According to SHERPA/RoMEO, many journals permit post-review preprints to be uploaded immediately to an author’s “personal website”, but apply an embargo period to “open access repositories” (example).
ResearchGate claim that individuals’ profile pages on their site count as “personal websites” for these purposes, and thus that it is OK to upload to ResearchGate immediately. Is this true?
The fully correct answer to this is probably “we don’t know until/unless a publisher sues and there is case law”. But I’m interested in any pronouncements or arguments that have been made on the topic.
There are a lot of questions about ResearchGate and about sharing preprints on this site. I don’t think that this is a duplicate of any of them… To clarify, following the close votes – I am asking specifically for the journal policies explained above, whether I can take the specific action described – not vaguely “is it OK to put published articles on RG”.
I am an undergraduate senior becoming a graduate MS/PhD next year; in addition, I’m an EE student and my research interest lies in wireless comm PHY.
However, I’ve heard a lot about how the prospect of PHY research in wireless comm is losing its light. In general, the main interests of today’s PHY research are things like MIMO, mmwave, etc. The problem is that these research themes are too mature; the theoretical bounds are almost established and only infinitesimal improvements are being made.
In network layer, still, interesting themes exist such as IoT or cyber-physical system. In comparison, PHY’s prospect seems diminishing. Is it true that PHY is dead? Or is there any hot field in PHY that is fresh and has a promising future?
As a student who is just about to become a currently MS/PhD, I want to know how PHY’s prospect is. Is it really dead or is there any solution? Should I become a 100% PHY expect or move to network layer?
I am a student of Pure Mathematics and wanted to work in Linear Algebra,Abstract Algebra etc.. I entered a PhD program in 2015 in a University.
My adivisor wanted a scholar to work in the field of Graph Theory.
My advisor works in the field of Cryptography and said previously that though he could not publish anything in Graph Theory but he is very keen to work here.
He said that he has connections in this field to whom he can send me if I have doubts in Graph Theory which he can’t answer.Also he said he will start reading with me and told me that we two will have a great time.
Believing him I took up research in Spectral Graph Theory.I read some books in this field and started having doubts.I asked him about that but he simply said that he is too busy to look into my problems because of his conferences and asked me leave them.
Also he told me that he is developing ties with other advisors in this field but he has not yet succeeded and it will take time.
In one year,he has not ever sat with me and discussed any problem nor has he advised me which books to read as he says that it is the work of the scholar to find out new problems and decide what to read and what not.He says his guide also treated him the same way.
Though he has 6-8 scholars where some have completed and 2-3 have submitted there PhD and working as part-time lecturers. I am his first scholar in the recent 3-4 years and he assured me all sorts of co-operation if I join him.
He told me that he wants to broaden his field of research and that’s why he wanted me to work here.
Can I leave him?But if I join somewhere else they will ask me what I was doing in these two years,what should I say them?
What should I do?Is this what happens in a PhD?
Isn’t there any role of a guide in ones PhD?
Please help me with some of your advice.Thank you very much
I am a PhD student in computer science. My advisor keeps telling me I need to read papers, but I find most of them really long and boring, no matter what field they are in (but especially if there are a lot of math equations). Usually my mind starts wandering after one or two pages.
My advisor thinks I should read one or two papers a day (apparently he does this himself), but if I followed his instructions (and yes, I’ve tried doing that), I would literally spend the whole day reading papers, or 20% reading papers and 80% procrastinating.
I am perfectly capable of reading papers if there’s something specific I want to gain from the paper (like if the paper is really relevant to my project, or if I need to implement an algorithm from the paper). But I have a hard time doing broad literature reviews and getting to know a field if I don’t have a specific problem in mind. A lot of times I just end up not doing them.
Does this automatically make me a bad researcher, and what are some ways I can compensate for my short attention span?
I have been given a great opportunity to work as a research assistant. I will be working under this researcher (and her team) for about 5 months. I was only suppose to start in mid-January. But she said she would like to hire me as a research assistant for the next few weeks (full-time). She said she will be paying me (and the rate /hr is surprisingly high). Come mid-January (when I was suppose to start) I will not be allowed to be payed for my work (school rules). Anyways, this work can be done anywhere (I do not need to be in a specific location to do it). Thus, she told me to track all of my hours and then send her a bill in January. I guess, sort of like what contractors do. I have never had a paid job before, let alone a research position. I am wondering, is this usual? I could potentially earn 2 000 dollars over the next couple weeks. However, I feel like this is too much money. I feel as though I should understate the hours I worked. However, at the same time if I did that she would know I didn’t work “full-time”. This is all new to me so it would be great if someone with experience can make sense of this for me.
Which graduate programs are available for a person with strong mathematics background (in addition to pure math)? I have looked at biostatistics, applied statistics and data sciences so far. I am specifically interested in programs which allows one to use their mathematical skills to an new field.
I am getting my phd degree (in a STEM field) at a Top 20 department in a year or two, and I truly love my field, but I’m not sure if I should try for jobs at academia.
The thing is, I feel that I am way too competitive. I know this isn’t a healthy attitude, but I cannot stop comparing myself with smarter people consistently and feeling stupid and inferior later, and I always care about people’s opinions on me too much. Back when I was an undergraduate, I felt terrible even if I got fewer scores on homework assignments than my peers/friends. I don’t have hostility against people who are smarter than me; I really don’t. But I admit that I feel really uncomfortable while being surrounded by people who are much better than me.
Having said that, I still do not want to give up working on my field, but I still cannot concentrate my mind completely on my research in order to ignore how I rank among others. Is my issue solvable? I really appreciate your advice, not to mention this is a really hard topic to discuss with others in real life.
My question was provoked by this comment, and the fairly popular responses to it. I’ve seen similar sentiment expressed before, though always as asides rather than any direct ‘accusation’.
In my country (UK) and perhaps the West overall, academic dishonesty is a cardinal sin – whether committed by students or especially by researchers. As a completing PhD student who returned from industry I can see why: the whole system depends on trust to a degree that frankly surprised me a little initially*. The threat to one’s name and career that dishonesty would pose looms far larger than any potential benefits.
Are academic cultures from other countries more lax on this point? Are researchers from these countries more likely to prioritise “getting ahead at all costs” over the validity of their work? Do the comments I’ve seen reflect informal prejudice (perhaps widely held but nonetheless anecdotal), or an objectively evidenced phenomena?
Surely the scientific output from such a culture would be completely bankrupt? At minimum I cannot see how such a system (which serves to keep scientists in jobs more than producing new knowledge) would interface with the West’s: on an individual level at least, once someone is outed as a charlatan many potential employers and collaborators will not touch them with a barge pole.
To reiterate, I am asking whether there is evidence that some countries or academic cultures take a more relaxed view on dishonesty. I’m also interested in what the consequences are for the international standing of those cultures and their scientists.
*Industry benefits from the natural selection of frequently reused ideas by high, proximal cost of failure. The scientific equivalent should in theory be replication…
I had a paper accepted by a journal of Elsevier, and it went under production for 3 months. Yet the production team has not been able to fix certain problems with typesetting which appeared during the proofreading. After the first month, I received the proofreading notification. The first production of my paper was really bad: a lot of errors in equations, symbols, figures and tables. So I prepared and submitted a lengthy list of request for correction, with as much information as possible.
A few days later, I received a strange email from the journal manager (who is said to be affiliated with Elsevier Global Journals Production), telling me that the production team has to ignore my request as it may cause them too much trouble. I gave a full explanation to this manager about how bad it is with the production and the request has to been processed. In the end, the manager agreed to make the corrections. HE/SHE AGREED.
Two or three weeks later, my paper went directly online (early access), with all the typesetting problems unfixed, and even had some extra new problems. I was very worried because my paper DOI already took effect. I never heard of a paper which is already put online (for public download) can be fixed again. The journal manager apologized to me, saying that the production team was busy with other papers, but they will fix the problems and get back to me with another proofreading. Two months have passed, and I have yet to receive my second proofreading.
I fear the production team is just trying to avoid the proofreading by intentionally postponing, in an attempt to reach a point where it becomes officially impossible to make changes. As a matter of fact, my paper’s official issue date is coming near, and the production team is probably already planning to have an early Christmas.
What shall I do to change the result?
NOTE: And NO, it is not about aesthetics.
Our group of researchers (~15 people) came to an agreement that it would be a good idea to have a database of journal articles that are worth sharing. Our department is becoming more and more focused on one direction, so it would save a lot of time for us to simply check what others have already read and suggested. In addition, the plan would also be to write a short summary (by the person who has read it) why this paper has been read and what does it offer (sometimes abstract is not enough). The questions I have are:
Is there available tool that would allow us to do so easily?
All of us have access to most of the non-open access journals, but is it okay if the papers are shared (in *.pdf) between our group, especially if the database is in the cloud?
Do you have a similar system in your research group? If no, how do you share ‘worth reading’ articles?
So far, we were thinking to use Dropbox, OneDrive or other service to store this information and provide access to each of us, but we are not sure if it is safe and how to make it efficient.
Please let me know your opinions about this idea and what do you use yourselves.