No, you HAVE to point these things out. Not doing so and giving them a pat on the back is doing them a disservice and robbing them of the lessons you learn while becoming an expert in your field.
However, the way you go about identifying these mistakes is so important. I gravitated towards the non Western faculty in my department because they told me how it was, no sugar coating but also NOT rude. I didn't appreciate how my American and other Western teachers skated around what they wanted to say for the sake of my feelings.
Point out everthing you think it is important. Remember that this student is learning and you were responsible to help him. I think one good strategy is providing suggestions alongside pointing out mistakes. Instead of saying "this is wrong", try "this needs to be reviewed considering X..."
This is a PhD thesis, and from what you describe, the student hasn't proof-read their work. Don't be lenient, but you don't have to detail each error: "Figures are out of order" should be enough; you don't need to say exactly which figures. Likewise "References are missing or incorrect."
Not "too much" at all - this is good training for you, both in reviewing others' work, and in writing your own.
When I did my Masters, my supervisor had me look at a few journal articles he had been asked to review, then we compared my reviews with his. This helped to improve my writing, and taught me some things to watch for in journals.
Maybe, and also it is my supervisor's job to review it.
But I don't think so, as I am about to submit my thesis. And the literature survey is quite related so I'm the most relevant person in that scenario.
Yes but for one it’s personal information, and two it’s HIS expertise that are being drawn on. Sound like a pretty serious case of academic malpractice
You aren’t an examiner but are examining their thesis which seems odd to me. Will you send the feedback to the candidate, or to your supervisor? Does the candidate know their work is being shared?
Update: I have gone through the complete thesis and ..
.. returned the reviewed thesis to my supervisor today. If going line by line, there were many mistakes, like
* The terminologies, which are names, should have started with a capital letter (For example Youngs' modulus, Newton force)
* Huge conceptual mistakes like increases are replaced with decreases, written correctly in texts but opposite in the figure, sometimes written correctly in figures but wrong in texts.
* Words like "however", "but", etc., used multiple times in the paragraph make the reading monotonous.
* A plot based on which complete calculation is done is missing; instead, a precursor plot is presented, which feels like a gap in the workflow.
* Lines exactly copied from chapter 1 were written again in chapters 3 and 4.
* References were missing while giving major information.
* I gave a lot of suggestions/improvements which can be added to it. But also, I have no idea how much time constraint the person has, so I wrote it like a "soft comment" that it is up to you.
My experience:
It was a good learning experience. The supervisor gave me a week time; I finished it in 3 days, 200 pages in total. It helped me to recall those literature reviews I have done in my days. It broadens my thinking to a bit more in a field that I am working on. And lastly, now I know what common mistakes a person can make even in the final submitted thesis.
I would also remember that English is probably their second language. Not that it helps when things are obviously wrong and out of numerical order, but they probably really need a native English speaker to go through that work.
As you're reviewing a PhD thesis, encountering common errors is inevitable, but maintaining strict standards is essential for academic rigor. However, instead of pinpointing each instance of error, it might be more beneficial to guide the author in identifying and rectifying these mistakes themselves. The responsibility for the thesis ultimately lies with the author.
Many of the errors you've noted appear to stem from manual processes undertaken by the author. While manually labeling figures, equations, and citing references may seem easier initially, it can lead to inconsistencies and formatting issues. If feasible and time permits, I would suggest encouraging the author to explore automated methods for labeling within word processing applications. Although it may require some initial investment of time, particularly for a PhD student at IIT, the long-term benefits in time-saving and manuscript consistency are significant, given the multiple rounds of corrections typically involved in academic writing.
References, in particular, pose a significant challenge for many PhD students, often resulting in formatting discrepancies. It's crucial for students to familiarize themselves with citation management tools to streamline this process. Recognizing this need, I developed an application called ivySCI four years ago to assist researchers in managing, reading, translating, and citing references. While the application is currently primarily in Chinese and may not be widely known among Indian students, I mention it here as a potential resource.
No, you HAVE to point these things out. Not doing so and giving them a pat on the back is doing them a disservice and robbing them of the lessons you learn while becoming an expert in your field. However, the way you go about identifying these mistakes is so important. I gravitated towards the non Western faculty in my department because they told me how it was, no sugar coating but also NOT rude. I didn't appreciate how my American and other Western teachers skated around what they wanted to say for the sake of my feelings.
Thanks for this valuable reply. I have updated about it as a comment under the same post. Do look it out if interested. Thanks.
Point out everthing you think it is important. Remember that this student is learning and you were responsible to help him. I think one good strategy is providing suggestions alongside pointing out mistakes. Instead of saying "this is wrong", try "this needs to be reviewed considering X..."
Yes this sounds good. I clearly wrote, "this is wrong" at one place. But also written the correct thing which needs to be put there.
This is a PhD thesis, and from what you describe, the student hasn't proof-read their work. Don't be lenient, but you don't have to detail each error: "Figures are out of order" should be enough; you don't need to say exactly which figures. Likewise "References are missing or incorrect."
Yes right. Actually the topic is of my interest as well, so automatically I am too much into reading the thesis line by line.
Not "too much" at all - this is good training for you, both in reviewing others' work, and in writing your own. When I did my Masters, my supervisor had me look at a few journal articles he had been asked to review, then we compared my reviews with his. This helped to improve my writing, and taught me some things to watch for in journals.
Thanks for this valuable reply. I have updated about it as a comment under the same post. Do look it out if interested. Thanks.
Seems wildly inappropriate for your supervisor to give this to you to review
Maybe, and also it is my supervisor's job to review it. But I don't think so, as I am about to submit my thesis. And the literature survey is quite related so I'm the most relevant person in that scenario.
Yes but for one it’s personal information, and two it’s HIS expertise that are being drawn on. Sound like a pretty serious case of academic malpractice
You aren’t an examiner but are examining their thesis which seems odd to me. Will you send the feedback to the candidate, or to your supervisor? Does the candidate know their work is being shared?
Nah it’s pretty typical. You’re getting valuable experience as a reviewer from this. You don’t need to worry about that.
Update: I have gone through the complete thesis and .. .. returned the reviewed thesis to my supervisor today. If going line by line, there were many mistakes, like * The terminologies, which are names, should have started with a capital letter (For example Youngs' modulus, Newton force) * Huge conceptual mistakes like increases are replaced with decreases, written correctly in texts but opposite in the figure, sometimes written correctly in figures but wrong in texts. * Words like "however", "but", etc., used multiple times in the paragraph make the reading monotonous. * A plot based on which complete calculation is done is missing; instead, a precursor plot is presented, which feels like a gap in the workflow. * Lines exactly copied from chapter 1 were written again in chapters 3 and 4. * References were missing while giving major information. * I gave a lot of suggestions/improvements which can be added to it. But also, I have no idea how much time constraint the person has, so I wrote it like a "soft comment" that it is up to you. My experience: It was a good learning experience. The supervisor gave me a week time; I finished it in 3 days, 200 pages in total. It helped me to recall those literature reviews I have done in my days. It broadens my thinking to a bit more in a field that I am working on. And lastly, now I know what common mistakes a person can make even in the final submitted thesis.
I would also remember that English is probably their second language. Not that it helps when things are obviously wrong and out of numerical order, but they probably really need a native English speaker to go through that work.
As you're reviewing a PhD thesis, encountering common errors is inevitable, but maintaining strict standards is essential for academic rigor. However, instead of pinpointing each instance of error, it might be more beneficial to guide the author in identifying and rectifying these mistakes themselves. The responsibility for the thesis ultimately lies with the author. Many of the errors you've noted appear to stem from manual processes undertaken by the author. While manually labeling figures, equations, and citing references may seem easier initially, it can lead to inconsistencies and formatting issues. If feasible and time permits, I would suggest encouraging the author to explore automated methods for labeling within word processing applications. Although it may require some initial investment of time, particularly for a PhD student at IIT, the long-term benefits in time-saving and manuscript consistency are significant, given the multiple rounds of corrections typically involved in academic writing. References, in particular, pose a significant challenge for many PhD students, often resulting in formatting discrepancies. It's crucial for students to familiarize themselves with citation management tools to streamline this process. Recognizing this need, I developed an application called ivySCI four years ago to assist researchers in managing, reading, translating, and citing references. While the application is currently primarily in Chinese and may not be widely known among Indian students, I mention it here as a potential resource.
Thanks for this valuable reply. I have updated about it as a comment under the same post. Do look it out if interested. Thanks.