I’m involved in a PhD studies in computer science. My topic is about E-learning software engineering modeling using patterns. My dissertation is under evaluation right now and I hope to defend my thesis soon in the next few days or weeks. In the meantime I am preparing myself for the defense itself.

Having started my literature review in 2010 (so based on article published 1, 2, 3, 4 or more years before 2010) so 6 years and half ago, I have then found what seemed to be strong arguments to motivate my thesis topic at that time, I mean that educational researchers finger:

  • shortfalls behind educational software: poor analysis, poor design, ignorance of the pedagogical theoretical aspects.
  • that current educational software are not really adapted to the pedagogical requirements because they ignore or do not take enough
    account of the pedagogical theoretical aspects known in the
    literature as the «psychological learning theory».
  • educational software still match only the Web 1.0 standards and not the Web X.0 with X>1.

Of course I have updated my literature review many times during the past 6 years and half.

I feel very uncomfortable to defend those arguments stated above today or in the next few days as they seem very outdated. So being conscientious of that I have started a few weeks ago to do a little literature review on the topic based on recent articles (2012-now). But as you can guess maybe, research in that area seemed to have moved on to other concerns.

I want to have the best rendering I can of my thesis at the defense activity, If even I have to update certain things.

Did some of you dealt with the same issues as stated above? If some people here know about some interesting articles about the topic, let me know please. Thank you in advance.

Data are available publicly on several websites e.g. icpsr, databank, UK Data Archive. I am seeking guidelines, references and examples about using these open data for research. In other words, I want to publish a paper based on analyzing some publicly available datasets. Do I need permission first or they are available actually for me to use them in my research ?

I emailed a professor about possible openings for graduate studies in a certain research group and he answered me like this:

Your background looks great. Unfortunately, I recently recruited a graduate student. I have been working on grant proposals. If they get funded, I will have money to support more students. I will let you know, if plan changes.

How should i answer this email?

Is it polite to wish him luck? or should I send a simple thank you for reading my resume? or combining both and also saying that I “look forward to hearing from you” or something in that matter? It’s really important for me to make a good impression.

(I am not a native speaker by the way)

I’m working in chemical engineering field and being mathematician and programmer I’m conducting simulations and mathematical modeling problem solving. Basically the battery processes simulations. There is a problem with my chemists colleagues who can’t really help in theory regarding the processes inside of batteries that needs to be modeled. The question is, is it my responsibility to learn chemistry, electrochemistry etc in order to be able to build the math model of the processes by myself not relying on chemists? What is the general practice in this case in the world? Or do people in other research groups and/or universities hire mathematician-chemists specialists for this purpose?

I’m kind of being blamed for making slow progress and I feel like I don’t fit into this group as not knowing chemistry field. Publications though can be made using commercial software but ideally I want to be able to build the model of the battery without relying on other software that does it for you, as it is introducing some restrictions.

I am currently having an issue with someone I know in that every time we debate about a single item, and he knows that he’s wrong, he will turn it into a kind of broad-spectrum topic and then we start debating metaphysics or something completely unrelated to the original topic. He’s taken philosophy and I haven’t and I feel unequipped to counter his points when I know that I made a pretty established argument. It’s driving me nuts.

For example, i’ll say that subject “A” is a fact and has been proven by science (gravity for example). To me, the existence of gravity is a hard fact and demonstrable. However, he’ll counter with something like “well it’s only a fact to what humans can percieve, there’s nothing that says the next time I throw a ball in the air it won’t keep going up.”

The problem I’m having is, well, I have to concede it’s true; that is incredibly unlikely but he just ruined my argument that gravity is a fact by basically saying that in the vastness of the universe and how we can’t predict everything and haven’t seen EVERYTHING it’s not %100. It’s 99.99999%. so he uses that little bit as leverage, then dismisses it as subject to human error.

Basically he relies heavily on the idea that humans are ignorant and he thinks it’s silly that scientists claim to know things when none of it is absolutely 100% which is true, that there is so much out there in the universe and reality that it’s foolish to predict things, we can NEVER know everything and we never will, so to him absolutely everything falls under the label of “only applies as humans percieve it” opening the argument up to the idea that there are different sciences and maths out there and ways of doing things completely unknown to us and unlike anything on earth which again COULD be possible.

My stance is that science does and can prove things, and that the wild assertions like his are a) not useful to guess at, and b) so unlikely that it’s absurd to suggest otherwise based on hard evidence and c) that since I am a human and I care about humanity I value the perspective of humans more than anything else because it applies directly to me and my entire race–AKA the only percievers that matter at this time. But he keeps making these crazy refutations of again for example somehting as solid as gravity, and then basically says that humans are too stupid to know anything for sure and because of that he doesn’t have to accept that gravity exists.

Can someone please explain to me what the technical terms are for our opposing views? And perhaps link me some methods that I can use ammunition agaisnt his mode of thought? I’m not stupid enough to completely dismiss his idea but it’s just too unlikely and not a useful way of thinking to me. I honestly think he uses this as a sort of scapegoat to get out of conceding to my arguments which is not fair. I heard it’s called epistomology or something like that? Basically I’m more of the “there are established truths” mode of thought. Like I claim to know that 2+2=4 but then rather than jsut agreeing he’ll counter with something rediculous like “well math doesn’t actually exist and heres why “….. etc etc. and then becomes an argument about the existence of math and language and I have to justify my answer by proving that math exists! totally avoiding the essence of the argument witch was that 2+2 does in fact equal 4.

I have done some discoveries concerning signal processing from about 6 years which I think are quiet important advances but I never have time to finish the works. As example I know that the main application are new on my field but I am not sure the theory does not exists on other fields. The links with other theories are not fully established yet, so I do not know exactly what is new and what is not. I do not want for now to be judged by peer reviewers which risk to only examine what is bad on the paper but I found it a pitty to not share those discoveries so I am thinking by submitting as preprint, and after some years and maybe some advices/correction from some readers, submitting it on a peer reviewed journal.

If I do that, and someone publish the same ideas after (particularly if they do not cite me, because they do imagine those ideas come from them or are obvious), will I still be able to publish it since reviewers can oppose me that those ideas are not new anymore ? Journals could not see the interrest of publishing works which are already known by the community on the only aim to help me to claim my anteriority.

So to sum up, if a reviewer reject a paper because the ideas already exist from other works but those works are posterior to the preprint, can I ask to editor to not take this opposition into account?

Is there examples of important papers published years after their preprints? In that case should it be adapted to explain what others have done of your works ?

In February-2016, I have undertaken my thesis. That was the topic proposed by my supervisor on my request. I started to work on the project and finding that I am actually short of various topics/knowledge(theoretical and practical). I still contacted the supervisor and he passed me in my lab and told me to continue the work.

The last date of my thesis submission is 2016–09–15.

I have been started to have a feeling that I wouldn’t be able to complete the thesis. Coz, my previous knowledge is not sufficient to complete the lab-project and hence the thesis.

What would be the consequence if I am unable to submit the thesis?

What would be the most appropriate measure I should take to save my thesis/career/semester/grade and so on?

If one applies to a bunch of universities, in two programs each, One is Masters math/stats and the other in Masters Financial eng/fin math/ computational fin. If it fair to assume that one will get into a university with better reputation (overall) with the math/stats application than with the MFE applications?