sey071

I recently ran a poll on Twitter to see what drive the day of academics. Do we mostly plan our days based on a weekly template, based on our to do lists, based on what is in our mailbox, or based on our meeting schedule? The majority is working around to do lists. I work around a weekly template, but have a daily to do list as well. When my mailbox overflows, I need more time in my weekly template for the "email + admin" category. When I have meetings beyond my weekly meetings with my thesis students, then I have to move boxes around in my template too. Here's the wake of the poll:

I recently ran a poll on Twitter to see the stress levels of fellow academics. The results are not pretty, with the majority of the respondents reporting stress beyond what is acceptable. Tell me about your stress levels in academia #highered #acwri #phdchat #profchat #ecrchat — Dr Eva Lantsoght (@evalantsoght) March 5, 2018 You can find the wake of this poll here:

My coauthors and I recently published a paper "Modelling of the proof load test on viaduct De Beek" for the Euro-C conference that was held in Bad Hofgastein in Austria. The paper discusses how finite element models of a bridge that was load tested can be updated with the results of the bridge test, and how this influences the assessment of the bridge. The abstract is: In a proof load test, a load corresponding to the factored live load is applied to a bridge, to directly demonstrate that a bridge fulfils the code requirements. The case of viaduct De Beek, a four-span reinforced concrete slab bridge that did not fulfil the requirements for bending moment after an inspection survey is studied. The middle spans, located above highway lanes, which could not be tested in the field, are the criti-cal spans of this structure. Therefore, the observations from the field are used to check the finite element model, and improve the rating of the critical middle spans. The proposed metho...

Some time ago, I was happy to receive a review copy of Karin Bodewits 's first novel "You Must Be Very Intelligent" with as subtitle "the PhD Delusion". This book is a hybrid between memoir and work of fiction about Bodewits's years as a PhD student at the University of Edinburgh. The short summary of the book is as follows: You Must be Very Intelligent is the author’s account of studying for a PhD in a modern, successful university. Part-memoir and part-exposé, this book is highly entertaining and unusually revealing about the dubious morality and desperate behaviour which underpins competition in twenty-first century academia. This witty, warts-and-all account of Bodewits´ years as a PhD student in the august University of Edinburgh is full of success and failure, passion and pathos, insight, farce and warm-hearted disillusionment. She describes a world of collaboration and backstabbing; nefarious financing and wasted genius; cosmopolitan dreamers and ...

I recently ran a poll on Twitter to ask if respondents received their PhD by writing a big book style thesis or by publication, or what they currently are working towards. The result is that the majority is receiving their PhD by writing a dissertation, but a good 25% (or more, if we leave out the votes for "just show me the results") received their PhD by publication (or are working towards getting their degree in this format). You can find the wake of the pol below:

Last semester, I presented during the colloquium of the School of Engineering and Sciences of USFQ. The topic of my talk was applications of sound in engineering. Even though there are multiple uses of sound in engineering, most engineering schools do not offer acoustic engineering as a career. In this presentation, I show the vast variety of applications of sound. We start with the architectural acoustics, discussing how different buildings with different uses require a different treatment of sound. I showed a fascinating TEDx talk about how to design rooms that have unique acoustic features. Then, I made the jump to the applications of sound in civil engineering, with as an example of how better asphalt mixes can be used for noise reduction. Finally, I brought the topic to my field, bridge engineering. Here, we see different non-destructive testing methods that use sound waves (or other types of waves) to look inside a material of a bridge. We talked about acoustic emission measureme...

I recently ran a poll to identify if digital or analog planners are more popular. The winner of the poll is the digital planner. Over the years, I have moved from using an analog planner for everything, to a hybrid solution with my daily appointments in an analog planner and longer-term planning in a digital planner, to a fully digital approach. By now, I use Google calendar for my weekly template, and fill in every day what I will be working on during which time block and add all appointments. In addition to that, I use ToDoist to set reminders for myself to follow up with emails that I sent out, to identify the tasks that I want to tick off my list on a daily basis, and to sync tasks with my pomodoro app. You can find the poll and its wake below:

This post is part of the series PhD Talk for AcademicTransfer: posts written for the Dutch academic career network AcademicTransfer , your go-to resource for all research positions in the Netherlands. These posts are sponsored by AcademicTransfer, and tailored to those of you interested in pursuing a research position in the Netherlands. If these posts raise your interest in working as a researcher in the Netherlands, even better - and feel free to fire away any questions you might have on this topic! As you reach the end of your PhD years, you may be invited as a reviewer for scientific journals for the first time. If you have never been asked to review a paper, and feel ready to take on the task, you can follow the recommendations of Dr. Cheplygina in this post . Once you are invited to write the review, you can follow the procedure that I recommend for writing a review of a paper . But what do you do after you have finished reviewing a paper? How can you keep track of your efforts a...

I recently ran a poll on Twitter to ask my fellow #acwri community how long the writing up stage of developing a manuscript takes. Not to my surprise, the majority voted that it widely depends. I, too, have experienced that not all papers are born equally. Sometimes I can knock out a draft in 12 hours. Sometimes, I keep changing the introduction to make sure I get the right approach angle and get the work to stand on its own. Below you can find the wake of this poll: