Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
His work was exciting, promising, and fraudulent. It seems like it would be far easier to happen with a small team comprised of influential grad students and a few profs. I cannot fathom this being pulled at work. For one, nobody has tenure and all would be fired on the spot. Record keeping cannot be back tracked, which I'm sure he did, because somebody outside of our departments has to witness our work (sign and date) within three days. It would shame the Institute as a whole, rather than just one lab, a few profs, and handful of grad students.
Frankly, common sense tells me the path to fraud is way easier in academia. Heck, when I was in grad school collecting data for a paper (in the summer), there was nobody around. My work was not signed off on. I didn't even know how to keep a notebook the way I do now. For all anybody knows I went to the movies all day and scribbled in my book upon return lol. Of course, I didn't do that.
I don't know how many different ways I can explain it.
It raises questions about your ability conduct viable research because you don't seem to understand the concept of ethics. Conflicts of interest are a major breach of ethics.
A breach of ethics how? Can you give an example with actual research? I don't see how ethics can be breached. For example, say I want to develop a novel sRNAi formulation for drug delivery. I come up with the idea, put together a proposal, talk to my uni adviser and my lab head. Where does ethics come into play?
Quote:
I didn't say proprietary research couldn't be published in a journal, I said it likely couldn't be published in a peer-reviewed journal. There is a major difference. Nature magazine is not fully a peer-reviewed journal.
Again, you're wowing me. How is the research published in Nature not fully peer-reviewed? Nature is one of the most, if not the most, prominent scientific journals on the planet. Magazine style does not equate to it solely being a magazine. No other journal is cited more or relied upon by scientists than Nature.
I don't know where you are getting this from, tho, I find it pretty interesting. Please start linking. I have never come across a scientist that wouldn't love to have his/her work published in Nature.
Quote:
The terms 'credible' and 'rigor' are absolutely fundamental to conducting any kind of research. I'm not going to write out their definitions. If you want to be a researcher, you need to learn what these mean on your own.
Kodaka, it's not a matter of becoming a researcher. I'm a paid research scientist. I'm thinking of continuing my PhD without haulting my career. And I don't mean to be obstinate, I just don't understand what you're talking about or where you are coming from.
eta: The reason I'm being argumentative is because you're making bizarre statements. And now that I have looked through your posts I see that you aren't a scientist, but a graphic designer trying to get into grad school? Or something. Well, I think we have two different perspectives and experiences here. So, this accounts for the misunderstanding I guess.
Don't know of any PhDs of value achieved with parallel f/t employment of any value
Many billionaire tech co. founders like Bechtolsheim, Brin, Page, Yang, etc are drop-outs of Stanford's CompSci PhD program, so people have been taking "leave" to start cos. for past ~30yrs
More recently, one of the youtube co-founders (who pocketed ~$100MM after sale of youtube to google) went back to Stanford CompSci and enrolled full-time in MS program, intending to pursue PhD...we'll see if he doesn't interrupt his studies to start some other cos.
Stanford Engineering prob has a greater interface w/industry and VCs than any other university in world yet just can't think of anyone doing much in parallel...lots of PhD grads move to tech industry or to hedge funds or to academic faculty positions...or drop-out before finishing degree....both academia and industry are f/t endeavors if one hopes to successfully compete vs smart, creative, entrepreneurial workaholics in either arena
You are very demanding for someone who insists that being paid by the subject of your research isn't an ethical breach.
Fine. Here's the link. Nature family of journals : authors & referees @ npg. By Nature's own description, the editor has sole responsibility for accepting submissions. Thus is not a peer-reviewed journal. The owners of Nature do own some other journals which are peer-reviewed but Nature itself isn't peer-reviewed.
In the end it doesn't matter whether you argue with me, it matters what you prove to a university. If you are so certain of your position, stop wasting time here and go present your research plan to them.
I did it, BUT my ft job was on campus AND my boss was very supportive in that I had a lot of "down time", and he didn't mind me working on my school stuff/research/writing. Even in that supportive environment, it took me 6 years (I also had a baby during that time).
I kept my dissertation research completely separate from research related to my job. It turned out pretty useful for me because I got some publications out of work related to my job among other things that looked good on my vita (obtaining grants, etc.) before I graduated. I was still ABD and about to defend and when I was offered a tenure track job (defended right before the new job started).
It is doable, but it really depends on the ft job and whether or not it is a job doing things that will add to your goals.
You are very demanding for someone who insists that being paid by the subject of your research isn't an ethical breach.
Again, what the heck are you talking about? How am I paid for my research outside a stipend or paycheck? I'm not a university or an institute. I only have those two options.
Quote:
Fine. Here's the link. Nature family of journals : authors & referees @ npg. By Nature's own description, the editor has sole responsibility for accepting submissions. Thus is not a peer-reviewed journal. The owners of Nature do own some other journals which are peer-reviewed but Nature itself isn't peer-reviewed.
For pete's sake. Nature's editors give the go for pre-review. If it passes by the editors it's sent out to an external review committee. The editor for any publication must take responsibility for its content. You clearly do not understand what you're reading.
"The Nature journals are appreciative of their peer-reviewers, of whom there are many tens of thousands. It is only by collaboration with our reviewers that editors can ensure that the manuscripts we publish are among the most important in their disciplines of scientific research. We appreciate the time that referees devote to assessing the manuscripts we send them, which helps ensure that Nature journals publish only material of the very highest quality" Peer review : authors & referees @ npg
Quote:
In the end it doesn't matter whether you argue with me, it matters what you prove to a university. If you are so certain of your position, stop wasting time here and go present your research plan to them.
The fact that you even charge Nature shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Read the thread title. I'm looking to see if anyone has gone through the process for guidance.
I did it, BUT my ft job was on campus AND my boss was very supportive in that I had a lot of "down time", and he didn't mind me working on my school stuff/research/writing. Even in that supportive environment, it took me 6 years (I also had a baby during that time).
That's impressive just the same. A job, PhD work, and a baby. Wow. I'm not really concerned about how long it will take, although, my co might not be on board with that or the uni. But, I also have a close relationship with my old my boss at uni and he's been trying to get me back in his lab since I left. He might be as forgiving.
Quote:
I kept my dissertation research completely separate from research related to my job. It turned out pretty useful for me because I got some publications out of work related to my job among other things that looked good on my vita (obtaining grants, etc.) before I graduated. I was still ABD and about to defend and when I was offered a tenure track job (defended right before the new job started).
It is doable, but it really depends on the ft job and whether or not it is a job doing things that will add to your goals.
Yea, that's on my mind as well. It's inspiring to read your story, which is why I started this thread. If I could not manage a collaborative project, I'd want the research to be related in discipline. I'm currently working in metabolism and pharmacokinetics. That's pretty broad. Heck, my current project is in tox, which is loosely related. So, I'm hoping I could manage...maybe something congruent at least.
It is perfectly okay for you to work full time while doing your Ph.D., suffice that what you do for work is not what you are working on for you Ph.D.
All Ph.Ds have two things in common: they must propose research that is novel, or a technique for an established outcome that is novel. If one, or both, have already been done before, you will not be accepted as a Ph.D candidate, and, if someone publishes a similar technique or study that is similar to yours before you do, you will not receive your Ph.D.; even if you had no prior knowledge or began your work first.
The other thing in common is that Ph.D. candidates are accepted because their proposed research falls in line with what a grad prof at the school is working on (or his/her own area of research). You don't enter a Ph.D. program and then choose your advisor, your advisor chooses you based on his or her current research. In other words, you will not be accepted unless your proposal benefits a potential master prof (advisor), the committee and/or the department/school.
That is were the conflict of interest comes into play and why it is not ethical. The master prof would want the credit (I mean after all, s/he was willing to take you on), and what-ever company that you are working for who is also funding your research would want the credit (and rights).
Another thing is that Ph.D. candidates are often required to work as TAs, which is either how they are paid outright, or is part of the stipend.
One thing that you have going for you is that you already have your Masters and related work experience. Realistically, if you have a solid research project in mind, you can receive your Ph.D. in as little as three years. That would largely depend on the scope of the project, and honestly, how fast you can write your dissertation.
It is perfectly okay for you to work full time while doing your Ph.D., suffice that what you do for work is not what you are working on for you Ph.D.
All Ph.Ds have two things in common: they must propose research that is novel, or a technique for an established outcome that is novel. If one, or both, have already been done before, you will not be accepted as a Ph.D candidate, and, if someone publishes a similar technique or study that is similar to yours before you do, you will not receive your Ph.D.; even if you had no prior knowledge or began your work first.
I wonder if this is why my colleague at work is not a paid employee.
Quote:
The other thing in common is that Ph.D. candidates are accepted because their proposed research falls in line with what a grad prof at the school is working on (or his/her own area of research). You don't enter a Ph.D. program and then choose your advisor, your advisor chooses you based on his or her current research. In other words, you will not be accepted unless your proposal benefits a potential master prof (advisor), the committee and/or the department/school.
I had a friend at my uni that walked into his program already knowing what he was going to do. He was working for the whitehead institute (MIT), but they wouldn't take his MS and he had no interest in starting from scratch. He was scooped up by one of the prof's in our dept who is a huge money maker. With that said, I don't know if I could talk by old boss into doing something related to what I'm doing now. Much of his work involves renal pathology. It might be possible if I employ a bit of creativity.
Quote:
That is were the conflict of interest comes into play and why it is not ethical. The master prof would want the credit (I mean after all, s/he was willing to take you on), and what-ever company that you are working for who is also funding your research would want the credit (and rights).
If both parties decided to collaborate there wouldn't be an ethics issue. Since both parties would have to collaborate for it to work, an ethics issue is impossible.
eta: unless there's the assumption that I wouldn't share with my uni and job that I'm working on the same project in both institutions. That would never cross my mind.
Quote:
Another thing is that Ph.D. candidates are often required to work as TAs, which is either how they are paid outright, or is part of the stipend.
I've seen some get away with just RA'ing, tho, there is where I run into problems when considering the idea. I wouldn't expect a stipend from the school.
Quote:
One thing that you have going for you is that you already have your Masters and related work experience. Realistically, if you have a solid research project in mind, you can receive your Ph.D. in as little as three years. That would largely depend on the scope of the project, and honestly, how fast you can write your dissertation.
Yea, I could finish it in that time, but unfortunately I can't afford to not be working, hence my dilemma.
Any way, good food for thought. Thanks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
