| Next revision | Previous revision |
| public:rem4:rem4-18:scientific_environment [2018/02/06 13:09] – created thorisson | public:rem4:rem4-18:scientific_environment [2024/04/29 13:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 |
|---|
| [[public:sc-t-701-rem4-18-1:rem4-18-lecturenotes|<-BACK to REM4-18 MAIN]] | [[public:sc-t-701-rem4-18-1:rem4-18-lecturenotes|<-BACK to REM4-18 MAIN]] |
| ---------- | ---------- |
| | ====== RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT ====== |
| ====== Research Grants & Proposals ====== | |
| |
| \\ | \\ |
| \\ | \\ |
| |
| ====Competitive Research Grants==== | ====Concepts==== |
| | Competitive Research Grants | The major method for funding scientific research | | |
| | Sources | Rannís: [[http://www.rannis.is/sjodir/menntun/nyskopunarsjodur-namsmanna/|NSN]] \\ Rannis: [[http://www.rannis.is/sjodir/rannsoknir/taeknithrounarsjodur/|Technology Development Fund]] \\ Rannis: [[http://www.rannis.is/sjodir/menntun/rannsoknasjodur/|Research Fund]] \\ EU:[[http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html|FP7]] \\ EU:[[http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/|H2020]] \\ EU:[[http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/|Marie Curie]] \\ EU:[[http://erc.europa.eu/funding-and-grants|ERC]] \\ etc. | | |
| |
| | | Conference | A gathering of scientists for the purpose of presenting their own work to each other. | |
| \\ | | Workshop | Conferences often have workshops on selected topics. These draw crowds from 8-40 people, depending on the size of the conference. Typically papers submitted to workshops are published in the conference proceedings. | |
| \\ | | Conference Proceedings | A publication of all the work presented at the conference, in the form of scientific papers. | |
| ====Research Proposals==== | | Journal | A professional outlet/publication for scientific work. | |
| | Research Proposals | The major method for getting competitive funding for scientific research | | | Technical report | Anything can be published a technical report. Tech reports published by university departments are typically not peer-reviewed. | |
| | Sources | Rannís (Iceland), Cordis (EU), NSF (USA) | | | Measuring scientific prestige | Scientists compete. They compete for **prestige**, as measured by: \\ 1. Number of publications. \\ 2. Number of publications they are listed as first author on. \\ 3. Number of publications per year. \\ 4. Number of quotations by others to their work. \\ 5. Quality of publications that papers get published in. | |
| | Content |All the same information that appears in a scientific paper will typically have to appear in a research proposal. Additional material includes researchers' CV, financial plans, names of student researchers, and a description of where and how the research will be conducted. | | | Prestige of scientific outlets | From low to high: \\ * Tech report \\ * Workshop paper \\ * Conference paper \\ * Book authored \\ * Journal paper | |
| | Application process |Find a 'call for proposals'. Carefully read the description. Note the proposal due date. Get the forms. Write the application, fill in the forms. Send everything in before the due date. Cross your fingers.| | |
| | H2020 Format | Main sections specified as Scientific Approach, Methodology, Beyond State-of-the-art, Workpackages; language: English | | |
| | Rannis format | Fairly specific; exact format grant-dependent; Language: English (but all require an Icelandic summary) | | |
| | If you get the grant |Congratulations! Now you must do the work and write progress reports, typically once per year.| | |
| |
| \\ | \\ |
| ====== Authorship: Author List on Papers ====== | ====== Authorship: Author List on Papers ====== |
| |
| \\ | |
| \\ | \\ |
| \\ | \\ |
| \\ | \\ |
| |
| ===== Reviewing Scientific Papers ===== | ====== Reviewing Scientific Papers ====== |
| |
| \\ | |
| \\ | |
| \\ | |
| |
| ===Concepts=== | |
| |
| | Conference | A gathering of scientists for the purpose of presenting their own work to each other. | | |
| | Workshop | Conferences often have workshops on selected topics. These draw crowds from 8-40 people, depending on the size of the conference. Typically papers submitted to workshops are published in the conference proceedings. | | |
| | Conference Proceedings | A publication of all the work presented at the conference, in the form of scientific papers. | | |
| | Journal | A professional outlet/publication for scientific work. | | |
| | Technical report | Anything can be published a technical report. Tech reports published by university departments are typically not peer-reviewed. | | |
| | Measuring scientific prestige | Scientists compete. They compete for **prestige**, as measured by: \\ 1. Number of publications. \\ 2. Number of publications they are listed as first author on. \\ 3. Number of publications per year. \\ 4. Number of quotations by others to their work. \\ 5. Quality of publications that papers get published in. | | |
| | Prestige of scientific outlets | From low to high: \\ * Tech report \\ * Workshop paper \\ * Conference paper \\ * Book authored \\ * Journal paper | | |
| |
| \\ | |
| \\ | |
| \\ | \\ |
| \\ | \\ |
| |
| ===Peer Review=== | ====Peer Review==== |
| |
| | What is it? | Before replication of results can be undertaken by the scientific community, results must be published. When a scientist reviews another scientist's current work, it's called "peer review". | | | What is it? | Before replication of results can be undertaken by the scientific community, results must be published. When a scientist reviews another scientist's current work, it's called "peer review". | |
| |
| |
| \\ | |
| \\ | |
| \\ | \\ |
| \\ | \\ |
| |
| ===The Peer Review Process=== | ====The Peer Review Process==== |
| |
| | Step 0 | Scientist does research, writes up results and submits a scientific paper to a selected outlet. | | | Step 0 | Scientist does research, writes up results and submits a scientific paper to a selected outlet. | |
| | Step 6 | Conclusion 1, great! You're done. Your paper will be published as-is. \\ Conclusion 2: Use the reviews to improve your paper, send back to editor. Editor may request a shortlist of how you improved the paper. Your paper will be published with your changes. \\ Conclusion 3: You will need to do major work to improve the paper (e.g. more experiments or compare more algorithms or systems). Your paper will probably be reviewed by the same 3 reviewers. The editor may ask you for a shortlist of how you addressed the reviewers' concerns. | | | Step 6 | Conclusion 1, great! You're done. Your paper will be published as-is. \\ Conclusion 2: Use the reviews to improve your paper, send back to editor. Editor may request a shortlist of how you improved the paper. Your paper will be published with your changes. \\ Conclusion 3: You will need to do major work to improve the paper (e.g. more experiments or compare more algorithms or systems). Your paper will probably be reviewed by the same 3 reviewers. The editor may ask you for a shortlist of how you addressed the reviewers' concerns. | |
| |
| \\ | |
| \\ | |
| \\ | \\ |
| \\ | \\ |
| |
| ===Peer Review Instructions=== | ====Peer Review Instructions==== |
| |
| | Several categories are used when reviewing | Overall quality of the work; Novelty/Significance of the contributions to the field in question; Clarity of the writing; Language/writing quality; Adherence to guidelines (paper length, abstract length, etc.) for the publication in question. | | | Several categories are used when reviewing | Overall quality of the work; Novelty/Significance of the contributions to the field in question; Clarity of the writing; Language/writing quality; Adherence to guidelines (paper length, abstract length, etc.) for the publication in question. | |
| | Language quality | Nothing is as annoying as a good paper that falls flat on bad use of English (which, let's face it, is the language of science, at least until China overpowers us with Mandarin). Be brutal! Do not be nice to badly written papers. NB: There is always room for improvement in this regard. | | | Language quality | Nothing is as annoying as a good paper that falls flat on bad use of English (which, let's face it, is the language of science, at least until China overpowers us with Mandarin). Be brutal! Do not be nice to badly written papers. NB: There is always room for improvement in this regard. | |
| |
| \\ | |
| \\ | \\ |
| |
| SEE ALSO: http://cadia.ru.is/wiki/public:rem4:rem4-16:submitting_to_conferences_and_journals | SEE ALSO: http://cadia.ru.is/wiki/public:rem4:rem4-16:submitting_to_conferences_and_journals |
| \\ | |
| \\ | |
| \\ | \\ |
| \\ | \\ |
| |
| ===Being a Peer Reviewer=== | ====Being a Peer Reviewer==== |
| |
| | Rule number one | When you are requested to be a peer reviewer, accept. Firstly, it is your duty as a scientist to help out, even if it is not paid work! Secondly, it can really improve your own writing to read other people's papers! | | | Rule number one | When you are requested to be a peer reviewer, accept. Firstly, it is your duty as a scientist to help out, even if it is not paid work! Secondly, it can really improve your own writing to read other people's papers! | |
| | Second mistake | Thinking it's not so important. Your review could affect a fellow scientist's career! | | | Second mistake | Thinking it's not so important. Your review could affect a fellow scientist's career! | |
| |
| \\ | |
| \\ | |
| \\ | \\ |
| \\ | \\ |
| * Keep these questions in mind at all times: What are the most important things for the author to address? What is the most useful way for me to explain what these issues are? | * Keep these questions in mind at all times: What are the most important things for the author to address? What is the most useful way for me to explain what these issues are? |
| |
| | \\ |
| | \\ |
| | \\ |
| | |
| | ====== Research Grants & Proposals ====== |
| |
| |
| \\ | \\ |
| \\ | \\ |
| | |
| | ====Competitive Research Grants==== |
| | | Competitive Research Grants | The major method for funding scientific research | |
| | | Sources | Rannís: [[http://www.rannis.is/sjodir/menntun/nyskopunarsjodur-namsmanna/|NSN]] \\ Rannis: [[http://www.rannis.is/sjodir/rannsoknir/taeknithrounarsjodur/|Technology Development Fund]] \\ Rannis: [[http://www.rannis.is/sjodir/menntun/rannsoknasjodur/|Research Fund]] \\ EU:[[http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html|FP7]] \\ EU:[[http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/|H2020]] \\ EU:[[http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/|Marie Curie]] \\ EU:[[http://erc.europa.eu/funding-and-grants|ERC]] \\ etc. | |
| | |
| | |
| \\ | \\ |
| \\ | \\ |
| EOF | ====Research Proposals==== |
| | | Research Proposals | The major method for getting competitive funding for scientific research | |
| | | Sources | Rannís (Iceland), Cordis (EU), NSF (USA) | |
| | | Content |All the same information that appears in a scientific paper will typically have to appear in a research proposal. Additional material includes researchers' CV, financial plans, names of student researchers, and a description of where and how the research will be conducted. | |
| | | Application process |Find a 'call for proposals'. Carefully read the description. Note the proposal due date. Get the forms. Write the application, fill in the forms. Send everything in before the due date. Cross your fingers.| |
| | | H2020 Format | Main sections specified as Scientific Approach, Methodology, Beyond State-of-the-art, Workpackages; language: English | |
| | | Rannis format | Fairly specific; exact format grant-dependent; Language: English (but all require an Icelandic summary) | |
| | | If you get the grant |Congratulations! Now you must do the work and write progress reports, typically once per year.| |
| |
| | |
| | \\ |
| | \\ |
| | \\ |
| | \\ |
| | EOF |
