Schools Publication record while at grad school

[nbo10]

How important is it to publish papers while in grad school? I'm starting to look for post doc positions but I haven't published that much. Is this going to be a black mark against me? Thanks

 

[Monique]

It should be more about the quality of your publications, not the quantity. Some projects are just difficult to get publishable results with..

 

[noobie]

There have been faculty members at my university who received their PHD's w/o publishing a single paper. You must publish if you are a post-doc or a professor however.

 

[ZapperZ]

How important is it to publish papers while in grad school? I'm starting to look for post doc positions but I haven't published that much. Is this going to be a black mark against me? Thanks

Based on my experience within physics, if you want to land any decent postdoctoral position at a respectable institution, YOU MUST have already a track record of publication. In fact, I do not know of any postdoc who did not have a few publications under their belt already by the time they graduated. I certainly would not hire a postdoc without such demonstrated ability, considering how many graduate students are already publishing their work before they graduate. Not only that, I also would like to know if the candidate has already presented his/her work at various conferences (this implies that the student already has something substantial to present and means that it warrants a publication). As a postdoc, you will be required to give talks and presentations quite often. A postdoc is not a position where you are just learning such skills - you are expected to hit the ground running.

Take note that at some schools, you are required to show at least one published peer-reviewed publication as a requirement for a Ph.D. These schools use this as proof that your research work is a new and important work that earns the caliber of a doctoral degree.

Zz.

 

[noobie]

I don't think I was very helpful with my earlier post. I knew of one professor in our Molecular Cell Biology dept who did not publish while getting her PHD at Caltech. She of course did excellent work during her postdoc and became a professor. Publications are important in graduate school but I think doing well as postdoc will overcome whatever lack of papers during graduate years. I've often been told by my professors that you learn to become an independent researcher in graduate school.

 

[Monique]

What I wonder, is it really necessary to have a PhD to apply for a postdoc position? What if you already have enough experience, have already published your own work, have already presented your work at big conferences alone?

 

[noobie]

I think that really depends on the field that you're in. I know of one graduate student in our chemistry dept who got an offer from Harvard as soon as he finished. But that is definitely the exception not the norm. In engineering, it is a lot easier to go straight into academia. A friend of mine just finished his PHD last year and is now a prof at Cornell (28 year old prof no less).

 

[ZapperZ]

What I wonder, is it really necessary to have a PhD to apply for a postdoc position? What if you already have enough experience, have already published your own work, have already presented your work at big conferences alone?

Unless you have unbelievable credentials, an excellent pedigree (your mentor was a Nobel Laureate), and a string of publications in PRL, Science, and Nature, getting a prestiguous faculty appointment at high-powered schools in physics is almost impossible without a postdoctoral experience. You need to keep in mind that a postdoc work isn't just confined to doing work in that field. This is where you also start writing research proposals, doing administrative work (you'll be in seminar comittees, that comittee, etc.) and essentially start learning what it takes to become a working physicists beyond just physics. Just look at the job opening ads in Physics Today - most faculty positions at prominent schools would like someone who has a "proven" track record, especially in knowing how to get research fundings.

And I can speak first hand that in terms of appointment at a US Nat'l Lab, where there can be hundreds of applicants for just one position, a postdoctoral experience is a damn fine credential to have.

Zz.

 

[Monique]

Sure, the postdoc experience is very important since there you have to do your own thing. I was talking about becoming a postdoc without actually having a PhD degree (but with the credentials).

 

[Monique]

I think that really depends on the field that you're in. I know of one graduate student in our chemistry dept who got an offer from Harvard as soon as he finished.

It's not this guy by any chance right? http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v432/n7014/full/nj7014-254a_fs.html

 

[ZapperZ]

Sure, the postdoc experience is very important since there you have to do your own thing. I was talking about becoming a postdoc without actually having a PhD degree (but with the credentials).

By definition, the name "Post Doctoral" fellow requires one actually has completed a Doctoral work. I'm not implying one has actually gone to a commencement, get on stage, get that folder or roll of paper, and then walk off. I personally have not encounter anyone taking up a postdoc appointment without either about to finish a doctoral work, or already have one. Have you?

Zz.

 

[Monique]

Having a PhD means that you worked hard and defended a thesis, showing academic ability. It is also possible to show academic ability without the title.

 

[ZapperZ]

Having a PhD means that you worked hard and defended a thesis, showing academic ability. It is also possible to show academic ability without the title.

I'm sure it's possible. It's also possible to produce 3 papers in a year of the caliber of the photoelectric effect model, special relativity, and brownian motion. But how likely is this to occur? How many Freeman Dyson's are there walking around us?

Zz.

 

[Dr Transport]

I never published while I was a graduate student, I didn't go try to get a post-doc because I was heading into industry. Still have never published a word and am doing quite well. I know a bunch of people who published as grad students, they still have not gotten either a post-doc or a faculty position. Most are working temp type jobs. Connections are as much a key to landing a decent post-doc as a publication record.

 

[ZapperZ]

I never published while I was a graduate student, I didn't go try to get a post-doc because I was heading into industry. Still have never published a word and am doing quite well. I know a bunch of people who published as grad students, they still have not gotten either a post-doc or a faculty position. Most are working temp type jobs. Connections are as much a key to landing a decent post-doc as a publication record.

Thanks for bringing it up, Dr. Transport, because I should have made it clearer that if you are pursuing the post-doc avenue, then you are certainly heading into a career in either Academia or research work at a Nat'l Lab. Post-doc experience is often unnecessary for industrial career (although for private research labs such as Bell, IBM, and NEC, it is still a factor). It is why I described some of the added responsibilities that a post-doc sometime has to take on, such as writing research grant proposals, etc. that academic institutions and the likes would want you to know already.

Zz.

 

[Dr Transport]

Even in industry we write grant/contract proposals. I have written no less than 5 per year in the each of the years I have been in industry. I get funding for about 75% of the contract proposals I write, some years are better than others.

If you go the academic route, you may be more satisfied with your work from an intellectual point of view but in many cases you'll be working for many years in an uncertain environment and you'll be old and gray before you get a permanent position. Sure, my company could walk up to me and tell me to leave, but industrial salaries are much higher and I can weather a year or so without a job, I hazard a guess and say that there are not too many post-docs out there who could do that.

 

[ZapperZ]

Even in industry we write grant/contract proposals. I have written no less than 5 per year in the each of the years I have been in industry. I get funding for about 75% of the contract proposals I write, some years are better than others.

If you go the academic route, you may be more satisfied with your work from an intellectual point of view but in many cases you'll be working for many years in an uncertain environment and you'll be old and gray before you get a permanent position. Sure, my company could walk up to me and tell me to leave, but industrial salaries are much higher and I can weather a year or so without a job, I hazard a guess and say that there are not too many post-docs out there who could do that.

Well, a postdoc is never meant to be a "permanent" position. In fact, many nat'l Labs hiring postdoc requires that one must have graduated within 3 years of applying.

When I graduated, I had the option of going into industries (I interviewed at Applied Materials and Xerox) or pursuing academic/research career. While I think that I could have survived in industries, I knew deep down inside that I would be happier in this line of work, even if the pay is considerably lower, and the track to job security longer (take note, however, that in many schools, one is usually up for tenure after as little as 4 years as an assistant professor. Furthermore, job benefits such as medical coverage, etc., especially for Nat'l Lab employees are significantly more generous on average than industries). So that's why I slaved for almost 3 years as a postdoc, but it was the most rewarding and most professionally productive period of my life and I would do it all over again.

Based on my experience and people that I have talked to, if one is pursuing a similar career path, then unless is one is a genius and a freak of nature like Einstein or Dyson or Feynman, etc., then most of us mortals do need postdoctoral experience to ensure a better chance of landing a position in a more prestigious and competitive institution. And considering how bad it can get when one looks at the situation elsewhere, especially in Germany, I don't think things are that bleak in this line of work.

Zz.

 

[Dr Transport]

I was advised by my advisor not to publish any of my work. There was a disagreement between me, my advisor and the funding agent. We were correct and showed proof, the funding agent didn't believe the logic behind the calculation and subsequently decided not to renew our contract. If I had published the work, we would have had to acknowledge the contracting agency so it was decided not to publicize the work. It was too late to change thesis topics so I went on from there and decided not to try to pursue an academic track. I wasn't afforded the opportunity to work in a govt lab, so that is the reason why I went straight to industry.

 

[ZapperZ]

I was advised by my advisor not to publish any of my work. There was a disagreement between me, my advisor and the funding agent. We were correct and showed proof, the funding agent didn't believe the logic behind the calculation and subsequently decided not to renew our contract. If I had published the work, we would have had to acknowledge the contracting agency so it was decided not to publicize the work. It was too late to change thesis topics so I went on from there and decided not to try to pursue an academic track. I wasn't afforded the opportunity to work in a govt lab, so that is the reason why I went straight to industry.

Not to dismiss the situation you were in, but don't you think that you were in a highly unusual situation? As in my responses to Monique, I think I've always tried to answer questions such as these (and in almost all of my advices and recommendations) based on what I believe to be a common, "average" situations. I certainly would not give advice to someone by using an unusual anecdote, for this would give the impression that this is what most people have to go through. I've strived to present situations in my current essays that represents the most common occurences that a physics student would face, rather than what an absolute genius, or an unusually unluckly student might encounter.

If we survey faculty members in "good" to prestigious schools, or staff scientists at various Nat'l Labs, you would be hard pressed to find someone who did not have a postdoc experience. Based on this, if someone were to ask me "Should I get a postdoc if I want to purse such a career track?", I would be highly irresponsible to point to an unusual situation and say "Look at Freeman Dyson, he didn't have a postdoc. In fact, doesn't even have a Ph.D! And look at him now! So that proves you don't need one!"

I don't think this is the picture we want to paint as being "normal" or "common".

Zz.

 

[Dr Transport]

Not to dismiss the situation you were in, but don't you think that you were in a highly unusual situation? As in my responses to Monique, I think I've always tried to answer questions such as these (and in almost all of my advices and recommendations) based on what I believe to be a common, "average" situations. I certainly would not give advice to someone by using an unusual anecdote, for this would give the impression that this is what most people have to go through. I've strived to present situations in my current essays that represents the most common occurences that a physics student would face, rather than what an absolute genius, or an unusually unluckly student might encounter.

I do not think it was an unusual situation, matter a fact, I saw it more than once in my graduate career. Funding agents are vain individuals, they EXPECT to be listed as co-authors for nothing more than sending money to a university.

My situation may not have been the norm, but it wasn't an isolated incident. It has happened to more than one theoretician/computational physicist I know. The common thread in this is that none of them affected went on to do a post-doc or obtained a faculty position or national lab position. They all ended up working in industry.

 

[ZapperZ]

I do not think it was an unusual situation, matter a fact, I saw it more than once in my graduate career. Funding agents are vain individuals, they EXPECT to be listed as co-authors for nothing more than sending money to a university.

Er.. No, I don't mean about including funding agent, etc. I mean as in your dispute with the funding agent and subsequent refusal to publish anything. Do you think this situation is common?

And as to the insistance of the agent to be included in the author list, if you are sending this to either Nature, Science, or any of the physical review journals, you can always show him/her the authors requirement, especially in light of the Schon debacle. I must say, I have never heard of a funding agent insisting on such a thing and being that heavy handed. Being included as part of the acknowledgment, yes, which is in fact the proper thing to do. But wanting to be part of the authors list? Never. But then again, I've only had to deal with NSF/DOE/Sloan funding agencies. They stay completely out of it other than wanting regular reports so that they know what their money went to.

Zz.

 

[Dr Transport]

It was a DOD agent and it was a submission to a physical review journal.

As for the refusal to publish, maybe it isn't the norm but I have seen it. With the subsequent funding cut by the agent, when others in my home department went for funding within the same division they were met with a resounding no. To the best of my knowledge, my advisor never received another penny of money from that DOD agency because of that situation. It wouldn't do any good now, all the involved patries are retired except me.

 

[Monique]

Based on this, if someone were to ask me "Should I get a postdoc if I want to purse such a career track?"

Ok, I'll say it again: I was NOT asking whether you can skip a postdoc experience, I was asking whether it is acceptable to apply to a postdoc position without having a PhD. I realize that postdoctorate implies that you have a doctorate degree, but someone can have the capabilities and experiences without having the degree. But I think the question is difficult to answer, since the standards are not the same locally and internationally.

 

[ZapperZ]

Ok, I'll say it again: I was NOT asking whether you can skip a postdoc experience, I was asking whether it is acceptable to apply to a postdoc position without having a PhD. I realize that postdoctorate implies that you have a doctorate degree, but someone can have the capabilities and experiences without having the degree. But I think the question is difficult to answer, since the standards are not the same locally and internationally.

I don't think I made any attempt to answer this "internationally". It was clear that this question was asking for a situation within the US, and that's why I tried to be explicit in handling it that way. If we're doing this "internationally", we can't even talk about "postdoctoral" appointment because there's no such thing in many parts of the world!

And to make sure I answer your question clearly, let me again say, no, based on my observation in the field of physics, I have never encounter anyone who went on to a postdoc positions (i) without having a phd already or (ii) not about to get one. I am not making any claims of knowledge about how it is in other field of studies. So take that for whatever it is worth.

Zz.

 

[nbo10]

Thanks for all the replys. I'm pretty much in the situation I thought I was in. Now it seems like I've wasted years of my life. There needs to be a guide of "Things you need to know when entering grad school".

 

[ZapperZ]

Thanks for all the replys. I'm pretty much in the situation I thought I was in. Now it seems like I've wasted years of my life. There needs to be a guide of "Things you need to know when entering grad school".

Well, that is what my essays are supposed to cover.

Zz.

 

[Monique]

It was clear that this question was asking for a situation within the US

I don't know where that was stated or implied, but I appreciate your point of view.

 

[Moonbear]

Ok, I'll say it again: I was NOT asking whether you can skip a postdoc experience, I was asking whether it is acceptable to apply to a postdoc position without having a PhD. I realize that postdoctorate implies that you have a doctorate degree, but someone can have the capabilities and experiences without having the degree. But I think the question is difficult to answer, since the standards are not the same locally and internationally.

In the U.S., the answer is no, you cannot get a post-doc if you don't have a PhD. You can start a position before you formally have your diploma, but you have to have finished defending your dissertation and will need letters from your graduate school documenting that you have met all the degree requirements and will be receiving the PhD degree (this is done because people don't all defend close to when the ceremonies, so are done with the degree but have a few months before the diploma is officially printed and sent to them). Post-doctoral training really is only be intended for someone planning to run their own research lab, as the intent of the position is to help you transition from being a student to running your own independent lab and research program. During post-doc training, you'll learn to write grants, supervise students, contribute to decisions about the every day operations of the lab, and learn to develop your own independent research rather than only doing the same type of work your mentor does.


Back to the original question about publications. You should have some publications to get a post-doc position, or at least a good post-doc position. There's no magic number though. A few high quality, first-authored publications will be more meaningful than a long list of publications in obscure journals or as only a middle author. Your dissertation work should be publishable, so even if you don't have your work published yet, if you are still writing the manuscripts, listing manuscripts in preparation will help show you will be publishing, just haven't had time to get them submitted yet (this is often the case when projects take a long time to complete, so you have a lot done all at the same time near the end of your PhD work). If you don't have publications, a track-record of abstracts submitted to conferences to show you've kept up a steady level of productivity will help as well.

 

[noobie]

By definition a post-doc must have a doctoral degree. However, I have met several people who have achieved success typically reserved for PHD's. For instance, old engineering prof actually didn't even finish his undergrad degree before leaving for the semiconductor industry and became a famous PI with many PHD scientists working under him (w/ only a high school degree).

 

[juvenal]

Back to the original question about publications. You should have some publications to get a post-doc position, or at least a good post-doc position.

I think the publication requirement is not necessary IF your adviser is well-connected. I have a grad student in my group who is going to graduate without having a publishable result (in the sense that someone else will be independently publishing a similar result) - but my advisor is well-connected enough that I think he could land a decent post-doc.

 

[Monique]

Post-doctoral training really is only be intended for someone planning to run their own research lab, as the intent of the position is to help you transition from being a student to running your own independent lab and research program. During post-doc training, you'll learn to write grants, supervise students, contribute to decisions about the every day operations of the lab, and learn to develop your own independent research rather than only doing the same type of work your mentor does.

See, that is what I don't understand. What is so special about a PhD-training that is absolutely required in order to be a semi-independant researcher? I would love to do a postdoctoral training and I feel I would be ready, I'll see what comes on my path. Competition here is not so harsh as in the US.

 

[ZapperZ]

See, that is what I don't understand. What is so special about a PhD-training that is absolutely required in order to be a semi-independant researcher?

This would take this thread into an entirely different directions. You are now asking what's the whole point of a Ph.D degree. I could even ask, what's the whole point of ANY college degree. If we are going by anecdotal cases, I'm sure each one of us can point to people we know who became successful without even going to college.

I would love to do a postdoctoral training and I feel I would be ready, I'll see what comes on my path. Competition here is not so harsh as in the US.

Unfortunately, sometime (in fact, often times) you are not the best person to judge if you have the ability. Most quacks think they know enough physics already simply by reading pop-science books. They certainly think they're ready to tackle the questions in physics. Getting the degree indicates that OTHER people think you have attained the standard deserving of such honor and classification.

The thing I don't understand is, if you already have the "ability", etc. etc... then what's preventing you from getting the degree and get it over with? If I'm interviewing a candidate and he/she tells me something like this, I would think such a question would be the most obvious one I would ask. Does the candidate think writing a dessertation is simply unneccesary considering he/she has done all the important work (a BIG warning sign - person may have no patience/skill at writing reports and papers)? Or maybe he/she only care about what he/she deem as important (another warning sign - may not work well in groups).

Zz.

 

[Monique]

Well, the thread started with the question whether not having published (or little) during a PhD-training is bad for acquiring a postdoc position, so I was wondering how heavy outside factors weigh.

You ask what is wrong with getting the degree and "get it over with", I think 4 years is not a time-span you simply "get over with". I wouldn't want this discussion to be all about me, I was just curious about how experience weighs against a degree.

 

[ktpr2]

I've pondered this question myself, for different reasons, but here's what I've come up with. The whole thing that matters is being able to prove yourself to other people (if you want to get paid for research, etc). So, then, you have two options:

1) Get a PhD.
or
2) Make some startlingly discovery, publish it and get exposure that way.

... which of the two do you think are easier? :)

I think a good compromise, which I'm doing (not at the PhD. level though), is to enter an academic program that satisfies (1) while racking your mind and driving yourself to do (2). That way, you're motivated to show the world what you can do while also shooting for the more probably path of just getting a phd; you win both ways.

 

[juvenal]

Unfortunately, sometime (in fact, often times) you are not the best person to judge if you have the ability. Most quacks think they know enough physics already simply by reading pop-science books. They certainly think they're ready to tackle the questions in physics. Getting the degree indicates that OTHER people think you have attained the standard deserving of such honor and classification.

Very true. One is usually not the best judge of his/her own current level of competency, unless there are very clear objective measures he can go by.

 

[Monique]

I've pondered this question myself, for different reasons, but here's what I've come up with. The whole thing that matters is being able to prove yourself to other people (if you want to get paid for research, etc). So, then, you have two options:

1) Get a PhD.
or
2) Make some startlingly discovery, publish it and get exposure that way.

... which of the two do you think are easier? :)

I think a good compromise, which I'm doing (not at the PhD. level though), is to enter an academic program that satisfies (1) while racking your mind and driving yourself to do (2). That way, you're motivated to show the world what you can do while also shooting for the more probably path of just getting a phd; you win both ways.

Yes, I've done research projects and published (impact factor 11) my own work, among other things, apparently that is not going to get you anywhere. I have been looking for a PhD position, here you have to wait for job openings and apply to them as such, but there has not been one of my interest. I've seen postdoc positions in the past that were interesting, so instead of delaying my studies I'd like to be ambitious and jump ahead, what's wrong with pushing the limits

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, I've done research projects and published (impact factor 11) my own work, among other things, apparently that is not going to get you anywhere. I have been looking for a PhD position, here you have to wait for job openings and apply to them as such, but there has not been one of my interest. I've seen postdoc positions in the past that were interesting, so instead of delaying my studies I'd like to be ambitious and jump ahead, what's wrong with pushing the limits

There's nothing wrong with pushing the limits. It's what I've been employed to do. However, if you were to ask for MY opinion, then I will have to say that I've never seen it done. That's the end of that. I didn't say it is impossible, or cannot be done, especially if we're considering the whole world scenario. However, based on the competition and the outrageously talented candidates with outstanding credentials that I have encountered seeking postdoc positions in physics, I can say that someone in a similar situation as you would have very little to non-existent chance at getting a postdoc.

Zz.

 

[juvenal]

Yes, I've done research projects and published (impact factor 11) my own work, among other things, apparently that is not going to get you anywhere. I have been looking for a PhD position, here you have to wait for job openings and apply to them as such, but there has not been one of my interest. I've seen postdoc positions in the past that were interesting, so instead of delaying my studies I'd like to be ambitious and jump ahead, what's wrong with pushing the limits

I'm confused. How have you done research projects and published (impact factor 11) work? Are you working in industry? Because it sounds like you're not at a university. (Also impact factor 11 means very important?)

 

[Monique]

It was at an American university and I had a Dutch college degree at the time. The impact factor of a journal is an indication on the relative value of journals. If a journal is cited 1000 times in a year for 100 articles published in the two years previous to that, the impact factor would be 10.

 

[juvenal]

It was at an American university and I had a Dutch college degree at the time. The impact factor of a journal is an indication on the relative value of journals. If a journal is cited 1000 times in a year for 100 articles published in the two years previous to that, the impact factor would be 10.

How did you do your "own" research? No one else was involved? How many years did it take to do it?

I think at least in physics, say in experimental physics, the grad school experience is this: Classes for the first year or two. Simultaneously, or after classes are completed, one gets a research project to do under the supervision of a professor and/or post-docs. Sometimes this involves building an apparatus from scratch. Sometimes more than one grad student may be involved. But there is essentially an apprenticeship, a learning process going on during this time as one is under the supervision of PhD's.

Anyhow - from the fruits of this labor one can publish anywhere from 0 to 4 papers on average. These papers will typically have your advisor as the primary author. Then, the published papers are usually slapped together, with a bit of editing, to form your thesis. This entire process takes on average at least 3-5 years, and by the end, you have your PhD, and you're supposedly ready to strike off and do more independent research as a postdoc.

So - if you did research at an American university for 3-5 years, and published, then someone should have probably awarded you a PhD by the end. At the very least, yes, you will have done the equivalent of an American PhD.

However, I know that at British universities, physics students do get their PhD's after about 3-4 years (including classes) because funding gets cut off after 3 years. So their PhD's are less rigorous, and this also means that it's more difficult for them to land an American post-doc position.

 

[Monique]

How did you do your "own" research? No one else was involved? How many years did it take to do it?

I never said "own". I worked under the supervision of a professor and we collaborated with another university. The research took 3 years and I was first author on the paper. By all means: the credits go to everyone who worked on the project and not me alone. There were also other publications to which I contributed, journal clubs, oral presentation at a conference (awarded with a travel award), and the most fun was representing the research group alone at a big meeting in Italy. And oh, I'm into biology not physics

I'll take the advise to heart and find a good group to do a PhD-training at

 

[juvenal]

I never said "own". I worked under the supervision of a professor and we collaborated with another university. The research took 3 years and I was first author on the paper. By all means: the credits go to everyone who worked on the project and not me alone. There were also other publications to which I contributed, journal clubs, oral presentation at a conference (awarded with a travel award), and the most fun was representing the research group alone at a big meeting in Italy. And oh, I'm into biology not physics

I'll take the advise to heart and find a good group to do a PhD-training at

You should have tried to wrangle a PhD out of it then, even if it entailed sticking around for another couple of years. This is assuming that the 3 years you put in were full-time, of course.

I did realize you are from biology, but based on the experiences of friends who are/were doctoral candidates in other departments (including bio), I don't think the experience is all that different. I've never heard of a PhD student in any dept at Caltech finishing in less than 5 years. The average is at least 6 years, I would guess. However, at Princeton, I think that they are very good at getting students out in 5 years, due to a different overall philosophy.

 

[marlon]

In most western european countries you start a phd (if you are allowed, ofcourse) after getting a master's degree. During this master (the four years in college to become a master in physics) nowone does any publication (apart from a few in their thesis but that is really irrelevant because these publications are really done by the phd-students that supervise you). I don't believe any student will publish anything worthwile during those first few years because they don't have the knowledge. However once you start a phd, you'll need to publish a certain amount of high quality papers or otherwise you are out. You are not certain that once you begin a phd, you will also end it .

My point is : i DON'T believe that students publish great things in their first four years unless it is a part of some overall phd project in which your name gets mentioned. But then it is NOT your publication


PRIOR TO A PHD NO HIGH-QUALITY PAPERS CAN BE MADE.
I think that students that claim they have done that, are just selling a lot of blahblahblah,

marlon

 

[Monique]

PRIOR TO A PHD NO HIGH-QUALITY PAPERS CAN BE MADE.
I think that students that claim they have done that, are just selling a lot of blahblahblah,

marlon

I don't agree: you can be a professional and do your job/ be creative without having a PhD. So are you saying that you would completely ignore a publication written by someone with a college degree in science? Short sighted I'd read the publication first.

 

[marlon]

So are you saying that you would completely ignore a publication written by someone with a college degree in science? Short sighted I'd read the publication first.

Ofcourse not. before starting to call names, let me say that you did not get my point. What i wanted to say was the fact that just after finishing college, you DON't have the knowledge the publish. I read many posts here from (especially American) college students (in their first four or five years) that claim they publish like it is writing a diary. Well, i don't buy this crap.

Ofcourse somebody who works in the adequate environment and has the skill will be able to publish and yes i would read it. I never said that if you don't obtain a phd, you won't be able to publish. That is what YOU made of it, but you clearly misinterpreted my words because i NEVER said that. Though i do think obtaining a phd is the BEST way to publish even because it is required. I am not saying this cannot happen outside the phd-route, so don't misread my words

marlon

 

[Monique]

The temper your own statement was "PRIOR TO A PHD NO HIGH-QUALITY PAPERS CAN BE MADE." so you meant someone who is still involved with full-time studying.

btw I didn't call you any names.

 

[marlon]

The temper your own statement was "PRIOR TO A PHD NO HIGH-QUALITY PAPERS CAN BE MADE." so you meant someone who is still involved with full-time studying.

btw I didn't call you any names.

Yes indeed

marlon

 

[marlon]

btw I didn't call you any names.

I never said you did. I said BEFORE starting to ...

marlon