I graduated 6 years ago with a bachelors in computer science and have been developing software since then. I have gotten really good at what I do, but have come to the conclusion that the H.R Frameworks, Content Management Tools, and trivial computer systems I worked on, have not mattered much in the grand scheme of things.

I want to use my software development skills to work on things that are more important in my opinion, specifically healthcare research; anything that can help find solutions to today’s greatest medical challenges: cancers, Alzheimer’s disease, extending life expectancy, things like that. I’m sure computer science has a place somewhere in this, but I don’t know the first thing about protein folding, research lab equipment, and the human genome.

I’ll probably have to go back to school and at least get some sort of degree or certificate in biotechnology, but don’t know where to start, and where it will lead me to. Can I get some guidance?

It is becoming common for authors to upload raw data of their research when publishing their papers. However, it is still a small fraction of papers include the dataset.

Is there a way to search for papers whose data are available in repositories?

My field is computational chemistry, and I hope to find papers which have posted the raw data for the DFT analysis.

I’m in the throes of writing my first substantial research paper in the field of Information Science. The topic looks promising and my advisor seems pleased with the work. Because of the nature of the work, there are a lot of intermediate steps involved in obtaining the raw data, preprocessing the data, then running the experiment proper and recording the results. These intermediate steps involved a lot of programming on my part, building one-shot tools to solve problems along the way to conducting the experiments.

I understand that reproducibility is a huge issue in computer science and I wish to lesson the burden upon my future self and upon my lab mates if/when the time comes to follow up on this trail of experiments. Certain software has to be installed, path variables have to be configured, firewall settings have to be set up to allow transference of data – and similar technical problems that wouldn’t be appropriate to include in the resultant research paper proper.

How do I record all of these technical and procedural steps such that a future interested party (be it myself or one of my lab mates, or perhaps even an outsider to the lab who has an academic interest in the resultant paper and software) can reproduce the experiment? Do I leave myself open to being “scooped” if I set up a website with an academic blog or wiki in it?

I’m in the throws of writing my first substantial research paper in the field of Information Science. The topic looks promising and my advisor seems pleased with the work. Because of the nature of the work, there are a lot of intermediate steps involved in obtaining the raw data, preprocessing the data, then running the experiment proper and recording the results. These intermediate steps involved a lot of programming on my part-building one-shot tools to solve problems along the way to conducting the experiments.

I understand that reproducibility is a huge issue in computer science and I wish to lesson the burdon upon my future self and upon my lab mates if/when the time comes to follow up on this trail of experiments. Certain software has to be installed, path variables have to be configured, firewall settings have to be set up to allow transference of data – and similar technical problems that wouldn’t be appropriate to include in the resultant research paper proper.

How do I record all of these technical and procedural steps such that a future interested party (be it myself or one of my lab mates -perhaps even an outsider to the lab who has an academic interest in the resultant paper and software) can reproduce the experiment? Do I leave myself open to being “scooped” if I set up a website with an academic blog or wiki in it?

I heard of a thought experiment in quantum mechanics that claims that it proves or disproves randomness in quantum mechanics. The thought experiment imagines measuring the location of a large sample size of fundamental particles(could be electrons). Two individual teams are to measure the position of these subatomic particles at exactly the same time. It is argued that because collapse is a random process then if the experimenters are measuring the position of the particle at exactly the same time and they get the exact same position consistently of the particle then this proves determinism, because the process of collapse is mathematically relative to the observer then it is determined because it is not possible for people ‘randomly’, measure the same position of a particle all of the time and still be random. However in order to prove that quantum mechanics is not random the observers would have to measure two different positions for the same particle at exactly the same time. I have heard this thought experiment been described as ‘ingenious’, is this the case and is it a proof?

In the next few weeks I will embark on a multi-year research program to partially fulfill the requirements of a master’s degree and possibly a PhD. I have an adviser whom I’m excited about working with, a low-risk source of industry funding, a specific and impactful topic, and lots of industry experts willing to assist me.

Based on my initial meetings with my adviser, it looks like the approach to my topic will be intricately connected to his areas of expertise (at least at the outset), which is reasonable and seems normal. Again, I’m excited to be working with him on this topic and more than happy to pursue his approach; I currently don’t see any reason why we wouldn’t work well together long term.

However, I come from industry, where bosses, colleagues, leads, and mentors move around continually. Often, there is only one chance—right about now—in the life cycle of a project to set it up for success in such an environment without a lot of rework.

But perhaps that industry experience won’t be as relevant in this case. Tenured faculty tend to move around much less than corporate employees and enjoy more latitude in what they can choose to work on within their current position (I think—maybe there is data on this?). Nevertheless, it nags in the back of my mind that my adviser could at any point unilaterally chose to go somewhere or do something else. So, to the question, should I be concerned about setting up my research program for a possible adviser change even if I have no reason to believe that there will be one? If so, what are some ways I can do that?

Note: “Come from industry” isn’t exactly accurate: I’ll be maintaining my day job while working on academics consistently but part time. It is highly unlikely that I would uproot my career to move to another institution along with an adviser.

As a PhD student in a multidisciplinary subject, I am grouped with a postdoc by my supervisor. In our lab, the usual rule is student do the theory and coding, and postdoc do the experiment.

My collaborator postdoc is highly unmotivated: he badly performed the experimental tasks that I told him to do (most of the time, the experiments was unqualified), and delayed our project progress.

I am much younger than him, and he refused to follow my instructions, and instead fed me with unreliable “ideas” and asked me to do his job… My supervisor knows the situation, but does nothing and just watches. Each weekly meeting I am the only guy having progress.

At end I had to do the experimental part myself. It was tough but finally the project was accepted to a top journal. I have done 95%+ works, but have to add the postdoc as a coauthor (he didn’t even take part in writing the paper)

I anticipate similar course of action in future projects. I can’t change the group.

How can I properly motivate my postdoc to get him work for me?

I was invited to work on an honours project with a professor; the project was proposed and accepted.
However, before the project begin, I decided to graduate directly instead of continuing on to honours.

What are the guidelines when it comes to working on this project in my free time, on my own?

I am computer science PhD student who works in mostly in theory. I always have multiple idea’s in my mind about research problem I am working on and also on problems which are related to my research. Many time my idea’s were vague and not important, much of my idea’s have given algorithms which are not up to the extent so that it makes a paper. In last couple of years I have made my thrown many idea’s on my lab-mates and other. There were some very few good idea according to my collegues but till now I have not able to find anything so big that it becomes a paper. Is there any way to makes my idea more valuable and more significant?

Question : How to make your small idea’s into research paper?