Tuesday, September 26, 2017

How old are students when they get their PhD?

I recently ran a poll on Twitter to see at which age most students receive their PhD. I compiled the results in a Storify:

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Q&A: Switching fields for your PhD

I recently received the following question from a reader that I wanted to reply in a Q&A post:

I want to ask question regarding phd subject.my question is that i have done mtech in computer science can i pursue phd with any other subject which is not part of my mtech?

If you want to switch fields for your PhD, you won't be able to change to a completely different field, for example history for you. However, you can work on interdisciplinary projects. If you are considering a switch, consider the following:

1. Talk to your possible future supervisor

If you want to change fields, it is never too late. Talk to your supervisor who guided you for your MTech thesis to see your options. He/she may have a colleague that would be willing to work with you. I can imagine that your strong skills in programming can make you a good candidate for a number of other fields in science and engineering.

If you've already identified which field you would like to work on for your PhD, talk to possible future supervisors about what you would need to do to enter the program in their field, what the expectation would be, and how you could contribute with your skill set of a computer scientist.

2. Be willing to learn new skills and take courses

If you change fields, you'll have to quickly learn a number of new skills and take a number of courses. You will need to let your possible future supervisor know that you are willing to work hard to close the gap between you and students who may have a more suitable background. Be willing to take on extra courses and/or work your way through books on your own.

3. Consider getting a minor

If you are still in your MTech program, you can consider getting a minor in the field that you would like to switch to. If you are considering moving to a field that is rather unrelated to computer science, you may want to take a few courses in the field first to see how you like this field. You may find that your expectations of this field are not met, and then it is better that you have taken these few courses and then decide that this field is not for you, than that you start a PhD and then find out you don't like your new field of study.

If a minor is not an option for you, consider taking a few professional courses, or even attending a few MOOCs in your field of interest to see if this field is a good fit for you. Enrolling in a PhD can be a big commitment.

4. Talk to more than one faculty member

If you are trying to figure out how your skills as a computer scientist can serve other fields, but you haven't fully figured out yet to which field you'd want to transition, look up faculty members from different disciplines and see if they are willing to have a talk with you. If it is difficult to get access to senior professors, see if you can talk to a post-doc or junior faculty member, to brainstorm on possible ways you could contribute to their research.

5. When applying to a position, review the prerequisites

If you apply to a PhD position through a standard application process, review the prerequisites. If it is clearly stated that you would need a M.Sc. degree in the same field as the PhD research, it will be unlikely that your file will even be reviewed. Look for projects that are more interdisciplinary and that actively look for hiring candidates of different backgrounds.

6. Consider moving abroad

It may be a little more complicated for you to find the right fit for your PhD program. But the world is a large place - somewhere, someone may be really looking for a student with your skill set who wants to transition to their field of research. Think globally if your situation allows you to move away from your current location. If moving abroad is not an option for you, see if you can find alternative ways of working: go for a short-term stay to another lab to involve more than one faculty member in your research, and follow up with video conferences - be proactive when you offer solutions to the faculty member(s) you would like to work with.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

On teaching loads in academia

I recently ran a poll about teaching loads of professors in academia. While it is hard to compare the teaching loads of different contracts, I do get the impression that most professors teach two courses per semester - although none of the options in the poll received a majority. Again, this reflects the multitude of possible contracts and career paths in academia.

Here's the Storify of the poll:

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Get me the d@mn PDF: how I turned write-up procrastination into a new way to access research papers

Today's post is written by Ben Kaube. Ben is a PhD student researching in computational materials science at Imperial College London. When not running physics simulations, Ben likes to build software tools that remove frustrations from people’s lives. In the past Ben has helped researchers evidence the wider impact of their work and provided commuters with a means to hold rail companies to account for delays.

Does this sound familiar? You're reading a new journal paper and come across a result you've not seen before referenced from a paper you can't remember reading. You copy and paste the reference into Google, click on the first link and hit a paywall, or only get a reference but not the actual published PDF. Mildly annoyed you tap at the back button in your browser and scan other results on the page -- nothing.

In desperation you click through to page two, then page three. You know that the chances of finding the paper on page four are near zero. Occasionally you venture down a link labyrinth, full of redirects and pop-ups, always finding references, but never the PDFs. Eventually you give up on your search.

While attempting to write up my thesis some months ago I went through countless variations of the above. Sometimes I'd find the PDF I needed within a few clicks, other times I gave up entirely, never knowing what I was missing out on. Every time I felt that the literature search process was unnecessarily cumbersome, due to the difficulty of actually getting the journal article PDF. It occurred to me that I might not be the only one struggling to get hold of papers. Moreover, for researchers without access to well funded libraries, the process is many times more frustrating.

I realised that this problem could make a worthwhile distraction from my thesis writing, and spent the rest of the day thinking about how to automate the process of finding PDFs. Backed by a team of researchers and engineers who felt similarly motivated by the cause, we started work on a first iteration of Kopernio.*

Kopernio is a browser plugin that helps you find PDFs of papers you are looking for with a single click. Behind the scenes it searches your university’s library subscriptions, combined with an index of open sources (e.g. pre-print servers, institutional repositories, etc.) and Google Scholar searches. Most of the time Kopernio stays out of your way and only appears at times when it can offer you a shortcut to the PDF, for example when you are stuck in front of a publisher paywall.



Kopernio integrates with library subscriptions, so you can continue to access journal PDFs even when you are off campus without the need for a VPN. We already support almost 1000 institutions this way, and the list is growing every day.

I should say that it’s very early days for us - the plugin is in alpha testing - and we’re getting amazing feedback everyday, which is helping to shape the direction of Kopernio. Our goal is to make research articles more accessible and convenient.

If you like this idea of “one-click access to article PDFs”, you can download the Kopernio plugin for free for Chrome and Firefox here and try it yourself. And please, leave me some feedback at ben@kopernio.com!

*During one of my more fraught literature searches I was tempted to change the name from Kopernio to GetMeTheD@mnPDF, though I was told this would not be appropriate.



Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Required proof load magnitude for probabilistic field assessment of viaduct De Beek



We recently published a paper in Engineering Structures, titled "Required proof load magnitude for probabilistic field assessment of viaduct De Beek". You can download the article for free through this link until October 7th 2017.

The abstract is as follows:

Proof load testing is part of the engineering practice, and can be particularly useful for the rating of existing bridges. This paper addresses how reliability-based concepts can be used in combination with proof load testing, and discusses how this approach differs from the current practice for proof load testing. Whereas the calculation methods for determining the updated reliability index after a proof load test are available in the literature, this approach is now used to determine the proof load magnitude required to demonstrate a certain reliability level in a bridge, the viaduct De Beek. To determine the required proof load magnitude, the known integrals of the limit state function are solved. The method is applied to a case of a bridge that was proof load tested in the Netherlands, viaduct De Beek. The data of this bridge are used to determine the required proof load magnitude to fulfill a given reliability index. A sensitivity study is carried out to identify the effect of the assumptions with regard to the coefficient of variation on the resistance and load effects. The result of this approach is that large loads are necessary in proof load testing if a reliability index needs to be proven in a proof load test. In the current practice of proof load testing with vehicles, it can typically only be demonstrated that a certain vehicle type can cross the bridge safely. The results in this paper provide a new insight on the required proof load magnitudes to show that the reliability index of the tested bridge is sufficient. However, consensus on the coefficients of variation that need to be used on the resistance and load effects, is still missing, which significantly affects the results for the required proof load magnitudes.

Thursday, September 7, 2017

PhD Talk for AcademicTransfer: How to have efficient meetings with your supervisor

This post is part of the series PhD Talk for AcademicTransfer: posts written for the Dutch academic career network AcademicTransfer, your go-to resource for all research positions in the Netherlands.

These posts are sponsored by AcademicTransfer, and tailored to those of you interested in pursuing a research position in the Netherlands.

If these posts raise your interest in working as a researcher in the Netherlands, even better - and feel free to fire away any questions you might have on this topic!


Depending on the habits of your supervisors, he/she may be popping his/her head through your door every day for a quick chat, you may be meeting on a weekly basis, or only by appointment. Typically, you will have more meetings in the beginning, while your supervisor helps you with getting started, less meetings in the middle of your PhD trajectory when you are crunching numbers and doing experiments, and more meetings towards to end, to discuss your thesis chapters.

Even if your supervisors checks on you almost daily, you will need to have meetings at regular intervals to discuss in more depth about your research. If you want to get the most out of your meetings, a bit of preparation goes a long way.

Here are the different ways in which you can prepare yourself for an efficient meeting with your supervisor:

1. Send written material ahead of time


Give your supervisor at least one week of time to work through some documents prior to the meeting if you meet less frequently, or give him/her three days if you meet (almost) weekly. If you send material ahead of time, your supervisor will be able to read about your current progress, and will be able to point out what you are missing, and perhaps give you some feedback on your writing.

Written material can be a great starting point for discussions, not just about the contents of your work, but also about where you could possibly present or publish your work. The earlier you start writing, the earlier your supervisor will be able to help you find your writing voice, and will be able to comment in more detail on your thoughts.

2. Present your main insights with a short presentation


A presentation with five slides, mostly visual information, can be another excellent starting point for your meetings. Summarize the material of the written document that you sent, so that you can quickly remind your supervisor about what you are working on, and what you have discovered in the last weeks. Keep text on your slides to a minimum - you don't want to give a formal presentation to your supervisor, but projecting sketches, plots, and other visual information, or formulas, can be a good starting point for discussing your progress.

3. Develop a template for recording your meetings and expectation


At the beginning of your PhD trajectory, develop a template that you can use for your meetings. You can see an example of such a template in the figure below. Make sure you include a short agenda, list the references you want to discuss, leave space for taking notes of what you discussed during the meeting, and then agree on your actions for the next meeting.



4. Show options that you are thinking about

If you are stuck in your research, don't go to your supervisor hoping that he/she will hand you the solution on a golden platter. Since you are most into your research, you are expected to come up with solutions. When you are stuck, don't just accept the situation. Be creative, and think about possible solutions. Once you've outlined possible solutions, jot down a few ideas about the benefits and limitations of each of these solutions. With this material, discuss with your supervisor about the steps you should be taking next in your research. Don't take a passive attitude.

5. Briefly touch upon your planning

Discuss your planning during every meeting. Make sure you reserve at least 5 minutes of time during the meeting to discuss possible delays you have, and what your tools are to make sure you graduate on time. Discuss your short-term goals, your medium-term goals, and long-term goals. Your short-term goals can include the timing of the portion of research you currently are working on. Your medium-term goals can include a short discussion about which conferences you should attend, and where you should publish your research. Your long-term goals will be the discussion about your overall progress and if you are still set for graduating on time.

6. Come up with ideas and suggestions

Don't expect your supervisor to decide how you should carry out your research, which conferences you should attend, and where you should aim to publish your work. Come up with ideas and suggestions yourself. Show that you are growing into an independent researcher. Propose attending conferences, propose to submit your work to a certain journal, and, as discussed above, always have solutions in mind when you are faced with challenges in your research. Make sure you are in charge of your PhD progress.

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

PhD Defenses around the World: a defense from Ukraine

Today, I have the pleasure of hosting Dr. Viktoriia Chekina in the "Defenses around the world" series. Viktoriia Chekina is a leading researcher in the Institute of Industrial Economics of NAS of Ukraine (Department of financial and economic problems of industrial potential use). She graduated from the State Academy of Housing and Communal Services (Donetsk, 2004), and began working in the scientific field in 2004 as a graduate student (Institute of Industrial Economics of NAS of Ukraine, Donetsk). She defended a thesis titled "Formation of the real estate taxation system in Ukraine" and received a diploma of candidate of economic sciences (2009). She has worked part-time as a senior lecturer at the State Academy of Housing and Communal Services (2004-2006) and Donetsk National University (2010-2013). She is the author of more than 50 scientific works (articles in journals, conference abstracts, monographs). Her research interests include public finance, local finance, and fiscal decentralization. Viktoriia Chekina lives in Kiev, Ukraine.

My name is Viktoriia Chekina and I am a leading researcher at the Institute of Industrial Economics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. But it was not always the case :). More than 10 years ago, while on maternity leave after the birth of my son, I received a second higher education, and my husband asked if I would like to continue my education further. Since childhood, the world of scientists has been tempting and unattainable for me. So I really wanted to, but I doubted myself.

When the interview with my future scientific adviser took place I realized that I was very scared. "What kind of specialty did you get?", "Do you have work experience in production?", "Do you know English?", "Do you have any experience in scientific work?", "What books on economics have you read recently?", "Which direction of economic research is close to you?", "Why did you choose our institute?" etc. etc. etc. After the questions asked, the Doctor of Sciences said that he advises me to read several books on finance so that we can "speak the same language." It was a textbook by J. Stiglitz "Economics of the Public Sector" and the work of S. Blankart "Public Finances".

I took my preparation for a postgraduate study very seriously and in 2004 I became a graduate student. The entire first year was devoted to the preparation for the surrender of examinations in philosophy, English and finance (the specialty on which the thesis is written). It was also necessary to develop a plan for the dissertation research, report on it to the academic council, fill out the individual plan of the graduate student, publish several articles and conference abstracts, and also have time to write the first section of the dissertation (one of three). The year was intense, complicated, but interesting. For postgraduates of the specialty "finance", Doctor of Science, Professor V. Vishnevsky organized a seminar on public finance, which helped a lot in orienting in the areas of finance theory, learning about new research, and learning how to write scientific articles correctly.

The second and third year of graduate school passed unnoticed. I did not have time to finish my thesis, so I was writing one more year. A great help in the preparation of the dissertation research was given to me by my supervisor, who was sharing the secrets of scientific knowledge, advising books for reading, editing my articles and materials, pointing out errors and supporting me in every possible way. At this time he had four graduate students and several doctoral students. But he was managing to work with everyone very well. A scientific secretary of the specialized academic council, Doctor of Sciences L. Kuzmenko was helping me to prepare a qualitative summary of my dissertation.

At the end of 2008, an announcement of my defense was issued, and in January it was held. All night before the defense, I reread my speech, edited it and changed it. I fell asleep in the morning. On the day of defense, I did not want to eat and drink.

30 minutes before the defense the head of the graduate school took me to the meeting room and I stayed in the empty hall, waiting. After a while, members of the council began to appear. The Scientific Council for Defense consisted of doctors of science, the youngest of whom was 50 years old, and the oldest one - more than 80 years. I was not very young (33 years old), but I was very afraid of their authority.

My thesis was devoted to the taxation of real estate in Ukraine (this tax in our country was not collected at that time). I knew my performance by heart, but I could not look up from the sheets. When the scientists started asking questions, I could not concentrate. I wrote down questions so as not to forget. I did not respond as confidently as I wanted. And then a question was asked by the oldest member of the Academic Council, Doctor of Science S. Aptekar. He asked: "I have an apartment; its area is 75 square meters. Will I paying this tax? "In my dissertation, the minimum non-taxable minimum was proposed at the rate of 100 square meters. So I said that it will not. And he said: "Well, I will vote for this work!" Everyone laughed. The voltage dropped significantly. I began to respond more confidently and more accurately.

Invaluable support was rendered by my supervisor, Doctor of Sciences, Professor V. Vishnevsky: he revealed the features of my dissertation research, which I could not convey in my speech. And with my opponent, Doctor of Science A. Sokolovskaya I maintain good relations and cooperate so far. All members of the Academic Council voted positively. But I relaxed only the next day.

Remembering those times, I want to thank all those who supported me at that time - my fellow graduate students, the staff of my department and institute, the head of the graduate school, the head of the library, the editor, the technical staff of the institute and, of course, my husband and son. They were very patient and caring. Only after a while did I understand how much time I spent at the institute and how little attention I paid to my family.

After 9 months (as the expectation of the birth of a child) I got the diploma of a candidate of economic sciences. Since then I have been working at the institute. I now have my own graduate students, and try to help them with training too. I wish everyone to have wise scientists in scientific councils who will support graduate students in a difficult time!
UA-49678081-1