I have written before about how hard it is to recruit good students (e.g. here and here). My department is ranked in the top 15 or so, therefore it's quite a good place but we don't routinely bring in superstar student candidates.
However, I believe that if we are a bit clever in how we recruit, we can find some true gems among students who get passed up by more highly ranked schools because there is something a bit off with their record.
In the physical sciences, American students have multiple fellowship opportunities available to them and they are therefore (on average) easier to fund than international students. This is part of the reason why good American students are very attractive to hire and they routinely get snatched by places more highly ranked than mine. So, in order to find some good talent willing to come here I typically look hard at international student applications. I generally give a lot of weight to the quality of the undergrad institution, grades in math and physics, letters of recommendation, research experience and papers (if the student has any), as well as my previous experiences with students from the same school. As for tests, I look at TOEFL scores for international students and GRE Quantitative but not at Verbal or Analytic. Unfortunately, there are several countries that produce students who have very high Verbal scores, but when they come to the US it turns out they don't speak English fluently at all and have trouble following classes. The Analytic part, since they changed it to "Analytical Writing" is -- in my humble opinion -- completely useless for selection in my field. These are essays scored by humans; being able to write persuasively in essay format in English is not a skill most international students have when they take the GRE test, even if they speak the language well and have decent listening comprehension. The average quality of English instruction and the availability of resources for test preparation vary greatly from nation to nation and should be taken it into account when looking at test scores. Also, in many countries the GRE and TOEFL tests aren't offered very often, may still be paper-based, and taking the tests more than once may be prohibitively costly for the student.
My best two students came in with really mediocre test scores. However, they were from countries with selective admissions processes at the undergraduate levels and had very good grades in math and physics and some research experience. So this year I was going to bring in another student from the same university from which I recruited good students before; even spectacular students from this country tend to do so-so in the GRE. The new candidate has excellent math and physics grades, stellar letters of recommendation, even published a paper in a reputable journal. GRE Quantitative maximal, he even took a GRE Subject test (not necessary for admission to this program, which is in engineering) and received a very good score. We have been in contact and I was sure he would get formally admitted without a problem.
The student contacted me a few days ago, very upset, saying he was rejected. I was stunned. I inquired around a bit with our admissions committee, and apparently the person who looked at the student's file thought his GRE Analytical Writing Score of 3 was too low and that was what got the student nixed. For comparison, my two excellent American-born and -educated undergrad researchers, who both went on to top-5 places for their PhDs, received 4's on their GRE Analytical Writing; I think holding international students to the same standard is pretty ridiculous. The colleague who examined the student's file appeared defensive about the decision, which leads me to believe he hadn't even examined the rest of the student's file carefully.
Anyway, I had to make a stink about it (thank God for tenure that enables me to do this) and the student's file will be reconsidered. But this leaves a bad taste in the mouth -- that a good student can be dismissed based on a pretty irrelevant test score. I know people on admissions committees work hard, there are a number of applications to go through, and it's very time-consuming as far as service roles go. Picking cut-offs to streamline the process seems like a must. But, I have been less than happy with the quality of the average graduate student admitted in my department ever since I started my job here; I feel we admit too many poorly prepared or insufficiently motivated candidates, but most importantly -- too many candidates who don't have the background for the type of research that the faculty in this department do. I generally hand-pick students on my own before the selection is made and then make comments to the committee, but this time I didn't get to the student's file before the formal decision was made. It looks like it's time for me to get more involved in the admissions process at the department and university levels and push for giving admissions criteria at my place a big-picture do-over.
Having formally high and inflexible selection criteria may seem to convey that we are a top-notch, hard-core place. We are, in the sense that there is very good science being done here, but let's not kid ourselves. We are not a top-5 place, we are not a magnet school to which everybody applies and everybody wants to go, so we do not have our pick among the cream of the crop. We need to be smarter than inflexible admissions and test scores, accounting for the fact that the obviously superb students won't come here. We need to be more efficient at identifying and attracting the not-so-obviously superb students who will be interested in coming here. All this seems obvious, but is surprisingly hard to implement, especially at a level higher than a research group (department, college, university) where the different stages of the admission process are decoupled from one another.
How is the graduate admissions process handled at your school? If you are a faculty, are you happy with the process? Do you pick from admitted applicants or pre-select on your own? Please tell us also what your area (broadly) is and how highly ranked the department is, and anything else that you deem pertinent for the successes or failures of graduate admissions at your school.
And Happy New Year everyone!
Friday, December 30, 2011
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Gen X Faculty Good News For Academia
Happy holidays, everyone!
In lieu of a post, here's some good reading I stumbled upon at Engineering Prof's blog :
New Challenges, New Priorities: The Experience of Generation X Faculty: A Study for the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education by Robin Matross Helms
As the title says, the report focuses on the academic experiences of Generation X-ers (born 1964-1980). A large number of early- to mid-career faculty fall within this range, and it's interesting to note that many of the issues discussed in the blogosphere as personal challenges appear to be generational.
The concluding paragraph sounds quite optimistic about the imprint that Gen X-ers are about to leave on academia:
The Bottom Line: X’ers Are Good News for Academia
It is always nice to be the bearer of good news – and it is safe to say that the findings of this study bode well for the academic profession and for higher education in general. Academia clearly will be in good hands as Generation X faculty inherit the reins from their Baby Boomer predecessors. Overall, X’ers are very committed to their jobs and institutions, and to excelling as teachers, researchers, and administrators. They value interdisciplinarity in all its forms, forge collaborations and mentoring relationships, and work hard to support their colleagues – the essence of collegiality. They are figuring out ways to make work-life balance work for themselves and their families, and perhaps more than anything else, are seeking to build community in all realms of their lives. There can be no doubt that students, institutions, and future generations of faculty will benefit as a result, and that higher education will emerge stronger and all the more effective as Generation X faculty members’ careers unfold over the coming years and decades.
In lieu of a post, here's some good reading I stumbled upon at Engineering Prof's blog :
New Challenges, New Priorities: The Experience of Generation X Faculty: A Study for the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education by Robin Matross Helms
As the title says, the report focuses on the academic experiences of Generation X-ers (born 1964-1980). A large number of early- to mid-career faculty fall within this range, and it's interesting to note that many of the issues discussed in the blogosphere as personal challenges appear to be generational.
The concluding paragraph sounds quite optimistic about the imprint that Gen X-ers are about to leave on academia:
The Bottom Line: X’ers Are Good News for Academia
It is always nice to be the bearer of good news – and it is safe to say that the findings of this study bode well for the academic profession and for higher education in general. Academia clearly will be in good hands as Generation X faculty inherit the reins from their Baby Boomer predecessors. Overall, X’ers are very committed to their jobs and institutions, and to excelling as teachers, researchers, and administrators. They value interdisciplinarity in all its forms, forge collaborations and mentoring relationships, and work hard to support their colleagues – the essence of collegiality. They are figuring out ways to make work-life balance work for themselves and their families, and perhaps more than anything else, are seeking to build community in all realms of their lives. There can be no doubt that students, institutions, and future generations of faculty will benefit as a result, and that higher education will emerge stronger and all the more effective as Generation X faculty members’ careers unfold over the coming years and decades.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Twelve Months of Academic Jungle (2011)
DrugMonkey started his annual "a year in review" meme here. The rules are simple -- post the first sentence of the first blog entry of each month.
I decided to play this year and -- TA-DAA! -- instant blog post: not as good as a real post, but quick and microwaveable!
It revealed that I seem to write a lot of proposals. Should include the post in my annual performance review.
January 2011 Familiarity Breeds Contempt
On vacation a few years ago, I was watching "Malcolm in the Middle" reruns on Nickelodeon.
February 2011 Procrastination Medley
In honor of procrastination while writing my fourth grant since the end of December, here's a piecewise coherent post...
March 2011 Giving Up on Giving Advice
Much has been written about junior researchers, students and postdocs, not receiving enough advising about the different career prospects or not enough training in the aspects critical for their desired careers (e.g. teaching, grant writing, or mentoring for the academically inclined).
April 2011 Recruitment Time Blues
'Tis that time of year again. The time when grad students receive offers from multiple universities, and faculty are trying to attract the best possible younglings.
May 2011 Home Is Where the Job Is?
Tonight at dinner, I mentioned to my husband that, even though I have been in GMP Uni City for 7 years now, I don't feel at home.
June 2011 Mush
Heat and hormones have turned my brain into mush, so I fear I don't have a coherent essay in me.
July 2011 Hermitage's Women sans Babies Carnival Is Back with a Vengeance
Hermitage is hosting a second incarnation of her mini-carnival on Academic Women Sans Babies.
August 2011 Ep-Endure-All
In a comment a few posts ago, Alyssa suggested I share the birth story.
September 2011 A Quick-and-Dirty Post on Work-Life Balance
Busy with white papers and Smurfilicious adventures, but couldn't help but notice recent waves around the blogosphere (notable posts by DrugMonkey, Odyssey, and Thoreau) that surrounded this Nature News article.
October 2011 Bizzeeee
'Tis that time of year again -- proposal time!
November 2011 Manuscript Submission Adventures
Since this summer, five manuscripts where I am the lead senior author and my different group members are first author were finally wrapped up and submitted.
December 2011 Random Irritations -- Episode IV
After I have known a person for a while, I usually have a pretty good idea how they think and can predict how they will act, at least in the context in which we typically interact
I decided to play this year and -- TA-DAA! -- instant blog post: not as good as a real post, but quick and microwaveable!
It revealed that I seem to write a lot of proposals. Should include the post in my annual performance review.
January 2011 Familiarity Breeds Contempt
On vacation a few years ago, I was watching "Malcolm in the Middle" reruns on Nickelodeon.
February 2011 Procrastination Medley
In honor of procrastination while writing my fourth grant since the end of December, here's a piecewise coherent post...
March 2011 Giving Up on Giving Advice
Much has been written about junior researchers, students and postdocs, not receiving enough advising about the different career prospects or not enough training in the aspects critical for their desired careers (e.g. teaching, grant writing, or mentoring for the academically inclined).
April 2011 Recruitment Time Blues
'Tis that time of year again. The time when grad students receive offers from multiple universities, and faculty are trying to attract the best possible younglings.
May 2011 Home Is Where the Job Is?
Tonight at dinner, I mentioned to my husband that, even though I have been in GMP Uni City for 7 years now, I don't feel at home.
June 2011 Mush
Heat and hormones have turned my brain into mush, so I fear I don't have a coherent essay in me.
July 2011 Hermitage's Women sans Babies Carnival Is Back with a Vengeance
Hermitage is hosting a second incarnation of her mini-carnival on Academic Women Sans Babies.
August 2011 Ep-Endure-All
In a comment a few posts ago, Alyssa suggested I share the birth story.
September 2011 A Quick-and-Dirty Post on Work-Life Balance
Busy with white papers and Smurfilicious adventures, but couldn't help but notice recent waves around the blogosphere (notable posts by DrugMonkey, Odyssey, and Thoreau) that surrounded this Nature News article.
October 2011 Bizzeeee
'Tis that time of year again -- proposal time!
November 2011 Manuscript Submission Adventures
Since this summer, five manuscripts where I am the lead senior author and my different group members are first author were finally wrapped up and submitted.
December 2011 Random Irritations -- Episode IV
After I have known a person for a while, I usually have a pretty good idea how they think and can predict how they will act, at least in the context in which we typically interact
Monday, December 12, 2011
In Defense of Whining
I come from a culture of very gloomy, glass-half-empty people. People complain a lot, all the time, about everything. Men and women both complain. Complaining is a mode of interpersonal communication, akin to talking about the weather here in the US. It is a way to bond. Complaining does not mean that a person is incapable of dealing with their own problems, although the power that one has over one's own life is drastically lower there than here in the US. So yeah, there is a lot of bitching and moaning going on everywhere.
I am personally a high-strung and fairly anxious person. Some of it is my upbringing, but some of it is my temperament. I think this trait of mine is also responsible for my drive at work -- I am not one to rest on my laurels, not even for a little bit -- but I can be quite exhausting in my personal life. I worry all the time, constantly trying to predict all the things that could go wrong. I think subconsciously I have this misconception that worrying is somehow supposed to protect against bad luck; it's stupid, I know rationally, but this powerful programming is very hard to get rid of. My mother always used to say "When everything in your life is great, put a pebble in your shoe to bother you." Apparently, I was brought up thinking that the state of contentment and happiness is unnatural and painfully transient; it is bound to end quickly and tragically, so one should be the most worried when everything is fine, because who knows what kind of horror comes next. I think this way of thinking is fairly common in my culture, and definitely marked my upbringing. As a result, I am one tense overachiever who worries all the time, about everything. Every time my baby sneezes, I envisions how two weeks down the road he will have yet another raging ear infection (I really wish I were more wrong about this one). Every time a grant gets rejected, I envision that I will never again in my life get another grant and my research program will die a slow and painful death.
Interestingly, my husband, who is the product of the same culture, is a calm, relaxed person who does not worry about anything. He says "You worry enough for both of us." He obviously did not grow up with my mother.
Now, while I am sure you find this gratuitous insight into my psyche fascinating and/or eyeroll-inducing, that's not where I was going with this post. In the comments to Cloud's post from a few weeks ago, which I somehow missed when it appeared, there was a conversation thread about how people, especially women, bitch and moan all the time and how it is rare for women to say that they themselves are awesome, that their lives, their families, their jobs are all perfect. And, yes, how they complain all the time and don't do anything about their problems.
I cannot say why other people bitch and moan on the internet, but I can certainly say why I do.
1) I don't have the impression, at least in the circles where I move in real life, that complaining is welcome or even tolerated. None of my colleagues complain, I am sure that none would want to listen to me complain, and if I did that would imply a weakness on my part. So in real life I have to have my $hit together at all times. The only people in real life who hear me complain are my poor husband, and on occasion my mother on the phone. My husband is wonderful but I think it's not fair for me to offload all of my many, many worries and paranoias on him. He's not a therapist and he cannot expend all of his energy on calming me down.
One of the reasons I blog to begin with is to offload the things that bother me. Getting used to being in control and calm all the time, as expected in this culture, took me quite a while, and I really miss the ability to vent and shoot shit with people in real life. I miss this ability to talk the ear off of someone, it was highly therapeutic for me. This option no longer exists in real life; I tried therapy for a couple of sessions, but I found it quite off-putting; I might talk about it more some other time. Anyway...
So I whine, rant, bitch, and complain in order to offload fatigue and frustration, and overall feel lighter and better. The negative stuff I write is exaggerated, but these exaggerated negative emotions are exactly what I need. That does not mean my life is bleak, on the contrary. In objective terms, my life is absolutely wonderful. Getting rid of the frustration helps me see more clearly how wonderful it really is. One of these days I may find enough time to exercise, so maybe I'll become more upbeat at that time. Or not.
2) Being a Chicken Little who constantly thinks the sky is falling, I have a deep-seated fear of admitting that everything is perfect. Admitting that my life is great, which it really is, fills me with dread. I knock on wood. I fear some terrible punishment will come upon me. For instance, I was a total nervous wreck my whole last pregnancy, because I couldn't shake the fear that I am asking for more than my fair share of happiness (by going for a 3rd baby) and that as a result something will go very wrong. This whole nervousness was exacerbated or even brought on by the miscarriage that preceded my last pregnancy (for long-term readers, that was the time when I shut the blog down for a while, after which it re-emerged at the new location). So the whole pregnancy was marked by a very uncomfortable fight between reason and my irrational terrors. It was not pleasant.
Bottom line is -- it may be very hard for some people to admit that everything is peachy, even if it is and even they really want to. You don't know what purpose bitching and moaning online serves for someone. If you don't like it, just move on. People's relationships with blogging can be casual or serious, torrid or made in heaven. And never assume that you know anything, not really, about a person from one or even a hundred of their blog posts. In real life, getting to know a person takes a lifetime. What makes anyone think it is possible to accomplish the same feat online in astronomically shorter times?
And, of course -- don't believe everything you read on the internet.
I am personally a high-strung and fairly anxious person. Some of it is my upbringing, but some of it is my temperament. I think this trait of mine is also responsible for my drive at work -- I am not one to rest on my laurels, not even for a little bit -- but I can be quite exhausting in my personal life. I worry all the time, constantly trying to predict all the things that could go wrong. I think subconsciously I have this misconception that worrying is somehow supposed to protect against bad luck; it's stupid, I know rationally, but this powerful programming is very hard to get rid of. My mother always used to say "When everything in your life is great, put a pebble in your shoe to bother you." Apparently, I was brought up thinking that the state of contentment and happiness is unnatural and painfully transient; it is bound to end quickly and tragically, so one should be the most worried when everything is fine, because who knows what kind of horror comes next. I think this way of thinking is fairly common in my culture, and definitely marked my upbringing. As a result, I am one tense overachiever who worries all the time, about everything. Every time my baby sneezes, I envisions how two weeks down the road he will have yet another raging ear infection (I really wish I were more wrong about this one). Every time a grant gets rejected, I envision that I will never again in my life get another grant and my research program will die a slow and painful death.
Interestingly, my husband, who is the product of the same culture, is a calm, relaxed person who does not worry about anything. He says "You worry enough for both of us." He obviously did not grow up with my mother.
Now, while I am sure you find this gratuitous insight into my psyche fascinating and/or eyeroll-inducing, that's not where I was going with this post. In the comments to Cloud's post from a few weeks ago, which I somehow missed when it appeared, there was a conversation thread about how people, especially women, bitch and moan all the time and how it is rare for women to say that they themselves are awesome, that their lives, their families, their jobs are all perfect. And, yes, how they complain all the time and don't do anything about their problems.
I cannot say why other people bitch and moan on the internet, but I can certainly say why I do.
1) I don't have the impression, at least in the circles where I move in real life, that complaining is welcome or even tolerated. None of my colleagues complain, I am sure that none would want to listen to me complain, and if I did that would imply a weakness on my part. So in real life I have to have my $hit together at all times. The only people in real life who hear me complain are my poor husband, and on occasion my mother on the phone. My husband is wonderful but I think it's not fair for me to offload all of my many, many worries and paranoias on him. He's not a therapist and he cannot expend all of his energy on calming me down.
One of the reasons I blog to begin with is to offload the things that bother me. Getting used to being in control and calm all the time, as expected in this culture, took me quite a while, and I really miss the ability to vent and shoot shit with people in real life. I miss this ability to talk the ear off of someone, it was highly therapeutic for me. This option no longer exists in real life; I tried therapy for a couple of sessions, but I found it quite off-putting; I might talk about it more some other time. Anyway...
So I whine, rant, bitch, and complain in order to offload fatigue and frustration, and overall feel lighter and better. The negative stuff I write is exaggerated, but these exaggerated negative emotions are exactly what I need. That does not mean my life is bleak, on the contrary. In objective terms, my life is absolutely wonderful. Getting rid of the frustration helps me see more clearly how wonderful it really is. One of these days I may find enough time to exercise, so maybe I'll become more upbeat at that time. Or not.
2) Being a Chicken Little who constantly thinks the sky is falling, I have a deep-seated fear of admitting that everything is perfect. Admitting that my life is great, which it really is, fills me with dread. I knock on wood. I fear some terrible punishment will come upon me. For instance, I was a total nervous wreck my whole last pregnancy, because I couldn't shake the fear that I am asking for more than my fair share of happiness (by going for a 3rd baby) and that as a result something will go very wrong. This whole nervousness was exacerbated or even brought on by the miscarriage that preceded my last pregnancy (for long-term readers, that was the time when I shut the blog down for a while, after which it re-emerged at the new location). So the whole pregnancy was marked by a very uncomfortable fight between reason and my irrational terrors. It was not pleasant.
Bottom line is -- it may be very hard for some people to admit that everything is peachy, even if it is and even they really want to. You don't know what purpose bitching and moaning online serves for someone. If you don't like it, just move on. People's relationships with blogging can be casual or serious, torrid or made in heaven. And never assume that you know anything, not really, about a person from one or even a hundred of their blog posts. In real life, getting to know a person takes a lifetime. What makes anyone think it is possible to accomplish the same feat online in astronomically shorter times?
And, of course -- don't believe everything you read on the internet.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Editorializing
Recently, I have been editing a special issue of a journal in my field. The special issue focuses on the topics in which I am an expert, so I know virtually all the contributors (at least the group leaders) fairly well. When soliciting reviews, I tried to contact postdocs and junior faculty about as often as I did senior people. This being a special issue means I have had to deal with a large number of papers in a fairly short time span and on a relatively small number of topics, which has helped make some interesting patterns in the review process obvious.
My initial guess was that younger people, postdocs and junior faculty, would be less busy and would be more likely to accept to review, would accept/decline to review more promptly (this journal provides an accept/decline option), and would overall be submitting their reports faster than the ultrabusy senior folks. Here's what I found:
Bar none, the fastest review (and a very detailed, to-the-point one) was received from a well-known, well-respected, and presumably very busy senior person in the field. In fact, several of the very busy, well-known people, whom I was reluctant to even ask for review because they likely have multiple review requests from different journals on their desk at any point in time, were very prompt in accepting to review, and were either on time or just a tiny bit late with their reports. These reports were always professional, detailed, and very useful.
So we can conclude "When you want something done, get a busy person to do it," right? Hold on, not so fast. Unfortunately, among the people who took the longest to even respond that they would indeed review, senior faculty are also the most numerous. Clearly, when it comes to plotting the distribution of referee responsiveness, the senior-folks distribution is tail-heavy.
Overall, I am quite puzzled by how many people take forever to accept/decline to review. I have never understood that. You read the abstract, and then decide whether or not to review, and click on a link. How hard is that?
I don't mind people declining to review, but I really appreciate it if they do it promptly. Unfortunately, postdocs and junior faculty have actually been much less likely to accept a referral for papers clearly within their expertise than I had hoped. I know that junior people are not idle, quite the contrary. My guess is that they don't want to review because they feel there is no immediate benefit to their careers from review, but I think that is short-sighted. Becoming a well-regarded reviewer improves your standing in the field and it keeps you at the forefront of your specialty. (FSP wrote about it. ) Junior people should have a light review load, but I think it's important that they review. It's part of training and part of being a good member of the scientific community. Being a sloppy or disinterested reviewer, while presumably expecting others to pull their weight on your behalf, is certainly not going to enhance your standing in the editor's eyes.
There is one person who submitted two papers to the special issue. Yet, I have not been able to get a single report out of him after multiple reminders. First he took forever to accept, and now now he's again taking forever to submit that one review. I would think that it's only fair that, if you want others to review your papers (note the plural), you should pitch in yourself, shouldn't you?
Another interesting issue, which was also discussed by FSP here, is whether to indicate that the paper you are reviewing is missing citations to your own work. In the case of a special issue, we are dealing with a focused set of topics, so this issue came up several times. I have found that most people have no qualms about requiring that their papers be cited (and generally rightly so), even though when the list of papers to cite contains only those from a single group it becomes quite obvious who the reviewer is (perhaps up to the uncertainty coming from a multiperson author list).
We all want our papers reviewed promptly and thoroughly -- I cannot imagine anyone wanting their paper reviewed slowly or sloppily -- but many people provide exceedingly terse reviews or are so late that the referral has to be withdrawn. It's an interesting feature of the human psyche -- we fail to treat others the way we would like to be treated ourselves.
My initial guess was that younger people, postdocs and junior faculty, would be less busy and would be more likely to accept to review, would accept/decline to review more promptly (this journal provides an accept/decline option), and would overall be submitting their reports faster than the ultrabusy senior folks. Here's what I found:
Bar none, the fastest review (and a very detailed, to-the-point one) was received from a well-known, well-respected, and presumably very busy senior person in the field. In fact, several of the very busy, well-known people, whom I was reluctant to even ask for review because they likely have multiple review requests from different journals on their desk at any point in time, were very prompt in accepting to review, and were either on time or just a tiny bit late with their reports. These reports were always professional, detailed, and very useful.
So we can conclude "When you want something done, get a busy person to do it," right? Hold on, not so fast. Unfortunately, among the people who took the longest to even respond that they would indeed review, senior faculty are also the most numerous. Clearly, when it comes to plotting the distribution of referee responsiveness, the senior-folks distribution is tail-heavy.
Overall, I am quite puzzled by how many people take forever to accept/decline to review. I have never understood that. You read the abstract, and then decide whether or not to review, and click on a link. How hard is that?
I don't mind people declining to review, but I really appreciate it if they do it promptly. Unfortunately, postdocs and junior faculty have actually been much less likely to accept a referral for papers clearly within their expertise than I had hoped. I know that junior people are not idle, quite the contrary. My guess is that they don't want to review because they feel there is no immediate benefit to their careers from review, but I think that is short-sighted. Becoming a well-regarded reviewer improves your standing in the field and it keeps you at the forefront of your specialty. (FSP wrote about it. ) Junior people should have a light review load, but I think it's important that they review. It's part of training and part of being a good member of the scientific community. Being a sloppy or disinterested reviewer, while presumably expecting others to pull their weight on your behalf, is certainly not going to enhance your standing in the editor's eyes.
There is one person who submitted two papers to the special issue. Yet, I have not been able to get a single report out of him after multiple reminders. First he took forever to accept, and now now he's again taking forever to submit that one review. I would think that it's only fair that, if you want others to review your papers (note the plural), you should pitch in yourself, shouldn't you?
Another interesting issue, which was also discussed by FSP here, is whether to indicate that the paper you are reviewing is missing citations to your own work. In the case of a special issue, we are dealing with a focused set of topics, so this issue came up several times. I have found that most people have no qualms about requiring that their papers be cited (and generally rightly so), even though when the list of papers to cite contains only those from a single group it becomes quite obvious who the reviewer is (perhaps up to the uncertainty coming from a multiperson author list).
We all want our papers reviewed promptly and thoroughly -- I cannot imagine anyone wanting their paper reviewed slowly or sloppily -- but many people provide exceedingly terse reviews or are so late that the referral has to be withdrawn. It's an interesting feature of the human psyche -- we fail to treat others the way we would like to be treated ourselves.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Random Irritations -- Episode IV
After I have known a person for a while, I usually have a pretty good idea how they think and can predict how they will act, at least in the context in which we typically interact. With most of my long-term collaborators, for example, I have a pretty good idea of how they think (as scientists), what their priorities are, how they feel about certain aspects of our job or our field, and so on. We don't have to be close personal friends, but the knowledge of what is important to the people with whom you interact on a regular basis is really critical in long-term relationships.
However, there have been a few people in my life whose modi operandi remain a mystery to me, even though we have known each other for quite some time. These people are so guarded, at least towards me, that they may well be black holes -- no matter how I try to connect with them, I receive absolutely no information on what they genuinely think or feel. This is not a priori bad in professional relationships, one could say it helps maintain a professional distance. I could just take whatever they say at face value and act accordingly, right? That would be awesome. Except that, for a few such people, some of their intermittent actions make no sense to me and really make me wonder WTF is going on in their heads.
Here is an example. There is a Collaborator of mine who has been a topic of several of my posts, because this person completely baffles me. I have no freakin' clue what they think or feel in earnest. They present a perfect, impenetrable facade of sugarcoated niceness. One thing I have gathered about Collaborator is that control is very important to them -- it oozes from their appearance, demeanor, the way they schedule meetings and handle email correspondence, the way they advise students and edit papers. Collaborator is a good, well-regarded scientist, and overall a reasonable person.
But every so often, something bizarre happens. The other day, Collaborator and I were supposed to meet with a Third Collaborator (TC) in TC's office. I came straight from home, hauling my purse, breast pump and related paraphernalia, as well as a large coffee and a bottle of water. I went straight to TC's office in order not to be late; Collaborator was not there yet, and TC said he had to finish a couple of emails and to sit down at his conference table. The table was oval, with one end completely covered in papers. I went to the other, clear end (I suppose it would be the head of the table), placed my coffee and water bottle on the table right in front of the seat, and told TC that since he needed a few minutes and Collaborator wasn't there yet, I would just run to my office and drop my stuff off.
My absence lasted about 5 minutes. When I went back, I found Collaborator sitting in my spot! The spot which was clearly taken by virtue of having a huge coffee and bottled water in front of it. Collaborator was just sitting there, smiling, like nothing happened. I had to pick another seat, then lean over towards Collaborator to drag my drinks over to my new seat, so I don't think there could have been any ambiguity about where the drinks were supposed to be.
I didn't say anything because I was really taken aback. Shortly thereafter, Collaborator whipped out an apple and started crunching away. Not important for the story, but I found it extra noisy and annoying in my irritated state.
What do you even say when someone sits in your spot and pretends nothing happened? Why would someone do that? Do they absolutely must sit at the head of the table? Why? Weird.
However, there have been a few people in my life whose modi operandi remain a mystery to me, even though we have known each other for quite some time. These people are so guarded, at least towards me, that they may well be black holes -- no matter how I try to connect with them, I receive absolutely no information on what they genuinely think or feel. This is not a priori bad in professional relationships, one could say it helps maintain a professional distance. I could just take whatever they say at face value and act accordingly, right? That would be awesome. Except that, for a few such people, some of their intermittent actions make no sense to me and really make me wonder WTF is going on in their heads.
Here is an example. There is a Collaborator of mine who has been a topic of several of my posts, because this person completely baffles me. I have no freakin' clue what they think or feel in earnest. They present a perfect, impenetrable facade of sugarcoated niceness. One thing I have gathered about Collaborator is that control is very important to them -- it oozes from their appearance, demeanor, the way they schedule meetings and handle email correspondence, the way they advise students and edit papers. Collaborator is a good, well-regarded scientist, and overall a reasonable person.
But every so often, something bizarre happens. The other day, Collaborator and I were supposed to meet with a Third Collaborator (TC) in TC's office. I came straight from home, hauling my purse, breast pump and related paraphernalia, as well as a large coffee and a bottle of water. I went straight to TC's office in order not to be late; Collaborator was not there yet, and TC said he had to finish a couple of emails and to sit down at his conference table. The table was oval, with one end completely covered in papers. I went to the other, clear end (I suppose it would be the head of the table), placed my coffee and water bottle on the table right in front of the seat, and told TC that since he needed a few minutes and Collaborator wasn't there yet, I would just run to my office and drop my stuff off.
My absence lasted about 5 minutes. When I went back, I found Collaborator sitting in my spot! The spot which was clearly taken by virtue of having a huge coffee and bottled water in front of it. Collaborator was just sitting there, smiling, like nothing happened. I had to pick another seat, then lean over towards Collaborator to drag my drinks over to my new seat, so I don't think there could have been any ambiguity about where the drinks were supposed to be.
I didn't say anything because I was really taken aback. Shortly thereafter, Collaborator whipped out an apple and started crunching away. Not important for the story, but I found it extra noisy and annoying in my irritated state.
What do you even say when someone sits in your spot and pretends nothing happened? Why would someone do that? Do they absolutely must sit at the head of the table? Why? Weird.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)