I was on twitter the other day and someone liked a thread I put up documenting my response to some of the challenges HRD students and ECR’s face by doing a thesis by publication. This was born out of an article written in THE (tweeted below) of how such dissertations were substandard and endangering the reputation of the entire academy.
If you want to see my thoughts on this statement you can see them here.
Academics have provoked debate by claiming that increased pressure to pass substandard candidates, nepotism and the rise of the “PhD by prior publication” are endangering the doctorate’s reputation as the “gold standard” of academia. #PHDChathttps://t.co/iBunLYsdXS— TimesHigherEducation (@timeshighered) March 14, 2019
Dr Chris Letheby liked my thread causing me to jump over to his profile. Here something caught my attention:
I think this is a great idea, and forces people to get into a structured writing regiment. It works out to be about 2 papers a week. Perfectly manageable.
Starting Monday, I’m going to be taking up this challenge so that by the start of first semester next year I would have done the equivilent with some extensions:
- Rather than just being papers I’m going to be including individual book chapters, academic presentations and opinion peices (within reason) as well.
- For a presentation to count it has to be an invited lecture at an institution such as an IEEE distinguised lecture or ANZFSS professional meeting.
- All summaries will be written and posted here so that others can see what I’ve understood and can build a discussion around what I’m reading and writing. This way if I’ve misunderstood something people can engage in healthy debate.
Given the scope of inclusions has been widened I’ll also be applying a weighting system to the readings to obtain a minimum of 1000 points by the 18th of March 2020. Readers will be worth points on the following system:
- Academic papers and individual book chapters (10 points)
- Conducting a peer review* (8 points)
- Presentations, youtube videos, professional association, conference et al (5 points)
- Opinion pieces writen by experts (eg. Conversation articles) (2 points)
*Peer reviews will not be published online.
The main goal of this exercise is to make reading academic literature and writing useful summaries a habit. This can then be used to inform my research moving forward.
Papers for Review:
ArduWorm: A Functional Malware Targeting Arduino Devices: linkReview
- MAVR: Code Reuse Stealthy Attacks and Mitigation on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: 10.1109/ICDCS.2015.71
Topics for Review:
- Convolutional Neural networks