TR Gregory at Scientific Blogging asks why advisors would encourage their students to publish. One of the reasons is:
Most of the graduate and undergraduate students with whom I have worked directly have been quite excited by the possibility of seeing their names in print on a high quality piece of work.
I agree with this. I was encouraged by David Hull, who marked my MA thesis, to publish some of it, and as a result I got my first paper, ten years ago. I still recall the thrill of seeing the reprints arrive in the mail. That was my name there. I did a little dance.
Even now, seeing a paper published gives me a little thrill (and reading that first one gives me the heebies; it's so earnest). I have many people to thank for getting it published, not least the editor of the journal, Michael Ruse. And my PhD advisor Neil Thomason encouraged me to do it professionally some years later.
Until Hull said that he thought it was publishable, I only did philosophy of biology for fun. I was never told my my teachers that I was any good, for nearly 20 years of studying part time while I held down a full time job. After, I thought "Hey, I can do this! Professionally if not for pay." Now I get paid for it (for at least another four months, anyway). Without that encouragement, I never would have.
So encourage your students. One or more of them might turn out to be a colleague one day.
Hat tip to Larry Moran.
Humanities & Social Science
Education & Careers
Comments
It seems also, when applying for a graduate degree program, many schools seem to expect you to have published. One of the questions asked my daughter when she applied for her MS was whether or not she's published, and now that she's applying for her PhD they ask what she's published. Now that her Masters Thesis is almost finished, she's preparing two more papers for publication before starting her PhD.
Posted by: dorid | January 13, 2008 9:29 AM
Compared to the number of people who have one or more degrees in a field of science, the number of people who have published is relatively small. It can be argued that the latter group is the one doing "real science". The if it is not published, it never happened point of view. So the quicker one becomes a member of the elite, the better. There are a great many capable people who will not publish because of inability to deal with the critical review process. It is indeed a thrill seeing ones name in print, and receiving reprint requests.
At my university, having students present or publish their research was a positive thing for merit consideration.
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | January 13, 2008 10:46 AM
Well, I always thought you were a very good philosopher of biology because I could understand you - mostly. And the fact you are doughty champion of agnosticism even in the face of the athier-than-thou cabal is a big plus, too. So you hang in there doubting. It's a tough job but someone has to do it.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | January 13, 2008 1:29 PM
I managed four papers from my MSc, because my supervisor strongly encouraged publication so that the information and data was out there for use, rather than mouldering in a thesis in that dusty section of the library. I have been ever grateful.
Posted by: KiwiInOz | January 13, 2008 6:07 PM
In my experience, being encouraged to publish is the norm - in fact, not successfully publishing work from a masters thesis is considered a faux pas at times (of course, depending on the nature of the thesis).
Posted by: Anonymous | January 13, 2008 10:02 PM