Pretty easy to read your own paper just saying. BUT you should do a paper that you would mark up and need to know as well as who ever did the paper but one that isn't your own.
I fully agree with most of the video, except the part about not reading the method section. One of the main reasons we publish is to allow others to replicate or build on our work. I think you should advise PhDs to take extra time in reading this section. With this advice in mind, it is no wonder why most experiments cannot be replicated.
Being a methods guy, I love it when people skip the methods. That means when they have their own data to analyze, they come to me and write the methods and results. They do the hard part, I crunch the numbers. I get a pub. You're right though, you should absolutely read the methods. I read it right after then abstract. If the methods suck, the findings are immediately suspicious.
#Objection I am an epidemiologist. I am more attracted to tables and methods! I need to replicate as far as I can the methods so I can compare how my results change in the population I work with.
Yes I raised my eyebrow at that. For my field methods are the most important (I suppose partially because they can sometimes be so bad that you can entirely dismiss the results lol).
Fantastic tips. Thanks for posting. What software do you typically use to markup PDFs and save them for future reference? Not everyone has adobe acrobat pro. Do you use "snip and sketch" to cut and paste the figures into PPT file as mentioned at the end of your video?
@@keerthanrrao579 most of them ARE necessary, are you still a student? For us researchers, SEM, EDS, TEM, XRD, TOC, DSC, TMA, NMR, FTIR, DCDC etc makes total sense, and it would be totally ridiculous to write the full name more than once. You just make no sense......
@@boredscientist5756 chill out. I get your perspective. I guess we’re simply seeing it from different perspectives here. It’s convenient to list a bunch of popular acronyms that support your argument. And as I mentioned in my reply, maybe a table for it right at the beginning would do wonders. And chill out again. Not sure why you need to take it personally or keep editing your responses.
Unless you’re from one of the top ten universities in the world, nobody (especially journalists who report on science) gives a toss about what you write anyway. It’s automatically considered lacking in credibility or to be taken with a grain of salt. If more academics realised this, fewer people would waste their life and earning potential there. Not to mention sanity.
This is so wrong, it only depends on the field and the team. MIT or Stanford would have no chance in my field, they are barely peasants. I now work in a top 8 Univ, and trust me, they are very far from my 2 previous teams...VERY far. You can have "low" rank universities who are world leaders in a specific field, I have many examples! The ranking is MEANINGLESS. I really doubt that you know how researchers work together. Even NASA worked with my 2 previous teams (THEY came to us, because we were just the best in the world)... Same goes for Cambridge or MIT. To get my current position, it was uberly easy considering my background in a "low" ranked university, go figure. People should stop taking QS rankings too seriously, and realize that good researchers do not give a damn.
@@boredscientist5756 The public only cares about the names of institutions they recognise (and keep hearing) and journalists know this too. Don’t even get me started on non-Western institutions which have basically ZERO credibility even in the minds of their own people.
