Question Solved

What is the format for a technical report vs a research paper? (53)

Back to Forum
Growing 55 pts 0 followers
Bearys Institute of Technology · Posted
IoT & Embedded Systems Robotics & Automation

Problem statement

I am working on a bioinformatics project analyzing GWAS data for a rare Indian genetic disorder. My sample size is only n=89 cases and n=143 controls due to the rarity of the condition.

Specific questions:

  1. Should I report power analysis even though I know the study is underpowered?
  2. Bonferroni seems too conservative with this sample size; is FDR acceptable?
  3. I don't have an independent cohort to validate. Is this a dealbreaker for journal submission?

This is a legitimate clinical study with IRB approval. I just want to know how to frame the limitations honestly.

Sign in to interact

Sign in to join the discussion.

18 Replies

Oldest Top
0
Prakash Iyer Distinguished 640 pts · Accepted answer

If you are not already using a reading group format with your students, I would strongly recommend it. Forces everyone to articulate what they read.

0
Hema Suresh Starting 20 pts · Accepted answer

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

0
Rekha Shetty Starting 40 pts · Accepted answer

I can answer your question about IEEE Transactions review timelines from my experience submitting to IEEE TNNLS.

For Q1 IEEE journals, expect:

  • Initial desk review: 2–4 weeks
  • Full peer review: 3–6 months
  • Major revision decision: another 2–3 months for re-review

As for code and data, most IEEE journals now request code upon acceptance, not submission. Regarding your 2.3% improvement.that is borderline. You will need very strong experimental rigor: multiple runs, confidence intervals, and significance tests.

0
Harini Balakrishnan Active 215 pts · Accepted answer

If you are not already using a reading group format with your students, I would strongly recommend it. Forces everyone to articulate what they read.

0
Lakshmi Devi Growing 75 pts · Accepted answer

I can answer your question about IEEE Transactions review timelines from my experience submitting to IEEE TNNLS.

For Q1 IEEE journals, expect:

  • Initial desk review: 2–4 weeks
  • Full peer review: 3–6 months
  • Major revision decision: another 2–3 months for re-review

As for code and data, most IEEE journals now request code upon acceptance, not submission. Regarding your 2.3% improvement.that is borderline. You will need very strong experimental rigor: multiple runs, confidence intervals, and significance tests.

0
Sanjay Kumar Growing 145 pts · Accepted answer

Could you clarify what you mean by results-blind review? I have heard of it but never understood how it works in practice. Wouldn't reviewers need to see results to evaluate whether the methodology is sound?

0
Replying to Sanjay Kumar
Meghana Rao Growing 170 pts · Accepted answer

Thank you for the honest take. This is the kind of answer I was looking for.not the sanitized version.

0
Replying to Sanjay Kumar
Ekta Choudhary Starting 45 pts · Accepted answer

This question comes up a lot. The answer really depends on your specific field and what your committee values.

0
Replying to Sanjay Kumar
Jaya Lakshmanan Growing 50 pts · Accepted answer

The Fulbright SoP is very different from a typical PhD SoP. It needs to focus on cultural exchange and diplomacy, not just research.

0
Rajesh Kumar · Accepted answer

If you are not already using a reading group format with your students, I would strongly recommend it. Forces everyone to articulate what they read.

0
Replying to Rajesh Kumar
Wajid Khan Growing 110 pts · Accepted answer

This is very reassuring. I was worried the null result would kill the paper but your framing around transparency and effect sizes makes a lot of sense.

0
Replying to Rajesh Kumar
Lakshmi Devi Growing 75 pts · Accepted answer

CSIR-UGC NET preparation: past papers are the most important resource. Everything else is secondary.

0
Tara Singh Starting 5 pts · Accepted answer

If you are not already using a reading group format with your students, I would strongly recommend it. Forces everyone to articulate what they read.

0
Nandita Ghosh Distinguished 720 pts · Accepted answer

As a senior faculty member (25 years in the system), I want to offer a different perspective. Yes, the pressures are real. But I have also seen the other side: students who produce excellent work, publish honestly, and build reputations over time. The system is imperfect but not entirely broken.

What has actually helped my students: choosing venues carefully (a few strong papers rather than many weak ones), developing genuine collaborations rather than transactional coauthorships.

0
Sunil Bhattacharya Active 390 pts · Accepted answer

The ethics review situation in Indian universities is actually more complex than most people realize.

There is no uniform national framework equivalent to the US Common Rule. Each institution has its own Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) or Institutional Review Board (IRB).

For anonymous survey research with no identifiable data and no vulnerable populations: most Indian IECs would classify this as exempt, but 'exempt' still needs a formal determination from the IEC.it is not self-certifying.

My practical advice: go to your institution's research ethics office now, describe what you did, and request an exempt determination in writing. Better to have documentation than to discover the issue during thesis review.

0
Revathi Chandrasekaran Active 410 pts · Accepted answer

For Zotero vs BibTeX management, I moved to Zotero + Better BibTeX 3 years ago and have not looked back.

My workflow:

  1. Zotero browser connector captures papers instantly from ArXiv, Google Scholar, ACM DL, IEEE Xplore
  2. Better BibTeX generates a clean .bib file that auto-updates whenever I add a paper
  3. Overleaf directly pulls from the .bib file via Dropbox sync

One tip: create a Zotero collection per paper/project. When you export the .bib, export only that collection to keep it clean.

0
Quamar Ahmed Growing 65 pts · Accepted answer

I found that writing a paper abstract first (before the paper) and then reverse-engineering the paper from the abstract helped with clarity enormously.

0
Indira Balan · Accepted answer

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