id
stringlengths 1
7
| text
stringlengths 59
10.4M
| source
stringclasses 1
value | added
stringdate 2025-03-12 15:57:16
2025-03-21 13:25:00
| created
timestamp[s]date 2008-09-06 22:17:14
2024-12-31 23:58:17
| metadata
dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
118984 | Can a lecturer force you to learn a specific programming syntax / language?
My class is currently further learning our relational database / SQL as part of the course.
The lecturer we have currently is restricting us to learning specifically Oracle SQL syntax rather than allowing us an option to using PostgreSQL, MySQL, SQLite, etc.
When we brought up our preference in the use of alternative systems due to working with those mentioned above in work placements or academic study from the year prior, we were talked down to for even discussing the matter.
Is this permissible within the UK to restrict students from using a preferred database syntax / software environment?
Edit to add: thank you for your insights and feedback. The post was made on behalf of myself and half a dozen class members who did not know the best route to address the matter, but now have a clearer understanding thanks to this community. For what it's worth, I can confidently say myself and my fellow students are confident with Oracle, MySQL and other SQL Basics from prior education, projects or employment and don't have an issue learning something new to keep progressing.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
No, they can't. But they can make you fail the class.
Lecturers usually have free rein over the specifics of the material taught. Therefore they are free to choose any technology or dialect as long as it is within the area of the course.
Nobody can force you to study anything but if you want to pass his exam or the course by e.g. submitting lab problems, you have to play by their rules.
They might not know any other dialect and therefore be only able to teach (and grade) Oracle SQL. Or they might consider it the best dialect, e.g., because of wide industry use.
Finally, although I would be annoyed by this as well, sometimes you have to suck it up and just pass the course. Lecturers that teach the same (obsolete) material for 20 years are unfortunately a reality in academia. At least you might learn what to avoid in the future.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
Unless there is something in the course description saying otherwise, the lecturer can choose the syntax for all submitted coursework and exams. Picking a specific syntax makes the lectures less confusing, as well as simplifying testing and grading of coursework and exams. To pass the course, you will have to learn Oracle SQL.
You may be confusing "requiring you to learn X" with "restricting you from learning Y". In the long term, you will have to learn a lot of material during your career, and it will not always be feasible to get classes in exactly what you need to learn. Independent study can become essential.
Consider repeating some of the coursework using the database of your choice, for your own education.
I'd like to add to Patricia's excellent answer by saying that if you end up doing this for a living, you will need to develop the ability to move between similar languages and frameworks to survive. SQL, in particular, is not a technology to be precious about, because it's used everywhere. Also, the amount of extra effort on your part is marginal compared to the amount of work the instructor would have to do if everyone picked their own version. That's insane. It would be like a business that let each dept use their own version of SQL, and then trying to normalize that into a single DB.
Rephrased a bit, your question says:
Can a lecturer base their course on a specific dialect of a tool?
I can and I do.
But I'd like to highlight a bit different aspect of this. A proper university-level lecture is (almost) never about concrete tools and languages. It's about concepts.
I am teaching Functional Programming this semester. The lecture material is telling about Haskell. The exercises are in Haskell. If someone would submit them in ML, they'd surely fail. But the concepts of functional programming is what this lecture actually is about. And concepts do not change.
I fully expect the students to be able to program in ML, Swift or what not, as long as it's a functional programming language and they have adapted to the syntax. Surely, they'd miss some concepts. Surely, they'd have some concepts they did not encounter in the lecture. But the basic approach, the generic mindset, and most of the concepts will still be there. And this is what my course is actually about.
In fact, they might never write a single line of Haskell in their life after they have got their grade. And it's still make them better programmers and computer scientists.
I can basically replace words and get the same statement about relational databases. The fact that you learn Oracle should have little impact on your ability to use MySQL (or what not) later in your life. Quite a number of large companies use Oracle anyway. Perhaps your lecturer is more fluent in Oracle than in something else, or maybe your department got that big shiny Oracle licence that'd be a shame not to use, or something completely different. The reason is irrelevant, you have to learn Oracle.
What you actually learn is foundations of relational databases. These foundations apply to all the *SQL things and even some that are not. Everything else is a minor adaptation to syntax and local quirks, which is not a subject of university education.
The fact that you learn Oracle should have little impact on your ability to use MySQL that very true. You have to use some existing language and each implementation can have its differences. Still, if you know how to write queries in any SQL dialect, you'd be able to write them in any one dialect. A table would function the same in Oracle, PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc, when it comes to selects and updates, and so on. Some special cases could differ but in the real world you not always have a choice in DB vendor, you'd likely be required to just use X and Y whereas you only know Z.
As educators, we like to lay claim to this "concepts not specific technologies" belief, but I don't see much evidence that's true. My C++ students don't feel comfortable about Java, even though I tell them at every turn what 95% is the same and what 5% is different. The 4-year college that most of my 2-year students transfer to doesn't accept a C++ class as satisfying a Java programming requirement. Job postings will require distinctly one, not the other. Etc.
Apple and google divide the market and use primarily non cooperative strategies. Microsoft has been responsible for the affordable pc, before hand a personal computer from Macintosh etc was a luxury. Now anyone can have full access and own a fully programmable computer (as opposed to android/apple smart device which is not fully programmable). How can anyone rationally deny this? And not only this, Windows also finds the optimal solutions ad well. Not sacrificing performance, compatibility, or affordability.
The windows 95-windows 10 era of Microsoft are really a modern marvel and now with the rise in other o.s. Companies such as apple and google, it is becoming more and more clear how lucky we all have been. It is my fear that this era is curtailing in a change to a more regular times analogous to before the 1980s. That said academia never really used windows for study ironically, it's always relegated to the background and out of site.
Now I'm sure companies will pick appart every aspect of the 95-win10 o.s. And copy it. But the point is the free market enterprise started by Gates and Allen which was capable of accomplishing this will be forever gone.
The discussion seems to side-track. Technologies erode. Remember J#? Perl? Tru64 UNIX? VAX? The problem of teaching "Programming in XY" is that people are lost and have no job, when XY is deprecated.
@DanielR.Collins: Once upon a time I successfully got a C# job, but two weeks before starting I knew only C++ and Java. It worked out. Hence, concepts, yeah.
"Job postings will require distinctly one, not the other.": But this only tells how shallow some recruiters can be. An experienced programmer who masters, say, C++, Python and Haskell, won't find it difficult to pick Java or C#. Yes, it will take some time, but I would prefer to give a Java position to such a programmer than to someone who has only programmed in Java throughout their career.
This one of the best answers for me, because it directly addresses the notion that university education is about getting a student to understand an overarching principle rather than a specific implementation. By getting caught up in the specifics of having to remember LIMIT vs TOP, or thinking that (outer) joins must be done like WHERE table.col = othertable.othercol(+) (shudder at the thought of this, if it's happening) they are losing sight of the bigger picture that they're there to learn about storing and linking related data together and considering it in sets rather than row by row
@DanielR.Collins - Pragmatically speaking, all major DBMS should support ANSI SQL and then their own syntactic idiosyncrasies are layered on top of that. However, most employers tend to just list the tools they use and fail to really appreciate that. Unless you are doing detailed tuning of queries or making heavy use of platform specific features, if you are competent at ANSI SQL you can write competently on most DBMS and just look-up functions you need.
"It's about concepts." This is just so true and so accurate. I learned structured programming by learning BCPL. What I learned in that course made it relatively easy to self teach myself C, since it was also available on the PDP-11/34A we had in the lab at that time. But the basic concepts I learned from BCPL made the transition to C fairly trivial. It wasn't until later that I found out that C was actually the grandchild of BCPL. :)
@dgnuff: As Hardy put it on a different, but related manner: "... because languages die and ideas do not". ;)
Yes, all of us as academics have anecdotes of understanding concepts and transitioning independently to new languages. So do I. But from what I see of student and HR populations I'm skeptical that's generally the case. I would like to see evidence that the percentage of people who do that without specific training in new technology is significant. If that were the case, the whole professional training industry would not exist.
Can a lecturer force you to learn a specific programming syntax / language?
Of course they can. Teachers are generally in charge of designing their course in whatever way they think is best suited to reach the intended learning outcomes. In some cases (especially more project-oriented courses) this may mean leaving the choice of technology open to students, but for other courses strictly mandating what students should use may be preferable.
Further, while I won't comment on the usage of Oracle specifically, there still may be good reasons to not use what you have been using before. Particularly, learning a different SQL dialect can be a very valuable lesson in itself. It makes you understand better what exactly is part of SQL (the standardized language) and what is part of the specific implementation that Postgres uses.
Finally, practicalities often dictate that teachers mandate certain technological ground rules. I have often had the case that I strictly required students in large classes (400+ students) to adhere to specific technologies and even submission templates, because it was not acceptable from a grading time perspective that TAs would need to spend time getting a solution to run before they could start grading it. Clearly this is an extreme case, but you still need to understand that letting each student pick their own technology escalates quickly in terms of grading effort.
That all is to say, you can certainly address (for instance in the teaching evaluations) if/that you feel that the pedagogical goals of the course could be better reached when using a SQL dialect that you already know, but a formal complaint has no legs to stand on.
While I generally like the answer, I feel that by mentioning "best suited to reach the intended learning outcomes" in the first paragraph you give it the highest importance and I would argue that practicalities mentioned in the last paragraph are the main reason for the selection of a technology. That's what he knows, thats what he is used to.
@problemofficer This may or may not be true. I don't know your teacher.
Take a step back: How many students are in the class? I'll guess 100. Each student will have their own preferences -- different SQL dialects, different learning speeds and styles, different topics, different assessments, etc. The lecturer cannot accommodate all of these preferences, so there is a need to compromise.
It may be only 10% more work for the lecturer to accommodate your preferred SQL dialect. You may think that's reasonable. But if each student has something similar to accommodate, then suddenly the lecturer has 1000% more work. That's clearly not practical.
From the lecturer's point of view, it is essential to keep the course workload under control. If he or she begins accommodating requests, it can get out of hand very quickly. Being strict is a skill that lecturers have to learn. If you want someone who tailors everything to your preferences, hire a private tutor.
Very true. And some of those 10% of additional workload can already be achieved by possibly endless discussions with a) students whose favourite dialect was admitted and who now complain they are getting less material and support than those who use the main dialect of the class, and b) students whose favourite dialect was not admitted and who point out that others got their favourite dialect admitted, too, why can't theirs be admitted, as well. (Source: Personal experience, not even related to dialects of the same language, but to different programming languages altogether.)
I took a File Organization and Processing class years ago and the Adjunct Prof said, "You can turn it in in any language system you want to use because I can read it. If I cannot, you're responsible for teaching me enough of it so I can grade it." There was a restriction against using a language which 'did it for you' (meaning you had to demonstrate knowledge of how to code the assignment... for example you couldn't use a .Sort feature to sort stuff).
@J.ChrisCompton 's comment reminds me of my thesis adviser. He had an assignment to write an algorithm for matrix multiplication. In the lab he discovered an APL keyboard. The rest, is a one-liner... :-D
When I took a course in numerical methods eons ago, the first few assignments were to be done in Fortran 77. After doing some in Fortran, the professor then moved on to assignments in APL, SPITBOL, and C, each meant to demonstrate how different languages allowed problems to be attacked in different ways. No class time was spent in teaching these languages, we were expected to read the manuals and figure it out for ourselves in the week or so available. And, I learned a lot about a bunch of different languages and constructs that I still use today.
But, you can bet dollars to donuts that an assignment to do in APL was only accepted in APL. If it was supposed to be SPITBOL, you might get away with SNOBOL (although you really needed recursion) but Fortran wasn't going to fly.
Yes, for many reasons, a professor can define the parameters of assignments, including specifics such as the allowable programming language.
SNOBOL had some cool concepts, particularly for the early 1960s. Never used it since that course though.
I briefly used SNOBOL in the early '80s!
I was taught a bit of SNOBOL at University in 1971, and my, it made it much easier to grok XSLT when I encountered that in 1999.
@MichaelKay having never used SNOBOL but having melted my brain with XSLT at one point, I'm not sure if I should take your statement as an endorsement or condemnation of SNOBOL.
Well, both SNOBOL and XSLT have a processing model based on matching input against patterns and firing off appropriate rules based on which patterns match. All I'm saying is, if you've come across one language that uses that paradigm, it's very much easier to pick up another; while if you haven't come across that kind of language before, it might well melt your brain. The most powerful concepts in computing often take some mastering.
Fortran 77? Oh, we used to dream of writin' Fortran 77! Would ha' been the lap 'o luxury to us. We used to code in COBOL in an old water tank on a rubbish heap. We got woke up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us!
While I liked a lot of things about SNOBOL, the program control structures really sucked. I lost all interest in programming in it after my first assignment.
Another vote for SPITBOL, which I learned at college and have never had a chance to use since. That horrible mess of Perl that was the header of everyone's first CGI scripts would have been maybe 2 lines of SPITBOL. Can we start a campaign to revive it?
I have used many languages throughout my studies and career and you can be sure of a few things
In School, the teacher is always right, so either get on board or get off
There is never going to be a single perfect language to use that will be used by everyone everywhere (SQL vs mongoDB, C++ vs JAVA, the list goes on and on)
Learning different programming languages is a necessary skill for a programmer
It's great a professor is forcing students to use a less popular language or a language that is not preferred. It helps prepare you for the real world where you will come across a job/situation where you have to use a programming language you've never used before. The hurdles of learning a new language in school will help with the hurdles of learning a new language in your future job.
After having to use FORTRAN 77 and Perl 4 in a real job less than a year ago, I can vouch for the necessity of being able to pick up new languages quickly.
SQL vs MongoDB is way more different than C++ vs Java. It's more like C++ vs Haskell.
Yes, I am in control of my classes and will decide what in your work is worth points and what is not. I'll tell you that up front, with plenty of time for you to drop.
Not only will I demand you use the syntax and language I am teaching (for my own grading ease and consistency of results, like performance timing), but I will demand you follow my code formatting rules for indentation, tab stops, limits on line length, variable names and how to case them, and commenting within your code to help me see what you have done and why you are doing it.
Because the butt-sore truth is, when you get into the real world, you will find that writing working code is not enough, your code needs to be maintainable and readable by others. And chances are, you are going have to read and debug TONS of other people's code, and you will appreciate this then.
Before I was a professor I was a division manager in charge of code for a public company. Newbies are often given testing and debugging tasks to get them familiar with the code and systems and to evaluate their expertise and productivity.
So first, IRL programmers move on to other companies, departments, or roles within the company. So not only do we have to deal with code by programmers no longer with us, the senior programmers are often working on deadline for critical NEW projects, and they don't have the time to debug their own code from years ago, or even answer questions about it.
That makes maintainability of code very important, because hardware and software libraries and operating systems and compiler / interpreter release change much faster than our code base, and break our systems. The code must be legible, easy to understand, and easy to follow. I don't want any "black box" code that just "works right" because when it stops working, I don't want to rewrite it to fix it.
So I enforce that in my classes too. Yes your code has to work, but that isn't the whole grade. You must use the tools I gave you, or you don't pass: Because real companies have standards, even down to the editor you use, and my assignments are an exercise in you using the tools given, not just getting the right answer.
You must also write code that obeys my code formatting and commenting guidelines, those are worth a letter grade. Because IRL if you gave me (your manager) that as a coder, I'd have to send it back to you for proper formatting, and there goes 1 or 2 days of your pay and productivity because you can't follow simple list of written directions.
The equivalent in the classroom is your grade, so -10 for mistakenly thinking that getting the right answer is all that matters to the company. How you got the answer is important, and Maintainability of your code after you are gone or no longer maintaining it is also very important.
@CaiusJard Yeah, I worked at a company where every work station was required to be identical, and kept that way by sysadmins. Same IDE, editor, debugger, compiler, OS, libraries, even the same icons in the same place on the screen. Even the directory structure was the same. So anybody could sit at any station and work, or help somebody find a bug or whatever. No exceptions for personal style or preference. But you get used to it, and uniformity and interchangeability does provide tangible benefits, especially for remote help: If my system and yours are identical, I can duplicate your problem.
What will you do for the final semester worthless class? It's too late to drop.
@Joshua Not my problem! When I tell you the requirements on Day 1 and Day 2, if you are terribly offended by them you still have plenty of time to drop without any grade or financial penalty, at least at the universities I have been at, as a student or professor. What you do instead is none of my business, or responsibility. If you want to graduate, stay in the class and do the work I give you. Just like real life: If you want the paycheck, you will do the work following the rules your boss sets, because to your boss, your work isn't worth your paycheck if you insist upon doing it your way.
Teaching involves more than just doing the lecture, you have to prepare the materials, be familiar with the content, prepare exercises, exams, etc.
How do you suppose the professor would do that without restricting the dialect? Or how can the professor be fair to the students without restricting it?
Example: "We favour Oracle, but we accept any other dialect". So the student that chooses to do it in pgsql would be at a disadvantage because the material was not prepared for it, the syntax is different, examples won't work, etc...
But then we add pgsql because it is well known. But it would make no sense to add pgsql and not use mysql too. When does it stop?
To be fair, there is a simple answer to that - if all material is prepared for Oracle and a student chooses, by their own will, to use something else, they have elected to be at a disadvantage.
Yes, but then the guy fails, blame it on the professor, ends up creating a ruckus. Sure, he would be wrong, probably, but any official complains would most likely need to be thoroughly investigated, this can get really messy. Easier to nip it in the bud. Further, how would the professor mark the exams? (the "funcionality only", "black box", approach could work, but I rather double check what the students did)
@FábioDias I would even argue that the "black box" approach wouldn't actually work, as programming (even SQL) is as much about the code as it is the result. Things like formatting, style, architecture, best practices, etc. are all part of learning a new language or technology, so not grading on them is a huge disservice to your students.
Hmm, I don't wish to be rude, but this seems like a rather bizarre question. It's like saying, "The professor is insisting we work from textbook X. But I'd prefer to use textbook Y." It may be that you could make a good case that Y is a better textbook. But if the class is going to be coherent, all the students should be working from the same textbook.
If everyone used a different dialect of SQL, then the professor would have to include discussions of all the different dialects in every class. Not only would the prof have to know all the dialects and all the differences, but he would have to take class time to discuss these differences constantly, rather than concentrating on the basic points. For students who are already thoroughly familiar with SQL, discussing differences between different dialects might be interesting and useful. But if the point of the class is to teach SQL, such digressions would not only be a burden on the professor but on the students. Students would have to be sorting through, what dialect is he talking about now? Does that apply to me or is that one I'm not using? The level of complexity would be greatly multiplied.
And how would he grade assignments? Is he supposed to have all these different dialects installed on his computer? And keep track of which student is using which dialect and be sure to test with the right one?
What if someone said, "I don't want to use SQL at all. I want to use Mongo"?
What if someone said, "I don't want to learn about databases. I want to learn about writing flat files"?
What if someone said, "I don't want to learn about databases. I want to learn about the French Revolution"?
Where would this end?
Unwise to drag textbooks into this.
@Joshua Not sure what your point is. The bit about textbooks was an example.
It's a fight with more at stake than the language variant one; you could easily lose the textbook one due to the weight of the other side and still win this one.
In general yes, but perhaps not with artifically "pushing" a specific commercial tool
I agree with the multiple answers as a matter of principle - teachers can and do choose how to teach their classes, and have much leeway regarding choice of tools for the students to use, as well as form and syntax for homework submission.
That being said, if the teacher of a course forces the use of a tool and/or dialect which:
Is only provided by a single commercial entity
(perhaps) Requires the students to expend financial resources on gaining access to this tool
(perhaps) Requires the university expend financial resources on gaining access to this tool
Has more commonly-used, freely-available and well-regarded alternatives
and the teacher refuses not provide a (minimally credible) rationale for exclusively using the tool
... then this may be ethically problematic. It is effectively a form of coercive commercial advertising on the teacher's part - if not artificial revenue-generation for the provider of such a tool - and may be contrary to the academic institute's regulations, or possibly to state laws.
Now, I'll grant that this is tricky business, since we're talking about regulating academic freedom with somewhat extrinsic considerations, so it would have to be rather egregious. I doubt that saying "Use the Oracle SQL variant" meets the above criteria, since for the purposes of your course it's probably effectively the same thing as ISO SQL; or can be trivially adapted from other SQL variants; and apparently there's an "Express version" which you can use for free. But in the kinds of cases I described above it is not as cut-and-dry as other responders to your question suggest.
Maybe. Oracle is available legaly for free (the "Express" edition); nobody needs to expend financial resources. It is debatable whether there are "more commonly-used" or "more well-regarded" alternatives, this surely depends on whom you talk to. But it is certainly not a seldomly used and not a questionable tool; and it is common enough in the industry that it is highly likely that a student will have quite a benefit from having it on their CV. It's also hardly a case of unethical advertisement or something like that.
@AnoE: See edit.
I upvoted this. Just once, I want to see the instructors academic freedom overthrown by the students of the class. I am sure such a power would be abused heavily, but when the instructor insists on teaching largely obsolete technology it is time for the instructor to go.
@Joshua: I would not want to see academic freedom overturned, and certainly not by students. Docents do have some ethical obligations, even while enjoying the freedom to teach as they see fit. (Actually, they don't effectively enjoy it anyways.)
@einpoklum: I take it you never discovered a major-required class you were in was utterly worthless half way through.
@Joshua: To be honest - no, I have not. Remember, though, that universities can assign major-required classes to teachers who teach them more seriously, without forcing a specific approach on individual teachers.
I recall Oracle being free to use for learning at least 10 years ago, long before most systems were.
@Ian: PostgreSQL, MySQL, MonetDB and others were always free to use, and libre - including 10 years ago.
@einpoklum, If I recall correctly most of these were even more of a pain then Oracle to run on windows. They were also very new at the time.
@Ian: Windows is another commercial piece of software, and that one definitely isn't available for free. Also, this discussion is veering off topic...
First time I've ever heard anyone call it ISO SQL..
@CaiusJard: SQL is really just ISO/IEC 9075.
Most universities in the UK communicate information about their courses and modules by so-called course and module descriptors. They are often a part of your course handbook or provided in the module information pack.
Read the module descriptor and take a look on Learning Objectives for the module. They describe the skills and knowledge which you will obtain after a successful completion of this module. Your lecturer is here to help you acquire those skills.
If the LOs say you will learn a language/syntax, then this is what you need to learn. Presumably a choice of language is well justified since it made it into a formal document (which is a part of your learning contract).
If LOs say you will learn how to manage a database, then you have to manage a database using any suitable language. If the lecturer wants to impose a restriction, she/he should justify it using objective reasons, e.g. this program is outdated, this is not suitable for the task, this is proprietary and University does not have a license for it, etc. Forcing individual preferences on students without academic need for it is not cool and only shows that the lecturer has limited skill set and can't be bothered to learn more. This is not a good example to follow.
I think that admitting you have a limited skill set is a very good example to follow. Anyone who doesn't admit their limitations is not to be trusted.
This overlooks the overhead (possible automatic test harness, etc.) in assessing/grading a multitiplicity of language submissions.
@MichaelKay It is cool to admit your limited skills, but not cool to make your limitation someone else's problem, in this case your students' problem. Lecturers' task is to help students develop their skills, not restrict them.
@DanielR.Collins Grading is lecturer's job. It's not fair to simplify your job at expense of reducing your students' experience.
@DmitrySavostyanov: We'll have to disagree. Being efficient with your time so you can help more people more deeply is wise.
@DanielR.Collins We surely have to disagree. Being "efficient" to provide worse support to more people would never be my goal.
Per my last comment, I'm interested in helping more people more deeply, e.g., with better-prepared class presentations, more time for personal meetings and advising, deeper feedback on concepts for assignments, etc. It seems odd that you'd instead prioritize budgeting time to support students not having to learn a new language.
@DanielR.Collins I want to focus on helping students to learn what they want to learn and what the module descriptor promises they will learn. If they came to learn data analytics, for example, they can choose a language for their assignment - language is just a tool to help students learn the subject. Restricting their choice of language only reduces their experience. And I am happy to learn a new one, if I have to do it for marking purposed. How can I encourage students to learn if I don't want to learn myself?
It's not about the instructor not knowing a language, it's about constructing a single test harness to help automate grading and save time for other purposes. Refer to my first comment; now we're just arguing circles.
@DanielR.Collins So, you argue for automatic grading and call it "deeper feedback" and "helping more people"? There are definitely some circles here.
I did not say, nor use, automatic grading. You're being intentionally obtuse.
@DanielR.Collins You said "to help automate grading" and "automatic test harness". My first language is not English, and I apologise if I misunderstood you, but what is the key difference between your approach and automatic grading?
For what its worth, with Oracle and PL/SQL you will get not only the core relational database and SQL experience, but also some hands-on experience with some aspects of a commercial database and its extensions to the standard. This will enable you to pick up just about any of the other standards-based RDBMS systems on your own and it will instantly feel familiar. You may not have another good opportunity to learn a commercial database prior to getting into the job market, and having Oracle PL/SQL on there will look great and possibly open some employment opportunities that would not normally be available to new graduates.
I'll add my own experiences to the pile for contrast. The lectures for my Introduction to Object Oriented Programming class in the mid-90's was taught in Fortran 77 (a non-OO language) because the (tenured) professor didn't know C++ and this was his last semester before retirement. He lectured using his notes (written on punch cards) from an earlier Data Structures class (based on an unrelated textbook), while the programming labs were taught in C++ by graduate students who actually knew what they were doing (thank you, Hamid). The exams were blue-book (written essay) and required answers to Object-Oriented programming questions drawn from the C++ lab assignments...written in Pascal - a language that none of the students in the class had been taught but were presumed to already know. Every student received a 2.5 and the professor retired. I learned OO programming from a graduate student during a two hour-per-week lab assignment, while his attention was split among 15 other students.
Another example from the following semester (more relevant to your situation). My Database class was taught without databases at all. There was no database, no SQL. The programming labs were entirely in C and involved assignments like implementing core data structures to support relational tables in memory, creating different indexes based on binary trees, etc., and writing queries using table scans and then the indexes, then evaluating their performance using big-O notation and refining the indexing methods. Even though I did well in the class, it provided no practical experience with any DBMS or query language. It was a Computer Science course in the purest form. In retrospect, the concepts stuck with me and it did help me to understand how to debug queries for performance.
In summary, at the university level you need to choose your battles wisely, and I hope this convinces you that your current course is not so bad. It is up to you to find ways to get the most long-term value out of your courses.
I agree with all the other answers: of course the lecturer can do this, and is likely to be using Oracle to grade your work.
I write to add: I think you should avoid Oracle extensions to or deviations from SQL, unless they greatly simplify the answer into something elegant. The specific difference I have in mind is Use standard SQL JOIN syntax, not Oracle's old WHERE based syntax. The former can express relations that the latter can not, the latter is not accepted by other RDBMSes, and I can't believe your lecturer would be using a version of Oracle so old it didn't also take the SQL standard syntax.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.239023 | 2018-10-25T15:57:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/118984",
"authors": [
"Alex Jones",
"Amadeus",
"Andrew Lazarus",
"AnoE",
"Caius Jard",
"Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight",
"Daniel R. Collins",
"David Thornley",
"Dmitry Savostyanov",
"Don Branson",
"Fábio Dias",
"Giorgio",
"Ian",
"J. Chris Compton",
"Jay",
"Jon Custer",
"Joshua",
"Michael Kay",
"Nelson",
"O. R. Mapper",
"Oleg Lobachev",
"VLAZ",
"anonymous",
"avgvstvs",
"dgnuff",
"einpoklum",
"eykanal",
"fearofmusic",
"ff524",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10094",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11365",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13438",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13822",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14017",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15477",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17418",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24134",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/30796",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/31056",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/39478",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/41208",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/42313",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43544",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/46265",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/52427",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/54618",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5711",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/62936",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7269",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/73",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7319",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75382",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/77527",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/804",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84394",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/85812",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/93105",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/94225",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96105",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96964",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/9902",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/99816",
"marshal craft",
"mkennedy",
"problemofficer - n.f. Monica",
"xLeitix"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84694 | What effect does a journal having multiple ISSN codes have on reporting citations?
Recently, I submitted a paper into a general whose name also appears on the SCIE list of web of science. My paper got accepted. The journal actually has two ISSN numbers (one for print and the other for online). Only one ISSN (print) appears on the web of science list. I want to know what does it mean? Will my paper be included in print version or not? (The journal did not ask about this choice at any stage of the whole process.) If it is not included in the print version then can I write the impact factor of the journal next to the title of my article on my personal website?
I will be very thankful for clarifying my confusion.
I am confused. According to ISSN web page: An ISSN (International Standard Serial Number) identifies all continuing resources, irrespective of their medium (print or electronic)
What are the ISSNs you are looking at? This would make it easier for others to troubleshoot/answer.
I have encountered with this problem. I think it’s a kind of fraud. If a journal have two ISSN, both of them must be same and not different!!!!!!
From what I can understand, currently active journals that are published both online and in print will have both a p-ISSN and an e-ISSN. This means that your paper (which will be published in both channels) will be attached to both ISSNs. See Wikipedia:
When a serial with the same content is published in more than one media type, a different ISSN is assigned to each media type. For example, many serials are published both in print and electronic media. The ISSN system refers to these types as print ISSN (p-ISSN) and electronic ISSN (e-ISSN), respectively.[citation needed] Conversely, as defined in ISO 3297:2007, every serial in the ISSN system is also assigned a linking ISSN (ISSN-L), typically the same as the ISSN assigned to the serial in its first published medium, which links together all ISSNs assigned to the serial in every medium.[4]
ISSNs of different types for the same journal are connected through ISSN linking (ISSN-L). A file of ISSN links can also be downloaded from the ISSN website, to check whether specific ISSNs are really linked. You can also read about ISSN linking at wikipedia: Wikipedia: International Standard Serial Number#Linking_ISSN.
Do you happen to know any journal which has both p-ISSN and e-ISSN assigned to it?
I think most current scientific journals have both. See e.g. Journal of Ecology, which shows "Online ISSN: 1365-2745" (i.e. e-ISSN) on their website, while the ISSN shown at Clarivate Journal Citations Reports (previously Thomson-Reuters) is 0022-0477, which is the print-ISSN.
Do you think there will be journals that publish your paper only in the online version (which is not indexed in known databases like scopus..) and leave the print version only for high end recommended papers?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.242117 | 2017-02-08T06:30:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/84694",
"authors": [
"Iman Rousta",
"Nobody",
"Nourdine Alouane",
"fileunderwater",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/546",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7223",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/82556",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/90115"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
118863 | How can a prospective PhD student know beforehand which universities have the most reputable teams/supervisors?
I am interested in astronomy/astrophysics and cosmology. It is my understanding that choosing the best supervisor/team to work with for the PHD is more crucial than choosing the best (and most reputable) university.
If the above statement is correct. How can one identify the desired supervisors/teams? Probably the best way to to this is to read papers. The researchers that publish the most papers are clearly active in their field. But how can one, without even knowing these researchers find a way to locate the researchers who seem to be making good contributions to their field?
To put it in a simpler manner, does a website like arxiv.org and others have a way to identify the most active researchers (or teams that work on a specific problem)?
A good supervisor is not necessarily prolific, and prolific researchers are not necessarily good supervisors... however, if it's cosmology you're after, let me put in a good word for my own department (ICG Portsmouth).
Why do you want the most repukable? You may risk getting famous and then they will never let you be on your own.
@mathreadler that is a risk one should be willing to take at the prospect of working in the frontiers of scientific knowledge
@user134132523 Hahahaha, yeah.
Actually call someone there (or email etc) and ask them. A call (if possible) will allow more honest, frank answers as of course an email is easy to forward.
Most active does not mean most impactful or most influential. Reading papers on your own, you will have a hard time distinguishing good papers from mediocre work. Your best bet is to get recommendations from people who already work in that field. Ask professors at your own university for recommendations or opinions.
If you have a specific problem you are interested in working on, then it does make sense to search for papers on that problem and do your own reading. But you will still want to get advice from one or more people at your own institution who work in that area (or close to it).
Other answers suggested asking professors or asking students. I suggest you:
Figure out what you want to do after your PhD, as specifically as possible
Find people who are doing that
Ask them who would be a good supervisor for your PhD
This strategy will get you the answer most customised to your needs.
Several of the answers suggest using Google Scholar or similar. Google Scholar will tell you which supervisors are producing nothing, but it will not tell you the difference between supervisors who publish a small amount of good work and those who do a lot of poor work but effectively manipulate the citation statistics.
Further to this answer, let me suggest that what you really want is a department and supervisor that will be of most help in developing your PhD and subsequent career. So try understanding that directly by looking into people who have studied at the relevant departments could be interesting. You could ask staff and students how PhDs have gone: how many completed at all or over how long. Getting current and former students feedback on supervisors would be great, if they are willing to share.
Just to add to the other answers, once you have found a shortlist of possible supervisors you can ask their current/recent students for their opinion. Most academic departments will have contact details for current postgraduate students.
I myself am a PhD student and have happily answered a few queries about my supervisor.
Google Scholar and Research Gate are two general resources for finding a researcher's impact in their field. ArXiV also can provide some general information on who is recently publishing in the field. Individual/group websites can also provide some input as to the overall reputability of the professors in question.
I would consider compiling a small collection of universities you are most interested in on the whole, then researching the professors at those institutions. While university reputation is not an exact indicator of individual output and impact, the two topics are on the whole correlated. It is relatively likely that a well regarded university is going to have well regarded researchers as well.
Check their Google Scholar pages and see how many citations they receive and whether they have recent works etc. Check whether they participate in top tier conferences and published in top tier journals. Check their former students and try to find what they are doing / where they are working now.
Firstly, a good idea is to roughly estimate reputation through citation metrics. Determine 3-5 most reputable journals in your field of interest (typically that would include Nature & PhysRev Letters for physics). To find these journals, go through some major lab publication lists to compile the names, and then look up citation metrics for them. Look through your shortlist of labs & professors and you'll see some of them would get 2-3 papers in these per year, while others maybe can get there once per several years. Also you can directly look up citation metrics for professors on Google Scholar or similar services.
Now, while reputation and citation metrics are important, it tells little about their ability to handle PhD students. To get an idea about that, for each lab compile a list of recently graduated students and try to find where they are now. Are they at major world-known universities/labs? What are their positions - are they jumping from one postdoc to another for years, or do they have a more respectable position after just one or two postdocs? What did they publish while studying, are their papers in reputable journals, are they well-cited? And not the least important, how many years did it take them to graduate? If an average student spends 6+ years on their PhD, it's probably a red flag.
When researching publications, discard any conference & poster presentations - students can get plenty of those with very little effort. Look only for legitimate publications, and ensure they are well-cited (ignoring self-citations).
Typically, reputation of labs is well-correlated with university reputation. Of course, there are some dying labs in respected unis, there are some great labs in otherwise mediocre ones. But start from top universities. After reading through publications and citations for a few hours you'll pick up on familiar names and get the general idea about the major influencers.
Good luck!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.242408 | 2018-10-23T18:58:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/118863",
"authors": [
"JosephDoggie",
"Keith",
"astronat supports the strike",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15586",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/42750",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43739",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/49043",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/99619",
"mathreadler",
"user134132523"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
91354 | Permissions and copyright for a figure from an unavailable source
I would like to use, in a journal manuscript, a figure for which the original source (a website) no longer exists. What can I do?
I found the figure in a Ph.D thesis, the author of the thesis is however not the copyright holder of the figure. But the website of the figure's reference no longer exists, and is also not saved in the internet wayback-machine.
I have a copy of the figure, but i do not see any possibilities on how to ask permission to use the figure.
Any suggestions on how to proceed?
I don't want to make this question too case specific, because I think it is a problem that could occur often, in different countries and settings. But of course I would like a practical resolution: the specific source indicated in the Ph.D. thesis is A2Engineering.com retrieved march 2010.
I already looked a lot on google, also using reverse image search, and I could not track the copyright holder, or their nationality or country of residence. The difficulty is that there are many companies with similar names, but their field of interest does not seem to match with content of the figure.
Is there any chance that i could still use it, based on the idea of "fair use"?
The question as it stands can not be answered untill you add the following information: Who had the copyright and what country were they legally based in.
@BasJansen: If the website where the figure was originally taken from is gone (and with it, probably all traces that lead to the original author), how is the OP supposed to know who was the original copyright holder and what country they were from? As it stands, I read the question as: "I want to use possibly copyrighted resource X, but the copyright holder of X cannot be determined. How to proceed?"
How important is this figure? Are you able to reproduce it or do you really truly need the original figure?
@Hjan For future reference, a snapshot by the Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org/) may be triggered by the users, too. Some addresses are working better than others, e.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20000815222443/http://www.columbia.edu:80/cu/gsas/
I will survive without using the picture, but since the situation can occur to other people to. I was hoping that some one could give some more insight on the use of the "fair use" clause of copyright, for such a situation. (even in different countries). Some times when an old book or conference paper is not accessible, people also use secondary sources in their references. Maybe something similar procedure could apply to figures? I am not worried about getting sued for using the figure. i just wanted to know what proper "research" ethics are in such a case.
@O.R.Mapper The name of the website could already give a good indication of which company it was that likely had the copyright, from there on we could either track if the original company was bought (including copyrights) or if it went defunct. In the case the company went defunct we'd have to look at the copyright law of said country.
@BasJansen: You mean something like www.weprovidefreewebspace.com/users/~smith598?
@O.R.Mapper I said could, and the name that the OP edited into the question gives some indication already as there currently are two companies using that name (UK, India) but both seem to be to recent to be the potential copyright holder. Obviously, if the name was something like you mentioned then it wouldn't work (hence again, the could).
What type of figure is it? Is it a chart, graph or table that merely conveys data (not copyrightable in the US), or something with more creative intervention?
I'd consider to redraw the figure and/or reference the thesis, which is traceable.
I'd also suggest to redraw the figure. You should still mention the original source, but this might avoid many problems.
Did you reach out to the Ph.D. thesis author? Even if the author is not the copyright holder, presumably he or she sought out legal permissions at the time, and may still have a record of an email address or a name to reach out to. If you did reach out already, the question should be amended to make this clearer.
We have a serious problem, worldwide, with copyright now. To protect yourself and your reputation, I think you are better to assume that you cannot use the figure or a recreation of it unless and until you can determine positively that you can. Copyright differs greatly by country now. Unfortunately many works have been abandoned by their authors but copyright law generally makes no provision for that. Fair use and "use for research" differ greatly by place.
My suggestion is to give a reference to the original, even if it cannot be found and to create your own figure separately from this one, using, if possible, different data. Don't try to make it similar. Don't try to disguise the original. Make a new figure that illustrates the point you are trying to make in your own work.
I would do something like presenting my own figure illustrating the point I'm trying to make and the note that author X made a similar point at Reference Y, including illustrative figures (without reproducing them). Your readers are informed. The previous rights holder is respected. You have done the best you can do given (possibly unreasonable) restrictions on sharing.
Whether or not you would be "caught" or "challenged" in reproducing something without permission, your own reputation can suffer. It is better to be conservative here.
But it is also better to use whatever position you have to work toward more sensible copyright rules that deal with abandoned works and with scholarly research without having the original rights-holder suffer.
As many commenters have pointed out, I would recreate the figure and state something to the effect of "similar to source X" and include a citation.
If you've got through all reasonable steps to get permission, this should be adequate - you're providing proper attribution and not claiming it as your original material. While this clearly meets the standard in my country, I acknowledge it may be different from location to location.
spirit of which law? Half the problem is that this varies considerably from country to country.
@FábioDias, thank you for that. I've make adjustments to reflect your point.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.242929 | 2017-06-26T13:02:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/91354",
"authors": [
"Bas Jansen",
"Ben I.",
"Bryan Krause",
"Buttonwood",
"Fábio Dias",
"Hjan",
"O. R. Mapper",
"Oleg Lobachev",
"SecretAgentMan",
"TJK",
"hnltraveler",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11909",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14017",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/37800",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/41208",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/46265",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53107",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63475",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/74267",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75276",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/782",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/94518"
],
"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/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
94924 | What good is engineering research with no practical relevance?
I am a Ph.D. student currently doing research at a top engineering school in North America.
I am becoming more and more jaded at the fact that a sizable portion of the research conducted at my university as well as publications to engineering conferences seem to have very limited practical relevance, and with no attempts to address implementation concerns. Many of these papers seem to be published just for the sake of it.
One glaring example is power engineering. The methodologies
proposed by recent graduates from power engineering are so extremely far-fetched from practical implementation, it raises the question as to why any such
research should be continued.
Power is a very safety critical field: people can die after going for too long without power (case in point), and the industry itself is highly government regulated. The algorithms that have been proposed from my
research department as well as many like it completely ignore things
like safety guarantees. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that
government employees in the power industry would rely on some biology
motivated or learning based algorithm to arrange the power supply to millions of actual
people. There are decades old well-regulated power markets for that!
But power is just one example out of many. I have read many papers on
signal processing and control theory. Most of the papers are completely
math and proof based; their proposed methods are so mathematical, with extremely limited robustness or safety guarantees, etc. These researchers are more concerned with epsilons and deltas than how their proposed methods can be realistically
implemented in people's cars or mobile phones.
An "implementation"
nowadays is just a MATLAB simulation, a few equations, and a graph. Even during undergraduate
engineering training, we have seen how difficult it is to go from
simulation to actual software/hardware that people can use. I can easily show you highly technical papers from these fields published by people who do not even care about the readability of their notation, let alone practical implementation.
So it is a legitimate question as to why anyone would ever use these
highly-theoretical, and assumption laden research results. It is
unclear what "the small-gain signal must belong to a Hilbert space on
the extended half-line" actually means in real life cache design. Furthermore, many
papers are completely without any mention of practical implementation of
the algorithms, so it is completely unknown if anyone would actually
be able to use these research results.
Engineering research is ultimately used to create new technologies that promise to improve the lives of people. However, it is unknown to me at this point how a "bat-echolocation based meta-heuristic algorithm for nuclear generator dispatch" could benefit anyone.
So my question boils down to how we as researchers should attempt to bridge the gap between the highly mathematical, highly theoretical modern engineering research and the practical implementation of research results. What good is engineering research with no practical relevance?
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
Pseudo-applied science is often a waste of resources. This does not mean that fundamental or basis research is pointless, but there is a difference: Having an abstract model for something "out of reach" can be fruitful - one can study it, and add more obstructions in the future.
But there are seemingly applied models which draw an unnecessarily amount of attention. They are either too simplified and already well-understood so that you should move on to more realistic models or they make totally unrealistic assumptions which allow you to apply a method that would otherwise be infeasible. In both cases the models "survive" in the community because the number of scientists is large enough to form a "peer review group" so that papers get published.
Summarized: Fundamental research is helpful, but beware of constructing "applied models" that do not have applications.
Voted up because this is a point worth raising, but I am not sure how "often" is pseudo-applied science a waste of resources. I think that painting research as more applied that it realistically is at the point of writing is hurting science, but it will only stop when we will put less emphasis on applicability when judging research.
More than once I saw a model that was really strange, and after all the argueing why it is "useful", one saw that it was exactly tailored for the solution method that appears later in the paper. If you try to solve the Traveling Salesman Problem as "very abstract version" of transportation, this is fine. If you impose some conditions, argue why they fit "practise" and then reveal that they are needed for specific solution method, you are doing pseudo-applied science.
I think this answer really gets to the crux of my question. I am not complaining about engineering research that are published without immediate application, i.e., fundamental research. It is that a significant subset of engineering research purports to solve a host of problems, yet there is very little evidence that it can actually do that beyond what the paper shows. For example, learning algorithms used in mobile communication. It is very difficult to see how humans and their mobile phones conveniently fit into a learning framework, whose behavior can be modelled as learning algorithms.
As an engineer who spends most of my time developing numerical methods (and not publishing the good ones, since I'm in industry and we prefer kicking sand in our competitors' faces to telling the world how smart we are!) "pseudo-applied science" makes me think of economics or psychology more than engineering research ;)
Fabian, I agree with many of your points. However, I think that your answer would be improved if you could define in the answer what you mean by pseudo-applied science.
@DetectiveMooch You would also be surprised by what can go into the radio of a modern smartphone. In the near future the phones could easily run learning algorithms to optimize bandwidth, without most humans being aware of it.
The short answer to your question is that you are vastly overestimating your, and other engineer's, ability to judge what techniques will ever have practical relevance.
I think it was Michael Stonebraker, a Turing award winning computer scientist with no lack of practical impact, who said that the sweet spot for academic applied research are techniques that are about 10 years away from being widely implementable. If you limit yourself to things that you can already do today, you will fail to propose the kind of radically new developments that should, at least in theory, distinguish academic research from other drivers of innovation, such as startup companies or industrial R&D. Incidentally, if the lack of impact your work has right now is distressing you, you should ponder the question whether you would not achieve higher job satisfaction in a startup or industrial lab.
I find your example of self-learning power grids particularly unconvincing. If we rewind time a few years and relate your arguments to research into automated driving, I am sure you will find plenty of people who found this research to be a waste of time. Driving surely is a safety critical field, and automotive is highly regulated. Algorithms for automated driving assistance completely failed to, and to some extent still fail to, address the practical concerns of many stakeholders as well as governmental safety guarantees. And yet here we are. I am not sure if the same will happen to power grids, but it is absolutely plausible that it will.
You may also be interested in reading into TRLs (technology readiness levels), as used for instance by the European Union's framework programmes as well as NASA. Image
Technology Readiness Levels
TRL 0: Idea. Unproven concept, no testing has been performed.
TRL 1: Basic research. Principles postulated and observed but no experimental proof available.
TRL 2: Technology formulation. Concept and application have been formulated.
TRL 3: Applied research. First laboratory tests completed; proof of concept.
TRL 4: Small scale prototype built in a laboratory environment ("ugly" prototype).
TRL 5: Large scale prototype tested in intended environment.
TRL 6: Prototype system tested in intended environment close to expected performance.
TRL 7: Demonstration system operating in operational environment at pre-commercial scale.
TRL 8: First of a kind commercial system. Manufacturing issues solved.
TRL 9: Full commercial application, technology available for consumers.
The basic concept here is that academic research is usually best suited to bring ideas from TRL 0 or 1 to 3 or 4. The "Matlab implementations" you complain about may very well just be the laboratory tests that are meant on TRL 3. This is very much in line with the position in the grander scheme of the progress of technology that many large organizations envision for academic research labs.
@Magicsowon That reminds me of some ESA calls, which may not fund science but which may fund a demonstration that their data can be used for science.
I am not saying that self-learning power grids is not going to happen. I am sure that it can already be done on small scale (That being said, I've seen larger-scale "learning/neural..." projects that were sent to system operators and promptly rejected). I think research should focus on bringing self-learning power grid into reality, rather than merely talking about it on paper. That is, more papers published should focus on the real-world, practical applications of their proposed methodology. And this is a call for a shift in research culture, rather than finger pointing at some researchers.
@DetectiveMooch Are you sure you should build self-learning power grids now? How well do they work in theory? Just from what you say, I'd bet not well enough; if some problems are visible in the theory, those problems can be addressed in the theory first, before the experimentalists get involved.
@Blaisorblade You are nitpicking on a particular example (out of thousands) that does in fact show some promise of being realized. There are thousands of engineering disciplines out there pumping out research that are rooted based on unrealistic assumptions, and with very limited applications. This question is about the value of those research.
I'm nitpicking a "glaring example", in your words. I and others have answered elsewhere on unrealistic assumptions.
@DetectiveMooch As I said, bringing things that already exist into practice is largely not the job of academic research. For this, you don't need papers and PhD students - you need a business case, VC funding, and good salesmen.
you are vastly overestimating your, and other engineer's, ability to judge what techniques will ever have practical relevance Either this, or the researchers overestimate their research, or they are just lying.
@user12956 Aside from a few media luminaries, most researchers don't pretend like they know what the future will be like. By nature, most real research is of the "throw things to the wall and see what sticks" variety. As people here are prone to say: if you already know that it will work, it's not research. I would argue it's the same for impact.
The critical point, imho, and in respect to many comments on many answers, is that none of us are capable of knowing what will be relevant ten years from now. Any judgement of future relevance is naive, and logical extensions of them fruit from the poison tree. Quite well-said @xLeitix.
Things with "no practical relevance" are not necessarily useless. They may just be "waiting for their time."
For instance, the phenomenon of ionic liquids was first discovered in the early 1900's, but they didn't catch on economically or industrially until the early 2000's when they were "rediscovered" and brought to prominence as "green solvents."
So it's probably unfair to say something has no possible practical relevance. It just might not be obvious yet where they could be used in the future.
Another point to consider is the possibility that someone is engineering but not really doing what is considered "engineering." This may have been a hiring decision, or someone finding a home for where they teach rather than trying to find the right home for their research. (That is the situation for me: I am an engineer by training, but my research could just as easily fit into a chemistry or materials science department.)
Good point. It was only after the death of Mendel that people realized the importance of his work. Also, the concept of negative numbers was seen as very absurd for thousands of years. Same with the concept of fractions and decimals. I wonder if Aryabhatta had considered the importance of the invention of the concept of zero. These were all useless concepts at some point of time. But today...
I agree that things with "no practical relevance" may be just waiting for their time. I can definitely say this is the case in fields like material science, certainly we have no clue what the possibilities are for the vast majority of newly created meta-materials. However, in engineer fields that are more theoretical, there are often assumptions of infinite amount of times, or limitless amount of information; these things can never come to realization. In some paper you see that, assume "every person in an area has a information receiving device that tells them"...but how can that be?
@DetectiveMooch ever heard of a cellphone? Modern smartphones are exactly "an information recieving device that tells them...", and they're incredibly widespread now in the west
@Leliel First of all, we are talking about every user in an area the size of three or more states combined together. If I were to finish that line, it would say that every user is receiving a continuous-stream of data (high-dimensional, by the way) that captures the state of the power system. Each user also has perfect access to the state of the house such as temperature, energy usage, etc. This algorithm then allows users to adaptive shift load off of the grid.
@DetectiveMooch that is not really fundamentally any different or harder. It is expensive to implement, but not even close to actually technically hard. It just takes the power companies spending the money to give all their customers a computer with broadband (on the power companies money) as the meter.
@DetectiveMooch Unrealistic assumptions do not make a result useless — it can't be applied directly, but that's not the goal. Your argument shows that the theory of ideal gases is useless because it's built on unrealistic assumptions. My high school physics suggests that the theory of ideal gases is a stepping stone to more realistic theories. In that case, it's also a decent first approximation of practical gases.
As I recall, the laser was invented without much if any idea what practical use it might have. I'm glad the OP wasn't around criticizing work in that lab.
Guys please, attack the idea and not the personality of the OP. And especially think twice before commenting when you are not working on engineering research.
@DetectiveMooch As someone in industry, when I've seen real jumps forward it has been ideas from two dissimilar fields being merged together. So a paper in remote sensing that makes a set of assumptions that are wildly unrealistic for their proposed application might be found by an agronomist who comes up with an idea for using it to efficiently target fertilizer distribution. Even wildly impractical ideas can cross pollinate across domains beautifully.
If the liquid was "rediscovered" what was the point of the original research?
Research which shows new methods does not have to demonstrate the practicality of the new methods to be useful. An example from something that can be very applied is research in numerical solvers for ODEs. The vast majority of methods which have been created are not used in production-quality ODE solvers. They just aren't efficient. But having a comprehensive literature to pull from can be really helping when trying to learn about the possibilities. Someone outlining a method which isn't very efficient might've contributed new ideas for how to adapt to a certain case that in the future someone else can use to create something that is actually practical. And having a publication which implicitly highlights "look, this thing really only works in special cases because of X" helps someone else in the future when they have that idea (it's much quicker and easier to read a paper and go "okay, that doesn't work as well as I'd hoped" instead of building it yourself).
This also relates back to publication bias. Publishing that something doesn't work is just as valuable as publishing that something does work. Of course, modern publication practices require "significance" so generally researcher have to be sly about how they write the abstract ("we find that in conditions X, Y, Z that this method may be more efficient than current standard choices"), but it's pretty clear from the paper what it actually means in practical terms.
In the end there's a wave of information that moves forward and almost accidentally stumbles upon ideas which work, and these stick and become used in industry. Meanwhile, research continues onward to see what else it can find.
Your example of numerical ODE solvers can be extended a bit. Good numerical ODE solvers exploit smoothness of the solution, at least at most points. Stochastic ODEs don't have this smoothness, so adapting the good methods for ODEs to SODEs is pointless--and in fact can create serious issues with things like spurious cross-correlations. The good SODE methods are actually adaptations of the very simple ODE methods. Having these already in the literature at the time that SODE methods were being developed was surely useful.
Well, these days most of the good methods for SODEs are not adaptations of simple ODE methods. But the theory for there development draws a lot from ODE theory, and the heuristics like leading truncation error coefficient analysis has been paralleled in SODE literature with great success. These theories were created to answer questions about why some proposed methods ended up not efficient, so those methods have helped many better methods be created via the contrast. You can see the same development in L-B-S stability of implicit RK methods.
Another good extension is solving large eigenproblems. Today's "goto" methods are often based on math discovered and published by Arnoldi and Lanczos in the 1950s. In the 1960s this was generally regarded as very interesting theory, but unusable in practice because of the unpredictable accumulation of catastrophic rounding errors. If took another 20 years until cheap and simple methods of zapping those rounding errors were discovered - and probably another 10 years before "non-experts" had access to the algorithms for solving real world practical problems. That's 40 years to reach "level 9!"
I think the other answers look at the question in one way, but I'm going to answer it from a more 'human' perspective.
Because it's interesting.
Most people do research because what they're researching interests them. They're not trying to make millions (quite the opposite usually - they're often not well paid); they're not trying to change the world (even if they do so later); they're just really interested in if XYZ is possible.
The fact that sometimes you get something really ground breaking from research that changes how the world works means that companies are willing to invest in the research; but on a personal level, if you're not interested in doing the research, then there's not much point in doing it.
Are researchers really not well paid? My sister is currently looking for a postdoc research job in mathematics and apparently most of them offer quite some money. Significantly more than I can get in digital hardware development (generally a well paid field) with my master’s degree.
Salaries of researchers vary wildly by field, country, and stage in their career (phd, postdoc, permanent), and also by whether they work for a private or public employer. Some researchers have a great salary, others not so much. However, it is a safe assumptions that a vast majority of researchers do not get into research out of pecuniary interest.
Would love to know what part of this the downvoters found not helpful.
A lot of research is currently impractical and theoretical. But that's why lots of it is university research rather than commercial R&D. And sometimes it becomes very useful, eventually.
When semiconductors were discovered back in 1821 no one in their wildest dreams would have realised what an impact they would have.
And Lasers. A great idea to shine a coherent single wavelength light at something: but why would you bother? And they required expensive materials which ruled out every day use. Then semiconductor lasers were discovered. And then fibre optics, which need a coherent single wavelength of light to make a data signal go far. So now all the internet runs over fibre-optic cables fed by tiny cheap lasers, totally revolutionising everything, due to pure research which sounded very unlikely to yield anything useful about 70 years before.
Why does anybody study drugs on animals? We don't care about healing lab rats. But we hope that helps us study drugs on humans.
Similarly, the goal of solving problems in oversimplified settings (lab rats) is often to help solving those problems in more realistic settings.
Lots of research is not targeted at direct application, but at other researchers. This is a feature, not a bug, because researchers need to build on something. The path from a paper to its application does not need to take a single step. Also, not all of the theoretical papers need be applied. Some of those theoretical results aren't good enough to be applied, and you can tell from the paper itself—more theoretical work is needed before they're worth applying.
Sometimes, even when you know where you want to get, but you have no idea of the path, going in somewhat random directions at the beginning is more effective than targeting the destination directly. (Saw a keynote about a formal study of this in optimization problem).
In a neuroscience class, we discussed how models help understanding the brain. A researcher taught us compellingly that the virtue of a model is not (only) in what it includes, but in what it leaves out. We can't understand a full model of the brain; but we can study oversimplified models to see how they behave, then check if what we learn applies on more realistic models. It also turned out that oversimplified models of the brain are useful as artificial neural networks.
Some of the papers you have seen start from unrealistic assumptions. Likely, that's to simplify their study, especially if it is a mathematical study.
Papers in slightly more realistic conditions come afterwards.
While I don't study engineering myself, I study computer science (programming languages), and we also have many papers which consider simplified scenarios—many of those papers are still indirectly relevant, though it can take decades before theory becomes usable in practice.
EDIT: since you ask/question relevance/applicability: I'm thinking of mathematical papers which are motivated (implicitly or explicitly) by the goal of making programs less buggy. Lots of progress relies on doing more math of extremely abstract sorts, but going from math to more math to prototypes takes few stages.
I don't understand why you are so defensive. Certainly you have seen papers with very limited or without immediate application, or with very unrealistic assumptions, or have very limited applications. You say that in CS there are many papers that may take decades before theory becomes usable, then why not concentrate effort on making the theory useable? In CS there are definitely more room for non-application driven research, this is not the stated goal of engineering research.
On "Why not concentrate effort", oversimplifying: (1) on some theoretical papers, more theory is what's needed before making the theory usable. My field is full of people applying (arguably) stuff that is completely broken in theory (hence in practice). (2) On other theoretical papers, oversimplifying, the "mathematicians" (think) they're done, and more "practical guys" are welcome to come. At most, the mathematicians can spend more effort to talk to the practical guys, but research isn't a fully coordinated endeavor.
You never know when research with no practical relevance will suddenly become relevant.
A recent example in my field (astrophysics): The BICEP2 results that initially stated they had detected a signal attributable to rapid inflation of the early universe. If this signal proved true, these people would likely have won a Nobel Prize, just to give an idea of how big of a deal this was. However, others recognized that the cosmological "signal" likely could be completely attributed entirely to interstellar dust floating around in the Milky Way. Almost overnight, astrophysicists who specialized in interstellar dust became the world-experts of cosmology. Their research (which I will admit was important and applicable in its own right, so not an exact parallel to the OP's question) all of a sudden became incredibly relevant and important.
Another example is Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Although an incredibly amazing theory in its own right, and extremely useful for understanding the universe, its applications to more "real life"-type situations were for many decades basically non-existent. That is, until GPS was developed. Without accounting for General Relativity effects in GPS measurements and calculations, GPS measurements of positions would quickly become very incorrect. "Errors in global positions would would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day!" So decades after a theory was developed, technology finally advanced to a point where the theory became practically relevant in first the military and then our daily lives.
These examples aren't perfect parallels of the situation the OP describes, but still serve to illustrate my original point: you never know when research with no practical relevance will suddenly become relevant.
PhD research is almost by definition part of the education process, rather than part of a product development process, thus the work will appear to have little direct practical relevance.
A similar aspect can happen in industry itself where some of the applied research is directed at the latest buzword aspects, often without a clear understanding as to whether the research will bear fruit (i.e. directly, this year). More usually the work will fall away and become part of the researchers education (just like the 9 out of 10 start-up entrepreneurs).
Knowing if the work will have relevance is hard, but the learning will be useful. I have current work based on 'failed' AR work from 10 years ago..
Remember, feedback control was an invention (H.S.Black) which no-one believed, so some ideas do have their day. Boole was long dead before his (silly) ideas in logic came into fashion.
That all said, it is still wise to be sceptical and think about what will really happen to the ideas, and to what other element is missing from the fanciful studies [Most of the green energy studies will work once an effective industrial battery is developed that can be located near the point of generation, but until then....]
REASON 1 :
Research is a vast domain where expectation of solution to any particular challenge or inventing a new methodology doesn't come over night. A fully fledged commercial product available is not one scholar's Research Paper published . It's an integrated study , Work of many scholars for decades. The best any knowledged person can do, is to present his contribution on his domain in any medium . With his/her contribution can make a remarkable resource not only in the same domain, sometimes in others too.
Sometimes a technical paper can be an inception of new revolutionary technology or ground breaking benefaction for the existing technology.
Here the contribution is important than the requirement.
REASON 2 :
Technology is a result of unexpected revolution. There shouldn't be scarcity of resources. Hence abundance of research is going on across the globe in multiple domain as the key for future or present innovation . Everyone's knowledge is precious and valuable. This knowledge cannot be shared through mouth , but only through technical papers for the present and future generations.
When any new break through happens , the resources should be ready to serve the purpose.
Research is a lengthy journey and concluding the final result is twice as long and Implementing is thrice as long
How far is it from flying a kite in a thunderstorm to building a lightning rod that can protect a barn? Ben Franklin did both.
How far is it from Claude Shannon's paper on digital encoding of signals to the now familiar audio CD?
It seems to me that basic research has to ask questions, even when it's not clear how the answer will be of benefit. Sometimes, the research turns out to be science research instead of engineering research, as in the kite example above. But you get the idea.
Perhaps applied research is more down your alley than basic research.
Ben Franklin and Claude Shannon are bad examples as their work was widely recognized as highly valuable in their own time.
"Usefulness" is about perspective and perception. In my own little office cubicle maybe it is difficult to see where exactly my research results fit in. Just try and find confidence in that there exist (more or less visible) visionaries "high up" in different aspects who see where it will fit in. The bad thing about religion being so bashed and marginalized these days is that the concept of faith in things larger than us loses significance while in practice it is more relevant than ever. Maybe not in an almighty God, but in the existence of people making plans outside of ones' own perspective.
While I can appreciate faith having some relevance beyond just religious impact, this particular answer seems phrased in a way that gives undue credit to ruling out the good of the religious impact.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.243550 | 2017-08-23T01:31:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/94924",
"authors": [
"123movies",
"Benoît Kloeckner",
"Blaisorblade",
"Chris Rackauckas",
"Criticize SE actions means ban",
"E. Douglas Jensen",
"I Like to Code",
"Ian",
"J Fabian Meier",
"Leliel",
"Michael",
"Myles",
"Nat",
"Nav",
"Norman",
"TOOGAM",
"UKMonkey",
"alephzero",
"ff524",
"gerrit",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10094",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1033",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11365",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12956",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14899",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15845",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20905",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/23576",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/27442",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/28042",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/30772",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32961",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/36452",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38709",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43541",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/47971",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/50877",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/61016",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/64207",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7839",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/78834",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8802",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8966",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/946",
"mightypile",
"sergut",
"user12956",
"xLeitix"
],
"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/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
57536 | The problem of incompetent peer-review
In which fraction of the recent papers is significant incompetence of review(s) observed in natural sciences? In my searching, I've only come across one example of such a review... is anyone familiar with any others?
While I'm not a highly published researcher, it seems to me that if a reviewer is that far off the mark with his/her/zirs/their comments, the paper may potentially need to be re-written to be clearer in the misunderstood sections.
This is currently a polling question, and needs to be revised to be a solicitation for answers rather than a poll.
I have edited your question to attempt to change it from a poll question to a question aimed at definitive answers. Please feel free to adjust if you find that my edits have problematically changed your intent.
@tonysdg: It is all very nice what you write, but I have clearly stated what we call an incompetent review and what we discuss. :-)
@phys_chem_prof we're not here for discussion. We're here for Q&A. If your motivation is "I would like to have a discussion about ..." or "I would like to rant about ...", or "I would like people's opinions about ..." or "I'd like to take a survey about ..." then this really isn't the place for that at all.
I think @tonysdg is on the right path. I never got a rejection for a paper. But, my coauthors and I made sure that they were clearly written to take the reader through the experiment, results, and discussion in such a way that there would be no unanswered questions. While it is easy to call the reviewers incompetent, and good writing is really hard (OK, really really really hard), perhaps you should look inward at least a bit. My take away from the listed comments that you objected to is that your paper was not clear enough, and that led the reviewer to go off the rails.
Despite @Jakebeal’s edit, I still think that this question can only attract answers treating it as the poll it was originally intended to be. The only way out would be asking for a study covering these aspects (e.g., “Are there any studies on the satisfaction of researchers with peer-reviews?”). Even if such a study exists (which I doubt), it will almost certainly not comply with the explicit criteria in this question.
@Wrzlprmft: The publishers make such studies by sending satisfaction questionaires to the authors of the accepted papers, but the results are kept for their internal use. The question is indeed about percentages rather than about the topic starter is a good writer or a bad writer. I agree that the question is a bit of a poll, but most questions on the website can qualify for a poll since an univocal answer does not exist to most of them.
@phys_chem_prof: but most questions on the website can qualify for a poll since an univocal answer does not exist to most of them – There is a huge difference between a (good subjective) question lacking a definite answer and a poll. In a poll I cannot agree or disagree with an answer (I cannot say whether the answerer gave an accurate account of their experience) – I can only post my own experience as an answer (thus we get tons of answers). In a good subjective question, I can agree with existing answers by upvoting.
@phys_chem_prof: I support reopening this question because it is a request for data, not a rehash of the "how to handle" question. However, I should also mention to anecdotal evidence is probably not your best route here—SE sites are not designed for guesswork and speculation.
@aeismail: As noted above, I agree that a question requesting data on this would be a good fit for this site, but this question would need heavy editing to be good, more precisely, all the restrictions would need to be removed (because there is almost certainly no study/data that exactly investigates the OP’s criteria). Due to this and the existing answers and downvotes, I strongly opt to have a fresh question on this.
I've reopened this question, but I'm not sure this should be re-opened, given that (1) the question is now completely different from what it was, and (2) the answers below don't really relate to the new question. I'm open to discussing on [meta] if anyone would like to.
It's difficult to provide any sort of general assessment across all fields. My experience in peer-reviewed publication, however, has led me to conclude that truly incompetent peer reviewers are much rarer than it often "feels" to authors.
It's always fun and cathartic to slag on Reviewer #3, but I disagree with your assessment of what makes an incompetent review.
Scientific communication is not a one-way street, although people often approach it in this manner. When you are writing an article, it needs to be well-matched in presentation to its audience. Comments of the form that you discuss typically reflect a disconnect between author and audience, resulting from one of two failure modes in the paper:
The material may not be presented as well as the author thinks. We get very familiar with our own work, and often start losing track of all of the assumptions and delicate connections between different aspects of the work. It's hard to linearize the complex tangle of relationships in most work into an accessible form.
The presentation may be good, but poorly matched to the audience. Different communities have different things they are looking for in papers and different contexts against which a manuscript will be judged. Often a paper that will be lauded by one community will be hated by another because the paper isn't appropriately presented for that community. This doesn't mean anything is wrong with the community, but rather with the authors' understanding of that community. For example, different aspects of some interdisciplinary work of mine have been published in both the programming languages and synthetic biology, and the two papers are utterly foreign to one another even though they are about essentially the same work with the same piece of software.
A truly incompetent review, on the other hand, is one that doesn't bother to particularly discuss the paper at all. For example, as a program chair a couple of years ago, I received the following review for one of the conference papers, as presented here in its entirety:
Nice work.
The reviewer was clearly happy with the paper, but this review gave essentially no meaningful input to the decision process.
So, after all of that preamble, let me return to the quantitative aspects of your questions:
My observation has been that the number of truly incompetent reviews is vanishingly small. Editors and conference chairs generally deal swiftly with reviewers who fail to live up to minimal standards.
Reviews showing a frustrating disconnect between reviewer and authors, like you present in your question, have been steadily decreasing over time as my skill as an author increases.
I spend very little of my time appealing or writing rebuttals---probably less than an hour per paper, on average. I spend much more time than that revising in response to reviewer comments, however, and my papers are generally much better for the work.
@phys_chem_prof I had a lot of experiences like you did as a graduate student. Nowadays, I still get them (less often, because I'm a better writer), but more importantly I now understand that a comment such as: "This phenomenon was already studied by $authorX" actually means "It is easy for researchers not familiar with your work to confuse it with the work by $authorX. You need to provide clearer explanation and evidence that differentiates it from that work."
@phys_chem_prof Please re-read my answer more carefully, as well as the one linked in "How to React to Incorrect Claims by Reviewers?" and you will find that my actual position is quite different than the caricature of it that you have presented.
Let's break the possibilities in two, shall we?
The reviewers are indeed incompetent. If it is a journal, answer the remarks. If it is a conference, submit somewhere else. It happens. However, this possibility is rather unlikely and will add nothing to you as a researcher, so..
Your paper is 'bad'. Don't be angry, but from your question, it seems like you failed to previously address the remarks. Most of the really good papers I've reviewed answered my potential remarks in the paper itself. For instance, they said that ""The applied method is wrong"", therefore, it would be good for you, and your paper, to have a paragraph somewhere saying "While it may appear that the method is wrong, we prove that it is indeed right because....". That way, not only you already cleared any ambiguities, you demonstrate that you reflected on the contents and possible ramifications of your work and that is important.
You might have made some wrong assumptions about your audience, for instance, assuming that they will have a higher level than the reviewers actually have. This is a bad assumption, in general, because it is pretty rare to get reviewers/audience with a proper level. You really have to "take you audience by the hand" and guide them through the work, making the minimum amount of assumptions possible (leeway here if you don't have enough room).
Long story short, your paper let the reviewers misunderstand the contents, and that's bad.
Keep in mind that the writing itself is more important than the contents.... yes, I know, but it is true. It's easier to get accepted when you submit a very well written paper, on some not-that-good ideas, than a revolutionary idea, poorly written. Indeed, if the idea is that different (which is very good), the writing part has to be even better, to surpass the bias people have against new stuff and make them understand. (we usually try to understand stuff based on what we know, and new concepts that contradict it are harder to accept).
Of course, without properly reading the paper, this is mostly guesswork, but I've seen it enough to guess with some certainty. Nevertheless, if you paper is good, it will get better by doing this stuff, so no harm done.
That said, I'm not sure if I have n publications in the last y years and I don't care to count (my name is there, my scholar exists, have fun). Sorry, but you don't get to rant and pick who answers it, that's not how the world works.
I know you are probably fuming right now, because none of what I said is what you wanted to hear. Please, before you answer, calm down. I've been there, done that, it wasn't good for anyone. I'm on your side here, otherwise I could've just downvoted the question, which would be justified, from your tone alone and moved on. This is not the place for those angry rants.
You put this much better (and more nicely) than I did in my comment above. Perfect!
After the edits and comments removal, my answer doesn't make much sense...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.245906 | 2015-11-04T14:09:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/57536",
"authors": [
"410 gone",
"Angel Lim Hui Yi",
"Ayoub Ghx",
"Emily-Rose Steyn",
"Exostin",
"FelicityPrentice",
"Fábio Dias",
"Jillian",
"Jon Custer",
"Lidius",
"Lukas Lewark",
"Niko Lewis",
"Obat Penggugur kandungan",
"Spammer",
"TTT",
"Wrzlprmft",
"aeismail",
"aliahmedz",
"cai cai",
"eykanal",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15477",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158010",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158011",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158012",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158013",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158016",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158018",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158019",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158027",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158028",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158033",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158079",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158093",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158226",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158229",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158232",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158237",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158239",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/158240",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22733",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/36315",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/41208",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43671",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/73",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7734",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96",
"jakebeal",
"nicola camatti",
"phys_chem_prof",
"spammer",
"tonysdg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
82641 | Does submitting a paper in Latex format enhance the chances of acceptance?
If there is an option to submit your paper in either Latex or Word, which format should be given preference? Does it affect the chances of acceptance? My paper relates to computer science & engineering, with a few mathematical formula, diagrams, and tables.
This is very field-dependent. Many non-STEM publishers don't even accept LaTeX manuscripts (unfortunately).
This question just makes me think of this.
If both are allowed then both will be fine. I would choose the one I am most comfortable with. Using a program you are less familiar with increases the chance of making a silly error. Such errors are much more likely to work against you than the choice between Word or LaTeX.
If both are allowed then both will be fine. I disagree. It is also allowed to submit a poorly written or poorly formatted paper, but that does not mean that all papers have equal chances of being accepted regardless of how they look. Considering that LaTeX and Word produce very different looking documents, saying "both will be fine" does not sound like very helpful advice.
@DanRomik In my field (sociology) papers are primarily judged on their content rather than their looks. Not because sociologist are superior human beings, but because most journals put quite some requirements on the submitted paper (double spaced, graphs and tables placed at the end of the document), which makes all papers look pretty ugly, regardless of what program was used to create it. You can still make errors, as you mentioned, and that will work against you, but the best way to prevent errors (in the short term) is to use the program you are most comfortable with.
I very much agree that the answer will depend strongly on the field (which is why I asked OP to specify the field, and refrained from writing an answer myself since OP has so far not provided that information). My experience is that there are even fields where many people are so used to Word documents that (to my amazement) they consider them superior to LaTeX-prepared documents.
But you cannot deny LaTeX looks way better tha Word.
@ShaunHan I do deny that. see my comment above: most journals I submit to have so many requirements that even latex documents look exceptionally ugly.
This is coming from a more engineering, physics and mathematics point of view. In many sub-area of these fields, LaTeX papers have a more distinct professional feel. This is mostly related to the formatting of the equations and the symbols. Furthermore, numerous authors in mathematics are openly LaTeX advocate. As such, I believe (but this is no hard fact) that you might get a slightly more positive bias using LaTeX than Word. Keep in mind that the most important part is to submit a clear well-written document and that the format is second to this former fact.
you might get a slightly more positive bias using LaTeX than Word If it's true, don't you think that's an issue?
I do not believe this is an issue. Allow me to explain. I believe LaTeX produces a much better typesetting and formatting of equations than Word. It makes the equation much more readable, better formatted, more structured. For the same reason you could prefer a paper to another because the figures were presented in a much better fashion, I believe you can be slightly biased toward a paper due to its good use of LaTeX formatting. When I see a poorly made Excel graph in a paper compared to a perfect matplotlib graph, I get a negative bias for the excel paper. Same for LaTeX and Word...
Do you find it equally unproblematic that I view LaTeX formatted papers in my field as likely coming from the Math/Physics/CS world whose decided to apply their field's tools to my field's problems - usually with an incomplete understanding of the state of the field, the context of the problem, and most of the complexities involved? Or does this clearly apply to the "prettiness" of a well-laid-out LaTeX document?
To me it is only a matter of equations and symbols being better formatted. I would not feel the difference between a well written word paper using MathType for instance and the same paper written using LaTeX.
Let's start by acknowledging that there is a very good reason why LaTeX is the standard system for writing papers across all of math and large parts of computer science, physics, statistics, and other technical areas. No one has yet come up with a system that produces better-looking, more esthetically pleasing, well formatted documents that do as effective a job of communicating complex technical ideas, especially those involving lots of mathematical symbols and formulas. By contrast, documents generated by Microsoft Word are generally... meh (and if they contain math formulas... double meh).
With that said, I believe that the answer to your question is: yes, LaTeX papers and Word papers are far from equivalent in terms of their chances to be accepted to a computer science journal. I see several issues here, some direct and some indirect:
One effect is that, as I was opining above, a properly written LaTeX paper will simply do a better job of communicating the content of your ideas to the reader than the same paper written in Word. Thus, the cognitive load on the journal editor and referees that stands between them and understanding what you are trying to say and what the contribution of your paper is will be higher with a Word paper. This will translate to a difference in the chances of acceptance (better chances for the LaTeX version).
Another effect involves the fact that if you are writing a technical computer science paper in Word then it is extremely likely that you are a very inexperienced researcher, possibly from outside of academia. That by itself makes it a lot less likely that your paper is well-written (aside from which software it is written in) and that the ideas in the paper are good enough to make it worthy of accepting. And the editor and referees know that, and are likely to take the paper less seriously as a result (this is the bias alluded to in other answers, and lamented by some), subconsciously and/or consciously, even if you are in fact an experienced researcher. This would again translate to a reduced chance of acceptance for a Word paper. Perhaps this bias is unfair, but there it is.
Even without the bias I mentioned above, for the reason explained in item 2 above I still predict a clear statistical correlation between the Word/LaTeX typesetting information and the quality of the paper (and therefore the chances of acceptance). This correlation of course does not imply causation; without the bias, it would not be the typesetting system that was used that caused the paper to be rejected, but the overall low quality of the paper. Nonetheless, the fact remains that by writing your paper in Word, you would be choosing to join a group of authors whose papers have a statistically lower rate of acceptance, even if your situation is somehow different than most of them.
As a final caveat, if your area of computer science has papers with very few mathematical formulas, then what I wrote above is probably still correct, but to a lesser extent, i.e., the chances of acceptance would be closer to equal, but I still predict a small advantage for LaTeX.
See here (including many relevant thoughts in the comments section) and here for related discussions.
Counter-example: In some aspects of what I do, "Author did some clever math but utterly misses the practical applications and scientific relevance of their question" is highly correlated with a LaTeX formatted paper. If I get a LaTeX formatted paper from an author I don't recognize, my first (and admittedly biased) feeling is "Ugh..."
@Fomite: LOL. Reading your "ugh" comment I feel like I'm staring into a looking glass world, but at the same time your description of how pure math people think is right on the money - hilarious!
I always love talking to computational/mathematical colleagues. It is a little bit like staring into a mirror universe.
"Another effect involves the fact that if you are writing a technical computer science paper in Word then it is extremely likely that you are a very inexperienced researcher, possibly from outside of academia" - care to substantiate this?
@jpou the first link at the bottom of my answer provides a good bit of evidence, at least for theoretical computer science. I am reasonably confident the claim is true for most if not all other areas of CS, but not sure how to substantiate that.
@DanRomik have you considered the fact that by using proper template, your article will look exactly the same, regardless if it was prepared in LaTeX or Word? All IEEE publications have uniform styling and look the same regardless if they were typeset using Word or LaTeX.
@jpou No I haven't considered it because it's not true. You can achieve similarity in superficial things like choice of font, but Word and LaTeX (more precisely, TeX) use completely different algorithms for line breaking, word spacing, line spacing, page breaking and more. TeX's algorithms are described in detail in Knuth's The TeXbook (a masterpiece of ultra-geeky writing btw). If you read it you would start to understand more in depth why TeX achieves such great results. Word simply cannot (or rather, does not attempt to) replicate this type of careful optimization in document preparation.
As for IEEE publications, I will hazard a guess that the uniform look is because they are all typeset in LaTeX, including the few occasional papers that are submitted in Word but converted to LaTeX prior to publication. But that's just a guess, and I'm open to seeing it challenged by anyone who's more knowledgeable about such things.
@DSVA For biomedical journals as well. There's nothing quite as effective as reading a raft of LaTeX formatted papers to make me happy to return to the warm embrace of professional typesetters and layout artists.
The final look and feel of your paper must look like it belongs in that journal, regardless of which software you use to produce it. I will, as a reviewer, subconsciously bias towards a reject if I find that the paper looks amateurish. This means it is an uphill climb to change my recommendation to an accept.
I think this is probably accurate in many fields (although I really wish it wasn't).
OP is talking about the version submitted for review, how is the look relevant? The journal will edit the typesetting before publication anyway.
@Cape Code most papers in my area are submitted in the format of the final version. Personally, I hate papers that look like an undergraduate report. So 'look and feel' can be interpreted as a paper written by a professional either using MS Word or LaTeX.
@Prof.SantaClaus what other things completely unrelated to the content do you hate in papers you review?
I agree that having a professional look and feel consistent with journal and discipline expectations is important. I just note that in other fields (e.g., psychology and APA style). This look and feel is more about conformity to a style manual (e.g., double spacing, consistent paragraph formatting, headings consistent with styles, etc.). Word processors can sometimes make it easier to conform to these idiosyncratic requirements.
No. Following submission instructions found in "Instructions to Authors", whatever they may say, will pretty much insure that your paper gets reviewed, and not whatever the digital equivalent of "returned unread" is, but reviewers generally see a pdf, and couldn't care less how you wrote the paper. They will care if you gave the manuscript the attention it merits, regardless of the tools you use to prepare it.
As an aside, when you choose to work in Latex, you need to think about how that interacts with any collaborators who will need to edit and mark up your documents. It's certainly not undoable to work with Latex nonusers, but it does require thought and planning.
If you are comfortable using Latex (i.e. it won't slow you down to use it), and it is well-supported by the journal (i.e. they provide a style file), I would recommend it, as it produces a paper that is much easier for the referees to understand. Reducing any barrier to referee understanding is great!
But just because a journal accepts both Latex and Word, doesn't mean there isn't an internal preference. Sometimes you have to dig a little bit to find this. Look at the publishing details: some journals will waive part of the publication fees if you give them a Latex file; others state they will take longer to move from acceptance to publishing with Latex than Word.
Personally, I think that the advantages of Latex in terms of appearance and bibliography-handling are large enough that I put up with its other annoyances, and use it whenever possible.
I think "it produces a paper that is much easier for the referees to understand" is something of an unsubstantiated claim. I've received well-formated, clear manuscripts in either format, and unintelligible garbage in both formats.
Fair point, but does not match my experience. This is probably half selection bias, but I have never seen a truly hideously formatted LaTeX submission in my field (where there are standard templates for many journals, which everyone uses). Meanwhile, even very respected groups have sent me Word-prepared docs that are just awful (figures in random locations, separated from captions, etc.)
Note: this answer comes from someone who does not review computer science articles. There seem to be a strong belief in your field that using LaTeX is The Way to go. I would suggest to comply for your career's sake. My answer still applies to other fields.
I truly hope it doesn't. It would be extremely unprofessional for reviewers and editors to favor their pet typesetting tool when assessing the content of a paper. Especially knowing that in many cases, the paper will be re-written from scratch by the typesetter and thus it becomes irrelevant.
But possibly, writing papers with LaTeX might reduce your research output, and thus the quality or number of the papers you submit since it's been observed* that using LaTeX is less efficient than MS Word to write academic papers (with the exception of a small subset of fields).
So, unless your document is made mostly of equations, data suggests you will make fewer errors and spend less time writing your paper using MS Word than LaTeX.
*See: Markus Knauff, Jelica Nejasmic (2014) An Efficiency Comparison of Document Preparation Systems Used in Academic Research and Development PLOSONE
If only people would stop uncritically linking to that paper. Their conclusion is in no way supported by their study (unless you are in a field where you do a lot of retyping text written by others).
@TobiasKildetoft The retyping is to be able to standardize the task. I find it to be an appropriate proxy for writing, in absence of something better. I will amend my answer if new experimental data weakens their conclusions.
How is something being hard to test properly an argument for drawing conclusions based on something only vaguely related? The only conclusion one can draw from that study is that we still have no idea if LaTeX is worth it for people outside a few fields, not that it is not worth it (I mean, the study even barely disguised its accusations that everyone who uses LaTeX is irrational).
@TobiasKildetoft I think we have a pretty clear idea that using LaTeX for documents with mostly text is a big waste of time. Especially since in many fields, the typesetting is redone by the journal anyway.
I am not sure who "we" are (I certainly have no idea), and I also don't know how "we" have this idea.
The area is computer science & engineering with few mathematical formula, diagrams, and tables
You need to use Latex. Full stop.
Even when you don't know Latex, you are supposed to learn basic math formula, figures, tables in less than a day. (Tables are pieces of cake with this online tool http://www.tablesgenerator.com/)
I never heard of anybody in Computer Science that does not know Latex. Call me a jerk and down vote if you like, but such a person will become a topic of a joke.
If one can't prepare a document in Latex, how can (s)he do any programming? And if they can't do programming, I can't take their Computer Science research very serious.
UPDATE:
Everybody is talking about how Latex produces beautiful math equations etc, and forget how it is efficient even on basic tasks. I was once a Word user. In fact, I wrote my undergraduate thesis using Word 2003, and it was a painful experience, even though I didn't have any math equation in my thesis.
Creating a Reference section, and citing a paper in Word is painful, and time consuming.
Changing reference format from John Smith to J. SMITH (ACM style) is also painful, and it can take you days. Changing the citation from (Smith 2003) to [1] is also painful.
Referring to a figure is also painful.
Formatting (pseud-do) code is also painful.
Keeping the format Heading1, Heading2 etc is really painful.
The list does not end here. All of these are pieces of cakes in Latex, and the most important thing is it gives you the feeling of total control of your text.
But possibly, writing papers with LaTeX might reduce your research output, and thus the quality or number of the papers you submit since it's been observed* that using LaTeX is less efficient than MS Word to write academic papers (with the exception of a small subset of fields)
I don't care if anybody/paper says preparing documents in Word is more efficient. It's like saying typing with two fingers are faster than typing with 10 fingers. It is true for some people, but it will become a joke for many people.
Why would you assume people who don't use LaTeX are those who "don't know LaTeX" or "can't prepare a document in LaTeX"?
@CapeCode I am agree with you. If a computer scientist does not use LaTeX, it doesn't mean that (s)he can't learn it.
And if they can't do programming, I can't take their Computer Science research very serious. WHAT??????
Scott Aaronson, in his blog at http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=304, agrees with your general advice to use TeX; he lists non-use of TeX as the first in his list of "Ten signs a claimed mathematical breakthrough is wrong". But in that context he also mentions two respected computer scientists who don't (or didn't at that time) use TeX: David Deutsch and Lov Grover
@AndreasBlass note that I linked to that same page (and another slightly relevant one) at the bottom of my answer.
@AndreasBlass Deutsch is a physicist though, not a computer scientist. He has forayed (a little) into CS but I very much doubt he’d describe himself as a computer scientist.
@qsp Endnote and other reference managers make managing references and moving between reference formats trivial. Word has styles which are trivial to use. You just need to learn to use them, which many users do not. I'm not saying LaTeX does not have benefits. But if you're able to learn LaTeX, then it would be trivial to learn how to use Word more effectively.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.247303 | 2017-01-04T10:02:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/82641",
"authors": [
"AJK",
"Andreas Blass",
"BlaB",
"Cape Code",
"Dan Romik",
"Enlico",
"Fomite",
"Jeromy Anglim",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Maarten Buis",
"Prof. Santa Claus",
"Seeker",
"Shaun Han",
"Tobias Kildetoft",
"ff524",
"henning no longer feeds AI",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10643",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11365",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/118",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119597",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12592",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14471",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14506",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145319",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/31773",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/31917",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/348",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/40589",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/42641",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/45977",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/47727",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/62",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/9892",
"jpou"
],
"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/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
2935 | CS PhD application with low GPA but extensive research experience
I have recently graduated from a non EEA university—though arguably one of the better/best schools in its field in my country—with a CGPA of 2.90, majoring in Computer science. I used to study Bioengineering/Bioinformatics—from which I hold a publication—before switching to CS. I suffered from an extensive period of burnout and some personal problems starting my second year in college—after getting a 3.30 in my freshman year, not exactly an upward trend in my grades in following years either—resulting in my current CGPA. I did a summer research at my school after my 2nd year which resulted with that conference publication I mentioned above, did two internships of Computer science (first one at a company, second one at one of the top 3 CS universities in the USA), I have two posters from my graduation project (one presented at an international conference the other one not-so international), and an upcoming journal or conference paper depending on deadline circumstances.
So, my cliche question is: should I take my chances with good/top Computer science master's programs throughout Europe (e.g., TU Eindhoven, EPFL, RWTH Aachen or TU Munchen) before applying for a PhD, or should I stay at my school for my MSc and then apply for the PhD? I'm not even hoping for a scholarship at this point, just an acceptance. I haven't taken the TOEFL and the GRE yet since now I'm in my gap year, I will be taking them soon in order to start my application procedure.
Apply for everything you are interested in. The publications and research experience will certainly help. If you don't get into a PhD, doing a MSc and doing it well (perhaps with another publication) will be the way to get a into a good PhD program.
Do you have financial issues? Can you afford to pay the application fees?
@scaaahu Thankfully no issues, I really don't mind if I don't get a scholarship -tuition waiver etc- either. My only concern is to get into one of those programs I mentioned above.
@CharlesMorisset Well, that went better than expected. I just wanted to know if applying was worth it. Will take my chances, thanks for your answer.
In the Netherlands the range of grades that is given is smaller than the existing range. Or rather, it's near impossible to get a top grade (a 10), and very difficult to get a 9, even though the passing grades go from 6 to 10. My experience is that the Dutch, even though they know about other grading systems, tend to have a bias for interpreting GPAs in their own system. In other words, your GPA might not hurt you as much as you think in Eindhoven.
You need to check the requirements of the individual schools to see if a transfer is even possible. For the German schools, at the very least, the computer science degree is often subject to "continuity" requirements, which make it very difficult to enroll in a master's program unless you already have the bachelor's in the same subject from a German university (or can demonstrate "equivalence" of your degree if it's coming from abroad).
In addition, admission often depends fairly strictly on GPA, at least at the master's level. Recommendations hardly matter, if they even count at all. At the PhD level, the process changes, and becomes more like getting hired for a job. So it may be better to wait until you're applying for PhD positions.
I will keep that in mind, thank you for your answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.248670 | 2012-08-22T11:04:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2935",
"authors": [
"Ana",
"Andres Felipe",
"Dave Clarke",
"George Bora",
"Nobody",
"Silentio",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/322",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/546",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/643",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7401",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7402",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7403",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7406",
"stefankasberger",
"user1511"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
5956 | Certificate in data mining
I am interested about getting a certificate in data mining. I found three so far, and these are the following:
MIT - Data and Models in Engineering, Science, and Business
Stanford - Data Mining and Applications Graduate Certificate
UCSD - Data Mining Certificate
Has anyone taken any of these courses, and are they worth it? Would I benefit in terms of career opportunities with one of such certificates? I already have a background in data mining, however nothing is on paper, so I thought it might be good idea to get a certificate.
As with any certificate course, it really depends on what you intend on getting out of the program. All of those are well-respected universities, and the coursework will almost certainly be extremely informative. In that regard, you'll learn a lot. On the other hand, there exists a frankly ridiculous amount of high-quality, freely available information online related to data mining from many universities, including some of those you listed above, so you can definitely learn all that without paying a not-insignificant sum for the experience.
Regarding job prospects, it really depends on where you're looking to be hired. This answer from Workplace.SE is an excellent overview of how useful a certificate can be in helping you get hired, and this question from Programmers.SE has many useful answers discussing how certificates like the ones you mention are viewed in industry. Long story short, they're usually not that useful for jobs unless they're industry standards, which the ones you list are not.
+1 for links to other SE questions. And, somehow, cannot get "The main purpose of certifications is to make money for the certifying body." out of my mind (especially related to current raise in prices of higher education).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.248964 | 2012-12-26T22:16:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5956",
"authors": [
"David",
"Davor",
"Lesto",
"Piotr Migdal",
"anouar moulkaf",
"azer89",
"fuzzomorphism",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15432",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15433",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15434",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15439",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15441",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15442",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15443",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/49",
"mudri"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76541 | Distributing published papers if I am the first author
In some interviews for industry positions, I have been asked about my prior (applied math) research experience and to go into detail about the models I have constructed. After I gave him a high-level overview, the interviewer asked that I send him the paper so he can see some minute details. The paper is published in a Springer journal and costs 39.95 to see without journal subscription. My questions are
As the first author of the paper, am I legally allowed I send him a downloaded version of the paper over email?
If not, am I legally allowed to send my personal copy of the manuscript (i.e. the version I submitted to Springer)?
N.B. the paper is not on the arXiv.
You've read the copyright agreement you signed when the paper was accepted, right? What does it say about this? That's the authoritative source; other answers will just be guesses.
Regardless of the specific language of the copyright agreement, just give them a copy of the paper. Sharing copies of one's own papers has been standard academic practice forever.
Different publishers have different guidelines, but I think they all allow your first case. For example, Elsevier's author rights page states:
Authors transfer copyright to the publisher as part of a journal publishing agreement, but have the right to:
Share their article for Personal Use, Internal Institutional Use and Scholarly Sharing purposes, with a DOI link to the version of record on ScienceDirect (and with the Creative Commons CC-BY-NC- ND license for author manuscript versions)
...
If you're worried, I do recommend checking each publisher's page to verify your rights.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.249247 | 2016-09-08T23:23:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/76541",
"authors": [
"Abhishek Kumar",
"Allison Hess",
"Edem Boni",
"JeffE",
"Nate Eldredge",
"Ok Phuongtay",
"Robin D Brown",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1010",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/214735",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/214736",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/214737",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/214738",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/214748",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
91659 | Why reference articles from and/or submit articles to low impact factor journals?
I recently read this FAQ that explains a bit about impact factors. After reading, I was curious... what would be some reasons why researchers would use papers from a low-impact factor journal, say, a journal with IF = 1?
Wouldn't all researchers concentrate their efforts on starting their literature search from the highest impact factor journals, and then develop their new work on this basis? That seems logical to me and also most beneficial to a researcher's career in academia.
"What would be some reasons why researchers would use papers from a low-impact factor journal, say, a journal with IF = 1?" - to ultimately increase the journal's impact factor to 2?
More seriously, please expand your question as it is currently not very clear. What do you mean by "use"? Build upon and cite? Read? Read first, before reading others? "and then develop their new work on this basis" - what makes you think the findings that the researcher wants to build upon have been published in a high-IF journal? What if a researcher works on a project X that relies on findings Y, and Y can only be found in a low-IF journal? "most beneficial to a researcher's career in academia" - why do you think that is?
Because there would be a whole heap of additional work (and brain power) included for sorting the search by impact factor. And then you might miss the best, the needle in your haystack. This is why people like to have search results ordered by relevance, which is a much more complex measure than impact factor, keywords, the number of citations and whatnot alone.
I think you have a very poor idea about how research ideally should work. It is not just ad hoc, random redressing and fiddling with the latest results published in Nature, but most researchers actually have an established (and preferably somewhat new) direction of research of their own.
@Greg, I would love if that were included as part of an answer. It's just perfect. :D
@Greg, your comment is presumptuous; nowhere in my question do I suggest that I, nor the researchers I work with, do not have established and new directions of research of our own.
Two reasons come to mind. A) They're good papers. B) They are relevant to his research. (?)
The question is flawed. IF is a journal-level metric, not an article-level metric. Even as a metric for journals, it has come under serious criticism, as a simple Google search will show. E.g.: http://www.editage.com/insights/why-you-should-not-use-the-journal-impact-factor-to-evaluate-research
When you're doing a literature search, do you even know what journals particular papers are published in, let alone the impact factor of the journals? I find papers with online searches, skim them to see if they're relevant, and only when I decide to cite them do I look at the journal - and that only long enough to create a BibTex entry. And often the entry will be provided, so I don't even look.
Just say no to impact factors: http://www.nature.com/news/beat-it-impact-factor-publishing-elite-turns-against-controversial-metric-1.20224.
Contrary to many of the above comments, I think this is an excellent question. The process used to select journals for publication is completely opaque when viewed from the outside. If someone thinks academic research is like the olympics, where all participants are competing for the gold medal (such as nobel prize or fields medal), this question makes perfect sense.
Also, i made a number of edits. OP, feel free to revert or fix if I changed too much.
@eykanal your irresponsible edit of the title changed the question substantially. Please revert.
@eykanal: "If someone thinks academic research is like the olympics (...) this question makes perfect sense." - if you start from an absurd enough premise, almost every question makes perfect sense. I do not think the question is absolutely terrible as a question, but I think the flaws in the premise (some of which I have pointed out in my early comment) are obvious enough that they would have deserved some consideration by the OP before the question becomes worth asking and answering on its own.
The question is unclear, but let me try to answer anyway.
You assume that for any given field of science, there exist journals with high impact factors. This ignores the specifics of individual fields. In very basic sciences, impact factors are usually high, because many researchers from other fields will use the findings in their own for. For example a researcher from the field of neurology will be cited from the people from neurology, psychology, psychiatric medicine, artificial intelligence, computer science.
On the other hand, more niche the field becomes, smaller is the pool of the scientists that could use the results. While a computer scientist may cite the paper from neurology to reference certain brain structure that inspired his algorithm or massive processing cluster architecture, there is basically no way that the neurology scientist would cite the aforementioned computer scientist.
That's why there are huge differences among fields regarding the impact factor of the top journals in the category.
Does this mean that the paper on some novel computing architecture is less valuable? Certainly not. While very few computer engineers working in R&D of new commercial computer systems will be interested in neurology, quite a few of them will read the paper on novel, more efficient architecture of massive computer clustering.
However, since they are end-users, their reads will not transform in citations, while significant proportion people that read advanced neurology paper will publish papers on their own and perhaps eventually cite it somewhere (because they are scientists, in that essence, not end users).
First thing I thought: IF1 isn't that bad! :)
Thanks @xmp125a. I think your answer, as well as Walter's answer, address my misunderstanding the best and most concretely, despite there being other great and highly upvoted answers to my question.
"In very basic sciences, impact factors are usually high" - Well, I would guess pure mathematics is just as basic as a field can be, and math journals have low IF (1 is actually pretty high, none raising above 5 last time I checked). Maybe the point being that math result are not used by other fields in the two years after publication (but rather, in the next century or so).
@BenoîtKloeckner Depends on the definition of "basic". In this case, I think it is meant to apply to those areas which tend to have significant, multi-faceted, and immediate applications in industry and commerce (and the military, probably). Mathematics is basic in the "fundamental framework that all science is executed within" sort of sense, but rarely sees immediate use. As you say, it usually takes more than two years to synthesize a mathematical result well enough produce publishable new results, and most results only lend to a small number of potential new research vectors at the time.
There are some major flaws in OP's other assumptions, but "You assume that for any given field of science, there exist journals with high impact factors" - that is actually a reasonable assumption, since some of the highest impact-factor journals (Science, Nature) accept papers from any branch of science. If we're talking about literature reviews though, you wouldn't normally start with those journals.
@arboviral: I do not think I have ever knowingly encountered a publication in Nature or Science that was in any way relevant for my area of applied CS. Some interdisciplinary niche projects aside, I'd claim that both Nature and Science are not a part of the reasonably eligible publication venues within my field.
@O.R.Mapper both Nature and Science accept sufficiently important findings from any area of science. "Science welcomes submissions from all fields of science and from any source" (http://www.sciencemag.org/about/mission-and-scope). I don't have any Science papers either, but that doesn't stop it being theoretically within-scope :)
@arboviral What O.R.Mapper said, but replace "applied CS" with "theoretical CS".
@BenoîtKloeckner Mathematics is pure {/warning:XKCD}, not basic. Probably the term basic was misused here. I can't correlate basic with neuroscience either.
@Mindwin I meant "Basic" as an opposite of applied. Perhaps there is a better word for this, don't know. As with mathematics, yes, the 2 year window basically precludes mathematics to benefit from applications of its results. Nevertheless, my point still stands: there are fields where readership immediately translates into citations, there are fields where it does not, and there are fields with very small population of consumers of any sort :)
@xmp125a "pure"
The "impact factor" of this answer is lower than a half of the highest one, yet it still be accepted by the OP.
@Mindwin Pure mathematics works for me, pure neurology not so much.
@O.R.Mapper in my broad area of CS I am aware of exactly 1 article (letter) published in nature, and 1 article published in science. And the citation counts on each of those 2 articles are roughly as high as the next half dozen papers I've read combined. (Though citation counts follow a Zipf distribution so not surprising really)
What would be some reasons why researchers would use papers from a low-impact factor journal, say, a journal with IF = 1?
Researchers use papers that are relevant to their research, regardless of where they've been published. Being published in a less prestigious journal doesn't mean the result is less true - it usually means the paper is seen as less significant, usually because the authors/referees/editors think fewer people will be interested in the result.
But sometimes those people are wrong, and a paper is more significant than it appeared, and sometimes the paper may be obscure but it has exactly the thing you need for the work you're doing.
(Also, IF values vary dramatically by field. The top journals in my subfield have impact factors between 0.6 and 0.7, so an impact factor of 1 doesn't sound low-impact to me at all.)
Wouldn't all researchers concentrate their efforts on starting their literature search from the highest impact factor journals, and then develop their new work on this basis? That seems logical to me and also most beneficial to a researcher's career in academia.
No, they wouldn't. Indeed, if everyone else were doing that, a researcher could get a big advantage by being the only person mining paper published in low impact-factor journals for ideas that other people were overlooking. In my experiences, researchers skim pretty broadly, looking for papers that might suggest new ideas or ways to advance their work, and I've never heard of anyone restricting their reading to the journals with higher impact factors.
+1 for "Indeed, if everyone else were doing that, a researcher could get a big advantage by being the only person mining paper published in low impact-factor journals for ideas that other people were overlooking." I was thinking along the same lines. Indeed, I sometimes wonder why there seems (in this group especially) so much emphasis on working on the hottest new fad, things that all the big-shots are working on. It seems to me that average ability researchers would have better success looking for small gems slightly away from where the giants of the field are strip-mining.
Relevant article: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/easiest-most-effective-way-improve-return-investment-rd-kelvin-stott
I know of someone who built significant work using a result from the diploma thesis of someone who had not pursued an academic career. The thesis had to be obtained from the library of the university that had awarded the diploma degree.
@DaveLRenfro The most likely explanation for that is the most likely explanation for most things: money. Certain funding agencies want to fund "the next big thing" and to be part of getting big breakthroughs out into society. The average person likes to hear about medical breakthroughs that fix current problems, and not so much about how a treatment for something that's been "not a big deal" for a long time has been improved, for example. Who really cares about polio? Fix zika!
Wouldn't all researchers concentrate their efforts on starting their literature search from the highest impact factor journals, and then develop their new work on this basis?
No. My literature searches start at DuckDuckGo, Google, Google Scholar and maybe my institution's library search. I don't even know the impact factors of the venues of the papers I end up reading.
If the papers (or books, or blog posts, or Stack Exchange Q&A) I find are relevant, I will read them, regardless of impact factor.
+1 Let me go a bit beyond "I don't even know the impact factors of the venues of the papers I end up reading." I don't know the impact factors of any journals, and I don't see any reason to learn any impact factors. I have a general idea of which journals are important in my field, and that idea might or might not agree with impact factors. I also have a general idea of which researchers are doing important work that I should read regardless of where (or even whether) it's published. Impact factors are simply irrelevant for me.
@AndreasBlass ... agreed. I'm in math, I did not know anything about impact factors until I was on a college-wide promotion and tenure committee. Then we in math had to somehow find the impact factors to add to the papers in the promotion dossiers, since the other departments thought they were relevant.
This question is very open and will probably generate a lot of answers. Here's two important reasons I see:
The impact factor of a journal does not indicate the quality of an individual article. I have seen awesome articles in poorly-known journals. As well as articles with serious flaws in high-impact journals.
Impact factors varies with field: some smaller fields have lower publication rates, thus lower impact factors when compared to other fields In ecology, for example, an impact factor of 2 is fine (at least from my experience). Above 3, you have a very good journal. I'm pretty sure this would be considered low for a medicine journal...
Impact factor being a dimensionless ratio, it is not at all evident that smaller fields should have lower IF journals. For a field that is not cited by other fields, average IF is equal to the average number of one-to-two-years-old cited papers in the field (otherwise it is above that). In small fields researchers might cite slightly less, but since there is only so much one can read and cite, this effect probably only influence very small, closed subfields. The habits of citations are certainly a much greater factor than field size to explain the variations in average IF.
@BenoîtKloeckner well I though this was well documented. But I do not have the time right now to find references for this... will do if I can later
Because if they didn't, nobody would've heard of the Krebs cycle yet, one of the most important discoveries in biochemistry. It was famously rejected from Nature, and instead published in an obscure little Dutch journal called Enzymologia. Luckily, the Nobel Prize committee didn't care about impact factor ;-)
You are kidding me?! +1
Nope: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/28819/title/Nature-rejects-Krebs-s-paper--1937/
In addition to the excellent points made in the prior answers, consider the issue of originality as a requirement for article acceptance.
A professor who selects based on relevance etc. will know if a line of research has already been covered by articles in low impact journals, and avoid duplicating what has already been published. A professor who only reads articles in high impact journals could waste a lot of time duplicating prior research, and getting articles rejected for lack of originality.
I understand that you meant "Why would a researcher read papers from low-impact journals?"
In many research areas, articles are communicated (and read) well before they are published, for example by means of preprint servers such as arXiv. In this case, the reputation of the journal to which a certain article has been submitted/accepted can be used as some simple indicator for the quality of the research.
Since impact factor is essentially an attempt to measure journal reputation, this implies that articles submitted/accepted for low-impact-factor journals tend to be regarded less.
However, IMHO few researchers explicitly use impact factor to select their reading list, rather they judge from several factors, journal reputation being only one (others are the reputation of the authors, as well as the interest generated from reading the title and abstract).
Note also that, in particular for interdisciplinary journals such as Nature and Science, impact factor may not correlate with good quality articles. This is because these journals tend to select not on quality alone, but also on potential impact. Now, unfortunately, a wrong/marginal result can have a huge impact, since if it were true that would have dramatic consequences (IMHO, a substantial fraction of articles in aforementioned journals fall into this category).
What you are proposing here is a circular self-sustaining system where the impact factor of a journal could never increase because no one would cite it. This, coupled with the occasional digging for hidden and/or forgotten gems of research means that there is good reason to use those resources too.
And let us not forget: Impact factor says very little about both validity and value of the contained work. Not directly, anyway.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.249504 | 2017-07-03T10:38:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/91659",
"authors": [
"AliceD",
"Andreas Blass",
"Benoît Kloeckner",
"Carsten S",
"Dave L Renfro",
"Emilie",
"Frames Catherine White",
"Fábio Dias",
"GEdgar",
"Greg",
"JeffE",
"Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla",
"Mindwin Remember Monica",
"O. R. Mapper",
"Ooker",
"VonBeche",
"Walter",
"Wildcard",
"arboviral",
"cfh",
"eykanal",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11556",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14017",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14198",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14341",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14506",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14755",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19768",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21360",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21387",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/23423",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/25030",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/27365",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/41208",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/41302",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4484",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/46356",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/49593",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/50217",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/51476",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/52346",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/62383",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/64257",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/73",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75551",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75603",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8513",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/946",
"jamesqf",
"skymningen",
"user32849",
"user75551",
"xDaizu",
"xmp125a",
"zibadawa timmy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
3171 | How do I go about publishing a paper without a university affiliation?
I graduated with a B.S. degree and I have been working in industry for a few years as a software engineer. I am very interested in reinforcement learning, a sub-field of machine learning, and I am interested in performing research and publishing a paper on that topic.
The problem is, in my city there are no professors working in this field (or related fields) who could help me. I contacted other professors in different cities and they rejected my help request for a variety of reasons (such as I am not their student, they don't know me, they are busy, etc.).
Still, I want to perform research and publish a paper. I can't attend school as a full time student and my collaboration requests were not successful. Given all that, how can I publish by myself?
How to choose a research topic?
Should I read all the papers on this field?
How to decide which problem to work on or which is not obsolete? I don't want to work on something which no one is interested in.
Should I read and study all the prerequisite material, or fill in the gaps during research efforts?
I think the first question you'll have to answer is, why do you want to publish? What goal are you hoping to achieve? Once you answer that, we can probably give you more directed advice.
possible duplicate of Does one need to be affiliated with a university to publish papers?
The title and the question are unrelated, and I think you confuse conducting research and publishing stuff.
Why are they unrelated ? I want to conduct research and publish my results if they are publishbale.
I don't want to achieve anything specific, I want to work on a problem and solve it. After that I want show my results to the world. I like working on a problem finding interesting solutions. It is an obsession for me.
Perhaps Sylvain is alluding to the fact that not all research—not even all successful research—is publishable.
I think this question is sufficiently different from those cited as duplicate: he is asking about his options for research/collaborations or independent research, very much distinct from "can I publish a paper without affliation".
I agree with @Legendre; the linked questions address the question of "can it be done?", this question asks "how can it be done?".
@Legendre, you say that "this question is [...] very much distinct from "can I publish a paper without affiliation"." If so, then why is its title "Is it possible to publish a paper without a Professor?"
@JoelReyesNoche : Similar to what eykanal said. This question asks how to go about conducting (potentially publishable) research without being supervised by a professor. While the other question asks whether publications without academic affiliation can be published. I suppose you're right in that the title needs to be (and has been) updated.
@teenageninjaturtle Since you have some responses below that seem to answer your question, please consider marking one of them as ‘Accepted’ by clicking on the tickmark below their vote count. This shows which answer helped you most, and it assigns reputation points to the author of the answer (and to you!).
Is it possible to publish a paper without a Professor?
Sure. Nobody gives a rat's patootie about the academic ranks of paper authors (at least in my field). I published sole-author papers as a graduate student. I have colleagues who published as undergraduates, and others who published with no university (or research lab, or corporate) affiliation at all.
How to choose a research topic?
Choose something you're good at, that you're passionate about, and that other people will care about. If you're not good at it, you'll never get anywhere. If you're not passionate about it, you won't put in enough effort to succeed. If nobody cares, then, well, nobody cares.
Should I read all the papers on this field?
No. Reading all the papers in any field is simply not possible. But you should read a lot. A few hundred papers should get you started (ha ha only serious).
How to decide which problem to work on or which is not obsolete? I don't want to work on something which no one is interested in.
Read lots of papers; talk to lots of people; go to seminars/conferences and listen to talks. Or decide that the topics that you care about are so fascinating and your results are so compelling that you'll make other people interested (but be prepared for disappointment). Or—my personal favorite—just make up something cool out of thin air.
Should I read and study all the prerequisite material, or fill in the gaps during research efforts?
Yes. Both. (Except not all the prerequisite material; that's impossible.)
I have heard people say that for those remaining in academice after their PhD, professor-less publications are a good thing to have as they indicate you stepped out of your advisor's shadow.
I would like to comment that "ask > read". It's easy to miss an important paper (or idea) when just searching for papers plus it's hard to decide if a problem is of the interest of others (it might be technically correct and novel, but considered as unimporant).
This is very true. I know of an IBM employee who publishes about star formation in astronomy journals; he's not associated with a university.
@Geremia But he still has an affiliation. What about freelancers, or unemployed people?
I can't comment on the later issues—they are too general for the scope of a single question.
To address the first issue, yes, it is possible to publish without a professor. People at corporations and small companies publish all the time without academic collaborators (and without PhD level staffers). The challenge is having a topic that is worth publishing, and finding an appropriate venue to publish it in.
Is it possible to publish a paper without a Professor?
Yes, sure, why not? The point is whether the paper (your work) is worthy enough to be published or not. It's not the point if the paper has a professor or not; it's about being professional and not about a professor.
How to choose a research topic?
First, it depends on your interest. Then it depends on if it's useful, uses new method, new knowledge, etc.
Should I read all the papers on this field?
Not all but only related to your topics. Because you have to "re-search" if others have done it already. You need their results and methods to compare with your work for reference.
How to decide which problem to work on or which is not obsolete? I don't want to work on something which no one is interested in.
I give up for this Q. Actually,it's not hard to answer but not easy too. Because there's no right or wrong answer, only depends on your like. People select scientific papers by their own standard and so do I. No one knows exactly which standard criteria should be decided, but at least you may know the trend of interests, so please "re-search"!
Should I read and study all the prerequisite material, or fill in the gaps during research efforts?
Oops! I have to do it a lot.
PS: This may not the most correct answer because I'm not a professor but at least I hope it helps.
Based on your comment above, that you "want to work on a problem and solve it", I strongly recommend that you change your goal from "publishing in a journal" to simply "solving a problem". By limiting yourself to research that would be publishable in a journal, you place yourself under the following very harsh constraints:
You must become familiar with the existing academic literature such that you can properly cite other academic sources when discussing prior findings.
If you don't take the journal route, you can become familiar with existing techniques through books, tutorials, wikipedia, and blog posts, and work from there.
When publishing to a journal, your work will have a higher likelihood of being published if it relates to the topic du jour. Certain concepts go in and out of style, and researching a less popular topic can have an impact on when you can publish. On a related note, there's a lot of time between submission and actual publication; a number of months to almost a year is common.
Alternatlive, if you go your own route, then you won't have that delay.
You must be willing to work in areas which are of interest to whatever journal in which you wish to publish. This requires knowledge of the different journals and what they typically publish, which may be difficult for you to find without academic contacts.
If you don't take the journal route, you can simply publish your findings in a blog post or other open setting (there may be places specifically intended for this sort of thing, I'm not sure).
You will have to pay non-trivial fees for publication.
I want my contributions to be notable. And the best way of this is publishing in journals or conferences. I don't see a way my work is recognized or respected via a blog post. At the end if I achieve something I want to get proper credit for it. My main target is conferences and their short paper sessions. Mainly I will target ICML and confs. one tier lower than that.
@teenageninjaturtle - Having a publication ≠ notability, or even recognition. The likelihood that your publication will make very little impact at all (along with the vast majority of publications these days) is quite high. I don't mean this personally, I fear this is just the reality.
Good point. One might want to start with posting stuff on arXiv (or a blog) and sending links to people in the field (important: be professional). The feedback (if any) can determine the next step. About (4): that's not generally true (although it unfortunately happens).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.250737 | 2012-09-11T17:50:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3171",
"authors": [
"Albert Altarovici",
"Anthony",
"Ben Sholov",
"Chandra",
"Dave",
"Geremia",
"JRN",
"JamesRyan",
"JeffE",
"Konafa",
"Legendre",
"Manoj",
"Medhat Omr",
"Noble P. Abraham",
"Perry",
"Piotr Migdal",
"Raphael",
"Sylvain Peyronnet",
"Tomcat",
"Zlatko-Minev",
"bobthejoe",
"eykanal",
"gruangly",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1190",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1419",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1580",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1629",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/319",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/49",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/64",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/73",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8086",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8087",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8088",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8093",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8094",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8096",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8108",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8110",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8118",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8119",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8120",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8126",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8127",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8128",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8151",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8353",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/9425",
"kmacinnis",
"qed",
"teenage ninja turtle",
"user8088"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
86094 | How to get a university to make an admission decision more quickly
I received an admit from University A with an acceptance deadline of March 22nd. But my top choice is University B, which—according to their website—won't get back to me until the end of March. I definitely want to join B if possible, but the timing on A means I may not even have heard back from B before A's deadline passes. Is there anything I can do to speed up B's getting back to me?
Universities are aware of this problem. I suggest you either email or call the admissions office at both universities and tell them exactly what you said above, without naming the other university. For the first, ask for an extension for acceptance. For the second, ask whether they can inform you ahead of time about your application. They may or may not be sympathetic to your problem, but at least you'll have tried everything. Do note that if both universities simply say, "sorry to hear that, but we cannot do anything different," you will simply have to make a decision with limited information. Best of luck!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.251559 | 2017-03-07T09:06:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/86094",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12190 | Is it bad style if a section has exactly one subsection?
In a discussion on why subsubsections are evil, egreg comments:
If you have subsubsections, you must have at least two of them in a subsection; you must have at least two subsections and, of course, at least two sections. Draw the tree and you'll understand.
When I'm writing long texts, such as for my thesis, I might have sections that contain only one subsection. For example:
5.3 Topic X
... bla intro bla ...
5.3.1 Special Case in Topic X
... bla detail bla ...
Is it considered bad style to have 5.3.1, but no 5.3.2? Should I rather put the bla intro bla in a 5.3.1 Introduction and have the special case in 5.3.2? What are the general approaches here, what is considered good or bad style, and why?
I think it is a matter of opinion, but my advisor would make me re-write all sections such as the one you mention so that there were more than one, or none. I suggest running it by your advisor or other committee members.
This is probably the wrong forum for this sort of discussion; I'd imagine you'd get more help on English.SE.
@eykanal I don't agree. This has nothing to do with a language. It is the same whether your works is in English or Klingonian. It has a lot to do with academic writing (which differs from other sorts of writings when you discuss the structure of the text)
While I most agree with you tohecz, this does have a lot to do with language. While there are international standards, each language has differenct expectations as to style and structure, hence why style guides are language specific. With that being said, since this is academic in nature I'm ok with it being here.
Academic writing is almost exclusively in English.
A lot of thesis formatting is handed down from a central person/office institutionally, frequently (but not always) associated with your library. This person/office is where your thesis goes after you defend and have your paper work signed and make all your corrections. Ask your adviser AND ask this person/office what is permitted.
@BenNorris The library at my university appears to have no rules except for the paper size and the dust cover.
Having a section with a single subsection is usually considered bad style: most style guides, academic or not, advise against it. In particular, the Chicago Manual of Style advises against it.
Regarding the reasons why this is considered bad practice, I'll quote Wikipedia:
Single Subsections
Just as your English teacher told you, if section 2 has a subsection 2.1, there'd better be a section 2.2 as well. If you see a section with a single subsection, you have three choices:
If there's a lot of text in the section, followed by the subsection, you ought to be able to carve out a good subsection from the initial material, or even two, to create multiple subsections.
If most of the section's material is in the subsection, you may not need a subsection. Just combine the two.
If the content of at the top of the section is short and substantially different from what's in the subsection, you might be able to promote the subsection (for example, change the heading from level 3 to level 2). On other hand, if the subsection covers something relatively unimportant, then don't promote it to a level 2 (top-level) heading.
Other sources, both style guides and writing advice, say the same thing: 1, 2, …
I might be missing something, but I don't see where your quote answers the question why this is bad practice.
IMHO, it is a bad style in most contexts, and I will try to explain why, on your example:
5.3 Topic X
blabla
5.3.1 Special Case in Topic X
bleble
If you write a long work (like a thesis or a chapter of a book), you have to use sub-sectioning, still you should keep a good structure. In your case, I would use
5.3 Topic X
5.3.1 General Approach [or a similar title]
blabla
5.3.2 Special Case [and not "Special Case in Topic X", that's redundant]
bleble
One of the reasonable measures whether you have a good structure of your work is the Table of Contents. Just look at it: If it looks good and truly helps in using the text, then the structure is good.
If you write an article and this would likely be the only subsection in it, just make it a section:
5 Topic X
blabla
6 Special Case in Topic X
bleble
If it's too short to deserve a section, it's quite likely too short to deserve a subsection, in the case you don't use subsections to keep some general structure of the works.
(Needed to say, I speak as a mathematician and as a typesetter of a tech journal. I've seen solitaire subsections a lot. Unfortunately it is out of my privileges to remove these in the articles I typeset.)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.251692 | 2013-08-26T12:01:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/12190",
"authors": [
"Ben Norris",
"Chris Gregg",
"Frank B",
"James Matta",
"Jina",
"Prakhar",
"dshapiro",
"eykanal",
"flornquake",
"gerrit",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1033",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1471",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/30702",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/30703",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/30704",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/30706",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/30709",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/30711",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4461",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/73",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8314",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8391",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/924",
"regnirpsj",
"tempestuousfool",
"yo'"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
159372 | I am a PhD student seeking to collaborate with PhD student/professors from other department. How can I make this happen?
I am a PhD student seeking to collaborate with PhD students and/or professors from other departments, for the first time: I wonder how to start. In particular:
If I already have some specific research questions in mind (which I will use for my dissertation research), is it important to ensure that the research lab is a reasonable match to my specific research goals? For example, if my field is natural language processing and I am specifically interested in doing a research in Transformer language models, should I ensure that the potential research lab for collaboration is also heavily into Transformer research? or can I try contacting any natural language processing labs in general, even if the lab's subarea of research is not a great match to my research goals?
My main supervisor is open to the idea of collaboration. To make the collaboration happen, can I just contact the individual researcher/PhD student whom I am interested in working with? or should I first contact the professor who is leading the lab that the researcher/PhD student belongs to?
Should my main supervisor contact the research group on my behalf, instead of me approaching them?
If I collaborate with a research lab in different department, does this automatically mean that I will formally be a member of that research lab and have the professor who is leading the lab as my co-supervisor?
Is it okay for PhD students to collaborate with research labs from different university (assuming that my main supervisor is okay with this)?
Related: How should a PhD student approach a collaboration?
Don't ask us, ask your supervisor!!
Yes, go for it. It sounds like a great idea.
Regarding your formal status with the other labs you collaborate with, as a grad student you could be considered more appropriately as an "intern" for them, which is not in the usual sense of the word, in terms of responsibilities, but I've seen the term used a lot in academia for researchers collaborating at other labs.
It sounds like you've already given quite some thought to what the content and direction of this collaboration would be. Good for you! But while I think it's good to have a plan in your head, you really don't need to have all of the specifics thought out entirely.
IMHO, establishing a professional research collaborations is a bit like professional dating. You need to test the waters, see what the other party is like, whether they are open to sharing, whether they have the same attitude towards research as you do, whether they really have the expertise you need, and, as in real life, whether there's that little piece of magic that ensures that you understand each other and like to collaborate with that other person. The last bit can make or break a collaboration.
As for first contact: Ask your supervisor how they prefer to go about it. And ask yourself what you prefer. Sometimes it helps if your PI sends out the first e-mail to the other student's PI. In either case it is super important to have both in the loop (at the start and keep updated throughout) because out of enthusiasm ideas and reagents and tools will be shared and maybe there are rules or regulations or MTAs in place that only the PIs know about.
As to how it develops and what the formal structures will be (co-authorships etc.) it's good to discuss that early on (though not necessarily in the first meeting) - although you cannot set these things in stone because things will change as a project progresses, but at least make sure expectations are clear on both ends.
But first: get talking, test the waters, don't force the other party to commit to something in the first meeting, give them time to think it through and do the same from your end (in your enthusiasm don't promise something you may later regret).
I think it is super important to be open and sharing in research, but it is still business...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.252076 | 2020-11-28T06:26:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/159372",
"authors": [
"cag51",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/39510",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79875",
"user2705196"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54035 | Is all research connected via citations?
When looking at the paper-is-cited-by-paper binary relation in an undirected manner: Is all research connected to each other or will there be many connected components?
In other words: Is there a way from a, say, computer science paper to a chemistry paper by walking along the citation graph?
Let's say we are only looking at publications in established, well-known conferences conferences/journals.
It's like playing the Wikipedia game. You go from one article to something really random just by clicking the in-text (anchor) links. If a paper has a citation to one paper that has a lot of citations and so on - by the rules of large numbers you will eventually get to something random.
It is unlikely that all reearch across all fields forms a single tree. All it takes is one paper which does not share the main tree to establish that and I'd be surprised if there wasn't one such. Then again: what practical difference does that make? What's the real problem you're trying to address?
It may not be appropriate to use the term "good" when defining conferences and journals in formal context.
@keshlam: Purely philosophical/interest ;-).
@ÉbeIsaac: That was done on purpose. I think each researcher knows the "good" (established, well-known conferences ) in her/his area. Let's say tier 1 journals/conferences.
The global graph of citations (directed acyclic graph) produced need not to be a connected graph. Although paths do exist from one discipline to another and by philosophy all matter in this world are connected, clusters do form on a general basis.
@keshlam It doesn't form any sort of tree or even forest. At the very least, it's a directed acyclic but I'm sure that, in fact, you'll find plenty of papers that cite each other, especially in the modern era of preprint servers.
There are many papers that cite each other, but that isn't what was asked. All it takes is one instance which does not point to the rest of the universe to answer the posed question, and the odds of that not existing are nil.
Pólya wrote a influential paper on combinatorics with applications to chemistry ("Kombinatorische Anzahlbestimmungen für Gruppen, Graphen und chemische Verbindungen", Acta Mathematica 68:1 (1937), pp 145-254), and that very same paper is routinely cited in works on computer science (combinatorics and analysis of algorithms, in particular, like Flajolet and Sedgewick's "Analytic Combinatorics", Cambridge University Press 2009). Not at all farfetched.
@DavidRicherby There's usually a few papers that annoyingly don't follow the partial ordering (ie. they cite papers in the future), so even directed acyclic isn't a safe bet.
@keshlam You seem to have missed the point I was making. You said, "It is unlikely that all research across all fields forms a single tree." That's not a matter of probability: it's a matter of clear fact because there is nothing even remotely tree-like about the citation graph. The situation where A cites B and C, and B and C both cite D is extremely common. That is not a tree.
@keshlam: The question explicitly says "undirected", which already implies no-one's looking for a tree. As such, all it takes is one instance which neither cites anything else, nor is cited by anything else. While this might exist, it might be difficult to identify it while still establishing it to belong to the considered class of documents in the first place.
Let's say we are only looking at publications in "good" conferences/journals — Oh, no, please, don't ruin a perfectly good question.
@JeffE: I changed the wording to "established, well-known". Do you think that is better? I think this is equally vague, isn't it?
Nope. A citation, even from an arXiv preprint, an economics working paper, or an otherwise unpublished PhD thesis, is still a citation.
My next research project will be "six degrees of citation" I guess...
@NajibIdrissi: Unless we are not dealing with a tree to start with, but with a (non-tree-shaped) graph. Who said we are looking at a tree? Yet, "undirected tree" - just as well, then "one paper that doesn't share the main tree" can be reached as soon as the branches of its tree touch those of the main tree, as movement is not restricted to one direction.
@JeffE: I think your suggestion of adding anything up to a "unpublished PhD thesis" makes an already hard to answer question entirely unanswerable.? I still do not understand, why restricting the question to some document set "ruins" the question.
@knub Not answering for JeffE, but for me, because restricting certain things for, essentially, convenience, moves this from a question about how citations actually work to a musing on a particular and artificially restricted graph (this is also the root of my issue with your strict definition of clustering). I'd propose that "If I take a citation graph and alter it in some very fundamental ways, what does it look like?" is headed toward off-topic for a question about how Academia actually works.
@Fomite: If we allow everything, is that how "citations" actually work? My general issue with dropping a restriction to peer-reviewed papers or something similar is that the "natural limit" of citations is removed. Only so many papers get cited by other papers because there is a desire (if not a requirement) for brevity, and you have to pick what you cite by relevance. At the same time, the number of papers on a topic is restricted in the first place, as each paper needs to present a novelty. Lastly, the attention dedicated, and thus the number of papers written, is somewhat linked ...
... (maybe even roughly proportional sometimes?) to the degree of interest a research topic attracts. Superficially speaking, none of these restrictions are true for documents like Bachelor theses. There is often no page restriction, so everything that fits somehow can be cited. There is no requirement of containing new content or, especially, new insights. And the number of Bachelor theses is strongly dependent on whether a researcher knowledgeable on the respective topic happens to spend a lot of effort with offering/supervising Bachelor theses. Thus, the distortion might work the other way.
@O.R.Mapper I would assert that it is. I have cited arXiv pre-prints, white papers and unpublished dissertations over my career, where it was necessary to do so. And I think "they can cite a lot of things" is probably one of the weakest reasons to consider excluding grey literature.
@Fomite: In that case, is that really what we want to know? The question "Is all research connected via citations, if we count all mentions and references in any resources?" sounds rather uninteresting to me (we might choose to count Google Scholar, as well as the complete catalogues of all publishers as valid connecting resources, for instance) sounds rather uninteresting to me, compared to "Is all research connected via citations, if we only count a very specific set of citations?" Looking at the text above, the OP has alraeady answered which question they are asking.
@O.R.Mapper And I'd argue that "Is all research connected via citations, if we only count a very specific set of citations?" feels a lot like "I need a network, but I don't like the network I picked, so I'm going to change it until the problem is easier." Frankly, I think how grey literature cites and gets cited (which will vary wildly by field in some cases based on things like the acceptability of arXiv and the prevalence of sandwich theses vs. traditional theses) would be fascinating.
@O.R.Mapper Yes, that is how citations actually work, and moreover how they should work. My journal papers include citations to arXiv preprints, unpublished technical reports, unpublished PhD theses, Usenet newsgroup posts, blog posts, and StackExchange answers, because those were the correct primary references. Conversely, preprints, technical reports, blog posts, and StackExchange posts that I have written have been cited in multiple journal articles because those were the correct primary references.
@JeffE: I think the issue here is that no-one has defined what is meant by "how citations work" in the context of this question. As was stated in another comment, if Stack Exchange posts are included, as soon as someone posts an answer with an example of two absolutely disconnected papers, they will not be disconnected any more by virtue of that very answer. This is certainly one interpretation of how citations work, but it is one by which the question at hand ...
... becomes, in my opinion, quite uninteresting. In my opinion, a much more interesting question is whether the set of papers is still connected if we restrict the considered citation links to a specific subset of all existing citations. And, based on the OP's statements, that seems to be the question the OP intended to ask here. I personally do not find the question of connectedness across any kind of citation very interesting, but others might - yet, it is a different question to this one, and as such, it might be worthwhile to actually ask it as a related, but separate Academia SE question.
When looking at the paper-is-cited-by-paper binary relation in an undirected manner: Is all research connected to each other or will there be clusters?
First, it's possible to have an unconnected paper. Unlikely, but possible, to write something that has no citations and is never cited. This is clearly an edge case, but you did say all.
Second, all research can connect, but there can still be clusters. The two are not mutually exclusive - fields will cluster, presumably, but there will then be some links between fields. My suspicion, from personal experience, is that these papers will be methodological in focus primarily.
In other words: Is there a way from a, say, computer science paper to a chemistry paper by walking along the citation graph?
Third, yes, you could get from a CS paper to a Chemistry paper. I know this because I can trace that tree in my own work, and the work my work cites. The path isn't even all that convoluted or exciting.
I understand cluster in the strict sense, i.e. a cluster consists of everything that is connected. In that case, the two are mutually exclusive.
@knub in the strict sense, that's a clique, not a cluster.
@OrangeDog What knub describes is a connected component. A clique would be a subset of papers that all cite each other directly, ie. one step.
A clique is fully connected. The term would be connected component, which I just edited in the question.
Doh. Well at least we all agree it's not a cluster.
@knub I'd suggest that a connected component is an overly strict definition for actually understanding citation graphs. Lets say there's a field that cites only itself, meeting your definition. Hundreds, nay thousands of papers, all as a connected component. As insular a field as you can get. Then one paper is cited in a literature review of another field as a brief aside. Is that really a meaningful change? For your definition, it is. I'd suggest viewing clustering in the "clustering coefficient" sense, which allows a little more nuance.
@Formite: I think it is okay, if only one paper connects two fields, that's the interesting ones. The "as a brief side" aspect is really hard to judge, compared to just looking at citations.
As the opinion so far is that there is no giant component, I think it is not necessary to increase the requirements now.
@knub, there probably is a giant component. As you can see in my answer, the proportion of disconnected papers is tiny. So the whole graph is not connected, but there is a giant component.
@Peter: Sorry, I was unclear again. I meant one component connecting everything and nothing else.
@knub I think given the consensus is that there is a single connected component, asking about clusters within that component remains far more interesting than just "Giant component: Yes/No". But this is headed toward something that should probably go in chat.
Most likely not (but almost). Apart from the specific papers without references that people have already mentioned, we can look at crawls of large collections of papers. Take, for example, this dataset of all papers in the theoretical high-energy physics section of ArXiv:
Nodes 27770
Nodes in largest WCC 27400 (0.987)
The largest weakly connected component (WCC) is what you're after: the largest subset of papers that are connected to each other by a path of citations (ignoring direction). While the largest WCC is almost as big as the entire graph, there are papers outside it. Usually, with graph like this, these form little clusters of their own.
For a more cross-domain dataset, consider the citeseer graph, again a small proportion of papers, outside the largest WCC.
Now, of course, these datasets don't contain all of academia, and adding more papers would mean connecting some islands to the WCC, but I'd say adding more papers also adds new little islands. No matter what rule you use to decide which papers count and which don't, I think you always end up with disconnected islands.
Of course, if your question is whether any randomly chosen paper in domain A is likely to be connected with a random paper in domain B, the answer is yes. There will be a large WCC encompassing all domains, and a few tiny islands. I've seen visualizations to this effect, but unfortunately I can't find them at the moment.
Interestingly (by the citeseer stats), for any two papers that are both in the WCC, you have an expected shortest path of 6.35 citations. So while there may be disconnected papers, most of academia is pretty well connected.
Just as a comment, for me the best network graph visualization of the arxiv database is this: http://paperscape.org/. You can clearly see clusters and clusters close to each other resemble very well the connection between research fields. If you look for famous big physicists you will find them connected everywhere.
@Santi The best network graph visualization of the physics subset of the arxiv database, please.
@JeffE it is actually the whole arxiv, which includes also quantitative finance, quantitative biology, math and computer science. Of course, as you can see, they are just very faint clusters in the lower left corner, because physics dominates the landscape.
In short, no. For starters, and perhaps surprisingly to many folks, a large number of papers in the scholarly literature have neither incoming nor outgoing citations. These obviously won't be connected to anything else. Let's throw these out and look only that set of papers that do cite journal articles or do receive citations from journal articles. Even then, not all articles are connection by citation relationships.
Depending on which data set one uses, the fraction of papers in the giant component of a citation graph will vary, but in my experience typically 90-95% of papers will be in this giant component and the rest will be singletons or members of small connected components.
Note that the OP explicitly asks for undirected paths. So even if one paper has no citations at all, it will still be connected to the larger academic world if it is itself cited.
I should have been clearer in my answer. I propose throwing out all articles with no outgoing citations and no incoming citations, and then looking to see if the remainder are all members of single connected component. One will inevitably find that they are not.
@Corvus Can you give an example of a paper that is in not in the giant component and a paper that is in the giant component?
@JiK hey, that is a trap! As soon as he does it, we have both articles connected here in this page and then both going to the giant component.
What you say makes sense and is what I would expect but it seems to be purely based on conjecture. I would expect no path from a paper on the dietary habits of 13th century farmers to one on Newman modularity but that doesn't mean there won't be one. I don't see how this can be answered without actually building the graph and checking.
@arivero: Indeed - this highlights how it makes little sense to examine this question without establishing what set of documents is considered (e.g. only peer-reviewed publications). Otherwise, we could, for instance, argue that a large number of otherwise disconnected papers are indeed connected ... via appearing in the Google Scholar database, which forms one huge document full of outgoing citations.
@O.R.Mapper: I did establish a set of documents, right? I said papers published to conferences/journal, which inherently includes peer reviews.
I further constrained to "good", established conferences/journals to rule out bogus, very low-quality conferences/journals.
@knub: Maybe you did, but I was responding to a comment that implied counting something like Stack Exchange postings as well.
I don't see how this can be answered short of actually generating the relevant graph and analyzing it. All answers here are simply conjecture. Very reasonable conjecture, based on valid assumptions and reaching conclusions that I find very plausible, but conjecture nonetheless.
I would expect most papers to be connected by a (sometimes very long) path, but not all. However, there is no way of demonstrating this unless we have the graph. I'd be interested to check this, by the way. If anyone has an idea of how to get the relevant nodes and edges, I'd be happy to give it a go.
Until then, I'm afraid this question has to remain unanswered.
I'm sure, each paper is connected to all others. The question is, how long is this citation way from one paper to the other. This is the sort of the 5 handshakes rule thing.
I bet, one can even prove that all academic texts are interconnected through the works of, for example, Sigmund Freud.
This is a bet I would be very happy to take! It would not take long to provide a counter example given any particular bibliometric dataset, given that you can find the connected components of a graph in linear time (Hopcroft, J.; Tarjan, R. (1973). "Algorithm 447: efficient algorithms for graph manipulation". Communications of the ACM 16 (6): 372–378.) and that you will never find everything contained in a single giant component.
@Corvus, then, take it. A cool reference does not mean you are automatically right
You could in principle publish a completely spurious paper that cites one paper in the giant component plus everything you want to pull into it. Therefore any example Corvus gives is liable to be nobbled by someone who wants it to be wrong, and it is impossible to publish a paper that actually cites an example of each kind of paper ;-)
@stevejessop "A reductionist approach to unifying the citation graph", J. Bibliometrics (2017). I can see it now...
@SteveJessop: I hope my question is not that important, that someone tries to publish such a bogus paper to an established conference, and it gets accepted.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.252480 | 2015-09-08T15:38:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/54035",
"authors": [
"Andrew is gone",
"Applicant",
"AweSamarth",
"Corvus",
"David Richerby",
"Emese Gráncsa",
"Fomite",
"Harry Case",
"IanQ",
"JeffE",
"JiK",
"Memj",
"O. R. Mapper",
"OrangeDog",
"OshiniRB",
"P A",
"Paul Ognibene Cohasset",
"Peter Bloem",
"PlasmaHH",
"Priya",
"Santiago",
"Stephan Kolassa",
"Steve Jessop",
"XEB",
"abigail",
"arivero",
"c. erewhon",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10225",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11440",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11523",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/118",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13404",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1369",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14017",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/147287",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/147288",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/147289",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/147292",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/147297",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/147298",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/147308",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/147314",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/147352",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/147358",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/147437",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/147444",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/147480",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/147484",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17325",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21334",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/27825",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/27900",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/31848",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/36363",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38135",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38524",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/40592",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/40847",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4140",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6936",
"ikashnitsky",
"keshlam",
"knub",
"terdon",
"user107952",
"user_0815",
"vonbrand",
"Ébe Isaac"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
104360 | Grants.gov v NIH ASSIST for grant submission
I am writing a training grant--what is the difference between Grants.gov and NIH ASSIST for submission? Is one preferable to another?
There are similar issues with submitting NSF grants through grants.gov rather than NSF's Fastlane system.
Functionally, you can use whichever system you prefer; there is no inherent advantage in submitting via either system, since both are approved methods for submitting proposals.
The decision on which system to use basically boils down to which system you feel is easier, and which one your university's grants and contracts administrators are more comfortable using. (The easier it is for them to use the system, the easier it will be for you to submit your proposals according to the rules and deadlines!)
One practical issue with using grants.gov is that will do its computerized checking of the proposal before sending it on to NIH and then NIH will do a second round of checking. If NIH finds something wrong with the application, then you'll have to update on grants.gov and resubmit. This can be slow down the process of submitting your proposal and might cause a huge problem if you miss the deadline.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.254273 | 2018-02-22T14:42:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/104360",
"authors": [
"Brian Borchers",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4453"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
101542 | How do admissions committees handle a missing “extra” letter of recommendation?
If a student has sent 4 letters, one more than required, and the 4th letter is missing, what will happen?
Will the committee contact the applicant if his application is strong enough?
Will they ignore the letter and decide based on the other 3? Will they delay the review till they have the 4th letter?
I know this varies between schools but how it's usually handled?
If the required number of letters have been received, then most likely the candidate’s application will be reviewed normally, with no penalty attached for not having the fourth letter. If a required letter was missing, then things get a little dicier, depending on whether there are too many applications and if it’s a rolling or fixed admissions cycle.
Will reviewers know one is missing?
If the application lists who's been asked for reviews, then yes.
Well, duh. Is that common?
Most of the applications I've seen are either PDFs or straight "dumps" of what's been entered in an online application, so yes.
If 4 were sent and that is one more than required then the 3 necessary are there.
If 4 are required and only 3 sent then it may not be accepted.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.254425 | 2018-01-03T19:19:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/101542",
"authors": [
"Azor Ahai -him-",
"aeismail",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/37441",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
98465 | Conditional Offer?
In US graduate programs, what kind of conditions, usually, universities set, if they accept a student who has yet to finish his degree?
The obvious one is to finish before fall, but aside from this, how common is for them to set minimum GPA requirements?
For example, if a student has 3.6 GPA and is admitted, what kind of GPA should he maintain? Will a 3.55 be OK? How common is for programs to withdraw their offer on GPA basis?
I understand that this varies a lot, but please give me an idea of how it works in competitive programs.
I’ve never seen specific grade or GPA targets mentioned as conditions for admission after acceptance.
I believe that the usual (informal) requirement is that your performance remain consistent with your previous performance. If your grade point average changes a little, no one is going to complain. However, if you contract a severe case of senioritis and barely pass your final-semester classes, that will definitely raise some alarms, regardless of how hig( your GPA was beforehand.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.254557 | 2017-11-06T14:09:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/98465",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
95010 | How should I cite a specific section of the LabVIEW online documentation?
How can I cite a specific page of the LabVIEW online documentation?
I need to cite these two pages: from the tutorial and types of graphs and charts.
Would I be better off citing the online help documentation?
Not an answer, but I would suggest that there's nothing on those two pages that really warrants citation unless you're doing something that is really novel and unusual for your field. Most fields of engineering and science can safely assume that National Instruments plotting and computing software is a standard software package (like MATLAB or Mathematica) that might deserve mention but not citation.
Also consider that there are dozens and dozens of softwares that allow you to do plotting and that allow you to build and run state machines, so if this work is really so novel in your field that you feel like citation is deserved then you might want to spend a day looking up the different tools you might mention as well.
You can cite them as a webpage. This answer gives some info on that for a specific citation style: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/67209/acs-style-image-citation/104049#104049
It's generally best to provide the location of the cited material in such a way that, should a reader need to find it, they can do so without searching extensively. The pages you are citing are in two different locations (the first is a tutorial on the site and the second is essentially a section from the 2012 version of a manual) on the LabVIEW site so it likely makes the most sense to cite them separately from each other. There's always the potential issue of resources changing location and links breaking, so include other identifying details where possible, like page names and edition dates.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.254672 | 2017-08-24T16:03:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/95010",
"authors": [
"David",
"Wandering Chemist",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/62652",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/86317"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
95603 | Can anyone write a paper and then publish it in a journal?
I know nothing about the bureaucracy of the academic world when writing papers but I sometimes need or enjoy to read academic papers.
Usually all the papers I've read were written either by professors or by reasearchers (I'm guessing PhDs). Some papers were written by people working at Google and they were PhDs too.
My question is: can anyone write a paper or is some minimum level of education (say a PhD for instance) required? Of course I'm not asking if a persone can wake up tomorrow and write a paper on quantum physics without knowing anything at all of physics.
EDIT: when I said "write", what I meant was having the paper published. Sorry!
In principle: Yes, of course!
No journal I know has a rule that requires a minimum level of education or a specific affiliation. But in order to be accepted for a journal with reasonable reputation, there are several requirements:
Contribution: With more education (not necessarily a higher degree) it gets easier to provide a better contribution. As you said, just waking up with a great idea without even knowing the fundamentals of the field of research before is unlikely.
Novelty: For an external person it is hard to decide if he has really found something new or he was just reinventing the wheel. That is much easier if you are part of the research community. That does not necessarily require any affiliation, but for example the regular participation at conferences and workshops.
Experience: You need experience in many areas to write a good paper. A lot of (if not most) papers are rejected not because of bad ideas, but because of wrong experimental setups, wrong application of statistical methods, ugly looking plots that do not provide confidence intervals ... and most importantly because the paper was not written in a convincing way. You can not learn these things by just reading a book at home.
Time: Research requires a lot of time! If the university pays at least part of your bills you have more time to do research.
Money: Depending on the journal, publishing might be very expensive. With an affiliation at a university it is easier to find someone who pays for your publication.
Reputation: Last but not least, there are things, such as reputation of the author, that should not influence a reviewers decision, but they do at least sometimes.
Journals set their own criteria for determining which papers to publish, but anything that's original and advances the knowledge of the subject is generally publishable somewhere. The catch is that it's very difficult to do research outside the academic world. That difficulty varies with the field. As you mentioned, companies like Google and Microsoft regularly publish computer science papers; on the other hand, there really isn't alternative to academia for pure math research. Doing research at a company requires it to be willing to support your work, and very few companies are interested in supporting pure research. More applied research still requires companies to invest in their reseachers, and that generally requires a PhD, academic experimence, or some other bona fides.
If you're specifically interested in doing research yourself without a PhD, your best bet is probably to get involved with one of the few companies like Google or Microsoft that does publish large quantities of papers, put your name on its published papers even if it's just doing background or logistical work, and try to build up enough clout and experience to persuade the company to start letting you run research projects yourself. It's a hard sell, even with all the bona fides in place; companies are about making money, not doing research, and it's hard to spin publications as being profitable. You might have more luck at government labs, although their friendliness towards research and publications vary.
In theory, yes. There are no requirements that an author needs to have an academic title or education. Neither does one have to be affiliated to a university or other form or research institute.
Practically, there are a lot of things that would make it unlikely, such as a lack of support (financial - you need to have some clue of the existing literature, which is usually obtained via university subscriptions to journals) to qualification.
The person might also have to invest some of his own money, since it is unlikely to get a research grant as a privateer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.254866 | 2017-09-06T20:01:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/95603",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
26725 | Heard of Chamber of Chartered Java Professionals International?
I'm Java course which they said to me that they can arrange a Bachelor's degree from "The Chamber of Chartered Java Professionals International."
I did a little research my own, and from what I can see, they don't really have any verifiable information to confirm their existence.
Is there such chamber that can give people a degree?
If they can, is it a reputable degree?
My course is covers regular software engineering, including generic languages and sometimes specific languages. I also submitted a few assignments, and projects to the institute that I'm following the course with. From what I understand, they can make them equivalent to their degree requirements. However, their reputation and existence remain mysterious and I chose not to rely on what the institute says, which of course, technically, is a business.
Looks bogus to me. according to Google Maps, their "USA Coordinating Office" seems to be an apartment building.
If it sounds like bogus and looks like bogus, it is bogus. Stay clear as soon as possible to not lose any more money. The only reliable Java certifications are from Oracle and even Oracle does not claim to give BSc degrees.
Consider coding bootcamps instead if you prefer a non-conventional (non physical college) route - many are free these days; and to have to show something, coursera and such.
Any class in which the instructors/organizer offer you this must itself be considered suspect. I know, you didn't want to hear that...
In general, degrees are given by universities, technological institutes, and other similar accredited institutes of higher learning. A degree without such an accreditation in place offers extremely limited value.
While this does appear to be a "real" organization, it does not appear to have any accreditation, which would make its degrees worthless junk.
Heard of Chamber of Chartered Java Professionals International?
No.
2. If they can [offer a degree], is it a reputable degree?
No.
According to my knowledge, this chamber is owned by IJTS (a private sole owner company provides Java courses) in Sri Lanka.
Not reputed.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.255207 | 2014-08-02T14:49:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/26725",
"authors": [
"Alexandros",
"Jin",
"Tobias Nils Ackermann",
"arovai",
"gdrt",
"gnometorule",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10042",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10225",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10529",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123180",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4384",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/71654",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/71656",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/71667",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/71669",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/71686",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/71688",
"keshlam",
"machc",
"mak",
"mhwombat",
"poguez"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14 | Who evaluates Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship proposals?
Who are the evaluators of the Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship proposals? Other academics ? How are they selected ?
You will find details on the evaluation process in the Guide for Applicants. The evaluators are experts (=researchers) in the field. They will be matched to the proposal according to their profile and to the abstract and keywords. They will for sure be in the general research area, but might not be in the exact same field of the proposal. It is (at least, officially) not possible to find out who evaluated the proposal afterwards, but you can find a list of former evaluators here:
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/experts_en.html
Who are the evaluators...? I am. Along with a few hundred other people, of course! The evaluators ("experts" in EU jargon) are mostly academics from across Europe, with a decent number of scientists from industry, government, etc.
How are they selected? There is an open application process to become an EU H2020 expert. You fill out a form on the H2020 website, where you detail your scientific expertise, list your publications, grants etc. Then there is some selection process where, if your profile matches a vacancy on one of the evaluation panels, you get invited to be a panel member.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.255427 | 2012-02-14T20:43:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/14",
"authors": [
"Bolster",
"OldTroll",
"abatkai",
"funny video",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/103",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/30",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/31",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/81754",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44728 | Should a journal ever reveal the name of an anonymous reviewer?
Recently, the single-blind peer-review process failed to appropriately deal with highly sexist comments. An anonymous reviewer provided a sexist review and the Academic Editor forwarded it on. They have since blacklisted the reviewer and asked the Academic Editor to step down. While I think that blind peer review provides useful protection for reviewers, are Academic Editors generally provided anonymity? Further, is there any precedence for when a journal should reveal the name of a reviewer?
Do you really want to ask about the academic editor in the penultimate sentence? This makes the question somewhat overly broad.
Well, for instance if it was found that the reviewer plagiarized and/or stole from the work he reviewed, I think protecting his anonymity would be entirely inappropriate.
The review process of PLOS One did not fail. One reviewer made sexist comments, and the editor failed to take appropriate action. How can you blame that on PLOS One's process?
FWIW I'd lay some of the 'blame' here on the widely-used process of anonymous peer-review. Would the reviewer dare write what s/he did if s/he knew their comments were definitely going to be published for all the world to see?
@rmounce: At the end of the day, it all comes down to definitions, but for some interpretation of these words, the review process did indeed utterly fail – in the sense of not producing the desired outcome at all. However, there is no economically reasonable way to design the process in a way that such failures are completely avoided or at least neglibly unlikely. Therefore the process is arguably not the one to blame.
@rmounce and then the authors filed a complaint and the publisher ignored it until they were publicly called out. That seems like an utter failure to me.
@Wrzlprmft potentially it is too broad if we include editors, but I have never heard of anonymous editors before this.
@PeteL.Clark I think I agree, but I am not sure if I have ever read about it happening.
@StrongBad many journals, including PNAS and the whole PLOS family, keep the handling editor anonymous when a paper is rejected.
@StrongBad "the publisher ignored it" I disagree. According to Fiona herself, they took about 3 weeks to respond to the appeal. Being slow isn't the same as completely ignoring it. PLOS have very publicly acknowledged this both on their blog and on Twitter.
While I think that blind peer review provides useful protection for reviewers, are Academic Editors generally provided anonymity?
In my experience this is rare but not unheard of. For example, the PNAS submission guidelines specify that the editor handling the paper will remain anonymous until the paper is accepted. Presumably this is meant to protect editors from retribution over a rejected paper. I'm not convinced this is necessary, but the existence of these policies indicates that someone must care.
Further, is there any precedence for when a journal should reveal the name of a reviewer?
I'm not aware of any policy that allows journals to reveal the name of a reviewer without the reviewer's consent. It could be reasonable in a case like this, but I wouldn't want to be in charge of writing a policy delineating when it is or isn't allowed.
In addition to the difficulties in writing such a policy, I am not sure I would review for a journal that had such a policy.
@StrongBad Knowing this would be a deterrent, but I actually have no idea what the policies are for any journal I've reviewed for.
Anonymity, when used for any scientific role, is intended to make it easier for people to conduct honest scientific assessments. It is not intended to be a shield from which to attack with impunity.
In business, there is a concept of "piercing the corporate veil," in which the shielding of corporate liability limits is removed in cases of gross misconduct. Likewise, I think that it is reasonable to pierce the veil of scientific anonymity in cases of gross misconduct. This recent case of "please add a male author" is one such; others could include abusive personal attacks or plagiarism.
I'm not sure that exact boundaries of such a policy would need to be spelled out in advance: simply saying "anonymity may be breached in cases of gross misconduct" may be sufficient.
What I find tricky is that I'd like to be able to assure referees that being wrong can't constitute misconduct. (You are entitled to your own scientific judgment, even if it looks foolish or negligent to the authors/editors. It might make you a bad referee whose opinion shouldn't be trusted or sought again, but it wouldn't mean you were guilty of gross misconduct.) I see "please add a male author" as gratuitously abusive, not a scientific judgment at all, but I'm sure the referee would complain loudly that their honest scientific opinion was being oppressed thanks to political correctness.
@AnonymousMathematician I think that certain types of misbehavior mean that people need to be called out and shamed. I'd be fine to have that referee complaining loudly: bigots generally do. It's not for the benefit of the bigot that we name and shame, but for the rest of society.
I agree that there's no need to feel sympathy for this particular referee, and I'd be happy to see them shamed, but I'm worried about making it clear where such a policy would be applied. I've never seen a genuinely offensive/abusive referee report, but I've seen some lazy or foolish ones and some harsh ones, and I've seen authors who were offended by what seem to me to be legitimate differences of opinion. I hope I'll never have to deal with a referee who deserves public shaming, but I expect that a shaming policy would cause some authors to ask whether it could be applied in their case.
For example, suppose an author submits a short, readable paper but the refereeing takes an extraordinarily long time. Meanwhile, the author's tenure case is submitted or their eligibility for a prize for young researchers expires. Has the referee committed gross misconduct by being so slow? I'd say no, but some people might disagree. Or what if a referee says something clearly negligent, such as "this method is well known, as the authors could easily have discovered by consulting an expert or even using Google" when in fact no other expert knows it and there are no references online?
@AnonymousMathematician In the first case, I would say we're definitely dealing with something within the normal standards of the community. In the second case, we're starting to push into active negligence or hostility if the reviewer is making blatantly untrue statements---I think a reviewer should be expected to show their work. I may have a fairly extreme view here, but I do think that such behavior is a form of professional malpractice and needs to be dealt with by a community, though likely not with "name and shame" as a first recourse.
Yeah, I think both (hypothetical) referees I mentioned are bad referees. Currently, the punishment for doing a bad job is having the editors think less of you, which may or may not be a deterrent. If the editors recognize a bad report, they will ignore or replace it (I can't believe that didn't happen at PLOS ONE). Adding a further possibility of public shaming is not necessarily a bad idea, but it would lead to a lot of debate on how to apply it, and I'm not convinced it would end up being applied as sparingly as I think it should.
@AnonymousMathematician For the negligent example you give, a couple of other considerations are: It may not be clear to the editor that this is blatantly untrue without a back-and-forth with the author & reviewer (and so far I personally not bothered to tell the editor when a referee has based a negative opinion on a blatantly wrong statement, though this has only happened once or twice to me), whereas a diatribe or sexist remark should be. Also, it could turn out that this was due to an honest misunderstanding on the part of the referee, for which public shaming is inappropriate.
@AnonymousMathematician But I think if one were to try to make an clarify a policy of "public shaming," it would be better to spell out a conservative list of things one could public shamed for (e.g., sexist reviews or a history of vitriolic reviews against certain researchers), possibly require warnings for a first offence, and have an appeals process for someone slated to be shamed.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.255595 | 2015-05-03T16:53:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/44728",
"authors": [
"888B Việt Nam",
"Anonymous Mathematician",
"Corvus",
"Faraclit",
"Kimball",
"Pete L. Clark",
"Restu Fathira Dzulhajj",
"StrongBad",
"Wrzlprmft",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122702",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122703",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122704",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122717",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122728",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122753",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19607",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22733",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/27900",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/612",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/651",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7734",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/938",
"jakebeal",
"lubcke",
"rmounce",
"s vm",
"thermoplay"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44440 | What's more important in choosing a PhD program, advisor or institution?
In terms of judging a doctoral program--and possibly also relevant for postdoc-ships(?)--which is the more important consideration, who your advisor is or the institution at which you study?
Obviously both are important, but when it comes down to it, which should weigh more heavily?
For example:
Professor Alpha is a premiere name in the field, but he's set up at Southern State University, an otherwise middling school. Perhaps he's there because he's a big fish in a small pond and gets carte blanche and limitless resources to do what he wants. His graduate students are thus treated similarly.
On the other hand, Professor Beta is a new, unproven professor at Top University, a world-renowned, leading institution. He personally may not have the resources and freedom as Professor Alpha, but he's at an institution whose name carries weight. Therefore the school certainly has the capacity for the same, if not more, resources, but access for Professor Beta's grad students will be more limited as they must be shared with other professors' groups.
Assuming all else is equally appealing (funding, location, research topics, etc), which offer do you choose, or which program would you hold in higher regard?
(The situation doesn't have to be so stark as like Harvard vs. Middle-Of-Nowhere University, but it makes the point clearer.)
I assume you're asking mainly about the experimental sciences, but let me point out anyway that in mathematics many students enter a Ph.D. program without yet having a clear idea of what subfield of mathematics they will specialize in. In such a case, the weight obviously shifts toward the institution.
Another important consideration is, even within the same university, whether you want an older, more-established, advisor or a younger, more-to-prove one. Both have their pros and cons.
I think the answer to this question varies a lot between the US and most European countries. In Europe, the distance between top and bottom universities is not so steep (in particular when compared within the same country) and it is possible for a middle tier university to have a top-class group in a particular (sub)field. I would say that in (most of) Europe the group (or PI) should carry more weight. Possible not-so-clear-cut cases can be Cambridge, Oxford, ETH Zurich, etc.
Obviously one needs a competent advisor with whom one is compatible. But assuming that both professors qualify, I think what matters most is the quality of the students who will be your peers. You need to surround yourself with students who, from day 1, expect nothing less of themselves than to produce novel scientific research of the highest caliber, present it at top meetings, publish it in top journals, and forth. Ultimately you will learn more from your peers than from your advisor. A sufficiently talented and ambitious cohort will hold the bar high for you and push you to excel whereas a sufficiently talentless and unambitious cohort will help you make excuses for your own failures to reach your potential.
In my experience, top schools with top graduate programs have the sorts of students you want to surround yourself with. Second tier regional programs may, but I have yet to see it.
How can one asses the quality of PhD students?. Check their publication record?
In many STEM fields in the US, prospective PhD students visit as part of the admissions process. This is the best opportunity to assess the quality of the PhD students. Meet them. Talk with them. Get a sense of departmental culture. Figure out whether they are publishing, and where. Etc.
As the OP almost 2 years later, I can confirm that this was easily the best advice. Good advisers are important, but you heavily rely on and collaborate with your peers. High quality and collaborative students is a big thing
Delighted to hear that, @marcman!
@marcman One might call the core of academia a social constructivist approach to building knowledge. Peers are who you co-construct with; you bring your own unique perspective, and they their own. Together, you build entirely new ideas, processes, etc. If you consider your advisor just another peer (but perhaps with more experience), you may just find that your plural peers provide more room for growth, and thus to be more important :)
Caveat here: "high quality and collaborative students" doesn't correlate one-to-one with, e.g. USNWR ranking. I turned down a top school in part because other incoming students seemed like arrogant jerks.
I personally think that your rapport with your supervisor is of primary importance, and I personally didn't care to choose my PhD by university when I got the opportunity. (Assuming that both your options are offering what you want from a PhD in terms of subject and skill sets.)
As a final year student in biomedical sciences, what I have mostly found is the following:
Money
Your supervisor should be able to fund you, and your experiments fully. You should not come to a situation where you are choosing the second best option (especially in biology) because of the lack of funds. This will ruin the quality of your thesis.
Go-to guy
You should have a supervisor or a post doc in the lab who will be able to help you when you initially start out to answer your stupid questions. There will be many, and you'll need to find some one in the lab who is friendly enough, and patient enough to answer them. You'll know them when you see them. And of course, the other members of the lab do make a difference. See what they are like.
Higher up or lower down?
You should need to ask yourself, how high up the totem pole you want your supervisor. Remember, the higher up they are (especially professors) the lesser you are likely to meet them on a regular basis, and most probably have lost touch with bench experience. On the other hand, profs have better connections and their recommendation carry weight.
The argument for university preference goes like this:
If your prof doesn't have his own lab, and relies on community equipment, then you must go to a university which has the money to spend. Otherwise the choice of university is mostly trivial.
A very small answer, in addition to other good observations: I do claim that a particular analogy is relevant. Namely, would you want to have good parents but live in an unpleasant town, or bad parents but live in a nice town (if one imagines that "nice town" can truly make sense if one has bad parents).
Yes, if your penchant is for complete commodification of the whole process, then the parental/familial thing can be scoffed-at. But I'd recommend against going too far in that attitude.
Here are some additions to the other answers.
First, since I don't know how you've made your assessments of A & B, a couple of things you should look into if you haven't already:
Look up what kinds of jobs the former students of Professor Alpha got. If almost all of them got truly great jobs, then working with him seems like a safe (though not necessarily the better) choice. If not, maybe you should reconsider his pull in the field. (But if not, one factor is that his students may not be as strong on average as those at a better university--still this is bad for you as in Corvus's answer.)
Check to see if Professor Beta was hired as an assistant professor or associate professor. At many top departments, it's really hard to get tenure, but they hire more established people they are sure of at the associate leve. So if Beta was highered as an associate professor, then it's safe to say Beta is "proven."
If you have professors in this field, ask them for their opinion.
In addition, the other answers don't seem to address your job prospects after getting your degree at one of these universities. For your question, "which university would you hold in higher regard?", if I were reviewing an application for a job application without specific knowledge of the professors, I would hold the higher ranked university in higher regard. If you're looking for a research job, and you have a positive answer to point 1 above, then it shouldn't be a problem as enough people in your area will know how good Professor Alpha and his students are. But if you're applying for more teaching-oriented positions, or positions in industry, then graduating from Better Name University can help you. (It's not just the name, but other factors as well: more contact with more talented people, etc. See this related question.)
The most important thing is your adviser. Obviously you're not looking for a label, you want to do some valuable stuff in your PhD period.
The professor in middle-of-nowhere university has the vision that's needed and can make you the researcher you need to be.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.256358 | 2015-04-29T03:55:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/44440",
"authors": [
"123123321123",
"AJK",
"Andreas Blass",
"Arfan Mirza",
"Arjan Siddhpura",
"Chris Cirefice",
"Corvus",
"EMMLeon",
"Hardik Jain",
"Keine",
"Miguel",
"Patrick Sanan",
"Roxanne Persaud",
"Yaroslav Nikitenko",
"guest",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11819",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/120820",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/120821",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/120822",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/120826",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/120827",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/120831",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122715",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122763",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122766",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122770",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122796",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14506",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14695",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15360",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/27900",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32446",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8796",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/9892",
"inian",
"jackripper",
"marcman",
"redjx"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
77839 | Can I still pursue a research career after a possibly lengthy break?
I've been offered a PhD position, but I'm forced to decline it due to family reasons. However, once the situation becomes more stable, I will re-apply again. What concerns me most is whether it's still possible for me to pursue a research career after a long (2-4 year) break?
I hope that perhaps once the crisis is overcome, I could look for part-time assistant/technician jobs in labs, which would allow me to still stay close in research before I would submit my applications for a PhD.
Some universities allow you to defer admission to a PhD program by a year (I don't know if more than a year is acceptable). If you have that option, you need not re-apply.
Please contact the dean of graduate studies at the department that accepted you and describe your situation. Various creative approaches to this problem may be possible. For example, if the first stage of your degree program involves coursework to prepare for some qualifying exams, it may be possible for you to take some of these courses at a university closer to home, with careful planning, and direct communication between the two departments.
If you are not already working with a counselor or therapist, I suggest that you find someone you like to get started with. When going through a family upheaval this can be helpful. Also, in the safety of the counseling relationship, you may gradually become comfortable about exploring different ways of balancing supporting your family and pursuing your own personal growth. Sometimes the stress of the situation one is living through at the moment makes it difficult to see all possible options.
There is no need to think you cannot pursuing a research career after a long break. You can (re-)apply for a PhD or research position whenever you want. You will always have your existing research history listed on your resume.
It is also not uncommon for people to first work in industry (after a Bachelor or Masters), and then return to research again.
A PhD research can be a posted research project, but also a research suggested by yourself. As such, your current offer might still be a valid research in a couple of years, if it was your own suggestion. If it is a posted project, often funding and time limitations exist, which means that someone else will perform this research. In that case, your future application will have to be your own suggested research, or an application to another posted project.
Of course, in your future application it is certainly useful to mention the reason of your gap in your research/working career (you mention 2-4 years).
I'm not sure what your background is so this is very general. One way to go about it is to test the waters before committing to a major project. I'd say start with a smaller project (e.g. 3 months) and see how it goes. Once you've gathered some momentum, you will be in a better position to take on a PhD project. Alternatively, a part time Phd might be more suitable for you.
My background is in Molecular Biology. This PhD requires me to move to a different city, very far away. Unfortunately my family suffered a major accident and I need to step in and take charge of the running business which is our sole source of income and is essential to cover medical treatments. With that, no matter how much I want, I cannot relocate.
I'm sorry to hear about the difficulties in the family-I'm guessing your phd would involve a lot of lab work-not something you can do from home. Perhaps you should explore other options? Are you planning to go into academia after the PhD?
You're correct, my PhD is very lab work-based, which is something I really want to do. I hope to then progress to a Post-Doc position and set up own lab group. I don't know how long it will be before I can resume my further studies, let's assume 1-2 years, things are more stable, I can start with part-time lab positions to start building up the work expression again and then re-apply for PhD programmes. Or if not, take a Master research degree if that would help. I don't want to give up a research career.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.257060 | 2016-10-05T13:59:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/77839",
"authors": [
"Catherine Mottram",
"HoldenDK",
"John_dydx",
"Kelly Lucas",
"Nikki Ronquillo",
"Zayeed Alam",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/218980",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/218981",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/218982",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/218984",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/31940",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/45606",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8901",
"typesanitizer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64744 | Can I lie about my GRE score to get a better letter of recommendation?
I have a situation. I have got GRE score of 324. My academics are pretty strong as well (5.1/6.0). I am applying for MS to US universities. In the process of gaining letters of recommendations, I do not have too many options. One of the professor at our department has pre-written letters, because he is busy most of the times. He makes rudimentary changes to it to make it suitable for each candidate, but the gist remains the same. From the experience of past students, he asks the GRE score and he somehow thinks that it is the only "good" metric of evaluation. So he has some 3-4 versions of these letters and based on a GRE score he selects a theme. I also came to know that if student is under 320, letter is excellent, that is, it is more balanced. And over 320, there is more of a high pitching.
I am not targeting many 1st class universities. I am more selective and I really do not want this bluffing. Obviously, I cannot reveal to him that I know his procedure of writing the letters and I need one for below 320. My question is, may I lie about my GRE score to him? When he gets emails from universities, can he see my GRE score? I definitely do not want him to know that I lied, at any point in time, even after admission. Are there any other options?
The GRE score range is 130 to 170, and a higher score is better. You refer to a score of 324, and apparently lower is better in your scenario. Please [edit] your post to clarify.
@ff524 GRE score range is 340, 170 for Quant and 170 for verbal. FYI - https://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/scores/
I haven't heard people refer to a sum score like that before.
I would be concerned about asking that professor for a recommendation anyway. If you have noticed his system, it is quite likely other professors in his field have noticed as well, especially if they have seen two or more practically identical letters from him.
On a practical side, what happens if your professor writes "... and so-and-so's GRE score of XXX etc etc etc ..."?
thank you everyone, i got my thinking straight. i'll talk with him this weekend, and will update what happens next.
I am tempted to say: "Never ever lie on an issue like that." Actually, I say: Never ever lie on an issue like that. First of all, it's wrong, plain and simple. Second, from a more practical point of view, you never know how it's going to bite you back.
It can taint you forever, even if here you are downplaying your achievement. It will be difficult for people to believe that you actually did that, and they will start believing that you are untruthful in other aspects, too. Frankly, it will raise more than a few question marks if it should come out.
You'll have to live with the exaggerating letters, or else to find someone else to write you a sensible one.
Disclaimer: I do not know about GRE scores, but understood from the gist of the question that a too high score would cause the recommendation to be ridiculously exaggerated which OP wants to prevent. Since I am aware of analogous cases in other contexts, I think the question is legitimate. Perhaps the GRE information should be corrected/adapted, as the score range of the OP seems double the official one.
No, you may not lie about your GRE score. Because:
ACADEMIA IS A VERY SMALL PLACE
Seriously, let me say it again (in normal letters this time):
Academia is a very small place.
Really, you have no idea how small of a place academia is. Trust me, this will come back to bite you, as Captain Emacs said. People talk, and one way or another, because of some unexpected set of circumstances that you cannot control or predict, your lie will be discovered and you will pay dearly for your mistake, possibly with irreparable damage to your career. So remember this: lying is in general a bad idea, but lying in such a small place as academia about a crucial thing like your GRE score is just inexcusably foolish and risky.
And even if it were big, it's still too small for such a "trumped"-down story. +1
The best thing to do is just talk to the professor about this.
If you're worried that the recommendation letter might be too strong or too weak or too generic, just talk to him. Express your concerns and see what he says.
If you don't think his letter will benefit you then try to find an alternative letter writer, but don't lie.
Side note: I find it odd that you know this information considering recommendation letters are usually never made available to students.
I was tempted to write Marquis de LaGrange's "When we ask advice, we are usually looking for an accomplice." but your case is actually quite interesting as you are ostensibly lying "not in your favor". I agree with the others that lying will come back to haunt you, perhaps immediately if the prof asks to see proof of your score. Personally I'd be pissed about being lied to, no matter in which direction the lie goes.
So perhaps two other options:
You write that you do not have too many options, but you also write "One of the professor at our department has pre-written letters" -- so there are others? Is this prof really the right one, both in the sense that you had to lie to get the letter you want (now), and in the sense that his practice is apparently known? If he is busy and these are his practices, then how much value does this letter have? And are other profs not a better choice?
If you really want a letter from this prof, can you talk to him about the letters, not his process of selecting them? Can you, for example, say that you have seen both letters "low" and "high" and that you'd much prefer the "low" one? It's walking a tightrope here, as you cannot tell him what to write and he might be convinced you deserve the "better" one (and avoid "low" and "high"). But if it does not blow up in your face, it might work.
There are also two other aspects:
If this prof is known and his procedure (or letter of recommendation) as well, perhaps the issue isn't as large as it appears to be. You might be shooting yourself in the leg here when you go for the one you consider to be "better" here. It also reminds me of the practice to exaggerate a little in applications. It's a practice I abhor, so I understand the concerns, but truth is, if everyone exaggerates and everyone knows about it, being honest is actually lying in that situation. Yep, sounds strange but true. You might be going against social conventions without others knowing, so they get a wrong picture of you and your qualities. In being "formally" honest you might provide a wrong picture of yourself and undersell yourself.
It appears as if you want to match the quality of the recommendation to the level of the university you want to apply to. It seems like a fear of being "overqualified". But if these universities have two applicants and one spot, which one will they chose? Do they really go for the one that is on their level (that would be brutally honest) or will they go for the one that can best improve their research? I don't know the answer but perhaps it's something to think about.
thank you. I was on similar lines that speaking truth is actually lying in this case. But your answer helped me to look at it from a different perspective.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.257427 | 2016-03-08T05:46:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/64744",
"authors": [
"Captain Emacs",
"Erock Yen",
"Frank Chuks",
"Keith Haring",
"Morgan Sherman",
"Patricia Shanahan",
"Richards Removals And Storage",
"Rishad",
"Sandra ",
"Sarah Sastu",
"Savun Engiadina",
"Sebastian Mcconnell",
"ff524",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10220",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11365",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/181629",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/181630",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/181631",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/181632",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/181633",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/181634",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/181636",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/181658",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/181674",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/181739",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19622",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/45857",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/50435",
"ling chen",
"oh_dear_i_love_coding"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41831 | Examples of research resources for which Wikipedia is known as being amongst top referrers?
Wikimedia sites – and Wikipedias in particular – direct a lot of traffic to many web resources, including research-related ones.
Click stream data is not recorded on the Wikimedia end, so the alternative approach to finding out how important Wikimedia sites are in terms of traffic to research resources is analyzing the latter's referral logs.
One such analysis that was made public is from CrossRef. I am looking for other cases where such analyses have been made public.
Interesting questions to ask about such datasets:
Is wikipedia.org or one of its sister or subdomains (e.g. wikimedia.org or en.wikipedia.org) amongst the top referrers?
Is that pattern stable?
Since when has this been the case?
What are/might be the main drivers of that traffic (in the case of CrossRef, it's Wikipedia readers clicking on references cited by their respective DOIs)?
I bet if you ask on Stack Overflow you're quite a bit more likely to get an answer.
I agree, but am not sure the question would be in scope there.
I agree. Wish SE would see the value of these kinds of cross-population posts. But that's a topic for Meta, innit?
I asked on Meta, you might be interested in the one answer I got: http://meta.academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1759/is-the-a-better-way-to-cross-purpose-technical-academic-questions/1760#1760
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it appears to be a research proposal, not a question about academia.
This doesn't directly answer your question, but in 2012, the Biodiversity Heritage Library's then-technical director published a presentation reporting on how users from Wikipedia stayed longer and browsed deeper than others, which included some analytics information. You could drop the the BHL an e-mail and see if they'd be interested in sharing any more recent details.
Some BHL members attended Wikimania 2012; I haven't seen them on the Commons, but they might be worth approaching! http://blog.library.si.edu/2012/08/wikimania-2012-bhl/
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.258001 | 2015-03-18T00:19:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/41831",
"authors": [
"Daniel Mietchen",
"David Richerby",
"Gaurav",
"Raydot",
"Zee",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11244",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123385",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123386",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13535",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"just a researcher"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47137 | How does a professor know when a research project will get expected results?
I read that "One difficulty with research problems is that it is hard/impossible to know if the problem is easy or not" or when it can be solved. So how a graduate-research student (i.e., PhD or MRe) knows what to pick as his/her work, and/or how can his/her professor 'predict' it? Because if one knows if it is possible or easy to solve then he/she likely knows also how to solve the problem, hence it is no longer an open question.
If professors can't decide the period of time a project to be finished, how they risk tuition paid by students or scholarships granted?
EDIT - My intention is mostly on Pure Mathematics.
Who says that they do?
@Nate Eldredge - TravisJ in http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1323577/small-open-problems-in-real-analysis-as-graduate-research-project . the last sentence is also from him (changed literally).
As TravisJ says, it is hard/impossible to know! So that means that professors often do not know when, or if, a research project will get results; they just have to guess, and often are wrong.
"Because if one knows if it is possible or easy to solve then he/she likely knows also how to solve the problem, hence it is no longer an open question."
There is still the issue of collecting data. Are you talking about a purely theoretical field of research?
In my own (recently completed!) PhD journey, my thesis was a moving goalpost. First I thought I would do work on generalizing the Ohsawa-Takegoshi theorem. I learned a lot of technology to digest the original proof, and poked and prodded to see if I could get any improvements out. None of my ideas ever panned out in this direction, but throughout the process I developed enough mastery of the underlying technology that I could prove some nice related theorems which were only tangentially related. Basically, follow your nose, but be open to new opportunities when they present themselves.
This is just one example of how success isn't a measure of how perfectly you attained an initial goal, but a measure of what you did in pursuit of that goal.
The interaction between student and professor should not be a one-shot set-a-problem. Instead, they should be talking frequently, often once a week, and adjusting the nature and direction of the project based on what is being learned during it.
The project starts with some idea, from either the professor or the student, that the professor thinks likely to lead to an appropriate outcome within the available time.
As time goes on, the student should come to learn more about the project than the professor, and be reporting progress or lack of progress. The professor should be continuously evaluating whether the current line will lead to a good result, and encouraging redirection if not.
I am sure my doctoral dissertation was not at all what my advisor would have expected when I started on the project - it was a result of things I learned during it.
The oft-repeated claim that "the student should come to learn more about the project than the professor" is not necessarily relevant, I think, and may set up unrealistic (while un-necessary) expectations/goals...
Actually, apart from technicalities, I've rarely seen a student knowing more about a project than his or her advisor, at least in my field.
It may well depend on the field and on the project.
This depends very much on the student, the professor, and probably the field. I more or less stumbled into my topic on my own as a result of answering a question that my Doktormutter brought back from a conference and realizing that I could do a lot more with the ideas. I never discussed it with her, except to let her know that I was producing results; she was a great cheerleader and got funding for me to present a lot of it at a major topology conference, but she was working on rather different things at the time, and I’m not entirely sure that she ever internalized the definition of ...
... the property that I was studying! But she was the perfect adviser for me.
@MassimoOrtolano It probably does depend on the field and the project, but the student knowing more than their advisor about his or her own project seems to be the norm in my experience in Computer Science. Honestly, the concept of that not being the case seems a little odd to me, though I can see how that might be more likely to be the case in pure mathematics.
@reirab Actually, it's more the case in those experimental sciences where a group is needed to develop and run a complex experiment which needs knowledge from different areas that can be acquired only after a long path, much longer than that of a typical PhD program.
As alluded to in other comments and answers, I think part of the confusion here (and often in similar inquiries) is due to the notion that there is a well-defined "problem" that is either "solved" or not. Sure, there are "long-standing unresolved" very-specific questions that may admit yes-or-no answers, but, even then, in real life one makes partial progress on things. It's not all-or-nothing.
For that matter, often a very meaningful project can amount to "try to understand X better"... where X is a thing worth understanding better. Very amorphous, really. Such situations are exactly where an experienced person can have good hunches about incremental progress, and also be able to appraise the significance of various incremental advances.
This is why most theses, and most research projects viewed "in the small", do not have an easily-describable, easily-motivated goal. Indeed, in some cases the acquisition of sufficient technical savvy to understand the short-term goal is a project in itself, and it is often the case that "understanding the question" is sufficient to nearly have an answer.
From another angle: it can happen that a project is very plausibly feasible, but the execution of it would require considerable exertion. That is, the thing does not magically do itself. And one never knows with certainty what unexpected intermediate tasks may arise.
A good problem given to a Ph.D. student should split into a series of almost certain, quite certain, difficult, hard, and almost unachievable results. A question of the form "Problem XYZ might be solved using the following new approach. Try it!" is not a good problem, because after a lot of work you will quite likely get "No, this approach cannot work because ...". Such problems are better left for late postdocs or tenured researchers, who can afford to take risks. A good problem is more like "For all finite groups we expect the following. For abelian groups I can immediately sketch a proof, although filling in the details will take a few pages. For nilpotent groups you can probably proceed by induction. For solvable groups I still expect induction to work, although there are some problems with ... . In general you have to understand ... ." Furthermore both the student and the advisor have to be flexible to deviate from the original plan of work whenever there is a reasonable chance that something can be found in the neighbourhood.
However, although the advisor has the duty to minimize the risks involved with doing a Ph.D., he cannot eliminate them. I can only be certain that something works, if someone has done it, and then doing it is not a Ph.D. project anymore.
Professors/senior researchers typically do an educated guess regarding the time needed to solve a problem, based on earlier experiences with similar problems.
Of course, it is still a guess, and they can be wrong.
If a professor's guess is wrong, the PhD student will end with no results to publish. What about the student's money and time and of course degree?
@MKR: That is an inherent risk of doing a PhD. Anyone who wants to start a PhD should be aware of this risk, and be willing to accept it. It can be mitigated to some extent: if after some time the student is not making progress on the problem, then as Patricia Shanahan says, they can work on something different.
@MKR I see where you are going. But that is a completely different thing, one doesn't need to fully solve a problem to get a PhD, but you have to show enough progress (for example, solving subproblems that help with the main result). In fact, many PhD projects start with a very vague and open ended description, and as you progress, you will find where it leads to.
@MKR "If a professor's guess is wrong, the PhD student will end with no results to publish." Yes. You will be surprised to learn that in the real world, few things that are worth doing have guaranteed positive outcomes.
@MKR Sometimes, though, in other cases, what the student found in the process of finding that they couldn't solve the problem may itself be worthy of publication. At the very least, you've then saved other researchers the trouble of attempting the same things that didn't work. More likely, you've given them insight into better understanding the problem, allowing them to move closer to a solution (or, sometimes equally useful, proving one doesn't exist.)
As a professor, I act as a scout for every project my students are working on. I also help students separate the 'wheat from the chaff'. This ensures students do not bark up the wrong tree, go on a wild goose chase, and more importantly, telling me something is impossible because they lack knowledge or are lazy explorers. In addition, this allows me to have back-up plans should a direction fails to pan out. In general, similar to what another reader said, we know what SHOULD work, but the details are left to the student to sort out.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.258252 | 2015-06-13T12:25:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/47137",
"authors": [
"Appsren",
"Austin Sanderson",
"Brian M. Scott",
"Chickonsticks",
"Chris H",
"Davidmh",
"H. Keith Edwards",
"LaggyLemon",
"Lin Torres",
"Liv M.",
"MKR",
"Mahtab Uddin Neil",
"Massimo Ortolano",
"Nate Eldredge",
"Owen",
"Patricia Shanahan",
"Steven Gubkin",
"William Martens",
"Wonderer",
"adam.r",
"bora ramireddy",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10094",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1010",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10220",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12587",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12612",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/129935",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/129936",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/129937",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/129940",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/129942",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/129943",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/129955",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/129959",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12999",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/129995",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/130006",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/130032",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/130053",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/130059",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/130089",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20058",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/23947",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/35647",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8494",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/9669",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/980",
"maxkart",
"mfeldbauer",
"paul garrett",
"reirab",
"xLeitix"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
29326 | What should I state for "expected salary" in a tenure-track job application?
I am applying to a tenure-track assistant professor job in an applied math department,
for which the job posting states
Applicants should state their current and expected salary in the application.
Questions:
Why does the department ask for "expected salary"?
Is it because they are trying to exploit my naiveté?
What number should I state in my application?
If I state a number that is on the low side,
will they use that to offer me a lower salary?
At the moment, I am thinking of just stating my estimate of the mean salary
for new assistant professors at math departments,
which according to a Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty Salaries Survey
is $71,412.
If they are unable to pay you a decent salary, you have no big benefit to answer. If they are able to pay a decent salary, asking that question means they are trying to exploit you and pay you less than they should, so answering is a net negative for you. Either way, don't answer.
Tell them to make you an offer, and that you'll compare it to all the other offers you're getting.
You might want to also look at similar questions from TheWorkplace
I feel it's kind of obnoxious to ask for an expected salary, and it does raise issues of whether the answer could be used to lower the initial offer (or decrease the applicant's negotiating power). I don't see anything wrong with giving a vague answer or just saying you are flexible. If you specify a number, you should try to choose one that's representative of the type of school you are applying to, as Danny W. suggests.
As for why they do it, one reason is that salaries vary enormously. A regional liberal arts college may pay less than half as much as a leading research university. Some U.S. states scandalously underfund their state universities, so there can be dramatic salary differences between what you'd think are comparable institutions. The net effect is that schools that aren't able to pay a lot worry about attracting candidates who have no idea how little they pay. They don't want to waste time trying to hire someone who will never accept any amount they could plausibly offer. One way to get around that is to announce a salary range. However, some departments are hesitant to do that, perhaps because they don't want to publicly emphasize how little money they get (and thereby humiliate themselves or discourage applicants). Instead, they ask for an expected salary and filter out anyone who names a figure far out of their range. I don't like it, but it seems to work well enough that departments keep doing it.
Often the question is inserted simply because the HR people's automatic job-search system is built for staff rather than faculty. If possible, don't answer: I cannot think of a situation in which any answer would benefit you, and I can think of lots in which it might just possibly hurt you.
Of course, if they did publish the salary range, then it'd save them lots of time & effort as they wouldn't have to consider the people who might make it through the interview process, then reject their salary offer.
If it's a public university, look up the local/regional salary website that covers it (like the Texas Tribune site). Record the names and salaries for all of the Assistant Professors in that department. Estimate via Google search when each of them started at the university in question. Add a year (since the salary sites are usually a year out of date). Assume 2%/year annual raise. Work backwards to their starting salaries. Decide where you think you would rank among the tenure-track professors if you were all starting at the same time, and pick that percentile among the salaries and submit it. If public data isn't available for the university you are applying to, model a similar university in a similar town that does have data available, and then adjust for cost of living.
This is an applied math problem par excellence. You best option is to use your skills to predict a reliable answer.
The applied math problem of "figuring out what you're worth" is not necessarily the same as the strategic problem of "figuring out what to say you're worth" :)
You are worth slightly more than the median starting assistant professor in that department. Otherwise, they won't hire you.
@JeffE, good thing I didn't suggest picking the median!
I should have said: You are worth slightly more than the median starting assistant professor in that department, after adjusting for inflation.
Yeah, I should have said that you need to push these salaries forward based on inflation (which has been low in the US over the typical tenure clock of anyone that would still be an assistant prof).
If you want to take the safe approach, it may help to choose the mean assistant professor salary for the kind of school you are applying to, and where the school is: a state school in Wyoming will have a lower average assistant professor salary than a private research-level school in Cambridge, MA, for example.
And, although I haven't been on the job market, I know (from discussion with my adviser about this question) that while this may be a factor, others are more important: how much does the department want you and what your other offers are, being two of the biggest.
Taking the numbers from higheredjobs.com, you'll see that there is considerable variation across types of institutions- the number you quoted was for "research universities", while "doctoral universities" was a separate classification with a lower average salary. The survey also didn't distinguish between private universities and public universities (salaries at top private universities are considerably higher.)
The American Mathematical Society also publishes an annual salary survey that I'd encourage you to examine. The AMS numbers actually show higher starting salaries at the most prestigious research universities (over $80K), but also show much smaller starting salaries at the bachelors and masters level institutions where most of the jobs are. I think this AMS survey is more reflective of the variation in salaries than the CUPA survey that higheredjobs.com reports.
I also searched AMS's web site for job ads that featured this requirement. There were five such ads, Two were for positions outside of the US (where these salary surveys aren't meaningful.) One position is for a department chair (an administrative job that these salary surveys don't cover.) One position is for a postdoc. The last ad is for a named associate professorship (an endowed chair) where the department will be looking to hire talent away from other departments.
Asking candidates for a more senior level position (department chair or the named professorship) what their salary demands are is a reasonable thing to do- you don't want to waste everyone's time interviewing someone who is already much better paid than you can afford. It makes a lot less sense when you're talking about an entry level tenure track position where most of your candidates are applying from temporary positions (VAP or postdoc.)
Searching SIAM's job advertisements, I didn't see any positions that had this requirement that weren't also on the AMS web site.
One of the advertisements that does include this requirement is looking for someone in computational statistics, an area where new PhD's are pulling down salaries of well over $100K per year in industry. In a situation like that where any qualified candidate could earn much more in industry, this doesn't seem to be an unreasonable thing to ask of applicants.
Just write negotiable. That's it. Then negotiate when the time comes.
As a rule, I avoid salary discussions before an offer. If asked, I answer that I'm flexible and I'm confident we could come up with a mutually agreeable figure. Then I move on and start asking questions about the job.
It's easy for me to say this, since I'm not applying, but I simply wouldn't list anything. There's always some risk when leaving out a part of the application that someone is very bureaucratically minded, but I think in this case, the chance is pretty small. It's very hard for me to imagine the conversation in the hiring meeting going: "This application looks very promising." "But it doesn't list his/her current salary. Well, in the trash it goes!"
It'll be trickier if someone directly contacts you, points out that you missed this and asks you to clarify. At some point, if you decide getting the job is more important than optimizing your salary, you may have to just tell them. I personally find this a pretty insane request, though.
Q.1: The dept wants to know whether you have realistic expectations about compensation for this position. Trying for >$20k over median for entry level position for institution of this type/location may raise eyebrows.
Yes, they are also trying to exploit an applicant's naiveté (although obviously this should not be taken personally). In particular, a reasonably low figure might suggest to them that salary will be a non-issue. If their resources and room for negotiation for this position are tight, it might tell them which applicant may be worth their time and which might not be worth a significant investment of time if their offer is likely to be out-matched by another institution.
Q.2: If the number was not used at all, it would likely not have been part of the application. So most likely, a very low "self-appraisal" might yield a lower offer.
That said, it does not necessarily mean you should not be modest in your self-appraisal. It is unlikely that your final decision will be solely based on salary. Money only matters when you don't have any. As soon as you have a sufficient amount, other things kick in and shape the quality of life. Friendly colleagues in the department. Overall budget situation at the university and on the state level, and projections for the next 5-10 years. Location, amenities, recreation opportunities, and cost of living in the area. How long you plan to stick around at this institution (keep in mind the likelihood of raises, which over 5 years can lift a salary to a level higher than what you may be shooting for now, risking rejecting offers that might not be quite up there from yr1). Good luck and hope this helps.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.259155 | 2014-10-02T22:31:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29326",
"authors": [
"Aaron Hall",
"Agatha",
"Bill Barth",
"Brian Borchers",
"CAgrippa",
"GrecKo",
"Guillaume",
"Himanshu ",
"JOHN GASPER",
"JeffE",
"Joe",
"Kristina Arnebrant",
"Mathprof",
"Mou Dawei",
"Purasia Serum",
"Rahma Tsally Ramadlan",
"Sauce",
"doktr",
"ff524",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11365",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11600",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1622",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19914",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22544",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4453",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/80474",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/80475",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/80476",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/80477",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/80478",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/80480",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/80497",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/80504",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/80506",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/80579",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/80618",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/80661",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/80694",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/856",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/9518",
"o0'.",
"user2813274",
"user80497"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
99959 | Extremely lost and unmotivated in new lab, what am I supposed to do?
I'm currently in a Ph.D program for pharmaceutical sciences. Long story short my background is cell biology and I originally worked in a Cancer lab. My lab relocated and I could not follow. I was placed into a medicinal chemistry lab. This is how things work here, we get little choice. Anyway, I love my PI hes great, and my lab mates also great. However I have no clue what I'm doing. I have a project thats moving along nicely but once again . . . I don't even know why it's moving along.
I don't understand chemistry, I have a mere 8 credit hours from my undergrad in chemistry, and now I am asked to operate under conditions that would require a significant chemistry foundation. In my eyes all I have been doing is mixing what I am told to mix, run it through a column, perform TLC, NMR, and mass spec, and that's it. I don't know why I'm using one solvent over another. I don't know the mechanism behind any of my reactions, and hours and hours of googling has yet to teach me anything about them. No matter how many questions I ask (and I ask a lot) I don't retain anything or understand half of it because it's all upper level concepts to which I have no base to put them on. How am I suppose to defend any thesis like this? How could I ever start a career? I have no motivation in lab because I don't understand anything,at all. I don't have either the time or the drive to teach myself years of chemistry I never learned. Moving labs is 100% NOT an option here. I don't know what to do, any advice is appreciated.
Let's boil it down. You have 3 choices. (1) Learn some chemistry, starting off at the beginning. (2) Accept that you're just a trained monkey/robot (3) Look for another job
Maybe your PI can help?
If you are more than two years from graduating in this, and you are convinced you cannot catch up on your chemistry, quit. Your PI is an idiot to have accepted you, and he's abusing you as a lab monkey. He might not have realised it, don't judge him too badly, but it's just terrible.
@Karl - Agreed that it isn't a great situation, but the OP is working towards a PhD which I assume would get him another job eventually. So maybe working as a lab monkey would be OK until he graduates.
I know an entire chemistry undergrad sounds like a lot to self-study (it is!), but the missing knowledge you describe isn't actually that widely spread. In my undergraduate, it was covered in two semesters: Intro Organic and Advanced Organic. Everything you describe (aside from mass-spec) was covered in those two classes (semester-long). I know students who started doing undergraduate research after finishing that sequence, so you may only need the equivalent of a few classes to get the necessary base knowledge.
OP here.Sorry i'm late to the responses, busy with classes and such. I appreciate everyone's advice. For now I have some books ordered which are introductions into medicinal chemistry(my labs focus). I guess I will try to catch up but if I still feel this way after another semester I may have to jump ship, thank you all.
"I don't have either the time or the drive to teach myself years of chemistry I never learned." -- Usually "no time" is what we say when we actually mean "not that interested, sorry". So my reading is that you're not sufficiently involved in this to pursue at PhD level, thus you have to decide between playing monkey or leaving. Whatever costs you less sanity and peace of mind.
This does seem like a difficult situation but don't lose hope!
Moving labs is 100% NOT an option here.
That means that you will have to adapt to your current environment - i.e. to learn some core chemistry concepts. Without them, it is indeed difficult to find motivation to work on a project you don't understand.
I don't have the time, nor the drive, to teach myself years of chemistry I never learned.
Time: I'd say that catching up on the background is one of your main priorities and is essential for your future as a researcher (given the circumstances). Luckily, you don't have to catch up on "years" of chemistry - start off with the areas that are most essential to your work (not specific questions, however, but rather general topics that are closely related to your experiments).
Drive: As you keep broadening your horizons, keep track of all the things you've learned to stay motivated! There will be a lot of things to catch up on but try to notice all those little moments when the knowledge that you've acquired makes your job easier - there will be a lot of them, and they certainly count.
No matter how many questions I ask (and I ask a lot) I don't retain anything or understand half of it because its all upper level concepts to which I have no base to put them on.
Sounds like you already know what you need. Whether it is auditing a class, reading a textbook, or taking an online course, you need some foundational knowledge to build upon. Googling won't cut it.
Most importantly, be patient. It will take a while to become proficient in a new area, but it's certainly possible. Celebrate small victories and use this as an opportunity for growth. Good luck!
I'm going to assume, as you requested, that you're absolutely stuck where you are, unable to go anywhere else. I don't know this is true, but for the purposes of my answer, I'll assume that it is.
Well, sure, you could try to play catch-up with a whole lot of chemistry. But there might be another way out of this.
What if you were to take a step back and look at the various research interests of the PI? Find something that interests you, where you have something to contribute? In other words, find some point of interdisciplinary intersection. And leave the heavy duty chemistry to the people in the lab who trained in chemistry.
If there's nothing that jumps out at you from the PI's publication record or description of current research interests, then try to find at least one paper that uses something he's knowledgeable about, and something you're knowledgeable about.
Or, think in terms of what you want to learn from this guy, that would help you later when you get back to your cell biology.
Hopefully this PI will help you find some intersection with him -- a topic of your own. If not, find someone else in the department to get you started.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.259966 | 2017-12-04T20:24:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/99959",
"authors": [
"Gerhard",
"Karl",
"MaxW",
"Scientist",
"chipbuster",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/34972",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/45983",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/66782",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79933",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8158",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84150",
"lostchemist"
],
"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/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
101357 | PhD salary in Germany according to TVöD
I have a PhD acceptance letter from an institute in Germany. They have written that my salary would be according to TVöD (collective salary scheme for the German public service).
I searched about that, but there are different ideas.
You should ask the institute for the details.
Welcome to Academia SE. Can you please [edit] your question to specify what exactly you want to know? Is it the total salary, or how insurances and similar work?
@Thomas: Whatever the question may be, the answer is most likely valid for the vast majority of German PhD students, so it makes sense to have it generally answered here.
Previous appearances of TVöD on this site: Net salary for PhD in German university, Post-doc Salary in Germany.
The following answer applies to all public-service salary schemes (TVöD, TV-L, TV-H, etc.) that apply to PhD students. The information that is most likely missing is:
Your class (Entgeltgruppe): PhD students typically paid according to class 13, which is the lowest class for positions requiring a master’s degree or equivalent. As even postdoc positions with class 14 are extremely rare, it’s safe to assume that this is your class if no further information is given.
Your level (Stufe): You will have the following progression of levels based on experience:
first year: Level 1
second and third year: Level 2
fourth to sixth year: Level 3
after that, you hopefully finished your PhD
You will start on the first level – unless you already worked in the German public service on this level before (or on a job that is acknowledged as comparable), e.g., on another PhD position.
Now, the offer will have to state how much you are officially working. It’s usually somewhere between 50 % and 75 %, but may also be 100 % – this mostly depends on your field.
This should give you all you need to obtain your gross salary (brutto) from the tables or calculators.
Keep in mind that taxes and insurance will be deduced from this, which depends on several aspects such as whether you are married, have children, whether you will use the German public employer's retirement provision (VBL) etc. However, a considerable portion of the taxes will actually be to your direct benefit (health insurance, statutory retirement provision, etc.) and things that you would pay with your salary in many other countries.
In computer science, the standard working time for PhD students is 100% in most places.
@lighthousekeeper Also true for engineering in general.
I can confirm that 75% contracts were the norm in Berlin as of last year, but it was my impression that there was a move away from 50% studentships and that anything under 66% was now frowned upon. Is that impression unfounded?
To the question raised by @E.P.: As far as I remember, 50% were normal around the year 2010 in my field (mathematics) in Nordrhein-Westfalen, but around 2014-2015, new contracts usually were set at 75%.
@E.P.: When I was searching a job a few months ago, I saw a lot of 50 % contracts in various fields. I cannot remember any offers of 75 % contracts or higher – but then I wasn’t searching for a PhD position anyway. Anyway, this is usually given on the offer, so the asker should be able to find out themselves.
@Roland Back in my day (up to 2014), some group leaders in Chemistry reapportioned the money because they wanted to pay all students equally (which, as a pure coincidence, was also less than 65%, namely 50%).
I can confirm that 50% is currently the norm in mathematics in Hamburg.
Since this has just popped up on the start page again, please allow me a brief nitpick on the sentence "class 13, which is the lowest class for people with a master’s degree": More precisely speaking, class 13 is actually the lowest class for positions that require a master's degree. It is possible to hold a master's degree, but to work in public service in a position that does not require that degree; in such a case the salary will typically be lower than class 13.
@JochenGlueck: Corrected, though it should be irrelevant here.
More information is required to answer your question. However, I want to give some basic information.
Where are you employed?
The TVöD consists of several categories, e.g., the TV-L (afaik used by most universities) as well as TVöD-Bund (used by some publicly funded non-university institutes (e.g., Fraunhofer)). Ask your employer for this information if it was not provided to you, yet.
Do you have a 100% contract / full time job? Depending on you employer and region in Germany, this might differ. I know guys who have a 50% contract, thus, there is 50% payment for 50% time. (Please note, that you will still be expected to be at your institute like a full-time employee).
(When are you going to start? The labor unions will negotiate an updated salary in beginning of 2018. So you might finally end up with a few more percent.)
You will most likely start at E13 in Level 1, as this is the standard payment for PhD candidates. There you can find a table for TVöD-Bund:
http://oeffentlicher-dienst.info/c/t/rechner/tvoed/bund?id=tvoed-bund-2017i&matrix=1
So at E13 Level 1 at a 100% employment you will start with 3657.34€/month gross income. (Net income will be somewhere slightly above 2000€, depending on taxes).
I was under the impression that 50% contracts were uncommon and frowned upon. Can you specify where this was (at least geographically), and whether this applies to recent enrollment?
The contracts were quite recent, not more than a few years ago. While I have not encountered them in the south of Germany for engineers, I know guys who are living further in the north of Germany and do not have full time contracts.
I did not get the part about being expected at the work place as a full-time worker though. Is not the worker supposed to fulfill amount of hours written in the contract?
@holmesherlock: Well, PhD positions are weird. The usual justification of this is that you are working for your job half of the time and for your PhD the other half.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.260726 | 2017-12-30T19:18:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/101357",
"authors": [
"Danu",
"E.P.",
"J-Kun",
"Jochen Glueck",
"TAR86",
"Thomas Steinke",
"Torsten Schoeneberg",
"Wrzlprmft",
"aeismail",
"holmesherlock",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/135841",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/146903",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20710",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/44249",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/48413",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63610",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7734",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/820",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/82027",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/85237",
"lighthouse keeper"
],
"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/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
61718 | Name spelling problem in recommendation letter
I have applied to several US universities for admission to the PhD program this fall, so I requested my professors to write recommendations for me.
One of the professor wrote my name incorrectly. My full name is: Md Rohan Hossain, but the professor wrote Md. Rahan Hussein. He already submitted the letter with that incorrect spelling. He completed the recommendation process online.
In this circumstances what can I do? Will it cause a big problem?
On the list of things to worry about in your life, this should be close to the bottom :-)
Let me add that it could be a problem for non-academic reference letters as it might signal that you are not an important employee if your employer foes not care about writing xour name correctly.
Do not worry about this. Just use the letter and ignore the spelling mistake (which most people will consider very minor).
As long as it is clear that this letter was meant for you (which is the case here), you are fine. People will care about the content of the letter, not about really minor spelling mistakes in your name, address, etc.
I agree with Danny; at the same time I would urge you (Rohan) to double (or triple) check anything that you write; in many fields, attention to detail is considered an important characteristic (and lack of attention, a potential negative mark). For example, your title currently talks about a "recomendation letter"...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.261330 | 2016-01-15T14:07:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/61718",
"authors": [
"Ben",
"Brian Ellis",
"Floris",
"NE PhD",
"Spammer",
"Trident411",
"Wolfgang Bangerth",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/111388",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15062",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/171528",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/171529",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/171530",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/171532",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/171535",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/171613",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/171614",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/31149",
"multipole",
"user111388"
],
"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/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
108435 | Dealing with the feeling of incompetence and team competition
To preface, I imagine this might come off really immature, given that I am 30 years old. I joined a university as a PostDoc after completing my PhD 6 months ago. I am yet to publish anything after joining here, I have been feeling burnt out and disorganised. I was planning to join the industry within a year of joining (It was initially envisaged as a one-year contract, but it got extended for three more years, due to my professor getting new funding, but that's beside the point). My professor is very understanding, and he is very motivated. His team is getting into theoretical machine learning and the papers he published are already making strides and catching everyone's attention.
I, on the other hand, am just starting in the area of data science. I am an average coder, and my math skills are also pretty average. If I work hard I can crank out some papers ( that is how I finished my PhD), but lately I have been feeling very unmotivated and distracted. I have a few family problems (I am gay from a conservative family), but that is no excuse for not being motivated, I know. I tried out to be a data scientist at an internet advertising firm but was rejected after the on-site interview following a Skype interview, the reason being that my practical skills were not on par (I did a mainly theoretical PhD, and my knowledge of practical algorithms is lacking).
On the other hand, my colleague who is a PhD student under my prof (only 25!) has been publishing and his works on machine learning (also theoretical), have been attracting researchers from companies like Facebook and Google, at a recent conference. As for me, the very idea of going to a conference again gives me shudders.
I am out of ideas and out of steam to be honest, but I really want to create pathbreaking research and join a top company to start my career as a data scientist. But I feel lost.
To have a good CV for an eventual job hunt, I need at least one good publication during this year of my post-doc but all the work I have done have led me nowhere to be honest.
For context: I did my PhD on random graph analysis.
I really need some guidance. I know I should have figured this out already given I am a 30 year old graduate, but unfortunately I haven't. I can blame that on my depression, but how long can I do that for? Anybody who has been in the same situation as me? Any input is welcome.
I don't see a clear question in here, but this seems to be a somewhat similar situation: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/89982/phd-and-postdoc-with-no-first-author-publications-realistically-what-are-my-car
It sounds like you are on the verge of burning out. I recommend you take a complete break from work (even just a few days or a week) before you do anything else. Try to completely relax if you can. Hopefully this will help you approach the situation with a clearer frame of mind.
Have you thought about teaching? Do you find teaching rewarding?
Please, avoid cross-posting questions: https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/111000
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it has been cross-posted and answered on another SE site.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.261499 | 2018-04-20T22:08:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/108435",
"authors": [
"Mark",
"Massimo Ortolano",
"aeismail",
"aparente001",
"astronat supports the strike",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20058",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32436",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/49043",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75255"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20226 | Software for submitting and testing programming assignments
Can anyone recommend an open source system for students to submit programming assignments? Ideally it would be something that would run on the web, do some level of testing on the server side, and provide feedback to the students based on testing.
This question appears to be off-topic because we don't do shopping questions here. This could be on-topic for [softwarerecs.se], if it was brought up to the standard required there (see their meta for details)
@EnergyNumbers: Perhaps the way it is phrased, it sounds like a shopping question, but the general idea of the question is relevant, I feel. Many academics need to deal with electronically submitted assignments. Some of these are software and software needs to be/can be run automatically.
@DaveClarke the general idea may be relevant, but we don't do list questions here. There is a Stack explicitly for this site of question - and that's [softwarerecs.se]. And this sort of question is explicitly off-topic here: not because of its general idea, but because of its nature as a list (aka shopping) question. Software recommendations are really difficult to ask for, which is why Software Recs has detailed instructions on its meta.
Since I'm interested in this topic as well, let me turn this into a more constructive direction: What would be needed to make this question on-topic? How about asking for practical experiences with automated assessment tools (specific tools or in general), or about specific features which turned out to be useful (or not so useful) in classes?
@EnergyNumbers There are several similar questions that have been accepted. I agree, though, that [softwarerecs.SE] would be appropriate, too.
I've never done this myself, but I think the following system could work using GitHub and Travis CI:
Create a repository for the homework where students can submit pull requests to.
Make scripts to run and test the solution and put them on the repo.
Students would then fork the repo, add their submission, and make a pull request.
Setup Travis CI to run the test scripts on the solutions. This will require some form of standardization for the commands to compile and run the solutions.
The nice thing about this system is that the pull request page on GitHub reports the status of the Travis CI run. You can then leave comments for the students and they can iterate until Travis gives them the green light.
That is a very neat idea (as long as you check they are not touching the tests).
@Davidmh that's the beauty of version control! Just check with a quick “git diff".
or in the Github's files tab. Just thought it was worth mentioning they may try to trick you!
Can't one rewrite history in the forked clone so that the modifications to the tests don't show up with "git diff" nor in Github's files tab?
They could but that would cause a merge conflict that would show up on the pull request. Rewriting history changes the commit hashes and they would need a forced push for that.
The open-source web program CMS (Contest Management System) was created by people at my university (CS institute, university of Pisa). Screenshots here.
It has been used also in the international informatics Olympiad and several other international programming contests, so it is mature and well tested.
It is in use since a few years in the undergraduate course on Algorithms in our CS degree. It allows students to submit their source code online, where it is executed in a sandboxed environment and scored automatically on the basis of some test cases. It supports out of the box C, C++, Java, Python, Pascal, PHP, and other languages can be added (although I don't know how easy it is).
I can strongly recommend PASS (Programming Assignment Submission System), which was written by Mrs Marsupial to support my teaching on first and second year programming modules (Java and C++). It formats the code into a .pdf document using LaTeX, but it also compiles and executes the program and adds the compiler messages and output to the .pdf file (and any output files that the program is supposed to produce). The .pdf file includes an embedded .zip file containing the code in a standardised format in case further inspection/testing is required. The requirements for each assessment are provided in an XML file for each module that specified expected files, input datafiles etc. We have done some experimentation with automated testing, the simplest approach would be to include a Makefile and test harness in the metadata and PASS can add the output of the test harness. However, for the modules I teach I am mostly interested in the structural side of the program design and whether the program is maintainable, so I tend just to have output specifications that show the program basically works and then mark by annotating the .pdf file on my ipad.
We have been using PASS for quite a while at my institution and it has saved a lot of unnecessary admin and hassle. The major benefit is that there is a well-defined target environment (eliminating the "well it works on my computer" complaint) and the students get to see exactly the output of the program as I see it when it is marked. Unfortunately students have to formally submit the .pdf file via BlackBoard at my institution, but another useful feature of PASS is that it provides a reliable independent time-stamp that can be used to determine whether an academic advantage has been gained by a late/failed BlackBoard submission.
Github classroom provides a free place to make and submit assignments and you can set up autograding. One thing is that in github with github actions you can also build tests right into the push process. However, I have seen some people on the forums for teachers say that they run out of free processing time during busy parts of the semester.
+1 for GitHub classroom. I've used it extensively for database, Java, and C++ classes. My class sizes are relatively small, so I haven't run into the processing time issue much and, when I did, I decided the extra expense was worth it (again, for my class size it was maybe $10).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.261797 | 2014-05-01T19:38:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/20226",
"authors": [
"410 gone",
"Christian Clason",
"Dave Clarke",
"Davidmh",
"Federico Poloni",
"Isabella DiMartino",
"Leo Uieda",
"Patrick Cox",
"Peter K.",
"Raphael",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12587",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13852",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1419",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/216080",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/216081",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/3965",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/460",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/643",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/958",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96"
],
"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/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
52678 | What is the point of a lecture when you have a textbook?
I never really understood the point of having a course with lectures when the course has a textbook. Sometimes the subject is so high-level or specialized or so modern that the contents are changing rapidly that there is no textbook (for example at the graduate level). But more often the textbook includes everything that will be said in the lecture, and much more: extra content, exercises, answers to exercises, appendices, etc.
I assume a STEM context, that is we can assume the textbook is available in the sense that there is one comprehensive source that contains undisputed facts, as opposed to a broad literature with lots of interpretations and opinions (as may be the case in non-STEM contexts).
So what is the point of a lecture?
For some people in some classes, the lecture is pointless. But there are people who do better in class, or people who are not disciplined enough to read the book themselves; and there are classes where a great deal of value is added over the book.
The textbook and the lectures should compliment each other. One should not be a replacement or substitute for the other.
A lecture gives you a formal setting. Otherwise, why go to school? You might as well self-learn, take an exam when you're ready and collect your degree. Also, a great lecturer/teacher will not 'read' from textbook and tell you the fundamentals that govern everything. Also he/she may teach you how to 'think' about a subject/topic. Lastly, there has been research that says you absorb more when someone tells you the info versus you reading the same info by yourself.
"Why go to school? You might as well self-learn, take an exam when you're ready and collect your degree." That is a very good question which I am not sure how to answer either...
You can ask questions in a lecture.
You can also do this at office hours.
@JoshuaBenabou Asking questions at office hours is pretty ineffective if 200 other students have the same question.
My point is you don't need a lecturer to repeat information in the textbook for you to ask a question. If the instructor thinks the question is a common one he will bring it to the attention of everyone at office hours, for example.
Have any of you heard of people teaching themselves from books and then testing out of math classes at the undergrad level?
Also, the answer to this question is very different for STEM vs. non-STEM. In STEM, esp. in math, often the lecturer basically repeats the proofs from the book verbatim. In history, for example, it is really important to have a human teaching you, because each book has its own, possibly narrow, perspective, and in any case one can't read every history book on every subject; the lecturer needs to create a course consisting of the important subset.
@ReneG: yes, this is not uncommon. Also I had in mind STEM.
What is the point of seeing a play when you have the script?
Ideally the lecture is not just a rehearsal of the book. Most university level subjects are not just "oh, i read it twice and will understand everything" kind of material, therefore an active quittance, pointing out common pitfalls, external feedback by tests etc are rather necessary.
@BenCrowell I would take that "study" with a huge grain of salt - might be worth reading an article about psychology studies in general: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/28/psychology-experiments-failing-replication-test-findings-science
Also, from personal experience (Maths) I have a huge preference for a handwritten lecture over pre-prepared slides - and yes, one subject switched, so I experience both on the same subject.
@BenCrowell: That paper doesn't show learning styles are a myth - that's a much stronger claim than it's making. They are basically saying nobody has created a successful programme using learning-styles assessments to enhance learning outcomes and proved it, i.e. there's a lack of good evidence, not even that there's evidence of lack of success.
There's a great talk about this. Which I think makes a lot of sence. Have student watch lecture at home (video of the best teachers, or read the book) and do "homework" in the classroom. I remember, the time I had to most question was when doing the actual work.
Please take extended discussion to [chat].
@Calvin'sHobbies I wouldn't say most lectures, especially at the graduate level, are really works of art.
Here is clearly the answer you want: None, there is no point.
@above: I don't appreciate that. I already had some ideas on this topic but I have come here to ask my question because I am open to other ideas. I don't want an answer with no explanation.
@Calvin'sHobbies: Thank you for sparing me the need to invoke an analogy concerning a woman and a dirty magazine.
Answers to this similar (but not identical) question might also be interesting to you: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29805/why-have-lectures-in-the-information-age
@CreationEdge Lectures serve an important purpose. They allow students to nap mid-day. Sleep is medically necessary.
@the_lotus. Oh, so something's going to revolutionise education again, is it?
@TRiG isn't your video saying the exact same thing as the one I posted?
As the question is now protected I will need to answer here. The job of a good lecturer is to expand and illuminate the material presented in the course texts as well as allow the presentation of extra insights into the subject. Linked with tutorials this allows a good student to validate their understanding and seek clarification of any ambiguities . A lecturer who slavishly repeats the text book is not earning their salary and is not giving the students the education they are entitled to
Going through problems seems to be the most illuminating way to gather new insights. Wouldn't you agree that doing problem sets, especially in collaboration with others, is better for learning than attending a lecture.
In my experience, I remember a lot better the things that I hear than I do the things that I read. It will take me a lot longer to take in information when reading it, as I may need to reread several times to really appreciate it, whilst listening in a lecture I can take it in immediately. I read no books and barely read any course notes at university and still got a First Class Degree. Lectures were invaluable to me.
Just my personal experience: I have never found lectures which follow textbooks exactly to be useful. Maybe some Q&A, but that is usually stuff that I can't answer simply in class without slowing the class down, so I defer those questions either to office hours or in an e-mail. I'm having quite a different experience currently with professors who don't follow the textbook at all at a new university, and I feel that my understanding of the textbook seems to be paying off more than merely reading the textbook to find out what I'm going to hear about during a lecture.
I started writing a post about all the things I like to do that the book doesn't: offer an intuitive overview, a fresh perspective on the basics, etc.
Then I realized that of course, there's no reason that the book couldn't do these things. Most of them don't, but there's no fundamental reason not to. Everything I do in a lecture to help students see the subject from all sides could be translated to the book.
So I guess the main point of lectures is just that it's another medium. Yes you could learn from only one medium, but it goes faster if you use multiple media at the same time. Not just books and lectures: websites, games, audiobooks, documentaries, programming, role playing. Each medium has it's own slight advantages, and idiosyncracies. Even if the story is the same, the energy you have to put in, the mixture of senses you use, and the parts of your brain you activate are all different.
So what, specifically, are the benefits of the medium of a lecture? Here's what I can think of:
Obligation: You are expected to be there. It may be childish, but for a lot of students, it's difficult to work if someone isn't making them do it.
Interaction: It's not just that students are able to ask questions: lecturers can ask te audience a question too. And even if you're not the one answering, you're definitely checking in your head whether you know the answer, which means you're interacting with the material. A book can do this too, ask a reader to consider a question: but the sense of stress isn't there.
Intonation, rhythm and storytelling: A good speaker can hold the attention of an audience. If you're reading, you have to do all the work to keep the attention. The author simply has fewer tools to keep you interested.
Presence The fact that there's an actual person present in the same room as you, makes you sit up. This is a simple human convention. As most lecturers know, it's a convention that students find easy to dismiss, but the basic sense that you're in a room with another person still changes the energy.
Speaker guidance A good speaker will sense the energy of the room. This lets her change speed, take a break, or spend a bit longer on a subject if she notices the room isn't following along. This makes each lecture tailored to the audience. The smaller the audience, the more different the lecture from audience to audience.
Of course, it takes a special lecturer to understand these points and try to capitalize on them. Many don't and just follow the book.
While I have appreciated lectures for the reasons you list (rarely all of them in the same classroom, unfortunately), I feel like this answer succumbs to the false dichotomy "lecture vs self-learning" underlying the question and many answers. Ben Crowell's answer shows that there are alternatives.
@Raphael that's not at all my intention with this answer. As I said: if you want to learn something, try to get the material in as many different forms as possible. A lecture is one, and sitting down with a book is another. In fact I'd say the lectures are optional and the book isn't if you really want to learn something. I'm just trying to answer the question of what the specific value is that lectures offer over other media.
Education is a relationship and it's a lot harder to have a relationship with an author via a book than with a lecturer via being able to discuss things face-to-face. I think your answer captures that concept. +1
I like lectures because it highlights what the teacher feels important. You can get a lot of meta-data by watching what they place emphasis on. Plus, as always, you might learn from the other students' questions or general tangents and stuff.
@above: the lecturer could just share his lecture notes with students... often lecturers refuse to do this, which doesn't make sense to me. A classroom full of 50 students or so all copying the same thing, which is already written down somewhere, baffles me.
"The fact that there's an actual person present in the same room as you, makes you sit up." We are still talking about students right?
@Jospeh, I know, I know :) Still, I like to think that you get at least 5 or 10 minutes of courtesy attention before they open their laptop and start playing minecraft.
@Peter - Haha that's true =)
With a text book you are required to sort everything out for yourself.
By having access to an expert (the lecturer) there is the potential that you can learn more efficiently. In general the expert is knowledgeable not only about the topic at hand but at associated issues including prioritizing topics and tricky concepts that need better or further explanation. By attending a lecture you can tap into the expertise of the lecturer like your own (more or less) personal guide to the topic at hand.
@JoshuaBenabou the rationale behind not handing out lecture notes is that the professor actually wants people to turn up for the lecture and they feel there is very little insensitive for people to show up when they think they have everything they need. One of the best lecturers I know does this, and it is because most undergrads and some grad students don't have the maturity to appreciate the additional benefit they are actually getting from the lecture. Also there are studies that show the act of taking notes reinforces the process of forming memories.
@JoshuaBenabou In addition to what AMR wrote, a good lecture is also a performance, for which the notes are more like a script. I furthermore agree that there should never be a classroom of any size copying the same thing. Each student should be making their own notes in their own words, because the mental processing necessary to do that is an essential part of learning, and arguably the entire point of both lectures and homework. Teachers handing out lecture notes are actually doing their students a huge disservice.
Well handing out the lectures for students to read is the same thing as reading a textbook, no?
Research shows that students who skip lectures do the same at their exams as those who attend. Can you provide references? I vaguely remember studies showing the opposite (at least in math), but the question of causation vs correlation was unanswered.
@Kimball I'm afraid I was a little sloppy there. Our department director always says this. And while I'm sure she has good research to back this up, I can't find it myself. What I can find is several studies suggesting the opposite. I'm not if the question has been definitively answered yet, but what I said was definitely wrong. I removed the paragraph.
Let me give you an answer in the form of an analogy.
Say you head to a city in a foreign country where you do not know the language, have no friends, do not have a guide book, maybe just have a map, but most of the words are the local names, and you do not have an idea of what they all mean.
Now you could look at that map and resolve to follow every single street until you have walked the entire city. You could even make notes on the map of every place of interest, but that will take you a long time, and a lot of effort. A large majority of the streets that you walk down will hold no interest for you and some of them may look like they lead somewhere, but due to construction have become dead ends.
Now let's say instead that you go to the same city but you hire a local guide that is very fluent in your language, or it could even be a friend that lived there for several years. With a few questions they will likely be able to figure out your interests, what you will find fascinating and what will just waste your time. They may even know of some hidden gems that, in the prior example, you got to towards the end of a day when you were totally exhausted, and you just didn't notice them, so you missed out.
Well, even an average lecturer, especially one that is actively involved in research in that field will be that tour guide in that subject. You will be more productive, you will learn more of the relevant information, and will allow you to skip the 300 pages of filler material that the publisher made the authors include to justify the $200 price tag on a new edition to a text whose prior edition was only two years before.
A great lecturer will get you to see how all of those facts are actually linked together in a consistent and coherent whole and will start you thinking about the material as an expert would. They can provide you with insights that will refocus the material and let you see it with new eyes. They can make you think about ideas and draw conclusions that you may never come to on your own...
That and they also give hints about what they feel is important and what is going to be on the exams. Also, if you need a letter of recommendation, the authors of the book aren't going to write it for you and the clerk at the campus bookstore isn't going to carry very much credibility. So prep by skimming before lecture, read in detail after lecture, but most importantly, get yourself into a seat in that lecture hall and maybe make the additional effort of heading to their office hours as well.
Yes, exactly this. The main purpose in my mind is that the professor can provide guidance on what is important and what isn't. Even the worst professors aren't going to stand at the lectern and read every word of every chapter - they will need to cut out the extras and the tangents to only provide the key points of each lesson.
You don't know what worst professors do, do you? :)
Let me put it to you this way @Ketan; even the worst professors have more experience that you do if you are not a peer or a colleague. If you are a student of life, then there is always something you can learn from someone else, even if it is how not to do something.
@AMR I understand. My comment was just a spontaneous blurb.
The other answers address important aspects of this meaningful, elephant-in-the-room question. But, yes, the ideal, that you can ask questions, that something more than the mere text is conveyed, is not reliably met. Yes, very-good lecturers "add value", but this is not so common, in my field, mathematics. Sure, there's the human element, the reiteration, but if a student/learner has the modicum of self-discipline to read (several) books, there's scant reason to go and sit in a hard chair in a too-cold or too-warm room at randomly-chosen moments. I think only exceptionally gifted experts, or exceptionally gifted teachers, make going to class worth-while for a highly-motivated learner.
The "problem" is that most students cannot accurately identify their own state, their learning "tendencies", and so on. So their appraisal of "lectures", or, probably any classes at all, are not reliable, even for their own best interest.
E.g., even the "just read the book", as objectifiable as it might seem, depends on "the book" being up-front about underlying assumptions, for example. Yet there is a nearly-universal conceit in math texts that there is no context, nothing implicit, ... everything is absolute. And some of the absolutes are not acknowledged, either.
So, yes, self-learning by reading can be made difficult by the secret obstacles... but/and in-class learning can be made difficult by the very same things, merely said out loud and in a ponderous voice by unhelpful instructors.
So, yes, often, one can learn more from browsing around libraries/internets than from going to class. But it requires more effort, in fact. So, yes, many "classes" are not of value, maybe even negative net value if they interrupt more productive thinking, or, ... sleep.
Depends, yes.
Is this just a verbose way of saying, "lectures help some people"?
It's possible that most of my lecturers were "exceptionally gifted experts" (some of them were senior professors and my university is well-regarded), but personally during my mathematics degree I found that seeing people actually work through the material at a semi-plausible pace was a great help compared with static and highly-prepared text. In a textbook you don't see someone at the top of their field go "oh!" and look back through their work to find and correct a mistake! Of course there are other ways than lectures to experience this and it's not impossible to learn mathematics without it.
I wonder if I went to an excellent university for mathematics and never knew it until now, since all of my math lecturers added a lot of value. Certainly attempting to work through Baby Rudin without the lectures seems like a route to madness.
It's been my experience during my education in engineering, both undergraduate and graduate, that the development of ideas often takes huge leaps that a person not already familiar with the material will find impossible to follow. Most of the lectures in my classes detailed those developments in ways that were easier to understand (I say most because some profs were horrible lecturers). Or the professor would demonstrate 3 or 4 different paths to the same answer vs. the 1 in the book.
On the other hand, one of my best classes was Heat Exchanger Design, a graduate level class that dealt with fun stuff like mixed phase flows. I was the only student and the prof just told me what book to get, gave me the homework assignments and said, "Come see me if you have any questions or when you're done so you can start the projects." The projects were the same way and the exams were all of the open book, take home variety. I talked to him maybe once a week for the whole term.
Questions of this nature keep occurring through the history of education. You have suggested that with books we do not need classes; yet we have had books for the masses for quite some considerable time and we still have schools, we still have universities and we still have classes.
One Hundred years ago the role of Books themselves were controversial and some felt that they would be replaced by the movies, and then television and then the internet, and then ....
Yet people still go to class and we still teach.
Its because being an autodidact is rare. However if one is lucky enough to be an autodidact then one can manage without the lecture, without the class, without the university. But then you'd be one of the few.
But what if we could teach you something? How would you ever find out if you only use the book, the movie, the internet, the phone, .....
To quote one of my students: "You really know something don't you? You know? You really, really know stuff..." Up until that point there was a belief that we just read it out of a book.
Some of us do "Really, Really know stuff..." and some come and find out what it is.
It seems to me that anyone with above average intelligence who is very motivated to study the subject in question can absorb the information in a book in the same way they can listen to the information in their ears.
@JoshuaBenabou What proportion of students do you think are 'very motivated'?
A small proprotion, but most likely if one is not very motivated one will fail in the long run anyway.
@JoshuaBenabou I wish I could upvote that comment more. If somebody just goes to school/university because they're made to, then it's rare they would do anything worthy of note. Chimpanzees would be as easy to train, probably cheaper too.
Depends on what you mean by fail. Plenty of people benefit from a degree that they were not very motivated to study for.
This whole discussion is about STEM. I had in mind specifically science/math for people intending to do research.
@JoshuaBenabou You know, I've had some incredibly talented students in my classes. Some of them I managed to get to come to my office hours. They learned by far much more than they would have from just reading a book. So sure, if it's a huge class and it's targetting students below you, I get that. But if it's a small class where you can engage the instructor, or even better you talk to the instructor 1 on 1, you'll learn dramatically more.
@JoshuaBenabou And someone intending to do research isn't going to learn that from a book. If you want to do research - the best thing to do would be to get to the prof's office and talk about what you're doing in the class and how/if that relates to the prof's research. Remember if you're going to do a PhD one day, you'll want a letter of recommendation. A letter of recommendation looks much better if it shows signs that the prof knows who you are.
Repetition increases retention. Information encountered in both a textbook and a lecture will be remembered better than information encountered in only one. Neither textbooks nor lecture are optimal learning tools.
Repetition increases retention. So then is reading the book twice just as good as reading the book and attending a lecture?
Getting the same info from two different sources is more effective even when wording is the same: Multiple source effect.
@CreationEdge there are many published experiments addressing review.
One aspect that doesn't seem to have been mentioned so far (pointed out to me by a colleague earlier this week): the goal of a textbook and the goal of a course are different. A textbook is typically written to be used in many settings for one or more courses, and is meant to fit a broader curriculum than whatever specific course you are taking. For instance, when I lecture, say in a calculus class, I don't typically present all material or examples in every section we cover. So the lecture ends up being a more focused presentation than what is in the text.
Also, I often present things differently than the text, including some things not in the text. I think these things are mentioned in other answers, but let me emphasize the usefulness of seeing different presentations of material when learning a subject, which I think is different than pure repetition. It's pretty common when you reach a higher level of mathematics to learn a topic by reading several different books in tandem--seeing different perspectives helps you get a more complete picture and balances out deficiencies in specific presentations.
Some good answers here, but I don't think I've ever heard or read a better explanation than that of T.W. Korner's (full text available here). It's specifically about math lectures but still largely relevant for STEM.
Rather than attempt to summarize and do injustice to the full text, here are some choice quotes, starting with the bold claim:
"Many mathematicians find it easier to learn from lectures than from
books."
On the advantages a good lecturer brings:
"If the mathematics is hard, the lecturer...[is] compelled to go
slowly, but they can speed past the easy parts. In a book, the
mathematics, whether hard or easy, slips by at the same steady pace."
"Most lecturers can sense when an audience is puzzled and respond by
giving a new explanation or illustration."
"The lecturer is forced by the lecture format to concentrate on the
essentials."
On learning by watching:
"A lecture presents the mathematics as a growing thing and not as a
timeless snapshot. we learn more by watching a house being built than
by inspecting it afterwards."
"we learn by watching experts [...] and imitating them. Unguided
practice is generally useless and often worse than useless. People
who teach themselves to program acquire a mass of bad programming
habits... Mathematics textbooks show us how mathematicians write
mathematics, but lectures show us how mathematicians do mathematics."
This remind me of what Rota said of Church: It may be asked why anyone would bother to sit in a lecture which was the literal repetition of an available text. Such a question would betray an oversimplified view of what goes on in a classroom. What one really learns in class is what one does not know at the time one is learning. The person lecturing to us was logic incarnate. His pauses, hesitations, emphases, his betrayals of emotion (however rare) and sundry other nonverbal phenomena taught us a lot more logic than any written text could.
(cont'd) We learned to think in unison with him as he spoke, as if following the demonstration of a calisthenics instructor. Church's course permanently improved the rigor of our reasoning.
tl;dr: Good lectures are better than bad textbooks.
@JeffE I don't agree with that "TL;DR". Korner's overall point is that even an excellent textbook will be written to convey information and involve the reader in a different way than a good lecture.
@Chan-HoSuh But almost all of the specific criticisms compare good lectures to bad textbooks. Good textbooks help the reader speed past the easy parts. Good textbook authors are forced to concentrate on the essentials. Good textbooks present mathematics as a growing thing and not a timeless snapshot. Good textbooks show how mathematicians do mathematics. The only thing a good textbook can't do—at least, not yet—is realize when the reader is confused and adapt.
@JeffE that's your opinion of what a good textbook is. J.P. Serre's textbooks are considered amongst the most exemplary examples of mathematical writing, but certainly they tend to present the material as "timeless". His style is to present the material as cogently and concisely as possible, i.e. a cleaned-up version, not how it was really done. Many mathematicians would say that is an important part of mathematics. Also, many good mathematical textbooks give fairly complete proofs. This will require at times going through details that are not essential to the ideas of the proof.
Serre's textbooks are considered amongst the most exemplary examples of mathematical writing — I respectfully but forcefully disagree. Serre's books—and I've read several—are horrible textbooks, in my opinion.
@JeffE I never said I agreed with that either, but it's undeniably true a great many mathematicians think they are exemplary. Anyway, whether you disagree with Korner or me is beside the point. You presented your comment as a summary of my answer (which is summarizing Korner). It was a bad summary, contrary to the entire spirit of the answer.
I don't see a contradiction in the views of Serre's books here. Exemplary mathematical writing is not the same as exemplary mathematical textbook writing.
@Chan-HoSuh Hmm "Unguided practice is generally useless and often worse than useless" is very worrying. Could you please elaborate on how this relates to mathematics? I usually have trouble following lectures and study on my own; I want to make sure this is not a mistake.
@Ovi Unguided practice can be dangerous if you learn bad habits. That's not to say it's a mistake to study on your own, just be aware you may be doing things that are counter-productive in the long-run. If you have trouble following lectures, there are probably things about the material you aren't really getting. Digesting other people's explanations helps grasp concepts more fully, and so does explaining to other people. Ideally a good student-teacher relationship provides that.
In my experience, lectures are almost always worthless. You learn more in 30 minutes of reading than in 4 hours of lectures. Still, some people prefer lectures, and their preferences seem to be empirically justified.
In a similar way, I find it almost impossible to have a productive face-to-face discussion. Offline discussions work so much better, because you can always think about the issue for a few hours before replying. Again, other people seem to be more productive in face-to-face discussions than in offline discussions.
These two issues are probably related. Maybe some people are better at processing real-time information, while others process information in a more asynchronous fashion.
So I am to conclude that, indeed, except in a few cases like those I mentioned, there really is no point...
@JoshuaBenabou: You need to work out whether lectures are your thing. If you can get by without them, then try. One thing is that you may not know exactly what material from the book you need to learn, especially if the lectures and textbook diverge.
If you believe that you can learn quantum physics without a lecture then good luck.
Funnily enough I have worked through most of the Feynam Lectures: Volume 3 this summer. It is an introductory text, but it doesn't seem any harder to learn than, say, multivariable calculus...
That is not say that I know quantum mechanics. I'm just pointing out that in principle a good textbook could replace a lecture to learn a topic. To master a topic you probably need the help of a teacher.
I have seen the effectiveness of lectures through teaching ground (in class) courses and online courses.
My ground courses use lectures and a textbook as a teaching method whereas my online courses only use the textbook (I'll post helpful notes such as "On chapter 3 disregard pages 50-52" but other than that and answering emails there's nothing but the textbook - I use Blackboard in case that matters at all)
What I've noticed by teaching the same course through online and ground is that students almost always retain more information during the ground courses where there are both lectures and the textbook. Not only can students read the course material but they can also hear it and visualize it in some cases.
A textbook can also sometimes be difficult to follow for some students. For example:
When I was taking an accounting course during my undergrad I took it online - HUGE mistake. I ended up having to drop the course after 2 weeks because I didn't understand anything that was in the book. The next semester I took the same course as a ground course that used the same textbook and lectures. I passed the class with the top score among my classmates and I'll never forget what my professor said on the first day of class
"Don't read the textbook first. If you read the textbook first you'll be confused and filling up my inbox. Attend lectures and then read the textbook to reenforce what you learned."
Some students can follow a textbook and do well is almost any course. Others can just listen to someone talk, take notes, and do well in the course. There are also those who need both resources to retain the information. Using both methods (lectures and textbooks) will cater to all 3 of those student segments.
My lectures are designed to compliment the book, not mirror the book. Similarly, the book is a supplement to my lectures, not a summary of my lectures.
When a professor does little more than rehash the content of the assigned readings, then, for all practical purposes, students can either read the book, or attend the lecture. There may be some benefit to doing both, but doing one alone might well suffice.
That said, the authors of a book don't have my experiences; they can't tell my "war stories." They don't know where students had trouble understanding concepts last year. I can also offer a critical analysis of the text, perhaps even disagreeing with something in the book while presenting opposing views. I can also relate course material to current events, where publishers lag a year or more behind.
In short, there are several ways instructors can use class time to expound upon the foundation laid by the assigned readings.
Usually in science it's not all about being locked up in an office and learning and to acquire as much knowledge as possible, but also about meeting and discussing.
Let us assume we have a textbook that relates perfectly to the student's personality, his background, his prior knowledge, and is perfectly aligned with the course's aims.
Let us further assume that the textbook is accurate, up-to-date, stimulates reflection of the material, and relates the lessons learned to the student's past and future (professional) life.
Let us assume we have a lecture that achieves the same.
A good lecture will add to what a good textbook provides:
a platform for interaction with an expert in the field,
a platform for social/peer interaction,
a platform for networking,
a platform for scientic discourse on a small scale.
Not considering the likelihood of establishing either a textbook or a lecture that actually meets above assumptions, I think the "social" aspects of a lecture outweigh the theoretical throughput of information one can feed into a student's head.
Yes, I think colloquia and seminars do even better serve this purpose than a lecture.
Yes, I admit, the number of lectures not worth attending is probably larger than the number of textbooks not worth working through. But this strongly depends on the place you study at. If you're not satisfied at your current place you might try for a change.
I've routinely found that the big advantage of having a teacher over reading a book is that a teacher can answer questions. I often have the experience when trying to learn something from a book that some question comes to my mind, and I search through the book and spend considerable time trying to find the answer. Sometimes I never find the answer. But a human teacher who knows the subject can answer immediately. Or, if I don't understand something, with a human teacher I can ask and the teacher can attempt to explain the idea a different way, and can adapt his explanation to the specific difficulties that I express. With a book, the writer may try to explain the same idea in multiple ways. But usually not. And even if he does, he can't adapt those explanations to every reader, he can only give maybe two or three variations. When I was in college, I had many times that I engaged a teacher in a back-and-forth conversation until I was sure I understood the concept.
If by "lecture" you mean the lecturer enters the room, gives his speech, and leaves, without allowing for any questions, then okay, what I just said doesn't apply. Others have made some relevant points, like some people may learn better by hearing than by reading, that a student's personality may be such that he will listen to a speaker but is unable to concentrate on a book, a student may show up for a lecture who wouldn't bother to read the book, etc. I won't repeat what others have said any further, I think they've made the relevant points. But really, if you have a human lecturer, they are almost always willing to answer questions.
I've seen some advertisements for video lecture series that say things like "now you don't have to try to learn from a book, you can have the advantage of learning from the best teachers in the world". My usual reaction is: No. For me, watching a video of a lecture is usually inferior to reading a book. The advantage of the human teacher is that I can ask questions, but of course a video teacher cannot answer. There are cases, of course, where a video is superior to a printed book: a video can show action that a book can only describe or perhaps show still photos. So if you want to learn how to perform some physical action, like how to play golf or replace a transmission filter or whatever, a video might be able to show you in ways that a book could not. That could also be true of a human teacher: he could demonstrate steps in a process in ways that a book could not.
It depends on the lecture. If it is simply just a summary of the textbook, then it may not be very helpful. But a lecture that is interactive, uses the Socratic Method, and is similar to storytelling (as Peter pointed out), is very effective. Sometimes the material is so difficult, that you need a professor to facilitate the learning. Finally, an expert can inspire learning in ways that an expert textbook can't.
The lecturer can react to the audience, which a book can't. You can ask the lecturer to clarify, to solve another example.
Yes the instructor can do these things, but a lecture is not nessecary for these things to happen. Why not read the textbook outside the classroom and then come to class to work on problems, like office hours in class.
Answering students' questions is not lecturing.
@AnonymousPhysicist, it isn't, but a lecture certainly is a meeting where this should happen.
@JoshuaBenabou, that is called "flipped class".
Yes this flipped class thing makes a lot more sense to me. Why is this not more common....
@AnonymousPhysicist: Not in itself, but answering a question can often be a springboard for expanding on an idea or even introducing a new one and hence in effect be part of a lecture.
@JoshuaBenabou " Why not read the textbook outside the classroom and then come to class to work on problems" What you're describing is called a flipped classroom. These have proven very useful in many contexts. Lots of research into them.
Interesting question. I've often asked myself the same question during my undergraduate years. You shouldn't just attend all lectures because not all will be useful. You should also not just ignore all lectures and study from a book. Its a judgement you have to make personally in finding the right balance. A few points might help: the subject, the lecturer and the student's preferred style of learning.
Subject: There are certain subjects that are quite easy to learn from a textbook. For example I would say biological sciences/history should be fairly straight forward to read from a book-in fact its often necessary to get a good background from a book in order to make the most of a fast paced lecture. One advantage of attending lectures though is to learn about new or cutting edge knowledge in a particular field. A lecture can also give you useful insights that you've never thought about during your personal reading. By attending a lecture, you often get a feel for what a lecturer cares about and hence what's likely to come out in your exams.
The lecturer: I think good lecturers have a way of injecting life into their subjects beyond anything you can experience from a book. However, habits such as reading directly what's already on the powerpoint slide just doesn't motivate students-you might as well just read the slide in your room. A student will definitely get more out a very interactive class and get to learn from other student's mistakes. Other students often ask questions that you're too shy to ask yourself and you learn from it. So in summary, attend the lectures of the really good lecturers on your course. Students are good at spotting good lecturers and their classes are often very packed.
Preferred learning style: I think its important to get to know yourself and understand your preferred learning style. Some people learn a lot from lectures, some like making notes during lectures whilst others learn more from books. Whatever your learning style is though, there's a high chance you will learn from a very good lecture.
All in all, I think learning is a two way process: you can read all you can but you also need to obtain feedback from others to consolidate your learning. This you can get from very good lectures. At the end of the day, its your time and you have to decide how best to spend it.
Lectures help lazy students who don't want to read the whole book and do all the exercises in the book, to pass the exam.
And what is the point of passing the exam? (rhetorical question)
@JoshuaBenabou: Likewise, what is the point of reading the textbook if attending the lecture allows you to acquire the needed knowledge?
Because attending the lecture means you have to copy notes, notes which are written elsewhere. And it means you have to go at the pace of the lecturer. And it means you are less flexible time wise - what if its a nice day and you want to sit outside and read the textbook instead of sitting for 3 hours in a crowded lecture hall.
Think about a standard book: you can read it, or hear the audiobook.
The first one is at you pace, the second at the pace of the narrator. I remember I heard a text I read before, and found dull, read by a great narrator. And I found the text wonderful afterward. Because I was now able to catch the inner pace of the writer, the important turnpoint, and I needed someone to guide me.
A written book can be somehow flat. A great teacher can understand when a student is lost, and provide alternative explanation, or a different narrative. Or play with time.
Finally, some people cannot read, or do not have hands to turn pages. We do have our own means to remember or understand. There are different kinds of learners. Some are more visual, some auditive, some kinesthetic. It is likely that visual ones may be ok with the book, but sometimes senses merge, and sight + audition reinforce themselves.
A lecture involves the medium of audio, and some people find this medium more conducive, or the combination of the whiteboard and audio to be more conducive to absorbing new information. Besides this it is to some extent a social experience and a time-constrained activity, the latter helping people with low self-discipline or self-motivational capability, pace their study. To others it might be a nuisance. Notwithstanding the other analyses about the historical roots and relation to modern technology, I think this is one succinct response to the question.
Personally, I find that lectures should be more of a thing of the past as things go forward, but finding the right replacement, or evolution, should be done with experimentation and care.
Everyone learns in a different way. There are a variety of different learners. In this I mean that some people may be able to grasp and understand the material and information better by hearing someone speak or by seeing it in written words. Some have combined learning styles, while others have a preference for one type of learning. There is a wide variety of ways that a professor or teacher can give the material to the student. The best would be for a teacher to give students multiple means of understanding or getting the information, as to not leave any one behind. If only this was done in more education settings, it would be ideal.
Learning styles are only a preference. They do not indicate the effectiveness of a teaching method.
yes, you have a valid point. But I think if some if there are more types of the same material, it does help the individual learn in a more efficient way. But I guess this also goes into educational theory and personal or intellectual opinions on the topic.
"Learning styles" is quackery, not science. Please don't propagate harmful myths.
@EnergyNumbers, quackery may be too strong a word. Learning styles are preferences, and those preferences appear very consistently in experiments. Businesses that promote learning styles as a useful tool may be dishonest, though.
@BenCrowell "Not yet well studied" and "isn't true" are kinda far apart, don't you think?
The Cone of Learning is the key to the answer. We retain a lot more of what we hear than what we read silently.
It's analogous (though not as extreme) as arguing that music students who can read notes don't need to listen to music, they can just read the sheet music. You're not stimulating as wide a range of nerve receptors.
(less relevantly, as someone who has a reading disability (but went to an Ivy League university), I can assure you from personal experience that I got 85% of my knowledge from lectures and 15% from textbooks, though I tried sincerely hard to do all the reading assignments.)
Learning from lectures alone is very slow. Learning from books alone is faster. Learning from both books and lectures at the same time is very fast.
Edit: Since this answer is apparently unpopular, let me explain it a little bit more clearly. I have a PhD in Chemical Engineering and taught college-level chemistry for a few years, so I know something about how people learn difficult material and what makes a class effective. I don't have research data to back up these statements, so it is possible that other people would have a different experience. However, I have never met a person who did. I don't mean I have never met a person who did well in school without going to lectures, or without reading the book. What I mean is, I have never met a person who did not learn fastest from both lectures and the book.
Yes, you can learn via either method alone, and different people tend to learn more easily from one or other. It is also possible that a good lecturer can be more effective than a bad book, and vice versa.
My statement assumes that the quality of both the lecturer and the book are good (or at least equivalent), and is about efficiency - how much time/effort does it take to learn something. The reason books are more efficient than lectures in general has to do with information bandwidth. A book can communicate more complex material in a shorter time than a lecture can. The reason that lectures in conjunction with books are the most effective way to learn is that a good lecture can tell you what parts of the book to focus on - a good teacher points out the most important details. It also gives you a different view of the same material, and reinforces memory through repetition.
What evidence do you have of this? Not everyone learns the same way and some students struggle to learn anything from a textbook but can pass a course on lectures alone.
No, it is not. Spending 4 hours per week for a semester is 60+ hours where trying to learn differential equations from a book would take much longer.
@Memj I taught for several years and have a PhD, so I've taken lots of classes. This statement is based on my personal experience and observation of peers and students.
Your statement is not incorrect, but I think you missed the point of mine.
@Alexandros - I do not think you can learn D.E. just by sitting in lectures. I am sure you would need to practice at some point, and you will get much more out of your practice time with a book than with lecture notes alone.
@thomj. 2 hours for 1 lecture and 1 hour to revisit / redo the exercises done in the lecture is enough to learn DE. It worked for me and many others, without even opening the book, by just reading from my notes and lecturer's handouts. Learning straight from the book without the lecture will be much-much slower.
@Alexandros - I don't think that what you are saying is contradicting what I am saying.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.262533 | 2015-09-02T21:10:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/52678",
"authors": [
"410 gone",
"AMR",
"Alexandre Alves Correa",
"Alexandros",
"AllValue",
"Anonymous Physicist",
"Aqua Eustoma",
"Badge",
"Brian M. Scott",
"Bruno",
"Calvin's Hobbies",
"Chan-Ho Suh",
"Clarinetist",
"DLS3141",
"Darielle Francis A Campos",
"Dave Clarke",
"David K",
"Dawn Stancil",
"DetlevCM",
"Drecker",
"DylanB",
"Easy quick solutions",
"Felipe Voloch",
"Genevie",
"Greg",
"Hamza Bannouri",
"JeffE",
"Jessica B",
"Joel",
"John Anderson",
"Joseph",
"KBot L",
"Ketan",
"Kimball",
"Luke",
"Mark Meckes",
"Memj",
"Mohammad Khojastehmehr",
"Ovi",
"Pat",
"Paul Proteus",
"Peter Bloem",
"Please stop being evil",
"Prof. Santa Claus",
"Raphael",
"Raydot",
"Reely_bruj",
"Shi chaochen",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Steve Jessop",
"Stevetech",
"Sumyrda - remember Monica",
"Svitlana Volodarets",
"TRiG",
"Todd Wilcox",
"Where's my towel",
"alayla_ Taken15",
"bellezoeapril",
"cbeleites",
"chiva",
"dotancohen",
"duan",
"emory",
"emptyother",
"eykanal",
"fcw26",
"ff524",
"gloomy.penguin",
"guidedecuisine",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10042",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/101",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10340",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11365",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11440",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13138",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13240",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13535",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1419",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145259",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145260",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145261",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145263",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145264",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145265",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145268",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145269",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145275",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145276",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145278",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145289",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145290",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145291",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145297",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145310",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145311",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145320",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145322",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145375",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145376",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145388",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145399",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145413",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145437",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145466",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/145490",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/146555",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/146595",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/146612",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/146695",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/146988",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14755",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15507",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17476",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/18360",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19607",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20036",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20865",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21194",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21278",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/23947",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/23951",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24649",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/29336",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/29391",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/30737",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/30852",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/30978",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/31646",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/33567",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/33614",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/33949",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/33977",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/34315",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/36363",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38135",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/3849",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38587",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38753",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/39017",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/39527",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/39540",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/39551",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/39590",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/40744",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6103",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/643",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6858",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6936",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/73",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8001",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/898",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96",
"math_lover",
"ping",
"pjs36",
"psmears",
"renaaoijavfreela",
"the_lotus",
"thomij",
"tjysdsg",
"user3323245",
"user3730788",
"user8001",
"vonbrand"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23198 | Are extended periods of unpaid leave compatible with an academic career?
In Academia, a sabbatical means a leave to do only research, as opposed to an unpaid leave to do anything you want.
A recent question over on The Workplace SE raises the situation where someone has too much money and just want to have more time. — like working for 6-9 months per year, which would earn one enough to spend the rest of the time travelling. Regardless of the relatively low pay in parts of Academia, the same situation may apply, in particular to DINKs.
The answers mostly boil down to: be a consultant or freelancer.. That may work in the software industry or other private sectors, but it doesn't translate very well to academia.
Is a career which includes one or more extended unpaid leaves, such as sabbaticals in the classic meaning of the word, or unpaid leaves in the order of 3 months or more in a row, compatible with working in academia at all? If yes, how?
Clarification: I am interested in answers considering either a career that contains specific gaps (such as a year to see the world, either between jobs, or interrupting a job), or a fixed job that contains less than 12 months per year (minus holidays) of work.
Depends on the type of prof you are, but it could be possible. May-August are often academic holes where nothing is happening. Some people could shut down during that time.
In Sweden, new parents are entitled to 18 months of leave. Generally, that is 12 months for the mother and 6 months for the father. Academics have children and do take this kind of time of, and come back to work. And, they do it multiple times. Also, if you don't have grant money in the US, you don't get paid for the summer. So why work?
@DaveClarke I've mostly seen Swedish academics take those parental leaves in smaller chunks, in particular attaching to the summer so that the parents have as much time off as the children (10 weeks per summer). But is it good for their career? Or does it hurt?
In Sweden, it is actively encouraged to take time off with your kids. That said, my plan is to make sure my 6 months off includes the summer months (assuming there will be another one). Does it hurt? In the long run, probably not so much.
Frequent, extended periods of unpaid leave are easily compatible with certain types of academic careers, such as teaching as an adjunct on a course-by-course basis. However, this involves low pay and no prestige or job security, so it's far from an ideal solution.
There will be a lot of obstacles to doing this with a tenure-track job. Your collaborators will be unhappy when you put the collaboration on hold to go do something else. You colleagues will be unhappy when you aren't available to teach courses or supervise students (thereby making the department work around what they consider to be your eccentricities). Wanting to take substantial amounts of time off will be considered a bad sign, and everyone will worry about what you might do once you have tenure. Your chances of getting tenure will go down.
Taking time off can also make you a less productive researcher, even normalized by the amount of time you spend on research. The problem is that keeping up with the field takes a certain amount of time and effort. If you work on research for only six months per year, you still need to keep up with twelve months of progress by others, so it's as if the rest of the world were moving twice as fast.
It's not impossible that you could find a flexible academic job. You might end up with a specially negotiated soft-money position (funded by grants under whatever terms the funding agency will agree to), you might take a job at a less prestigious university than you could have (who are so eager to hire you that they are willing to make a deal), or you might happen to find an unusually accommodating department. Unfortunately, this isn't something most people can reasonably expect to work out. I don't know what the chances are, but I expect they are pretty low on average. The academic job market is tough, and adding non-standard constraints makes it even tougher. If you can't be happy without frequent, extended leaves, and you have good non-academic employment options that fit your needs, then that might be the way to go.
Another theoretical option is to take advantage of tenure: work hard, don't tell anyone your plans, and then quit doing any academic work over the summer once you get tenure. You shouldn't do this. Your colleagues will feel resentful, the administration will be upset, and you'll be manipulating the system in a way tenure is not intended to support (and thus weakening the case for having tenure at all). If you're too extreme, you could run into trouble with a post-tenure review, depending on your university's policies.
[I'm assuming you intend to use the leaves for something entirely unrelated to your academic career. If it's more closely related, such as applying your scholarly expertise to government service, then you may have better luck. However, it doesn't sound like that's what you're talking about.]
Makes sense. One comment Taking time off can also make you a less productive researcher, even normalized by the amount of time you spend on research. — I'm not sure this is true when normalised. One question: how about taking 6 months off between jobs; between PhD and post-doc, between post-docs, etc.?
I just mean that if you spend half as much time doing research, then either you end up spending less time learning what other people are doing (hurting your breadth and perspective or ability to find connections), or you have to devote twice as high as percentage of your time to that (leaving less time for your own work). But how well this works out is a personal matter. For example, if time off leaves you feeling rejuvenated, then it might help you do better work.
Time off might not be fully black and white either. Someone going on a 10,000 km cycling trip could still download some papers to his e-reader now and then. But that it sets one back compared to people working conventionally, that is clear.
One case when this does happen in an academic setting is when faculty get on a glide path to retirement. In such cases, it's possible to negotiate a reduced workload (and pay). The incentive here is that the department can sometimes use this (along with other funds) to support hiring a new faculty member: since faculty slots are expensive commodities, such an arrangement works for everyone.
Your question doesn't indicate the level of the person who might want to do part-time academic work. I think it goes without saying that doing this before tenure is a BAD IDEA for reasons already outlined above. But if someone is tenured but far from retirement, it might be possible to pull off such an arrangement if the department sees an opportunity to cash in on it via new hiring.
Suppose that someone has a one-year gap between the end of the PhD and the first post-doc, or between two post-docs. Is that really such a bad idea? If you would review such a person for a tenure-track position, ask about the gap, and the person would declare, “I was hiking to Mongolia”. Would that be so bad?
No, certainly not. But a 1-year gap is not the same as a continued period of downtime for a number of years, which is what I thought the question was about.
It's about both (sabbaticals in the classic meaning of the word, or unpaid leaves in the order of 3 months or more in a row,); I'd classify a one-year gap as a sabbaticals in the classic meaning of the word.
ah. but then it's not at all uncommon to go on leave for a year. Usually you're going on leave to go somewhere else, so the person doing this would need some skilled negotiation to finagle a leave that isn't "going somewhere else"
I think the previous answers were focused on academic positions focused on research. However I know of colleges and some universities where the teaching load drops off dramatically in the summer and during certain summers it's possible to be off for at least 8 weeks without pay. To me this is very acceptable considering that you will also get 3 weeks around Christmas.
You can also consider working remotely for some periods, if your research allows you to do so. I think also that traveling hard every year for 3-6 months might be hard to pull off, physically and mentally for many years. But if you could rent a house for 2 months on the beach of Fiji and work from there, that doesn't sound too bad :-)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.266823 | 2014-06-10T17:21:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23198",
"authors": [
"Anonymous Mathematician",
"Behacad",
"Dave Clarke",
"Joe V. ",
"Mkirsh",
"PeskyPixel",
"Ronald",
"Suhail Gupta",
"Suresh",
"Tiko",
"gerrit",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1033",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15261",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/346",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/612",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/62003",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/62004",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/62046",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/62048",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/62060",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/643",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/76033",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/76042",
"oa-"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23641 | What is the minimum time one should spend in a post-doc?
Suppose one has been hired for a three-year postdoc. Three years give sufficient opportunity to get some work done, without moving to a new country every year. Possibly, an opportunity might arise to move to something permanent before the three years are finished (either in academia, or in industry, or in government research labs, or somewhere on the edge of those). However, the postdoc supervisor, who has invested time and money in a postdoc in order to get a project done, might be disappointed if the postdoc leaves a job unfinished.
On one extreme, I know someone who has been a postdoc at the current place for 5½ years, and they were a postdoc somewhere else before that. I suppose spending 8 years in postdocs does not help when applying for permanent positions. On the other hand, I know someone who has been a postdoc for only seven months or so, and is already applying for a primarily teaching position at a somewhat lesser known university, possibly a position where major post-PhD results are not essential.
What is the minimum one should spend in a postdoc, before even starting to consider applying for possibly permanent positions? I mean this question broadly; an answer may either be expressed in time (one year) or in results (one major and one minor first-author paper). Of course, without any significant results, finding a faculty position at a major place will be hard if not impossible. But the question here is related to the moral obligation to complete some of the task one has been hired to do.
Related question with different focus: Postdoc position: should I stay for one year or two years?
What is the minimum one should spend in a postdoc, before even starting to consider applying for possibly permanent positions? — The correct answer is negative. You should consider your post-postdoc employment options even before you start your postdoc.
@JeffE I mean that if I move to a different place 6 months into a postdoc, the postdoctoral supervisor may be unhappy.
Can you clarify your field of study? Post-docs > 2 years in the social sciences are not common -- and, it is often the case that the post doc has either a 1 or 2 year commitment on a standard academic calendar. It would be a rarity to see somebody in the social sciences to have completed multiple post-docs.
I'm in atmospheric science.
possible duplicate of Is it common and acceptable for a postdoc to leave before contract ends?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.267485 | 2014-06-18T21:08:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23641",
"authors": [
"Brian P",
"Jane Cambridge",
"JeffE",
"NewPostdoc",
"Sarah Sapouckey",
"adipro",
"gerrit",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1033",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10936",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17232",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63193",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63194",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63195",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42012 | How do people changing fields after PhD overcome competition with "locals"?
There are a number of questions here about changing-fields. Those are mostly about how common it is, how it affects future career, or whether a move from X to Y is feasible (example 1, 2, 3). At any rate, it does happen — I have come across people with background in particle physics, astrophysics, or space science, who were all in postdocs in atmospheric science. A frequent motivation may be to resolve the two body problem. And some fields have a higher ratio of jobs to PhD graduates than others.
But if someone with a PhD in particle physics, astrophysics, or space science, applies for a post-doc in atmospheric science, how do they overcome the competition with candidates who do have PhDs specialising in (the right subfield of) atmospheric science? Wouldn't a potential host quickly dismiss candidates who show neither experience nor interest in the relevant field, even if they have spoken the person, when other applicants are pre-trained "locals"?
Some of my best hires have had virtually no direct or recent experience in HPC, but have demonstrated a number of other extremely desirable features including:
A passion for learning and doing
A clear track record of success in their related area (including publishing, mentoring, grant-writing, etc.).
An strong awareness of their own limitations in the field and a plan for dealing with them
A strong understanding of our needs based on researching our mission, goals, website, etc. and a plan for how they fit into that.
Based on this, I've taken a flyer on a researcher or two who wasn't a perfect fit but was too passionate, engaging, and obviously successful to pass up. A ridiculously strong reference is also helpful.
Speaking as someone trying to change fields, the main problem is people judging by your cover (department, classes taken, title of thesis). Even if you have learnt a lot on your own, if it isn't encoded in something more formal, it's hard to show via email that you know anything.
The most important thing is to meet them in person - then (of course, provided that you do know basics of the field you are applying to!) it is much easier to show that you actually know things in their field. To arrange such meeting, if you need their reimbursement, contacts may help a lot (both in terms of "a friend of your advisor" and recommendation letters, even if informal, putting the emphasis on your skills or interest in the target field).
Then, people hire based on their needs. Sometimes they care more for a different background (e.g. more computational, more mathematical, more statistical...), and it can be your advantage.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.267941 | 2015-03-20T15:42:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/42012",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8780 | Is a IEEE student member counted as a member in a submission to a transaction?
I am going to submit a paper to a IEEE transaction. I am a student member of IEEE. In the auther line of the paper, do I append "IEEE, Member", "IEEE, Student Member" or nothing after my name?
I think "IEEE, Student Member" is the best choice.
Why do you want to hide your affiliation with your university?
@user13107: IEEE stupidly insists that all authors who are IEEE members identify themselves as such on the title page. The authors' university/industry affiliations are listed on the title page as well.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.268167 | 2013-03-21T02:13:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8780",
"authors": [
"JeffE",
"Rade",
"antmw1361",
"bantandor",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21290",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21291",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21295",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2643",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5644",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"user13107",
"user3079474"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7843 | Why do some conference have an "abstract submission" before the "paper submission"?
I noticed that some conference have different deadline for paper submission: an "abstract" submission deadline, before the usual "paper" submission deadline.
For example, on the International Semantic Web Conference 2013 webpage you can read:
Submission dates
Abstracts: May 1, 2013
Full Paper Submission: May 10, 2013
Why do they need the abstract before the paper?
To estimate how many papers they'll get?
Also, some conferences have Author registration deadline
This seems to be very computer science specific. I'm not saying that it is off topic, but based on the answers, it is clear that other fields do things very differently.
In my field (chemistry/spectroscopy/chemometrics), the abstract decides whether you'll get an oral presentation or a poster (total rejection is extremely rare).
The paper submission deadline is usually after the conference.
Once submitted, the paper undergoes normal peer-review for the journal it is submitted to, which doesn't have anything to do with the presentation at the conference. The only connection is that the conference organisers have spoken with the journal editors that they'll collect papers about topics presented at the conference in a special issue of the journal.
So the paper deadline is needed by the journal editors to make people submit in time so that the special issue will be ready at the specified date.
An unspoken reason is to enable conference presenters to prepare their abstract months before their paper or poster is ready, while they are still doing their research. Some large conferences, such as the American Geophysical Union, request abstracts months in advance of final submission. What's a struggling (or highly distinguished--both find themselves in the same predicament) researcher to do? Write something, and hope that by the time of the conference, the research meets or exceeds the statement of the abstract.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.268262 | 2013-02-07T14:31:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7843",
"authors": [
"Aniko",
"Dave Clarke",
"Siddharth Khalate",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21453",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21501",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/532",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/643",
"seteropere"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
1232 | In universities, how to team up with your colleagues?
Many times in universities, people don't dedicate much time to build friendly relationships with colleagues.
Unfortunately, this happens both in the tenured positions and in non-tenured positions, with many bad consequences (such as for examples, many researchers actually don't know what other colleagues are researching on...).
I've always been thinking that building strong friend relationships with colleagues can be very useful and powerful, for careers but most of all to create a more serene work environment.
I think that a good way to create friendly relationships with colleagues is organizing extra-work activities, such as dinners, soccer matches, etc.
Last week some of my PhD student colleagues organized a pizza dinner between colleagues. All my department (~150) PhD students were invited, but in the end we were just 9! :-(
What d'you do to build strong friend relationships with colleagues?
Could you tell some success stories?
Could you give some good advices?
In my experience, a lot of academics tend to shy away from things like a pizza party. I would suggest thinking about things that connect common interests. For example, consider starting a book club on some relatively broad topic of interest, or a group where folks read and comment on each other's work. These kind of things can be really valuable of they ring together folks from different specalizations. It is always good to get a different perspective.
As another example, think about setting up a brown bag lecture series. These can be great ways to get folks out of their offices and talking.
Beyond this, I would generaly suggest not trying to set up events that have 150 people invited. Think smaller and more targeted.
Thanx, Trevor. What is a brown bag lecture series?
It is a reference to the kinds of brown bags people bring their lunches to work in. Brown bag lectures are presentations or discussions where people are encouraged to bring and eat their lunch.
In our department, the assistant professors go out for drinks once a month (a fixed day of the week and a fixed week of the month). That tends to work out quite well: we can let off steam, compare notes on our students (and what senior faculty dish out in the name of advice :)), and generally get a nice group. I've had a few collaborations start because of this as well.
The general faculty also do a drinks night occasionally, but not as regularly.
Eat lunch with people.
While many researcher don't have very flexible schedules, they do occasionally eat. However, creating a structured lunch environment where there is a daily meeting location at a consistent time with a knowledge that anyone can drop by without feeling excluded, closeted academics might feel like they might have to make time to grab some lunch.
Then there are the occasional department happy hours.
Be a leader!
Make a research group,
Know what you want to do and divide the works,
Do not waste your time on finding friends,
Be a person whose character is interesting for other people,
Be yourself, be the guy who has big dreams,
Then you have a team with people who want to have a role in your work.
Never try to be the person who follows the others,
Be the person who is followed by others.
"do not waste your time on finding friends" is a strange perspective on a question about finding friendly relationships.
I mentioned this because trying to find friends just make you far away from your true self. Be yourself, friends are like magnets, if you be yourself, you will have friends who like you because of your true character not because of your strive for doing whatever they like you to do. That is all I mentioned. I did not say friendship is bad but true friendship differs from being a follower.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.268437 | 2012-04-22T12:20:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1232",
"authors": [
"Blair Rorani",
"DavideChicco.it",
"Hamed",
"Suresh",
"Trevor Owens",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12875",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/346",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/379",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/3943",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/726"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8824 | What versions of a paper do I still hold rights to?
I just had my first paper accepted for publication (hooray!), but I'm wondering how copyright works for the paper. I know that for this publication, the publishing house owns the copyright of the final version, but I'm wondering if that means that I still have rights to distribute earlier versions (e.g., on academia.edu).
If so, which version? I.e., how different does it have to be from the final version?
It depends of the journals, I try to keep a pre-print version on my website (last round of revision before publishing) and I am hoping no one will complain. And congratulations on your paper!
After accepting the article, the journal will ask you to sign a copyright transfer. This document should describe in detail what rights the publisher gets, and what rights you retain. If it isn't acceptable to you, you can try to negotiate; your institution may have an intellectual property office that could help. If all else fails, you can withdraw the paper and submit it to a journal with different policies (perhaps even an open access journal).
It is pretty common for the author to retain the right to distribute preprints.
Congratulations on your paper!
A little more googling would have served me well - another answer directed me to http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo, which looks a good resource for determining rights for each journal.
That's a good link to check on journals before you publish, but after you have submitted, checking the journal's statement of copyright transfer (as mentioned by Nate Eldredge) is the safer way to know your rights.
I suppose you've just answered the question yourself, but I'd like to add that
a) it seems very common to make a copy of the paper available on your own site (or something like academia.edu) so I would think most journals do allow this (at least in CS)
b) it is good practice, too, since it makes it a lot easier for people who research your work to be able to download the paper straight away rather than having to go through institutional logins or have no access at all.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.268812 | 2013-03-23T15:12:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8824",
"authors": [
"Arthur Charles Cheung",
"David",
"Duncan",
"Grace Liu",
"Manuel Quiring",
"Phù du Đời",
"Zenon",
"grasshopper",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21428",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21429",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21430",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21432",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21433",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21437",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21445",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21451",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/257",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/3890",
"silvado",
"user21429"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
759 | Timing an internship during PhD
Suppose there is an engineering PhD student who is unsure whether to join academia or the industry after his PhD. He does not want to take chances and applies for internship positions during the course of his PhD. Here is a dilemma: the internship is certain to eat into vital amount of time he could otherwise spend thinking about his research problem. OTOH, when he is not fully into research, he is unlikely to get attractive research-based internship positions.
How should a PhD candidate time his internship in a way that it does not affect his research and is also a very valuable experience on his PhD resume?
This is a "Goldilocks" problem—you should try to schedule an internship late enough that you have enough experience to be of interest to a potential internship sponsor, but early enough so that it can have an effect on your long-term development (if you feel it was a sufficiently positive or negative experience to sway your sentiments).
As a result, I would say that you should typically do this in the middle of your PhD—probably around your third year or so (assuming that you're in a typical US graduate program that runs five to six years for a PhD). If you're in a European-style system, where the coursework has been done before the PhD starts, then it should be done somewhat earlier—perhaps from the middle of the second year on.
This is exactly right. If you try for an internship too early, anything you're likely to get will not be interesting enough work from a research perspective.
I think you're creating a false dichotomy by saying
the internship is certain to eat into vital amount of time he could
otherwise spend thinking about research problems
Internships are places where sometimes REALLY interesting problems come up. Especially in engineering, while it's not critical, it's very important to keep a finger on what's happening in industry - the industry/academia divide is a matter of time-horizon rather than fundamental nature of the problem.
Of course you need to have enough experience to recognize interesting problems, which goes back to @aeismail's answer. I will also say that doing it late in your career isn't that bad either, because then you get a three-month interview for a job. That's how I got my first one :)
Although the answers above are great, I would like to share a different perspective mainly because I disagree with necessarily waiting until the 3rd year of your Phd.
In a lot of internships, you're exposed to new areas or new perspectives in the same area which can affect your current interests.
Although school is good and working on research is even better, still, you learn work mainly at work.
I think internships are an accessory to research. I believe that the positioning and frequency of internships doesn't matter as long as they are relevant to one's PhD [by relevant I mean that if work done on internships could be written down on the final PhD dissertation and/or lead to meaningful publications]. Finding/Securing the correct internship that could positively propel one's PhD is a challenge, but it is doable.
I believe having the wisdom to decide whether an internship could contribute to one's research depends on where you currently stand in the PhD timeline. There is a distinction between a PhD student and a PhD candidate, which I want to point out as you mentioned both the terms.
A PhD candidate is an advanced PhD student, which means he/she is aware of the fundamental concepts of a particular research area (since a PhD candidate has successfully qualified the core requirements of a dept., which involves getting satisfactory grades in certain key courses for his/her specialization track). So he/she is in a better position (in terms of judgement) to not settle for just any internship (as there are significant amount of internship opportunities for PhD students [this of course depends on country/funding/discipline]), but only the ones that ties well with one's PhD goals. For instance if someone's specialization area is compilers, then doing an internship on quantitative research might not be very useful in the near term.
For PhD students (in first or second year), since they are (relatively) new in the field and learning the ropes (as majority of their time is spent on courses, reviewing/reading papers, and doing research in whatever time is left), seeking counsel from mentors/adviser regarding internship is fruitful. They could help in a multitude of ways.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.269029 | 2012-03-16T10:22:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/759",
"authors": [
"Bob",
"Spammer",
"Suresh",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/152333",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/152587",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/346",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/39080",
"user152587"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
1066 | Doing bad in undergraduate but good in a masters program
Suppose you do bad in undergraduate school in say computer science. But you do very well in a masters program in computer science. If you want to apply to a PhD program in computer science, will the masters degree grades offset the undergraduate degree grades?
Related question: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/973/phd-opportunities-when-lacking-publications.
What does bad mean? in general, undergraduate grades count more.. more grades to see, plus more indicative overall. ..but try n see
@Adel what I found was although I did badly during my undergrad (B/BC grade), I did reasonably well during my masters degree (AB/A grade) and that tipped the scale in my favor for admission into the PHD program.
Sort of.
I was in exactly the situation you describe 20+ years ago. My undergrad GPA was horrible (even restricted to computer science classes); my MS GPA was near-perfect; I got into Berkeley as a PhD student. But I don't think the improvement in my grades was as important as the improvement in my letters. My undergrad letters said "He's smart but lazy", which is the kiss of death. My MS letters were much more positive. Also, when I applied to Berkeley, I had some research results in submission, so my positive letters had some substance to draw on.
Also, I got very, very, very lucky.
Now, as a faculty member who reviews PhD applications, I would certainly look at the improvement in grades as a good sign. But as I've mentioned elsewhere, above a certain threshold of "good enough", grades don't matter. Especially since you're applying with a master's degree, your demonstrated research ability is much more important.
In particular, I'd take this to mean that you should have some research component of your degree (that is, a thesis), and you should hopefully receive the highest possible grade on such a thesis (or as close to it as possible). What amounts to a "B" grade won't help.
In general, recent performance will tend to outweigh prior performance. I will look at a student with a graduate 4.0 and an undergraduate 3.2 much more favorably than the converse (unless there are obvious extenuating circumstances, such as a large jump in the quality of the graduate program compared to the undergraduate).
The source of the GPA drop is also important. A bad freshman year is almost certainly ignorable. A bad senior year is a red flag. Similarly, I will give much less weight to grades in "general education" classes, as I'm not hiring them based on their ability to analyze Shakespeare or Milton. Important classes for the major, though, can be deadly even if they are in the undergraduate years.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.269365 | 2012-04-09T04:36:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1066",
"authors": [
"Bravo",
"Caffeinated",
"aeismail",
"dearN",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/411",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/621"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
2095 | How to transition into computer science
I currently hold a BA in Middle Eastern History, which was a pretty good fit for my last job in the Army. I'm getting ready to move on to the civillian world now, and computer science/programming has always been a hobby for me that I'd like to look into turning into a career.
My question is, what type of program should I look into in order to deepen my knowledge and verify my abilities? Should I look at getting a second undergrad, or would a programming education certificate be enough to get my foot in the door for employment/grad school later on? Are online certificates such as Kaplan/Phoenix respected enough, especially if they are in addition to a traditional degree?
I basically want to know where to set my sights, in order to get going in software development. Getting an additional qualification seems necessary, so which kind makes the most sense for getting started?
Are online certificates such as Kaplan/Phoenix respected enough — Oh dear god I hope not.
I've never worked in a job where I needed such a certification, but I think generally Microsoft certifications are given much more respect than something like Kaplan/Phoenix.
this would also be a good question for http://workplace.stackexchange.com/ - they may give you different advice, e.g. working on open source projects, networking, etc
I agree with @Amy, and would actually suggest that, if you're looking for a professional rather than an academic career, you're on the wrong site. There's no particular need to get an academic degree for a career in software development; employers in that field tend to put more value on practical skills, as demonstrated by prior work (including hobbyist work) and/or directly during the hiring process. Certifications may also be useful, at least for satisfying formal qualifications and for demonstrating a basic level of competence.
This is not so much about transitioning into computer science, but into software development/programming. Plenty of programming courses are available at different levels. When applying for a job, typically the employer is interested in your programming background (what you claim to know, what you can demonstrate you know, and your experience). So expand your programming knowledge and practice programming, too.
I think it's going to depend vastly on what kind of position you want to be headed into, and how deep down the rabbit hole you wish to go.
The one thing I would say you ought to focus on is fundamentals: No matter what kind of work you end up doing, be it programming business processes or pursuing a PhD, getting your fundamentals straight will pay dividends over and over again. Courses in algorithms, software engineering, computer architecture, each will give you a different view into the work you do, no matter where you're doing it. A CS undergraduate degree would be a good choice, especially if grad studies is where you want to go after. I understand they vary in quality though, so that's something to bear in mind.
I teach in the post-bac CS program at Mills College, which is aimed at people (like you) who have earned a bachelor's degree in a field other than CS and want to transition into CS, most in order to go into software engineering (although we also prepare students for PhD programs and teaching).
While not quick or cheap, post-bac programs are usually a better choice than a second bachelor's degree, since students don't have to take anything other than CS and related math courses, and many of your peers will be in a similar position to yours.
Depending on what you are aiming for (i.e. working at a tech. company versus being a professor) you may have enough qualifications already.
The programming industry is still an industry that is extremely forgiving to those who do not have "qualifications" but who can do the necessary work. This is likely due to the age of the industry and the cross-disciplinary nature.
If you feel you need more traditional preparation sites like Coursera and others that provide Massively Open Online Courses (MOOC's) are a great place to get some CS courses and you can take some "Intro" courses and more advanced ones for free (paid certificates are also available). Also working on real open source projects (Github is one place to start looking for them) that align with your interests and skills will proved that you are capable and be a great resume item.
From what you have written I think that you are just as well off spending time finding a company that needs the skills you already have (if you are a hobbyist you likely know at lest one language pretty well) and practicing the skills you do have.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.269586 | 2012-06-21T23:39:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2095",
"authors": [
"Amy",
"Dan C",
"Dave Clarke",
"Ilmari Karonen",
"JeffE",
"MIRYAM MARCELA QUINTERO GOMEZ",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1069",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/129317",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/129477",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/167",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/496",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/643",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"user1313"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7211 | Are there Conference Proceedings that have impact factor?
In Medicine, an Impact Factor of a journal is important indicator (IF) of journal quality.
Are there examples of conference proceedings that have a formal IF figure computed?
I sincerely hope not ;)
@Suresh - What do you mean by that?
I'm sure he means exactly what I would have meant if he hadn't typed that. Impact factors are stupid. If you want to know whether a paper is good, read the paper.
What he said :)
@JeffE There are other purposes than to check whether a paper is good. For example, if one wishes to get an overview of what's going on in the field, they'll look up conference proceedings. Tracking the top 2 or 5 conferences in one's field should be enough. The logic being that if there is a remarkable development, it will be unable to bypass the top few conferences — even if the seminal publication isn't there, don't forget the layer of careerists, whose main aim is to get an early publication on a hot topic in a high-profile journal, with their name on it. So, enumerate the top conferences.
Are there examples of conference proceedings that have a formal IF figure computed?
There is nothing like the "formal IF". What you are referring to is probably the Thomson Reuter's Journal Citation Reports impact factor which is one of the most respected measures in the academic world. As such, to my best knowledge there is no such thing for conferences.
However, there are other sources which could prove useful as an estimate of conference quality:
As already Charles pointed out, there are exist cached versions of Citeseer's estimated impact factors for computer science, but this is too old to be useful.
Furthermore, Google Scholar lists ranks of top venues mixing journals and conferences in their listings. Here is an example of top publications for AI, as you might see, there are several conferences mixed in. They list h-index of the venue instead of an impact factor.
Another very useful, resource for ranking conferences is Microsoft Academic Search, where you can find profiles of conferences, such as this one for IJCAI and they also publish rankings for different categories of venues, see an example here.
Finally, you might find useful the Australian Research Council's ERA conference rankings from 2010. In 2012 they decided not to rank conferences any more, but the 2010 list is still very useful and at least somewhat authoritative. They would rank conferences into categories according to their own quality metrics, which however (at least in my area) correlate with the community's perception.
which is the measure in the academic world — This claim is simply false. The most important measure of impact of a scientific publication is the actual impact of that publication. Impact factors are for people who lack either the expertise or the guts to make informed quality judgements.
@JeffE: yes, of course you are right. But whether we like it or not, we get measured by such metrics anyway. And Thomson's is the metrics used whenever somebody decides to rank our performance. But I edited the answer to somewhat please souls which are unhappy about these metrics anyway.
...except in computer science.
@JeffE: you should write "except in computer science in the USA". That would be more precise. In other countries the habits differ, somewhere they would develop their own metrics, somewhere they would use Thomson's measure also for compsci. See also my answer to this question.
I suppose to be really precise, I should write "except for strong, self-governed computer science departments". I've never heard of a strong CS department, in any country, imposing such a metric on itself. (On the other hand, I'm approaching No True Scotsman territory here.)
@JeffE: I could point to CS departments on which this kind of metrics is imposed by their faculty/university. Did you ever wonder why many mediocre journals publish so many papers prevalently of Chinese, Eastern-European, or African origin, while we don't see any of those results presented at conferences? This kind of policy is to blame. They get "points" for WoS tracked journal publications (even if 3rd tier, nobody cares), but a plain zero for a paper at even a very prestigious conference.
Indeed, some CS departments insist that you publish only in the "top ten" venues according to their own personal ranking (where quality is unfortunately not measured by actual quality but by means we all abhor) or that you have a very good reason to do otherwise.
That's why I said "strong".
As I just came across this questions. I think walkmanyi already came up with a nice overview. However, I realized that the SCImago Journal Rank indicator was not mentioned so far. According to Wikipedia SCImago uses the same formula as that for the calculation of the Thomson Reuters impact factor. SCImago also features many conferences.
Some years ago Thomson Reuters decided to drop Proceedings from their regular citation index list and start a separate proceedings index. This caused a lot of problems for journals that published papers from meetings but where the review procedure was as stringent as in a regular journal. I guess Thomson Reuters thinking was that proceedings would be lower quality in general. The solution to the problem for one particular journal (that did not have any wordings in its title that referred to proceedings) was to state in the journal "selected papers from the 'so-and-so' meeting". It would then pass as a proper journal.
I do not know how the proceedings index faired but obviosuly this meant that many journals were dropped from the index and they were thus not resulting in impact factors any more.
So from the point of Thomson Reuters, they wanted to separate possible lower quality proceedings journals from higher quality refereed journals and create a separate index for the proceedings. What the main reason for this was in unclear since it struck both higher and lower quality journals without distinction.
(I must admit I feel awkward using high and low quality in this reply but think of it as a relative term)
hye PPl!
Excellent blog , Actually conference proceedings have no IMPACT factor .
If you are still aint buying it then read the link below
http://conferenceseries.iop.org/content/quick_links/Policy%20on%20Impact%20Factor
Policy on Impact Factor
Under current policy, Thompson Reuters (the owners of ISI Web of Science) do not calculate Impact Factors for ANY proceedings titles. Therefore, proceedings journals are not issued with Impact Factors.
hope it clears the ambiguity
At the moment, there are 56 proceedings-journals which have an Impact Factor according to the only source of Impact factors, the Journal Citation Reports (Thompson Reuters). These journals have the word proceedings in their title, and presumably concern conference proceedings.
Later edit: This list is just a suggestion which might help to gather some additional information. The titles have not been checked they really are Conference Proceedings.
- ALLERGY ASTHMA PROC
- ASLIB PROC
- J INVEST DERM SYMP P
- MATH PROC CAMBRIDGE
- MAYO CLIN PROC
- P ACAD NAT SCI PHILA
- P AM MATH SOC
- P BIOL SOC WASH
- P COMBUST INST
- P EDINBURGH MATH SOC
- P ENTOMOL SOC WASH
- P EST ACAD SCI
- P GEOLOGIST ASSOC
- P I CIVIL ENG-CIV EN
- P I CIVIL ENG-ENG SU
- P I CIVIL ENG-GEOTEC
- P I CIVIL ENG-MAR EN
- P I CIVIL ENG-MUNIC
- P I CIVIL ENG-STR B
- P I CIVIL ENG-TRANSP
- P I CIVIL ENG-WAT M
- P I MECH ENG A-J POW
- P I MECH ENG B-J ENG
- P I MECH ENG C-J MEC
- P I MECH ENG D-J AUT
- P I MECH ENG E-J PRO
- P I MECH ENG F-J RAI
- P I MECH ENG G-J AER
- P I MECH ENG H
- P I MECH ENG I-J SYS
- P I MECH ENG J-J ENG
- P I MECH ENG K-J MUL
- P I MECH ENG L-J MAT
- P I MECH ENG M-J ENG
- P I MECH ENG O-J RIS
- P I MECH ENG P-J SPO
- P IEEE
- P INDIAN AS-MATH SCI
- P JPN ACAD A-MATH
- P JPN ACAD B-PHYS
- P LOND MATH SOC
- P NATL A SCI INDIA A
- P NATL A SCI INDIA B
- P NATL ACAD SCI USA
- P NUTR SOC
- P ROMANIAN ACAD A
- P ROY SOC A-MATH PHY
- P ROY SOC B-BIOL SCI
- P ROY SOC EDINB A
- P STEKLOV I MATH+
- P YORKS GEOL SOC
- SADHANA-ACAD P ENG S
- TRANSPL P
Your answer seems to me factually incorrect and based on the assumption that the word "proceedings" in the journal tile means conference proceedings. This is not true in general. I checked some of the listed entries and those I checked, e.g., Allergy and Asthma Proceedings, as well as Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society are proper journals not conference proceedings. Therefore -1 and you should consider a fact-check plus a revision of your answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.269958 | 2013-01-14T20:10:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7211",
"authors": [
"Anthony Labarre",
"Dan Slone",
"Evgeni Sergeev",
"JeffE",
"Peter G.",
"Shisoft",
"Suresh",
"eykanal",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1265",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14516",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17229",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17231",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21708",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/26",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/346",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/73",
"walkmanyi"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
1616 | What metrics are used to judge a mathematical journal's quality?
The metric I see most on the internet and on journals' home pages is the 'Impact Factor'. Are there any other metrics that are considered as important as (or more important than) the Impact Factor?
Does it publish good papers? (Impact Factor is only for people who can't answer that question.)
To expand on JeffE's comment, impact factor gets zero respect among mathematicians. It gets very little respect in any field, as far as I know, but it's a particularly bad measure for mathematics journals. For example, it only counts citation received within two years of publication, which is just about the quickest turnaround time you could get in mathematics (given math's publishing practices and timing). So numerically, the impact factor amounts to saying that if your paper doesn't inspire people to drop everything else and rush to get followup work into print quickly enough, then it has had zero impact.
Impact factors are also manipulated by journal editors, often enough to require serious work detecting and punishing this behavior.
The only reason impact factors exist at all is that administrators want simple ways to rate research productivity, especially in dysfunctional settings where there's no infrastructure of trusted experts. Counting citations is easier to defend as "unbiased" than most other approaches.
There are many other numerical measures of journal quality, such as eigenfactors, but they are not popular or widely used.
In 2010, the Australian Research Council rated 20,000 journals by quality based on expert opinion (for example, see here for the math journals). This is still not great, since the ratings miss subtleties (such as journals with greater strength in some subfields than others) and it's not clear how reliable they are for lesser-known journals anyway. However, this is the closest anyone has come to giving a replacement for impact factors based on expert opinion. Unfortunately, it was so much work that they decided not to do it again.
Now the Web of knowledge issues a five-year impact factor that may be considered (slightly) more relevant in some fields, like mathematics. Mathematicians sometimes convince people rating them to use the MathSciNet MCQ instead, which is a five-year impact factor computed with a mostly mathematic database.
The AMS Notices publish yearly a survey of the processing time of many mathematical journals; this is one aspect of the editorial process quality, probably the easiest to measure.
You can find surveys on the prices of journal, which is certainly a good measure of the commercial talent of the publisher.
Overall, quality can mean a lot different things and you should explain for what purpose you intend the measures to be used.
MCQ should be taken with a grain of salt for more applied journals, as it only deals with references within mathematics. If you are interested in an applied subfield, such as statistics or control theory, it might seriously underestimate the number of citations, especially since the "maths" vs. "not maths" distinction is necessarily drawn in an arbitrary place on a continuous spectrum of possibilities.
Considered important by whom? Funding agencies will obviously prefer something "objective" like the impact factor, immediacy index or cited half-life. Researchers usually have less quantitative criteria like where do my peers publish or what is the journal's reputation.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.270541 | 2012-05-20T02:25:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1616",
"authors": [
"Dani",
"Federico Poloni",
"Jason",
"Jeff Moser",
"JeffE",
"Kris",
"Naresh",
"Stefan.Hannie",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/23205",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/3983",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/3984",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/3985",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/3988",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/3989",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4290",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/958",
"manav m-n"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
160584 | How to obtain US Bachelor degree based on my old university credentials?
I learned a math course in a Russian university many years ago. For silly discrimination and other silly reasons I didn't finish it and didn't receive any diploma.
Recently (2020 Oct 27) I have confirmed my education by the US standards: 100.50 semester hours of undergraduate credit, grade Point Average is 3.54 based on a 4-point scale with A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, F=0.
I want to receive the US Bachelor in mathematics. What can I do? Can I do it without passing any additional courses/exams? How much may it cost?
Note that despite of having no funding and no access to libraries and scientific databases I did a very advanced math research (some of which is peer reviewed and published). Essentially, I am a PhD with lost diploma.
Marginally relevant: Pure maths “dropout” wanting to finish MSc thesis
No real US university will award a degree to a student who has not taken any courses at that university. What you want is not possible.
To award a degree, you must earn credits from the university. Typically, this is at least half the total credits required for the degree.
"No real US university will award a degree to a student who has not taken any courses at that university." Why do the devil servants behave this way?
@porton Because a university degree is a certification by the university that the holder of that degree has certain knowledge. The way the university makes certain of that is by requiring students to take and pass their courses before awarding degrees. By the way, calling people "devil servants" is not likely to make them want to help you.
@BobBrown By the way no human (except of my girlfriend) thinks about helping me anyway, so how could it harm?
@porton I note that three people who have never met you have attempted to help you with the question you asked.
@BobBrown They exactly admitted that they could not help me.
Recently (2020 Oct 27) I have confirmed my education by the US standards: 100.50 semester hours of undergraduate credit
A typical diploma in the US is 120 semester hours. So, you're a bit short.
Be aware, however, that each school will make its own determination as to which classes can be transferred. Typically, they will look at the syllabus and determine which classes are comparable (this may be difficult in your case). So it is not at all guaranteed that a given school will count all 100 hours.
Further, virtually all schools have a "residence requirement." Even if they agree that all 100 hours are equivalent, they may not allow you to transfer more than, say, 90 hours. The thinking is that if you are going to earn a degree from University X, you should take a significant number of classes at University X. Otherwise, students could do all their coursework at school X and get the degree from school Y.
Finally, note that there are usually "distribution requirements" -- despite your plans to major in math, you will have to take classes in many subjects to earn a degree. I do not know whether this is also true in the Russian system.
How much may it cost?
Thirty credits would probably cost about $10,000. This will vary hugely depending on the school you attend and the financial aid you qualify for.
Note that despite of having no funding and no access to libraries and scientific databases I did a very advanced math research (some of which is peer reviewed and published).
Understood, but unfortunately it is difficult to convert non-University work into a degree. On the other hand, some employers might (wisely) overlook the lack of a degree.
What can I do?
If finishing the degree at the Russian institution is still possible, that would probably be fastest and cheapest. Failing that, I would look for a reputable, local university with a generous policy on transfer credits. Other answers have also suggested some accredited online schools; this may be a good option as well.
"If finishing the degree at the Russian institution is still possible, that would probably be fastest and cheapest." I have a big conflict with Russia, so learning in Russia (and the only option would be to start paid studies from the first year) may probably be impossible or even dangerous. In fact, I deprived Russia of economic and military might: I did a fundamental scientific discovery and I am so much hated that they will be likely unable to cite my research, so a component in Russian education and science will be missing, leading to stop of the entire system. They may be offended.
By the way, I am almost sure I have been noticed by Putin when I told about my situation: He many times hinted (or were it not Putin but a spirit speaking through him?) that I am welcome to Russia. He forgot to give me email to write to and to pay for the air tickets, etc. Finally, I decided to try to cut the knot and told about their situation, harshly mocking the Russian way in a letter to Putin. Putin has recently reacted by splitting citizens to "ours" (and therefore "not ours") and advertising drinking alcohol to separate non-drinkers from "ours". Yes, it is silly.
While the accepted answer to the question is almost universally true, Excelsior College is a non-profit, regionally-accredited institution whose primary mission is to help students complete their degrees. They don't offer a degree in mathematics, but may allow you to obtain a degree that would permit you to enter a U.S. graduate program. If you are able to get an official transcript from your former institution, Excelsior College might be able to help.
I think, it is of little utility for me. I have already started a computer science study in UoPeople online university, it costs me one time $60 and $20 or $37 per course. (Yes, it is a real university in the sense that they do teach advanced topic and assess students strictly enough, so their degree would be reasonably counted valuable.) I see no reason why Excelsior College would be better: the most suitable course there seems to be Bachelor of Science in Information Technology and I don't see how it would be better than the courses I have started to take recently.
I viewed their website and it appears they do require courses and/or exams. So this does not seem to answer the question.
@AnonymousPhysicist Of course, you are right in both your comment and your accepted answer. My own answer is in aid of helping OP achieve his apparent goal of a recognized U.S. degree. I'm going to leave it in case it is of help to others in the future.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.270841 | 2020-12-29T04:52:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/160584",
"authors": [
"Anonymous Physicist",
"Bob Brown",
"Dave L Renfro",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13240",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/16183",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1637",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/49593",
"porton"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
3017 | What year to use when citing second editions of books
This seems like a silly question, but I can't find a clear answer online. If Dr. Brainiac's Big Book of Science was first published in 1974, but I have the second edition, published in 1996, should I cite it as (Brainiac, 1974) or (Brainiac, 1996)?
I realise that this is the sort of thing that might come down to the policy of the journal, but it happens that the journal I'm submitting to doesn't offer any specific guidelines on this particular topic, so I was wondering what the standard practice is, if there is one.
edit: for clarity, of course I would mention in the references section that I was referring to the second edition. I guess it would look something like this:
Brainiac, Q. Big Book of Science. Aperture publishing, 1974. (2nd edition 1996.)
or
Brainiac, Q. Big Book of Science, 2nd edition. Aperture publishing, 1996. (First published 1974.)
Where in the first case the in-text citation should be (Brainiac, 1974), and in the second it would be (Brainiac, 1996). The question is which of these is considered the best, or at least the most usual, way of doing it. In my particular case I'm citing a specific fact that is almost certainly in both editions, but of course I can't be sure.
If the journal uses the American Psychological Association (APA) style, then you cite the year of the edition and you do not mention earlier editions.
For example, if you are using the 4th edition (published in 1994) of the APA publication manual, you would cite it as (American Psychological Association, 1994) and its bibliographic entry would be:
American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Thanks - it's not an APA style journal (it has its own style guidelines that are not the same as the APA ones and which don't mention this issue) but it's good to know that APA have an official position all the same.
In this case I would say Be Honest: only cite the references that you have read. Even if you have read the "rev 1", you might be (wrongly) citing as "rev 2" a sentence from "rev 1" that was removed in "rev 2"...
It might be obvious, but sloppy mistakes like that happen
I've edited the question to clarify that I would mention which edition I'm referring to in the references section - the question is mostly about which year should appear in the in-text citations.
@Nathaniel: online I found various resources pointing at a similar solution -- reference to an edition number but no original date of publication as in here
If you are not actually looking at the edition published in 1974, the date 1974 should not appear in the body of the paper. Equivalently, if you want the date 1974 to appear in the paper (to establish priority of the cited results, for example), go the the library, pull the 1974 edition off the shelf, and verify with your own eyes that the result is there.
@ElCid I found a few similar resources - but it's ambiguous - it doesn't actually state that the year given should be the publication date of the 2nd edition rather than the first-published date.
It is always best and safest to cite the sources you've actually used.
If there are two (or more editions) of a book, you generally don't have a complete list of changes from one version to the next. The relevant information might not be in the first edition, or might be outdated from the one you've used. So: use the edition you've actually read.
This is also true if you've used an eprint on the arXiv, but you later find out that it is published (or will be published) in a journal: still use the arXiv reference.
This is subtle: the eprint wasn't ever peer reviewed, and thus is a less authoritative source. Your wording should always reflect that. If then the e-print is published in a journal, and you only change the reference it's like saying you don't care about peer review. It occurs all too often, but it's simply bad science, even if the contents of the two is word-for-word the same. If you change the reference, re-write the relevant sections as well.
Personally in the last case I would cite the journal version (after checking that of course what you are referring to is still in there), and cite the arxiv version seperately if it differs substantially. The problem is that citations to arXiv preprints are not always accounted for in citation reports, for example.
The problem is that citations to arXiv preprints are not always accounted for in citation reports, for example. — So what?
@JeffE: unfortunately citation counts seem to be important to some administrators... On a more practical level, in databases such as MathSciNet I sometimes find it convenient to see which papers cite a certain paper, to see what related work has been done.
No, I mean why should you care about other people's citation counts?
Ah ok, well I suppose that this is how I would like others to cite my papers, so this is how I would do it. But whether to cite the arXiv or journal version is of relatively minor importance imho.
@Pieter see edit. I have a hunch this is worth a question of its own :)
I believe that the best option is citing the edition you actually used for two reasons: 1- It's more honest (since you're not citing something that maybe you didn't really read); and 2- In some cases the original text may have been revised in a way that may contradict your text.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.271468 | 2012-08-28T11:48:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3017",
"authors": [
"ElCid",
"JeffE",
"N. Virgo",
"Pieter Naaijkens",
"Rody Oldenhuis",
"alknows",
"fjarri",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1243",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1520",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1534",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7610",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7612",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7614",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7641",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7642",
"queitinfo",
"terrace",
"user10096"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44152 | Why does grade inflation seem to be so severe in the USA?
A comment on this question on undergraduate admissions notes that a good college might get 10x more applicants who all have the maximum possible grade point average, than the college can admit. (The rest of my question is based on the assumption that is is actually true. If it is not, my question might be based on an incorrect premise.) Coming from The Netherlands, this sounds strange to me. We have a standardised test at the end of secondary school, and few people score average grades higher than 8/10 (passing is 6/10), with people scoring 10.0/10 being practically nonexistent (I seem to recall reading about one such student in the newspaper many years ago). The overall average is 6.4/10 for the school category granting admittance to university. For universities I don't have hard numbers but I would be surprised if more than 1 in 30 students score 10.0/10 in undergraduate introductory calculus. Most students seem to score mostly around 6–7/10, which I believe would translate to E–D in the American system, but I'm not sure. Grades 6–10 are passing grades, grades 1–5 are failing grades. My question is for pre-university tests though, the ones that are used to test if people should be admitted to university.
Why is there so much grade inflation in the USA? Is there no standardised testing for whatever tests are used to establish the grades used for undergraduate admissions? This system would make it very hard for Dutch students to gain admission to American universities, because getting the maximum average grade is virtually unheard of.
See also: Do price and value of degrees correlate much?
The SAT/ACT are not quite this inflated in the US, though they are periodically rebased or renormalized to account for shifting testing and score levels over time.
This definitely exists for some graduate schools, but I'm not so sure about undergraduate.
As the author of that comment, that is not at all what I was saying. I was saying that they would get 10x their current enrollment if they admitted everyone that was likely to succeed.
I thought If you have 1,000 applicants who all have a 4.0 GPA and a 1550 on the SAT, but only 100 available spots, you need a way to determine who to select implied those were the highest possible scores, but I might have misunderstood.
@gerrit Ah, that's a different comment.
There are many reasons, among which (in my opinion): 1) a generation of overprotective parents who will step on teacher's toes if their special child fails, 2) compounding 1), the US ability to sue anyone for almost anything (including suing for poor grades), 3) a generation of teachers who went through the above and are more concerned about the proper color of a grading pencil than challenging classes, and 4) as in many places teachers are evaluated for their students' test performance, giving a high grade allows them to focus on what really matters (preparing for tests).
@gnometorule That would make a great answer, in particular if you have sources to show those are true not just in your opinion but in reality. Maybe there has been research into this.
@gerrit No formal studies I know of, but articles like this one float through my attention stream from time to time.
@gnometorule Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, they are.
Following up on @gnometorule 's comment, there is a plausible but hard-to-prove argument that a lot of the US school system was designed as a meritocracy (originally among white men, certainly expanded, never perfect) but has been captured by a justifiably anxious middle-class. We definitely use "a four-year degree" as a social filter for employability, without much care for the contents, with predictable outcomes.
@cphlewis and gnometorule: perhaps indeed, but wow this is 'scope creep' from the discussion topic posed... (isn't that said to be an academic trait ;-) "The education system's messed up and teaches and incentivizes the wrong things, and come to think of it the society it's attached to is too. Man the lifeboats."
@gerri: the unstated question you seem to be asking is "How do American undergrad admissions assess the GPA equivalent of foreign applicants from different grading systems/curves, and is that unfair to the foreign students to to US grade inflation?". Obviously, the SATs are directly comparable.
@smci That would be a different question that is closely related.
You seem to be basing your question on guessing what the grade profile looks like in the USA, guessing what the grade profile looks like in the Netherlands and asking why they're so different. That doesn't seem like a good basis for a question: it's as much about your perceptions as it is about actual grades.
Grade inflation in the US isn't quite that bad, well not on a UK scale; where rampant inflation emerged following the abolition of the standardization of secondary grades in the 80's, similarly with University awards in the 90's. There literally has been a 10x increase in the annual number of First Class honours awards in the UK, and in just 21 years (1993: 7,937, 2014: 79,435)
In US, grading depends on the school. In many schools: A=Excellent, B=Above Average (historically, though now B has become the average), C=Average (Historically), D=Below Average/Poor, and F=Fail/Flunk. There is no E. There can be modifiers of + or -, so B- is less than a B which is less than B+. Often there's no A+/D-/F+/F-. There may also be other less-common letters, particularly in college, like I=Incomplete, V = unofficial withdrawal. Numeric barriers can vary by dept/class: A common one is every 10% (so 90-100% is A); another common barrier is 3-4% each step (92-94=A-,95-100=A)
There are a couple standardized tests used for undergraduate admissions that are generally taken near the end of high school. The ACT and the SAT are the most common ones.1 However, they are only part of the admissions package, and a relatively small part at that (varies by school, but my guess is they get a weight of around 25% or less at most schools).
There are many reasons not to base admissions solely on a single standardized test.2 One of the biggest is simply that standardized test scores often test studying and resources as much as they test intelligence and preparation. There's already a huge industry built around SAT-specific test preparation, and it's very difficult to argue that this extremely-targeted studying is doing anything beneficial for most student's academic preparation.
Also, keep in mind that the US is a much larger country than European countries, and there is a high amount of geographical mobility among the upper-/middle-class. Undergraduate enrollment in the US is around 18 million; that's larger than the entire population of The Netherlands. Because there is a huge prestige factor in going to a top school, almost all of the top students from that huge population will apply to the same 5-10 top colleges in the US. Even if the distribution of scores is the same as a European country, the much larger applicant pool means that top schools are inevitably going to be swamped with near-perfect applications.
1: The number of perfect SAT scores is actually quite low (I am less familiar with the ACT). In 2014, there were only 583 perfect scores out of 1.6 million test-takers. Though if you consider only the two more-important sections, there were 1,922 perfect CR+M scores. Even considering scores that are basically perfect (say, 1550+), less than half of 1% of test-takers reach that level. Source. However, that 0.5% translates into Harvard getting probably 5,000 applicants with 1550+ scores, which is already over 3x their regular incoming class.
2: The wikipedia article talks briefly about some of them, but there's a huge literature debating the advantages and disadvantages.
Interesting. The fraction of perfect SAT scores sounds a lot more reasonable than the fraction of students scoring A for a typical test.
"One of the biggest is simply that standardized test scores often test studying and resources as much as they test intelligence and preparation." I can think of a few ways to make this statement precise, but all of them are false. Test prep courses do very little for SAT scores, for example. What exactly do you mean here?
I would think that the best argument against basing admissions solely on SAT scores would be the fact that neither high-school grades nor SAT scores can account for more than 20-30% of the variance in scholastic achievement in college: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502858.pdf They have some predictive ability, but that still leaves most of student outcomes as unpredicted (and perhaps even unpredictable).
@BrianDHall: It’s a pity that the paper to which you linked didn’t also look at high school rank in class: that was the best single predictor at the small liberal arts college where my father taught. This was, of course, quite a few years ago, and I have no idea whether this is still the case.
FYI: Point (1) misses an important fact: students can take these tests more than once.
@potato: don't let anyone tell you that you can't study for the SAT. The key is in how you study, looking for patterns in your errors and correcting those bad habits. My PSAT was good enough for National Merit Scholar candidate; I brought the score up significantly on the SAT and nailed that down. The classes may or may not be worth anything (I just worked with books of past tests) but this is a practicable set of skills.
@keshlam The usual fear here is that rich kids are boosting their scores dramatically through expensive tutors and courses that are inaccessible to less wealthy students. (This is what I took the comment that the SAT is a test of "resources" to mean.) This is just false, and I can dig up some studies if you want.
@potato: That we agree upon. The difference is more that affluent kids are often given a better education before getting to these tests, and that the expectations kids come into the system with differ strongly by class and community and culture. Which tends to add up to a triple whammy against inner-city youth.
@potato I wasn't aware of those results for the SAT. That statement was more about standardized testing in general, which, at least when used in primary and secondary education, can be affected by targeted teaching/studying (as far as I am aware).
@RogerFan You'd be surprised. The tests are designed to be fairly resistant to that kind of thing.
@Potato I think references are in order, given the disagreement in opinions so far.
@Heisenberg Here's one: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124278685697537839
While this is not a proper answer to your question, it applies to the part regarding what happens when you want to compare grades between countries. Consider it an extended comment.
Non-standarization of grades is a huge source of unfairness, in particular in Europe where the common job market it atomized into many sub-systems (countries), each with their own long standing tradition of grading. I have first hand experience with the university grading systems in Spain, Italy and Ireland (so this does not apply to undergrad bachelors admissions, but perhaps masters and doctoral). I now work in a Finnish university but I am not familiar with how the grading is done.
In Spain the grading is 0-10, with 5 being a pass. Anyone scoring above 8 average would be rare. However a passing grade then translates non linearly to a 1-4 scale, where the number of 4s is actually limited per year and subject to the willingness of the teacher to give. What is more, every time you fail an exam this lowers your average, so if you fail once then get say a 6.5/10 on the next exam this will get you a 0.5/4 on the final grade.
In Italy the grading is 0-30 with 18 being a pass. However I observed in my one year in an Italian university that one can actually negotiate their grade with the teacher and if they're not happy simply repeat until they get a grade they're happy with. Any decent student will thus finish with averages above 26/30 and even higher averages in the 28s or 29s are not that uncommon.
In Ireland it matters whether you get "first class honors" or not, which I think in practice means getting above 7.5/10 average or so. First class honors will e.g. grant you access to a PhD program skipping the masters. Failing students is a bit regarded as "not nice" in Ireland, and as a matter of fact any good student putting some effort will finish with a first class degree.
The three systems above work in their respective countries because people understand how the grading is done and how that reflects on the student's abilities. Whether any of them is inflated is irrelevant within the country because the same bias applies to every student. The issue is when we try to compare students who come from different systems, in particular in the context of the unified European market. I myself had quite a bit of trouble with my admission to an Irish university for a PhD, since my grades were in the Spanish non-linear system. This meant that even if I was a strong student I was put on "probation" for a year so I could prove that I could get a PhD despite what my "poor" grades indicated.
I think a) standarization of grades or b) official homologation of grades taking into account the countries traditions and renormalization are in great need in Europe.
Note that this isn't so much of an issue when comparing international students to US students (which is what the OP seems to be suggesting). I think the limiting factor there tends to be international quotas on admissions and competition from the large amounts of highly qualified asian students.
I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Grade point average (GPA) is a reflection of a student's average academic performance across all their classes. It is not based on a single standardized test, and "maximum GPA" does not imply perfect test results.
Setting that aside, though, you're also running into a difference in grading philosophy. This article compares the grading systems in the US, UK, and Netherlands. Quoting from there:
When the 1 through to 10 scale was officially introduced [in the Nethherlands] back to the late 19th
century, it was decided that a 10 should only be awarded in cases of absolute perfection. Furthermore, as at the time it was felt to be almost blasphemous for mere mortals to be judging what constituted absolute perfection, a 10 was hardly ever awarded. A 9 was considered to be only a slightly less impossible goal to reach.
In contrast, getting a top mark of "A" in a US class only requires you to answer 90% of the exam questions correctly, and often accounts for things like attendance, class participation, and more. This is eminently achievable.
Grades in the US are often normalized, with the top 10% of students being awarded an "A" grade(1). In contrast, a 10/10 in the Netherlands represents the top 0.1% of students.
Based on the conversion tables in that article, I'd say a "maximum GPA" in the US would be roughly equivalent to an "8" in the Netherlands.
So I wouldn't say that the grades are inflated in the US, per se, just that they're defined differently.
(1) There is some evidence of true grade inflation in the US in recent years, but I don't think that's relevant to the disparity between the US and the Netherlands systems.
I am not sure grade inflation has much to do with the top students as much as the improvement in grades seen in average and below average students.
@StrongBad - That may be, but either way I don't think it changes the fundamental difference in grading philosophy or the 10% / 0.1% criteria for achieving grades.
I think you are correct. With my MSc degree (which I obtained in the Netherlands), I received a seperate paper converting the Dutch style grades to US style grades, and 8/10 was comparable to an A if I remember correctly (could have been A+). I think this paper was supplied by the Dutch organisation for education internationalization Nuffic.
You have just defined away the participle inflated. That isn't an answer.
An obvious reason for the exceptional degree of grade inflation in US high schools is that the public school system is extremely decentralized. Different local school systems are each funded not so much according to the number of students they have (as I imagine would be the case in a civilized country like the Netherlands) but according to the property values in their local community. This means that in any given area, neighboring school districts are in competition with each other. When there is a perception that a community has "good schools", more families will move there. This perception will in turn help to elevate property values, and therefore to increase the revenue base available to fund the schools.
Here is an interesting illustration from Farifax County in the state of Virginia, as reported in Time magazine.
Residents of the high-powered Washington suburb have been battling the school district's tough grading practices; chief among their complaints is that a score of 93% gets recorded as a lowly B+. After forming an official protest group called Fairgrade last year and goading the school board into voting on whether to ease the standards, parents marshaled 10,000 signatures online and on Jan. 22 gathered nearly 500 supporters to help plead their case. After two hours of debate, the school board passed a resolution, a move critics consider a defeat in the war on grade inflation.
[...]
The vote is good news for local business leaders who have joined the Fairgrade effort, warning that families worried about their kids getting into good colleges may move out of the county if the school district doesn't change its grading system. Talk of a possible exodus killing off businesses and destroying property values sounds a tad melodramatic, but given the tanking market and ongoing credit crunch, it's no wonder people are trying to do everything they can to shore up the local economy.
So there you have it. The article points out that this is getting worse as the trend in university admissions is to emphasize grades more and standardized tests less. It says that "75 districts in 12 states have relaxed their grading standards since 2005." This wouldn't even be an option in most countries and if it were there would not be the same economic incentives to do it.
While your point about de-centralization is a good one, I don't think the Fairfax example quite fits. 90-93% is defined as an A- in the standard College Board system and many (if not most) high schools in the US. Parents protesting that their school district get on board with the standard hardly seems like an example of "grade inflation".
Fair enough. I'm not sure if you are questioning that grade inflation as a general pattern actually exists in the first place, but if so, there is plenty of data on that part.
No, not questioning the trend, just that particular example struck me odd.
While not directly an answer to either the titular question, or even the statement that there are 10 applicants with perfect GPAs and SATs for every spot, I think the answer is that you do not need a perfect GPA and SAT to get into a top school. For example Harvard publishes self reported GRE and SAT scores of incoming students. While some have perfect, or near perfect, scores on both, there are tails, not very long, but tails none the less. There seems to be many more students with 4.0 GPAs than perfect scores on the SAT.
While GPA inflation likely exists, a 4.0 GPA is only a 93% average so is not a perfect score. This means you can in fact get a 4.0 GPA with B's (or even lower) in a handful of classes if you offset them by getting g A+'s in other classes. You can also get a 4.0 without ever getting a top grade of A+.
The SATs may also be inflated, but they are standardized. The mean score in each of the three categories is around 500/800 with a minimum scores of 200. Less than 1% get over a 780, and only about 5% get over a 700 in any one category. Presumably less than 5% have a composite score less than 2100/2400.
Here is one source confirming your statement that inflation "likely exists."
@gnometorule I am puzzled that a country where public education appears to be so poor, still "produces" a reasonably large number of apparently successful people. But we're getting off-topic when discussing the state of secondary education in the USA.
@gerrit: At the top, the US still has excellent pre-college schools. There are private prep schools, and public so-called magnet schools, say. Grade inflation doesn't mean that the top students are less good, or don't get the opportunity to be well-prepared for college. It just makes GPA much less meaningful, a bit like a participation medal. There are attempts to in-elite elite schools (see another comment above), but you have the same in France, say, with their Ecole system.
@gnometorule I was referring not only to grade inflation, but also to the narrative you linked in the comment...
@gnometorule ideally we need to know about grade inflation for top students and not all students
actually you know what public schools get a bad rap a lot, but there are a lot of non so called magnet schools, and non private prep schools that do an excellent job preparing their students for college. I went to one such school that routinely beat out all of the private schools and so called magnet schools in my state. It was ranked number one in my state.
"you can in fact get a 4.0 GPA with a handful of Bs" wait, what? I got a single B in four years and it pulled my GPA down to 3.98...
@Michael - I think maybe what he meant was that in a given class you can get some B's on exams and still walk away with an "A" in that class, maintaining a 4.0 overall. There are also some school systems that award more than 4.0 points for honors classes, making it possible to compensate for a "B" in a non-honors class.
@michael, an A+ is usually counted as a 98 and a B+ is an 88. So if you got A+'s in half your classes and B+'s in the other half you would still have a 93 average and a 4.0 GPA.
@Lynn that is not what I meant at all. See edit. The existence of an A+ screws everything up. Top students do not aim for straight A's, they aim for straight A+'s.
It all depends on how the school is graded. At my school, A-'s, A's and A+'s all counted as 4.0 in your GPA, so to maintain a 4.0 you couldn't get any B+'s. Other schools I know calculated them differently. Many schools often have a "weighted GPA," which awards extra points for honors/AP/IB classes. But those systems tend to penalize taking electives.
I don't think you can conclude, at least based solely on the observation that universities are seeing more applicants with high GPAs than they can admit, that the problem is grade inflation. Another possibility is that the effect is due to students applying to so many colleges. According to this survey, the number of students applying to at least 7 colleges has tripled since 1990. There are a number of potential causes for this, but that discussion is probably out of scope for the discussion.
By "grade inflation," I think you are really asking why are the grading scales so different. I don't have much supporting evidence for this, but I suspect a large part of it is due to the American individualistic and consumer culture, with a penchant for heaping praise and awards on students (see also this question, and the first link in Lynn's answer) and being effusive in recommendation letters. The consumer culture part is related to economic incentives mentioned in Brian Z's answer.
Another factor to consider, which I don't think has been mentioned before, is that the student population is extremely heterogeneous. I suspect there was a historical trend of higher grade averages in US than Europe even when the US population was not as varied as it is now, but I think the diversity in population (e.g., many students who don't speak English as a first language, or have supportive homes) pushes schools and teachers to be more "forgiving" with grades to give the kids with disadvantages more encouragement and a better chance to catch up. (This is not to suggest US academics is even close to being equal opportunity, sadly.)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.272124 | 2015-04-24T15:37:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/44152",
"authors": [
"Bill Barth",
"Brian M. Scott",
"Brian Z",
"BrianH",
"Cody Marie Neal",
"David Richerby",
"Heisenberg",
"LeopoldBloom",
"Lynn",
"Michael",
"NclsK",
"Pieter Naaijkens",
"Potato",
"Pulkit Tandon",
"RBarryYoung",
"Rahul Patel",
"Roger Fan",
"Ryan Dougherty",
"Samiha Sara",
"Sankar Chandra Debnath",
"Shantnav",
"Steve",
"StrongBad",
"TOOGAM",
"Tarannum Kureshi",
"Tori Dang",
"Văn Duyên",
"ZENIBI 18",
"arober11",
"caluverde",
"chipbuster",
"cphlewis",
"efuller100",
"ehubscher",
"gerrit",
"gnometorule",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10225",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1033",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11600",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11636",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119923",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119924",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119925",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119926",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119931",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119932",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119934",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119935",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119936",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119938",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119939",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119941",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119945",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/119955",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/120050",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/120056",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/120065",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/120073",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/120097",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/120102",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12050",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12771",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1592",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19685",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20375",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21239",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21616",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/23947",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24617",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/30772",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32653",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/33628",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4151",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4384",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6787",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8158",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/9298",
"keshlam",
"keyopacker",
"smci",
"thb",
"user119926",
"user1667885",
"user337331",
"user377254"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
48029 | How does job security in academic untenured soft money positions compare with job security in industry?
With tenured hard-money positions being increasingly competitive, some researchers spend their entire career on soft money untenured positions. To me, it would seem quite bad to never know more than one or two years in advance whether one will still have a job (see also this question). But a senior soft money colleague (who has been on soft money since starting a post-doc 25+ years ago) pointed out it's really no worse than working for a private company, where you also never know the same. That made me wonder.
In practice, how does the job security of soft money career scientists compare to scientists working for private companies? Is there any data which one is at a higher risk of being laid off from a position that has been held for a long (10+ years) time¹? And if people are then laid off, how quickly they find a similar position, if at all?
For the sake of this question, consider STEM companies that are relatively close to research, such as consultancy companies developing scientific products (such as software) or performing scientific services (such as running simulations) in close cooperation with university and/or government research labs.
¹There may be a special case where researchers work for different government contractors during their career, but for the same client and even in physically the same office. Despite the problems that entails, here I mean laid off without being almost immediately rehired to do the same job as before.
I work at a company with a lot of similarity to soft-money academia: research is PI-driven and mostly funded by external contracts and grants. In the US, there are actually a lot of companies that either wholly or in part operate this way.
In this type of research organization, in some ways there is more security than an academic organization and in other ways less. Here are the key points as I see it:
More individual job security: In most academic soft-money posts, you are tied primarily to your grants or the grants of the PI that you work for. There is very little organizational commitment to you as an investigator. Thus, if your money dries up, there is little or no bridge funding to keep you going as you try to get more money; you just stop getting paid. In a permanent corporate post, there is a fallback to being assigned as a performer on other people's projects, even perhaps in other departments, and the company is motivated to find such connections because you are still being paid.
Less institutional job security: On the flip side, universities are extremely durable as organizations, and tend to change much more slowly and less dramatically than companies. A company might be suddenly acquired or change leadership and suddenly all of its policies change radically. So despite having a position, you might find yourself not wanting it under a new regime---or research itself might be jettisoned, and you along with it.
The lack of institutional job security, however, is actually less bad than it appears, for anybody with either a healthy research program or who is well-known as a talented contributor. In practice, what bad institutional change tends to mean is that you end up with a diaspora, in which good people move en masse, either joining other nearby companies with better research cultures or founding their own. This might happen even if the new "parent company" doesn't have an office in the area---I know of more than one regional branch office that was opened because a group of researchers left Company A and their colleagues at Company B invited them to join, figuring that geography could be worked out one way or another.
In short: from what I see, externally funded research at companies is significantly more stable than soft-money academia, despite the fact that company identity may change over time in various ways.
Re penultimate paragraph: Example: the fall of AT&T/Bell Labs. They had many great people, who left and got tenured jobs as great places like Caltech and Michigan (and I'm sure many found other great positions in industry too).
In Europe a great example of the lessened institutional job security is what happened to the staff at what was formerly SAP Research. From what I understand, they pretty much from one day to another stopped being "SAP Research" and started being part of SAP Software Development, and were suddenly expected to deliver products rather than research results.
In addition to these other good answers, you'll also find that many public institutions have rules that require long notification periods for people who may be laid off if their funding runs out. This does not happen at my university, but others that I know at several different US universities must receive a notification one year in advance of a layoff due to lack of funding for their position.
This means that there's plenty of time for them to try to write and win grant proposals or to find another job in the ways described here by others. It also means that there's no sudden drop at the end where people are surprised to not have a job. This is usually not the case in industry research positions.
I can only partly answer your question, because I don't have sector-wide data.
First, let's clarify terms. Someone in a soft-money research post is also called a research associate, and they are funded by defined pots of money (typically from research contracts) that will be exhausted: such posts are usually funded for a period of time that's set from the beginning. These sound similar to posts that are also called post-docs, although a research associate doesn't need a doctorate: they just need to demonstrate that they can do deep, novel, rigorous research. This is in contrast to tenured faculty who are funded by open-ended sources such as university core funding (though I gather at some universities there are some professors on 95% soft money: at UCL, such posts are called "Professorial Research Associate", rather than "Professor"; both carry the honorific title Professor").
In England, I see job security as depending very much on a department's culture and management philosophy. I know of people in soft-money posts in energy departments at some other universities who have much less job security than most industry jobs that are similar. Whereas at in the energy department at my university, with mostly the same sources of funding and very similar projects, most soft-money posts here have more job security than similar industry: there is a departmental commitment to the researchers themselves, and if one source of funding dries up, we try to find other funded projects for those researchers, and use a platform grant to fill any gaps.
It's also the case that in industry you'll find some employers who will choose to keep some of their funds available in highly liquid form (such as cash at bank), in order to allow them to retain staff even at times when the company's turnover doesn't merit it; other employers will have staff coming and going all the time, as the company's income waxes and wanes.
At U.S. medical schools, professors are often paid up to 95% off of soft money that they have to raise themselves. To the outside world it may look no different from a professor who has 9 or 12 months of their salary paid by the institution. It's also separate from tenure. There are universities that will give you tenure but not guarantee your full salary.
@MichaelHoffman interesting: at UCL, those posts are titled "professorial research associate": one still gets the honorific title "professor", but the job title is not "professor".
There are many good answers here, but let me point out some other factors. (Off course, details are depend on on which county, profession, sector etc. we talk about):
Industrial jobs are generally (much) better paid than academic jobs and the hiring process is also much faster. This means that even if you have same chance for getting laid off, you generally fall much safely in industry, with significantly bigger pillows under you. To get soft money through grants to get yourself hired may require a year or longer, even if your first shots are successful. Getting a job in industry can happen in weeks.
Job prospects and overspecialization. Again, there can be huge variations but being a forever post-doc, even with a good salary is seriously limiting your future job prospects. I know many academics who consider such people failed researchers, and consider such a career a stigma, and can look very bad on your CV. It is also hard to switch to tenured academic positions, when you are 40-50. With industrial jobs there is no such stigma, and an industrial researcher has much more options to switch to academia, find job in industry or go to management. This setback may change as soft money positions became more common, though.
Do we compare apples with oranges? Significant part of post doctoral researchers are stuck in this position for years, then some of them leave to industry, so go to tenure track and some remains on soft money. My experience is that people who are willing and able to survive on soft money for long are people who have a special combination of skills (they must be good to survive) and motivation to stay in academic research. Also, they often have a specific motivation to not go to industry (want to be independent) or to go tenure track. On the other hand, in industry there are a lot of different kind of people, in terms of motivation, skill-set, interest etc. I think there is a strong selection bias if you directly want to compare these to groups of people and their job security.
Really more of a comment than an answer - but this might invite some general discussion with regards to the two major points this hinges on:
(Hence the community wiki)
I suspect there is a huge "it depends" with this - mainly due to personal preferences. Some people prefer to move, so having 2-3 years of security only is not bad to them in their eyes.
If in contrast you seek security, a public sector job with something called "Beamtenstatus" is ideal (you can't be discharged without any serious cause), but even then companies such as BASF or other large companies offer permanent positions, which is possibly as close as one can get to security/safety.
Once you have sorted out the personal choice between "wants change" vs. "wants security", the next question is, "are you good at getting money".
IF you have a lot of industry contacts and are extremely successful at obtaining research grants, not having a permanent position isn't a problem - a university would not like to see you go because of your contacts and the money you bring in, so you have arranged your own job security without a tenured position.
One potential advantage of such an arrangement is that you do not teach and at most supervise some PhD students, so aside from the (nowadays horrendous) paperwork, you actually get to do research.
Also, at least in one UK university, after 6 years, if there were no grant money, the university would have to find money to employ you otherwise - however this may be specific to that university.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.274547 | 2015-06-29T10:25:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/48029",
"authors": [
"410 gone",
"Best FREE Reviews",
"Emily Lee",
"EngineeringStudent ",
"Football Pitch Resurfacing Ltd",
"ICVWorld",
"Kimball",
"Marek Matuška",
"Michael Hoffman",
"SarahS",
"Sumeet Sahani",
"The Rock",
"Toni",
"ali sisman",
"dolandtrump",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10094",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/132768",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/132769",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/132772",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/132782",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/132783",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/132784",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/132785",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/132786",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/132787",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/132792",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/132808",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/133111",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/133123",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1418",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/195694",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19607",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96",
"musafi",
"xLeitix",
"郑炜城"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
107322 | How bad is it to decline the NSF graduate fellowship?
Though NSF results aren't out yet for this year, this question's been wracking my brain since I'm heavily considering taking a gap year before grad school. I also haven't been able to find this particular question asked/answered anywhere online and I feel like there are surely others that might find themselves in this same situation, so I'm asking here.
Basically, I completed my NSF application in the fall with confidence, and then around a month later found out that my subject GRE scores were abysmal. Coupled with a fairly "low" GPA, I ended up not getting into any grad schools except my least-ranked backup school and a waitlist to another backup. I've talked over with my advisor and we agreed that taking a year off to reapply would be good for me. For one, I can retake the exam and possibly get into a wider range of schools, which means more opportunities to choose from. A second consideration is that part of the reason I didn't do well in school, which I only realized recently, is that I had been ignoring my mental health for years (I didn't believe "mental health" was a real thing, oops) and taking a gap year would help me put a year's worth of space between being thrown into grad classes while I heal. I've also already got plans for the year in place--I would be doing full-time research work for both my advisor and as part of a program I was accepted to. I feel like this is the healthiest, best route for me and is the one I'm most comfortable with.
However, there's still a chance I could win the NSF (which is exceedingly rare and a crapshoot for anyone, I know, but anyone who doesn't withdraw is technically still in the running!), which means I would have to go to grad school next year to accept the award. They removed the option to defer years ago unless you're active in the military or have a medical issue (I assume this means hospitalization, not going through something like CBT). Because it's such a competitive fellowship, I always had the notion that it would be just plain "stupid" to turn it down (unless, of course, you got some sort of better award). However, because of the reasons I stated in the paragraph above, I'm definitely less comfortable with this path.
In this scenario, which should take priority? Accepting a competitive fellowship at a backup school I'm unsure about, or taking a year off to reapply and have more options (especially at top choice, selective institutions), albeit without the NSF or possibly any sort of external fellowship? Has anyone gone through either route and regretted it? Also, how does listing a declined award (NOT in the context of winning other awards and having to choose only one) look on a CV? For context, I'm interested in attempting a career as tenured faculty in academia (which is also exceedingly unlikely, I know).
To be brutally honest: if you weren't competitive for gradschool applications, maybe you weren't for NSF either, so don't worry about it too much. And if you actually do get it, and do go to your backup school, maybe you can transfer out after a year if the fit's not right.
The question is extremely hypothetical and no answer would likely be of general interest.
@jayjay67, I also don't know what youre talking about regarding reserve. As far as I know, reserve is still allowed.
There are no consequences to you if you decline the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship. You did waste the reviewers' time.
If you get the fellowship and do not get into your first choice PhD program, then I suggest contacting your first choice and asking them if they will reconsider. Many places are happy to have a PhD student they are paid by NSF to take, when the usual situation is they have to pay to get a PhD student.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.275688 | 2018-03-31T02:10:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/107322",
"authors": [
"Anyon",
"Brian Borchers",
"User2341",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17254",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/42894",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4453"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
105016 | Is there a "place" to deposit and, or publish reports produced in grad school?
I am looking for some kind of repository where I can "publish" my reports from grad school.
I'd like to do this because it would be great if I could link those works with my ORCID and make them available to the public and to (hopefully) improve my online appearance.
More importantly, what field are you in?
I am studying biology and therefore occasionly write reports summarizing literature about a specific topic. Recently I have written some works with data that I have produced myself, concerning plant genetics.
Is the question Is it advisable to upload your PhD thesis on Biorxiv? helpful to you?
I have considered the option of sending the reports to Biorxiv, or ArXiv. But it seems to me, that my reports do not fit their conditions, as they're not likely to be published in real journals later on.
What I am trying to get at is, if there's is a repository for such work that enables one to google them.
If you upload them to your own website, Google Scholar will find them. (https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html)
For arXiv, it's not a requirement that the paper is "likely" to be published in a real journal. The standard is "refereeable", i.e. is this the kind of paper that a journal might conceivably publish, if it were submitted? Lots of people submit things to arXiv that they have no intention of ever sending to a journal, and that's fine.
It makes sense to share your work online as long as you make sure to do some quality check. Students can benefit from availability of this type of material and it can indeed improve the online presence of the author.
Quality check
Check for English correction as best as you can. I would strongly suggest languagetool.org as an excellent tool for this.
Do not copy direct parts from other authors, make sure not to plagiarize. This is something that takes time and is often overlooked. Clearly point out where you are quoting and where words are your own. Always give author's name, date and page where the information was obtained. Here is an excellent source in the subject: Melbourne University Student Skill manual
Conform to one citation standard and check correctness of the citations (provide a doi whenever possible).
Use an open science tool, so to permit transparency of the contents. This is particularly important if your report includes statistics. Have a look in the Knitr R package or my own Mighty_Make.
You can list any material you want in your ORCID page. However, do that clarifying which material was peer-reviewed, and which was not. Graduation level reviews goes in the group of non-peer-reviewed scientific contributions.
Where to publish?
This is the easy part, a very effective tool is zenodo.org. Once you feel your document is ready for submission, you can upload it there, and you will have a doi for your material so it can be cited and tracked.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.276008 | 2018-03-06T10:03:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/105016",
"authors": [
"Kathy",
"Nate Eldredge",
"Nobody",
"Persilian",
"aeismail",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1010",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15364",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/546",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/88526"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
107472 | F1 Visa Internship Question
Can I do an internship during my first semester of college in a state other than the one where my university is located?
Best ask the university...
Please check this with the international students office of your university. For what I understand, F-1 holder can have on-campus part time job during the semester.
My understanding is that you generally cannot. F-1 visas holders are allowed to hold part-time (up to 20 hours/week) on-campus jobs during all semesters enrolled (though I'm told that some positions don't count as on-campus, despite physically taking place on-campus). Authorization for off-campus work can only be granted after the first academic year.
As scaaahu suggests, you should ask the international office at your university about your specific situation. They should be able to advise you also about potential exceptions to what I wrote above, e.g. unpaid internships.
You can apply for CPT (Curricular Practical Training) after completing your first year, sponsored by your school/department. You will need to receive credit for it. This is different from OPT (Optional Practical Training) where you can apply within the first year after your graduation.
Can you really apply for CPT during the first year of studies though? See the link in my answer, which seems to say no. Also, there is both pre- and post-completion OPT, so you don't necessarily need to wait to graduation for OPT.
you're correct that you're not eligible for the first year. I will revise my answer. Thanks for catching that.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.276280 | 2018-04-03T04:04:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/107472",
"authors": [
"Anyon",
"Nobody",
"Solar Mike",
"adjfac",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17254",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43509",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/546",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/72855"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
3065 | Should one update a manuscript to current state-of-art when re-submitting?
Publishing in a journal is a long process that might take a lot of time (> 1 year), and is possibly involved of several phases (submit, re-submit, re-re-submit...)
As the time passes, things change. Specifically, new results appear.
What should one do with the new stuff that happens between resubmissions?
Do one needs to cite / refer to papers that first appeared after the original date submission?
Do one needs to update citations to papers that on the date of the original submission appeared only on arXiv, but now appear in a journal (those possibly slightly different than the original work cited in the original submission)?
EDIT:
maybe one should wait for acceptance, and only then do the updates?
It's worth checking out this answer to a slightly different question regarding preprints but I think the the manuscript should be updated as much as possible. http://academia.stackexchange.com/a/1149/319
@ran-g Since you have some responses below that seem to answer your question, please consider marking one of them as ‘Accepted’.
Yes, you should update your references at every possible opportunity. Whenever the manuscript is in your hands, if it is possible for you to update the references, you should do so. Paper rejected? Update the references before resubmission. Paper accepted? Update the references before sending back the revision. Multiple rounds of reviewing? Update the references after each round. Submitting a journal version of a conference paper? Update the references before submission. Reviewing galley proofs? Okay, then you probably can't update the references.
Your paper serves as not only a description of your new result but also as a guide to the surrounding literature. Your readers (including referees and editors) are best served by the most up-to-date snapshot possible.
Of course, if one of the papers you cite has undergone a revision (for example, and ArXiv preprint has appeared in a journal), you must read the new revision yourself to make sure that the cited information is still there, so that you know how to appropriately cite it.
I typically tag completely new references (for example, a relevant ArXiv preprint appears while my paper is under review) with phrases like "Since this paper was submitted..." or (since I'm in computer science) "Since the preliminary version of this paper appeared...."
Would like to add a partial answer. Don't know the answer to the first one.
But about the second:
Do one needs to update citations to papers .....?
Yes, they need to be updated. Most publishers ask to update bibliography with latest information.
But if the original content that appeared in arXiv is changed in the final publication, it is better to keep the original citation in your paper, specifying the exact version that you cited.
The answer to both of these questions is it's your choice. However, I definitely recommend that you update the citation information, because (a) it probably won't take long and (b) it will possibly be quite helpful to your readers.
I work in a field where it's uncommon for much to change between the time that I first submit and that I resubmit. Perhaps I might find out that someone proved a result in our paper about the same time that we did. In that case, I would add a line in the acknowledgments section stating so, and add a citation to the relevant paper or preprint.
Might some of the reviewers have published the relevant paper(s) that have come out and which you are not citing? Yes? Might they appreciate it if you cite rather than ignore their work? Yes? Better update your citations, then.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.276441 | 2012-09-01T02:36:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3065",
"authors": [
"Haider",
"Hongying",
"Joe",
"Kogesho",
"Noble P. Abraham",
"bobthejoe",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1580",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/319",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7765",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7767",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7768",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7773",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7779",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7790",
"marsei",
"novelty"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27897 | Referencing a board game rule book
I'm writing a paper on a board game,
Labyrinth, and I need to use some parts of the rule book. How should I reference this? I'm using Harvard reference style.
EDIT: I hadn't notice this earlier.
What can be found in the start of the rule book is this:
Author: Max J. Kobbert
And in the end, this:
© 2007 Ravensburger Spieleverlag
EDIT 2: I found a link to the rule book. The real one contains for several more languages but the content is the same.
Link to rule book
Welcome to Academia.SE! As a first guess, look up the copyright information in the rule book and cite it as a book. If none is available, find the relevant information (e.g. for a corporate author) from other sources
I have updated the question with some new found information
The point of referencing is to allow others to determine what you've referenced and to look it up in turn.
Harvard has tools for citing multi-media formats, such as board games.
Inline: ([Rulebook] 1986).
Biblio: [Rulebook] 1986 Labyrinth (boardgame), Ravensburger.
Consult a full style guide and model off the nearest multi media work, for example, album liners to a CD.
Are you sure 2007 is really the date of the edition and not the printing?
(Kobbert 2007).
Kobbert, MJ 2007 '[Rulebook]' Labyrinth (boardgame), Ravensburger Spieleverlag.
Updated the question once again to provide all the information I have. I think why it is 2007 is because it's a new edition of the game. You can see there is different edition with different player tokens and slightly different pictures on the tiles, if you Google for some images.
If this is all you've got, then okay, but I strongly advise you to examine the physical object fully for edition information, so you can supply edition information with your citation.
I can't find anymore information except repeating information of what I already know, on the back.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.276841 | 2014-09-01T22:15:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/27897",
"authors": [
"Benji",
"Dardar86",
"Dr.S.A.Rahul Golden",
"L. Rusike",
"Mulugeta Chane",
"Saleh Ali",
"Samuel Russell",
"Soumil",
"carl",
"darthbith",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21336",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4429",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7346",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75364",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75365",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75366",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75418",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75419",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75430",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75432",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75433",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75434",
"merelyMark",
"user75365"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
109789 | What was offensive about the "ladies lingerie department" joke, and how can I avoid offending people in a similar way?
Moderator note: A follow-on question about how to avoid the behavior described here has been posted.
In recent news, two academics are at odds over this incident full article here:
The fuss started when [Prof. X] and [Prof. Y] ended up in the same crowded elevator during a conference at a Hilton in San Francisco last month. [Prof. Y] said she offered to press the floor buttons for people in the elevator, whom she described as mostly conference attendees and all, except one other woman, white middle-aged men. Instead of saying a floor, [Prof. X] smiled and asked for the women’s lingerie department "and all his buddies laughed," [Prof. Y] wrote in a complaint, the details of which he disputed, to the association later that day.
This incident has escalated to the point that the academic organization that organized the conference has decided to sanction Prof. X.
I don't understand why the joke was funny, but that's not really important. I would like to understand why it was offensive. Specifically, I'm wondering
In what way was this comment offensive?
The bullets above are not rhetorical or sarcastic; I am completely sincere. I am worried because I don't understand precisely what was offensive, so I fear that I might do something similar. I have wondered whether the remark was offensive because:
It referred to underwear
It referred to women (in any way) and was cause for laughter
There is some unstated assumption about his reason for supposedly going to a lingerie department
But I really have no idea, and I want to understand. I could not find an answer in any of the news pieces on this incident.
I realize that this question might get closed as off-topic. However, I think it is wrong to assume that no part of this is specific to academic culture (if that's the case, that's part of the answer). Certainly it occurred in a uniquely academic environment, and is a dispute between academics and an academic society, that seems to jeopardize at least one academic career.
Please refrain from using this as a place to express your opinion on who is right in this dispute. That's not what I'm asking.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. If you want to explain the joke, either elaborate in an answer (but please ensure that your answer actually adds something to the existing ones) or do so in chat. Please use comments only for their intended purpose.
Meta discussion about this question.
tl;dr: The joke was funny because it was absurd and taboo (made people uncomfortable). It was "offensive" because it may have been intended to make the person operating the elevator feel embarrassed or singled-out. Avoid making jokes that make people feel singled-out.
How is the joke funny?
As other answers have pointed out, the joke is funny because it makes reference to a time when elevator operators were the norm and people would call out the desired floor in a department store by asking for a specific department. It is an absurd (out-of-place) comment to make in the context (the present day, and not in a department store). Often, absurdity is funny.
There is, however, another layer to the humour. People will often laugh when in an uncomfortable situation. The joke is uncomfortable because of the floor that was asked for: ladies lingerie. In some cultures (I can say Canada and the UK for sure) the topic of undergarments, especially ladies undergarments, is taboo and therefore not supposed to be discussed in "polite society".
In what way was the comment offensive?
I think other answers are close, but slightly miss the mark. The reason I think the joke is offensive is because, whether it was intended or not, it made the person operating the elevator uncomfortable or embarrassed. On a more subtle note the reason is context.
The person operating the elevator may have felt like they were targeted by the joke. They asked an innocent question "What floor?" and the joker replies with the less-than-innocent answer "Ladies lingerie". We can only speculate as to the intentions of the joker, but it is clear that while the joke may have been directed to everyone in the elevator, the answer was directed to the person operating the elevator. Add the fact that the person operating the elevator was a woman, and it doesn't seem so far-fetched to think that she may have felt targeted by the joke.
To further consider this point: why was the department "ladies lingerie" chosen? The joker could have asked for "the hardware department" or "men's clothing" or "sporting goods" and the joke would have drawn a few chuckles. "Ladies lingerie" was chosen because it is taboo, and it is extra taboo because it is a man directing the comment at a woman. More discomfort = more likely to provoke laughs (even though the people in the elevator might feel more uncomfortable than tickled).
Finally, consider the context: a male dominated space. I can say from personal experience (as a man) that it is not uncommon for a group of men to direct lewd or taboo comments at women (or sometimes a young/innocent-seeming man) to provoke embarrassment. Heck, I'm guilty of doing it myself, before I realized how it makes the target of the joke feel! It is likely that the person operating the elevator experienced this sort of behaviour many times before and assumed (perhaps rightly) that the joke was targeted at her and was intended to make her feel embarrassed.
Making someone feel embarrassed for your personal entertainment = bullying. Bullying should not be tolerated, especially in a professional setting.
If it was an elevator full of women and a woman made the joke, the context would be different and the person operating the elevator may not have felt singled-out. Similarly if it was entirely men. However, even in these contexts it is possible for the joke to be construed as bullying, especially if the target of the joke is someone that the joker knows would feel embarrassed.
How do I avoid offending people in a similar way?
Avoid jokes involving topics that make people uncomfortable, especially when telling jokes to strangers or acquaintances. Generally avoid taboo topics of whatever culture you are in and especially avoid jokes that might make someone feel targeted or singled-out based on race, skin colour, sexuality, gender, etc.
I think this is a good answer because it addresses something that others have missed. Even if the target of the joke "gets it", they may still be made to feel uncomfortable by it. A joke can be inappropriate even if you understand why it is supposed to be funny.
So the answer obviously is to stop joking about anything at all, ever, except perhaps when you're by yourself. Don't joke. If you joke, you deserve what you've got coming.
@L0j1k I'm sorry that you interpreted my answer this way. In fact, I never commented on what the joker may or may not "deserve" for making someone else uncomfortable. I also never said joking is wrong. In fact, I offered examples of other jokes in a similar vein that wouldn't embarrass someone else, while sacrificing (I suppose) the "punchiness" of the joke. It's a matter of simple professional politeness, and perhaps a bit of empathy, to determine what sorts of jokes may be acceptable in a given situation. We're not talking about a comedy club, we're talking about an elevator at a conference.
I wouldn't say that it's bullying, specifically. That seems to require intent and repetition? ... Googles Or maybe not. ... Your answer is a lot better than mine, congrats! Although, I find it overly verbose, but like the detail... Well, those are mutually exclusive.
From the article, "He said it was a man, not a woman, who asked for the floors and that the other men in the elevator were not his "buddies" as she had described them.". If it were a men asking for the floors, would the joke still be considered offensive?
@Childishforlife As I stated in the answer, it's context dependent. There are many variables to choose from and therefore a near infinite number of potential contexts. So it might still make a woman in the elevator feel uncomfortable and singled-out when a joke is made regarding women's underwear, regardless of whether or not she was the one who asked for the floor. I can't say for every context whether or not the joke was ill-advised. I'm also not the best judge of what would or wouldn't make a woman uncomfortable since I am not a woman. But I can use my empathy to the best of my abilities.
@Childishforlife Consider another (hypothetical) context: maybe the woman and man in question know each other and have already established a relationship where these sorts of jokes are common and accepted between them. So there are some contexts where the joke is perfectly fine. (Of course, then you might run the risk of someone being offended on someone else's behalf, which I have mixed feelings about.)
@CuriousFindings Your answer is indeed insightful.
However, I've learned when I was young to have a thicker skin about things that make me uncomfortable (as an ethnic person, I've had to deal with racial slurs, and thus a similar line of reasoning could apply as here, at least w.r.t. being offended).
If everyone had a slightly thicker skin, and not immediately assume bad faith, the world of interactions between strangers would be a much more welcoming one.
Another issue is self-victimisation i.e. turning yourself into the victim. It's almost always a bad idea to do so in my experience.
@jjpe I agree with you that getting a thicker skin is a good thing. There are people in this world who are just plain mean, and they might even try to hurt you just for fun. Others just make honest mistakes. It's good to be able to shrug off their comments no matter their intentions. That being said, my answer comes from the context of the OP asking "How was this comment wrong? How can I avoid a similar mistake?" So for those people who don't want to be seen as offensive, I say avoid taboo topics. A professional setting is not the place to be pushing the boundaries of taste.
A great way to not make anyone uncomfortable is to resign and go leave in the woods. :)
@Najib Idrissi gave a very good answer, but I think there is one more key element to this situation, and that is the typical dimensions of a lift.
Lifts are small, people have to stand close together. This makes some people a little nervous about the possibility that someone else might take it as an opportunity to invade their personal space or touch them inappropriately. In a lift, such an act could be passed off as unintentional, because people were standing close already. Just like the problems with people getting groped on packed trains.
So in this situation, it is only kind to behave in as reassuring a manner as possible. This will reduce the fear people feel because of how close they have to stand.
As such, even if this joke had not been specifically about women’s sexuality, and just about sexuality in general, it was the wrong moment to tell it.
To tell a sex related joke is always a bit of a gamble, but if the person you are talking to is comfortable around you, it might be fine. The trick is to know if they are comfortable at that moment. In a crowded lift they are more likely to be a little uncomfortable. In a male dominated environment this is more likely to be a problem for women, but it could apply to anyone.
The long and short of it is don't tell sex jokes unless you are confident that they are not misogynistic (in context this one was), and confident that that the other person is comfortable around you.
+1, this is the right answer! The solution is just to not tell crass jokes. It really doesn't matter the intent (which in this case was perfectly benign), the point is that communication is difficult and language is a lossy medium. It's just common sense.
@knzhou You cannot know what the intent was at the time...
@mb21 true, knowing is a joke is going to come across badly is very difficult. Ratner's is a powerful example of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ratner#The_speech So really it's helpful for people to have some "rule of thumb" to aid their judgement
@knzhou while I would agree that this particular joke is always crass, I hope my answer covers some jokes that might be ok in other contexts, but not in a lift.
@knzhou I have to disagree with you there. In the relative privacy of my office I have a good handle on what jokes my office mates will find funny and what would be going too far. But I know these people, I know they are comfortable with me and I know their sense of humour and that makes all the difference.
If mentioning underwear even under the name lingerie is tantamount to sexuality then am I going to be labeled a pedophile if I mention a need for diapers?
@DeanMacGregor can you not tell the deference between the connotations of the word 'diaper' and 'lingerie'? If you said "I'm going to get lingerie for my baby" most people are going to assume that you are referring to your adult partner not an infant, because although they both get called baby the word lingerie implies something completely different to diaper. And if in that sentence you where referring to an infant most people would be a bit surprised, and yes possibly concerned.
I'd even say that the crowed situation in a lift constitues an invasion of private space for many people - I'm not talking about inappropriately touching but about being forced to be uncomfortably close. While "do not make inappropriate jokes" is certainly good and valid advise, I'd also consider the possibility that the uncomfortable packing of people could trigger attempts to relieve the pressure, e.g. by a joke. Which in turn because of the pressure has a higher-than-usual risk of going terribly wrong. Even for jokes that are OK in other situations.
I think the main reason why this joke gave offense has already been covered in Najib Idrissi's answer, i.e. the lingerie/sex-object angle, but there's another aspect to it:
When [Prof. X] was young, in the 1950s, he said, it was a "standard
gag line" to ask the elevator operator for the hardware or lingerie
floor as though one were in a department store.
Elevator operators are almost entirely obsolete now, but back in that era, many hotels, stores, and office buildings had an employee whose job was to work the elevators for guests. It was a junior role, similar to a valet or a store greeter.
So part of the "joke" here is that Prof. X is talking to Prof. Y, his professional peer, as if she was a junior hotel employee - an occupation which carries much less status than "professor".
Women in academia have had a long struggle to be treated with the same respect as their male peers, and there's still a long way to go. (One example of many). Because of that situation, it's a bad idea for a male academic to make jokes which rely on reducing the social status of his female peer; this amplifies the "merely sex objects" aspect of the joke that Najib Idrissi discussed.
A lot of comedians invoke the rule "Never punch down" - in other words, don't make fun of people or groups whose social standing is lower, or less secure, than your own.
part of the "joke" here is that Prof. X is talking to Prof. Y, his professional peer, as if she was a junior hotel employee That is not conclusive. I read the joke as self-mockery, where Prof X is pretending to be confused about where he is. Asking someone else what floor they want is similarly acceptable when two people enter an elevator without either person being employed specifically to operate the elevator. This was actually the case here: one professor asked another professor what floor they were going to so they could press the button for them. That context hasn't changed.
@Flater It could perhaps be interpreted as self-mockery, but I don't see anything in X's response where he offers that explanation. On the other hand, I quoted directly from a part of the article where X explains that this is how one used to talk to elevator operators... i.e. junior hotel/business employees.
In what way was this comment offensive?
Here is a quote from the professor in question:
"Ladies’ lingerie” is an old joke dating back to the days of manually operated elevators, when lift operators in department stores would yell out: “What floor?”. I meant no harm by my joke – a version of which even pops up in the Harry Potter books. Indeed, it was meant to be an attempt to make light of the mundane, boring process of being stuck in a lift. And why must such a comment have sexual or offensive connotations?
So it seems the joke was only offensive to those who didn't get it. They hear the word 'lingerie' in association with a woman, and assume it's somehow a sexist or dehumanizing joke, when it wasn't intended that way at all. The joke would have been the same if it had been a man pushing the buttons.
(Edit: the joke here is that the request can't be fulfilled at a hotel, but would be reasonable in a similar context. It'd be like getting into a race car and telling the driver "Airport Hilton, please". It's not sexual or sexist in any way.)
What are examples of other comments that might be offensive in a similar way? How can I avoid offending people in a similar way?
It's possible for someone to misconstrue literally anything you say as offensive, so there no way to completely avoid these sort of situations.
However, when people are offended, they give off obvious non-verbal cues. If someone gets offended due to misinterpreting something you've said, the best thing you can do is apologize and explain to them what you meant.
@NajibIdrissi: That's oversimplifying. The answer addresses that for the current scenario, the offended parties likely did not understand the actual joke and took offense to the words without observing the actual intended context. This answer does not argue that that is a global rule where offense/humor are mutually exclusive at all times. (Ironically, overzealously assuming that a statement is implicitly a global statement is the main reason as to why this joke was considered offensive in the first place)
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. Future comments that will not directly address issues with this answer will be deleted without warning. If you want to discuss the history or exegesis of the joke, please take it to chat.
@NajibIdrissi: There is absolutely no way you could have gotten that from this answer. It seems you only want it to be true so you can continue to take offense at something entirely non-offensive.
I agree with @NajibIdrissi. I also want to add that professor Y was only 1 of 2 women in a lift full of male professors. Based on this fact alone, "lingerie" whether preceding the word "department" or not, is inappropriate by itself, based purely on the usual association with "lingerie". Second, in old times when lifts WERE operated by attendants, those attendants were usually women, by (jokingly or not) referring to the professor who offered to press the button (who happens to be a woman) as the attendant is degrading, no matter how mild the connotation is.
First, to explain why the "joke" is "funny" (inverted commas because I don't find it funny, and I suspect many others don't either). Thanks to Flater and knzhou for explaining this.
During the time of manually-operated elevators, there were so-called "elevator operators" who would ask passengers where they were going. A possible answer for example could be "second floor". In those days, departmental stores were also organized by departments that could take up an entire floor. To say "take me to the ladies' lingerie department" is equivalent to saying "take me to whichever floor sells ladies' lingerie". The joke is that the speaker, as a man, is not expected to want to buy ladies' lingerie. The same joke would work with a female speaker asking to be brought to the men's lingerie department.
The joke is offensive because the listener didn't understand it. Since some people laughed, the listener knows it's a joke. However she didn't know why it's funny - not surprising, from the comments many don't either. Still, since 1) women and 2) lingerie were mentioned, she assumes that it's a sexual joke. That immediately makes it offensive.
Here're a couple of other situations which were interpreted badly: when a man invited a woman to coffee in an elevator, and a joke about dongles and forking at a technology conference. You can easily find more using Google for terms such as "humor in different cultures".
As to the question of how to avoid it: unless among friends, avoid making jokes entirely because humor translates poorly across cultures. This is the same reason that one should avoid injecting humor into e.g. a conference presentation. As you can probably imagine, the hassle that Prof. X is going through is not worth the laughs he got.
Allure, I'm confused why I see an answer written by you and a vote to close by you. That has occasionally happened to me -- but when that happens, it's a good idea to provide an explanation.
@aparente001 I didn't vote to close because the question is unanswerable; I voted to close because I think it's better suited to another StackExchange. Since others evidently don't think so, I might as well answer it here, especially since at the time I wrote the answer there were some things not yet said in other answers.
FYI. You can consider retracting the Close vote option when you decide to answer a question which you already casted a close vote before it is put on hold.
@Allure - What scaaahu said -- do you want me to rephrase it? Or do you understand what he was getting at? It's your decision, of course; I just want to make sure you understand what your options are. And I would like to repeat, it has happened to me too; based on experience gained over time, in such a controversial situation like this, I would encourage you to give it some more thought before jumping in to vote or to post, until you've had a chance to figure out what your position is.
Well, there was no offense intended, and initially, I didn't see how she was offended. You also can't please everyone, so it's hard to avoid offense unless you carefully curate your jokes?
The offense was taken, and I'm saying it was an over reaction, unless given other context, as it was just a topical joke, I think. I'd say "ladies lingerie" was the first floor type that came to mind, given the circumstances, and on-the-spot jokes need people to be quick on their feet.
And I'm also thinking that the joke was probably the best one that could be given. Any other options wouldn't have been enough of a non-sequitur to be as funny, possibly offered even more offense.
An alternate floor, like "Housewares", for example, might have brought to mind "Stay In The Kitchen" attitudes.
The situation is sort of like a rapid fire answer test, think Word Association and Rorschach testing?
Unless you can find something at least as odd as women's lingerie for a man to publicly state he wants, the joke falls apart.
The woman took offense because she didn't get the joke, I assume. A fault on her, instead of the speaker, due to a lack of historical knowledge.
While it might not be reasonable to expect that knowledge, I find her offense unreasonable, as I didn't immediately find a reason to take offense, unless the core of the complaint is that such a joke doesn't fit the academic setting... But, it's an elevator joke, in an elevator. I love how the situation fits, from a jokester's perspective? ... I might even say she fed him that straight line, but she didn't know it.
On having read some other answers and other commentary on the situation, I find the possible types of offense caused by the joke to be... loosely connected, I think is the right phrase? Although, there is enough connection, to find it as the first associations to come to mind, in someone unfamiliar with the joke?
If I were confronted, I'd ask for an explanation for the offense and defend the joke, but that might not be the best option for you.
The question isn't whether the woman was right to be offended, the question is how to avoid offending people. This doesn't and doesn't try to answer that question.
Explaining why something is not offensive does not answer "what was offensive" nor "how can I avoid offending people".
@Flater The OP did ask that: "how can I avoid offending people in a similar way?" The OP also specifically noted "Please refrain from using this as a place to express your opinion on who is right in this dispute. That's not what I'm asking."
@MJeffryes: Regardless of quality issues in this answer, "it wasn't actually offensive" is a valid answer (note the difference between valid and correct !) because it addresses the premise of the question; which is built on the assumption that the joke is offensive in the first place.
@hvd: My bad. The title got cut off on my browser and the question was not repeated in the body.
@Flater This answer is not useful, since the professor involved seems to have followed the course of action advised (going on the defensive), which has not worked out very well for him. OP has stated they want to avoid being in the same situation as the professor concerned, so clearly, this strategy is useless in that context. I'm going to refrain from any further extended discussion.
@MJeffryes - Where does it say that Prof went on Defensive? The quote says "the details of which he disputed". That's shifting that blame, not defending their actions as in the right. ... Gonna do more edits...
@MJeffryes: Note the difference between valid and correct. To the question "is the sky blue?", Yes is a valid (and correct) answer, No is a valid (but not correct) answer, and Carrot is not a valid (nor correct) answer. I said OP's answer was valid, not necessarily correct.
@Malandy Read the full story to see how he went on the defensive.
@TobiasKildetoft - My, that changes a lot about my answer, although, not its point? I would've summarized my answer by saying that I'm basically agreeing with the joking professor, I think. ... Not sure if we should expect answerers to have gone through the links, but whatever?
-1 A lack of intent to be offensive does not mean that "any offense is a misinterpretation." This absolute statement is laughably false
@AzorAhai - Did I say that? Ah. I need to rephrase again. ... I need to check. I can see a way that offense could be taken just through the mention of lingerie, but that seems... something. ... Wait... What kind of offense was she saying she got?
@Malandy I'm not really sure what to make of your snarky phrasing and ellipses here. Perhaps you should read the article linked in the post.
@AzorAhai - I read it like 5 hrs ago? And now I've forgotten most of it, unfortunately, and got no time to refresh. Sorry if I came across as snarky. Hopefully some of the higher voted answers are / were more to your liking.
@MJeffryes Explaining as to why something wasn't offensive precisely answers as to what was offensive in it, namely, it answers that there was nothing offensive. This makes the second question moot. This is a perfectly fine way of answering such a pair of questions. Whether or not one agrees with the answer is a different matter but this answer is not answering a different question.
@DvijMankad Why are you trying to restart a year old discussion when I specifically said I wouldn't discuss this any further?
@MJeffryes My apologies. I hadn't noticed your second comment.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.277137 | 2018-05-15T07:13:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/109789",
"authors": [
"Allure",
"Azor Ahai -him-",
"BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft",
"Clumsy cat",
"CuriousFindings",
"Dean MacGregor",
"DjangoBlockchain",
"Flater",
"G_B",
"L0j1k",
"MJeffryes",
"Malady",
"Nobody",
"PandaPants",
"Tobias Kildetoft",
"Wrzlprmft",
"aparente001",
"cbeleites",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10675",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12592",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14433",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/18324",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/31487",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32436",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/33010",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/37441",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/40897",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/49970",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/546",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5595",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/68004",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/70455",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/70982",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7734",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/77483",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/78839",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/83643",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84069",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84834",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/91117",
"hvd",
"jjpe",
"knzhou",
"mb21",
"stefan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
115401 | Human-Computer Interaction PhD in Computer Science vs Information Systems: Does the department title matter?
I've been offered a PhD position in Human-Computer Interaction, but it bothers me that it's within the Business/Economics department, so it would yield me an Information Systems degree instead of a Computer Science degree. I'm afraid that this would close some doors of HCI jobs that list CS degrees as requirements. I will be doing CS work, and I believe it would be important to get such recognition.
Do you guys the title of my PhD in this case is something important, or I shouldn't be worried about it?
Thanks!
I think it would depend on the university. HCI is highly regarded and essential in many aspects of computing, but it is a bit at the cusp of CS and more general (human centered) things. It can be rich in psychology, for example.
If you are referring to high-tech industry job (vs academic jobs) I can only tell you that for me, if I'm looking for R&D, design, development roles I would hire someone with a CS degree over IS degree without even looking into qualifications. It is unlikely I will look at you resume farther than the part that mentions your degree. Unless of course I am unable to find people and am rather desperate.
Think about it this way: this is degree from Business/Economics department which translates into a non (engineering/technology) degree which is not what a job with CS requirement would be looking for.
But again, it depends on kind of a job you are thinking about and can't claim that this is the view of everyone although I can comfortably say it would cut your chances a good deal for the kind of jobs I mentioned above.
Sorry if I sound harsh.
Thanks for your honest feedback! That's exactly what I had in mind, and that's why my supervisor and I will be working towards getting cotutelle from another university so that I can get a double degree as CS and IS. Do you believe that would solve the issue?
I think it would. In the least it will get your Resume past the initial screening (which in most cases is done by some admin or an intern or even an automated filter who is just checking the boxes) and to hiring managers/people who would look at the details.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.279327 | 2018-08-16T20:34:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/115401",
"authors": [
"Buffy",
"Elkady",
"Lucas R",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/72913",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75368",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/97143"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
111231 | Is it okay to judge projects on the basis of how long it took to develop them
I was showing my presentation on a project which I made in java/javafx to this evaluator(i'm a college student). And before I could start explaining the usage he asked me how much time did I spend on this project and I told him i did it in 20 days(which i think is a lot) . He then told me that I need to atleast spend 6 months on a project [reason being that we have 12 months to study a language which was a lie we had 9 months actually ] and asked me to leave. He didn't even let me finish the presentation or saw what I did. So, what i'd like to know is this fair to judge a project like this or the evaluator was being unfair?
Who is he? Please clarify.
@scaaahu The project evaluator who our college hired to judge the projects.
Please clarify if he is the professor who teaches the course? The TA who helps the professor? Or someone your college hired temporily as consultant?
Well it's a fair question if what he/she saw was poor. I have said pretty much the same thing to students who didn't put in the effort. Basically, you haven't done enough work. Thanks for playing.
@Prof.SantaClaus I agree what you're saying. But the only problem in my case is that he didn't even saw what i did so he could evaluate the effort. He simply asked how much time i spend on the project and then asked me to leave. I'd have no problem if he had see and say that the effort wasn't enough or the project isn't good.
@scaaahu He was hired temporarily as a consultant/evaluator.
When did the presentation happen? At the end of the 9 months?
@scaaahu yes it did happened at the end of 9 months.
Another question, before the presentation, did you put the project somewhere so others can see it? Is there any chance he could have seen it already?
@scaaahu No sir.
In the end, it will be difficult to ascertain this from a simple Stackexchange post, but I would consider it extremely problematic if the time spent is actively judged. - A good programmer is a LOT faster than a novice programmer (maybe even a bad one). So you have a programming job/project and finish it quickly due to prior experience: Should it be graded worse because you are faster? - What should be evaluated is the content, not the time taken. Case in point, I remember implementing the enigma encryption in VBA during my maths degree as coursework - someone else wrote their thesis on it.
Now I did not read the thesis and I hope it contained more details on how enigma was cracked too, calculations on complexity etc. - But the implementation part is - in reality - nowadays pretty trivial.
Orders of magnitude usually matter. However, I doubt the question would have appeared if the software were satisfactory.
Charitably, it sounds like you put in about 200 hours of work during a nine-month period. That works out to maybe five to six hours per week. That may not meet the minimum “level of effort” expected for such a project. The evaluator may be well within his rights to terminate the evaluation at that point, particularly if this is a “project course” that amounts to a significant portion of your total credit load for the semester. Is it fair to do so? Probably not. Is it allowed to so? Quite possibly.
To the downvoter, I failed to see the wrongness of this answer. Would you care to explain?
@scaaahu The voter might just not like the answer. Unfortunately grading is one of those imperfect messy things that will always be ugly and messy.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.279571 | 2018-06-15T05:50:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/111231",
"authors": [
"Captain Emacs",
"DetlevCM",
"Nobody",
"Prof. Santa Claus",
"aeismail",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/33949",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/45857",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/47727",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/546",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/93917",
"user512499"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
118939 | Where should a glossary be placed in a book?
I am writing a book for a technical industry. I'm planning on including a glossary, I wanted to know, should I place this at the beginning of the book or at the end of the book?
There is no "correct" answer here. It really depends on what your goal is: if it's to inform the audience of terms before they start reading the main text, then it might make sense to place it in the "front matter." On the other hand, if you expect readers to consult it as needed when they're reading, then typically you'd place it at the end of the book with the appendices.
The publisher might also have something to say about this.
Yes, beginning or end as long as it is not missing...
Virtually all books I've seen with a glossary (easily in the hundreds --- including quite a few of my pre-university and university textbooks in most every subject) have the glossary at the end, usually before the index. However, the beginning might be a better choice for the OP's situation, but this decision requires a lot more specific information about the book, and it's likely that the decision is not entirely up to the OP (as @Buffy suggests).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.279938 | 2018-10-24T22:11:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/118939",
"authors": [
"Buffy",
"Dave L Renfro",
"Solar Mike",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/49593",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/72855",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75368"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
120804 | Statement of Purpose for going back to school years after graduating
Background
It's a rather uneventful story, but I think nobody can come up with a relevant answer without knowing where I'm coming from. Thanks in advance for reading through this!
I finished my Bachelor studies in 2012 with a degree in Systems Engineering. My studies were supposed to be about robotics and industrial automation, but due to little to no financing (think Eastern Europe) it was 99% theoretical with 10 different courses in math.
Even before graduating I realised I had to start making money (getting me through university was definitely tough for the family) and started working as a freelance developer. Later on I got a full-time job offer several months before getting my diploma. The pay was way over what my parents were making, so it was a no-brainer to say "goodbye!" to my studies and settle for the Bachelor's degree. Fast forward seven years, I'm an engineering manager in tech company, with significant development experience. I've been thinking a lot about what I want to do in life, and realised that my job doesn't make me happy and I was always fascinated by other things. Neither management, nor architectural carreer tracks don't excite me.
I've asked myself: "Where can I find a match between my skills - building software - and what I'm interested in - healthcare, ageing, extending human lifespan?". That's how I came to a decision to study Bioinformatics and get a MS degree.
Now to my questions for writing a Statement of Purpose:
Since my degree isn't in CS, but rather in Engineering, should I explain why I went into software development, rather than automation/robotics?
How do I convey my fitness to finish an MS program? It's been a while since I was in an academic environment, but I've been taking MOOCs recently. Is it something which can help?
How do I connect my work experience (software development) with the Bioinformatics?
I expanded the acronym SOP because I thought at first that it meant Standard Operating Procedure. Welcome to the site!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.280072 | 2018-11-29T15:06:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/120804",
"authors": [
"Nate Eldredge",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1010"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20010 | Do goofs in a recommendation letter hurt a student applying for grad school?
When rereading my copies of letters of recommendation I wrote when a student of mine applied to multiple graduate schools, I was appalled to see mistakes I made where the wrong graduate program was mentioned in the letter. For example, in a letter to CMU, I recommended the student to Georgia Tech.
Do mistakes like this hurt a grad student applicant, perhaps by showing they are applying to other programs, or do they only reflect poorly on the letter writer? In this case, the schools were all in the same (top) tier.
FTR, she was admitted to two of the fours schools to which she applied. I only know for sure that one (to a place that she was not admitted) had a mistake.
I've occasionally seen letters with incorrect graduate program names, and it's not something I'd worry about. It's never bothered me, and while I've seen other committee members point it out, I've never gotten the impression that they particularly cared. (They've pointed it out in the spirit of "Oops, someone messed up" rather than "Here's a negative factor we should keep in mind.")
There are two cases in which it could be harmful:
If you name a substantially lower-ranked program, then the reader might wonder whether this low ranking influenced your recommendation. (Maybe you have several variants of the letter, and send more enthusiastic variants to lower-ranked programs.)
If you include any comments about how suitable this specific program is for the applicant, then of course these comments will become worthless if you name the wrong school. However, most letters for applicants to graduate school don't include such comments, and even when they do it's rarely a crucial part of the letter. (It's particularly awkward if you send Harvard a letter talking about what a perfect fit Yale would be and how you have encouraged the applicant to go there if accepted.)
You mention the possibility of hurting the applicant by revealing where else they have applied. Theoretically, this could look weird or problematic if they've made eccentric choices about where to apply. (If a top program knows they're also applying to a much lower-ranked program, then the committee might take it as an admission of weakness or an indication that the applicant has a strong personal reason to go elsewhere.) However, I wouldn't worry about it in practice. It's expected that everyone will apply to a range of schools, and I don't recall ever having seen a case I thought would really worry admissions committees.
I do occasionally see copy-and-paste errors in recommendation letters and I smile for a minute and move on. Living in a glass house as I do, I would not dare to throw stones.
I know this is tangential, but I take the opposite extreme with cover letters. If a candidate is applying for a job at my university and their letter mentions another university, I take it as a big strike against them. It may not single-handedly sink the application, but mistakes like this often correlate with poorly written applications in general.
I cannot estimate how much, but I think this could harm the student's case: such mistakes make one think that the letter writer made them in a hurry, not caring too much. This can in principle mitigate the positive effect of the letter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.280260 | 2014-04-30T01:46:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/20010",
"authors": [
"Ellen Spertus",
"L.Ge",
"Valerio Raco",
"gibbone",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/269",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/54664",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/54676",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/54770"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14189 | Creating a community around my research book
I have written a research book on the topic of abstract pure mathematics. Now the book is in review with a scientific publisher.
In the book there are some conjectures formulated by myself. There are also some conjectures and problems at my site, which are not in the book.
I want to create a community of mathematicians around my book to solve questions I formulated and related issues.
Any advice to help build the community? Maybe should I ask the publisher to place a prominent URL of my site on the topic of the book on the book cover. (The URL is already present in the text of my book, but it may probably be more prominent if placed on the cover.)
I also think that it may be worth to redesign my Web page on the topic of the book to make it "problem oriented" (to place unsolved problems at the top of my page instead of the bottom as it is now). Well, on the other side serious researchers should anyway read my entire page and all links on it. What do you think?
Any other advice?
And a note: I am not a math professional, I am an amateur. (This means that I earn money in some other way than from my knowledge of mathematics.)
Instead of getting the community to approach you, I suggest that you be the one to approach the community. As an amateur (one who is outside the academic mathematical community), you are at a big disadvantage.
I recommend that you attend conferences and interact with others who are doing work similar to yours. In my opinion, the best way to get attention is to present papers in good conferences and to publish papers in respectable journals. By doing this, your reputation will improve and your work will be better known.
I very much doubt that this idea will work. Research mathematics already has its communities: conferences and workshops. New conferences and workshops pop up all the time but they do it because a group of mathematicians say, "Hey, we keep meeting and talking about Topic X and there are lots of other people who'd be interested. Why don't we run a workshop on that?" The communities form because a group of mathematicians has a common interest, not because somebody stands up and says, "Hey! I have this really interesting problem! Everybody come work on it with me!"
The venue for announcing "Hey! I have this really interesting problem!" is a pre-existing conference, as Joel explains in his answer. If people find it interesting, they'll start to work on it. If enough people start to work on it, they might start to organize workshops.
This really depends on what your ultimate goals are. If, as the tag of 'self-promotion' would suggest, you are after increased publicity of your book and self promotion of your website, I think you are likely to have a tough job creating your own community of interested parties from scratch. Certainly, making your website links highly prominent in your book would be a key start. Making links throughout the book relating to problems you have posed in the book would also be useful (but perhaps not so practical now if the book is in review). If you intend your community to be focused around your website, then yes, you should redesign it and separate it from your other web interests (minor links are ok).
If you would like to be involved with a mathematical community in order to help solve worthwhile, interesting and stimulating mathematical problems posed by you, you might want to consider presenting your questions at Mathematics Stack Exchange, just as you have already done.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.280562 | 2013-11-17T21:35:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/14189",
"authors": [
"Adrien",
"Nenagh",
"Osukaru",
"Rhendz",
"bdsl",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/36600",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/36601",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/36602",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/36604",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/36621",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/49806",
"mane"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
26120 | Leave out the last chapter as it anyway should be addressed in second edition?
I am an amateur (not affiliated with an academy) mathematician.
I have written a research monograph (see my site).
The current status of the book is that it is well written and is reasonably checked for errors. However there are serious errors in the last chapter. I may remove the last chapter and try to publish the rest of the book without it.
I sent my book (not yet including the last chapter) to several publishers. They all say either that my book is too original and rough for book form and should be published as articles first, or that my research is unmotivated. (I disagree and consider my work fully motivated.)
And now my book is in consideration of a publisher. After I sent my book to the aforementioned (last) publisher, I realized that before writing second volume of my book I need first create second edition of the first volume (which is in consideration now). I had two ideas how to rewrite it when it was already in publisher's review.
I doubt what to do with the last chapter (which as I've said above is currently erroneous). The simplest thing is just to remove it now, because it anyway should be rewritten in the second edition (and the rewrite is rather massive).
Should I for now remove the last chapter and leave this work to the stage when I will write the second edition of the first volume?
Or maybe should I stop any publishing attempts until I finish writing the second edition? (I'm afraid that if I happen to die, my work may be lost unpublished.)
I'm sure this depends entirely on the specifics of the manuscript and chapter in question. I don't see how anyone here can answer this.
I disagree and consider my work fully motivated.
This is a key point. The issue isn't whether there exists compelling motivation, and you may be right that there is. Rather, the issue is whether you have successfully communicated this motivation to readers who have spent far less time thinking about the topic than you have and who lack the perspective that comes from developing a subject from scratch. You'll have to work extra hard to articulate the motivation and communicate it successfully. If the readers still don't understand why are you doing something, then that itself amounts to a communication failure (regardless of whether you feel they ought to have understood). You don't need to communicate successfully with everyone, but you need to do so with a large enough audience.
I'd strongly recommend trying harder to address this before publishing the book. You can consider the editors who have looked over your submissions as a random sample of readers. Many of them fail to understand the motivation behind your work, which suggests that many readers would find it unmotivated even if someone agreed to publish it. Ultimately, the goal should be not just to get the book published, but to get it read and understood. The feedback from publishers is helping you identify what you need to work on to attract readers.
Or maybe should I stop any publishing attempts until I finish writing the second edition?
Are you proposing to publish the first edition while you are already working on a second edition, or to submit the first edition as a draft while telling the publisher that you are working on serious revisions? The latter could make sense, while publishers are unlikely to agree to the former. (Publishing a book takes time, effort and money, and nobody wants to commit these resources to a mathematics book that will quickly be out of date.)
But the fact that you already have large-scale changes in mind suggests that the book might not be ready to submit for publication. You don't need to have completed all possible revisions before approaching publishers, but your chances of acceptance go down if you aren't presenting approximately your best work.
Should I for now remove the last chapter and leave this work to the stage when I will write the second edition of the first volume?
What's the alternative to removing it? If you have in mind fixing the mistakes now, then I can't advise you on which approach is better (since I haven't read the book). If you mean keeping the incorrect chapter in the manuscript and not dealing with the mistakes until later, then that sounds like a bad idea.
I'm afraid that if I happen to die, my work may be lost unpublished.
I can understand that this is a depressing possibility, but I wouldn't worry about it now (assuming you are no likelier to die soon than other people your age). If it makes you feel safer, you could always ask a friend or family member to try to get your work archived somewhere if you died unexpectedly. I can't say they would necessarily succeed, but it couldn't hurt to try.
By the way, the publishers who suggest publishing research papers first have an important point. The mathematics publishing system is set up to work that way, and it is not particularly well adapted to publishing large chunks of unfamiliar research in book form. It's certainly possible to publish research monographs, but you may be making things unnecessarily hard for yourself. Unless you have a very strong reason to prefer a book, I'd recommend trying articles instead.
"Are you proposing to publish the first edition while you are already working on a second edition". When I sent the manuscript to the publisher there was yet no idea to create second edition. This idea came later
Yes, you should absolutely stop trying to get the book published until it is ready. Talk to the publisher who is considering your book, explain the situation to them and ask for their advice about what to do. In my opinion, a second edition is unlikely ever to be published because, as I understand it, mathematics research monographs don't sell well enough to justify a second edition.
Even if a second edition were to be published, what is the purpose of the first edition if it is rapidly superseded by the second? From the way you write your question, it seems that that the purpose, for you, is publication. Publication is not a goal: it is a means to an end. The goal is to make other mathematicians aware of your work and that is most likely to happen if you present the work in the best way you can.
Listen to what publishers say. You know more about your field than they do; but they know more about their field than you do and their field is books. It is unusual for advances in mathematics to be published as a book, rather than in papers. That doesn't mean it's impossible to publish as a book but it does mean that you should have a good reason for rejecting the conventional method of publication.
If the book you're talking about is the preprint "Algebraic General Topology" on your website, then I'm sorry but it is rough and unmotivated. You have a five-page introduction, of which less than two pages (the sections "Our topic and rationale" and "Earlier works") could be considered as motivation. That is followed by what is, literally, a 250-page list of definitions, lemmas, theorems and proofs. To write that much mathematics is without doubt impressive but, to get there, you must have read at least one or two maths books: this is not what a maths book looks like. If the technical content is good (I know nothing about topology) then you have a sound basis for a book but not yet a book.
Finally, make sure your family knows about your work so that, in the unfortunate event of something happening to you, they can try to get it published so it isn't lost forever. (And take your vitamins and look both ways before crossing the street! :-) )
I would say you must keep trying and get it published, even if you end up paying for that because this is your hard work and should not be wasted or lost.
the best way is to go and talk to publishers and ask them what can be added or subtracted to meet their requirements and standards.
You can also convert the book into an e-book and upload it on paid libraries
Do you have any evidence that paying to have a mathematics research monograph published and/or uploading an ebook version to paid libraries would achieve anything? Specifically, that any mathematicians would be likely to find and pay attention to a book published in that way.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.280890 | 2014-07-19T19:25:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/26120",
"authors": [
"Corneliu T Arsene",
"David",
"David Richerby",
"Fadayini",
"Hanaa Mohsin",
"Jafor Ahmed",
"Sobhan",
"VinceP",
"ff524",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11365",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1637",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/69718",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/69719",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/69720",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/69725",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/69733",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/69784",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/69805",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/69808",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/69814",
"porton",
"user1915",
"zzzs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65711 | Should numeration of a list of axioms be continued?
I have a definition like the following:
Definition System of sides is ... conforming to axioms:
...
...
...
Definition Monotone system of sides is a system of sides conforming to additional axiom:
...
Definition Distributive system of sides is a system of sides conforming to additional axiom:
...
My question: Should I continue numbering of axioms as above, or should the additional axioms be numbered from one (not from four or five as above)?
Also note, that every distributive system of sides is a monotone system of sides.
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's about mathematical notation, not about academia. While questions about the process of research are on-topic here, questions about the specific research areas are not.
@EnergyNumbers See this meta discussion.
@EnergyNumbers I strongly disagree with this assessment, per the meta question, and have voted to reopen.
I would recommend thinking about this presentation problem in the following way: if you were inclined to be verbose, it would be perfectly correct to say:
Definition Monotone system of sides is a system of sides conforming to the axioms:
...
...
...
...
As such, it is not so much that you wish to continue a list of axioms, as it is that you wish to take advantage of the similarity of the two lists of axioms to present this information in a way that is more streamlined and easier to understand.
As such, I would recommend making the elision explicit, as in:
Definition A monotone system of sides conforms to the same axioms 1-3 for a system of sides, plus an additional axiom:
...
Definition A distributive system of sides conforms to the same axioms 1-4 for a monotone system of sides, plus an additional axiom:
...
Notice also that I have extended the italics to the whole statement "X system of sides," rather than just the adjective, since you are not defining e.g., "monotone" but rather "monotone system of sides."
Side question about English usage: "Plus an additional axiom" or "Plus the additional axiom"? Given that the sentence introduces the axiom, I have the impression that the latter would be better. Am I wrong?
@MassimoOrtolano I have no strong opinion between the two; they are slightly different, but I personally would be comfortable with either presentation.
@Massimo Ortolano: I think "Plus the additional axiom" would be better, because there is only one additional axiom being talked about in the sentence. Yes, I realize there could be other axioms that would be suitable in the presence of the previous axioms, but the sentence is not referring to all (or some) such possible axioms that one could include with the previous axioms, but rather to a certain specific such axiom.
If you can give the axioms reasonable names, then you could use those instead of numbers. The LaTeX environment for doing this is called "description". You already have good names for the last two axioms, namely "monotone" and "distributive", so it remains to check whether your axioms 1, 2, and 3 can be given good names.
I think this if fine. But you could also label them differently:
A *system of sides* complies with the axioms:
SS1: ...
SS2: ...
SS3: ...
A *distributive system of sides* is a system of sides with:
DSS1: ...
DSS2: ...
A *monotone system of sides* is a distributive system of sides that:
MSS1: ...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.281617 | 2016-03-24T23:04:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/65711",
"authors": [
"410 gone",
"Dave L Renfro",
"Massimo Ortolano",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20058",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22733",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/49593",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96",
"jakebeal"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9516 | How did conferences "work" before the e-mail era?
Some friends and I were discussing a certain conference that has a "rebuttal" phase, in which the authors can see the reviews and reply to them. We realized that this rebuttal phase probably couldn't happen before e-mail was common, which lead us to think on the question
How did conferences "work" before everybody had e-mails?
I don't know about other fields, but in computer-science, some of the conferences are dated to early 60's. Back then there was no email and internet (were fax machines common enough?).
I have plenty of questions about how the process worked back then:
How did one submit a paper? (I assume one had to print the paper and mail it? Was the "deadline" determined by the post-date, or maybe there was no deadline?)
How did one get the reviews back, if at all?
Where did one send his paper? To the program chair? How did the reviewers get a copy of the paper (I assume the chair would first need to look at the abstracts and then assign to other PC members/reviewers? or maybe the entire committee would get copies of all the papers, and there was no sub-reviewing?)
How much time did the entire process take (seems like the overhead of mail adds quite a lot to the already-long process)
(maybe I'm taking it all wrong, and conferences back then were not peer-reviewed, and anyone that came could give a talk??)
Some things that I (think that I) know, and might help to complete the atmosphere of 'making science without the supporting technology':
How would the program committee make the decision? - they'd meet in some place together, and decide.. Which means that one had to travel quite a lot to be on a committee.
Proceedings were sent to print months after the conference, so they actually described what had happened during the conference.
Presentations were done using a projector and transparent slides (it's funny to think about it..)
How would the program committee make the decision? - they'd meet in some place together and decide. This is the way it is still done for conferences in CS. Chicago seems to be a frequent location, near the airport and easy to get to from both coasts.
Some people still give talks with transparent slides. I did so as recently as 2007.
@ChrisGregg This is the way it is still done for some conferences in CS. The vast majority of my PC meetings are purely electronic.
"Back to 1960"? - the Royal Society in London was effectively running scientific conferences and publishing the proceedings starting in 1660, not 1960! (You might also consider that when a nationwide UK postal service was started, in the early days they were as many as 10 mail deliveries per day in London - so exchanging letters was not much slower than today's emails, in real life!
Conferences were organized pretty much as they are now, only slower and with lots more paper.
Conferences would advertise by physically mailing paper fliers to potential authors (primarily past attendees) and perhaps some department chairs. Postage was a significant portion of the conference budget. Professional society publications (like Communications of the ACM and SIGACT News) would include several pages of calls for papers with upcoming deadlines. These calls for papers were typically prepared and sent to publishers/printers about a year in advance of the conference.
Authors would send multiple physical paper copies of each submission by post (or FedEx, or whatever) to the physical address of the program committee chair. Typically, the author would send one copy for each member of the program committee. Papers usually had to be received, not merely postmarked, by the submission deadline. (Hence the probably-not-apocryphal stories of grad students flying to the PC chair's city with a box of last-minute submissions from their home department.)
Submission deadlines were typically about six months before the actual conference date, just as they are now.
The PC chair (or more likely, their secretary and/or students) would collate the received submissions into boxes/binders, which would be physically mailed to each program committee member. Thus, each PC member would receive a copy of each submitted paper. Shipping costs were a non-trivial portion of the conference budget. (Having never been on a committee organized this way, I don't know how review assignments were done. I assume the now ubiquitous practice of sub-reviewing was very rare.)
A couple of months later, the entire program committee would fly to a central physical location with their submission boxes/binders, to decide which submissions to accept. Conference budgets sometimes included travel costs for the program committee, but not always.
The PC chair (or more likely, their secretary and/or students) would send a physical letter to each submitting author informing them of the committee's decision about their paper. Often this was the only feedback from the program committee. Authors who wanted more information about why a paper was rejected often had to contact one of the committee members directly.
About three months before the conference, authors of accepted papers would physically mail camera-ready copies of their papers to the publisher, after following formatting instructions received by physical mail. The publisher would duplicate (using an actual camera!) and bind these papers into books, along with front and back matter prepared by the PC chair and also physically mailed to the publisher.
The publisher would ship physical books containing all the camera-ready papers, which would be distributed to the conference attendees. (Again, shipping costs were a non-trivial portion of the conference budget.) Faculty attending the conferences would often buy extra books to distribute to their students who could not attend. Other copies of the same book would be physically mailed to hundreds of university libraries and other subscribers.
I have heard many stories of people rushing to the FedEx station at the airport to ship off papers at the last possible minute. I've also heard stories of grad students driving from Boston to New York with all the submissions from MIT to submit them.
As a PhD student in the mid 90s, I heard a rumor that MIT would buy a plane ticket for a grad student to fly to the FOCS/STOC PC chair's home city on the submission deadline day, with a checked box of last minute submissions. Given the regular volume of submissions (each paper submitted in multiple paper copies, one for each PC member), it would have been cheaper than FedEx.
There are some vestiges of the pre-electronic era still out there. For instance, the American Physical Society continues to this day to have an annual "Sorting Meeting" for their conference, where anyone interested in helping to organize the meeting comes together. At that meeting, all of the abstracts, which have been printed out, are available, and need to be "sorted" and collected into groups that would become different sessions.
You will also sometimes see references to manuscripts needing to be "camera-ready"; this is also a reference to how production of conference proceedings worked. The manuscripts were photographed and then turned into material that the publisher used to make the final printed copies.
Of course, even after the advent of the fax, many things would still have to be done by mail. However, I think that ultimately things had to be done "on site," as it was simply too impractical to mail everything around to all of the reviewers. However, I also think it would have been much more difficult to ask for full papers, just because of the logistics of having to deal with so much material in one sitting. You would need to rely on abstracts (regular or "extended"), and then ask for full papers from the accepted papers.
(And, because of the poor quality of faxes, anything that would be submitted to a publisher would have to be done by mail. Note that this was true even after the advent of the email era!)
Typically, each program committee member would receive ALL the submissions (100-200 back in the 1970s and 80s), when STOC and FOCS did not have parallel
sessions and were only accepting 30-36 papers.
Authors with accepted papers would receive a mailing tube
containing large size sheets into which their papers were to
be typed (or pasted), with blue guidelines indicating the margins for the
2-column format. These were then sent to the publisher, who would photograph
the pages - the proceedings pages were reduced-size versions of the
"camera-ready" versions. Figures were often hand-drawn, as you can see if
you look at some of those old proceedings, scans of which are available in
the relevant digital libraries.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.282212 | 2013-04-21T01:04:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9516",
"authors": [
"AStopher",
"Athenee",
"Chris Gregg",
"Gustavo Paiva",
"Javier",
"JeffE",
"Joe",
"Majid Hassanpour",
"T.J. Crowder",
"Tara B",
"alephzero",
"ceejayoz",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/23338",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/23339",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/23340",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/23341",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/23344",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/23349",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/23350",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/23388",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32961",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4461",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5955",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65"
],
"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/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
214205 | Reviewing a paper that's badly written such that reading it takes a long time
I'm reviewing a paper for a journal, with a mathematical nature. Its content, from what I can gather from an initial pass, is probably ok. However, it has a tendency to reinvent things with its own idiosyncratic terminology and notation and expresses things in a generally awkward way, such that understanding it in full detail is taking me a long time.
I already asked for an extension from the journal and don't really want to drag it out any longer, for my own sake as well as theirs, as I have other things I need to do. But at the same time it doesn't seem fair to recommend rejection purely on the basis that I personally struggled to read it. I think it is objectively awkwardly written and I don't think my difficulty reading it has to do with a lack of expertise on my part, but that doesn't mean someone else wouldn't find it much easier to follow than I do.
So it seems like my only option is to submit a review admitting that I didn't understand it all and explaining the reason why, without being able to comment on all of its main contributions. Of course I can give suggestions for how to reformulate the parts I did understand, and general pointers to the literature that might help with the rest.
My question is whether this is considered a reasonable thing to do in this situation, or whether there might be another option that I haven't considered. I generally feel that a review should check the correctness of a paper's mathematical content, and I feel like I'm letting the authors down by not being able to do that.
Related ;) https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/214102/are-there-any-special-actions-that-i-should-execute-as-a-reviewer-of-a-sloppy-ma
Part of being a good researcher is communicating thoughts well. If the paper isn't well written at all, I would recommend rejection citing the poor writing and lack of clarity, possibly leaving the door open for a resubmit.
"I generally feel that a review should check the correctness of a paper's mathematical content, and I feel like I'm letting the authors down by not being able to do that." No, it's the other way around: it's the authors who are letting the referees down by not putting enough effort into making their writing clear.
My most unpleasant refereeing experience would have been made much easier by saying "I can't read this paper because of this terrible notation and messed up definition. I'll take another look once they've been fixed." rather than slogging through
Reinventing notation means that I have to do 1+3+5+1 times the job. 1 time for the review, 3 times to learn a new notation, 5 to connect it to the rest I know and 1 to read it again and understand it now.
There's a lot of negativity about poorly written papers on this page, but the thing is these things are quite subjective. What I meant to say in the question was that the awkwardness made it very difficult for me to read, but that I felt someone else might find it a lot easier. The review would have been easier if I'd felt that nobody else would be able to read it either.
@N.Virgo I am pretty sure that "a tendency to reinvent things with its own idiosyncratic terminology" is universally considered an obstacle to easy comprehension, rather than being some personal idiosyncrasy of yours.
@AdamPřenosil It really matters if the idiosyncratic notation is essential or a quirk.
Yes, what you suggest seems reasonable (and proper). You aren't expected to expend extreme or superhuman efforts on the paper. Suggest major revisions are necessary before the paper would be readable by the typical reader of the journal.
Don't neglect to mention non-standard terminology and/or notation.
I'm wondering if the paper was written by someone relatively unschooled who needs to re-do what is already known. Not a crank, but someone who needs more background.
What you suggest seems useful to both editor and author.
This. The journal probably should not publish something that is correct but unreadable. So pointing out that it is unreadable is a worthwhile review.
Adam already came close to my point, but I believe this is worth an answer by itself.
I generally feel that a review should check the correctness of a paper's mathematical content
This is wrong, as in "not enough". Reviewers should comment on whether a paper contributes to advancing the discipline. The correctness of a paper's mathematical content is one dimension in which a paper can advance the discipline, or fail to contribute. But there are other dimensions, which are absolutely equally important:
An adequate engagement with prior art and the current state of the literature. No matter how much you contribute, if you do not engage with what other people are doing right now, then your contribution falls short. People reading the paper should be able to understand the context. Major revision.
Missing information. In math, there is a fine line between giving proofs in detail and leaving details to readers (who are presumably knowledgeable in the field), but "I have a wonderful proof for this proposition; unfortunately page constraints mean that I cannot give it" was fine for Fermat but not for us lesser mortals. In other disciplines, failure to give important information about experimental setup or study participants can sink the best (alleged) contributions. Major revision or reject.
Inappropriate methods. Less of an issue in math, more so in other fields. I am a statistician working in forecasting, and I will recommend rejection if a submission clearly shows data leakage. Reject.
And yes: clarity of exposition. No matter what you did, if your intended audience cannot understand it, then you did not contribute to the scientific conversation. And it is incumbent on the author to make sure they are understandable. Sure, a reviewer can help, and should do so if they think the underlying scientific contribution is worth investing the time and effort. But the work and the responsibility falls on the authors. Reject and resubmit, or reject outright.
Of course. I didn't mean a review should only check the mathematical correctness, and I don't think my text really implied that. But I do feel it's a particularly important aspect of a review, because it's one of the most helpful things a reviewer can do for the authors rather than the journal.
I would say it's kind of hard to say whether any given review comment benefits "the journal" more than "the authors" or "the readers". My motivation as an author is to further the scientific conversation, and the entire review process is designed to help me achieve that goal. So an improvement in any of the dimensions I discuss above (or, conversely, gatekeeping to keep bad manuscripts out) arguably benefits everyone involved.
I don't disagree, but speaking for myself as an author, the main benefit I look for when submitting a mathematical paper to a journal rather than just arXiv is that an experienced person will go through the maths carefully and give their comments. Sure, there's also the stuff about publishing being good for your career etc., but that's just politics and I only care about it to the extent that I'm forced to.
Note that I did not say anything about your citation count or your career. "Furthering the scientific conversation" is quite a different thing. (I work in industry; few people around me - including my manager - have any idea about how publishing works or about citation indices. I publish because I believe it makes the world a better place.)
Perhaps you're lucky in that respect. I write because it makes the world a better place, but I publish because I have to.
It sounds to me as if you already spend much more time on the article than you should have. Basically, once it becomes clear the article would need significant improvements in presentation, it is fair to ask that this is done before you keep reading it.
Something like the following makes for a useful referee report:
There is probably some merit in the mathematical content of this
submission. However its presentation makes it so inaccessible that a major
rewrite seems necessary to even adequately judge the relevance and
correctness of the mathematical claims.
A (highly non-exhaustive) list of examples follows:
The authors invented their own terminology for skrimpy widgets, instead of following the standard..
It is then up to the editor to decide whether they want to give the authors the chance to revise or not, and subsequently, up to the authors to decide whether to try that rewrite or not.
Yes. If they're that bad, these are typically my fastest reviews. I'm definitely not going to spend more time reading the paper than it seems like they did writing it. (Although my fastest review might have been one where what I wrote was something along the lines of, "This paper seems like a fine paper, but its topic has nothing to do with the topics of this conference." It really was a fine paper -- for some other conference. NB: I didn't check to see if the paper was plagiarized or anything, though.)
One way to phrase this is that the purpose of a referee is to give advice to the author that helps them to improve the paper, and then, when there is no advice left to give, evaluate the paper. It's not necessary to evaluate the paper until the final publication decision is made which is after the advice has been given.
However, it has a tendency to reinvent things with its own idiosyncratic terminology and notation and expresses things in a generally awkward way, such that understanding it in full detail is taking me a long time.
I'd mark it for major review and clearly state that the terminology is "misleading" - highligt [colour one] the 'own idiosyncratic terminology' - and nontation as well - higlight [colour two] where it 'expresses things in a generally awkward way'.
You can clearly state, that you stopped reviewing the manuscript before reaching the end because of the language. It is understandable and this feedback can open discussion how to improve the paper.
You got a very good advice in the three other answers. And yet, it might happen (although, the probability that it will happen to you or to any particular mathematician, is pretty low) that you should ignore all this advice and accept the paper even though it is barely readable. Recognizing that you are dealing with such a paper is not easy and there is no rule of thumb for doing this. Instead of trying to achieve the impossible, I will give just two examples (I could give more, but I will not). There is a mathematician, Mikhail Gromov, one of the best mathematicians alive (if the name is unfamiliar, just google him). In 1985 and 1987 Gromov published two papers:
Mikhail Gromov, "Pseudo holomorphic curves in symplectic manifolds." Inventiones Mathematicae vol. 82, 1985, pp. 307-347.
Mikhail Gromov, "Hyperbolic Groups". In: Gersten, Steve M. (ed.). Essays in Group Theory. Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Publications. Vol. 8. New York: Springer. pp. 75–263. (1987)
To say that these papers are very hard to read would be an understatement. If one were to apply the criteria mentioned in the three other answers, both papers should have been rejected. And yet, mathematics is better off that these papers were published, pretty much "as is." These papers changed two fields of mathematics (arguably, created two fields of mathematics): symplectic topology and geometric group theory. Here is how Donaldson characterizes (correctly) the first paper:
The terminology pseudoholomorphic curve (or J-holomorphic curve) was introduced by Gromov in 1986 [sic]. The notion has transformed the field of symplectic topology and has a bearing on many other
areas such as algebraic geometry, string theory, and
4-manifold theory...
Both papers introduce a variety of definitions and state a number of theorems (typically, with barely any proofs). It took mathematical community about 15 years to get a clean and complete treatment of these. I do not know who and how refereed the first paper, but I have some knowledge of how the refereeing process of the second paper took place. The first referee wrote several pages of comments of the form "prove or give a reference." The second referee ignored all of these and accepted the paper. It takes mathematical maturity and vision on the part of the referee to do so. As I said, we are all better off as the result.
One shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good, of course, but are you sure Gromov being asked to revise these papers would have been such a terrible outcome? Would he have refused to publish altogether in that case? If not, is it that you consider a few months of work by him to be worth more than many years of work by the community?
@Anyon: Gromov's reaction in the case I know was along the lines of "please, find another referee." And he probably would have published elsewhere.
I’m not sure "if you are famous enough you can just force people into publishing your work anyway" is the state science should strive for.
@MisterMiyagi: The misunderstanding expressed in your comment is exactly why I wrote my answer. Maybe one day you will understand the difference...
@MoisheKohan I am well aware what you are trying to say. I just disagree with it. Maybe one day you will understand the difference…
"Hard to read" and "reinvent things with idiosyratic terminology" are two different features of a paper. "Hard to read" paper may still be a high-quality work on difficult topic and making it easier may bloat the text significantly. On the other hand "idiosyncratic terminology" just messes things up and cleaning up may shorten the paper without losing any (novel) ideas.
@Crowley: That's quite true.
@MoisheKohan The mathematical community may collectively be better off. On the other hand, I have a vivid memory that almost 20 years ago, as someone doing a PhD in a completely different area, I was very frustrated that a result I needed was always cited as being in the hyperbolic paper, yet I was unable to find an explanation that I could follow. In the end my office-mate referred me to the notes of Alonso et al which did stoop to giving an actual proof
@YemonChoi: Of course. You just had to ask right people for better references (they also would have directed you to the books by Ghys et al, by Delzant et al, Bridson and Haefliger, etc). If you think about history of science in general, this is actually a rule: a breakthrough, followed by an extensive (and sometimes very long) clean-up stage. As the result, nobody reads original papers of Newton, Leibnitz, Poincare, Einstein, etc, except for science historians. But without those original papers, science would be nowhere close to where we are.
@YemonChoi: Of course, Gromov in principle could have provided detailed proofs. He did not for a good reason (which is not because he regarded this beneath him): It would have required a text about 5 times linger than his and significantly delayed publication and, hence, development of the field.
@MoisheKohan: I agree that it is better for mathematics that Gromov's papers were published, and given that he was unwilling to write out complete proofs (and in many cases, even complete definitions!) accepting them as-is seems like the right thing to do. However, I strongly disagree with you that he had a "good reason". Gromov is a great mathematician, but plenty of equally great mathematicians (Borel, Deligne, Serre, etc) could have used their stature to avoid the hard work of writing their papers but did not. We should not celebrate the fact that Gromov is less responsible than them.
(sorry for commenting on a 2-month old thread, but if I had self-control I'd be doing something other than playing on the internet...)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.282980 | 2024-10-12T13:57:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/214205",
"authors": [
"Adam Přenosil",
"Andy Putman",
"Anyon",
"Ben Hocking",
"Cameron Williams",
"Captain Emacs",
"Crowley",
"Flyto",
"MisterMiyagi",
"Moishe Kohan",
"N. Virgo",
"Stephan Kolassa",
"Will Sawin",
"Yemon Choi",
"Zach H",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/122238",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/136493",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1534",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/154257",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/166265",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17254",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4140",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4513",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/45857",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/52718",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/61756",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6797",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7796",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8394",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8857",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/9200",
"user166265"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
121372 | I received an F32, how do I ask for more money?
The F32 pays for my salary, and my benefits. This is going to be more than 58,500 dollars that my boss saves per year, for the next 3 years. That is a lot of money.
I think it is only right that I ask my boss for more money on top. She has 1 large non federal grant. And since she is relatively new, she still has start-up funds. NIH stipulates that the F32 can be supplemented with more money, given the money is not from a federal grant.
To start, i want to ask for an additional $15,000 per year.
Have any tips for me?
Thank you!
Update: I talked to my boss a 2nd time. She said supplemental funds were really rare and that she could not justify it. But she said she would give me retirement benefits starting July 1, 2019 (start of fiscal year). At this university, that amounts to 14%. I am relatively happy. My salary is going from 47.5k to 50.3k thanks to the NIH, and I do not have to pay FICA. This is an increase of almost 6,000 dollars from 2018 to 2019, not including retirement benefits. With retirement benefits, that is another 7,000 per year, approx.
I won't be able to get another car, but I'll be able to repair my clunker when it breaks down!
Thank you.
I think it is only right that I ask my boss for more money on top. I think it is appropriate, but whatever you do, be careful to not sound greedy/entitled.
But expect that she may also want to spread the money around to other unfunded students.
I have worked as a research administrator in the Boston area for 8 years, and thus have seen all postdoc salaries in the areas I work (natural sciences, engineering, and computer science). This is not how salary works for postdocs.
It is set by location. Boston pays higher than other areas due to cost of living. They have to set a rate that is sustainable to meet future commitments as well.
It is set by funding source. NIH has minimums that must be adhered to. If you don't receive NIH funding, you can pay less unless your institution says no.
It is set by field. I work in a top research university, known for having high salaries in research positions, including graduate students. Within the same building, there is a $30k disparity in pay between postdocs. Econ CS folks pay $80k because the faculty have to compete with both finance and Silicon Valley stealing their postdocs. Bio-engineering postdocs get the NIH minimum. It's not personal--it has to do with the fields they are in and the competition for postdocs.
Of the hundreds of postdoc salaries I have personally managed, I have only seen PIs supplement if the fellowship pays below the department standard or NIH minimum. If that's not the case here, I would not approach the PI.
The point of you getting an F32 is three-fold:
You learn how to write a grant on your own.
You can spend time on your own project, promoting independence in research.
You relieve the stress of procuring funding for the PI.
[Clarification on the compliance involved with this funding source: F32s are highly regulated; the grants policy statement defines supplementation and additional compensation differently, and it's important to make sure we are explicit about which words we are using.
A supplement, is additional stipend funding that provides no benefit to the PI. Because additional stipend funding must be consistent across the institution, frequently the policy is to use a department standard or NIH minimum as the policy to which a trainee is supplemented. This is paid out as a stipend and is not certifiable effort.
Additional compensation, is essentially a part-time job which allows the postdoc to work on other projects up to a total of 10 hrs/week. This is paid out as salary, and if on a federal grant is certifiable effort.
Unless they provide a part-time job for you (see policy statement), this leads to the conundrum of the PI spending more money on a postdoc who will not work on their grant. Furthermore, you can't work on a grant that overlaps with your own. This is probably why this method is less common than expected; if you request the raise of $15k, these additional funds (stipend, not salary) by definition must be of no benefit to the PI, because F32 Postdocs fall under the "trainee" definition of the Department of Labor. If your salary is $58,500 and you received $15k in salary instead of stipend at the same hourly rate; NIH could cite your institution for non-compliance, because it's technically above the 25% figure that they allow for additional compensation. The funding source is irrelevant. Your institution should have guidance on how they handle F32s. Here's one for UCSF.]
You are currently considered a bonus to the PI and a great relief. Startups don't last forever. They are great for bridging funding when data and results are difficult to procure; funding new research that sponsors won't fund; paying for expenses that cannot be allocated to a grant (e.g., general lab supplies or travel). She's not rich--there is plenty in her future to spend this money on, some of which could be on you (e.g., professional dues or travel).
Research funding is a rough game, so be supportive of her too. There is some risk for her as well, as her future funding is not guaranteed. Funding cliffs can be seriously painful for a PI, as they don't have personnel to procure data, do initial analysis, etc. Everything comes to a crawl, and it's hard to get published or funded when you can't pay students or postdocs. Should this happen, she may become a ward of the department, which will cause her reputation to take a hit with her peers.
If you are still going to approach her, definitely consider how tough her situation is, even if she wants to give you everything you ask for. In the end, you are both at the mercy of limited funds, and her responsibility is to make sure she has the funds to support everyone in her lab that she is committed to.
thanks for your feedback. So you have not seen any bio sciences postdocs get more funding after receiving a fellowship from NIH or another private institute? I find that hard to believe. Have you heard of anyone asking, and being rejected?
I disagree. Your PI is not your family member. They may not even be your friend. You owe them no help they do not pay you for. It does not matter one bit how tough it is for the PI to get funding. You can always ask for more pay. Your PI can always say no.
The answer says they have never seen a postdoc paid more than the standard amount, but how many postdocs have been promoted to research assistant professor so they can get paid more? I know that happens. And how many times have requests for pay raises lead to a change in the standard pay?
A promotion is not related to receiving an F32, as an F32 is for postdocs. And my point is not that you can't ask, it's just that postdoc salaries are not as individually determined as people think. The question as phrased implied that the PI has the money therefore can afford it. If you want to negotiate for more money though, my advice is to use a strategy that doesn't assume they are rich. Focus more on why you are worth the extra money and they should want to afford it, knowing that the ask costs them more than just cash. I find compassion and thoughtfulness go a long way.
For what it's worth, I upvoted both current answers to this question. I agree with StrongBad that OP definitely should ask for a raise, but sometimes it may just not be in the cards (and OP should be aware that simply getting a grant does not necessitate a raise, just like completing a successful project in industry does not automatically mean that one is entitled to a higher salary).
@jrod212 Salaries for positions like these may not be set by your PI but by university or department policy. I don't think it's wrong to ask, but know that the person you are asking may not even have the authority to act on your request.
The point of an F32 is that the postdoc is devoted to their own project. It creates a protected space for the postdoc with no additional expectations. This is why it's uncommon for PIs to supplement postdocs working on their own project--they aren't necessarily contributing to the PI's projects. If a postdoc felt that their own work was particularly beneficial to the PI, that might be an argument for a raise.
However, as presented, once you factor in fringe, I don't know how I would recommend the PI spend $58k in their discretionary funds for someone who is not working on the PI's grants.
In contrast to this answer I can tell you that supervisors can and do supplement the salaries of postdocs funded by an F32. My F32 was years ago and I don't remember the exact amount of additional funding I was provided, by my guess was it was close to 15k a year. I was earning more than the other two postdocs in the lab who were R01 funded and other F32 funded postdocs in the department. I believe I was the highest paid "postdoc" in the department, although determining who is/isn't a post doc is non-trivial.
For me, it was a relatively easy subject to broach. I had been working in the lab for 6 months prior to getting the F32 award letter and was being paid more the the NIH scale. Sometime soon after the letter, but before I even knew what was up, the department grants person sent an email to my supervisor and me saying that we had to make a decision about my salary. My supervisor suggested that if I was willing to devote some of my time to other lab projects, she could pay me more.
I think the NIH limited my outside commitment to 20% of my time. She had a pot of about 15k a year of non-federal funds (essentially the only money she has to supplement my salary). This meant my outside commitment of 20% was paid at about 75k a year which was close to the max we could justify with the department grant administrator. So I got all of the available money and was more than happy and didn't really have to say anything. She also agreed to cover all my consumables and travel from her federal funds since the work of the two projects was related closely enough.
I think it is only right that I ask my boss for more money on top.
Sure you can ask, but the non-federal grant probably has work that needs to be done and paying someone from that pot of money not to do that work is illegal. Even if there is overlap between the research, you cannot double dip. You would have to agree to do extra work for that grant specifically.
Startup funds are another story and do not generally have any/many restrictions. As for the likelihood of the PI supplementing your pay, all you can do is ask. You might be better off asking for an increased travel budget or money for consumables (the F32 does not provide much in terms of non-salary support).
This is a good answer because it touches on the restrictions that are placed on many funds. The money may "belong" to the professor, but there are generally serious constraints on what they can do with them. It can happen that with the best will in the world the professor could not legally use money that would otherwise not be spent to supplement a post-doc's salary.
Your answer is confusing from a research administration perspective. Stipend fellowships and salaries are not the same thing. This is why you were limited to low effort on other projects (it's actually 25% in ADDITION to your F32, i.e. 10 hrs). What you received was not a supplement. A supplement is when you get additional funds for no extra work. Additional compensation is subject to regulations and should be tracked--if it ends up on a federal grant, it would be subject to effort reporting, because it is salary and not stipend. You can read the policy in the grants policy statement.
Hello everyone,
Thanks for the comments. I asked my boss for a pay increase, and she definitely is willing to give me more. She did smile when I asked. She laughed when I asked for $15,000, and then said when she got her fellowship she did not get a dime. (Did she ask? I am guessing not.) She said she thinks she can definitely get me retirement benefits, which is better than nothing, but I am going to insist she gives me $10,000 more per year, because that is only about $3000 above how much retirement benefits would cost her.
She said she would talk to other faculty.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.284350 | 2018-12-10T04:38:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/121372",
"authors": [
"Anonymous Physicist",
"Bryan Krause",
"Buffy",
"Thomas Steinke",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10094",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/101594",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/101748",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13240",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/26671",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/44249",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63475",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/75368",
"iayork",
"illynewb",
"xLeitix",
"yourfriendlyresearchadmin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
123054 | Can I report the same study twice but with different authors?
I successfully defended my dissertation in November. Through the process, my chair (member A) was a terrific cheerleader. My second committee member (member B) was encouraging in a more specific,academic manner. At times, only because of Member B's feedback, I advanced in the dissertation process. Committee Member B broached the notion about co-authoring my study. Two days later, Member A called to discuss possible authorship opportunities. I have not given a firm answer. Is it possible to write two articles in separate journals with two different authors using the same study(not the same article)? How does one handle this issue?
Could you please edit your title into something more descriptive?
This sounds like you don't want to talk with A + B, together, in advance, but keep them in the dark? Bad, bad, bad idea, and totally unprofessional.
Thanks for the response.I am actually trying to be professional. I am simply new to this process and did not know if there was protocol. A&B did not seem to be friendly to one another, and I was stunned that both approached me about publishing opportunities.
There is a general prohibition on publishing the same work twice, whether with different co-authors or not.
One option is just to add both of them on same paper. Put yourself as first author. After that, it's other people riding the sled. Most people understand the main contribution is first author.
Potentially there is some way to carve the study into different pieces and do different papers with each person without violating (1). Or maybe give one of them some later co-authorship (say on a review or followup study). I wouldn't go through too many contortions though just for the purpose of doing separate co-authorships. Divide your overall work as you think it makes most sense to the reader and most benefit to you. Then figure out what coauthors are deserved where.
Also consider to use the "acknowledgements section" if a contribution was made but you do not think it rises to coauthorship.
Finally, I would make sure that A knows about what B is asking for. They may be buddies/colluders or rivals or whatever. But he can advise you. I bet he says go with (2).
Thank you for your comments and advice. I appreciate your thoughts.
Some studies are rich and complex enough that it is perfectly reasonable to publish more than one paper, each detailing some particular novel aspect of the study. Not all are like that, of course, but if yours is you can certainly proceed as you suggest. You aren't limited to just two.
For example, if a math paper has many lemmas to reach a specific result, some of the lemmas may, themselves, be worth a publication. This is especially true if the dissertation is longer than most journals would accept.
On the other hand, in my day (changed fields and am retired now), it was perfectly ok for a student to publish his/her own work without any co-authorship by advisors or others. I don't know if that is still true, but it seems a better practice to me. I would never consider being a co-author with one of my doctoral students on their dissertation. The work was theirs, even when I contributed some things.
It may depend on the field, but in biophysics in Europe the PI is always the co-author of a paper (in my experience from 4 different labs at least), even if they did not contribute anything except funding and laboratory equipment.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.285342 | 2019-01-13T04:52:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/123054",
"authors": [
"Karl",
"Louic",
"Nate Eldredge",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1010",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/103027",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/45983",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/64075",
"ssr"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9341 | How do I make sure I get strong recommendation letters for faculty positions?
I would like to ask Prof. X, a distinguished scholar at a top school, for a recommendation for a tenure-track academic position. However, I only want him to write me a recommendation if he is going to write a good one. If he will write me a mediocre or just insufficiently positive recommendation, I would prefer to have someone less famous than X but more positive about me write the letter.
If I simply ask Prof. X for a letter, there is the possibility that he will agree and then write something that is not as positive as I would like. I want to avoid this.
One way to solve this problem would be for me to ask Prof. X if he is sufficiently familiar with my work to write me a strong letter. If he does not wish to write me a strong letter, he can simply reply that he is not that familiar with the whole body of my work. By giving him an easy way to decline, this makes it more likely that he will write a strong letter if he accepts.
Unfortunately, in this case this little strategem will not work, as Prof. X and I have been working on the same questions for years, so there is little question of him being unfamiliar with my results.
Another possible solution would be to have someone else approach him to ask whether he can write me a strong letter. Sadly I have no one who could do this for me.
What would be a good strategy to use in this situation? More broadly, what are some general tips for asking people for recommendation letters which ensure you only get strong letters, besides the two I mentioned above?
Edited: Maybe I should mention a couple of other strategies that crossed my mind:
A. Mention to Prof. X that I'm going on the job market in unrelated conversation and see if he volunteers to write me a letter.
B. Ask him for a letter in an email and see how he responds. If he responds enthusiastically, e.g., "It would be my pleasure to write you a letter..." or "I'd be extremely happy to..." this is good. If he only responds neutrally, e.g., "Sure, I can write you a letter" then simply neglect to follow up with him and ask someone else for the letter.
Both of these strategies are decent, but they are not perfect. They might work, but they also might cause me to miss out on a good letter from a well-known scholar. Anyway, I'd welcome thoughts, corrections, additional strategies to use that I haven't thought of, etc.
Don't just neglect to follow up if he agrees but not enthusiastically enough. I occasionally deal with flaky students, who are going to miss deadlines if I don't remind them, and you don't want him to think you are in that category (he may end up reminding you and feeling annoyed about it). It's also hard to gauge enthusiasm from a brief reply.
One way to solve this problem would be for me to ask Prof. X if he is sufficiently familiar with my work to write me a strong letter.
No. Do not play mind games. The best approach is to be completely straightforward.
If you already know that he is familiar with your work, suggesting otherwise is dishonest and potentially insulting. What you really want to know is whether he's impressed by your work. The only way to find out is to ask directly. If possible, ask in person, preferably over coffee/beer or in some other informal neutral setting; conferences are really good for this. Be straightforward about your desire for a strong letter, but use the opportunity to develop a stronger collaborative relationship. Ask for honest feedback on your work. Ask about future opportunities to work together. Ask where he thinks you should apply. Be sincere in asking whether he can write you a strong recommendation letter; he knows what that means. Be sincerely ready to be turned down. Listen.
If you're not comfortable asking him directly, or you think that he might not be comfortable answering you, ask your advisor to informally sound out Prof X's opinion of you first. (Ideally, your advisor already has some idea what Prof X will say.) But the actual letter request must come directly from you.
If he only responds neutrally, e.g., "Sure, I can write you a letter" then simply neglect to follow up with him and ask someone else for the letter.
No. Do not play mind games.
First, unless you already know Prof X extremely well, you should not attempt to read his mind through email. "Sure, I can write you a letter" says nothing about his level of enthusiasm. If his response to your request makes you hesitant to use his letter, ask him again. Second, if you decide, for whatever reason, that you don't need his letter after you've asked for it, you must tell him directly, so that he doesn't waste his time.
This is great advice. It's also worth focusing not just on his opinion of your work in the abstract, but also in the context of other letters he may be writing. In the most likely problem scenario, he thinks your work is really good, but he's also writing a letter for someone he thinks is amazing, and your letter will suffer by comparison despite his genuine enthusiasm. So it's worth asking explicitly whether, given who else he expects to be writing for, he'd recommend that you might be better off with another letter writer.
If you don't already know whether your advisor will write you a strong recommendation letter, your relationship has already badly broken down. And you can still meet "face to face" over Skype/Google chat/Facetime/whatever.
something else that does not definitely mean yes or no? ... how long/or when you should [email] again? — Immediately! You need (and deserve) a definitive answer. Their waffling may be an attempt to say no without hurting your feelings, so when you contact them again, give them an out. "I would appreciate a strong letter from you, but I will certainly understand if you have too many other demands on your time."
@AnonymousMathematician: Excellent point! A similar issue could also arise Prof X is already writing a letter for his own student, even if he thinks you're stronger.
Thanks for your response. To be honest, I disagree: I think if Prof. X does not think highly of my work and I ask him directly what he thinks of it, he will not offer a negative assessment out of politeness. His negative opinion may instead manifest itself through in insufficient enthusiasm in his reply, or if perhaps if he cuts our conversation short with some excuse. One way or another, I'm reduced to playing mind games.
As for your point that - "Sure, I can write you a letter" says nothing about his level of enthusiasm - I agree. I actually say this in my edit above. This test is one-sided - a very enthusiastic reply means something, an unenthusisic reply means nothing.
Notice I said "If you don't already know whether your advisor will write you a strong recommendation letter..." Also, beware of Impostor Syndrome; let Prof X decide what he thinks of your work.
@JeffE - You are right, I misunderstood your point. I've gone ahead and deleted the comment to which your last comment is responding.
I assume here that Prof X knows you (and not only your work). I also assume that you work is strong enough to ensure that you are eligible for a tenure-track position somewhere.
One thing you can do is contacting Prof X, asking him for advice regarding your application. More specifically, you can ask him to read your research project and giving you some hints about what can be done to make it "sexier". That way, you will certainly have a good idea of his opinion on your work. Afterwards, you can decide to ask him for a letter (in the best case scenario, he will volunteer before you ask). If he doesn't even want to read your research project, this is a good clue that he will not write a very good letter.
I disagree with this, although unfortunately I don't have a better solution. You propose to ask for a relatively substantial amount of Prof. X's time, with ulterior motives. It seems at least slightly dishonest, and could potentially cause resentment. Please keep in mind that most bigshots are asked to write a ton of rec letters, and do it cheerfully and conscientiously but would probably rather get back to their own work.
Actually I don't see a problem with this strategy. It actually might be beneficial in general to get this kind of feedback especially since Prof X is distinguished AND works in your area.
Agreed. The best letters come from professors who know you well. You need to take time to cultivate that relationship (perhaps years in advance) and Prof. X needs to be willing to reciprocate on some level. If Prof. X is unwilling to invest the time, find someone else.
@Anonymous "most bigshots are asked to write a ton of rec letters": I disagree. I have a bunch of bigshots in my coauthors, and only a few people dare asking them letter. I think that, after some point, the higher you are in the food chain, the lesser you are asked for letters.
In mathematics, I have heard a couple of bigshots mention that they have something like twenty letters to write in one year, and I got the impression that this is reasonably typical. Perhaps it is different in other fields.
See http://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/recommendations.html for one well-known mathematician's letter writing statistics: "I kept track of letters in a recent year. Sixty people asked for or needed letters: 1 high school, 8 at the undergrad level, 17 at the grad level, 11 at the postdoc level, 8 at the tenure track level, and 15 more senior." Most well-known faculty write fewer letters, but still a lot. The number of letters for grad school and job applications tends to go up over time, plus you have tenure cases and promotion (full professor, chair), senior hires, prize nominations, etc.
@SylvainPeyronnet: That does not fit my experience at all. Most of the bigshots I know write ridiculous numbers of letters for graduate school admissions, fellowships, research internships, postdocs, faculty jobs, tenure and promotion cases, awards, etc.
20 requests in a year sounds reasonable. 60 is a lot !
I've heard of more than one person in the 50+/year, and if I remember right at least one over 100.
The fact that some of us have different experiences on that matter make me wonder whether the "letter pressure" is a localized specificity. This is a wild guess, but it seems that the US system is "eating" much more letters than others, true or false?
Here's another variation: email prof X and tell him you are thinking of applying for faculty positions. Ask if he has any suggestions of who might be willing to write you a letter of recommendation to help you achieve your goal.
This is pretty straightforward. If he is willing to write a strong letter, he will offer. If he is not willing to write a strong letter, he will not offer. And he might have some good suggestions for other possible letter writers.
I'm not so sure about this, because the people who can write a strong recommendation letter for you, if such people exist, are the people who personally know you (and your work). And nobody is better placed to know who knows you than you.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.285675 | 2013-04-13T21:05:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/9341",
"authors": [
"Anonymous",
"Anonymous Mathematician",
"Ben Norris",
"Code Whisperer",
"David Z",
"Imran",
"JeffE",
"Jishan",
"Muhammad Asif",
"New to Rails",
"Noah Snyder",
"Nonsingular",
"Petch Puttichai",
"Richard Boyd",
"Suresh",
"Sylvain Peyronnet",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22882",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22884",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22885",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22889",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22901",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22902",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22916",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/22917",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/236",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/25",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/346",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6110",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/612",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6786",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/924",
"robinson"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
2447 | Can I use contractions in my thesis?
I am writing my thesis (in Computer Science, if that's relevant) and I am thinking about the style, especially about using contractions.
I realize that thesis is a formal text and contractions like “we're” are quite informal, so they shouldn't be used. But does that apply to all contractions (like “can't” or “don't”)?
English is not my first language, so I'm not sure how much informal the various contractions are.
If you think this question would be better off at english.SE, I could ask there instead.
Just be wary of the difference between "cannot" and "can not".
Many people have different opinions, even among those who are native English speakers and/or think a lot about what makes for good exposition. That said, here are a few rules of thumb:
Your thesis is possibly the most formal writing you will ever do. Survey articles and expository articles (especially for undergrads or other non-experts) are often written less formally. Even many conference proceedings and some journal articles omit some details, and thus can feel less formal than your thesis.
No one will fault you for avoiding contractions altogether. If in doubt, leave it out (the contraction, that is). I hate some techniques common in formal writing, such as overuse of the passive voice, or nearly any use of the pronoun one. But lack of contractions doesn't bother me.
As a more general resource for non-native English speakers, consider Doug West's The Grammar. West has written two textbooks and over two hundred papers, as well as having served as a problem editor for the Math Monthly for the last 20-something years. Surely many people will disagree with at least one piece of advice he gives, but what I find helpful is that West explains his motivation for each piece of advice he offers.
I disagree with the first point. At least in theoretical computer science, I've never noticed a difference in formality between any PhD thesis and any journal paper. Indeed, most dissertations in my area are essentially "sandwich theses".
Also, passive voice and "one" are (usually) features of bad writing, not of formal writing.
@JeffE I think many of the guidelines that students are taught under the guise of "formal" writing tend to produce bad writing.
Oh yes. Definitely.
@JeffE Why passive voice is considered a feature of bad writing?
The best advice depends upon the style of your thesis. If you are working in a field where you might be expected to publish your thesis, then something aimed at experts should be written in a formal tone (avoiding contractions whenever possible, outside of direct quotations). However, if you're aiming at a wider audience, then a more conversational tone might be completely appropriate. The same logic applies if the chapters of your thesis are planned for publication.
However, you should also check with your advisor about his or her expectations when writing. It would be better to get a sense of what will be allowed before you get too far along; major structural changes are always a pain afterwards.
Replacing you'll by you will is relatively easy to fix using search and replace, or specialized tools like sed and grep.
This depends on the research community you're writing to. Check out some great papers you think highly of in your field. Not necessarily ones that got the most awards, but one's where you went "boy is this paper written well!" Also, it looks like over the decades academics have generally drifted towards more formality, which is a shame, but it also ebbs and flows, recently I see more informal writing again from top researchers.
If you are Lieutenant Commander Data: your brother can but you can't (or, as you would say, "cannot"). Otherwise: I see that you can use contractions in your informal writing, so it would be very strange if you were not able to use them when writing your thesis. If you can't, maybe contact Oliver Sacks: he should get at least an article about this, and maybe part of a book.
More seriously: obviously you can. Should you? Speaking as someone who has both written and carefully read theses in a STEM field (mathematics): one generally needs to worry first that the content is complete and correct and second that the writing is good enough so as not to detract (or distract) from the content. The use of contractions would be at least a level below anything I would worry about when reading a thesis...provided they are used correctly.
It's best to stick to language within your comfort zone (especially as a non-native speaker). But your post above indicates to me that you have more than enough facility with English to pull off contractions if you want to. You'll be fine.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.286531 | 2012-07-14T16:44:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2447",
"authors": [
"Ali Khalili",
"Artem Kaznatcheev",
"Dan C",
"JeffE",
"Lighthart",
"Macrod",
"Paul Hiemstra",
"Steve V.",
"Victor F Salazar G",
"acfoltzer",
"asterac",
"compugurl",
"elmazzun",
"enthu",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10659",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10660",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10661",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1069",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14472",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14623",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15198",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/15723",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/323",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4091",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6099",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6100",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6105",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6106",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/66",
"isarandi",
"svick"
],
"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/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
111007 | How to change higher education standards?
I discovered a new field of mathematics.
I have the ambitious wish to include it into college standard programs.
Who makes the standards? How the standards work? Which procedure one needs to follow to change the standards?
How to make my new field of math into college standards?
My question received two downvotes. Why? It may be very hard to do in practice. But my questions is quite valid as a theoretical issue, independently on whether I can implement it in practice.
There was proposed that my question was answered in I believe I have solved a famous open problem. How do I convince people in the field that I am not a crank?.
It is not so: My question is unlike that question not about acceptance by community but about how standards (documents, not just opinions) setting higher education standards are managed (who writes them, who votes for them, etc.) Maybe I have not made it enough clear, but my question is about documents not people (while that other question is about people).
Possible duplicate of I believe I have solved a famous open problem. How do I convince people in the field that I am not a crank?
@shoover It is not a duplicate. Convincing people that one solved a famous problem has nothing to do with education standards. My question, even if I haven't stressed this enough, is about education standards, not about acceptance by community in general
@MorganRodgers I try to explain that the question (at least how I had it in mind) was not about convincing people but about the formal procedures to get my course into the relevant document (not how to convince the document writers, but about the procedure)
This question is based on a false premise. No higher education standard lists tge courses taught in academia.
So you've discovered a new field of mathematics. Congratulations. But results don't usually jump from research level to college level immediately: the new field takes time to be explored, confirmed, and understood. If your mathematician peers think it's worth teaching, they'll eventually start teaching it. Eventually. This can take years or even decades, e.g. see this comic.
As for who makes the standards: they arise by consensus. There's a reasonably well-defined set of ideas that everyone agrees an undergraduate should know (see examples for physics). To insert your new field into college syllabus, you must convince your peers that it's correct, interesting, relevant, etc.
My question is specifically about the standards. Do you mean that there is no international higher education standard set by some nonprofit association, but just informal (not written as a certain document) "consensus" of different countries?
You tried to convince me that it does not happens quickly. No need to convince, I know this. Maybe it will take 40 years without me actively working on this and 39 years if I receive a proper answer to my question and start actively work on promotion of my research into education standards
@porton there is no nonprofit association that sets standards, yes.
add that there is no such organization to your answer, so that I could accept it as the proper answer
That is correct , that there is NO international committee or any committee in the United States that sets educational standards. for higher education. This is especially true in the United States since the the united states has public, private AND religiously affiliated universities , colleges and schools.. i attended religiously affiliated private schools and went to a college of a private university. and graduated twice. There is NO international committee setting higher educations "standards."
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.287058 | 2018-06-08T22:56:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/111007",
"authors": [
"Allure",
"Carol Miller 1600",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1637",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/43873",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84834",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/91726",
"porton",
"reinierpost",
"shoover"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
161943 | Can a Scopus journal be fake/predatory?
I get "spam" emails advertising journals listed in Scopus.
Can a Scopus journal be fake/predatory?
Or does Scopus has enough strict conditions to list only reputable journals?
Or do spammers lie about being listed there?
My question is not about other criteria of fake/predatory and how to determined if a journal is predatory in general, but namely about whether this one criterion, presence in Scopus, is enough to decide if it is fake.
Yup. I know a few. Also, many started as predatory, and they managed to satisfy conditions required to be listed onto Scopus. Have a read of: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus-works/content/content-policy-and-selection. Not too hard to satisfy I reckon.
Just voting to re-open as this is a more specific question. I.e., it seems to be about the degree of quality-control that Scopus exercises when deciding to index a journal. And this is an important specific question.
A lot depends on what you mean by fake/predatory (these terms are not well-defined). Still if you demand a yes/no answer then I will say no.
As Prof. Santa Clause gave in a comment, the criteria to be listed in Scopus are given here. You need a lot of things to be listed, such as diversity in geographical distribution of editors, clarity of abstracts, and no delays or interruptions in the publication schedule. These things aren't easy to fake. The "no delays or interruptions" criterion sinks a lot of legitimate attempts at journals as well.
This particular criterion is especially hard to satisfy: Citedness of journal articles in Scopus. You can see what is needed also on that page: a journal's inclusion in Scopus is threatened if "the journal received half the number of citations, or less, when compared to peer journals in its subject field."
Based on this criterion alone, for a fake/predatory journal to still be listed in Scopus, they must somehow conjure citations from other journals that are also listed in Scopus. This isn't probable unless you go to extremes like postulating that there are a lot of fake journals in Scopus that are citing each other, but not only would the journals have to all get into Scopus in the first place, they would probably fail other criteria, such as "The journal's abstracts are used half as much, or less, when compared to peer journals in its subject field."
tl; dr: it depends on what you mean by fake/predatory, but if a journal is listed in Scopus you can assume that it is reputable until proven otherwise.
On the hard to satisfy criterion: get your friends together, and whenever they publish a legit paper, make sure they cite an article in the 'fake' journal. Also, when reviewing papers for other journals, make sure you recommend a 'fake' article. After a certain point, what looks fake is now legit, and everyone will start citing papers in the 'fake' journal.
@Prof.SantaClaus Assuming the papers in the fake journal are genuinely worthless, then that'd make all the citations fake citations where the cited article doesn't actually back up the claim being made. It's hard to make people cite worthless articles, so the last two steps would not work, and the first would be hard to justify if spotted during peer review as well.
The peer review Scopus criteria could be easily faked.
I disagree. I do have counterexamples to your points, where I know of at least one initially fake journal that uses the tactics above to become legit (still poor, but at least it stayed on Scopus)
@Prof.SantaClaus can you name the journal, and give an explanation for why the journal is fake?
http://airccse.org/
@Prof.SantaClaus that's a publisher. Publishers cannot be indexed by Scopus, only journals can. Are you referring to IJCNC, which is the journal that the website advertises as being indexed in Scopus? If so, what makes you say that journal is fake? It looks quite legitimate to me. The EiC is a real person at the affiliation listed, papers published in the journal have been cited by other, more highly-indexed journals, and they do look like they are in the Computer Networks field. I also checked a few random editorial board members and they are real people working in the field.
IJCNC certainly does not look like a very good journal, but I don't see why it's not a real journal.
@Allure I know it is a publisher, and yes, I'm referring to IJCNC. Few years back (or maybe now?), you only have to pay a small sum of $ to get a paper published, no reviews. It is now 'legit'.
@Prof.SantaClaus sounds like IJCNC is an answer to another question, but not this one.
@Allure I agree. I do not know whether it is still predatory. So it could answer this question as well. I don't have any rubbish to send to IJCNC :D
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.287379 | 2021-01-29T00:47:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/161943",
"authors": [
"Allure",
"Anonymous Physicist",
"Jeromy Anglim",
"Prof. Santa Claus",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/132073",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/13240",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/62",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84834"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8279 | Quality of an image for publication reproduced from another source
I have my paper back from a reviewer. The main point is that a quality of the image is not good enough for the publication. I reproduced this image from another paper (with permission) but the only thing I could do, was a print screen of the original and paste into graphical software. I improved the quality by smoothing, but it is still not good enough for the publisher.
The reviewer comment:
The quality of the figures 1 and 2 is still not good. I recommend authors convert the schematics into vector graphics.
I can't find what and how to do it. Did you have a similar problem and solved it?
EDIT to explain what is on the figure:
The figure shows elements of a vehicle with dimensions (numbers), different coordinate systems, force... it is rather complicated and maybe I could redraw the arrows (alhough many of them) but the background is a photo of the element.
Welcome to AC.SE. I think that this question is off topic here as it is really a question about image reproduction.
@Daniel E. Shub - I agree that it is off topic in how to do the reproduction, but I believe the idea that graphics for publication must be high quality (read: vector or 600+DPI) is appropriate. I've seen enough crappy graphs in review to know that more people in academia need to know how to produce proper publication-ready material.
since the image in creative commons, could you put the link to it here, so that we can have an idea of what we're talking about ?
It is difficult to provide a detailed reply without knowing more about the figure, for example if it is a photograph or a line graph. I will therefore concentrate on the general aspects.
First, the best would be if you could get some form of original from the author (or whoever) has the copyright). Screen dumps are clearly not sufficient since printing requires high resolution (300 dpi in final reproduction size is a commonly quoted resolution in journals)
Second, if it is a line graph, and it sounds as if that is the case, I would argue that the best way is to put the image in the background of a vector-based drawing program such as Inkscape/Illustrator/Corel Draw and manually redraw the figure. This is done by placing the illustration in a background layer and then draw lines in the program to reproduce the background. This requires learning a vector-based software and is a tough solution for the short-term but one I strongly recommend for the long-term. If the plot is based on data, for example a scatter graph, then you could digitize the data and re-plot it as long as you think of the re-plot as a version of the original plot and not use data points for additional analysis.
There are of course numerous kinds of complicated plots where the second approach will not work so trying to get the source would be the first choice. Screen dump quality bitmaps will be rejected by most if not all journals.
+1 for "contacting the original author". You must have already been in touch with that person to get permission to use the image; just send an email asking for the figure they used when they went to publication.
@eykanal: I think some journals may allow figures from their own journal to be reused, and in some cases its the journal, rather than the author, who is asked for reprint permission.
Still, an email to the original author could be the quickest way to get a high-quality image. I suggest you email the author, explaining the situation.
Contacting the author should be done in any case, if not for general courtesy. After all that might strike up a rewarding contact for the future.
I have one of figure from an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
I contacted the authors a few times, but never get back from them.
@tomasz74 I think the question about Creative Commons is a good one and deserves a separate post. What happens if one uses a CC illustration in a paper and the publisher copyrigths it? or is that clearly stated in the CC license?
@aeismail - If you're asking the journal for permission it may be worth asking them for the image. If they retain the rights then they may also retain the image itself. Not sure how that works.
@PeterJansson CC BY license allows relicensing by another license (it's very different e.g. from CC BY SA (share-alike)).
Without going into the how of your question (which @Peter Jansson answered succinctly), I would say that going forward you should always try to have the best quality graphs when you provide a submission. That means they should either be vector graphics (i.e., graphics that do not rely on bitmapped representation but rather are scalable), or high DPI (dots per inch); I try for 600dpi in all images that aren't vector.
Tips: if your graphic has a .jpg, .gif, .png, or .tiff extension, it is not a vector graphic. If it has a .eps or .pdf extension, it may be a vector graphic, but you need to zoom in to ensure that the lines are not turning fuzzy. If it is a .svg, it is (I think) a vector graphic, but I always do the zoom test to make sure.
Finally, always do a zoom test on all your graphics in your PDF submissions. I've had vector graphics turn into bitmapped graphics during the conversion-to-PDF stage. If that happens, you need to figure out where the problem is taking place and fix it (e.g., it could be that your conversion from .eps to .pdf for an individual figure changes the image, and another conversion tool might be able to handle it properly).
An SVG image can contain bitmap graphics in the same way that EPS and PDF can.
@Zack - I wondered if that was the case. A Google search didn't prove fruitful. Thanks!
Many PDF viewers (including Adobe Acrobat, Skim, and Preview on the Mac) can be used to copy regions out of a PDF file as independent PDF files. (A typical workflow is to select a rectangle with the marquee tool, Copy, and then New from Clipboard.) In particular, you can extract pixelmap graphics from PDF files at exactly the same resolution as they appear in the source PDF, and you can extract vector graphics. If there are undesired elements of the paper that overlap the figure, you can usually remove them in Adobe Illustrator, which reads and writes PDF files natively, so editing will preserve vector graphics and pixelmap resolution.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.287759 | 2013-02-27T13:03:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/8279",
"authors": [
"Bhabani Mishra",
"Chris Gregg",
"Peter Jansson",
"Phil",
"Piotr Migdal",
"Rachel",
"Ragnar",
"StrongBad",
"aeismail",
"che_kid",
"durka42",
"eykanal",
"hotterpop",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19988",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19990",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19991",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19994",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19995",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20004",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20006",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20007",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20008",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4394",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4461",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/49",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5973",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6093",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6209",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/73",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/815",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929",
"maxschlepzig",
"noobilityat19",
"tomasz74",
"user19990",
"woliveirajr",
"zwol"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
797 | How can one successfully run a reading group?
This is related to "Skimming through a math paper with a group" and "What do professors gain out of teaching reading courses with individual Ph.D students", but from the other side :)
I've experimented with various ways to run my advanced Ph.D seminar, ranging from almost-lectures to "students present papers" to "students present textbook-level material" to "let's all work on a problem together". I don't think any of them have really worked to my satisfaction in the sense of ending the semester feeling that students have a command (as opposed to knowledge) of the material.
I've been reading about the Oxford tutorial style approach, which can crudely be approximated by:
professor assigns reading material once a week
students form pairs and meet with professor once a week for about 1-1.5 hours.
students run the meeting (maybe one person presents and the other critiques, or they work out shared portions of the material on the board). Professor keeps quiet as far as possible except to unblock.
This format sounds tempting, as something that might work with a small group (at most 10 people). Does anyone have experience with this format and would it be suitable for advanced material at the graduate level ?
While I'm hoping it doesn't matter too much for this discussion, the topics for the seminar would be in theoretical computer science.
As a student I can say that my favorite variant of reading groups (in terms of forcibly maximizing what I learn) is the: students present and discuss papers together guided by pointed questions from the prof; at the end of the semester each student is expect to produce an independent mini-survey on some specific set of papers/topic (often a list of papers/topics is available from the prof, but other related suggestions welcome)
A tutorial with one or two students can work very well. But that's a completely different animal to a tutorial with ten students. The success of the former does not translate directly to the latter; you have to run the latter in a completely different way. So, which do you want to do? If you want tutor ten at a time, then Oxford-style is an irrelevant distraction, I'm afraid.
Check this out: https://colinraffel.com/blog/role-playing-seminar.html
Although it's quite a while since you posted this question but here's what I've seen been extremely effective (when I was a student for those courses).
Course 1: A theory course with reading and understanding of advanced material
The professor took great effort in actually explaining everything using a chalk and board (better than PowerPoint for theoretical course IHMO). Of course, we were told to read the papers but he explained as if teaching in a chapter/concept in the lecture. Thereafter, he'd assign us some homework problems and we were allowed to do them in groups. Now, these HW problems were really innovative. They weren't part of any book. He would actually "create" them based on the ideas he was teaching. He would cast an existing problem, either from something he was working on or just create one and ask us to solve it. THAT was the master's stroke, IMHO. The entire class would bang their heads against the wall to solve them and learn a lot as a result. We could solve the problems but not always, but the fun part was applying what we learned, consequently requiring us to understand the material really well.
Course 2: Exact same format as you mentioned as well as that suggested by @lynxoid
Nothing learnt. Honestly. Only the people assigned the papers actually read them. Maybe a few questions here and there but very little interaction other than some from the professor. Overall, the students weren't really happy with it. I barely even remember half the things from that class. But for the former, remember almost everything.
Another variation you could try with style #1 (I read about this somewhere): Tell them that you are going to tell one "lie" (false information) when explaining the material. They have to spot the lie by the end of class. If they don't, they have learned something that is not true. If they spot it, a small reward like a chocolate else, it's a HW due next week. This drives them nuts. You can make the lies progressively complex and sometimes not lie too (You can say that you lied when you told them that every lecture would have a lie :) I haven't tried this variation but will do so soon. I feel this is an excellent way to get them to master the course content.
Hope this helps
I have seen reading seminars done like this: in the beginning of the semester, professor publishes a full list of papers + a little extra that (s)he wants to cover. Each student then picks a paper or two and the date when they will present it. Then the student reads the paper, prepares a presentation on it, and speaks about it to the rest of the group. Presentation can be formal or informal (depending on the size of the class) and encourage other students to ask questions about the material. What I like about this approach is that 1) students get to pick a paper that will engage them 2) they have to read it and understand it so that they could present it to the group and be able to answer questions about it.
that's how I run the seminars right now. the problem is that often only the presenter has read the material, and there's little discussion.
in this reading group, people usually showed up with papers printed out, so that they could follow what the presenter was talking about. that made asking questions easier (can mark in the paper, read in depth and ask if speaker understands the problem better). also - providing criticisms and "what would you do better" attitude usually spurs discussions easily
I have done this (as a student) and I can't say I took anything away from the others' presentations. It was more about showing the faculty you can prepare a presentation given academic material, less about learning in a group.
@Raphael I wonder if size is the issue? Our group was usually 5-7 people.
@lynxoid Sounds about the same. To be fair, the goal of these seminars I was referring to was to train presentation (verbally and in writing) so the audience did not need to or necessarily care to follow the content. If the shared goal of the group is to understand all the material, things are bound to be different.
@Raphael I see. Yes, the stated goal for our group was to cover the material in depth, presentation manner did not matter.
Best proseminar:
Long list of papers and book chapters, about three per week, carefully chosen to be easy to read at first, then more wiley.
We all had to write a précis on the same one of the papers each week. The other papers were related, usually contradicting each other about the same topic. At least everyone had read one of the papers so we could discuss.
I learned how to read papers that way.
At the end of the semester we all had to assign three papers to the class once and lead that discussion.
I haven't been in a class like this but my husband recommends the following (as a student - he says he learned the most in this format):
Professor assigns reading (1 paper/meeting)
At the beginning of the meeting, more or less randomly select one student to be the advocate of the paper and one to criticize it.
Have the two selected students lead the discussion - the others are encouraged to participate, too, after the selected students have given an overview of the paper together and each made their opening point.
If the group runs out of material, the professor may help.
If there are grades, students are graded on their participation in all the discussions - not just the ones they lead.
The trick is the random selection. The students have to believe that they can be chosen to advocate or criticize the paper in any meeting, so they'll at least read it far enough to find one good point and one point to criticize.
You can roll dice or draw straws at the beginning of the semester - toward the middle, you should pick the students who haven't had a turn yet, then after everybody had a turn, go back to straws/dice.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.288315 | 2012-03-18T06:34:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/797",
"authors": [
"410 gone",
"Artem Kaznatcheev",
"Bren",
"Hichem Romdhane",
"Raphael",
"Suresh",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/101913",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1419",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/346",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/35664",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/47170",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/476",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/66",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/9678",
"lynxoid",
"tales",
"user2869950"
],
"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/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75246 | Convention for naming something after its discoverers when many were involved
I would like to refer to a mathematical construction by the names of its discoverers. The issue is that the same construction was discovered by two groups simultaneously, through quite different chains of reasoning. One paper has two authors and the other has five, so there are seven researchers involved in the discovery in total. Obviously I can't refer to it by all seven names, and I'm wondering if there's some other reasonable convention to follow instead.
So for example, if one paper is by A. Alpha and B. Beta, and the other is by G. Gamma, E. Epsilon, Z. Zeta, E. Eta and T. Theta, would it be reasonable to refer to it as the Alpha-Gamma construction, leaving off the names of the other authors? Or would I have to call it something more ad-hoc like AB-GEZET, after their initials?
If it makes a difference, the field is information theory, so I guess somewhere in the intersection between maths, computer science and data analysis. I'm confident that the authors are not listed alphabetically on either paper.
Also in case it makes a difference, the reasons I want to do this are
It's a solution to a fairly well-defined problem that a number of people have been working on for a while, and it's pretty non-trivial.
There are many other proposed solutions to the same problem, so it's handy to attach names to them in order to distinguish between them.
It seems like a nice thing to do for the researchers involved, at least one of whom spent their PhD on it.
I have heard (I'm not sure how official these things are) that in modern scientific fields people are trying to phase out naming things after the people involved, as it makes learning the subject difficult - remembering a set of random names that don't describe the things as against calling it by what it is or what it does.
So while this might seem like a nice thing to do for the scientists involved, it might make your work clearer and easier to understand if you just describe the thing (construction) and then mention or site the relevant authors.
E.g. the folding solution to the paper box problem presented by Dr. Origami et al. and Dr P. Airplane et al.
(Forgive my silly example, I have no experience of information theory and don't really know what a "construction" is in your terminology.)
I didn't mean "construction" as a technical term here, I just couldn't think of a better general term to describe a thing that one defines in order to solve a problem.
Another reason to use the names is that I want to compare and contrast it with other groups' solutions. I guess I could just keep saying "Alpha et al. and Gamma et al.'s solution", but it's a bit long-winded. Maybe I'll just introduce some special notation for it instead.
Also I guess it would be "Alpha and Beta and Gamma et al's solution", since one of the papers has only two authors
If I need to refer to a particular paper many times (I am comparing my method to theirs) the convention in my field is to take the first letter of author's names and the last digits of the year, or if their are many authors we would use the first author's initial. So in this case you would say something the first time you refer to them like this:
"The solution of Alpha and Beta 2011 (hereafter AB11), also proposed by Gamma et al. 2009 (hereafter G09) shows that ..."
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.289356 | 2016-08-16T10:11:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/75246",
"authors": [
"Alison Garcia",
"FJC",
"Lisa Queen",
"Mauzer Lian Prado",
"N. Virgo",
"Nikitha Venu",
"Thomas Alva Edison",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1534",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20818",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/210922",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/210923",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/210924",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/210928",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/210941"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
3591 | Are the referees of a journal allowed to reveal the title of the papers they review after the review process?
I am wondering if a referee can reveal the title of the papers he/she has refereed for a journal (either by talking about it in the pub, posting it on facebook or another mean) after the decision has been made.
The reason for my question is that I have seen some people revealing titles of the papers they referee but I have not found an authoritative reference for judging this behaviour.
Related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/2022/can-i-show-my-co-author-the-final-version-of-an-accepted-publication-i-reviewed/2024#2024
Don't do that.
Everything related to reviewing is confidential.
You will certainly upset some editors if you reveal your identity to the authors without the editor's permission. (Remember that the authors usually know who was the editor. Perhaps the editors did not want the authors to know that they asked you to review the paper?)
More generally, there is nothing to gain by doing this, and everything (= your reputation) to lose. You do not want to do anything that someone might interpret as a violation of the confidentiality of the peer-review process. (Even if you had both the authors' and the editor's permission to publish this information, others might not know that.)
For what it's worth, I strongly concur. Even if "nothing bad" happens in many cases, the "bad" that might potentially happen in others far outweighs whatever convenience "only_temporary anonymity" might have.
Thanks for this. I agree, even if this behaviour is not regulated explicitly, the implications of violating this confidentiality can be considerable.
I find this answer unsettling: it basically says you shouldn't do it because it may upset some people (the editor, or onlookers), but no reason about why they might be upset (i.e., what is the actual harm). I agree that what you are asking about is not something commonly done, and doing something uncommon may always upset some people, but by this justification it is always a bad idea do to something uncommon...
If you want to be in the clear, warn editors about what you plan to do before accepting their review request (so they have a chance to object, and you have a chance to refuse if they object), and point out when you publish the reviews that you are doing so with permission. If you do that, I don't see what would be the problem.
I looked up the policy of journals in the fields of physics and chemistry, and their policy regarding reviewers does not directly address your question. Most ethical guidelines say the same thing: manuscripts sent for review are confidential. For example, quoting from the APS Guidelines for Professional Conduct:
Privileged information or ideas that are obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for competitive gain.
From the more loquacious ACS Ethical Guidelines:
A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.
This clearly covers the case of revealing the part (or any part of it) before it was published, as well as nonpublished parts of the paper (i.e., the published version is of course public, but anything else is still confidential).
However it seems to me that, narrowly read, there is material that this rule does not cover. For example, the text written by the reviewer is not indicated to be confidential (except insofar as it reveals part of the authors’ confidential material), and it seems clear that you retain the right to publish it. (Whether it's a good thing to actually do is another matter. Except in extreme situations, I would advise against it.)
So, once a paper is published, are you allowed to reveal that you were a referee? I think so. Is it a good thing? I don’t think it hurts anyone.
PS: I interpreted your “after the decision has been made” as meaning “after the paper is published”. In the interval of time between editorial decision and publication, it is clear that this information is confidential.
Thank you, very good answer. Your interpretation of my French is correct. Indeed, it looks like there is no problem on telling everyone about your previous reviews. The only problem might be possible retaliation if the review was tough or media pressure if the review was too generous (something like " "Some day, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me").
Extrapolating your observations... I think there is "conflict of interest" if there were understood to be any possibility, positive or negative, for referees revealing themselves. Permaninent anonymity avoids several such issues.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.289673 | 2012-10-04T17:43:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/3591",
"authors": [
"Kalel",
"R.M'nassri",
"Reuben Tozman",
"StrongBad",
"Vipin",
"a3nm",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10489",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10490",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10494",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10495",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10499",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10510",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17423",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2774",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/980",
"paul garrett",
"physicsGuy",
"stackman",
"user35123"
],
"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/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7371 | What is the perception of foreign Universities (Non UK) in the US for prospective academic positions (Postdoc/Tenure)?
First of all, I know that your work speaks for you, and if you have really good papers, you have better chances, but just bear with me, and for the sake of argument lets assume that your research is only one of the points to consider.
I did my undergrad in what could be considered the best University in my Country (Mexico)and got a Magna Cum Laude.
And then, I did my Graduate studies in the University of Tokyo publishing a couple of Journal Papers (I'm really pushing for that 3rd one!)
This question is directed to people in the US, since I'm looking to find a permanent position.
What is the perception Universities in the US have of foreign Universities? I happen to know that UK Universities like Cambridge and Oxford have no problem (for obvious reasons), but a professor friend of mine told me that other Universities are just not that well known. And having a degree from the Hawaii University was better than having a degree from Tokyo University. (As a side note, he is a professor at Haw Univ, and he wanted me to apply over there)
I just want to know how true or false this is, and realistically speaking how hard/easy is to get a position as a postdoc and eventually a full time professor if you are not from a US univ.
For example, do I have the same chances as someone who graduated from a top University (your Ivy leagues, Public Ivy League, MIT, Stanford, etc) or do I least have the same chances as middle range Universities?
As a side note, I have a postdoc in the UCLA lined up, so I guess that'll boost my chances a bit.
I'm confused. Are you looking for a post doc as it says in the title, a permanent position (i.e., one with tenure), or a tenure track position.
Right now I'm pondering on that, I want to see how many postodcs are a reasonable number to get a tenured position in the US, if I come from a foreign Univ. I just modified the title so it makes more sense, thanks.
And having a degree from the Hawaii University was better than having a degree from Tokyo University. (As a side note, he is a professor at Haw Univ, and he wanted me to apply over there) — Yeah, I saw that coming. He's wrong (at least in computer science).
A postdoc in a US institution with letters from US faculty can "reset" much of the potential disadvantage from doing a PhD from a non-Us university.
Having said that, in addition to the "familiarity" issue that @aeismail brings up, there is also the issue of logistics. The effort involved in bringing someone who is outside of US over for an interview is high, so the potential expected payoff bar gets a little higher. In your case, since you'd be in the US, this would no longer be an issue.
But getting back to the basic question: There are a number of foreign universities that are "well known" in the US, and applicants from those schools will not be perceived as weaker in any way. Also, for specific subject areas this can be even more specific (i.e a weak university might have a strong specialization in topic X, and so students working in X will be highly rated).
As for how many PostDocs you need, since you work in machine learning (i.e computer science at large) you should read the "best practices for postdocs" document that the Computing Research Association just put out.
Your answer seems to contradict another answer which says that hiring committees don't care about brand name they only care about research output? Except you've said that "students working in [highly ranked ..] will be highly rated".
Another of my answers ?
Sorry for being confusing. I can't find the question I'm talking about, but it was about the importance of an institution's ranking (where they got PhD) in getting a postdoc position, and JeffE's response got 30 upvotes and the message was that it doesn't matter as long as your research record is very strong.
I don't recall the answer, but I do think that because of lack of familiarity, foreign university branding can make a little difference. Ultimately, everything is swamped by your research, but these are more subtle signals that open doors (or not)
I don't think there's as much of a perception problem with foreign universities as you might think. I'd say the majority of postdoctoral associates are international, and most of them have not gone to universities as well known as Oxford and Cambridge. More likely than not, forging personal connections with the advisor you want to work for as a postdoc will matter much more than the university.
That said, individual professors may have a bias toward hiring people from "known" schools, because the risk factor associated with hiring them is presumably much lower than someone from a school they've never heard of. Such a bias is of course understandable, but it also means that they could lose out on some potentially promising candidates as a result.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.290099 | 2013-01-21T09:59:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7371",
"authors": [
"Andrei Eremchuk",
"Jase",
"JeffE",
"Leon palafox",
"StrongBad",
"Suresh",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17523",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17524",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17525",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17531",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17533",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2806",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/346",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4315",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929",
"user3746911",
"user3747210",
"user3747528",
"vikas pandey"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10086 | Is there other way to get into more advanced study of math, with a low GPA?
I am a second-year undergraduate majoring in mathematics. In my first year of studies, I didn't do really well on my exams and therefore my results were not good, with a GPA at around 2. I didn't really put time into it, but when I started learning advanced probability, I found that I am interested in it and want to study more and am even thinking of doing research. Also I think I have found my way to study math as I didn't quite do before. In that semester, I got 2 A+. In my school, I heard that people who apply for a master's degree normally have a first-class honors degree. Is there another way to get into more advanced study of math, even with a low GPA?
Admissions committees (at least in the US) are generally forgiving of low grades in your first year, especially if you (and your recommendation letters) tell a compelling story about hitting your groove/finding your passion for the material in your second year. Keep your grades up, get some undergraduate research experience, and you'll be fine.
Basically, you have to compete with people that have a "first class honors degree."
Don't worry about the fact that you started with low grades and they (mostly) didn't. What you need to show is the fact that you are just as capable as them of making high math grades going forward.
Your two A-pluses are a good start. This may be a case of "he just found himself in his sophomore yea.r" That will at least get people to "sit up and take notice" (me, for one). The question people will ask, is something like, "is this a fluke, or can he keep it up over a whole program of study in math?
What you need is "several" more courses with As over the rest of your undergraduate program. You might take an extra course or two so that you get more As to replace your bad freshman grades. If you get to the point where people are thinking, he made "mostly As in his last ten math courses," it will do a lot to dispel concerns about your early grades.
Good luck.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.290496 | 2013-05-20T07:57:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/10086",
"authors": [
"Arun Prasad",
"Ashutosh Kumar",
"Engineering Mind",
"Gareth",
"Lamire",
"Tab",
"Thebonebed",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24895",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24896",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24897",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24927",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/24929",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/25052",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/70524",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/70526",
"immerdisks"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28858 | How does the PhD thesis examination result impact academic job success?
In majority of universities around the world, the PhD examining committee should meet and allow PhD student to defend his/her thesis. Based on the thesis content and student performance in the viva, the committee decides whether to grant PhD to the candidate or not.
In most of the cases that I have seen, there are 4 types of decisions
Accept as it is (Distinction in some universities)
Accept with Minor Revisions (without re-examination of thesis)
Accept with Major Revisions (without re-examination of thesis)
Major Revisions with re-examination
Reject (No PhD; some universities grant MSc instead of PhD if the work is fine but its contribution is small).
Now my questions are:
How often do employers ask for PhD examination Committee decision report at the time of application/interview?
Considering the PhD requirement by almost all universities for the professorship positions, how the decision by the committee members impacts employment. My main concern is about the first three decisions of "accept." Can a PhD graduate who has "accept with major revision" never gets job in good places"?
At least in the US context, I've never heard of such a report being asked for.
In fact, in the case of my own PhD (at MIT) no report ever existed. In the major US research universities I've been at, PhDs are ungraded. You either get one or you don't.
For sure, the outcomes on your list are all possible. Where I've been though, there is a sheet of paper that has to be signed by the faculty committee members saying that the thesis was successfully defended and accepted. The details of what needed to happen to convince the faculty that the thesis or its defense was good enough were the criteria that the committee used to decided when to sign the sheet (your cases #1-4) or when to tell a student that they never would (your case #5) but they were never part of a formal report.
Perhaps in countries where the specifics of the examination process are more clear, this might be asked for? It's still hard for me to imagine.
If you're going into academic jobs, the letters from the committee members, and the dissertation itself, will tell folks much more than any formal report on the first draft of a dissertation will. If you're heading into academia, you will be asked for those things.
Most faculty know that dissertation defenses can be capricious. A single holdout can ask for unreasonable changes.
If there's any doubt in my mind (as a member of a search committee) as to the quality of the dissertation, I'll read the dissertation.
Unfortunately, I have seen this unreasonable situations a lot in the country I did my PhD (I don't know others). But, asking recruiter to look at the thesis is somehow less practical due to time and location implications. Anyhow thanks. One upvote for the truth.
I've never seen the decision asked for in job applications. I don't know whether it is something that could reasonably be asked for (that might depend on what country you are in, or what subject).
Personally, I suspect there might be more of an indirect effect. Minor revisions I would expect to be pretty much the same as no revisions, but a request of major revisions might indicate that the thesis isn't so good, which could correlate with chances in job applications. On the other hand, it may well be that the meaning of 'major revisions' varies considerably by university, so no meaningful comparison could be made.
I have seen them ask very rarely. But, there are. Look at this example for a postdoc in Denmark (http://employment.ku.dk/faculty/?show=685713).
Given they want someone to start work only a month after the application deadline (!), it may be the main point is to be sure the person will complete their PhD in time - there can be funding issues if someone tries to start a postdoc without having graduated at least unofficially.
So you mean it is an exception? aand people usually do not ask such document?
I don't know. As I said, I've never seen it asked for before. It may depend on discipline and/or location.
@Espanta, I've never seen that before in US or UK applications and I'm actually a little unsure what they mean by a "provisional of final evaluation" and if that really refers to the report you are suggesting.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.290717 | 2014-09-22T05:43:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/28858",
"authors": [
"Carl Christian",
"Changu Kang",
"DSK",
"Espanta",
"Heisenberg",
"Jessica B",
"Lupe",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20036",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5962",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6393",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/78707",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/78708",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/78709",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/78732",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/78952",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79008",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79009",
"mako",
"rodrigo-silveira",
"user113577"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35047 | Is there any automated way I can detect if a co-author plagiarized before our paper is submitted?
My professor, a co-author and I have been working on a paper for more than a year. I was doing the math and simulations, my co-author was responsible for the writing, and my professor was editing the paper. Now editing of the paper is done. Unfortunately, the co-author is no longer available. My professor called me today and told me he has observed that my co-author copied some sentences from the reference papers. So he asked me to check all of the sentences and highlight and rewrite them again if I found that they were copied. He believes that, these days the reviewers are more concerned about the use of similar sentences in the paper.
So, What should I do? Check all sentences with other papers? This is not possible without using a machine. the paper contains more than 8000 words. Do you know what software I can use to do this?
Copying a sentence (or more) from another paper is not plagiarism provided the material copied is enclosed in quotes (or indented if a large block) and properly cited. Is that the case? Or are the copied sentences presented as though the three of you had written them?
The copied sentences are not enclosed in quotes. Some of them are cited but some not. Actually the content and our method is new. But some explanations and sentences are copy paste. @BobBrown
I guess you want something like the reverse of diff for two very different files. I have no idea how well this works, but WCopyfind seems to do just that: http://plagiarism.bloomfieldmedia.com/z-wordpress/software/wcopyfind/ Here's what they say in the instructions: WCopyfind compares text or word processor documents with one another to determine if they share words in phrases. WCopyfind reads .DOCX, .TXT, and .HTML files natively and it does a pretty good job of reading .PDF files, as long as they contain text content rather than pure image content.
I have heard about these software. They don't work well for my case. These software check the text line by line.So, this wont help me much. But I think, Journals check the plagiarism themselves(they warn about cross ref and cross check). so they should have a software to do it. I was wonder if I could check this matter before they check it for me . @YuichiroFujiwara
@Electricman The description of the software on the official page and blog posts from users seem to suggest this particular one does much more than typical line-by-line comparison, though. It looks like it detects identical strings of words/phrases of which you can determine parameters like length. But if you tried it and think it's the same as line-by-line comparison, I guess I was wrong; I've never used it myself. BTW, services like CrossRef are usually for publishers; such a large automated checking needs access to tons of copyrighted papers.
Anyway, if what you want to do isn't locating a string of words in document A which also appears in document B, what exactly do you want to do? I thought this was basically what CrossCheck was doing...
Okay @YuichiroFujiwara I will give it a try and tell u about the progress. thanks for the suggestion though.
@Wrzlprmft the titular question is clearly a shopping list, but the final "paragraph" asks a reasonable question of what should I do.
@Electricman In line with StrongBad's comment, I have changed the title of this question. I believe this is in line with what your intent but please roll back my changes if I am wrong.
The title is fine and clear. thanks @earthling
The software Wcopyfind didn't help. I also tried some other softwares too. But the results were poor. @YuichiroFujiwara
@Electricman That sucks. Sorry to hear that. Seems like you need to get a hold of the co-author or go the complete rewrite rout, which, while not related to what you asked, is probably a much better option in the first place...
No problem. What do you think about using turnitin? It has been suggested here from a guy. I googled and it seems Elsevier(where I want to submit) uses turnitin for crosscheck. @YuichiroFujiwara
@Electricman I would guess it wouldn't work very well. It's for undergrads' essays and such. It may be good if you want to check if your student copy-pasted a wikipedia article, blog post and the like, but I'm not sure if its data include enough academic papers. In your case, you sort of know where your co-author copied text from, and it's not from where undergrads typically copy-and-paste. You may miss plagiarized text if you only compare your manuscript against Turnitin's data, which is a big problem.
It seems your guess is not correct. the part you said It may be good if you want to check if your student copy-pasted a wikipedia article, blog post and the like, but I'm not sure if its data include enough academic papers Please see the TurnItIn FAQ here : http://turnitin.com/en_us/features/faqs
Answer of Q 2 says: For example, Turnitin partner CrossRef boasts 500‐plus members that include publishers such as Elsevier and the IEEE, and has already added hundreds of millions of pages of new content to our database.Really sounds like nightmare @YuichiroFujiwara
"Unfortunately, the co-author is no longer available." Do you mean that he died? If not, how can someone be unavailable in 2015? Anyway, a division of labor in which the person who is "responsible for the writing" is unavailable is a very poor idea. Also: isn't fixing problems with the writing called...editing? If the professor puts this on you, I am concerned that he is not contributing enough to the paper. Anyway, I agree with everyone else: it sounds like you are the one who cares about this paper enough to do it right. So do it right...and choose better coauthors next time.
@PeteL.Clark . My co-author went to the mandatory military service so he is not available at this project any more. Also, I fixed that plagiarism problem by completely rewriting the paper while ago. But my professor and I observed some numerical manipulation which was done from the left co-author as he was responsible for part of the Matlab programming. Now I am sucked at it to fix this problem for few month. My professor doesn't help me with Matalb programing of the problem and just gives me intuitive math descriptions. :(
I am both confused and concerned about the description of your work process:
I was doing the math and simulations, my co-author was taking the care of writing and my professor was editing the paper.
It seems clear you are making a contribution worthy of authorship, but as for your "co-author" and professor, it is not clear if their contributions are worthy of authorship. the fact that the co-author is unavailable make the situation difficult. High end plagiarism detection software is still not particularly good and I would be hesitant about using any work written by someone who is known to have plagiarised in the past, especially in the absence of drafts to confirm the absence of plagiarism.
The issue with using software like TurnItIn is not its abilitity to detect and parse copied material, but the limitations on its underlying database. Plagiarism detection software generally does not have access to non-open access publications. If your co-author copied from non-open access publications, then the software will likely miss it. A publishers, like elsivier Edith a large amount of pay walled material may add their own publications to their database making it easy for them to catch the plagiarism.
My suggestion would be to rewrite all the material by the co-author. You could either work from his version and maintain his authorship, or if his only contribution was the writing as you say, then rewrite those sections from scratch and drop him from the list of authors.
It takes a lot of time and energy to rewrite the paper. @strongbad
@Electricman It all really depends on how much you care about quality. If you want to be sure and you can't trust your co-author (and I agree with StrongBad here, don't share authorship with others who have plagiarized in the past), then you need to re-write it. The time and energy is the cost of choosing your co-author poorly. Bad decisions have consequences.
@Electricman: It may take a long time to rewrite the paper, but it will be more damaging to you if the paper is retracted for plagiarism!
It is a good tip to know, So TurnItIn cannot detect the plagiarism from non-open access papers. Well I know where my co-author copied from. We have 30 references in this paper and he modified some sentences mostly in the introduction and problem description parts to make the writing easier. So, I should read all 30 refs and compare it with our manuscript. sounds like a big effort but easier than re-writing the whole piece. @strongbad
@Electricman NO! That is not what my answer is saying. If you go looking for all the copied material and you miss just one occurrence, your reputation will take a big hit. It might be easier, but it is not worth the risk.
It seems your answer is not completely correct. the part you said Plagiarism detection software generally does not have access to non-open access publications. If your co-author copied from non-open access publications, then the software will likely miss it. Please see the TurnItIn FAQ here : http://turnitin.com/en_us/features/faqs
Answer of Q 2 says: For example, Turnitin partner CrossRef boasts 500‐plus members that include publishers such as Elsevier and the IEEE, and has already added hundreds of millions of pages of new content to our database.Really sounds like nightmare @StrongBad
I don't understand your adversion against rewriting it. What is more important? Your future career or making this assignment as easy as possible? Rewriting is the only sure way you have, anything else might still bear a risk, as small as it is, but if anything goes wrong, your reputation is terminally ruined. And 8'000 words is a small thing. My current manuscript (book) is now on 90'000 and not done yet.
@Electricman some content published by Elsevier and IEEE are open access. My experience looking at similarity reports is that TurnItIn does not have access to all of Elsevier's journals.
Thanks for your information. None of our references are available for open access. And I know that my co-author only changed some sentences of our references. I've tried to find them manually but it was not possible. So in line with your suggestion I am going to re-write the whole manuscript :((( @StrongBad
I am going to re-write it :(( @PatricHartmann
@Electricman: Believe me, it's the best choice. The damage plagiarism, even just accidental, can do to your career justifies the additional workload.
Your institution may use a standard service which you would have access to - you could contact your academic admin service and ask them. "Turnitin" seems quite widely used.
unfortunately they do not have it. Also, I am graduated few month ago. @jool
@Electricman You can still use TurnItIn's product for students.
I wish you could recommended something free @earthling
@Electricman The free stuff is garbage. "You get what you pay for" is so very true in the world of plagiarism checking.
That is really true, but not only for the world of plagiarism checking. I should find someone who has turnitin, maybe some universities have it already for their students @earthling
Your Prof. should know if there is an auto-checking service available and would presumably have access to it. Failing that, how about your co-author?
Unfortunately my Prof doesn't know. I asked people from other universities and they don't use Turnitin at their university too. I think it's bx, our subjects are not taught in English here so the assignments are not in English as well and Turnitin cannot detect plagiarism for non-English manuscripts. @Jool
While TurnItIn is designed for undergraduate assignments, iThenticate is designed for this exact scenario: detecting plagiarism in academic publications. I've used it successfully in the past, and while it is not cheap you can purchase a license to check a single document at a time.
I have written the paper again as this question was posted before your answer. Thank you for your helpful answer. If next time it comes up I will use that. @corvus
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.291143 | 2014-12-31T20:26:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/35047",
"authors": [
"AssociateProfessorInChina",
"Bob Brown",
"Cameron Brick",
"David Duggins",
"Ellen",
"Jool",
"Longquan Jiang",
"Maurits M",
"Mohd. Sarfaraz",
"Neuryte",
"Patric Hartmann",
"Pete L. Clark",
"SAH",
"Serdnad",
"StrongBad",
"Yuichiro Fujiwara",
"Zee",
"aeismail",
"anonamouse",
"bergdi",
"billrichards",
"earthling",
"g3tb4ckt0w0rk",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123628",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/16183",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20449",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2692",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7075",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8294",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/9004",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/938",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96525",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96526",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96527",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96569",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96583",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96584",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96585",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96602",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96603",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96660",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96662",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96663",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96664",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96741",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96799",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96802",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/96881",
"sumit kumar",
"tacendus",
"user1150512",
"user84246"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
668 | Is it the norm to allow professors from different departments on a PhD committee?
Or is this the exception to the norm? I know that it's allowed at Brown - but I wonder if it's unique.
At many (most? all?) universities, a committee is required to have at least one professor from outside the department (other than the chair, if the chair holds a joint position).
Other requirements are to have at least one professor at rank higher or equal to the rank of the chair (the advisor).
At my university, all PhD committees are required to include at least one member from outside the student's department. My department narrows this requirement to "at least one member from outside the university". (In practice, the external member is almost always from another computer science department, which violates the original intent of the university's rule, but there you go.)
I'm also in the CS dept, and in my previous university the "outside" member was usually a CS faculty from another university. This makes somewhat more sense to me than the norm in my current university, which is to have some one from another dept at the same university (Usually a math faculty, sometimes EE, but at times it even gets to a linguistics faculty.. :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.292124 | 2012-03-10T05:59:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/668",
"authors": [
"Dante",
"JeffE",
"Krishna Thota",
"Max",
"Ran G.",
"Revo",
"carandraug",
"chharvey",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1538",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1539",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1540",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1541",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1542",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1544",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/324",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
679 | Is there generally a high amount of variability in the number of hours grad students put to work each week?
As in, it's certainly not a standard 8-5 job of 40-50 hours per week. Is it common (and expected) for them to sometimes put in 80 hours a week, and to occasionally put in 10 hours? (say, during times of personal crisis or of particularly intense coursework?)
I believe that most of the students are event-driven. That is, if they have an important deadline, meeting, exam, TA section (agghh...), then they spend more time to prepare and be ready for that event. Whereas after an important deadline, (or finals week, etc.) they allow themselves to be more relaxed and spend less time "working".
However it is quite strange to define how much time one spends on "research". Many people get very nice ideas just before the go to sleep, or while taking a shower... The mind is running 24/7.. Even though those people are not "in office" they do work on their research.
I agree also with the answer of Lars that it really depends on the student's personality and preferences. I've known students who really need their schedule to be well defined. They showed up to office daily at 9:00 and left at a fixed time (I guess that being married with kids kind of forces you to have a fixed schedule). So there are no fixed rules.
It depends on you. If you really want to, you could probably have quite regular working hours (except for the odd deadline). I would say that 80 hours a week is excessive and if your advisor expects you to do that, then you should think about changing your advisor/course.
unless of course the student wants to work that much, or work that much some of the time (not that I think this would be necessary or required)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.292277 | 2012-03-10T19:02:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/679",
"authors": [
"Abe",
"Jed",
"John Doe",
"Nicholas Mancuso",
"Rui Vieira",
"User 17670",
"anna-earwen",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1564",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1565",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1566",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1567",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1572",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1573",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/344"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
1325 | Abbreviations in journal papers
Do I expand abbreviations at their first use per section or per paper?
This is an IEEE publication, but I haven't come across any specific instructions.
If possible, just avoid abbreviations entirely. (Of course it may not be possible.)
I would do it per paper, unless the paper is extremely long and some abbreviations are defined (and used) in the start, but not used again until 20 or 30 pages later.
It's okay to remind a reader what the abbreviations mean, but avoid annoying the reader by being overly and unnecessarily repetitive.
Thanks- paper is only 11 pages long, so I'll probably limit it to the first instance of use per paper.
I also expand the abbreviation on first use in captions and the abstract.
The standard is once per "document," whether that's a report, or a book, or a journal article. However, longer documents will typically come with lists of abbreviations and symbols; many journals also do this. Even then, it's still better to define it once in the text first:
standard widget units (SWUs)
before using it again later.
(SWUs) — Shudder. Just spell it out. Ink is cheap.
Ink is cheap, except when you have a page limit to worry about.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.292470 | 2012-04-30T14:29:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/1325",
"authors": [
"JeffE",
"StrongBad",
"aeismail",
"chiefcoder",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10949",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21456",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/748",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/929",
"jeep9911",
"user13"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7273 | Publishing Same Research Paper on a National Conference as well as International IEEE conference
I submitted my final year research paper for a national level conference as well as international level IEEE conference. I was notified that my research paper has been accepted for the national level conference before 2 weeks ago. And I submitted camera ready papers, registered and ready to present the paper next week on the national level conference.
But yesterday I received a mail from IEEE conference by mentioning my paper is accepted for the conference and asked for camera ready papers based on their template.
Is this situation normal? Can I publish my paper on national level conference as well as international level IEEE conference?
Please note that there will be proceedings for both conferences.
Did you at any point promise to any one of these conferences that you had not submitted this work anywhere else?
No. I didn't promised to any of those conferences.
Did either conference explicitly forbid simultaneous submission to another publication venue? (Most CS conferences include such a clause in their calls for papers.)
@JeffE no there were no such clause in both conferences.
You cannot publish the same paper at these two conference. For an IEEE conference publication, you have to transfer copyright on the paper to the IEEE, which precludes publication in another proceedings.
You shouldn't have submitted the same paper to two places simultaneously. It's clearly against ethical standards in academics. It is not your fault, if there wasn't a clear indication on the conference submission site, and your advisor hasn't intervened (he should have). Still you have to deal with the consequences now.
And the consequences are that you have to withdraw your paper from one of these conferences. If you have the choice, it would probably be better to withdraw from the national conference. Call yourself lucky if you don't get into deeper trouble from this.
it is too late to withdraw paper from the national conference now. because I have already registered for it.
Is it ok if I make considerable modification to the research paper when I submit camera ready papers to the IEEE conference?
@KanishkaDilshan: Definitely not unless you get explicit permission from the program committee. They accepted it as original, unpublished research, rather than a revised/modified version of a previously published paper. (Any modifications big enough to make it truly different would also make it no longer the paper they accepted.) Most likely they would no longer be interested in it under such circumstances, and definitely you cannot assume they would be. (However, I would suggest withdrawing it rather than asking, because asking them emphasizes the issue of simultaneous submission.)
In Japan, they have a loophole for this, and is based on what Silvado mentioned on preclusion. They basically say in the website that the conference is not indexed, and they only give handouts and digital proceedings with no ISBN number.
The document the IEEE holds the copyrights of is the document you have submitted after doing all of the modifications the reviewers suggested, that is the reason some authors get to publish their papers in their own webpages, as long as it is not the same document.
I would advice against doing any modifications to any of the papers, since it has already been accepted and it is not the papers the reviewers choose, it would be unethical and you can get in more trouble.
I do agree that you should withdraw one of the papers.
Edit: I forgot that the IEEE updated its copyright policies, you actually cannot do that anymore
The copyright stuff in the second paragraph is not right. There is no general copyright exception for using the version before modifications based on reviews, and the IEEE copyright transfer covers both versions. However, clause 8 of the retained rights section of the IEEE copyright form at http://www.ieee.org/documents/ieeecopyrightform.pdf allows posting of preprints under certain limitations.
You are right, this was under the old policy, I remember there was a big fuzz about this. Thanks for the clarification: http://www.ieee.org/documents/authorversionfaq.pdf
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.292609 | 2013-01-16T19:18:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7273",
"authors": [
"Agent1891",
"Anonymous Mathematician",
"CSharper",
"Jakob",
"JeffE",
"JoosBuijs",
"Leon palafox",
"Mikael Vejdemo-Johansson",
"Simon",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17274",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17275",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17276",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17278",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17279",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17310",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17322",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17370",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/21454",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2806",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/519",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/5615",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/612",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"kdk",
"pyb",
"recursion.ninja",
"sav",
"user17276"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
582 | How can a graduate school applicant improve his application for next year's season?
It seems I'm about to have a bad application season, as all schools I'm waiting to hear from have given out offers of admissions to other applicants. I'm trying to come up with a viable plan to turn my application into a successful one for next year's season.
Here are some important things to note:
I come from an unknown school, but my reference writers earned their Ph.Ds from well-known schools in the U.S. (top 25 via NRC ranking). They all encouraged me to apply to top 30 programs in the US.
I am an international applicant.
I am interested in pure mathematics.
Some fall-back plans I have is to actually get involved in research during the summer and fall, and I'm hoping I can get a serious publication out of doing this.
So for the people who have served on admissions committees in the past, what else can I do? Should I not bother to apply to the same programs I applied to this year?
Have you finally got accepted by any schools? Your own experience might be a very nice answer to this question.
Publish. I have seen the following pattern more than once. (1) Applicant X applies to my department's PhD program and is rejected, not for any major flaws, but just for not standing out from the crowd. (2) X joins a MS program at a different university. (3) As a master's student, X publishes one paper and has two more in submission (or at least preparation). (4) X reapplies to my department's PhD program, with a detailed technical discussion of his results in his statement of purpose and stellar letters from his new department. (5) X is admitted in the first round, with a fellowship.
If you haven't done so already, show your complete application to the people who wrote your rec letters, and ask for their brutally honest feedback, especially on your statement. Often students who write statements without some faculty feedback write them to the wrong audience. ("I'm smart; hire me." makes a bad statement of purpose. "Here is the mathematics I've worked on and what I'm interested in looking at next." is much better.)
It's a long shot, but if your recommenders know faculty at the schools you applied to, you might be able to get some second-hand feedback through them. Maybe.
To steal a phrase from real estate, "Network, network, and network". At this point, you can't really improve your GPA, you can't write a senior thesis, and you can't do undergraduate research. Your best bet is to talk to as many people as you can in order to (1) improve your letters of recommendation and (2) network with researchers.
Personally, I would recommend against taking more undergraduate classes, unless there's a specific deficiency in your academic record. Simply taking a course to raise your GPA will likely not have a large impact or be a good use of your time and money. However, if you're missing a subject area, this is the time to fix it. For example, I graduated as a psychology major, and needed some math courses when applying to biomedical engineering graduate programs, so I took a course on diff eq's and linear algebra. That course ended up being very helpful later on, both on my application and when joining research labs.
You mention that you hope to do research over the summer. Adding publications to your record will significantly help your chances, as it makes your academic record less important... the reviewing committee will often consider publications as proof that you can "do it". You should expect, though, that you will be grilled extremely thoroughly on your work during the interview process.
There's a lot of helpful advice on this front in the thread How do you get a bad transcript past Ph.D. admissions?
Basically, your situation really isn't all that different from the one discussed in that thread—your credentials don't seem to qualify you for international study. However, you may have some additional possibilities to consider:
Were your IELTS/TOEFL scores below par?
How strong were your letters of recommendation? Do they actually attest to personal attributes, or is it merely a recitation of your performance in class? The latter do you essentially no good in admissions to a US-style graduate program.
Do you have the opportunity to take more classes before you apply in an attempt to improve your standing?
These are some possibilities, but without knowing more about your situation, it's hard to comment further.
I just want to add to the first bullet. TOEFL score is very crucial to the application of international students...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.292962 | 2012-03-05T19:39:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/582",
"authors": [
"AxxA Osiris",
"Leniel Maccaferri",
"Malik",
"No One",
"Tyler",
"Xing",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1313",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1314",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1315",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1320",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1321",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1325",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/54886",
"jello"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
93009 | How to negotiate the salary for a UK faculty position?
Following several interviews, I have been offered two faculty positions in the UK. Salary is among the factors I consider to choose one of the positions.
How can I reasonably negotiate the salary? Can I suggest the highest value in the range advertised? Or I shouldn't be greedy.
In general, how negotiable is salary in the UK universities?
Possible duplicate of How should an academic negotiate his/her salary?
@Coder not really a duplicate; as the answer notes, the UK context for salary negotiation is very different from the (US?) one in the linked question.
@Coder I don't think it's a duplicate, because that question doesn't take into account the country. Salary negotiations in many countries are barely allowed, or not allowed at all.
Be careful when negotiating for a higher salary. It could backfire. At my university an incoming Lecturer (Assist Prof) aggressively negotiated for a +5 points in scale (see @strongbad answer). Although he got the extra salary, upon arrival he was hit with the demands the school would have from a lecturer with 5 years experience (teaching, funding, supervision, etc.). I find it fair, but he couldn't cope and had to resign after 1 year. Usually, there are strings attached to a higher salary. Be sure to know what they are.
Salary is generally not very negotiable in a UK university. Further, the benefits of a higher salary are less pronounced in the UK than in the US. Pay in the UK is defined by a universal salary scale/spine. There is a maximum point on the spine you can achieve through normal progression. Progressing pass the standard maximum is extremely rare.
I have never heard of a department hiring beyond the standard maximum. What this means is that if you start at the standard maximum (the highest point on the scale obtainable through standard progression), you will make 10k more then a colleague who starts at the bottom. After 3 years, the pay gap will be only 5k (still a 10% raise) since the person who started at the bottom progressed and you did not. If you both get promoted at that point, you will both start at the bottom of the next tier. In other words your negotiation to move from the bottom to the top was worth 20k over the course of your entire career. If promotion takes longer, the difference maxes out at around 36 k (depending on the specific spine points).
Many department offer the lowest spine point. It is often, but not always, possible to negotiate up a few steps based on years of experience. In my experience as an American who worked in the UK, Brits find it insulting to negotiate a startup package and salary. It seemed most Brits took what they were offered (or maybe an extra step or two) while international candidates asked for the top of the range since the salaries are much lower then they expected. The international candidates are then internally laughed at for being cheeky yanks, but often paid more then their British counterparts.
"The international candidates are then internally laughed at for being cheeky yanks, but often paid more then their British counterparts." I don't know why you'd laugh at someone if they succeed in getting paid more.
@Thomas There's a whole genre of British (well, mainly English) satire/comedy devoted to this theme...
Would it be "cheeky" to ask how the pay was determined? (within the same grade, but how are the different points determined?) I'm guessing based on experience. So would it be rude to ask about that?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.293331 | 2017-07-11T17:18:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/93009",
"authors": [
"Andrew is gone",
"Coder",
"Massimo Ortolano",
"PandaPants",
"Thomas Steinke",
"Yemon Choi",
"apetros85",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/20058",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/27825",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/42952",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/44249",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/52718",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/53762",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/91117"
],
"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/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
98375 | Is there a list of reputable open-access-only publishers?
Many new publishers have recently appeared because of the open access model (they do not need to struggle with sale & marketing). Some of them are shady business efforts, but some have strong scientific standards and their journals are reliable.
Beall’s List of Predatory Open-Access Publishers lists unreliable publishers. Is there any resource listing reliable Open-Access journals? Such list can introduce us reputable publishers we have not come across yet.
The answer to the question "how to identify" can be found here.
Just as you would with non-open-access publishers: Look at the editorial board, see if there is someone you know on there (if not, stop here); if yes, ask one of these people whether they are actually editors and whether the periodical can be trusted.
@darijgrinberg not a reliable approach. Many big names do not care to e mentioned here and there. And many journals put their names without permission. The name of someone on the editorial board does not mean s/he is contributing to the journal's editorial process.
@henning I further edited the question to avoid the duplication. Hope it is close to what the OP is looking for.
@Googlebot: this is why I said to pick someone you know and ask her!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.293621 | 2017-11-03T16:06:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/98375",
"authors": [
"Googlebot",
"darij grinberg",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/406",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/7725"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
87655 | What prevents people from manipulating data to write better papers?
Many papers use nonstandard data sets, which means the authors could have manipulated the data behind the scenes to make their paper look more impressive. It seems that this could be done very easily: for example, one could cherry pick the items of the data set to make it seem like an algorithm has 90%+ accuracy while in reality it's about 60%.
What prevents people from doing this? Is there something I'm missing?
Are you asking what kind of safeguards or practices reduce the probability that such junk papers get published?
@Antonio Vargas How common is this and how it's prevented?
Sure, you can, and if done correctly it will work at first. But when you are caught, your reputation as a scientist is lost forever. As a wise man said, you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Are you asking about running an experiment, then throwing out experiment data points that makes your idea look bad? Or are you asking about evaluating an idea using an experiment that you know is going to make your idea look good? Or something else? This question is very unclear.
@ff524 The 1st.
The content of this question seems reasonable to me (a little naive, but a sensible question), so I assume the downvoters are objecting to the phrasing. I'll try editing it; feel free to revert if my edits don't capture what you intended.
In science everything should in principle reproducable. Have you ever thought about what this could imply regarding manipulation of data? I think it means that if you manipulate your data you have to be very lucky to guess right or eventually the fraud will be detected.
If you're willing to lie and have built up a reputation as a scientist over decades then you can get your papers published in the most prestigious journals. The problem is, that you need to a) Have a reputation to lose in the first place and b) Risk losing it when people can't replicate your experiments.
@LeonMeier I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but most "non-reproducible junk" is probably the product of straightforward mistakes rather than fraud. As somebody said in a different context, "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity".
@NET_GUY "What prevents people from doing this?" Ethics?
And then someone uses your algorithm on his own data set and finds out it doesn't do what you said it would do. Your reputation is ruined, and you will never publish anything again.
@Polygnome "...you will never publish anything again...." This may be exaggerated. Your reputation may take a dent but often enough flaws in pulications are downplayed as mistakes and subsequently forgotten because the attention has already moved on. I'm quite sure that systematic verification of published (hitherto unchallenged) studies would reveal quite some percentage of unreproducable works, for whatever reasons...
"What prevents people from doing this?" Maybe most people aren't so bad per se? Maybe they just don't want to.
@Trilarion Yes, I have simplified the process, but at the core, thats what academia uses to prevent fraud. High entry barrier + harsh consequences. not enough papers are systematically reproduced, though. Thats certainly something that should be improved.
I don't think this is a duplicate to the linked question. The answers here show that the deterrent is not the detection method - discussed and asked for in the linked question - but rather the consequences to career and the lack of a longtime benefit from manipulation.
Can I use what I described above to publish a paper without much hassle?
Yes, it's easy to write a fraudulent paper, and it's not hard to get it published if you are willing to publish in a journal with low standards. (Some predatory publishers will publish literally anything if you are willing to pay them.) You might even get it published somewhere respectable if you fake everything convincingly, by getting results that are good enough to be impressive without being so implausible that reviewers become suspicious.
Is there something I am missing?
I'd bet that what you're missing is the role of reputation in academia. If you don't maintain a good reputation, you'll be ignored and marginalized, with no ability to influence the field. If your only goal is to produce a paper, then there's a lot of scope for mischief, but this generally won't lead to a successful research career. If people are unable to build on your work, they'll become suspicious and your reputation will suffer. (And if they aren't even interested in trying to build on your work, then by definition you aren't having an influential career.)
It's not impossible to succeed in academia by fraud, as demonstrated by the people who succeeded for some years before they were caught. However, it's much harder than faking a single paper.
Very nice answer. One could maybe add that more and more journals require/encourage side by side publication of primary data. On the other hand, one needs to be aware that a certain part of scientific publications is faked. I think I remember a systematic too optimistic reporting on new drugs. They are almost always less effective in the long run than reported initially when they are discovered which seems to indicate maybe not outright data manipulation but at least biased interpretation of data.
@Trilarion Medical research is just crazy in general. A lot of these weird claims that x can lead to y are based on flimsy data, but it makes great headlines so those are the "discoveries" we hear. It's kinda scary.
What prevents people from doing this? Is there something I'm missing?
In addition to the factors mentioned in Anonymous Mathematician's excellent answer, I think another factor at play is that while it is not very difficult for a dishonest person to (temporarily) get ahead by faking data, the rewards for doing it aren't very great compared to the effort it takes to implement this strategy successfully. Even the barrier to entry in academia, getting a PhD, is high enough to deter the most dishonest people, who are the kinds of people who may be tempted to use fraudulent strategies to attain professional success, money etc. And the payoff for this kind of fraud is ultimately quite modest -- you might get a job with tenure, but is that really worth the trouble of working on something you have no real passion for, and doing so in a dishonest way, for so many years?
The bottom line is that Academia is simply not an attractive place for fraudsters, certainly much less attractive than other industries or career tracks (which I won't name) where fraud and other antisocial behavior can reap you much greater rewards in a much shorter period of time. So yes, a hypothetical fraudster who ends up in academia can gain some traction in their career using dishonest methods (until they are caught at least), and occasionally we hear stories about such people. But these stories are rare precisely because academic research as a career option is most appealing to people who by and large are passionate about advancing human knowledge, and therefore are not predisposed to committing major acts of scientific fraud.
An example is Jan Hendrik Schön. He manipulated data on a big scale. But after people found out about it, he lost his job (and academic career) and even got stripped of his doctor title.
Apart from this, I guess that most scientists are actually interested in honest academic research (i.e. finding out something truly new) and not in a career build on lies. Moreover, many scientists suffer from some other extreme, they believe that they are imposters (while producing valid science).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.293891 | 2017-04-05T20:19:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/87655",
"authors": [
"Anonymous Mathematician",
"Antonio Vargas",
"Cincinnatus",
"Federico Poloni",
"Grebu",
"JMac",
"NET_GUY",
"NoDataDumpNoContribution",
"Polygnome",
"Valorum",
"alephzero",
"ff524",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11365",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32415",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32961",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/39577",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/540",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/54543",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/612",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63664",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/63958",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/71190",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/71810",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/958"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
69334 | What should I do if someone else claims an award that I actually won?
I am a PhD student. A few years ago, I won the best paper award at a conference.
However, they didn't post the list of winners on the conference website.
But when I google the name of the conference, the very first search results include someone who already graduated and claims on his personal webpage and LinkedIn profile that he won that award.
The only proofs that I have are the award itself and a congratulation email from the committee.
Currently he works at a company so I don't know how to handle this case especially after his graduation he may no longer care about consequences.
What can I do in this situation?
If the old conference website is still online: write an e-mail to the organizers of the conference, kindly asking them to update the website to include the best paper award winners. You can attach the old confirmation email.
I suppose this depends on the conference, but at least at some conferences there are many more than 1 best paper award. CHI 2015 gave out 21, for instance: http://chi2015.acm.org/program/best-of-chi/ So are you certain there was only one such award?
Yes I am more than sure.
There are two awards: Best Student Paper award that I know who is the winner and the Best Paper award which I won. I even know the second and third winners..
This is messed up, and should have consequences. After ideally getting outside proof as suggested by @lighthouse, and assuming the other person is at a reputable school, their adviser should know as someone like this shouldn't turn academic lifer. I'd let the adviser know, per email, keeping it short but pointing to supportive evidence you have and are happy to share. If that leads nowhere (adviser doesn't care), I'd go up the ladder. If it's a school with doubtful reputation, just shrug: they won't care, and you shouldn't either.
I just came to know from his adviser website that he has already graduated..
@gnometorule: Unfortunately he graduated from a very tough university in the US and now he works at a good company..
@gnometorule: He works in a research lab? do you think they may care about that.
It's the only award that he pretends that he has won..
BTW he graduated from an MS program and he used that award for his application to get the admission since the conference was a year before his admission to the program.. And also he used that in his job applications..
Is this a case where he could possibly have the year wrong? For example, perhaps he won at the 2015 conference but listed 2016 by mistake? Sometimes with deadlines and such in one year (e.g. Nov 2015), but the conference in the subsequent year (e.g. June 2016) it's not too hard to switch them up by mistake. If the conference doesn't list winners, do you know for sure this is not the case?
@marcman: I am sure about what I am saying and the guy has only one paper submitted to that conference..
he is not a PhD student and that's why his list of publications is very short.
Myself I went to that conference 4 years in a row and researchers from our small community we know each others..
@user2987: Well in that case, the best solution is either reach out to him to correct the situation and/or reach out the conference organizers to see if they'll put the true results online. If neither works, just let it go. Karma comes around. As long as it's not directly impacting you, don't waste your energy on such a vagrant. If it is impacting you, you can always link your citation of the award to a picture of you accepting it or something similar.
@marcman: You are totally right and I do agree on what you said however I am not upset because this may have an impact on me but mainly because I do care about science and ethics in the scientific community..
If everyone doesn't care this would encourage many others to do so..
@user2987: Beware the slippery slope fallacy. As you said, it's a small community in that field. If he tries to continue too deeply, someone will probably look to check and figure him out. Or, he'll falsify something else and getting caught will lead to a further inquiry into what else is false. It's rare that someone who habitually lies and cheats makes it far in science and research in today's world
@user2987: if he's in industry, I'd just let it go. I would have hated to think that he turned academic job market star of his year for a number of invented credentials. Just focus on your life. If you ever have to prove that this is your achievement, you can. Also, what marcman says.
Send him a message
Even if you think you know the only truth, maybe there is something you don't know about this award.
If there is no response in.. let's say 48 hours, let's go to phase 2
EDIT : concerning the timing, @O.R.Mapper is right, if he is on a vacation... bad luck.
Send a message to the committee
They gave the award, so explain the situation, and ask them to put on their website the name of the winner for each year.
Explain why you want this.
If the commitee is reacting (if not, will be hard :/)
Send a (still) polite mail to the cuprit and tell him he MUST remove what he puts online.
No response ? let's go to the last part
Write to his university
Even if you think they might not care, it's still a graduate student, it's bad for the reputation of the university to have graduate student with a bad behaviors.
EDIT : as said by @CaptainEmacs , do NOT to accuse someone, even if you're sure it is the truth. Tell politely that you think he might have mistaken, that is all.
I think that's the proper way to do it.
Take care: be very careful in checking your facts: if you made a mistake in assumption and that year saw two best paper prizes (I have seen scaled up to three - which may make sense if there are several outstanding papers); or even if the committee made a mistake and told him he got a prize; and if you then accuse him of cheating, he will be very upset (you would be!) and it is hard to predict what may actually transpire from this.
There was a ceremony of awards attribution and announcement that all participants attended and everybody knows in the conference that there were only two awards: Best Paper Award and Best Student Paper Award. There was another prize which was for the the runner-up that's all..
I am more than sure about my words and as I mentioned in one of my previous comments we work in a very small community and we all know each other.
Then if you're entirely sure, you MUST anyway contact him. Just in order to be sure he didn't mistake with another things etc...
In your place, I would never let go even if he is in industry. He might have get his current post because of this, and it's not ethical.
Even if this is some actual misconduct, making any assumptions based on an ultimatum of 2 days for someone who might well be on a vacation of several weeks seems ... questionable.
Yeah, I'll edit that.
Firstly, there is a chance there is a misunderstanding -- they have mis-written the year for example (I did exactly this on my website at some point. I won an award for best Phd Thesis at a conference, but wrote the wrong year). It is extremely difficult to politely ask someone if they are lying, and my advice is not to directly approach the person in question. If they are lying, I imagine they still won't change anything, and what could you do in that situation?
If you are concerned about someone thinking you cheated, asking the conference to put up a list of previous winners is a good idea, as that then gives you a reference point.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.294482 | 2016-05-26T20:09:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/69334",
"authors": [
"BrianH",
"Captain Emacs",
"DR CHANDRA PRAKASH BHASIN",
"David N.",
"Gautier C",
"Greider LEE",
"Mingxiang Liao",
"O. R. Mapper",
"PCH007",
"Stephanie Cuccaro-Alamin",
"Stephanie Lim",
"aathira suju",
"gnometorule",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11819",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14017",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/196016",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/196017",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/196018",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/196027",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/196030",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/196052",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/196053",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/196110",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/196122",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4384",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/45857",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/48413",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/54712",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6787",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6795",
"keerthana sureshk",
"lighthouse keeper",
"marcman",
"user2987"
],
"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/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27065 | Is it OK to ask my host for an externally organized stay which hotel is being booked?
I will be spending 2 weeks in China later this year, to visit a university and talk to the various research groups. The host university will be paying all my expenses.
My contact person at the host university has asked me if I would like for him to make hotel reservations for me or if I would like to do it myself.
Ideally I would like for him to make reservations, as he knows his own city. But am I "allowed" to ask to see the hotel first, before he makes reservations for me? Or is that considered impolite and rude as they are paying for me?
I am not sure I understand "to ask to see the hotel first". Do you mean see it on Internet? How do you know what you see on Internet is for real?
@scaahu Just to know the name at least, so I can check it online
I guess you can ask, but I would be very surprised if the hotel was actually terrible. If you invite a visitor and agree to pay his trip, you usually also invest the few extra bucks to find him a nice play.
I suspect the university owns its own hotel and you will be staying there. I think this is a good thing. You could easily waste all your time in traffic.
@emory I don't think it is very common that universities own their own hotels for guests.
@xLeitix there are 85 university owned hotels in the US. I suspect the number is higher in China.
Given that it's in China (and I'm assuming you're not Chinese), I would let the host do it for three reasons:
It's important to be gracious to the host. This is a general rule in most cultures, but particularly in East Asian ones. Letting your host be a good host is part of this. Trust your host's judgement here.
My experience with Chinese hotels from Shanghai to Xinjiang is that there is minimal to negative correlation of the quality of the hotel to the website or the official star rating. It is highly doubtful that you could ascertain anything superior from afar than what the local person would know.
Logistics. The host may want to put all of the people in a particular hotel (or spread them between a particular few) because of logistical reasons: geography and they have only one van to pick everyone up, etc. etc.
I would let your Chinese hosts handle everything. If you have particular needs (room must face towards the south; hotel restaurant must have halal food; etc.) then let them know. Otherwise, let your host be your host.
@BillyJean Being a Chinese myself, I definitely recommend this answer.
If you have specific requirements regarding the hotel (accessibility, star level, kitchen availability, etc) you may want to send them to your host. The chain of command in academia is rather long. I would suggest that in your case it is something like
you -> your host professor -> their secretary -> their travel agent -> hotel
Each time you want to change your request, it has to pass through the whole chain, which makes the process particularly time-demanding and reduces the efficiency. It is a good idea to keep the number of such iterations as small as possible.
Whether or not there are secretaries and travel agents involved depends very much on the particular university and the seniority of the host. It's perfectly possible that the asker means literally that the host will book the hotel.
If all you want to do is get information about what hotel is being booked, you can always ask them to provide it so that you can share the information with your family and friends as well as the people in your office so that they know how to get in touch with you in case of an emergency.
If you want to have the final decision on which hotel to book, then ask your host for a recommendation of local hotels and how much he's prepared to support your housing expenses. With this information you can book the hotel yourself, and if it exceeds your host's housing support you can pay the difference. Remember that your host is not your travel agent.
However, I think you have a much better chance of getting a superior hotel for the same money if your host makes the housing arrangements. As a local, he likely gets better rates than you are as foreigner. Also the hotel proprietor will be eager to get the next guest your host invites.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.295184 | 2014-08-11T09:12:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/27065",
"authors": [
"BillyJean",
"BobLiu",
"David Richerby",
"Ilayaraja Subramanian",
"Juan Andres ",
"Khaled Ghobashy",
"Michael",
"Nobody",
"RJTK",
"SJN",
"Ted Conner",
"Tuan Le",
"emory",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10094",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/142527",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/142529",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/3849",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/546",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6049",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/72757",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/72758",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/72759",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/72769",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/72770",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/72771",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/72786",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/72867",
"pep",
"xLeitix"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14990 | What does "This question is left for future research" imply?
In computer science, and probably other disciplines as well, it is common to end every paper with a "future research" section. I always wondered what is the utility of this section. In particular:
A. How common is it, that a question from a "future research" section is actually researched by the same research group?
B. How common is it, that a question from a "future research" section inspires future research by other research groups?
Both these questions can be studied quantitatively, even semi-automatically, by comparing the contents of "future research" sections to the titles and abstracts of papers published in a later date. Has such a research been done?
I can only add anecdotical evidence, but at least in software engineering this section seems to be mostly fluff.
The existing answers are good. Let me just add one more phenomenom I've seen in my area: it is not uncommon for the "future research" section to contain ideas that the authors don't plan to follow up on, but they think might be interesting. Maybe they hope to inspire other researchers. Maybe they're just curious, but don't have time to continue to pursue those questions.
Occasionally, the future work section is used by authors to respond to criticism that "you should have done experiment X" from reviewers. Adding a sentence to the future work section is an easy way to respond to the reviewer and be able to claim you've acted on their comment in some way: it lets the authors respond to the reviewer comment with something like: "our future work section makes clear that we didn't do experiment X and we consider it out of scope for this paper, but we agree it would be interesting, and we've added it to the future work section". You can form your own opinion about whether you think this is a good phenomenom or not; I'm just reporting on what I've seen. Sometimes I've even seen authors include this kind of statement in the future work section of a submitted paper, as a preemptive innoculation against comments the authors anticipate getting from reviewers. I don't know whether it is really effective, but you can keep this in mind when you read future work sections. Occasionally this additional perspective may help you understand better why sometimes stuff gets written in the future work section.
I cannot provide a quantitative answer, but from my personal experience I can say that these are often questions that the the same group will study.
Consider that due to the publication process, at the time the paper is published the research is often much more advanced than the results published in the paper. For this reason, the researchers may wish to add "future research questions" regarding what they are currently working on (and may even have some preliminary results on). In this way they "set up" the conceptual continuity and importance of their current work.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.295609 | 2013-12-22T08:15:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/14990",
"authors": [
"Alex Carrega",
"Bruce Becker",
"Desperado",
"Jack Halford",
"Pholochtairze",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10094",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38955",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38957",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38959",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38962",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/39056",
"xLeitix"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45094 | Using papers published before admission to partially fulfill PhD requirements
Some papers I wrote recently as an independent researcher, several years after receiving my Bachelor's degree have been accepted at good CS conferences (rank B in the CORE conference ranking).
I'm considering getting a PhD. Is it realistic to expect that these papers can be used to partially fulfill my PhD requirements?
The answer is usually no (publishing often isn't even listed in official PhD requirements) but you'd have to ask your advisor/department/university.
I'm only considering getting into PhD and don't have "my" advisor/department/university. And I've seen publishing listed in official PhD requirements: "It is expected that a dissertation should contain at least two publishable papers (in a peer reviewed journal or highly regarded conference proceeding) – and preferably three" http://www.gc.cuny.edu/Page-Elements/Academics-Research-Centers-Initiatives/Doctoral-Programs/Computer-Science/Program
"Publishable" is not the same as "published".
@JeffE My understanding is that they just mean "published or accepted" there.
That's not my understanding at all. "Publishable" is a statement about quality; "submitted" is merely a logistical hurdle.
Is it realistic to expect that these papers can be used to partially fulfill PhD requirements?
Probably not, if you're in the U.S. There's a concept of a "Ph.D. by research", which is awarded on the basis of past research accomplishments. This only barely exists in the U.S., although it's more common in some other countries.
Instead, the way most U.S. Ph.D. programs work is that the dissertation must be based on research conducted as part of the program. One reason I've heard is that overseeing research in person makes it easier to judge how well or honestly you are carrying it out or how much assistance you might be getting. In any case, being unable to use your previous papers in your dissertation is generally not a real obstacle to graduating quickly, if that's your goal. Much of the time in a Ph.D. program is spent developing the ability to do high-level research, and if you already possess that ability upon entering you could finish substantially more quickly than usual. (I'm not convinced that finishing quickly would be a good career move: it's almost always much better to focus on depth rather than speed. However, you shouldn't worry that putting your prior work off-limits for your dissertation will be a burden.)
Most academic work is only judged on what you produce during the period of study, so in that sense it is unlikely that an institution would accept previously published papers to tick certain boxes.
It's worth clearing up this issue of publication underlying your question. A PhD is awarded for performing and documenting research of publishable quality during your candidature. It's up to your external examiner to decide whether your work meets that standard, but it helps them make their decision if it has been published (as it means some others have peer-reviewed it).
If your previous work is a solid foundation for your new work, then it may count in your favour, but it would be even better to publish your new work. As you have experience of producing publishable quality research, this goal should be within your grasp :-) Best of luck!
Although I'm a social scientist, this would not be acceptable in my program. In fact, I was not allowed to use a paper I had published during the program directly in my dissertation.
Of course, you can very likely make use of elements of your previous research (e.g., the literature review and perhaps even data) to help reduce the amount of work required to complete your PhD dissertation. At the end of the day, you are going to have to ask your dissertation committee chair and/or department chair what the rules of your program are -- but at most schools in the US, the department wants to see evidence of your ability to work as independent scholar before they let your graduate.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.296185 | 2015-05-08T20:16:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/45094",
"authors": [
"2ndQuantized",
"Amir",
"Austin Henley",
"Div",
"JeffE",
"Ji Keb",
"Kylie Stafford",
"Sergii Dymchenko",
"cigien",
"harryak",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123760",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123761",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123762",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123764",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123765",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123772",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/123906",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6626",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/746"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
109389 | Health aspects of White board vs black board
I am wondering about the health aspects of black boards and white boards.
Black boards have now been around for centuries. Their only detrimental health effect is the chalk dust. Some senior colleagues tell me that they are having breathing issues after several years of teaching. Then again, it's just chalk, which is chemically fairly well-understood.
White boards are a rather recent fad in academia. They do not -seem- to produce dust as much as blackboards, but nevertheless there is a mess over time with ink dripping down onto the floor, and you need replace the erasers regularly. Last but not least, I have no clue about the ink used in those pens and their health effects.
Do you have practical advice how to handle black boards and white boards, and do you know about medical research about them?
They said chalk dust was bad for computers. Back when we had floppy disks and such old-time devices.
Give them a piece of slate and a flint...
Ink dropping to the floor? What the hell do you do to your whiteboards?
@Polygnome I imagine it's not a case of ink dripping (as a fluid), but rather the kind of flakes you get when erasing markings have been left to dry for a week or two.
I had a teacher who had a special chalk holder because she was allergic to chalk (and regular BandAid bandages, IIRC). I'm not sure if this was dustless chalk, which can provoke a milk allergy because it contains casein.
Slightly off-topic but blackboards are way cooler to write on.
The most important question is whether the coating on Hagoromo chalk contains casein or other allergens.
Black boards - If it ain't broke , don't fix it.
@astronat ever seen Walter Lewin with a chalk & blackboard , go check it out !
I remember in college I had an instructor that used very smelly markers, and I would get really dizzy if I sat in the front row. Of course, there are low-odor markers and dustless chalk, so keep that in mind.
I thought that lecturers have abandoned both and switched to slideshows
I'd personally prefer chalk-/blackboards over whiteboards. Generally easier to clean well - and chalk can be washed of hands (just needs a sink). - I've seen whiteboards that were a messy smudge and markers that stank horribly... Now whiteboards can be good - with good markers in for example and office. But good markers are not often used in teaching where someone tries to save money by buying cheap stuff...
Chalkdust is not just a breathing problem. I avoid using a blackboard because I will have itchy hands for 2 days after. I have heard multiple other people complaining of the same issue.
I totally thought this was going to be another "race-related" post when I saw it in HNQ
Academics seem to be prone to systematically underestimate the health impact of chalk dust. (As an aside, am I the only one who’s glad to be rid of constantly having cracked skin on my hands?)
Whiteboards are hardly a "recent fad". They're not recent (they've been common for at least 20 years) and they're not a fad (ditto).
"Then again, it's just chalk, which is chemically fairly well-understood." Yeah... about that... it's not the chemical makeup of chalk, it's the fact that you're constantly breathing a particulate, which is awful for your lungs. Any fine dust, be it chalk, wood dust, asbestos, fiberglass, dirt, sand or other particulate will eventually wreak havoc on your lungs. http://www.wood-database.com/wood-articles/wood-dust-safety/
The only type of board that doesn't affect the air in the classroom is a digital whiteboard (aka a smartboard). If you're using an actual white board or black board be sure that your room is well ventilated and cleaned often. For chalk boards specifically some sources recommend chalk holders and even face masks.
Here are the papers I found on the subject of white/black boards and health:
Blackboards
Effects of Chalk Use on Dust Exposure and Classroom Air Quality
Although using chalkboards in the
classroom is a traditional and effective teaching method,
chalk generates a large amount of airborne dust, and
particularly submicrometer dust and nanoparticles that can
penetrate into the respiratory system.
Investigation of Lecturer's Chalk by X-Ray Florescence and Fast Neutron Activation Techniques
The presence of Ca and small traces of Al, Fe, Mg and Si elements in the different lecturer's chalk samples were confirmed utilizing Fast Neutron Activation Analysis (FNAA), lifetime, and X-ray florescence (XRF) techniques. [...] It is highly recommended that Chalk dust is
considered an irritant and an occupational hazard as shown in this investigation.
Assessment of Airborne Fine Particulate Matter and Particle Size Distribution in Settled Chalk Dust during Writing and Dusting Exercises in a Classroom
Though real-time airborne chalk dust generation was found to be low in this study and chalk dust contained only calcium carbonate or calcium sulphate predominantly and did not contain toxic materials, chalk dust could be harmful to allergic persons and may cause lacrimation and breathing troubles in the long run and certainly is a constant nuisance in classrooms as it may soil clothes, body parts, audio visual aids and study materials. The issue of allergy, lacrimation and breathing problem is certainly critical, considering that classroom teaching involves predominantly children and also in many cases teachers who might have crossed the middle age, thus becoming more susceptible. Exposure to low concentrations of fine particles for longer durations can be a matter of concern for children.
Trace elemental profile of School Chalk from a few Companies in Punjab
areas by WDXRF Technique
The results of this study confirmed the presence of the elements like Ca, Al, Fe,
Si, Ni, and Cr are in significant concentrations. The exposure to elements like Ca, Al, Si, Fe, Ni and
Cr causes irritation to eyes and skin, cough, potential health symptoms includes accumulation to
lungs. The study confirmed that black board chalk is an irritant and occupational hazard.
"Dust free" chalks
Investigation of particulate matter performances in relation to chalk selection in classroom environment
Surprisingly, dustless chalk made from Gypsum cannot be called really as dustless because of more [particulate matter] emissions.
Allergenicity of casein containing chalk in milk allergic schoolchildren
Dust free chalk often contains casein, which can cause asthma if someone is allergic to milk (typically it's infants and children who have this allergy).
Whiteboards
I didn't find as much research on whiteboards, unfortunately.
Solvent Exposure during use of Solvent-Based Whiteboard Markers
It does not appear that heavy use of
solvent-based whiteboard markers by students in a classroom situation would likely result in
excessive acute solvent exposures.
Analysis of the indoor air quality in greek primary schools
[C]lassrooms using chalk in blackboard are characterized with significant concentrations of large sized particles (PM2.5 & PM10), while classrooms using marker in whiteboards from increased VOCs and CO concentrations
Volatile organic compound emissions from markers used in preschools, schools, and homes
I couldn't read enough of this paper to reach any conclusions, but it seems relevant nonetheless
Total nit-pick here xD Not a serious criticism nor even a health concern for modern devices, but a digital whiteboard will produce constant radiation, which will in turn affect the air by heating it. I'd think the "safest" surface to use would be something akin to an "etch-a-sketch" in how the materials are contained within the writing surface. I don't know if anyone has bothered to make a large-scale one with a stylus instead of the knobs; that would be neat :)
I have no idea if it was potentially toxic or not, but the stench of some whiteboard markers is most definitely detrimental (to learning/teaching). I have no idea who made these pieces of rubbish back then, but it wasn't a major recognisable brand name.
@kayleeFrye_onDeck Then use a smart board with e-ink display. It requires no power to remain "on" only to update.
@Tschallacka Ooo, I like that! Thanks for the recommendation :)
Why don't use Ziteboard (https://ziteboard.com) an online whiteboard? You can set the background to black or white.
Why a Black board should be preferred-
White on black is easier on the eyes in a well-lit classroom.
(due to the difference in contrast)
Black boards provide more flexibility - you can shade and colour with chalk
more effectively, you can write with chalk from any point in the chalk piece,
unlike the marker that has a tip
Tend to be more economical than markers as chalk is cheaper than marker ink.
Chalk is easier to clean than marker ink if it accidentally gets on your
clothes while teaching.
Chalk boards don't produce glare unlike the glossy surface of a whiteboard.
(students sitting at certain angles will have glare issues )
Marker ink residue is more harmful than chalk if ingested.
Marker ink has an unpleasant smell, whereas chalk is odourless.
Marker tips tend to widen and wear out sooner.
While writing, the rough surface of the Blackboard rubbing against the chalk
gives adequate feedback to the writing hand, so it is easier to handle,
unlike the smooth slippery surface contact between marker and whiteboard.
Dustless chalks are available that have a wax coated layer to prevent dust
from flying out.
As far as scientific evidence goes, the human eye is most comfortable reading white on black OR black on white, so it is a matter of convenience as I see it.
Chalk, you can rub it away,
But, when you make those small errors, reaching for the duster/sponge is inconvenient, so you rub the marker ink with your hand and it creates a blob in the whiteboard as well as in your hand.
Not sure, but I'm guessing chalk is more environmentally sound once all the factors are taken in to account?
Chalk doesn't dry out if you leave the cap half-off.
High quality markers don't stink/smell noticeably. - I also got a comment on some good ones even having a bit of resistance once. Unfortunately, organisations seem to buy whatever is cheapest - and some of those markers really stink... (I have no idea why...)
Most of your points are just "bad whiteboard markers suck" but, in any case, this isn't an answer to the question. The question isn't "Why are whiteboards better/worse than blackboards?"
'Chalk boards don't produce glare unlike (...)' I disagree. From experience in school and universities I can tell you blackboards can (and may of the ones I've encountered here in Spain most definitely DO) create a glare that can make you completely miss whole chunks of the blackboard for hours. (To be clear, I'm not saying whiteboards don't, just that blackboards do)
@xDaizu good ones don't but some do , but is considerably lower than white boards .
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.296654 | 2018-05-08T16:07:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/109389",
"authors": [
"Anyon",
"David Richerby",
"DetlevCM",
"GEdgar",
"Kat",
"Kevin",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Lamar Latrell",
"Lightness Races in Orbit",
"Monica Apologists Get Out",
"Ooker",
"Polygnome",
"Skalár Wag",
"Solar Mike",
"Tschallacka",
"astronat supports the strike",
"cactus_pardner",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/12378",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14198",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14341",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/17254",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/33949",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/348",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/38586",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/39577",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/4484",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/49043",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/60480",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/62383",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/72855",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/79580",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/8431",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84941",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/88197",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/91637",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/92493",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/98644",
"kayleeFrye_onDeck",
"skymningen",
"theenigma017",
"xDaizu"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54776 | Updating an application for a faculty position
I would like to ask if it is appropriate to update documents (e.g. cover letter) in the application package for a faculty position.
Thank you very much for your response
Kind regards,
Yannis
Welcome to Academia.SE. Your question is a little unclear. All documents provided in an application should be up-to-date. You could edit your question by expanding on what do you mean by "update documents."
I assume you're talking about making updates to your application materials after they have been submitted. If you applied using a website that has a built-in facility for updates, then sure, go ahead. It might not help (someone who already read an earlier version may never notice the update, or they might not bother to read updates received after the application deadline), but a few reasonable updates won't hurt your chances.
On the other hand, you should be wary of making updates if they aren't handled automatically, for example if you have to send an e-mail. If a staff member has to update your file, you should be respectful of their time and avoid submitting any unnecessary updates. A nontrivial change to your CV (such as a prize, or a grant/paper acceptance if you don't have many so far) could be worth an update, but you should not ask a staff member to run about making minor tweaks to your file.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.297502 | 2015-09-22T05:30:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/54776",
"authors": [
"Chico",
"Jiban Shrestha",
"Johnes",
"Leonard Burtscher",
"Spam",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/149670",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/149671",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/149672",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/149673",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/149743",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/40592",
"Ébe Isaac"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23114 | Can a conference paper be an extended version of a previous conference paper? Will it face copyright issues?
I am currently reviewing a conference paper, which I found is just extended version of a previous conference paper. I have heard that a journal paper can be a new version of a conference paper with some new stuff added, while the paper I am reviewing is something like this. Would this paper be rejected simply because of the copyright issue?
Unless there are large blocks of verbatim-copied text, this is not a copyright issue, but rather an issue of intellectual novelty.
@JeffE even if there are large blocks of verbatim-copied text, it still isn't a copyright issue but an issue of intellectual novelty - if I wrote the original paper, I have the [copy]right to include large blocks of it in any way I want, simply that wouldn't qualify as "original, unpublished research" that most venues require for publishing.
@Peteris Maybe. Just because you wrote the original paper doesn't necessarily mean you have the legal right to reuse the text. That depends on the exact copyright agreement you signed/clicked on.
I asked my Advisor, he told me that I should reject it by showing how similar these two are on technical aspect. And I did that.
It would seem that you should contact the organizing committee of the conference and get their advice. To me it seems kind of low to write papers that have very similar content but it does happen. If you are questioning it that much I would bring it up with the Organizing Committee and see what they say. You don't even have to mention names or specifics but just get their general opinion.
This depends entirely on the conferences involved. Some conferences will allow an overlap of up to 30% with other works (for example), and others require entirely original products. In either event, it is imperative that the earlier paper be referenced in the later one, ideally with an explanation of what is new.
I don't know if I read the question correctly. You are the reviewer? Not the author?
If you are the reviewer, the thing you should do is: Open your e-mail client, write to the jounral/conference editor that asked you to make the review, and tell them that you found this, and ask them if they will even consider it for the publication or not. It would be good to give them a link to the other paper, or send a copy attached (if you're legally allowed to do that).
The only case in which it is intellectually honest for conference paper to be an extended version of another is if:
There is a major difference in the length of the two papers (e.g., 4-page extended abstract vs. 10-page full paper), and
The paper declares the relationship up front with a proper citation (e.g., "This paper is an extended version building on the results already presented in [XXX]").
I see the relationship between conference and journal versions as different. In computer science, where the principle is typically "30% new for the journal version," the theory is typically that the journal version is a final and archival version which ties up all of the critical loose ends and inserts all of the portions omitted for space purposes in the conference paper. Thus, it essentially supersedes the conference paper. A second conference paper, on the other hand, should generally present a new piece of work not previously shown.
Thus, for a conference, if both of these criteria are not fulfilled, then you are dealing with a case of salami-slicing and possibly also self-plagiarism and the paper should be rejected.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.297666 | 2014-06-09T02:59:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/23114",
"authors": [
"East Coast Christian U.",
"JeffE",
"Peteris",
"Reese Johnston",
"RothX",
"Veener",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/10730",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14280",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/61741",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/61743",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/62007",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84329",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84330",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84331",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84347",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84352",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/84364",
"isakbob",
"lee",
"manasa prakash",
"monkinsane",
"mxqaldtk",
"tudor -Reinstate Monica-"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40359 | Is it a standard practice of tenure and promotion committee to ask for review reports of some published papers of the one evaluated?
Is it a standard practice for tenure and promotion committee to ask for referee reports of some published papers of the one evaluated?
Right to what? There are no laws keeping journal article referee reports private or anonymous. This is only done by convention.
I have never heard of it. Is this a hypothetical question, or is this happening to you? If the latter, maybe you should clarify the country and whether the committee asks this of everyone going up for tenure or just some people.
Does this not violate confidentiality?
@Kimball This is merely a hypothetical question.
Maybe it does, but there's no law giving that confidentiality. Also, maybe it doesn't. Single-blind reviews are anonymous to allow reviewers to speak their minds without fear of reprisal. Double-blind reviews are blind to fight bias among reviewers based on the authors' identities. Revealing the contents of reports after the fact, especially for accepted articles doesn't affect either of these issues.
Sometimes reviewers' reports are even published by the journal.
@BillBarth I was just checking the links you provided and at the end of the email from Nature with the reviews there is a clear note stating: "This email is confidential and subject to copyright" (http://news.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/NATURE%20REVIEWS.pdf) so I guess one could say that at least in some cases there might be some (copyright) laws involved.
@Miguel, yes, I assume that Nature published those reports with the reviewers' express permission or just assumed they had a fair use right to them. In the case user describes, I would guess that some reviewer somewhere might try to sue over the copying of their report in the reviewee sharing it with their tenure committee. I don't think the suit would be likely to win because there are lots of defenses available. Also, Nature can assert that it's confidentiality, but that doesn't make it so. Plus, there's no law that I know of that would help them if someone breached the confidentiality.
My university (a private R1) does ask for referee/reader reports in the case of newly published material in tenure and promotion cases. This is done when the scholar has recently published material that has not been cited elsewhere (thus, no bibliometric citation data) and the committee wants to ascertain the contribution to the field of study that the text may make.
Assuming your publication was accepted, you should view this as a good thing. Referee reports in those circumstances are positive, highlighting the contribution you are making to the field (otherwise, why would the journal publish it?). Folks on tenure and promotion committees also know to read through the negative cruft on reader's reports, so don't worry about that issue either.
p.s. I should note that at my university (as well as others), there is pushback against the use of pure bibliometric data (impact factors) as a way to ascertain a scholar's prominence in the field, but that is another question.
Review reports as in your title: yes. Asking an outside expert in the field for comments about the published work of the candidate. This is standard practice in some places and in some fields.
Referee reports as in the question: I have not heard of that. Except maybe in the case of a paper that has been accepted but not yet published: the referee report or editor's letter may be used as evidence of the acceptance.
I can't think of a committee expecting candidates to preserve the referee reports of previously published papers. I delete the referee reports from my mail box as soon as a paper is published.
They can ask, however, the acceptance letters of the papers listed in your CV as accepted for publication but not yet actually published. In case you don't provide the acceptance letters, the committee might not (or will not, depending on the country, institution etc.) consider those publications in the evaluation process.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.297983 | 2015-02-22T14:57:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/40359",
"authors": [
"Bill Barth",
"D.R",
"ExabytE",
"GretaMik",
"Kimball",
"Miguel",
"Mohmad Ali",
"Prajwol Onta",
"atlanif",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/108673",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/108674",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/108675",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/108682",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/108685",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/108686",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/108687",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/108688",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/11600",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14695",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19607",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/30756",
"lsn",
"panoulis",
"user"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
98328 | Is Publons a reliable reference to show peer-review experience in a faculty application?
I was invited for an interview for a tenure-track position. Since I was highly active in peer-review service, I highlighted this in my cover letter as well as my CV.
When an interviewer mentioned it (in a positive way), I emphasized that I have already included my Publons profile where my peer-review works can be checked. He said "I've never heard of it. Do you have any certificate or recommendation from the journals."
Then, I felt it was better if I did not mention Publons at all (it would look more normal). Was it a problem of my interviewer OR it is not common to include a peer-review profile in the application?
My impression was (maybe I am wrong) that if you simply mentioned it, we would believe you. Now that you want to prove it, you should do it in an official way.
I have never heard of Publons before reading your question, but can't help to think that maybe you could have explained better what it is during your interview, or simply quantified it in your letter or CV, for example: "reviewed # papers in the last # years, eg. for journals A and B", and then include the link to Publons if you want. Of course this is just my opinion, but I hope it helps.
This is basically like saying "I included my LinkedIn profile with all my skills on it" when the interviewer says "I've never heard of LinkedIn, do you have any reference letters endorsing your skills from former coworkers?" If you say "I have all my reviews on my Publons profile" that's treating it like a trophy which is a hard sell. Do more like @louic suggests. Use it as a record of what you did instead of proof of how well you did it. Even Review Endorsements probably won't carry weight as quality measure. Fill in the "how well" with stories and/or personal references.
Then, I felt it was better if I did not mention Publons at all (it
would look more normal). Was it a problem of my interviewer OR it is
not common to include a peer-review profile in the application?
I have seen a number of people (myself included) include a peer-review profile. In my case, it simply lists the journals I have reviewed for. At this point, it's actually more the list of journals I frequently review for.
I think the issue is more with Publons - in my experience, there hasn't really been a strong need for tracking credits the way they want, and I found it was more hassle than it was worth to keep it up-to-date (as if you have a Publons profile and highlight it, the implication is that it's accurate).
Essentially, I trust what you've told me. Because specific reviews, rather than the abstract concept of being an active reviewer, isn't really much of a consideration for me. It's a nice thing, and I appreciate seeing it mentioned as I do consider it a professional obligation, but Publons inherently wants there to be a quantitative impact based on volume and I...simply can't be bothered.
while I agree with your points, quantity is a representative of quality in peer-review. If your reviews are not high quality, the editor will not invite you frequently.
@Googlebot But it's not a 1:1 mapping function - for example, you could be an excellent reviewer of a topic that comes up relatively rarely.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.298339 | 2017-11-02T15:14:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/98328",
"authors": [
"Fomite",
"Googlebot",
"Louic",
"TheAtomicOption",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/118",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/406",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/64075",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/80217"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12792 | What is the real benefit of tenured positions for universities?
People are interested in tenured positions to have a secured job, as they do not need to worry about their contracts. Tenured position gives a professor security that s/he cannot get fired easily (e.g., simply not renewing his/her contract). But, what is the actual obligation for the professors? In return, what is the motivation for a university to offer tenured position, which is accompanied by less flexibility from HR point of view.
Apparently, tenure is just for the sake of academic freedom, and has no real benefit for the institution, except a one-way service to professors (probably satisfying more applicants). Am I right? Then, a university must prefer not to offer tenured positions at all, as HR has more freedom with non-tenured positions.
As a parent I would not send my child to a school that did not offer academic freedom to those teaching so there is certainly some benefit to the school.
Providing job security in the form of tenure also means that universities have to pay less. If you look at comparable research jobs that are similarly competitive, but don't have tenure (industrial research labs), salaries are higher.
@BenCrowell At research labs like Microsoft Research, the distinction is pretty minimal -- the biggest difference is that MSR researchers have no teaching responsibilities. Other than that, they spend their time doing the same thing CS professors at R1 universities do: conducting research and publishing papers, attending and organizing conferences, giving talks, etc. Tenured faculty move routinely from academia to these research labs, and back.
Institutions offer tenure, not (just) because of high-minded abstractions like "academic freedom", but because it makes good business sense. The benefit of tenure to the institution follows from the benefit to the individual:
From the faculty member's perspective, tenure makes it possible to pursue high-risk/high-impact research ideas without having to worry about having to keep short-term bean-counters happy.
This makes institutions that offer tenure more attractive to strong researchers because those researchers want an environment that best supports their ability to pursue their research ideas.
Such researchers, in turn, are very often also the ones who bring in the big grants. Their high visibility also enhances the reputation of the institution, which attracts more students and alumni donations, etc. etc.
For these reasons, given two otherwise-identical institutions where one offered tenure and the other didn't, the one without tenure would find itself at a significant competitive disadvantage.
It is certainly the case that very strong institutions would not be able to attract the talent they do at the wage they offer without the added incentive of tenure. "Average" professors may be replaceable, but the truly exceptional are hard to replace, although they would have many other job options besides academia.
I think you might be misunderstanding the purpose of tenure. While your view from the teacher's side might be correct (wanting to avoid worrying about contract renewal) the purpose for a school to offer tenure is supposed to be putting an educator in a position where he/she can teach whatever they feel is best without worrying about being fired if the school doesn't think it politically appropriate. For example, if someone was teaching about communism during the 1960's in the US, the school might want to fire that teacher. Tenure shows that the school believes in scholarship over politics.
As a side note, recent studies show that this is not at all what happens. Students learn more from non-tenured teachers than tenured ones.
As to your question, the responsibilities are the same as any other professional position - do your job. You certainly can leave if you find better opportunities - it's not a prison, it's a job.
"Students learn more from non-tenured teachers than tenured ones." [citation needed]
@earthling might be referring to this: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/09/09/study-finds-students-learn-more-non-tenure-track-instructors
"found that the gains are greatest for the students with the weakest academic preparation." This explains quite a lot, doesn't it?
I didn't read carefully enough to form a legitimate basis to question that study, but the combination of a university president and management consultant on the author list of a study that subtly advocates increasing the share of adjunct faculty literally made me a little queasy.
@fedja Instead of expecting me to read your mind, why not just say what you think it explains.
@earthling Good point. My impression (from my own teaching and from classes I attended) is that a tenured guy like me adjusts the material and the level of presentation to the top third of the class while a non-tenured one aims way lower. Neither strategy is perfect. The top students learn more from me (though still get worse grades and tougher life) and the bottom students have much better chance to learn basic skills they are missing from my non-tenured colleague. The real problem is not tenure vs. non-tenure (either of us can use the other's approach) but the terrible spread in one class.
@wsc Is it really all that surprising that people who teach 3-5 large classes a semester teach large classes better (I'm almost certain this is the study's metric for "teaching") then people who spend a lot their time advising students, doing independent research, giving research talks, and teaching specialized material to advanced students?
@PVAL It's not surprising per se. My own point was a bit narrower, though. I understood the comment I questioned as well as the study provided in support as glorifying the adjunct system. Most of the adjuncts who taught my own service courses (I'm in physics) were overworked, underpaid, got no respect from their peers, and it showed in the quality of their teaching. This was fine with the university, because if someone was really good they'd try and get more pay or benefits and would be let go in favor of the next warm body. So color me skeptical.
@wsc A key part of that study is that most of the untenured faculty involved are full-time (i.e., essentially permanent, salaried) lecturers, not one-off adjuncts. So, it is not necessarily looking at the comparison that likely comes to mind when thinking of tenure-track versus adjunct faculty.
I think there are some odd accidental assumptions in the question. For the U.S. system, although there is substantial drift in the last 10 years, the idea was not only that people should teach what their best judgement indicated, without worry of censure or loss-of-job, but that also their research/scholarship should reflect best-understanding rather than politics... especially given the transience and partisanship of politics.
There is also the idea that in otherwise-profitable enterprises people might not want to put any effort into teaching at all, thus not want to participate in a "university" (with students), without an otherwise-extraordinary promise of more-or-less-endless job security. Some smart, able people, not terribly interested in money, beyond a certain point, can be ensnared by the "care-free" aspect of a tenured faculty position.
"Even" in the U.S., in recent years there has been a push to "contract" faculty positions, indeed. In happy times, these seem to be no worse than tenured positions. However, obviously, in the next economic downturn the administration will have the easy option of terminating as many contract employees as seems convenient.
Yes, this is part of the increased corporatization of U.S. (and other) colleges and universities. Of course, we should understand that we are at the end of a sort of "golden age" between the pre-WWI times that only the upper-classes' children "went to college", apart from seminary students, and after the post-WWII time where the "GI Bill" financed returning veterans' college educations to avoid flooding the job market... which was already in disarray after all the women who'd been "allowed" to work in factory jobs and such in wartime were expected (or forced) to quit and "go home"... so there was an artificial surge both in the numbers of college enrollments and in the socio-economic goals.
And more complications currently...
One more point is that tenure per se is a huge perk which lets the universities get away with the salaries considerably lower than in the industry and keep many smart people nevertheless, at least in the fields where leaving academe for industry is an option.
If I understand the question you're asking, there is no obligation for a tenured professor to remain at the institution that gave him or her tenure. Professors changing institutions happens quite frequently. In many cases, such moves occur because of career advancement—for instance, one might be offered a position in the university administration (chair, dean, or provost, for example).
However, in such cases, the professor typically has the obligation of "winding down" her group at the old institution "gracefully." Usually, that means that the advisor is still responsible for supervising any students that chose not to move with the professor. In some cases, depending on location, there may be teaching duties leftover—for instance, a tenured professor left my university here in Germany not too long ago to take a position in another country. He still had to return once a week for an entire year to fulfill the teaching obligations he had under German law. (Professors' minimum teaching loads are regulated in Germany.)
Just to add an international perspective: In Denmark (and some other, especially Northern, European countries), tenure is not unique to academia. Here an employer is obligated to offer you a permanent contract after three years or discontinue your employment; academia operates on this general principle. "Tenured" faculty here have permanent contracts just like someone working in any other field, as opposed to the fixed-term contracts held by postdocs, assistant professors, and temporary employees elsewhere in the marketplace. So, at least in some countries, tenure is a general workplace guarantee, not something special to university faculty.
In the U.S., getting tenure is often compared to "getting a union card" in that the job security of tenure is generally comparable to the job security of being in a unionized position, even though faculty in the U.S. are often not unionized.
Given the relative two fisted brutality of the unitary Australian system in industrial relations terms on the average (as opposed to "appointed") academic staff; and the early death of "tenure" in Australian contexts:
The only limitation on institutions offering positions is industrial
We can see this in field specific peaks of casually taught classes reaching 80%
And society wide casualisation of about 50%
Academics have incredibly low rates of militancy in the face of massive erosion of work conditions
"Research," the unique product of on-going appointments in Australia, has consistently been treated by institutions as a "Luxury" product (AUR reports on cross subsidisation of research by teaching).
Employer preference is the only basis on which any on-going positions exist, and this seems to be directly related to either Degree program related academic administration ("Who's in charge of the BA's pedagogy?") or to inter-Employer status game ("We have 100 more HERDC points than you, and are therefore a better university").
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T12:55:49.298630 | 2013-09-17T21:22:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "academia.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/12792",
"authors": [
"Aaron",
"Brian",
"Coldfusion",
"Erie Dona Kent",
"HowardCodes",
"Kiwi Bird",
"Matthew Paul Chapdelaine",
"Nejc",
"Oswald Veblen",
"PVAL",
"Suresh",
"Thomas",
"earthling",
"fedja",
"habibmostafa",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/1228",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/14722",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/16122",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/2692",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32420",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32424",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32425",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32426",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32431",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32433",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32438",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32441",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/32502",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/346",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6118",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6820",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/6984",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/71641",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/71672",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/71705",
"m.caprecci",
"user27477",
"vinay kanth",
"waldol1",
"wsc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.