Attaching reprints of published but copyrighted papers with job application How wise and legal is it to attach my published but copyrighted papers with my job application or even put up on the personal (academic) website? I see a lot of people posting their papers that I guess are copyrighted. Also many academic job applications ask for reprints of the papers.

May be I am not fully clear with the rules. I would like to be educated on this.

This and this say something regarding posting the manuscript on the website. I may not post my manuscript pdf but assign a link to the publisher's webpage for the paper.
What if my new job application is asking for my papers to be attached?

Like almost all such questions, the ultimate answer is "look at the copyright agreement you signed."

However, in almost all cases, it is fine to distribute copies of your papers privately to individual people, so I can't imagine there would be a problem with you sending your papers along with your application.  In the past, publishers would give authors a certain number of paper "offprints" for exactly this purpose.  Nowadays, you more often get an official PDF (with the journal's logo) that you can send to your friends and colleagues, and that would be just the thing to send with your application as it also proves that the paper was in fact published.

Posting on your web site is likely to be specifically addressed by the copyright agreement.  Some publishers allow it, some do not, some allow the posting of only certain versions (e.g. before revisions based on peer review).  So read what you signed.  (And next time you publish a paper, read the agreement before you sign it!)


Ghosted? PI of >1 year not responding to emails for new mentor? I'm currently an undergrad who has been working at this lab for 1 year. In the beginning, I was pretty slow with research and I still make mistakes sometimes. For instance, it took me 4 months to get a western to properly work and 1 month to properly clone something. I'm not as bright as the other interns, but I learned a lot this 1 year about techniques and scientific knowledge. Granted, I don't know if I'm 'competent' enough for research.

Anyways, my research mentor (post-doc) left for a new position, and now I'm pretty much without a mentor. I emailed my PI for a new mentor assignment if possible a week ago, no response. My former mentor emails my PI and gets no response. Now, I decide to follow-up with him yesterday - still no response. So in total, 3 emails (2 from me, 1 from my former mentor) sent to my PI about this topic in the last week.

I'm not the closest to my PI. He seems always busy and I haven't spoken to him very often. However, it's unlike him to take a very long time to respond to emails, as he usually responds within 1-2 days.

Does this mean I've been ghosted by my PI/given a boot from lab? My former mentor told me that my PI would be willing to let me continue working, but I don't know if he was just saying that.

I'm not sure if I should reach out to other post-docs/grad-students in the lab and ask them if they can be my new supervisor mentor. So far, I haven't had much work to do so I've been staying back home and reading papers the lab has published/to see if any of interest. The other people in the lab familiar with my name; I hope they're not thinking about how stupid I am since I did make lots of dumb mistakes. I know the lab manager doesn't like me that much (one time I was giving a lab presentation and she was shaking her head), and usually she's the de facto person people turn for conflicts such as these.

What should I do?  I've been in a state of rumination about this for a long, long time. I'm really interested in the work of this lab.

Go and visit your PI. Knock on their door when they're in, and ask them everything above.

You write in a comment above that you feel feel "kind of scared/awkward doing that since he has a very cold, direct manner". Being scared should not be a deal breaker. Courage comes when you overcome fear! It's much more admirable to face what you're afraid of than to hide from it. Nothing critical will happen to you, and to have done something like this before is a great help if you have to do it again in the future, in less protected environments. As for how others don't knock without a meeting, you could knock and start with "are you free?" If he says yes then you're good, if not then you can arrange a meeting.

Finally you write that you don't know what to say or how you'd react to a rejection, which shouldn't be a problem. For the first, write down everything you want to know, and rehearse it beforehand. For the latter, if you are rejected, you're going to know in the near future anyway, and you might as well know now so you can make plans for what to do next.

It's better to be addressing your problems than to sit around waiting for the PI to respond. Go and visit your PI.


How to review a revised paper I have already rejected? I reviewed a manuscript submitted to a high-impact journal. The quality was low and I believed it could not reach the journal’s standards even by revision. I clearly recommended rejection.

Now I received the revised version for review. Two of three reviewers (myself included) had suggested to reject the original paper. The third reviewer suggested a major revision. Nonetheless, the editor had asked the authors to revise the manuscript (I never experienced this before).

Clearly, the editor is in favor of publishing this paper (for personal or professional reasons; I cannot judge). What should I do? I publish 80% of my works in this journal, and it is very important for me to avoid any conflict with the editor.

When you recommended rejection, you presumably listed a series of issues that made it unacceptable.  On the revision, you go back and repeat the list of issues and simply say for each one, "The revision has/has not corrected this problem".  If you reach the end of your list and all the issues have been corrected and no new issues have been introduced in the revision, then you say the paper is now suitable for publication. If the issues have not all been corrected, then you say "The paper is still not suitable for publication because the issues I noted previously have not been corrected."


Can who you pick as "faculty members of interest" make-or-break your PhD application? Can who you pick as "faculty members of interest" make-or-break your PhD application?
Question I:

If one happens to pick
only faculty who aren't taking in PhD students will that doom ones
application? If-not, will the PhD acceptance board try to pair you
with a faculty member you did not list – assuming the applicant is of high-quality?

I applied for a PhD program in Computer Science. I will be funded through a Think-Tank/Research-Institution – to which I am a full-time employee. I put this on my application. I did not think too deeply about the faculty of interest.
I considered also applying PhD program in Computer Science & Engineering. However, here's the catch. If I apply using the same "faculty members of interest" as the PhD in Computer Science application, I believe my chances of acceptance do not increase. I believe if those faculty members would not have accepted me into their labs as a PhD in Computer Science, they also would not have accepted me into their labs as a PhD in Computer Science & Engineering. However, filling out two
Question II:

Is filling out two PhD applications in similar domains with the
same "faculty members of interest" somewhat pointless?

Question III:

Is it worth reaching out to admissions to ask to change your "faculty members of interest" after submission if a better fit is found?

The answer depends on the admissions process at the school.

Some departments will look through all applicants together, choose the top applicants from the entire pool, and then assign them to faculty advisors. Student and faculty preferences on the advisor has some impact, but these students are competing against all other students.
For other departments, individual faculty primarily look through students who want to work with them (as stated on their application), and admission decisions are made for individual research groups. For these departments, the preferred faculty advisor that you list can have a large impact on the extent to which different faculty review your application, and which other applicants you are primarily being compared with.

As an externally funded PhD student, you are not competing for the limited funding like other applicants. Of course, there may be other constraints such as lab space and available time for specific professors, but available funding is often one of the main active constraints. That gives you a greater chance of being able to work with a specific advisor.
You will likely be working with the same professor for 3-4 years, so requesting an advisor whose research interests and/or working style are a good fit for you could make for more enjoyable and productive PhD studies.


Can external thesis examiner object to inclusion of so many unwanted co authors in published papers? My friend is working on material science and he published 3 papers in very good SCI index journals. In all papers he is first author and second is his supervisor and rest are co-authors like incharge of lab where test were conducted, teacher of his supervisor who is working in other university, some other scientist from USA who suggested the problem to his supervisor but was not involved in work in any other way and last co-author is student of his supervisor from same semester working on slightly different problem. In each of three papers the order and number of authors is same.

Now he is afraid of external examiner of his PhD thesis who may according to him might raise objection on inclusion of so many coauthors. All the papers were communicated by his supervisor so there was no chance for him to decide of his own. I told him that, this is a usual practice and nothing to worry about. Am I right ?

Now he is afraid of external examiner of his PhD thesis who may according to him might raise objection on inclusion of so many coauthors.

Six authors listed on a scientific paper in a lab-experimental discipline in not a very high number. I don't know what the specific norms are for materials' science, but that's not uncommon.

Also, there could be 100 co-authors - that doesn't matter, as long as they don't argue about the individual contributions each one has made. Your friend has had an opportunity to explain what he personally worked on, in the context of producing these papers and more generally: That opportunity is the thesis, which ties everything together.

If your friend is in a thesis-less track (i.e. submitting articles only to be considered for awarding a Ph.D.) s/he may want to consult his/her advisor regarding how to transmit additional material - e.g. a letter - to the examiners. In fact, consulting the advisor regarding this concern is a good idea regardless of the measure to be taken.

  this is a usual practice and nothing to worry about. Am I right ?

Probably - but your friend's advisor will be able to confirm that.


Are faculty hiring committees overly polite on "denial" answers I applied to several tenure track positions this season. For some of them, I received an e-mail letting me know that I was no longer considered. That's cool and expected, since most of them were in US/Canada and I don't have any official experience working in neither...

My real question is: In some of those, they said that there were impressed by my resume/background/publications or something similar, always followed by a ", but". Are they being polite saying that? How much should I trust this kind of information?

(I could really use this kind of feedback to direct my search. It is not trivial to not over/underestimate yourself...)

This sounds like a standard US rejection - they may be sending this exact same text to all other candidates that were rejected. I do not believe you can learn anything from it and it does not reflect on you specifically in any way.

You can, however, try to get feedback, but it can be quite difficult - you must realize that the chances of getting good sincere feedback are not high. It is probably best to try getting this from someone with whom you felt there was a good connection or that this person was relatively open. Probably this person would prefer to do this over phone rather than by mail. You may also want to look at this question.


Working in two research lab at the same time – unethical? Is it unethical to work for two professors (two seperate research lab in two non-related fields) at the same time? I am an undergrad student currently working for professor A in a full-time research assistant co-op job. On the other hand, I volunteer using my spare time working for another research lab in an almost unrelated field. Professor A doesn’t know about this.

So my question is, is it unehtical for me to do this?

I ask because my friends warned me not to do this. On the other hand, I don’t think it is too much of issue since I am not stealling data or anything from anyone and, more importantly, they are in two different unrelated fields.

Similiar question is asked here, but I am asking from an ethical perspective.

So my question is, is it unehtical for me to do this?

Unethical - no. Smart? Probably also no.

Firstly, as Corvus correctly states, it seems very unlikely that you can perform well in both roles and do your undergrad studies in parallel (and I am not even talking about going outside and doing people stuff occasionally, which you should also not forget about).

Secondly, you should not forget that professors are human. Even though you are not doing anything "wrong" by any stretch of imagination, it is not difficult to imagine scenarios where either of the professors (or both!) don't take it well, and I am assuming you want letters from these guys down the road. The professor that you work for, for instance, may assume that you find his research very unfulfilling if you feel you need to invest your spare free time into a completely unrelated area instead of hanging out with friends etc. (S)he may assume you are really doing it only for the money / letter. The other professor may be disappointed at some point when an important deadline should be met that you can't commit more time to her/his project, because of your other duties.

Finally:

  Professor A doesn’t know about this.

That's never great, and you should change this ASAP. Even if the professor basically does not care about the issue at hand, (s)he may get mad simply because you didn't tell (I certainly would). And I think you are aware that the chance of you keeping this a secret forever are slim to non-existent?


Rough calculation in conclusion section In my conclusion, I imagine what my results could imply for future developments. I want to emphasize my argument with a rough calculation. Is this allowed in a conclusion section?

Not best practice.  You would be better off having that in a section of the Discussion (at the end of the Discussion) with at least a paragraph of explication.  You can use an identifying subheader ("future developments", "economic implications", etc. within Discussion).

Then in the Conclusion, I would stick to more of the traditional method which is to restate the main results. At that point, you summarize all your findings.  And then give a single sentence about the implications.

I think this is better than opening a segue within the Conclusion.


Is worth accepting to review manuscripts in low quality journals I usually mention the journals I'm reviewing for, as it can counts as a position of trust (i.e. to improve the quality of science).

My question is, how connected is the reputation of a journal someone is reviewing for, with that part of his/her CV. What effect would it have to the CV (and whoever reads it) adding low quality journals in the list of journals where the person is a reviewer?
Would you consider it negative, neutral or positive?

I think that if they are only bad journals, the lack of good ones might be considered a bad thing, so avoiding mentioning the journals the person is a reviewer might be preferable.

If it's 1-2 in a list of a few respectable ones, then it would be neutral or even positive, as you try to improve the not respectable journals.

I think a lot depends on what you define as "low-quality journals". If you mean lower-tier but legitimate journals (typically subscription-based, or free OA) with high acceptance rate and low impact, listing these will have neutral to slightly positive effect. Indeed, someone has to start curating the quality in order for some of these to raise in quality and impact.

If you mean fake, pay-to-publish "predatory" journals then the effect will be strongly negative. By accepting to review for these journals you are encouraging a business that hurts science and scientific publishing. Also, you're wasting your time since these journals will accept papers on the basis of whether the authors paid, not on the reviewers' recommendation.


Value of light-to-none peer reviewed pay-to-publish articles I have been approached by an international student about doing a PhD with me. As an MSc student in his home country he has published 3 articles in pay-to-publish venues, that are known to have little peer-review process, with his supervisor as second/senior author. These articles are not particularly good and likely would not have been publishable in more traditional venues.

I am struggling with how to evaluate these articles and the candidate. Should I simple ignore the place/type of publication and evaluate the work on its own? Can articles in pay-to-publish places really be fairly evaluated? I am worried that changing his behavior will be difficult. I don't want to accept a student whose goal is to publish things in pay-to-publish places.

From your description, it sounds like the problem is more likely to have been the MSc supervior than the student.  As evidenced by some of the questions we've seen here, it's very hard for people new to academia to figure out which venues are reputable on their own---and the advice we give usually includes talking to someone in academia.  If the supervisor's name is on the publication, that presumably means the supervisor encouraged publication in these venues.

Especially if it's a journal which does a small amount of peer review, I wouldn't assume, without further evidence, that the student has any idea that the papers weren't fully peer reviewed.  If the supervisor isn't active in the international research community, I'm not sure I'd even assume the supervisor knows that.


Including own review article in Thesis? I am currently writing the introduction to my PhD thesis and have one specific doubt about how to include or cite a review article that I have published with jointly with my supervisors.

In my opinion, a review article and the thesis introduction are quite similar - they review a specific field for fellow researchers. It's very difficult to make a summary of a review, given that it is already quite densely written. What would be the best manner to include my own text from the review in my thesis?

Paste the review paper it as introduction chapter (with journal layout) ?
Mention that this introductory chapter has verbatim extracts from my review and cut and paste the most important parts ?
Summing up and rewording large parts of the review paper and avoid self-plagiarism?

Generally, my university allows to include my papers that are already published in the thesis, but the guidelines do not elaborate much more as I guess everybody assumes that research papers are pasted as result chapters. I have talked with several people (including PI, secretaries). I'd just like to consult the opinion of people outside my everyday universe. I am curious on what you have to say, thanks.

Generally speaking, the academic community does not consider it to be self-plagiarism to use your own previously published writings as part of your thesis, provided appropriate references are given.  You can summarize or reword if you wish, but it is not necessary for ethical purposes.

Whether your institution, or the journal where you published your article, will allow this is a question that only they can answer.


Citing low quality papers (solutions) in surveys? I sometimes find papers that aim to solve the same problem that I am working on, but these papers are of terrible quality. Some of these papers:

introduce wrong solutions,
re-introduce a solution that is already published, or
are just very hard to understand because of the low quality of writing.

Should I cite these papers in my "related work" section when writing a paper?

Would it be offensive to tackle these papers and prove that they are wrong (especially as the most of these papers are published in not very good conferences)?

Or is it perhaps a waste of time to pay any attention to these papers?

Speaking from the perspective of a no-longer-quite-so-young mathematician, this is a serious question. I think one should acknowledge "prior art", even if one disagrees with many aspects of it. That is, to pretend that something doesn't exist when one is aware of it is dishonest. (I do not think that one's bibliography must only include things one has used... that can be subverted to argue, as I have heard a distinguished mathematician say, that one need not cite anyone else's work _if_one_is_careful_not_to_look_at_it_.)

Yes, there is the awkward issue of giving an opinion on "prior art" that one finds deficient. As @Shion comments to the question, one probably should hesitate before being too sure. The universal non-commital (therefore slightly dismissive, which is the right amount) comment is something like (at the end of introduction) "Compare [A], [B], [C]." Not saying that they're crap, or failures, or anything else. Just admitting one is aware of them, and pointedly not endorsing them... if that's one's intent.

That is, I think that published papers should not just be update-reports, but have sufficient scholarly context-setting to orient a genuinely interested reader not already completely expert, for example. I realize that the literal function of many "published papers" is merely "making a living", but it is not profoundly difficult to do somewhat better.


Polite way to ask professor's graduate research topics and if any matches an specific area currently I'm applying for a specific university I had an exchange program couple years ago, and I asked one specific professor about a recommendation letter, also stated I had the desire to work alongside her as her assistant (being a TA or RA). I'm still waiting for the results (fall 2017), but I would like to ask her which researches she is conducting right now (her focus is software engendering), and if any is with web/mobile development (areas where I have work experience.

Thanks, guys!

Researching a professor's recent publications is a great way to understand their focus, expertise and experience. How many publications have they produced, in the last 5-10 years? Additionally after performing this type of research it is possible to email them directly asking any additional questions you may have about their research focus.


Will graduate school rescind my offer? I am currently a senior in college who got accepted into a math PhD program in the US. This semester I slack off a little bit and as a result, I might get a B and B- in two math courses (I got an A in the third math class). Is it possible that the school will rescind my offer, given that the two courses that I got a B and B- are math courses?

No.

The rules may allow rescinding an offer, but they will not do it.  The program needs to look after its reputation.  A student who got the occasional B is normal.  Rescinding an offer is not.


Finding more mathematicians who can write recommendation letter(s) for me My question is specific to admissions in the graduate mathematics. I have had an unconventional training this far; I started off as an Economics major. I realized that I enjoy doing physics and mathematics much more, especially when I had my first exposure to a proof based course in mathematics. I then started taking physics and mathematics. Unfortunately, though, I took more physics than mathematics courses, even though I seem to be more interested in mathematics.

  I am contemplating applying to graduate school in mathematics, hoping to work under the supervision of someone who works in mathematical physics. Most mathematics departments mention that 3 letters of recommendations are required. Here's my situation:

I can arrange one mathematics professor, say Y, to write a letter for me. I have taken a second course in analysis with her, and I have been her TA for the first course in analysis twice. Other than that, due to my unconventional background, I have been studying mathematics with her out of class, and I continue to do so during the next year which I shall be taking off. My other two letter writers will be physicists: one works in the field of quantum dynamics; by the time I graduate, I would have had 4 courses and a paper with him, though I don't see myself working in his area of inquiry. The other one will be, hopefully, from a high energy physicist, with whom I took 2 400 level physics courses, and studied a bit of QFT in the summer. I'm not sure if I will continue working with starting summer as he is due to leave for a sabbatical.

  Should I arrange for more letter writers who are mathematicians? If so, what difference would that make in my case? For instance, suppose I arrange letter write X. With X, the best I can do in the next few months is to cover some material that I haven't done in a course. I can do the same material with professor Y as well, who seems open to the idea of my discussing the material I self study with her. Or, should I contact another instructor, X, and perhaps try and do something else with him or her. If so, what options should one choose to strength the application?

It is certainly ok for your letter writers to be in an area that is different from your focus for your PhD. Based on my experience, this is more the norm than the exception.

The letters should describe why you will be successful, not something about particular research fields. Having strong letters from your physics profs will help you far more than a weak letter from a math prof that barely knows you.


Should seemingly arbitrary things like "play piano for Church" or "intramural badminton" go on M.S. or PhD applications in sciences/engineering? And if they should, I assume that these things should go on a resume under something like "Activities and Community Service". I mean I consider being able to sight read music to play at my Church as a significant feat (how many people can do that?) and might sway one person on an admissions committee if he or she enjoys music and understands how hard one must have worked to accomplish this.

Badminton?.... perhaps not so much

No.

These things are by and large irrelevant. Everyone has hobbies, and many of these may be challenging, but the purpose of a graduate school application is to understand your background as a potential scientist.

At best, this will make someone go "Huh, neat, the oboe..."

At worse, it will make someone assume that you're either attempting to pad out a relative lack of accomplishments, or don't really know what you're doing.


Should I submit a paper to a venue that is unlikely to accept it? Here's the situation I am in:

I have written a paper. I need to decide whether to submit it to GREAT [insert conference/journal name here] or to GOOD [ditto]. I would prefer to have a GREAT publication, rather than a GOOD publication. However, GREAT is a long shot, while GOOD is very likely to accept my paper.
Should I try submitting to GREAT or just submit to GOOD?
I'm thinking that I may as well try to get into GREAT. If it gets rejected, I can still submit to GOOD. So what's the harm?

Is there anything wrong with this thinking? That is, are there costs (other than time and effort) to being rejected from GREAT? In particular, does it look bad (in the eyes of reviewers/editors/PC members) to have a paper rejected?

For context, I am in computer science. I'm submitting to conferences and the accept/reject notification date for GREAT is before the submission deadline for GOOD. Thus there would be no delay in publication if it gets rejected by GREAT versus directly submitting to GOOD.

I think the probability that GREAT accepts my paper is around 15%. What is an appropriate threshold for trying to get in?

Without knowing all of the details, it's hard for random Internet strangers to make the call. You should only go for the GREAT conference if you meet all of the following criteria:

You've actually got a chance of making it in
You can resubmit to a GOOD conference if it's rejected
Someone else isn't likely to publish a similar result before you have a chance to resubmit
You don't need a publication on your CV right now

Even if the GREAT conference rejects it, you might get some valuable feedback that can help you make it even better. Personally, I'd take a shot at the GREAT conference if the chance was 15%, but the top conferences in my field get called crap shots anyway.

EDIT:

To expand my answer based upon changes in the question: There is nothing wrong with submitting to a conference if you think your paper stands a non-negligible chance of getting in. No one's going to black-list you for aiming high.

The only issue I can imagine is that a reviewer is working for both the GREAT and the GOOD conference and you don't update your paper to reflect any changes they suggest in their first review.


Is there a default license for code libraries that accompany scientific research papers I read a scientific paper, which is accompanied by a code library published by the authors. I couldn't find anything about its license.

Could I just reuse the code?

Is there a default license for code libraries that accompany scientific research papers? or a standard way to find out the license model?

In the copyright law that most countries sign onto (e.g., Berne Convention), copyright is assigned upon creation. In other words, if there is no explicit permission, you are not allowed to redistribute it. This is why licensing is so important.

However, if the code is publicly available and you reuse part(s) of it to create your own creative work, you are the copyright holder of that new piece of code. If the original copyright holder is of the opinion you violated their copyright (i.e., they think you copied too much of it directly and made too little additions/changes of your own), you have to substantiate your claim on how you deviated or added sufficiently from the original work to get copyright yourself.

In other words, take the risk or ask for explicit permission/a license to be added (e.g., MIT, GPLv3; see also here).


Obtaining academic positions after doing research in logic Suppose one is starting their math PhD in the US and is considering doing research in logic. Let's roughly split "logic" into "pure logic" and "applied logic".

How hard will it be for them to get academic positions to a math PhD with specialization in logic (given that they don't come from a top logic department, like Berkeley, or even Wisconsin; but from a group I university). Would it be easier if they have a PhD in pure or applied logic? In the latter case, how possible is it to work in two areas? (E.g. if one does applied logic related to computer science/natural language, is it possible to eventually become a professor in both math and computer science/linguistics?)

(I understand that many answers will say that it depends on the research that the PhD did/adviser/connections, etc., but let's just assume that the research if fine (not exceptional), the adviser is a more or less known logician. I just wanted to estimate how hard it is to get academic jobs for a logic person compared to pure mathematicians, as well as if it's possible to work in two areas if one specializes in applied logic.)

The perception, at least within logic, is that finding research positions in logic is even harder than in most specialities in mathematics - most research hiring is restricted to a specialty, and there are rarely new positions created in mathematical logic.

I'm not sure how true that perception is.  As far as I can tell, every field perceives hiring as very tight.  There are more qualified people than available jobs in all fields of math; there are fewer positions in logic than, say, algebra, but there are also fewer new PhD's in logic, and I don't know of any data on how the actual ratios compare.  But it's certainly hard to get an academic position in logic, and every year very good researchers decide to give up pursuing academic positions.

My impression is that logicians do slightly better than the average mathematician at getting positions at schools that are less research oriented - schools that are hiring based mostly on teaching ability, but want their professors to also be doing some research.  (Partially, I think, because those schools often want people who can teach a variety of undergrad classes, and many logicians these days are trained to be able to do that.)  But that obviously depends on being a very good teacher.

Regarding applied logic, it's very rare these days for someone with a math PhD to get hired to an interdisciplinary position, at least in the US.  Someone who's already established can sometimes can an honorary position in another department, but they still have to be hired (and eventually tenured) by their home department.  I think that's different in Europe, where there's a lot more mathematical logic going on in CS departments.


E-Mailing a Professor about interest in his research group during application for a master and before admission(in Germany) I hold a Bachelor in physics and I am applying for a master program in Germany. There is a research group by a professor, with topics very close to what I'd like to study and furthermore work on. On the group's site it is posted that there are open master-phd positions.

Should I email the professor, expressing my willingness to study and possibly work in the future under his group if I am not yet admitted to the program?

My email would contain some basic information about my choices of classes, bachelor thesis, personal studies after my bachelor and interests in the research group.

It is usually the case that the information you intend to include in your email about your studies would be asked for in the application, so preemptively providing that would be unnecessary.

It may be useful to email mentioning your interest in the research group, and ask any questions about the research you may have.


Is it okay for a PhD student to devote substantial work time to projects the advisor is not involved in? For example, if he spends 20 hours a week on his advisor's project, and 20 hours a week on a project with another professor (that the advisor is not involved in).  Do most advisors find this acceptable, or do they see this as taking up work time that belongs to them?

And what if those 20 hours a week are spent on non-research activities, such as taking classes unrelated to the topic of the PhD, or a part-time job outside the university?

It really depends on the funding source.

It is fairly common for researchers in industry to get a Ph.D. "on the side" as part time work away from their full-time job.  Many professors are OK with this because 1) an industry researcher often has more maturity in their approach to a subject than a student fresh out of undergrad, and 2) The professor is likely not required to provide funding for the student.

A professor who is funding a student to work full time from their grants, however, will be rightfully angry if the student does not work full time for them.


Access to good research communities without being in the university I'm interested in research in the field of educational sciences. I may enroll in a Ph.D. course in the future. But right now, I'm not a student anywhere and I want to do research in my interested field even without being in the university.
I think one of the most important benefits of being a Ph.D. student is access to scientific community. You have access to professors and other students, and you can engage in a group scientific research work.
My question is that what are the possibilities for an independent researcher (in a developing country) to have access to scientific communities? To have discussions, get reviews, etc. ?

One of your best bets would be to find some active SubReddits, Discord, and GitHub communities. Without university infrastructure, it’s a very steep challenge. Even with my suggestions, you become increasingly limited by what you’re able to do.


Is it ok to ask my professor about a project for a second time? Note that I am currently an undergrad.

One month ago, one of my professors agreed to let me work on a research project with him. After a few weeks of not hearing anything from them, I emailed the professor asking about the project (1.5 weeks ago). He replied saying that he would be contacting a collaborating researcher (at a different institution) in the project within two days and can discuss a roll for me with them. Based on the language of the email, it seems that he had been waiting for me to email him. He said that he would contact them in two or so days, so 1 week ago, and then get back to me.

I still haven't heard back from them and so I am wondering if it is inappropriate for me to email the professor and ask about the project a second time? (note that based on the current situation, we can only email each other and not talk in person). I realize that many times going through such a process can be a bit slow but I am in a position where a recommendation letter from this professor (who is well known in their field) would be significant, as he could then talk about my academic experience with him as well as my research experience with him.

First and foremost if you have the option to visit their office, I would highly recommend doing so before sending the second email. Because I have had professor that have lost my email in the dozens or hundreds that they receive daily, and a simple office visit was sufficient enough to clear it up


How can I avoid learning secrets at a research internship that would block me from legally pursuing research interests after it's over? I'm applying for a reserach internship at a company at which I just finished a software internship.

I also want to go to grad school to get a Master's degree in computational neuroscience.

Does anyone have experience with where the legal boundaries are for this? The company obviously has private intellectual property that I might be working with, and I'm concerned that working with them would put me under non-disclosure agreements that would conflict with my research interests.

How separate should the things I research at the internship be with what I plan to study at university be? Should I just avoid taking on an a research internship?

You should take the internship - congrats on that. Yes, you may learn some stuff that is proprietary to the company - it will be quite specific, and far more application oriented than anything you are likely to do in grad school. Working there will give you some good ideas about how things work in the real world (the fanciest ideas don't always produce good results). Finally, they know you are an intern - the probably won't have you working on the deepest darkest proprietary stuff.

You are not now, and will not be, the first or last student intern at a company that has proprietary information. Just be clear, before you go, what they consider as 'theirs'.


Is it Okay to Appear Constantly as Offline but Reply Back Instantly? On apps such as Mattermost, there are the following online status symbols:

To be honest, I don't (i) like and (ii) want people to know on which times I'm online, and on which times I'm not. I feel like this is a huge intrusion into my privacy. For example, if I want to check sth at 11pm, then I want to freely do this, without people knowing.
Is it okay/accepted to appear constantly as offline during weekdays, but still reply back "instantly" when sb writes to me privately, when I chat with the professor (my boss) or with our students?
I know that appearing online at some points might make life easier for some people (particularly for students), and also the prof. might be wondering what is going on. All people from our group regularly appear as "online" or "away" during usual office hours, but I just don't seem to be able to cope with these things (though to be fair, via email, nobody knows whether I'm online or away or off either).

It's okay to work as you please.
I personally consider communication applications (email, messaging, chat, ...) as a distraction and I prefer to leave them closed, which goes further than appear[ing] constantly as offline...but still reply[ing] "instantly."
You are free to define your own communication strategy. (Assuming you aren't mandated otherwise.) Of course, your strategy impacts others and some adjustments may be necessary.


Reviews, feedback and comments from collaborators/supervisors when writing in RMarkdown Posting here rather than on StackOverflow as the question is not code-related.
I have been wanting to make the switch to RMarkdown for academic writing (as opposed to Word) for a while now, but there is one question that has prevented me from doing so. Does writing in RMarkdown permit exchange of reviews and comments with collaborators/supervisors?
I understand that .doc output is an option and I can just send this file across for comments, but if I were to receive a draft back with many  changes and comments, how do I accept/reject those changes easily as in Word (with the click of a button)? Is manually making the changes in the .rmd file the only option? If so, can this workflow not become inefficient in the long run? How do people deal with this issue?

In principle you can use Markdown on Overleaf (tl;dr; with a few "wrapper" lines in LaTeX at the beginning and end, the body of the document can be in Markdown format), but the RMarkdown layer would be an extra challenge (that is, if you actually have R code embedded in your document).
There is an interesting possibility here but it's unstable (I know the author but haven't used it). You could give it a whirl (maybe try it out with a collaborator who's up for a small adventure) and see if it seems OK for your needs. It's supposed to handle bidirectional conversion from Word tracked changes to Critic Markup.

I don't personally have a good solution for this; I either suffer the burden of propagating changes back from marked-up Word or PDF, or work with people who can handle (R)Markdown or LaTeX.


Is there any world-wide ranking of conferences/journals? I know it's rather difficult to establish a ranking of publications, especially because the ones in charge of establishing values for venues might be biased by their field, and several other aspects. However, I know some well-accepted (at least locally) ranking, that consider all fields under research, e.g. Brazilian Qualis - in portuguese - that includes both confs and journals, and Australian ERA - this latter has served as baseline for some class A conferences in Computer Science (my research field), in some countries other than Australia.

Hence, I wonder about the existence of another "global ranking", that has been applied overseas, thus including at least the most prominent events and journals in every field. For journals, it's a little bit easier to measure its importance, by looking at their Impact Factor values, but for conferences it's a little bit tough. To the best of my knowledge, I don't know a largely-applied means of measuring the impact of a conf.

I'd like to hear from you. Thanks in advance.

In Computer Science, CiteSeerX used to provide a Venue Impact Factor, that included journals and conferences, but it seems they've stopped doing it. As indicated by Gopi, Microsoft academic Research is some kind of global ranking, and JeffE also mentions google.scholar.

That being said, a global ranking, across sub-fields, is not necessarily meaningful. For instance, if one does not work on programming languages, then it's unlikely to submit a paper at POPL (the first venue according to CiteseerX). Hence, I'd say that field-specific rankings matter more, for instance in security: http://faculty.cs.tamu.edu/guofei/sec_conf_stat.htm or https://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/changyu.dong/ranking.html.


Should I correct grammatically incorrect quotes when using them in a paper? As a researcher, I often need to quote from the previous authors. Sometimes, it happens that there are spelling mistakes in the part I want to quote. I treat this as a human error and write the correct spelling. However, I am unsure how should I handle if there is some (relatively) serious error? For example, I found the word choosed (instead of chose). Should I simply copy with the wrong word, or fix it?
If I change it, the previous authors (from whom I took the quote) may be unhappy. If I do not change it, the reviewers (who would be reviewing my paper) may be unhappy by seeing my lack of care while writing a paper.
This question is different from this, as I am confused whether or not to correct. Since I am writing a formal paper, I cannot use sic.
Originally asked here https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/567310/grammatically-wrong-quote

On both the original EL&U post and this one, people have asked "why do you believe that you cannot you use "[sic]" in a formal paper? On the EL&U post, you wrote:

I don't [sic] about other areas, but in science/technology where I work on [sic], [sic] would be considered a cheap way to discredit others. It is acceptable/understandable there will [sic] be editorial mistakes (the paper is about some other topic, and it is fine so long [sic] it makes unambiguous sense). In certain cases, [sic] where we see [sic] the result is indeed wrong, we say it politically correctly (e.g., we are not able to reproduce the same result [quotes missing in original]). In all likelihood, pointing out editorial mistake would be taken badly by the community.

So the perceived issue is not really about formality, but about offending the original authors. And indeed, quotes with many mistakes will require many instances of [sic] (as above), which hinders readabilty and, I agree, seems rather passive-aggressive.
On the other hand, you absolutely must not "fix" quotes. Even benign changes can cause problems; for example, think about how many well-meaning editors might change "iff" to "if" in a math paper. It is probably acceptable to insert missing words in brackets [like this], but that's probably as far as you can go.
So, to your question, I would suggest the following:

If there is a single mistake you could either use [sic] or (in the case of a missing word) insert the missing word in brackets. No reasonable author should be offended by this.
If there are many mistakes, you should probably not quote it at all. Instead, summarize it in your own words. As a last resort, if you absolutely cannot avoid quoting a lengthy, error-ridden passage, you could say something like "[spelling and grammar errors in original]"; this would at least reduce the awkwardness to a single sidebar rather than peppering the quote with [sic]s as I did above.


Am I helping my graduate students too much? As a new university professor, I have been informally tasked with making sure the MSc students in my program are prepared for their dissertations, by prepping them in my research methods course. My students are generally very motivated but they are from academically diverse backgrounds and, frankly, many are ill-prepared to undertake a dissertation and have been struggling with the material and assignments.

I have been trying to help them as much as possible, but it feels like the more helpful I am, the more they ask for help!

I have students who express extreme distress and confusion, which I try to allay with more explanation. Then they send me their work in progress, asking me if they are on the right track.

I want the students to do well, and to feel like they are progressing, but the constant emails and meetings are completely taking over my life. On the other hand, I can see that many of them are just not getting it, and that make me feel like they really do need help.

Is there, in any of your experience, a good point at which to tell students that I cannot help them further and do you have suggestions for wording this without seeming like a bad educator? I appreciate their motivation and I sympathize with their frustration, but at what point do I stop helping and how do I communicate this?

One of the solutions for limiting / demarcating the time you spend on MA students is to set aside specific office hours for that purpose.

For example, you could dedicate Fridays 1p - 5p for the purpose of answering MA questions on theses. If they have questions or if they want to show you revisions of their thesis, then they need to sign up and come to your office hours in person and you would be happy to walk them through things. You need to make clear that the only e-mails you will accept regarding the theses are for signups (or use an online signup system in your course management system), otherwise you'll defeat the purpose of this.

This serves a dual purpose.

First, it allows you to schedule your life (and balance your e-mail queue).

Second, it sets up a small but perceptible cost to see you in the eyes of the students. If they know they only have a 15/30/50 minute slot once a week, they will see your time with them as a limited resource in contention with others and try to use it more efficiently by preparing their questions and materials to review ahead of time. In the process, they may answer their own questions.

Of course, you'll want to select time/times that will work for you and your students, but when you chart out your week you should try to set a top limit for student contact hours (and e-mail hours) until you get tenure.


Using Cambridge's "short-title reference system" Does anyone have experience using the Cambridge UP's "short-title reference system" or even just know of a work that uses it. I'm copy-editing for some extra cash but the style guide they have online is really not very helpful.
The very first reference I've tried to come up with, for example, is a translated work, and they have no indication of how to include the translator in the citation other than saying that it should be there.
My best guess is:
Author's name, Title of Work, Translator's name (trans.)(Place of publication: Publisher, Year), p. page number.
I guess the main issue is I can't tell if "(trans.)" should be in parentheses or not. This is just my best guess based on the example given for a book with an editor, which is "Editor's name (ed.)"
Thank you for any advice!

I can't give you direct advice about the Cambridge short title but there are quite a lot of applications to go from bibtex to different reference styles. I would suggest using one of those to help. I found the easiest way to do this is to add items to zotero and then export as bibliography, they have hundreds of styles based on journals as well as common ones like Harvard and Chicago Manual.


Why are tuition fees for PhD students so high in the USA, despite not taking any class? As a PhD student in a US university, my tuition fees are ~44,000 USD per year, despite the fact that I don't take any class: only 6 classes are required during the PhD program, and I've completed them during the first two years. Why are tuition fees so high? (tuition is paid by fellowship / RA / TA / ...)

I think it is essentially a scam. There are essentially 3 types of students (1) self funded, (2) departmentally funded, (3) externally funded. For departmentally funded students the tuition fees are essentially meaningless and just represent money being shifted around internally. Self funded students can be really hurt by large tuition fees, but departments can offset these fees by partial departmental funding (again just internally transferring money around). The scam comes when students are funded externally and the external funder is required to pay the full fee (and potentially even indirect costs on the tuition fees). Things get messy when the funding has a cap on tuition fees. For example the NIH NRSA pays 60% of the tuition up to $16,000 plus a $4,200 "institutional" allowance. Most departments I am aware of offer a tuition subsidy to individuals who get an NRSA.

It is worth noting that high fees not only puts PIs at expensive universities at a disadvantage (okay to be fair, it reduces their advantage) in that their research is more expensive than someone at a cheaper university, but it also puts them in an ethical dilemma. When tuition fees make hiring a PhD student more expensive than a post doc, it is hard for a PI to justify hiring a PhD student.


Old Cambridge examination: Draw, from memory, a wheelbarrow turned upside down I came across the following story about the exams students sat in 1858 see page 4 here.

The following questions are taken from the first examinations set by
the The University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate in 1858.
The Junior papers were for candidates “under 16 years of age” and the
Senior papers were for candidates “under 18 years of age”. [...]
On another paper, candidates were asked to draw, from memory, a
wheelbarrow turned upside down. They were allowed an hour to do so.

I was hoping someone could provide more context for this wheelbarrow question. Such as, what was the purpose of the exam? Why was such an usual question on the exam?

The original question appears to be here:

III. 2 Drawing from Memory
[One hour allowed for this Study.
The Candidates may add any amount of shadow that they think necessary to the full expression of the subject.]
The Candidate is required to make a careful drawing, from memory, of a wheelbarrow turned upside down, with its wheel and legs in the air.

Some scrolling reveals that the prefixed numbers correspond to "the subjects in the regulations". We find that, for students under 16 years of age, the relevant numbers correspond to (bolded for emphasis by me)

Part III.
Students may also offer themselves for Examination in

Geometrical and Mechanical Drawing
Drawing from the Flat, from Models, from Memory, and in Perspective.
The Grammar of Music.

So this section of the examination was optional. For students under 18 years of age, part II includes an optional section G, which is described as

Section G.
Drawing from the Flat, from Models, from Memory, and in Perspective; and Drawing of Planes, Sections, and Elevations.
Design in Pen and ink, and in colour.
A fair degree of skill in free-hand drawing will be required in order that a Student may pass in this section.
Questions also will be set on the history of principles of the arts of Design.

In conclusion, I think the purpose of the question isn't related to mechanical drawing (which would've fallen under III.1) but to test more artistic drawing skills. It's also worth noting that it's a very broad examination - covering fields such as religious studies, English, Greek, etc. - seemingly intended to determine placement of students:

After each Examination the names of the Students who pass with credit will be placed alphabetically in three honour classes, and the names of those who pass to the satisfaction of the Examiners, yet not so as to deserve honours, will be placed alphabetically in a fourth class.  ...

In other words, the context in OP's link (a math assignment) is very different from the purposes of the exam where the question showed up.


Why lab sessions are handled by TAs? Consider a course (say machine learning). Professors attend to deal with a theoretical part and then does not involve in the coding part.
The task of handling the coding part is left to the TAs of the course.
What is the reason behind this?
I am asking this question because I personally feel that dealing with a theoretical part does not need any expertise in the coding part. But coding part expects expertise in both the areas.  (Why difficult part is assigned to TAs?). Am I wrong anywhere?

I think your question extends beyond programming-related courses and also applies to virtually any course with a significant hands-on laboratory component (think chemistry labs, biology labs, physics labs, etc).
The main reason that TAs or lab instructors are used in these subjects is because hands-on instruction does not scale as well as lecture-style instruction. A professor can easily lecture about an algorithm to hundreds of students at the same time. But can the professor also help hundreds of students implement and debug the algorithm on their computers? Not very efficiently.
This is why TAs and lab instructors are hired. They can provide more individualized guidance and instruction with hands-on learning than a single professor probably ever could, and they are much cheaper.


Applying for a mathematics PhD in the US after getting a BSc degree from Imperial This summer I finished my BSc maths degree at Imperial College London and ranked around top 5% of the class.
I was considering the idea of applying to some US universities like Stanford, Harvard, etc., but they don't do master's applications, just straight up PhD ones for mathematics. I quite like the idea of doing a PhD, so it is not a big problem for me, but I was wondering about my chances here, coming off a BSc and applying straight to a PhD sounds like a big reach.
Has anybody had similar experiences and know if it's even worth trying?
Thanks for all the help.

Most US students enter doctoral studies after "only" a bachelors degree. It isn't a reach at all. But expect there to be coursework and exams. The coursework is something like what you would get in a masters, but is intended primarily to prepare you for the qualifying examinations. Serious dissertation research often starts after you've done a couple of years of other things. But you aren't likely to finish in three years from where you are now. Expect something like twice that.


How important academic affiliation really is for getting published in a reputable journal? More specifically how likely it is for me to get published as an independent researcher working as hard as an affiliated researcher? How much difference does it really make?

I would think it depends on the field you're in. I'm in computer security at a major university, and my views will obviously be slanted by what I know.

The first thing you'll need to establish is the resources to which you'll have access as an independent researcher. If you're in computer science or mathematics, this might be everything that you need; if you're in neuroscience or microbiology, not so much. Then remember that 'resources' applies as much to books, articles, and papers as it does to lab resources. In computer science, you might be able to get away with the free resources available; good luck with that in, say, medieval history or medicine.

Second, and more subtly, there's a publication bias issue. In most fields, as far as I know, reviews for conferences and journals aren't double-blind; that is, your reviewers can see your name and (lack of) institutional affiliation when they're reading your paper. Anyone would be biased by that information, and academics are not exception. It's not even a conscious bias, necessarily, but it is going to be there. That means you risk getting rejected out of hand, even if your work is good. By contrast, reviews for the big computer security conferences generally are double-blind, so this isn't such an issue.


How could I reply an email from a potential professor? I'm applying to a PhD program. I contacted one professor and told him that I would like to join in his research team. He replied to me as below. Was this a positive response? How could I reply to this email?

  "Good luck with the PhD applications! Happy to talk with you if you come to XXX (university name)."

From my experience, this means that he would be happy to speak to you after you've been accepted to the program. It's a polite way of saying, "Come back to me after you've been offered—and have accepted the offer to—our program." I wouldn't read much beyond that, including not assuming that he has open positions in his lab group.


Can I share an unpublished paper without this counting as prior publication? I need to share a draft of a scientific paper with another person. I have the intention of publish it, but it is not ready for submission yet.
When submitting my paper, I would like to avoid accusations that it is not original work.
Do I have to take anything into account in this respect before sending it?

As per your comment, your main concern is that your sharing the draft may count as prior publication and will prevent you from eventually publishing the final paper.

Sharing a draft does not count as publication.

Moreover, your draft is most likely going to change a lot before you submit the final manuscript to a journal for review. In general, it is a good idea to share drafts early and often, so you can collect as much feedback as possible.

Some precautions:

make the draft status explicit
ensure the paper can't be found online before acceptance, so as not to compromise blind review (may depend on the field)
ask that the draft paper not be cited or circulated without permission


Will a D in a major elective keep me from getting into a PhD program? I am in my last semester of undergrad (majoring in mathematics) and am currently working on applying to PhD programs (in mathematics). During the fall of 2016 due to a health issue that lasted for the majority of the semester and the general difficulty of the course I received a D in Topology. Topology is not a required course at my university, but is an elective in my major. I was going to immediately retake the course, but my school has not offered the course since I last took it until this semester (fall of 2018). So, I could retake it this semester (and am currently planning on it), but my applications will need to be submitted before the new grade can be recorded, so I will have to submit my application with the D on my transcript.

I have done everything in my power to try to remedy this flaw on my transcript. I have a ~3.7 (3.68 exact) overall GPA and subject GPA (although if I had the chance to retake the course my mathematics GPA would be a ~3.8), as well as having received permissions from the department to take several graduate courses as an undergraduate in which my GPA is a 4.0 and taken several courses that cover and use topological concepts and received A's in them. I strongly believe that given the chance to retake the course I would have no problems receiving an A (or using topological concepts in research/other classes) since I have already mastered topological concepts in a variety of other courses as well as my prior knowledge from my first time taking the course.

I also have prior research experience from my freshman year (in a different engineering area since my freshman year I was a computer science major) and will also be starting mathematics research during this coming semester, so I will most likely not publish anything but will have research experience. My GRE scores are average to slightly above average according to GRE data that I have looked at and will be retaking the GRE to improve my scores even further next week and my letters of recommendation will be strong as I have worked closely for years with all of my recommenders.

Will this bad grade effect my chances of getting into a PhD program? Should I apply to a masters program first? Should I retake topology this semester even though admissions committees will not see the new grade until after I have received a decision? Any advice would be appreciated!

(Note: I have read a handful of other posts on here about one bad grade, but none seemed to quite match the dilemma of a bad grade in an upper level elective in one's field of study. Thanks!)

I don't believe any single thing like a particular grade is disqualifying, but it will raise eyebrows in anyone considering you for acceptance. But things happen. If the grade is truly an outlier and you have a good explanation most people will understand. Not all, of course.

Stress the positives in your background, as you have in this question. Don't ignore the negatives.

For future reference, however, if it is possible to drop a course late, do so when you are having trouble. Often a Dean's signature may be required for a late-drop, but he/she will be in a position to evaluate your need to do so. I once took too many credits, got into difficulty, and dropped a course to get back to a more reasonable workload. In my case it wasn't difficult, but in the case of illness, especially, most folks at your institution will make an exception to a rule. That doesn't help you now, of course.

Making an attempt at re-learning, even without a grade, is a positive thing. You can mention that.

Different Universities feel differently about accepting doctoral students straight from undergraduate. It likely also depends on the field, but it is possible in Math, of course. Sometimes a Master's degree is just awarded along the way as a sort of marker. So, while it depends on the University, I don't think that "settling" now for a Master's is a good choice.


What should someone who works at a tech company that isn't associated with the work list as affiliation? I am preparing to submit a paper with a friend who is working at a tech company.  The company that he is working with is in no way associated with our research work.  Is it appropriate to list his employer as his affiliated institution?  Otherwise, I would leave his affiliated institution field blank.  Or, should I list the institution where he graduated from 2 years ago?

Update: Thank you very much for all of your feedback, answers, comments, and suggestions.  We really appreciate it.  I discussed with my collaborator and we will likely be listing him as an "Independent Researcher".  Although, we concluded that it wouldn't be unreasonable to list his employer purely as a personal affiliation (or point of contact) as long as he got approval from their HR department.

The co-author of my recently accepted paper works at Microsoft. The paper has absolutely nothing to do with her job, so we specified her affiliation as "Independent Researcher".


Why conference chair asks for accepted papers sources? I got my paper accepted to a conference, whose proceedings will be published in IEEE digital library (Xplore). The General chair asked me for the paper source, I was astonished when she insisted on me submitting a Word version even though the conference offered LaTeX template which I used.
My question is twofold:
Why would the conference chair need the source of my paper?
Knowing that I couldn't convert my pdf paper to a decent Word file,
is it my problem at all to do that since the conference allowed using a
LaTex template for paper writing but did not alert that a Word source would be required in case of acceptance?

While we obviously do not know the Chair's intent (unless she happens to be a stack exchange poster), the most likely situation to me is that there's some sort of formatting related issue (or possibly some typos, etc. that need correcting) in your submitted version that they are incapable of fixing given your PDF file.

This does not necessarily imply it's your fault - typesetting systems are sometimes fussy, but asking for both a Word version and the source indicates, to me, that they want "A version they can edit".

On a practical level, yes, it's your problem. You could refuse of course, with unknown results.


I have an unfinished translation of a speciality book. Should I write this down on my CV/SOP? When I was working on my dissertation, I had translated some first chapters of a book that I was using into my native language. The reasons I do this because I could consider myself pretty good at reading English comparing two other students in my group (iBT TOEFL reading score: 25/30), and because my specialization was very new to my country (there was (and still is) only three groups, including our group, work in this), therefore seriously lacking good resources. While translating not really prove that I can afford a PhD, it does indicate that I have some contributions to the scientific community. But the translation is unfinished (only first 4 of 25 chapters are translated). I can continue to finish it, but it won't be in near future. Should I write this down on my CV/SOP?

Unfortunately, most hiring committees would at best ignore this contribution and at worst wonder if you allocate your time wisely.

The work of translators is (unfortunately) given little value in academic communities with the exception of the field of literature and even there it is deprecated. The rationale is that the work is not the result of independent research nor does it add any intellectual value -- it is inherently wholly derivative.

There might be some association of value if your translation had been finished, published by a reputable scientific publisher in your country, and you had been given awards or otherwise acknowledged for providing an important service to your community.  But even then, there is a perception of someone as being "just a translator" that is hard to shake off.

Note that Famous People® are allowed to do translations and be recognized for it, but Famous People® have latitude in their work that non-famous people don't.

At the very worst, a committee might worry that the fact that the translation is unfinished and that you have put effort into doing something with little recognized value means that you don't allocate your energy and time wisely, and that you are not capable of independent research.

The same also applies for authoring textbooks. Textbooks are also seen as inherently derivative and while they make the publisher and author money, are not indications of original scholarship.

At this point in your career, you want to be seen as the generator of original scholarship.


Researchgate (RG) Score While using Researchgate platform for a while, I could not understand how the change of the RG score is carried out. For example, after my first paper RG=1. Afterwards, it became 0.99. Then, after the second paper, RG=1.13. Few days after it became 1.12.
Do you have any idea how this change is carried out? What is the issue behind the score decrease?

While ResearchGate provides some rough hints on their support pages (see @GoodDeeds's comment), the details of how the RG score is computed are not publicly disclosed.
Relevant article from the London School of Economic's Impact Blog: The ResearchGate Score: a good example of a bad metric

One of the most apparent issues of the RG Score is that it is in-transparent. ResearchGate does present its users with a breakdown of the individual parts of the score, i.e., publications, questions, answers, followers (also shown as a pie-chart), and to what extent these parts contribute to your score. Unfortunately, that is not enough information to reproduce one’s own score. For that you would need to know the exact measures being used as well as the algorithm used for calculating the score. These elements are, however, unknown.
ResearchGate thus creates a sort of black-box evaluation machine that keeps researchers guessing, which actions are taken into account when their reputation is measured. This is exemplified by the many questions in ResearchGate’s own question and answering system pertaining to the exact calculation of the RG Score. There is a prevalent view in the bibliometrics community that transparency and openness are important features of any metric. One of the principles of the Leiden Manifesto states for example: “Keep data collection and analytical processes open, transparent and simple”, and it continues: “Recent commercial entrants should be held to the same standards; no one should accept a black-box evaluation machine.” Transparency is the only way measures can be put into context and the only way biases – which are inherent in all socially created metrics – can be uncovered.


When applying for postdoc funding, what are the consequences of backing out if I can get another position where funding is already secured? When looking for a post-doctoral fellowship, I have, in a nutshell, two alternatives:

Apply to open positions, where money is already secured (at least for the beginning)
Apply together with a potential supervisor for funding agencies, such as NASA NPP, UCAR VSP, NRC, or one of the more generic funding agencies.

With option (2), I'd need to first convince a potential supervisor, then write a funding proposal to convince a funding agency.  From a candidate's point of view, (1) is easier.  On the other hand, there are a lot more options in (2) to try, than in (1).  My question relates to option (2).

Two relevant calls for me close on 1 November and 10 January.  Results are announced in February and March.  I could apply to both, with different projects and different supervisors.  While waiting for results, other opportunities, where funding is already secured (such as point (1)) may come along, and I'd apply to those too.

Is it unethical, unprofessional, or otherwise unwise, to apply to different programmes, with different supervisors, and still apply to immediately available positions while awaiting the result?  Suppose that I find a postdoc elsewhere before even knowing the result of either funding application; can I then simply back out of the still-open funding applications without consequences, or should I expect this to cause severe annoyment with the host scientist I'd be applying with?  After all, he or she would have invested a non-neligible amount of time in the proposal.  I find it different then simply applying for different jobs, because time invested is much less.  On the other hand, I don't want to have to wait until March, before hearing a negative result and having to start all over again.

I'd like to hear from senior scientists how they would look upon a fresh PhD who they'd spend time writing a post-doc proposal with, but who'd then back out for another position before the result is even announced.

The key is to be open and honest. To answer the question lets define some terms. Let Prof X be a potential post doc supervisor who already has funding and Prof Y be a a potential post doc supervisor without any funding.

Prior to working on a funding application to Prof Y you need to discuss whether he expects you to put all your eggs in one basket or if he is okay with you applying for different jobs. There may be applications that Prof Y will not make with you or it might change the application strategy. For example, Prof Y may not list you as a named post doc so as not to cause problems with the funder if you do not take the position. The key is to be honest and up front.

If you have a application in with Prof Y and Prof X offers you a job, then you have problems. If it is close to the decision deadline for the funding with Prof Y, you may want to wait before starting with Prof X. Again you need to talk with Prof X. Maybe Prof X X needs you to start right away but instead of a 12 month commitment he only needs a 6 month commitment and maybe you can delay the start of the funding with Prof Y, if you get it.

In general, most people understands that a guaranteed job is important and will try and be flexible. That said if you have funding, you need to deliver the work you promised, and you don't want to apply for funding you cannot use.


Is it ethical to send an unpublished draft preprint to a competitor by email to establish priority? I am a mathematician. I recently formulated a conjecture, and was working toward proving it. Another mathematician I know only via email also conjectured the same around the same time.

I now managed to prove the conjecture. I think it is an important result.

However, my paper on this is not ready to be put on the arXiv, because there are natural questions related to this conjecture that need to be solved first (otherwise the paper will look incomplete). I know I can solve these questions, but it will take me time to do that.

From a recent preprint this person put on the arXiv recently, I am convinced that he is also not too far from proving this result (my solution did not use his results and was not inspired by them). Thus, I am worried that he will also obtain the same result.

I was wondering if it would be ethical for me to "block him" and establish priority by emailing him my solution of the conjecture?

It seems to me that there is some amount of "having your cake and eating it too" in your question.

First of all, I think private mathematical correspondence, including sending preprints, should only be "friendly" (or "collaborative"); it should not be "unfriendly" (or "competitive").  If someone emails me a paper, I don't in general have an obligation to read it.  If you think I am about to prove something very soon and you send me something with the aim of taking away the independent nature of my proof, that seems quite unfriendly.  The correspondence doesn't advance the field in any way; it only seeks to advance you at my expense.  As others have said, if the natural state of affairs is that both you and I will arrive at proofs of the same result independently in roughly the same time frame -- great, we will both get the credit, and it will not be divided in half in any clear way.  I don't see why you need to perform machinations to try to prevent that.

Also, you are trying to establish priority in a rather strange way when there are two much more standard ways: submit to a journal and/or post on the arxiv.  Regarding this, you say:

  My paper on this is however not ready to be put on the arxiv, because there are natural questions related to this conjecture that need to be solved first (otherwise the paper will look incomplete).

But you also say:

  I now managed to prove the conjecture. I think it is an important result.

If the conjecture is important, then a proof of it should make for a very nice paper.  Most papers "look incomplete" in the sense that they leave something natural undone.  And most of us do not get to work out all the consequences of our results in the same paper as those results are first published.  Doing too much in one paper is risky for several reasons, one of which is that the longer you sit on a given result, the larger the chance that someone else will do it.  You seem to be trying to circumvent this natural tension with your private correspondence.  While not unethical per se, I don't expect it will be well received.

Given the situation and the concerns, I suggest that you do upload to the arxiv a short note that proves your conjecture and that does not have all the bells and whistles you would like to eventually have.  You say that it is two pages long, so that I would expect that the relevant mathematical community will be able to quickly ascertain whether it is a correct proof of the conjecture.  Because of this you don't have to submit right away or even submit the version of the paper you put on the arxiv.  You can take the time to make the additions that you want.  Of course, other members of the community can respond to your arxiv preprint and build on it as well.  That's what's fair, it seems to me.


Effect of passing management courses on research career By reviewing syllabus of a MBA course, and its entry requirements such as some years of industry job experience; it comes to mind that these type of management courses are designed only for the people seeking jobs in industry and studying management sciences does not have any positive impact on a person's career aiming to do research.

In my opinion, having knowledge of management, will help researchers in many aspects; such as if they are managing a laboratory, by having management knowledge, they will better manage their labs and be more effective in their scientific contracts, managing human resources, etc. Also, having project management knowledge may help the students or people in academia better organize their projects, whether academic or industry projects.

How does studying management short-time courses or degrees help a researcher?
How does these type of courses help research students improve their effectiveness in academia?

Please focus your answers specifically on MBA, project-management courses and short time classes or workshops on management sciences.

It clearly depends on what kind of future research you want to do but a lot of MBA content will not be relevant to anyone who will manage a non-profit lab, although it might help with the business of running a lab (e.g., a for-profit lab).

Here are just some examples:

business environment: Here you are going to learn about international trade, competition, etc. and how those impact competitiveness of a company. I don't see how this will help you run a lab unless your lab is operating in competition with other labs for customers (or other constrained resources).
accounting: Here you will learn about creative ways to maximize your organization's profit leveraging tax law. I believe most labs are non-profit and, thus, I do not think creative accounting is an important skill (but I might be wrong here).
business law: Here you will learn national and international laws which can impact trade. You would naturally learn about contracts, negligence, and other related topics. This might help you understand what makes a valid contract or what the impact is of leaking private data but I am not sure it will help you much other than avoiding being tricked when someone says 'I will fund you if you just sign here.'
human resource management: Here you will learn about how human resources add to a company's profitability and how to plan for them. The focus will generally be more strategic in nature and could help you do some strategic planning. One such issue is 'employer branding' and clearly you do want people to want to come to work for you. This might help you but as you are smaller, the benefit will be smaller.
finance: Like other modules, the focus here will be on strategy. How do different funding sources, and different balances between sources, impact profitability by minimizing your cost of capital. Non-profits have a much more limited choice in their sources of capital so this will be of very limited use for you.

Normally, MBA programs do include a thesis which includes research. This clearly can tell someone if they want to do more research and it will give them some research skills.

Now, there is (hopefully) going to be a change in the way the student thinks. That is, students should think more strategically. This skill (strategic thinking) should give you a benefit in most things you do in life by encouraging you to think more long-term.

All this said, if you want to start a for-profit venture which focuses on research (selling your output) then, yes, an MBA would be quite helpful. However, you should not think an MBA is about managing people better. It is about that but it is much more about how to maximize your profits through maximizing your revenue, minimizing your expenses.

If someone is going to run an academic lab, I would encourage them not to take an entire MBA (unless they really want to think like business people) but rather take a class on a subject where they want to be stronger (e.g., human resource management).

EDIT: I think Edward's answer is good but to go a bit further about project management courses, this might actually help a researcher, especially if that research is managing a team.

In project management courses, you would learn about different topics than an MBA. For example:

Feasibility studies
Planning, organizing, controlling (general management issues)
Reporting progress on your project
Risk management
Change management
Leadership, motivation, human resource management
Several others

Because most research is a project (has a start date and an end date, has resources including people and money, etc.) this could be much more suitable (than an MBA) to someone leading a lab. I would recommend starting with a single project management class (which will generally give you an overview of each topic) then, if you want to really dig into more detail, consider getting a master in project management or perhaps an industry certification like PMP.


Negative percentages in a table of data I am writing a paper and I have a table outlining the percentage change of results in different conditions.  For example:

Condition A: 5%
Condition B: -7%

Essentially, I want to show that Condition A saw an increase with my method and Condition B saw a decrease.  However, my adviser recommended against negative percentages, saying a percentage should always be positive.  What is a proper way to format this?

I don't necessarily know that I agree with your advisor's perspective, but the way you could do this is having "baseline" be 100%, and the changes between method A and method B being deviations from 100%.

So for example, rather than 5% and -7% you'd have 105% and 93%. This, to me, seems entirely stylistic in many cases, however may be consistent with things in your field. For example, relative risks in epidemiology implicitly use a scale somewhat like this.


Responding to positive grant reviews? A common way to handle grant applications seems to be to request external reviews, to which the applicant can then respond. Reviews and response together are discussed at a panel where the proposals are ranked, and the top x% then are funded.

I've found myself in a nice, but perplexing situation: I got back the reviews for my first grant proposal, and all reviewers gave top scores (and very positive comments). Now I'm wondering whether or not to use my right to respond - all information I could find about responses boil down to addressing criticism, but what do you do if there is no criticism?

Edit: The grant agency explicitly discourages using the reply to thank reviewers. The alternative option besides not replying at all could be to attempt to selectively agree with the most praising comments or something like that, but I'm not sure that is a good idea.

If there's no criticism to rebut, then waive the right to rebut.

If you've already received top marks with no criticisms, then you can only spoil things by saying something at this stage.

Just shut up. And enjoy the moment.


Should I include derivations elaborated in other's paper in my paper's appendix? I used results from derivations of a theoretical physics paper in my paper. Is is appropriate for me to include the derivations with a few adaption specific to my work with citations like: 'most of the derivations can be found in paper XX' or should I just cite the final result of their derivations, without writing an appendix section elaborating the derivations?

a little more to ask : is it considered plagiarism if I write down all the derivations with most of them from their paper and a few adaptions even with proper citations?

It's standard to write "The derivation can be found in X and is included in the Appendix for the sake of completeness." It may happen that the reviewers suggest to remove the Appendix but in this way the presence of the derivation should not influence the overall suggestion of the manuscript.

You may well give other reasons than "sake of completeness" (e. g.  self-containedness, slightly different derivation...) but some reason and proper reference should be given.


What makes a standout profile for applying to a top-ten ranked CS masters in the US? I'm currently an undergrad student, will complete it next 3 months, I was thinking that, what makes an undergrad profile different and stand out of crowd?

To be more specific: what does it take for an applicant for a Masters in Computer Science, for top 10 ranked departments in the United States.

What is it that an undergrad must do which will elevate his/her profile. Is research or publications expected from undergrads?

You seem to have little time to do a huge number of things, but a few things you can do:

contribute to some open source projects there are many many and all need help of at level
show that you have played with some ideas on GitHub
show you can turn your hand to many languages again stick it up on GitHub
have a shot at project Euler, and stick it all up on Github
build an App or website that does something/anything

Publications for Undergrads are great, but not really expected.


If supervisor has no expertise in your research work, is it possible to do a PhD under that supervisor? In my PhD, I am assigned mathematical modeling topics and my supervisor's work is related to mathematical biology. But I don't want to work in mathematical biology. Because actually there is not so much real application of that and I don't like biology. Instead, I want to work in fluid dynamics. But my supervisor's research area is totally different. Is it possible  to do independent research work without supervision of supervisor?

In summary: is it possible? Yes. Should one do it? No.

You need an advisor to tell you which problem is important to solve, which direction may not be feasible to investigate, which conference to submit your work etc etc. If you have to do all these alone, you may waste years going nowhere.

That being said, I happen to know a couple of people who successfully did their PhD without working with their advisors. All are very talented, and extremely confident with their research. One of them is a very young PhD student in my former school, who has published 3 solo papers (and co-authored some others), and invented a new sub-field of cryptography.


Grid lines on graphs I'm told there are conventions in scientific papers around graphs. I'm publish material for a general audience based on a the findings of a scientific paper (unpublished) and having a disagreement with the author of the paper about how graphs must be presented.

I'm specifically asking here about the conventions for scientific publishing. I'm very aware that conventions outside scientific papers for graphs are much more open, I take my visual data cues mostly from Edward Tufte's books.

I'm being told that displaying horizontal grid lines implies a greater accuracy in modelling data and therefore should be absent in the case of this carbon sequestration modelling since it's not the results of measurements? (I would have thought significant figures on axis, axis spacing and fundamentally the caption explaining the data source and assumptions were more relevant to that)

I'm told that titles are a no go, captions only. (I've found a Uni spec online for science papers saying titles are mandatory). I'm told titles are rare in journals.

Is there any right or wrong to these matters of convention or is it just opinion?

On grid lines

It depends on the points you would like to make with the graph. If you're just going to show an upward or downward trend, then the grid lines are probably redundant. If you'd need refer back to a certain point of a curve, and knowing the vertical position of that point would be crucial, then grid lines can help. It's not about the graphs (or I may go so far to say even within publication culture,) it's about the points you are trying to get across. If the grid lines will get people there with less puzzling or work, then yes to grid lines. In all other occasions, then no.

  I'm being told that displaying horizontal grid lines implies a greater
  accuracy in modelling data and therefore should be absent in the case
  of this carbon sequestration modelling since it's not the results of
  measurements

This is perhaps the oddest graphical rule I have heard in the last 12 months. For most grid lines are just an extension of the tick mark on the axes. As long as you provide the tick marks on the y-axis, anyone can draw horizontal grid lines.

It is, however, not advisable to provide tick marks or grid lines finer than what your instrument or model can discern. For example, if your measurement or prediction is in the unit of meter. Then, at most I'd just put grid lines at 0.5 m increment. I wouldn't go so far to put 0.01 or even 0.1 m increments. That would imply some precision that I never had. I believe your partner author's concern may be more related to this problem. In that case, you two need to talk and make sure at least the tick marks make sense.

On caption vs. title

  I'm told that titles are a no go, captions only. (I've found a Uni
  spec online for science papers saying titles are mandatory). I'm told
  titles are rare in journals.

Yes, they are rare in my field (biomedical.) We use captions (located below the graph) most of the time. The caption usually starts with something like this:

Figure 1. The [would have been title]
[texts explaining the graph.]

If you have a title in the illustration, it only serves to duplicate information, making it redundant ink.

Though, depending on fields and journals, the rule may differ. Check with the journal's guideline and other published work in that journal for clues.


How do I research about the latest developments in a field? Say I am interested in the latest development in the field of computer vision. I am a newbie into that area and do not have much knowledge about the history or the journey of computer vision till now or the latest development as well?
So what I do is usually go to google scholar and type some random combination of keywords and filter it based on years. I take the latest research paper that catches my eye (or take the latest review paper) and just start reading it. Usually when I am reading the introduction, I get references about the past development and start digging deeper.
This is where I get lost. I dig so deep into the references (rabbit hole of one reference to another) that by the time I am satisfied about what led me down that particular hole I have already lost track. This gets compounded as I do it for every interesting reference I find in the original paper.
How do I optimise my researching capacity?
My goal is to accomplish this from my researching capacity/ literature review ?

Get important topics I can potentially look into (as I just select a topic that catches my eyes. I feel I am losing out on topics that may have more potential). How do you all select a topic you want to look into.

Optimise the time required to form an opinion.

Read literature quicker and more efficiently . (This down the rabbit hole technique I use gives me a lot of deep knowledge about a lot of aspects that I should not , my energy is expanded in an unoptimised way).

Get to know prominent players in the field who provide high quality research that aligns with what I like to do.

Actually, I think you method isn't that bad in practice. I do something along the same lines. I'd just tinker a bit with your approach. For example:

Narrow your area. "Computer vision" sounds quite broad, focus on something more specific ("object recognition", "object tracking").
Pay attention to the citation count of a paper you are going to read and use it as a quick way to prioritize your reading.
If you opt to read highly-quoted papers only, it will greatly reduce your effort. You can read less-quoted papers later when you decide that you are interested in the specific problems they address. ("Less quoted" doesn't mean "bad", it might mean their authors study some narrow domain/problem, and the odds are that you don't need it at your current stage yet).
Use references in the papers you read as your "time machine" to uncover important papers you miss. Very often I see that the same reference constantly pops up here and there, but I miss it because it's too old to make it through my Google Scholar filter.
If you really want to get a broad view of a domain, read at least tables of contents of all major conferences/journals in the field for the past few years.

When I study something new, my first impression is always the same: "oh, lots and lots of papers, impossible to track and read them all; and all the problems are apparently solved here". However, in a week or so I start noticing that everything isn't so rosy, and there is a lot of work to be done, and many topics barely touched.
I must say though that "topics of higher potential" might be or might not be what you want to study. Consider, at least, your personal preferences (after all, you are going to spend much time working on a topic), and your existing skills/talents. It is possible that you can achieve more in a topic that might not be stellar, but fit nicely into your personality and background.


Do professors care about their rating on websites such as RateMyProfessor or Koofers? I am wondering if a professor is already an Associate Professor, do they still care about their reputation in the eyes of the department considering tenureship is already granted?

I occasionally check RateMyProfessor, and I do care (a little) about what students say: my feelings are hurt by negative comments, and I am encouraged by positive ones. I know some people who do the same; others never check the site at all.

However, these ratings are never taken seriously as an evaluation of effective teaching. I have never heard them seriously discussed in any hiring, tenure, or promotion meetings. Anyone who brought them up would likely provoke a very negative reaction from their colleagues.

Why is the site not taken seriously? My negative reviews include the following:

"The amount of homework was unreal. I spent on average, 5 hours a week on this homework, which is also graded on correctness."
"Only take this class if... you like learning on your own."
"He is a really tough grader and will take off points for little things (i.e. forgetting an equals sign)."
"He... marks off on tests if he doesn't know how you got an answer."
"Also, the homework is graded on accuracy not completion..."

If my colleagues cared at all, they would see these reviews as positive.