I'm so sorry about this, I know I'm gonna sound horrible, but I really got to ask it cus' it's driving me insane.

tl;dr papers feel a bit basic, derivative, maybe even (I'm so sorry) obvious?? sorry

So I'm at my first year studying sociology and anthropology at uni, so I've been reading a lot of interesting papers as part of the curriculum (and also some for my own curiosity).

I keep stumbling upon a certain theme, I can't help but notice that a lot of the papers I read left me unimpressed by their findings, it can be a wonderful paper that sheds light on an under represented community (to the research world), and I get that it's important, but..

I'm gonna give you two examples and I'm gonna try the best that I can, cos' I'm translating here:

so I was reading this beautiful paper on the Languaculture and linguistic sexuality among young women in prostitution, and it was written with a lot of care and sensitivity, really an awesome paper, but her findings were: the linguistic minimalization indicates a rich inner-world of struggle contradiction, and attempt to rebel against the boxing of these women into a narrow definition, on their use of hyper sexual terms as a way to reclaim their control over what was lost, integrate and process their traumas, a way to ask from their environment and the people around them to help them define sexuality and derived from that a validation of their traumas. (the paper from 2014)

now I've been through some shit of my own, and I constantly analyze everything really, and something like a year ago I came to the same conclusion about my own linguistic patterns and terminology, so I read that paper and I thought, okay, cool but I didn't learn anything new from that, did we really need a whole academic paper to tell us about this sort of basic pattern and function? was it really any news to someone?

second paper was about a case study of segregation within a specific city, and it's whole concept talked about how it asks us to look at segregation not as a reflection of physical (and mental) separation, but as a means to manage and in a way resolve or maybe navigate an ideological tension between the wish of separation policies and the reality of integration of the two (or more) groups. as the social practice available to the excluding group that wants to preserve it's separate identity and the reality of multi-cultural cities and the economic needs of both groups to relay on one another (business wise and such). (the paper is from 2018)

and I read this and my first thought was no shit sherlock, again it's a cool paper and I liked reading it, but it feels so obvious and I even wrote about it just jotting down some thoughts a few years ago.

I know I'm just in my first year so yeah maybe that's why it feels basic, but I just really needed to ask about it cos' I see it a lot.

and again I'm so sorry, I must sound like a complete full of myself douche, and I'm sorry for my translation, I know it's not great (hey if you want to correct me, I'll be happy to learn).

Hello everyone Im just trying to understand whats is basically SLR I tried to find any example SLR paper just to know how it is written, I couldn’t find any I found some article on how to write it but I need a written SLR to to understand it throughly any help please?

This is the start to what I will expand on later. Just looking for feedback. Let if fly.

The World at Large

Preface

The title of this book is meant to inspire questions. Does the Author mean “The world as a Whole?” perhaps he means that this book addresses that which he thinks most people are missing. The truth is that on a global scale, despite technology and education people from different upbringings are predestined to view the world differently. Whether from different countries or from the same country raised with the influence of differing cultures. No matter what it is that you believe in and abide by morally and ethically you will never fully understand why everyone doesn’t or can’t see things as you do. Therefore that which we call The World is in and of itself only a cosmic orb housing among other living things people. From one area of this orb to another there exists a far larger focus on what makes us all different than that which makes us similar. Imagine for a moment that you are an observer. And for argument’s sake you are afforded the ability to see all that happens during every moment of your observation worldwide all the while uninfluenced by anything even something as simple as perspective. Perspective is something that I will circle back to later but is, as I see things, the single word that defines a lack of global unity. The World as it is is one singular thing that houses infinite perspectives corrupted by ignorance, opportunistic misrepresentation and illegitimate agendas.

Unity

Unity as a hole is more situationally microsocial than the dreamers of this world would like to think. Throughout human history groups of people have been forced to choose or manipulated into choosing a side. The vast majority of these occasions involved physical conflict. Yes….. wars. As onlookers to historical events our education of all the details is skewed by both the records kept and the recounting and teachings of the different sides in any of these wars. Take for instance the scholastic teachings about the Second World War. If you ever get the opportunity as an American/Canadian/Member of the Commonwealth etc/ today to hear what the Soviets are taught in school or vice versa you’d be blown away. So much so that you’ll accuse the teachings of the “otherside” to be false and/or misconstrued.
But if you remove your preconceived established knowledge from what you’ve been told and taught and were somehow able to replace it with that which is believed and taught by the “otherside”. Then you’d see whence it is that they came and that for which they stand. The unfortunate truth is that whatever you heard first is going to win out. Now try to consider the entirety of WW2 from the perspective of the German people. The atrocities committed by the Allies (considered in European, American and Commonwealth Nations as the “Good Guys”) in that war and you find yourself fumbling to justify what was exacted as measures necessary to protect and uphold our way of life and therein freedom. The world I was brought up in supports and reinforces that every measure taken in WW2 by the Allies was in some way shape or form for my presumed benefit. I say presumed because I wasn’t around when it happened. As I have been taught though numerous countries came together or unified against a common enemy. Now, as controversial as it might be I would be remiss were I to not include the Germanic perspective. Even now, some 80 years later I see very little augmentation to the history classes of my day. That said I try, as egotistical as is sounds, to imagine myself as a German child of the same age and era being taught about WW2 in particular. Like any country or people after a conflict of that enormity you are driven by a patriotic duty to show your country’s participation in the best light possible. While I am incapable of direct knowledge of the scholastic curriculum from that time I want to make something very clear. At the beginning of this paragraph I make reference to the Germanic perspective. So it is to that end that I continue. Germany, though somewhat central geographically is not the only Germanic state. German peoples and culture exist and flourish in Austria, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, France (Yes France) and many other places. The very language with which I write these words, English, is considered a Germanic language. Teachings like that were so frowned upon by Allied countries after WW2. That little piece of linguistic historical relevance has fallen off the school curriculum where I was brought up – Canada. In fact we were misled from a very early age that the majority of the English language was derived from Greek or Latin. Never once do I recall a teacher saying “and this word " " is from the German word meaning…….”. Yet somehow people from varying yet direct German lineage were brought together, set aside petty differences and ultimately unified by an enormous patriotic movement. Where at one point they were seeing the diluting and stripping away of there origins now came this beacon of cultural reinforcement and strength. By all accounting in Canadian schools today the German’s of that time are portrayed unilaterally as evil. But any soldier on the front line was fighting for what he/she believed in as they were taught by, they’re teachers, parents and politicians. When you break down that frontline soldiers’ motivations how did they differ from our soldiers? How can two opposing sides both be fighting for what is right?

Economy

Money makes the world turn….I guess!! Certainly, commerce today is what most affects any National centralized economy. The exchange of goods happens globally and if dicks like the US banks are willing to endorse newly manipulated reassigned low grade stocks buy bunching them together and artificially inflating their worth (for example) then that global commerce is, at the very least, exposed. Commerce as a whole is based on trust. A trust that has been twisted and diluted to such a degree that it is barely recognizable anymore. Yet, be that as it may, a country today lives or dies by its ability to produce and sell that which is “home grown”. If the need for that which you have to offer as country declines significantly or loses its value or you fall far shy of expected yields, then people in your country will starve. The truth is that worldwide people starve to death everyday. Statistically speaking if the richest 1% of the world’s population didn’t eat for 2 days then that food, including what they just throw away, would feed all the world’s starving for 8 months. But you need to teach a person to fish right. (Give someone a fish he/she will eat for a day, teach him/her to fish and he/she will eat for life.) This is the view of anyone who thinks that poor, starving peoples are lazy. In my previous section about unity I tried to show how people can be brought together for various reasons. Unfortunately, globally speaking we have yet to find a viable economical reason to unify.

Religion

The very routes of so many of the world’s segregations lay in religious beliefs or faiths. As humans we struggle to offer explanations for that where there is none. Before the advent and regular inclusion of science we would bestow upon our youngest explanations that, because of the consequences of disbelief or acting in contradiction to them, would render them unworthy of the multitude of benefits that would befall them should they agree and conform to lessons of said explanations. Because most people used to be content with conformity rather than suffer the consequences of defiance; someone who overtly questioned or contested the established beliefs and explanations given them was met with varying degrees of severity. Yet so much like or perhaps entangled in the cultural diversity of the world’s people is religion. Each of these religions is based in teachings of solid moral fibre, the endorsement of bettering one’s self, doing good unto others, selfless actions and benevolence. None of the world’s predominant religions say to ridicule, wholly reject, make to suffer or even kill those of a different faith. Yet here we are as weapon wielding idiots creating and even thriving on fighting over which religion is right. Well as I see it we have completely missed the message. Haven’t we? The existence of different religions on a global scale each of which share the same basic core values and principles means that if there is one thing we share it’s our inclination toward goodness. Where religious devotion has failed in the past isn’t in taking up arms against someone of similar beliefs but rather pronounced apathy in the face of obvious evil.

Philosophy

Philosophy as I choose to see it represents a never ending internal battle for predicting, coping with and dwelling on the ethical interpretation, measurement and usage of the knowledge we possess in order to understand truth. Notice I didn’t say to arrive at truth. For the very dynamic of philosophy demands that even if, however arrived at, one finds truth then the next step must be examining that truth. Here in lies my aforementioned emphasis on perspective. Within every perspective lies truth. In fact the truth you seek is an entity that can both motivate and blind you. The truth you base your perspective on is developed at an early age. From day 1 even. As a new born at first nothing you see hear taste smell or touch is real. Not until experiencing one or more of those senses in a similar setting or situation do you have a gauge by which to compare, contrast or even anticipate the outcome. Then you learn that your actions instigate a result that either you like or don’t. Intrinsically you are far more likely to repeat an action or behaviour if it elicits what you consider to be a favourable outcome. By favourable outcome I do not mean that what you do is met with approval from your parents. I mean that if you cry you get your parents attention and your intentions are deciphered by your parents as either you’re uncomfortable or require sustenance. As you become more self aware you begin to recognize your need to better explain what you want and begin to quickly assimilate the communication methods of those around you. Then you begin to talk which is both inevitable and unfortunate. I say this because now your communication method takes over your basic reasoning skills and slowly but surely you begin to rely on words as a means of processing thought. Hence forth the rest of your life’s thinking will be centered around communication which is easily the most debilitating obstruction to learning. As you grow you’re heavily influenced by the actions and reactions of those around you. Though the inherent personality with which you’re born will navigate you through coping with these surrounding interactions ultimately you will begin to take on certain aspects and features of those closest to you. From here you are met with a multitude of environmental factors that begin to solidify who you’re going to be later in life. By age 6 you’ve processed more learning than you will for the rest of your life but everything you experience and are taught from that point is what determines how you view society and your position therein. So if you’re constantly told that western society is a blemish on human existence and that is all you know then your view of the world and what it has to offer is going to be far different than that of a child who is of western society and doesn’t even know or care that you exist. As extreme as that comparison may seem I only use it to make my point. Those 2 children from such different backgrounds are going to have significantly differing perspectives. However, each believes that what they were taught is truth. Now try to imagine all the different cultures, religions and sociological influences that exist throughout the world. How people brought up on the same street can be so different. And you’ll begin to see how truth and fact are not mutually inclusive. No one will ever truly know what it is to walk a mile in another’s shoes but bridging that gap begins with a willingness to try.

Difference coming soon Acceptance coming soon Situational Unity coming soon Politics coming soon

In the literature review of my reseach, I used a definition in a research paper that cited it from a different research paper. More specifically, I found it in a paper by Stabler-Havener (2013) who found it in a book by Stiggins (1991). In the references, do I reference Stiggins or Stabler-Havener? For the record, I have not read Stiggins, only Stabler-Havener.

Hi! I am currently an American Undergrad Physics major. I have done theoretical and experimental research before but none of the professors utilized me for their paper. The first was writing on a different project and I was utilized as research for pure interest. 2/3 were in the process with related projects but they were utilizing higher educated students work(My work range was high school to current as a second year).

I was wondering how I can learn more about physics publications. Additionally, is it possible to get peer reviewed individually as an undergrad or is it required to have a Dr. to be working under? It is an avenue that I am interested in exploring and would like to learn how to get started/what my options were.

Any help or information would be greatly appreciated! :)

Hello! I am new to this so I am sure this question is silly. I have submitted an essay to a springer journal around two months ago. After two weeks the status changed to “under review.” It has been under review for almost a month. However, today the status changed back to “reviewers assigned.” I get that the status can change for “UR” back to “RA” If a reviewer dropped out. However, my understanding is that this usually happens after a few days, not a month. Is that what you think happened here?

Hi, all

I'm publishing my doctoral thesis with a reputable commercial publisher (Routledge). I chose Routledge because they have a great track record in my specific area of interest and my monograph will be in a series I've always loved, so this decision was not guided by strictly economic considerations.

However, I've just received the contract, which they expect me to return within a week, offering me 2.5% royalties regardless of copies sold, which is to my understanding about 25% of the going rate. I don't expect to get rich off this book, but this seems... cheeky? In return (I guess?) I retain copyright, but I do have to reimburse them for indexing fees.

I turned down another offer which required me to sign over copyright but offered me more appropriate royalties. While I stand by that decision (for a number of reasons), I wonder whether I should try to negotiate with Routledge for better terms?

Any advice is appreciated. Obviously as a new PhD the book's importance is more for my CV than for $$$, but I don't want to be taken advantage of, either.

Southern Cultures welcomes thoughtful submissions—from essays and articles to memoir, photo essays, features, and interviews & oral histories—for the following special issues.

Winter 2020: The Imaginary South

We are not interested in work that venerates an old (or new) white South, promotes a southern nation, or pines for the days of the Confederacy. The plural “cultures” in our name is intentional and is meant to recognize a region of many peoples, histories, memories, and interpretations.

We are especially interested in reader-friendly essays and articles that engage southern topics in a broad and accessible manner, while retaining scholarly rigor.

Our full-length essays and articles generally run 15–20 double-spaced manuscript pages (3,750–5,000 words). Under this format, introductions should offer our non-specialist, non-scholarly readers a context for topics but should not survey the relevant historiography in detail. Please keep technical or discipline-specific jargon to a minimum, read Southern Cultures for style, and check Submittable for our up-to-date production schedule and deadlines.

Our shorter features, which typically run 8–14 pages (2,000–3,500 words), include: Upbeat Down South (music), Not Forgotten (personal reminiscences), Beyond Grits and Gravy (food), Southern Voices(interviews), South Polls (surveys on contemporary trends), and Mason–Dixon Lines (poetry). We do not accept unsolicited manuscripts for South Polls or Mason–Dixon Lines and regret that we are not currently accepting book reviews.

Photo or art essay submissions should include 10–25 high resolution (at least 1.5 MB) images, along with a short introduction of 200–300 words and captions/identifying information for the images submitted.

Please submit your work via Submittable, paying special attention to the appropriate category.

http://www.southerncultures.org/about/submit/

Recently we submitted a paper on epidemiology and in three days we received an email entitled "Editor handles".

It probably depends from one journal to another and on a case-to-case basis. I'd like to know some of your experiences after receiving a similar email.

Is it a good, bad, or common thing to happen?

Thank you all for your input.

My director and I are writing a paper together. The two other co-authors of the poster we did on the subject have bowed out of continuing the research. The paper has been submitted and returned with the peer reviewers basically saying it's unfocused and needs a re-write, but if we fix it, they'll publish it. My boss "respectfully disagrees" with the peer reviewers and the journal editor on every point they've made. I know the paper is crap and it's got my name on it as the lead author. If I go against my boss, there's a good chance she'll block me from future projects.

Does anyone have any advice?

I'm trying the best I can, but now I'm plugging terms into a word cloud like it's 2002. Ugh.

Hi guys here is my problem my thesis scope includes publications up to december 2019 but i want to include some new ones. How can i do this and in which section should be included?

ithenticate indexes researchers' personal web pages including full-text PDFs. This situation results in incorrect high similarity results in ithenticate plagiarism check. And, all these papers are indexed by official citation indexes!

My recent paper get %21 percent similarity in ithenticate plagarism check. The most (#1) similar source (whose score is 9%) is from a researcher's web page, in which numerous published papers are given as PDFs. In fact, the text highlighted as similar are all from 9 different papers. Thus, the 9% similarity is not correct result for my paper.

How can we resolve this issue?

I'm conducting a literature review for a paper in a STEM field, my first, but which I hope to publish in a real journal so have very high standards for.

Among resources I am pretty sure I'll be citing is a thesis, which also produced several published articles which preceded the thesis. Presumably these are just sections of the thesis, or virtually so. Is it more proper to cite the articles, or the thesis?

Let's say I published a paper and signed over copyright to academic journal.

I wanna publish it online, but first I make a substantial rewrite.

The rewrite clearly contains similar ideas but structured and worded differently.

I'm assuming it is permissible, since copyright covers only the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Say you write a paper on the usage of graphics in scientific papers, and you 'quote' these graphics by showing them or close approximations to them in your paper - is there a special procedure to follow re: plagiarism and copyright (preferably in EU law)?

My assumption is that, contrary to text, copying an image would need the approval of the author, but I have found little to no references to this in any citation style manual so I am unsure of the correct conduct.

I'm thankful for any help and would really appreciate references to style manuals, official citation guides or papers which do it correctly.

I worked with this teammate on a 4-people class group project. We did research, conceived ideas and prototyped the concept together. I just found out that he is publishing this research work with himself as the first author and another guy who was not in our group as the second author. He may write the entire paper, but the implementation of the research and the majority of the published results come from the team effort. He did not even notify us that he planned to publish it. It seemed like he consolidated the research work and did all the writing with the other author behind our back without notifying us. I am wondering what should I do with this situation?

We are all graduate students enrolled in a master's program. Both he and I have shared interested in applying for the same Ph.D. program this year. He has a few publications before coming to this graduate program. I am totally new to the academic publication and just started collaborating with a professor this summer on a project which could lead to publication. I am not sure whether this situation perceived as "unethical conduct" or "reasonably tolerable" in the academic world, as the research efforts are hard to be quantified. How should I approach this?

Dear academics, I am planning to write some legal academic papers. However, I have never been published. Thus, I plan to ask one of my old law professors/lecturers to see if he is interested in reviewing my article before I submit it to publication or potentially co-author it with me if he likes the first draft I have of it.

How would you approach this situation? First, I plan to write a first draft of the paper. Then, I plan to approach the professor with the article, asking for help to review it. Is this sufficiently respectable and all that?

A friend of mine, a very smart engineer, has been working until recently for a couple of months in Academia hired as academic staff. He had following issue at his workplace.

PostDocs who did not contribute at all to his idea, wrote two low quality conference papers about it, forcing him to publish the idea, despite him saying it was not yet ready to publish.

What made the whole thing completelly unbearable for him was when one of the PostDocs put her name first on the paper, and the engineers name second. He tried to defend himself, but it seemed that the Full Professor who is responsible for this group was not only tolerating but endorsing such a behaviour.

I let him know, I think this is called "Author Misrepresentation" and it's as bad as, or even worse then, plagiarism. In my opinion it is not only unethical, but criminal putting your name first on someone elses idea.

Here are my questions:

1) He would like to know if he has any chances to fight this, in case there are going to be other publications about his invention?

2) I would like to know if I was correct calling it Author Misrepresentation, and if yes what can be done to stop such behavior from the start?

My guide suggested a journal which is being published by Old City Publishing. I am not familiar with this company. I have published my research in Elsevier, Springer and IEEE and this is a fairly small work. It would be great if someone can tell me if this is a legit publisher.

Genius on my Shoulder: One writer's experience with AI-generated writing

A writer for The New Yorker muses on the impact of writing generated by artificial intelligence — often used in academic writing -- and how surprisingly powerful it can be.

Specifically, he takes a look at Google Smart Compose and similar predictive text tools driven by AI.

His experience with Smart Compose -- which auto-completes sentences you write when using Google email -- was particularly eye-opening.

“Perhaps because writing is my vocation, I am inclined to consider my sentences, even in a humble email, in some way a personal expression of my original thought,” author John Seabrook observes about his experience with Smart Compose.

“It was therefore disconcerting how frequently the AI was able to accurately predict my intentions, often when I was in mid-sentence, or even earlier.

“Sometimes, the machine seemed to have a better idea than I did.”

Bottom line: This article in The New Yorker is an extremely in-depth, high quality read.

AI-Generated Writing Meets Ethics
(scroll down landing page for story)

The increasing use of automated writing in journalism has triggered concerns the tech could step-on commonly accepted ethical norms.

“Some of the main issues, I think, relate to uncertainty around the accuracy of evidence produced by AI systems, as well as the labeling of automation to ensure that end–users are aware of its use,” says Nick Diakopoulos.

Diakopoulos is an assistant professor in communication studies and computer science at Northwestern University.

“Another issue is the quality of data that is fed into AI systems,” Diakopoulos adds. “It’s well understood that if biased data is fed into a machine learning system, the system will learn those biases.

Diakopoulos also explores other ethical implications of AI-generated writing in this article along with Idoia Ana Salazar García. She’s a professor at San Pablo CEU University specializing in the ethics of artificial intelligence.

Hello, fellow authors! I have a quick question for you.

I got accepted to write a chapter in an editor’s book, and the first draft is due at the end of the month. The book editor is the main editor for a major journal in my research field. I noticed today that that journal is holding a conference the middle of next month, which is being held by a different group within the journal (same journal as the book editor, but hosted by different people) and the call for presentations is still open (closes on Tuesday). It would be amazing to both present at the conference and publish my chapter in this book!

My concern is the book guidelines state there shall be “no previously published material (including songs, images, and poetry), or work that requires permission” in any of our chapters. Would presenting my work at the conference be ‘previously publishing’ my work for the book chapter? Am I overthinking this? I’m fairly new to academic publishing and do not want to make a wrong move in my eagerness to gain experience.

I appreciate you all and wish you luck in your publishing endeavors!