samman1994

Hello everyone, Just a general question that has popped up as I've been looking at research articles on pubmed. Some articles are in a journal (e.g. ACS) but also on pubmed for free (PMC) [free access]. I thought originally, ok maybe after a few years pass they say lets put it out free, but I've seen old articles not for free, and new articles for free. I'm just curious (I have never personally published a paper myself), why some papers are free and some are not. Does the PI publish and allow it to be read for free? Does pubmed select some articles to be shown for free? How does this work?

US schooling here, so this applies only to them. Also, only scientific fields (STEM). A professor, generally speaking, is an instructor who also has a PhD. Anyone teaching college level who does not have a PhD is called an instructor (including master students and undergrads). There are varying degrees of professors, to full-time, part-time, associate, emeritus, etc. However, all have their PhDs. I along with many others, don't know if you have a PhD, and thus call everyone in college/university a professor. 90% of people who don't have it, will either attempt to correct you and tell you they don't have a PhD and they are an instructor, try and tell you to call them Mr. or Mrs, or have given up trying. Because even if you tell them, students will still call anyone in a college/university position professor. That being said, a PhD means absolutely nothing in my eyes in regards to prestige, intellect, or heirachy. In my time in the academic system, I have come to understand a PhD means absolutely nothing in regards to the person. I have met PhDs who got PhDs in chemistry, but actually don't know anything about well... any chemistry field (organic, analytical, physical, etc.). I have met PhDs who were complete and utter idiots (A professor during a thesis defense once asked how fish breathe). I respect the amount of work a PhD has put in, but that is it. Whether you have a PhD or not means nothing to me when it comes to teaching. As someone who actively took part in hiring committees at my school to hire potential professors (with PhDs), and also worked alongside many master students who taught classes, I can tell you having a PhD means jack shit in teaching. Why do I bring this up? Because people think the title of professor has some prestige with, and as stated before, that title is for people who have PhDs. I really don't think it means much though based on the above statements. I think calling someone with an MA a professor, or calling someone with a PhD professor is fine in regards to teaching. Anyways, this is from a students perspective, not a professors perspective.

Hello, I haven't attended yet, but am currently in the process of selecting schools. My number one priority is research, so if a school is far away, but has the research that I like, then that's the school I'll pick. That being said, there are a lot of programs that fit my interest, and one of them is relatively close to home (about 150miles or so). Originally, I didn't really care much when searching, but as the time draws closer, and all my other schools were literally all 1k+ miles away, the realization that I may not see my family and friends is becoming more and more of a reality. However, honestly, that doesn't bother me that much, my main issue is my gf. We've been together for 3 years, and I know, I personally cannot do a long term relationship, it's just my personality. I love her, and have no intentions leaving her, but I already know that on my side our relationship might not last if I leave far away. I have not touched my list despite that, but now my number one choice has become the school nearby, instead of the other schools solely due to location. Honestly, I'd love to travel, get out and see the world, and have a new experience. I'm the type of person who doesn't really need someone either, I can just pack my bags and go adventuring by myself. That being said, having a companion with me (especially someone I love) makes the experience 10 billion times more enjoyable. My gf cannot move with me, she has her own career goals here, so that's out of the question. So for me, if I can get into the school relatively nearby, I will. It's far away that I will have my own independence, but close enough I can just drive home on the weekend and visit (or even weekday theoretically). I'd like to travel and adventure, but I'll just do that when I actually have money. I am in no rush for kids, so after my PhD, once I get a job and some money, I think I'll just take a couple years to travel the world with my GF (who will hopefully be my wife at that point). Honestly all comes down to the type of person you are. I don't have much tethering me home aside from my gf (I love my family, but I've spent 20+ years with them, I think I'll be fine). So honestly I'd have no problems going anywhere and jumping from place to place. I should say this though, I was not born or raised where I live now. I was born in Iran, then came to America when I was just a kid. I was raised in Florida for over 10+ years, then came to California for my teenage years. I always looked at Florida as my home, but after visiting recently, so much has changed, I don't even recognize it anymore. California isn't my home, and now Florida isn't either, so I really have no home in my eyes. The world is my home now. My gf is different, she was born and raised in the same house, in the same area. To her, leaving here is somewhat scary and completely new/uncomforting. She'd probably stay in this general region her whole life if she could. In regards to your final question. The program I will be going to is still exactly what I want, on par to the programs in the other locations. So I don't think it will really effect my decision except when it comes to brand name. One of the schools I'd be applying to is Harvard, but again, the school nearby (not a big name), is the one I'd pick. I don't think it'll effect my future that badly though, maybe just a small loss since the name Harvard itself probably would make it easier to find a job.

Hello, Similar boat, GPA is 3.00, GRE was (gonna retake it) around 50% quant, 60% verbal. 3 years research experience, no pubs. But I did present at a few conferences, won 1st at all of them. Great LOR. My situation is, I plan to basically continue the research my same lab did for my undergrad. What I mean by this is, I plan on joining a lab that shares a similar concept and uses the same biophysical methods. I'm hoping that the POI will see that I will already join their program basically running and will need very little training, so that'll convince them to take me on and push my application forward despite my poor academic performance. Secondly, the field I am looking into is relatively small, with my previous PI already personally familiar with most of the people I would be applying to, so i'm hoping she'll be able to personally contact them and help make my application look good. Basically, my hope is, if the POI likes me enough, they will push me into the school. It's very hard to say though. Each application is different, each committee is different, and luck plays a huge part of this all. I saw someone on here say something along these lines, and I think it sums it up best: "When you look at the average GPA and GRE scores admitted, that means they accepted some below that score, and some above it." So even if your academics/GRE are low, that doesn't mean it's all over. If anything I'd really talk to your advisors and PI, once you have a list of schools narrowed down, show them and see what they think, and see if they think you have a chance. Btw, I do plan on applying to Harvard with the stats I have. I don't know if I'll get accepted, but I'm hoping based on the reasoning I stated above, the POI will be able to push me through their system. Good luck. Hope I was able to help!

Again, I think that is really dependent on your major. My gpa is 3.00, but I still feel like I might have a decent chance at Harvard since I have some nice background research experience. I think I have a good chance of convincing the POI that I'd be a good fit for their lab, even though my gpa is pretty garbage.

By the way, field is important as well. In my field (Biochemistry), research is sometimes seen as more important than GPA and GRE scores, so even if you are below the cutoff, if you have a good research background, you might still get in. Secondly, in my field as well, if you can convince the POI (persons lab you'd like to join) to take you on, and that you'd be a good fit in their lab, they could personally push your application forward. So there are a lot of factors depending on your field as well.

Same as those stated above, it comes down to budget. My budget is around 500 bucks overall. So I am planning to apply to at most 5 schools. These schools are primarily defined by research and stipend money. E.g. Not really going to any school in new york city, not looking to take out loans to and have 90% of my stipend go to housing alone. Haven't really looked at if I'm underqualified or not (e.g. one of my schools is Harvard), but that may be a factor you will want to consider. I do have one lower tier school in my list for this exact reason (I still like the research and stipend, just not my most desired choice), so that if everywhere rejects me, I at least get into somewhere.

Can't edit anymore, but a few things I should add. Both Rebecca Page and Wolfgang Peti are no longer at Brown and are now at Arizona University. Also, I stated Micheal Massaih at University of Washington, he is actually at George Washington University (completely different). Sorry for the confusion.

Yeah, thats why I was saying I definitely have to email them now. Anyways, thank you guys both for your help! I have never come across this type of situation, so your advice is very helpful. Thank you again!

No I meant email them regarding their lab situation at Arizona. I wasn't gonna email them before because I assumed they had a lab already set up and were doing research at Brown. Now that I see they've moved this year, I will have to email and see if they're even set up and accepting new students. I don't know how Arizona University works, but at my school it usually takes 1 to 2 years for new labs to even get set up. They accept new students, but usually only undergrads, and they usually only help set up the lab and new instrumentation, or peer review their papers. So they might not even be set up, in which case I wouldn't even apply to Arizona University.

Aw I see, then I guess I really will have to email him. Both him and Rebecca was the primary reason for me even looking at Brown. Gotta see if their labs are up and running, and if they're accepting new students. Thank you both!

All his publications indicate Brown University, not a single one mentions Arizona. So his research is definitely Brown (which is what I'm focused on). I'm just curious why he would have a faculty page at Arizona University. I can understand if he has taught a class there over the summer or something (I guess it would be this summer if he did), but what I find interesting is how they have his whole history of positions and chairs, but leave out his current occupation at Brown. Like I said, based on the above evidence, I'm almost positive he's at Brown, I'm just curious what scenario would have you listed at two different schools?

Hello everyone, So as I was going through my list of schools and professors, I realized I had one professor, at two different schools. I thought, ok maybe he was at one school, then transferred to another school. Then I looked up the schools, and nope, they both say he is actively present there. I looked up his recent (2017) publications, and the author information states it is indeed from Brown University. I am a little confused. Here are his faculty pages at both schools: http://uacc.arizona.edu/profile/wolfgang-peti https://vivo.brown.edu/display/wpeti Based off of his publications, and his own CV, it is clear that he is indeed at Brown University. If so, why does Arizona say he started membership in 2017 there? Furthermore, in the positions section, why are they explicitly missing he is at Brown University? It is definitely the same guy, but it appears he is at two different schools? Anybody know what's going on here?

Hello everyone, I have been looking for protein NMR research labs the past month, and have compiled, what I think is a semi-decent list, that I thought I would share for anyone looking into the same field. There will be many schools I have missed of course, but I think this is at least a decent starting point. NOTE: There are many good international schools for protein NMR as well, this is only for US schools. Criteria: 1) The focus of the lab must be primarily NMR (solid-state or liquid), other biophysical/computational methods may be used as well, but the focus is NMR. 2) This is not about developing NMR methods, but its application. The lab may have some development as well, but from my readings, it appears they have a major application component as well. 3) The lab must focus on proteins, now this could be protein-DNA, protein-RNA, or protein-protein, but the focus is on either structure,dynamics, or folding (for the most part). 4) Each lab must have at least 3 members minimum that pass the above guidelines With that being said, these are the schools with the following faculty members that pass the above criteria: John Hoppkins (Joel Schildbach, David R. Shortle, Vincent J. Hilser, Juliette Lecomte, Karen Fleming, Tolman lab) Scripps Institute (Jane Dyson, Peter Wright, Kurt Wuthrich, Takanori Otomo) Brown University (Nicolas Fawzi, Wolfgang Peti, Rebecca Page,) Harvard (Victoria D'souza, Haribabu Arthanari, James Jeiwen Chou, Gerhard Wagner) Yale (Karen S Anderson, George Petter Beardsley, Andrew D. Miranker, Patrick Loria, maybe Elias Lolis) Stanford (Lynette Cegelski, Elisabetta Viani Puglisi, Joseph Puglisi) Cornell (Linda Nicholson, maybe Jack Freed, Robert E. Oswald) Duke (Leonard D. Spicer, Terrence Gilbert Oas, Pei Zhou, Al-Hashimi) State College of New York (Kevin Dardner, Zimei Bu, Ranajeet ghose) University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (Sharon Campbell, David Williams, maybe Gary Pielak, Andrew L Lee, Qi Zhang) University of Conneticut (Cole, Dmitry Korzhnev, Michael Gryk, Irina Bezsnova, Alexandrescu, Teschke) University of Washington (Rachel Klevit, Gabriele Varani, Michael Massiah) University of Minnesota (Kevin H. Mayo, Gianluigi Veglia, Hiroshi Matsuo [NIH], Ian M. Armitage, maybe Ferguson, Kalodimos ) University of Georgia (Jeffery Urbauer, Art Edison, maybe James Prestegard, Arthur Roberts) University of Wisconsin (Cavagnero, Katherin wildman, Markley) University of Michigan ( Rams Ramamoorthy, Randy Stockbridge, Tomasz Cierpicki, Erik Zuiderweg, Jeffrey W. Peng) University of Alabama (N. Rama Krishna, Jun Zhang, Margret Johnson, Russel Timkovish) University of Virginia (John Bushweller, Linda Columbus,David S. Cafiso, Charles M. Grisham,) University of Pennsylvania ( Joshua Wand, Heinrich Roder, Walter Englander) Oregon State University (Afua Nyarko, Victor Hsu, Elisar Barbar) Iowa State University (Julien Roche, Amy Andreotti, Vincenzo Venditti) Case Western Reserve University (Matthias Buck, Zagorski, Blanton S. Tolber, Jun Qin) Brandeis University (Dorothee Kern, Thomas Pochapsky, Judith Herzfeld, Klaus Schmidt-Rohr) University of Montanta (Valerie Copie, Klara Briknarova [this only has 2 but I really liked their research]) University of Utah (Jack J. Skalicky, Peter Flynn, Bethany Buck-Koehntop, Gholdenberg) University of Colorado (Arthur Pardi, Loren Hough, David Jones,Tatiana Kutateladze, Beat Vogeli) University of Arizona (Wolfgang Peti, Matthew Cordes, Michael F. Brown) NOTE: USC also had 3, however due to the personality of one of the faculty members (Tobias Ulmer), I crossed them off, and thus, crossed off USC from my list (left me with only 2 faculty) Again there are many schools that I may have missed, but I think this is a good list to start with. I am done looking at schools personally, I think this is a big enough range of researchers for me to work with, but if anyone else has more suggestions, feel free to post them below. I've tried to be as comprehensive as possible with the schools listed above, so the names there I believe should be the only faculty members that fit the criteria stated above. Again, if I missed any schools, or any people, please feel free to add them below. Hope this helps. Happy Searching! EDIT: Forgot the mention, the NIH also has a lot of great protein NMR labs that you can do your PhD under as well. Didn't really look too into that in detail, but I know they have a lot of good labs as well.

Hello everyone, This is a somewhat specific question relating specifically to protein nmr (solid-state or solution). I have found a variety of labs across the country that work on this, however, some appear to be more "developmental" than "application". What I mean by this is, some labs seem to focus on actually developing NMR methods for studying various systems, and some others focus primarily on just using the NMR as a biophysical method (among other tools) to analyze their system. I have only ever worked on the latter (we only used NMR, but never developed nmr or computational methods for the analysis). Now I personally have no desire to actually design any computational or experimental methods. However, a lot of these "developmental" labs do also have projects dealing with the application of their methods (for obvious reasons). I also think it wouldn't be that bad of an idea to at least be in a lab that does a little development so I can see how that is all done; however, I myself don't want to do any of the developing. I want to focus on a specific biological system, and using NMR along with potentially other biophysical tools, analyze that system. That being said, my problem here is I have never been in a lab that does development, and I'm curious and concerned how much is development vs. application. I'm trying to narrow my list of schools down, and I've come across a problem. 1) Developmental labs have application portions. Is it possible for me to focus my entire PhD program on the application of their methods? Without ever really getting involved in developing methods? 2) How do you find out how much is application vs. development for the lab? From reading their papers, it seems mixed. Most of the papers are on developing new methods, but others are on testing said methods on biological systems. There are papers where they are analyzing one system, and are just developing methods to analyze said system. So how do I know how much of the lab is developing methods, and how much are actually elucidating structure/mechanisms of a particular biological system. My main concern is, I don't want to say yes to a school, get into a developmental lab, and find out very little of it is application. I want my entire focus for my project to be just application, no development (but I'd like to see that side of the field as well if possible). The questions/problems my dissertation and project would be addressing is to a particular system, and how I used biophysical methods to answer said problems. Not what methods/techniques I developed to do so. I was hoping I could find people in here that are in developmental labs for protein NMR, and maybe they could clear up the question of "Should I just eliminate developmental labs form my list and focus just on labs that use the NMR as a biophysical tool (among other tools), or can I join a developmental lab and still focus only on application for my entire program?" Thank you ahead of time as always! Edit: Is it possible that I could just email the instructor? Let them know what my desires are, and what part of their project I would be interested in taking a part of, and have them tell me whether or not I would be a good fit in their lab (based on how much development vs. application they do, since i would let them know my desire is purely application).

I worked in proteomics computational lab for a couple years. Most software I worked with wasn't even designed for windows/macs but for linux. If you know what you're doing, you could run them on macs or windows theoretically. I don't know about macs, but windows are a pain to work via the terminal (compared to linux), so would really advise against running any software not designed for it. In regards to running actual bioinformatics software, I assume your lab already has good computers to use? Your computer has nice specs, but some bioinformatic software is very heavy, and still wouldn't be enough for your computer (I used to use a cluster of 32 to 128 cores sometimes for some programs depending on how heavy the workload was). Now I personally never used software on my own computer (my computer sucks), but my PI used to run programs all the time on her laptop, and she owned a windows computer (don't know the specs, but I recall her getting upset because the only laptops that had her specs were expensive gaming laptops, so you can get a general gist of what she was going for), and she never had problems on it. Again, important to note, she wasn't able to run a lot of programs because they weren't designed for windows. I don't know what programs your labs use, but just thought you should keep that in mind, and actually ask you PI if the programs you guys use are compatible with macs in the first place.

Yep, it appears most pharm companies don't direct hire anymore, but rather do contracts. And yes i understand, i'll ask, but it appears I'm an employee for the contractor, but not the company I'd be working for. Thanks for your help! I have an interview tomorrow, so hopefully it goes well. Thank you!

Also, your competition (i.e. me) is 3.00 gpa with 150s GRE, so I think you definitely have a good chance relatively speaking

So I've talked to a few recruiting companies, and it appears most pharma companies don't do direct hire anymore, but through these recruiters. From the gist I've gotten, all of them are contract jobs. I.e. the recruiter pays my paychecks, not the company I will be working, thus, the wage discussion is with the recruiter not the company. I do not get benefits of the company, but instead benefits of the recruiter (w.e. they may be). I don't know who sets the time (how many hours I work and when). Renewal of contracts is almost always up to the company, not the recruiter, and I would have to reapply to the company itself if I wanted to become permanently employed. They always tell me some people get employed permanently by the employer, some don't. So never really a clear answer. The main thing that has arisen however is, I looked up what the W-2 vs. 1099 is, and am a little confused. So W-2 is your standard tax form given to anyone who works retail, fast-food, or any normal salary job. The 1099 appears to be more self-employed people doing whatever it is they're doing. Now the thing I'm confused is as to my position. It appears I am an employee for the recruiting company, I have a set salary wage, and set hours (I don't know if my recruiter sets my hours or the company). However, I have been told, and it appears, I am a contractor for the company I will be working for. They tell me they only want me to work there for a year, but they can terminate it, or extend it at anytime (I have been told I can terminate it at anytime as well). Now the thing I'm confused is: I appear to be an employee of the recruiting company, but a contractor for the company I will be working in. So from one angle, it appears I will be using the W-2, but from another angle, it appears the 1099 would be more applicable. This whole system seems a little bit confusing, and I don't want to get swindled in the process. Any help would be appreciated!

Would you be able to find all those online? Or do they vary job by job.

Hello everyone, So i have been searching for schools in the biochemistry section, and have been narrowing my list down to top 10 schools. The problem is, I have some top league ivy schools (harvard, brown, yale) as well as some middle tier schools (university of nc chappel hill and case western) and some lower tier schools (university of conneticut and state university of Iowa) rankings are mostly based on asking around (not from newsrank or anything, just asking professors). That being said, my application isn't too hot. 3.00 gpa and 50% GRE scores on my quant (good AW and verbal). I have good research experience (3+ years but no pubs) and nice LOR. Now to the problem: I want to narrow my schools down even further down to 5. Ideally I would want to go based just off of research, but so far the ivy league schools have caught my attention the most. Now my dilemma is, my application isn't very good, and space is limited. I think I have a chance to get admitted to at least one ivy league, albeit a low chance though. Should I just ditch the idea and not waste my money or time applying to them? And instead replace it with a school I might actually have a better chance of getting into? Again, if I had the perfect application, ideally I would choose the ivy leagues (based off research interests), but I don't. The middle tier and lower tier schools also interest me as well, so I could apply to those. So am I aiming to high? I know when it comes down to looking for schools, you look at research interests, interest of the PI to take you on (which I am sure they would be), room in the lab and funding. Assuming the previously stated issues (PI interest, funding etc.) are good, should I still apply given my application? Or cut my loses short and move on to a lower tier school.

Dear Academic Faculty Researchers, If you want to attract new researchers to your labs, please actually write a proper description about what you do. Writing "biochemistry and metabolism biochemistry" tells the viewer nothing. Writing "DNA repair or protein-protein interactions" also tells the viewer nothing. If you are going to be so vague in your faculty page, please at the very least update your lab page. Going to your lab page and clicking on the research tab only to be presented with a "Coming Soon" page, is also as useless as your 5 word job descriptions on your faculty page. The same goes for the opposite. Please do not write a 5 page introduction to the problem your research addresses, then only end it with a 2 sentence description of what your lab actually does. Please specifically indicate what potential biophysical techniques you use in the lab, instead of just saying "Biophysical techniques". A protein crystallography lab is completely different from a protein mass spec or nmr lab. Please organize your publications, and properly space them out. It is incredibly difficult to highlight one single publication, when you have every publication from the past 10 years crammed back to back with no spaces in between them (i.e. yesliterallylikethiswithnospacesbetweenanypublicationsfromrighttolefttoptobottom). Please do not put publications that you had very little or almost nothing to do with on your faculty or lab page. I do not want to get excited about a publication and read it, only to find out your lab literally only ran one of the 50 samples in the paper (often times the original PI will put their name last or 2nd to last and put the students ahead of them, but this also happens if it is a collaboration between 2 labs and the other lab didn't do very much). If you do, please indicate that you were a collaborator in the paper, and not its author. Dear Schools, Please, for the love of God, and everything that is holy and good, have an option to organize your faculty by researchers. When you don't create sub-departments, and cram Biochemistry (including structural, computational, biophysical, etc.), and cell and molecular all into one department, you will end up with over 50+ faculty members with different research interests. And if you do lack the ability to organize by research, please, super please, ultra please, for the goodness of mankind, at least put a brief or potential summary, or even just key words (e.g. "DNA repair") next to the persons name. Nobody wants to click on 50 faculty members, and have over 50 tabs open, only to find out that member does nothing remotely similar to what they are interested in doing. Please organize your faculty members into their appropriate departments based on their research. If they do interdisplenary work, then organize them into multiple departments, not just one. Having a biochemist who do biophysical work, in the physics department page, but not the biochemistry, biology, or chemistry department page (when their main focus of work is Biochemistry), makes it incredibly difficult for people interested in finding a lab like that. Basically, learn to organize your web pages, faculty, and departments, and stop being so lazy. It will make it easier for your faculty to find students who actually are interested in the research, and easier for students to navigate your departments labs.

Oh sweet, I'll look into schools there too! Any other schools to reccomend in general, aside from University of Sydney? I know nothing about Australian Universities, and I've actually never seen any papers from there either.

You'll be fine, I have no publications and an even lower gpa (3.00) and even lower GRE scores (150s), and I'm applying to similar schools for Biomed PhD. I'm in a similar boat, last 2 years were really good, the first 2 were god awful. My confidence arises primarily from the fact my PI knows most of the people I plan on applying to personally, and so she's already told me she'll contact them if I'm interested and tell them wasup. Their research is also similar to my previous lab, so I also think it'll be easier to convince them that I'll basically start up running in their lab. Regardless, Also, pubs, good research experience, and good GRE scores make your GPA irrelevant.

Oh snap, then I might look into applying for Biochem then! I thought I needed a MA just like Europe or China