Career advice is needed I feel I'm failing. - (Jan/02/2013 )
Trof on Sat Jul 6 10:57:18 2013 said:
It's interesting to hear that Germany doesn't require PhD graduates to have a paper.
Even on our university (just a border east from Germany) the requirement for finishing a PhD is at least 3 papers, two of which has to be first author, two of which (not necessarily the same) has to be original papers (not reviews) and at least one in a journal with an impact factor. This also means that if your PI prefer to submit only as high impact as possible, you spend 7 years doing PhD, but that's a different story
that's not completely right....it depends on university, faculty and even supervisor...Some have this requirement already, some not. And some professors want this too (though it's not officially in the regulations) and would give you a bad mark if you did not publish. Anyway compared to these three papers, the regulations here are softer as you have the foreign-language bonus
I have seen many times people are more interested in finishing PhD early so they could get to Post Doc which is more lucrative. In post-Doc you have to run project independently & can leave if you do not like there. I know some university keep high standard for publication and research but then they require 7-8 yr. to finish PhD. In other places people finish within 3 years, in that situation one who extends his research for 5-7 years gets very much depressed by situation, Its very hard to not to compare with peers who complete within 3 years. Also it is hard economy time too.
And truly speaking the external factors are major hindrance, some places peoples are out of basic resources required; other places peoples run out of zeal for research, many don't thinks their advisor have so much command on subject/ is irritating. In either cases one have to decide on giving up or to finish somehow. Then Finish somehow is obvious choice, may be publications out of that scenario are poor quality or Spurious high quality.
Trof on Sat Jul 6 14:31:47 2013 said:
Of course IFs are always compared within the field of study, and it's not an absolute classification, there are more specialised journals and more broad ones, still IF stays at least as a general way to weight journal quality (eventhough I know about journals with high IF, that actually has a very variable content in regard to quality). And as for Nature.. it stays as a bit popular journal and a hallmark of belonging to "the top", usually you have a brief breakthrough paper in Nature and at the same time you publish the real detailed results in some normal journal.
pito on Sun Jul 7 09:30:58 2013 said:
> Dont you see the stupidity of this? I mean: you publish a short statement about it, but the "real" researchresults and more details are published in another journal.... I find this pretty stupid.
Yes. But Nature is more like a badge of "cool top science" than a place to find a detailed paper. And AFAIK Nature address the prospective authors in many cases (based on their reseach success) insted of authors asking for submitions there. I think people understand it like this.
And.. there is actually a badge for publishing in Nature
Trof on Sun Jul 7 14:50:28 2013 said:
pito on Sun Jul 7 09:30:58 2013 said:
> Dont you see the stupidity of this? I mean: you publish a short statement about it, but the "real" researchresults and more details are published in another journal.... I find this pretty stupid.
Yes. But Nature is more like a badge of "cool top science" than a place to find a detailed paper. And AFAIK Nature address the prospective authors in many cases (based on their reseach success) insted of authors asking for submitions there. I think people understand it like this.
And.. there is actually a badge for publishing in Nature
Are you stating that its nature that goes after the authors to publish? Not sure what you mean by Nature address the prospective authors rather than authors asking for submissions.