- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 314
- Reaction score
- 242
Dear colleagues,
I want to ask about your idea about my current situation. Of course, some problems can be a matter of my current place (Turkey) or my personal problems (such as long time anxiety and obsessive personality); I'm very open to your critique, suggestions, and fun 🙂
A little background(also available in SDN previous posts): graduated in 2010, one-year of being a rural practitioner, 5 years of urology residency, consultant urologist in different state hospitals since 2016, now an assistant prof position in a university and working as a consultant in the affiliated hospital, in physiology Ph.D. program since 2016 - expected to be graduate in next year.
Papers I could publish until now: Özer Ural Çakıcı - Google Scholar
My opinions on the review process: Peer Review Week: An Interview with Dr Ozer Ural Cakici - European Medical Group
Every time dealing with someone from the university, I scream how stupid these people. A regular taxi driver or a countryman is probably more practical and smart respective to professors I deal with. They somewhat intentively make things harder. A quick solution is usually avoided. It seems like they want to show that they are very important. I got really tired of this situation. I got tired of re-think everything. I got tired of asking for which lab kit I have to buy three times and after I buy it the professor declares that they have no experience with that company's kit. Comparing with my regular job, it is more inconceivable. In the hospital, I'm operating on an infant, but in university, I can not obtain a rat to check my Langendorf. Experimental ethical boards are really insurmountable, I already left applying to them. But even for a retrospective case scanning, I have to fill a bunch of papers. The amount of work is not important, but it is completely useless. The whole process can be summarized in two pages. And also I think the same things for papers. Some clinical studies can be summarized into one or two pages. Why write a bunch of stuff to define, declare, discuss, etc. If the reader is interested in the issue, he/she can clearly read more and learn or just ask the author. The people in the academy are losing their practical minds due to long time exposure to formal education, maybe? I can do all my bank work on my smartphone, but I have to print about 50 pages to obtain a retrospective study approval. Not seems reasonable. The politics, chair wars, and lobbying are really disgusting. I don't even mention them.
The publishing process and congresses are other things I cannot tolerate. For instance, I have a paper in my hand in these days named "X: the initial histological evidence". The paper is rejected by 5 journals, a total of 12 reviewers. This is quite understandable. However, none of the 12 reviewers made any comment on the histological finding. This drives me insane. I can clearly understand that if a reviewer claims that the figure that thought to show a necrotic area is not necrotic. I can respond to this. But it is unbelievable that a reviewer says that the postoperative ICU days should have been given, in a paper that presents a histological finding. Two days before I obtained a review result from a well-known journal. My manuscript was about circumcisions that were carried on healthy school-age boys, and the reviewer suggested that reporting the vesicoureteral reflux rates in the cohort? This is the top journal of its practice. The reviewer insisted that the procedure we did should be detailed. Hey! I suppose the journal is read by urologists? You want me to detail the sleeve-circumcision? I'm not sure is it worth spending my time to conceive a reviewer who is sometimes not able to understand what he/she reads, or just trying to satisfy his/her ego.
Congresses are somewhat a waste of time. Most of the main presentations are summaries of guidelines or textbooks. What is the point of making a summary of available papers? I can clearly read them. I would even prefer listening to someone who talks about his/her own experience. Some people are talking on the scene on an issue that he/she has no experience in it. Totally waste of time.
I don't know, maybe the problem is myself? Maybe I'm so tired? Or my point of view is wrong?
As a result, I'm now just working to finish Ph.D., just because I put a great effort into it. Then I'm really considering leaving all experiments, writing processes, etc. I may keep up with clinics or maybe build a work schedule based on Physiology lecturing.
That's all. Thanks for your time.
I want to ask about your idea about my current situation. Of course, some problems can be a matter of my current place (Turkey) or my personal problems (such as long time anxiety and obsessive personality); I'm very open to your critique, suggestions, and fun 🙂
A little background(also available in SDN previous posts): graduated in 2010, one-year of being a rural practitioner, 5 years of urology residency, consultant urologist in different state hospitals since 2016, now an assistant prof position in a university and working as a consultant in the affiliated hospital, in physiology Ph.D. program since 2016 - expected to be graduate in next year.
Papers I could publish until now: Özer Ural Çakıcı - Google Scholar
My opinions on the review process: Peer Review Week: An Interview with Dr Ozer Ural Cakici - European Medical Group
Every time dealing with someone from the university, I scream how stupid these people. A regular taxi driver or a countryman is probably more practical and smart respective to professors I deal with. They somewhat intentively make things harder. A quick solution is usually avoided. It seems like they want to show that they are very important. I got really tired of this situation. I got tired of re-think everything. I got tired of asking for which lab kit I have to buy three times and after I buy it the professor declares that they have no experience with that company's kit. Comparing with my regular job, it is more inconceivable. In the hospital, I'm operating on an infant, but in university, I can not obtain a rat to check my Langendorf. Experimental ethical boards are really insurmountable, I already left applying to them. But even for a retrospective case scanning, I have to fill a bunch of papers. The amount of work is not important, but it is completely useless. The whole process can be summarized in two pages. And also I think the same things for papers. Some clinical studies can be summarized into one or two pages. Why write a bunch of stuff to define, declare, discuss, etc. If the reader is interested in the issue, he/she can clearly read more and learn or just ask the author. The people in the academy are losing their practical minds due to long time exposure to formal education, maybe? I can do all my bank work on my smartphone, but I have to print about 50 pages to obtain a retrospective study approval. Not seems reasonable. The politics, chair wars, and lobbying are really disgusting. I don't even mention them.
The publishing process and congresses are other things I cannot tolerate. For instance, I have a paper in my hand in these days named "X: the initial histological evidence". The paper is rejected by 5 journals, a total of 12 reviewers. This is quite understandable. However, none of the 12 reviewers made any comment on the histological finding. This drives me insane. I can clearly understand that if a reviewer claims that the figure that thought to show a necrotic area is not necrotic. I can respond to this. But it is unbelievable that a reviewer says that the postoperative ICU days should have been given, in a paper that presents a histological finding. Two days before I obtained a review result from a well-known journal. My manuscript was about circumcisions that were carried on healthy school-age boys, and the reviewer suggested that reporting the vesicoureteral reflux rates in the cohort? This is the top journal of its practice. The reviewer insisted that the procedure we did should be detailed. Hey! I suppose the journal is read by urologists? You want me to detail the sleeve-circumcision? I'm not sure is it worth spending my time to conceive a reviewer who is sometimes not able to understand what he/she reads, or just trying to satisfy his/her ego.
Congresses are somewhat a waste of time. Most of the main presentations are summaries of guidelines or textbooks. What is the point of making a summary of available papers? I can clearly read them. I would even prefer listening to someone who talks about his/her own experience. Some people are talking on the scene on an issue that he/she has no experience in it. Totally waste of time.
I don't know, maybe the problem is myself? Maybe I'm so tired? Or my point of view is wrong?
As a result, I'm now just working to finish Ph.D., just because I put a great effort into it. Then I'm really considering leaving all experiments, writing processes, etc. I may keep up with clinics or maybe build a work schedule based on Physiology lecturing.
That's all. Thanks for your time.
