<issue_start>username_0: Sometimes, there are questions on here about undergraduate students publishing research (see [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/117224/publishing-into-journals-as-an-independent-undergraduate-researcher), [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/115100/publish-as-undergraduate-in-elsevier), and [here](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/90165/publishing-a-very-mediocre-paper-as-undergraduate)). The answers don't seem particularly surprised that this is happening or try to dissuade the asker, they treat it like a normal question.

In my entire life, I've never heard of undergraduates publishing results apart from a handful of examples from famous science prodigies.

Furthermore, my experience of undergraduate was not conducive *at all* to publishing. I graduated from a mediocre UK university, and there was no original research done at all. Undergraduate is for getting you up to speed on the foundations of a field, preparing you for postgraduate where you study one sub-field, then a PhD where you push the boundaries of a sub-sub-field.

The questions linked above give advice like, "Discuss it with your supervisor". But as far as I'm aware undergraduates don't have supervisors.

Is this really as common as it would seem from questions on here? Is it a regional thing? Something that happens only at top universities?<issue_comment>username_1: I suspect what you're thinking of as "undergraduate" isn't what others are thinking of when they say they do research as undergraduates. For example, suppose a student goes directly into a 4-year undergraduate program topped off by a one-year long research project (known as an "Honours project" in some places). The results of this can certainly be publishable. Other possibilities could be, a summer research project, or a direct-to-Masters program like the MPhys. In all these cases, the undergraduate will indeed have a supervisor.

Of course undergraduates, being relatively inexperienced, are not likely to get revolutionary results, but they can still achieve publishable results, and that can lead to publications. It's possible, and I'd say quite common for the best undergraduates to have published something before graduate school.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: It's not that hard in some of the experimental sciences, especially if not first author. Assuming you have some relation to a lab group and have a grad student or postdoc running a project and you run a few of his samples. Not really that hard to get included. Yeah...even then it is time away from your real classes or the brewpub. But far from impossible.

Edit: saw your comment on the school. Yeah, if it is not a research university, that will of course make it hard to do what I just said. But if you are at Cal or Georgia Tech or the like, not a problem. Especially if you use some savvy to figure out which group to work with, what sorts of things to get involved with. Not cutting edge super math, not building apparatus, not waiting for a Space Shuttle to run your sample. But a group that publishes a lot.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Of course they do. It does happen to undergrads who find research internships or in programs where they can do an undergraduate thesis for instance. It’s not *that* rare in some fields, but quite so in other fields.

One does need a bit of luck though, as not all project will have reached or can even reach a stage where an undergraduate may contribute enough to warrant co-authorship.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: It varies from field to field. But some fields this isn't uncommon at all. STEM and social sciences fields are generally easier to publish than in humanities, in part due to it being less subjective about what is worth publishing. It is easier to publish in fields which don't require a lot of experimental equipment(unless one is a member of some very big collaboration- some of the big papers out of the LHC have undergrads on the author lists for example), and so math is one of the fields where it is most common. In various areas of math, some areas are easier for non-experts to understand than other. For example, graph theory and number theory have more low-hanging fruit that doesn't require technical background, while for example algebraic topology has more trouble.

At a pure level of anecdote, my first published paper was actually in high school; this is rare but not at all unheard of, and I wasn't particularly brilliant. I got lucky and found some low-hanging fruit that hadn't been noticed.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Most undergraduates do not publish, but it's quite normal for undergraduates who get involved in research to end up publishing.

Reasons why few undergraduates publish include:

* They aren't interested in research, or are more interested in all the myriad other awesome things you can spend your time on as a newly (semi)independent adult in college.
* They are interested in research, but don't manage to find a good mentor (typically a professor) to work with. Nearly all undergraduate institutions have professors doing research, but some institutions or departments within an institution have a lot more going on than others.
* They get connected to a research project, but their work isn't publishable. Undergraduates are typically unreliable (see first point), and so often are given high-risk or boring work (a friend of mine got a "research" job one summer crushing rocks into fine powder with a mortar and pestle).
* They do publishable research, but it doesn't come out until they are no longer an undergraduate. Even the fastest project rarely takes less than six months from start to publication, and many take multiple years. If a student starts researching in their junior or senior year, even a great project may not result in publications during undergraduate.

That said, none of these are particularly insurmountable obstacles, and with the right combination of interest, a good environment, and a bit of luck, it's quite reasonable to have work published as an undergraduate.

Some undergraduates even become quite well-published, simply by virtue of having the right combination of skill, luck, and circumstances. For example, this week a colleague of mine mentioned to me that one of his undergraduate students now had approximately a dozen journal publications. Until they said it, I hadn't realized this student's numbers had accumulated quite so much, but it didn't surprise me, since this student is a good contributor to a complex many-person project that publishes frequently.

In short: undergraduate publication is statistically infrequent, but entirely normal.
Upvotes: 3


<issue_start>username_0: Plagiarising the ideas of others is obviously a big deal. You are stealing the hard work of others and misleading your peers by pretending it is your original work.

But why is plagiarising words and paragraphs considered a big deal? I mean, isn't the point of academic effort to transmit ideas and knowledge? Who cares what specific words were used to transmit it? It's not like we are writing poems here: the words themselves don't matter, the underlying ideas do.

For example, say you are writing an article, and you need to add a short section on some background information. Your original source for this information is some book by a guy called Juntao, in which he writes

>
> It is well-known that the K-Group is hyperdifferentiable and pseudo-geometric. It can further be shown, given certain assumptions on the continuity of the underlying complex manifolds, that the associated Einstein-curves are super-composites and universally dense in the field of measurable spaces. Indeed, this was shown by Hilbert and Plato in their seminal work on uncountable and analytically algebraic left-Sylvester Deligne graphs.
>
>
>

Say you need to provide this information in your paper. What’s the problem if you just copy it verbatim? I mean, I could write it in my own words, easily. But why should I be forced to waste time on that? Why is it a problem if I just use the above formulation?

As long as you refer to the original material, such as by ending the section with

>
> For more information on this material and proofs of the stated theorems, we refer to the works of Hilbert and Plato [1840]. A complete summary of the material can be found in Juntao [1998].
>
>
>

then everything ought to be fine, isn’t it? And yet, there are question like [this](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/124492), where somebody wanted to "seek justice" just because somebody else stole a few sentences of his.<issue_comment>username_1: Per your example, you are not, in fact, "forced to waste time" finding another way to express the idea that another author had. You can just copy the passage down verbatim, but to do so without putting it in quotes and citing it is plagiarism. If you write a publication that has no quotes in it, you are essentially claiming that you wrote the entire thing yourself. If you have copied text verbatim, that is false. You are taking credit for someone else's work, which is rather frowned upon in academia.

Authors should be deliberate and unambiguous in their language, so finding the right words to express an idea isn't always a trivial task. A lot of work can go into a sentence that is succinct, precise, and understandable. Your choices are to either find different words to express that idea, or give someone else credit for having done the work already.
Upvotes: 7 <issue_comment>username_2: If you want to use Juntao's exact words, put quotation marks around them and cite the exact source (next to the quotation, not a couple of sentences later). Otherwise, "[y]ou are stealing the hard work of others and misleading your peers by pretending it is your original work" [<NAME>, this question, but in a different context]. You may not realize it, but Juntao might have put quite a lot of work into this passage, not only looking up the relevant background information but also making expository decisions like choosing to mention "certain assumptions", giving their general character, but not stating them explicitly. Juntao deserves explicit credit for that work, not just a generic citation for a "complete summary".
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: ### If you present the words as your own, then plagiarizing the words is equivalent to plagiarizing the idea.

When you submit written work, putting your name on it implies that you are responsible for its content.

>
> But why is plagiarising words and pharagraphs considered a big deal?
>
>
>

If the work contains someone else's written words, and you don't cite the original author, then you are effectively taking credit for that written idea. Claiming credit for someone else's idea is plagiarism, and is typically a [punishable offense](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/60995/why-is-plagiarism-so-harshly-punished) in academia.

If you want to save time by include someone else's quote verbatim, then there are standards for quoting and properly citing the text.

>
> Why is it a problem if I just use the above formulation?
>
>
>

However, if the majority of the written content is copied from another author, then this suggests most of the ideas and thought process behind the writing isn't your own either. It may not even demonstrate that you understand the content that you've quoted. So if you claim credit for material that is mostly copied from someone else, it can at least seem lazy.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: Having been plagiarized before, I found three things irritating:

1. Plagiarists seem lazy. Instead of writing something in their own words and adding their own knowledge to it, they simply copied what I and others wrote and stitched it together into a semi-coherent whole. When I write formally, I spend a lot of time to get the words right, and I don't think it's fair to simply copy my work. (Particularly when they don't credit me for the work.) If you get the same reward (a publication) for copying as you do for producing something original, that does not seem to be incentivizing the hard work that produces valuable research.
2. Plagiarism at the sentence level seems to lead to hard-to-read writing. One sentence from here, one sentence their own, another half a sentence from somewhere else, etc. Mix in inconsistent vocabularies, the use of a thesaurus to trip up plagiarism detection software, and rearranging sentences to trip up plagiarism detection software. That's a recipe for bad writing. To be honest I think making plagiarized writing good would take more time than writing something original in the first place. Also, I think the opportunity cost for someone who is not a fluent speaker of the language they are writing in exceeds the time savings from plagiarism. (My impression is that many non-fluent people who plagiarize do so because they don't believe they can write as well as a fluent speaker. But this tends to not work well, and doesn't help them learn the language as much as writing would.)
3. Plagiarists sometimes don't seem to understand the passages they copy. This might be because plagiarism seems to be correlated with poor reading skills. A plagiarized sentence says X is true and then later the authors argue "not X has already been established..."
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_5: Plagiarism aside, we expect authors to write background sections in their own words because they are supposed to *know* the background information. If you copy and paste someone else's paragraph, it comes across like you might not have bothered to verify the information in it. Ditto if you start with someone else's paragraph and fiddle with it until it looks original.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Coming up with the right words to express an idea is also work that authors deserve credit for.

However, the reason why copying words is such a disproportionately “big deal” is that **copying words is common, easy to detect, and hard to deny.**

It’s common because it is the result of laziness. There is software available to detect copying automatically. And, once the copied passages and their source are identified, there is irrefutable evidence.

This results in a lot of people being punished for copying words and most people are very careful to avoid doing this. That makes it a big deal.

Of course, ease of enforcement is not a *good* reason for something being a big deal. But, unfortunately, that is the reality of the world.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: I'm not sure the other answers address your question directly: why is it important to cite and give credit to the original source of words rather than just copy them into our own writings?

1. Putting ideas into words is very hard work and requires deep understanding. Contrary to what you've written, the wording also matters a lot: the whole point is to *communicate* the ideas! So originators of wording deserve credit also.
2. The normal required/accepted practice is that the author does not plagiarize, i.e. all words have been written by the author except where quoted and sourced. Given this, plagiarism is misleading or dishonest to the reader who assumes words are original. (This wouldn't apply if it were normal to plagiarize, but it isn't.)
3. It is very useful to the research community to have this norm of "no plagiarism" because it is easier to evaluate a paper and its contributions, for reasons that many others have been posting.
4. In cultures such as the USA where many of the cultural norms of research are set, plagiarism of words is viewed as ethically wrong (presumably for reasons related to the above). So it is a bad idea to plagiarize when writing for people who feel that way even if they had no rational reasoning.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: In scientific work there is more to plagiarism than just crediting people for the work that they do. But first, an aside in the difference between copyright infringement and plagiarism.

Suppose that I find a publisher (unlikely) who will let me take an early edition of Goethe's *Faust* and publish it under the name username_8 St. Magnus, with no indication anywhere that it is from Faust. I can do that legally, since the work is not under copyright, though some recent editions may be. I don't use quote marks or anything, but even if I do, it is plagiarism. Plagiarism, but not copyright infringement. I'll be condemned (well St. Magnus, anyway). But I can't be sued.

Suppose, alternatively, that in writing a new book, that I take a chapter (not the entirety of the work, but a substantial part) from a recent novel of, say, <NAME> and incorporate it into my own work. Suppose that I'm clear, using quotes or whatever, and giving proper citations of the original. Since I cited it (quotes or not), it isn't plagiarism. But whoever owns copyright to the original will likely object and I'll be sued, almost certainly, for copyright infringement. So, copyright infringement, but not plagiarism. This would also be the likely outcome if I make small changes or paraphrase parts of it.

In the latter case, if I do the same thing but *don't* give a citation. Then is is both plagiarism and copyright infringement and I'll be both sued and condemned.

But, suppose that what we have is scientific writing instead. Note that scientific papers have a context, usually expressed in their own citations and their bibliography. There is more here than just who wrote it, there is the complete scientific context in which it was written. A scholar reading the work, sometimes need to explore that context directly. If the paper makes that impossible, by plagiarizing another, for example, the chain is broken. St. Magnus says the buck stops here. But really it doesn't. If I just copied from <NAME>, then a reader of my work has no easy way to find the original and thus explore the context expressed there.

That is what makes *scientific plagiarism* special.

If it were only about attribution, then *self plagiarism* wouldn't be a thing. I'm the source of the words, even though I used them before. But if I don't cite myself properly on the prior use, others are cut off from the complete context.

Also, if were just about attribution then putting it in quotes and providing an incomplete citation, say, just the author's name, then it wouldn't be plagiarism either. But most would consider such an incomplete citation to be wrong for *some* reason, whether related to plagiarism or not. Ancient authors are often quoted this way, of course, but not living (or recent) ones in scientific literature.

To avoid plagiarism, or self plagiarism, you need to cite and you need to be clear about what you are "capturing" from the early work, just to help other scholars find that original context when needed. You can do this in many ways, but you need to be clear about it. Putting a few words of others in the middle of a sentence that I otherwise write is a situation that makes quote marks especially useful. For a paragraph, I might want to indent instead, with the citation immediately following (or at the beginning). But it has to be clear.

However, if I cite properly, avoiding plagiarism, but still copy "too much" (a value judgement) then I'm still open to a charge of copyright infringement. Any copyright holder can make the charge and file a suit. It is then up to others (courts, juries, ...) to decide whether I overstepped the bounds.

But note the important difference. It is lack of citation that makes it plagiarism. It is giving the impression that the words, ideas, whatever, are mine, and not those of the originator. It is the appropriation that makes it wrong, not the lack of "quoting".

That said, quoting formally, can help you make it clear what is yours and what is not and that clarity is important.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_9: >
> But why is plagiarising words and paragraphs considered a big deal?
>
>
>

I am a scholar who writes not because a university says I must to advance, but because I enjoy writing for its own sake. So much so that I consider myself above all else a writer. So when my words are plagiarized - and it's happened more than once - it feels tantamount to someone breaking into my house and stealing a prized possession - something deeply personal. When I write, I don't merely slap words on a page, but I revise them time and time again, perhaps 15 or 20 times or more before I have molded the text into a form I like, and for which I feel pride of craftsmanship. You say "It's not like we are writing poems here." Perhaps in your field that is true (I don't know), but it's not the case in mine. I am not literally writing poetry, but what I write has a certain lyricism that is art. (Whether or not it's *good art* is for others to decide.) This might sound maudlin, but it's nonetheless how I and others no doubt feel, and may help you to understand why some, like me, consider plagiarism a big deal.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_10: The problem is that the goal of science has slightly shifted from generating knowledge to generating papers over the last few decades (**publish or perish**). While these two goals are not mutually exclusive and the former implies the later (the reverse sadly isn't true), generating papers has a lot to do with writing. Hence, people get mad if they see someone copying their written words because writing has become an (if not the) essential part of their work. Take it as one of the many expressions of the current crisis in academic research.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_11: This [article](https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo305) might help.
The gist of it is that getting 'noted and quoted' is big deal in academia.

While there is some wiggle room of distinguishing "important contributions" from "used two words in the same order" and everything in between its hard to summarise this in a number, so most of the time it gets dropped.

The result of this is anything that makes a difference between getting a citation or not is a big deal (even if it contributes very little). Add to this the complexity of what makes a useful citation and it becomes politically costly and often untenable to sort out the nuances. It's not an ideal situation1 but it's really not that bad and it has upsides (see other answers).

---

1 I once found myself in the situation that opening few lines of an introduction I wrote for a paper turned out to be similar another recent publication. It was analogous to your example (stating widely know results of the field) and really there are only so many sane ways of saying it. It wasn't a huge problem but I felt, as you seem to, that it was a waste of effort to sort. Perhaps ironically part of the problem was I didn't want to change to using their version verbatim an cite it. One of the differences I didn't like was the attribution of the actual work was missing in the other paper (as the results where old/obvious).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_12: I feel like it is pertinent to point out that, in most cases, scientific publications are meant to build on existing work. Plagiarising words and sentences verbatim, without being able to bring an original spin is simply not publication ready.

Essentially if it is a very basic tenet of your field then you will never need to mention it, you may simply cite a standard book and move ahead to present your work. There are word and page limits as well.

I believe this question arises mostly while writing reports and other "unoriginal" documents.

If you are aso student then, think of this as a learning experience, not a broken part of academia.
Upvotes: 0


<issue_start>username_0: In your opinion, which is more important when deciding where to do a PhD?

Choosing a top-tier university with a brilliant professor who is an excellent mentor or choosing a decidedly average university with a professor who you do not know the quality of their mentorship, but the subject matter is naturally more interesting to you?<issue_comment>username_1: Some people are fairly agnostic about their choice of dissertation topic and are happy learning to become interested in whatever interests their advisor. The fact that you are posting this question suggests that you are not one of those people.

You'll be happier, do better work, and set your career in the right direction if you pick an area that genuinely interests you. It's true that an advisor's prestige has a lot of currency, but it's not worth so much that it makes sense to sacrifice what you feel is best for you in the long run. Grad school is tough enough without the stress of added friction.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Lets talk about some statistics first-

1. institutional prestige matters in hiring decisions made by committees. Getting your PhD or doing a Postdoc at a top 10 university matters. The degree in which it matters varies across fields. If you did not get your PhD in History from Harvard, you are at a major statistical disadvantage in obtaining a tenure track position. See <NAME>., <NAME>., & <NAME>. (2015).
2. Publishing during your PhD career is highly correlated to your academic productivity during tenure track. Graduate students tend to have better publications records at elite institutes. See Horta & Santos (2016). Whether this is because of the more competitive culture, the increase in graduate student "quality", or the pressure from a demanding professor is unknown. Probably a combination.
3. These above two factors depend on field. Fields that have strong cultures of scholars having been in the field prior to academia give less weight to institutional prestige (e.g. education and nursing) but they still care.

So in other words, grad students in an elite university tend to publish more. They also tend to dominate tenure track positions.

You dont have to go to an elite university for your phd, but you at least need to do so for your post doc or masters.

In my own experience, I had a strong publication record at graduation, did my postdoc at an elite university, and was hired for a tenure track position at an R1 university. My advice might very well be biased to my own experiences but I feel that the data and statistics say that my experience was the norm rather than the exception.
Upvotes: 2


<issue_start>username_0: I submitted my manuscript to a Springer journal and after viewing the submission, I approved it. But now I need to edit one of my references, but the Edit button is not available after approving the submission. How can I edit it? Should I submit a new manuscript?<issue_comment>username_1: I think that submitting a new manuscript will just confuse them. The version you submitted will be checked and reviewed. You will get back a report and, hopefully, a request to update and resubmit changes. Make your changes then.

If that isn't enough to satisfy you, then contact the editor of the journal and ask for advice on how to proceed. But what you have discovered is pretty common.

The journal needs, for now, a stable version that can be sent to reviewers. You are just at the beginning of the process and will have time to fix things.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Just wait for the revision cycle to complete and incorporate the change at that time. You are talking about a very small nitpicky change. No reason to disrupt the cycle now.

Note, if they accept the paper without revision, write in at that time to request the change and with an edited version (or a brief email explaining that you will make the change in camera review, if they have that).
Upvotes: 1


<issue_start>username_0: I'm a 4th year PhD student at a top school in Canada studying chemical physics. For the past few years, I have been floating around the idea of leaving with a Masters and pursuing a PhD at a different institute due to many factors, such as:

* Poor supervision. My supervisor is primarily overseas, and provides little to no direction or motivation in work. When discussing with him, his focus is on himself and offers little advice in regards to research.
* The city I live in is not enjoyable and I find it hard to enjoy being here.
* The group, while great, is not very cohesive; no group meetings, no reports, no discussion of progress at all.

For the past 2 years, I have been working on a very complicated instrument. I've spent a lot of time fixing it, as many aspects of it have needed to be repaired or upgraded, but unfortunately, finding a sample to study is highly non-trivial and has been proven to be very difficult. As a result, I find that I'm quite burned out. I have also been diagnosed with depression and anxiety (but have been treating it with medication and therapy). I've been unable to publish (but I have one first author in review after revisions, one co-author in preparation) Unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that, due to the lack of direction of care from my supervisor's end in regards to helping myself (and other students) focus on to a project that has a clear set of steps or even overall direction, that I should probably leave with a Masters, and apply for a PhD at a different school with a project that I find myself passionate about.

The dilemma I have is that my supervisor has quite the ego. I'm certain he won't be happy with me proposing to leave with a Masters to go pursue work elsewhere. I'm not sure how to handle that; I can ask other faculty of whom I'm well-acquainted with for a reference, but I feel that the new school I apply to may question why that is the case. Maybe it's the burn out speaking on my behalf, but I am no longer passionate about what I do, and the day to day grind of improving things, trying to find a sample, and repeating is getting to me. I see other students with somewhat cohesive research goals and I look back on my own and realize there is no direction and that, I think, scares me more than anything. I don't want to run the risk of not being able to graduate. Of course, the onus is on me to be able to procure my own project or motivation, but alas, I think due to poor supervision and general lack of interest, it is in my best interest to move on to something more along my skillset and passion.

My question is, has anybody dealt with a similar dilemma? Were you able to be accepted at a different school, even if your supervisor responded poorly? Is 4 years for a Masters a waste of time or a bad idea, and should I just tough it out and finish, even if I hate it all?<issue_comment>username_1: My dilemma was broadly similar: I was doing a PhD in a top-tier university I hated; my advisor was awful; and I was considering leaving for a different program. What stopped me from actually doing the latter was that even with explicit invitations and introductions from helpful professors who liked me, I didn't get anything more useful than a desultory suggestion to find the department's webpage and send an application there to start again as a first-year grad student. I was three rather than four years in at that point, but I thought that was enough time that I didn't want to restart from scratch.

In retrospect, that was a bad decision. In my case, I finished the PhD program but didn't get the contacts or publications that I needed to get an actual academic career out of it, so the five years I wound up spending at the university were a waste of time. Grad school can be miserable, advisors can be worse than worthless, and the academic market is terrible. It's just about the only way of getting the opportunity to do certain things, though, most notably serious research. If you're trying to just tough it out and finish, that may not actually get you what you want.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I know that it is probably too late to share my experience with you, but I was in the same place as you and I did it. I quit my PhD after 4 years and 2 months, and my reasons for doing that was 1) I wasn't happy about the place which was initially meant to be a temporary stay and 2) I was not receiving proper scientific supervision. As a last year PhD I was successful enough (4 research papers as the first author, 1 as the second) to get a degree, but I decided to change just because I was thinking that the quality of my experience and what I would gain afterwards could be better. So I interviewed with one of the leading guys in my field, who by the way knew my supervisor at the time, and he also asked me why I want to make this change. I could be convincing enough to get the offer by the end of the interview and I moved to the new place after 6 months and started the new career. Also to mention that my supervisor at the time wasn't happy about this at all, and we even had two VERY rough arguments about this decision. However, I did it and now the question is did it worth it?

No one can answer this question for you, as the motivations behind making such decisions are too much personal. There are some obvious facts like the lack of supervision etc. but still as long as you don't analyze your situation properly, you might regret it later. I regret making that decision, because I was too emotional at the moment that I accepted the offer. What I lost in this transition was 3 good years of my life and also being exploited as an experienced PhD in the field, and being paid far less than I deserve. A part of my regret at the moment is also due to the fact that I realized that what I pictured to be a different class of research and opportunities was simply not true, and in most of the times the quality and quantity of research in the leading groups are similar, and just the governing politics in academia push one or another on display.

If you haven't made this decision yet (which is unlikely) I suggest you to try to finish your PhD in the current place. I had an experienced colleague back then who was always telling me to not to do it after spending 4 years, but I didn't listen to him. I was seeing it as an adventure, but if i have the opportunity to go back in time and make that decision again, I would stay and finish my PhD and then look for other research opportunities to satisfy myself.
Upvotes: 2


<issue_start>username_0: After going through a quiz, I was surprised to see that we hadn't gone over half the material in class or in our reading. It was brought to the attention of the professor and she said she would take a look and consider the options. She saw that "most" did well regardless of the fact it was new material and decided to keep the quiz the way it was.
I personally got a 73% on this quiz (which is a failing grade in my strenuous program) and my friend got a 50%. After talking to her privately she is continuing to stand by her choice. Should I go above her?<issue_comment>username_1: People writing here have incomplete information, of course. But from what you say it sounds like she should have to give a justification for the decision.

One way is to make a collective appeal to her directly. The fact that "most" did well means that, almost by definition, some were disadvantaged by the quiz. That needs compensation of some sort.

One way is to make a collective appeal to her superior, laying out the facts.

But an individual appeal to her has failed, apparently, and may fail to her superior as well. This seems to me to be a situation in which you need to get a group together, formulate your arguments, and then present them.

It is probably less confrontational if you take it first to her, as a group. If you don't get a satisfactory answer then escalate it.

However, if it is a very small part of grading, then maybe just ignoring it to avoid hassle would be justified.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Find out how some of the students who did well on the test managed it. There may be some pattern. For example, there could be another course that many of them have taken that covered the missing material. That would strengthen your case for some adjustment. On the other hand, if it is just paying more attention and doing more reading, you are probably out of luck.
Upvotes: 1


<issue_start>username_0: I am working on a paper after finishing my Masters. I did all the lab research and writing of the manuscript. My professor was only involved to guide me throughout the research and read my writing and give his comments.

Can I argue with him and tell him I am not letting the article to be published if he insists on being the first author?<issue_comment>username_1: Occasionally (and more than occasionally in private / Ivy League institutions), professors will have their names credited as the primary author of a paper that was produced by their graduate advisees. In my view it is unethical, but in the eyes of some academics, it's customary. Some professors view their advisees as underlings to further his or her brand recognition in whichever field he/she works in.

in my view, your advisor is in fact not the author, if it's true that you did the research and literally wrote the paper. Before confronting him about it or giving him an ultimatum, I would go to another professor in your department whom you trust, and have a confidential conversation about the appropriateness of your advisor's demands versus the general attitude of the department. Sometimes you'll find that "nearly everybody does that" and sometimes they'll say "that's unacceptable."

If you consult with other professors and you get the impression that you are in the right, you will have more clout in dealing with the issue if your advisor becomes obstinate and makes a big deal out of it. But beware, all of the professors in your department are probably friends, or even worse they could be extremely factionalized. In either case, you run the risk of this "private" conversation being circulated around the proverbial "teacher's lounge."

Unless you are in an insanely competitive field at a flagship research university, I don't think this is going to blow up in your face. But only you can make the judgement for yourself.

After conversing with a trusted faculty member, I recommend you next present your concerns to your advisor, and see if he is willing to be reasonable about this. If he still isn't, this is a situation where you might need to get the administration involved, but they largely bend to the whims of tenured faculty members who bring in the big bucks with their research.

There should be a discussion here on the benefits versus detractors of submitting to your professor and having your name published second on the paper...versus not having your research published at all. I am a somewhat stubborn person and refuse to let anyone take credit for my work. But this might not be the most expedient approach for a person who is trying to get his/her name on publications under any circumstance. You'll have to decide which one you are, and I hope some other folks chime in on this particular subtopic.

addendum: If you produced your research using a program or model developed by your advisor, or some kind of privileged archival/digital/etc. access through your advisor that you'd otherwise not be able to use, I can see his demand being slightly more legitimized, so consider that as well.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It isn't a good career move to counter your advisor in things like this. You need him to sign your thesis (already done) and to write you a good letter of recommendation - maybe still to come. If you anger him, whether rightly or wrongly, it will be you that pays the price.

As I said in a comment, this kind of "authorship" is common, accepted, and perfectly natural in some fields, even if it is a bit stupid.

Having joint authorship with a professor can actually be a help to your career, even if he takes first authorship. Some people will just assume that he did all of the work (no matter the order of authorship), carrying you along. Others will just assume that you did all the work and he is first author by courtesy.

This is something you can't control.

But a publication with your name on it anywhere is a plus for your career.

If you want to fight a system that you think is stupid, wait until you have some power and standing in academia to back you up. Otherwise you get squashed before you have a chance to fly.

Work with him and get a good letter.

I realize this isn't the answer you wanted to read. But think long term, not the short.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: >
> Can I argue with him and tell him I am not letting the article to be published if he insists on being the first author?
>
>
>

Other answers have already indicated this is potentially a somewhat dangerous move if you plan on continuing with a career in academia.

However, I believe that you can, and perhaps you should. It would be especially useful in such an argument/discussion if you could bring examples of similar cases - with the same advisor or in the same department or subfield - where the advisor was credited last.

On the other hand, I notice you've written:

>
> My professor was only involved to guide me throughout the research and read my writing and give his comments.
>
>
>

And I have to say - "only"? If he was guiding you the whole time and giving you comments all the time, isn't it possible that the research progressed in a way that he envisioned? Perhaps you're misjudging the extent of his contribution. While the work you did seems arduous to you, that's partly because you're new; perhaps for a more experienced researcher, you just did the "grunt work". I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case, but don't go arguing with your advisor unless you can be certain this point of view cannot be defended.

Also, regardless of the above - don't start this discussion with an ultimatum or with a declaration you intend to "bury" the paper.

---

Finally, another alternative I would suggest, on principle and irrespective of who did how much, is *alphabetical order of author names*. The practice of listing names by order of decreasing contribution is very problematic and IMHO should be opposed in general. Author names should be listed alphabetically, and if the authors do not explain who did what then people can just ask; or better yet - not ask. Of course, the advisor might theoretically be even more averse to that than to being listed second; it depends.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> Can I argue with him...
>
>
>

Rather than taking a starting position where you want to get in an argument, a much better approach would be to try to have a mature conversation where you can each agree on what your contribution to the paper was, and what each of you feel is the appropriate criteria for first authorship. Ask your supervisor for his opinions on this matter, and be open-minded and respectful. If you have a different opinion, then let him know your contrary view, and let him know that you are feeling aggrieved.

It is not unreasonable for you to raise authorship concerns with your supervisor. This is a conversation that is a legitimate part of joint research work, so you don't need to repress this. However, like all professional matters, it should be raised in a respectful and professional way. Begin by assuming good faith on the part of your supervisor, and don't start off framing the matter as an "argument" you need to have. Try to figure out where you agree and where you disagree, and just be mindful to make sure you don't allow your frustrations to lead to escalation into an unproductive conversation.

Before raising this matter with your supervisor, it would be a good idea for you to read some material on authorship conventions so that you are able to put your case with some support for outside sources (e.g., see [this report](https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/wp-content/uploads/CSE-White-Paper_2018-update-050618.pdf)). However, you should expect to have a preliminary meeting where your only initial goal is to exchange views on the matter, and then allow each party to go away to consider the views of the other. An initial conversation on this topic might end in disagreement, but if you can support your own view with reputable outside sources, that is likely to be more persuasive than if you cannot.

These kinds of cases really shouldn't arise, since supervisors and students should **always** discuss authorship expectation *before* they begin a research project and papers. I think your supervisor probably made a mistake in not discussing this up-front with you before the work on the paper was done. Even if you are unable to resolve this particular disagreement, it would be a good idea to formulate clear expectations on future papers with your supervisor. Inquire into the requirements he would expect for you to be first author on a paper.

>
> I did all the lab research and writing of the manuscript. My professor was only involved to guide me throughout the research and read my writing and give his comments. ...
>
>
>

If that is an accurate description of the contributions (who came up with the research idea?) then it does not sound to me like enough to warrant first authorship on the part of your supervisor. Conventions will vary from field to field, but in my understanding, the first author should generally be the person who did the most work on the paper. (When I have supervised students in research projects they have always been the lead author on the resulting papers, except in one case where I did the majority of the work on the paper and wrote the first draft.) Ethical guidelines on authorship, such as in the linked report, may give some guidance and references discussing authorship-order, so these are worth reviewing.

Please note that there are some reasonable counter-arguments to this view, especially within the scope of research done in a Masters degree. In that context, research work is usually at a low level and the supervisor often has a substantial teaching and supervision role. One might reasonably make an argument for first authorship of the supervisor in this case, but in my view it should depend on the specifics of the contributions on a case by case basis.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: You underestimate the work your adviser did. He choose the topic, he figured out what to prepare (or get prepared) that you can have a topic which fits the requirements of a master thesis regarding amount of work and depth of knowledge.

Eventually you will do a PhD and supervise bachelor or master students yourself. Then you will learn home much work it is to advise a student well and to prepare a topic.

If the adviser is able to figure out a topic leading to a publication, that is superior and ennobles your work. As far as I know engineering, math, physics, computer sciences, and human sciences, most master theses are not worth to be published. These are rare exceptions!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: You should note that "important professor et al." usually brings more attention and citations than "student nobody knows et al.". Thus, I would not fight his decision.

Is his last name ahead of yours in the alphabet? Then you could ask him, whether you can make a footnote "Authors in alphabetical order", after writing him first.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_7: I would suggest to him that you be the first Author, but he be the corresponding author. In my department, for a tenure package (for example), professors are rewarded equally for first author or corresponding author papers. I don't believe this is that uncommon, and would be a win-win for both of you.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: You face three issues.

First, what is the merit *to you* of being first author versus being co-author on a journal with only two authors? This question is independent of your "feelings" about being first or second. Can you make an objective statement that says your future success in your field of study absolutely depends on you being first rather than second author on this publication?

When you can categorically make a statement that is this strong, you need to make it and do so now. By comparison, when your best statement on this issue is no more than the equivalent of a nebulous understanding that "it gives me more exposure in my field", you should weigh the two other factors more heavily.

Secondly, what is the merit *to your advisor* of being first author versus being co-author? This is the mirror question to the above. For example, does an upcoming tenure and promotion decision for your advisor depend absolutely on the number of first author papers that he/she has published?

You should at least discover the background for this question. You may claim an injustice is being done to you by your advisor based on the first issue. Yet how far have you gone to appreciate where your advisor stands by mirror comparison?

Finally, what are the rights that *each of you* bring to the table in order to complete the publication? In your role as the primary worker and documenter for the work (taken at face value as being truly stated), you have a right to negotiate authorship. Your advisor however may be due full acknowledgement due to his/her greater role of having provided all of the ideas behind the research. To what extent did he or she completely initiate the work that you did, proposing all of the approaches that you took and defining all of the analysis that you were to do? Perhaps your advisor does have a greater right to claim first authorship because of his/her greater role in setting, maintaining, and directing the success of the work.

These issues are what you face at a negotiation table. It is not an argument table ... it is a **negotiation** table. The negotiations should be done up front, hopefully before the publication is started.

In practice, at this point, you should first decide whether your case has strong merits on the three issues above. Regardless of your decision, you should still talk with your advisor to clarify what you understand about them. You should strive to present your case honestly, not argumentatively. You should do so even with the understanding that you may have accept the pre-ordained outcome of being a second author, not a first author. At best, you may make a strong and sufficient objective stand to sway your advisor to appreciate the greater need that you have to be the first author. At worst, you will leave the presentation as a second author but knowing that you will not be carrying an unreconciled resentment about what you *could* have done but did not do.

Finally, discussing this with your advisor may not be an easy task. You may already face a sense of being held hostage to the power of your advisor to sign away your thesis or your future career. Do not let this fear put you in a place where you believe that you cannot at least assemble and put forward an honest, objective, and balanced case for your views. You may never change your advisor's mind regardless of the strength of your case. When you learn to state your case with no need to win it under situations of authority, you will learn how to do it better the next time at the outset when it may count even more.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_9: I have faced the same issue several times when I was still studying. I have written three articles and was always in the second position. Of course this may seem "unethical" and not correct, but just take a look at what **you have done on the topic so far** and **what your professor has done so far**.

I can only speak for the field of meachnical engineering, but several points to mention in this field are:

* Most probably you didn't start from scratch. You based most of your work on previous work of your professor, PhD-candidates and other students
* your supervisor guided you through your thesis. Looking back at my thesis, I have to acknowledge that I'd have not been able to make my thesis in 6 months without my supervisor putting lots of effort in it. And also looking back I have to say that many good ideas were brought up by my supervisor and I was just there to "implement" these ideas. Also the "basic" idea on which the whole thesis was laid out was, of course, coming from my supervisor. Honestly: implementing ideas when being guided by a supervisor is the easy part in doing science. Being the one to guide others is the hard part.
* your supervisor guided you through the process of writing the paper or even teaching you how to write the paper.
* Having a "known name" as the first author always helps.

Of course it felt bad to be the second author in articles when I wrote my thesis, but looking back it seems like the right way. Perspectives change when you are on the other side and you see the "real" workload of being a supervisor. :)
Upvotes: 2


<issue_start>username_0: In the United States, if a university lab develops code while receiving public funding, are they legally obligated to release their source code?<issue_comment>username_1: No, in general they are not.

It is true that [works prepared by US *federal government* employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_the_federal_government_of_the_United_States). This applies, for instance, to journal articles by scientists at DOE or DOD laboratories. It does not apply to public university employees (they work for state/local governments) and, as far as I know, it does not apply to computer code.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: All the work done for an employer belongs to the employer (the software belongs to the University, not the research group). The employer, depending on its legal status, might have some legal obligations in terms of copyright and IP of the work it is done on its behalf. In addition, when the funding comes, it comes with, or without, a number of other specific obligations about copyright and IP. These are potentially overriding those imposed by the employer (because the employer accepts the funding and the conditions).

So the answer to your question is: check if there are any conditions attached to the funding (which are pertinent only if they fund the project) and if there are any condition your employer needs to fulfil.
Upvotes: 0


<issue_start>username_0: I am pursuing my PhD in Canada in Mechanical engineering and will graduate this November. This brings my PhD time to a total of 5 years 3 months. I already had a master's degree. I have not yet started looking for postdoc positions but I have heard from one of my lab's alumni that they were asked about their extended PhD duration during postdoc and industry position interviews.

I had coursework in first semester, but after that, all my time was invested in my research. So, I don't have the reasoning that my US counterparts have for their PhD extending over 5 years. I was unfocused for a better part of a semester during my 3rd year, so that might have caused this delay.
On top of that, I am submitting my research to journals now, so I don't have any proof of productivity for the past 4 years.

I have two questions:
1) does an extended PhD duration really frowned upon in academia and industry (for a research scientist position), if so, any suggestions to counteract a question on that?
2) A vague question: How can I stay motivated and optimistic about completing my thesis and working towards an academic or a research scientist career in the future?<issue_comment>username_1: I'll say something only about your first concern.

You can't change the past. You are where you are. However, I wouldn't be overly concerned with anecdotal remarks about what is expected or not. You have a history and if asked about it, just recount it honestly. Don't apologize for taking a few extra months or even years.

The funny thing about (real) research is that you can't do it on a schedule. The insights and the background work take time to mature. It isn't like manufacturing a complex artifact like an automobile that can be optimized to the second. Research problems worth the effort are hard and the solutions come when they come. Sometimes spending more hours on them helps. Sometimes taking a break, especially a mental break, helps.

But anyone who says "I will do *this* significant piece of work and be done in three years" is deluding themselves. I expect other people with research experience to recognize and respect that. If they don't, I expect that they haven't really worked on anything difficult lately and carried it to completion.

You do what you can do with the constraints that you have. Hopefully you learn something valuable and are able to write it up and get your degree. But the path is both winding and difficult.

When I went to grad school it was still possible to get a math PhD in four years out of undergraduate. I took seven. My career wasn't what I expected, due to economic factors beyond my control, but I had a rewarding career in academia. Nowadays seven is closer to the norm, unfortunately.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I finished my MS in three years where normal time is two years, but that did not stop me from getting into a PhD and finish in 5 years. I have numerous examples of people taking up to 8 years finishing up their PhDs. Everybody has different reasons, some took time off, some had a family emergency/planning (had babies), some had failed experiments, some went on internships, or some just goofed around. However, all those people had good job offers of their choice when they graduated. Therefore, do not worry much about if you have taken a little over five years to finish. You will be fine.

About publications, usually students do not publish while they are doing their MS or PhD, unless you are very enthusiastic or your department has a policy to publish before you graduate. Many students publish their MS or PhD work in the next couple of years after graduation. If a potential employer ask you about the publications, you can always say that you are working on them, although this answer is more acceptable in industry than in academia.

About staying motivated, just think about the bigger picture. I know it is hard. I was supposed to finish my MS thesis in 6 months but took 12. It wasn't because I was super busy with anything else, but because I was too distracted going out with friends, watching TV or doing some other non-academic stuff. But I learned a lesson from that and finished my PhD dissertation in time. You can do all the stuff other than writing your thesis/dissertation and have that stress in the back of your head about finishing for one year, or you can finish in 6 months and then do all that stuff without any stress. Good luck!
Upvotes: 0


<issue_start>username_0: I really love physics, and I told my parents about my interest. They want me to become an engineer, but I hate engineering (too practical, too far from physics), and I don't enjoy fixing things. What should I do?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> I hate engineering (**too practical, too far from physics**)
>
>
>

This in an unfortunately common misconception, which can bring nonsense answers like [this one](https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/6136/111969) on Meta Physics SE, where it is said:

>
> If I pose this question to an electrical engineer, I will likely get design rules, possibly in the form of immediately useful formulae. If I pose it to a physicist, I may learn something about the physics of electromagnetic fields near dielectric boundaries, diverging fields at conductor corners, and maybe even something about conformal mapping.
>
>
>

As an electronic engineer who specialized a long time ago in engineering electromagnetics, I can tell you that, yes, I've studied all of the theory above and much more than design rules. And I have also studied Langrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, chaotic dynamical systems, quantum mechanics, quantum optics, statistical mechanics, relativity. Indeed, with an engineering flavour, which I have actually come to appreciate along the years.

Said another way, engineering can be as theoretical as you wish it to be.

>
> I don't enjoy fixing things
>
>
>

Most engineers don't fix things.

>
> What should I do?
>
>
>

Some thirty-odd years ago I was somehow in your exact situation: I wanted to study physics, but my parents wanted me to do engineering because they felt that there were more job opportunities.

I studied engineering, but I chose my curriculum to have a good blend of electronics and physics and, now, *I cannot be happier than this about my education*.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: There are nowadays many engineering study courses, where the bachelor degree is more or less a set of physics courses (e.g. nanostructure engineering, quantum sensing,... to name some from german universities). A real specialization of the students can happen then in the master courses, if the students chooses strong enginnering/economics-oriented courses, which a physics student is unlikely to want and be able to choose.

Also, you can explain to your parents that the difference from a later job perspective point of view is small if you wait until the bachelor degree, if they don't want you to become exacly an engineer for developing hydrogen-driven cars from the first semester on. Of course, an engineer is normally much more specialized than an physicist and has often a higher job-security and salary when entering the job market after graduation, but long-term this mantra doesn't hold true anymore because we are now in the age of exponential technological progress where the ability to self-teach new things will become the new mantra, life-long learning. And a physicist is often much better educated for this due to broader and more fundamental science study courses. At least in academia you can spot many PhD physicists being a professor at an engineering institute.

But, if not many of the old-fashioned engineering jobs (electrical/machine) are overtaken by machines/machine-learning/industry 4.0 processes in some years/decades is an open question. You can have a long discussion with your parents to analyse their risk vs. return of invest in financing you and this is of course a legitimate question/concern they have, when attending an university costs them ten's to hundred's of thousands living cost and study fees for you.

**My argument would be that only after the bachelor degree the decisision can and is to be made if you like more engineering/physics and if you would be a better engineer/physicist**. You only become personally and financially successful in your job if you like it. Honestly, I think even you cannot know this now for sure as an initial interest in fundamental questions/physics can turn around during your studies in the direction of applied physics due to bad/very competitive job perspectives in fundamental phyiscs you weren't aware of or loosing totally interest in e.g. particle physics/astrophysics which happened for many of my colleagues who studied with me and work now in programming/finance.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I come from an engineering family and chose to study physics as an undergrad, I ended up getting a graduate degree in mechanical engineering, and now primarily work as a software engineer. In hindsight, it likely would have made more sense to study computer science.

One of my big draws to physics was that it was theoretical, basal to everything else (mathematicians would dispute that), and that I felt like physicists were some sort of supernatural superior being. To this last point, I can now assure that they are not but that at least some of them think they are.

If you choose to study physics, plan on getting a PhD as you will struggle (relative to an engineer) to get a good professional job (I only got my first job out of college because of a CS minor).

This is (or should) be your decision to make. If you really want to study physics, do it! Just make sure you do it for the right reasons. I did not.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm going to share a bit of my own story which hopefully can give you a different perspective on physics and engineering and the fact that there is no strict dichotomy between the two. I think, from the little you wrote, that I used to have a very similar mentality to yours, and so perhaps it will be useful to you if I share how my mentality changed.

I am currently working on a Ph.D. in theoretical condensed matter physics. I, like you, used to hold disdain for the "applied sciences" like engineering, preferring the "purity" of theoretical physics, particularly because physics really does undergird all of the natural sciences. I thought that I would pursue quantum gravity research (how much more fundamental can you get than that?), and in my undergrad I did some research in that direction (insomuch as an undergrad is capable of doing any meaningful research in a field as advanced as quantum gravity, I primarily did some simple stuff with black holes and general relativity). After that I went to do my master's and I did research in Lattice QCD (i.e. quantum field theory). In my last year of my master's, I opted to take a course in low-temperature physics instead of general relativity since I already had experience with GR, and I have to say I absolutely do not regret it. I learned so many things about superconductivity and superfluidity and the actual details of how low-temperature physics is performed which I had never previously had experience with, and it was my first real introduction to the field of condensed matter physics.

This is the point where I had to make a decision, whether I wanted to pursue the "pure", mathematical physics which is known as High Energy Physics (HEP, i.e. Lattice QCD and String Theory primarily), or take a different tack. I sat down with a string theorist in my department, a young guy who was recently hired and incredibly smart. After a long discussion, he laid out for me the reality of being a physicist in HEP: very few full time, tenure track positions in an extremely competitive field of extremely talented aspiring physicists.

This is my first point that I think you should be aware of: being a "physicist" primarily means getting a tenure track position as a professor at a university. This means getting a Ph.D. (if you start college at 18, you're looking at 4 years for your bachelors + 6 years for a Ph.D.), then getting probably at least two postdoctoral positions (1-3 years each) before getting hired, *if* you can get a tenure track position. These are increasingly difficult to come by, with more students pursuing higher education than ever before and more universities reducing the number of tenure track professors on faculty. So know what you're in for. Depending on what you want to work on, it may be easier or harder to find a job as a professor. Granted, the Ph.D. will count for plenty if you seek an industry job instead, but if that's what you want then it may be better to get industry experience instead of further advanced education.

Finally, to catch up to the present, I am now working in theoretical condensed matter physics, and I'm having a blast. Condensed Matter as a field is far more closely tied to real experiment than HEP, my research is motivated by experimental findings, guided by potential experimental studies of the theory, and deeply in collaboration with actual experimentalists (who are also physicists!!). I find the work far more interesting and rewarding specifically because of the close connection to something tangible, whereas the work I did in LQCD was interesting but difficult to tie to something really meaningful or impactful. And best of all for me, I get all of that plus as a theorist I still use all the skills I learned in my work in Lattice QCD, quantum field theory is extremely relevant to condensed matter systems.

And lastly, I want to really stress this point: The boundary between engineering and physics is not distinct. One of my close friends is an experimental physicist who designs sensors for detecting B-mode photons from the Cosmic Microwave Background. Judged by what he actually does day-to-day, you might think he was an electrical engineer, and in some sense he *is* an engineer who is *also* a physicist. The circuits he designs (and often fabricates himself) involve superconducting Josephson Junctions and SQUIDS (superconducting quantum interference devices) and much more complex devices that require a deep understanding of quantum mechanics to utilize properly, but also require a deep understanding of electrical circuitry in order to maximize the sensitivity and signal-to-noise ratio of these sensors. **Remember: behind every great physics experiment is a team of engineers who built it**. Do you think theoretical physicists built the LHC that discovered the Higgs Boson? Someone has to build all the synchrotrons and telescopes and high energy colliders etc., and those people need to understand the physics to do their job right.

So perhaps as a middle ground, check out programs that have dual engineering-physics degrees (many universities offer this now), that way you can experience both. See if you can do some work with some professors in condensed matter physics, and I would definitely check out doing experimental work, even if you think you won't like it. I have a friend who transitioned into experimental work after doing computational physics and he feels like he has found his true calling and passion. Don't discount things that you haven't tried yet. If you are just starting a Bachelor's degree, you have plenty of time to try different things and find what you really enjoy. If you enjoy engineering (again, a huge field which can't be boiled down to "fixing things") then you can pursue a job in that straight out of undergrad (my engineering friends suggest getting a master's for the extra pay bump though, some universities have one year engineering master's programs). If you find you enjoy physics, you can put two years into a master's degree and then get a job (I know many people who did this) or if you are extremely passionate then you can pursue a Ph.D. In the end, even you devote all those years to a Ph.D., although you will not be earning income like you would if you had gone straight into a job, you will still be able to find a nice job afterwards if you don't decide to be a professor. So in the end, try everything, don't limit yourself, see what there is to see and find what you enjoy. I assume you are just starting a Bachelor's, in which case you have plenty of time to figure out what you ultimately want to do. And again I *highly* recommend looking into some sort of dual physics-engineering degree, and most universities allow you to be "exploratory" in the beginning anyway, so you can try some physics and engineering classes and see if you like them.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: Do some more theoretical or mathematical engineering. But still do the engineering. It gives you job/industry options but you can also do research. Even the academic salaries and competition are more reasonable in engineering, because they have to compete with industry.

Else we will see a thread from you a few years from now talking about postdoc hell. Father knows best.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: This situation is kind of what I experienced the year I was about to enter the university, and your words strike a chord in my heart.
I used to hold opinions very similar to what you expressed regarding physics and engineering.
However, I believe you are somehow mistaken.
The short answers is that your picture of what engineering and physics are about, is at best exaggerated and depends on fields.

You are right to remark that engineering is impossible were it not for our knowledge of physics.
The microwave engineering is based on Maxwell equations.
The circuit theory is built on Kirchhoff laws of current and voltage.
The semiconductor device fabrication depends on semiconductor physics.
And the list need not go on, and you can supply yourself.

But conversely, physics research is also impossible without resolving *practical* concerns, and without *fixing things*, to quote your phrase.
You may think you want to learn the purest things only, and the most basic law of nature, but they only make up a small portion of the vast knowledge of physical science.
The study of EM waves does not finish the moment Maxwell equations are written down.
The models of EM wave in the outdoors, in the sea, or in the rain, are different.
And that provides model of communication channel, and help you receiving signal with better quality when you browse Stack Exchange.

Similarly, chemistry does not stop with Schrödinger's Equation.
Beyond Lithium, the wave function of electron has no closed form.
They are approximated by molecular orbital, and even that is resorted to numerical simulation.
By simulation we mean programming and debugging, another example of practical matters.

Take the magnificent example of the photo of black hole M87 shot recently by the event horizon telescope.
Now you may think that to be the pinnacle of the purest physical science: We know something new about the universe, not being utilitarian, not doing engineering, not involving any boring, dirty work.
But it is not.
The research team has to deal with circuits of the telescope, signal processing of the noise, complexity of the algorithm used, not to mention working within the restriction of budget.
All of these are engineering.

Your picture of physics and engineering are not mutually exclusive, but are largely overlapping and inseparable.
The deeper you learn, the harder to divide the fields by simple terms.
Perhaps it is best to call them only by the one old noun, *science*.
Science is the study of the real world, and that need not only theory, but also practice.
As theory and practice work in tandem, human knowledge makes progess, however small, however time consuming and laborously.

Now there are surely consequences of finance and of family relationships if you study physics anyway, for which there is very little we people on S.E. can do.
We are in no position to "recommend" which department you had better enroll in.
We can only provide you a wider perspective of what physics and engineering are like, and you must trade off the two options by yourself.

Nevertheless, I have some words to remind you.
If you are determined to study physics, having supposedly conquered difficulties as above, you are likely still have to learn, and do "engineering" in the end.
Or if you, unfortunately, relent and end up getting the engineering degree, you might not be as far from the "physics" as you now think.
No matter what you study, learn the subjects thoroughly, make friends in that area, and constantly reassess the present view of yours.
In the end, if you keep working diligently, keep being honest to your heart, and keep revising your picture, you will most certainly find the career suitable to you, regardless where you have started.
You may think of the path integral as an analogy: You take any reasonable path, and end up in the predetermined finish point, which you shall not know (nor we) by now, but here, I do wish you all the best luck.
Upvotes: 1


<issue_start>username_0: I have the following situation (I am in the humanities):

I am writing a paper. In that paper, I several times cite a particular scholar's book. Now, in that book, this scholar cites (not quotes) a particular historical primary source.

As this looked interesting to me, I traced down this primary source (a diary entry), but I found it in a source collection different from that cited by the author. Moreover, when looking at the original source, I discovered that it contains additional content not summarized by that scholar that is useful for me. So I went ahead and directly quoted the primary source (including bits not mentioned by the author) in my paper.

**Now, in the footnote, I am currently just providing a reference to the original source, not to the mentioned author where I first found a reference to that source. My question is whether this is okay?**

According to the Chicago Manual (my citation style) and sources on the web, my understanding is that I only need to provide an additional comment in the form of "Source X, cited/quoted in ....." if I do not actually trace down the original source. So, it seems to me that what I am doing is fine.

Still, as especially the advice on the internet is somewhat unclear and mostly jut designed to discourage citing of primary sources without having checked them, I thought I could also ask here.

Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: If I'm understanding correctly, you are saying you read a secondary source, which led you to a primary source; then you cited material from the primary source that wasn't discussed in the secondary source; and your question is whether you need to cite the secondary source because it led you to the primary?

If so, I do not think you need to cite the secondary source. It feels polite to do so, sort of like using "via" on Twitter. But in an academic paper I do not think it is required.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: You cite the source you use, so if you use the primary souce then you reference that.

If you cite both then you reference both.

You don’t cite sources you don’t actually quote.
Upvotes: 1


<issue_start>username_0: Are there any research/study/survey that tried to analyze whether industry-sponsored papers contain more incorrect results than papers that aren't industry-sponsored, and if so, to what extent?

For example, if a drug company publishes a paper about the efficiency of one of their drugs, some readers might suspect results are more likely to be positively biased than if the paper was published by an academic lab with no funding from the drug company. I wonder if these kinds of suspicion are actually grounded.<issue_comment>username_1: I think your hypothesis is implausible that industry-sponsored research is more incorrect or less reproducible than non-industry-sponsored. Or can you give some reasons for this assumption?

On the contrary looking at many of the meta-surveys (partly conducted by industry, because non-industry-sponsored research maybe is less reproducible to their experience) that investigated the [reproducibility of academic research in the recent years](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/12520/48038), rather the opposite is maybe the case and known within industry.

Additionally, I don't see how it makes a difference if money financing a PhD student comes from industry or not? Wouldn't the rationale rather be, if money is spent by industry, then rather PhD scientists/Professors are hired for a project than cheap and still learning PhD students pressured by publish or perish? And to my knowledge more of the spotted scientific misconduct has been caused by untenured researchers. Again, publish or perish

And when [industry research can't reproduce 70–90% of academic laboratory findings,](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165614717301979) then a better question is probably if most of the research projects are funded by industry or not and what kind of researchers are on average hired for industry-sponsored projects (PhD students, PhD's, tenured)

What maybe sounds plausible, that researchers carrying out industry-sponsored projects tend even more to make up results or buzzy headlines ("new battery technology allows charging up within 10% of normal time" which I read every month or so), is rather implausible to me, because important and valuable results in industry-sponsored research projects are often rather published as a patent than a paper.

More importantly, there is a clear correlation that research in branches being strongly entangled with industry (engineering, physics,...) is much better reproducible than weakly linked branches (social sciences, psychology, biomedical,...). Most of the meta-surveys are in such fields.

To take up your case of drug development, such only become legalized after 10 years of clinical trial, so I think the incentive for some PhD student is not significantly higher and often the PhD students have no clue if the money financing them comes from industry or public. And professors being biased by the funding source mostly don't conduct and evaluate the experiments and would have to alter the results ([which also happened](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Hauser), but rarely)

Summa summarum I think there is no such study (my googling didn't find one but many meta-survey on reproducibility partly published by industry companies), as your hypothesis looks very implausible to me. There is probably a good virtual database with so much meta-surveys and the necesssity to name funding sources in a paper, still to me the important question would be, which kind of researcher (students, tenured,...) are typically hired for non-/industry sponsored projects? Because, the conclusion from the published meta-surveys in social sciences, psychology, biomedicine and the low reproducibility to be drawn is not that researchers in such fields tend to be more biased, tricking, cheating and therefore more incorrect results are published, but rather that industry is not much interested in such results and the level of scientific rigor is much lower than in hard sciences like quantitative physics or engineering, for which I didn't find a single meta-survey.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: What is a "result"?

Many industry papers I've seen do not contain any hard results anyway, but just report some andectodal evidence how they improved some software they used. I doubt there can be anything "wrong" there.

It's not as if they contained plenty of wrong proofs.
Upvotes: 0


<issue_start>username_0: My advisor recently mentioned that the point of publishing throughout your PhD is so your committee doesn't have to read your dissertation to determine whether it's sufficient for a PhD--if you have enough publications in peer-reviewed conferences/journals, the committee can just rubber stamp the dissertation without effort. For context, the field is computer science and engineering.

Is really the point? Obviously publishing work throughout the PhD is important, but to me this seems a dumb reason. I thought the point was to be continually learning and developing as a scholar, not to publish a series of half-baked papers so your committee can avoid reading your work several years down the line. Perhaps I am being idealistic.<issue_comment>username_1: Some thoughts on this:

* It certainly helps the committee if (parts of) the thesis were
already assessed before - along the lines of "If somebody else already said that
this is good then it can't be that bad after all".
* It also helps the student to convince the committee that this is
mature enough for graduation (same argument as above).
* Some universities allow cumulative theses i.e. introduction + 3\*
pdfs of first authorship papers + discussion. (\* the number depends
on the field). This is mainly as writing a thesis with several hundred pages is something you will never need again even if you continue in science. Most fields just publish in short journal article nowadays and writing 200 pages about a content that can be covered in 5 pages is not a skill you need (and nobody wants to read these 200 pages (including your committee)) - sounds mean but it is like this.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: One of the requirements in my school is that the **writing** in a thesis should be of "publishable standard". One way of quickly ticking that particular box is to have published some of it already, so in that respect, the examiner won't have to read the whole thesis specifically thinking "but is this writing publishable?". That will make their job slightly easier. Plus, peer reviewed publications can strengthen your argument. But (in the UK, where we have an oral exam, too) the examiners still have to understand the research well enough to ask intelligent questions and find any flaws. It seems false economy to eschew the full and complete thesis you have in your hands in favour of hunting down a short series of (page-limited) publications.

That said, it's also perfectly possible to pass with no previous publications.
Upvotes: 1


<issue_start>username_0: Dutch universities have an arguably peculiar academic calendar: each semester breaks down in two blocks (actually 3, but only 2 are teaching blocks) so 4 blocks in total. Each full course is block-long (around 32-36 hours per block, usually 7 *teaching* weeks with 4-6 hours per week) which might seems short and "rushed". Each such course is 4-6 ECTS.

When I am talking with some other Dutch colleagues, they are not exactly able to justify this but they claim that "is about quality, not quantity". Sure, but how can you teach, for example, Calculus in 34 hours total *including* tutorials etc.? (I am using the example of calculus because they try to fit in such a course single and multi-variate calculus, series, differential equations etc.).

Anyway, I am wondering if there exists any particular study or report that argues that is more beneficial to have more blocks with fewer hours per block/course than the traditional break-out of the academic calendar.

I am not sure if other countries have similar systems, Netherlands is the only one I know so it might be country-specific.<issue_comment>username_1: I doubt that there is a demonstrated benefit, but I also doubt that it is a problem or an issue. The length of a term is basically arbitrary. The number of credits assigned to a "term length course" is just a number. What matters is that (a) there is a fair amount of consistence within a system and (b) that a translation to other systems is possible and rational.

Some national systems are historical and based on the country's past. In the US, terms were heavily influenced by the agricultural past. In some countries, say UK, terms are somewhat determined by religious holidays and conventions. But, if a student has some sense that the system behaves in a stable and predictable manner, then it isn't an issue.

Universities are good about knowing how to do the translations when students move from one system to another. Again, no real issue.

But, I'll guess that over, say a year, a student from The Netherlands and one from UK or US who applies him/herself equally to the study, will learn about the same.

Breaking up a total curriculum into more or fewer longer or shorter "chunks" with more or fewer credit numbers is not especially relevant as long as the student knows what to expect.

Trying to do it 36 contact course what other do in 45, would possibly be an issue, but even that can be "about the same" depending on what students are expected to do overall and what is expected of them when not face to face with a professor.

Local consistency and predictability is enough.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Your question is unclear. Your real problem seems to be with the amount of contact hours, as you put in the comments:

"A typical course consists of about twelve 2-hour lectures plus a set of six 2-hour tutorials. In this duration it is supposed to cover the entire content of a semester-long course (which typically is 48+ contact hours)."

But the amount of contact hours has nothing to do with the use of a 4 block year rather than a 2 block year (i.e. semesters). The amount of contact hours differs per course and each university does it differently; there is no law that decides this\*. Some universities prefer very few contact hours, others more. That is not really a property of the Dutch education system as a whole.

Having said that, Dutch universities do rely heavily on self-study, although I'm sure universities in other countries do too. A course that takes up 5 ECTS (=140h) in 10 weeks will take a student 14h per week. Any number of this might be contact hours, but usually it will range from 2 to 6 hours. The rest will be filled up with self-study, which includes reading material, doing assignments, and everything else.

I couldn't find any research about what the best ratio of contact hours to self-study is. But at my university, and at others as well from what I've seen, courses are evaluated through individual student feedback and student committees every year, which is treated seriously by the university. Courses change every year to better fit the needs of students and the appropriate learning goals and difficulty level.

Looking internationally, Dutch universities rank pretty well: several, especially the technical universities, frequently rank within the top 100 globally. So it seems to be working fine.

\*Since 2013 Bachelor degrees are mandated to have at least 12 contact hours in the first year. Other than that universities can do as they like.
Upvotes: 1


<issue_start>username_0: I am quite early in my PhD program, and am deciding on what tool to use to write my documentation, principally my thesis. My prefered tool would be markdown / latex, but my primary supervisor really does not like it, to the point that collaboration with this involves printing the document, hand writing notes on it and me transcribing these notes to the original. My supervisors prefered tool is microsoft word, but I use linux and running a virtual box just to do my writing is a significant drain on the resources of my computer, I am often writing while running computations.

We are currently preparing a paper on the initial work of my PhD, and this is being done successfully through google docs. Would this be an appropriate tool to use for my whole thesis?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> My prefered tool would be markdown / latex, but my primary supervisor really does not like it, to the point that collaboration with this involves printing the document, hand writing notes on it and me transcribing these notes to the original.
>
>
>

This is an excellent way to collaborate!

>
> We are currently preparing a paper on the initial work of my PhD, and this is being done successfully through google docs. Would this be an appropriate tool to use for my whole thesis?
>
>
>

Google Docs is as good as Microsoft Word, LibreOffice, etc. Personally I think they are all awful for academic writing.

Perhaps your supervisor can use [Overleaf](https://www.overleaf.com/)? You can then use LaTeX/git in the usual way.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: it's a very convenient tool. You might use it for most of your drafts, work, and review. There's many easy ways to get at the docs, and you can name revisions (so that you don't have a bazillion copies).

You may find it doesn't have the layout features needed for your work, or expected of people in your field in order to look professional and similar to your peers and predecessors.

In all cases, you need to make backups in various places, and make those copies regularly. Set a calendar reminder. Google makes errors with google drive. I have lost files. No one will cut you slack. Google owes you nothing for a free service, and only marginally more if you pay them.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I just successfully defended my Ph.D. thesis, which was written entirely in Google Docs.

But I was able to do that because it worked well for my particular situation. I'm in bioinformatics, and my thesis didn't include any complex equations. So LaTeX didn't offer much of an advantage. And honestly I've tried it in the past and found myself far less productive. I'd often spend more time fiddling with markup than writing. This is consistent with [research](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0115069) that suggests LaTeX is less productive than a GUI word processor when you're not using LaTeX for its strength (complex equations). For a while I wanted to move to LaTeX so I could track changes with source control like git. But then I realized Google Docs' edit history takes care of that in an arguably better interface.

But perhaps the most important factor is that *my thesis advisor uses Google Docs too*. That's what really made it a good idea to use it to write manuscripts and my thesis. If your collaborators don't use the same platform, you'll spend a lot of time doing conversions back and forth, and lose out on a lot of the advantages your platform offers. So remember to weigh that in. Maybe your preferred platform offers so much that it's worth the cost, but if your coauthors don't use it, that'll really raise the bar.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: It is perfectly acceptable, if both of you agrees. My recommendation is to try to find a citation manager that can work with Google Docs, though. It makes life a lot easier.

On the other hand, you can also give **online Microsoft Office** (office 365) a try. Many universities provides free access, some Microsoft plans also. That could be a good trade-off as well.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_5: If you do have a strong preference for Latex, you might have a look at [Pandoc](https://pandoc.org/). It allows you to convert from Latex to Microsoft Word documents and back again.

It's not perfect (can get a bit tricky with bibliography etc), but I've found it pretty good for collaborators who refuse Latex. Best used if the conversions are infrequent (since it does require some troubleshooting), and if the person is commenting but not adding substantially new, formatted content. It sounds like this might match your use case though!
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: This really depends on your stakeholders: it is more a people problem than a technical problem. If your advisors / readers are set in their ways (MS-Word Client vs Web-Collaboration tools) then you are in all likeliness fighting an uphill battle that will prolong your tour in academia.

Only you know whether your advisor will support your bid to use Google-Docs or a particular tool. If your advisor has said "no", you would be well-advised to either use the prescribed tools or find another advisor.
Upvotes: 0