PhD Progression and Personal Conduct

Science & Engineering

Professor Mike WatkinsonDeputy Dean Research (Postgraduate)

October 2013

1. The Faculty

2. The Doctoral College

3. Progression through the Degree

4. Advice to new PhD students

5. Ethics

Session Structure

1. The Faculty

2. The Doctoral College

3. Progression through the Degree

4. Advice to new PhD students

5. Ethics

Session Structure

VisionOur vision for the Faculty is that it should:

• Be recognised as one of the leading science and engineering faculties in the UK, contributing in full to Queen Mary’s ambition to be ranked in the top 10 universities in the UK

• Have an international reputation as a centre of cutting edge research and education, which attracts the best staff and students, and gives them the freedom to excel

• Offer students an education responsive to their personal aspirations and career ambitions, and prepares them for leading roles in society in the future

• Have a culture of flexibility and innovation, which embraces diversity, which empowers academic leadership and where excellence is rewarded.

The Faculty’s Schools

• Biological & Chemical Sciences• Electronic Engineering & Computer

Science• Engineering and Materials Science• Mathematical Sciences• Physics & Astronomy

Key Facts: S&E

• ca. 4,000 students (inc. 655 postgraduates)

• 260 academic staff

• £75 million annual turnover

• Annual research grant income of over £20 million

• We have three National Teaching Fellows amongst other awards for innovation in Teaching & Learning

Excellent People

• Professor Ursula Martin - elected as a Fellow of the Institute of Mathematics awarded a CBE

• Professor Yang Hao - awarded a £5m EPSRC platform grant

• Professor Peter Kalmus - made an Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics

• Professor Peter McOwan - awarded the 2011 IET Mountbatten Medal (promoting Computer Science to diverse audiences)

• Dr Matt Parker - winner of 2011 Joshua Phillips Award for Innovation in Science Engagement

• Dr Akram Alomainy - winner of British Science Association Award Lecture

Research Centres within S&E • Centre for Life Sciences• Theoretical Computer Science• Antennas & Electromagnetics Group• Qmedia• Multimedia & Vision Group• Centre for Digital Music• Nanovision Centre• Materials Research Institute• Institute of Bioengineering• Centre for Discrete Mathematics• Centre for Research in String Theory• Particle Physics Research Centre• Astronomy Unit• Centre for Condensed Matter & Materials Physics• River Communities Group• Centre for Aquatic & Terrestrial Environments • Maths Research Centre• Centre for Intelligent Sensing

1. The Faculty

2. The Doctoral College

3. Progression through the Degree

4. Advice to new PhD students

5. Ethics

Session Structure

Academic Structure

Professor Bill SpenceDirector and Vice Principal for Research

Professor Joy HinsonDeputy DirectorSMD

Professor Jon MayHSS

Professor Mike WatkinsonS&E

Directors of Graduate Studies

PhD Supervisors

Support Structure

Dr Jo CordyCentre for Academic and Professional Development

Dr Tracy BussoliQMUL Careers

Dr Ian ForristalCentre for Academic and Professional Development

Research Student and Postdoc- Networking -

• We want to encourage networking within and across department boundaries.

• School research open days, poster competitions, internal student organised conferences…..

• Annual Doctoral College Debate• Cohort days• Three minute thesis…….

1. The Faculty

2. The Doctoral College

3. Progression through the Degree

4. Advice to new PhD students

5. Ethics

Session Structure

PhD Thesis

• The thesis must form a distinct contribution to knowledge of the subject and afford evidence of originality, shown by the discovery of new facts or by the exercise of independent critical power.

• Be of a standard to merit publication in whole or in part or in a revised form (for example, as a monograph or as a number of articles in learned journals).

• Be the work of the candidate

Submitting on time

Possible Problems

• Slow start• Never satisfied• Distracted from main line of research• Getting a job before thesis complete

Monitoring Progression

• 4 Month light touch review• 9 month review• 24 month review• 36 months submit thesis

• QM target is for 85% submission within 4 years

Case study

Maria started her PhD three months ago. It hasn’t turned out quite as she expected. Maria’s supervisor is very busy travelling to conferences and she rarely sees him. Although they had a meeting when Maria started and she thought she understood what she was meant to do, she hasn’t had a formal meeting since then and she feels completely lost. Nothing that she tries seems to work out and she feels that she is pursuing dead ends. Her project seems hopeless. She is dreading writing the 9 month report.

What should Maria do?

Reference: Joy Hinson, 2011

1. The Faculty

2. The Doctoral College

3. Progression through the Degree

4. Advice to new PhD students

5. Ethics

Session Structure

Supervisor’s Responsibilities?

Interacting with your Supervisor

“One of the hallmarks of outstanding supervisors appeared .... to be that their students felt driven very hard to impress them.”

Supervisor - Student - Relationship

Student’s Responsibilities?

Supervisor - Student - Relationship

• Talk to your supervisor and get them to give an account what they believe to be your thesis 'challenge‘. Repeat it back to them in your own words. Continue this process until you arrive at an agreed formulation that they accept and you understand. Test out your ability to articulate it on as many people as you can.

• Find some of your supervisor's former students. Ask them about how to get the best value from your supervisor. Get the low down on likes and dislikes. Get any hints on how to 'manage' your supervisor.

• Ask your supervisor for the best thesis that they have supervised. Read it and discuss with your supervisor why it is good.

• Make friends with the other students in the lab or office. Find out what their skills and backgrounds are. Work out what you can bring to the mix.

• Ask your supervisor and other key academics in

your area to identify the twenty or so 'classic' papers in your area. Read them before you start in on your specialist topic.

• Look through the recent journals issues and conference proceedings in your area. Do not necessarily read them but rather get a sense of the trends. What is being published, what seems to be missing?

Taken from Anthony Finklestein’s blog:http://blog.prof.so/2012/09/how-to-start-phd.html#!/2012/09/how-to-start-phd.html

Do, or do not, there is no try.

Meetings with your supervisor

• Meeting schedules– Fixed– Student to take initiative

• Note taking (agreed!)

• Written material before hand

• Own your problem. Make it yours. Keep it at the front of your mind, always.

• Print the cover of your thesis and place it in a binder. You have started.

• Let go of the handrail, swim away from the side. Research requires risks.

• The big danger is not that somebody will steal your ideas but that nobody will take any interest.

• Remember if you leave it more than a fortnight your supervisor may well have forgotten what you discussed.

• Three years seems like a lot of time. It is not, the second year will disappear really quickly.

• Be ready to abandon ideas if they do not work but do not kill them before they have had a chance to fly.

• Follow courses, it is an easy way to learn.

• Keep accurate bibliographic records. That paper may not seem relevant now but could prove so later.

• Never stare at a blank piece of paper.

• Play with ideas, problems and techniques.

• Ask a question if you do not understand. Never feel afraid of looking foolish.

• If somebody does not understand your work it is usually because of

your failure to explain it clearly.

• High quality critical analysis is like gold dust. Seek it out. Welcome it. However painful.

• Work a regular day, work regular hours, take weekends off. Research is a marathon not a sprint.

• Back up. Back up. Back up

• And, oh yes, back up.

More advice to students at:

http://blog.prof.so/2012/01/advice-to-student.html#!/2012/01/advice-to-student.html

The Overall Pattern of Work - 1

• Keeping records– Day book– Filing system

• Recording achievements

• Papers and references– Recording your view of a paper– Data base?

• Planning ahead– “Research can be planned but not

blueprinted”– Timetables– Setting personal targets

The Overall Pattern of Work -2

• Managing yourself and your time– “1% Inspiration 99% Perspiration”– Office hours vs psychological moment

• Research groups• Cooperating with others for

mutual help and support– Within groups – Across groups– Other universities

Knowing what has been done before

• Not re-inventing the wheel• Information searching skills• Conference attendance

– Don’t just focus on your own very specialised area

• Specialist journals– Know what’s going on in the wider

field surrounding your PhD

Presentations- a valuable source for progress -

• Group seminars • Conference presentations

– Forces you to structure and evaluate your research

– Enables you to spot and hence remedy flaws in arguments/knowledge

• Feedback– Helps identify new ways forward

What your School Expects from You

• Courteous and professional conduct towards all Staff and Students

• To be ambassadors for the School

• To contribute to the research standing of the School

• To complete your PhD in the agreed time period

What to Expect from your School

• We want you to succeed hence the monitoring process

• A pleasant and stimulating environment

• To encourage transferable skills– to aid your employability

Transferable Skills from the PhD

• Technical research skills• Information searching skills• Turning your hand to a range of

technical and data analysis challenges• Project management skills• Presentation skills • Networking skills• Teaching/instruction of others• Working to schedules• Your career management

I can't believe it! Reading and writing actually paid off!

1. The Faculty

2. The Doctoral College

3. Progression through the Degree

4. Advice to new PhD students

5. Ethics

Session Structure

Research Ethics – many topics

• Scientific integrity• Human subjects• Privacy – lots of different types• Data protection• Professional ethics• Intellectual property• Scientific misconduct• ......

• Honesty - Scientists depend upon the truthfulness of their colleagues; each of us builds our discoveries on the work of others; if that work is false, our constructions fall like a house of cards and we must start all over again. The great success of science in our time is based on honesty.

• Community - scientists do virtually nothing alone; we exchange ideas in frenzies of excitement; we design and perform experiment together; we rely upon one another day in and day out; we take pleasure in discoveries, no matter who has made them; we give credit where it is due.

• Commitment - We love the purposes of science, we love the practice of science, we love to teach the lore of science. These passions give us gratification. And they inspire us to do our best - sometimes even to exceed ourselves.

• Courage - Most of the great discoveries in science come from bold acts of the imagination, intellectual daring of the highest order.

Excerpted from Ahearne (1999)

Building Blocks of Science

• Each of us is responsible for our own actions. • Choices about technical matter may have moral

implications.• Studies link moral reasoning to moral behavior. • Formal education promotes ethical reasoning.• Scientists are likely to encounter new moral problems

that have not been analysed and resolved, so practice in moral reasoning will allow scientists to develop strategies for recognizing, approaching and resolving ethical problems.

• Learning about research ethics serves a function for those scientists who already wish to be ethical researchers; it does not teach a scientist why (s)he should be moral.

• Some professions (e.g., IT, Engineering, Medicine) have explicit codes of conduct; scientists tend to refer to sets of values, traditions and standards.

Reference: Bebau et al (1995)

Integrity of Science

Integrity of Science

As a Scientist you:

• usually know what you ought to do when a moral question arises in research;

• probably don’t as a rule reflect on why a particular action is good or bad;

• realise that ignorance of an existing rule or law does not exempt you from the consequences if you break it;

• may face moral problems not anticipated by your discipline’s existing values, traditions and standards;

Integrity of Research - QM3. Integrity3.1 Academic staff, research staff, visiting

academics and research students should be honest in respect of their own actions in research and in their responses to the actions of other researchers. This applies to all research work, including experimental design, generating and analysing data, applying for funding, publishing results, recognising any real or potential conflicts of interest and acknowledging the direct and indirect contribution of colleagues, collaborators and any others involved in the research.

Reference: Queen Mary Guidelines on Good Practice in Research (2003).

Plagiarism

Presenting someone else’s work as one’s own irrespective of intention. Extensive quotations; close paraphrasing; copying from the work of another person, including another student or using the ideas of another person, without proper acknowledgement, also constitute plagiarism.

Reference: QM Academic Regulations 2009/10, Part 2 – General Regulation, §2.79.

Avoid plagiarism – use referencing

• A reference is used whenever your work contains someone else’s words or ideas.  A reference will ensure that the reader of the assignment can identify and locate the source of the information. 

• If you quote directly from another person’s work you must use quotation marks around the entire quote and reference the quote.

• If you paraphrase – put another person’s work into different words but with the same meaning – you must reference the work.

• If you use another person’s ideas, findings or research (i.e. facts they have established) in your work you must reference the work.

Reference: QM Academic Registry and Council Secretariat: Plagiarism – ten key points

Scientific Misconduct

Case study

In 2006 Professor Dalibor Sames retracted seven papers from American Chemical Society journals published with his PhD student Bengu Sezen. For six of these papers, Sames and Sezen were the only authors. Sames had already sacked five people from his group for not being able to reproduce Sezen’s work, but had secured tenure based on his published record. The University of Columbia subsequently retracted the PhD degree awarded to Sezen. She is now a PhD student in Heidelberg in molecular biology.

What questions does this case raise?

Reference: http://yclept.ucdavis.edu/course/280/SamesSezenCase.pdf

QM’s definition of Scientific Misconduct

Piracy - the deliberate exploitation of ideas from others without proper acknowledgement; Plagiarism - the copying or misappropriation of ideas (or their expression), text, software or data (or some combination thereof) without permission and/or due acknowledgement; Mis-representation - deliberate attempt to represent falsely or unfairly the ideas or work of others, whether or not for personal gain or enhancement; Fraud - deliberate deception (which may or may not include the invention or fabrication of data).

Reference: QM Guidelines on Good Practice in Research (2003).

Must you report scientific misconduct?

If you think you have seen a case of suspected research misconduct at QM, must you report it?

Reporting Scientific MisconductOne of the most difficult situations that a researcher can encounter is to see or suspect that a colleague has violated the ethical standards of the research community. It is easy to find excuses to do nothing, but someone who has witnessed misconduct has an unmistakable obligation to act.

Reporting suspected research misconduct is a shared and serious responsibility of all members of the academic community. Any person who suspects a scientific misconduct has an obligation to report the allegation to a dean of the unit in which the suspected misconduct occurred or to another senior University administrator.

Reference: Gunsalus (1998)

Perspectives on Reporting Scientific MisconductMisconduct can:

• Seriously impact research - yours, a colleague’s, your group’s• Injure reputations of scientists and their institutions• Shake public confidence in the integrity of science• Result in imposition of institutional/governmental counter-

productive regulationsReporting misconduct is:• An ethical obligation• Not easy• If mishandled, can damage stakeholders

Note:• There may be different explanations to what you perceive• Reprisals sometimes occur• If your allegation is judged malicious or reckless you may be

charged with scientific misconduct.

Reference: QM Procedure for Investigating Allegations of Misconduct in Academic Research (2000), Gunsalus, C.K. (1998)

Food for Thought

“In the cases of scientific fraud that I have looked at, three motives, or risk factors have always been present. In all cases, the perpetrators:

1. were under career pressure;2. knew, or thought they knew what the

answer would turn out to be if they went to all the trouble of doing the work properly, and

3. were working in a field where individual experiments are not expected to be precisely reproducible.”

Reference: Goodstein, David (1996)

You couldn’t make it up!

Hyung-In Moon, a South Korean plant compound researcher made up email addresses so he could do his own peer review.

35 papers now retracted as a result.

7 previous papers retracted several years ago for unspecified errors, some of which the notices called “major”.

http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/retraction-count-for-scientist-who-faked-emails-to-do-his-own-peer-review-grows-to-35/

If things go wrong

• Talk with supervisor, or – School PhD tutor or – School Director of Graduate Studies, or– School Research Administrator or– Me!

• Don’t do NOTHING!

…and finally

Studying for a PhD is a really exciting period in your life – ENJOY!

References - 1• Ahearne, John F, 1999. The Responsible Researcher: Paths and Pitfalls.

North Carolina: Sigma Xi, online at http://www.sigmaxi.org/programs/ethics/publications.shtml, accessed 20.09.2011.

• Bebau M., Pimple K., Muskavitch K., Borden S. & Smith D. (eds.), 1995. Moral Reasoning in Scientific Research: Cases for Teaching and Assessment, online at http://poynter.indiana.edu/mr/mr.pdf, accessed 20.09.2011.

• RCUK 2011. Policy and Code of Conduct on the Governance of Good Research Conduct, online at http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/managing/Pages/goodpractice.aspx, accessed 20.09.2011.

• Goodstein, David, 1996. Conduct and Misconduct in Science in The Flight from Science and Reason, Paul R. Gross, et al., New York Academy of Sciences, reprinted in Ahearne, John F. ,1999. The Responsible Researcher: Paths and Pitfalls, Sigma Xi.

• National Academies, 2009. On Being A Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, (3rd. Edition), Washington DC: National Academy Press, online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12192.html/

References - 2• QM Academic Regulations 2009/10, online at

http://www.arcs.qmul.ac.uk/policy_zone/academic/academic_regulations_2009_10.pdf, accessed 27.09.2011.

• QM Guidelines on Good Practice in Research (2003) online at http://www.qmul.ac.uk/qmul/research/policies/docs/g-gpr.pdf, accessed 20.09.2011.

• QM Code of Practice for Research Degree Programmes (2011), online at http://www.arcs.qmul.ac.uk/policy_zone/academic/Code_of_Practice_for%20Research_Degree_Programmes_2011-12.pdf, accessed 27.09.2011.

• QM Procedure for Investigating Allegations of Research Misconduct (2009) online at http://www.qmul.ac.uk/qmul/research/policies/docs/p-misconduct.pdf, accessed 20.09.2011.

• QM Research Ethics Committee, 2011, online at http://connect.qmul.ac.uk/research/ethicscommittee/index.html, accessed 20.09.2011.

• Roig, Michael, 2006. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing, online at http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/, accessed 27.09.2011.

• Sezen Found Guilty of Fraud, Cand Eng News, 2010, 88(49), December 6, 2010.

• Retraction Watch: http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/, accessed 9.10.12