Want to improve your writing? Stop using Grammarly

Grammarly is the worst thing to have happened to writing. It is too intrusive. It will tell you to change words and restructure sentences even though they are absolutely grammatically correct. That is because Grammarly is fixated on certain writing styles; it will change anything that does not fit Grammarly’s template. It will eventually rob your confidence and turn you into a clone of itself.

Good writing is about developing an individual identity, which Grammarly absolutely hates. Of course, you can use Grammarly for basic grammar checks by disabling the functions that take care of style-related changes. Then remember, you have paid for those functions. You can do basic grammar checks for free using Google Docs.

As someone who cannot write a single paragraph without making some errors like spelling and punctuation, particularly while writing LinkedIn posts, I needed a tool that can fix basic issues like spelling errors and comma splices. After a few months of trying unsuccessfully to customize Grammarly as per my needs, I decided to remove it permanently. A couple of months post Grammarly, I feel much better these days while writing.

These days I mostly use Google Docs. It lets you be what you are. Of course, Google Docs is not for someone who is still learning grammar. It will not bother to check contextual issues. In fact, Grammarly too misses contextual errors sometimes.

In doubt, mostly when I am in a hurry, I use ChatGPT for fixing grammatical issues. Remember, ChatGPT will work pretty much like Grammarly, that is, modifying sentences unnecessarily. I also do not like ChatGPT’s excessive use of em dashes (—). (If you see someone’s post having too many em dashes, safely assume that ChatGPT is heavily employed.)

If you want to use ChatGPT for fixing basic grammatical issues, use prompts like “Fix spelling and grammatical errors without doing unnecessary changes.” Find a prompt that works for you. Remember, ChatGPT will forget the prompt even within the same window due to limited memory. So, you will need to use the prompt again and again.

Of course, the best thing you can do is buy a book on advanced writing. There are many you can find in the market; choose one that is easily available and you are comfortable with.

Lack of skills in Indian academia? Blame the CEOs too

Indian CEOs often complain about the low skill levels among students graduating from technical institutions. They should realize they are actually part of the problem. The problem? Heavy reliance on written aptitude tests for campus recruitment. I am not sure if companies in any other major country follow this type of hiring process.
 
How is written test-based hiring the main issue? Consider an average IIT MTech student. After the coursework in the first year, the student is given one full year to work on a project. One year is sufficient to gain meaningful skills for real-life challenges. But what does the student actually do? A large percentage of the available time is spent preparing for written tests, and the project work takes a back seat. After a student is selected by a company, motivation for the project work further declines, as the student does not know how it will be helpful in the future.
 
Written aptitude tests are quite redundant. They only evaluate a candidate’s quick puzzle-solving skills, which have already been assessed by JEE or GATE. Needless to say, the campus recruitment process gives a very misleading picture of what constitutes a well-rounded personality suited to real-world challenges.
 
What can companies do? Strengthen your internship programs. Not only can you help participating students develop skills, but you can also create recruitment channels. Focus more on industry-academia collaboration. Visit academic institutions and give talks -- students should know what skills industries are actually looking for. Also, more importantly, academic institutions can play a key role in helping industries develop future technologies.

Publishing is becoming increasingly difficult for Indian scientists

 
The two main causes:
 
1. The open-access trend.
 
While the number of journals is increasing due to the widespread use of the internet, the number of journals accessible to Indian scientists is actually decreasing at a rapid rate due to the trend of publishing in open-access journals.
 
A few days back I asked my student to submit our manuscript to the Journal of Flood Risk Management. "It is an open-access journal," he said. I then figured out that the journal switched to open access in 2020. EGU journals have always been out of reach for us, and now all AGU journals have also taken the open-access route this year.
 
In case you are wondering why open access is a challenge for Indian researchers: Indian funding agencies do not provide funds for publication fees (nor should they, in my opinion).
 
2. Unlimited power of editors for desk rejection.
 
Editors are not required to provide any justification for desk rejections, as high rejection rates are often a bragging point for journals. Indian scientists are particularly disadvantaged, as the number of Indians on editorial boards is proportionally very low. Worse, an Indian editor may not necessarily be sympathetic to an Indian author, as we lack a strong culture of cooperation.
 
What could be an effective solution?
 
Indian scientists should come together to establish their own journals, as it is difficult to find a single Indian journal in many subject areas. For example, there is no credible journal on hydrological sciences from India. Moreover, publishing in an Indian journal is often viewed negatively within India itself.
 
Indian funding agencies have the power to change this trend by making it mandatory to publish in Indian journals. In this age of the internet, the location of the journal’s office should not matter.

Is desk rejection peer review?

Desk rejection is largely a perversion of peer review. Why am I saying this? Because journals call it peer review. Peer review demands that a manuscript be reviewed by subject experts or peers. Desk rejection, by definition, means the manuscript has not been sent to peers for review.

Can an editor be a peer reviewer? Yes. But, most of the times, we only see vague comments in the desk-rejection letter, which are absolutely unhelpful to the authors. Needless to say, the arbitrary power to desk reject provides a fertile ground for personal, racial, and other biases. This is exactly how desk rejection negatively impacts people from developing countries. It leaves them in a state of confusion and helplessness.

Journals often claim they are receiving an overwhelming number of submissions. That is an excuse. If the number of submissions increases, increase the number of editors. It is as simple as that. I am not saying there cannot be valid grounds for desk rejection. Desk rejection can help journals improve their impact factors by selecting articles, likely to be cited more.

However, it is wrong to label it peer review.

We don't need a centrally controlled education system

Trump has pledged to shut down the Department of Education. I support any move to reduce the role of central authority in framing educational policies. Education is too important to be left in the hands of a few bureaucrats at the center.

India would also benefit from downsizing the Ministry of Education. Excessive regulation has damaged our education system. Our students go to even Ukraine and Bangladesh for education. On the other hand, a relatively less regulated healthcare market has made India’s healthcare both high-quality and affordable, attracting patients from advanced countries.

A few days back, I came to know about Swaraj University, whose aim is to provide practically relevant education. Because its curriculum is very unconventional, it is not recognized by any authority. Without regulation, many more such experiments will happen.

However, we need to exercise caution in interpreting what politicians say. Politicians often mean something that is different from what they are saying. Modi, before the 2014 election, promised to downsize the central government. The central government actually has grown bigger in the last decade. I would like to hear what Americans have to say about the matter.

(On LinkedIn, November 2024)

Kartik Purnima: a celebration of globalization

Globalization is nothing new, and sea trade has always played a significant role in connecting people. About four thousand years ago, the Indus Valley had extensive sea trade links with the Middle East. The attached picture of an Indus seal shows a boat. Sailors followed coastlines for navigation, and you can easily spot two birds on the boat, which were used in emergencies. If a boat inadvertently lost sight of the coast, the sailor would release a bird to get back to a safe distance.

While the Indus Valley and its trade declined, possibly due to climate change, sea trade began booming along the coastlines of Kalinga (now Odisha). Merchants from Kalinga (called Sadhavas) dared to venture into deep seas because of advancements in astronomy. Their ships were large enough to carry together more than 700 merchants, along with the crew and even elephants, to distant locations in Indonesia and China (see the attached map). Of course, cultural exchange is always an unintended consequence of trade.

It is unfortunate that we now know so little about the methods they used for navigation and shipbuilding. Perhaps there is still time to recover some of this knowledge. I remember a fisherman who gave us a boat ride in Chilika Lake a decade ago, mentioning that they tracked stars and the sun for navigational purposes.

Contrary to the popular notion that the Dutch East India Company was the first to introduce large-scale financial institutions that accelerated global trade, temples in India actually served as financial hubs. They drafted contracts and provided other financial services to merchants. That is why they became prime targets of Turkic armies starting in the 13th century. Indians then gradually withdrew from the seas, and eventually, crossing seas became a taboo in India.

Nevertheless, the old memories have not faded completely. People in Odisha celebrate the sea-faring tradition of Kartik Purnima each year by floating boats on the water. Bali Jatra (voyage to Bali, Indonesia) is celebrated in a grand way in Cuttack. So, early this morning, we went to Powai Lake to float boats made of banana stems.

(On LinkedIn, Kartik Purnima, 2024)

Should we work for 70 hours a week?

Narayan Murty reiterates his view that Indians should work 70 hours a week. First of all, I have immense respect for Murty et al. for bringing the IT revolution to India. It has undoubtedly changed crores of Indian lives for the better. Nevertheless, I understand the backlash against his view.

Smruti Sarangi on LinkedIn makes a very important point. "In Delhi, a good UrbanClap employee (plumber/carpenter/electrician) does indeed work for more than 60-65 hours... Many IIT Professors start their day at 8 AM and are active till 11 PM (easily 12 hours of work time). If you consider a senior person like an IIT Director or a bureaucrat, you will find his/her calendar to be officially booked for about 50-60 hours per week.

Yes: The moral of the story is that many Indians, on their own volition, do indeed put in really long hours."

Let's take a deeper dive. Works can be classified into two broad types.

T1: The number of work hours is proportional to the value it adds. A security guard works at the gate for 6 hours. If the working hours increase to 12, it can be assumed that the value added has doubled

T2: The correlation between the number of work hours and the value it adds is very weak. A scientist spends 6 hours a day in the lab. It would be difficult to predict productivity if 12 hours per day were spent instead.

It makes sense if Narayan Murthy is talking about T1 work. However, the problem with Murthy's view is that it is silent on the compensation aspect. Yesterday, at 9 pm, I met a security guard in our housing society whose duty was supposed to end at 8 pm (8 am to 8 pm). He stayed on because the person in charge was absent. However, the main reason he took up the additional responsibility was that he would be paid for the extra 12 hours.

Extra work hours will not be seen as an issue in the context of the discussion here if, for example, Infosys decides to compensate financially.

There is no point in increasing the work hours if we are talking about T2 work. I never specify the number of work hours for my PhD students. It simply does not make any sense. All I can do is motivate them to work.

People give extra work hours when they see a purpose. For T1, the purpose is mainly financial compensation. For T2 work, the purpose is generally non-financial. Many politicians work extra hours because they genuinely believe the work they are doing cannot be done by anyone else. A few climate activists even risk going to jail because they think the planet will not be worth living without their work.

If Narayan Murthy is talking about our nation's development, his view is not only vague but also misleading. No nation attends greatness by treating its people as manpower suitable only for T1 work. Our IT companies have earned thousands of crores. How many products have they developed? How much have they invested in R&D?

(On LinkedIn, November 2024)