Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
guidelines_for_guest_lecturers [2018/10/23 13:26] 127.0.0.1 external edit |
guidelines_for_guest_lecturers [2018/11/01 17:34] Christophe Dessimoz [What to expect after the presentation] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| A good subject for this class is one that | A good subject for this class is one that | ||
| - | - is related to computational biology | + | - is related to quantitative biology |
| - is not already fully covered by an existing review (i.e. has some originality either in scope, timeliness, or ideas) | - is not already fully covered by an existing review (i.e. has some originality either in scope, timeliness, or ideas) | ||
| - can be reasonably treated in ~1800 words | - can be reasonably treated in ~1800 words | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| ===== Presentation ===== | ===== Presentation ===== | ||
| - | The presentation serves two main purposes. First, it introduces and reviews the topic in question for all course participants (typically a PhD student in computational biology, but also occasionally a Masters student with a background in either biology, mathematics or computer science). Secondly, it gives the writer a structure and main ideas of his/her assignment. Thus, it should be relatively straightforward for the student to come up with the outline of their review manuscript based on the presentation. | + | The presentation serves two main purposes. First, it introduces and reviews the topic in question for all course participants (PhD students of various backgrounds, with an interest in deepening their quantitative skills). Secondly, it gives the writer a structure and main ideas of his/her assignment. Thus, it should be relatively straightforward for the student to come up with the outline of their review manuscript based on the presentation. |
| ===== Bibliography ===== | ===== Bibliography ===== | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| ===== What to expect after the presentation ===== | ===== What to expect after the presentation ===== | ||
| - | The students have 2 weeks to write their review. During this time, James or I will meet up with them at least twice with them: once after 3 or 4 days to discuss their outline, and once after 10 days to give feedback on their manuscript, prior to submission. That being said, the student might also contact you directly for technical questions, clarifications, etc. | + | The students have 2 weeks to write their review. During this time, I will be at their disposal to answer questions or provide informal feedback on their outline or draft. That being said, the student might also contact you directly for technical questions, clarifications, etc. |
| Once the review has been submitted, you __and__ two anonymous students from the course will have a week to provide comments on the manuscript. | Once the review has been submitted, you __and__ two anonymous students from the course will have a week to provide comments on the manuscript. | ||
| The writer will then have a week to revise and correct their manuscript, after which you will get a copy of the "final" version. Depending on its quality and your interest/availability, we will discuss the possibility of putting in more work to publish the review. | The writer will then have a week to revise and correct their manuscript, after which you will get a copy of the "final" version. Depending on its quality and your interest/availability, we will discuss the possibility of putting in more work to publish the review. | ||