Grad: research productivity

[ckim01]

Hey everyone,

 

For the grad package, we basically have to send a letter of reference by our advisor and proof of research productivity (papers, patents, presentations, etc).

 

I am in 2nd year of my Masters and presently writing my thesis (like a mad woman!). My advisor and I agreed to write my manuscripts after... therefore, I don't have anything in press or published yet. I have one paper that will be shortly submitted but I doubt it will be sent by Feb 14 deadline.

 

Currently I know that I will be authoring:

1-2 first authorship journals

2-3 second authorship journals

1 fourth authorship

1 authoring a book chapter

1 a review paper I will be working on my my advisor.

 

I know none of this is published yet but two journal drafts are fully written and the others are going to be submitted shortly. The book chapter is also going to be published for sure.

 

Can I or should I include any of this in my research productivity that isn't published yet? Should I send in any additional information - updated CV, transcript (I had a grade that was missing), etc?

 

Looks like I will have nothing under research productivity aside from 2 presentations I did...

 

thanks. anything will help - previous grad applicants or what current applicants in my shoe are planning on doing.

[mcpherv]

Hey everyone,

 

For the grad package, we basically have to send a letter of reference by our advisor and proof of research productivity (papers, patents, presentations, etc).

 

I am in 2nd year of my Masters and presently writing my thesis (like a mad woman!). My advisor and I agreed to write my manuscripts after... therefore, I don't have anything in press or published yet. I have one paper that will be shortly submitted but I doubt it will be sent by Feb 14 deadline.

 

Currently I know that I will be authoring:

1-2 first authorship journals

2-3 second authorship journals

1 fourth authorship

1 authoring a book chapter

1 a review paper I will be working on my my advisor.

 

I know none of this is published yet but two journal drafts are fully written and the others are going to be submitted shortly. The book chapter is also going to be published for sure.

 

Can I or should I include any of this in my research productivity that isn't published yet? Should I send in any additional information - updated CV, transcript (I had a grade that was missing), etc?

 

Looks like I will have nothing under research productivity aside from 2 presentations I did...

 

thanks. anything will help - previous grad applicants or what current applicants in my shoe are planning on doing.

 

ckim01,

I'm planning on submitting a list of everything I've been involved in, with the current status of each. I think its very fair to list any publications that are close to being submitted as being in preparation. I don't have any publications that have been accepted, but I have one co-first author that was submitted in October and is currently in revisions (and another first author publication in preparation). I believe that one would be selling themselves short if they don't give the adcom at least the oppotunity to consider everything you've been involved in during your graduate studies. Otherwise, you may appear to have had little success/dedication to your work, while the reality is quite the opposite. I would hope that the people reviewing the grad applications understand that the exact timeframe for submission/acceptance of publications is often based on luck and the individual project moreso than the individual performing the experiments. In my opinion, having as much involvment as you indicate above shows a great deal of initiative and success, as well as the ability to multitask.

[ckim01]

that's what I was thinking of but it clearly states to only submit things that are in press or already published.

 

I heard in the science community, anything not published/accepted means nothing...

[mcpherv]

that's what I was thinking of but it clearly states to only submit things that are in press or already published.

 

I heard in the science community, anything not published/accepted means nothing...

 

I agree with you as far as their assertions. However, as far as other applications go (ie. UoT grad package, OGS, etc.), submitted/in prep publications are looked at and evaluated as an indication of your productivity (obviously they carry less weight than publications that have been accepted, though). This is obviously not to say that Ottawa necessarily looks at these factors, but as far as I'm concerned, there is precendent for these sorts of things to be factored in while evaluating a grad student's performance. Either way, I'd rather submit a list of my research accomplishments and allow them to determine how they factor into their evaluation rather than submitting a (next to) blank sheet of paper listing a few presentations and abstracts I've submitted and hoping that they'll read between the lines and determine I've been productive by simply reading my supervisor's performance evaluation. I dunno - hopefully they keep more of an open mind here...

[bravebird]

I agree with you as far as their assertions. However, as far as other applications go (ie. UoT grad package, OGS, etc.), submitted/in prep publications are looked at and evaluated as an indication of your productivity (obviously they carry less weight than publications that have been accepted, though). This is obviously not to say that Ottawa necessarily looks at these factors, but as far as I'm concerned, there is precendent for these sorts of things to be factored in while evaluating a grad student's performance. Either way, I'd rather submit a list of my research accomplishments and allow them to determine how they factor into their evaluation rather than submitting a (next to) blank sheet of paper listing a few presentations and abstracts I've submitted and hoping that they'll read between the lines and determine I've been productive by simply reading my supervisor's performance evaluation. I dunno - hopefully they keep more of an open mind here...

 

I agree with mcpherv. As long as you clearly indicate what the status of each publication is, ie. "In preparation", "Submitted not yet Accepted", "Resubmitted after Revisions", or "Accepted for Publication", I don't think you are misleading them in any way. They can judge your performance from that. If you're worried, you can make that list and then get your supervisor to attach it to his/her letter as a proof of your productivity.

 

I emailed and asked if I could attach a CV and they said not to, because it would not be looked at. So it'll be golden if you can just get your supervisor to sign a list that you've compiled.

 

Hope that helps.

[Satsuma]

Hmm....just something to think about...from someone who didn`t go through the grad process, but did go to grad school.

 

I remember when I applied, at least for the undergrad CV, it did specifically say only to list publications that were in press or published. I remember this because that meant I had 2 in prep papers that I could not list. They also don`t look at anything published more than a year after you complete your degree...which in some instances also kind of is a pain...especially if your supervisor is especially slow at submitting things and this of no fault of your own.

 

I understand the thinking...better safe than sorry...and so include everything and let them decide what is important. But on the flip-side, do you think as a person reviewing the file, you would be annoyed that an applicant couldn`t follow instructions?

 

Just putting that question out there as food for thought.

 

Good luck to everyone!

[mcpherv]

Hmm....just something to think about...from someone who didn`t go through the grad process, but did go to grad school.

 

I remember when I applied, at least for the undergrad CV, it did specifically say only to list publications that were in press or published. I remember this because that meant I had 2 in prep papers that I could not list. They also don`t look at anything published more than a year after you complete your degree...which in some instances also kind of is a pain...especially if your supervisor is especially slow at submitting things and this of no fault of your own.

 

I understand the thinking...better safe than sorry...and so include everything and let them decide what is important. But on the flip-side, do you think as a person reviewing the file, you would be annoyed that an applicant couldn`t follow instructions?

 

Just putting that question out there as food for thought.

 

Good luck to everyone!

 

Thanks for the reply - it is nice to have input from individuals on the other side of the fence. Do you know anyone that was sucessful in gaining acceptance through the grad stream? Any idea on what sort of level of grad performance is typically competitive?

 

The point you raise is certainly a consideration. However, in my case it would cause a drastic reduction in the number of items that I was able to put on my list of research accomplishments. Were I in the middle of a Ph.D. and had enough time to accumulate a few accepted papers, I would consider more strictly adhering to the exact guidelines, as I could still show how productive I've been. However, since I am in the 2nd year of my M.Sc., omitting the submitted paper and the paper I have in prep would make it seem as though I have not been very successful. As such, I almost certainly would not be competitive, and this would not be an accurate depiction of my graduate level performance. I guess what I'm trying to say is that in my situation, it seems to be a low risk, high reward move.

[JohnDakota]

I heard in the science community, anything not published/accepted means nothing...

 

Ya that's completely correct. I've reviewed some papers in my niche that are pending publications, and since they haven't come out yet I cant even use those as references in my thesis, or any of my manuscripts in preparation. It's unfortunate, because some of them have really cool techniques, or interesting data.

[mcpherv]

Ya that's completely correct. I've reviewed some papers in my niche that are pending publications, and since they haven't come out yet I cant even use those as references in my thesis, or any of my manuscripts in preparation. It's unfortunate, because some of them have really cool techniques, or interesting data.

 

I could be wrong, but I'd imagine that this has as much or more to do with the fact that as a reviewer, you are privy to information that is essentially another group's intellectual property. Thus, you are required to wait until the information is public before you can discuss it openly - otherwise, you are releasing their findings before they have a chance to take proper credit for it.

[JohnDakota]

I could be wrong, but I'd imagine that this has as much or more to do with the fact that as a reviewer, you are privy to information that is essentially another group's intellectual property. Thus, you are required to wait until the information is public before you can discuss it openly - otherwise, you are releasing their findings before they have a chance to take proper credit for it.

 

 

That is part of it, but it's also part that the research itself hasn't been approved as credible. There were serious flaws with the work, in addition to the very interesting techniques/data sets. So even though the work has technically been done, in terms of the science community it doesn't exist.

[ckim01]

So... to sum it up regarding Research productivity for the Ottawa application..

It seems like I should be mentioning things that are going to happen (clearly stating that hasn't happened yet).

 

I just wanted to make sure that they wouldn't penalize me for not following their guidelines.

[Satsuma]

hi mcpherv

 

sorry don`t know the details of anyone that came through the grad process

[mcpherv]

That is part of it, but it's also part that the research itself hasn't been approved as credible. There were serious flaws with the work, in addition to the very interesting techniques/data sets. So even though the work has technically been done, in terms of the science community it doesn't exist.

 

Fair enough - there are definately those types of situations as well.

 

hi mcpherv

 

sorry don`t know the details of anyone that came through the grad process

 

No problem - I figured I'd ask and see what you said. Thanks for the reply regardless.

[Diabetes dude]

I thought I would chime in as a person who went through the grad application process last year.

 

If I remember correctly, grad applicants were told last year to submit only the work that is accepted or 'in press'. I can think of a couple of ways in which you can still show research productivity even if you don't have published manuscripts.

 

a) Make sure to send a proof of accepted/published abstracts for the papers you're preparing to submit or have submmitted for review, as this will indicate to the committee that you have got some preliminary data and are well on your way to completing the projects.

 

Although you may not be able to include papers you're either preparing or submitted in the grad package, you can and should ask your supervisor and/or committee member to highlight these points in their supplementary letter to the admissions committee.

 

Hope this helps and is not too late.

[ckim01]

thanks diabetes dude. That is what I did mostly so thanks.

[mcpherv]

Thanks a lot diabetes dude - its nice to have some input from someone who went through the process!

 

I stuck to my guns on this one and put together a package that included everything, so we'll see how it goes. I made certain to make it VERY clear regarding the current status of everything, so hopefully they'll be able to easily take whatever they want to take into consideration. We'll see what they say next week.

 

Good luck to everyone else!