<issue_start>username_0: Let's say I'm writing an original research paper about *the design process in the **helicopter** industry*.

In the literature review (or context/related work) section, I want to talk about:

1. the various design processes that exists;
2. specific features of design processes in aviations;
3. specific features of design processes in helicopter industry;
4. how to study a design process;
5. etc.

I have found a major paper that deals with *the design process in the **airplane** industry*. This paper is recent (= references are up-to-date), frequently cited and published in a major journal (= acknowledged for its scientific quality). Its literature review is top-notch: clear, concise, well written, etc. It tackled the topics #1, 2 and 4 of the review I want to write.

**Question:** How to write my review, since this papers does *almost* all the job in a perfect manner?<issue_comment>username_1: I would use the other literature review as a baseline, and focuss on how helicopters are different from airplanes. So I would start with mentioning the other literature review, and saying that the basics are discussed there, and here I will focuss on how those apply and/or differ for helicopters.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I have recently written a paper which addresses a particular angle of a fairly common topic. Although I am presenting a new perspective, since the topic is a common one, I came across several papers during my literature search which has near perfect literature reviews. It definitely does help if you get one or two such exhaustive literature reviews: you will have pretty much covered everything if you can go back to the sources cited in these reviews and read them as well.

I don't know if the procedure I followed in writing my literature review was correct, but this is what I did. Once I had read whatever I could of the existing literature in the field (not in great detail, just read the abstract and results well and skimmed through the rest of the paper), I created an outline for my literature review - a basic framework with the key points that I would include. I started with a broad topic and gradually tried to narrow down to the angle I am covering. I then started writing the literature review based on this outline. For each of the points on my outline, I did a search on google scholar and came up with one or two most relevant articles (didn't take much time as I was already familiar with them) and cited them. I did not cite every single article in the field, nor did I go back to those perfect literature reviews while writing. My aim was to convincingly narrow the discussion down to my core topic and ensure that this particular topic had not been covered before. Later, one of the reviewers pointed out a couple of relevant articles that I had missed and I added them.

I have seen the other questions that you have posted. I feel you are overthinking and getting overwhelmed by all your reading. The best thing you can do now is to take a break from your reading. Let the ideas settle down for a day or two and then create your outline and start writing. Search as you write and cite the relevant articles that come up in your search. In fact, don't read the literature review of the other article at all. Even if some of the ideas are similar, you should be able to present them your own way. Also, try to reference the primary sources and not the secondary source.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Unless the "perfect literature review" is very recent, there will be new developments that warrant discussion, if only to contrast to what was already described. I'm not familiar with helicopter design, but I'd hazard the guess that larger supercomputers build on different architectures require new approaches to numerical modelling; larger/faster supercomputers means more detailed or precise models can be tackled; there are new requirements, like less noise or even less radar cross-section.

Or you could focus on some specific aspect(s), doing a more in-depth study of that. Or even do a sort of history instead of discussing the current state of the art.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: In principle, for academic articles, you should only write things that are new and have not been published before. From this perspective, you should not rehash what others have already done if they've already done a good job doing it.

**This makes your work easier.** That means that you shouldn't spend the time writing up what others have already done, but rather spend your time on discussing your own new unique contributions beyond what others have already done.

That said, so that your article can stand on its own, it is necessary to do some kind of repetition so that your readers can sufficiently read and understand your article in its own right without having to read other articles for background reading just to follow your article.

Based on these principles, here is my recommendation for the scenario you described:

* Since points 1, 2 and 4 have already been done nearly perfectly, do not redo it. However, do summarize these points in your own words in as much detail as necessary so that your readers do not need to read the other literature review to understand what you are talking about. In your summary, not only should you certainly cite the other literature review, but freely quote it as ncessary to get the message across. Then, you should explicitly ask readers to read that other article for further details. (However, I repeat, make sure that all absolutely necessary detail is included in your own summary in your own article.)
* Develop point 3 in detail, since that is clearly different from the treatment in the other literature review. Make sure you highlight this difference so that readers can appreciate that although you borrow from the other article for points 1, 2 and 4, you are making a contribution above and beyond what has already been done.

With this approach, you not only benefit from the other work that the other article has done, but you use it as a platform to highlight your own valuable contributions.
Upvotes: 1


<issue_start>username_0: A student from another university is planning on taking a class I'll be teaching this fall and will be doing it as a transient student. Apparently, in order to have their transient status approved, they need a copy of the course syllabus, and so requested it from me by email.

I don't normally finalize my syllabi until a few days before classes start — certainly not five months in advance —, and the course itself is not one that is identical each semester so I don't feel comfortable just sending an old syllabus. (And even that wouldn't exist if it were a new class or a special topics class)

It seems odd to need the syllabi so early — AFAIK the normal process is for his home institution to review the syllabi *after* taking the classes to determine credit given.

So two parter:

1. Is this a normal request that somehow has just never come by me before?
2. If it is, how do you handle for courses that don't have syllabus ready to go?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Is this a normal request that somehow has just never come by me before?
>
>
>

I've never heard of such a request either, and I've being writing syllabi at American universities for a good while now. So...not *too* normal, anyway.

>
> If it is, how do you handle for courses that don't have syllabus ready to go?
>
>
>

In *my* local academic culture, a course syllabus is a good faith effort to inform students of key course procedures and requirements. It does not absolutely bind the instructor to do what the syllabus says; I would say only that an instructor has an ethical requirement to make changes in the course syllabus *for good reasons*. In fact, at my university it is a standard practice to include the following sentence in course syllabi:

**The course syllabus is a general plan for the course; deviations announced to the class by the instructor may be necessary.**

Thus I would say that the most helpful thing you could do would be to make a *tentative syllabus* for the course, which includes language at least as strong as the above. You should be clear to the student that this syllabus need not be the same as the one you'll give out on the first day of class. However, if the student needs **a** syllabus in order to take the class (no, not a practice I recognize, but there is a lot of academic bureaucracy out there), this seems to be the best way to accommodate the request.

By the way, I think you are certainly within your rights to say, "Course syllabi are simply not available five months in advance. Based on the conditions you mention, it seems that you will not be able to enroll in the course." That is, you are certainly not obligated to hack together a tentative or pseudo-syllabus in order to accommodate someone else's bureaucratic requirement. Whether it is worth your time to do so is really up to you.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: 1. It's not so unusual in the U.S., for example when the student is coming from abroad, with their own funding, for one semester or so. I've had to do this a handful of times in 30+ years.
2. I approximate a syllabus, and in a cover-note say that it is approximate. There's no real loss in doing some part of that work months in advance, hopefully.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: When I was a graduate student representative, we tried to get the faculty in our department to publish something course descriptions, including very rough syllabi, for a year or two in advance, with the understanding they are not necessarily committing to actually giving those courses.

This was intended to help people plan which courses they intend to take - as with undergraduate courses you could know with relative certainty which courses would be given about when - but also because some Professors knew for certain they were going to teach a course on some subject but nobody would publish that information anywhere so you had to guess.

So, regardless of whether it's a *common* thing to ask, it's certainly a *reasonable* request - and the student obviously realizes that syllabi given far in advance are subject to change. Of course, as @PeteLClark [suggest](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/65785/7319) it's better to make that explicit.

PS - The dean and department management promised to do this, but never actually lifted a finger to get the faculty to submit such prospective plans.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: 1. Normal? Yes. Common? No, but it is becoming more frequent. At the two-year college where I am employed, students are being required to develop a study plan for their semesters before transfer. If a student wishes to substitute a course, or needs to repeat a course (ugh) and we don't have it at a time that suits their plan, then they need to find the course at some other institution. That substituted course needs to be approved. If we do not have an articulation agreement with the other institution, then the syllabus is a part of the process.
2. Excellent answer: "I approximate a syllabus, and in a cover-note say that it is approximate. There's no real loss in doing some part of that work months in advance, hopefully."
Upvotes: 2


<issue_start>username_0: About a year ago I received a request to review a paper from author X in journal A. The paper uses a hype tool T to solve a common problem, which is good, but due to some shortcomings in the implementation I recommended to revise the manuscript. The editor followed my recommendation.

About a month ago I was contacted by an editor in journal B asking me to review a manuscript from unrelated authors Y. They use the same hype tool T to solve the same problem. I accepted to review it, and mentioned that I had reviewed a similar paper for a different journal (without naming it). It is now due in a couple of days.

Now to my surprise I just received a request to review a revised manuscript of author X from journal A (I thought X had given up on it since more than a year passed). I would like to accept but won't be able to deliver the review before 3-4 weeks.

This is a "winner gets it all" kind of situation. The paper that gets published first wins, and I think would be ground to drop and reject the second paper as not really novel any longer. (No plagiarism here, and nothing unethical done by the authors; just an obvious answer to an old question with hype tool T. I had myself thought of it before hearing from A, and discarded it only due to lack of time.) How should I deal with that?

Should I disclose to the respective editors that I am reviewing similar papers? I suspect that would be a breach of the confidentiality. Should I have refrained to mention to editor of journal B that I had reviewed a similar paper in the past?

Would it be a conflict of interest to review the revised manuscript from X? Should I decline the review?

Also, should I inform the editor of the other journal once the first paper gets published? If so, how can I politely ask to be informed when the manuscript gets published without giving away that there is a similar manuscript out there?<issue_comment>username_1: This exact situation is difficult to assess without detailed knowledge but the editors of the journals should be aware of the situation. Since each case is unique and we do not know the details it will be up to the editors to judge or take the matter further.

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has one case on [simultaneous publications](http://publicationethics.org/case/simultaneous-publication) that can be of interst to read.

So the advice is: yes contact the editors and provide the information you can. They will then have to take action, compare manuscripts or whatever the deem necessary. Similar works have been published simultaneously before so it is not certain there is a violation lurking somewhere but it is unusual.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: There are many cases of simultaneous discovery.

I don't think you need to interfere, unless there is reason to believe the second papers authors were referees on.the first, author overlap, dual submission or other plagiarism/unethical behavior. As far as I can tell, you have no reason to believe so?

See: there is a good chance the first (or both) will be in print before one could have read the other. Then both have studied this "first" (does not sound like major breakthrough anyway).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Simultaneous or independent discoveries happen often. If the paper A has a first submission date published, that should ensure paper A being fairly treated.

Apart from that, I do agree with the other responses that actually discussing the situation with the editors (without disclosing mutually the authors) may be a good idea here.

My purely personal view (others may disagree) would be that independent results which overlap temporally due to an unlucky accident both deserve publication. It was pure coincidence that in your case they ended up going via a single-person bottleneck.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]


<issue_start>username_0: I am a first year PhD student in France, born and raised in India. It is not customary in here where I am doing my PhD to call one's adviser *boss* but I do, partly due to my reluctance to call her by the first name, partly attributed to the culture in which I am brought up. As one comment suggested, "Dear professor" would have been an appropriate choice but she doesn't have any teaching duties and is a full time researcher. I would have used "Dear Madam" if I were in India but no one here use that. I think "Dear Dr. X" is too formal and no one here use that either. Many prefer "Hi X" but I think that is too informal.
Now that I am writing an email, Is *Dear Boss* an appropriate salutation? If not, what would be an appropriate salutation in a formal email?<issue_comment>username_1: "Dear Professor X" is still probably still appropriate. Even if they are a full-time researcher and aren't teaching, their official position is probably some variant of "Professor." If their job title is **not** professor, then I would just go with "Dear Dr. X" and accept that it might be a little too formal.

At least in the US, I would pretty much never use "Dear Boss," even in an email sent to my actual boss in industry. It sounds awkward and weirdly removed. If you want something more formal than a first name, stick to "Ms./Mr./Dr. X."
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: The formality is not important, more important is the content of the letter/e-mail. However, some people tend to consider themselves as respectable, so using formal language Dear Professor X or Dear Dr. X is advisable.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Personally I cannot think of *any* context where 'Dear Boss' is appropriate. You also note that it is not customary to refer to ones advisor as 'boss' at all. There's a good reason for that: generally they are not your boss. They are your advisor, mentor, teacher, collaborator, colleague... but for most PhD students they are not in a position of being employed with their advisor as line manager.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: In my view, in academia, the word "Boss" carries a large amount of semantic baggage that you probably don't want to invoke. Although you mean it to be polite and respectful, it also has an ironic context which you may not have detected. By saying "Dear Boss" can also imply that in your opinion they are neither dear to you or deserve the respect as a superior. It is safest to avoid such salutations altogether in emails.

As others have indicated this is very culturally dependent and I think you are bringing too much of your south asian culture to a european environment. Do what the locals do and emulate other peers is the safest and wisest approach.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_5: My first reaction is that "Dear Boss" is not ok (especially since she is female and that there is this word "bossy" with all the negative connotations, especially when applied to women and girls). I also would suggest a simple "Dear Ms. Lastname" or "Dear Firstname Lastname".

However, since you'll be communicating via email frequently you may also use the same salutation as you use when you meet her in person. If you greet her personally with "<NAME>", and that's ok with you both, you may well use it in an email and it or "Dear Boss" should also be ok. But the advice in this last paragraph has to be taken with a grain of salt since I do not really know many detail about your relationship.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: This is a case specific question! Many would argue and say "NO", others will say it "depends" (on professor/country/institution). I'm with the latter. If she is "cool" with it, it should not be a problem. When I email my advisor (on stuff regarding my project, papers, courses), I use this "Dear Prof. N", N being the **first letter** of his last name. However, when I send emails to multiple recipients (including him), I use his full last name.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: As a PhD student in France, I think using word "boss" would be probably taken as an inappropriate expression. If you speak in English with your professor, it is appropriate to say "Dear professor" as it is mentionned in other comments and answers.

If you speak in French, you could use "bonjour madame/monsieur" (which is equivalent to "hello sir" in English)

As there exists a formal and informal way to say "you" in French, if your advisor uses "tu" (informal you in french), you could also say him/her "tu" because otherwise, it can be considered as you would like to put a distance.

If your advisor says "vous" (formal you in french) when she/he speaks with you, you are also asked to use "vous" as it is a social norm in France.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_8: People who you meet frequently with won't like to be addressed in a formal way. Writing "Hi X, I am stuck with doing Y, I was going about it the way you told me to do in our last meeting yesterday, but this yields strange results", is preferable over "Dear Prof. Dr. X..... " because the way you need to communicate the issues you need to be talking about necessarily requires an informal way of communication and then starting with "Dear Prof. Dr. X" is rather unnatural.

To the advisor it is just like getting an email from a good friend who instead of saying "Hello, how are you doing?" as he or she would always do when speaking on the phone or meeting in person writes "Dear Prof X". So, this is totally unnatural after you know the person and have had some meetings with each other.

Now, all social guidelines will have exceptions e.g. [this looks like an exceptional professor](https://profhugodegaris.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/cosmismdeism.pdf), but I think you're better off communicating in an informal way with your advisor.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: It's quite interesting to see all the advocates for starting an email with "Dear ...". I'm not sure if it's a cultural difference or not, but every formal and professional email I have sent to or received from a colleague/supervisor/associate over the last 10+ years has always started with "Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening" depending on the time it was written.

If the supervisor is the main recipient or only recipient, then there's no need to include their name in the greeting (likewise, if it's a group email) - the fact that they are receiving it means that they're the intended recipient.

Less formal emails are usually begun with a "Hi xxx".

I have only seen "Dear xxx" used when a formal, written letter is sent.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_10: May I suggest one of the following?

* No salutation at all. That is, just get on with what you want to say. This is quite common in emails these days. Example:

>
> Regarding my thesis, I have a couple of questions. (blah blah)
>
>
> Regards, Sathyam
>
>
>
* Just say "Hi,". Example:

>
> Hi,
>
>
> Regarding my thesis, I have a couple of questions. (blah blah)
>
>
> Regards, Sathyam
>
>
>

Modify for the usual greeting in your language, eg. Bonjour
* Use her surname. Example:

>
> Hi Ms. Chevalier,
>
>
> Regarding my thesis, I have a couple of questions. (blah blah)
>
>
> Regards, Sathyam
>
>
>

---

I answer quite a few questions on forums, effectively being a similar thing to answering questions about academic issues. I find too much formality irritating. In particular:

* Dear Nick (would prefer just "Nick")
* Dear Gammon (would prefer to be called "Nick")
* Gammon (sounds like being told off by my teacher)
* Sir Nick (sounds like I have just been knighted)
* Mr. Nick (sounds wrong, it's Mr. Gammon, if we are going to use Mister at all)
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_11: In North America – British professors to the contrary notwithstanding – an email between two people in the same institution (physically or otherwise) is considered to be of the same format as an interoffice memo. [Please note that like an interoffice memo one can see to whom it is being sent without a salutation and one can see who it is from without a complementary close.]

Of course it is the nature of the French to make sure that they do not do anything as it is done in other countries. So, although the North American protocol seems logical to we Vulcans, the best I can say is viva la difference.

```
                                     Herr Professor <NAME>. username_11

```
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_12: `When in Rome, do as a Romans do`

Find some trusted native French phd students. Study some of their mails. Write the salutation the way they do.

I am an Indian living in India and I find hi/hello too informal when talking to my seniors. Calling them by their first name cannot be even thought of according to my culture!

I write the mails as follows:

>
> Greetings,
>
>
> I wish to inform you about ...
>
>
>
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_13: Ask her how she would like to be addressed. Will not cause offence and shows a cultural sensitivity.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_14: The first thing to do is to ask your supervisor what she wants to be called. Does she want to keep things formal? Does she want to be called by name? **Whatever she tells you is the appropriate salutation to use with her.** There is no need to second-guess yourself, nor to go spend too much time over-thinking this.

Now, I know that cultural differences are hard to combine. For this reason I'll give you some pointers based on personal experience. In general, the French culture is one of extreme politeness when it comes to communication. The way people go about this is to use formal pronouns and conjugations when talking to each other. In other words, you'd address your interlocutor as second person plural *vous*. This is all true until one of the two, usually the one's that higher up in the hierarchy/respect scale (your manager/your spouse's parents), actually tells you "*on peut se/tu peux me [tutoyer](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tutoyer#French)*" which means "we/you can use the informal pronoun *tu*", as opposed to [*vouvoyer*](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vouvoyer) which is what you were initially doing. *Tu* is the second person singular.

When it comes to titles, the French don't really seem to be fussy about them. Indeed, the main titles used are Monsieur and Madame, i.e. Mr and Mrs (there is also Mademoiselle (Ms) for nubile women, although it's kind of deprecated since it's virtually impossible to safely gauge if one is married or not after they reach adulthood). Medical Doctors here are referred to as Monsieur/Madame, the Prime Minister is <NAME>, the President de la République is <NAME>.

Therefore, regardless of whether your supervisor is or is not a professor, has or doesn't have teaching assignments, the formal way of addressing her would be "<NAME>". Which, in your email would become "*<NAME>yz,*" or "Dear Mrs. Xyz". If however, Madame Xyz explicitly told you to use her first name Asd then a "*Bonjour Asd,*" or "Hello Asd," will do.

The title "Boss" is in no way appropriate nor more polite than *Madame*. I would not use it in this context, nor anywhere else in general.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_15: Both "Dear Madam" and "Dear <NAME>" are appropriate, "Dear Boss" sounds bad to my ears. No need to use "Doctor" or "Professor", in France academic diplomas are usually not mentionned excepted in a resume.

Ho and by the way, I'm French ;)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_16: Welcome to doing a PhD in France! I think the main difficulty in your question comes from the fact that **your boss is not actually your boss**, she's firstly **your colleague**. (The closest thing you would get as a boss would be the university Dean.) She is an advisor, being senior means she has probably good advice to give and you should listen to it, but still this is really different from, say, a course where the professor is above his/her students.

This is the first point, the second is that in academia in France, all colleagues communicate informally among themselves (with one big exception in medicine). So you're expected to communicate informally with her. Not doing so is acceptable in the short term as you are foreign, and it is understandable that this type of communication is awkward to you, but in the long run it will sound bad. If you keep using formal tone, it will sound like "I agree to do what you tell me because you're the boss and I have no choice"

So definitely no "Dear Boss". Using "Greetings" or "Good afternoon" are a good compromise until you feel comfortable enough to write "Hi Firstname,".
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_17: As others have noted, you should err on the side of formality. If your advisor has a doctorate, use "Dear Dr. X" (or the French equivalent).

If not, use "Dear Prof. X". While you said that she does not have teaching responsibilities, that does not preclude the title of professor. At least in the United States, there are research professors. Additionally, someone would be unlikely to be offended to be thought a professor.

As noted by @hoyland, women are often addressed as Ms. (or Miss or Mrs.) when a male colleague would be addressed as "Dr." or "Prof.", which understandably irks them.

As a professor, the way I signal to students that it's okay to use my first name is to sign emails from them with just my first name. If your advisor does that with you, you may safely address her by her first name. If she uses her initials or full name, stick with the formal form.

As noted by others, it would also be okay for you to ask how to address her. If I were you, I would remind her that I am from another culture. For example, you might say: "In India, I would address you '<NAME>'. Is that correct in France too?" For someone not from a different culture, it can be awkward to answer their question by saying they should stick to the formal form. (Imagine the awkwardness if you asked someone if you could use their first name and they said no.)
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]


<issue_start>username_0: I have read research claiming the idea of multiple styles of learning does not hold up. If so, what does the research say is the best form of learning/teaching?<issue_comment>username_1: Recent eagle's-eye overview of best-practice study methods: Dunlosky, John, et al. "What works, what doesn't." *Scientific American Mind* 24.4 (2013): 46-53.

Gold star winners:

* **Self-testing.** That is: doing homework exercises and checking the answers.
* **Distributed practice.** Studying regularly in batches over time (not cramming).

Runners-up (mixed evidence):

* **Elaborative interrogation.**
* **Self-explanation.**
* **Interleaved practice.** ("Mixed practice")

What doesn't work:

* **Highlighting.**
* **Rereading.**
* **Summarization, keyword mnemonics, and imagery for text learning.**
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: **Multimodal Learning**
as per the article *Multimedia design: the effects of relating multimodal information*, <NAME> and <NAME>

>
> A statistically significant effect was observed on word memorisation
>  in the different information presentation modes, suggesting better
>  processing when there is co-referencing of the different sources,
>  especially when the encoding and tests modes are the same.
>
>
>

In general, people learn better when the material is presented from multiple types of media: text, audio, video, etc.

The article is linked here:

<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2729.2000.00127.x/abstract>
Upvotes: 2


<issue_start>username_0: I'm an undergraduate about to finish my first year of undergraduate research in CS. This past year has been mostly engineering-based as I learned how things worked in terms of implementation.

I'm looking to move from engineering / implementation of others' ideas into creating my own novel ideas and research, but I'm not sure how to best bridge this gap. I'm going to be attending a conference in my field soon, but I'm sure there are other things that I can do to help me along this transition.

I'd imagine its beneficial to read papers, but one of the issues that I am facing is that I'm not really sure what problems I want to work on, and thus don't know what area of research publications to focus on. Additionally, I'm finding it difficult to find the "core papers" of a problem, e.g. papers that present significant advances and are quite important. How would you make the transition between a more research engineer role to that of a research scientist?<issue_comment>username_1: I think the most important thing is to ask for help.

Which, I guess by asking this question, you did.

However, ask people for help that know about your field and know about YOU. They will be the the most helpful.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: You make it sound like engineering and research are two contradicting things, but I think this view is falling short. Of course there are shallow implementation and verification jobs, but there are also plenty of engineering jobs about R&D fiddling and finding clever designs and solutions, and then there are also (purely) academic jobs in engineering fields. Note that the boundaries between all of these are very much blurred and there is a variety of people in engineering ranging from hands-on tinkerers to purist mathematicians with completely different mindsets. Therefore, people in engineering hardly ever agree on whether some job or result is just derivative craft lacking conceptual contribution, useful high-level research, or disconnected theoretical work with pretentious notation but possibly useless and not much behind it. Also, implementation jobs can require a lot of clever thinking too, e.g. in analog electronics or large system integration.

Since you're at the undergraduate level still, I'd say it's totally normal to learn and follow preexisting ideas before engaging in great abstraction and developing your own branches. It's hard to make strong and novel conceptual contributions to your field if you don't know its basics. Do not underestimate the work put in by many, many very intelligent people before you (one tends to forget about this at times, e.g. when reading a bad introductory book) and rather try to gather their insights and grow from them.

About your problem at hand: I guess the best thing you could do, as far as that is possible in your environment, is trying to steer your next career choices in the direction of institutions and companies that value conceptual thinking and smart solutions and not only dull implementation workforce. Aim for courses, texts, project topics, internships, and contacts that push you more and more in this direction.
Upvotes: 1


<issue_start>username_0: I study in the UK. I just received an email from the academic registrar of my university regarding my forthcoming graduation ceremony.

Contained within the email was this disclaimer:

>
> Please ensure that you have paid any outstanding study related fees and charges to the University no later than 16:00 (BST) Thursday 16 June 2016 (this includes library fines). If you do not do this, I regret that you will cease to be eligible to graduate this summer.
>
>
>

I have an outstanding library fine of £0.15 which of course I intend to pay but it seems far fetched to me that an academic institution would withhold a degree costing at anywhere between £21,000 to £100,000 due to an outstanding payment of up to £10 (the fine limit after which you cannot withdraw any more books). As I understand it, this stipulation is not confined to my university.

**Could I be prevented from graduating due to a trivial fine? Has this kind of rule ever been enforced by a university? Is it legal?**<issue_comment>username_1: This is called an **administrative encumbrance**, it is indeed very standard.

The general notion is that if you owe the university money, then the administration will deny you *things*.
These *things* may include: unit results, the ability to graduate, exam timetables, or the ability to enrol in new units.
In what was certainly a bug, students at my wife's university were even denied access to the payment webpage while under-encumbrance -- which did not help them get paid.

There are often many ways to get encumbered, depending on the university and country. As well as library fines, there are often things like amenities fees, student union fees, parking fines, tuition costs.

Is it legal? Probably. You almost certainly agree to something along the lines of "I will suffer the effects of being encumbered if I fail to pay any fees or fines, and may not be allowed to graduate", as part of your enrolment or financing paperwork/online form tickbox.
Is it a legally binding contract, though? Who knows, we will probably never find out as the cost of a lawyer to take it to court and actually prove it through contest is far more than the cost of just paying it.
I would bet it is legal, as universities tend to have teams of lawyers on retainer.

### Now the real question is will a <£10 fine actually make you encumbered?

That is a question to look to your university rules for.
I suggest that it probably won't.
That there is a clause saying that encumbered will only be enforced in cases where the debt is >£X.

My own experience with this was that in my last semester of undergrad,
I accidentally had a 3 hour loan book out for several extra hours.
I got a $9 fine.

So I went to the administration to pay it off.
And I found out that I couldn't.
They only do EFTPOS/Credit card transactions of at least $15,
and they do not accept payment via cash. (These two rules came in separately several years apart and I'm not sure anyone noticed that they clash).
But I also found out that encumbrance at my university doesn't occur until you have $24 or more owed.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Yes, they can do it and yes, they do actually do it.

If you look at the rules for your university it probably states something similar to this [from the University of Leicester](http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/sas2/regulations/documents/sr-3-fees):

>
> 3.42 A student may be required to pay for certain services or facilities, including compulsory study elements of optional modules,
>  optional residential activities, printing from computers in the
>  open-access computer laboratories, and photocopying. Details are
>  provided at the point of service or in departmental literature as
>  appropriate.
>
>
> 3.43 No degree, diploma or certificate will be awarded to a student who has an unpaid fee, fine, or charge which is associated with the
>  delivery of academic (rather than commercial) services. The University
>  will not certify academic credit or previous awards for a student who
>  has any such unpaid fee, fine, or charge. A student may make a subject
>  access request under the Data Protection Act 1998 for data relating to
>  his/her academic studies; such requests will be met but the data will
>  not be presented in a certified form.
>
>
>

and you formally agreed to follow the rules as part of your registration. However, in 2014 the Office of Fair Trading [warned universities that this may be illegal](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/18/oft-warns-universities-higher-education-groups-student-sanctions) so it's not clear whether they're on legally solid ground if they do so.
Upvotes: 4


<issue_start>username_0: About one year ago, I submitted a paper to a top journal in my field. After waiting for 4 months, the manuscript is rejected with one positive, one negative, and a neutral (including many revise suggestions) comments. There is one common comment: the manuscript is too long. Nevertheless, the editor kindly suggested that I could revise my paper along all the lines suggested by the referees and resubmit my paper.

I carefully modified the paper according to the comments and replied the questions and suggestions from the three referees point by point, then resubmitted it after about four months form the first rejection. This time, after two months, the editor replied us as following without any further comment from any referee.

"I would like to thank you for taking the time to redraft your manuscript, to be considered as a resubmission to xxx. I have carefully read your new manuscript, and I am sorry to have to inform you that your paper is not suitable for publication in xxx. The manuscript still lacks a clear statement of its aims and motivation. (Two example from the editor's viewpoint). While I appreciate that you have taken significant steps to reduce the manuscript length, I still found it overly long, and the writing still suffers from many grammatical errors. I am sorry not to have more positive news."

There is no any comment for us after the two+ months' review. I guess our paper was not even sent to referees (previous or new ones). In my supervisor's experience, editorial rejection is typically very fast, a couple of weeks at most.

My questions are:

1. Being forced to wait two months for a desk rejection without any comment, is that normal for a reputable journal? What should I do to acquire a potential comments, if any?
2. Is it appropriate to send an email to coordinate with the editor for a new resubmission? And how much is my chance?
3. What is the most probable attitude of the editor: does the editor really not like it?

Thank you very much for sharing your invaluable experience!<issue_comment>username_1: The editor's comments clearly point to three things:
1. The manuscript lacks a clear statement of its aims and motivation
2. The manuscript is too long even after revision
3. There are grammatical errors in the manuscript

Regarding the second and third points, I think getting the manuscript professionally edited might be a good solution. However, regarding the first point, for a study to have reasonable impact, its aims and motivations need to be clear. You can perhaps do some rethinking around this point and take your supervisor's guidance to make these aspects clearer.

Now let's come to your questions.

1. Timelines and procedures are not uniform across journals, and it is not uncommon for a manuscript to be rejected without any reviewer comments after two months, particularly, since, it looks like the paper wasn't sent for review a second time. However, you can write a polite email to the editor requesting him/her to send you the reviewer comments if any.
2. I think the editor has made it amply clear that the paper is not suitable for publication in the journal. I personally feel it would be better to submit the paper to another journal, but if you are very keen on this journal, there is no harm in writing to the editor inquiring if he/she would be willing to take another look at it after it is professionally edited to reduce the length and fix the grammatical errors. You should also inform him/her that you will rework on the aims and motivations to make them clearer. Regarding how much of a chance you have, I am really not sure; depends on the editor.
3. I don't think the editor doesn't like the manuscript at all: he/she has probably seen some merit in it; else you would not have received the revise and resubmit decision the first time. However, the editor is clearly not very satisfied with the revisions. You should actually have taken care of the length and grammatical errors at the time of the revision. That would definitely have given you a better chance.

One word of advice: even if you submit to another journal, make sure you get the grammatical errors corrected before you do so.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: **TL, DR**; There is nothing you can do. The paper is rejected from this particular high-impact journal and you have to find another venue for publication.

Regarding your individual comments:

>
> Being forced to wait two months for a desk rejection
>
>
>

Two months for a desk reject is normal. Could be done a little faster but it is not that long.

>
> What is the most probable attitude of the editor: does the editor really not like it?
>
>
>

He obviously does not like it. This is why he desk-rejected it.

>
> Is it appropriate to send an email to coordinate with the editor for a new resubmission? And how much is my chance?
>
>
>

It does not matter if it is appropriate or not. As things show, the paper has almost zero chance to get published in this journal. By writing another email, you are wasting your time and the editor's time.

In a nutshell, after the first paper rejection, your paper had very slim chances (probably none) to be published in this specific journal. The editor in his initial response was probably being polite, since the unpolite alternative "do not send this paper ever again to our journal" would sound too harsh. In my case, I have never heard of any paper rejected in a high-impact journal and then resubmitted to the same journal and get accepted. I do not say that it may never happen but you should understand that it is not the most common scenario. In the majority of cases, rejection of a paper to a specific journal is permanent.

Also you were given very specific comments.

* The manuscript still lacks a clear statement of its aims and
motivation
* It is too long
* The writing still suffers from many grammatical errors

Understand that every one of those comments would justify rejection on its own. You should focus your energy on improving your paper instead of believing that one more email or another negotiation round with the editor would change the outcome. Sending the same manuscript to the same journal a third time would make no sense. Thus you should find a new journal to submit your paper and only AFTER significantly improving your paper.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: I suspect this may not have happened quite as you think. It's possible that the editor tried to send it out to one of the original reviewers, perhaps the one judged most relevant, but that reviewer wasn't available. This took a little time. Subsequently the editor decided to look at the paper themselves, taking into account the previous reviewers' comments. Essentially this means they performed a review, and this will have taken some time - from the comments you got it's clear that this was significantly more involved than a simple desk reject. Bearing this in mind, the timescale does not seem unreasonable.

There is no reason to suspect the editor was looking for a reason to reject. If they had wanted to do that, they had ample chance to do so on the first round.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: Don't think of this as desk rejection after two months. Think about it as the editor choosing themselves as the reviewer, and reaching a reject decision. The decision letter here is quite detailed, and indicates the editor has looked at your paper carefully; I'm sure you'll agree too that if the editor is an expert in the field then they might not need help from reviewers to make a decision.

For your questions:

1. You did receive comments. They clearly say that you need to improve the aims and motivation section, addressing in particular the two examples raised; you also need to reduce the manuscript length as well as fix the remaining grammatical errors.
2. It's a straight reject decision as opposed to revise-and-resubmit, so your chances are not good. You could do it of course (and you can email to ask), but there's a strong chance it will be desk rejected.
3. Yes, chances are the editor does not like your paper, or they would not have desk rejected.
Upvotes: 2


<issue_start>username_0: I'm doing my Masters right now and I am a new lab member (I've been there for just 4 months). A undergrad student didn't like it when I told her to follow biosafety rules when handling dangerous chemical reagents. So by e-mail she said she would tell our advisor lies about me and that he will believe in her because she's there for 2 years and he likes her, and I am a newbie.

I took that issue to the advisor, who read the e-mail that she sent and he was 100% supportive of me. However, they used to go the same church and he either pities her or really likes her, I don't know. Then he asked me to forgive her. But I can't, I can't even look her in the face anymore. I think she's evil and mean: she even told me I'm making my own grave and would spread lies about me to him. Now he knows the truth about her, but I think their personal relationship is blinding him. He should fire her! But he wants her there, so...

I don't want to change labs because I really like my PI. How should I deal with this situation?

She and I will have a one-to-one meeting next week, and my advisor told me she will apologize to me in that meeting, but I'm still worried she can sabotage my experiments in the future. We are not in the USA.

**UPDATE:** I had another conversation with my PI today, and he's dealing with this situation as "teenage fighting" - his words, not mine. He's being complacent about all of this and laughs about my worries and insecurities. He does not think that abusive and threating language from a student to another to be a big deal.

Religion plays a big role here I guess. He does not want to fire her in ANY hypothesis. Same religion; knows her parents and so on...

I really really like him, but I don't know if I do anymore. I think he's not providing a safe mental health environment for me...

He was too perfect to be true...

**UPDATE 2**

She lied, lied and lied again and it blew up on her face! Now, ALL\* lab members wanted her to go. The PI cut her funding, and she finally left our lab! Now we can live at peace, right? Not so fast...

\*She has a friend (just one - and also an undergrad like her) that is still here. And he's full of revenge! Another sociopathic liar. Sabotage is being a big issue here. All mice from a PhD student were found dead inside their cages. We cannot prove anything, but they had a fight two days earlier... Also, controlled drugs are now missing, and my PI is being once again complacent about it. I can denounce him to our correspondent DEA, but it could backfire somehow, I don't know. He still likes me, but I don't think I like him anymore. Actually, nobody in our lab trust him anymore.<issue_comment>username_1: Assuming US here. If she continues to fail to follow basic lab safety procedures, you may have to report her to the equivalent of your university's Environment Health and Safety department which oversees lab safety at many universities or OSHA. They may even have an anonymous tip line. This woman can probably guess that it was you if you try to make an anonymous report given your history, and you may even be fired by your boss if he really likes her more, wants to be vindictive, and you live in an "at will" employment state and lack an employment contract or union collective bargaining agreement if you are unionized.

I think that these things are unlikely, but your personal and labmates' health and safety should probably come before your job and their reaction to it. Depending on your university regulations and state labor laws, you may not be able to be fired for reporting a violation of safety regulations, but if you are in an at-will state, you can be fired for wearing the wrong color shoes or cutting your hair too short, so a smart employer will avoid saying anything that could be conceived of as dismissing you for reporting a safety violation. Keep notes after meetings of what was discussed and email them back to your PI as a record to confirm that you both agree on what was said and what you agreed to do.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Note: You will deal with a LOT more evil and mean people in your life. So, that will not impact my comments.

**Second Chance:**

Talk to the PI, about giving the student a second chance, and get confirmation from the PI that if they do it again - and jeopardize anyone's safety, including their own - throw them out. Ask the PI what to do if you are concerned with safety.

Likely, give them a chance. Give the student another warning "the last warning".

**If you want to pursue it before the second chance:**

You will likely anger the PI. But.
What is #1? Safety.

When asking someone to "follow biosafety rules when handling dangerous chemical reagents", it is a matter of safety. Having someone jeopardize their own safety or the safety of others is not acceptable.

If this were something like asking a student to "shutdown windows before turning off the lab PC", and they don't, then ignore it, and get on with life.

"follow biosafety rules when handling dangerous chemical reagents" is likely an OSHA policy (if you are in the US), university policy, law, and is not something that can be disregarded.

Go to the Dean and/or safety person. There is likely some safety officer (not like police, but like chemical/biological safety).

**Confrontation with the student:**

Any confrontation with the student must be done in public with neutral witnesses, and preferably video and audit if permissible. The email is a threat to slander you. That is likely against school conduct policy.

**Decision time:**

Now, it is up to you whether there really is enough to pursue, or if there is a small enough time that you can just let it go, and get on with your life.

If you don't let it go, then it is possible that **even by winning, you will lose**. You may have to deal with this for more semesters, and face other retaliation by the student or the PI.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: **See a lawyer.** Find out what your rights and responsibilities are in this matter. A good lawyer will tell you what to say and do, what not to say and do, and what actions could provoke the other parties to furnish you with more evidence. A lawyer will also tell you what to record, and how to record it. (I am not a lawyer and I am an American so this post may be more suitable for similarly situated Americans than for you.)

There are some very serious issues here, most of which work in your favor.Bottom line, they can fire you from the lab, but only at the risk of liabilities that most rational people would not choose to incur.

1. **Slander.** If the undergraduate slanders you, and you lose your job, you can sue the party for lost wages, as well as punitive damages. This may be true even if the slander was not what cost you your job, only that it "possibly" did.
2. **Safety.** A safety violation is a serious matter. If you can document this woman's violation of safety, you have a very strong case. That fact that she threatened you about this *compounds* the offense, making it a *multiple* of a simple" safety violation. That's because it is "willful," not an oversight.
3. **Employment**. Termination "without cause" is acceptable in many parts of the United States, and the rest of the world. But "wrongful termination" is not. If you are terminated, there will be a strong presumption that it was "wrongful."

One more thing, the higher this goes, the better for you. A lab instructor may fire you (and try to cover up his misdeeds). A department would not take these issues so lightly, and the university less so. And if you need to get this out of the university and to your country's health and safety or labor department, so much the better for you.

So "lawyer up" and prepare for a fight that you should be able to win. An American army captain once told his troops, "Don't fire the first shot. But if they want a war, let it begin right here." He was talking about the American Revolution, which his side won.

Maybe this thing will "go away." Maybe it won't. But in the latter case, you should position yourself to get the maximum compensation possible if they hurt you first.

I refer you to username_4' excellent post that gives you rather *opposite* advice, so that you have a "pro" and "con" to choose from, based on your situation, which you know better than either of us.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: She has been mean to you, not the PI. He clearly signals that he likes you and your work. You say that he also realises she has an immature attitude. I think that you are in a good position here, unless you mess it up.

The superviser clearly sees the situation and - in veiled form - tells you to be the mature part of the interaction. When he tells you to forgive her, that's very clearly what he means. In short, at this stage, *you* have to show maturity. Clearly, you need to work on that (I quote your response: "Hahaha...." - SE is not the place for such formulations).

You should not worry too much to prove that she lies about you, as the superviser made very clear that he will not pay heed to her stories about you (why otherwise would he have emphasised that you are one of the brightest students he had?). He has sent you a clear message of confidence.

Whether he likes her or not, you do not know, but it seems very clear, even through your report, that he takes pity on her. He will not fire her; it is not your job to make him do so. He also will not remove you, unless you decide to go. He seems a very reasonable person.

As for her using threatening language, you have a number of options: when she does that, you ignore it. Or else, you find a reason for yourself to go away, without responding, to some made-up excuse (for yourself), such as the bathroom. Or else, you respond: "This is not the place for threatening language. Please refrain from such language, it is inappropriate to talk like that to your colleagues." - or something along those lines. In a cool, calm, and collected manner. If she indeed has the maturity of a 12-year old, she may not absorb the words, but she will absorb the tone.

She presses the buttons where she sees an effect in. If you signal to her that you have no business with her, and that you are unaffected by her threats, you will become an uninteresting target.

Forget about winning/losing. You just do not have to play her game, you decide which games you play, and which ones you don't.

Bottom line: stay away from her; relax, the PI trusts you; and follow your maturity level and do not let yourself be dragged down to hers. She is not the one to set the agenda, your PI is, and he unambiguously signalled his trust in you. When he sets the meeting, if she apologises, graciously accept the apology (even if you do not believe in it, take it at face value), but still stay away. Her safety procedures are not your business anymore - you have made your case.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: Document as much as you can. If possible, you may want to have a neutral but trusted third person in attendance at your meeting with her.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: Unfortunately the World is full of stupid, ignorant, selfish, hateful, jealous, etc. etc. etc. people and you have to find a way to deal with that. There is no way you can get rid of all the nasty people so that you can live and work in peace with only perfect people. What works better is to outsmart these usually quite stupid people. If she wants to tell lies about you, then you can tell a lot of lies about yourself to her that can easily be verified to not be correct. E.g. you can tell that you failed most of your exams. That's not true, your supervisor can easily verify that it is not true, but she can't. So, she'll fall in a trap set by you the moment she discloses such things to your supervisor.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_7: I think the best approach is to follow *username_4*'s advice but also make clear to the advisor that you will not compromise on safety of the people in the lab and will be morally obligated to report the safety violation should it be continued (as per *username_1*'s answer). At the same time make it clear that you do not wish to get the other student into unnecessary trouble so you just want safety protocols to be followed from now on.

In short, aim to fix and forgive.
Upvotes: 2


<issue_start>username_0: Some journals require the author to propose potential reviewers. Should I just propose reviewers and let the editor contact them? Or should I first contact the potential reviewers myself and ask if they agree?<issue_comment>username_1: I never asked them and never heard of anybody doing so. It’s the journal who is responsible to organise peer review, not you, and they have to and will humbly ask¹ potential reviewers anyway. By asking potential reviewers yourself, you cause the following problems:

* Not every reviewer you suggest will be chosen by the editor. For a reviewer who will not be chosen to review, deciding upon your request will be a waste of time.
* Even a reviewer who is eventually chosen will waste a little time by responding to the same request twice.
* If a potential reviewer declines your request and you do not suggest them, the editor may still choose them on their own (most editors to whom I have talked make a point of choosing at least one reviewer who was not suggested). In that case, the potential reviewer may think that you ignored their wish.
* Asking reviewers directly is a first step to breaching the independence of peer review as it opens up the path for manipulating peer review: “Sure I will review your paper [favourably] – provided that you will do the same thing for my next paper.” Some oppose even the mere option to suggest peer reviewers for this reason.
* If you know only a limited list of potential reviewers for your paper, removing those who deny your request may make the list smaller than what is requested by the journal. If those reviewers only refuse when asked by the journal, you still did your duty of suggesting sufficiently many potential reviewers (and this may not even be a problem, if the journal requests a list that is longer than the number of actual reviewers).
* You waste some of your time by asking the potential reviewers and waiting for their response may delay the actual submission.
* If you show your paper to your potential reviewers privately, they have an advantage in the rare case that they try to steal your ideas or commit other dishonesties. By contrast, peer reviewers are often bound to terms of non-disclosure and similar and also the journal serves as an independent register of who had knowledge of the manuscript. This point does of course not apply, if you trust all potential reviewers or published a preprint of your paper anyway.

---

¹ Except perhaps for some journals with a questionably demanding demeanor.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I would say that any contact between referees and authors should be minimized. Just mention any potential referees when submitting.

Secondly, my personal experience is, is that referees are chosen from the existing journal's database, regardless whether and how many potential referees are provided. This, on the basis of the types and quality of the referee's reports I received in a number of cases; for example quite poor and obviously not one of my suggested referees, or their response was way too knowledgeable about certain topics to meet the knowledge on those topics of my suggested referees.

And to add to that: I've talked to an editor-in-chief who gave a crash-course in article writing and he said that he would rather *not* use the potential referees as they are likely related to the manuscript author(s) in one way or another, professionally or otherwise. He told us that he, therefore, never provided any potential referees with his submissions, unless he had to.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: You should never ask someone as an author whether they would be willing to serve as a referee for your paper. In addition to [username_1's issues](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/74899):

1. It looks suspicious, like you may be filtering your suggested referees based on how enthusiastic they seem to you. This could happen even if it's honestly not your goal. For example, suppose you ask A, who replies "Wow, I can't wait to read it!", and B, who replies "I'm really busy but I could do it if necessary." If you suggest only A to the editor, are you biasing the process in favor of your paper, or just being respectful of B's time? There's no clear way to draw the line.
2. You're putting potential reviewers in an awkward position by making them tell you whether they could do it. For example, they may feel more comfortable telling an editor that they are too busy or feel the paper is outside their area of expertise, rather than telling you. They may also worry that giving you this information decreases their anonymity.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: You definitely should contact with reviewers, talk to them and then redirect to the editor.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_5: Managing the review of the paper, including the contact with reviewers, is the task of the editor in charge. The process should remain as blind a possible. Knowing too much may bias the review.

However I have witnessed some outlier cases:

* a researcher I know had trouble with a paper, for which the editor add difficulties finding reviewers, asked me (and somebody else he knew) as a service to review it. I would probably have refused if it were send by the editor only
* acting as both an author and a guest editor for a special issue or a book.
Upvotes: 2


<issue_start>username_0: I am completing my first postdoc and I had a pretty bad experience with my current adviser. I finally got to publish something, contribute in a grant writing etc., but overall it hasn't been great...

Now, I am going to start a new postdoctoral appointment under the supervision of a faculty I have been working with for several years and I will apply for tenure track positions once this last appointment has ended. I am pretty sure that my new adviser will be able to provide very good recommendation letters for me in the future. So the question is, will I need to provide recommendation letters from my current adviser? What if those are not good?<issue_comment>username_1: In my field in the USA, you normally only need to send 3 letters of recommendation:

1. One of them should be your dissertation supervisor (if diss < 5 years old)
2. One should be a current supervisor (such as your new postdoc advisor)
3. One should be from a committee member or someone else who knows your work well

As long as you have three, I think you're fine in not including a letter from the postdoc advisor that you're having problems with.

Note: Some programs require more. Even if *n* number of letters are required, there is no requirement that the *n* be comprehensive.

**tl;dr:** Letters of recommendation are used to indicate that **some** (at least *n*) faculty think highly of you, not necessarily that **all** do.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: When applying for your first tenure track job most search committees will expect that your PhD supervisor and current supervisor will be amongst the N letters of recommendation that you provide. While having your PhD supervisor and current supervisor write letters is not a strict requirement their absence would be noticed. The other letters can come from anyone that knows you well and is experienced enough to write letters for a TT position. There is no expectation that you have letters from all supervisors that you worked with.

That said, you should talk with your current supervisor about the possibility of getting a letter. There maybe some positions they are willing to recommend you for and there may be cases where you need N+1 letters and you only have N.
Upvotes: 2


<issue_start>username_0: What is the correct term for a PhD student who does entirely research and is paid through third-party funds?

One can see that sometimes people doing a PhD call themselves a Research Associate or Research Assistant (in a very few cases also Research Fellow). I am looking for clarification regarding which term would be appropriate and also why the others are not.

I can't find a clear definition. If this is country dependent I would like to know this for the UK and Germany.<issue_comment>username_1: How about "PhD student"?

Since you also asked about Germany: in German you can call yourself "Doktorand" or "Promovend". But also in Germany, "PhD student" would be perfectly fine.

If you want to leave out the "student" part, you might call yourself "PhD candidate".

Be careful to avoid calling yourself something you are not (e.g. "Dr."), since particularly in Germany that might be illegal.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm not sure if it is the same in the UK and Germany, but in the US, "Research Assistant" typically means a person is being paid by a professor (typically using 3rd party funds) to work on their project, while "Research Fellow" typically means the student is being supported directly in their studies and/or research.

Fellowships are thus generally more prestigious, since they are a direct recognition of the student's value and potential by an organization, whereas assistantships simply mean that a particular professor thinks the student might be a good worker for a particular purpose.

Note that these titles are somewhat orthogonal of the question of being a Ph.D. student, as they are essentially describing one's "job" and means of support rather than one's educational program: a Masters student may also hold them, and a Ph.D. student may also hold other "job" titles (e.g., "Teaching Assistant", or even none at all).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: In Germany, the payment (be it from 3rd-party sources or not) usually comes as a salary for an employment. That position is typically called *wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter* ( *research employee* ).

You should note, though, that the "only research" part is not included in that title, as there is no real distinction to teaching duties, as it exists, for instance, with "RA/TA".
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I see that this question has been inactive for almost two years, but I notice the asker was specifically interested **in the UK**, and none of the answers cover that country specifically.

From my last three years of experience in the UK academia, those two positions are fairly well defined, and refer to the following:

A **Research Assistant (RA)** is typically neither a PhD holder nor a PhD candidate. These positions are aimed at people holding a Master degree in the relevant field, and are common in short, 1-year, research projects (such as feasibility studies). They do not count for direct progress towards any degree (but could result in publications and therefore straighten one's PhD application in the future). Additionally, they are typically one pay grade lower than the *Research Fellow* positions.

A **Research Fellow (RF)** is what one would informally call *postdoctoral researcher* (or just *post-doc*). These are typical positions one would aim at after their PhD (and usually encourage PhD candidates close to finishing to apply as well). They typically rely on funding from longer projects, and last for 2-3 years. They also do not count for direct progress towards any degree (as the holder is expected to have a PhD, the highest possible degree in the field, already), but are a logical and expected step for a young career researcher aiming at a permanent academic position. They are also better paid than *Research Assistant* positions, being one pay grade higher.

For immigration purposes, universities will always have the ability to sponsor non-British applicants and support their immigration application for RF positions, while some universities and some positions are unable or unwilling to do that for RA positions. (This might be restricted to sponsoring EU-immigration, unsure about this bit).

A **PhD student**, *PhD candidate*, or just *doing one's PhD* are all valid terms to refer to somebody working towards obtaining their doctoral degree, regardless of their funding source. (Sometimes even just *"I'm a PhD"* is used, but that's common more than valid in the strictest sense.) Additionally, PhD students doing only research, as opposed to having some teaching duties attached to their contract or funding, are often times referred to as *lucky*.

---

I use the word *typical* a lot in my descriptions, as exceptions do exist, and I was one of them, but the details go far out of scope of this question.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: In Germany and Spain, if you're a PhD student who gets paid via assisting professors in their projects, typically the position is regarded as Research Assistant. I rarely see who wrote it down in CV as Research Fellow, while research associate sounds more of a postdoc.
Upvotes: 2


<issue_start>username_0: I am supposed to present my work at a technical conference with mostly software/network scientists or engineers and my work is centred around a mathematical model, a MILP, and the related performance evaluations with it. I'm a little confused about whether to present the mathematical model in its full detail (with all the constraints) or just explain using bullets about the constraints in the model and completely skip the mathematical notations.

I find it really hard to decide either of these options and I would love to know your experiences in presenting your work to someone not related to that field. I've observed at some presentations about some of the audience being a little bummed out or not showing much interest in it. But, it would be foolish on my part to presume that whole audience is averse to math. So, I'd like to strike a fine balance between both these themes so as to not to disappoint myself and ensure the audience understands the content. Some of your comments or real-life experiences may come in very handy for my presentation. Oh, and btw, I use beamer for preparing my presentation.<issue_comment>username_1: We can be sure you do not have more than 20-25 minutes for your presentation.
As you implied, in such conferences you have to satisfy the novice audience along with the most professional one. So it is highly recommended that you try to present for all of the audience in proper time limits.

In my opinion, **SOMETIMES** it is necessary to get into some details in order to show the professionals what you did (in reputable conferences mostly). Also you should not make your ordinary audiences bored. So you can show the beginners the big picture such as ideas, examples, etc. (not so much detail) and in some few slides you may want to show some details for your professional audiences, though you do not have too much time for that and you should consider the time limits seriously.

All in all, do not stick in details you give a fair chance no one will care about it. But it does not mean you should skip every detail. Also, try to use your colleagues ideas and feedback in your **PRE-PRESENTATION** practice about these matters. In my opinion, they are the most reliable resources for us. I myself, really care about my friends and colleagues comments before my presentations or even my paper submissions.

And finally it might be worthy to take a look at [How to Present a Paper at an Academic Conference](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj7DBhGwLXQ&list=PL41131E73CAFBF5C8). Moreover, It is great to know that you are using LaTex for your presentation.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: The way I think of it is the following: you are not teaching a class, your goal is not to provide all of the details, but *get people interested in following up with you personally*.

You can skip a lot of background and details. Just give the high level summary of your model and what you accomplished in a fun and engaging way. Maybe tell a personal story about how you discovered the model, or one specific cool application/results. Whatever. Just keep it simple and short without too much technical detail, not too imposing, and be friendly. Anyone interested in the topic will approach you afterward to ask more questions and get contact information.

A conference is more about networking with people in your field (or even outside of your field! interdisciplinary collaboration is a good thing) than knowledge transfer. Good luck!
Upvotes: 0


<issue_start>username_0: I am a doctorate student in mathematics, having returned to finish my Ph.D after a long absence. Four years after my initial departure, I returned after gaining maturity in the working world and rekindling a personal interest in higher-level math, and to become competitive for work nearer to home.

Since I was restarting with a long-tarnished reputation, but since my advisor was very forgiving and gracious, I was allowed to conditionally resume my degree under extremely stringent conditions, which I met - I passed tough qualifiers and I completed my coursework in a short frame of time on my own dime while maintaining full-time work.

Following completing my qual and degree program requirements, I began to focus strongly on my research in order to complete the dissertation. I recently passed my preliminary oral exam for my dissertation in May, spent the first half of the summer reviewing additional papers for my writing, and commenced writing my dissertation formally in July with hopes on a December graduation.

The trouble began anew when my advisor retired suddenly in August. Although I had been updating him on my progress and asking him for advice while writing, finding time to meet with him became problematic, as he started to become absent and increasingly difficult to reach and schedule with. However, his "hands off" approach had me still writing, and I had a substantial amount of work to review and share with him, and he agreed to meet with me yesterday.

That meeting yesterday was when disaster happened. I noticed that he had become very temperamental; he was highly critical of what little he let me present to him, and overtly stated that he was not going to waste his time and read what I had written. The solutions that I was able to present to him were dismissed out of hand without any further explanation, and his first statement was to tell me to trash everything I had written and start from scratch (even though he didn't read it or hear anything but a small portion of it).

As the (heated) four hour conversation progressed, he jumped from clear and reasonable critique to complete incoherency, which I found unusual and hard to incorporate moving forward.

When the conversation concluded, I realized that he had in mind a different dissertation problem for me to solve, one that *wasn't even covered in my preliminary exam in May.*

He stated that I had until the end of the weekend to clean up my writing, make it presentable, and incorporate the new problem he presented, adding three extra tasks to boot (one of which he had never required me to research before). I am to send the writing to my committee at the end of the weekend and have them evaluate its status.

I mentioned that while my work has substance and progress, it was not complete and organized (that's why I visited him in person), and that my final oral exam was supposed to be the point of my committee's evaluation, not when the writing is still in media res. Without his confidence, my committee will not grant scheduling my final oral, and will likely not take the time to read what I send until they hear the word from my advisor anyway. He didn't care.

In short, this unexpected, sudden, and strange conflict with my advisor has suddenly put my graduation in heavy jeopardy with respect to the stringent deadlines imposed by the Grad College for December graduation (due to my long absence), has put new my job at risk (since obtaining a Ph.D was part of the hiring requirements for contract renewal next year), invalidates three years of hard work to rebuild my formerly tarnished status after my long absence, wastes the tens of thousands of dollars I paid out of pocket to do this, and permanently ends my twenty-year dream of obtaining a Ph.D.

Thank you for listening and for offering whatever advice you offer. I am at the end of my rope and feel powerless, worthless, and hopeless.<issue_comment>username_1: The most promising strategy is to work with at least one committee member other than your advisor. The first choice may be the one that is a potential advisor, but you really need someone who is both approachable and good at academic politics.

Anyone like that is going to be very busy, and you need most of the meeting to be about them advising you and thinking of ways to improve the situation. You must strip your wall of text down to a few key points:

* You are on a tight academic deadline, because credits will disappear if you do not graduate this year, and you will not be able to finish your PhD if you cannot meet the deadline.
* Finishing the PhD is personally and financially important to you.
* You proceeded with the research presented at your preliminary oral exam, which you thought had been approved.
* You have been having trouble getting feedback from your advisor.
* At your recent meeting, you had trouble communicating with him, and he seemed to be requiring a change in research line that would make completing the PhD impossible.

Two topics to not discuss: Your prior performance, and the advisor's personal issues. The professors should be dealing with the person you are now. What matters is your current difficulty with your advisor, not the reasons behind it.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: My first instinct would be to go to a trusted third party who is responsible for providing guidance or even mediating disputes between students and their advisors. If no such person exists, then try to find one.

In my department the director of the graduate program also serves as a confidential and neutral third party to whom advisors and students can approach about exactly these kinds of issues. He is sworn to confidentiality (will not inform your advisor of the discussion) unless you specifically request that he mediate between you. If your department has no such designated person then you could try requesting a meeting with a reasonable proxy such as the chair or graduate program director. If none of these people are willing or able to serve in this role, it might be worthwhile to go to the dean of graduate studies, but this would be an option of last resort, as it would look bad for you, your advisor, your chair, and your department.

Going outside of your advisor to another trusted committee member could be a solution, be be warned that you *do not* want your committee to feel like they have to pick sides between you and your advisor.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: I am sorry to hear that you are feeling stressed. As a fellow math PhD, let me try to say a few things that will put your mind somewhat at ease.

My advisor (who is the most considerate, caring, and brilliant person that I could have hoped for) was also very hands-off, and when I had solved my first problem and excitedly went to him to try to get him to understand the main idea behind the proof, he did not understand a word of what I was saying. I graduated from something like a top 5 private university in math, so we're talking about a brilliant mathematician here. He sent me off, telling me that I needed to write up everything before he could check whether I have done everything correctly (he might also have said that he did not want to waste time on what little I had written).

The next week, I actually wrote out everything in a more coherent way, and he spent maybe an hour criticizing the first few pages, then sent me off again, telling me to make all the corrections that he suggested, then to apply the same standards to the rest of the paper. Looking back, even the slightest change of a single word can make a notation incoherent. Now that I have matured considerably from the graduate student that I was, I am no longer sure if my advisor actually didn't understand, or if he sent me away because it was an educational opportunity.

Finally, a few weeks later, after painstakingly fixing everything so that my advisor couldn't criticize me on minor points, I just sent it to him via email. A few weeks later, he sent me a corrected copy back and told me that the solution was nice and that it was a lot more subtle than what he had in mind!

What your advisor is doing reminds me a lot of what my advisor did to me. If he gave you a specific deadline and he is willing to meet with you again, it is most likely an issue on your exposition (and don't feel bad; most graduate students really need to work on how to clearly write things). And believe me, if you are staring at a poorly written piece of mathematics for hours, you really get cranky.

And the fact that he gave you a very short amount of time to incorporate a new problem into your thesis makes me suspect that the problem is well within your reaches. No reasonable advisor will demand that a student solve a completely new problem in a week!

So I think that your first course of action should be to calm down, and carefully evaluate what you have written. Just do your best in cleaning up everything and presenting your advisor with a new copy. Think about the new problem that your advisor suggested as well, and see if it is easily solvable with what you know already.

Once you have calmed down, I would send an email to your advisor, asking if he thinks that you can still graduate by December, and whether if there is anything that you can do to make that happen. Just calmly and politely lay out your concerns in an email, and suggest that you could meet to talk about it.

That is step one. You need to make sure that your advisor isn't just saying these things so that you can learn something from these interactions.

If your advisor continues to be difficult, I would talk to the chair of graduate studies in your department. Especially because your advisor has retired, I would think that you need an active advisor (even if it's just on paper) in the department, so it should be relatively easy to find someone who is willing to proofread your thesis and help you graduate.

Finally, I just want to add that you want to try to maintain a good relationship with your advisor regardless, because your advisor's letter counts the most when you look for academic positions. You did not say whether you want an academic position, but it is something to keep in mind. Because we don't have a lab culture, I do think that most mathematicians are reasonable when it comes to dealing with graduate students, so instead of reacting quickly against the hurtful comments, try to see if your advisor had a point (even though it seems that at the best scenario, he conveyed that badly).
Upvotes: 2


<issue_start>username_0: How often PIs have to deal with "bad hires" in their lab/group? I sometimes hear the PI/trainee relationship be compared to marriages, where half ends in a divorce. There are also posts like [these](http://thenewpi.blogspot.ca/2016/09/tales-of-postdocs-past-what-did-i-learn.html?m=1) that reinforce this. Is there actual truth to this? I think most of the PIs (principal investigators) I've met have handled this situation professionally, but I do wonder how they actually feel.

Specifically: how often does it happen that professors regret hiring particular grad students? How is this typically dealt with? What is the typical nature of the problem?<issue_comment>username_1: I've discussed this with a few line managers, I've hired a few people, and I've checked with headhunters. We all come to very similar numbers\*\*.

Once you're doing the recruiting well, you can expect that for every five people you hire, on average one will be an extremely good hire, and three will do the job well enough. And the fifth will be regrettable, through some combination of lack of will, lack of ability, an absence of a shared understanding of what the role requires, & personality clashes. You can try moving them to different roles, get them more training, work with them to find out what they need. Sometimes one of those things will work. Sometimes, none will.

---

\*\* My primary dataset is academia. I got similar answers from the wider market for professionals (not manual workers)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: From the people I have talked to (i'm a postdoc myself) it happens and it seriously sucks. Firing postdocs or throwing out students is very difficult and even if you succeed it will likely take so long that the project would be nearly over by the time the wheels of beauracracy finish grinding.

Add that to the fact that most projects only have a small number of PhD students and postdocs and it can be very difficult to salvage a research project where bad people were hired.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I've only had a handful of PhD students and postdocs. Of these, only one turned out to be a "bad hire" -- he did almost nothing in his year of candidature, and I caught him lying to me and to others more than once. After trying everything -- offering alternative projects and easier starting tasks, offering time management and planning training, directing him to free counselling services -- I and his co-supervisor implemented a performance management plan, and discontinued his scholarship when he did not respond. For me, this was a lesson to vet references carefully before taking on a student.

I also regularly host visiting Masters-level students for 3-month internships/research projects. Some of these work out better than others. Some are a little lazy or not quite intellectually up to the task, while others are fantastic. With so little at stake, none have been disasters and all have accomplished something in their time, but not all of them would have worked out as PhD students, had that been their aim.
Upvotes: 5


<issue_start>username_0: As I check forums to compare top UK schools (specifically: Oxbridge and Imperial College) v.s. top US schools (MIT, Stanford, Caltech, etc.), most of people have mentioned the subjects, just like stuffs below, to consider higher priority for electing US schools:

* The UK academic system is archaic, as the yearly system of examination has a very important role in the students' studies.
* Students must choose their major, at first, and continue to the end.
* ...

But, all of these cases are about the **undergraduate studies**.

In the case of graduate studies, one often consider *all top ten schools in the same level, roughly, where the most important factor could be the coherency between the graduate student and her supervisor.*

If we confirm *above argument*, there is no real difference for an international student, in view of the academic system. Actually, the remained factors would be the whether, funding and stuffs like that?

**Is there any important factor (except supervisor) for an international graduate student, to opt between potential offers the top universities in US and GB?**<issue_comment>username_1: A year and a half ago I found myself applying to top Ph.D programs in the US and in the UK in Mathematics. Having been accepted in one of each, I considered the following factors carefully:

The most important factor, in my opinion, is the **availability of funding** for international students: In top US programs, funding is virtually guaranteed as a teaching assistantship or research fellowship; the amount of the funding is enough for one to cover all basic living expenses, and then even save some, hopefully. But even in top UK programs, such funding is not guaranteed, and even in the case when there is some funding available, the amount of the funding will not be enough to cover everything.

Unless your family is rich or you are comfortable taking some huge loan, it would be necessary to search for external scholarships, but these, in turn, may demand your time after graduation (for example, if sponsored by a foreign government, sometimes you will need to go back to the foreign country and work there).

If funding is not an issue, then another important factor is the **time it takes to complete the degree**: in UK, 4 years appears to be very common, since the program is far more focused on research from the very start. In top US programs, however, it can take anywhere from 4 to 6 years, because one has to pass written qualifiers, pass certain core courses, etc..

Finally, another factor to consider is that, depending on the career you're studying, one country or the other may provide better opportunities in practice to get your desired job later. If, for example, you want to work as an academic in the US, studying in the US will make networking, visa issues, etc. much easier. An analogous observation holds if you want to work in Europe instead (although, with the UK exiting the EU, this may change in the relatively near future).

Best of luck in your decision-making!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I'm not sure about master's degrees, but there are a few important differences between US and UK doctorates.

**Duration**. UK doctorates can be (and most often are) as short as 3 years. There are now 4-year degrees (the so-called 1+3 degrees), which combine master's degree and doctorates much like the US programmes, but normal 3-year doctorates are still the norm. US doctorates take at least 5 years to complete, and you can often exit with a master's degree. One of the downsides of the shorter doctorates in the UK is that the number of papers you publish during your doctorate will be typically less than the number of publications of someone who had 5 to 8 years to complete their doctorate.

**Funding**: Unlike undergraduate and master's degrees, which have been turned into a business, where universities are all too happy to accept international applicants who pay exorbitant amounts of money (at least 2 times the fees of UK/EU students), the situation in the UK with doctorates is quite different. Since doctoral candidates are getting paid, the funding is typically reserved for UK/EU students because the funding body is British/European. There are, of course, funding opportunities for international students, but they are much rarer and competitive. [This answer may be of interest to you.](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/67058/41814) I think the US funding bodies are more generous with their funding.

**Application**: The application process is also very different. In the US, as far as I know, you apply to a department and you don't have to decide on a topic or supervisor for some time. And even then, it's easier to switch topics/supervisors. However, in the UK, when applying for doctorates, you need to write a research proposal and preferably to have already identified a supervisor who can supervise you. Some places even require you to have a supervisor who has agreed to supervise you to support your application. And if your funding is tied up to a supervisor, good luck trying to switch supervisors.

**Content**: UK doctorates are very focused. There is no coursework, no TAing if you are properly funded (unless you want to), or any of that. Just full-time research on a topic you've already chosen.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]