Archive for May, 2009

Drafting theses and papers

Thursday, May 28th, 2009

A good research paper or thesis is not only expected to have good results but is also well-drafted. Well-drafted implies much more rewriting over the initial draft. For a PhD student, this is not an easy task and requires patience and a lot of attention to detail. So what is the best way to improve a draft paper?

1. The easiest hint is to emulate the best. One can examine similar papers in the best journals to get an idea of what the end product should look like.

2. A lot of times, reorganizing is the easiest way to make a paper more readable and interesting. Just like a journalistic piece, it is useful state the most interesting results in the beginning even if the details and analysis comes later.

3. Connecting sentences between different points helps the reader identify the transition in the thought process and also makes the paper more flowing. Getting feedback from people is essential.

4. Academic writing is supposed to be sharp. Simplifying the language and removing redundancies helps improve the clarity. If some point is central to the paper, it may be repeated for emphasis.

Michael Nielson has proposed six rules of rewriting which are useful to make one’s writing more powerful. Among them he advises using the strongest appropriate verb. He also discourages ‘nominalization’ which is to weaken verbs is by turning them into nouns. Rewriting can be a painstaking effort and it requires making each sentence and paragraph more direct, logical and accessible. The best suggestion, Neilson gives is to work hard on each sentence:

Academics are wont to ignore this rule, believing the reader should be willing to endure any pain for a sufficient payoff. Of course, academics aren’t paid per reader. Good bloggers and journalists know better.

Advantage of posters

Tuesday, May 26th, 2009

Normally, in scientific conferences, the technical presentations (with slides projector etc.) are considered better or at least more prestigious than poster sessions. The reason attributed for this is that the technical presentations are associated with more important papers or more developed research. Although, this may certainly be the case, I only recently realized how useful poster sessions can be. In the last conference I presented in, the technical presentations participants were also asked to make poster presentations. Initially, this was a nuisance for me as I had to make both presentation slides and also an A0 size poster.

Better chance for feedback

My perception of poster sessions changed radically after the conference. A technical talk has a question and answer time which is not more than five minutes. The questions are short and there is less chance for in-depth discussion. The poster presentations facilitate back and forth exchange of thoughts and clarifications. This dynamic and interactive aspect of poster presentations is their biggest advantage. People who may be hesitant to ask a question in a full room may come up to you and suggest interesting ideas. There is a chance to have detailed discussions.

Chance to learn more

Not only can one discuss one’s research in more detail with others but also get a better understanding other people’s papers. Although, this may not be approved by conference organizers, it is useful to sneak away and also visit other posters. This can enable one to immediately get a good understanding of papers which one may have read one month after. Interestingly, some long discussions can lead to immediate collaboration.

Postdoc advice 2

Thursday, May 21st, 2009

This is a sequel to the previous entry on advice by experience postdoctoral researchers. One researcher who I know well mentioned that it is important to establish a name for your self by getting results independently so that one’s work is not always identified as collaboration with the more famous scientist. He was of the view that this is one of the ways of establishing your credentials in the area. The comment makes sense as long as it does not prevent one from capitalizing on valuable collaborations.

Choosing suitable projects

One other advice I heard was that it is important to show yourself as completing projects and goals. It is useful to produce something new and have it tested and published rather than have a half baked promising idea. Therefore, it might be better to take on more short term but not necessarily lower impact projects.

Being interactive

Moreover, it is easy to notice that the more interactive postdocs do better in the research group by discussing and exchanging new ideas. They also have a knack of developing relations with the industry.

Taking advice

Another habit which is noticeable among successful postdocs is that they do not hesitate in taking advice from multiple sources whether it is for a draft paper, a job application or presentation. Therefore, it is helpful to know senior people who can provide mentoring and give honest and personal advice and feedback. These things are of course mutual. One should be approachable and ready to assist the senior researcher in peer reviewing, organization etc.

Postdoc Advice

Wednesday, May 20th, 2009

A postdoc is an ideal time to build one’s research profile and getting quality publications is one of the primary aims. Recently, I have been talking to postdoctoral fellows I know in the university. I wanted to find what other things to keep in mind if some one wants to start a postdoc. My main question was that if they were to start their postdoc again, what would they do?

Collaboration

One advice was to dive into collaborative efforts as soon as possible and not be isolated. If it is really hard to find common ground, then one should reach out to other groups, other departments and even other research centees. Postdocs are for a limited amount of time and one should not depend on a positive recommendation from the postdoc adviser only but have other peers who can vouch for you.

Teaching experience

Another suggestion was to get solid teaching experience. Many postdoc positions do not involve teaching duties. However, if postdocs want to stay in academia, they should
seek opportunities to teach proactively. This could be for a university course, summer school or workshop tutorials.

Grants

Yet another advice was to demonstrate an ability to get grants even if they are smaller travel grants. Among applicants for tenured positions, people who show an ability to get grants for their research are given preference.

One postdoc told me that in sciences, the priority was PTG (publications, teaching, grants) in decreasing order. However, lately the priority has changed to PGT (publications, grants, teaching). This may especially be the case during recession times!

Mathematics and Art

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

A mathematician, like a painter or a poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas. I am interested in mathematics only as a creative art – Godfrey Harold Hardy

Recently a friend who is theoretical computer scientist was commenting to another friend (who has a degree in arts and design) about how much mathematics has in common with arts and design. He explained how some one doing mathematics creatively tries to find intricate and useful structure which may help in problem solving. He stressed how a creative combination of small ideas leads to the ‘final piece of art’. I was amused when our artistic friend gave an incredulous look. This is a common reaction. It can be frustrating to explain to others that mathematical activity is creative in its essence and not mechanical like arithmetic.

Perhaps, Sir Michael Atiyah does of a better job at explaining at least one aspect of this issue:

The art in good mathematics, and mathematics is an art, is to identify and tackle problems that are both interesting and solvable. Proof is the end product of a long interaction between creative imagination and critical reasoning. Without proof the program remains incomplete, but without the imaginative input it never gets started.

One can see here an analogy with the work of the creative artist in other fields: writer, painter, composer, or architect. The vision comes first, it develops into an idea that gets tentatively sketched out, and finally comes the long technical process of erecting the work of art. But the technique and the vision have to remain in touch, each modifying the other according to its own rules.