Do unethical acts that are tangential to methodology taint research? It's well-known that unethical acts can render research virtually unpublishable, but the cases we hear about tend to involve situations in which the methodology is tainted - for example, fabrication of data or unethical experimentation on humans.

Do unethical or unlawful acts that are tangential to actual research methodology likewise taint research?

For example:

A researcher is unlawfully present in the country in which they do the research, or lacks the legal status to do it there (e.g. overstaying visas, attending a university on a tourist visa, dodging a border checkpoint, etc.).
A researcher falsifies their academic credentials in order to get access to lab space, equipment, or grant money (e.g. the research itself is sound, but the researcher would not have been allowed unsupervised access to the university's microscopes had they known that he didn't actually have a PhD).
A researcher conducts research using stolen equipment or supplies.
A researcher commits a crime in order to hinder, delay, or incapacitate a rival researcher (e.g. sabotaging someone else's lab, murdering them, stealing their lab notes in order to deny them access to them, fabricating allegations to get them thrown in jail, deported from a country, expelled or fired from a university, etc.).
A researcher unlawfully uses performance-enhancing drugs without a prescription to maintain concentration on their work.
A researcher carries an unlawful weapon (e.g. concealed handgun without a permit, rifle unlawfully modified for full auto, etc.) for personal protection when gathering field data (e.g. where the researcher would have otherwise not gone there out of fear of violence).

Are there best practices or general principles on when such unethical acts taint research? Obviously, I'm not asking whether or not someone can, or should, get away with committing these acts, only whether or not they also would prevent publication. E.g. could someone say, "Yes, I blew up Dr. Smith's telescope and hit him with an axe so he couldn't beat me to publication, and I accept my 20-year prison sentence for that, but I was, in fact, the first to complete a spectrographic analysis of that planet and write it up so I should still be allowed to publish."?

This is not a request for personal advice! I'm just curious as to what actually happens or is supposed to happen in these cases.

My "guts" say that this would depend on the degree of non-academic misconduct - for example, that murdering a rival would prevent publication while parking unlawfully in a no-parking zone in order to make it to a meeting on time would not, but is this actually the case? Is every case evaluated independently, or is there a bright-line rule?

First, I think there is an important distinction to be made between unethical and illegal.

While most things that are illegal are also unethical (e.g., murder, theft), there are many cases where the laws themselves are either clearly unethical (e.g., slavery) or may be considered unethical by a reasonable person (e.g., prohibitions on stem cell research).

Let us thus consider only unethical acts unrelated to research, whether illegal or not.  Here, I think there are at least two good motivations for considering unethical acts that do not directly call the methodology into question:

Concern about honesty: If you find out that somebody has been gratuitously lying in other aspects of their life, it's entirely reasonable to wonder whether they would feel comfortable lying in their research as well. Motivation matters here: a person lying to protect themselves or to cover a sexual infidelity is not particularly relevant, while a person lying with the intention of advancing themselves or hurting others is of much more concern. In this case, there is no "smoking gun" indicating results should be withdrawn, but it would be entirely reasonable to do a careful process re-review of their work for validity in the light of the new knowledge.
Punishment: If a person does terrible things that damage the scientific community or the larger community, one may wish to exile them and their research as part of the punishment, in order to make it clear one should not expect to profit from such behavior. This is clearest in the case of unethical acts directly related to research, such as sabotaging a rival or non-consensual medical experiments, even when they don't invalidate the methodology and conclusions. It's less clear what one should do about the scientific legacy of say, an abusive rapist who happens to also be a highly successful mathematician.

There is still no clear consensus on what to do in such cases, even in the case of Nazi medical research.  Personally, I favor the approach suggested by some of using only when no other citation is possible, and then without a formal citation and with inclusion of an explanation of why this research is problematic. Should this be extended to lesser criminals like rapists and abusers?  Unclear, though I think it's certainly worth considering for those who poison a scientific community with their behavior.


PhD dissertation different from master thesis; What might I be able to do about methodology? I understand that it's possible, thankfully, to have your dissertation in a different topic from your master's thesis, but I seem to have a problem (see below). Do you know any other problems might I run into?

Background on me:

I am finishing up my master's in mathematical finance and now plan to pursue a PhD with my dissertation being in stochastic analysis/calculus, a branch of mathematics used in finance and physics.

My background on stochastic analysis:

I have had 3 classes related to stochastic analysis and 2 classes applying the concepts.

My thesis, being on the P-side of mathematical finance, has extremely little relevance to stochastic analysis, which is more used in the Q-side of mathematical finance.

The ONLY time stochastic analysis ever came up was encountering something in a paper that gives probabilities in the Q-side, and I thought of using a theorem to convert them to the P-side but later found out the paper was unnecessary or inapplicable (I forgot; I think I figured out another solution).

One problem I seem to have:

Some PhD applications seem to require a PhD proposal including a hypothesis, literature review and methodology.

I am not quite sure how mathematical research is conducted. Most of my research has been mainly in finance and statistics. What might I be able to do about this?

I am considering taking a second master's if needed but hopefully it need not come to that.

If you are accepted into a PhD program, you should consider your dissertation topic to be independent of, and separate from your masters thesis topic. A PhD dissertation is fundamentally different from a Masters thesis.  A PhD dissertation is expected to make a new contribution to research (however small), whereas a Masters thesis is a summary and application of existing research.  PhD dissertations are a deeper dive into a topic or research questions, and an attempt to shed new light on the topic or questions.

You may have a Masters thesis that leads naturally into a deeper investigation as a PhD dissertation.  Or not. You should focus your attention on the topics and questions that motivate your interest in a PhD.  What are the core, unanswered questions?  Which of these questions can you, with your skills and interests, address with some chance of success?

Leave behind the details of your Masters thesis.  Focus on what you have learned in the process, and what new skills or capabilities you have.  Now, with these insights, you should engage with surveys of research in your field -- those describing the unsolved problems or most critical questions.  How does your experience, education, and interests lead you to engage with these unsolved problems or critical questions?


Is it advisable to email director of graduate studies inquiring about the application status? I am applying for a PhD in mathematics, and xxx is my top choice. They have sent out their first round of offers. I want to know whether they have more offers to make or not. Is it advisable to email their director of graduate studies with this question?

From my experience, you may if you think it is long overdue, as in if the expected deadline for your school "xxx" to send out all offers of admissions has elapsed. If that is the case, then it is okay to send in an inquiry email regarding the status of your application.

Most schools usually send out the first round of admissions to very outstanding applicants first, then in that order. Also, domestic students often receive their admission offers first before international students do. These are the most obvious graduate school admission process but other applicant-unique factors may account for the delay in hearing back from your school. So you may have to factor all these in to see if you should have heard from your school or not regarding your application status. Contacting them before the given deadline for admission offers to end may paint a rather not so good image of you to them.

In my case, apparently the school had received more applications that year for that program than anticipated and so the selection process was rather complicated. I waited for the given time (month) all admissions (both international and domestic) to elapse before I contacted the graduate secretary. They immediately replied explaining the difficulties they faced that given year and the status of my application. Apparently I was placed on their waiting list. I hope this helps :)


Contacting journal editor asking for final decision after all reviews were submitted weeks ago? Should I email the editor of a journal to ask for a final decision on an article when I know that all reviewers' comments were submitted weeks ago? The online article submission interface shows me that all reviewers' comments are submitted.

I'm applying for jobs in a few weeks, and I'd like to be able to add an R&R to my CV if possible.

If writing to the editor is appropriate, what can I say?

Make sure you wait at least 3-4 weeks if you do choose to write, so you're sure the Editor is not planning to ask another referee (this can happen if your paper has both positive and negative reviews).

Be polite; asking for a "final decision" sounds too blunt, and is best avoided.
Also, there is no need to remind the Editor that the reviews are done, they know that already. Something along the lines of "I would be grateful for any updates on the status of my submission" should be adequate.


Which journals make peer review history documents publicly available? Nature Communications has had a policy since 2016 that authors are given the option to publish the peer review history of their paper.

Are there other journals with the same initiative?

The publisher Cooernicus has an open peer-review process, i.e. all peer-reviewer reports as well as the answers of the author(s) are published open access.


Why are all these papers exactly 10 pages long? I've been reading papers authored by professor A's PhD students. I have read about a dozen of papers by now, and realized that all of them are exactly 10 pages long. These papers were written by different PhD students and they were published in several different venues (very good ones). Is 10 the magic number for paper-length? (at least in professor A's field, which is computer science - human computer interaction)

Most American computer science conference papers are precisely 10 pages long, because most ACM conferences have a strict 10-page limit on proceedings papers.

(ACM is the Association for Computing Machinery, the primary professional society for computer science.)


When applying for a new job or fellowship, how to protect your ideas from being stolen by the lab you are applying to? If you want to change fields you have to explain the reason why you want to do that. In case of fellowship, you need some professor to host you and support your application, so you must contact him by email and explain to him what your idea is.

What can you do, if your application failed, but the laboratory you wanted to work with, will carry on with your proposed idea/research? They have resources, people etc., while there is no such laboratory in your country so you are stuck.

There is no legal reason why would they let you know how do they proceed, you do not know whether you should contact another laboratory, you cannot demand that you will be a co-author in case they are successfull.

I wouldn't worry about this, unless you have some reason to think you are particularly at risk for having an idea stolen.

Ideas are generally not the bottleneck in research.  Any experienced researcher will have many more ideas than there is time to investigate, and the hard part is actually carrying out the research well.  This means there is little or no incentive to steal untested ideas, especially in comparison with the risk of professional embarrassment from an accusation of theft.

When I've seen impressive ideas in graduate school or job applications, I've admired the applicant more than the idea.  Sometimes there have been cases where it would be exciting to work on this topic with the applicant, but
I've never seen a case where an initial idea was so obviously great in isolation that I wish I could take it up myself without involving the applicant.

That's not to say theft can't happen, but I don't think it's a likely or worrisome threat.  There's also not much you can do to prevent it in this scenario.  You can create enough documentation to prove that you had the idea yourself, but it's much harder to prove that the other person hadn't already had the same idea independently (which does happen on occasion).  You might be able to prove that someone behaved like a jerk by not telling you that they were competing with you, but you probably can't prove that they stole your idea.

Given that it's not a big risk and isn't easy to address, I'd recommend not worrying about it.


Should I mention NDS programs I am pursuing in my Masters application? I am applying to the GA Tech Online Masters in Computer Science for Fall 19. My undergraduate degree is not in CS, however my minor is and I currently work as a software developer. While the program is receptive to that kind of applicant, I am considering backup plans should I be rejected.

I am currently looking at various non degree seeking options as a way to knock out some additional CS course as a way to show my commitment and strengthen my application should I be rejected for the masters and need to reapply later.

My dilemma is that  I am unsure if I should include the NDS programs in the "other schools you are applying to" section of the masters application. I suppose a sub-dilemma would be the ethics of applying to an NDS program knowing that I would drop it the second I got into a masters.

Technically, a "Non Degree Student" program isn't another school you are "applying to", so, in an online application or a form, you probably shouldn't list it as if it were.

But it would be good to find a way to list such things elsewhere if you have the opportunity, such as in a personal statement. Getting more CS instruction will be seen as a positive thing no matter how you go about it.

I also doubt that there is any ethical constraint on you dropping out of any program if things change. There really is no expectation, especially in such a program, that you will complete it, and you leave no-one disadvantaged if you go.


Updated my literature review for my thesis I am doing my Phd study. My supervisor attended a new conference and after that, she asked me to update my literature review based on new works mentioned in this conference. I looked at all the presented works which are relative to my work, however, I just found the abstracts of these works. I contacted the authors and they told me that they did not publish their works and hence cannot share them with me. I tried to do what my supervisor asked me to do but I really cannot read the entire works and hence cannot understand what the authors did. So, what I have to do in this case? Do I need to just mention the abstract (which is really not enough to understand the methodology of the work)? Any help please?

Tell your supervisor and ask if she'll email the authors (ideally addressing emails to someone she met at the conference or already knows). She might be more successful than you, because she is more senior and because she was there (and because she knows them already).


Should I do a doctorate straight after my master or work for a while first? I have a BSc in Software Engineering, and I am now doing an MS in Software Engineering (taking more advanced courses and such).

Once I am done with my MS I would like to do a PhD in a software engineering related research topic, but I am not sure if I should get a job for a few years after my MS - or jump straight into a PhD?

With regards to long term goals I do not think I will want to do full-time teaching but I would like to do some part-time teaching (at University level, not picky about graduate vs undergraduate) alongside a professional career.

At this point I am not considering the monetary aspect of a PhD vs. a job. I would simply like to know if one approach is academically and professionally better than the other.

Thank you.

EDITIdeally, I would like to work with new, cutting edge technologies, and be an "expert" in my field - hence why I thought of doing a PhD. I would love to perform research as long as I can then apply the results in an industrial setting. At this moment I do not think I am interested in a pure research career.

EDIT 2
Thanks to everyone for their answers, it'l help me a lot. This isn't really a right/wrong answer question so unless an answer gets a huge amount of upvotes I won't be picking an answer.

I guess I should also add what I am currently leaning towards.
Bearing in mind I still have one year to make up my mind, right now I am thinking about one, maximum two, years of work then back to school for a PhD.
...but time will tell!

Work first. There're many reasons for this:

It's not true that you can't work with cutting-edge technologies without a PhD. You certainly can, and it might even be a better use of your time since you avoid the administrative processes that you must do with a PhD. Check out the various graduate programs that employers offer. There might be high entry requirements, but if you can do PhD studies you can clear that bar also.
You likely earn more. It's not just for the next 3-5 years that you need for a PhD. If you do a PhD, after you graduate, you'll need to find a job. If you get a job now, you'll already have a job. If you do well you might even command a higher salary in 5 years' time compared to entering the market as a fresh PhD.
You might find you don't need a PhD. This could especially be the case if you work with other PhD-holders. You might find that you have the same duties, or that you're already capable of doing what they do. In this case a PhD is not very useful for your career and you might as well stay put.
If #3 doesn't happen, then you have a better idea why you're doing a PhD. You know what you want to learn, why you want to learn it, and how that skill is going to be useful for you after you graduate.

It's my observation that people who work first and then go to a PhD are much more likely to have thought seriously about why they're studying. That is a good thing. I'm not saying you shouldn't do a PhD, but you should have good, clear reasons for why you're doing it to avoid possible future regret.


Thesis by monograph, Must I publish my papers? I am a Ph.D. student. My Ph.D. is by the monograph. I really do not exactly understand the requirements relative to the publication. That is, Must I publish all my papers. Or can I just write my thesis as a chapter with the result? Hence, I do not need to publish my chapters. I just would like to understand the requirement. I search in my uni, however, the information therein is not clear.

This will probably be closed because no one here can possibly know your institution's requirements. But, I'll take a stab at some general comments that apply to most institutions:

Thesis by monograph means writing a long "report" that your university approves.

Thesis by publication means stapling together a bunch of published papers.

In general, thus, if you are going for thesis by monograph, there is likely no requirement to publish. But, there are several good reasons to do so:

Papers are very important for you if you want an academic career (or any career in research)
Papers are very important for your advisor's and co-workers' academic careers. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if your advisor required/expected you to publish your good results
Papers are useful to the field as a whole, as papers are much more widely-read than thesis monographs

I should also clarify that publishing a paper does not mean just submitting a chapter from your manuscript to a journal. This is not the forum to describe how to publish papers; your advisor should help you with this.


Is Mathematical Research Stressful? Richard Hamming in his talk about research says that scientists have to put up with stress, and he talks about his ulcers (and he was amongst other things a mathematician). I thought mathematical research should be mostly thinking/ living a life of the mind and thus while involved shouldn't be anxiety-producing... Is mathematical research typically stressful? Are there good researchers that don't have stress?

I'm not a mathematician, but being an academic in a tenure-track position may be stressful itself if you're on a publish-or-perish program. I.e., either you generate (mathematical) results year to year in six or seven years or you get fired. The stress may not be in the work itself but in the built up angst thinking about how achieving each new result quickly is, and it can be so bad that sitting down to work on a new problem or even thinking about it can be stressful.


Can I write a thesis or paper without my school's support? I'm a Master's student, and I'd like to write a thesis, but my grade's don't qualify me (you need at least a 3.75/4.0 GPA). Can I just go ahead and write on? Is there anything I should be aware of?

I have a similar question regarding research papers. Can I just write and submit a paper to a conference?

Can I just write and submit a paper to a conference?

Yes, absolutely anyone can write and submit papers.  It's difficult to do a good job on your first attempt if you don't have any guidance from a mentor, but it's not impossible.

  I'm a Master's student, and I'd like to write a thesis, but my grade's don't qualify me (you need at least a 3.75/4.0 GPA). Can I just go ahead and write on?

Nobody can stop you from writing something, but it won't be a thesis.  You'll lack supervision from an advisor, which will make it much harder to do a good job, and even if you manage to do a good job the department will not accept it as a thesis.  (Bureaucracies don't work that way, plus working with an advisor is considered a crucial part of the process.)


Where to publish helpful, but informal papers? I have written an informal article 9 pages long, that covers some general, lightly technical material.  I wrote it because this material is not covered elsewhere, and I am knowledgeable in the field.  The material is light in the sense that it is not highly innovative, or even highly useful, but it is "good to know".  The subject matter is information security, with respect to radio systems.

I have posted the article on my personal webpage.  Should I bother to submit it somewhere for 'proper' publication?  It is not technical or innovative enough for IEEE or ACM journals (or even letters).  Or should I just keep it on my page for people with search engine inquiries related to the subject matter to possibly stumble across?

If you don't know where to publish something, but nonetheless it is of an appropriate standard and you consider it worth sharing, why not posting it to arXiv? You won't get prestige just for submitting, but:

people can find it,
you can easily point to it,
it is timestamped.


Postdoc application email with PI I came across an advertisement for a postdoc position at a US school. While I have a PhD from a (different) US school, currently I am in India (my home country). I had contacted the PI to check with her to see if visa support is available for this position. She replied saying that she will support my visa if the fit is right. She also gave me a small problem to work on and asked me to return my solutions in a week. I did. It's been two weeks since and I haven't heard anything back.

While I realize that there could be any number of reasons for not replying (such as she's busy, or no longer interested or waiting for more people to apply), a simple reply confirming the receipt of my solutions would help.

If anybody has any ideas as to what to make of this situation, please do share.

As you say, there are numerous possible reasons you may not have heard back yet.  I have been on both sides of this equation, waiting for a response and waiting for all the applications or letters of interest to come in, and although two weeks is a long time for you, it is not excessive for the employer/PI.

It is totally appropriate for you to politely contact this person and briefly reiterate your interest in the position, and say you want to be sure she received your answer/solution to the problem she posed.  This will also allow you to request information as to when to expect to hear back with a decision or next steps, and see if there is anything else she needs from you now.

It would be best not to go into the details of your Visa situation again at this time.  She's already answered that question.  If she responds positively to you and requests further information or an interview, you will be able to discuss the Visa at that time.  You don't want to sound pushy or needy at this point, but you do want to be assured she received your response and knows of your interest.

Good luck, I wish you the best.


Replying the rejection email from Professor Recently I mailed a professor for a PhD position and got a reply after two days.
The following is the reply I received from the prof.

  I am afraid we already found a candidate to fill this position.
      There will be other opportunities in the future in our group.
      We are truly sorry for not bringing more positive news, and I would like
      wish you the best on your job search.

A thank you and good luck reply is needed?

There is no reply needed from you to them.

Move on to your other applications.


What does "First Class or 2.1 Honours degree" mean? A PhD position for which I am planning to apply notes:

  Applicants should have (or expect to achieve) a minimum of a First Class or 2.1 Honours degree.

The position is in the UK, but I live in another EU country. What does "First Class or 2.1 Honours degree" mean, and how do I know if I satisfy that condition?

The grades at my university are given as fail, 3, 4 and 5.

The "definitions," such as they exist, of the different degrees, are available from Wikipedia.

Essentially, "first-class honours" and "2.1 (or 2:1) honours" are the top two categories of honors degrees in the UK system—sort of like the summa cum laude and magna cum laude in American universities. Although the requirements for awarding them appear to be fairly uniform between schools (with the possible exception of Oxford and Cambridge—see dbmag9's comment below), given that each university may have different standards for how they "translate" degrees from other countries, your best bet is to contact the university's international office (or equivalent), to determine if they will consider your degree to be comparable.


Are university professors allowed to use any computer they want for work? Do universities restrict the brand or manufacturer of computers their professors are allowed to use for work?
May a PhD advisor ban certain computer brands?
Are there any restrictions on using your own funding to buy certain brands of computers?
Corporate restricts company computers allowed for security reasons but the university doesn’t technically own any of the professors work or consider it their proprietary knowledge so are they allowed the control the electronic storage system of it?

University purchasing systems are very complicated and they are all different.  It is common for universities to make a contract with a supplier stating that they will use that supplier exclusively in exchange for a discount.  Often there will be loopholes.
Your supervisor can certainly refuse to purchase certain brands with funds the supervisor controls.
If you have a grant, you will be required to follow the university's purchasing policies.
Traditionally, most universities allow faculty and students to do their work using personal computers of any type.  However, this could be limited for confidential information.  There are laws limiting the use of educational and medical information which vary from place to place, and there are also policies.


What and how to write about these problems in my CV when I apply to phd program in Europe I completed my Masters in mathematics in my home country (a developing country in Asia) in June 2020. I applied to 6 professors to do a PhD in the last semester of my Masters. I was rejected for 5 and funding couldn't be arranged for the 1 in which I was accepted. So I thought I would try next year in both my home country and abroad (Europe). I didn't apply earlier to any of my home country's universities.
So, I started studying  for the qualifying exam in my home country while side by side studying some more to apply for PhD programmes abroad. I took the exam for PhD admission in my home country in December and received the result in early January. The result was lower than I had hoped for, although I don't yet know if I've been accepted.
My father is using this to make cruel comments to me, hurting my mental health. This contributed to me being depressed and missing several application deadlines for European universities. I completed only one application on time. Since then I have received medical help for my mental health problems.
How should I explain why I didn't apply to other programmes to the admissions committee of the university I did apply to ("university X")? Will it hurt my application if they know my father is against my decision or that I have had mental health problems? Should I lie (e.g. say I had COVID)?
If  I get an interview call from university X can I request to be interviewed later than other students so I have time to prepare?
I am really passionate about research and also returning to academia after quitting would be really hard for me. I don't want to do a PhD in my home country because my experience is that the quality of teaching is low.

I am handling PhD admissions for CS at a British university. None[1] of the information you mention in your post seems relevant for a PhD application to me. There is no need to say anything at all about how exactly you spend your January.
Similarly, preferences for interview dates should given in a far more generic way. For example, "I am unavailable on May 9th." or "I would prefer a later date over an earlier, if possible."
[1] Except that you got a MSc in Mathematics in June 2020, that is important of course.


Is it possible for an undergrad to publish in a journal without conducting experiments (using existing data)? Would it be possible to publish in a decent journal (not ArXiv) without conducting experiments? I was thinking of conducting some correlational research based on existing data (Ex. statistics collected by the government available to the public).

What are my chances of publishing as an undergrad based on existing data? Will journals accept this kind of publication? I am open to suggestions on how to go about doing this and whether it is a worthwhile undertaking?

In principle this is possible, however, when using data collected by somebody else you have to take great care not to produce bad science. Data collection is usualy performed with a certain specific application in mind, and when collecting data you have to make sure that the errors introduced in the collection process do not influence the final result in a way that is important for your purpose. If you use the same data for some other purpose your results will likely be affected by some bias.

So if you want to corelate oil prices with GDP growth, you are fine, but with more complex questions you are in real danger.


Gap year before post-doc? I have been in a rush to accomplish academic goals since I remember myself. Started my PhD right after undergrad and did my Masters on the same time. Now I am about to submit my thesis and feel kind of burned out, having spend so many years in a far from perfect working environment.

Academia has always been my goal (I like both teaching and research and I am not interested in industry), which is why I started a PhD on the first place, but I really feel I need a big break to think clearly of what I really want before applying for a post-doc. I also read this somewhere: "The rest of your life you are going to be a scientist. This could be your last chance to be something else. Take it."

So I thought a "late gap year" would be ideal for me. I would get to travel, which I love, volunteer in wildlife conservation and in schools of developing countries and take some time to clear my mind, so that when I am back, I can take the right decision for a post-doc and be totally dedicated in it.

Up to now I have a decent resume with a 5th paper in preparation (including first-authored) and several international conferences, fellowships and awards. However, I am very concerned on the impact such a gap would have on my CV, since I want to apply in high reputation universities/institutes, where competition is fierce.

Should I tell a future PI I did a gap year and if not, what would be the appropriate excuse for a year off? Also would this gap have an impact in future job-seeking (mainly for positions in academia)? Finally, I am also worried about the reaction of my current PI (who has been asking me lately, which lab I am planning to apply for a PD) when I tell him my plans. The last thing I want is a reference letter from an angry PI.

*EDIT*My field is Molecular Biology. I performed my PhD research at several European countries and I am flexible with post-doc positions (Europe/Israel/US/...) depending on the projects available.

As usual, if you include information about geographic location (both the current one and the one(s) in which you intend for the future) and your field, you can get more specific advice.  Advice which is generalized across all the world's academia is at times extremely superficial.

I will speak from the perspective of American academic mathematics.  In this subculture, taking a full year off before starting a postdoc looks bad: the competition for postdocs is extremely fierce right now.  For every postdoc position there are at least five other people who wanted that position but couldn't get it.  So employers really want to give jobs to people who are sure that they want them, not those who are feeling "kind of burned out" or "need a big break to think clearly of what I really want".

If you take a full year off instead of applying for postdocs, then unless you have something amazing to show for yourself at the end of that time, the year off will definitely hurt your applications.  Whether or not you can actually do work during a "year off" seems highly field dependent: in mathematics this is certainly possible; in laboratory science this seems much less feasible.

Here is some advice that I would offer you:

1) If you want to take some length of time off, try to secure a job upon return before you take the time off.

If this happens then in some sense you do not really have an employment gap, and that will look much better on your CV.

2) Consider taking a smaller amount of time off than a year.

A year is a really long time to put aside one's career.  In fact many people would have trouble supporting themselves (especially if they have families or dependents, which I guess you do not) over such a long unpaid stretch.   It is also more than enough time for your academic skills to atrophy.  In some academic fields (pure mathematics not so much, although in some subfields this could still come into play) a year off is enough to make your entire research program less fresh and cutting edge.  Anyway, imagine that you are competing with many talented young people who spent the first year after getting their PhD working their butts off.  Do you really want to spot them an entire year headstart?  As other people remarked in a closely related question: whether it is fair or not, you should imagine that a big clock in the sky starts ticking the second you receive your PhD.  From that point on, people will be evaluating your work not just in an absolute sense but relative to the time elapsed from that point.  Adding in an extra year makes almost anyone's profile look much less strong.

I think you should consider taking a shorter amount of time off: either a semester or a long summer.  As the American academic calendar runs, you will have a built-in vacation of about three months just by virtue of being an unemployed PhD over the summer.  I really enjoyed this time: I moved into an apartment downtown in the city where I grew up but hadn't spent more than a few weeks at a time for my entire adult life.  It really was refreshing and recharged my batteries.  However, it also depleted my savings: by the time the new semester rolled around, I really needed the paychecks.

If you need much more than three months' break from a career, you should ask yourself: are you sure that this career is really for you?


Can cited works hold grammatical positions in sentences? Though I read this style quite often, I was recently told unambiguously by a reviewer that I was NOT supposed to use citations "as if they are objects in a sentence."  The following sentence is an example of what the reviewer considered unacceptable:

  We analyzed the data using the Wilmerding method, guided by [12].

The references section might include the following:

  [12] Smith, D., Marshawn, J., & Devenshaw, A. 2011. Techniques and
  Procedures for Applying the Wilmerding Method.  Prince Publications,
  Inc, New York, NY.

The Wilmerding method1 is not a step-by-step algorithm that can be precisely followed as if by a machine, and thus [12] does not provide a step-by-step algorithmic description but rather guidance for using  the method. [12] is a relatively slim but authoritative textbook about how to use the Wilmerding method.

Within this question, for the purpose of discussion, I have intentionally put [12] in grammatical positions where it's an important element of the sentence and the sentence would make less sense without the reference.  Sometimes that seems to be the most efficient way to communicate the intended message.  Is using a reference as a grammatical sentence element like this OK?   Why might this not be considered acceptable?   Should I be rewording those sentences?  Is it enough of a violation to be worth passing the note on to authors of papers I review?

I considered posting this on EL&U but it seems more specific to academia than general English usage, and the comment came from a content reviewer rather than a copy editor.  This question is related but it seems to be more about when to put authors names' in vs. outside of the parentheses in an APA-like style.

The numbered citation style (as opposed to following APA, for example) is required by the venue.

1: Fictionalized for the purpose of this discussion

Conceivably the reviewer objected to the non-mention of peoples' names, thinking that should write "guided by J. Doe [12]" or "guided by [Doe12]" or "... by [Doe2011]"... Something in that direction would be my preference, also, since numbers in a bibliography are completely artifactual, not really adding any information. Names are far more informative.

But, still, it's possible that the objection was completely stylistic, so ... "it's just a rule"... which means rational discussion of it is presumably out-of-bounds. Such things seem silly to me, but I am acquainted with people for whom such rules are the only defense against Darkness and Chaos, etc.

I'd not comment on such things in any review/referee-report I wrote, but I can imagine some might. The operational point probably is that if the referee chose to mention it at all, it means they do have that particular fetish, so just comply if you want approval. But don't "pass it on", if you were to ask my opinion... :)


Points to remember when having to write recommendation letter yourself While it is an unethical academic practice, it is a fact that most recommendation letters for MS degrees in US and Europe from countries like India and China are written by students themselves. Students apply en masse; the faculty strength in departments in many universities is small; the few professors hardly get the time to write recommendations for all applying students. Moreover a 4-year engineering degree is dominated by coursework and professors are unlikely to get to know students outside the classroom.

Let us set aside the question of whom to blame for this practice and look at the question that comes up on most applicants' minds:

"In the event that I have to write a recommendation letter on my own, what are the points I need to bear in mind?"

I have the following points:

Ensuring similarity of language among all letters from a particular professor
maturity of presentation and avoidance of blandishment
Creating tonal differences among different recommendation letters.

Could someone elaborate on these points? The third one is oft-quoted but is found to be very tough to execute in practice.

The ethics of the question is moot here; this practice is widespread, and the questioner is asking for a solution to his problem, not for an ethical reform of the international academic community.

The guidelines for such a letter would be identical to writing any other letter of recommendation. If you must write your own and have a professor sign off on it, read up on how to write a good letter of recommendation and follow any tips you may come across. You probably have little to no experience writing letters such as this one; there are many subtle nuances, both in what you say and in what you don't say. Take the time to write it correctly. If you find yourself completely stuck, ask someone else with experience to write it.

If you're having difficulty writing a letter about yourself, imagine you're writing about a colleague who has done all the things you have done. It may make the task easier.

Regarding trying to mimic the professor's style, if he asked you to write your own letter, then he likely asked all his other students to write their own letters. There will be no consistent style, and that will be a reality of this individual's letter. If the department/faculty member receiving the letter has received letters from this professor in the past, this likely will count against you, and you should consider that when asking this person for a recommendation.


How related should be the postdoc subject to my PhD topic? I've started to look for postdoc possibilities as my PhD is getting closer to its end (in 6-7 months).

My PhD was in the area of Machine Learning and more specifically motion data analysis (and even a more detail subset of that!). So at the start i focused on the institutes which are doing that specif type of research at the moment. But my supervisor told me that generally it is not advisable to continue the exact line of research which i did in my PhD! He suggested other areas of Machine Learning or even interdisciplinary topics like Robotics!

By heart, i trust him about his advice, but i'm still puzzled! For example if i want to apply for a postdoc advertisement, don't i have to show i gathered relevant skills and experiences during my PhD? and of course during my PhD i gathered skills mostly related to my topic of research and have published also mainly in the same sub-field.

Well, definitely there are few areas different than my PhD's which i really like to work on, for example the link between Robotics and Machine learning and etc. But how can i show i have a strong profile when i want to apply for a category not close to my PhD topic?

Your postdoc gives you an opportunity to demonstrate two key traits of successful researchers: independence and flexibility.  Both of these traits are essential for succeeding in any tenure-track faculty position.  Consequently, building a reputation for these traits is essential for being hired into a tenure-track faculty position.  Faculty hiring committees look for people who will succeed on their own, and who will remain successful over several decades as the field evolves around them.

Independence

Right now your research reputation is deeply entangled with your advisor's.  The research community knows your advisor better than they know you.  If you've never published without your advisor, the community has no direct evidence of your research abilities.  Even if you did most of the work, and even if your advisor tells everyone that you did most of the work, the community will give your advisor more credit than you.  After all, your advisor's opinion isn't exactly unbiased; they have a vested interest in making you look good.

The only way to build an independent research reputation is to publish independently.  At a minimum, this means publishing strong papers without your advisor.  Even better is to write strong papers with new ideas/techniques that can't be traced back to your advisor.  Solo followup papers on joint work with your advisor are good, but some people will still think the key ideas are your advisor's, and you're just cleaning up the low-hanging fruit.  Better to strike out completely on your own.

Flexibility

Most PhD theses focus on a narrow collection of closely related problems, which are solved using similar ideas/tools/techniques.  No matter how strong your thesis results are, if you've only ever done one "thing", then people will wonder if that's all you can do.  So if all your research has been on reinforcement learning of human motion for animation synthesis from Kinect data, the research community will think of you as someone who works on reinforcement learning of human motion for animation synthesis from Kinect data.  But what you want is for people to think of you as an expert in reinforcement learning, or an expert in animation synthesis -- or even better, an expert in machine learning more generally.

The only way to develop a reputation for broader expertise is to demonstrate broader expertise.  That doesn't mean you have to suddenly switch to a completely different field — you do want to exploit the expertise you already have.  But something significant needs to change—for example, statistics instead of reinforcement, or animals instead of humans, or robot motion planning instead of animation synthesis, or YouTube videos instead of Kinect data, or all of the above—that requires you to develop new ideas and new techniques.


Credibility of non-journal online publications When publishing in some popular scientific journals, it is easy to understand that it is worth referring to in your CV, job applications, or elsewhere when it is appropriate to talk about your publications.

But what if your publication is not in some scientific journal known worldwide with 50 years history, but on some online web-site, that is definitely not considered to be very scientific and professional among universities, but at the same time it is quite popular among researchers. I mean it has quite big number of people (tens of thousands daily) using it daily, contains many articles on some kinds of research written by researchers themselves, posting comments pointing out the mistakes, etc.

Is it worth mentioning or would it be considered not respectful enough place to be published?

And moreover, what if you "publish" some research on your own blog? Suppose it is popular enough to be considered published paper (i.e., few hundreds or thousands of people have actually read it).

Of course you could ask, "Why not then publish it in the respectable journal?" I would answer that publications I am talking about are not some breaking news or anything, rather just some experiments, that yielded some results, explained couple of things, but not new in any sense, i.e., it is more of educational publications saying "Hey, you can do this and this is how, check it out", probably repeating some experiment done by others, but with more explanations, research, etc. Such publications are not suitable for many journals and I would suspect many journals would not even consider printing it, so it basically can't go further than internet article, though it can get pretty scientific.

One problem with the blog and the website is the quality assurance. A peer-reviewed article guarantees that your research at least meet the quality of that specific journal. Of course some issues exist with the peer-review system but at the moment it is the common way. Everyone can open a blog and popularity does not imply good research. I would suggest submitting the work to a regular journal, and write a shorter blog entry for communication and discussion.


Share examiners assessment on LinkedIn After my PhD I received the diploma with the (external and one internal) examiners final recommendation that was used to award my PhD.  Because my Ph.D. wasn't graded and this recommendation is very positive, I want to share it on my LinkedIn profile. Is there anything that prevents me from doing this? I cannot really see any problems but I haven't found anyone else doing it.

I think the most significant issue is whether anyone would know (or bother to find out) what "very positive" means in the context of some specific university's usage. Moreover, for academic purposes, very soon after your Ph.D. something like this becomes either trivial and distracting (because subsequent references to your dissertation and/or your publications in general will supersede anything this honor is likely to provide) or pretentious (if subsequent references to your dissertation and/or your publications in general are nonexistent or few). On the other hand, for non-academic purposes, it might be fine to do this.


Why do universities support faculty writing textbooks? Textbooks take a lot of time and effort to write, so why would a university support their faculty to do so? The author can make a good profit from a textbook and I am guessing the institution doesn't get any of these profits.

What about the grad students that edit and also work on the textbook? It seems as if they are working to fill the faculty member's pocket while being [partially] supported by the department/university and expected to do research.

All of this seems odd to me since it seems like the author is just using the university's resources to generate personal revenue, so why do universities support/allow their faculty to write textbooks?

If you need context, I am talking about in the US and specifically a freshmen/sophomore CS course's textbook.

Textbooks take a lot of time and effort to write, so why would a university support their faculty to do so?

Why wouldn't they?  Writing textbooks is an important form of scholarship, with great influence on the field, and this is something universities should strongly encourage.  The only reason I can think of not to support textbook writing is the profit issue, but this is not generally an important factor, since very few textbooks make a lot of money.

The fact that U.S. faculty are allowed to keep the royalties from textbooks they write is a historical contingency, and there's no reason why the system has to work that way.  However, I think it's a good system in practice.  Overall, the incentives to write good textbooks are too low, since both the financial rewards and the academic rewards are generally small compared with the time commitment.  Removing the (small) profit motive would leave the incentives even lower, and I think the net effect would outweigh the tiny increase in university funding.

  What about the grad students that edit and also work on the textbook? It seems as if they are working to fill the faculty member's pocket while being [partially] supported by the department/university and expected to do research.

If grad students are being enlisted as unpaid labor, then that's a real problem, but in my experience it's not common.  If there's any prospect of nontrivial royalties, then it's unethical to ask students to work without compensation.  Furthermore, the arrangement needs to be formal enough to include a copyright transfer (otherwise, the students will own the copyright to their contributions).


Asked to tutor in a class I am currently taking I am in an accelerated Master's program in Engineering, we are taking a Probability course. At this time the class is review for me (I have a B.S. in Mathematics), we are moving very fast though.

One of the other students asked if I would be willing to tutor them, and offered to pay me for the time.

My main worries are that 1. I will get to a point where I am trying to summarize information I have just learned, 2. That I will have a good mathematical explanation but miss the point in plain English, and 3. that tutoring will cause me to not have enough time to study myself.

With those misgivings in mind, would it be more ethical/reasonable to just give some advice for free or to set up payment plan? I am not just going to say "No, I won't help" but if I was charging I would want to be able to give their money's worth.

Like most things in life, being open and honest is a good policy.

Since you (presumably) are not close friends with this individual, and he is asking for assistance it is reasonable to request compensation as a tutor.  Every person on this planet has finite time and resources.  Having a near stranger request time should result in some kind of compensation, mutual friendship, or you should decline.

You can tell him that you're happy to catch him up to where you are while tutoring him, but if the topic advances faster than your learning, either work through the problems with him at a reduced rate (or free if you feel like it's equal contribution) or simply suggest finding another tutor at that point.


Should I cite a paper that I haven't read if I use a theorem in it? In my Master's thesis I use a theorem that is recent enough that I could find the article where it is proved, but I've actually learned the theorem and its proof in two books by other authors. Is it necessary to cite the original article, knowing that I haven't actually read it?

It depends how well-known and wide-spread the result is. If by now it is a very well-known  result and the publication already happened quite some time ago, it may not be necessary to quote the original paper.
In doubt I'd quote the article and the books, or at least one of the books. A possible formulation could be:

  The result below is due to Paul [reference to article]; we recall it in the form given in a monograph by Miller [reference to book].

I do not think it is necessary to have read the original paper to be entitled to write this. If it is not too much work to track it down, it could still make sense to at least take a peek at the article you quote.


Uploading articles to Google Scholar How to upload my journal articles to Google Scholar and get it appeared immediately?

Log in, go to your profile, click the "+" icon, and select "Add article manually". Then fill in the details and it will appear on your profile immediately.

However you cannot upload a pdf to Google Scholar or anything like that. Google Scholar is not a repository. And the citations will only appear after the crawler finds it on the internet.


Why do some universities not have a comprehensive exam? I spotted that some universities do not have a comprehensive exam for their PhD students while it is standard at most universities (specifically for computer science). For what reasons do some universities drop the requirement of comprehensive exam? What is the impression towards someone who has graduated from no-comprehensive department?

My department does not have a comprehensive exam. The most frequent reason I have heard is that we don't need it. On the other hand, some other departments in our university have comprehensive exams and I have heard that they are primarily used to weed out students after the first year.

I will venture to say that there is absolutely no impression towards graduating from a no-comprehensive program. Research job committees look at publications, letters of recommendation and research experience. Graduates from my program have found jobs wherever graduates from similar programs find jobs.


Publication charges are not sent to the right address? I am disappointed that I can not get an answer about a submitted article for publication in a journal.
I receved the acceptation for final publication, then I paid the publication fees by Western Union according to the recommendations that I received by the publisher on my account. I sent the payment order then I receved the Acceptance letter and the Payment Receipt indicating successfully received money with changement of the article status to : Revised Manuscript has been accepted for publication.
After two days I get an mail telling me that the mailing address of the publication fees is incorrect !
I try to communicate with the journal editor for several days but I do not receive any answer.
What can I do !

Thank you for your help

Regards

I'm afraid there is an extremely high likelihood that you have been scammed, by a predatory journal or just a run of the mill scammer.

The first red flag is the requested use of Western Union. Any payment requested by Western Union is highly suspect - I have never once encountered a legitimate use of Western Union or Money Gram other than to personally send gift money to a family member personally known to you, and never as a payment for anything. I've never heard of any legitimate publisher of any kind using either service.

The next red flag follows from the first, about the "mailing address of the publication fees" being wrong. They are trying to get you to pay them again, and will likely come up with some nonsense story about how you can get the other money refunded but they need proper payment right away to the "correct" address or they won't be able to publish your article (or some other lie). They will do this over and over again, so long as you keep paying them money, and you will get nothing worthwhile in exchange.

From the sound of it, you have selected an illegitimate source to try to get a publication, and they will attempt to get as much money as they can from you. Regardless of what you pay, the most you will get is a meaningless "publication" in a predatory journal, which may not even exist and even if it is every put online it may just vanish overnight.  From the sounds of their trying to shake you down for additional money, I suspect they won't even give you a fake publication, they'll just disappear and stop responding.

I rather doubt you will get any of your money back, but I would suggest if at all possible to back out of the deal, request a refund, withdraw the article by any 'official' means (I doubt they have any true official way to contact them by certified mail, of course), etc. Cut your losses, don't pay them any more money, try to avoid losing your work (by being technically published and not easily publishable in a reputable place), and spend extra time researching any potential publisher in more depth before submitting your work in the future.


Workshop: What to put on CV when you had multiple roles? Part of my post-doc has involved organizing a series of workshops. At some of these workshops, I end up with many roles. As an example, for the most recent workshop I wrote the proposal to get the funding, served as organizer, gave a talk/tutorial related to my research, and gave a (teaching) tutorial on some general skills useful in the field. (These workshops are more like schools: teaching grad students and post-docs about best practices.)

My question is: What parts should end up on my CV, and where? It feels ridiculous if some workshops show up 3 or 4 times (under headings for funded proposals, workshop organization, and talks). On the other hand, it was all a lot of work.

In addition, there were some workshops where I only gave a talk, and some where I was an organizer, but didn't write the funding proposal. It seems weird to include a talk from the one where I wasn't an organizer, and not include a talk that served the same purpose when I was an organizer.

What's the standard/recommended practice in this case? For context, my work is at the border of chemistry and physics, so to the extent that a lot of CV stuff is domain-specific, those are the relevant domains.

Maybe you can create a heading for "Workshop Experience", "Workshop Facilitated" or something along these lines. Then include all your workshop experiences there. You may have responsibilities such as:

Wrote the proposal for the initial funding and organization of the workshop
Gave a talk on ... (if needed to include the talk's name)
Reviewing submissions
Serving on committees (or lead sessions)
Coordinating and organizing events and conferences
Making ...
...

You may also modify the format above and in front of each activity, name the workshops where you did that task.


What are some examples of research that does not solve a existing problem (maybe the problem is not obvious yet) but present a unique discovery? Do you need a problem to find a new discovery? Are there any publications that solely exist to classify parts of existing theories without targeting a real-world problem?

Feynman noticing the periodicity of wobble and rotation of a dinner plate.  The fractional quantum Hall effect.  HTSC cuprates.  Initial discovery of superconductivity.  Michaelson Morely.  Many discoveries of new plants and animals.  Penicillin. Teflon.  The discovery of the Americas.


What should I do to make the most of a stopgap postdoc position offered by my PhD supervisor? I am a PhD in computational materials science, and I have been offered a stop gap postdoc position (at the moment for 6 months) by my PhD supervisor which I will be starting a month after my defense. Now, I have many manuscripts pending for submission and getting them out will be the highest priority for the next couple of months. But apart from that and searching for new opportunities, what should be my prime focus during this duration? My advisor is a handsoff person and will give me full freedom to pursue my interests. I want to stay in academia.

My plan:
I want to upgrade my python programming skills and experience (I will be actively participating in kaggle competitions), and also want to work in incorporating machine learning in my field of research (something that is being done in my field). I also have to work on my technical knowledge and improve my experience with the numerical method I have used in my PhD research.

Keeping all this in mind,

Summarizing:

  Will it be a good move for my academic career to explore new topics
  during this short postdoc position, try to publish something in an
  area I would like to work in the near future? Focus on get my pending
  papers out and learn new skills along the way?

I am really serious about this and I am confident that I can put my 100% effort in the work. My question is, as an experienced academic, what is your opinion on my plan?

Your #1 goal is to find a real post-doc position, so think of why that hasn't happened yet if you have been out trying for a while.

Next is finishing up those papers, since that may help with the #1 goal. Further, once you do get another position where you want to chase after new things, you will find that time slips away.

Anything else is gravy. Do not let anything new (much less competitions for goodness sake) get in the way of those. Don't think of it as 6 months, think of it as week-to-week until you have accepted a job offer.


How to avoid gender bias when writing letters of recommendation? Finding letter writing guidelines that simply say something like "avoid gender bias" is rather easy.  Finding letter writing guidelines that explain what this means in more detail is extremely challenging.

What do men and women tend to do differently when writing letters?  What do letter writers tend to do when writing about men or women candidates?  How can these biases be recognized and mitigated?

This study by Bell, Cole, and Floge shows that male letter writers write differently than female letter writers and that both write differently when recommending men for a position than when recommending women.  But that's one study, published in 1992, and it is relatively hard to extract concrete advice on avoiding gender bias when writing recommendation letters from this paper.  Is there other work in this area?  Can it be distilled into something that's more directly applicable to letter writing?

(Note that there is a somewhat related question about avoiding gender bias when evaluating prospective applicants for an academic position.)

When I write my letters, I try to consciously avoid the biases that have been reported in the literature. Namely, I try to avoid stressing the effort/emotion/affect of female candidates. For both genders,  I try focus on research capability and competence.

You may find these helpful:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2572075/
http://www.academic.umn.edu/wfc/rec%20letter%20study%202009.pdf
The graph below can be found in this paper: https://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/avoidingunintendedgenderbiaslettersrecommendation.pdf
the original source is: Exploring the Color of Glass: Letters of Recommendation for Female and Male Medical Faculty doi: 10.1177/0957926503014002277 where the caption reads "Semantic realms following possessives. Rank-ordered within gender sets from equal numbers of letters ‘her training’; ‘his research’."


Can I write I worked as a referee in a journal in my CV? I have recently reviewed an article. I am applying for a Ph.D. position nowadays so I am upgrading my CV and writing the professors. Is it ok if I write that I worked as a referee and mention the journal name in the CV? (As I have a part named 'Scientific and Community services' in my CV.)
Also, this is the same journal where all my articles have been published until now

Yes, you can do that, but it won't mean a tremendous amount in any evaluation. But probably better to list it than not. And the section you suggest is the correct place for it.
It is immaterial whether you have published there or not, assuming, only, that the journal is reputable.


Which one is your priority? Writing thesis or writing academic paper Which one do you recommend and why? 1: Finish writing PhD dissertation and extract papers from your thesis. 2. Start writing papers and complete your thesis based on your papers?

There's no single right answer here.

For instance, if your department allows you to submit a "stapler thesis" that consists of submitted and published manuscripts, then it makes all the sense in the world to write the papers and then submit them as your thesis. On the other hand, if you can't do a stapler thesis and have to submit your thesis in just a few months, there's no sense in pausing to write complete manuscripts.

Similarly, if you're relatively early on in your career, there's no sense in waiting for the PhD to publish (in fact, this would be a spectacularly bad idea, since you'd give other people time to publish ahead of you).

So, basically, you need to consider your relative progress in the PhD program, what is and isn't allowed in your thesis, and what the ramifications of not publishing immediately are before making that decision. Of course, you should also discuss this with your advisor, who may have some additional insight.


What language should my poster for a national convention be? I will present work of mine in form of a poster on a national convention/congress/conference in my broader (STEM-related) field.

A manuscript has already been submitted by me, in english. Manuscripts will be available online for members of the society organizing the conference, and to everybody with internet access after some years. This is why I chose the manuscript to be in english

Last year I have also attended the conference, but presented in form of an (english) talk. In my session, this was the only english talk, but someone approached me afterwards in english. My impression is that only a small majority of the attendees were non-native speakers of my language, though.

I am fluent in both english and my native language.

On the convention/congress website it says (roughly):

  "The conference language is native language, but english
  contributions are welcome as well.

My question is:

Should I write the poster in english to make sure everybody will understand it, or rather chose my native language in order to make it easier for the majority to understand and talk about?

(Also be informed that I would like to have a reasonable change of being considered for the events' poster award)

"The conference language is native language, but english
  contributions are welcome as well.

The conference organizers have made it clear that both native language and English are acceptable and welcome for your conference materials.

That means it’s entirely up to you. If you have strong feelings about supporting your local language, you can feel completely free to use that language for your poster. I am sure many of the native speakers present would find that an agreeable decision and would be somewhat grateful. On the other hand, there will likely be some foreign participants who would find your poster unaccessible and will miss out on learning about your work. Perhaps some of those people are academics you will be interacting with further down the road of your career (e.g., if you end up applying for postdocs overseas).

If you just want your work to reach the largest number of people and don’t care about anything else, I’m guessing English is the way to go (assuming you are in a country such as Germany with a very high proportion of English speakers).

It is a choice to make; neither option is any more right or wrong that the other.

And if you really can’t decide, how about preparing a bilingual poster?


How common is use of word "PhDs" to describe PhD holders in formal documents? The context is that this usage can be useful to describe people with PhD degrees while saving on extra characters in a formal document.

Example: "The position is typically reserved for PhDs" (instead of saying "PhD holders").

The question is relevant here to know how common is it for professors/academics to use this term in formal contexts without being frowned upon.

Extremely common, in both general usage and in my exposure to professors/academics. Unless you have some reason to believe there would be objections to it, I think you're anticipating a problem where none exists.

(On the other hand, "saving characters" is an awful reason for doing anything, especially these days when memory is cheap and printing is easy. If you use this form, use it simply because that's how people talk.)


What is background check for the graduate admission processing? I received an unofficial offer  for graduate admission. The graduate director mentioned two steps which will be required to get the official admit.

Background Checking
Signing on the offer letter

As I'm an international student, is it for the security purpose? How long it could take to complete the  process?

One of my friends said that, It could be  aa check from USA gov. Could you please explain?

I don't know if this is universal, but I do know that some programs require background checks for anyone interacting with individuals under 18. For example, from the University of Pittsburgh Department of Psychology webpage (bottom paragraph on that page):

  Special note for Applicants to the Clinical Psychology Program: Consistent with Pennsylvania law, all students in the Clinical Psychology Program must satisfactorily pass required background checks that are intended to protect children from contact with individuals who have abused children or have been convicted of certain felonies (including drug felonies), as is further explained here: www.dhs.state.pa.us. FBI, Pennsylvania State Police, and Pennsylvania Child Abuse clearances must be completed during the fall term of the student’s first year. Students may not continue in the Clinical Psychology Program if they fail any of these background checks or decline to submit applications to obtain them. Cost of the clearances is to be covered by the student.

Given that many undergraduate students are underage, and given that as a graduate student you will almost certainly be interacting with undergrads as part of your teaching assistant and undergraduate mentorship duties, this is required for basically all grad students. I know that, at Pitt, this isn't just for the Psych program; lots of programs have a similar requirement.

Much of this is new since the Sandusky child abuse events.


Should you keep a notebook of example problems while going through science and engineering courses? I find myself constantly being told I should not intentionally jot down example problems but understand the core logic of a topic. But some of my high level math classes tend to have very few examples and mainly definitions, i.e. words. Is it sound to keep a notebook of example problems related to the topic so you have a more practical understanding of the subject?

I find myself constantly being told I should not intentionally jog down example problems but to understand the core logic of a topic.

You're offering a false dichotomy.  If you can't generate concrete working examples, you don't really understand the definitions; conversely, if you can't prove things from the definitions, you don't really understand the examples.  You should both work through examples and understand the definitions; the two approaches strongly reinforce each other.  In particular:

If you are given only examples, you should figure out appropriate formal definitions and core logic yourself.  Aim for both simplicity and generality.  Look for weird corner cases.  Work out new examples that stress-test your definitions.
If you are given only formal definitions and few or no examples, you should work out several new examples yourself.  Aim for examples that both illustrate and stress-test the definitions.  Together your examples should exercise every case, every word, and every symbol in the definitions.  Failure to cover the definitions completely may mean that the definitions can be simplified; success may mean that the definitions can be generalized.

Write everything down.  Fail, revise, repeat.


Discussing sole author vs first authorship in ML/CV with supervisor I am an UG research assistant in CV/ML on a robotics project. I was given a surveillance video by my boss, and w/o being too specific, I was asked to find a way to detect something in the video. W/o revealing myself by giving too much info, I went above and beyond and found a way to predict something occurring in the videos. I did everything from collecting the data to implementing the code. I am not sure what I should do.
Usually, a co authorship or first authorship assumes some kind of mentoring in UG. There was 0 mentoring or guidance, so this would be wrong. I was given a project and left alone to do it. At the same time, he took me on and gave me a chance with little experience. Additionally, I would want to use him as a LOR, so I don't want to upset him.
Short summary: I discovered a new and effective way to do something that AFAIK, has not been done before. I am not saying this is groundbreaking research, but it's not too bad for UG work. I spent a little over a year on this project and worked extremely hard. I received no help. I am not sure if I should ask my boss if I can solo author. Should I write a draft of the paper, then ask him if I can solo author? He supplied me with a video, in which I collected data, can I acknowledge him in it instead of coauthoring?

Just go with co-authorship
You're an undergraduate researcher.  This is a case where having co-authorship is actually better than sole authorship.  You said yourself it isn't groundbreaking.  By doing co-authorship you've created a google trail back to this professor.
When people are googling the professor's name, your paper will come up.  When people google your name, they will see your research network back to the professor.
Ph.D. students in the group likely talk about first/sole authorship more.
That's because Ph.D. students are expected to do high-level research and come up with novel ideas.  The next step in their career is (maybe) being a professor.
The next step in your career is getting into grad-school
The prestige of the professor your working with is a factor in admissions.  He'll probably write a recommendation anyway, but drive it home to admissions committees with a co-authorship.
From your post it sounds like he's pretty hands-off.  Write up the paper and put your name first and the profs second.  Let him tell you to swap them.


Peer-reviewing process of an article I am doing a PhD and I have submitted an article to be peer-reviewed 9 months ago to a certain journal. I haven't got any response yet from the journal, their server indicates the "Under review" status.
The problem is, I cannot wait more longer since the acceptance of the article is a requirement to validate my PhD.

Do you think I can stop the reviewing process and send it to another journal?
What if I sent it to another journal at the same time?
Or, would the reviewing process speeds up if, e.g. I pay for the open access?

EDIT:

I forgot to mention that the status cited above stipulates that:

  At least one Reviewer has accepted to review the submisѕion, however the required number of reviews for the submisѕion have not yet been received.

I have provided 5 names for the peer-reviewing process of my article, and mentioned that 1 potential reviewer from another university should not review it (because of competitive reasons).

"Under review" for nine months is normal in some disciplines

  Do you think I can stop the reviewing process and send it to another
  journal?

No. This will most likely delay the process even further.

  What if I sent it to another journal at the same time?

No. This is (most likely) prohibited.

  Or, would the reviewing process speeds up if, e.g. I pay for the open access?

No. Open access is entirely independent of the reviewing process. The former is handled by the publisher, the latter is handled by your peers.


How to talk with my advisor about PhD project? I'm currently in the stage of my PhD (in math) where I need to start discussing with my advisor about my PhD project and I'm wondering what kind of things am I allowed to say and which ones should I avoid. I want to know how should I manage my communications with them.

More concretely, to which extent can I decline or object about certain projects they may suggest? Is it appropriate for me to say that a project doesn't appeal me, or that I'd rather do something more [concrete, abstract, with more applications, etc.]? Is it reasonable to bring up the projects of my peers?

I've heard about people having their advisers proposing multiple projects from which they may decide, however, up until this point that doesn't seem to be my case. Otherwise I wouldn't be looking for advise. In any case, I understand they're experts in their area and their suggestions are very well thought (relative to me and the research area) and on-point.

You're going to be stuck with your adviser and the chosen topic for several years -- so you better be honest in your conversation and say what you really think. I don't think there are any off-limit topics. The worst that may happen is that the areas you are interested in have no overlap with those your adviser has knowledge of/is interested in, and which he might decline to advise -- but that would be good to know as well.

When I have these conversations with my students, I actually do not offer any topics. I ask my students to come up with areas they are interested in, and to think about what they want to do before we make decisions about PhD topics. There is nothing worse -- for both sides -- if a student is stuck with a topic they are not interested in, and so I let my students choose what they want to do, and only steer things a bit to the left or right given my knowledge of what the relevant topics today are.


Nonpaid, volunteering position in a lab I already have a BSc degree from an unknown school in outside the US. I have convinced a professor at a top US school to let me join his lab to work on a project that he will propose and conduct experiments at his lab. In return for learning and having access to the lab and working on a project, I am supposed to help the lab with programming their machines. However, there is no pay, that is my title would be "Volunteer". Therefore, I have to work in part-time or night jobs while working there (I have work permit).

Is this common in US, that is to work in a lab without getting paid and working on a part-time job outside the lab to pay for living expenses?

Your description of being "allowed" to do research work in exchange for programming work sounds off to me. Learning and running experiments for a research project proposed by a supervisor is basically the job description of a research assistant. It's work in its own right that people are typically compensated for in some way, not a reward for doing other (programming) work.

The arrangement you describe is not common, and it might also violate U.S. labor law. Under U.S. law, it's illegal to let someone work for you for free unless they meet specific legal requirements to be considered a "volunteer" or "intern."

"Volunteers" according to U.S. labor law are individuals

  who volunteer their time, freely and without anticipation of compensation for religious, charitable, civic, or humanitarian purposes to non-profit organizations.

Your intent is clearly not religious, charitable, civic, or humanitarian in nature, so you do not legally qualify as a volunteer.

And to be classified as an "intern" you must meet the requirement that

  The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded.

(among other requirements). That is, the employer cannot expect to be dependent on your work for normal operations. I don't think you meet the requirements for an unpaid intern, though it's not possible to be 100% sure from your description.

The usual interpretation of the U.S. labor law is that an internship has to be part of a formal educational program (e.g., you are enrolled as a student and get credits for the internship, or write a report which you submit to your home institution) or a formal apprenticeship for it to be legally unpaid. In fact, if you search for unpaid internships in the U.S., you'll find that most listings say that only current students who can earn college credit are eligible. It doesn't say in your post that you are currently enrolled as a student somewhere.

This is not to say that there is no legal scenario in which a U.S. lab can allow you to participate in research there without paying you. (If the entire experience was supposed to be for your educational benefit - including the "help the lab with programming their machines" part - then my answer might be different.) But from your description, I don't think the scenario you describe is acceptable or normal.

I personally do not allow anybody to do work for my lab unless they are paid or doing a personal project (like a thesis) for which they earn academic credit. I've been told it would be legally problematic. For example: suppose I have an M.S. student working with me for academic credit. He graduates in May and has a job starting in September. I'm not allowed to let him keep working in the lab from May-September unless I can pay him (according to my university lawyers).

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer)


Definitions in Glossary? While writing my thesis, I was putting down some definitions of terms as they are used in the scope of the work.

Does it make sense to move them to the glossary and write their definition as well?
Looks like the Glossary is used mostly for acronyms in the thesis/diss I have seen.

Yes, it makes sense.

Doing so will add value to your thesis, if you do it well, and help the readers. Most people don't do this because they think of it too late or do not have the energy. Start doing it early and do it well, or don't do it at all.


Using standards proposed in another paper So my situation is as follows:

I am writing a paper related to DDoS attacks and part of my paper describes a case study. During my initial background research I looked into other similar work and ran into this paper in particular: Measuring Denial Of Service by J.Mirkovic. The paper proposes a new standard on how to more accurately measure DDoS.

Being inspired by the paper I would like to use the approach described in this paper but am struggling with how to implement it into my own paper without it looking like I am copying large parts of their work.

Can anyone give me an example of how this has been handled before? What would the proper way to deal with this be?

There is nothing wrong with adopting standards from previous work into your work. In fact it is very common. Research is an iterative process and that's a good thing. You don't want to reinvent the wheel every time you want to test a new car engine.

If you did not measure DDoS attacks using the technique from this paper, you would end up measuring using a technique from another paper. Even if you invented your own measuring technique, you would want to publish a comparison of it with techniques established in the literature.

As the comments have said, you should cite the previous paper and give a brief overview of their technique. If the technique is not well known or complicated, you may want to devote more ink to explaining it, but a small paragraph should really suffice. People won't be reading your work to learn about the other paper, they're reading it to see what you've done. If they're interested in the other paper, they'll go read that.


How important is teaching experience? I am a PhD student in economics in the UK. Recently, I have been hearing how important teaching experience is to find a job in academia as a lecturer. One needs to submit teaching statements and may be asked about one's teaching philosophy.

Can you please share your experience about how important teaching is in becoming a lecturer? I suppose being a teaching assistent and leading example classes is a big plus. Of course, only if the research part of the PhD is going sufficiently well such that there is time for teaching.

What about schemes like the TSP (The Scholars Programme) of the Brilliant Club where PhD Students visit schools the odd times and give mini courses to interested pupils? Does this count as being committed to teaching or is it neglected due to the low level of difficulty?

Even if the PhD research does not go as planned, I would strongly suggest you to get some teaching experience for a number of reasons:

"One learns best when one teaches" as a translation of the German "Am besten lernt man, wenn man lehrt". Teaching gives you a deeper understanding of many topics, it helped me a lot.
Character building: you as a person will benefit as well from teaching. Speaking publicly is not an issue for me since I taught during my PhD studies, this had a really positive effect on my work outside academia as well.


Matters Arising: Nature Communications post-publication commentary Nature and Nature Communications recently started publishing post-publication commentary in specially published peer-reviewed comments called as "Matters Arising"
https://www.nature.com/ncomms/submit/matters-arising

It's a great initiative.

Does anyone know how often these commentaries lead to changes in the published article?
Any stats on how often authors respond with new data/analysis.

I could not even find an example.

Many journals publish commentary articles on published papers; sometimes these are even invited directly by the journal editor to allow other researchers in the field to respond and are published simultaneously as an editorial, especially if a new finding is challenging established dogma.

Sometimes these commentaries are mostly critical, sometimes they are mostly positive. When negative, the original authors often will reply.

Like the commentary, that reply is typically another separately published article rather than an amendment to the original article. It could include additional analyses, further perspectives, references to additional literature, or agreement with critiques of the original paper.

Nature isn't inventing something new here, they are just adding a title to an established practice.

You can try to find some of these comments and replies by searching Google Scholar for 'comment on' since those words are often added to these articles, though this search term is of course not perfectly sensitive nor specific. I think it is unlikely you will find statistics on how common these sorts of articles or replies to them are, and I suspect it varies a lot with field and journal.

One example paper of authors replying to a comment on their original work comes up on the first page of the search linked above:

Wang, J., Scholl, A., Zheng, H., Ogale, S. B., Viehland, D., Schlom, D. G., ... & Neaton, J. (2005). Response to comment on" Epitaxial BiFeO3 multiferroic thin film heterostructures". Science, 307(5713), 1203-1203.


Advice for research and taking graduate classes for undergraduate student there are multiple questions in here so please bear with me.

I am currently a freshman undergraduate student at a large public university in the US. Looking at my coursework and credits, I noticed that I am a bit ahead and will graduate within 3 years.

1.) What should I do with my fourth year?
I am interested in pursuing an MD/PHD, and was wondering if I should take additional graduate classes, take some time off to prepare for the MCAT, or just directly apply after my third year.

2.) Should I pursue a thesis or try to go for some publications? One of the things that I read here in the Academia Stackexchange was publishing something, for instance submitting a thesis or printing a book, disqualifies you from sending that piece of work towards journals. What are the benefits of doing one or the other and what do admissions committees look favorably to?

3.) How do you deal with failure and discouragement in research? Lately I've failed again and again for the past few weeks. I have created a pretty established protocol tailored for the lab that I am working at and I run the experiment beforehand in my head over and over. After performing a run, I get reproducible results however the data that I get is not what what I am looking for. I then evaluate all the work that has been done and try to see if there are any improvements or things that I could have done better, sources of error that may have affected the results, and refine my protocol. As of right now, I am kind of stuck and do not wish to blindly use reagents and hope for a serendipitous outcome.

Thank you for your time.

I am a senior at a large public school in the US, and I believe I can help guide you. To give you some perspective on me: I am part of a program that prepares students for a PhD, and we travel to different graduate schools and talk to the admissions administrators/boards. First thing you should know is that nothing I say is the same for every school, and it is really important for you to look at schools and contact them to see what they desire in an applicant.

For your first question, keep in mind that medical programs are very competitive. To give you an idea, volunteering hours required to get into most schools is incredibly high (varying with 400 hours minimum). You also want a competitive gpa and MCAT, of course. Again, schools will be quite different so take a look at their requirements or contact them.

In regards to research/publishing, the most common thing to do is research in a lab. Both are looked very highly upon (said every school I visited). Since they are both great, then do not ask which to do because the difference to a school is insignificant. It is more about picking which one you enjoy more.

Lastly, are you doing research under an adviser? It is very important to form bonds with professors to learn and eventually receive letters of recommendation. A good way to form these bonds are through independent research under their guidance. You are just starting out so it is important to learn from a well educated researcher and have guide you through your troubles. The advisement is also a form of motivation, because they want to see you do well and you know they will be there for you.

Work hard and be passionate about what you do. Everything is a little easier when you are enjoying it.

Good luck.


Why is the admission process centralized, when the professor who is actually funding may not be in the committee? This question is based on some observations which could be wrong (in that case, let me know).

I am applying to PhD program in various universities in US in theoretical computer science (TCS). Some of the things that I heard is that getting admission in TCS in top 15 theory universities is tough. The toughness is obviously due to the large volumes of applications that these universities receive (I don't know how much?). However one of the big factors is limited funding available with professors.

So who funds the students? Professors or universities? In some cases I heard, that it is the professor who funds the student. Then in that case, why is the admission process centralized (the professor who is actually funding may not be in the committee)?

I'm a theoretical computer scientist currently serving on the admissions committee of a large top-15 computer science department.

  Some of the things that I heard is that getting admission in TCS in top 15 theory universities is tough. The toughness is obviously due to the large volumes of applications that these universities receive (I don't know how much?).

This year my department received about 50 PhD applications from people whose primary interest is theoretical computer science and probably another 50 with secondary interest in theory, out of 750 PhD applications overall.  We've offered admission to about 10 theory PhD students (out of about 200 PhD offers total).  We realistically expect three or four theory PhD students to accept our offer (out of about 80-100 total).

  However one of the big factors is the limited funding available with professor. So who funds the students? Professors or universities?

It's complicated.  A typical PhD offer from a strong department includes guaranteed funding in some form.  My department promises five years of funding to every incoming PhD student, assuming they make steady progress toward their degree.  (Do not accept a PhD admission offer without funding.  If they really want you, they'll pay for you.)  Most of our students take 6 years to finish, but in practice, (100-ε)% of our students are funded for their entire stay.  A typical theory student in my department is a TA for 2-4 semesters and an RA of fellow for the rest.

When a student is admitted, the department is making a contractual commitment to funding that student, assuming they make adequate progress toward their degree.  In practice, most of that funding comes from individual faculty grants, most of the rest comes from the department's budget for teaching assistantships, and a small fraction comes from fellowships (university, NSF, DOE, NDSEG, Hertz, etc.).

The number of students that each group is allowed to admit depends primarily on three factors:

Advising capacity: How many students can each faculty member in the group reasonably advise?  The limiting resource here is faculty attention, not money.  Theoretical computer science faculty tend to have relatively small groups, compared to some areas in CS.  Steady state in my group seems to be about 3 PhD students per faculty.  This is the most significant factor, in my opinion.
Funding capacity: How many students can each faculty member reasonably expect to fund?  This isn't just a function of the faculty's current grants; a typical grant lasts only 3 years, but each student needs 5-6 years of funding.
Teaching demand: How many TAs does the group need to support its teaching responsibilities?  Conversely, for how many semesters are students in the group expected to be TAs, as part of their PhD training?  The ratio of these two numbers basically determines how many students the department is willing to pay for on its own dime.

  In some cases I heard, that it is the professor who funds the student. Then in that case, why is the admission process centralized (the professor who is actually funding may not be in the committee)?

In US computer science programs, departments offer admission, not individual faculty.    Students are completely free to change advisors or even research areas, even if their existing advisor is funding them.  (Of course, they have to fulfill their funding obligations, but that's an orthogonal issue.)  Formally, students in my department do not even choose their thesis advisors until the end of their first year.  (One of my recent PhDs entered the department as an RA in distributed systems/sensor networks; he switched to algorithms at the end of his first year.)  For that reason, it's crucial that the admissions decision does not rest entirely with a single faculty member.