeffE",
"Joe Fitzsimons",
"JorgeGT",
"Piotr Migdal",
"Yannick Wurm",
"aeismail",
"bobthejoe",
"howtechstuffworks",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2742",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2743",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2747",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2748",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2766",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/319",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/49",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/692",
"wonea"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9450",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1165"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Planning to do PHD, Masters Thesis important? (USA)
I am a master's student in computer science. I have completed my coursework and will be graduating soon, with a project. I am planning to do a PhD in the future: is a master's thesis an important prerequisite for a PhD? Most people say yes, hence I am of two minds: (1) get an extension and improve my project into thesis, and then graduate or (2) graduate now, hoping that everything will work out fine. I already expressed my interest to work more on my project; my advisor said OK. Do I need to do anything other than this (improving my project, of course with research exploration) to get a thesis? My advisor seems to be a little uninterested, because he has to guide other students, too, rather than that I did a bad job on the project. But I am wondering which way to go: industry or master's thesis?
Short answer: No. Longer answer: All else being equal, more research is better for PhD admission. (Note: More research, not more degrees. Admissions standards for applicants with masters degrees are higher.)
US/UK or Continental Europe? Please indicate in title and question, as the answers are very different.
Sorry, the country was USA...
Your last question is a bit of a non sequitur, frankly: I don't really see the connection between going into industry versus doing a master's thesis with the rest of the question.
That said, JeffE's comment above is essentially correct: if you are interested in doing a PhD in the near future, an industrial job is probably not going to get you the research experience you need to be a competitive PhD applicant.
With respect to what you need to do to convert your project into a master's thesis, that's really something you ought to discuss with your project supervisor. Without knowing the specific policies of your department, as well as the specifics of what you did in the project, it's difficult (if not impossible) for us to know what needs to be done.
Hi, Thanks for your advice. I just saw your profile and I work in a molecule simulation project too, but thats been done and the professor from another department, who also collaborated is happy. So my work is in an final stage and will be completed within May end and I am good to graduate. But If I want to make it as thesis, I have to work on parallalizing the simulation for performance and this will algorithm for parallalizing can be used by anyone who uses this method, not just for my project. I would really love to work somewhere as research Assistant to gain experience, but I am in F1
F1 Visa, is for international students(I am from India), I need to work on a H1B Visa to stay, which I dont think any research organization offers(I have to check out though). So I am planning to extend my graduation for December and see, what can be done. I am planning to decline a job offer that I already have and planning to do an internship in my field,systems(tats industry though, I have an offer).Please advise.
@howtechstuffworks: This is a very different question from the first one, and I think could be asked as a separate question. (I'm also not really qualified to answer this question, as I am not based in the US, and I was a US citizen, so I didn't have to worry about US immigration law!)
Actually, that might be an another different question. But for now, my concern, is how important involving in research during your masters is important? Because, I am planning to take a shot, will it worth and my adviser is not so interested in my research as he is used to be for my project till now. Just wondering. Thanks. Sorry for the confusion.
It depends upon the norm in your field and in the country you're applying to. If you're looking at programs in the US, if you're in a non-engineering field (in which most master's degrees tend to be coursework and project-work—and not research-based), then having some research experience is quite important. In engineering fields, it's not nearly so, but it's always beneficial to have it rather than not to have it.
@Aeismail, while we're at this, what college?
"how important involving in research during your masters" — If you're aiming for a PhD in computer science, involvement in research is the single most important aspect of any masters program.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.751529
| 2013-08-21T09:50:34 |
12030
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"F'x",
"JeffE",
"Peter Jansson",
"StrongBad",
"cbeleites",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2700",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4394",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9451",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/12030"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What are the minimum contributions required for co-authorship
In this answer it is claimed that authorship is given away for "free" in some fields (e.g., obtaining the funding). The comments to the answer suggest that this is field dependent. I am looking for documentation from a field that suggests that authorship can be given away for "free". For example, the ICMJE has authorship guidelines that put a pretty high bar on authorship. Is there any documentation that suggests that supervising a student or getting funding is enough to warrant authorship?
I think this is a very good question, especially given that we have had a flurry of “supervisor and authorship” questions in the past. I'll link them here for later reference: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7… as well as the [tag:authorship] tag.
Short answer: free authorship, also known as gift authorship, is a clear violation of research and publication ethics. The limit between “small contribution” and “no contribution” is not, however, easily defined; different fields put it at different levels.
I don't think the answer actually states that. It lists a series of contributions that are, in some field, considered important enough to warrant (in some combinations) authorship on resulting papers:
they get grant money, they train you to use the lab, they train you to do statistics... or they might make suggestions for the research design, the main theoretical focus of the presentation / manuscript
All journals (or publishers) have policies or guidelines on how authorship should be determined. In all cases, it involves significant scientific or technical contributions to the work published. Authorship determination has to be weighted in each individual case, as no two situations are identical (and not simple rule of thumb can encompass all possible situations, as Peter Jansson highlights).
There are so many ways in which people can contribute to an intellectual work, such as a research project and academic papers. It happens that different fields of research have different habits in authorship determination, giving more or less weight to different types of contributions. My own background is in physics and chemistry, where authorship tend to be more generous that, say, computer science or mathematics. I'll thus argue two examples of what you (and some fields) may consider dubious basis for authorship, but which in my field would be considered fairly standard:
Getting funding. In this age, getting funding most often requires writing a grant proposal for a specific research program, with good and novel ideas, and convincing a tough crowd of other scientists (in a competitive environment) that your program is a good use of taxpayers' money. Thus, in most cases, the person who provides the funding also provides a clear scientific contribution: they identified an important problem to be solved, and provided a general framework for solving it. That's an important part of research! Identifying the right question to ask yourself is half of the job, it is known. (Yeah, I'm trying my hand at Dothraki style in academic context. By the way, thank you for reading so far down my answer.)
Supervising. Whether or not the supervisor actually provided the student with the research project in the first place, supervision implies guidance of the student, which is definitely a scientific contribution. The supervisor will, in many cases, provide a broader view of the field and ideas for related problems relevant to the research, scientific background, and advice on how to use one's research time most efficiently. All of that is highly valuable, and contributes to the publication.
(I've read somewhere “but the supervisor is paid for this, it's his job, so he shouldn't be awarded authorship” — that's plain stupid, pretty much everyone gets paid to do research, thus by that argument most papers would be authorless.)
In both cases, funding and supervising imply scientific contributions, which are the reason for authorship.
The funding and supervising are NOT the reasons for authorship, it is all the stuff in the supporting statements.
@DanielE.Shub yes, I think that's what I tried to say… funding and supervising imply scientific contributions, which are the reason for authorship. I edited to make it clearer.
I object! The person who funds a project does not automatically provide a novel and significant scientific contribution to every paper funded by that project. If the same proposal idea eventually leads to four papers, the PI should not automatically be a coauthor of all four; the contribution was only novel the first time. Similarly, guidance may or may not be significant enough to merit coauthorship; in particular, generic advice about "how to use one's research time" is not sufficient. (Or should I be a coauthor on all papers of academia.se users?)
In short, supervisors should not automatically be coauthors. The decision should be independent for each individual paper.
Also: the supervisor's final product is not the publication; it's the finished PhD student.
@JeffE I agree that the decision should be independent for each paper, and I wrote so in my answer… but it would really require a particular inept supervisor to have no scientific contribution to his students' work (re: “final product”, I meant “the final product of interest in this case”… I have now changed the wording)
@JeffE: I don't think there is much discussion about the (legal) person who just pays: "we thank the XYZ for funding under project number 2013/123456.", there is no authorship discussion with that. Discussions in my experience start when it comes to the questions of how much contribution a given supervision actually is. I've never met a situation where having written the grant (and then not being project supervisor) would have lead to a claim of authorship. And IMHO, novelty is not needed for all contributions: the "sanity check" by a supervisor is an important scientific contribution, too.
@F'x: As I have stated elsewhere, I am not a coauthor on all of my students' papers, even though I fund them, and even though I give them advice and suggestions, sometimes including the topic of the paper. I don't consider those contributions sufficient for coauthorship, and I don't appreciate your assumption that that makes me "particularly inept".
I would argue that the Vancouver Protocol is something most people understand but traditions, peer pressure etc. is what makes co-authorship a sometimes fuzzy decision. So as for documentation, I doubt any exists that is accepted by all. That said, I know that in large consortias such as in physics, for example, accelerator work, one signs a contract that automatically adds your name to all papers produced within a given time frame depedning on your time period involved in the project. Such consortia-authorships usually use the consortia name as author with a separate listing of individuals. The consortia-authorship is something I do not think the writers of the Vancouver Protocol had in mind.
EDIT:
Here is an example from from CERN.
In the case of large research groups this type of "contract" (specific in each case) could be a way to officially outline the policy accepted by participants.
Interesting side note regarding consortium authorship, but I doubt that's the issue Daniel had in mind…
True but the question referred to documentation and my point is that it will be hard to find.
@F'x it wasn't what I had in mind, but it is very welcome. Consortium authorship is definitely an important edge condition.
This is going to depend on the field. For most fields, the norm is that an author has made "intellectual contributions" to the work. ICMJE updates this requirement to "substantive" intellectual contributions, but most conferences and journals have a written or implied cut-off for how substantive an intellectual contribution is. Many journals and conferences now ask for detailed list of contributions by the authors to combat vanity authorships.
In some fields, for example my own field of Chemistry, the norm is that the individual who has secured the funding has written one or more grant proposals specific to this project. These proposals may have been written with or without the assistance of the students working on the project. They may have even been written before the student joined the project. In chemistry, the proposal needs to be pretty specific about what types of problems will be examined and what methods will be used. Writing the proposal to get the funding is a substantive intellectual contribution counting as "substantial contributions to conception and design" as far as the ICMJE is concerned.
Funding does not necessarily happen this way in every field. As Peter Jansson suggests, a National Lab, consortium, or other funded research center or institute may have a budget process that is separate from the conception and design of experiments. In such a case, the director of the center, whose duties likely include making sure the center is funded, is probably not an author.
Normal behavior for whether the supervisor is an author has been established in every field. Ask your colleagues. Consult your journals/conferences. For example, the American Chemical Society has the following description in their Publication Ethics (Page 3) (emphasis mine):
The co-authors of a paper should be all those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the work reported and who share responsibility and accountability for the results. Authors should appropriately recognize the contributions of technical staff and data professionals. Other contributions should be indicated in a footnote or an “Acknowledgments” section. An administrative relationship to the investigation does not of itself qualify a person for co - authorship (but occasionally it may be appropriate to acknowledge major administrative assistance). Deceased persons who meet the criterion for inclusion as co-authors should be so included, with a footnote reporting date of death. No fictitious name should be listed as an author or coauthor. The author who submits a manuscript for publication accepts the responsibility of having included as co-authors all persons appropriate and none inappropriate. The submitting author should have sent each living co-author a draft copy of the manuscript and have obtained the co-author’s assent to co-authorship of it.
To the ACS, the individual who takes responsibility for the validity of the data and the work (usually the student's supervisor in chemistry) is an author, even if that person did not design the experiments, collect the data, interpret the results, or write the manuscript. The supervisor has a more permanent position than the student and is likely to be easier to reach with questions five years from now than the student.
I think as written this answer is misleading. The norm is not that the person who got the funding is an author, although this is frequent. The norm is that the person who got the funding made a significant scientific contribution and is therefore an author.
About your last part: the ACS policy clear says “all those persons who have made significant scientific contributions and who share responsibility and accountability”, not or. I think scientific contribution is still required…
Conversely, all authors are responsible for the validity of the data and the work, not just the supervisor.
@JeffE I think that is a field specific/dated view. Work published by a research consortium or requiring specialized help (suitable for authorship) no longer requires all authors to be responsible for all sections.
Field-specific, perhaps; certainly the assumption that every author is responsible/accountable for the entire paper applies to every paper in my field. But dated? Conversely, how can anyone claim actual responsibility (including ethical oversight) for research done by a consortium of over 500 people?
@JeffE in my field over the past 5-10 years it has become common to bring in a stats specialist. They provide input that "we" cannot vouch for and we provide data that they cannot vouch for.
In my field over the last 5-10 years it has become common to learn some statistics.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.752565
| 2013-09-22T17:44:20 |
12902
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Ben Webster",
"StrongBad",
"aidandeno",
"asperanz",
"el2iot2",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32754",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32755",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32756",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9452",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/12902"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How many reference letters to submit?
My question is related to, but not a duplicate of How many recommendation letters are enough?
In that question the job requires 4 letters and the applicant has 5 good letters. I am applying for a TT faculty job that requires 3 letters of reference and allows up to 5 letters of reference. I have 5 people who have and would be willing to write letters for me. While I have never seen the letters written by my references, I believe that 3 of them write much better letters than the other two. My question is how many letters do I submit?
Potentially useful is that my three "primary" references know my research and teaching inside and out. They are also excellent writers with effusive personalities and well respected within the field (and department) that I am applying to.
My secondary references also know my research, but not my teaching. Their writing and personalities are less effusive. I have never collaborated with them or worked directly with or under them. I feel like they have less "invested" in me and that this probably reduces the quality of the letter. They are also in a "competing" field and would potentially sell me as the "wrong" thing. I wouldn't expect their letters to be bad or saying anything negative. I am just worried that they will not be positive enough.
For purposes of counting: do you have a separate letter just about teaching?
@BenWebster I guess I could. I could ask my "primary" references to focus on my research and then have a secondary reference focus on my teaching.
I only know my experience from the US in mathematics at research universities; there, the standard practice is to have one letter which is only about teaching from a colleague who has seen you in the classroom and gone over any teaching dossier you have, and then all other letters are specifically about research, and only peripherally mention teaching (actually a lot of discussion of teaching in one of these letters might be read as trying to avoid discussing the person's weak research record).
For example, the TT job ad up for my department (The University of Virginia) says "The applicant must also have at least four letters of recommendation submitted, of which one must support the applicant's effectiveness as a teacher."
Definitely, having more recommendation letters can prove the popularity of applicant among his/her colleagues in workplace, but just a negative (or even less positive) recommendation letter can destroy a possible recruitment, as it can strongly affect the impression and judgment of search committees.
A negative (or not-positive) recommendation letter can attract the attention of review committee to weak points (even if they are imaginary induced by the recommendation letter).
It is not bad that a recommendation letter emphasizes on teaching or research only. This is somehow the reason that several recommendation letters are needed (by people who knows the applicant from different perspectives).
Just keep in mind that a search committee always try to foresee any drawback in prospective recruitment. If a recommendation letter states negative points, then, the search committee must consider this risk (for bad recruitment), as there is an evidence for that in the application under review.
NOTE that recommendation letters normally should assist search committee to discover what they have NOT already found in resume. A tiny negative point has more effect on search committee rather than many recommendation letters stating an evident point, they already knew from resume.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.752882
| 2012-11-06T02:31:47 |
5160
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Abhishek Anand",
"Anonymous Physicist",
"Artem Kaznatcheev",
"Homer",
"JRN",
"JeffE",
"Joe",
"Lola Tink",
"Luke Mathieson",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13237",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13238",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13239",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13240",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13241",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13242",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13252",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1370",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/3890",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/3998",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/64",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/66",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/839",
"keerti_h",
"oli123456789",
"opcg",
"silvado",
"user2226358"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9453",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5160"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Publishing an 'ok paper' to arxiv
I worked on an interesting project as a PHD student. It was rejected from a top conference with all but 1 reviewer agreeing that it was an ok paper but not good enough for that conference, because more work was required. The other reviewer said it was in top 15% papers. Do the reviewers mean "trash paper" when they say "ok paper" ?
I don't have the time to finish it because I have switched my research area. In the project, I also collected and processed a large amount of data which would be useful for the computer vision community. Should I just put the paper and associated data/code on my website? Or should I put it on arxiv? In either cases, I wanted to acknowledge and include a link to the reviews from the conference. Is that a bad idea? The review process was double blind and hence the reviews are anonymous.
The reviews could be confidential. See, for example, http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/545/what-happens-to-the-reviews-that-people-write-for-journal-articles-after-theyre and http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/647/can-i-publish-the-reviews-i-write
In a blind review, if the reviewer feels like the paper is bad, he will often make his dislike abundantly clear. "OK" probably means "OK", not top tier, but not trash.
@JoelReyesNoche: Not so fast. Confidentiality of reviews applies to the referees, but not necessarily to the authors receiving the reports. (Read the questions you point to carefully!) I don't see any ethical problem with an author publishing reviews of their own paper. It might be in bad taste, but that's a different issue.
@JeffE, at http://academia.stackexchange.com/a/550/64, Lars Kotthoff said "I think publishing reviews for your papers would in general be frowned upon, even if there's no explicit rule saying that you can't." Also, at http://academia.stackexchange.com/a/648/64, Lars Kotthoff commented "I would also assume that the confidentiality extends to everybody involved in the process." (But your view is represented at http://academia.stackexchange.com/a/546/64, where Kieran said "The author can show them to whomever they like.")
Thanks @JoelReyesNoche . After reading the discussions you linked to, I thought it's better to be on the safe side by asking the program chairs. They said I can publish the reviews. Legalities aside, I still don't completely see why people should should NOT include available sound reviews, specially when they are submitting exclusively to places which do not explicitly require peer approval for acceptance
You should post everything to the ArXiv! If you are worried about what the "smallest result" is then check this question.
Do the reviewers mean "trash paper" when they say "ok paper" ?
Definitely no. As Luke points out, since the reviews are blind, reviewers tend to be honest, if not leaning to the negative side. If they were explicit that the paper is fine, though still somewhat preliminary, understand it as a positive feedback.
Should I just put the paper and associated data/code on my website?
I think the answer is yes, unless you want to "hide" the paper from the public.
I think about these things this way: the public (through taxes, NGO's, etc. and the subsequent redistribution to higher education and research) is paying us to do research with the hope that something good and beneficial will come out. Once you do the work, regardless of whether top-notch, or only somewhat significant, as far as it is a result of a serious effort and of reasonable quality (workmanship-wise), the public deserves reporting back on our work, as well as deserves the results. It is up to others to decide whether our work is useful to the society, or not.
Or should I put it on arxiv?
Do both. Yes, going for arXiv is a good idea in such a case. If you feel so, you can prepend the paper with explanation of why you publish it as it is.
Either way, my advice is to publish the work. Actually, your situation is quite common. What many people do in a situation you describe, is to publish and present the work in a workshop associated with the (major) relevant conference. Or re-submit it as a poster, or short paper, if the conference has such a track. Those are definitely for quality, but still somewhat preliminary results.
In either cases, I wanted to acknowledge and include a link to the reviews from the conference. Is that a bad idea?
No. I think you idea is good. Honest and open. How about including the reviews in an appendix of the arXiv submission?
I agree with this answer apart from the last point. I wouldn't publish or link to the reviews.
Have you considered submission to a journal? As reviewers are not identified, it is reasonable to trust their judgement that the paper is "okay", and of course "okay" at a top conference in CS could still be quite good, especially as it's within the top 15%. Although perhaps the top-tier journals would render a similar judgement, there may be a venue where it is appropriate (I'm not familiar with the computer vision area), and you could publish without an excess of additional work.
Alongside this you can (usually) always put a preprint on ArXiv, few journals or conferences take issue with this now, which allows you to make it available in the meantime, regardless of what else you decide to do with it in the future.
However I would definitely not include the reviews. Although there is no rule against doing so, particularly as the reviewers shouldn't be identifiable, it contributes nothing to your research - the reader should be assessing the value themselves. The inclusion of reviews would only indicate that you want to boast about your work, or that you want people to accept it because someone else said it was good.
Thanks Luke. I'll clear some misunderstanding. I don't have much to gain from the paper. I have changed my area completely and this paper is so unrelated now that I cannot include it in my theis. But I think the ideas and data might be useful for the vision community. When I put a footnote saying the paper was rejected and put not-so-positive reviews, my intention isn't to boast. My reason is that when I buy a product on Amazon, it helps to see unbiased third party reviews. Similarly, If someone wants to build up on my work, the reviews might be useful(esp. as I don't have time to address them
Never underestimate the utility of an extra publication on the CV, even in a different area - it demonstrates your productivity and ability to engage in publishable research. Having said that, it's really up to you to judge whether the effort would be worth it (but definitely make it available, that's the real point of research!). With regards to the reviews, I didn't expect you wanted to boast, but to someone from the "outside" this is one possible inferred intention, which you undoubtedly wouldn't want.
I don't have much to gain from the paper. — I don't believe you. If that were really true, why did you waste your time submitting it?
because i worked on it for 1 year and i had an emotional attachment to it. I was very very passionate about it when i submitted it 5+ months ago. Few months after submission, I have permanently changed my area, and I guess in 5 months, some of that emotional attachment has waned. Also, many people I talked to suggested that publishing a rejected paper might hurt my career. But I agree with @LukeMathieson and walkmanyi that I should make it available to the public
Don't feel bad if your paper was rejected, if you really want to publish, you could always submit it to another conference in its current form trying to address some of the concerns of the reviewers.
The problem with conferences (most) is that you don't get a second chance to submit it. There is nothing wrong with putting your paper out there in Arxiv, but remember that if it has not been published before, you could always suffer the danger of being plagiarized to certain extent.
Like Luke mentions, reviewers are most of the time a toss in the air.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.753522
| 2014-01-15T15:00:13 |
15824
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"1muflon1",
"BrenBarn",
"Federico Poloni",
"LostInThought",
"Or Sharir",
"Pete",
"Pete L. Clark",
"Peter Jansson",
"Swarnadeep Seth",
"earthling",
"gerrit",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1033",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1265",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2692",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/41358",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/41359",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/41360",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/41367",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/41368",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/41381",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/41452",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4249",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4394",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5674",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/9041",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/938",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/958",
"martin levy",
"penelope",
"posdef",
"tjalling",
"walkmanyi"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9454",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/15824"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Is there such a thing called native speaker bias when publishing?
This has been a subject that has occupied my thoughts for the past years but haven't really managed to formulate it completely for myself. I have this feeling (and I can't say it's more than a feeling at this point) that native speakers of English have an easier time with getting their article published.
I should make it clear, right away, that I don't mean just because you are a native speaker you can get whatever published, but given a particular project, if the main author is a native speaker the article is more likely to get accepted, or at least draw more positive reviews. I motivate the potential existence of such a bias on the fact that it's likely that a native speaker does a better job in writing than someone who has English as a foreign language.
Since I do not have any data to back this theory up, I would like to ask if you have come across any numbers/facts regarding any such bias in the publication/acceptance rates in general, as well as high-IF journals specifically.
EDIT: I should perhaps rephrase and add a bit more details to the question here. I do not refer to small grammatical mistakes, misspellings or anything of that nature. What I am referring to here, is the wider vocabulary a native-speaker has in his/her disposal, the phrases and expressions that they use that might not be readily and easily available to non-native speaker. I could perhaps summarise it the differences as the metaphorical chocolate chips that a native speaker can and most likely will bake into the cookie that is the manuscript.
I am clear on the point that the clearness criteria is still the most important and that's why I did not talk about the rejections (it's natural that non-native speakers get their papers rejected based on language more often compared to native speakers). As a non-native speaker myself, it is beyond any doubt that I need to write my manuscripts with a clearly understandable language in order for them to get published, but again that's not really what I am asking here. I am more interested in whether or not articles written by native speakers come across as "better quality" based on the fact that they are more likely to utilise their edge with the language.
There are of course other factors at play, but it would be interesting to see if there are any stats involved.
The question asks about data and hard numbers/facts, not personal views. I am downvoting all answers given up to now, because they seem to give unsubstantiated opinions.
Nobody is a native speaker in the International English. I also met Englishmen, who otherwise speak almost Queens English, and who received review comments like "let a native speaker proof-read your manuscript". And I guess many of us have experience that when a native speaker enters an international English discussion, either the guy ends up misunderstood quite often, or is forced to "downgrade" the complexity and sophistication of her/his own language. So much to an advantage of native speakers in academic publishing :-).
Since this is a personal example, I'm just posting it as a comment, but: I have a friend, who, as a native speaker got two set of opposite reviews on his article. First set said that the science was impeccable, but he should find somebody to help him improve his language. The second set complimented him on his language usage while saying that the science is not good enough for publication.
"Other factors"? You want numbers but do not know on what? I am sure there might be an editor who, for example, do not like Swedes or whatever and hence there may be a bias due to prejudice there. But from such cases to a general bias is difficult to assess without grounds.
@PeterJansson The "other factors" I was referring to was mostly personal relationships between authors and editors, but that's outside the scope of this question (not to mention very subjective). So to answer your question; I do know what I want numbers on, it's whether or not native speakers have a higher percentage of acceptance than their non-native speaker counterparts in general, AND for high-rep journals in particular. I am sorry I couldn't make myself clear enough.
Thanks, I see. It will be interesting to see if anyone has been able to distinguish reject due to some true bias from reject due to lower standard manuscripts. I think that would be difficult at best and quite subjective.
@PeterJansson well, the basic assumption there would be that a native speaker is just as likely to submit a manuscript that is based on "bad/inadequate science" as a non-native speaker. Thus if you look at a large enough number of submissions, if the percentage of acceptance differ significantly then you might start speculating whether or not there is some bias based on language skills, regardless any such bias is on a conscious level or not.
If the effect is due to native speakers writing better in that language --- whether that's due to fewer grammatical errors, larger vocabulary, it's not really a native-speaker bias as such. You could say that native speakers have an "unfair advantage" in the sense that they have a leg up in using the language, but I think it's incorrect to call that a bias. Tall players may have an advantage in basketball, but that on its own doesn't mean that there is a "tallness bias" in player selection.
In addition, it's not clear how reviewers (or anyone else who hadn't met the author personally) could know that the author was a native speaker, as opposed to just a good writer in the language. I'd say that to argue it was a native speaker bias specifically, you'd have to show that native speakers as a whole were given preferential treatment over non-native speakers, independent of their writing ability.
A different question, though, would be whether there's a writing quality bias. I think it's possible that articles with a "better" writing style (whatever that may mean) get an edge over articles that are competently but not so eloquently written. It could be argued that this is a bias, if it means that interesting and important results are less likely to be published due to writing-quality issues at the top end of the scale. Everyone agrees that some minimum level of writing quality is needed for the article to be readable and useful, but if excellent writing "above and beyond" that minimum gives an article an undue boost over others with equally important findings, that could be a bias. Again, though, it would be a bias in the relative evaluation of characteristics of the articles themselves, not a bias related to the author's status as a native or non-native speaker. In particular, this would mean that native speakers who aren't very good writers would also be adversely affected by the bias.
I don't know of any data on this issue, but I'd be skeptical that there is a bias towards native speakers per se. I could believe there is a bias towards better writing (even when extra-good writing "doesn't matter" in terms of the scientific value of the article).
Isn't there quite obviously a tallness bias in basketball player selection? Or are we understanding different things under "bias"?
I think you are getting stuck on the semantics of the wording I have used in the question. What I am asking is exactly what you are referring to in paragraph 3 of your answer. In order words, whether or not more elaborate and eloquent wording qualifies the article for more/better judgement, beyond what is scientifically interesting in that manuscript. Oh and I totally agree with @gerrit I think you are gravely mistaken if you think athletes are not evaluated and filtered on their physical characteristics.
@posdef: That may be, but the comments on Peter Jansson's answer suggest I'm not the only one. You asked about a native speaker bias, not a writing quality bias. Also, again, I don't see it as a "bias" if it's just a preference for qualities that are overtly valued. That is, selecting things that are closer to what you say you're looking for isn't a bias, it's just following your own rules. So if a journal says it wants well-written papers and then accepts the best-written papers, that's not a bias. Likewise, picking tall b-ball players isn't bias unless tallness is unduly weighted.
I also interpreted the question the way BrenBarn did. It seems now that the question is meant to be "Is the sheer quality of the writing of a paper taken into account when deciding whether to accept the paper?" That is really not the question that was asked, however.
The answer is yes but the issue is not as clear as you state it. To publish a paper, it must meet certain criteria which include form, clarity and of course scientific contribution. If you are a native speaker it will be easier to meet these criteria and particularly those that deal with language issues. The disadvantage we, who are non-native speakers, meet is to be good enough with regards to these criteria. The point is not that grammatical errors as such may make acceptance less likely but if the language makes understanding the paper difficult or even make one misunderstand the paper, then it becomes a problem.
So the problem can be called bias but it can also be seen as not meeting the standards required. From the latter point it is not clearly a matter of native vs. non-native speakers but a matter of being able to express the science in an intelligible way. I am chief editor of an international journal, albeit not with the IF of Nature, and out of all papers we reject (50% of all submitted) a small part is based on the above problem. In most cases it is due to poor science and then with no particular emphasis on native or not speakers.
Thanks for the reply, but the criteria in writing clear and understandable English wasn't really what I was asking about. Please see the edits.
Thanks, I see your point, but my point is that I do not see much of a bias outside those problems and their impact on readability and the possibility to correctly understand a paper.
I think this answer does directly answer the question. The question really seems to be "do native writers have and advantage since they have a greater vocablary and understanding of idioms." This is not an issue of bias but a preference for "richer" writing.
To the down-voters: Please leave a comment so it is possible to either improve the post or to understand the reason for the down-vote. Note the help text on down-voting: "...voting down a post signals [the opposite]: that the post contains wrong information, is poorly researched, or fails to communicate information."
I have already stated the reason for my downvotes to these answers in a comment to the original question, to avoid clutter.
Thank you, so one more to go. I could go through all the papers published in the international journals I am editor edit to support my point with numbers but I will let my "personal view" reign.
@PeterJansson I did not vote for any answer one way or another, yet. I am still waiting for more answers, seeing as there seems to be a little bit of a discussion around what the question is actually asking for, and how to answer it. I suppose I have not done a good enough job explaining what I was going after... I will wait a bit more and see if more clarification is necessary.
@posdef Sorry, no indirect "blame" intended.
@PeterJansson no worries, just wanted to clarify :)
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.754496
| 2013-12-16T17:16:04 |
14830
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Aalap Patel",
"AlaskaRon",
"Ben Norris",
"Syferion",
"Zach466920",
"darkside",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38519",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38520",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38521",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38528",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38529",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/924",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/9891",
"simbo1905"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9455",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/14830"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Approaching researchers about collaboration?
This question is quite premature for the current state of my studies, but I already have a few people in mind to which this question applies.
In Academia, would it be considered normal to approach a researcher you respect (who's work has great personal value or interest to you) and suggest that you would be interested in assisting with their future research efforts? In this case, I'm speaking less about full collaboration/co-authorship, and more about being willing to assist with the 'grunt work' of a given research project, purely out of interest in the subject matter.
Would this be construed as insulting to the researcher?
Is this sort of offer commonplace?
Is there an expectation of credential equality in this situation? For example, would it be inappropriate for an Undergraduate student to make such an offer to a PhD?
Welcome to Academia.SE. Have you checked out the cother collaboration questions? There are a lot of good [tag:collaboration] posts already here. Perhaps this one will be helpful http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2707/how-should-a-phd-student-approach-a-collaboration
@BenNorris - Thanks! I did check out a lot of the collaboration questions, including the one you pointed out :) I was thinking that, perhaps, my specific question was distinct enough that it may have a different answer, in that it concerns less of an equal-footed official academic collaboration, and more of a personal academic interest.
Perhaps I'm overthinking the difference between the two situations?
To show interest is never wrong so from that point, I think such an approach would be fair. What complicates the issue is the picture of prerequisites. When you approach someone, does not matter at what level, you need to show how you can be of interest. What that entails is showing you have the background (courses and scientific literature) that allows you to be efficient help. I think this is where the plan is most likely to fail because the recipient of the request will not likely be interested in taking on help that needs much coaching to function. If your request is within the department where you study, matters might be easier but if you contact someone in another university of perhaps even department the difficulties may arise.
So, I cannot see anyone being offended by a request such as this. The problem lies in seeing how you can fit in and be a contributor without to much costs (in terms of e.g. time) for the researcher or research group. However, a personal visit is far more likely to lead somewhere than a letter or E-mail.
Requests such as these are not uncommon but in my experience have most often been very uninteresting. Again, some have visited which has provided a very good possibility to assess the common interests and in what way a possible "collaboration" would work.
As for the last question, I cannot see a problem except that a PhD student may not be in a position to bring in an external person into a project that in essence is run by their advisor. A PhD student, on the other hand, may be a good way into a research group since they may be open to a meeting more readily than a busy project leader.
So, showing interest is good but you need to be able to show clearly what you bring to the table to wet the appetite of the person you target.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.754791
| 2014-02-27T03:23:13 |
17479
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Wakem",
"explorer",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10739",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/47168",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/47170",
"tales"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9456",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/17479"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
When should ideas be shared on stackexchange?
I get exciting ideas about math a lot, and I was wondering if it is a bad idea to share them in question form to vet them, expand them, or show their lack of novelty. I know free exchange of ideas is good, but is it wise to exchange so broadly so early? If someone uses my idea from SE I know they are supposed to cite me, but could they take the career credit despite my having "The Idea"? Would I be a coauthor to the first paper from the idea?
Another issue is the psychology of doing a project and finding out someone else finished it before you.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.754928
| 2012-10-28T10:07:04 |
5029
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Beltrame",
"Ben Norris",
"D.F.F",
"Dawood ibn Kareem",
"Federico Poloni",
"MagicMeerkat",
"Michael",
"Rick",
"Rob",
"StrongBad",
"Vic",
"Vincenzo",
"Zusee Weekin",
"asdf",
"daniero",
"frenci8",
"gerrit",
"ghfalcon7",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1033",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12844",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12845",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12846",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12850",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12851",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12857",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12888",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12889",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12958",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12959",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12962",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13033",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13035",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13039",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13179",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13180",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13181",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13182",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13308",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/52",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/622",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/759",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/924",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/958",
"iwein",
"ssn",
"user2528996",
"user3398908",
"user3443401",
"user52771",
"verve",
"zmule"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9457",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5029"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Are there any accredited universities in the world offering students the option of acquiring a BA/BSc in psychology completely online?
I travel a lot and I'm interested in getting a psychology degree but after researching online I still haven't been able to find a good university that offers the choice to complete a psych degree by distance education. I'm a Canadian citizen so programs that accept Canadians is vital. With all the current online offerings I'm shocked that I can't find a quality university offering a BA or BSc in psychology online or by distance offline. Any suggestions? I'm interested in CPA accredited degrees otherwise it's worth nothing in Canada. And, I'm open to programs with a few on-campus requirements if an accredited degree is unavailable fully online. I want to be able to pursue a MA or a PhD in Canada after completing the undergraduate program.
I don't know if they offer a programme in English, but the Dutch Open University is high-quality and focusses on distance education http://www.ou.nl/web/english
Are there any accredited universities in the world offering students the option of acquiring a BA/BSc in psychology completely online?
Yes
There are likely hundreds of programs. How well they meet your needs will be determined by 1) What you mean by 'accredited', and 2) residency restrictions.
Accreditation
Are you interested in accredited institutions or accredited programs? Institutions are accredited by organizations recognized at the government level as being able to guarantee that all programs at the institution meet some minimum standards. In the US, regional accreditation is king, while the more prestigious sounding national accreditation is generally viewed as easier to get and less rigorous. In Canada, accreditation appears to be handled through membership in the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.
Again, in the US, many of the large flagship state institutions have an online campus to accompany their bricks-and-mortar traditional campuses. For example Univerity of Maryland University College appears to offer an online BS in Psychology. UMUC is regionally accredited in the US by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, just like the the bricks-and-mortar campuses of the University of Maryland system. Certainly, some of the larger schools in Canada also have a similar online presence.
The on-line for-profit schools in the US tend to be nationally accredited, with the notable exception of the much maligned University of Phoenix, which offers an online program in psychology. University of Phoenix is regionally accredited by the Higher Learning Commission as part of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.
Individual programs may also be accredited or certified by various professional organizations. If you are looking for an online psychology program certified by a professional psychology association, try starting at the website of the association and look for lists of certified programs.
Residency
Attending an online only institution should not have residency restrictions based on your country of citizenship, but it probably does. For example, I would imagine you would need to have a US education visa in order to be admitted into some US institutions, even if the program is entirely online and you never need to step foot on campus.
I think the OP is looking for something along the lines of APA, BPS, or CPA accreditation so he/she can practice psychology.
Is this really possible? That sounds fishy. What prevents me from signing up my dog for an online course, taking the exams for him, and having him registered as an accredited psychologist?
@FedericoPoloni, well in the US, you need to prove you are human to enroll in a degree-granting program, even an online-only program.
@DanielE.Shub - The APA has this to say about online-only programs. However, an APA/BPS/CPA certified program does guarantee that the recipient of the degree will be able to practice. These are not regulatory bodies. You still have to pass a license exam. A good showing an an accredited school with a non-APA-accredited program will probably be better preparation for the exam than a mediocre showing at an APA-accredited program.
@FedericoPoloni there is little that prevents dishonest people from scamming the system. Online courses might be easier to scam than brick-and-mortar courses, but they can all be scammed.
@BenNorris A degree from a accredited program can be a requirement for licensure in the US (http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/about/program-choice.aspx?item=4). In the UK, I don't think licensure is required, only an accredited degree. There are a number of programs that offer "conversion" diplomas for people who want to move into the field.
I work in distance education and often work with canadian researchers. I have a very high respect for the quality of the distance offerings up north (I'm in the US). You have good options at home. The one that jumps out is Athabasca University. Fully online and internationally recognized as a research institution.
http://psych.athabascau.ca/
http://www.athabascau.ca/programs/ba4psyc/
American Public University System (APUS) has both Masters and Bachelors level programs and accepts international students. They are regionally accredited by the Higher Learning Commission.
http://www.ncahlc.org/
http://www.apu.apus.edu/admissions/program-requirements/psychology.htm
http://www.apu.apus.edu/admissions/general-information/international-students/
Full Disclosure: I'm an institutional researcher at APUS.
APUS? Also, Athabasca is not accredited by anyone.
@verve Here's the accreditation page for Athabasca. It's a public university so they are accredited by the Canada government. They are also the first Canadian public university to be accredited by a US body, the Middle States. http://www.athabascau.ca/aboutau/accreditation.php
The University of London has a distance learning programme. You will basically sit the same exam as an internal student at the respective constituent college would sit, and this will be conducted at some GRE / GMAT etc. facilities to guarantee proper exam conditions. In the end you will get a University of London degree just like any other internal student would.
University of London International Programmes
Accreditation should hardly be a problem in the case of the University of London I would think as it's one of the most prestigious UK institutions with members such as University College, the London School of Economics and King's College London.
I would be surprised if the University of London had Canadian accreditation (and it is not listed on the CPA website). Getting a degree form a properly accredited department is critical for students who with to go into clinical practice.
If that is true then essentially you cannot go into clinical practice with a UK degree in Canada as there is no higher degree of official recognition attainable for a UK institution then that being enjoyed by the UoL. It's of course possible but I think it's unlikely. Unfortunately I am not an expert on agreements for mutual recognition of degrees between Canada and the UK :(
I don't see a psych degree in the above link. How do you know that I will sit the same exam as an internal student?
it's only the one by Birkbeck if organisational psych is relevant. The college is entirely responsible for all academic aspects incl. exam and the UoL is the degree awarding body. Open University has a pure psych BSc ( the OU is recognised in the UK but in that case reputation may be more of an issue ! )
The CPA has a list of all accredit universities and departments. The list is of a size that you should be able to check what the online offerings are.
I think this list just contains institutions that are accredited AND Canadian. I know Canada has high standards, but I'm sure they will recognise at least some non Canadian qualifications, so it may be worth doing a bit more digging :)
Hmmm...the CPA doesn't accredit ANY foreign schools?
@verve that is what it looks like. This doesn't surprise me at all. The BPS also doesn't accredit any foreign schools. There is a push right now to get BPS accreditation for international campuses (think China and SE Asia) of UK schools.
@Beltrame no they won't. CPA and BPS (and I think APA) accredit programs not individuals so they don't really need to deal with it. Getting a license to practice is easier with a accredited degree, but you don't need an accredited degree. Some jobs naively ask for people to have accredited degrees and do not consider international candidates. The OP asked for a CPA accredited program. One could easily produce the lists of APA and BPS accredited programs. I am not familiar with the Australian system or other English speaking systems, but I bet there are lists.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.755596
| 2013-01-06T13:52:27 |
6059
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Aify",
"Blaisorblade",
"F'x",
"Govind Gopakumar",
"JeffE",
"Peter Olson",
"Pieter Naaijkens",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15740",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15742",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15754",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15777",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2700",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/34201",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4510",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8966",
"ucyo",
"user21326",
"user3676380"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9458",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/6059"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
When is a research question "closed"?
I am in Computer Science. I read a survey today. The author gave such a good result by the end of the article that I think the research question can be called "closed": the result performance is ideal and I think the problem is not worth researching any more; future developers can simply use the algorithms proposed and things should be fine. However, the author of the survey did not say so -- they did not say that the problem is solved, nor did they said anything about future work.
I believe (in this specific case), that the problem is solved:
The research goal is to reduce network latency. By the time the survey was written (year 2008), the result latency was 100ms. With such latency, human users won't notice a network delay, because that only happens when the latency exceeds 150ms.
The authors of the survey did not publish any paper on optimizing the algorithms after that survey.
Does these mean that the problem is safely closed? If so, why didn't the survey authors say that? If not, why didn't they continue working on it? How would I know whether a research question is solved or not?
In your example, there is still room for improvement until the latency is equal to the distance between the two endpoints, divided by the speed of light. The difference might not be noticible for humans, but for other purposes it may matter. High-frequency trading comes to mind.
they did not say that the problem is solved, nor did they said anything about future work. — Bad survey author. No biscuit.
I don't think a research question is every “closed”, as you say, though it's of course a matter of vocabulary. In the example you mention, it seems clearly that there is no current incentive to design better solutions, but unless it is actually proven that there can be none, it's not a solved-and-closed question, it's a “we don't actually need to do better” question. This makes all the difference in the world.
Some research questions can be closed, by the method you describe, proving that there is no better solution. This has indeed happened many times for mathematical research questions, such as the optimal close-packing of equal spheres.
@PeterOlson yeah, mathematics is one field were you might say such things. I thought about writing an additional paragraph about that, but it's not my field so I was worried to say stupid things. Here goes anyway: In mathematics, you can indeed prove a theorem, but it's rarely ends up all work on a give “question” in the broader sense: what happens with less strict hypothesis? can a shorter proof be found? is there proof that doesn't rely on a given axiom? what happens in neighboring situations? In your example of sphere packing, I believe the question is still open for larger dimensions…
@F'x: but in an applied field, how much should we care about a solution we don't need?
I'd like to expand on Pieter Naaijkens's answer, because your question and his answer bear on a more general problem: when is a problem worth solving? Or viceversa, should one care about a paper solving this problem? I'll present the answer I've grown up with (as a PhD student), though I've seen wildly different opinions on this, so I don't think there's a fully objective view (though characterizing the spectrum of opinions is what matters here).
I've learned that it's up to the author to motivate the reader to care about the paper ("sell one's research"), though others might disagree; nowadays this is necessary because of the research-literature overload we live in. In applied fields, a common motivation is a set of (possibly indirect) applications. Different kind of motivations exist, but I'll conjecture that even good theoretical work should matter to other theoretical work to be good, and then leave other motivation out of scope.
Would you accept a paper (1) solving this latency problem for websites interacting with users? By your reasoning, I wouldn't (at least, not at a top venue). But let's assume that again Pieter Naaijkens submits a paper (2) on the topic. It first convinces readers that better latency matters by describing some application (say high-frequency trading, assuming this actually applies). Then, paper (2) solves the problem exactly like paper (1) above. The second paper could get past the same reviewers. I might even argue that with that motivation (assuming it's good), he might create a research question. And in some cases, simply motivating well a research question might be enough for a paper.
To demonstrate that wildly different opinions exist, I'll offer two opposite examples.
I've seen a reviewer explain that a paper was good research but he wasn't sure whether it addressed any relevant problem; the reviewer concluded with a strong accept judgement. (Of course I won't share details).
On the other hand, Tanenbaum's Modern Operating Systems book explains that some research had the only point of keeping otherwise unemployed graph theorists off the streets, because (it is hinted) the problem lacked actual applications.
Other examples of researchers questioning the motivation of other research abound, but I won't add further anecdotical evidence.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.756059
| 2013-05-18T17:00:40 |
10059
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Abdelaziz Elrashed",
"Andrew Welch",
"Antoine",
"Boban Droidev",
"CherryQu",
"Faheem Mitha",
"Max",
"Miu",
"Nobody",
"Piotr Migdal",
"Sibbs Gambling",
"StrongBad",
"Zekko",
"Zuriel",
"aeismail",
"cloudfeet",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24828",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24829",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24830",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24831",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24832",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24833",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24840",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24841",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24843",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24855",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24891",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24892",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2744",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/285",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/30925",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/49",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/546",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/773",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8079",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929",
"maja",
"marat",
"mihir S",
"sara ",
"vpiercy"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9459",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/10059"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Mentor trying to be first author?
I was on an internship with professor A at University B in China. We were working on a computer science project. During the internship I implemented professor A's idea and got some results. Three weeks ago I finished a paper draft and left University B for a new internship. Me and professor A were planning to submit the paper draft to a conference (deadline: May 20).
Until yesterday (May 17), the order of authors was: me, professor A, other students & collaborators in the lab... And professor A had no objection with that. However, last night I received an email from him. He said he wants to be the first author... His reason was for intellectual properties and patent issues. My understanding is that because I was merely an intern at University B, if the first author was me, it would cause IP troubles for him?
I feel deceived. But, should I feel like this? I was counting on a first-author paper because I'm planning to apply for a PhD program in the US. One paper may not mean a lot to someone who's published a lot. But for someone who hasn't published yet, it means something.
Looking on the Internet, I found something that might explain professor A's motivations:
In China specifically, corresponding authors are often underappreciated by universities and research institues. This might be the case for University B. Given professor A is relatively young, he may want first authorship for promotion.
Summary of my questions:
Should I go discuss with professor A and try to persuade him to let me be the first author?
If I want to apply for a PhD program in the US, would being the first author be more helpful or being the second author is as well helpful?
Edit:
My affiliation for the paper has always been University B. I didn't mention my current university or internship in any sense.
I emailed back to professor A yesterday, saying I think I should be the first author, because I did most of the work; because the idea was originated from him he should be the corresponding author. He replied this morning, saying he agree with what I said. He explained that because I was doing an internship in his lab and not a student of University B, putting me as the first author could cause IP and patent troubles for University B... So this problem is fixed now.
This is why you should always talk about author order before starting to write the paper (ideally before doing the research).
Surely any IP issues can be solved by making a separate declaration, if necessary?
@DanielE.Shub But as a student, it is quite difficult to claim to be the 1st author to the mentors... How should we address this before writing and meanwhile be nice?
@perfectionm1ng that is a great new question. Ask it and I will try and come up with an answer.
@DanielE.Shub As suggested: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/12264/how-should-a-student-defend-his-1st-authorship-in-front-of-his-advisor-politely Thanks! :)
@DanielE.Shub Before doing research? Sometimes it later turns out that one's contribution was great (or non-existing).
I don't really understand what the motivation here for the professor is. Since you did all of the work for this paper at University B, you should not list your new affiliation (whether it's an internship or another school) as an "active" affiliation for this paper. It can be listed as a "current address," but not as an active address for this paper. In that way, the professor still gets credit for your work, with your affiliation showing as being part of his group. (I suspect that the professor's concern is that, if you are at another institution and list that as your address, he won't get credit for his work.)
Another issue is that if you are not going to present the paper at the conference, he may have felt it was in his interests to list himself as a first author. How appropriate this is I have to leave to the CS community to judge.
In general, however, the first author should be the person who has made the largest contributions to both the research and the writing of the paper. Deviations from this need to have a very good foundation.
I saw no mention of University A.
@FaheemMitha: That was a slight misreading on my part. But the main point still stands: the new address shouldn't appear in the list of affiliations.
My answer to whether you should feel deceived is yes and no. Strictly speaking, if you have an agreement, it should stand. That is the easy part of the answer. Then comes different traditions and personalities, which makes the territory almost impossible to negotiate.
You could simply send a reply stating you disagree with the reordering. The point of having intellectual property involved is certainly true and merits co-authorship. The problem is of course the weight between your work and the original idea. If you have worked on this on your own without any help or assistance, first authorship seems clear. If you have had help through discussions etc. through the process it becomes less clear.
In the end the matter will be up to you, if you think you will gain much from taking the fight. You can ask to add something in the acknowledgement to make clear who contributed what. Another possibility, if the paper is mostly about your work, is to add yourself as corresponding author (which can be different from first).
Should I go discuss with professor A and try to persuade him to let me be the first author?
I think so.
At least you would like him to explain to you why he changed his mind. He had no objection with you being the first author in the first place. Then he sent you e-mail saying he wants to be the first author a few days before the submission deadline. There must be some important reason for that.
The intellectual properties and patent issues make some sense to me since you are no longer with University B. They might cause some trouble for Prof. A.
I am not convinced the corresponding authorship in your case makes a difference. First authorship does matter in China if you are also a professor at the same level, say both of you are assistant professors. He could be looked down because you made more contribution than he did. But, you are an intern. He can explain to others that you did all these under his supervision. I think he would actually earn extra credits by helping interns/students to publish papers.
I have the same suspicion as aeismall does. Your active affiliation may be an issue for Prof. A. Which institute will you represent when the paper is presented at the conference? Who will present the paper? I think these questions are his concerns.
Edit
After talking to some researchers knowledgeable about the corresponding authorship in China, I learned more about the issue. Some authors don't want to be the corresponding author because they are busy with other research interests. Some are just shy away because English writing is hard for them. Some are interested in the role because they would be more widely known in his area. In most cases, the first author or the one who makes the most contribution to the paper is the corresponding author. So far, no one is able to explain to me why corresponding authors are underappreciated. It seems to have little to do with your issue.
End of edit
@CherryQu I updated my answer about the corresponding author issue.
Thanks! My affiliation on the paper has always been University B. See my recent edit to the question.
@CherryQu Glad to know your problem is fixed.
It is possible the professor is trying to take advantage of you, but it would help to clarify things if you would expand on your answer to include the following.
It is implied that the paper is based on Professor A's idea. What this a full-blown idea, or just the kernel of something. Or, putting it differently, did he just point you in the general direction of something, or was this a relatively finished idea that just needed to be worked out in detail? Was this an idea you expanded on, or significantly improved? Did he provide significant intellectual input while the project was ongoing, or did he leave you to your own devices?
Also, you talked about implementation. Does this mean code, or something else? Did Professor A participate in the implementation in any way? If not, did he look at the implementation?
What about the paper itself? Did he participate in a substantial way in the writing of it?
If the answer is that you did most or all of the work, and did much of the working out of the idea, then it sounds like you should be first author. If he contributed substantially, it is less clear.
However, the paradigm in general is that the junior person gets the first authorship, because they need it for career reasons. Most people are willing to abide by this. I know someone whose PhD adviser put himself as first author on his (the students) papers, and the person in question regrets it now. If you go along with this, you may also regret it.
If you don't work for this person, the question is whether you have to do what he says for some reason. If you are hoping for a good reference, a first authorship on a paper might be worth more than a reference. Does he have any other hold on you? Do you need his further input on the project, or are you hoping to publish further papers with him? Also (perhaps not very important but serves to indicate tone) was the email polite or not? Personally, I think a conversation would have been more appropriate than an email in the circumstances.
For the record, I find the argument about intellectual properties and patent issues less than compelling, but it would also help if you could say more about how these things work in your university.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.757132
| 2014-04-12T17:38:20 |
19260
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Ajay",
"Glen",
"Kaung Khant Thu",
"Marc Felman",
"boredmathguy",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/52530",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/52531",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/52532",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/52534",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/52536"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9460",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/19260"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
École Normale Supérieure's students' class rankings and ranking on the national concours exam for agregation?
Are the École Normale Supérieure's academic records publicly available anywhere?
Specifically, I would like to know what class rankings were historically there, as well as its students' rankings on the national concours exam for agrégation.
thanks
I found half the answer:
Here's the link to records for rankings in the concours exams for aggrégation:
Les agrégés de l'enseignement secondaire
Répertoire 1809-1950
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.757241
| 2013-12-15T08:16:43 |
14792
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bravo",
"Chillar Anand",
"Crocoduck",
"Faheem Mitha",
"Miguel",
"Peter Jansson",
"Phasma Felis",
"Willie Wong",
"charles",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/285",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38411",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38412",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38418",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38427",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38443",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38664",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/411",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4394",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/94",
"jens"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9461",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/14792"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What is done about academics who do not do research anymore, or who teach badly?
There are two loosely related questions here:
What is done about academics who do not do any research anymore?
What is done about academics who teach badly enough that it shows up?
I insist that I am asking what is done, in your department or institution (or in your country if it is uniform). I'll ask a separate question about what should be done. I would also like to distinguish between status (e.g. if you are talking about tenured faculty, please say so), and I am mostly but not only interested in tenured faculty.
Added: implicit in the question, as was mentioned in an answer, is the way an institution measures the research and teaching activities. Answers are welcome to describe the way these are measured to decide whether to take action, but please stick to what is actually done.
To give a little context, from 2009 there are recurring discussions about the teaching duty of academics in France, and whether it should be adapted to their achievements. I would like to have a broader view of the various answers actually given around the world to this issue.
Related:http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1478/how-do-universities-deal-with-loss-in-productivity-post-tenure
Before quibbling with some of the implicit hypotheses of the question: In my observation in the U.S. at top-20 places over the last 30+ years, official steps are rarely taken against post-tenure faculty on grounds that their "research" is in decline, much less that their "teaching/mentoring" may be in decline (if it ever was good).
In a few cases, teaching loads have been informally increased, or service loads informally increased, but often the dynamic that led to decline in research or teaching causes people to be unable to take up other responsibilities reliably.
In principle, in many places in the U.S. now there is "post-tenure review", pushed onto faculty by administration. But this is viewed by faculty as unsavory and contrary to the spirit of things. In particular, short of gross malfeasance, an excellent research and teaching record for some decades is viewed as earning a spot until one chooses to retire, rather than being forced out either unofficially or officially.
This does partly return me to questioning some implicit hypotheses of the question, namely, the short-term measurability of "research" and/or "teaching", and even the desirability of taking short-term samples. For that matter, foolishly idealistic though it may be, isn't the idea of "tenure" that one has indeed earned a spot, and one now has license to exercise one's own judgement, rather than be constantly and indefinitely concerned about external critiques?
Nevertheless, of course, administrations do tend to create ever-greater pressure to do more with fewer resources, thus indirectly pressuring faculty to "do something about" the (relatively few) faculty who are "not helpful". But I think most of us recognize that this is a potentially dangerously subjective question...
In the U.S., again, even faculty acknowledged to be "unhelpful" are not railroaded out, somewhat on the same grounds that we think of "free speech" as including, as a matter of principle, speech that we disagree with, etc.
The answer to both your questions will, from my perspective, be "not much". So this answer describes the view from my local point.
As a basis, university positions in my realm are teaching positions, 70% teaching and 30% for admin, personal development and research. The 30% is very quickly consumed by everything but research. On top of that one can "buy" oneself out of teaching so that the research time essentially is based on soft money. If you do not do research well, then no money comes in and your teaching load increases towards the 70%. So as long as you do your job in some way there is no mechanism for "correcting" a lack of research. On the other hand senior academics often get involved in higher and higher level administrative work at university, governmental, etc. level so a lack of research as such may be replaced by benefits gained in other ways. But, basically, a lack of research simply means teaching more.
If your teaching is very poor there is not much that can be done. Employment laws are very strong. The only way to sack a person would be if they, for example, drink at work, or blatantly refuse to accept orders from the "boss" (head of department etc.). It is also possible to remove someone if it can be shown that there is no need for whatever profile the person was employed under. I really cannot provide a detailed description of employment laws here but they make sacking people a difficult way out. Persons failing with teaching will most likely first be placed to do other duties. I have experience with one such person and it is hard to find tasks where this person can function and contribute.
So the "not much" is largely explained by employment laws in "my" case. The problem cases, which do not easily contribute in alternative ways, will cause lots of work for the department to find ways in which they can be made productive to the department. This will be successful in most cases but not so in the odd case.
"Employment laws are very strong." I assume this is a local statement. What area does this reference?
The question asks for local information so, yes, the answer is local.
Ok, but it would be useful to specify what location is being referred to.
@FaheemMitha: there's a good chance his local is Sweden.
It is true that it's very difficult to fire someone based on "bad" teaching or "bad scientific results". However, in some countries and institutions, an evaluation/audit by an external comitee is done on the level of institutes, departments, but for each person seperately as well. If this comittee concludes that a person is not worth the position, the head of the institute can fire him.
However, this applies only to a small number of places, and even then people don't get fired as much as they should, IMHO.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.757756
| 2014-02-05T08:27:57 |
16582
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Alexander Woo",
"Andrey Ramnikov",
"Anonymous Mathematician",
"Ben Webster",
"David Ketcheson",
"Ed Would",
"MUH",
"Md Kauser Ahmmed",
"Nobody",
"Not a grad student",
"StrongBad",
"Utshab Khadka",
"Zack Tarr",
"acatto",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109988",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11209",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123475",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/34050",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/44569",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/44570",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/44571",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/44572",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/44573",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/44574",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/44700",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/44726",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/546",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/612",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/81",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929",
"niklaas",
"smtri",
"user45756"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9462",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/16582"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
math job market statistics
Looking around online, there are some statistics that foretell doom for PhD students; some examples of this:
the number of faculty to retire in the next 10 years is at the lowest in 30 years.
the number of PhDs awarded is around 100,000, while the number of professor positions open is around 16,000.
there has been approximately 40% budget cut for math between 2008-2011 (but there was a hiring freeze put on most state universities in 2009-2010, if I remember correctly, so this may not be entirely accurate).
For more statistics, see this:
http://marccortez.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/phd-job-crisis-640x4627.gif
The creator of this argues that the number of grad students and postdocs is way too high, while the number of professors is on the decline.
I think that this is not true for math. Postdocs are considered to be a mandatory part in our career (and postdoc positions are quite competitive!), and while many people do a second postdoc, I rarely see people with more than two postdoc experiences. Also, there aren't so many adjunct positions; some postdoc positions are called adjuncts, but these usually expire in 1-3 years. So I would like to know the real statistics. In particular, I want to know these figures for last year (percentages with respect to the number of PhDs will also do):
the number of PhDs awarded (all figures from here onwards applying just to the US)
the number of PhDs hired as postdocs at PhD-producing institutions
the number of PhDs hired as tenure-track professors at liberal arts colleges
the number of postdocs finishing
the number of postdocs hired as tenure-track professors at PhD-producing institutions
the number of postdocs hired as tenure-track professors at liberal arts colleges
the number of postdocs hired as postdocs at PhD-producing institutions
To summarize, I would like to know how harsh the funneling process is in math; I know from experience that many grad students leave academia without obtaining a job as a postdoc. Is the same true of postdocs? How about the tenure-track level?
Different locations may have different statistics. Do you want to specify the location and add tag to your question?
One solution: look for jobs in other countries where spending on higher education has increased by as much as 100% in the last four years.
@DavidKetcheson Some people really do move to the Middle East, where people seem more generous with supporting educational costs. However, many more people are stuck in the US for reasons beyond their control, which is precisely why I am asking this question.
Not everyone who get a PhD wants a post doc or TT position and even those that do who do not get one, still can have very nice careers that they are happy with.
@DavidKetcheson Well, moving to Saudi Arabia has its own issues, especially if you are a woman, or have a woman in your life you would like to convince to come with you. Even if I decided I was OK with going to Saudi Arabia, I don't think I would ever convince my wife.
@BenWebster I certainly don't think it's the solution for everyone.! That said, after 5 years here my wife doesn't want to leave. But KAUST is a unique place. And now we're way off-topic...
Almost certainly the best information you'll find is from the AMS Annual Survey: http://www.ams.org/profession/data/annual-survey/annual-survey. I don't know that it will answer all your questions (in particular, it's mostly focused on newly graduating Ph.D.'s; it doesn't track where people end up after postdocs), but if the data isn't in there, probably nobody has it.
It seems that they do have pretty good data on the new PhD's, since they are easier to track or gather data from. I suppose getting similar kind of data transitioning between a postdoc and tenure-track is more difficult. So: in your opinion, was it just as hard to move from a postdoc to tenure-track faculty, as it was moving from a new PhD to a postdoc position?
@user45756 That is a very hard question to answer, especially because the job market can vary so much from year to year. I got my Ph.D. in 2007, which (using unemployment rate of new Ph.D.s as a rough proxy) was the best market since the late 80's; I finished my postdoc in 2010, which was the worst market anyone had seen since the late 90's. I think right now, the situation is pretty tough for both transitions, but no one knows if this a "new normal," if things are just going to keep getting worse, or if some new source of jobs and funding will relieve the pressure.
@user45756 Anecdotally, I think math is in a better position than many other fields; I don't know many people consistently did good research and teaching, were flexible about where they would take a job, and didn't end up with an OK permanent position. The question is exactly how consistently good you have to be, how much you have to flex, and how long it will take to find that position. The bars have definitely gotten higher on all of those in recent years.
@Ben Webster: How high has the bar gotten for tenure-track positions?
@Gradstudent I’m not sure how to answer that question. There is no one bar, and no systematic way of studying where it is. I feel like the past couple of years, I’ve seen talented young people struggle a bit more to find a permanent position, and I feel like second postdocs have gone from relatively rare when I first went on the job market to close to obligatory. But I don’t have a very broad sample, so it’s hard for me to really say.
To add to Ben Webster's answer, the most recent Notices of the AMS issue has a Report on Academic Recruitment and Hiring. It doesn't exactly answer your questions either, but it provides information on how many tenure-track versus non-tenure-track positions were listed and filled, which I believe is not in the Annual Survey (last I checked, this does tell you how many new PhDs get hired as postdocs versus tenure-tracks).
Putting this data together with what's in the Annual Survey suggests that if you get a PhD in math, you have a good chance of getting an academic job (immediate from the Annual Survey), and eventually if not immediately a tenure-track job. (Note these surveys don't tell you how many tenure-track positions are filled by foreign candidates or new PhDs, or how many US PhDs get permanent foreign academic positions--so there's not enough information to get precise estimates for some of the things you asked about, but I think enough to be comforting.)
This isn't an answer, but it's too lengthy to fit in the margin...
I'm going to adopt a deliberately contrarian point of view here and criticize the assumptions underlying the question from a quantitative perspective. Since we're both mathematicians, I hope you won't mind.
Just to make the point, you might go a step further back and compare the ratio
(# of Master's graduates each year)/(# of admitted Doctoral students each year)
to see how "harsh" the funneling process is at that step. But that's clearly ludicrous, since the majority of students getting master's degrees don't want to get a Ph.D.
I think the analysis you're proposing has the same problem. A very large fraction of graduating Ph.D.'s don't want a university post-doc position. Many of them want industry jobs -- a mathematician friend of mine from grad school chose a position at Google over academic opportunities and is very happy. Others take government research jobs -- in applied math, named DOE lab post-docs can be much more competitive than university post-docs.
The other big issue is that the academic job market is a global one, and increasingly so with each new year. Very many of the positions within the US are filled by foreigners, and very many individuals from the US happily take jobs in other countries. I know one individual who was offered an NSF post-doc and a named term assistant professorship at a top-three US university in his field, but turned them both down (along with multiple other offers) to take his dream job -- outside of the US. Your analysis would count all of these people as failure stories.
Yes, all of your comments are valid, with the exception of comparing # masters students versus # PhD students, since most students in the US do not get a master's degree before their PhD. But we might as well make the simplifying assumption that the number of American PhDs leaving America is roughly the same as the foreign PhDs entering America.
This is not meant to be offensive, but yes, I would count the people leaving academia as having failed to obtain an academic position (it could be voluntary, but it makes no difference from the perspective of someone who wants to gauge their chances of obtaining a tenure-track position straight out of a postdoc position).
@user45756: The word "failure" often implies having tried. There's a big psychological difference between asking "What percentage of Ph.D. recipients take a non-academic position?" and "What percentage of Ph.D. recipients fail to obtain an academic position?" Also, whether people leave voluntarily could make a big difference in the amount of competition. If 1000 people are competing for 500 jobs, then that's very different than if 600 people are competing for 500 jobs while 400 people have chosen another path.
This isn't quite accurate either. Most of the people who "choose" to go into industry did so not because they preferred industry over academia but because they preferred the industry jobs they could get over the academic jobs they could get. If the academic job market had been less competitive, they might have ended up in academia.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.758461
| 2015-02-26T03:58:34 |
40619
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"AndySoft",
"Anna ",
"Chase Atkinson",
"MTalz",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109413",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109414",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109423",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109445",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109446",
"mkastner"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9463",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/40619"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Asking about the status of paper you refereed?
I refereed a paper after a skim-through and a careful examination of about (1/3) of it after a couple of weeks, and then sent it back due to expository issues, a few gripes about certain things not being correct, about a dozen notes, and suggestions on what needs cleaning so that I could rigorously go through all the arguments to check everything and give a better assessment of the paper. I gave it a gut feeling of about what level of quality the paper seemed to be, relating it to another paper in the close literature. In the report, I said I would be happy to referee the paper more fully after these preliminary edits are made.
Almost a month has gone by and the editor has not acknowledged my emailing of the referee report to him. Do I wait to see if he acknowledges my report or does this get stuck in the ether without me knowing the result of the paper? Do I email him asking if he received my referee report? Was I wrong in sending it back to the authors so quickly to ask for more clarity? Or should I be taking a back seat to this and only responding when prompted and going along my merry way?
My experience has been that a review acknowledgement should come immediately---usually via an automated system, but quite rapidly even when there isn't one. This is sensible: otherwise, how do you know that your review was actually received? You should feel free to query the editor on this matter.
Your assessment of the paper sounds a bit unconventional, but essentially boils down to a recommendation for major revision. It's possible you haven't heard back because the editor doesn't have all the reviews in, and some journals never actually tell you what the final result is.
Do check, however, that the journal is really a reasonable that you want to be associated with... review by informal email with a non-communicative editor would be a very bad sign in my field...
If you send in a review by e-mail, not through an automated system which will most likely spit out an automatic mail in response, common decency would dictate you should get an acknowledgement of receipt. But, this does not mean you receive one in all cases. What seems a good way forward is to simply send an e-mail to the editor (or to whom you sent the review) inquiring whether or not the review arrived safely since you did not hear back. There is no guarantee this will be credited with a response either and then you should probably just drop it and I would also argue the journal/journal editor is not very careful with their correspondence. This does not reflect well on the journal so as already suggested elsewhere, the journal may not be worthwhile any future efforts for reviews or publishing.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.758716
| 2013-12-04T13:38:38 |
14520
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Abhishek",
"Anonymous Mathematician",
"J.Alvaro.T",
"Marc Claesen",
"Motoma",
"ate50eggs",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/37620",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/37621",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/37622",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/37626",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/37634",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/37642",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/612",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7173",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/9793",
"momma.bear",
"sintetico",
"two sheds"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9464",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/14520"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Can I publish a technical paper on more than one publishing sites?
Can I publish my technical paper on more than one publishing sites? The paper content is the same while only the formats differ. I am the author of the paper.
Sounds like self-plagiarism to me, so no.
@dgraziotin good point, but since the OP talks about changing formats I'm guessing academic journals are implied.
To expand on @dgraziotin's comment, sites like the arXiv would be considered repositories in this sense. It's completely fine to post to several of them (if you're in a field like math/physics/CS in which posting to repositories is generally allowed by publishers). As for academic journals, there are rare occasions in which a journal paper may be reprinted by another journal, but only with the knowledge and permission of everyone involved, and it's pretty rare.
Short answer : No.
Long answer: Only under certain circumstances where you have explicit permission to do so. Be aware that even if you have permission to do so, there are many folks who take an extremely dim view of multiple publishing.
ok. Thanks @JohnPercivalHackworth for your comments.
The only formal process that I'm aware of is the reprint mechanism. You publish a piece of work. Sometime later, editors of a compendium or collection wish to take your article and reprint it. In that case, the original publishers have to approve this (as well as you of course).
More commonly, papers published in a peer-reviewed venue might also appear in a Ph.D dissertation in some form. Here again, there's some form of copyright approval needed for it to happen.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.758907
| 2020-09-06T21:40:40 |
154928
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Anton Menshov",
"Coder",
"GoodDeeds",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111388",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53762",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/56594",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/68109",
"user111388"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9465",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/154928"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Should I round up or down my GPA on a resume?
My current cumulative GPA is 3.875. When filling in my information on an online job-site, I can only choose between entering 3.9 or 3.8. In this case, should I round up to 3.9 or round down to 3.8?
I don't know about your grading system (or your country which you did not disclose) but is there so much of a difference between those two values? 3.9 sounds more.logical to me (don't know if it is better or worse)
Although rounding down seems safe you are losing a lot of the score. This may not help you during the filtering process.
Does this answer your question? Ethical GPA rounding
There are no formal requirements on how GPA is calculated and reported in one's CV unless you are filing an application to a particular company that has articulated such rules (which I have not heard of). Such rules usually exist during the admission process to the universities (especially many caveats and intricacies are present for grades conversion in the case of international applications), some academic awards, and other legal matters (for example, immigration procedures).
Thus, the decision is on you. Rounding 3.875 to 3.9 seems to me fairer when the exact rules are not specified. So, in your particular case you need to round to an available value, and I suggest using "Round to the nearest standard value" without any "ups" and "downs".
An interesting edge case would be if the rounded grade looks like a perfect score. For example, if 4.0 is the highest grade and you get 3.96, would it be correct to say you got a 4.0? I suppose some may consider it slightly deceptive.
@GoodDeeds any time something is not reported exactly, some may consider it deceptive. Here, we have a list of available values, and reporting the exact GPA is not an option; thus, some level of deception is inevitable.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.759081
| 2020-09-07T11:31:44 |
154956
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Kevin Carlson",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111845"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9466",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/154956"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Switch majors in pure math masters in order to apply for a PhD in statistics?
I have finished the first year of my Masters in Mathematics from a German university. The area that I intended to write my masters thesis in was in Differential Geometry. However, I have decided that I would not want to pursue a career in academia in the future, or at least not one in pure mathematics.
I want to get a PhD in statistics from a top US university.
Is it a good decision for me to switch my major to Probability Theory and Stochastics? This would involve another year of coursework, thus making my masters 3 years instead of 2 years. Will this be reflected negatively on my grad school application? Will they think that if I couldn't complete my masters in 2 years, how can I complete my PhD in 4-5 years?
I have done well in a rigorous Stochastic Processes course in my first year of masters and I did well in 3 statistics courses and a couple of baby probability courses in my undergrad. I might also get to be a TA for the stochastic processes course next year.
The other alternative is that I start my thesis in Differential Geometry and then apply for a PhD in statistics. When doing so, I'm afraid that I won't be getting recommendation letters for a statistics program from my pure math professors. Are my fears valid?
It’s worth noting, if you don’t have it in mind, that a majority of US PhD students will not have any master’s degree at all, though a substantial proportion will have a statistics-focused bachelor’s degree.
There are a lot of issues here. Whether you get good letters from maths professors is up to them and your relationship with them. Only they can answer that, so you might pose the question to them. Not writing the thesis may impact on that, but only they can say.
As to whether a switch gives you any advantage in application to a US doctoral program, it also depends on that program. Every US university is different in that regard and you can, really, only learn the answer by making application. But I can guess, at least, that you can make it work either way. Math is a good foundation for statistics and the details may matter less than your insight.
But you can plan for both outcomes, at least, by applying now for doctoral programs based on your two year degree while still considering the three year switch. You have a year to figure it out and don't need to make a final decision at this point, I think.
And don't define "top" US universities too narrowly. If you do, you are likely to not get offers. Cast a wide net. There are lots of great US institutions that aren't in the top 10, or even 30, or ...
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.759399
| 2020-09-07T21:09:33 |
154970
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bryan Krause",
"Buffy",
"Massimo Ortolano",
"catfour",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/129224",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20058",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63475",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75368"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9467",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/154970"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Recommendation Letter: How to properly mention the grade and the rank of a student in multiple courses?
I am writing a letter of recommendation for my student as he is applying for a master's degree to study in the UK. The GUIDANCE FOR REFEREES states that I should mention the grades of the applicant in the courses I taught him, as well as his rank in each one in comparison with other students (i.e., with how many students am I comparing the applicant?). If fact, I taught him five courses, and I need an example of how to properly state the required information without repeating the same sentence multiple times.
X attended with me class A (grade A), class B (grade B), [...] and class
E (grade E).
Or your preferred variation of the above. However, you can also repeat the grade statement several times, possibly adding for each class details about the student's participation.
What about his rank in comparison with x students in each class?
@catfour Within the parentheses as well.
@catfour class A (grade A, rank/total), etc etc? I think you're overcomplicating this.
Honestly, I was not sure if, e.g., Statistics (92%, 2nd/31) is the formal/conventional way to write such details. Also, do you think it is a good idea to mention such details to any other university/scholarship who may ask me to submit a letter of recommendation about an outstanding student, even if they did not ask for such details (especially the rank in each course)? Thank you.
Given that most places will also have transcripts for the student, it seems to be redundant generally. I'd only provide the information if asked.
@Buffy I agree that it's redundant, but the OP says "GUIDANCE FOR REFEREES states that I should mention the grades of the applicant in the courses I taught him".
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.759580
| 2014-12-13T11:35:24 |
34209
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Alexandros",
"Amy",
"Anonymous Mathematician",
"Ashwin Hari",
"Noor",
"O. R. Mapper",
"Peter Jansson",
"Phoebe",
"boredsail",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10042",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14017",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/26519",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4394",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/612",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/93762",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/93763",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/93764",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/93765",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/93766",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/93859",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/93860",
"lemon314",
"user93763",
"vikash"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9468",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34209"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Grad student protecing ideas in a research paper for futher development
I am working on a graduate school research paper in finance/accounting. My adviser is really excited about my paper and this professor is a prolific publisher. The paper has progressed enough to hand in for the course. I want to develop this paper further after the course is over. However, after meeting with my adviser, (her student assistance's desk is in the professor's office) three other graduate students are doing their papers on the same subject. How can I turn in the paper but protect the work so I can develop it further on my own time? I put a qualifier (not to use without my permission) on the paper but the professor wants it removed. I explained that I wanted to further develop it but she said it is for others to use.
Are you and your advisor planning to publish this paper on a journal? If yes you should always assume that someone else would work on the idea without your permission.
I had hoped that she would offer that because she obviously has the foundation to give the paper more strength with her knowledge but she has not offered and I get the impression she just wants me to turn it in and walk away. Other professors in the department have also heard about my paper and stopped to talk to me so I am not sure I even understand the true value of the paper.
I think I will let this rest a day or two. I may water down the paper to the original version presented to her and hand that in. It lacks the strength/data support of the most recent version. Thank you for responding.
If anyone knows of a site where I can post this paper and it results in a time stamp please let me know. I can post it with the qualifier not to use which would give me time to develop and verify all data and citations. Thank you.
arxiv? I do not know if it has anything about finance though
Before posting it online "with the qualifier not to use", it's worth thinking about exactly what you mean by that. If you mean "don't copy my text", copyright already covers that. If you mean "don't use my ideas without attributing them to me", that's already part of academic ethics. In those cases adding a note will be redundant and seem hostile. But if you mean "don't use my ideas at all (even if you credit them to me and cite my paper)", then you shouldn't post it online. You can't circulate a paper to establish priority while trying to prevent anyone from building on it.
That makes sense. I wasn't thinking about the qualifier as a means of protection. I just wanted time to verify everything before anyone might use it. There is a huge amount of data and citations that I had wanted to double-check. Just out of curiosity, if I post it as is without any qualifier and someone repeats the study or uses it before I can verify all info, that is going to be just as bad, yes?
On the face of it this sounds very serious. Of course there may be information that can explain some of the aspects that are unknown to me and also you. So with that in mind.
If you have come up with the idea on your own, the work you have done is certainly yours. Often the basic idea is given by, for example, the adviser, in which case some (how much can differ widely) of the intellectual input is shared. You will, through your work still have some degree of ownership. If the adviser has given a similar basic idea to several students the situation can become really messy. It is not clear from your post if the other students started their work, once they got wind of your success or if they were given earlier input to start along the same lines. In any case, I would argue that the adviser has a responsibility to also protect your possible ownership but unfortunately what is ethically correct and what happens in real life can deviate significantly.
So what can be done? The first thing to do is to talk to the advisor and say you want to work this up to a publication (I have to assume here that you know or have had indications it can be published). In other fields it is possible to post work online to get a time stamp on your work, what possibilities exist for you I will leave to others who may know such possibilities to comment upon.
The comment that "it is for others to use" seems ridiculous. Unless there is a policy or local rule that states that anything produced within a course belongs to the school or course responsible or does not belong to the student, it appears quite unethical to take such a stance. Laws on immaterial rights or intellectual property are usually quite strong. It may therefore be useful to take the matter up with someone in the department who is either there to handle the graduate studies or some form of counsellor at the university level. You must know what structures are in place for possible grievances. the important point is that you need to figure out where you stand based on the details that are known. This is also why a very black or white answer cannot be given here, the information is too weak. But, based on what you have made known the situation sounds problematic from an ethical point of view.
Her assistant is in the same course and is a foreign student AND is one of the students who used my idea. Student changed labels/category of data, used a different formula but essentially it is the same work, the same idea. Other two students who used the same idea come from the same country. When I presented my idea to the professor, I had already completed a great deal of research and compiled supporting data. The professor responded: "You are now teaching me, so I want you to develop this further, it is a really good paper!"
The comment that "it is for others to use" seems ridiculous. - I am not sure I am missing something in the question, but isn't rather the opposite - that research results are not for others to use - ridiculous? After all, the entire point of publishing research results, and the procedures required to repeat them, is so further research (irrespective of who conducts that research) can verify and build upon those results. Publishing papers that expand upon something developed by students is common practice at least in CS, as long as the students are acknowledged in the paper.
Agree. I felt a little queasy when she said my paper was for others to use but she is also refusing to accept the paper for the course until I remove the the qualifier. I don't know what to do at this point. She has not reviewed the recent version, so she doesn't realize how much I have already developed the paper. I don't want to post it (form of copyright) until I completely verify citations/data. I have a really bad feeling about this situation.
My impression is that the student's work is for other's to use and not the student's "property" to, for example, publish. I am sorry if that was not expressed clearly. So I agree with your comments seen from the perspective you mention.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.760215
| 2016-11-10T22:01:52 |
79670
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Cape Code",
"David Richerby",
"Dikran Marsupial",
"Mark",
"Open the way",
"Parrever",
"Thomas Steinke",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10643",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22768",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2827",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/284",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/44249",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/48413",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75255",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/88617",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/980",
"lighthouse keeper",
"paul garrett",
"user2768"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9469",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/79670"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How to find collaborators for just writing and formatting manuscripts
In our research group we do many things, but have little time for writing papers. Sometimes things like formatting the manuscript for some specific journal or just writing the intro and methods sections can be very easy things if what you do is almost always the same, or you just need to rewrite some parts from one paper to other. This is always (from my opinion) straightforward but needs lots of time. Therefore I started to wonder how could I find people for just writing and formatting manuscript 100% of the time. How would you do this?
P.S. I remember some years ago there were some websites where programmers could interchange between them "services" for free, for instance one would write some C# code if the other one could do a website for the other. Do something like this exist for academics where the services are "writing papers", "formatting grants", "getting bibliography", etc.
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because ... it's either a troll or is some other b.s.
why is it a troll? please explain it to me
@paulgarrett The naivete of asking a question to which everybody knows the answer is "no" isn't a reason to close.
@DavidRicherby, the premises were what I objected to.
@paulgarrett , I do not see why; a) my question is naïve, and b) why do you think everybody thinks the answer is "no" (few days ago nobody thought about D. Trump winning the elections btw :-P)
@flow You are asking about whether something exists now, not inviting us to speculate about the future. People's failure to predict the future is irrelevant.
"Therefore I started to wonder how could I find people for just writing and formatting manuscript 100% of the time. How would you do this?" offer them enough money for what is probably a dull and unfulfilling job to be attractive.
I disagree with close votes. Questions for which the answer is "Things don't really work that way" can be helpful to inexperienced academics.
@DikranMarsupial I just offer them co-authorship of the manuscript, I think that is enough
Get a postdoc and make him unhappy and quit. In the meantime, let him write your introduction and format your paper.
Related: How do you call an academic who puts his name on an article he didn't write?
Since this question has moved up in the queue: to me, the premises are self-contradictory. Namely, apparently it is easy and boring and lower-status to write things out, yet of no interest to the group doing the research? If it's really so easy, just do it. If not, then the research group has a deficit in that regard. Further, I don't understand the alleged distinction between doing and documenting the work and writing it up. Piles of data lying around have far to go before being scientific conclusions communicable to other people. So then I wonder if it is a genuine question...
Isn’t this a big reason why professors get grad student RAs?
Is this a graduate research group? It will definitely help clarify some of the responses.
Writing the manuscript is a significant scientific contribution. Is your research so trivial that anybody can interpret the data that you give them and write to a high scientific caliber on them, with no further inputs from you? Most likely, you'd need to also provide them with a rigorous analysis of that data, probably in writing form, since they might no share an office with you, and also for record keeping. That explanation becomes the crux of a paper that you could write yourself in the first place. The time spent explaining the data to someone not involved in an experiment will be greater than just writing the thing yourself. You'd be only saving time on tiny matters of sentence formulation, if you'd even save time at all.
Formatting a paper in my experience doesn't take that much time, so I'm not sure where you're coming from in on that point. Most journals provide you with a template that you can literally copy paste into. If something is straightforward as you say, it shouldn't take that much time at all. If by "getting bibliography", you mean compiling the bibliography, that will also be something that only you, being familiar with the experiment, can provide. A bibliography should be something that arises naturally from the need to reference previous methods/works for your analysis, not a chunk that you copy paste between papers without thoughts.
If you mean that they also do the data analysis, then they just become a regular scientific collaborator, with full authorship rights.
Not enough time to write papers
Producing papers is a core part of your job. You cannot avoid this. Delegating writing (to non co-authors) is surely plagiarism. Nonetheless, you might be able to improve your efficiency.
Writing introduction and methods sections. Presumably, you made some notes when you started work, e.g., you formulated some hypothesis. Instead of writing such notes, you could write the first draft of the introduction.
Bibliography. I'm not sure what "getting [a] bibliography" means. Do you mean writing a "literature review"? If so, then that's something that also comes from your initial notes, when you establish the context of your proposed research in relation to the existing literature.
Co-authors. You can distribute the burden of writing amongst the group. In particular, PhD students can do the vast majority of any writing when they are a co-author.
Formatting manuscripts
This task typically isn't time consuming. Nonetheless, you could always hire an undergraduate to the work. You could hire me too -- but I doubt you could afford me!
"You cannot avoid this. Moreover, doing so is surely plagiarism" Both statements are wrong. By having co-authors who focus on the writing part, one can avoid writing, without committing plagiarism.
I've replaced writing with producing. Regarding "having co-authors who focus on the writing part," that is already clear from my answer, under the heading of co-authors.
Now it's not wrong anymore, but it also does not address the question anymore.
I strongly disagree, but feel free to clarify why you think that.
The assumptions that you operate under, as revealed by your question, would be virulently opposed by the vast majority of academics. You might get a sense of that from the other responses here.
I have come across a number of researchers who share your views. They feel that 'doing research' is more important than writing about it, and time spent writing is time wasted (especially introduction and such). This question here borders on such thinking.
It's absolutely untrue that writing is less important. This may be a shield to cover up lack of clarity or less critical, inadequate language skills. You should introspect on whether this is the case at your group.
If you want to hire people for money to write for you, those people are likely to be students looking to supplement their income or pay off a loan. The arrangement would probably work, but some people would find this exploitative, like a very mild version of a sweatshop.
If you want to have these writers work for authorship, you are going down a very slippery slope. What happens if the writer disagrees with your research? What if they want to add something of their own? It's quite natural to develop a sense of ownership and accountability after some time; how would you deal with that? How do you 'fire' these people without them raising misconduct claims?
Note that I'm on pointing out practical difficulties, the ethical considerations that make this a bad idea should already be quite clear to you.
In summary, my advice is, don't. Make time to write, or wait till you have some downtime to write.
In our research group we do many things, but have little time for writing papers.
Typically, a research group applies for grants, and the money pays for PhD students or postdocs who have a strong interest in publishing, so they often do the writing.
But there's an ambiguity in the question about the scope of the "writing" task:
Assuming that the literature review is done, the method is described and the results are analyzed, the job is mostly editorial and the person doing it doesn't need to be an academic: in this case your group can hire a research assistant or contract a company specialized in proofreading/formatting documents. This person wouldn't need to be a co-author (and they probably wouldn't care for it anyway since they are not in the academic system), but they would need to be paid.
If the task involves research skills, for instance the person is in charge of explaining why and how the research is being done, then they must be an academic of some kind and would be a co-author in their own right. It's common to assign this job to a PhD student or postdoc in the lab; if nobody is available, then it's worth extending your collaboration network through people met at conferences for instance. While it's probably possible to find academics just interested in having their name as co-author, most of them would want to participate in the research project from the start, not just helping writing the paper.
This distinction is essential: if it's a real research job, then it cannot be outsourced this way. On the other hand if it's a proofreading/formatting job, then it's possible if there's money to pay for it, even though it's not common.
Formatting of a manuscript to fit the requirements of a specific journal is a nasty work, I must agree. However, I do not know any service to provide that support. Have you tried the Overleaf platform for collaborative drafting of scholarly documents? It's based on Latex but can be also used by non-experts in TeX. Many publishers support their authors by providing them an environment for specific journals at Overleaf. It's then formatted automatically in the right style on the fly.
There seems to be a consensus in the answers given thus far that you cannot hire someone to do the writing part for you. Yes, as a current PhD, I find this answer to be true in my field as well. We all have to do it. Writing will continue to be an important part of your research; you will need to write papers and grants in the future.
In sum, it's part of your job. Just do it.
On the first look the problem of finding collaborators has to do with motivating people and to find people who are interested in a subject. For example, a group is formed around a robotics research project and now the question is why it is so hard to find somebody who likes to fix the typos in a manuscript or likes to write the introduction. But what exactly motivates people to contribute to a project? Is it only money or has it to do with the academic subject? The answer is a bit more complicated. It has to do why a certain project is done by a group of people.
A research project doesn't start by itself. In most cases, the environment of a research group assigns a question to a group. A typical example is, that a university likes to figure out how to program a computer vision system for a biped robot and assigns this task to a workgroup. The reason why the people in the group are motivated is not because they are interested in the task itself, but they would like to do the job for the university.
Answer the problem of how to find collaborators is possible by referencing to the external customer of a research project. A research group can announce, that they have the assignment of a concrete customer and then the question is which authors likes to do the job too. Individuals are not motivated by money or the subject, but they would like to contribute to a certain external customer.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.761122
| 2012-10-05T08:23:49 |
3600
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Clarity",
"F'x",
"JeffE",
"Jukka Suomela",
"NadirHajiyev",
"Renato66",
"Robert F. Schmalz",
"Seraphim",
"StrongBad",
"Thufir",
"aggelgian",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10522",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10523",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10524",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10526",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10527",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10528",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10541",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10543",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10544",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10548",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10562",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1265",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2700",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/351",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929",
"ledgeJumper",
"nunolourenco",
"pingOfDoom",
"punNrun",
"walkmanyi"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9470",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3600"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Are abstracts confidential during the review process?
In an answer to a question about the confidentiality of reviews, I basically said you cannot reveal information about the review until the paper is publicly available. This question about revealing information after publication is making me rethink my answer. The question I have is, is the information (e.g., title, authors and abstract) that you are given to decide if you want to review confidential?
It seems to me that the process of agreeing to do a review is NOT
Please review our reviewer guidelines (including confidentiality policies),
If you accept these guidelines please look at this abstract and let
us know if you want to review.
Rather, it seems it is
Please look at this abstract
If it interests you, please consider our review guidelines.
This suggests to me that the initial information (title, authors and abstract in a non double blind review) are not confidential.
Care to explain the down vote?
I do not think it is useful to ask "is this-and-this information that I receive at this-and-this phase of the review process confidential", as the rule is simply that all information that you receive during the review process is confidential.
I think the question is very good. I would like to hear from experienced programme chairs, or journal editors. As somebody below noted, this is kind of a gray area and we can elaborate as much as we want on common sense, nevertheless, but I think it comes down to real experience with this kind of situation. I guess it would come up as a case of scientific misconduct somewhere.
Let me emphasize one sentence from Jukka's comment: ALL information that you receive or generate during the review process is confidential. The answer to any question of the form "But can I leak this information at this stage of the process?" is NO. (I'm both an experienced reviewer and a journal editor.)
To complement other answers and comments: indeed, as far as I can tell, from a quasi-legalistic viewpoint "consent" cannot be pushed on me by sending me something in email, e.g., an abstract and asking whether I'd review the article. Nevertheless, it is my firm impression that, there is a strong expectation that any such information is kept confidential in perpetuity, whether or not one agrees to referee/review.
Yes, I agree, there is something a touch unfair or burdensome about this, since one can imagine that a malicious editor could wreak havoc with one's work by sending a steady stream of one's competitors' as-yet-unpublished work... thus seemingly obliging one to disrupt one's own work... ?
And, yes, something like this does sometimes happen when one served as NSF reviewer (in the older system), especially, where work-in-progress is sometimes portrayed.
Despite the potential for abuse in having others put obligations upon us, it seems that the potential for abuse, in the line of "conflict of interest", is substantially greater if confidentiality is not essentially promised implicitly, and in perpetuity.
I checked the peer review policy of Nature and Science, I guess that should is the best we can get. The policy can be found here, here (both Nature) and here (Science).
A bunch of relevant quotes from the Nature policies:
As a condition of agreeing to assess the manuscript, all reviewers undertake to keep submitted manuscripts and associated data confidential...
Nature journals keep confidential all details about a submitted manuscript and do not comment to any outside organization ...
Referees of manuscripts submitted to Nature journals undertake in advance to maintain confidentiality of manuscripts and any associated supplementary data.
And some from the Science review policy:
Reviewers are contacted before being sent a paper and are asked to return comments within 1 to 2 weeks for most papers.
The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication and must be treated as a confidential document.
I would read it conservatively. That is, consider an abstract to be a part of the manuscript, hence the same rules governing general manuscript should apply. Apart from that, both journals state that in advance to being sent the manuscript, the (I guess still potential) reviewers agree to keep the matter confident.
I think an answer may also lie in the exact process handling review. First, a potential reviewer is invited and sees a title and possibly paper's authors. Then he/she has to log-in into a review system, but I guess, somewhere in the process accepts general terms and conditions which established the contract. And only then the reviewer sees the manuscript. I am not sure if all journals do it this way, but those I reviewed for did so. Well, besides some special issues handled outside the journal submission/review system, where the case would be unclear.
I just checked the reviewer invitations I received from journals in my field and I found that the only disclosed thing in the invitation e-mails was the submission's title. I must accept/decline to review and only afterwards I saw the manuscript, or its abstract.
I think the policy statement of Science is unambiguous on this issue… while others are not. In doubt, stay on the safe side :)
Well, as you said, there is no rule that explicitly says that the information mentioned in a “invitation to review” is confidential. Yet, as with the related questions, there is a big grey area around the process of peer-review. Many people would expect this information to be kept confidential… and it does make sense: after all, the reason you gained access to what is (at that stage) privileged information is for the purpose that you may review it. It is part of the review process.
Let's see it another way: this situation is not so different from the case where you would accept a review, then drop it (write to the editor to pull out) upon learning that you won't have time to do it. Morally, those two situations are close to one another.
In the dropped out review situation you have agreed to keeping the information confidential so I don't see it as being similar at all.
@DanielE.Shub in the journals I review for, the agreement is implicit… so I don't see why it couldn't be said that your agreed at the moment where you read the abstract in the invitation email.
You agreed the moment you decided to become a scientist. It is not a contract between the referee and a specific journal that you sign each time when someone asks you to review a paper. It is a single lifetime-long contract between the referee and the scientific community.
Because consent doesn't work that way.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.761820
| 2013-02-11T12:34:16 |
7924
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Dave Clarke",
"Eekhoorn",
"F'x",
"Falko",
"JRN",
"Javeer Baker",
"StrongBad",
"Suresh",
"cbeleites",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2700",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/346",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/3885",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4475",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4517",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5962",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/64",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/643",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929",
"mako"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9471",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7924"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Printing a poster at the conference
While peripherally related to Flying with a poster tube as a hand luggage, I am trying to avoid this. I would like to print my poster at the conference. I am considering this for two reasons. First, it means I don't have to fly with the poster. Second, it gives me a few extra days to work on the poster.
I can see three potential drawbacks.
Being unable to print the poster when you get to the conference. I
have lots of experience printing posters at my university, but no
experience in the conference city
Not being prepared/able to return with the poster to hang in the lab
Getting reimbursed for printing charges
As for point 1, the conference is in a major US city with at least 4 Kinkos (large scale professional print shops) within reasonable walking distance of the venue. My poster is not until day 4 of the conference and I am arriving 1 day early. On point 2, I do not plan on hanging this poster in my lab. I am a little worried about getting reimbursed, but our on-line reimbursement system has a category for printing charges. If I cannot get reimbursed, I am willing to pay out of pocket.
Am I missing anything that can go horrendously wrong with this plan?
How could it possibly go wrong?
I assume you are bringing an electronic copy of the poster with you, say, on a USB memory stick or hard drive. These could be damaged or lost. You might want to e-mail yourself a copy of the poster to be safe.
All hail to Dropbox
Regarding flying with posters, I have two words for you: cloth posters!
I agree with @F'x. Canvas posters are the best solution. They look exactly the same, but fold up in your luggage. Problem solved
@Falko: and you can warp your graphs to make them look more linear :-P
Reimbursement is related to a particular institute's policy; and taking by plane - to a particular airline's policy, so I won't speak about it.
Being unable to print the poster when you get to the conference.
Possible problems with printing facilities:
they may by further from the conference venue than expected (or not as easy to get to them, or masked so it's they are not easy to find even if you are nearby),
delays larger than you expect (at least assume "the next day", in general or due to other prints ordered),
page can be out-of-date, or they may be not working for some reason,
they may not print A0 format (permanently or temporarily),
local holidays (or local customs related to working hours) may be different.
(I printed posters on-site two times, and it went almost without problems; some of people I knew had problems, especially with instant printing and poster sizes).
+1 for local holidays (especially if you go to a different country)
I think this is the best answer, but I also think that having enough time to handle travel delays and/or sickness is important.
If you're not worried about transporting the poster or getting reimbursed, and the destination city has the same facilities as your home location, then there's no functional difference between printing locally and remotely.
In other words, once you define away all the differences, the two scenarios are the same :)
Printing at a conference is absolutely no problem. Many conference centers and associated hotels have print shops and Kinko's sprinkled around specifically for people at conferences and meetings to use for print posters, handouts, and other things. You can usually call and in advance and send in some material if you like and it will be ready to print out when you arrive.
In fact, the times I've gone to Kinko's near a conference on similar errands, there were other people from the conference waiting in line to do the same thing.
If you're presenting the first morning of the conference and getting in the night before, you might want to roll it up. Otherwise, you'll lose no sleep and shouldn't have an issue. The only real downside is that it will probably be more expensive than doing it at your university.
I had your problem 1 when I accidentally forgot the poster tube in the taxi when I arrived at my hotel. The problem was I arrived on Saturday and the poster session was on Sunday. For your case, where you have four days, there probably shouldn't be a problem, especially with so many print shops within walking distance. You could even perhaps arrange for the poster to be sent online before your arrival, and pick it up when you get there.
This is not to scare you but what if you fall sick and lose the 3 or 4 extra days you have.
Remember it is a new place you are going so things may not be as familiar as at home.
Its good to prepare in advance. Perhaps you can forward your poster in advance and collect it on your arrival.
If Daniel falls so unbelievably sick he can't find time to print his poster over 3-4 days, he probably shouldn't show up to present it or can ask a colleague instead.
@BenjaminMakoHill Didn't he ask what could horrendously go wrong!
Oh yes! And he could be hit by a meteor and incinerated instantly as well. This would also keep him from printing his poster. ;)
@BenjaminMakoHill The statistical probability of that happening is quite low though :)
I think 3-4 days protects me, but anything less than 2-3 days may not be enough . A one day delay on a flight and being sick the next day might mean you have no poster for a colleague to present
The plan's fine.
Be sure to check if you only need to submit the poster to print and then return to get it, or if they require you to verify a proof first. Some print shops may refuse to print unless you sign off on the proof first, so be sure you ask about that so you can plan if you need to make more than one trip.
If you want to be the local hero, buy thumbtacks and scotch tape for your poster while you're out and be the envy of all of the poster presenters, as well as the conference organizers, who will undoubtedly have forgotten to bring one or both of those things. ;)
I do not see any reason why you would not be able to print your poster at arrival. In the past, I have used fedex (or whatever is easy) to ship the poster to my hotel. That way, the poster is waiting for you when you get there. You do not have to carry it on the plane and no need to stress about Kinkos not wanting to print your posters...
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.762364
| 2014-01-26T18:56:29 |
16207
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Ananth Ravi Kumar",
"Deepak Nadig",
"Jiang Xiang",
"Samuel Russell",
"b.zog",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/42479",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/42480",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/42481",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/42486",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4429",
"user3432223"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9472",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/16207"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Need help distinguishing between a primary and secondary source
I am trying to figure out if the following article is a primary or secondary source.
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/5/547.full.pdf
I'm leaning towards secondary but here are my cases for both.
Primary: Published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Secondary: It seems to be mostly a summary of other works so it might not be original research.
Can anyone confirm this for me? Thank you!
This question could be improved by specifying its disciplinary specificity as these terms are highly discipline specific.
Primary source material is "direct evidence." This can include published reports of original research, but also journals, diaries, direct interviews, government records, and other types of "produced" work. (It need not be a research or scholarly work to be a direct source; thus the claim that it's primary because it's published in a peer-reviewed journal carries no weight in this argument.)
On the other hand, a secondary source is a source which reports on the work of others, whether it is published or not. Citing a secondary work does not make it a primary work; it's the relationship of the cited work to the original subject that determines if it's primary or secondary.
In this case, a "Perspective" column that summarizes ongoing work in the field is a secondary source, as it is analyzing the original work of others.
In case of review articles, the original sources which were used to create the text are the primary literature. But, if the author draws own conclusions, creates statistics, etc., this would be considered a primary source.
I'm not deep enough in the field to judge that for the article in question.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.762559
| 2014-02-02T09:43:58 |
16456
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Ansjovis86",
"Gaurav Arora",
"J.R.",
"Nate Eldredge",
"Pat",
"fledermaus",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1010",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14922",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43149",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43150",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43151",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/44958",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/44963",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/780",
"user193319",
"wrik003"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9473",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/16456"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Regarding Phd in distance learning mode
I hold a bachelors in Engineering from an Indian university and have six years of work experience in the software industry. Is there any foreign university that offers a PhD related to finance in distance learning mode?
Sure there are.
@J.R.: Heh. The top hit is an MIT web page saying "we do not offer a distance learning degree".
@Nate - I wasn't sure if this was even on-topic. Moreover, I'd be surprised if every hit was a "we do not offer..." hit.
@J.R.: I know, I just thought it was funny.
@J.R. - Even I am seeking answer for the same question, I did M.Phill(Comp.Sc.) from a reputed Indian University and got job in a Software Company, now I want to go for Ph.D(Comp.Sc.), if I will go for this http://www.open.ac.uk or any foreign university then how I can get the things done, are these online courses and if I completed is this degree approved in India by UGC.
Sorry for length comments ;)
To be honest, most PhDs can probably be (largely) conducted at distance. I live quite a way from the University at which I'm registered for my psychology PhD. However, you might want to try contacting the Open University http://www.open.ac.uk which is the UK's very highly regarded distance learning University. They do offer PhDs and I would assume that since they are geared up for distance work they might be one of your best options.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.762720
| 2014-09-28T07:38:35 |
29092
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Alper Bayrakdar",
"Bartek Banachewicz",
"Gokul",
"Javi",
"Nate Eldredge",
"Pramis Baral",
"Search",
"Syed Mohd Baquer",
"VFreguglia",
"confused",
"drzbir",
"dzieciou",
"ff524",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1010",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11365",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21805",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79586",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79587",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79588",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79591",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79592",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79593",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79594",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79595",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79596",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79597",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79598",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79599",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79601",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79613",
"madamemooiselle",
"noobie",
"oldselflearner1959",
"theme"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9474",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29092"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Is paper reviewing for journals that are not JCR-listed worth the time?
Is it worthwhile to spend some time as reviewer of journals which are not JCR-indexed? I do not know in the rest of the world, but in Spain all that matters are those listed in JCR.
NOTE: I am a robotics PhD student yet, and I probably should focus on my research now.
Are you asking whether reviewing papers for reputable journals is a good use of time (already asked and answered) or whether reviewing for disreputable journals is a good use of time? Please [edit] your post to clarify.
I modified the question, is it better this way?
JCR is far more meaningful in some fields than others. (In my field, for example, it is absolutely meaningless for judging the value of a publication.) Please [edit] your post to specify what field you are in.
Could you explain what JCR is?
In some countries JCR means everything and non-JCR is wasted time. So in some places it means a lot.
@NateEldredge Journal Citations Report, if I am correct is a Thomson Reuters' indexing of those supposed to be the best (or good enough) scientific journals.
My general answer would be yes. Doing reviews provides several benefits, first, you will see manuscripts before they are published. You will spend time reading new research in detail in a way you probably would not otherwise. You can use the experience to learn about how to write (or how not to write) a manuscript. You will contribute to your field as is expected from all scientists. Being appointed to review also signals someone has identified you as a possible expert in the field.
There are, however, some possible caveats. You should not spend time on manuscripts from disreputable journals. One way to gain insight into this is to ask your advisor about the journal if you do not feel you have the insight yourself. If the manuscript is far removed from your own work, you should probably also decline with the comment that it is not within your expertise.
It is true that this will take time off from your PhD work to some extent but you will be able to learn from the experience if you consider the process of evaluating work and assessing the standard in which manuscripts are submitted. Of course, one review, will not give you all insights, but given that you do a few during your PhD time, you will gain new insights into the publishing world other than submitting and revising your own work.
A final point: reviewing for a JCR journal or a journal that is not listed should not differ. The review work is equally important for all publications. A journal that is not listed can become listed if published work is of high quality and thereby referenced sufficiently.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.762984
| 2014-10-07T14:49:13 |
29547
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"JoncourBlanche",
"Jordi Vermeulen",
"Mohammed Albaqer Al-Ghizi",
"MrOrgon",
"Robert Andrews",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/81254",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/81255",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/81256",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/81259",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/81303"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9475",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29547"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Should I contact the journal after "with editor" for two months?
I submitted a paper to an Elsevier journal two months ago. I checked the status today and it was "with editor". I understand the reviewing process may take a while, but apparently it is not under review yet. I did a bit research and found that most papers in the journal are accepted less than 6 months. I am wondering if it is appropriate for me to send inquiry message to the editor in this case? Or a more general question is how long should I wait till sending them inquiry/reminder messages. Thanks.
You can always send a message to an editor to enquire about the status of your manuscript. But, you need to consider a few basic points.
First, try to assess how the journal operates, for example what time frames are usually met by people submitting work to the journal. Try also to see what is considered the norm in your field (assuming this journal is in that field). Since the way journals operate varies between both fields and amongst the journals themselves, you need to assess what is a reasonable time.
Second, Try to see if you can figure out what this message "with the editor" means. I would interpret it as not having been sent out for review yet. If that is true then it seems like posing a question would be timely. If the message indicates the paper may also be under review or possibly even back after review for the editor to evaluate, then two months is certainly not too long. So, understanding the process stages and how the messages relate to these may help you decide whether a request is timely or not.
Editors, should not mind responding to brief questions of this sort but if it is clear from their point that the request is clearly premature, it will add to the stress. In other words, an assessment from your side of the normal waiting time along with an appropriate question is a good ground for the communication. Such an assessment can be made by asking your peers and others who have submitted to the journal. You can also kindly ask the editor to provide some insights into the time frame of the review process. It is after all not uncommon that authors may be more or less ready to handle revisions at different times and knowing what to expect is therefore useful.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.763215
| 2015-04-21T20:45:57 |
43999
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bereket Kerega",
"Dr. Nick Goodnight",
"Hanne Pohjolainen",
"Jking Amillions",
"arqum farooq",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119474",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119475",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119476",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119480",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119481",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119482",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21915",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/23005",
"kaugustuslll vasquez",
"user137",
"yoki"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9476",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/43999"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
'Etiquette' of including course lecturer as author in a paper
Consider please the two following cases:
I took a graduate course, and I naturally did the final project on something related to my research subject. I got a nice conclusion from it. It wasn't nearly enough for publication, but I later on wrote a paper that had included material I got doing my course project. The 'size' of contribution (if that has any relevance) was about half a column from the entire paper. The course lecturer hadn't helped me especially, i.e. we didn't remotely discuss publishing anything.
I did another graduate course, in which the lecturer talked about his own research. Later on, unrelated to the course, I used the methods he taught and wrote a paper based on it.
These are two unrelated cases.
I was wondering if the lecturers should be included as authors in a paper in either case.
Was the lecturer in case 2 using standard methods you could have learned anywhere? Did he publish any papers using those methods that you could cite in your methods section instead of making him an author?
He indeed published, and I cited his work. In principle I could have learned this 'anywhere', but it would be difficult since there are no coursebooks in this subject as it's rather new/state-of-the-art.
I think you did all you should do then. Simply lecturing on a method doesn't make you an author. If so, every biochem professor who mentioned SDS-PAGE would have a ton of publications.
Authorship is reserved for people who contribute to the scientific output of the article. It is not clear to me that the cases you mention qualify although they could. The Vancouver Protocol (here as given by the ICMJE) provide a good basis for assessing authorship. If your course lecturer fulfil these criteria and thus actively participate in the creation of the article then all is fine. If the lecturer takes no active part then the appropriate way would be to place a note in the acknowledgement of the contribution.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.763423
| 2014-05-18T07:54:30 |
21097
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Davidbrcz",
"Giorgi Beridze",
"Lucas",
"Mr. Rooter of Tallahassee",
"Sh K",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/57657",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/57658",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/57659",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/57661",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/57662"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9477",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/21097"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Why does the APA/MLA format suggest the use of double-spacing?
For someone used to reading the typical single-spaced double-column ACM-styled papers, this format seems odd.
At first, I thought it's maybe because some people read better with it. However, I haven't found any evidence that suggests so.
In fact, afaict, the benefits in doing otherwise are;
less paper to print, thus saving trees.
less paper to shuffle around.
less time spent flipping pages to and fro to see math definitions because, for instance, some linear program took half a page.
faster identification of paragraphs (since double-spaces would be used only to demarcate paragraphs).
One might say that it promotes consistency. Even though I would disagree to that notion, I still don't get why they would even choose such an unwieldy format in the first place. Is this just one of those rules people don't question because "it's the way it's always been done" or am I missing something here?
You need to separate authoring the manuscript from the finished type-set layout of the journal. For manuscripts more loosely spaced single column format has been the norm. This is because before the digital age, manuscripts were handed in written on a type writer. There was no means for an author to produce sophisticated layouts. In addition, one would add comments manually in the manuscript which is why some journals also specify fiarly wide margins. The marked-up manuscript would then be sent by regular post to the editor and passed on to the author. The one column loosely spaced format has stayed although it is not necessary. That said, reading a loosely spaced single column manuscript is easier than a densely set double column format. The latter is of course more cost effective to print.
Many journals use (or at least allow) LaTeX templates for their submission. These commonly include settings for a "manuscript mode" which end up as single column, loosely spaced text but also a "layout mode" where the author can try the final format of the journal to assess the length of the finished paper. This also allows the journal to more or less automatically type set the final paper once it is accepted.
So the recommendation for manuscripts to be typed loosely spaced and single column, is partly tradition but also because that format is easier to read for the reviewer.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.763647
| 2015-04-29T04:13:41 |
44442
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"PeterBe",
"dqt",
"earthling",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/120828",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/120829",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/120830",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2692",
"roran_physician"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9478",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/44442"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Easier tracking of continuing professional development (CPD)
I am required to report my CPD efforts every semester. This lead me this ask this question. However, I find myself spending more time than I would like just keeping track of what I have read.
I guess there is a natural trade off between "doing what you do" and "tracking what you do" but, at present, my time is quite constrained. In order to get more done, and to maintain my focus while doing it, I would like some way to automate the tracking of what I read.
I have been using Mendeley and like it quite a bit. It seems a natural for that software to be able to report what you have read in the past n-months but I do not see that. While I can see everything I have read, I cannot see everything I have read in the past 6 or even 12 months (I can, however, see what I have "added" but I might add an article today but only read it 8 months from now).
Is there anyway to make tracking what you read easier
This isn't exactly the same, but I think might be a useful solution for you as well: for things like tracking travel planning or publications in process, I maintain spreadsheets for myself that track both each item and the workflow for dealing with it in little chunks over a long period of time. In each spreadsheet, I maintain one sheet per year, so that things don't become too crowded. I then keep all of my key workflow charts open in the background, such that it takes me only about 15 seconds to tab over, make an entry, and return.
Something similar might work for you on tracking CPD. Have a column for the items in you queue, another column for when you actually start reading it, and a third for when you finish reading it. It's not automated, but it's lightweight enough that if you get in the habit of tracking, you should be able to do it with minimal time cost.
Actually, this is exactly what I do now...I'm just looking for a way to (a) save a little time, and (b) avoid forgetting to log something.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.764159
| 2013-07-22T03:48:18 |
11294
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Aeverus",
"InfoMathze",
"Jacob Davis",
"Massimo Ortolano",
"S. Diaxo",
"earthling",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/100631",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20058",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2692",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28110",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28112",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28121",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28130",
"user2871729"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9479",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11294"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
MOOC / video integration into classroom schedule
Please forgive the rambling intro...
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are all the rage when people write about teaching. So many articles have been written about MOOCs killing universities while others complain about the attention. Some have even discussed some community colleges using MOOCs with the classroom teacher filling more of a tutorial role using MOOCs for the bulk of their material.
As I reflect on my own classroom experience (as a lecturer) I find that a lot of my time is spent covering the basics while it would be much more interesting to focus on higher-level concepts. However, in the end, I have only a certain number of hours in the class with my students. If I have 60 hours and it takes 50 hours to cover the basics, there is little time remaining to cover much in the way of higher-level ideas.
So, I've been considering assigning MOOC videos as homework and using class time as discussion time, much the way one would using the case method. While my experience with the case method has not been fantastic, I'm not ready to give up on it yet.
My question is: What is the best way to integrate MOOC videos or other videos as part of the curriculum? Are there any major pitfalls that I should consider before completing my plan for the coming semester?
Though this is an old question, I'm a bit surprised that your university allows you to do this, because I see it as a way to artificially increase the amount of lecture hours.
The best way to integrate off-line video content into a face-to-face course is to make the videos worth watching in the first place. If the videos are not well-made, or if they are too long, or if they are only tangentially related to the topic at hand, there's a good chance students won't bother to spend time watching the videos.
However, if students can learn basic information effectively in a relatively short amount of time, and you structure the class so that this information is needed to complete their homework assignments, there's a good chance they'll start learning from the videos.
The videos need not be MOOC videos. A video can be something from the Kahn academy, something you found on YouTube, or something you create on your campus.
Does your institution have a Center or Office that helps professors with DL classes? If so, they may have equipment and expertise to help you create your own videos, if you have trouble finding existing content to fit your needs, and have determined that that's your best course of action.
Once you have a collection of suitable videos ready to integrate into the course, I'd avoid telling the students that the videos are mandatory viewing. Instead, I'd simply make this a commonly-heard refrain in your class:
And then you complete the problem by doing X, but X is something we're not going to cover in class. If you're not sure how to do X, I've posted a link to a video.
If you make the video something that they need to watch before class, there's a high chance the students won't bother. But, if watching it will help them complete a homework assignment, I think the chances are much better. There's a tangible reward for watching the video; it becomes a worthwhile time investment. It helps if the videos are short – say, 10 minutes at most.
So, I'd try to structure the course such that the videos are assigned, and they are tied to a written homework assignment that will be turned in. You can then start covering the more advanced material in class after the students have turned in the assignment, with a bit more assurance that a majority of the students have really watched the video.
I'd also explain up front (in the course syllabus) why you are leveraging videos in the first place. Tell them directly that your aim is to exploit technology. Explain that spending class time covering basic concepts is not an effective use of class time, now that we are in the age of YouTube and the Internet, and there are other ways they can learn.
Use the Discussion Board feature of your institution's LMS so that students can ask questions if they've watched the video, but are still confused about something. That way, you won't create the impression that you're just trying to take the easy way out with a detached teaching style, but that you are instead striving to leverage technology in multiple ways to create a more effective learning climate overall.
Lastly, try to post the video links in your LMS in a way that you'll be able to see which students have opened the videos, and which students haven't bothered. Such reports aren't foolproof (just because a student clicked on a link doesn't mean they've actually watched the video attentively, e.g.). However, it might be worth knowing that, in a class of 23, only 8 students have even bothered to open the video.
Very useful points. Thanks. I do wish my university has a LMS or DL or anything related to technology. The technology I use I have to find or build myself. Still, your point on requiring for discussion vs. needed for homework is quite helpful. Cheers!
I use a flipped classroom for one of the classes I teach, and I use the following three methods to check whether students are actually watching them:
I do a quiz every single time on the content of the videos. Don't watch it and don't do well.
I provide students a chance to ask questions at the beginning of class. (This happens before the quiz. Depending on how hard the video was a complete lack of questions is a dead tell that either this year's students are all geniuses or few people watched it).
I can estimate (roughly) from the view counts on the videos if the students are watching them.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.764741
| 2020-04-23T08:17:31 |
148101
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Caleb Stanford",
"Captain Emacs",
"Chris H",
"Jon Custer",
"RoundHouse",
"Scott Seidman",
"Wolfgang Bangerth",
"chrylis -cautiouslyoptimistic-",
"chwarr",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111470",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123169",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15391",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15477",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20457",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/31149",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/45857",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7043",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7368",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8494",
"joriki"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9480",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/148101"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How can I introduce a fourth reason after having stated that there are three main reasons?
In an academic paper, I have written "There are three main arguments for why X is not Z."
I have then discussed them like this:
"First, .... (of medium length)
The second argument is that ... (a bit long)
The third and most important argument is that ... (longer)" **
** I did not simply use "First,... Second,... Third..." because there is some distance between the arguments. For example, the second argument is two pages long. I think writing "The third and most important argument ..." reminds the reader what these arguments are for.
Now I have realized that I have to make one more argument. And I want to start with "A fourth argument is that ..." after the third one.
Is it a problem that I stated in the beginning that I will give "three main arguments", but I give four? I don't want to say "four main arguments".
The three main arguments are widely discussed by experts in the field. The fourth argument is something that has only been pointed out (in two lines) by one author. The Thing is, my supervisor likes this fourth argument and thinks I should include it in my paper. That is why I want to mention it. I don't want to say that it is trivial because it can become important sometime in the future - just that it is not a main argument (or widely discussed) for why X is not Z.
What is the best way to introduce the fourth argument after the third while maintaining that the first three are the main arguments?
"In addition to these three main reasons, there are cases where..."
Don't do it like this :-).
If you've got 3 stuck in your head but need 4, think out of the box: Just say "There are four main reasons:". You are finding yourself constrained by what you had previously written. You need to break out of this and consider everything you wrote before as mutable.
@WolfgangBangerth But the fourth isn't a "main" reason. It has only been brought up by one study, where as the other 3 have been discussed in 10 to 15 studies.
@joriki. I had a feeling what I would see when I clicked that
Consider putting the main/third argument first. There's a balance between "getting to the point" before readers abandon and using build-up/litany as a rhetorical device.
@ScottSeidman Are you saying you expected it?
@AlQ would it be true to say that there are three traditional arguments, but in this case a fourth is also of interest (or something similar)? Or "While we normally consider 3 arguments for..., I'd like to draw your attention to a fourth. This is still being developed but is interesting because..."? Or would that misrepresent the situation
@ChrisH I think that fits the scenario pretty well.
I did not simply use "First,... Second,... Third..." because there is some distance between the arguments.
I suggest that you open with:
There are three main arguments for why X is not Z: A, B, and C.
Then, rather than First, .... (of medium length)
The second argument is that ... (a bit long)
The third and most important argument is that ... (longer), you can use A, B, and C as section/subsection/paragraph headers.
Now I have realized that I have to make one more argument. And I want to start with "A fourth argument is that ..." after the third one. Is it a problem that I stated in the beginning that I will give "three main arguments" but I give four? I don't want to say "four main arguments".
That's a problem, just write There are four main arguments for why X is not Z: A, B, C, and D. and use D as a heading.
The three main arguments are widely discussed by experts in the field. The fourth argument is something that has only been pointed out (in two lines) by one author.
You could revise the opening as:
The literature agrees upon three arguments for why X is not Z: A, B, and C [1,2,3,4,5].
And follow that with:
A fourth argument has also been identified: D [6].
To learn how to keep piling on arguments, take a page out from why "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition." (Google it)
Yes, I'd have a section "Why X is not Z" with an introduction along the lines of "there are 3 main arguments...A, B, and C. A fourth (D) is also discussed." then subsections for each arguments. Paragraphs would work if they were shorter, but id they run to multiple pages it';s worth using (sub-)subsections so they appear in the contents. That also means it's worth listing/introducing them. I don't use paragraph headings but instead structure the paragraph to start with the key phrase in italics
Introduce all four reasons in the introduction and use them as a structuring device for your presentation. You may set the fourth reason apart, if you want to highlight it as different from the first three, like so:
Conventional wisdom holds that in order to effectively flab widgets,
one needs to consider three factors: First, ... Second, ... Third,
.... However, as detailed in section X of this contribution, a
fourth factor is no less important: namely, the effectiveness of the flabbing process depends largely on the type of widget concerned.
"There are four arguments for why X is not Z."
You could expand this answer by elaborating on why you suggest this.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.765216
| 2020-10-09T22:37:55 |
156425
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bamboo",
"Bob Brown",
"Buffy",
"Captain Emacs",
"Jack Aidley",
"JeffE",
"Kimball",
"Mark",
"Mark Morgan Lloyd",
"Minions",
"Robbie Goodwin",
"Tom",
"WetlabStudent",
"emory",
"gnometorule",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/112007",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123103",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/127956",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/16183",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19607",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/3849",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43138",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4384",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/45857",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/45859",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5614",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75255",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75368",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8101",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/92334",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/94783",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/980",
"nanoman",
"paul garrett",
"wimi"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9481",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/156425"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Should I tell my supervisor that I added his/her name as a reference for my next academic position?
Recently I finished my PhD level and I did an interview with a research group for a postdoc position. After my review, they asked me for some references to contact them.
I choose my supervisor and other visiting professors as references.
At this point, should I contact each of the professors that I added in my references list (including my supervisor) and tell them that they might be contacted soon to be asked about me?
I am asking this question as I am not good in "academic protocols". It could be yes (kind of respect as I am asking for his/her "help"), or no (it's something obvious that s/he could be asked by someone about his/her students).
Why the downvote(s)?
You should ask anyone who you intend to serve as your reference if they are ok with it, before doing so. It’s not an academic thing especially; same in other situations.
Thanks @gnometorule .. I think your answer is reasonable.
Yes, let them know and probably apologize for not asking first. I doubt there will be any problem.
Never, ever, use another's name for anything without asking first.
Echoing everyone else's comments... :) For that matter, if you do not ask/request in advance, you may be unpleasantly surprised that someone's perception of you is not as positive as you might have thought. So you should give people a chance to not be a reference, by asking something like "would you be willing to give me a helpful/positive reference [letter]?" Not just a letter/reference, but a helpful one. Some letter writers do not realize they should simply refuse... to inadvertently, thoughtlessly condemn the applicant.
@BobBrown Not even to nominate them for a prize? I think what you mean is: Don't use their name in a way that implies they know or agree to something that they don't. This requires understanding which uses of someone's name imply such things. There are many that don't and are fine, like citing someone's work.
@nanoman The person that wishes the reference should not name a referee without their consent. This is quite different from a nomination.
Yes absolutely, no-one likes getting a reference request out of the blue. I actually first learned this at school when I put my personal tutor's name down as a reference for work experience or something like that and he told me that you always need to ask permission first before putting them down as a reference.
@nanoman Nope, not even to nominate someone for a prize. I am reminded of David Bowie declining a CBE and Marlon Brando boycotting the Academy Awards. And then there's this one: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/103150/16183
Your supervisor has a moral duty to provide a reference for you, but it's still polite to ask. Not least because it's usually best to check whether they'll give you a good one.
@BobBrown that is too strong a statement. For example, one normally does not ask each (or any) author of a paper before citing the paper.
Your supervisor has a moral duty to provide a reference for you — No, your supervisor has a moral duty to help you. If they believe that they cannot write you a helpful letter, they have a moral duty not to provide a letter.
@wimi OK, I concede that citing another's published works doesn't need permission. I'd argue that citing a personal communication does, however. I can't edit my comment, so how about this: You need permission for anything that implies an obligation, however small, or reveals information not already public.
I do not need permission to list @BobBrown as a professional reference. However, to do so would be unwise because Bob Brown does not know me professionally and so honest replies would be "I don't know this guy.", "I can not recommend this guy.", etc. Why would I do that when there are people who do know me and will say nice things about me? How do I know they will say nice things about me? because I asked them. Even though "I don't know this guy" is not technically a bad reference, most people would infer a bad reference.
@emory Oh, you can absolutely use my name without permission. The question, however, was "should I?" not "can I?" If, to follow your hypothetical, you were to do so, I'd say, "I've never heard of this guy. Someone who will fabricate a reference may have other bad habits." So, if we don't know each other, you should not give my name as a reference. To be at least relatively certain of a good reference, you should ask in advance.
Of course you should, from both common courtesy and professional ethics.
@BobBrown I would hope that OP has a much, much better relation with his supervisor than I with you and asking would be unnecessary.
You should ask anyone who you intend to serve as your reference if they are OK with it, before doing so. It’s not an academic thing specifically; the same would apply in other situations.
Comment copied to answer, as suggested by @Buffy.
While correct, this answer doesn't answer OP's question and isn't helpful in the current situation. PLL's answer below fits better I think.
The answer can be paraphrased as "No, you need to apologise in person immediately" which is entirely adequate.
As gnometorule’s answer says, in general, you should ask permission in advance (for a reference, and generally for anything which is implicitly making a commitment for someone).
But the question asks about a situation where you have already given someone’s name as a reference without asking them — partly through inexperience, and partly because of being put on the spot after the interview rather than asked earlier in the application. Given that, I suggest writing to the referees as soon as possible to let them know, apologise for not asking first, and check whether they’re OK with it. The letter could look something like the following:
Dear XXXX, Following an interview for YYYY, I was asked to provide some names of possible references, and I gave your name as one possibility. I’m sorry I hadn’t asked you about this in advance, so I’d like to check now whether you are happy to act as a reference for me? If not, please let me know, and I can contact YYYY to take your name off the list.
The given situation isn’t ideal, but it’s not terrible either — it’s quite understandable how it arose, and I don’t think most referees would be particularly upset by it. Just try to avoid it happening again.
Thanks @PLL for your clarification.
so I’d like to check now whether you are happy to act as a reference for me? If not, please let me know, and I can contact YYYY to take your name of the list.... I don’t think most referees would be particularly upset by it. - As a professor, I might or might not be upset about this. It largely depends on how well I know student (I don't know what the OP means by "visiting professors") and our previous interactions. It also might depend on what country/system this is in.
To tack onto Kimball's comment, I'm in a similar situation to the OP. If I put any of my supervisors down they'd almost certainly be fine with me putting their names as references without telling them before hand - we meet once or twice a week, we're on good terms, plus they know I'm looking for work. I could turn up to a meeting and tell them I put them as a reference and it would almost surely be fine. The situation for someone who kind of knows me would be completely different - that's when the approach in this answer is most appropriate
@kimball As described by the asker, they were put on the spot, unaware that they needed references. They probably should have provided their supervisors name, then said, "let me send you the rest via email, as their contact info has escaped my mind momentarily," which would give them time to quickly ask. But given they were put on the spot in an interview, this is a rather understandable situation, and really the only way the ref could be upset is either (1) the ref actually has a negative opinion of the asker or (2) the ref is unreasonable.
Absolutely tell them, but in truth if they said "please don't do that" you would remove their name - so I'm going to state it as I did originally (edited for clarification) - Absolutely ask them.
When you are faced with questions such as this throughout your life, which you will be, it's good to have a foundation or base (I dare to leave morality off of this response but it does feel natural to call it a moral base but I digress) that keeps your actions in line with who you are and who you strive to be as a human being.
In this case, you are concerned about asking for one reason or another. It appears it's not something easy for you to do and as it may never even be noticed or come up beyond this one letter there's a certain logic of "why even do something difficult if it may not matter at all".
You do it because it's the "right thing" to do and your stomach knows it. I did put "right thing" in quotes as it's often phrased as such in colloquialisms but please don't take that as a denigration, it really is the right thing to do and I'm in no way mocking that. The stomach or gut reaction to things in life is actually extremely important and not given it's place in our decision making as the quantification of such feelings isn't established and thus we incorrectly assign it a lower value than what it does in fact represent in terms of importance, use and overall big picture frameworks for building a better society and self.
You wrote this post because it is nagging you. If something is nagging you, address it. It's very simple. If what you are doing to address the nagging isn't negative, hurtful or damaging to yourself or others then the nagging must be a concern that NOT addressing it could be just those things - hurtful, negative or damaging at some point in the future.
Your concerned you may be doing something "wrong", something that goes against who you are and who you want to be in this world as a person and your writing of this post is a perfect example of that concern which isn't necessarily at the top of mind but more subconscious if you will.
Good people ask these questions and seek these answers, so my respect to you for asking and taking responses.
This may read as over assured or single minded in a way, and the single minded part can partially be supported I'm sure, but it is intended to be an open and honest response using the philosophy and method I have come to respect and try to apply in my own life - nothing more.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.766055
| 2017-04-10T14:46:43 |
87874
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Fred Douglis",
"O. R. Mapper",
"StrongBad",
"Tobias Kildetoft",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12592",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14017",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4246",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/58009",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/72009",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929",
"tsttst",
"user120938"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9482",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/87874"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Is there a database of every scientist with their scientific interests?
Is there an open database of every scientist with their scientific interests? For example, I want to find a list of all scientists with their contact details based in the UK, whose scientific interests include, say, databases. I have an idea and I would like to approach some of them with it.
Edit: such database does exist, I used it almost 10 years ago for different reasons, cannot remember its website anymore :(
If you really mean every scientist regardless of country or field, then the answer is no. If you mean every scientist in a particular subfield in a particular country, then possibly.
Not every. Half of them, even 1% would be enough.
If you have no idea who does research in the topic then your ideas need to be researched better before researchers will be likely to respond in the first place.
@TobiasKildetoft: I fully agree in the described case. Note, though, that the problem could indeed occur legitimately, such as when doing "meta-research" (research about the processes and state of research).
relatively good coverage:
https://orcid.org/orcid-search/search
I don't think this database exists, but you might try searching the literature archives. Databases like Web of Science might help you.
I too am not familiar with such a database. If it existed, I might be loathe to appear in it. I'm sure the very well known professors get contacted with "isn't this a great idea that would interest you" often enough already. The more this happens, the less likely people will even look at such inquiries.
Such databases exist. They are called publication catalogues or a scientific libraries.
You are not going to get a more accurate and uniformly complete picture of what researchers are working on other than by looking at their research output. There is no detailed, standardized, and complete classification of research topics, either, and if there were one, it would quickly be moot1, as research topics are merged and new ones are created all the time. Moreover, knowing that a given researcher works on databases is not going to help you much: They might do research about the performance optimization of DB engines, or about domain-specific DB access languages, or about conveying the contents of DBs to blind users, or about the legal ramifications of possibly slanderous statements in crowd-sourced DBs ... you get the idea.
After a basic pre-selection of publications by keywords, you will have to look at each researcher and their profile individually to determine whether their research interests are actually related to your idea.
1: I am looking at you, ACM paper classification.
I don't think publication catalogs necessarily provide contact information, but one should be able to "join" that data with public info (web searches) to get the right contact info.
I agree with the previous answers that suggest publucation databases as the way to go. Additionally, you can use the advanced search of ORCiD and search for keywords but the results are only as good as the keywords which have to be entered by the researchers themselves.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.766337
| 2016-12-13T01:54:49 |
81506
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Federico Poloni",
"Ian_Fin",
"Jasper",
"Jeromy Anglim",
"Olexandr Konovalov",
"Pat Devlin",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/18124",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/29001",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/35918",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/58418",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/62",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65534",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/958",
"user0721090601"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9483",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/81506"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Whether to include a middle initial in author name on academic publications?
When a person is starting their academic career and submitting their first paper, they need to give some consideration to what their official academic name should be. Consistency across publications is an important principle. A common consideration is whether to include a middle initial in academic publications. Thus, I was interested in what general advice you would give to a PhD student or early career researcher deciding whether to include their middle initial in their author name on publications.
A few possible principles:
Always include a middle initial because it reduces the chance that your name will be the same as another academic (including cases where only initials are shown in references), or because it looks more distinguished.
Only include a middle initial if your name is common, because there is a simplicity in just having a first and last name that is desirable where possible.
So, in summary:
What general advice would you give to PhD students and early career researchers about whether to include a middle initial in their publication author name?
Would you give different advice depending on the name (e.g., John K. Smith compared to Ambrosia K. Hooperdinkel)?
Note that this is different to some related questions about (a) whether you can add a middle initial to previous publications (b) the importance of name consistency, (c) how to cite papers with inconsistent initials.
I used to just go by first and last name until I lived in Spain. All of a sudden my two names felt horribly inadequate compared to the 3-6 names (with possibly even more words!). I've used my full name — first, middle, and last, no initials — ever since.
You should use whatever name you like [provided it's professional enough]. It's your paper, and your name, and you should be proud of them both. For me, I realized that I prefer my shortened name "Pat Devlin" instead of my given name "Patrick Devlin," so I just decided to start going by it for all my papers, and I'm happy with the choice.
I chose to use my middle initial but now have a collection of outputs with and without it. From my N=1, there'll always be those collaborators that submit something without thinking to check about middle initials.
@NajibIdrissi no doubt this is both culture specific and subjective, but I was once told by a senior colleague that having a middle initial can look more "distinguished". This colleague was fairly proper. I've reworded to "distinguished", I think that may capture the view of perhaps a minority.
@JackSt.Claire Officially I have three first names (2-4 is quite common in the Netherlands, only one is used in day-to-day life) and no middle name. I tried putting my 2nd and 3rd first name in the middle name field, but this results in my 3rd one being dropped. In that article I'm J.H. lastname instead of J.H.A. lastname and I feel incomplete.
It's a matter of author's own preferences whether to include the middle initial or not. It's better to be consistent from the beginning, and do not use different styles in different papers, although the author might be able to "glue" together their records in some bibliographical services if they treat different spellings of their name as different persons (I have managed to do this on Scopus for myself, but there may be other databases which I don't know).
This, however, does not solve the main problem - it only reduces the chance that two authors will have the same name or initials, but it does not eliminate it completely. This is why authors are advised to establish ORCID:
Quoting http://orcid.org/, this is "a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes you from every other researcher and, through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports automated linkages between you and your professional activities ensuring that your work is recognized".
Some publishers already allow the author to specify their ORCID during submission, and some others already require it, for example PLOS One and the Royal Society.
Another useful feature of ORCID is that it allows the author to keep a public profile with a list of their publications (and other optional details). Even more, one could link their ORCID profile to Impactstory (https://impactstory.org/) and track online impact of their research. As an example, by now I've already stopped maintaining a list of publications on my personal homepage since I can just put there links to several databases, ORCID being one of them, and most of them (as reported by Impactstory) are in open access anyway.
I wouldn't recommend dropping the publication list on one's homepage. Its main benefit is that you can add free pdf files for everyone to download (while typically Orcid and the other scholarly databases can't, because of licensing issues).
@FedericoPoloni yes, this is just an example which works for me, not a recommendation. I've made an edit to explain why. By the way ORCID does not store items itself - it keeps only metainformation, including links to their original location.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.766856
| 2017-04-09T13:41:06 |
87826
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Captain GouLash",
"Fred Douglis",
"bekah",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4246",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/56718",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/64786"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9484",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/87826"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How do I start publishing when my job is not research related?
I finished my masters thesis (computer science) a year ago and had only a slight chance to become a graduate student (I declined the offer because it was too risky for me).
Now I am working as a software engineer for almost a year. I still want to do a PhD and I am convinced I can do it one day. I even told my company that I want to do a PhD and if there exists a chance to do it in cooperation with the company, I will do it.
Nevertheless, I find myself reading books about the life of a PhD student, how to write a dissertation and so on...but I feel like I am getting nowhere closer to my goal. I would like to publish something that I can show to research institutes of interest (something to add to my CV that is research related).
Right now I am interested in Software Architecture, I also read other publications even if they are not related to my current job as a software engineer. I feel like I could squeeze some of my knowledge into some kind of publication, I just don't know how to do it.
Could you give me any hints or even books that focus on publication for the field of computer science?
All the books I read so far are either medicine research related or very global...
To be honest, I think it would be extremely difficult to publish independently, in a forum that would matter. That is, there are predatory publications that will take just about anything, including a publication consisting solely of the repeated sentence Get me off Your F--king Mailing List ... but if you want to publish real work, there are a lot of hurdles.
I'm not going to google for you to point at how-to's that must say things like how you need to state a thesis, provide background, do some evaluation, compare to prior art, and so on. I don't think the issue is the mechanics of writing a paper, though the English in your original post indicate that will be a problem if you publish in English. (I sympathize with those for whom it is not their first language, but it doesn't make it easier to publish.)
The issue is really, as a junior software engineer, is it really true that you can could squeeze some of [your] knowledge into some kind of publication?
It's surely the case that some people have published with minimal background and sometimes even made monumental contributions. But the bar goes up with time. There's a lot of cumulative work. If you really think you can add to that, you probably should start with the "prior art" part I mentioned before. Read a bunch of papers, for instance in a conference pertaining to your area of interest, and see if there is something there where you think you can add on to it.
But I think a better approach is to do accomplished work as a software engineer, then apply to a PhD program, and have the professors teach you what is involved in publishing.
I am very grateful for your honest answer.
I had a job interview for a job as researcher (before my sw engineer job) where they asked me why I didnt publicate anything. They stated that I could use my bachelor or master thesis and publish a portion out of it. One of them said that I should not be afraid to write something down and publicate, I should just do it. Nevertheless I have no idea how to do those things. Get a latex template from a journal and just start writing something down? I don't know.
I responded to another answer but the comment applies here too: I agree that it might be possible to publish work from the master's degree, but if so,isn't it likely the the professor would have pushed for it at the time? But that is certainly an avenue to pursue.
I'll offer a different answer to the above, as I'm in a very similar position to you.
I don't think publishing 'independently' it is necessarily as hard as people assume, if you have some university education behind you. I put independently in quotation marks, because I think your best avenue would be to reach out to somebody at the university where you completed your master's, eg getting into contact with your thesis supervisor, and see if your thesis is worth condensing into something of publishable quality.
An alternative would be to approach other professors at the university, if you have other connections from your masters. This is what I did, although I had already done the research myself, and mostly needed the guidance on how to best write up the paper. It's also really helpful when writing papers to have someone much smarter than you to bounce your ideas off. They will also know the field you're wanting to publish in, and can help you select a suitable conference, etc.
If you get in touch with any members of staff, they will probably expect you to have a specific research problem in mind. As someone who isn't a PhD student, you and the person you choose to work with won't have the implicit professional relationship, and so it may seem a little bizarre if you contact them with a view to publish just something, rather than approaching them to talk specifically about a research interest.
I agree that it might be possible to publish work from the master's degree, but if so,isn't it likely the the professor would have pushed for it at the time?
@FredDouglis not necessarily. It could be a non-trivial amount of work to take a thesis to a publishable paper, and the professor mightn't have even considered it. By the time theses are submitted/read (in the UK at least?) the 'student' will have practically graduated, won't be officially associated with the school anymore (no access to buildings), and mightn't want to put any effort into research-related work on top of their job.
Regardless of whether or not you decide to pursue a Ph.D, publishing is in principle not something you set out to do in advance, this is always going to be the result of research work that has results that the scientific community is likely going to be interested in. This means that you need to do a lot of literature research first to understand what the problems the researchers are dealing with today are. If you then do your own research and come up with results that you think the professionals would want to read about, then you can consider writing up an article.
So, while there are always going to be exceptions, in principle a publication by you on some topic means that you've mastered that topic to such a degree that you should be considered to be a top expert (at least when one narrows things down to what's covered in your article). This is the very reason why a publication can help increase your chances to get an academic job.
You should not reverse the logic here and try to get to a publication for the sake if it. There are junk journals where you can get away with publishing mediocre work that editors of normal journals would have rejected. But publishing in such journals won't help you much, most researchers will get a visceral reaction when they see the title of such a journal on your list of publications.
Publishing as an independent researcher is possible, I've published quite few articles outside of my professional research area. But it helps to have had research experience in one field to be able to do this. I'm quite sure that I could not have written up a proper research article had I not had studied at research level at university.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.767490
| 2022-06-16T12:13:24 |
186151
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Buffy",
"Chim3ra",
"Daevin",
"Terry Loring",
"Tom",
"Wrzlprmft",
"Yacine",
"ZeroTheHero",
"cag51",
"gnometorule",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/110722",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/124237",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/131916",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4249",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4384",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63639",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/70958",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75368",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7734",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79875",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/90441",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/92334",
"penelope",
"user151413"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9485",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/186151"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How can you handle your professor not doing his job (as a postdoc)?
For the past two years, I have been working as a postdoc under a new German professor with what I consider to be an atrocious work ethic:
His presence on campus is limited only to when in-person teaching is involved. The rest of the time he stays at home hundreds of kilometers away.
He is disorganized, often misses to register grades for students, or respond to their emails (I know this because they contact me instead with "what is happening here?").
Zero research initiative. He relies on other people to put his name in papers.
No support for his PhD students; he has had one since 2016 who is supposed to defend this summer, with two workshop papers since 2018, and I have met her and she is not the problem (the field is computer science).
He is constantly delaying procedures that just need to be signed-off by him, like reimbursements for travels (I've waited for mine for over four months for something that is done in two weeks tops).
Suffice to say, I have worked in universities in four other European countries and Australia, and I have always been the lazier one.
So, I walked to the dean's office and I asked him what the point is of someone having a job that he can't do. He told me that my attitude is not nice, and that this is normal in German universities as they “don’t follow the US model” (whatever that means).
Two months ago, I got a call by the president. He told me that I what I describe is indeed not professional behavior, but nothing really happened after that. In fact, I still see students looking for him and not finding him, missing grades, and so on.
I don’t really know what my options are. The dean basically suggested me to shut up and just do my own work as if I am independent here (I don’t have to involve the professor), but I think that this is nonsense, as I’m not a slave to ignore what is going on in my environment.
I would resign, but I like the city here, and why should I resign anyway for someone else?
Let me know your thoughts, please. Perhaps I have been extremely lucky so far to have worked with dozens of different professors/researchers that had some baseline qualities and work ethic and now I am acting paranoid?
You don't describe that it really affects you or your work in any way.
A minor thing: with two workshop papers since 2018 – Is this good or bad? (This really depends on the subfield.)
Who is "the president" in this context? It's not a typical position at most academic institutions I've worked it.
@penelope here in Germany this person has the title "President of the University", in German "Präsident der Universität". As far as I know, he has the final say in many things, because I have seen his signature in some of my documents.
"why should I resign anyway for someone else?" - because if things don't change you'll be stuck working in a situation that causes you grief. You have to weigh the +'ves and -'ves and determine if it's worth it to stay. Also: you don't get to change every environment to what is best for you. Be aware that some things are out of your control, and you need to either adapt to that environment or seek a new one. Eventually you may be the decision-maker that can enforce your will, but you aren't right now. Do what you can if you think it'd be better, but if nothing changes you may need to move on.
@Wrzlprmft I just saw this, but 2 workshop papers for a PhD in Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence in particular is almost zero. And, again, this is not to discredit the student, she has been working hard and is capable, but if you are not getting feedback or support from your supervisor, you can get a record like that quite easily.
@Chim3ra I know someone in the same field who got his PhD with one short paper under the supervision of a senior professor internationally ranked in the top 50. Publishing papers is not a condition (surely highly recommended to validate the PhD work) to obtain a PhD (unless explicitly mentioned in the PhD regulation of the faculty). Since you are not a professor and I assume not habilitated -which means not allowed to supervise PhD theses-, how you can judge the assessment of several professors (supervisor, examiners, PhD committee)???
@Younes I don't understand, in general in a PhD defense anyone with a PhD degree can ask questions and/or make a remark. It is not about supervising a PhD, it is about making a judgement on another PhD, which anyone with a PhD degree has the gravitas to make.
@Chim3ra I strongly disagree. In my university (Germany) for example, only PhDs with habilitation are allowed to ask questions during the defense. I presume it is the case in most german universities. Second, it is not about judging the thesis but about judging the judges.
Given the inactivity in research you describe, I wonder why you choose to do a postdoc with that person to start with.
If this doesn't affect your work, I suggest, like the president, to let it go and finish your projects so that you can move on. It is their problem to resolve, not yours.
Pressing it too hard can negatively affect your own future if someone in the system is vindictive, say that professor or the chair.
You will find a lot of unfortunate things in academia that you have no real power to correct, especially as a junior person.
If you want to do something positive, and have the time and energy, do what you can to benefit the students that you see affected.
Well, it DOES affect my work to some extent, my motivation mostly, because it makes me feel like a slave here. I have worked for many different Professors in the past, and they always seemed professional, and always showed up, so I was feeling grateful and I was trying to give back as much as I could and involved them in my papers with pleasure.
@Chim3ra “it makes me feel like a slave here”: welcome to this part of the postdoc world.
@ZeroTheHero well, it shouldn't be this way, and if nobody does sth about it, nth will ever be done. Postdocs are already bad employment as they are, Profs shouldn't create more problems by bottle-necking procedures. In another comment of mine I said that I will leave for a tenure-track abroad and will use the rest of my time here to take this to the Ministry level.
What you can do for others
Professors in Germany (and other countries) are very difficult to fire. Most failed professors end up without a group, or one or two employees that are come with their professorship instead of third-party funding. They are like a permanent teaching staff with somewhat higher salary.
Complaining to the department, faculty, or similar is not bad, but only if such complaints accumulate can you expect for something to happen, though even then I would not expect too much. Unless you can motivate others to complain too, you probably did all you can do in this respect.
You can also warn people considering to join the group (if such people exist) about what to expect. If required, you can thinly veil this, e.g.: “In this group, you have much freedom to decide the direction of your research, but are also expected to work very independently.”
What you can do for others and yourself
If you have the capacity, use this situation to gather experience and CV points by taking the role of your professor where he is failing, for example:
Advise other supervisees of your professor in research and writing and earn authorships as well as some supervision experience.
Publish your papers without your supervisor as a co-author showing that you can do research independently.
Establish collaborations as you seem fit.
Take higher responsibilities in teaching and thus gain experience with organising courses etc.
(Basically what your dean suggested:) Organise your own time and explore your own research ideas.
Ideally, when you are interviewing for a higher-ranking position, you can honestly say that you have experience with these things.
What I wouldn’t do is to get involved in any grant applications as they mostly enable your supervisor to harm more advisees in the future.
General caveat
Many of the above suggestions can obviously backfire when your professor feels attacked and can muster the energy for revenge. It is up to you to judge how likely this is and how much you prioritise security over doing good and a chance to benefit from the situation. On the other hand, an escalation after a serious backfire may be what eventually brings down your professor (in the sense that he cannot find students, supervisees, or funding anymore).
In this group, you have much freedom to decide the direction of your research, but are also expected to work very independently - I know things are more understated in Europe compared to the US, but even so, if someone said this to me, it would never even occur to me that there was a "thinly-veiled" message here. Would most Germans pick up on this?
@cag51: Actually, criticism is usually much more understated in the US and direct in Germany. Still, I think a lot depends on the tone here though. If you are saying this seriously in a “you really need to know this” context, I think most people will get that this is not normal. And even if not, the plaintext message already is something that may be a red flag for some people. (Mind that I personally hardly ever do subtext and would probably be very direct in this situation, but that really depends on what risk you wish to take. )
@cag51 As an Englishman the ''very'' in front of ''independently'' is something I would pick up on as a vague warning that they are basically going to provide zero support or assistance.
This is a great answer, and indeed I have been doing most of the things you mention! I have organized my own course earlier in the year, I have worked with a BSc student and produced a conference publication and even submitted our work to a journal, I supervise 2 MSc students currently, I collaborate with people abroad, some have even visited me here. My main issue is, I cannot really apply for national/international grants without the support of a Professor (in theory, I can apply for national grants, but I will be competing against Professors and big labs).
@Chim3ra: Do you really want to apply for a grant to be “used” at your current location or rather somewhere else? In the latter case, the default (at least in my academic vicinity) is that the hosting institution would help you. Also note that many grants are aimed at postdocs in particular or evaluation for first-time applicants is special (e.g., for typical DFG grants). Of course, it may still be difficult to obtain a grant without mentoring.
@Wrzlprmft Well, the rest of the current location here is nice, I have lunch and chats with other Profs, and the city is nice too, so at least I wanted to give it a try. Some months ago I also entered the Habilitation phase here exactly because I wanted to maximize my efforts here and actually do some things (teach, supervise, apply for grants, etc).
@Chim3ra: In that case, I would confidentially consult some of the other professors on your situation. This depends a lot on the local power structures, how much support your professor has, and particularly how much support you can get from somebody else. Depending on these things are, you can suffer from depending on your professor for quite a while or not at all.
@Wrzlprmft I can tell you this: the prof was a non-tenure track junior prof here before getting tenure, despite a poor research record (worse than mine actually, but I don't want to judge performance solely by 1 metric) and some complaints about teaching. Soon after I started here, he was told to find a professorship in some other German university too, so he made some applications, which didn't go through. So, there seems to be some support, but also profs who don't like him. The previous Dean would also not refer to him as a Prof, but as a Mr, and Germans are very formal with using titles.
Regarding "professors are hard to fire", it should be noted that the only real duty (which can be enforced, and not doing it can lead to firing) is teaching a certain amount of hours. Everything else is, on a formal level, optional, and cannot be a reason to fire a professor.
@user151413: Everything else is, on a formal level, optional – Do you really mean formal here? I am pretty sure that formally there are other duties, but they are not practically enforceable, e.g., since failed research is difficult to distinguish from no research. Also, most professors in Germany are “verbeamtet” (a type of public servant), a status which you can only lose under grave circumstances.
It seems that I somewhat answered my own question by earning a 6-year tenure track at another University abroad :D However, I do plan to book a meeting with the Bavarian State Ministry for Science and Art here, as my current University falls under their jurisdiction and I have documented all the things that I mentioned here. From the University side, many people are friends with one another so nobody would be willing to "distort the balance".
@Wrzlprmft See e.g. https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/BayHSchPG-9. The duties ("Dienstaufgaben") are in teaching and administration, not research. Note that refusing to do your job is a grave circumstance: A professor who refuses to teach can lose their job.
@user151413: The very first half sentence of said law is: “Professoren und Professorinnen nehmen […] Aufgaben in Wissenschaft, […], Forschung, […] nach näherer Ausgestaltung ihres Dienstverhältnisses selbstständig wahr;” – So it depends on the specific professor’s contract, but it is reasonable to assume that research is included.
@Wrzlprmft Yes and no - note that the subsequent list of duties does not talk about teaching. Of course, the list is not exhaustive, but rather gives specific instances of those duties, but it is noteworthy that research is not listed. If it would be considered a general formal duty of professors, it would be listed there. Also, note that professors (as long as they are Beamte) don't have a working contract.
In Germany (like in many other countries), professors are civil servants and it isn't easy to fire them. Therefore, all your efforts to report this behaviour won't probably have any effects.
However, even if they do not have this privilege, I don't see reporting to the dean or the president is the right action. First, it is not your task unless you are directly affected (and here, you complain only about your conflict with him by following the right procedure). Second, it opens the door to many malicious complaints. Third, if the professor decides to complete only his basic duties (according to his contract that I am pretty sure you don't have access to), he is free and no one can complain about it.
As a postdoc, it is recommended to stay professional and not bad-mouth your professor because you don't have the competency to judge him. It is your right not to like working with him and you can simply resign. You mentioned you do not want to do it because you like the city. Are you expecting the professor to be fired and you keep your position because you like the city?
EDIT
he has had one since 2016 who is supposed to defend this summer, with two workshop papers since 2018
Since you are not a professor and I assume not habilitated, you are not allowed to supervise PhD students. How can you assess whether the students deserve the degree or not and judge the assessment of many professors (i.e. Supervisor, the examiners and the members of the PhD committee)???
what I consider to be an atrocious work ethic
Nothing you mentioned has to do with work ethics. I would rather call it "irresponsibility".
The phrase "work ethic" does not really refer to ethics. It's an add phrase, that one.
Since you've already brought this to the attention of several others, you no longer have to deal with this in secrecy.
So, take the time to conduct 1-on-1 chats with other people who are affected by his behavior - other post-docs and PhD candidates, and possibly junior tenure-trackers. Also talk to the relevant people in the student union.
After those 1-on-1 chats, try to schedule a meeting of several of these people. In that meeting, each person should present two or three cases of "not doing the job" misconduct on that Professor's part. Summarize the meeting in a joint letter to be signed by participants, calling for action to be taken to address the situation - but without demanding specific measures (e.g. don't say "fire him").
Before sending this out, see if someone closer to him can get a draft of that letter in front of his face, so that he has a chance of offer making amends (although he might just lash out at those involved).
Finally, have different people, not just yourself, mail this letter to:
The head of the department
The department council or body of senior academic staff
The student union
The graduate employee union if you have one
The senior academic staff union
The Professor himself
... and post a few copies on the bulletin boards where your research group is at.
An additional measure you could consider - if the university is mulling the affair and claiming they can't do anything - is indicating this may be brought to the attention of donors and funding bodies.
Of course, as I've already hinted - the more of these things you do personally, the more this is likely to gain you the reputation of a trouble-maker, or get that Professor to bad-mouth you to colleagues, or terminate your post-doc early etc. Doing the right thing rarely goes unpunished.
This is Germany where the professor is a civil servant (as pointed out elsewhere). The primary funding body will be the government. In this context, what you suggest is completely absurd. But even in other situations, you are essentially recommending a full-time job "to get back at the professor." I realize the U.S. is all about open letters of aggrieved and offended parties, but I don't think this is helpful to OP and their career.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.768913
| 2014-06-04T13:44:29 |
21939
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"410 gone",
"Aaron Hall",
"Alexandros",
"Andreas Blass",
"Anthony Tornambe",
"Cape Code",
"Christian Zielinski",
"David Z",
"Davidmh",
"Kinformationist",
"Roy Ofili",
"T.X. Watson",
"Volker Siegel",
"avid",
"gkandoi",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10042",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10094",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10643",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12587",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13560",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14506",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15798",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/16074",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/236",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/60211",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/60212",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/60214",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/60216",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/60246",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/60359",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/60364",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/9518",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96",
"spyguts",
"vrm",
"xLeitix"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9486",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/21939"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Can the communicating author remove some of the authors (4 out of 6) when submitting the second revision of a paper describing a database?
Our paper was due submission for second revision at a BMC journal. The communicating author, as I understand is responsible for handling all the communications between all authors and the journal, while also making suitable arrangement to cover any open access charges.
However, the communicating author in our case, without informing any author, removed 4 out of the total 6 authors while submitting the second revision. How should we deal with this? isn't it a academic fraud by the communicating author? Can't we, as students do anything to stop this?
Have you verified that this is something the communicating author has deliberately chosen to do, rather than an error or accidental omission at some point in the submission/production process?
Yes. This is an deliberate act, since she mentioned us all in the acknowledgement when she sent out the 2nd revision of the paper. Earlier, she had even asked us to raise money to cover open access publication charges too.
That sounds ... bad. Especially on this scale (4 out of 6 authors?).
Yes. What can(should) we do about it?
Two other relevant pieces of information: do you (honestly) believe that you deserve to be authors (i.e. did you make significant contributions to the research)? And is this person your supervisor/advisor?
Yes, we all worked as much as the other author included in the authors now. We all did data curation, designed the database and help write the manuscript. 3 of us have passed out from the university. She was the project PI and also served as the supervisor/advisor for 2 of us, while still supervising the fourth masters student. The project was submitted as part of the author's(other than her) minor project during his bachelors. We had been authors in the initial submission and even after submitting the first revision.
Why do you assume it is a deliberate act? Maybe I missed something, but from what you say, it could be a technical error of leaving out names on the author list?
She added us in the acknowledgement after removing from the author list. So, it can't be a technical error.
Have you received an email from the first submission process that lists you as author. If yes, this is the only evidence you need.
@Alexandros I think someone in this situation also needs to be prepared to demonstrate that they did deserve to be an author of this paper. The fact that they were included on the first draft points strongly in their favour, but is not necessarily conclusive. That is, whilst the email you mention is important evidence, I don't think it's necessarily the full picture.
@avid. I agree. The more proof the better. But initially the "bad" author considered them co-authors and then changed his mind (removed them from 2nd draft) is a very strong indication of malpractice. And the initial notification mail might prove it.
Perhaps you and the others were marginal contributors, but after this paper's second revision, you cannot legitimately claim your contribution was great enough to claim co-authorship compared to 1) the advisor who shepherded the paper over its lifetime, and 2) the student who originated the idea/paper/data. It may be that the journal wants to reduce author inflation, and told the advisor to remove the lesser contributors. The advisor may have been remiss in not communicating the matter directly to you, but perhaps you were lucky to be listed as co-author the first time around.
Also consider the possibility that, for once, the journal editor or the reviewers asked about the specific contributions of all the authors and found that some didn't deserve authorship by the journal's standards and should instead be acknowledged. Pure speculation of course.
@Jigg If that were the case, the corresponding author would have informed the other authors about that, BEFORE doing this. And that did not happen. We can all pretend that there is some magical reason for this strange behavior but authors should not "evaporate" between 1st and 2nd submission.
@Alexandros you're right, the probabilities of the first author being an arse are probably much, much higher than an editorial process detecting a case of ghost authorship.
I'd expect the editor to notice the disappearance of the majority of the authors and to ask the corresponding author what's going on.
@All, thank you for the helpful suggestions and the discussions.
Like I said earlier, Yes, we did contribute significantly and the 2nd revision wasn't a major change and nevertheless, we have contributed throughout the revision process. Yes, we did receive an email from the editor on our initial submission.
Had there been any information from the editors or reviewers, we must be aware of that, since we have the mail regarding reviewer comments forwarded by the first author, who in turn got it from the corresponding author.
What did the communicating author say, when you asked what the reason for removal was?
She ain't replying to our mails. And, over the telephone she is being too arrogant and isn't saying anything clearly but just that she might reconsider it when the paper comes for proof-reading.
This sounds like an unpleasant situation.
If this happened to me, I think my starting point would be to ensure I had copies of anything that might be useful as evidence. Then, I would write (formally) to the person concerned, asking for an explanation of why they thought it appropriate to remove you all from the author list. I think this has to be the first step: it is always possible that there is a rational explanation (although it's difficult to imagine what it might be). You might choose to copy the letter to the head of the relevant university department, and perhaps to the editor of the journal - particularly if the paper has not yet been published, and so can be put 'on hold' pending resolution of the authorship dispute.
Of course, you will have to weigh up the benefits of asserting your rights to authorship against any potential cost arising from 'causing trouble'. You are completely within your rights to create a major fuss here, and your department should be entirely supportive. I think you should do something. However, there is a risk that some of the people involved will seek revenge, if they have any power over you (e.g. if you are still a student at the university). I am absolutely not condoning such behaviour - it is quite clearly bullying, and an abuse of power. However, it would be irresponsible to advocate taking action without encouraging you to also consider whether there are any potential adverse consequences.
We recently had an extensive discussion of how to deal with such an issue, should it arise, in a postdoctoral seminar I attended. A number of senior faculty contributed their ideas regarding how to deal with such an incident.
I would recommend a more gradual escalation than others have suggested. For example, I would not copy the editor of the journal or the head of the department on your initial communication requesting more information. I would start with communication just within your author group: for example, an email to the corresponding author asking for an explanation of why they removed your (and others) authorship without notification, CCing all other authors of the paper. This gives you a paper trail but also allows you to first address the issue without airing everyone's dirty laundry.
If the corresponding author's response is not to the removed authors' satisfaction, you should then, together, think about escalating your complaint (for example, by contacting the editor). I agree with avid that while you would be in your rights to do so, there is a very real possibility of a negative backlash. I think as a consequence the other dropped authors should be on board with such a decision, and you should have excellent documentation of your complaint.
Finally, this type of incident is a very good example of why every paper should start with an authorship meeting where everyone sits down, agrees on authorship and order, and what constitutes the responsibilities of authorship at each level (e.g., "first author will be so-and-so, and that means her responsibilities are to do x,y,z...and if she finds herself unable to meet all of those responsibilities, then authorship decisions will need to be revisited", etc.) Concretizing expectations prior to the work tends to lead to better working relationships and can prevent some very bitter arguments.
I see your point, but I think there is something to be gained by having an uninvolved third party cc'd as a "witness" to the initial communication. If there is malicious intent involved, which seems at least plausible, once the author who removed the other authors' names realizes they intend to assert their right to authorship, he/she may attempt to get the journal editor on his/her side preemptively, and it's good to have someone who can assert that this was done in response to e.g. an email.
I say yes, this is academic fraud. I suggest to contact the corresponding author and inform him/her that your are going to inform the editor of the journal about the issue. Depending on the answer from the corresponding author you should indeed write to the editor and explain the case.
However, I am not sure what will happen then. Presumably things will get difficult and it would be much better if you could sort this out directly. Also you should communicate your strategy with the other authors and act open for all involved people.
Threatening as a first communication is a bad idea, makes people uncooperative. It is better to ask nicely, and pretend to be understanding, just in case it actually works.
The initial reaction to your problem is that it is wrong. There are, too many unknowns to say why this has happened, if you are deadling with negligence, absent mindedness, some more serious personality issue or whatever. I would suggest the following
Discuss with the other authors how you all became co-authors in the first place and compare your contributions to see if they fulfil some basic critteria such as those of the Vancouver Protocol (given by for example ICMJE and reproduced at Resources for Research Ethics Education. This will help you gain leverage for your authorship/contributorship. Of course, if you had some form of agreement to start with, then that should suffice. The important thing is that it is unethical to publish someone else's intellectual property without consent so establishing such claims can be important. This is why authorship or contributorship agreements should follow the Vancouver Protocol to begin with (I know they rarely do).
Approach the first author and ask him/her to explain the reduction in authors without prior discussion.
If 2 fails to yield results, write to the chief editor of the journal and describe the problem and that you wish to see the paper stopped. If the paper contains materials that can be attributed to the authors who have been dropped, that should be grounds for halting the process and starting an investigation, perhaps through COPE.
I'm assuming that by BMC you mean a BioMed journal? You should read the BioMed Editorial Policies page( http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/editorialpolicies )
which lists 4 requirements for qualifying as an author:
to qualify as an author one should have:
(1) made substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
(2) been involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
(3) given final approval of the version to be published. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content; and
(4) agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not usually justify authorship.
So if you can satisfy these criteria (especially the first two), you should be an author.
The same page also addresses authorship changes:
In line with COPE guidelines, BioMed Central requires written confirmation from all authors that they agree with any proposed changes in authorship of submitted manuscripts or published articles. This confirmation must be via direct email from each author. It is the corresponding author’s responsibility to ensure that all authors confirm that they agree with the proposed changes. If there is disagreement amongst the authors concerning authorship and a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached, the authors must contact their institution(s) for a resolution. It is not the Editor’s responsibility to resolve authorship disputes.
So you need to deal with this in your institution; pointing out that is contrary to journal policy for authorship to change without consultation is a good place to start.
The PI din't acquire funds, neither collected any data, but provided general supervision of the group. So, can she be denied authorship? Yes, we collected the data, designed the database schema and the relational database, made the interface and provided inputs towards finalizing the manuscript. I believe we do fulfill the criteria to be authors.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.770167
| 2014-06-19T18:32:49 |
23681
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"AAA",
"Behacad",
"CPO",
"Charles Gignac",
"David",
"Dissenter",
"Geoff Hutchison",
"Hamed Tabatabaei",
"Hunter Hunt",
"JeffE",
"Mad Jack",
"Marko1st",
"Pete L. Clark",
"Siamak Ensafi",
"T K",
"Taladris",
"Tobias Kildetoft",
"Yangmin Zhao",
"cardinal",
"goldilocks",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10529",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11192",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12592",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12656",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15261",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15528",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15855",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17661",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17671",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21869",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63312",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63313",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63314",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63329",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63833",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63841",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/64319",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/81050",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/81098",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/938",
"mhwombat"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9487",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23681"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Is it hard to get an article published in a journal as an undergraduate?
I'm an undergrad and I would like to publish in a research journal, specifically, ones about chemical pedagogy.
Is it hard to get an article published in a journal?
Are there any other venues which may be easier - i.e. do you know of any say magazines on chemical pedagogy or aimed toward chemistry educators? I'd imagine that the standards for publication in a magazine are lower than in a scientific journal.
Any advice for a beginner at writing and publishing?
Related: Assume an undergrad has something worth publishing: how might (s)he get it published
Thanks. I like to assume that what I have is worth publishing ;). We'll see how well that assumption holds up.
Is it hard to get an article published in a journal? — Well, that depends on the article, doesn't it?
Most articles outline new/original research using new/original data and some sort of experiment and statistics. Did you do anything of the sort, or is it more of a review?
@JeffE: ...and the journal. :-)
@Dissenter: "I like to assume [it] is worth publishing." From what I have seen on (mathematics) forums, many amateurs are overconfindent on the interest of the work. As others pointed, you should ask a professor to evaluate your work. Journals are amazingly specialized these days and the experience of a professor would help a lot to link you to the good journal. Another good test is the bibliography: try to write it on your own and compare to profesional articles. Most articles I mentioned above had a very poor bibliography (if any): Wikipedia is not enough for a research level article.
@Dissenter The main journal for chemical pedagogy is *J. Chem. Ed. and while they do accept publications from undergrads (and I'm sure would be happy to review it), as others have said, you may want help of a faculty member to submit. I expect you could find some on Chem.SE.
I would imagine that your best bet is to talk to a faculty member about it. Find a faculty member who is also interested in the topic. They can probably give you good advice on this and may even be interested in co-authoring the paper with you (which is probably more realistic as an undergrad), and honestly going this route wouldn't be too bad for you since your name would then be associated with an expert on the subject, giving you more credibility.
One thing I've learned in college is that if you have an idea, talking to a faculty member about it can get you a lot of opportunities. And if you talk to someone and they can't help you, they can almost always refer you to someone else who can be of help.
Depends on the journal. You might want to try publishing in your university's undergraduate journal if you don't have backing from a faculty member.
[For an example of a university-specific undergraduate journal, click here.]
"your university's undergraduate journal" What's that?
How is backing from a faculty member relevant?
Having support from a faculty member is relevant because, even if you are a good writer, writing a journal article is a difficult skill to learn on your own. The faculty member can help you learn this skill.
example of undergraduate journal: http://thurj.org/
@David: That's a good answer, thanks. (I was a graduate student at Harvard not so terribly long ago, but the journal did not exist then.) I think that if you're not fortunate enough to go to Harvard it is less than likely that your university has an undergraduate journal of its own...but this may no longer be true X years from now. I took the liberty of editing the link into your answer -- I hope you don't mind. Doing so also allowed me to reverse my downvote.
@Pete: The Harvard of the South also has its own undergraduate journal: http://juro.uga.edu
@TK Duke has an undergraduate journal? :) Anyway, I am a little embarrassed by not knowing about your link, but I would be much more embarrassed if I had made the comment in 2010.
If you ask questions "Is it hard to get an article published in a journal?", about journals and in general "Any advice for a beginner at writing and publishing?", etc. then it is very unlikely you will publish something in a reputable journal, based only on a few lines of advice via Internet.
However:
try looking at student's conferences; very often there are great places to share undergraduate work, and learn how to present results (via posters, talks, sometimes - conference proceedings),
ask someone from your university to look at your work, and guide you through the first publication (a lot of work, but worth it); but since it's chemistry you do it in someone's lab, right?
Yes, it is hard to publish in a peer reviewed journal.
If it were easy anybody and everybody would do it. That should not prevent you from trying.
Typically a magazine is easier to publish in. The real question you need to ask yourself is "Who is my target audience?" The general public? Or experts in the field? If the general public, a magazine might be the best choice.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.770609
| 2013-12-11T14:56:15 |
14695
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"410 gone",
"Alex",
"Coriolis E.",
"JeffE",
"Ruchi",
"Tae Hyung Kim",
"Thomas Nelson",
"eykanal",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38137",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38138",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38140",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38141",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38142",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38143",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43152",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/73",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/9947",
"nunop",
"pratima",
"qfwfq"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9488",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/14695"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What should I put in the introduction chapter of my thesis?
I have to start writing my thesis. My topic for research is work life balance in IT sector - a comparative analysis of male & female IT professionals in Pune.
I need help in writing the first introduction chapter. what all should be included in this chapter & what should not?
Why are you writing the introduction chapter first? Write it later, once you've worked out what it is you're introducing.
then which chapter should i start with?please suggest
Either Literature Review or Method(s/ology). Or maybe both, in tandem.
then which chapter should i start with — The one that you are closest to having already written in your head. Alternatively: pick one at random and just start.
Talk to your advisor and look into student services provided by your university. The department should have pretty clear guidance on document structure and format. You will also learn a lot by reading some of the dissertations of previous (successful) candidates.
+1 for reading older theses. Even better would be to read a few of the theses from past students of your parimary adivsor to get a feel for what specific format s/he likes.
An introduction should funnel the reader from the wider perspective, in which your study is part, to the formulation of your thesis theme or question(s). This means you need to establish the wider perspective where your work improves our knowledge as well as identifying the gap in knowledge where your work attempts solution(s). In terms of writing this can be accomplished in several ways, although similar content-wise.
In a short research paper you start out by writing about the wider perspective leading into identification of and statements about a gap of knowledge where your paper fits. You follow up by reviewing the literature to establish what is known in detail and perhaps highlighting the identified gaps. You may finish off by recapping your work and the main conclusion to the gap(s) identified earlier. Some prefer not to do so in the introduction; a matter of taste or tradition.
You can write your introduction in the way just described as a long chapter (due to the literature review) but you can also choose to split the text into several chapters. You would then have a chapter called introduction which will only contain the wider perspective and identification of a gap in knowledge. Sometimes it can be useful to add a short chapter detailing the aims of the thesis where you can expand on the questions based on the identified gap. You then follow up with a chapter called "background" or something more descriptive, but which contains the literature review.
Since all theses are different, some may have one question to solve, some may have several and somewhat disparate around a main theme, the way to write the introduction will have to be adjusted. for the former case the main template can be followed but in the case of several research questions around a theme some adjustments are needed. Exactly how to solve this is difficult to say since it depends on the type of questions and how they are tied together. But, it is necessary to make sure the place of each question in the greater scheme of things is known and that the literature review clearly shows what is known about each topic. This can in an extreme case mean to have a single short introduction of the major perspective and then have sections for each of the questions, almost like a set of papers (if it is not built from papers/manuscripts); each complete with introduction, methods, results and discussion.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.771028
| 2015-02-13T00:06:18 |
38773
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Cape Code",
"Compass",
"Dan",
"Elitzur Dattner",
"Harris",
"Jim Raynor",
"Joe",
"JoeHu",
"Joey",
"John HaTrick",
"Kimball",
"LLT",
"Luigi Acosta",
"Mahendra Pratap",
"Martin - マーチン",
"MathAndCo",
"Md Nahid Hossain",
"Pedro Henrique Monforte",
"S. Phil Kim",
"Samuel O'Malley",
"Thomas",
"WetlabStudent",
"beardy_mcread",
"dsfgsho",
"gerrit",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10094",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1033",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/105834",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/105835",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/105836",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/105869",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/105979",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/105990",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/106044",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/106050",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10643",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/106445",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/106515",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/106528",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/106529",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/106630",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/106648",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/108545",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/109011",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13372",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14500",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15214",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1622",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17804",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19607",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22013",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28473",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/31579",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8101",
"jpkos",
"rajashekar",
"the n-th seal",
"xLeitix"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9489",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/38773"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How is a paper with multiple authors usually written?
I am attending graduate school this fall and one thing that I still could not wrap around my head is that some of the papers are written by seemingly a group of authors (5 people or more). I am curious how this is usually done.
Are each person assigned a small chunk of work and the paper is put together when everyone is done? This raises so many questions such as what if a person doesn't finish his or her part? How do you piece together the paper so that it is coherent throughout (since people may have different perspectives or understanding).
And is there important differences between a paper written by two person and those written by five or more?
I think you'll find that even with multiple authors, it is still "owned" by one or two key people. The others will contribute but the overall flow and structure is governed by that main person. So the other authors may be told "I need a diagram that shows X", or "I need a couple of paragraphs on Y". Using a shared document or LaTeX + source control, development can be quite iterative and the overall structure and flow tends to be maintained nicely.
Did you never have to do group work in class? It works the same way (and, just like in class, it sometimes works great, and sometimes the entire project just implodes - mostly depending on what the chemistry between the authors is).
I think you'll find it much more practical/common to assign one person the bulk of the writing/organization. I usually ended up with the writing task in my Software Dev classes, so I could focus more on big-picture development issues rather than minute debugging details. That, and I actually enjoy writing, so win-win for me.
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=562
Authorship might refer to the contents of the paper, not necessarily to the writing. That is, the presented work was done collaboratively while the (bulk of) the writing lies with one or two of the authors (typically the first one(s)).
I think that this article from the Research Whisperer covers aspects of how multiple authors can collaborate to get a paper done. It is an interesting and quite brief read that I would recommend.
TL;DR version:
One leads the project and the initial drafting with others
contributing to an almost complete draft.
The team splits the work into broad sections for each collaborator, which then draft, combine and revise.
Decide on all the details and each writes its own section with minor final corrections.
From my experience, the first one would be the most common with an almost final version making it to the very senior people in the article.
In my field (math) one person is generally in charge of a specific section / result. They write the rough draft of the section they are responsible for, and then like Samuel pointed out in the comments, one person is usually more in charge. That person puts the pieces together in the correct order and writes the introduction and transitions (this is also sometimes simply the person who has the best English). After that, (in the papers I've worked on) the file is put on ShareTex and edited by everyone until everyone is happy with it.
As for what happens if one person doesn't finish their part: the same thing you do in group project when one person doesn't do their share. That material is either cut from the paper, or someone else has to take on more work.
This is certainly common but I'm not sure it's a general rule. It's also pretty common for one person to draft the whole paper, and then pass it around, or back-and-forth, for coauthor(s) to edit. I've done both of these in my collaborations as well as a sort of mix: one person writes most of the paper, but a small part will be written by other coauthors, then pass back-and-forth to edit.
In my field (Atmospheric Science) you will find papers with dozens of authors. That doesn't mean there are dozens of individuals who have all contributed equally. There may be one or two people leading the research, needing little bits of data from everyone. For example, one might describe a major intercomparison study between 10 datasets. Suppose that each dataset is prepared by a PhD student or postdoc; then for each dataset this person is a co-author, and perhaps also their supervisor. Their contribution is small but significant — provide data essential to the paper and assist in the discussion as to why/how their results are different from others. In this case, having 10–20 co-authors is not unusual at all. The actual writing, however, might come for 90%+ from the first author.
The dataset example is one of the arguments for data citation vs. co-authorship. Especially for cases where you're acknowledging use of someone's data, but they might not agree with your conclusions ... or they might've passed away years ago.
@Joe I would say it depends on how much the owners of the dataset are involved. In the case I had in mind, they would be actively involved in the discussion of why the different datasets are different. Presumably, the creators have a better understanding of why that may be than anybody else.
Yes, ideally you'd contact the creators of the data to ensure that you were using it correctly ... but for some larger, well documented datasets (eg, MODIS, Hubble), trying to run everything through the PIs would cause a major bottleneck in puplishing.
@Joe Right, so it depends on the dataset and on context.
My publication history crosses disciplines and the multi-author papers range range everywhere from two to thirty-two authors. Across all of these publications, I have seen two main modes of multi-author paper-writing, which I will call "collaborative" and "pedagogical."
Collaborative is the typical mode of writing that I have seen in scientific collaborations. Authors generally tend to fall into three rough categories:
Primary authors are one or more people who take responsibility for organizing the writing of the paper, and who produce the vast bulk of the text.
Secondary authors contribute specific pieces to the writing at the direction of the primary authors, most often figures, examples, and experimental methods.
Tertiary authors are people whose technical contributions rise to the standards of authorship for the field, but who are not needed to contribute any writing. This is highly field-specific. These range from common in experimental fields like biosciences or experimental physics to practically unheard of and possibly unethical in more theoretical and mathematical fields.
In fields where author order matters, the category of author and their responsibilities tend to closely mirror their order in the paper, according to the customs of the field. In formulating the manuscript, the primary authors tend to form a writing plan, often dividing responsibility for sections, but sometimes having one do a first rough pass and then "passing the token" around for further refinement. Towards the end of the writing, when the secondary authors' pieces are integrated and the primary authors are satisfied, the paper will typically be sent out for commentary and feedback from all authors, and after a few further iterations there are no significant objections, the primary authors are satisfied with the paper, and they submit.
Pedagogical, on the other hand, is when you have a clear split between junior and senior authors, where the junior is a student or postdoc and the writing of the paper is also being used by the senior(s) as a part of their training. In this case, the text is typically generated primarily by the junior author (either one section at a time or all at once), and then submitted to the senior for feedback and instructions. This may go on for many iterations. Eventually, if there is a fixed deadline, or if things are dragging on too long, the seniors may seize control and "finish" the paper between themselves in collaborative mode.
Occasionally, there may be more than one junior author, in which case the partition of their responsibilities are typically dictated by the senior. Likewise there may also be secondary and tertiary authors, just as in collaborative authorship.
Collaborative writing differs from article to article. First, it may be useful to say that in at least some cases, all authors may not be worthy of author or contributorship according to the Vancouver protocol (here exemplified by ICMJE). If we disregard such issues and assume all authors deserve authorship the following cases seems most likely. Since I reside in a community using the ordering of authors to signify importance/impact on the final product, the use of first author a co-authors should be seen from this perspective.
All authors have contributed a significant part of the manuscript (MS). They are all specialists required for the research and provided vital input on their specific field of expertise. Typically, one person will take charge and make the first draft to which the others add their parts and comment on and add to the parts common to the MS. This case probably means all authors have similar intellectual input to the MS. Review and cross-disciplinary articles may be examples of types of articles written this way. Who will be first author could be a matter of who initiated the work, who took on the task of coordination or a matter of the alphabet.
One or a subset of the authors have a more leading role and essentially write the MS on which the other authors provide specific input and comments. This is perhaps most common when contributions vary in importance and where a few have a major intellectual input on the science whereas the other authors provide smaller but crucial input on aspects of the MS. This is likely the most common case in most collaborative research involving groups of researchers. The first author will vary from publication to publication produced in such a group where all have provided sufficient input to fulfil the requirements for authorship/contributorship. Author order will be determined according to contribution.
Regardless of which way one goes, it is necessary for someone to take on the chore of being "secretary" and actually get common ideas into text. It is possible that a single authors can provide a section or two to the MS which is included verbatim but usually some editing is necessary to make the reading uniform throughout the MS and that would be the role of the "first author". It is therefore common that the "secretary" makes a first draft asking others to add both specific parts and commenting on the text from the others. The MS will be passed around until all are satisfied. So most multiple author articles have been produced in some fashion along these lines.
Image credit: phdcomis.com
For entertaining purpose. Don't take this cartoon as a serious answer or generalization, just however it resembles pretty much my experience, especially the last 3 positions: the second-to-last, the last, and the middle one.
The first ones are not necessarily true. In my field (CS), the first name is still the most important one, normally a PhD student working on his own sub-problems towards his thesis; and having his name at the first place is important for his overall thesis evaluation.
When I have to review paper, I often frown upon papers with many authors, especially short papers. One extreme was a 4.5-page paper with 8 authors (gosh...)
To my experience of having read a lot of papers in the field, the most beautiful and important papers are normally the ones written by 2 authors, then papers written by only one author. Never seen a great one with 7 authors... ;)
Note: this experience may be different in other fields, for example my friend for once said that in his field (earth sciences), each part of the task is already a huge work (collecting 40GB of raw data (1 person), preprocessing it (1 person), sharing expertise on the configuration setting (1 person),...) and they all end up in the author list. For sure, anyone with contributions should be given credit, but in the case of my friend, perhaps an Appendix or Acknowledgement section seems more appropriate.
While I appreciate the humor in this sarcastic cartoon, it does not faithfully represent how things really work.
No surprise :) No way a first year student who did all the things and got the third position, etc. The same goes with the first too. But... it's just exaggeration, comics purpose.
According to the FAQ of "Piled Higher and Deeper" permission is necessary to reuse their comics.
In my view, the division of labor would be between the individuals involved, and cannot be answered as a industry standard. As for unfinished work, I doubt that the other authors who have contributed to a finished work would leave the unfinished portion incomplete. So either the contributing authors will finish the incomplete work (giving credit for what work the author of the unfinished work did) or they group would cut out the author who failed to meet the dead line by doing his work from scratch and simply not include him or her as a contributing author.
As for coherence in thought and readability, I would believe this is solved during the editing process. Often times, one of the authors (the best skilled) would take the job of editing the work and working with the other authors to smooth over the rough edges.
The only difference between papers written by one person and papers written by multiple authors is that the work and credit is shared by all who are involved. All the basic steps are still involved, their simply altered for the piece being done. Or so that is my understanding.
My field is theoretic Computer Science, and I don't want to speak in behalf of the whole field but personally (and this is probably a very individual) I like collaborations where a lot of the work is done while sitting together throwing ideas to the air and discussing them and then thinking (everyone together) later on solutions or new ideas for problems we encountered then calling everyone again for a followup meeting.
(The writing is a different story, but who cares about it anyway?)
"who cares about it anyway?" ... um the OP ... did you even read the question?
I think (and if so, agree) that he ment to say that the writeup stage is the secondary part and not what the attention should be put at...
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.772583
| 2015-05-08T10:01:49 |
45069
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Bill Barth",
"Eng. Adil",
"McLovin",
"OmicroniusFlow",
"Vicente Romero",
"caliant",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11600",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123695",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123696",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123697",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123701",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123702",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123703",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/34233",
"jrdevdba"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9490",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/45069"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Consult on the submiting format of PNAS
I am now learning about the submitting process of PNAS. The instruction says that the authors are encouraged to submit the article in a single PDF file. However, I am wondering how could I create this PDF file. Do I have to transform a word into a PDF, or I should get this PDF file created by the Article Sizing Tool, which is a tool provided by PNAS to estimate the total length of the article. Moreover,could I just submit the article by using a word?
The author instructions state that "A single PDF file is acceptable for initial submissions of all research articles except Contributed papers". Further down it is also stated that "Publication-ready file formats include Word or LaTeX."
This means that depending on what type of manuscript you are submitting, different rules may apply. Word and LaTeX (the latter must be accompanied by a PDF file) are fine but for a few forms like their "Express Submissions" require a single pdf to be submitted initially. Only of the manuscript passes the initial stage will it be required to provide editable files.
You should generate the PDF from your Word document or LaTeX class files according to the instructions.
Thanks for your reply, I will check it. What puzzles me is that why do the jouranl provide a tool to create a PDF file which combine all materials together. If I don't use this created PDF, will the journal reject me?
@caliant, as long as you follow the instructions to submit one PDF, it shouldn't matter what tool you use to create it. The important point is that you submit one file in the PDF format. The PNAS tool is provided for the convenience of folks who cannot otherwise create the PDF file from their source materials.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.772785
| 2015-01-25T09:47:51 |
37531
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Adilson Francisco Landim Tavar",
"Avi",
"Dan Baron",
"Nobody",
"Sayan Dutta Gupta",
"SebastianK",
"Strangeaslife",
"casualcoder",
"giuseppe",
"guest",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/102122",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/102123",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/102124",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/102130",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/102139",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/102140",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/102141",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/102154",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/102155",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/102164",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28393",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/546",
"stewori",
"user102164"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9491",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/37531"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Should supervisors read acknowledgments before the printed version of the thesis?
I'm finishing my M.Sc. thesis and I sent it to my supervisors so that they can read it.
In the final version, I would like to insert an acknowledgements page where I thank them. Should I include it in the last draft that I will send them, so they can read it? Or should it be included in only the final version, without their knowledge?
Have you included your supervisor's name in the acknowledgements?
Yes I did, thanking them for their willingness and support.
There is no need to remove the acknowledgement in the final version. I know students have done so and for very different reasons, they want to "surprise" someone, they are not on friendly terms with an advisor and does not want the advisor to see it before it is printed. etc. The "surprise" aspect is, I would argue, greatly overrated. To not provide it because of a conflict is not likely to help the conflict. So, even if the reason is non-controversial, not including it might raise an eyebrow of a sensitive advisor. In the end, this is something that should not matter but some people are overly sensitive so ask yourself, are you confident that you will reach your intended effect by doing what you suggest, then go ahead, but if you do not feel so, avoid it. You will sometimes be surprised how much is read into a benign text such as an acknowledgement.
Yes, maybe I just wanted to surprise them, or maybe I did not want that they might see it as an attempt of flattery...
I will follow your suggestion and add it in the next version I will send them.
I would include the proposed acknowledgements in the last draft. I would also include those that net-positively helped you even though you may not be on the best terms with them. By doing so, you will be taking the "high ground".
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.773028
| 2016-09-07T20:31:01 |
76478
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bayu Krisnamurthi",
"Caroline Dennard",
"Catherine Kitchen",
"Frank",
"Guut Boy",
"Kevin",
"Kussai Alraini",
"MolbOrg",
"O. R. Mapper",
"Paulo Sallis",
"Raydot",
"Samaneh Hashemi",
"Sina Rezai",
"Spammer",
"aparente001",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13535",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13829",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14017",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14198",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/214564",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/214565",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/214566",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/214567",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/214595",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/214606",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/214680",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/214804",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/214819",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32436",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/40963",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/50568",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/61520",
"skymningen",
"tarulen"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9492",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/76478"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Complete stranger asking PhD student to review paper before submission
I am a PhD student and I have been contacted today by some other PhD student with a very odd request. He is from a different university in a different country and I don't know him at all. He is asking me to review his own paper before submitting it to some journal. Is this a common thing to ask? What is the best response in this case?
"He is asking me to review his own paper" - is it just that, or is he providing some explanation as to why he has picked you of all people for exactly this paper of his? This could provide some insight into whether it's a case as described in Dave's answer, or one facet of mostly undirected academic spam.
Part of the job as a phd is to make as many contacts as possible in many different places: so congratulations, you just gained one for free :)... don't waste it.
I find the etiquette about these things can be very different from one area of research to an other. I would ask my advisor and/or fellow phd students within your field.
papers are included or not in to email. Do you have published works, by your self or here you one of authors. If papers included are they correlated to your field of work. Why to not write "not interested" if you are not and ignore if this is a scam.
I'm not surprised to hear this. I often encourage my students to reach out to others working in their specific field. Do it if you have the time, interest, and expertise. Ignore it if you don't. Don't think there's more to it than that.
Isn't it a bit weird to reach out to another PhD student though? I don't have an academic background, but this seems weird to me. Or is it simply because another student is good enough and likely has more free time than a graduate?
Sounds like a nice plan and might end up in a collaboration or "professional friendship". But in that case this should be reasonably well explained in the mail. As in "I know you don't know me, but I like your work and do similar stuff, so what do you think about helping each other out?"
@skymningen is that similar field or same field - can be seen from paper, less then 30sec to judge.
@Kevin not sure what's so weird about it. A lot of academia is collaboration. In theory, anyway.
If he's a complete stranger, I can understand the situation feeling a little creepy to you.
I suggest you ask him how he chose you for this role. Ask him where he's studying and who his advisor is. Look up the advisor online to see if everything looks above-board.
His response to a short email with a couple of neutrally posed questions may help you figure out if you are comfortable with his initiative.
But see that's just the thing...why all the back-and-forth? If you want to do it and you think it could be useful, do it! If you couldn't care less or think there's some bad mojo behind the request then ignore it and move on. I certainly don't pay attention to or act on every e-mail that comes to my inbox or call or piece of mail that comes to my house. There's not some magic equation that's suddenly involved because this other person purports to be a PhD student.
@DaveKaye - Agreed, a lot of back-and-forth would not be worthwhile. Very good point.
From a social and scientific standpoint, you should agree if you have time and interest in the paper. You may get a contact who works on similar themes and you may collaborate in the future. As others have noted, the person will also likely be on the hook for reading one of your future manuscripts as well.
There is, however, another perspective, which is that of someone who is concerned about intellectual property. Many large companies have strict "no unsolicited ideas"-policies, because they do not want to risk future disputes. Something similar may apply to you: Say you are already working on a new method for solving problem X, that you have not currently published. You recieve a paper from a stranger who has had the same idea. Suddently, by accepting the manuscript, you may in the future be accused on plagiarism of the same idea. The reasonable thing would perhaps be to collaborate on a joint paper since you have the same idea, but people in the academic sector are not always reasonable.
This depends highly on the nature of your field of research. In my experience, these types of issues are likely more prevailent for research with commercial applications. Universities are increasingly becoming concerned about intellectual property rights as well.
Since you don't know him at all, it can be a little weird, but the ice can be broken if you exchange some e-mails. As others have said, you can be more comfortable with him if you talk more. Also, you can ask if you two can collaborate on a project. You didn't give any details on the particular paper, if it seems a good idea, and also his publication record. If the paper seems good(even if it is not perfectly written yet), IMHO you can start a collaboration.
Barring the less-likely (and nefarious) reasons (he wants to make contact with you for some other reason, he is spamming all phds at your university) such request is perfectly legitimate.
You did not say if the paper is from your area of research, or whether he refers to some of your published work - that may be important in determining the reason why he is asking you for review.
Actually, checking the quality of one's paper with your peers (other phd students) is a very common advice given to phd students by their supervisors (if they are any good). True, this mainly refers to the other people in a lab, but there is no reason that people would not go beyond this.
What does he gain by you doing the review? Well, if you will criticize his paper, he can fix the problems and has better chance to be accepted first time around or with minor revision. The reasoning is, even if you are only phd student, if you can find problems with his paper, the more experienced reviewers will find them too (and probably some additional problems you will probably miss). It is not called "peer review" for nothing (check the definition of the "peer" in the dictionary).
What do you gain by honoring his request (although, I should stress, you are in no way obliged to do the review, especially if it is far from your own area of research!)? Well, first, you will get insight into what your peers (your competition perhaps) are doing. You may get a invaluable chance to peek into the good paper which will be officially published in 6 months or even longer (although, until it is published, you will be bound by the confidentiality). Yes, you may find out that the paper is worthless and that it was all waste of time, but hey, welcome to academia and the world of peer reviews. It will not be your last time.
So, I would suggest, that you ask him why he contacted specifically you. If he is following your publications, then perhaps you will be interested in what he is doing. If you find out that his research is unrelated, politely decline and say that you are not expert in his area.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.773626
| 2022-05-04T17:11:37 |
184935
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"cag51",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79875"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9493",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/184935"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Valuing Proprietary Research for Grad Admissions
I am a second-year Math and CS undergraduate in the US. I am beginning to consider my prospects for graduate school, or possibly industry research.
My research experience thus far is from an internship at a private company. I do not participate in client work, only in proprietary/confidential R&D. In terms of demonstrating results, my work is at best reported in an internal whitepaper or two. Otherwise it's strictly confidential. The only thing I have to show for my work is a cleaned/approved resume blurb.
Thinking about my application from the perspective of a University, I feel like my research experience really just looks like I'm hand-waving results without anything to point to. I really enjoy the work, but I am worried that its lack of visibility will hurt me in the long run when applications roll around and I have nothing tangible to show for it.
Is this a typical concern? Or is this enough of a reason to request to participate in research presented at conferences or switch to research at my University instead?
What type of grad school are you applying to? I ask because there are parts of CS where the top grad schools will have a much higher bar for published research than most other fields, so general answers could be misleading.
If you apply to graduate programs in the US, little in the way of research will be expected of you as few undergraduates have any serious experience.
You can mention proprietary research in your CV, mentioning the name of the company if possible.
If you want it verified by a reader you have a couple of options. One is to use a researcher at the company as one of your letter writers, they can verify that you have been involved. The other way might be better, actually, since letters from academics are a bit more useful. Ask a researcher at the company for permission to give their name (& email) as a contact to verify your participation. If you get permission, then include that information in the CV.
But a professor who knows of your industry work might also be able to put a line in a letter. It wouldn't need detail.
Note that things that others say about you can have more weight than things you say yourself.
Yes, I think lack of visibility hurts a bit - university researchers mostly value the open disclosure model of university research.
Yes, I think it would add value to your resume to be able to show the research you've done in an academic setting. Really, what grad schools are looking for is your potential to do academic research. Nothing can substitute for evidence of doing good academic research to speak to that potential. You're early enough in your undergrad career that you have time to do academic research, so if your goal is academic research I'd definitely recommend getting involved on the academic side now. The purpose of this isn't just to build a resume, though, it's also to find out if you like doing academic research.
However, not all applicants will have academic research experience, and PhD applications are judged as a comprehensive whole, not a single criterion. I think the best thing you can do with your application is to have strong letters of recommendation that speak to your aptitude for research. These letters are best from university professors, but your industry superiors (especially if they have academic credentials, at least a PhD of their own) can also assist you to move your research background from "hand-waving" to "tiral's boss says they're a great researcher and would do well as a PhD student". They need not describe the specifics of a project to speak to your skills.
Of course, some companies may forbid this sort of honest letter-writing, which is very unfortunate for you and I have no solution to that problem.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.773968
| 2016-12-09T16:52:23 |
81332
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Jon Custer",
"Richard Erickson",
"Stephan Kolassa",
"Wildcard",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15477",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4140",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/46356"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9494",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/81332"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How do you judge the potential of a newer journal?
I'm in a fairly niche field that is still in the process of organizing itself. As such, there are a number of existing professional societies that are spinning off journals along with newer societies that are getting into journal publication. Since some of the usual metrics for judging a predatory journal may not apply, how do you judge the potential of a newer journal so that the publication does not end up being a wasted effort?
To expand upon part of Dave Everitt's answer,
look at the founders of the journal - did they start it primarily as a platform for their own publications, and do these authors and their associates make up the bulk of the authors?
I would also look at who is publishing and editing the journal.
Is the publisher affiliated with a scientific society? Sometimes scientific society will launch new journals (e.g., the Ecological Society of America launched Ecoshpere to be their open source journal).
Or another is a new journal from an established publisher? Established commercial publishing companies are launching new journals. Although people argue about the ethics of publishing with them (cf What are some examples of negative effects on a career for boycotting Elsevier journals?), my own experience has been that their products are usually scientifically sound (presumably because they are afraid of hurting their brand image). Additionally, journals such as Nature now have spinoffs (and spinoffs of spinoffs, e.g., Nature to Nature Methods to Scientific Reports) to catch paper that do not fit into their flagship journals.
Also, who is the editor-in-chief and other editors? Do you know them in your sub-field? For example, when the journal Theoretical Ecology launched, the they had Alan Hastings as the EIC, a highly respected Ecologist.
Then again, established publishers like Elsevier sometimes publish things like Chaos, Solitons and Fractals...
@StephanKolassa - but I don't think they set out for it to be quite what it is - once launched it may just not catch on with the intended audience, leaving it to fend for itself...
@StephanKolassa I'm not familiar with that journal or the story behind. Would you care to elaborate? (or if you don't, I completely understand as well).
"...presumably because they are afraid of hurting their brand image" —this is a double-edged sword at best; from my viewpoint it is wholly a negative trait for a scientific journal. Accurate scientific observations can and should challenge common assumptions. "Worry about reputation" has no place in a search for truth; accuracy, not politics, should be all that matters.
@RichardErickson: the editor-in-chief, Mohamed El Naschie, published a large number of his own articles in that journal, some of which were, ahem, not judged as of high quality by peers. The section in the Elsevier Wikipedia article hints at this. There was much more at various academic blogs. Frankly, I'm a bit amazed Elsevier didn't discontinue the journal after that, like airlines retire flight numbers after crashes.
@StephanKolassa Thank you for sharing that story. I had never heard of that occurring before. (I believe it, I've just never had never saw it before).
Is your niche field organizing it?
If you are in a fairly niche field, then you should know most of the significant people in that field - and preferably actually know them, not just their names.
I strongly believe that a new niche effort (no matter if it's a journal, conference or association) can be successful and worthwhile only if it's done by those people (or a significant part of them) in order to fill their own niche needs. No matter if they come from different organizations (of course they do) or they haven't a single specific association (which most new fields don't have), there is a "virtual community" of people interested in that field and working on it.
Are the key people you know involved in that journal?
Regardless of that, maybe ask them directly about that journal? In the end, it's their opinion that will determine whether that journal will be successful, not any arbitrary metrics.
A suggestion checklist for new journals
check who has been published in the journals - are they notable contributors to the field, or all from one research group?
circulation - try to find out how many copies they print (if printed) or readership numbers
look at the founders of the journal - did they start it primarily as a platform for their own publications, and do these authors and their associates make up the bulk of the authors?
Having said that, although most fields have their primary journals, and new ones have to start somewhere, you can still use the above to litmus-test a new journal (as well as the vanity journal tests e.g. would they accept your paper without any peer review?).
Finally, beware of the new swathe of bogus journals, promoted by well-disguised spam targeted at academics via their university email addresses, for example, see: Journal accepts bogus paper requesting removal from mailing list(!) and Murky world of 'science' journals a new frontier for climate deniers
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.774369
| 2013-01-16T08:06:34 |
7252
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"AWE",
"Ajay Singh",
"Faizah Izah",
"Karen",
"Marco Comar",
"Sunflower",
"Tony Zhang",
"aeismail",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17221",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17222",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17223",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17233",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65326",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65327",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65328",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65330",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65331",
"jnovacho",
"user3723489"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9495",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7252"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What are the main differences between undergraduate, master's, and doctoral theses?
When I did my undergraduate thesis, my adviser was expected big on students expecting them working really hard, so it ended up as a reduced master's thesis (most of the reviewers said that it was an overkill for a B.E).
So because of this, I did my master's thesis pretty much in the same way I did my bachelor's thesis; the PhD dissertation was a different story.
What are the principal differences between these three pieces of research?
Leon: I've removed the second question, "- What are the mistakes students coming from a master or undergraduate may do when preparing this publication just as an extended part of their previous research?" This really should be asked as a separate question.
In a Bachelor or Master thesis, you have to show that you are able to apply the knowledge of your field to solve a typical problem in your field.
In a PhD thesis, you have to show that you are able to extend the knowledge of your field to solve new problems.
The distinction between a Bachelor and a Master thesis may be a bit subtle. Generally I think a Master thesis should show a significantly greater level of independent working. While for a Bachelor thesis your advisor could tell you which methods to use to solve a specific problem, for a Master thesis you could be expected to choose the methods on your own, and maybe adjust existing methods to better fit the problem at hand.
These are the principle differences I see, but of course its also depending on the specific student. A good Bachelor thesis can be better and include more independent work than a bad Master thesis.
I would see the differences as follows:
Undergraduate thesis demonstrates the capacity to apply basic research skills in an area of interest to you. At this level, the focus is on gaining broad competencies (akin to an overview of what research is all about).
Masters thesis demonstrates the capacity to apply advanced research skills (i.e. move beyond basic research skills) in an area of interest to you so that you are able to incorporate some critical insights in your study. At this level, the focus is on developing critical thinking in a subject area.
PhD thesis demonstrates the capacity to apply specialised research skills (i.e. expert knowledge of a particular concept or method) in an area of interest to you so that you can make significant and original contribution to knowledge. At this level, the focus is on identifying a 'gap' in knowledge and addressing it, hence you advance knowledge in a field of study.
These are are arbitrary descriptions as there are overlaps (i.e. all levels require critical thinking); however, the three levels are distinct and require difference level of competencies.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.774729
| 2013-12-30T09:32:40 |
15212
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"David Z",
"JeffE",
"Mark Meckes",
"WetlabStudent",
"aeismail",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/101",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/236",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8101"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9496",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/15212"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
When Applying for Postdocs Should GPA be on your CV?
Lets assume your GPA is very high, say 3.95 or higher, at both your undergrad and graduate school institutions. I have always included it while applying to summer research programs and internships while still in my PhD program. But this is probably inappropriate on the postdoc market right?
Perhaps this question is somewhat subjective, but, after checking out some other questions on this exchange, I didn't think it was overly subjective.
Mark Meckes's answer only considers academic postdoctoral positions. In such cases, he is correct: undergraduate and graduate GPA's do not matter.
If you are applying for non-academic postdocs, however, the situation is very different. At large research centers—particularly those managed by corporations, such as essentially the entire US Department of Energy laboratory system—hiring is done by corporate employees, and must be approved by several layers of management. Several of the national laboratories even have strict GPA cutoffs for their employees, regardless of the length of time they've been working post-graduation!
Consequently, if you're applying for positions only in academia, then there's no need to include GPA. However, for anything outside of an academic setting, it can actually help to do so.
Good point. I was indeed thinking only of academic positions.
Will including the GPA for academic positions actually net you negative points, i.e. make you look like you are holding on to the past, or don't understand academic culture etc., or is it truly a doesn't matter one way or the other kind of thing. My inkling is perhaps the former.
It won't hurt you, but it won't help much, either. After your postdoc, however, it will look even stranger.
For academic positions I'd say rather, it won't help you, but it won't hurt much, either. After your postdoc, however, it will look very strange.
No (to the question in the title), and yes (to the question in the post). For postdocs no one cares about your grades. They're only interested in the quality of your research.
Also for faculty positions.
Post-doctoral and staff positions at non-academic settings work very differently. See my answer.
Huh, this contradicts all the advice I've heard about preparing a CV.
@DavidZ: All the advice you've heard about preparing a CV (when applying for academic postdoc or faculty positions) says to include a GPA? If so, I'm curious what the source of this advice was.
Well... I guess it would be more accurate to say that some of the advice I've heard says to include your GPA, and none of it says not to include your GPA. This would be based on web searches, other people's CV examples, and a few of people I've talked to, though it's been long enough that I don't remember specific sources.
@DavidZ, yep I saw similar advice online, and sensed it was incorrect. That's why I asked the question. I think that most websites focus on industry jobs, since that's mainly what people do with their degrees (this is probably even true with PhDs these days)
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.775023
| 2021-01-31T22:24:29 |
162058
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Ben Bolker",
"Buffy",
"Dylan_Gomes",
"Flydog57",
"Greg",
"Sabine",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/102417",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/112724",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122767",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/134392",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/48413",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/57737",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/73551",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75368",
"lighthouse keeper",
"st01"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9497",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/162058"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What are appropriate questions for a closed-door (non-public) part of a PhD (or master's) defense?
There is a related question about questions to expect for PhD defenses here: What questions to prepare for PhD defense?, but the question (and answers) are referring to the public oral defense.
Generally, at least in Biology in the U.S., there is a "closed-door" or "non-public" part of the defense where the committee "grills" the student about all types of things. I am wondering what types of things are appropriate. It seems that sometimes questions are not related to the thesis or dissertation specifically, but general questions in a large field / body of knowledge. If committee members do not provide you with reading material or potential questions, how would one even go about knowing what to expect? Is it appropriate to fail someone for not answering seemingly random questions - as if they are to have encyclopedic knowledge?
Do you have any personal or anecdotal evidence backing up your "it seems that many questions are not related ..." statement ? That's not typical in my experience.
Anecdotal evidence from other students that I can not attest to whether or not there is a link to be made - but at least they felt like it wasn't there, and personal evidence from my own qualifying / comprehensive exams (which I understand is not the same). I will tone down the language though - you are right to point out that this isn't everyone's experience.
"questions in a large field / body of knowledge" was pretty typical at my institution (engineering, Germany). However, you could expect the committee members (4 including the supervisor) to ask questions about their field of expertise. So when the "energy professor" was nominated to my committee, I set off to get myself a copy of his lecture notes. However, people usually wouldn't fail for not being able to answer those questions, but would not score perfect grades, either.
As the norms and rules vary enormously from institution to institution and department to department even within the US, ask your supervisor.
In my experience the supervisor and committee do give at least broad outlines of what's expected/what topics will be covered. (My personal opinion is that we [academic supervisors] give way too little guidance about what to expect, making the process far too stressful.) You can and should at least ask for this guidance.
Also in my experience, the broad "anything goes" questioning you describe in your question applies more to comprehensive or qualifying exams, where the goal is to find out if the student has an adequate level of foundational knowledge etc. to begin a research program, than to the defense. The PhD (or master's) defense is usually much more focused on the material in the thesis/project itself, although it can of course stray into related topics (see the answers to the question you linked about PhD defenses for more discussion of the typical scope of these exams).
As for
Is it appropriate to fail someone for not answering seemingly random questions - as if they are to have encyclopedic knowledge?
When you put it that way, of course not. But ... a student's and a professor's view of "seemingly random" is often different. A professor might legitimately feel that a researcher in field X should know about topic Y, even if that seems unrelated to the student. Again, I think it comes down to reasonable expectations being set and communicated before the student starts to study for the exam. (As I say in my third paragraph above, that applies to comprehensive/qualifying exams. Students usually shouldn't even have to study for their thesis defenses — the defense is about exploring details of a topic that they've just spent several years immersed in ...)
I agree with @Buffy's points that making any reasonable effort to answer the question will count in your favour (e.g. "well I don't know that but it seems related to ..." or "let me start working that on the blackboard and see how far I can get ...") Again in my experience your examiners are actually on your side and want you to succeed, they will usually provide hints if you make a good-faith effort to tackle the question.
The part about "anything goes" is very field- and location-specific. In some fields, Germany still has a "Rigorosum", a form of doctoral defense that includes questions about the general field, beyond the scope of the doctoral thesis.
@Roland, things vary. When I was still "in the game" our defense was private and quite informal. We sent a few candidates back to the drawing board to do more or fix serious issues. Most of them eventually got over the wire with a bit more guidance. So, it wasn't failure in the sense that "you are done here", but rather "major revisions" similar to that of a journal reviewer. But the questions asked were about the work, not general knowledge of the field. I think we would have treated real failure as a failure of faculty to guide properly along the way.
According to this link https://www.discoverphds.com/advice/doing/phd-failure-rate , 3% of UK PhD students fail their viva (thesis defense). I've never seen or heard about a failed PhD defense in my career (95% US/Canada with a smattering of UK/European)
@Roland I personally know two people who have failed their PhD defenses in the United States (Ecology / Organismal Biology). One at least was given a masters degree instead, and I am not sure what happened to the other.
Generally speaking anything and everything is on the table unless you are told otherwise. There are no limits. It is up to individuals what is asked and up to those and other individuals to evaluate the answers. The candidate may not be able to answer everything.
But it probably isn't required to answer everything. What is required is to say sensible things, including "I never studied that".
But for the foundational knowledge of your field, you'd better be able to give pretty good if not absolutely ideal answers.
The (second) worst story I ever heard, though it may be apocryphal, is one in which the candidate in biology or chemistry gave his dissertation presentation in which he repeatedly mentioned pH. There was an outside member of the English department on the committee who said she didn't have any real questions, not understanding the subject, but would like some layperson's explanation of pH from the candidate. The person, who had long ago studied it formally and was able to use, froze up and gave no answer. He failed.
But maybe that was just a horror story told around grad students to scare them into working harder, something like a campfire ghost story.
In a private oral exam of my own I was asked a question and started to develop an answer (math - algebraic topology) and it went nowhere. I stopped and admitted that I wouldn't be able to finish it, but was able to say exactly what the flaw in my argument was. This actually impressed the examiners more than if I'd given the correct answer immediately, as they told me later.
So, you don't have to be perfect, but you do have to make sense. Do that and you will probably be fine, subject to the vagaries of personality.
This begs the question - what's the (first) worst story you ever heard?
@Greg, thought you'd never ask. There was a story of a failed candidate killing his advisor. I guess I'd rank that first.
@Buffy: did he kill the advisor before or after failing the exam?
@st01 after of course
@Buffy oh my - that is much worse
When I was a Masters students, we used to attend the PhD defenses. We'd sit at the back and remain very quiet. After one candidate finished his presentation, a professor asked a question about one of the slides (this was way back in the day before computers). The candidate fished out the slide in question. The Prof asked about the second bullet point. A literal reading of it obviously violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics. All the candidate had to do was go "Oops, that's obviously a typo", but he didn't. You could hear the wings of the vultures as they circled the room. He never backed down.
@st01 it would be difficult to fail the exam if you are in prison.. of course I suppose they never got caught.. but then how would we know the story?
One of the best pieces of advice I have received is to defend only what you have done. That means that you have to be an expert in your thesis and to a reasonable level in the field as a whole. This perspective enables answering tough questions:
Why haven't you done X? We thought about doing it, however after analyzing our case specifically we opted for Y because of A, B, and C.
Why X is missing? Agreed! It would be good to have it. I did Y instead because it seemed the right way at the time because of A, B, and C.
Your result X goes against state-of-the-art! True, however we take into account A, B, and C that others have overlooked.
Any tough question can be turned into a silent agreement and "selling" what you did instead of defending what you could have done.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.775748
| 2019-07-28T02:02:18 |
133925
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"A Simple Algorithm",
"Buffy",
"JeremyC",
"Patricia Shanahan",
"Scott Seidman",
"Time4Tea",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10220",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20457",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/67068",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75368",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/92362",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/97136",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/980",
"paul garrett"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9498",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/133925"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How do I handle academic references for US PhD program, when I have been out of academia for a (very) long time?
I live in the US and have been working as an engineer in industry for over 10 years. I graduated from a top UK University, with outstanding grades in a Masters degree and several university-level prizes.
I have decided that I want to pursue a PhD, as I have a strong desire to be doing more advanced and challenging work. So, I am planning to apply to the PhD program of the best university that is in my area (which happens to be a top-tier US institution). My family and I are fairly settled in the area and we have no desire to relocate.
The institution has an admissions requirement that I have to provide three recommendation letters, two of which should be academic. Therefore, it seems that I have little option but to reach out to some of the professors that I worked and studied under during my undergrad course 10+ years ago. I am planning to provide one industrial reference and two academic; however, I am concerned that my undergraduate course was so long ago that the professors will struggle to remember me, given the hundreds of undergrad students they interact with each year. So, at best, even if they do generously agree to write a letter, it will probably be fairly generic and unspecific. And of course, it won't be in any way a good reflection of the more experienced and mature person I am now.
At worst, they might simply refuse, given the amount of time that has passed. I wouldn't blame them, and in a way I feel bad asking, after all this time.
So, what should I do in this situation, given the amount of time that has passed? Is there another way I can approach this?
The irony is that, given my industrial experience and personal development over the past 10 years, I think I am almost certainly a stronger candidate for a PhD program now than I would have been straight after I finished my undergraduate degree; however, given the amount of time I have been out of academia, obtaining strong recommendation letters is going to be much more challenging.
Have you asked the university if, in your situation, they will accept all industrial references?
@PatriciaShanahan I haven't, no. That probably would be a good thing to try. Even two industrial and one academic would help me a lot.
I faced a similar, but more extreme, problem applying to a PhD program 25 years after my last college education. I used all industry references: two managers who had supervised me (hardware and software), and my employer's CTO who did not know me quite as well but had very good academic connections.
@PatriciaShanahan ok, thank you for your advice. I will contact the school and see if I could do something similar.
When it comes to references, rules get bent and broken all over the place. Just provide what references you can get.
In contacting your old professors you might start by reminding them of what courses you took with them and what grades you earned in those courses. It would also be appropriate to supply a copy of your full academic transcript.
I frequently get requests like this from students that I haven't seen in 10 years or more. I comment on the students transcript and grades in my courses and whatever I can remember about the student. This isn't ideal, but it's better than nothing.
Another common strategy for students who've been working in industry for a long time is to begin graduate study by taking a few courses on a part-time basis at a local university. It's much less of a commitment by the department to allow you to take a course or two than it would be to admit you as a full-time student and provide you with financial support. If you do well in those courses then you can ask the instructors for academic references.
Personally, I would find it very helpful if the student came to visit me personally to talk over their past and future. It would jog my memory about them and our former interactions in a way that an email contact would not.
Thanks for your helpful answer, I will request a copy of my transcript today. I also like your suggestion of part-time courses. If I don't get accepted during this cycle, I will look into those and see if i can do something to build up some fresher academic references for next year.
@Buffy thanks for the suggestion. I will try to meet them in person, if I can.
I believe you should look for industrial references with academic experience, of at least industrial refs who have a PhD and can comment on your likely success in that endeavor.
Unless you had some special experience with a prof that provided reason to remember you, a recommendation from a generic source will not help an admissions committee. Let your transcripts speak for themselves, and find references who can help lay out your reasons for a career change to the committee.
You are an "atypical candidate". You should embrace that.
Yes, letters of recommendation that primarily comment on transcripts are rarely helpful. Anyone can read transcripts.
Thanks for your helpful answer; however, looking back at my time in industry, I can't think of a single person I've worked closely under in 10+ years that had a PhD (unfortunately).
In my case, with a gap of well over 40 years since my last academic work and having been out of employment for 7 years, I first talked it over with my intended supervisor and the university relaxed its requirements to one industrial reference. My referee did not have a PhD but was an engineer of international repute.
@Time4Tea Then find someone to attest to your ability to learn complex subject matter, your ability to handle large projects, your determination to finish what you've started ....
Ok, thanks for the advice.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.776191
| 2014-12-14T21:58:44 |
34292
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"H. Khan",
"Ishan Kashyap Hazarika",
"Nate Eldredge",
"RobJ",
"Saikat Banerjee",
"Vietnhi Phuvan",
"ff524",
"frustrated postdoc",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1010",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11365",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/25233",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7903",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/93983",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/93984",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/93985",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/93991",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/93993",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/93994",
"ithisa",
"sketchyTech"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9499",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34292"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What can I do one day before admissions deadline, if I believe my recommendation letter writer will not submit in time?
One of my professors this term promised to write me a recommendation letter for grad school. However, tomorrow is the deadline and her letter is not on the application website. She really liked me, so it's probably a case of her forgetting about/misremembering the deadline.
However, I can't reach her via e-mail, and she's the kind of person who puts absolutely no information online (phone, travel plans, etc). Perhaps she's on some sort of trip to a conference or something.
What can I do (with respect to the graduate programs I have applied to) to resolve this? Is there usually some sort of university policy regarding this situation? I really don't want to be unable to apply for grad school because a professor forgot to check her e-mail.
This situation is different from What can I do if a professor agreed to write a recommendation letter, but never sent it?, because in my situation the deadline has not yet passed.
Is your question "How to reach this professor?" or "How can you explain the situation to the graduate programs you applied to?" (See "Here's my situation, any suggestions?" is not an answerable question). If the latter, it appears to already be addressed in What can I do if a professor agreed to write a recommendation letter, but never sent it? and this question would be a duplicate.
It's the second situation, the difference being it wasn't "years ago", but "multiple times over the past few weeks" that the professor promised to write me a reference letter. She clearly just misremembered the deadline and went on doing something busy.
OK, do the answers in the linked post address your question? (I understand there are some differences with respect to when you asked the professor for a letter, but the part about how it affects your current applications is essentially the same). If not, can you [edit] your post to explain why you think the answers would be different?
@ff524: The most important difference in this question is that the deadline has not yet passed, and that the applicant has not yet been rejected. For instance, would it be worthwhile to contact the departments where they are applying and explain? They might be willing to wait a little longer. Or maybe a letter from the letter writer's department chair would be helpful? I don't know, but answers to this question could consider it. But those would not be relevant to the other question, in which those ships had long since sailed.
Call the school you are applying to, state that the prof who is supposed to give you the recommendation is out of her office and unreachable, and ask for a one-week/two-weeks extension of the deadline; 2. It's your responsibility to try to reach her. Did you talk to her department and find out when she is expected to be back?
@NateEldredge Good point, thanks, I've updated the question to highlight this difference.
@ff524: I've also edited the other question's title to indicate that it asks about what to do long after the fact.
I have contacted a close colleague of my professor, and he says that she's currently very busy, but will finish the letter just in time. Apparently, my professor has a bad habit of not looking at her e-mail frequently.
I would try the following:
Contact the department(s) where you are applying, and ask them if they have received the letter. (It's possible that they have received it, but for some reason it has not yet been logged in their online system.) Explain that you would ask the professor herself but you cannot reach her.
If they say they have not received it, ask if they would be willing to keep your application under consideration, pending the arrival of the letter. I don't know if this will help, but it's worth a try.
Contact the professor's department chair and see if he/she knows anything about the professor's whereabouts. It is possible that something unusual has happened (e.g. she is in the hospital), in which case the chair may be able to write a note to the admission committee explaining the circumstances and asking for their patience.
If it seems that the letter may not be forthcoming within a few days, consider seeing if someone else can write you a letter. Be sure to explain to them the circumstances, so they understand that it is urgent for reasons beyond your control.
Hopefully someone who has been on an admission committee will add an answer saying how they normally handle such situations (which must be rather common).
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.776564
| 2013-09-23T15:28:40 |
12918
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Alec Wilson",
"JeffE",
"Pam",
"Peter Jansson",
"Tetradic",
"Ulrich Schwarz",
"fileunderwater",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32803",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32804",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32805",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32809",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4249",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4394",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7223",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/91884",
"penelope",
"user32803"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9500",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/12918"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
My PhD went over time - advice for explaining this on a CV
It is a concern to me that I may look unattractive to potential employers because I went so far beyond the original budgeted time for my PhD (50% over time). I am currently searching for a job in industry, where there may be no understanding of the difficulties of my research and I expect to recieve no sympathy from prospective employers.
I feel that on my CV I must somehow find a way to hide that it took me so much time to finish my PhD. However I will not blatantly lie on my CV. Does anyone have any advice? Or any suggestions as to how I could explain this extra time on a CV? I hope I am not the only one to have ever been in this mess?
The time I studied for my PhD went to 6.5 years, which is far beyond the typical 4 years for PhD studies in Europe (I study in London). In growing desperation (for applications to jobs based in Europe) I consider replacing the first two years of my PhD with a job, possibly titled "research assistant" or something similiar, and placing it under employment history. On the CV it would then appear my PhD took 4.5 years, a more typical length. Any thoughts on doing this? Is it correct that in the United States and Canada that 6.5 years is close to the typical length (or time required) for a PhD and therefore I would not be discriminated against?
Any advice and suggestions are appreciated.
PS it genuinely took 6.5 years to finish this PhD, it was impossible to finish in 4 years.
If you published good research, nobody cares. Six and a half years is the average length time to complete a PhD in the US.
Whatever you do do not fabricate or conceal the truth. I am not sure someone would worry about finishing "on time" as much as looking at the quality of the work you have achieved. In my system there is also a 4-year research time limit (in terms of calendar time it can be extended by including teaching, maternity/paternity leave or whatever is applicable). Regardless of whether you apply for a job in academia or industry the criteria for the employment will be much more than finishing on time. So issues like quality, number of papers published, social skills, other relevant skills will be measured. If you have a reasonable explanation for the extended period of your PhD, just spell it out. Do not make a big story about it, just cleanly provide an explanation that makes the period understandable and reasonable.
I’d also add that if you explain away (aka lie about) a 2 year research assistant position, you can expect questions in the interview about this position and that might lead to a tangled web and a stressful interview. Plus, stats at my UK based institution imply that a majority of students actually exceed their 4 year registration period.
I'm not sure I understand (and this might be a US centric thing). What does it even mean for a Ph.D to go "over time" ? It takes as long as it takes, and that's pretty much it. While taking inordinately long (8+ years) might raise some eyebrows, 7 is still within the "normal" range, albeit on the higher side.
In fact, I've often suggested to students that the benefit of staying an extra year to strengthen their CV (if there's a path to doing so) far outweighs the potential cost of taking "longer" to finish, in terms of future job prospects.
I suspect Europe (or parts of Europe) is different.
Yes, the system(s) in Europe has strict time limitations but mostly concerning financing. It is still possible to complete a PhD later although there is likely less support from the university/department once time runs out, for example, you may not have office space.
There's a typical PhD duration in Europe depending on the country (e.g. 3 yrs France, 4 yrs US, 5 yrs Sweden). I have a working contract with the salary based on my funding, that states I'm employed for 3 years. It is extremely hard to get further funding for a long period of time - in France, if your team has money they might pay you for an extra 6 months, and I've even hear of people using the unemployment support (very good in France) in order to defend later, or getting employed as the team's engineer if they wanted to significantly postpone the defense.
@penelope The time allotted for a PhD in Sweden is normally 4y, but that excludes teaching or other duties. Therefore many end up with e.g. 5 years, including 25% teaching.
@fileunderwater Sorry, looks like I was miss-informed. But I think the point is still valid.
|
2025-03-21T12:55:49.777060
| 2013-11-02T18:20:42 |
13803
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Antonio De Villar",
"BonsaiOak",
"Fang Hung-chien",
"Gorka",
"Jay Hankins",
"Justin Shultz",
"Noah Snyder",
"Prof. Santa Claus",
"Siqi Liu",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/25",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/35579",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/35580",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/35581",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/35582",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/35583",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/35627",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/35638",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43169"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:9501",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/13803"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Who is to decide the main idea(s) of research in a PhD Proposal, the student or his/her supervisor?
I'm a pure math phd student and the supervisor gave me two papers so as I find an idea to research but the subjects are unrelated and I can't concentrate on one of them and can't decide which one is likely to be a fruitful subject, What should I do?
Talk to your advisor!
First, it depends on the country you're in, the type of funding you're applying for, and probably to a smaller extent on your field of research.
In case you already have an agreement with a supervisor, then you should probably look to him for advice on choosing a topic, but make the choice yourself. Given that he sent you papers on these two topics, you can probably assume (absent any evidence to the contrary) that both would make a good and fruitful subject. Thus, choose with your heart: what problem is most exciting to you?
This is a tricky question. In principle, of course, it's best if one comes up with one's own question/project. However, it is all too easy to accidentally, from inexperience, choose a too-hard, or boring-to-experts, project, or, more subtly, a project in which neither you nor your advisor has any special insights to give you an edge over anyone else.
Especially if you are hoping to make a run at the "research post-doc" game, you'll want to have done Ph.D. work that is of interest to experts in that field. A novice has the obvious difficulties ascertaining whether a given topic might be of interest to experts, but your advisor should be able to clarify this. I have seen examples of people working enthusiastically on a PhD topic, and finish the degree, only to have no one care at all, and no job offers result.
Also, I don't think it's the case that a "smart-enough person" can pick random problems (that are of interest to experts) and expect to make significant progress merely by wanting to. While it's true that "fresh eyes" can be helpful, literal inexperience is rarely useful. I tend to think that one's advisor should give "insider advice" about un-obvious possibilities for progress.
Thus, in reality, I think that the true choices available are something like first choosing an advisor based on their expertise. Then ask them for guidance. Presumably they will not dictate a project, but merely suggest, giving you choices... but it is very important to continue the iteration of "getting advice", rather than just privately making a choice and assuming it is wise. Lacking the information and experience your advisor should have, it is essentially impossible to make good choices on your own. Tentative choices, to be discussed with your advisor, yes.
I understand your situation because I recently started my PhD.
You do the following:
Try to come up with ideas from those two papers
Apart from that try to come up with own ideas of yourself
Take all the ideas with you in a meeting with your supervisor and tell him frankly what you want to work on.
I think in general the role of the PhD should increase trough the course of the project. In the beginning, the supervisor will have a significant role, both in selecting the subject and performing daily duties. This is needed imo to get the unexperienced PhD going. Later, the role of the PhD increases, and the supervisor takes a more passive role.
In the Netherlands, it is customary to write four journal papers as a PhD (4 years). While the first might be an idea that your supervisor came up with, your last should probably be your own idea.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.