Abstracts on entomology

Before or after the defense??

Instead of!
Hello Proctos!

Maybe in the form of a separate forum topic "Library of abstracts" with comments from the authors?

Before or after the defense??  

From the point of view of common sense-before, but if you mock the advice, then you can also after

Dear colleague Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg, and at the expense of "instead of" why did you ignore it? This is only partly a joke! I think that the author will get no less "pleasure" from the discussion on the forum than from the defense! Except without a heart attack...

Dear Papaver, My last post is of course a joke.

The proposal is precisely directed against frankly weak dissertations, so that " the nonsense of it is visible to everyone." And as for the heart attack - so if the dissertation is good, then discussing it will not hurt.

You can duplicate here the abstracts from the HAC website, where they should be posted just to discuss them BEFORE the defense.

I agree with the theses. However, the producers of weak dissertations are not cretins, and, of course, they will not post them here. Unfortunately. Yes, and in all conscience-they (weak dissertations) and listen to something tired, and even read... Well, unless you heartily entertain your colleagues and have fun yourself!

I agree with the theses. However, the producers of weak dissertations are not cretins, and, of course, they will not post them here. Unfortunately. Yes, and in all conscience-they (weak dissertations) and listen to something tired, and even read... Well, unless you heartily entertain your colleagues and have fun yourself!

I agree. Yes, unfortunately it is. But something must be done?

Colleagues, the idea is also good from other posts. This is the "promotion" of their research on the Internet, among other things. Google, for example, indexes this forum.

Polishenel's secret: young people should be well trained professionally and well educated. And - both. Otherwise, according to Confucius: knowledge without reflection is useless, and reflection without knowledge is dangerous. Let's add on our own: and without education , both are vulgar and / or cynical.
As for promotion: o times, o customs!
Th-that on quotes pulled... I'd like to flip through Da-Tzu-Bao...

About the times... About morals... But such morals become when colleagues learn about your work only in a private conversation-although the materials are published in a very "solid" and even translated into English magazine. We do not write "to the table", in theory - but it turns out that all this does not reach the reader or comes with difficulty. A colleague and I did one study that I am proud of (apparently, my "swan song" in the "laboratory" bioacoustics of insects), so in the Journal of Insect Physiology it was "wrapped up" with a motivation that I do not agree with. Am I going to edit the article for years for the sake of subsequent rejections for new and new reasons? Yes, I won't, I'll publish it in the first available "murzilka". Unfortunately, the physiology of insects is not a description of new taxa: the principle of priority is not legalized here. The article in "murzilka", in the end, will not be read, and someday someone in the West will independently repeat this research... This, of course, is not the invention of radio (Popov or Marconi) or even the concept of three environmental strategies (Ramensky or Grime) - but it's still a shame.

Sorry. Moreover, I have been in similar situations; moreover, I am now tormenting myself with a response to the reviewer-like, how would you, dear reviewer, explain that your comments are mostly "comments", and time passes...
Popov, Ramensky... You can, of course, argue about the scale of the discovery, but new in science-it is new.
Where, how, why to publish and, most importantly, who will read it and whether they will read it at all is a painful and long topic. Not today.

From L. V. Bolshakov files for downloading and studying on the page http://entomology.ru/tula/ It reports:

1). Tula local historian Nemov Nikolay Ivanovich, editor of the latest issue of the collection "Biodiversity of the Tula region at the turn of the century. Ed. issue 1 (2008) presents an electronic PDF version of this unique publication as an entertaining reading material for the entomological community (the file itself is hosted on the Yandex server).

2). The former editor of this collection (and the current editor of Eversmannia), L. V. Bolshakov, posted previously unpublished materials on the topic" Amazing Nearby", which was started in Biodiversity+ in 2004. We offer a rare opportunity to discuss a "suspicious" entomological dissertation (prepared "in its own juice" and in secret from the entomological community) more than 2 weeks before its defense. The first review was received based on a deep knowledge of the geography and faunal research of the Tula region.

This post was edited by Insect Expert - 10/31/2009 18: 23

The right idea for already defended dissertations. Ready to set your

From L. V. Bolshakov files for downloading and studying on the page http://entomology.ru/tula/ It reports:

1). Tula local historian Nemov Nikolay Ivanovich, editor of the latest issue of the collection "Biodiversity of the Tula region at the turn of the century. Ed. issue 1 (2008) presents an electronic PDF version of this unique publication as an entertaining reading material for the entomological community (the file itself is hosted on the Yandex server).

2). The former editor of this collection (and the current editor of Eversmannia), L. V. Bolshakov, posted previously unpublished materials on the topic" Amazing Nearby", which was started in Biodiversity+ in 2004. We offer a rare opportunity to discuss a "suspicious" entomological dissertation (prepared "in its own juice" and in secret from the entomological community) more than 2 weeks before its defense. The first review was received based on a deep knowledge of the geography and faunal research of the Tula region.

I don't think these wars are good for us all.

These wars are necessary only for those who work honestly, selflessly and selflessly and are not afraid to defend the purity of their beliefs.
Of course, they are not good for the opposite side.

This post was edited by bora - 02.11.2009 09: 27

I don't think these wars are good for us all.

These wars are necessary only for those who work honestly, selflessly and selflessly and are not afraid to defend the purity of their beliefs. Of course, they are not good for the opposite side.

This question is very complex, everyone has the right to decide for themselves who is right and who is wrong. L. V. Bolshakov posted his reviews openly for discussion of specific material. Let's not deviate from the topic, while being as "politically correct" as possible to all parties.

This post was edited by Insect Expert - 02.11.2009 10: 22

First of all, I believe Bolshakov - today it is hard to find such sincere and energetic researchers of the fauna of their region. Therefore, I am willing to admit that the dissertation is rather crude on many of the points outlined by him. On the other hand, I don't believe that Nikitsky could have made a mistake in defining tenelub - his favorite group, for which he is a very, very good expert, probably the best in Russia. As for phrases like "if he labeled the material correctly at all" and "the work was carried out at the department, which we all call "ass" -relatively speaking, the flood of an irritated person, and not the scientific argument of the opponent.

And don't I believe Lavr

As for N. B. Nikitsky, he is an indisputable expert only where he is still a "monopolist". I gave him a barbel sanguinolenta in 1998, and he said it was reyi. So it is written in the articles - dubious copies were checked by N. B. And it was worth showing the same beetles to a barbel specialist recently, and my first "childish" definition was confirmed. And according to M. barbata there is doubt due to the strange features of biology that they have given. Let them bring a copy - then we'll check it out, if necessary - then abroad. But my request was ignored.
And as for the cathedral fees, there were "sensations" such as" Crimean ground beetle in the swamp near Tula "and" Crimean cicada in Tula " (probably moved in from global warming). Student fees are not labeled or retroactively labeled "as appropriate" for a particular "researcher". I admit that in this case such a stretch is relatively small, but the whole "kitchen" is too shrouded in mystery. So it was with all the predecessors of the current applicant.

Then why don't you name a barbel specialist? If this is Mikhail Leontyevich, then there is nothing to be ashamed of. So no one disputes that a good cerambycist should know barbels better. As far as student fees are concerned, isn't this almost universally the case in zoology/entomology departments? So, all departments should be considered a haven exclusively for forgers? Was there a publication on the Crimean ground beetle? Yes, you never know, what kind of losers there that signs! For example, I do not fully believe in the presence of Epicometis hirta in the Moscow region, which, according to the respected amara, is available in the student collections of the Moscow State University Department, from the Istra district, where it is collected by students in practice in entomology. Tell me why? Because no one else has collected a single copy of it in any district of the Moscow Region. Does this mean that Makarnik consists entirely of negligent forgers?

As for N. B. Nikitsky, he is an indisputable expert only where he is still a "monopolist".

But this is a serious accusation. In addition to these barbels, can you give examples where it gives incorrect definitions? And how often? Is he almost always wrong?

This post was edited by omar - 05.11.2009 02: 30

I'm not an entomologist. And I'm subjective.
But in my opinion, the topic covered in "Biodiversity-2008" is not so much scientific as ethical in nature. And," getting personal", the participants move away from the topic.
And the essence of it is that one scientist proves the other wrong in court, and not in a scientific discussion. Naturally, the "half-educated amateur" is doomed to defeat in a legal dispute with the "settled" scientist. In fact, it turns out that the court determines: which insects and how they live in a given area; in a broad sense: which scientific data correspond to the truth and which do not.
Does that remind you of anything?"

And, if that dissertation was first discussed in such forums, then there would be nothing to sue for. And, not only in entomology, but also in any other scientific field.

Dear Lavr, I contacted Nikitsky and Mamontov and sent them your complaints regarding the upcoming dissertation. Since I'm not quite in the topic, they will answer all the controversial points you have outlined themselves. We are waiting for a response. You can post a photo of Tenelub with all its features here. It differs quite strongly from similar species.

This post was edited by omar - 05.11.2009 01: 16

I am sure that a lot of established entomologists are not, as well as many super-professional amateurs-excellent entomologists.
I also think that it is very bad when many entomologists become candidates and doctors without being interested in the topic.
It is strange that such a trend exists in beetles and butterflies, where the spirit of amateur art is very strong, where a lot of specialists are interested in objects from early childhood.
However, I still think that such wars are not good for us. If Lavr (whose professionalism is known to everyone, the Eversmannia magazine is a listed publication) worked as a professor at the university, he would not have written these reviews. It would simply make it so that graduate students prepare their dissertations at a higher level.

I have a suggestion (in order of spring aggravation):

encourage participants of this forum to post their dissertations ' abstracts here, for public discussion.

I know it all sounds like, "come out Billy, get killed..." but still... It seems to me that we have a fairly representative sample of the "entomological community".

What do the moderators think? Perhaps it is better to put this message in a separate topic?

And what is the goal?

People rarely do something "aimlessly", unless it is a pathology of personality (or others).
And why exactly "yourself and your abstract" (probably this corresponds to a certain goal)?

And the goal is simple - so that there are fewer dissertations sucked out of your finger. I see the author's abstracts of PhD theses at the level corresponding to a not very good diploma all the time. Unfortunately, almost all of them are successfully defended.

And the goal is simple - so that there are fewer dissertations sucked out of your finger. I see the author's abstracts of PhD theses at the level corresponding to a not very good diploma all the time. Unfortunately, almost all of them are successfully defended.

If the goal is really like this, then you don't have to ask entomologists to post their abstracts. You can take any of them, both before and after protection. Write a review and maybe something else (which is necessary in such cases) and fight with VAK.

Before protection, it will be easier to "screw up" (if it can be done at all). After protection, you can also do it. I've read about such cases... the degree was selected in case of a" conflict " of copyrights).

And so far, I honestly don't understand anything about this topic.

If you have abstracts of such dissertations that you would like to "ban", then please post them in this topic.

I haven't seen any of them yet. I still found a grain of scientific novelty in each of them.

Adamov, Lavr posted an abstract on dissetration and his review of it. You can read the abstract and express your opinion. That's what the theme is for.

As far as I understand from the review, in essence, the claims are as follows::

1. The topic of the work "geographically" is not correctly formulated.
2. Claims to the abstract: it does not contain references to earlier works (and, in the opinion of the opponent, more complete and correct ones); it does not contain collection points;
3. Claims to scientific supervisors who "protected" the applicant from other specialists in various groups (the correctness of the definition of the material was not checked).

Perhaps the claims under paragraph 2 are satisfied in the dissertation itself.

As for the claims against the manager (point 3), in my opinion, they should concern only them and not affect third parties who picked at the wood with their own hands.

I don't know how the Tula Region is zoned there, but perhaps this very "zaseka" turned out to be the smallest more or less natural territorial allocation that the collection points from the three districts fell into. Perhaps there were simply no options left for the name.



By the way, and for the defense of a dissertation, checking the accuracy of determining the material by leading specialists is a prerequisite?

This post was edited by Adamov - 05.11.2009 19: 16

If the goal is really like this, then you don't have to ask entomologists to post their abstracts. You can take any of them, both before and after protection. Write a review and maybe something else (which is necessary in such cases) and fight with VAK.

I didn't mean to take someone else's dissertation and dissect it here for public reproach. Perhaps it is necessary, even necessary. But very nasty. Besides, I'm not a hero, and I don't enjoy scandals.

I haven't seen any of them yet. I still found a grain of scientific novelty in each of them.

The question is not about the "grain", but about the level of work. There is also (at least, there should be) a "grain of scientific novelty" in young scientists ' works, but is it worth equating them with a dissertation?

Dear Lavr, I contacted Nikitsky and Mamontov and sent them your complaints regarding the upcoming dissertation. Since I'm not quite in the topic, they will answer all the controversial points you have outlined themselves. We are waiting for a response. You can post a photo of Tenelub with all its features here. It differs quite strongly from similar species.

If we wait for their response, we can say that our discussion has reached its goal. It was impossible to achieve this in any other way. Even at the Tula Pedagogical University, none of the biologists who would be interested in it still knows about the upcoming defense of Mamontov. The very "secrecy" of this event makes you think.
I noted in the review that the dissertation itself may have the necessary references, but it is practically inaccessible, while the abstract is written simply disgusting. It is impossible to write a positive review on it. I would also like to see those parts of the dissertation that contain a historical overview, locations of model sites, and a list of species. It will become clear whether unreliable sources, considered as falsification, were involved.
However, I have experience in criticizing falsified dissertations of the same" school " at the Kaluga Pedagogical University. Then I found out about them about a week before the defense, wrote reviews and received information that applicants changed individual pages in their works. As a result, the library has one option, and the council has another.

I didn't mean to take someone else's dissertation and dissect it here for public reproach. Perhaps it is necessary, even necessary. But very nasty. Besides, I'm not a hero, and I don't enjoy scandals.

The question is not about the "grain", but about the level of work. There is also (at least, there should be) a "grain of scientific novelty" in young scientists ' works, but is it worth equating them with a dissertation?

I am also in favor of raising the "level of work". But to be honest, I don't know how this level is estimated. If you know, please share the criteria.


By the way, you said that you want to reduce the number of such "bad" works with this topic... and at the same time, say that you will not be dissecting dissertations... how then?

The question of criteria is complicated. In my humble opinion, the necessary condition should be the publication of the results in normal peer-reviewed publications. Not to be confused with the list of the Higher Attestation Commission - there are successfully "rooters" publish. Yes, there must be publications in English. You may or may not like it, but English is the international language of science.

As for "dissection", I was unclear - I encourage authors to post their own abstracts for discussion. In this case, I am willing to participate in the discussion to the best of my ability. If you look at the beginning of the topic, that's why I suggested it.

The very list of these publications suggests that we are completely flawed. On the one hand, these are excellent magazines, on the other hand, paid messengers...
I agree with you about English.

I used to be more loyal. Well, God bless him, I defended my PhD - well, what's
the problem now? The problem is that these people are already starting to produce graduate students and this is already scary. Students become associate professors, even deans in provincial universities, and so it goes.

The very list of these publications suggests that we are completely flawed. On the one hand, these are excellent magazines, on the other hand, paid messengers...
I agree with you about English.

As far as I understand, there were 2 stages of the process. The first version of the list on entomology, if I remember correctly, did not include anything at all, and they forgot about foreign journals altogether . There was even a special explanation from Kirpichnikov that foreign publications should be taken into account (!!!). Then, apparently, levers were used in all places and everything was included in the list, from flesh to frankly anecdotal publications. "Journal of scientific publications of postgraduates and doctoral students", it seems so? You can see by the title what kind of publication it is.

In other words, do you think that a blatant falsification, but made at the level of the candidate (PhD), cannot be published in a "normal peer-reviewed publication" and in English?

By the way, is it possible to list at least a few "normal peer-reviewed publications" (entomology, ecology)?