There really is only one topic that I find interesting, useful and that I have alot of knowledge of. However students of previous years had already chosen this topic and written Bachelors thesis on it.
How bad would it be if at least half of my thesis was already researched in previous years thesis?
I’ve come to the conclusion that my advisor is incompetent (he does not have a good understanding of the fundamentals and doesn’t know how to judge or generate research ideas). I mainly chose to work with him because he works in the research area I’m interested in. Having interacted with him for a couple of months now, I feel very confident that he doesn’t deserve to be here and didn’t earn his name on most of his publications. He was recently hired and I would be surprised if he got tenured.
Having said that, I actually think I’m strong enough to conduct research independently. However, I’m very worried of what could happen down the road. I want to get a faculty position and you get hired based on on many factors: the recommendations you receive and the reputation of your advisor are perhaps one of the most important. Isn’t it just a disaster to have such an advisor, even if you have a good publication record?
I have extensively researched about a new area as part of my Doctoral research and want to write and publish a review article in some Science Citation Indexed (SCI) journal. But the problem is that there are only about 20 articles published till date on this new area. I have seen many review papers on other areas published in SCI journals and found that normally the number of cited and referenced articles are quite high (sometimes even above 300 papers). And then there are non-SCI journals where review papers are having very less number of cited and referenced articles (20-50 or more).
And by established, I mean something that of course already exists be it in a textbook or another research text. I ask because I am developing/researching a what could be said to be quite original concept on my personal time but I feel that it is too idiosyncratic to be even given a thought, and the fact is perhaps offer no value most major journals will not accept it due to its concepts not being attached much to something already existing. Of course, there are other papers I am referencing and citing in the paper but the concept overall is not something I think is of much interest. If it helps, the concept is developing vector spaces over the field of surreal numbers to provide a basis for studying algebro-geometric concepts in a surreal analytic framework. The journals I considered are Compositio Mathematica and AMS.
Based on the papers I’ve read submitted to the aforesaid journals, they seem to prove fairly substantial results dealing with well established existing concepts. This doesn’t seem to come near what I am doing since my concept is infant.
Also, I am still in high school and am afraid of publishing. Will being a high schooler be put against me? Since I always hear if you are a high schooler your concepts be it whatever have no relevance. I am not trying to prove a major result or anything; just get my concepts out there. I’ve considered arXiv as an initial step to getting whatever research I have noticed but it requires sponsorship which I don’t think will make its way to me.
I want to write a review article in a particular narrow area of interest as part of my Doctoral research. But there is already a review article on that area published 2 years ago. So can I write a review paper on that area ?
I have two offers for a physics PhD in the UK. Both are great choices and I don’t really have a preference. However, neither is funded so far and on both sides, the PIs are actively looking for funding and I think the chances are very good that I will eventually get it.
Both universities have a deadline for acceptance by the end of the February and the funding situation certainly will not be resolved by then. What do I do? I’m essentially ready to commit to whoever has funding. Should I accept both offers now and withdraw from one later (assuming this is allowed) or should I ask for an extension from both?
I have two questions regarding writing of survey papers
Firstly, if one of the technical papers reviewed has a number of figures. Take for example: Figure 4 is “Data model” and Figure 8 is “Mechanism structure”. In the survey paper is it enough modification (for a waver of official permission) to merge these two into one figure and cite. Say, Figure X: Data model and Mechanism Structure adapted from [ref]?
Secondly, in the case when author A proposes “Data model” and “mechanism structure” in paper  and  i.e four entirely different diagrams. Is it sufficient as modification (for a waver for official permission) if in a survey, all four combined in one figure.
Thanks in advance
Recently, as a fresh graduate with a BSc in both physics and mathematics, I’ve met up with a mathematics professor from a University in my home country.
During the discussion, he asked for my motivation in collaborating and I’ve made it clear to him that my objective is
1) To indulge in research during my time in industry
2) To obtain significant research experiences during the period in which we collaborate to strengthen my application for graduate admission.
We will be working on two future research directions built on a previously published paper of his. I have been told not to share the two future research directions until the paper is published. Further, he has not commenced on this research project yet due to teaching commitments.
But, currently, I am picking up background knowledge related to this paper while familiarising myself with his previously published paper that is related to this current research.
This research looks something on the level of an Msc or honours level thesis.
He has made it clear that in collaborating, he expects results.
In academia parlance, is it clear to academics that given (2) or the fact that he expects results, it is implicitly known that I expect a co-authorship?
If it isn’t, how should I broach this topic?
If it is, how do I ensure that he sticks to his word, assuming I do make a reasonable amount of contribution?
To what degree should transparency be ensured?
I got a revise and resubmit after a 4 month review, submitted a revision and, after another 4 month review, got a provisional acceptance with minor and clerical comments to be addressed, and was asked to submit my response within two weeks. I did response within two weeks, which is almost two months ago at this point.
I don’t want to be annoying but a) should I email the editor (through the submission website); and b) if yes, what would be an appropriate way to frame the email? I had in mind something like:
I am emailing to check on the status of my provisionally accepted manuscript (ID=xxx). Please let me know if there is any further information you need and thank you for your continued attention.
If it is relevant, this is a decent psychology journal. Thanks for any feedback.