sharadsinha

Archive for the ‘Intellectual Property’ Category

Bias in Peer Review of Research

In Education, Intellectual Property, Research and Development on June 30, 2015 at 6:38 PM

Reviewing research papers for conferences and journals is a part of my job. When I review journal papers, I get to see the comments of other reviewers when the review is complete and comments are sent out to the authors. In the last few months, I have seen review comments which were obviously influenced by the author’s affiliations and past work. I am not saying that the author had any role to play in it because I know it is not possible in those journals. To me, those reviewers sounded as if  they were fans of the authors. Sometimes they adopted a condescending  approach but their comments never reflected the depth of academic rigor. They were more like “Yeah, I know it is a difficult problem. But you guys are well known. So, let me just say yes to your work without concerning myself too much with all that you have stated”. Mind you that mostly it is the decision of the majority that actually counts in a review process. So, if you are reviewer who reviews papers based only on its content, quality, novelty and such other parameters, without caring for author affiliations etc., you might be surprised with such biased reviews. This is one way in which an undeserving paper  gets published successfully. I think that is one reason why most conferences (at least in my field) insist on a blind-review process. The author names and affiliations are not available to reviewers during the review process. This is an example where peer review fails. There are a number of studies and commentaries on the strengths and the weaknesses of peer review which I won’t go into in this post. You can read some sample examples here and here.

The kind of bias that I just mentioned is akin to the culture of fan following in entertainment industry or in sports. You are a fan of someone, you will always support him/her. I have not yet figured out why journals have not adopted a blind review process. I guess if they do, they can reduce the effect of such biased reviews. I am interested in knowing about the review process in your fields and your experiences as a writer, reviewer editor etc. Please feel free to comment.

Advertisements

PhD vs Work Experience: The Perennial Debate

In Education, Engineering Principles, Intellectual Property, Research and Development on March 9, 2013 at 11:35 PM

Those of you who have ever considered doing a PhD or getting a higher technical degree would have definitely come across this debate on PhD vs work experience. One can find so many articles and opinion posts on this subject. Many of us tend to evaluate PhD and work experience by replacing one with the other. Setting aside financial considerations, we tend to evaluate these two experiences by examining the worth of each when replaced by the other. I think that this approach is improper. PhD  and work experience can be/made to be complimentary to each other. Not all work experiences are of high quality and same is the case with PhD granting institutions. Not all companies are alike just the way standards differ across institutions of higher learning. I would not be debating the pros and cons of PhD or of work experience in this post as that subject merits far greater analysis than what I can put in a blog post. However, taking a broader view, I would say that a PhD program lets you get out of your comfort zone and explore complex, unbounded problems which could be fundamental or applied in nature. It teaches you to learn, examine (and re-examine), critique, argue and persuade using facts and figures. Its not that there are no corporate jobs where one cannot learn these very things. But they are far and few and the degree to which you need to exercise your brain varies across them. As an example, you can be a great lawyer, corporate, civil or criminal, but being a great lawyer is different from being able to comment, analyse, contribute to the very subject of jurisprudence which gives rise to all judicial activities. Another example: you can be an excellent system on chip architect, but being able to get into the depth of power integrity analysis is a different story. Of course you can be a great power integrity analysis engineer too who can apply all sorts of engineering tricks to perform clean power integrity analysis but you need not be able to comment, analyse or examine the principles on which power integrity analysis is based to the same depth as a typical  PhD degree holder would do. The point I am trying to make is that “there is space and need for both kinds of experiences“. They need not be present  to the same degree in one single person. The utility of a PhD and that of work experience depends on many factors. At the end of the day, you do a PhD because you want to explore, find new things or just sit back and critically reflect on the existing things because other people are  busy meeting the demands of the market which has its own challenges!

Software, Patents, Innovation, Ideas: A Curious Mix

In Education, Intellectual Property, Interdisciplinary Science on October 8, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Filing a patent is a big thing these days, especially in the academia. It has been there for quite a long time in the industry though. Earlier, it would suffice to publish in top quality journals or conferences, but now patents are the real icing on the cake. Filing a patent is a costly process and it is far more costlier to prosecute it till its allowed lifetime after it has been granted. One needs not only really deep pockets to engage in patent litigation but also an elaborate infrastructure to find out instances of patent infringement.

While a lot of the patents in earlier days would describe an invention/innovation in terms of its parts that make it work with detailed diagrams of parts etc., a lot of patents these days are filed based just on ideas. It is ideas which are getting patented and this is something that many people are concerned about, especially in the software industry. History shows us that similar ideas have been developed by different people independent of each other at different times and it is no different in modern times. Do we really have to patent ideas? Are they patentable? Don’t they stifle flights of fancy and imagination which have helped people in coming up with brilliant inventions and technologies? Where is the tradeoff between protecting intellectual property and protecting flights of imagination? I think that protecting both of these are important.  However, the dimension of “time” that patents add to an idea/invention can have an impact as one man’s flight of imagination at time “x” prohibits another man’s flight, even if independent, at  time “y” where x > y. It is a curious mix and definitely an important issue to be discussed and debated. You might be interested in reading ” The Patent, Used as a Sword” published by the International Herald Tribune.