Chapter 1, probably, is missing the evolutionary review process of text - practicalities depend on tech, but the fundamental show - review - feedback - discuss - next iteration cycle would IMO stand some exploring
Student - how to consume feedback without ego?
Reviewer - how to give feedback without ego?
Both - track changes addressing a formally tracked list of items
"You are the beta reviewer for this paper, how should you group and share your feedback?"
The "elevator pitch" : after some time, you should be able to answer "what are you researching?" with a concise, < 30s pitch. This evolves over time, but simply trying to write it down focuses your attention on what you're trying to do
pg24: "The exact path you will follow in your research project will be unique to you" - emphasize, literally "what are your unique set of experiences and knowledge that have led you to this particular research path? What do you know and understand, across multiple fields, that others don't?"
pg19 - emphasize ability to recover. "You just dropped your laptop on the concrete, and it broke into pieces. Or, you accidentally saved an empty file over your existing thesis. What now?"
p6 - supervisor things - excellent advice, can't really suggest any improvement
pg10 - the hardest, and most important, skill you will accumulate is to use fewer, better words
pg27 - Writing up - the earlier you start this, the more you will thank your past self. It doesn't matter if you end up deleting your entire first skeleton - you have a place to capture and arrange ideas
pg38; "if you find your writing stalled, consider writing [...] fanfiction to unlock your creative juices" - well, ok, that might be niche advice. But worked for me!
pg225 - no constructive criticism, i just really like "defending new knowledge" chapter
p230 - weakness in research - before you get on to the technical resolutions, it's important IMO to address the philosophical side. You (researcher) know the weak points in your arguments- it's important to acknowledge them and be prepared to argue "this is for future researchers" / "current tech can't quite make these reqts, but reasonable to expect near-future tech to meet it"
pg172 and elsewhere - importance in the latter half of research of actually submitting workshop/conference/journal papers to get broader-than-supervisor feedback (and attend conf to learn about what's actually happening in the domain!)
anyway, that's a first pass. It's a great read !
Chapter 1, probably, is missing the evolutionary review process of text - practicalities depend on tech, but the fundamental show - review - feedback - discuss - next iteration cycle would IMO stand some exploring
Student - how to consume feedback without ego?
Reviewer - how to give feedback without ego?
Both - track changes addressing a formally tracked list of items
"You are the beta reviewer for this paper, how should you group and share your feedback?"
The "elevator pitch" : after some time, you should be able to answer "what are you researching?" with a concise, < 30s pitch. This evolves over time, but simply trying to write it down focuses your attention on what you're trying to do
pg24: "The exact path you will follow in your research project will be unique to you" - emphasize, literally "what are your unique set of experiences and knowledge that have led you to this particular research path? What do you know and understand, across multiple fields, that others don't?"
pg19 - emphasize ability to recover. "You just dropped your laptop on the concrete, and it broke into pieces. Or, you accidentally saved an empty file over your existing thesis. What now?"
p6 - supervisor things - excellent advice, can't really suggest any improvement
pg10 - the hardest, and most important, skill you will accumulate is to use fewer, better words
pg27 - Writing up - the earlier you start this, the more you will thank your past self. It doesn't matter if you end up deleting your entire first skeleton - you have a place to capture and arrange ideas
pg38; "if you find your writing stalled, consider writing [...] fanfiction to unlock your creative juices" - well, ok, that might be niche advice. But worked for me!
pg225 - no constructive criticism, i just really like "defending new knowledge" chapter
p230 - weakness in research - before you get on to the technical resolutions, it's important IMO to address the philosophical side. You (researcher) know the weak points in your arguments- it's important to acknowledge them and be prepared to argue "this is for future researchers" / "current tech can't quite make these reqts, but reasonable to expect near-future tech to meet it"
pg172 and elsewhere - importance in the latter half of research of actually submitting workshop/conference/journal papers to get broader-than-supervisor feedback (and attend conf to learn about what's actually happening in the domain!)
anyway, that's a first pass. It's a great read !