I think it’s a good idea, when starting a research project, to start with the most famous and reputable groups before moving on to less well-known groups. You know? As a beginner it might be hard to judge the quality of the work.

It’s too bad that the importance and prestige of groups is fairly subjective, because beginners are not likely to be able to have conversations with people who have a developed understanding of a given field. Enter StackExachange.

So, which groups are the most important and influential in the field of quantum computation? (Also, why?) I’d like to focus on superconducting circuits, trapped ions to start with, since that’s what I’m most interested in.

Groups that I’m already familiar with are the Martinis group at USCB, Monroe group at UMD, and the Schoelkopf group at Yale. Some other smaller ones are Pan (潘建伟) group at USTC, and the Schuster groups at U Chicago. Beyond these groups, I’m not familiar with any other groups on the cutting edge of the field, and it’s not totally clear how to find others.

I’m in an undegraduate program in the US where group work is a major focus in most classes. Faculty often cite the important benefits of knowing how to collaborate in teams, claiming how educational research findings strongly support collaborative learning.

I’m also a TA in a course in the department, and in our learning course, we had sections in which we strongly focused on the pitfalls of group work and how to improve the learning process (e.g. strategies to divide work, how to moderate conflict, with people who don’t pull their weight, etc.). We were assigned a few papers on research about collaborative work (some even written by faculty in the department).

In all these papers, there always seem to be a behavioral assumption that makes the situation utopic. For instance, among the good strategies in papers were things such as: “Divide work early into task groups” or “Create a time estimate for the semester for every task.” This is good advice, but not all students follow or care about these strategies. Otherwise, everybody would be getting As, no? Thus, despite my qualms about how the research was conducted, it seems that theoretically group work would be ideal, but in practice it is more often than not negative.

Is there any research that has found that group work has more often been negative in academic settings? Or, perhaps, given the constraints (i.e. group is assigned, members don’t know each other) or types of behavior (i.e. member who doesn’t care about grade as long it’s above C, member who just drops class) that exist in university classrooms, is positive group work unrealistic?

Additional related questions:

  • If there exists research that supports individual learning. Why is group work still insisted on? From the point of view of the professor, wouldn’t it be preferable to assign a project (and if individual/group work is not a concern), let students organically generate their groups if they desire to do so, or work individually if they are willing to undertake the task alone?
  • If there isn’t research that supports individual learning. What are some of the most important papers which have established group work as the desired learning strategy? Are there any popular experiments in the field of education related to this topic (e.g. famous/popular such as Zimbardo’s experiments in Psychology)?

I want to write a literature survey on a topic, let’s say it’s risk of crime due to a new technology, let’s say due to the Gutenberg press. However, when I search for the overall theme (crime and “Gutenberg press”), it returns few results. Yet, I know of some papers that fit into the topic that are appropriate, it’s just that they each use different terminology (e.g., mass-produced slander or text that undermines the Church’s authority). These relevant papers don’t link their results to the overall theme, namely crime.

The problem is that to perform an exhaustive and methodological survey is difficult, since it depends on me knowing links between papers I have read and the theme I want to investigate. I was wondering what methodologies I can use to address this problem?

For example, in comparison often a literature survey’s methodology section will have something like “we are interested in everything to do with X within topic Y” and base search terms on those two aspects and summarise the results from each database. Then, following sections cover the area based on those results. I would like to achieve something similar, but the ability to search the literature in my case is limited.

Is there any free online databases where I can do literature review by

(1) giving keyword(s) that occur in title

(2) at the same time, sorting by publishing date from newest to oldest?

I found google scholar meets criteria (1) but it sorts by date only for one recent year. Pubmed meets criteria (2) but I am not finding option to search by (1) in pubmed.

Here’s a small dilemma. I have a few ideas that I am putting into the form of a research proposal. It borrows heavily from the insights of David Ricardo’s Theory of Comparative Advantage. Now, the notion of comparative advantage is pretty much common knowledge in economics. However, my proposal is for research in Complex Networks.

Should I cite David Ricardo’s original book from 1817 in which he published the idea, without having read it? (I doubt I’ll be able to follow the argument easily in Enlightenment-period English) Or should I cite a secondary paper by someone more modern that talks about and analyzes comparative advantage? I would prefer the latter route as I would actually be able to read the material that I’m citing, but then I will not be going to the source of the original idea.

Here’s a small dilemma. I have a few ideas that I am putting into the form of a research proposal. It borrows heavily from the insights of David Ricardo’s Theory of Comparative Advantage. Now, the notion of comparative advantage is pretty much common knowledge in economics. However, my proposal is for research in Complex Networks.

Should I cite David Ricardo’s original book in which he published the idea, without having read it? (I doubt I’ll be able to follow the argument easily in Enlightenment-period English) Or should I cite a secondary paper by someone more modern that talks about and analyzes comparative advantage? I would prefer the latter route as I would actually be able to read the material that I’m citing, but then I will not be going to the source of the original idea.

I’m an agronomy major who’s performing additional academic work as way of increasing my chances of getting into grad school.

This semester I’m going to be writing a literature review regarding plant breeding in ornamental plants using references from 2007 to the present year. The emphasis will be in breeding methodologies ((1)mutagenesis, (2) genetic transformation) and (3) biodiversity.

My professor has done extensive research in genetics but this is also the first time he’s advising a student in writing a review. Out goal is to make it as publishable as possible.

I’ve already obtained multiple articles but this is my first time writing a review. Can I get advice on how to start or how to plan my creation process?

Is it possible to use Web of Science from the Chrome Omni-Bar (aka address-bar)?

Chrome supports adding custom searches by mapping a string to a search expression, e.g.

i    https://www.google.at/search?tbm=isch&q=%s
doi  https://dx.doi.org/%s

which then allows entering doi XXXX.XXXX to lookup a doi, or i academia to do a google image search for “academia”.

apps.webofknowledge.com however, has session-based urls where the current query isn’t included in any readable form, so this method won’t work. They do provide a description of how to add web of science as search provider but it seems to be outdated by years – Chrome isn’t even mentioned and it doesn’t work in Internet Explorer 11 either.