Who's doing a PhD?

[D.P.]

Not that I'm claiming the same thing, but my advisor/supervisor for my undergrad dissertation was a complete asshat. Rather than getting any help whenever I visited him, I just spent an hour or two just arguing with him over stupid things they were completely unrelated. In the end I emailed him and forwarded the e-mail to the head of department requesting that he stop wasting my time and actually address the issues I wanted his opinion on (or to that effect). He apologised to save face, but I felt the bridges were already burned so didn't speak to him again afterwards. I can fully appreciate how having a poor supervisor and awkward working relationship can negatively effect your project.

It sucks to have a bad supervisor.

I have not actually spoken to mine for over 6 months because he has barely had a single day in the lab, any attempt at a short email discussion is met by 4 word replies (normally something about meeting next month rather than addressing anything). But I guess appearing on TV around the world and getting that next project money is more important than looking after his own students.

 

[D.P.]

.... I've also had no problems whatsoever with the process of peer review - be it from the reviewing or publishing point of view. If anything, I think the standards at some journals are far too low!

Just received notification of conference paper and I have to say the reviewing standard are actually very high, which is a refreshing change to me.

The reviewers this time seem to be much more keyed in to the topic and understanding the problem/challenges interest. the comments are mixed, but a lot are useful comments which is a first. Still the usual irrelevant statements but I am much happier.

Thus I no get to travel to a conference, pity the conference is held on campus. I wonder if I can still stay in a hotel....


The largest problem I have reviewers is that in my field there are 3 main methodologies X, Y and Z. Some people prefer X, some Y some Z. All 3 a valuable and provide good insights, and yes ideally open would use all three. But methodology X makes massive assumptions and limitations although is very powerful - the theoretical method. Method Z proves in reality, so no or few assumptions, but it doesn't provide any useful data and is very impractical and often not possible at all. Method Y is a mix of the 2, it is easier and more accessible, provides valuable data and tries to make minimal assumptions.


If you are forced to use methodology Y then you get massively chastised by reviewers. Which is daft because you make far less assumptions and simplification than methodology X and you provide far more useful data than using Z.

Just goes back to the whole religious beliefs that scientist have in their field and their paradigms. If you work with method X that you must reject all papers that use method Y. The same if you use method Z.

 

[w11tho]

Not that I'm claiming the same thing, but my advisor/supervisor for my undergrad dissertation was a complete asshat. Rather than getting any help whenever I visited him, I just spent an hour or two just arguing with him over stupid things they were completely unrelated. In the end I emailed him and forwarded the e-mail to the head of department requesting that he stop wasting my time and actually address the issues I wanted his opinion on (or to that effect). He apologised to save face, but I felt the bridges were already burned so didn't speak to him again afterwards. I can fully appreciate how having a poor supervisor and awkward working relationship can negatively effect your project.

I completely agree that having a poor supervisor makes life more difficult. Unfortunate though it is, having a poor supervisor is actually far more common than people might think.

 

[w11tho]

Well, as was pointed out to me earlier in this thread, no one is forcing you to work in any job that is not paying. Come to Switzerland to get the real money.

Salary can only be rated relative to your peers in similar environments.
Although I do sometimes forget how much I get paid relative to those doing a PhD in the UK it is also not a useful comparison.
Consider that some people on the same corridor in the same lab doing the same job get paid an extra 10K after tax just because the prof likes them, and you realise it is unfair.

Well I guess we have a difference of opinion. As I'm sure you know, the work in a PhD rarely rocks the world of science and the vast majority will go to academic heaven having only had a handful of people look at them. The biggest benefactor is you, since unless you're utterly diabolical you'll manage to pass your viva and earn yourself the qualification. So I don't think it's worth paying a student £40,000+ to do a PhD. The fact that you know some people who get £10,000 more than this doesn't change my opinion on the matter, it just makes me think those people are super-duper-ridiculously overpaid!

Just received notification of conference paper and I have to say the reviewing standard are actually very high, which is a refreshing change to me.

The reviewers this time seem to be much more keyed in to the topic and understanding the problem/challenges interest. the comments are mixed, but a lot are useful comments which is a first. Still the usual irrelevant statements but I am much happier.

Thus I no get to travel to a conference, pity the conference is held on campus. I wonder if I can still stay in a hotel....

The largest problem I have reviewers is that in my field there are 3 main methodologies X, Y and Z. Some people prefer X, some Y some Z. All 3 a valuable and provide good insights, and yes ideally open would use all three. But methodology X makes massive assumptions and limitations although is very powerful - the theoretical method. Method Z proves in reality, so no or few assumptions, but it doesn't provide any useful data and is very impractical and often not possible at all. Method Y is a mix of the 2, it is easier and more accessible, provides valuable data and tries to make minimal assumptions.

If you are forced to use methodology Y then you get massively chastised by reviewers. Which is daft because you make far less assumptions and simplification than methodology X and you provide far more useful data than using Z.

Getting papers rejected is usually an indication that the papers lack something, rather than all of peer review being biased. I have no idea what X, Y and Z are, but it's your responsibility to convince the reviewer why your chosen methodology is the best one for the job.

Just goes back to the whole religious beliefs that scientist have in their field and their paradigms. If you work with method X that you must reject all papers that use method Y. The same if you use method Z.

I think you're being overly dramatic.

 

[Amleto]

been there, done that, got the hat I enjoyed it for the most part and loved the flexibility of the working hours

 

[A.N.Other]

Getting papers rejected is usually an indication that the papers lack something, rather than all of peer review being biased. I have no idea what X, Y and Z are, but it's your responsibility to convince the reviewer why your chosen methodology is the best one for the job.

Well, as I'm sure you're aware yourself, that's an extremely sweeping statement. In any field there are different camps and different schools of thought and they will generally fight tooth-and-claw to defend their side until it becomes completely infeasible. Often when you send a paper to review and you work in a small field, you know who's going to be reviewing it (or can work it out based on the reviews), and when the comments come back negative, it's hardly surprising when you know that that lab has a competing theory / bias.

 

[w11tho]

Is it really that sweeping? Surely the different camps actually publish papers using their preferred methodology? Anyhoo - my point was that having a paper rejected is hardly a reason assume peer review is based on some sort of religious belief system!

 

[A.N.Other]

Is it really that sweeping? Surely the different camps actually publish papers using their preferred methodology?

It really depends on your area and who you're up against. Someone in my lab is trying to get a paper out at the moment (into a serious journal), and two reviews come back with fair critiques and suggestions and the third denies that the paper has any grounding and disputes the entire point of the paper. We know who that guy is and why he's making a fuss.

Anyhoo - my point was that having a paper rejected is hardly a reason assume peer review is based on some sort of religious belief system!

I do agree, but peer review must be taken with a pinch of salt in some circumstances.

 

[clv101]

What field are you doing your PhD in?
Glaciology, Greenland.
Why did you chose to do it?
More interesting than my last job.
Do you enjoy it?
It's great fun, academic environment is nicer than corporate.
How long have you got left?
~2yrs
What do you plan to do after you complete your PhD?
Maybe postdoc but more likely a return to private sector.

 

[D.P.]

Getting papers rejected is usually an indication that the papers lack something, rather than all of peer review being biased. I have no idea what X, Y and Z are, but it's your responsibility to convince the reviewer why your chosen methodology is the best one for the job.

I cannot disagree more strongly with this point. Maybe in your field all reviewers are angles, but in my field it is a political nightmare and depends entirely on which school of thought you happens to reside within.
It has nothing to do with the actual content of the paper. This is why one gets completely bi-polar reviewed When one reviewer completely rejects a paper stating it should have been a desk rejection by the editor, and another reviewer proposes the paper for a best student paper award then you know the system is utterly stupid.

And many reviewers should simply not be working in science when they do not understand basic concepts.

 

[w11tho]

It really depends on your area and who you're up against. Someone in my lab is trying to get a paper out at the moment (into a serious journal), and two reviews come back with fair critiques and suggestions and the third denies that the paper has any grounding and disputes the entire point of the paper. We know who that guy is and why he's making a fuss.

Well now your colleague gets to do the fun bit of responding to the reviewers! Two out of three positives is fairly good going, and the corresponding editor should hopefully be able to see if the third reviewer is being unreasonable. Even more so if your colleague responds to his critique effectively. Good luck!

I do agree, but peer review must be taken with a pinch of salt in some circumstances.

Whilst of course the system isn't bullet proof, I think it's extremely effective. I don't think genuinely great research fails to get through.

 

[D.P.]

Is it really that sweeping? Surely the different camps actually publish papers using their preferred methodology? Anyhoo - my point was that having a paper rejected is hardly a reason assume peer review is based on some sort of religious belief system!

I never said I had a paper rejected! As actually I haven't (one conference paper was only accepted for a short paper though).

Quite clearly I was not being literal with my statements about religious beliefs. Quite clearly, there are many academics that have there paradigm/theory/methodology and if anyone else does not follow that then their work is severely criticized to the point it is not worth arguing. Very much the same as discussing whether there there is a God or not.

It is a probably a natural consequence of the system. If a prof has positioned themselves as a pioneer of a particular method/theory then there entirely livelihood and reputation hangs on supporting that to the death. Few profs seem to be able to step back and move on to new fields and theories.

 

[w11tho]

I cannot disagree more strongly with this point. Maybe in your field all reviews are angles, but in my field it is a political nightmare and depends entirely on which school of throughout you happens to reside within.
It has nothing to do with the actual content of the paper. This is why one gets completely bi-polar reviewed When one reviewer completely rejects a paper stating it should have been a desk rejection by the editor, and another reviewer proposes the paper for a best student paper award then you know the system is utterly stupid.

Do no papers get published using methods from your particular school of thought?

 

[D.P.]

Papers do, depending on which reviewers and which journals.

Its not my school of thought, it is the only method available to me (due to under-budgeted EU project)
I think the other methods are great but are simply not applicable for certain work.
Anyway, I'm off to Brussels for 3 days for a boring project meeting.

 

[w11tho]

Papers do, depending on which reviewers and which journals.

Well there we go. You have the option of sending your work off to those journals, and suggesting to editors that certain individuals shouldn't review the work because of personal bias.

Its not my school of thought, it is the only method available to me (due to under-budgeted EU project)

Perhaps if they weren't paying their PhD students £40,000+, they'd have a little more cash to play with!

 

[D.P.]

Well there we go. You have the option of sending your work off to those journals, and suggesting to editors that certain individuals shouldn't review the work because of personal bias.


Perhaps if they weren't paying their PhD students £40,000+, they'd have a little more cash to play with!

You seem upset at the PhD salaries here in Switzerland.

Anyway, your point is invalid since the salary is set at a federal level, the project money for things like hardware development is limited by the funding agency (it is a FET project).
.

 

[w11tho]

My comment was tongue in cheek! I think it's ridiculous PhD students are paid that much, but I don't blame anyone for accepting the salary. I would think them daft if they were to complain that they weren't paid enough...

 

[meghatronic]

Consider that some people on the same corridor in the same lab doing the same job get paid an extra 10K after tax just because the prof likes them, and you realise it is unfair.

Life isn't fair. The answer lies with your prof. Buy him cookies.

I cannot disagree more strongly with this point. Maybe in your field all reviewers are angles, but in my field it is a political nightmare and depends entirely on which school of thought you happens to reside within.
It has nothing to do with the actual content of the paper. This is why one gets completely bi-polar reviewed When one reviewer completely rejects a paper stating it should have been a desk rejection by the editor, and another reviewer proposes the paper for a best student paper award then you know the system is utterly stupid.

And many reviewers should simply not be working in science when they do not understand basic concepts.

Now this we agree on. We've had so many frankly retarded reviewers it's unfunny. It took a 9 month argument with an editor to disprove a reviewer (we blatantly knew who it was too) who had ulterior motives. Surprise surprise, similar work came out about a month after our paper.... stalling - it's great!

 

[D.P.]

My comment was tongue in cheek! I think it's ridiculous PhD students are paid that much, but I don't blame anyone for accepting the salary. I would think them daft if they were to complain that they weren't paid enough...

Well, what you are missing is the exchange, the pound sterling has plummeted down to monopoly money.

When I started out I was paid about 14K after tax, the CHF to GBP rate was 2.6, now it is around 1.6. we get a pay rise of about 2% a year, incline with inflation.

 

[w11tho]

I'm lost? I thought you were being getting £30,000 after tax?

Fourthly, we are paid a reasonable salary (£30,000 after tax*), we are expected to be professional and work in a professional manner.

How has this changed to £14,000?