Discussion Solved

Remote collaboration tools that actually work for distributed research teams

Back to Forum
Distinguished 950 pts 0 followers
National Institute of Technology Karnataka · Posted
Public Health & Epidemiology Materials Science Entrepreneurship & Innovation

Background

I have been an Assistant Professor for three years now. Looking back, the most valuable thing in my career so far has been the research network I built.not my publications, not my grants, not my teaching record.

Here is what actually worked for building that network as a new faculty member:

  1. Email cold introductions after reading someone's paper.specific, about their work, not a generic 'let's collaborate' message. Response rate is surprisingly high (~40%) if the email shows you actually read the paper.

  2. Conference conversations.not the formal talks, but the coffee breaks and poster sessions. I have gotten more collaborators from standing next to someone at a coffee station than from any structured networking event.

  3. Reviewing papers.every paper you review is an invitation to learn what leading researchers in your area are working on before it is published.

  4. Social media presence.LinkedIn for professional connections, Twitter/X for research community discussions. One thread I posted on my research got picked up by a researcher at Cambridge who is now a collaborator.

What has worked for others?

Sign in to interact

Sign in to join the discussion.

15 Replies

Oldest Top
0
Meghana Rao Growing 170 pts · Accepted answer

For longitudinal data with missing values, mixed-effects models handle this more gracefully than imputation in most cases.

0
Replying to Meghana Rao
Meena Sharma · Accepted answer

Strongly agree with the point about choosing venues carefully. One paper in NeurIPS > five papers in obscure workshops.

0
Replying to Meghana Rao
Bindiya Thomas Growing 65 pts · Accepted answer

I am in a very similar situation. Would you be willing to share the outline of your PMRF proposal? Not the content.just the section headings and approximate word allocation.

0
Admin NITK · Accepted answer

The IEEE TPAMI turnaround in my case was 7 months for the first review. Plan accordingly.

0
Replying to Admin NITK
Chetan Jain Growing 100 pts · Accepted answer

This is exactly what I needed. Thank you so much.I have been going back and forth on this for weeks and this clears it up completely.

0
Replying to Admin NITK
Rekha Shetty Starting 40 pts · Accepted answer

Thank you! The reference to MuRIL is particularly useful.I had not considered it as an alternative to XLM-R for Indic languages.

0
Replying to Admin NITK
Ekta Choudhary Starting 45 pts · Accepted answer

This is exactly what I needed. Thank you so much.I have been going back and forth on this for weeks and this clears it up completely.

0
Pooja Nambiar Growing 115 pts · Accepted answer

I have a slightly different take from my experience in industry research. The reproducibility crisis is real but unevenly distributed. Fields with strong engineering culture (computational biology, ML with benchmarks) have actually improved significantly in the last 5 years. The bigger problem is in fields where data sharing is structurally difficult.clinical medicine, behavioral economics.

The ML community's move toward open code and reproducibility checklists has been genuinely effective.

0
Zara Hussain Growing 55 pts · Accepted answer

I have successfully received PMRF (lateral entry, second year). Happy to share what worked in my proposal.

On the research proposal:

  • 60–70% technical approach, 30% context and impact
  • Preliminary results absolutely help. Coursework projects are fine if genuinely relevant
  • The societal impact section should be substantive.PMRF is a national initiative; reviewers want to see why this matters

On citations: Yes, cite your MTech thesis. Framing your PhD as an extension of prior work you did shows continuity of thought.

0
Quamar Ahmed Growing 65 pts · Accepted answer

Great question.I went through something very similar in my second year.

The key insight for me was that LoRA is actually quite well-suited for NER tasks, especially in low-resource settings. I would recommend:

  1. Use LoRA with r=8 or r=16.don't go higher for 8K samples
  2. Apply LoRA to attention layers only, not the feed-forward layers
  3. Use a cosine learning rate schedule with warm-up (10% of steps)

For Telugu-English code-mixed NER specifically, you might also look at MuRIL.it is pretrained on Indian language data and often outperforms XLM-R on Indic tasks even with less fine-tuning data.

0
Replying to Quamar Ahmed
Chetan Jain Growing 100 pts · Accepted answer

This is exactly what I needed to hear. One clarifying question: you mentioned FedProx handles non-IID data better.does that mean I should switch to FedProx by default, or only if I observe poor convergence with FedAvg first?

0
test tester Growing 165 pts · Accepted answer

FDR (Benjamini-Hochberg) is widely accepted and preferable to Bonferroni when you have many tests and limited power. The key is to be explicit about which correction you used and why.

On replication: No independent cohort is a genuine limitation but not a dealbreaker for rare disease research, where cohort availability is a known constraint. Many high-quality papers acknowledge this and still get published in good journals. Frame it as future work.

Power analysis: Yes, report it. Showing you are aware of the limitation is better than not mentioning it.

0
Rohan Desai Distinguished 950 pts · Accepted answer

Great question.I went through something very similar in my second year.

The key insight for me was that LoRA is actually quite well-suited for NER tasks, especially in low-resource settings. I would recommend:

  1. Use LoRA with r=8 or r=16.don't go higher for 8K samples
  2. Apply LoRA to attention layers only, not the feed-forward layers
  3. Use a cosine learning rate schedule with warm-up (10% of steps)

For Telugu-English code-mixed NER specifically, you might also look at MuRIL.it is pretrained on Indian language data and often outperforms XLM-R on Indic tasks even with less fine-tuning data.

0
Karthik Rajan Growing 180 pts · Accepted answer

I have successfully received PMRF (lateral entry, second year). Happy to share what worked in my proposal.

On the research proposal:

  • 60–70% technical approach, 30% context and impact
  • Preliminary results absolutely help. Coursework projects are fine if genuinely relevant
  • The societal impact section should be substantive.PMRF is a national initiative; reviewers want to see why this matters

On citations: Yes, cite your MTech thesis. Framing your PhD as an extension of prior work you did shows continuity of thought.

0
Ganesh Menon Growing 140 pts · Accepted answer

Strongly agree with the point about choosing venues carefully. One paper in NeurIPS > five papers in obscure workshops.