In the paper I am currently writing I cite works by Bill Smith and Fred Smith.

I refer to them both several times, as several of Bill Smith’s papers provide the basis for some of the techniques I am using, and Fred Smith’s work provides origin for the dataset I am using.
This dataset is commonly called The Smith Corpus.

Currently my paper has a paragraph (boldface mine):

We use the Smith corpus (Smith 2010), as prepared by Johnson et al (2015).
This corpus is partitioned into test, development and training subsets, and has minor clean-up from the original data collected by Smith (2010).
It is also used by Smith et al (2016) and Otter et al (2016).

Where the all uses of Smith, except the last refer to Fred Smith.
Only Smith et al (2016) refers to Bill Smith.

Anyone who checks the references section will realize that these are different people.
But the citation style I am using, is a surname–year style.
So on a casual reading, one might expect the techniques in question to have been introduced in one of Bill Smith’s papers. However, this is incorrect: It is first used in this area by a third author, John Johnson (whom I also cite), then later by Bill Smith, and Sam Otter.

Bill Smith he refers to the corpus as the Smith Corpus in his paper – without qualification in any way.

Is there anything I should be doing about this possible confusion?
Or can I trust the reader to check the reference list if they want the details on who actually did what?

Would it be allowable (or prudent) to resubmit a book proposal to a press where it was once rejected, provided it was revised afterwards? If so, what elements should be different or included in the new proposal, besides an updated writing portfolio/CV (i.e. a note on how and where it was edited)?

This is a question on the historicity of impact factors for journals. There are hundreds of questions and websites on the impact factor of journals, or journal rankings (and fake rankings and impact factors).

I was wondering:

  • When did rankings and impact factors become so prominent in academia?

  • Was there a general and widely shared decision by national governments or scientific societies that now, impact factors are the most important aspect for research and publications?

  • Was there a lack of clarity or even dissatisfaction with journals, publishers etc. among academic scholars that they pushed for certain (quantitative) standards?

Any research study or own experience is very welcome!

My name is Ioana Simona Oncica and I am an MSc student in Occupational Psychology at the University of the West of England, Bristol.

I am working on my dissertation and I would really appreciate a little help. I need participants to complete a 10 minutes online survey. (very important is that you are employed- full-time or part-time).

Survey link:
https://uwe.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1MRWi7GjeGud6G9

I am interested in studying how satisfaction of basic psychological needs at work (Autonomy, Competence and Relatedness) influences the relationship between leadership style and levels of stress at work.

The link above also contains detailed information regarding the study’s aim and methods, as well as completion instructions.Your responses will be anonymous (i.e. any information that can identify you will be removed) and analysed for my research project.

I am doing this research under the supervision of Dr Tim Moss (details below) and he will be the only one to access to the data stored. You can withdraw from the study anytime until certain points beyond which it will be impossible to withdraw from the research- for instance, when I have submitted my dissertation (September, 2017). My contact email is: ioana2.oncica@live.uwe.ac.uk

At the end of the study I will be more than happy to answer any questions you have about my project, and fully debrief you.

If you have further questions about this research please contact my research supervisor: Associate Professor Dr Tim Moss, Department of Health and Social Sciences, Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol BS16 1QY
Email: Tim.Moss@uwe.ac.uk

I would really appreciate your help!!Thank you very much!

I have been confused with the present status of my manuscript whose status follows the following timeline:

  1. Manuscript initially submitted through Editorial Manager (Springer): 25 Jan 2017
  2. Under Review: 27 Feb 2017 till 9 Jun 2017
  3. Reviews completed: 10 Jun 2017 till 22 Jun 2017
  4. Editor assigned: 22 Jun 2017

The journal is in the field of Computer Science and Computational Mechanics (Applied Computer Science).

My inferences from the above strange timeline:

  1. The reviews have been completed and the system administrator or the journal manager assigned the editor (who is assumed to be associated with it earlier) to take care of the review reports and make a call.
  2. The number of review reports is not sufficient. It would be re-reviewed and handled by another editor.
  3. It is a software issue or a bug.

I have the following questions:

  • Whether is my inference correct?
  • As one can see, it has been 6 months already. Is it too early to send a gentle reminder to the editor-in-chief to look after my manuscript?
  • Is such a timeline of manuscript ‘strange’ at all? (Although it is difficult to answer this unless the editorial manager software is understood properly.)

Related posts and questions:

How do the grades of higher degrees math up with undergraduate qualifications, in terms of quality of work? I’m in the UK. At my current institution, where I’m sitting an MA

  • 70+ — Distinction
  • 60+ — Merit
  • 50+ — Pass
  • < 50 — Fail

At undergraduate, again in the UK

  • 70 — 1st
  • 60+ — 2.i
  • 50+ — 2.ii
  • 40+ — Pass

I would very much like to know if the standard of work matches up to the same percentiles, in the UK. So, not how well someone is doing on the course, but if an undergraduate dissertation could be handed in and get the same mark on a Masters. This seems unlikely, of course.

I am teaching a course in calculus. Things are generally going quite well, but since this is the first course I’ve ever taught I’m certainly not doing a perfect job. As a result, I sometimes come across lecture topics that don’t go so well, either because:

  1. I didn’t do a good job of explaining in lecture, typically because I made a mistake or glossed over something or
  2. The concept itself is just difficult, and requires a lot more time to understand than I can devote in lecture.

In these situations, I make sure that I communicate to the class that there was an issue, and I often look for or create resources like video lectures or supplementary documents that clarify things.

If I want to be 100% sure that the message I deliver is in agreement with how I’m teaching the course, I make the material myself. For instance, if there are multiple, conflicting definitions of the same term, I tend to make my own material and post it for the class in order to ensure that my definitions are consistent throughout my entire course. I’ve done this several times and my resources are well received.

However, there are resources out there that are just clearly better than anything I can whip up, at least in the time I have. Khan Academy is particularly fantastic and has great videos, activities, etc. Rather than re-invent the wheel, I will provide links to these resources when the topic is either not critical or where the resource aligns very well with how I’ve taught the concept in class. I always make sure to properly give credit and do not take credit myself for things I did not create.

I’m not sure why, but somehow this feels like “cheating”. I’m also concerned that it will be perceived as laziness on my part by the students. So the questions:

  1. Is this cheating? Should I be making my own material, in order to 100% guarantee that what my students see is consistent with how I’m teaching it?
  2. If not, is there anything I should be doing to ensure that students understand that these resources are just one part of the course, and shouldn’t be exclusively relied on?

I am at the beginning of my Ph.D. My research lies at the intersection of cognitive neuroscience and psycholinguistics, meaning that I will interact with a variety of researchers from several different fields – which should substantially broaden my horizons. However, reading the literature strictly related to those areas means I’m far less likely to keep track of developments in other areas, such as biology, physics, or computer science.

My question: how well aware should I be about major science developments that are not directly related to my area? How useful is this information for your own work?

I was just wondering if a website exists that posts openings for grad school positions. It’s a bit frustrating to go from professor’s website to website only to find they aren’t accepting students right now, or they don’t have any information about prospective students. I’m most interested in ecology/biology/conservation. Thanks!

I entered my university a year ago. I am enrolled in the master’s thesis program. I wanted to do a thesis , but none of the faculty in my department who do fluid dynamics have an opening for a new researcher in their group. It seems I wont be able to find a thesis advisor in my subfield.
What’s my best option in this situation?
is it possible to transfer schools a year in?