Adam Redman, Senior Media and Issues Manager from the Monash Office of Strategic Marketing and Communications.

Julie Holden and Helen will help the students to develop their own research profiles.


Adam talked about his own stories about managing his profiles. He will use different profile systems for different purposes. For example, Linkedin for commercial or academic purpose, Facebook for private use. He separate them very clearly.

Julie and Helen showed us several examples of research profiles from some Monash academic staffs. Some use the Monash profile system, some use their own website, some use other platforms.


After the seminar, we all aware the importance of research profiles. This also remind me some words from one of my teachers (Prof. Jiawan Zhang) from Tianjin University, China: “Reasearch work is definitely important, but sometimes, promotion is as important as your work, or even more.”

Research profile is a quick way for people who need you to solve their problem to find you. With the development of internet, search engine could index you with several key words and makes you more easily access.

For our PhD students (or academic people), I think the must-have profile is the Google Scholar which will detail all your publications (i.e. your most successful works). There are also other profile systems, here are the systems I used (although I do not have too many publications…):


Tim Dean is the presenter for this seminar. He has been a science and technology writer and editor for over 15 years. His work has appeared in print and online in numerous outlets around the world, and he has been the editor of Cosmos, Australian Life Scientist and PC & Tech Authority magazines. He also holds a doctorate in philosophy. He is currently section editor for The Conversation.


Tim Deam introduced the The Conversation webstie to us. Actually that was the second time I heard this website. Dom (my PhD classmate) recommmend it to me several monthes ago.

The Conversation is an independent, not-for-profit media outlet that uses content sourced from the academic and research community.

As we all know, publications are the life for academics. It is very important for us to know this platform because it is another alternative where we can publish our research. When people talking about publications, they often talk about academic conferences and journals. But in fact, research need more public awareness and the conversation platform is a possible way to make it.

Tim Deam also talked about how to write a post for the conversation, how the editoes and researchers work together,the repost guidlines and quite a lot other things in the conversation which gave us a better understanding of how it works.


The Conversation only alow authors to write on a subject on which they have proven expertise. I think this is also their way to control the quality of the posts. However, this could be a big barrier for our PhD students, as it is hard to say we are an expert in such area. In this case, I think it is really hard for PhD students to publish some work or comments on the Conversation.

Another concern is the Conversation does not have a peer-review process, in which case, the quality of the content is only relying on reputation of the authors. If his/her comments were not correct, the audience might be mislead.

If a “new” peer-review process is introduced to the Conversation, first, the posts from our PhD students are more likely to be accepted and the quality of posts will be improved. The conversation could still differ its self from traditional academic publication by its writing style as the style of the Conversation is much more casual.


Professor David Green, Associate Dean Research. He has a research experience in writing grant application and also he has been the reviewer for grant applications for many years.


Porf. David Green showed us plenty of examples of real grant applications and also lead us to analyse the strength and weak points in these applications. We also wrote our own brief first pagrahpy of our research topic.


The most impressive thing is the effect of changing a title. Prof. David Green showed us one example with an improved title, the application suddenly catch our eyes. I also found that it is really hard to write the first paragraphy, you need to include all important thigns and make it interesting.

At first, I think grant application is the same as writing a paper, but actually they have different focuses. In grant application, actually you have not finished the work yet, you have to make a clear and impressive presentation of the potential outcome and also convince other people your plan will work. In a conference or journal paper, you have already fnished the work, the result is very important, but also the procedures of your experiments.

At first, I actually didn’t know what a bootcamp is. I only pay attention on the work “camp”, and thought it should be a kind of relaxing event…It finally turn out to be a very intensive program.

To me, the most valuable results from the bootcamp could be concluded as:

  • getting to know a lot of other people!
  • some word from the Chancellor

The Bootcamp was a 2 days and 1 night event, consists of workshops, seminars and 1 day presentation of the creative ideas from the students.

First night

That was the best! Because of the dinner! ;-)

Just joking. We had a great Italian dinner this night and Doron gave a speech about his stories of start-up companies.

The main idea lie behind is “Who cares?”. I think not only with the business issues, but also when we want to do some research stuff, we really need to consider this question carefully. Who will really pay attention to our outcome!

First day

The daytime was mainly in workshops. Jordon introduced his experience with the company 4DX P/L which is supported by Monash. I cannot understand a bit about the techniques, but I was absolutely sure his experience inspired a lot of the students here. Especially his decision of going to Japan in his PhD, I think it should take plenty of courage to make it.

The IP topic, to be honest, it was not that interesting, but very informative. The first thing I know is a patent will definitely cost a fortune which is not affordable for a student. So if we really want to apply a patent, we’d better find someone to support, either a company or the university. And sometime, we do not need a patent to protect the IP, we may think to keep the secret only within several related people (like CocaCola & Pepsi). The last thing I learned from this workshop is we cannot apply patent if we already published our idea, so if we really want to publish sth and keep a patent at the same time, we must be careful about the sequence to do these two things.

Micheal shared a story about how to cure a very expensive disease with little money. The students came out of variety ideas, unsurprisingly, most are about charity. In this story, the way actually is quite straight-forward:

  1. search the ingredients in the medicine
  2. find the DNA pattern of the patient
  3. find a company to match this two things
  4. inject the medicine himself

In this way, we can cut down the price from $1M to $1000, but with a lot of unexpected risk. But at the point what you should choose? What we have will determine what can produce.

Chris talked about his extraordinary experience with his companies. He also introduced his story about how to rise money for his first company. Actually from his friends and families. According to his words:

Money is good , but some is better than others

Finally, we came to the talk from the Chancellor Dr Alan Finkel. Alan moved to US when he started his first company. The reason he moved to US is simple, for his wife. What a beautiful story. Apart from this, I think Alan believed he can achieve something wherever he came. I should keep this faith for myself.

Last day

Students presents the ideas about their creative projects. Everyone did a great job. Our team was presenting an idea to make every people to take the job as a post-man.

I really enjoyed the workshop quite a lot, and I will strongly recommended if you have a chance to enter.

Good luck!

Beginning questions

This workshop is very vivid, as Sue brought us a industry expert Judith. Judith gave us two key questions to think about:

  • Who are the real customers?
  • Something seems free, but who is paying? and how?
    To be honest, these two questions make me think it is too “deep and complex” when talking to money…

Empathy Map

Judith also introduced as an analysis tools, called the Empathy Map, which is extremely interesting and useful.

In the Empathy Map, we think from the customers’ perspective, and filling each blanks. In this way we can get a better understanding of what the customers are really thinking about.

Poster evaluation

We were divided into groups and looking at posters from previous PhD students. After comparing different posters, by making comments ourselves, we know what is more important to a poster. To me, apart from the research content, the priorities should be as following:

  • visual attractive (clear)
  • logic flow (good layout to guide you read through)
  • title
  • consistent of the content
  • easy to find the important messages

This workshop mainly talked about how to communicate with academic people. I think the topic is rather important, especially if we want to go for a “pure” academic career. We need to know how to present the work to other researcher, the rebuttal for a review and etc.

Things before publishing

  • What to include?
  • Which part is the most important?

    As it is only impossible to tell every story at a limited space, we need to emphasis some more important parts. Actually, even if we had enough space, we need to have priorities, otherwise, readers will get confused about our stories, like one movie with 11 heroes or heroines.

  • What kind of audiences are you targeting?

    If some knowledge is very basic for all your targeting audiences, you may reduce this part. But if your audiences may do not understand certain parts, you’d better keeping all in detail.

    Writing a paper

    When you start writing, you already have the answers. The writing process starts with answer/conclusion.

    We need to consider content for different levels, global significance, disciplinary significance, technical significance?

    In different level, we need to include different levels of details.

    Talk to editors/reviewers

    The editors are the bridge between the authors and the reviewers.

    Steps to write an effective response:

    • acknowledge the reviewers’ comments, and explain how you understand the comments.
    • explain your previous actions on the comments
    • provide your action plan or finished actions

This workshop is very informative, I think it gave us a better requisites of starting the PhD. The panel discussion about targeting journals and conferences in related research filed is very useful. In general, only good publication has good impact for our career. Also a good plan and strategy could contribute our research.


When a name is listed as a author on a publication, it at least mean one of the following:

  • Conception and design of the project
  • Analysis and interpretation of research data
  • drafting parts of the work of critically revising the content


  • student owns the copyright of his/her thesis
  • student owns the IP created during his/her research. except collaborative research

Data management

  • What’s your data?
  • What you want to do with your data?
    • creating
    • storing
    • sharing
    • publishing
    • discarding/archiving

Bibliographic management

  • I think the best practice is finding a good software and get familiar with it.
  • I strongly recommend Mendeley for windows and Paper for Mac.

Sue’s comment

Another thing I want to mention particularly is a comment from Sue.

When I asked

“What do you think is a more important metric for a good researcher, the number of publication or the number of citations?”

Sue answered without consideration “The citations”.

To me, this means we need to try our best to publish good things, and do not only pay attention on the number of publications.

Why we need ethics applications?

  • ensure ethically good human research
  • ensure the respect and protection of participants
  • clarify the responsibilities of institutions and researchers
  • clarify the responsibilities of review bodies

What kind of study need ethics applications?

  • survey, interview
  • people observed by researchers
  • access to personal documents and other materials
  • aceess to source or database ??? why, I am not sure
  • psychological, physiological or medical testing or treatment
  • collecting organs, tissues, fluids or exhaled breath
  • In summary, anything including human

My comments

I recently just applied an ethics application for my research project. The ethics application not only ensure the things I talked about in previous chapters, but also help me to make a clear clue what I want to do.

For example, our experiment is an on-line survey, we need to give the reviewers all the Email lists we want to advertise our survey, and the steps about our survey, which means we need to get everything ready before going for the ethics application. Moreover, all the information will be reviewed by experts from MUHREC (Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee). This also helps ensure the quality of your experiments.

PS: I have got my ethics approval successfully. ;-)

  • First make sure, two server can ping to each other.
  • Turn on forwarding by editing /etc/sysctl.conf: change net.ipv4.ip_forward to 1
  • Turn off the iptables service by command service iptables stop
  • Normal port forwarding
    Aim: Connect b port on B server through a port on A server. Use bash to execute

    iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d A.A.A.A -p tcp --dport a -j DNAT --to-destination B.B.B.B:b
    iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d B.B.B.B -p tcp --dport b -j SNAT --to B.B.B.B
    iptables -A FORWARD -o virbr0 -d B.B.B.B -p tcp --dport b -j ACCEPT
    iptables -A FORWARD -i virbr0 -s B.B.B.B -p tcp --sport b -j ACCEPT

    Reference Port forwarding in Centos

  • Ftp port forwarding

    • Load ftp module
      modprobe iptable_nat 
      modprobe ip_conntrack_ftp
      modprobe ip_nat_ftp
    • Aim connect 21 port on B through a port on A
      iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d B.B.B.B -p tcp --dport 21 -j MASQUERADE
      iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d A.A.A.A -p tcp --dport a -j DNAT --to-destination B.B.B.B:21
    • Save rules in iptable by service iptables save
    • Start iptable service by service iptables start

    Reference Ftp forwarding

  • SNV is a centralized version control system.
  • SNV has a configuration file for each project to configure the access right for different developers.
  • Multiple Project configuration
    Sometime, use one configuration for all file is easier for management. We will use this method in this post.

    • Choose a directory as the root, for instance /opt/svn/repos/
    • Create the code repository by command svnadmin create /opt/svn/repos/project2
    • Configure access right

      • create account file passwd in /opt/svn/repos/ with the following:
        test1 = test1
        test2 = test2
      • create file authz with the following:

        admin = test1,test2
        @admin = wr
        * =
        @admin = wr
        * = r

        This file presents admin group has test1 and test1 two users.

        Meanwhile, [/] part stands admin group has the write and read access right for all projects. [project1:/] stands admin group has the write and read access of project1 while other developers only have read access right.

      • Make project configuration point to the overall configuration
        Change /opt/svn/repos/project1/conf/svnserve.conf to the following:
        password-db = ../../passwd
        authz-db = ../../authz
        No blanks in front for all lines, otherwise, it will cause svnserve.conf: Option expected error.