How many of you have published in peer reviewed journals?
>>8195546
I am, but only for a WW1 History project along with like 30 other people.
yeah, like, 10 millions articles or something i don;t know, i stopped counting.
cited a few hundred billion times, nothing big time.
>>8195546
Currently working on my first submission to a peer-reviewed conference as a result of something I came up with during an internship! A sister paper may follow on a parallel topic.
>>8195551
link?
>>8195561
field?
>>8195598
Network information theory and cryptography
>>8195563
Hold on, let me get them together.
Have a paper being typeset at this very moment.
>>8195701
congrats! what topic?
>>8195546
Peer review is a social construct.
>>8195618
What's it about?
>>8195712
Arithmetic geometry
>>8195743
Geometry is a social construct.
My third first-authorship was just accepted. Number 4 is under review and I'm writing number five at the moment.
I work for my statistics prof as assistant and basically did all the data analysis for his most recent study. He was very pleased but I am not sure if he'll put my name in there
>>8195546
I have published about a certain gene in Artemia franciscana.
>>8195618
The one in cryptography is on a privacy-preserving, authenticated cryptographic mechanism (something like a collaborative network stream cipher + HMAC) that can be used as an alternative to stateful routing in decentralized communications networks.
The second on network information theory looks at achieving optimal throughput using network coding in communications networks with volatile topologies. Think about the max-flow min-cut information bound in instances where the graph of the network, parameterized by time, has sinks that can become effective sources between t and t+i.
>>8195900
Also currently working on algorithms and heuristics for NP-hard combinatoric optimization problems, but I'm not quite ready to publish anything on those yet.
>>8195546
I have. Not that hard if you publish on obscure journals. I'm not entirely convinced that what I did was any good.
>>8196163
journal name?
>>8195620
>Holds penis for 15 hours instead.
>>8195843
Yes.
>>8195546
Maybe someday! I was supposed to be near publication by now, but progress was slower than expected, so no.
>>8195912
You making this up as you go along or you got a map inside ya bum-bum?
>>8196843
You know that's pretty close to accurate.
>spend half a year writing a Web application for a lab all by myself
>still undergrad
>work my ass off to make it as good as possible
>guy who is (unofficially) supervising me wants his name as first author
Am I getting royally ass fucked or is this normal?
>>8197089
Yes it is normal that undergrads get the short end. I envy the ones in fields where they use alphabetical ordering instead. Also implementation is not research unless it's a case study paper about the implementation, authorship should be given for writing the article.
>>8195546
I've published some meme papers to make others think I'm contributing, but I keep all of my real research to myself.
I've published 1 in a peer reviewed journal, and another ~4 in peer-reviewed conferences
Another 3 journal papers basically submitted for review
>>8197093
Kay, I guess that's fair. I'm also not getting paid so I'm working on my free time on this. Should I ask for shekels or what? t. naive human
>>8197109
Why did you even do it for free?
It is probably to late to ask for shekels, maybe you can get a grade for your degree out of it, in every case a somewhat better recommendation letter. You have some idea how research works and somebody in their group is in charge of you, get him and say that you want to make a PhD afterwards and whether they have a position with more concrete benefits than implementation experience for you. Don't do your PhD there if possible, you're the "I do it for free" guy now and that's not a good thing unless you like working overtime from Day 1.
Or they are as naive as you and take it for honest enthusiasm, then you're golden.
>>8197130
Phew in dutchland it's not possible (afaik) to go from undergrad directly to PhD.
It's funny, my supervisor has multiple times said to me that after this or that we should probably call it good but I kept insisting on adding more things. Dude probably felt bad for me but I kept saying I like working on it (which I do) and that I don't mind that I have to put so much work into it. I truly am an idiot. Now I got summer project and nowhere in the contract do I have to fill in my bank account number so I'm probably not getting paid. What do??
>>8197139
it is
but they might as well accept master students instead
on the lab where i worked there is somebody who went and got a phd having only a bachelor. He worked a couple of years in industry though with that bachelors degree
>>8197141
Holy damn if I could score a PhD position I'll be the happiest pupper alive. I'll ask around.
>>8197139
>Phew in dutchland it's not possible (afaik) to go from undergrad directly to PhD.
Oh I always counter Master students as undergrads. But yes they may take even a Bachelor if they really want you and have some good reason that the bureaucrats accept. Just ask for some other benefits in any case.
>>8197147
Got it, thanks for the advice.
>>8196841
Don't want to say. I like my anonymity.
Does anyone know how to measure a Journal quality (in math if that's necessary?). I could give that measure.
Ive published in optics before. Peer review is a huge pain in the ass.
>>8197171
I only know impact factor, but that varies hugely across fields.
>>8197186
Apparently it has impact factor 0.00.
About what I expected.
>>8197204
how long has the journal been around?
>>8197206
Since 2008
>>8197171
https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/
If it's on of these lists you got scammed
>>8197239
Don't think so. I didn't pay for anything.
My university could have gotten scammed though, but I don't see the name on the list (my heart skipped a beat, there was one similar sounding name).
Thanks though, it's nice to have that list.
>>8197171
Here you go anon, it's what I use (It's on computational math journals cause that's my field, but theres equivalent lists for all other fields of math).
http://www.austms.org.au/Rankings/0103_AustMS_final_ranked.html
Found this site on academica stackexchange. No clue if there are better ones, but for the most part you can't really compare impact factor across fields (even across subfields).
>>8195546
As of like 2 weeks ago I got my 2nd paper accepted into a top journal of my field :).
It's not much, but it's incredibly satisfying when it happens.
>>8195721
words are social constructs. get over it.
I'm just about to have the data from my BSc project published in the European Journal of Social Psychology, and I'll be named as the second author on the paper. What my supervisor doesn't know is that the majority of my data (just under half of the overall data) is made up because I was too autistic to ask people I didn't know to do the study.
>tfw contributing to psychology's replicability crisis and status as a shit-tier subject
>>8198784
Oh my. How could you even choose "Social Psychology" as a major if you're that autistic?
>>8198784
kek
>>8198784
you must feel like a complete fraud
>>8198802
I'm not a yank so I just did straight-up Psychology, no major/minor system here. To be honest I just hate bugging people - it wasn't even an in-person study so I could have just spammed the email link to the study to loads of people and would have probably got participants that way, but it seemed easier to just spend a few hours on it myself.
>>8197089
Yes. Refuse, and with firmness but tact, tell him to fuck off. Even if the hierarchical control structure rejects you for it, he didn't do the work, he doesn't get to choose where his name goes (and unless he did some very valuable supervising, he's lucky he's on there at all), and don't set a personal precedent of being screwed around.
This stems from the notion of a mentor / teacher, and student relationship. If that's not what's going on, don't use it.
>>8198784
Dont listen to this faggots,you are doing gods work.
>>8198806
Nah I feel fine, I made sure my faked data was in the same sort of direction as the real data I collected, so I wasn't so much making it up as amplifying the actual effect, maybe making it go from non-significant to significant because of having more participants.
>>8199146
>>8199129
Yeah there's already so much shit academic practice in psychology that my little bit of deception won't really matter in the grand scheme of things.
>>8199183
>from non-significant to significant because of having more participants.
How people like you can live with yourselves is totally beyond me.
>>8199186
Not him but by not being autistic and realizing how the real world works.
>>8199186
Fudging the data on my undergraduate dissertation isn't quite enough for me to go reaching for the rope just yet, but it's only early days yet. I didn't know that the study would be being published either, in fairness.
>>8199190
autistic is just the standard internet blanket term for people who aren't like you. I'm curious what your age is?
>>8199193
>autistic is just the standard internet blanket term
Now you are being silly.
>>8199192
What I'm trying to say is, your mindset might make sense in, say, a business or military setting where lying is a means to achieve a goal.
Science, especially social science, just isn't lucrative enough for cheating to be worthwhile. It's like cheating at a video game... you aren't really winning anything and the whole point of the activity becomes basically meaningless.
>>8199200
>a business or military setting where lying is a means to achieve a goal.
You don't know shit kid.
fuck right off this board
>>8199200
The truth isn't important enough to ruin all of your job prospects over.
The social sciences are very political and in the realm of academia one of the more cutthroat fields because of its popularity and the finite money that gets thrown around. Add into that a culture where you're pretty sure no one will go back and check your stuff so long as it looks"right" and you get the state of psychology today (shit, forgot to mention pandering to agendas)
>>8199206
explain plz
>>8199200
From a purely selfish and amoral point of view, it does make sense. I saved myself the time needed to recruit extra participants, and the embarrassment of having to beg all my friends and family to do my study. It also helped me to achieve a good (first-class) grade, because I was doing exams and other coursework at the same time, as well as working part-time, and needed to maximise the amount of time I had to study.
I take your wider point about it being bad for science, but the damage is pretty minimal. As I say, my made-up data followed the same pattern as the real data, so I was amplifying effects rather than creating new ones. Also, although I didn't do this deliberately, the end results were pretty much what we had expected, so it makes logical sense too. The paper will probably only be read by a select few academics working in the same exact area, and if they find the findings interesting enough to have ANY sort of practical impact in the real world, they will have to repeat elements of the study with larger sample sizes anyway.
>>8199208
yeah but the risks just aren't worth the payoff. You clearly have no real interest in your field. I would find my life pretty meaningless if I where you.
>>8199213
I never said it was bad for science. I'm trying to say it's bad for you and your feeling of self worth as a human being.
>>8199216
>it's bad for you and your feeling of self worth as a human being
But it's really not - for the reasons I explained, I can't see how anyone will suffer as a result of it, and it helped me out too. It was a win-win.
>>8199214
The thing is, there really aren't any risks. If someone tries to replicate results later, you might just go hmmm, let's try some more analysis to see why my results were anomalous. You won't give up participants names, do no one can contact them to make sure they did it...there's greater risk in either not getting results, or, worse yet, getting the wrong results. You could become a pariah on the level of a climatologist disproving climate change conclusively.
>>8199134
Thanks for the You. I've actually talked with him since and I'm getting first authorship. He's a cool guy.
>>8199226
lol. So if you spent 60 bucks on a videogame, and then cheated on it to beat it, you would feel like that was a good investment of your time?
In your field, the pay check you will be making is too small, and the risks associated with getting caught are too great, for cheating to be worth it.
i.e. you should be doing what you do because you are actually interested in finding something out. If all you want is a cushy job and you don't care if what you do is worthwhile, then you are an idiot for getting into social sciences.
>>8199226
However, I do think that the cheating bothers you, or otherwise you wouldn't be discussing it with me/ wouldn't have felt a need to share this information anonymously.
>>8199233
At the level of the BSc, I'm not even 'getting into social sciences'. You can't work in psychology without at least 3-4 years of postgraduate education too, and most people don't do that. There were 250 in my year, and thousands of other psychology students at different universities each year - that's thousands of undergraduate dissertations, most of which will be read by the supervisor and literally no one else. How was I to know that my data would get published? If I'd known I'd probably have put more effort into collecting real data, but as I say, there aren't really any negative external consequences to what I did either. And there's next to no chance of getting caught either, so long as you don't fake it really obviously. Undergraduate dissertations just aren't important enough to investigate that seriously.
As it happens, I have started with postgraduate education, although I'm still not entirely sure what field I want to move into. If I do a PhD and then move into academia, then obviously I'll take the work more seriously, especially if it's an area that I'm passionate about and can have real and positive impacts in the wider world. If I decide to go down some sort of applied route instead (which would probably be more cushy), then I won't be bad about doing what I had to at uni to ensure I had the best possible grades, and thus the best possible CV. There are loads of non-academic factors which influence the grades you actually receive, and I don't see anything wrong with playing the game to a certain extent. Hell, I paid tens of thousands for my degree and got fuck all in the way of tuition, so I'm going to do everything I can to make sure it's the best degree possible.
>>8199241
No it really doesn't, it was a relevant thread and I thought it was a funny anecdote. I genuinely have no moral qualms about what I did.
>>8199228
There are always risks. Maybe not associated with your particular work here, but you would be surprised how fast your position will become compromised when you choose to push the envelope. That goes for life in general. Best case scenario, you spend 50 years in a field that you secretly think is bullshit, to finally realize how you've fucked yourself because you've never actually accomplished anything you feel is meaningful.
>>8199246
I hope you mean what you say about taking it seriously later on. It's just sad that you've already proved to yourself that you are willing to take shortcuts in order to avoid (easily achievable) things you don't feel like doing.
best of luck
>>8199253
To be honest I'm going to keep taking shortcuts if I think (a) I'll get an advantage from it and (b) it doesn't harm anyone. But I do agree that serious (i.e. published) work can and should be completed at a higher standard. With the field I'm interested in now, health psychology, I'd definitely be pissed at anyone who was faking research, because it could lead to health interventions being sub-optimal, or good health interventions being discarded as ineffective, and so on. It's context-specific for me, that's all.
>>8197770
I'm on the same field. What do you work on?
>>8199213
>the end results were pretty much what we had expected, so it makes logical sense too.
Hello, bias.
>>8199255
> taking shortcuts if I think I'll get an advantage from it
So you honestly believe it was to your advantage to avoid the personal discomfort of learning to contact people you don't know?
The way I see it, you had an opportunity to acquire a skill relevant to your field, and instead you pussied out (even though you are PAYING for the chance to learn said skills)
Hilarious
>>8199265
In retrospect maybe not, but hey, I had lots of other shit on and I didn't know at that point whether I was serious about academia or not. Also, this is getting increasingly besides the point, but I was pretty depressed at the time - I had recently been dumped by the girl I was seeing and kept seeing her around the place with a new guy, so I became more of a social recluse. I just wanted to finish my shit at university as soon as possible and get the hell out of there so I could start up again someplace new.
>>8195546
I published as co-author in an engineering journal. Does that count?
>>8199256
Computational electromagnetics (mainly maxwells equations), you?
>>8199310
Of course (assuming your journal was peer reviewed).
I currently have 2 papers (Bioinformatics), had the luck of participating in a very successful project published in Cell, wasn't first author though. Still fairly at the beginning of my PhD, hoping for a lot more in the future.
>>8199348
Operational research, just started graduate school. I've recently heard this field isn't really respected, have you hard such a thing? I'm new to it, but pretty excited.
Maybe the guy who told me that was just a douchebag.
I've had opportunities but chose not to since I don't like having my name attached to things.
I wouldn't mind ghost writing for someone though.
>>8199726
Do you mean computational math as a whole? Or just operational research isn't respected?
I've never heard that about any field of math desu. If anything, this should be one of the more respected fields since it has the rigor of math with the usefulness of engineering.
>>8195912
P=NP
if n is 1 or 0
>>8199890
>Do you mean computational math as a whole? Or just operational research isn't respected?
Just operational research. The conversation was in progress when I arrived, so I didn't grasp the details.
I agree with you, computational math is amazing.
>>8195546
I haven't.
My research was for the DoD, so the only way my name will get out there, is if someone happens to stumble upon the same algorithm and our research comes out to snag the patent.
>>8200047
What exactly is operational research? I have only heard the name a couple of times I think, if that.
>>8196843
Were you legit expecting some links? There's no way you were.
>>8200184
Basically linear, nonlinear, integer, programming applied to real-world situations.
>>8200191
Look at the big brain on brad!
I'm second author on one based off of an undergrad research project I did that my supervisor rewrote without my knowledge if that counts.
>>8200362
Oh interesting!
Well good luck with your studies!
I have published 69 articles that are currently being reviewed by 420 top top science people XD #wrecked
