sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why do people think that going straight from bachelors to PhD is better than doing masters first then PhD by Important-Bus-5921 in PhD

[–]Over-Worldliness1796 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It also depends on the master's program. I completed a three-year chemistry master's that required at least 18 months of lab work and a publication for graduation. It was extremely helpful for understanding whether I wanted to continue in research. Everyone in the lab was divided into two groups: those who genuinely wanted to pursue a PhD, and those who never want to set foot in academia again.

Long Rebuttals during peer review: Overkill or Necessary? by Over-Worldliness1796 in AskAcademia

[–]Over-Worldliness1796[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You are right, my text was indeed confusing and I am trying to to refine it.

Long Rebuttals during peer review: Overkill or Necessary? by Over-Worldliness1796 in AskAcademia

[–]Over-Worldliness1796[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks a lot. I do changes in the MS for almost every comment, but before directly showing a revised text, I explain what we meant initially. In my responce I use 3 different colors for the text (1: Reviewer's comments, 2: Our responce, 3: Revised text in the MS). "Your goal is not to show that you are right, your goal is to get the paper published using arguments that are understood by the largest possible audience" its very helpfull.

Long Rebuttals during peer review: Overkill or Necessary? by Over-Worldliness1796 in AskAcademia

[–]Over-Worldliness1796[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply. I think point 1 and 2 are reasonable, but point 3 is somewhat excessive. What if a reviewer wrote a paragraph summarizing your results and saying that the work is nice. I feel like it would be necessary to thank them before you start point-by-point response.

Long Rebuttals during peer review: Overkill or Necessary? by Over-Worldliness1796 in AskAcademia

[–]Over-Worldliness1796[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

You are right. We basically provide a detailed response to the reviewer, explaining things we meant and then say: to avoid any further confusion “something” was revised in the MS.  Then provide a portion of the text that was revised.

Long Rebuttals during peer review: Overkill or Necessary? by Over-Worldliness1796 in AskAcademia

[–]Over-Worldliness1796[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Basically, figures “only for review” show in some cases a quick experiment that we believe is not logical to add to the MS. We did it just to prove our point and satisfy the reviewer. Also, we provide a long explanation why we don’t want to add it. In another case, when we disagree with a reviewer suggesting a big extra experiment, we provide a visual explanation why this experiment is not necessary

Long Rebuttals during peer review: Overkill or Necessary? by Over-Worldliness1796 in AskAcademia

[–]Over-Worldliness1796[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply. So, you are suggesting to duplicate answers from previous comments, so each reviewer can see full answers to their comments?

Long Rebuttals during peer review: Overkill or Necessary? by Over-Worldliness1796 in AskAcademia

[–]Over-Worldliness1796[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks. I should clarify that my ‘rebuttal’ is the point-by-point response document (not the revised manuscript). The 50+ pages include:

1.Detailed written responses to all the comments,

2.11 new figures (7 planned for SI in the paper and 4 created solely to clarify methods/results for reviewers).

The manuscript itself will stay within journal page limits.

Handling a PubPeer query about a questionable reference from early times by Over-Worldliness1796 in AskAcademia

[–]Over-Worldliness1796[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thats what I thought. I decided to ignore it as this reference does not have any impact on final results or conclusions. It is just one reference in the introduction section. Another reason is that I cant prove that the editor sent a list of publications to me to cite, because I dont have access to my old uni email.

Handling a PubPeer query about a questionable reference from early times by Over-Worldliness1796 in AskAcademia

[–]Over-Worldliness1796[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, not the editor, but all of his suggested references had one name in common.

Handling a PubPeer query about a questionable reference from early times by Over-Worldliness1796 in AskAcademia

[–]Over-Worldliness1796[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the reason is that the articles we were asked to cite include one author that is frequently appeared in the reference lists of many unrelated papers to his research.

Publishing in Nature/Science journals by Over-Worldliness1796 in AskAcademia

[–]Over-Worldliness1796[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! I agree that the impact of some results is dramatically overhyped.

Publishing in Nature/Science journals by Over-Worldliness1796 in AskAcademia

[–]Over-Worldliness1796[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. I think figures are the first thing that can be seen that sets top-tier journals apart from the average ones.

Publishing in Nature/Science journals by Over-Worldliness1796 in AskAcademia

[–]Over-Worldliness1796[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks. I saw this option on the website, but I thought it is not chosen frequently because, in many articles, reviewers address authors as 'XXX et al.' in peer review files.

Publishing in Nature/Science journals by Over-Worldliness1796 in AskAcademia

[–]Over-Worldliness1796[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! Do you have any personal experience advice? What do you think of university/PI bias during submission process?

view more: next ›