Laboratory Discussion

"Laboratory discussion" or "Journal club" is a very healthy and informative practice to be undertaken by each research group. This should include all the members of the group and the group head (Guide). These type of discussion forums not only help us to get updated on our specific research concern, laboratory updates (issues like work, chemicals required, shared responsibilities and other lab related things), better communication skill and a broader understanding of the lab as a whole. Furthermore, one should present his/her work done every 3-6 months, as this provides an opportunity to get the work scrutinised/criticised (as required) for designing the future experiments and at the same time the presenter gets confident about his/her work. Presenting other groups work published in reputed/best journals in concerned field helps one to decide his/her course of action too. This also improves the level of understanding/caliber at a higher competitive level. Cautionary, a small 2 or 3 member group may not be very happy with each member having his/her turn every other week. So, one can club with a similar group - or can opt for a biweekly meeting. Although it is firmly believed that we all study of our own, while a cumulative effort can lead to better and faster results padded with a 'pleasant work atmosphere'. And a 'pleasant work atmosphere' could be easily achieved with better transparency and communication within the group. In short, one should take "Laboratory discussion" or "journal club" at weekly basis and see the 'changes' in a matter of 6-8 such discussion forums.

Thesis Presubmission Criteria

Well, this part of the discussion is what we all are not facing right now... but definitely face at some point of time... what happens in most of the cases is that, we are forced to NOT submit our thesis when we want... otherwise, when we have done most of the work proposed in our Ph.D. registration, the Guide wants some more to be completed - instead the correct phrase is - he just wants you to complete that 5 year mark in his lab without a valid reason....

Now, here is a serious problem. Why can't one get his/her Ph.D. depending upon how much he/she has toiled for - in other words, if the work gets published in reputed journals and the work proposed at the time of Ph.D. registration is also done, he/she is awarded with the deserved honour, no matter how many years he/she has worked, given that it is not less than 2 years from registration. Additionally, the registration itself takes place only after a year of joining the lab. Taken together, no matter how much you are working, you get your Ph.D. by early fourth year, at the most. So, I guess even the Guides should be happy with this. And if we guys are strong enough and man of 'our words', why can't we also achieve a 'minimum total impact factor' reached before the thesis gets submitted, just as the old school works - grades/minimum 40% to pass out. This would put all the disputes off. Now different sciences have different impact-factor journals and at times the journals that you can achieve is specialized field dependent. So, it should be your Guide and you who can work out at the very beginning that odd 'total impact factor' mark and put your efforts accordingly. This idea of achievement based award would keep the seniors too on their toes. Yes, one can argue that within a lab five problems can exist and all of them would not go in equal journals and hence the 'total impact factor' would be difficult to achieve for all the students. Well, that again depends upon your guides experience & discretion. And you also look into his (Guides) track record of papers published in recent years and hence figure out what can be achieved in minimum three and maximum five years. So, this would help you to keep that goal in sight and now you have no one to blame, but yourself.

Hope this discussion helps.

Authorship

Authorship, yes!!! the biggest issue of all once you have settled down and working on a project. Let us first look into some minor details (apologizing beforehand that it may not be true in all cases, but still this is a generalized phenomenon)

• Senior students get most of the share.
• Interconnected projects dilute your appearance in one single project(which you have given your blood and sweat).
• Trainees are left out (at times there share is bigger than Guides).
• One is too shy/weak to speak out things.
• Left alone against a goup(within lab).
• Donot have your own-fellowship and Guide exploits that(dunno how to deal with this!).
• Sometimes, sex/religion/caste/creed favourism at Guides discrition.

and

• Awesomely, the Guide just doesnot like you and why the hell it is so, youdonot know ???

Ok... now we have one or the other as a problem of the above listed (might have left few!!). What we can do. Well, we cannot fight once the work is done and it is solely at our Guides discretion. So better, DO NOT indulge in a project where upon the 'roles' and 'responsibilities' are not clearly marked on the very first place. So, we need to have weekly updates about the project, who is doing what and what more need to be done. At this point you have every right to quit/add more effort to the project depending upon the progress and your share that is decided. Further it would help to remould plans in a better way for long term projects. This would mostly rule out all the authorship related distresses/grudges against each other, as it help NO ONE. Additionally, the lab people would be open for discussions, shared lab/emotions and above all, a better self-consciousness.

One more thing, that should be added before winding up this cover page. Until-unless one is satisfied/convinced with the project details (that includes all your academic and non-academic queries, like the availability of instrument(s), expertise, sample, experimental details, fund availability, authenticity, novelty etc), he/she SHOULD NOT start with the project. Research is not kidding that someone wants to do a 'project' and we do it blindfoldedly. Its our prime-time when we put all, [yes- reread it- ALL] of our effort to get the project materialize/get done. And when it is not, it is not only your Guides fault, it's yours too. So, better ask on the very first day until you are convinced. Otherwise, if the things get well done, someone pokes his/her nose into it. So, not only get convinced about the project, you better talk that regularly with all the team-members and Guide.

Find similar interest @ 'Student Grievances Cell (SGC) in CSIR'

Student Grievances Cell (SGC)

I strongly recommend a Student Grievances Cell (SGC) to be established in CSIR - headquarters as well as at the institutional level.

pro: Students can direct their problems efficiently and without fear, in case it is against administration, guide, colleagues, etc.

con: Some students can give misleading/false comments and thereby resulting unpleasant consequences

• Hence a SGC would act a first student-held and student-regulated responsible cut-off for any mischievous act/allegation.

Now, depending upon the Institutional student work force, the SGC can optimize there size. To initiate, Director of the student can nominate subject to conditions like, at least two years of research experience, good reputation as a whole, publication, communication-skill, etc. and followed by annual/biannual polls.

Not to mention, a monthly meeting with the director, COA, AO and scientists, if required as they can be safely excluded, would lead to concrete results. As a single-student-single-authority sometimes take weeks if not months to settle down simple things.

SGC not only would suggest and participate in fruitful dialogues realting to student day-to-day affairs also to finalize/optimize long term issues - let it be canteen(food), security(pass/usage), hostel(innumerable things!!!), etc.

It is easy to understand that a long-list is not possible to present here, but in a nutshell, a SGC can minimize our most of the general grievances.

Foreword

"Shall I be able to do it not, let me try once - honestly; when I cannot take the things as they are and want change"

To start with, this is the sole motto behind starting this log - log in its true sense documenting the problems we share and possible solutions.