Author Archives: Luc Beaulieu

Warning, may contain…a PhD

Posted on by
2

[This post was originally published over 6 years ago. It is still extremely relevant!]

Recently saw a comment by a student about not being advised before hand that doing a PhD had many difficulties and challenges. However, my first reaction reading that text was to start laughing. Of course, all that was said was true. But the first thing that came to my mind was the famous warning when you ask for a sundae with nuts at a McDonald : you received (at least in North America) the nuts in a small, sealed separate bag (think allergies); this bag has a warning that reads (seriously): may contain nuts!

Doh!

Continue reading →

The Power of the Yearly Review

Posted on by
1

GTD methodology call of frequent review of projects and associated task lists. In fact, the whole system crumbles if this critical operation is not performed regularly; you need to trust that it contains everything in order to make the right decision at the right time with regard to which task(s) to take on at any given moment and not miss anything. However to enable you to make these daily decisions that move you toward a larger goal, the latter needs to be established up front and also revised on a regular basis. Enter the yearly review! Continue reading →

Systematically reject requests to review: a shameful behaviour?

Posted on by
Reply

I love science. I hate supposition, superstition, exaggeration and falsified data. Show me the research, show me the results, show me the conclusions – and then show me some qualified peer reviews of all that.
– Bill Vaughan

Every time you publish in a peer-reviewed journal, you mobilize anywhere from 3 to 5 persons who will work absolutely for free on your manuscript. Minimally, you will have two reviewers and an associate editor, all who will take the time to read and critics your work. On the top of that, the editor will also spend times on it. If needed, a third reviewer will also be requested. 

Continue reading →

USB-C : One Port to Rule Them All!

Posted on by
Reply

One of the great thing I liked about Apple lighting port (when it came out) was the versatility and reversibility of the connector. As I replaced my MacBook pro last year, the computer came with 4 ports, all USB-C / Thunderbolt 3 compatible. This has some drawbacks vs. legacy hardware but at the same time it is fairly easy to have USB-A to USB-C cables or adapters.

Continue reading →

Former Student becomes CEO!

Posted on by
Reply

***UPDATE: URL to MedScint website corrected

François Therriault-Proulx, a former PhD student of mine, decided sometimes ago that he would transformed a technology he co-developped during his graduate studies to a commercial product. Here he is in his first booth (right) at the premier medical physics conference, the American Association of Medical Physicists annual meeting in San Antonio Texas with partner, co-foudner and CMO Jonathan Turcotte (left).

20190714_124417.jpg

100% made in Quebec City. Congrats MedScint!

The reviewers are always right…even when they are wrong!-

Posted on by
3

Science has a culture that is inherently cautious and that is normally not a bad thing. You could even say conservative, because of the peer review process and because the scientific method prizes uncertainty and penalises anyone who goes out on any sort of a limb that is not held in place by abundant and well-documented evidence.
– Al Gore

One important aspect of scientific research is dissemination of the results through peer-reviewed publications. In a previous post, I discussed the choice of venue and the relative (un)importance of the journal impact factor. In this post, I address what happen in-between that first submission and the actual publication.

Continue reading →