3 ms·

The minimum number should be 0. Papers are useless to rate the quality of a PhD thesis - the jury, if chosen right, should be experts in this field and thus ab

by guylhem 14y ago

The minimum number should be 0. Papers are useless to rate the quality of a PhD thesis - the jury, if chosen right, should be experts in this field and thus able to analyze by themselves whether the PhD was an original contribution to science ie finding a way of doing something that was never done before and believed to be impossible, or in reverse, proving something to be impossible, and therefore PhD worthy material. The amount of papers doesn't matter - or should not matter, if the PhD is to have any sense. Meaningless papers are just a waste of trees. For ex, in my PhD I identified a specific kind of variability in written sign language that for some reason hadn't be grasped by the linguists who worked on the same problem with us. The PhD was in computer science and there was a linguist in the jury- she had read the acts of the conference where I had presented a communication on this variability, and for her this contribution alone was worthy of a PhD. In the end, since there were other interesting things, it was awarded summa cum laude, even if not a single paper was published on the subject in a journal - my work was only disseminated in presentations, acts of conference, and a research report ordered by the government. That was in 2008. 4 years later, my work is leading to an actual implementation of the ideas discussed, for the reasons discussed in the manuscript, and I have my own page on the SignWriting website (SignWriting is the written form of sign language I worked on) : http://www.signwriting.org/library/history/contributors/Aznar.html http://www.signwriting.org/library/history/contributors/Azna... I feel damn proud to have been proven right not just by some research paper published in an obscure magazine, but by real people working on this same problem and bringing the issues in front of the Unicode committee (in progress - hopefully it will be completed in 2013 or 2014) It's far from done yet - it is still research work. But after my work from 2008, I made a tiny dent in the universe (as in http://www.openculture.com/2012/09/the_illustrated_guide_to_a_phd-redux.html http://www.openculture.com/2012/09/the_illustrated_guide_to_...) When it's complete, I'll be happy to write a paper presenting the difference between the theory and the actual implementation, which could prove useful to other people attacking similar problems. But a paper is not an end by itself. EDIT - adding some links Intermediary work : http://www.irit.fr/-Publications-?code=2628&nom=Aznar%20Guylhem http://www.irit.fr/-Publications-?code=2628&nom=Aznar%20... Manuscript : http://www.irit.fr/~Patrice.Dalle/Publis/these_aznar.pdf http://www.irit.fr/~Patrice.Dalle/Publis/these_aznar.pdf

GuiA 14y ago
I wholeheartedly agree with you. Sadly, the state of academia has become a giant publication fest, where getting as many publications possible out the door every year has pretty much become a synonym with funding, tenure, etc. (if I check my spam folder these days, I have more spam about cheap conferences where you can get your paper published for $XXX than ones for viagra) Professors pushing their PhD students to publish often are preparing them well for a future career in academia, if they so choose (which a significant portion of them will). It's definitely not right, but it's the sad state we're at; and I'm not sure what exactly will change it :(
- pasbesoin 14y ago
  > are preparing them well for a future career in academia, if they so choose Assuming that option remains. In other disciplines, from what I read, it is fast disappearing for the majority of... "qualified" candidates. As the quality of the product (i.e. potential employee and what they have to offer) declines, I speculate so will academic opportunities. There's a lag while the decline in value reveals itself, but eventually the world catches up with the new state of things.
neilc 14y ago
The minimum number should be 0. In most places, it is. That said, I think most CS PhDs -- and definitely most strong CD PhDs -- will have a few publications in top conferences. This has several benefits: (1) communicating your results -- few people read entire theses. (2) getting feedback from the community, both in the form of PC reviews and feedback from the conference attendees. (3) as a way to checkpoint your work on individual sub-projects, and to act as a forcing function. Trying to "require" independent publications as part of a PhD seems silly, but having publications is definitely a good thing IMHO.
- guylhem 14y ago
  I fully agree with the benefits of communicating one's result, if only for feedback and getting independent verification or validation - but a paper is only a given way to reach this goal. If your area of research is obscure or quickly evolving, a journal might not be the best place to share your results, while giving a presentation at relevant conferences, where people working on similar topics will get exposed to your result, is better. But even this is secondary. I loved doing research, but I was even more interested in the end result - having something working and useful. Not publishing might have damaged my "profile" in several places where the amount of dead trees is the only thing that matters, but it's all a matter of priorities - and I'm not sure I'd have been happy to work in a place where the end result is only an afterthought. Maybe that's why I'm reading HN :-)

by guylhem 14y ago

GuiA 14y ago

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Sadly, the state of academia has become a giant publication fest, where getting as many publications possible out the door every year has pretty much become a synonym with funding, tenure, etc. (if I check my spam folder these days, I have more spam about cheap conferences where you can get your paper published for $XXX than ones for viagra) Professors pushing their PhD students to publish often are preparing them well for a future career in academia, if they so choose (which a significant portion of them will). It's definitely not right, but it's the sad state we're at; and I'm not sure what exactly will change it :(

pasbesoin 14y ago
> are preparing them well for a future career in academia, if they so choose Assuming that option remains. In other disciplines, from what I read, it is fast disappearing for the majority of... "qualified" candidates. As the quality of the product (i.e. potential employee and what they have to offer) declines, I speculate so will academic opportunities. There's a lag while the decline in value reveals itself, but eventually the world catches up with the new state of things.

neilc 14y ago

The minimum number should be 0. In most places, it is. That said, I think most CS PhDs -- and definitely most strong CD PhDs -- will have a few publications in top conferences. This has several benefits: (1) communicating your results -- few people read entire theses. (2) getting feedback from the community, both in the form of PC reviews and feedback from the conference attendees. (3) as a way to checkpoint your work on individual sub-projects, and to act as a forcing function. Trying to "require" independent publications as part of a PhD seems silly, but having publications is definitely a good thing IMHO.

guylhem 14y ago
I fully agree with the benefits of communicating one's result, if only for feedback and getting independent verification or validation - but a paper is only a given way to reach this goal. If your area of research is obscure or quickly evolving, a journal might not be the best place to share your results, while giving a presentation at relevant conferences, where people working on similar topics will get exposed to your result, is better. But even this is secondary. I loved doing research, but I was even more interested in the end result - having something working and useful. Not publishing might have damaged my "profile" in several places where the amount of dead trees is the only thing that matters, but it's all a matter of priorities - and I'm not sure I'd have been happy to work in a place where the end result is only an afterthought. Maybe that's why I'm reading HN :-)