You are super engaging. I thoroughly enjoyed watching/listening to you. I learned and was comforted. Intelligent and compassionate delivery. Thank you!
So you begin with choosing a research question suggested by a machine without knowing the literature. I am afraid that is a bit of a problematic approach to a lit. review as good research question usually are developed from knowledge of the relevant literature. The same applies to the structure as some other comment underlines. And, imho, the main problem with using tools like ChatGPT is not just plagiarism but that one learns to rely on machine produced content without being able to critically evaluate that as you never learned to do it completely yourself in the first place.
Thank you Prof. David Stuckler. You happen to be my name-sake. Quite interesting. Fellas, this is a great resource i recommend it for any researcher that is ready to supercharge his/her research prowess using AI.
Professor shares experience of publishing over 400 papers: first one is hardest, dealing with many unknowns; need to be thick-skinned with unfair peer review; simple, clear papers are preferred; co-authors are beneficial; sometimes individuals are judged only by their latest paper. [00:00] Experiences and obsessions about publishing academic papers [00:00] Sharing the experience of publishing over 400 papers [00:21] First papers are the hardest and involve many unknowns [00:42] The systematic review type of paper that students often do takes a long time [01:04] Peer review of papers after submission is often rejected [01:16] Authors' experiences and insights in peer review [01:16] Authors' initial anger in the face of rejection [01:28] Author's subsequent calm and positive response [01:28] Author's initial anger at rejection [01:38] Understanding of the reviewer's situation and change of mindset [01:54] Viewing criticism as an opportunity for improvement [02:00] Being strong and asking for help with peer review [02:22] Authors' biases in perceiving good papers [02:30] Academic paper bias [02:30] Sharing experiences in writing and publishing academic papers [02:30] Emphasizing the importance of clear and simple messages in academic writing [02:51] Pointing out that simple information makes papers more discoverable in searches [03:13] Describes a system developed to increase the success rate of publishing papers [03:34] Mentions free Facebook groups with more in-depth content [03:45] Sharing experiences on academic collaboration and paper creation [03:45] Co-writers can help revitalize papers and increase production [04:06] Co-writers not only improve papers, but also bring many benefits [04:27] Co-writers are a recipe for building relationships and finding mentors [04:36] You can't close off competition, you have to benefit from each other for long term success [04:49] Sometimes you're evaluated on your last paper, and it's easy to be viewed that way when applying for programs [04:59] Sharing about publishing and career development [04:59] Talking about what it's like to get published [05:22] Transitioning from first-time author to senior author and feelings about student success [05:44] Acting as an enabler of student success and perspectives on careers
One correction: adding multiple independent variables is termed as "Multiple regression analysis", and adding multiple dependent variables is termed as "Multivariate regression analysis". So, your case is multiple regression analysis, not multivariate.
@@profdavidstuckler You might check the literature where multivariate regression analysis has been implemented. I have seen some literature where, multiple dependent variables have been used and they termed it as "multivariate regression analysis". If you wish, I can send one or two of them.
Thank you very much for the video! I was feeling stuck but this has been helpful. I would like to just know; if I use it for the structure and outline but write my own content after reading the literature would it still say plagiarism because of the structure from chatgpt or not?
Prof... just thank you man. I'm an undergrad doing my final year... Your videos give me the mojo to start and finish. Thank you, God bless you and never stop doing what you do.
Inspiring! Simple and meaningful advices: the basics for a clear structure of thought. Helpful for publishing but in general for researching and writing in an efficient and effective way.
I think a lot of people would and want to do this already and are aware this is more efficient. The reason they don't is: What if someone asks them "Did you read the entire paper?" If they say "no" their "credibility will go down". They also feel like they are doing something wrong and they should read every single sentence otherwise they are just faking it etc. At least that's what I feel.
you create the structure which is great for doing the heavy lifting yourself. my question is, when chatGpt academically rewrites the text, copy and pastes the paraphrased text in your Word document, does it not get detected as AI-generated or accidental plagiarism? Can you shed some light on this
"Why do universities not teach you this stuff?" Because they expect you to learn how to do this in high school, and high school expects you to learn how to do it at university.
Very informative! Want to inquire, How does Thematic analysis differ from Narrative analysis? And which strategy fit best for Qualitative Systematic analysis on Medical topic? Thank you
I'm glad to see you recommend free tools and don't just promote the latest paid platform! A few important points, though... 1) It seems you commit to a structure before any reading and before examining whether it's a viable or practical study. Just because chat gpt says there's a research gap doesn't mean it's true (and even if there is a gap, there are other things to consider) 2) Shouldn't the structure be based on your observations of the literature and what you think is important to write about? I guess the structure might be a good starting point to adapt from, but you've got to make your own decisions 3) Although you rightly say that you need to do the reading, I don't think you menton reading critically. A lot of published papers are bad, and you shouldn't just take what they say as read. You mention evidence, but evidence isn't quoting somebody, the evidence is in the data and relies on good research design and implementation. 4) It seems chat GPT made your paragraph worse!
