new names in theses

[Wolfgang Wuster]

On Wed, 10 Jan 1996, Marcus Kit Petz wrote:
> Wolfgang Wuster wrote:
> In any case, this discussion emphasises the need for PhD students to
> >publish new species as soon as possible after finishing their theses, or,
> >even better, before even submitting their theses.
>
> If theses are supposed to contain something new this might not be
> possible.

Surely if the paper was published on the basis of the research leading to
the PhD, by the PhD candidate, this becomes irrelevant? In all UK theses
that I have seen/been involved with, this simply meant sticking reprints
of publications into a pocket of the back cover of the thesis. I would
have thought that any sane examiner would congratulate the student on
having managed to get papers out, rather than moaning about whether it
has been published before.

Certainly, as an examiner, I am much more impressed by a thesis that has
resulted in peer-reviewed publications, and as a supervisor, I have always
encouraged my students to publish results as they go along, provided the
results are ready to be published.

> This also removes the possibility of theses containing
> tentative proposals which could be later confirmed by the theses
> writer

???Why???

Surely the student would only publish those sections of the thesis which
s/he regards as completed, and can spend the rest of the thesis on
tentative proposals which can later be investigated again.

--
Wolfgang Wuster
School of Biological Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, UK
e-mail: w.wuster at bangor.ac.uk

Thought for the day: If you see a light at the end of the tunnel,
it is probably a train coming your way.