Varieties in PhD Supervisors: Do we get to choose them?

Type 1: Aggressive and Negative: This is the most commonly known and most commonly found type of supervisor. They are extreme types of antagonists and mostly impolite and insensitive. They often do not think about putting mud over all your ideas and make you feel like a fool. Type 2: The Cribber:   It is another … Continue reading “Varieties in PhD Supervisors: Do we get to choose them?”

Type 1: Aggressive and Negative: This is the most commonly known and most commonly found type of supervisor. They are extreme types of antagonists and mostly impolite and insensitive. They often do not think about putting mud over all your ideas and make you feel like a fool.

Type 2: The Cribber:   It is another category of supervisors and their primary focus is on their troubles and they emphasise more upon moaning about their problems than anything else. Listening to their complaints with patience repeatedly is the only choice that we have.

Type 3: Non Responsive: a whole lot of PhD supervisors fall in this category of being non responsive. They would not respond to phone calls and emails and would become just inaccessible. It is always a good idea to give these types of supervisors a chance to respond and then eventually take control of your own thesis.

Type 4: Over friendly: this category is a very risky category of supervisors ad they make a whole lot of promises to you. However, unfortunately a lot of their promises are empty promises. Relying upon these types of supervisors may not reap very profitable results. Self-dependence is the key here one again.

Type 5: I know it all: These people have a narcissist approach and have a string belief that their way is the only way and the right way.  They do not seem to approve or appreciate ideas and directions that do not align with their thought process. Nor do they give the liberty to the scholars to explore and take the decisions with their own experiences. Dealing with these kinds of supervisors can be actually a task.

Type 6: The indecisive: The frustration level of the students multiplies with supervisors that are indecisive; they bring in changes in the topic, methodology, interpretations every time they see the work. They hesitate and lack confidence in their decisions. Assertiveness from the end of the students would help in bringing out the advantages of a particular decision.

Type 7: The Nagging: Rarely but there are supervisors who are micro managers with their students. They would want to know every little detail about their students’ projects and so many times would initiate calls and communication after work hours. Setting the scope of your project rightly is required at this stage.

Do Perfectionists perform better in research?

There is a lot that is required from academic publishers. A lot of diligence, innovative ideas and concepts, hard work, consistency and much more is required for getting success in research. But surely our list does not include perfectionism. On the contrary, most of the times, a perfectionist attitude tends to impede the process of … Continue reading “Do Perfectionists perform better in research?”

There is a lot that is required from academic publishers. A lot of diligence, innovative ideas and concepts, hard work, consistency and much more is required for getting success in research. But surely our list does not include perfectionism. On the contrary, most of the times, a perfectionist attitude tends to impede the process of academic writing and publishing. A writer needs to identify his area of perfectionism and strive towards growing past it.

How do we define Perfectionism?

Perfectionism as a term relies on two fundamentals and both are utopian in nature in academic writing. The first one is that it is possible to write down a perfect piece and the second one is that any academic writing that is not perfect is not acceptable. All writers strive towards excellence in their work but that is not synonym and should not be confused with finding perfection in your work.

Is perfectionism the way to procrastination?

Well, in academic writing, perfectionism is surely the way towards procrastination. It happens because of two reasons. The first reason is that the writer keeps waiting for that perfect idea and has the reluctance to write till the time he has the sense of perfectionism and secondly there is that inhibit on to share the work with a fear if it being imperfect. For those who keep finding the perfect idea or concept, actually have very little to write.

Perfectionism defers submission of manuscript: writers are often seen sitting on their articles for several months, against all other challenges as they see their article as not a reflection of their work but rather a reflection of their personality. The anxiety builds up to the level that they fear that through the evaluation process, the reviewer would evaluate the writer and not the work. This extreme thinking leads to a strong sense of perfectionism. Writers need to remind themselves that the work is not what the writer is but what he has created.

It is imperative to nip in bud this sense of perfectionism and keep the spirits high with a constant reminder that you as a person is much more and beyond this manuscript.

When We Get “Revise and Resubmit” From an Academic Journal, Do We Have Any Chance Left?

Whenever we submit a research paper to a reputed journal, the best review that we can expect from the committee is with some constructive comments and a request for re-submission. There are some easy steps that could help in getting an academic publication of repute with a feedback of re-submission 1. Read the letter carefully: … Continue reading “When We Get “Revise and Resubmit” From an Academic Journal, Do We Have Any Chance Left?”

Whenever we submit a research paper to a reputed journal, the best review that we can expect from the committee is with some constructive comments and a request for re-submission. There are some easy steps that could help in getting an academic publication of repute with a feedback of re-submission

1. Read the letter carefully: first and fore mostly make sure to read the received letter very carefully to ensure that you have received a request for revision and re-submission as often there are other possibilities for which a letter may be written to the author. For example, a rejection without an invitation for re-submission or a conditional acceptance or an outright acceptance. Writers who are inexperienced in assessing a response from an academic journal should take the help and guidance of other seasoned writers in doing the same.

2. List the revision requirements in an Excel sheet: Putting down all the required changes in an excel file in four columns labelled as reviewer, suggestions, response and completed it helps in not missing on to any of the suggestions and makes the work all the more systematic

3. Pull out the suggestions from the editors’ letters: The process is very tedious and painstaking because it calls for extraction of all useful suggestions and also relaying it in a useful pattern. Labelling of each suggestion according to where it is coming from is important: reviewer one, two, three or the editor.

4. Sequence the suggestions in a logical fashion: for each sub head in the research paper, sequence the suggestions separately in a logical fashion. Labelling of each suggestion regarding where it came from is very important so that it can be handled in a more seasoned way

5. Write a memo to the editor in an excel file: the excel file you have prepared should not be sent to the editor like that. Instead the excel file should be used for writing a well formatted memo to the editor with suggestions from each reviewer and how you went about adopting them

6. Double check your work and send: double check your work to ensure that you haven’t missed onto any suggestions and you have addressed each of the critiques suggestions in your memo to the editor. After having done this send the revised article and memo to the editor of the journal!

The dormant symptoms of PhD stress we should not ignore

Often scholars engrossed in their PhD work tend to ignore their stress symptoms. Ignoring or turning a blind eye to these symptoms is not one of the greatest ideas because if there is too much of accumulation of pressure within without identification and a vent out it may result in a harmful outpour. A mature … Continue reading “The dormant symptoms of PhD stress we should not ignore”

Often scholars engrossed in their PhD work tend to ignore their stress symptoms. Ignoring or turning a blind eye to these symptoms is not one of the greatest ideas because if there is too much of accumulation of pressure within without identification and a vent out it may result in a harmful outpour. A mature scholar would not let the symptoms lie but would surface them and handle them. There are certain feelings and   experiences that are often found specifically in PhD scholars. They are:

  1. A perpetual feeling that you don’t have the potential to work hard
  2. An overwhelming feeling with the  work pressure
  3.  A sense  that you are not  constructively exploiting your true potential for your PhD
  4. The lack in focus
  5. A feeling that your efforts are not strong or impactful
  6. A lack of control over actions and outcomes
  7. A feeling that  the easiest of tasks have become challenging
  8. A perpetual sense of fear and uncertainty
  9. Physical and emotional  tiredness
  10.  A negative apprehension that everyone would get exposed to your inability to perform

Often, those who even recognize these underlying symptoms of stress try to be more organised or work harder but these are not the solutions to the problem. The target should be on the root problem. The following approach may be of help in a general way for dealing better with the problem:

  1. Take things slowly: This is the hardest but the most essential thing to do under a lot of work pressure. Slowing down helps to think and simplify the tasks so that they could be handled properly
  2. Self-introspection: Peep into your own schedule and eliminate all the extra things you have been working. It is a good start to prioritize your work and focus on one thing at a time. Break down your tasks into smaller steps and follow the progress step wise.
  3. Observe your reaction when things go wrong: Whenever you are in a problem what is your reaction? Does it come to you as a personal failure or do you involve yourself into the problem and figure out a solution to the same. Small failures are an inevitable part of research and your reaction to the same contributes towards your success
  4. Learn to let go:   Coping up with failing in your PhD may be a tough task, to say simply but certainly it is not the worst thing that could happen to anybody. You should never lose trust in your own capability. Look at the problem holistically and try to find a solution. If no solution is available don’t take quitting as a personal failure.

Correcting PhD thesis: Few things to take care

As they say, there is always a room for improvement. How much ever carefully the thesis be developed, it is always advisable to proof read the text not just one but  more times  so as to ensure that the problems  are eliminated at all levels. Before the final submission, each paper should be edited very … Continue reading “Correcting PhD thesis: Few things to take care”

As they say, there is always a room for improvement. How much ever carefully the thesis be developed, it is always advisable to proof read the text not just one but  more times  so as to ensure that the problems  are eliminated at all levels.

Before the final submission, each paper should be edited very carefully. Some tips that may help to add quality to the research work are:

Keep aside sufficient time for proofreading: The schedule for research should be so planned that the research scholar must finish all work and keep aside sufficient time which is exclusive for the purpose of proofreading. Not just once but couple of times. This should be planned way before the submission deadline

Handle one grain at a time: There are many problems to deal with when proofreading and correcting thesis work and it is important that the researcher moves ahead step by step. Always begin with punctuation errors and then graduate to spelling errors and finally towards the structuring of the sentences

Extra caution with Names and Numeric:  In all the places in the thesis where names or statistical figure have been incorporated, the researcher must be sure of the spellings and the figures. The same caution applies to facts and figures

Hard Copy proof reading: After have carefully gone through a soft copy, may be more than one it is still important to go through the proof reading process on a hard copy. There may be few mistakes that may get overlooked on the system but get noticed or come forth prominent on a print out

Read loudly: This is a technique not followed by many researchers but it is often a very useful technique. Reading out the thesis loudly helps to identify the mistakes that the eye may have overlooked.  It is even better to ask another person to read it out to you, in intervals and as a listener you could concentrate on mistakes that may have not been noticed in proofreading

 

Make use of common sense along with logic: The computer only works on logic. It may help the researcher with spelling errors but the application of the word and its suitability is the decision and discretion of the researcher. The use of correct vocabulary is the skill of an experienced researcher and the scholar could seek professional advice for the same

 

Getting third person perspective: This is the last but a very important tip as a neutral opinion helps to get a holistic perspective to the thesis and helps to eliminate biases if any