I’m finishing my dissertation and entering the world of a tenure track assistant professor. Does this sound like a good strategy for publishing?
- Find a topic for a review article
- Find a relationship (or a couple) to support a meta-analysis
- A paper (or more!) from my dissertation
- A replication study
- Joining 1 (at most 2) other projects from faculty at my new institution
This could put me on track for 5 or more hits before I’m up for tenure. Thoughts?
Here are some bits from comments:
- Field is Information Systems (business school, behavioral not economic)
- I’ll be at a hybrid University (some would probably say leaning teaching)
- 2/3 teaching load
- summer support for research for first 2 summers
- Tenure requirements are 5 hits with 1 preferred in our top journals (6 to choose from with some flexibility)
Would there be any reason a paper cannot be submitted to arXiv if it’s already on ResearchGate (assuming it’s on an topic accepted by arXiv)?
I am wondering what would be the correct year to use for this book?:
On the page it says 2014, and on google scholar I see that other people have used 2014. But inside the book as can be seen here
it says copyright 2015. What year should I put for it?
I’m curious as to how long postdoc positions in math usually last for. I’m far away from thinking much about this myself but all my grad student friends seem to be telling me they only last a year or two. Now I know people don’t want a postdoctoral position that’s too long, but I’m getting the sense that postdocs in math are both less common and generally shorter than post docs in other areas. I’m wondering if this is true or if I’m just getting the wrong idea as an undergrad from a relatively small pool of graduate students. Primarily I’m just curious as to how long these positions usually last in mathematics.
For grading exams, I usually assign points to the exercises in such a way they sum to 100, and then I correct the exams by giving partial points based on such assignment.
Lately, I feel this is a poor choice: students which obviously don’t get the topic sometimes get acceptable grades (because they sum some points for every exercise), while some students who understand the topic get bad grades (because they didn’t do all the exercises, but some exercises they completed very well). Is there any resource (i.e. book or article) discussing this methodology of grading? What are the alternatives?
I think I’d like a grading methodology that analyses the whole of the exam not as the sum of the parts, but first I’d like to read about pros and cons.
I have been involved in a research lab for a while now. I have a set of peers who work on related, yet non-overlapping fields.
I find myself uncomfortable when other’s works get accepted in some research venue (journal or conferences). And, so do I believe that others feel the same when my work gets accepted.
However, though it might be common in the research labs, I feel it is not a good sign and it, in some way, restricts me to open up my discussion on my ideas on any problems. Further, others also do not discuss much on their own ideas and their working problems. It is obvious that discussion among peers could lead to better research and outcomes.
- Is it common for others who have experienced such behavior during their graduate studies? Or, is it a paranoia?
- How to handle such uncomfortable feeling inside the lab and feel positive?
I did speak with some of my professors and still, I can not let this useless feeling go away from my brain.
Why do some professors arrange meetings to give updates about their ongoing work? The updates are certainly exciting, especially for the other people who have been in the lab for awhile and was involved in the work in some small way. But these meetings are also open to visitors, and visiting professors and post docs come too. Isn’t there a fear of outsiders (or even insiders) scooping the ideas and beating them to publication? Although I highly doubt that, but I’m curious to know.
This summer, I present a paper at two conferences. I submitted the paper to the conferences earlier this year, then improved it significantly and submitted it to a journal where it is now under review.
I now presented/am going to present my paper with the updated contents, in the form more or less identical to what I submitted to the journal (i.e., no differences that would be visible in a 15-minute presentation), because it makes no sense to present the old version with certain weakpoints.
Now, I seem to have sparked interest in fellow researchers that came to me after my presentation. One wants her Master student’s thesis to include a large, comparative literature review, for which she would love to receive the full version of my paper.
The other is researching in the same area and would like to “just” read my paper, without having mentioned any “specific” usage.
Can I send to them the most updated version of my paper, in the form that is currently submitted and under review at the journal? I understand that me distributing the paper when I actually want the journal to publish it and distribute it for me could be a problem.
Should I disclose this to the journal? Their guidelines for authors mention only submissions to other journals explicitly.
Furthermore, is it common practice or perhaps risky to send out relatively finished papers that are sent out to a journal? I would overlay a watermark over all pages, “do not circulate” or similar, is this reasonable?
One of the two people asked me if I submitted already, and I told her it is under review. I was not sure how to interpret that she asked this question.
I want to include an image in my lecture-note paper written in English. The image elements are fully made with non-English language. Below I show a part of the image:
I use this image because a reviewer commented:
The authors could have given fig 1 with the actual example of the
And the contest data is Persian, however I want to publish it in prestigious proceedings.
I want to know if it is wrong to exactly use the data or I shall use the translated format?
During my undergraduate years, I spent a lot of time studying Physics and Mathematics. I did all that I could. Is there no way that I can get a PhD degree in physics? And by physics, I don’t mean some specific field where medicine and physics combine. I’m concerned about other fields in physics. I want to be a physicist.