[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 13 KB, 320x213, 320px-Stack_of_Copy_Paper.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6380280 No.6380280[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Tell me about when you first got published.

How old were you?
What was it on, roughly speaking?
nth author?
Looking back, was it a good paper? Pleased/satisfied/proud?

>> No.6380305

So no one here is published?

>> No.6380309

It was a long time ago, It was a few years before my doctorate. To be very vague, it was a paper on fluid mechanics. Utterly dissapointing paper, a high school student studying physics could've done better

>> No.6380313

>>6380280
>21
>haptic interface, specifically about identification and command of a robot for specified trajectory
>better than what was published by most people, only people working on their PhD do a fine job, all the rest is just copy/pasta with mistakes.

>> No.6380333

24.

Something nobody cared about nor will ever care about in the field of materials science.

First author, only author besides advisor.

Was it good? That's a tough question. I was given a project as a graduate student because my advisor had funding for it, and I did what was asked of me, developed the methods, etc. and did a good job with the project, but I hated that research, and an extension of it became my dissertation, which is also something nobody cared about then and will ever care about, which made me pretty miserable during graduate school. Especially coupled with my boss' arrogance about the project at first (which motivated me), followed by dismissal of it once he realized it wasn't "in vogue" anymore, nor was it useful (which I also realized, and I felt kind of betrayed, because I was very naive when I entered graduate school, and thought that at the school I was at, which was top-10 in its discipline, would offer nothing but cutting-edge research).

I was fed up with academia, and thought really long and hard about whether I wanted to do a postdoc (which would give me the freedom I lacked in graduate school), and then become an associate professor, where I realize my "style" isn't necessarily the best fit for academia. I like short "can we do this?" type projects that will translate pretty quickly into a yes/no answer, and may not necessarily be "sexy," i.e. new technique, or something that looks pretty on the cover of Advanced Materials or AFM, because I think that the "can we do this" types of projects have the best chance of actually being useful in the real world.

So it was go along with the system in the hopes that I could be one of the "good" advisors, or just go into industry. I'd maybe like to return to academia someday, as I do really love teaching. Maybe at a small liberal arts college, although they typically don't have materials science, but perhaps in another department?

I'm more proud of my patents than my first paper.

>> No.6380336

>>6380333

As of now, I have like 10 peer-reviewed papers, plus like 10 conference proceedings that list me as an author? 3 of the peer-reviewed papers are first author.

>> No.6380344

>>6380336
Do you regret going into materials science?

>> No.6380386

>>6380344

No, I love the field. I just regret my choice of academic advisor. He doesn't have much knowledge outside his immediate area of expertise (which isn't bad per se, most PhDs do have a narrow range of expertise), but coupled with arrogance of being an advisor and making demands that don't make sense, it's just a bad mix.

I could speak more on why I think academia is fucked up in the US, but it's a long story.

>> No.6380395

>>6380386
Can you a bit about the patents you spoke about? I'm unfamiliar with materials science, so what should I imagine here?

>> No.6380399

>>6380336
>>6380386
for a moment I thought you were metric and was confused as hell.

>> No.6380441

>>6380395

1. New method (or equipment) used for synthesis/growth of material X that is cheaper/more scalable/provides better quality of material than existing method.
2. New method of making an electronic device.

The patents are written in a way to make what you have done overly broad in scope, so it covers anything else that someone could possibly do with your invention.

Background, very brief, broad.

Summary of invention is going to describe you invention in a way that much covers anything else that someone could do using your work, like "device may be integrated with other devices and processing techniques."

Description is the meat, and pretty much covers any other things that may be done in parallel, "the device may also be patterned using lithographic techniques." "the device may also have/contain/use this, this, this." All this so people can't say "well technically it's not the same because we do [this additional step]" when it would be pretty obvious to someone in the field that it's a ripoff.

Lots of figures.

Usually you're going to have someone in your company to help you with patent stuff.

>> No.6380482

21, interstellar chemistry, second author, okay paper with no real impact. My mom was impressed because it had a lot of long words. It originally had one very clever bit where I discovered a problem with a widely used potential energy surface, but that got chopped out in the final version, suggested that it should be a separate letter. I never wrote it up.

Pleased/satisfied/proud? Well, I got three follow-up papers (first author on two) and a thesis out of it, all of which were quickly made obsolete by advances elsewhere in the field. Now I spend my spare time doing pure math, which I find to be much more satisfying, and also some AI research.

>> No.6380916

2nd year math undergrad, some result about banach algebras, it wasn't bad but I've written better