Publication record while at grad school

[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-independent 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-independent 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