Question Solved

How to handle authorship order disputes in a multi-author paper? (55)

Back to Forum
Growing 75 pts 0 followers
Bearys Institute of Technology · Posted
Political Science & Governance Human Resource Management Physics

Background

I am a first-year PhD student in Chemical Engineering. My guide has asked me to apply for PMRF in the upcoming cycle.

I need to write the research proposal component (2 pages). My research is on biodegradable polymer membranes for water purification.

Questions:

  • What level of detail is expected in the technical approach section?
  • Should I include preliminary results even if they are from coursework projects?
  • How important is the societal impact section?
  • Is it okay to cite work from my own MTech thesis?

Any feedback from people who have successfully received PMRF would be invaluable.

Sign in to interact

Sign in to join the discussion.

7 Replies

Oldest Top
0
Jagdish Rawat · 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
Deepa Krishnamurthy Distinguished 810 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
Replying to Deepa Krishnamurthy
Harini Balakrishnan Active 215 pts · Accepted answer

Marking this as the accepted answer. Incredibly helpful and specific. Really appreciate you taking the time.

0
Replying to Deepa Krishnamurthy
Ashwin Murthy Distinguished 560 pts · Accepted answer

This is really helpful context. One more question: for the ethics committee approval, does the institution where the data is collected or the institution where the analysis is performed need to be the primary ethics approver?

0
Prakash Iyer Distinguished 640 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
Priya Nair · Accepted answer

Highly recommend checking out the PMRF portal for the actual numbers.they update the stipend structure annually.

0
Prakash Iyer Distinguished 640 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.