VWXYNot? Comment(s) of the week:
Nina and Grant for the following exchange: Nina: "Life should be a conference, everyone wearing nametags all the time, with their first name, last name, nickname, country of origin and country of residence. Birthdate optional."
Grant: Nina, I’m sure tech types will suggest we’ll all be bumping cell phones to exchange names in a few years. (Eurgh.)
One more: you know that thing where the person can’t quite read your name tag and leans in close over your chest to read it…
Nina: "ok, how about tattooing your name onto your forehead?"
Grant: "How about a sub-dermal name implant invisible when not active that glows when triggered by trained neural signals beaming your name to the people opposite you?
Failing that we could all wear electrode scalp caps that carry a flip up sign… (Taking as my cue the brain-computer interfaces emotiv and others are marketing.)"
[NB as a chronic tartler, I approve of all the above methods]
Alyssa for "It’s cloudy again
We see it’s cold and dreary
But – we have windows!!!"
Ricardipus for "Bugger me, the grant’s
Finally done. Thank goodness.
Now back to fun stuff."
Bean-mom for "I just clicked on the article on circular RNAs–I’d seen the headline earlier but hadn’t yet read it–and just as I expected, I’m all WTF?! MicroRNAs, long non-coding RNAs, now we’ve got circular RNAs. . . I feel like someone should just write a review titled, “RNA: WTF?”"
Nina again for "edit: my advisor has improved his standing desk further by standing on a wooden board that balances on a small (but sturdy) plastic tube, to make him wobble while standing, so to keep working those balancing muscles, or something like that. The tube comes from one of my experiments. I will miss that “wtf I’ll create my own standing desk – pilates work-out” attitude, I must admit."
Bob O'H for "Reminds me of my youth playing boardgames. There was one called Civilisation, which a friend described as “almost as long as the real thing”."
Chall "it surely looks like the Leafs MIGHT go to play offs for the first time in 7 years…. if I didn’t jinx it by saying it here of course. That said, I find myself wondering how bad it will be to end 5th place if Boston stays 4th. It sort of feels better to play the 3rd (Capitals right now) than Bruins but right now I’ll settle for PLAYOFFS and miracle :)"
[the Leafs making the playoffs is a miracle indeed]
KJHaxton for "Good question! I’d put:
– occasional baker of cakes for meetings
– fair to moderate tolerance for bullshit
– low tolerance for unfairness and willing to get very cross about it (folds arms and glowers at the screen)
– best selection of tea bags in desk drawer (8 kinds at last count)
– prone to wearing scarves and shirts that don’t match
Ah well, I’m not sure I’d find a new job on the basis of those :)"
Ricardipus again for "Pros:
- rarely swears in public
- has few friends, so unlikely to have loud, belly-laughing conversations on phone or in person
- capable of speaking at length about (a) race cars, (b) cameras, or (c) bad science
Cons:
- occasionally swears in public
- has few friends, so likely to have poor social interactions with co-workers
- capable of speaking at length about (a) race cars, (b) cameras, or (c) bad science
I’d also probably include “easily suckered into serving on irrelevant committees” into each category, too."
Bean-mom again for "–Friendly.
–Doesn’t bake, but if you have a potluck I’ll bring killer spring rolls (both crispy fried pork ones, and the vegetarian fresh rice-paper ones).
–Doesn’t bake, but husband bakes. Occasionally, you may be a recipient of his talent.
–Will cheerfully listen to other people’s dramas, but won’t cause any of my own. Not at work, anyway."
and Nina yet again for "As I may have mentioned before, I’m pretty sure my cv point “Love baking (chocolate) cakes” earned me my PhD position, and it definitely often raised questions in interviews (“so, how often do you bake cake? What kind of chocolate do you use?”)"
Post(s) of the Week: Beth Snow for "Modern conveniences" (how on earth did we survive, let alone study and write theses, before Skype and cloud computing?!)
Steve Caplan for "Science education: the generalist vs the specialist" (are 3 year or 4 year degrees better for students?)
Bean-mom for "Leaving scientific research... again" (science SUCKS sometimes)
Eva Amsen, writing at the Occam's Typewriter Irregulars for "The two ideas to fix the gender balance that do not make me cringe" (the panel pledge and the Finkbeiner test)
Bob O'Hara for "Making reviewing boring stuff less boring" (would a stripped-down manuscript format work better for the, um, less exciting papers out there?)
Alyssa for "Just the pants, thanks" (absolutely hilarious take on the modern clothes shopping experience)
Eva Amsen again for "My self-updating address book" (how LinkedIn can be useful)
CromerCrox for "Plagues" (how's God been cursing you lately?)
Prof-like Substance for "If you don't talk to your kids about it someone else will" (anticipating school-yard talk about religion and other big issues)
and CromerCrox again for "Conferences" (the problem of sexism at conferences)
Archives:
October 2008 - March 2009; April 2009 - September 2009; October 2009 - March 2010; April 2010 - September 2010; October 2010 - February 2011; March 2011 - September 2011; October 2011 - March 2012; April 2012 - September 2012; October 2012 - March 2013; April 2013 - September 2013
Congrats, Dr. E!
My first few papers from my PhD are under my former (i.e., ex-husband’s) surname, with more recent papers under my maiden name (i.e., the one I currently go by). I put a note on my publication list that older papers were published under a former surname, and it’s not been a problem for people reading my CV. Without the note, however, people could not figure out why I had “M.E. Simpson” underlined for the older papers and “M.E. Snow” underlined for the more recent ones. I thought it would be pretty obvious, but honestly, people were totally flummoxed without the explanation.
Not that I think you are fishing for them or anything, but I am pleased to extend my sincerest compliments. I am so jealous, I wish I could change my name too, and then tell everyone that my h-index is actually twice as much as it is, it is just that I have been publishing under different names…
Modesty is an overrated virtue. Publication entitles you to a certain amount of self-congratulation.
Congrats on the two papers!
I got married about 6 months after receiving my PhD in 2010 and changed my last name to my husbands (which I also consider an upgrade, went from 6 letters to 9, there’s a very cool looking family crest associated with the name in Norway, and I’m the only one with my new name in Pubmed that I can find so far).
I now have a 50/50 split on my CV between the papers with my maiden name and my new last name. A little * and explanation at the bottom of my list of manuscripts seems to do the trick. Most people will ask about the change but don’t seem confused or bewildered about it.
Nice!
I also am in the “not really publishing much any more” zone… every now and then it makes me a little sad, but not much.
Yay you! That is awesome!!!
Yes, self-promotion is absolutely encouraged and warranted. On your own blog, c’mon!
“…at which point I helped compile some of the data into tables, made a figure, wrote parts of the manuscript, edited all of it, and co-ordinated the submission.”
You don’t even have to defend that you deserved your inclusion, but you did. Satisfied? Truly.
I mean, heck, I brag about my bragging rights, and that takes a lot less work.
woot woot dr.e!
Thanks all!
Beth, both papers were in press when I last used my CV, so I had two underlined names in my publication list – but I’d put “nee Dunn” under my name on the front page to explain that. I’m astonished that the presumably intelligent people who read your CV without the explanatory note had such a hard time with it – it’s really not that difficult or unusual!
Massimo, just pick a prolific person with the same given name initials and claim away! If anyone questions you too vigorously about it, say “well, really, that’s none of your business”. It’ll work just fine.
Thanks, Cromercrox! I think so too – especially after such a long break!
Elizabeth, thanks for providing further proof that the people who had a hard time with Beth’s CV are eejits!
It’s definitely good to be unique (or at least one of only two people with the same name, instead of one of dozens) in PubMed. Catherine Dunn is just a very, very common name – I’ve met two others in person (one of them lived in the same student residence as me in Glasgow, so we always got each other’s mail; the other one came up to my poster at a conference waving her name badge at me and grinning widely. She also had the same middle name as me), and I’m aware of many others. Ennis is less common, although my sister-in-law is Kathy Ennis, which does get confusing – several people have friended the wrong one on Facebook!
Richard, it is a shame, isn’t it? I hope you manage to find a way to get a paper every now and then.
Thanks Mermaid! It’s a nice way to end my last few weeks here!
Heather, meta-bragging FTW!
Thanks ScientistMother! (our comments crossed)
woho! congrats! That’s awesome fun news. I think it is one of those obvious things to be happy about (brag/mention), it’s a publication and it’s fun times.
I wish I can get back into the publishing field, if I find some new interesting analytical stuff – that would probably be possible… now…. just have to get that UPLC working
Congrats, Cath! Way to go!
It can feel strange to still publish when you’re not still at the bench, no? When I held a science writing/editing job somewhat similar to yours, I was offered authorship on a manuscript that I worked very hard on. It was so disorganized that I basically had to rewrite it from scratch–including giving advice on experimental design, figures, etc. It was a really weird position to be in; I’d been hired as a writer, not a postdoc or staff scientist, so it felt odd giving scientific input. But everyone was appreciative, particularly the Very Busy Supervisor who was too busy to supervise. When they offered me authorship on that paper, I turned it down as I didn’t feel I’d quite met the standard for authorship, but also because I thought it was an awful manuscript (even after all my help) and I didn’t want to be associated with it!
And the review that I worked on in that particular lab, which I thought I really did deserve authorship on? Not only did I not get authorship–they forgot to acknowledge me!
C’est la vie. New lab now, working at the bench and writing for myself. Okay, this comment has gone on too long. I just remember how odd it felt to be in that position, and to realize that you can still publish even when you’re not at the bench. (I guess no PIs are actually at the bench, and they all publish!) Anyway, congrats again!
Congrats from me too. Always good to see your name up in lights.
Maybe you could have put both names (CA Dunn and CA Ennis) on?
Pingback: New Bragging Rights Central Post | VWXYNot?