How to conduct IT based research in developing countries where we don't even have enough datasets for reference and analysis? Today in developed countries technology and innovation  has reached its optimum level. But in least developed countries like Nepal, Bangladesh, etc, the scenario for research is different. Here the education syatem is also in learning phase. Few university exists and barely research oriented activities goes through academic.
We neither have any research grants to follow or enough datasets and technologies for analysis and comparision. Even the governmemt is still functioning on paper. So in such absurd situation what kinds of researches are suggested and how to do it?

There are ways to get research done on publicly available data.

However, I would be silly to not mention that I left the UK for Germany to conduct my research, because the UK, as optimum as it is, wasn't the best in the world for the specific type of science I wanted to do. More importantly, it wasn't nearly as well funded for my particular area of science (its much better now though). Transferring to greener pastures is not only recommended, it's extremely normal in Science.

What did it take to get into a top German institute? Knowledge and determination. And I know for a fact that Nepal, Bangladesh, etc have plenty of knowledge and determination, because students from these countries are working side-by-side with me.


Minor Error in Submitted Elsevier Journal Paper I have recently submitted a paper. I feel the paper is good quality but I have found several mistakes. They are minor editorial mistakes that do not affect the science but could cause confusion.

I am repeating some well-known algorithms. However when I say algorithm X is represented by equation Y I have found that there is a mismatch. If one were to look at the well-known equations with knowledge of them it will be clear they are mismatched. This is due to us adding another algorithm in a list and not updating the numbers.

What is likely to happen? I would be very disappointed if they were to reject the paper on these grounds. I hope they wouldn't assume I don't know the content of my area because of this mismatch. It's an Elsevier journal. Is there a "most likely" outcome here?

First of all, that it's Elsevier doesn't seem to have anything to do with it.  (Unless you didn't want to submit there at all, but evidently you do, which is fine by me...)

Based on your description of the errors, I agree that they are minor.  In my experience, many if not most papers contain minor errors of this form, and a lot of referees include it as part of their job to point out the minor errors that they find (though of course you cannot count on this).  If the minor errors are sufficiently numerous that creates a bad impression, as would minor errors that are not viewed as minor (obviously).

  I would be very disappointed if they were to reject the paper on these grounds.

In the great game of journal submissions, anything is possible.  If it happened it would be a raw deal.  Raw deals occur relatively frequently in this game, and I know of no way to systematically protect against them.  In this case, being a bit more careful is obvious advice, but don't take it too seriously: one could spend twice as much time proofreading and still have minor errors.

  I hope they wouldn't assume I don't know the content of my area because of this mismatch.

To me that seems even more unlikely and also a bit off-center.  The task of a referee is not to judge you but rather your paper.  Full mastery of the content of your subject area is neither necessary nor sufficient to get your paper accepted, I would say.

In terms of what to do, you have two options: either wait patiently for the outcome, or contact the editor saying you found some typos in your paper, have prepared a new version, and are willing to pass that along to the referees if they think that is a good idea.  My advice: if it's only been a couple of weeks since submission, probably the referee has not sat down to read the paper carefully yet.  (At least that's the way it is in pure mathematics.  If it's otherwise in your field: congratulations.)  Sending along a fresh version will probably be well received.  (If it can be received.  The automated journal submission systems complicate this a bit.)  If it's been much longer than that, the referee may have already been through this part of your paper, and sending a revised version is asking them to look at two versions of your paper at once, which is a bit annoying.

Anyway, try not to worry about it.  Others have done this and worse than this many times over.


Should I correct a successfully completed Master's dissertation before publishing online? I  successfully completed my Master's dissertation a while back and I've decided I would like to publish it online to help others and  probably print a copy for myself to up on the bookshelf.
The dissertation was good but it wasn't perfect. Other than the usual typos, there were a few minor mistakes with how I presented the data which my professor pointed out. Should I correct these things before publishing or is that not the done thing?

You should always correct and polish your work before publishing it. Therefore I would suggest you implement the fixes recommended by your professor, and correct the typos you mentioned. Having done this, you should point out somewhere in the publication that this work was partially adapted from the document you submitted to your institution, stating that you fixed a couple minor things.

As @darijgrinberg suggests here, you should also remove any official logos and statements that might be included in the document, as to avoid it being confused with an official university publication, let alone copyright breaches.


Is it appropriate for professors to ask students to type notes for their classes (with or without paying students) in United States? I wonder if it is appropriate for professors to ask their students in class to type notes (in latex whatever) for the classes they are teaching and if there is any "elegant" way for students to turn down such request of professors they are taking classes with.
There are several specific scenarios that I am interested in asking about:

Professor asks students to take turns to type the notes for the classes and the notes may be used for publication under the professor's name (with students appearing in the acknowledgement in some way), and professor pays students for doing that.

Professor asks students to take turns to type the notes for the classes and the notes may be used for publication under the professor's name (with students appearing in the acknowledgement in some way), and professor does not pay students for doing that.

Professor asks students to take turns to type the notes for the classes and the notes is just a shared free document for academic purpose, and professor pays students for doing that (simply as an act of kindness).

Professor asks students to take turns to type the notes for the classes and the notes is just a shared free document for academic purpose, and professor does not pay students for doing that.

Which of the options above are appropriate/inappropriate (and why)?
Since if the students are enrolled in the class and it might be hard for them to turn down the professor's request since their grades are "controlled" by the professor (one more question: is it appropriate for professors to make notes-typing a course requirement?), or simply that students might meet professor everyday and there might be invisible pressure for students (especially for graduate students). I understand this must be some grey area in university teaching but it seems to me it is also very common in the graduate level (especially for special topics) courses (but I haven't seen any professors paying students for doing that).

By "publication" I mean publishing the notes as a textbook or monograph to publishers like Springer, APS, etc, profit or nonprofit. And as a consequence the public have to spend money to get access.

It would be unethical for a professor to publish something written by students under the professor’s name without express consent (which is to be given free of any coercive pressure) and coauthorship for the student. (See this recent discussion on a related type of abuse.)
It would also be self defeating and something that no competent professor I’ve met would ever wish to do. Students do not generally write notes at a level that comes close to the level most professors can write on their own. Publishing someone else’s subpar notes under your own name is a sure way to hurt your own reputation even if you do technically get some publication credit.
Setting aside the publication issue, it’s fine to have note-taking as an official course assignment if there is an educational rationale, which there often is. For example in mathematics graduate programs we try to get students to work on improving their mathematical writing skills, which are extremely important for success in research, and some writing assignments of this type are not uncommon.
If note-taking is not an official course assignment but the professor simply asks students to do it on a voluntary basis, the request should be made in a way that makes clear the students should feel free to say no. To put pressure on the students to do things they don’t want to do and that are not an explicit course assignment is unethical, regardless of whether the professor publishes the notes or not, and regardless of whether some payment is exchanged.


Where can I find online research projects that I can work on? I am interested in doing some research online in theoretical physics, quantum mechanics or computational physics.

Is there a way that I can work with an advisor or in a group online? I don't mind doing it for free, or even I can pay to work on such research projects.

I have a bachelor's degree in Physics and currently pursuing a masters in Mathematics.  While studying Math, I found myself missing physics so that's why I am looking for physics research projects to work on.

If you have any ideas about reducing morbidity and mortality from traumatic injury and sudden cardiac arrest, you're welcome to join my working group. Seriously. We're intersectoral - everyone is welcome.

Alternatively, start a blog/website and leverage social media to bring collaborators to you. This methods has really worked for my group.


What to write in CV when transferring between schools? I'm transferring between two PhD programs, same program two different schools. I have done 4 years of study in the first school but have not (and will not) receive any degrees and I need to complete 1-2 years of study in the new school to get my PhD. Assume that the new school is more prestigious. I wrote this piece in my CV.

  2010-Expected 2016 PhD in Compute Science from New University

  PhD Student at Old University (2010-2014)

  2007-2010 MS in Computer Engineering from Another university

  ...

However, the second line is kind of small and doesn't catch eye but if someone wants to read my CV it's there. The problem is I have not been student at New University since 2010 and I don't want to say that I'm a first year student. Also since I didn't get any degree from Old University I cannot have a separate entry for it.

The problem is I have not been student at New University since 2010 and I don't want to say that I'm a first year student. Also since I didn't get any degree from Old University I cannot have a separate entry for it.

Why does it matter whether you got a degree from Old University?  There's no rule that says the education section of your CV can only be organized by degree.  You just need to be clear and honest.

What you propose doesn't seem inappropriate, but I think this might be slightly clearer:

2014-2016 (expected) PhD in Computer Science from New University

2010-2014 PhD student at Old University (transferred to New University)

2007-2010 MS in Computer Engineering from Another University


Missing final exam due to exhaustion? A student is asking for an alternative exam because he was "completely exhausted" due to overwork the last month or so of the semester, including the exam day.

He provided a doctor's notice validating the claim and explaining the physical symptoms. He also provided another notice proving he did actually took an excessive number of courses recently and did well.

Should I give him the opportunity to retake the exam?

You should do whatever you or your institution would ordinarily do for a student who brought a doctor's note after missing an exam. You are not the student's doctor and the cause of the student's illness is completely irrelevant.


Answering e-mails with just 'Thank you' Lately I have been applying to many universities for a position on a master's program, therefore I contaced many people asking them questions regardings these programs. What troubles me is the following:

When I recieve an answer, am I supposed to answer saying "Thank you" or something like that?

My reasoning is that these people (secretaries and such) have too much work and having an email at their inbox just thanking them will just cause iriation and disorganization.

This can depend on a lot of things, but mostly on how much the other person did to help you and how much it would be part of their normal job. But in some situations, a simple thank you, totally appropriate in person, is, as you say, just noise that takes effort to deal with.

I often don't send such thank you emails myself, for this reason, and wonder, as you do, if I'm doing the right thing. And I find thanks you notes back to me as just an additional task to handle.

I sometimes add "thanks in advance" to the end of a simple response, getting it out of the way. Sometimes the return thanks is just assumed by the receiver, in any case.

But I don't think that "in person etiquette" is really identical to "online etiquette" and that we have to wait for some time to pass until everyone is comfortable with the difference. In the short term, use your judgement.

But, after a sequence of questions and responses, it is probably more important to give thanks at the end. And if you don't send individual "thanks" but later meet the person, you can then say "thanks for your help in the past".


Is there a single term to define all sources (e.g., academic papers, grey literature, books, blogs, etc.)? Is there a single term that includes all the following types of sources:

Scholarly publications
Government and think tank reports
News reports
Books
Blogs (written by academics)

For a paper, I used all of these sources. I am trying to tell someone how many articles I have read. Is "articles" a valid collective term for this?

"Reviewed 15 articles on .... These included scholarly publications, government reports, books, and blogs."

"Sources" isn't a very clear term for those outside of academia:

"Reviewed 15 sources on ..."


What are the advantages or disadvantages of using LaTeX for writing scientific publications What are objective advantages or disadvantages of using the markup language LaTeX instead of a WYSIWYG word processor like MS Word or LibreOffice Writer?

Please use objective arguments to prevent a flame war...

LaTeX is better at:

Dealing with mathematical notation. Layout and entry are generally easier using LaTeX than some other sort of equation editor.
Consistent handling of intra-document references and bibliography. As of a couple of years ago the major WYSIWYG editors still had problems with re-numbering cross-references and bibliography items. This is never a problem with BibTeX or LaTeX.
Separation of content and style. In principle this means that you can write your document without caring how it is formatted, and at the end of the day wrap it in the style-file provided by the journal publisher before submission to conform to the house style. In practice some of the journal publishers demand special formatting commands that partially moots this process. Furthermore recent versions of Word and LibreOffice Writer, when properly used, should be able to keep track of various levels of section heading separate from the body text, and apply uniform styling to each level. The gap is somewhat closing.
Tables and illustrations. With PSTricks or TikZ, one can produce high quality illustrations within the document (though the learning curve is a bit steep there). And I've found LaTeX to be better at preparing complex tables.

WYSIWYG (especially Word and Writer) is better at:

Collaborative editing. Without using an online site for collaborative LaTeX editing (such as ShareLaTeX), working collaboratively on a LaTeX file ideally requires some sort of separate revision control software. Word and Writer have very good comments/annotations and edit-tracking features. When a large number of authors are commenting on the writing of one file, this can be very useful.
Spell check. Admittedly most text editors one uses to edit TeX files also do spell check. But this is generally conveniently built into WYSIWYG editors.
Compatibility. Unless you work in mathematics, computer science, or physics (and sometimes even if you work in those fields), it is more likely that your collaborators will know what to do with a Word or Writer file than a LaTeX file.
Minimum barrier to entry. If you just care about getting the ideas down on paper, you can use a WYSIWYG editor just like a typewriter. Sure, it may be tedious to fix the formatting later on, compared to LaTeX where one need to first figure out how to setup a bare-minimum file before using, it may be an attractive point.

A wash:

Most journals provide templates for both Word and LaTeX, so there's no real winner there.

Suggestion: if you want to convince someone to start using LaTeX, start them out first in one of the WYSIWYG environments designed for LaTeX first (for example LyX). This will help somewhat to ameliorate the scary entry barrier.


Dealing with suspects of sabotaging experiments In a group, postdoc A believes postdoc B sabotaged her experiments. A shares her frustration with the PI (without proof) in a "half-jokingly, half-serious" sense. Since then, strange things appear to be happening in the lab -- specifically, B's experiments are behaving strangely. There has been a serious decline in trust between A and B.

How should the two postdocs proceed? Should they meet? Should the PI mediate between the two? Should the PI talk to them separately? Or together?

Ultimately, how should the PI address the problem, knowing that an investigation is in practice impossible and with the goal of reestablishing a minimum level of mutual trust?

EDIT: Pushed by the PI, the 3 actors openly talked about these issues, agreeing that sabotage is extremely serious, but without pointing the finger to anyone. That seems to have released quite a lot of pressure and helped to normalized the situation. Hopefully it will last.

That would be the time for the PI to call a meeting with A and B and have a conversation among adults. Topics to be discussed are: If A has a grief with B, she needs to be specific and put it on the table. If B suspects A, he needs to do the same. PI needs to say that this is unacceptable and that everyone needs to behave like adults or else.

If the PI does not call this meeting, then either A or B need to be the grown-up in the room and do so.

Ultimately, half-truths, allegations, conspiracy theories, "experiments not working well", etc, is a situation that is to nobody's benefit. The only way to address it is to talk about it.


Illness affected performance - but not that much? In my second semester of sophomore year, I was moderately sick for most of the semester. It was not life-threatening, but I often could not attend class because I didn't feel well. As a result, I was behind and had to work a lot to keep up. My research output was significantly lowered during this period also, for the same reasons.

However, it's not like my semester was bad - my GPA was lower than usual, but from a 4.0 to a 3.9. My research was lessened, but I still did some productive work. It's just that it turned a perhaps stellar semester (at least, a semester in line with the rest) to a perhaps good one. One slightly less great semester might not matter much for some grad schools, but I'm aiming for top ones as well. Is this something I could ask my advisors to note in their letters?

I'd leave it out. This certainly doesn't sound like a bad semester that needs to be explained away. Being able to do well under adverse health conditions isn't really something you want to use as a selling point. Stick to what you did, not what you think you could have done.

If you mention it, there's a risk that someone on the admission committee will wonder if your illness is going to come back, maybe worse this time, and affect your work in grad school. They should not consider that, but people are human, so they might.

Congratulations, and glad you're feeling better.


How to engage a large class? Teaching strategies that have worked for you I am a PhD student and will be teaching my first class in the fall. I would like to have an engaging class. Meaning that I would rather not just stand at the front of the class and lecture the entire time. I have had some teaching experience with smaller class sizes (up to 20) but am not sure how to handle a larger class (enrolment of 80+).

For smaller classes, I have used: in class discussions, games, breaking out into small groups, student-led discussions/debates. I feel these would not work for a large class.

What are your tried and true methods and ideas for engaging a larger class?

My class is a 3rd year class, expected enrolment of 80, and I will have access to an iClicker.

Added notes based on comments:

The class I am teaching is Adult Development and Aging
Based in Canada
I will have one teaching assistant (TA), with about 70 hours

Clicker questions are nice. I use them. They break up the monologue, which is good. The change in mode "wakes the classroom up". They don't "take" much time. They give you feedback on whether something was clear or not. But the amount of active participation from the students is limited; just press A, B, or C. For harder question a lot of students choose not to participate (which is also a sign).

An more intensive method I have used is to give students cards in different colors, and say all red students solve this question, all blue students that question, and all green students such question. After some time, they are asked to form groups of three, each a different color, and explain their answer to the rest. This is much more time intensive (it took about half the lecture), but the students are much more engaged. I was quite happy with the trade-off in that particular situation, but in many cases the cost of time would be just too big.


Impact of a C+ grade in a graduate course I'm planning to apply to competitive PhD programs in theoretical physics. Unfortunately, I received a C+ grade in one relevant graduate-level course. I really don't know how I got this grade, because I think I did well in the final examination. The final exam was worth 100 % of the total grade. Now, I received 5 A's, two B+, and two B's in the 10 graduate courses that I took. Unfortunately, my undergraduate degree is unrelated to the field I intend to do a PhD in. I didn't even attend undergraduate courses in calculus. I taught myself math and physics from calculus up to algebraic topology and Quantum field theory. I have also scored high in the subject GRE test.

I would like to know if these grades would have negative impact on my PhD applications. Should I attempt to do anything about this C+ grade?

One bad mark is unlikely to have much if any effect. Especially if it isn't the most recent. People are looking for indicators of success, so you have to provide plenty of that in your admissions package. Someone may ask you why you got a poor grade, but most will accept a reasonable answer. But your record is what it is and you can't change the past. Apply to the programs that interest you and make your best case.


Do I benefit my professors by publishing papers with them? I am currently working towards a master’s degree in computer science, after which I’d like to pursue a PhD in mathematics. Talking to some professors, it sounds like: If I can get some things published, I’ll have a better shot at getting funding for my PhD.

I’m currently working on a research project that I plan to use for my thesis with one professor (Professor L), but I've recently received an e-mail from another professor (Professor K) with a research project in mind that sounds more publishable.

My question is: Would I be acting out of line asking Professor K to conduct this research with me with hopes of publishing a paper even though he won’t be my adviser and graduate me from my master’s program?

Are there any benefits for him from working with me, or am I just being selfish by wanting to do both projects? Note that he’s not yet tenured (will this help on his track?).

Would I be acting out of line asking Professor K to conduct this research with me with hopes of publishing a paper even though he won’t be my adviser and graduate me from my master’s program?

You wouldn't be out of line, but you should check that Professor L is OK with you working with K, too. L's biggest concern is most likely to be whether or not you have time to work on both projects as well as going to classes and doing whatever else is required of you as part of your studies.

If you're not already exceeding expectations on your first project, it's unlikely that you'll be able to make good contributions to two projects simultaneously.  Also, bear in mind that, as a master's student, you almost certainly haven't yet developed an accurate judgement of what would or would not be publishable.

  Are there any benefits for him from working with me, or am I just being selfish by wanting to do both projects? Note that he’s not yet tenured (will this help on his track?).

Yes, there are benefits to everybody. Academics are primarily judged in terms of things like their research output, their ability to attract funding (which, in turn, depends on their research output), and their work with graduate students. Working with you directly helps him on two of those and indirectly on the third, so you're not being selfish at all.

And working with smart, enthusiastic, hard-working people is fun.


Journals selection - alternative criteria to impact factor While trying to select the journals I can submit my present work and future work, I realize the time between the date the authors send the article to the journal and when the revised article is submitted. Usually this is something between 6 months and more than 12 months.

Althought I am focusing on the Impact Factor (IF) to select journals, I think that 12 months to have a feedback that might include "add more variables analysis","this article will be more valuable if you test also model x,y and z", can have a huge impact on you work. It will make you stop what you are currently doing and possible spend up to 2 months making the changes. This might make a big mess on your work if you have deadlines to respect, however this happens to everyone in academia.

My question is, besides the IF journal based selection, how can we select a journal with enought quality with lower IF? What alternative criteria should one use to select the journal? Should we choose newly created Journals?

I largely prefer to talk with people about what they think of the various journals, see who is in the editorial board, and look at what they publish to determine which journals I consider as good. IF can be very biased even at the scale of a journal (Chaos, Soliton and Fractals had a pretty decent IF...)

Other criteria include price and politics of the publisher (e.g. see the cost of knowledge pledge and the blog posts around it), quality of the publishers work (do you have to check proofs in three days with no indication of what has been changed in your paper?), dissemination (is the journal subscribed by a lot of libraries? is it open access? Is it read by many people?), editorial standards (ranges from "any editor do what she wants and takes decisions alone" to "all the editorial board must approve a paper for it to be published, and the name of the handling editor appears on the paper"). All of them may be difficult to determine, that is why talking with other people in your field about journals is important.


How to mask present unemployment when asking for recommendation I voluntarily quit my job 6 months ago. I need to get a letter of recommendation from a professor I know for grad school, and I want to include my resume in the email I send this professor.

What is the best way to mask or downplay the fact that I've been (voluntarily) unemployed for 6 months?

Is it too bad if I remove employment history altogether from my resume?

I don't think your professor is going to change the letter of recommendation based on your employment history. In fact, I'm pretty sure most professors would not be looking over that part of your resume very closely because it's not relevant to the letter they need to write.

Don't leave out your employment history though, that looks really weird.


Can a co-author prevent me from submitting our joint paper to any journal except the one he prefers? I‘ve been told (by a PI who is a co-author of the paper) that I cannot submit a jointly authored paper to any journal in my field except Frontiers because anything else is “politically incorrect” or “too slow”.
We have a new method developed with a colleague in a different (more quantitative) field, the results are new, answer an open question and are replicated in two languages.
I found out this week that the PI saying we cannot submit to a regular journal has just had another paper accepted on part of the same topic at a good journal in our field. The findings we have in this paper go against the findings of the paper he wrote five years ago with that group (and I’m guessing maybe against this paper then too, but I have not read this paper).
Is there anything I can do?
At the moment, I have suggested PLOS One as a better alternative to Frontiers, but honestly this is just such a waste - the results are really cool, it took us a year and travelling to get them, and they come from a really good interdisciplinary collaboration. I’m really angry and upset about this - I’m in the third year of a postdoc with no publications, and we finished this data collection over two years ago. Do I have to accept the decision of the PI even though I am first-author and the decision has explicitly not been made on the content, quality or potential readership of our paper?
Note: The paper isn’t a particularly confrontational paper: it just presents previous conflicting results and then shows how the new method is more sensitive and so validates most previous experimental results whilst showing that the theoretical implications people were drawing from them. I‘m sure it’s solid, and I know the co-authors think so too - we had checks worked into the method, replicated it in two languages and again in one of the languages. This type of paper is usually published in a good discipline-specific journal (and it is very rare to have data like this in our field). Both professors are retiring - one already is and wants to use the data in a course he’s teaching - the other retires soon, and is very politically engaged (I have been told to turn down invited talks because they would have involved plane travel). The question is whether as first-author I have any say in where the paper goes.

Jointly authored papers require permission from all authors. If he is a co-author and you can't convince him, then you are pretty much stuck. Editors will expect it.
And fighting with your PI is probably not the wisest career move.
It is a different story if the PI isn't one of the authors, but that only applies to the first point above, not the second. The "we" in your question wasn't completely clear about who is included.
It may not be too strong to say that a good letter of recommendation from your PI is one of the most valuable things you get out of a post doc. It lets you move on and get away from improper behavior. Winning a battle, but losing a war is sub-optimal.


Careless uninterested potential advisor A professor, call X, who is with strong probability about to be my future MS Thesis supervisor/advisor, seems very interested to work with me. Mostly on lectures, X seems interested in my ideas and is very encouraging.

However, out of the class, X is totally unreachable, uninterested in my problems. e.g. very slow to respond questions, once I needed an important paperwork to be done and X totally slacked it, although a ceratin mouthful "sure I will do it" promise. I had really hardtime to fix related issue with much frustations, because of X's attitude. And X did not give me any apologies for this situation.

I understand that profs are busy beings, managing tons of stuff at the same time, but I expect not to break a given promise or not to give promise at all to do something. I am really fed up and tired of this repeating behavior.

I have started to think that, it is not a good idea to work with X. I seriously doubt that professor would be reachable in my thesis study, not to mention to be helpful in my future academic pursuits, such as a strong letter for a Ph.D. application.

Am I expecting a lot ? Also, I want to kindly inform X that, I do not want to involve any future studies with X. What kind of wording should I use ?

Professors are busy and are always juggling multiple commitments.

This does not mean that you are unimportant to them but maybe some judicious memory jogging is required for them to remember what X has promised you.

Another excellent strategy which I have adopted is to show up to my committee members' open office hours with issues when I need them solved instead of bothering them over email. Usually I need 5-10 minutes of their time to explain my issue and solicit future directions. That works really well. I am not a big fan of long meetings.

In response to your specific question, if you want to not work with X just tell X that you do not feel that you can work with them in the future. It might be helpful to have someone else lined up before you do so though.


In publications section of application, I'm asked what database the journal is indexed in. Where can I find that information? I am applying to a university for a PhD and in the application it asks for information on journal publications. And under that it asks for journal's Impact factor and database the journal is indexed in.

What is meant by database the journal is indexed in? How can I find it?

I have my journal submitted to BMC systems biology and I found the 2015 impact factor to be 2.213. What is the database the journal is indexed in?

It sounds like a poorly worded question.

However, if I were to guess their intentions, they might be interested in whether the journal appears in the "Science Citation Index - Expanded" or "Social Sciences Citation Index". Or another influential one is whether it is in the Proquest index.

The reason I say this, is that inclusion in these indices are sometimes used as a minimal criteria for legitimacy as a journal for inclusion in world rankings.

E.g., The Shanghai rankings use:

  ARWU uses six objective indicators to rank world universities,
  including the number of alumni and staff winning Nobel Prizes and
  Fields Medals, number of highly cited researchers selected by Thomson
  Reuters, number of articles published in journals of Nature and
  Science, number of articles indexed in Science Citation Index -
  Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, and per capita
  performance of a university. More than 1200 universities are actually
  ranked by ARWU every year and the best 500 are published.

You can search for inclusion in Science and Social Science Citation Index here.


Importance of peer-reviewed proceedings in particle physics How important can be peer-reviewed proceedings based on talks on work-in-progress? Do they carry equal importance like a publication in a journal and count as an independent publication even though the full work is later published as a paper?

Publications aren't equal: A workshop publication on a work-in-progress will carry less weight than a journal article on the final result, generally.*
*It's plausible that a work-in-progress is published at a top workshop, whilst the final result is found to be less interesting and appears in a low-ranked journal, which might be ranked below the top workshop.


Why is plagiarism so harshly punished? I realize why plagiarism is morally wrong and punishable.  This is not a question about why it is wrong.

This question is about why plagiarism is dealt with so harshly compared to other violations.  This might be because I'm uninformed but as per this question and what I've often read plagiarism can easily mean being expelled or suspended.

Here's a short list of offenses that typically get lighter penalties:

Stealing from another student
Doing illicit drugs
At my university (NYU, where discipline is handled through the housing staff), physically hitting someone would result in a combination of warnings/sanctions/being moved with the harshest outcome being kicked out of housing.  This is definitely an odd system, but I wouldn't be surprised if other universities had a similar imbalance between the punishments for violence vs. plagiarism.

I'm sure you could add a lot more to this list.

Plagiarism is essentially fraud + stealing, but I've always found it strange that the gut reaction many people have towards it seems to be worse than for getting punched in the face.  We definitely don't expel people the first, second, or even third time they get in a fight.

One key difference between plagiarism and violence is that plagiarism is a specifically academic offense, while violence is already handled by the legal system.  If a violent incident is sufficiently serious, it can and should be dealt with in court.  This means university rules only need to deal with cases in which the people involved prefer not to take legal action, and they can leave more serious cases to the legal system.  In particular, the university rules are typically geared towards the less serious end, since those are the only cases they expect to handle.  (If a student or colleague punched me in the face, I would press charges in court, rather than relying on the university to administer justice.  By contrast, if two athletes got worked up and started fighting during a high-stakes game, it's possible that neither one would consider the incident worthy of legal action.)

Plagiarism is not always punished severely: a first offense or minor case may be treated leniently.  However, the rules allow severe punishments because there are no courts to fall back on.  By contrast, universities don't need to have special rules for how to punish a truly dangerous student.


How do I tell my teacher I want him to be co-advisor but not advisor? I am currently a master student at university A after having done my bachelor at university B. The class sizes are small in this field, so I am quite close to teachers at both universities. I want my old teacher at university B to be my advisor in my future PhD, because the research I intend to do fits slightly better with his own work, and he will be much better at advising me with other directions of research (based on my experiences so far). However, my current teacher has a lot of knowledge in some subfield which will be relevant for at least part of the research project, so my intended advisor and I would like him to be participating as co-advisor.

How do I tell my current teacher I want him to be co-advisor? I think he expects to be my main advisor and obviously want to remain on good terms.

Note: I have seen How do I tell my current research advisor I want to work in a related field with another professor?, but I feel this is a more complicated situation since I still want my current teacher to participate in the project.

I don't know if there is some kind of recipe for doing that.

I think that the main point in your question is about the feelings of the involved advisor and co-advisor. If they are as professional as I suspect, then you just need to explain to both advisor and co-advisor the situation, and probably they will agree with your decision, or better, they can point out things that you haven't see yet.

I think that the key point in this process is avoiding the feeling of being "betrayed". This could be achieved being transparent with both parts. Maybe you must appoint a meeting with both advisors.

Finally, I'm not aware of the actual rules of the Universities A and B, but in the case I know (Universidad de Buenos Aires) the advisor and co-advisor have the same level of responsibilities, being the "co-" thing because you need more than one "mentor". In such case the co- thing is a trivial issue that could be easily agreed by the parts


Interview for lecturer in UK but no grants, how do I compete? I have a Skype interview for a highly competivite lecturer position at a UK university (100 applicants).

I don't have large sums of money from external grants nor a fellowship but plenty of other things going for me. The question I have is: how can I up sell not having any grants or fellowships to compete with those applicants who do?

I should add that its in the intersection between engineering and physical sciences and healthcare.

Just a few ideas:

First, obviously you should emphasize the strengths in your profile during the interview, so don't insist too much on this point since it's a bit of a weakness in your case.

Nevertheless you should at least show that you are aware that it's something that you'll be expected to do should you get the job. Ideally you should have a plan with some specifics: know and mention the main potential sources of funding in your domain, possibly a specific call or two for which you can say that you will apply. If possible/relevant, mention any organization or people in your network who could be potential partners, especially if they already have a good track record in getting grants, and say that you will collaborate with them to obtain funding.


Applying for a postdoc. Should I mention that I completed my PhD with no supervision? I'm hopefully in the last half a year or so of my Ph.D. in a subfield of mathematics/theoretical physics and am considering applying for a postdoc within the next three months.

My supervisor works (partly) on field X, and I've pursued my Ph.D. in the direction of subfield Y (with the thumbs-up from my supervisor) – however, my supervisor neither has experience in subfield Y nor much familiarity with the type of mathematics involved. Furthermore, my supervisor is the only person working on field X at my institution.

I've therefore been working with zero direction/advice from my supervisor (I like them, I'm not complaining!) – essentially complete research freedom (which I guess is strange for a typical Ph.D. experience). Of course, this has its pros and cons. The cons mainly consist of working in complete isolation (internet aside) without any supervision in the traditional sense, and with no people in area X (let alone Y) to talk to – my own doing, I know it's what I effectively signed up for! This has been slightly daunting at times (given I had zero research experience before the Ph.D.); it's been 99% laissez-faire.

I have managed to attend a few relevant workshops. The discussions there have been great and have often left me feeling positive/excited about research – I guess if I managed to secure a postdoc in an environment with a group of people in field X (even better with some in field Y), I'd get to experience the stimulation/collaboration experiences that I've thus far missed out on.

The question: When applying for a postdoc, should  I mention any of the above? I'm not sure if having done the Ph.D. in field Y in 'isolation' will be a mark for or against me. If I should mention it, what would be the best way (roughly) to word things?

Should I mention that I completed my Ph.D. with no supervision?

Definitely not.  "I had no supervision during my PhD." could be interpreted as "Nobody taught me anything during my Ph.D. so I am unqualified." or "I am incapable of giving credit to other people who deserve it." or "I am so obnoxious my supervisor will not interact with me." or "I refuse to work with others."  It is likely none of these are true, but the misinterpretation is a possibility.

What should happen is that your supervisor writes a letter of recommendation saying that you have shown a high degree of independence and that you now have more expertise in Y than they do.


What is responsive mode in the context of research funding? I'm about to finish my PhD in the North of Ireland (Belfast), and I am looking into post-doc funding for the first time. Funders seem to use lots of unfamiliar words, and one that puzzles me is "responsive mode." What is responsive mode?

I'm answering within the context of UK Research Council funding:

Some Research Council funding is allocated on the basis of specific calls for proposals (aka managed mode): so for example there may be a call to set up a Centre in End-Use Energy Demand, and universities (or consortia of universities) will shape proposals to deliver a Centre in End-Use Energy Demand. As part of the call, criteria will be defined about the sort of things such a Centre should deliver, that will be more specific than the usual - impact, engagement, publications - though they will not go as far as specifying particular research questions. Bid applications will be assessed against the usual generic quality and value-for-money criteria, but also against how well they meet the specific proposal criteria.

However, other Research Council funding is allocated in responsive mode: these proposals are driven wholly by what the applying Principal Investigator wants to research, and as long as it is within the remit of the Research Council, it will be considered, and assessed on its own merits. That is, the assessment will be against general criteria, and whether it is at all on-topic or not for that Research Council; but assessment will not be against how well it meets a pre-defined specification for a narrow research area, because for responsive-mode, that pre-defined specification does not exist.

Here's some guidance from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC):

  Grants are awarded in response to unsolicited research proposals in any area relevant to BBSRC’s mission. As a general principle, BBSRC allocates as much research grant funding as possible in responsive mode. You can apply for a variety of investigator-led research activities through responsive mode.  ...
  Applications are assessed by the appropriate BBSRC Research Committee using the standard BBSRC competitiveness appraisal factors.

Responsive mode funding is only available to Higher Education Institutes and Research Institutes, whereas the funding in calls for proposals (managed mode) is available not only to those, but in addition it is also available to other Independent Research Organisations


Where did the "Cited by" link go on Google search results? For as long as I can remember, Google search results that contained hits to papers in Google scholar were accompanied by a clickable "Cited by xxx" link that led to a list of all the citing works in Google scholar. Recently, this behavior seems to have been disabled. Now instead of a link, all I see is grey text with the citation count:

Mundane though it seems, being able to easily pull up all citing papers was a huge time saver, and I find myself sorely missing this feature. Is there a way to re-enable it? Why did Google disable this helpful feature?

I don't know if it can be re-enabled (seems unlikely), but a workaround could be to use the Google Scholar button* browser extension (Firefox, Chrome). You can select the title of the paper, then click the button to see its search results on Google Scholar, including a clickable "Cited by" button. Alternatively, you could directly press the button if the title is already present in your Google search terms. It is not as convenient as having the link directly in the search results, but is still easier than separately opening Google Scholar, in my opinion.
Screenshot for reference:

*No affiliation


Current status "minor review" what is next? I submitted a paper in a journal under Taylor and Francis and after the first review the status of the paper is "minor review". Both of the reviewers said that my manuscript can be accepted with some minor revisions. I am currently editing the paper according to their suggestions. My question is after I submit again will it go to the same reviewers or new reviewers will be assigned? How long will it take from a minor review to acceptance? I have no problem if it goes through multiple minor reviews but my main concern is to get acceptance notice since it is mandatory for my thesis defense, even "acceptance with minor review" status will work.

Ask the editor for guidance on this. It is hard to predict how long any review will take since the time available to reviewers for this work varies so much and is usually unpaid. Whether it goes to the same reviewers or not is up to the editors. If they want things done quickly (not a given) then going back to the same reviewers (or a subset) helps move it along.
But perhaps you can get some assurance, though not a guarantee, that the paper will actually get published. Let the editor know why this is important to you at the moment and that you aren't just anxious as all authors tend to be.


How to acknowledge my professor who isn't helping much with my master's thesis? the main advisor for my master's thesis is a doctorate student of the professor who oversees my thesis. I had one conversation with the professor at the beginning of my thesis and I'll probably see him the next time at my thesis defense.

The professor will have final word on the structure and phrasing of the written piece, the topic however is not part of his research. I'm fine with that as the doctorate student is a great help and also knows what the professor wants to see in a thesis.

Other theses I've read usually praise the professor at the beginning of the acknowledgements.
How can i acknowledge the contribution of my professor in a honest and tasteful manner without making it look like he did nothing compared to the doctorate student?

You could get around it by thanking him for the opportunity to work in his lab and the chance to explore this particular avenue of research.

All at the same time, you can thank the PhD student for all the insightful chats and helping hands throughout the project which should be clear to the reader who was primarily advising you.


How to understand the broader goals of profs' research projects? Firstly, I should note that this is a cross-post from Reddit r/AskAcademia, and the link to the question is: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/knw86c/how_to_understand_the_broader_goals_of_profs/
I really hope to improve my situation, thus, I would love to get more perspectives on this problem!

Hi there! I'm a first-year undergrad student looking for my first ever research position. I have a hard time understanding the big picture/question/goal the professor is trying to solve/work towards when reading about their projects. I am often overwhelmed with the technical details that are way beyond my current scope of knowledge, and this has made their research appear a lot more tedious to me
I'm seeking ways to improve this situation, particularly things I could do to aid me in understanding the broader goal of the project.
Thanks in advance for any help!

I would suggest it is unreasonable for an undergraduate student to try to understand the big picture before approaching a prof for a first research position.
I know that at least from my point of view if an undergraduate approached me with interest that would be good enough for me. I would just draft an email for several profs that essentially said something like this--but in your own words of course:
"Dear xyz, I am looking for a lab for my first research position and the topic of your research is interesting to me because . Would you have 30 minutes for me to learn more about the research in your lab and to explore if it would be possible for me to perform a research rotation in your lab?"
For one thing, you'd narrow down the profs/labs who are willing to explain their research/teach and are open to take on first year undergrads. You can then still try to read a single review or two on the topic or just read through the lab webpage before you have the first meeting. I'd argue too that if a prof is unwilling to take 30 min of their time to chat about their research, that is a good enough reason for you NOT to chose the lab for your first research project.


Would the announcement of penalty for blank answers in a test improve the global results of the class? In a multiple-choice test evaluation, normally (as far as I know) the wrong answers are penalized, but blank answers not.

This makes some students afraid to answer given questions, prefering to leave them blank, even if they can more or less guess the correct answer.

On the other hand, it can also happen that students intentionally do not study a part of the contents, since they know that a lack of knowledge of that part will not be penalized.

So, taking into account these two circumstances, would the global results of a test improve if the teacher announces penalty for blank answers?

Usually the system goes like this: Good answer = get some points, no answer = no points, wrong answer = negative points.

Note that by this system, students who don't study a part of the material do get penalized by not getting any points, is just that the penalty is not as big as by guessing the wrong answer.

I do believe that this system works well as it is and would be wrong to penalize blank answers. The catch is that the system has to be designed in such a way that the expected value for random guessing should be lower than the expected value for no answers.

Here is why I think why negative blanks would be wrong:
In theory, the goal of the tests is to test what the students know and what they don't know. By encouraging them to leave blanks when they don't know the answer it becomes clear even to them what they do not know and what they know.

Also, by forcing them to answer at random the grade of average and weak students becomes more a measure of luck than of knowledge. A weak student who guesses by luck 7 out of 12 answers will get more points than a student who doesn't know 6 answers but misses all 6 of them.

And if you think that this is not relevant, ask yourself the following question: would you trust your doctor if he passed his classes by guessing the answers? Would you trust him if he diagnoses by randomly guessing?

P.S. Just to clarify, the answer to your question depends by what you understand by "improved test results". For me the relevance of a test is to test the actual knowledge of the students, and a test result is good if there is a strong correlation between the knowledge and the result. In this sense, the test results would definitely not improve.

If by test results you understand the average score, then the scores would improve. But then, instead of doing this just give each student 100%, that would be the best test ever right? But then, the score of the "best test ever" would be completely irrelevant, and most likely useless (especially in the cases where the score is used for ranking i.e. admission, scholarships,..)


Can one give a conference talk on a topic already published in a journal? Let's say I wrote a paper and got it accepted in a journal. Can I then give a talk on that paper at a conference? What are the relevant factors here?

This may depend on your field and its customs.  In mathematics, it's totally acceptable and happens constantly.

However, if the conference publishes proceedings (only a few math conferences do), you should not publish the same paper in the proceedings.  Some people use the proceedings paper to write a "survey article" intended to give the reader a broad view of their work and other related developments in the field, but they would usually not consider this to be an original research paper.

In other fields, where a conference talk is considered to be like a publication it its own right, this might not be acceptable.


My work was submitted by collaborators without my name, and the university supports them. What are my options? I have collaborated and written several research papers where my co-authors withheld the final draft and submitted the paper without my name as co-author. Two papers have single authors (not me) and a third paper has three authors (one of whom was not even on the research team when I conceptualised the research and analysed the data). The explanation for excluding me as author is that I did not meet the third criterion of the Vancouver protocol (final approval of the version to be published).  The university supported this cheating because it follows the letter of the law.  I have analysed data for a fourth paper which my collaborator has not yet published as her own.  However, she is one of the single authors mentioned above, so my guess is that she will publish this as her work too.  I no longer work at that department. What should I do?

I was never given a chance to review the final drafts of the manuscripts.  They were submitted behind my back.

You might want to consider this discussion of authorship by ICMJE, the statement of interest being that

  The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify
  colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by
  denying them the opportunity to meet criterion #s 2 or 3. Therefore,
  all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the
  opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval
  of the manuscript.

So if you made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work, then you should have been given the opportunity to meet the third criterion. If indeed your colleagues just hijacked the work, there is a clear argument to be made that this is a violation of an ethical principle (depending on whether there are other material details that we don't know of).


Need advice regarding my possibly conflicting research idea I'm an undergraduate student just getting started with a proper research in machine learning. Oftentimes, when I'm experimenting with new ideas, I find that a similar or better research was already published few years back. In most cases, since the research I found was much better than my current experimental idea, I read that paper and move on.

But recently, I have found that many of my newer ideas are NOT yet published anywhere but most of them are submitted for review to different conferences (on OpenReview etc.) or some form of pre-print manuscript for them is available on arXiv.

Is it ethical in such to submit my idea to another conference as a publication ? It is really demotivating for me since I can't provide any publishable research for my thesis. Can someone suggest me a way to avoid situations like this ? (Searching on arXiv/Google doesn't help because the terminology used is sometimes very different)

If you have used those preprints to advance your ideas then it would be unethical to try to beat those authors in a race to publication of those ideas.

The problem is twofold. The first is just the possibility of a perception that you are acting improperly. This can be a big negative. But the second is that, seeing the other work, you have been already influenced by it, so it may not be proper to claim "priority".

You should probably do two things.

The first is to continue developing the ideas on your own and see where it takes you. Write them up as best you can.

The second is to wait and see what develops from the papers you studied.

If the final form of the other papers don't match what you have done you are free to publish (of course) and you may have a quick extension. You may even have a paper "ready to go".

But if they do match your results, you can just treat it as feedback that your thinking is sound and that you are developing appropriately as a researcher. Moreover it is evidence that you are approaching the research "frontier" earlier than many are able to do.

Since you are still an undergraduate such training is good, even if it doesn't result in a publication.

You also have an opportunity to contact those authors, now or later, as potential collaborators. Building a circle of people who are interested in the same things you are is a valuable resource.

And, of course, you said that most of your ideas are appearing in print. Don't neglect to follow up on the others.


JCR publication required to enrol in PhD program - is it common? I've been told (by unreliable sources) that many universities are now requiring their PhD applicants to have published something at a good venue (good conference or JCR-listed journal) prior to enrolling in their PhD programs. Is that true/reasonable?

More generally, are master's students normally expected to produce publications?

Admissions requirements and research expectations for graduate students vary wildly across different disciplines, subfields, countries, individual departments, and even individual advisors.  I would be surprised to discover a PhD program that actually required prior publication before admission, but at least in computer science, it is a fact that strong PhD programs regularly attract applicants who have already published.

In particular, students are much more likely to produce publishable research in a Master's program than they are as undergraduates.  Again, I'm unaware of any Master's program that requires publication as a condition of receiving the degree, but a good Master's thesis is publishable, and Master's students do regularly publish.

Strong PhD programs are looking for students with potential to become good researchers.  Nothing provides evidence of potential for becoming X better than demonstrating that you already are X.  So PhD applicants whose have published good research (in a reputable and visible venue) have a significant advantage over applicants who have not.

The absolute best PhD programs in a particular subsubfield, especially if those departments are small, attract enough published applicants that a significant fraction of their PhD students had publications when they applied.  (For example, theoretical computer science at Princeton.)  But even in those departments, I'd be surprised if "a significant fraction" was a majority.


My teachers treat me differenly b/c I have a mental illness. I don't know how to confront them Lately, ever since I got back from the hospital, my teachers have been treating me much differently from the other students, and have been coming off as condescending to me. It has gotten so bad that some of my peers have been noticing confronting me about it. I do not know what to do about my teachers or my peers. Can you help me?

Stay calm, is the first thing to try to do. Approach the teacher and be polite, most teachers like either after of before class. Make sure they are not busy. Then bring up your concerns with the teacher. Try to be as well spoken as possible and be straight to the point.

With your peers, you can be more into the moment. Speak along the lines of, "hey, you don't have to speak to me like that." You know your peers, if you need to be more polite you should. Also, stay polite with your peers, explain the situation to those who listen. Important don't waste your time with those who don't.

An important note: You would not want to make someone feel super bad about it, because then they would also start treating you differently, but for different reasons.

Hope your situation improves


Which form of English (US or UK) should be used for Elsevier journal publication? I am intending to write a journal paper for Elsevier Gait & Posture publication, but so far I found contradictory answers to the above question.

Check the journal's guidelines. Different Elsevier journals have different preferences. Some are happy with either American or British English, as long as you are consistent.


Downloadable list of all accredited U.S. colleges? I am looking for a downloadable list of all accredited U.S. colleges. I have found many options to search databases, but I am looking for a downloadable list, preferably in spreadsheet format such as xls or csv.

Here's what you're looking for on the U.S. Dept. of Education page in CSV/Excel.

Here's the header of the file:

  Institution_ID    Institution_Name    Institution_Address Institution_City    Institution_State   Institution_Zip Institution_Phone   Institution_OPEID   Institution_IPEDS_UnitID    Institution_Web_Address Campus_ID   Campus_Name Campus_Address  Campus_City Campus_State    Campus_Zip  Campus_IPEDS_UnitID Accreditation_Type  Agency_Name Agency_Status   Program_Name    Accreditation_Status    Accreditation_Date_Type Periods Last Action


What leads to contentious tenure cases and can they be avoided? After hearing about an incredibly contentious tenure case at my alma mater and several other contentious ones, I'm curious to hear how such issues come to be. Some issues that seem to be at play: personal animosity between faculty, dispute about the merits of the candidate's research, scarcity of resources and discrimination based on gender, sexuality, religion and other aspects of identity. Some of these are legitimate, while others are clearly not. For those curious as to how nasty things can get, I recommend reading here. The account is both appalling and fascinating.

Do faculty see these issues coming? Are there tell-tale signs they might miss? One person I talked to was quite surprised both by the animosity one fellow faculty member had towards him and by the degree of influence this brought to bare on his tenure case.

Once such issues have been identified, how can the candidate defend against them? At what point should he/she be prepared to defend against them? From the other side, what processes exist to prevent such biases from influencing the process? Are they functional, and to what degree? Are there better practices that could be implemented to avoid such discontent?

One source of problems is a lack of communication over what are the expectations for the tenure candidate to meet before becoming "eligible" to receive tenure. But a substantial amount of the issues can lie with either someone in the decision-making chain, or the candidate himself or herself. In the latter case, this makes a tendentious situation inevitable.

For instance, there is the rather notorious case of James Sherley at MIT, who alleged multiple issues, including racism, and claimed that he believed his papers from his previous institution would "count" toward his tenure case. (Meanwhile, at MIT, his publication list in five years amounted to a total of six publications, three of which I believe were editorials.) He went on to hold a hunger strike to protest.

So I think that there really isn't a way to prevent things from becoming contentious unless everything is made "open": criteria are specified in advance, and everybody participating can follow along the entire process. (That is, the candidate can attend the meetings where the tenure case is being discussed.) However, I suspect this is unlikely to occur.


How to let a PhD student know that their research is not as good as they think it is I am a postdoc and I have been talking to a PhD student about his research, as his interests are closer to mine than to his advisor's. He is generally nice, smart, and hard working. However, I think he has an unrealistic opinion of his own work.

He has written a paper and wants to submit it to the top conference in my field. (I'm in computer science, so we publish in conferences, not journals.) Unfortunately, I don't think his paper has a chance of getting in. His paper would be a long shot even for a second- or third-tier conference. His paper is also dismissive of prior work, which may offend the authors of that prior work (who are likely to be reviewing his paper).

What should I do about this?

It would be helpful to him if someone gave him a reality check and told him to rewrite much of his paper. However, it is not really my responsibility (or place) to do this. (I'm only two years more senior than him.) If he does submit, he will get a reality check from the reviews, but it would be good if he got some more "gentle" or "constructive" feedback.

I have limited experience with advising. Perhaps someone more experienced can tell me what would be appropriate in this situation. I feel like more than a subtle hint is needed.

Let's start with the obvious:

  I'm only two years more senior than him.

You have a PhD and he has not. You have written (many) papers before and he has not. You know your craft. He does not (yet). And he can learn faster by listening to well-meaning advice from more senior and experienced people. The age-difference does not mean anything. And it seems that you care for his well-being (and his success) and that probably makes your advice even more valuable than the advice of a more experienced, yet indifferent person.

Given that you are qualified to give this advice, you should absolutely tell him the honest truth. Start by:

  Would you like to hear my true opinion of your paper? You might not
  like it but I think you should hear it. I think it is better to hear
  it from me than some random reviewer.

And then wait for his answer. If the answer is "No, I do not want to hear your opinion and my paper is so much better than most of the crap they publish in SODA, VLDB or..." then let him know the hard way. Nothing beats delusions better than three strong rejects and merciless bashing from the reviewers. You should also probably let his advisor know what you think of the paper and then let the advisor decide on how to proceed.

Otherwise, if the student is genuinely interested in your opinion then take the time to explain not only what is wrong with his paper but how he can make it better. Explain why he should be more diplomatic in his view of previous work. How he can present his experiments better. How to further clarify his contribution in comparison to the previous works, and so-on. But also state that even if he implements all that, his paper might still not have a chance in first-tier conference.

Of course, my answer is based on the fact that you do not directly supervise this student. If you do, he has no choice but to hear your opinion. And in this case, crap or half-baked papers should not go to prominent conferences. That makes everyone (co-authors, advisors) look bad. Of course rejection is something normal but only when you submit something that actually stands a chance to be accepted.


Is it possible for a grad school applicant to cancel a letter of recommendation once it is submitted? I asked my professor to send a letter of recommendation for me because I worked for him and I did great in his course. He submitted his LOR and I receive the confirmation email from the graduate school.

However now I am afraid that he might not write a good letter or I could ask a more reliable person to do that.

Therefore, I am wondering is there any way to cancel your letter of recommendation once it is submitted?

It probably is not possible.  If it were possible, you should not do it because making such a request will imply the letter is negative.


What do you call an academic who puts their name on an article they didn't write? In the medical domain, it frequently happens that papers are written by a pharma company or it's contractors and then given to an academic to publish.

The word "ghostwriter" seems to be appropriate for the person who actually wrote the paper. What's the best word to describe the person who is officially the first author of such a paper but who had little input in it's writing? I'm searching for a specific word to categories the behavior.

Phrases like "guest author", "honorary author", or "courtesy author" have been used to describe this practice.

References:

See use of "guest author" here: Legal Remedies for Medical Ghostwriting: Imposing Fraud Liability on Guest Authors of Ghostwritten Articles
"honorary author" Challenging Medical Ghostwriting in US Courts


Is it unethical to expect one's PhD students to work after graduation without compensation? Should graduates ask for compensation for work? My thesis advisor expects me to 1) write the paper rebuttal and 2) finish any remaining experiments by coming in on the weekends, for free. I am now working full-time in industry, and no longer being paid by him. Is this ethical?

Part 2 of my question:
I would be happy to do this if it had been my fault that we didn't submit my paper until the week I graduated. However, my history with this advisor has been:

1 year before Jan graduation date: We agreed that in 1 year I could graduate given the finishing of certain key experiments. He also insisted that I be here for the rebuttal of the paper after its been submitted.
During this year, we agreed that I was on track for this.
3 months before Jan graduation date: I brought up my Jan graduation again, and he protested saying it would take longer than I thought to write, submit, and wait for revisions to come back (different than being on track like we had agreed I was!)
I of course was dissapointed that he didn't tell me this sooner, that I wasn't on track. I relented to a compromise where I graduate in March instead of Jan.
Dec: All of the key experiments had been completed and I insisted on submitting in Jan or by the end of jan so that I could still be here for the rebuttal (3 months to write, submit, and get reviews back). He agreed that would be enough time.
Jan: He now wanted me to do several more, additional experiments for the paper. I tried, but the experiments were not going well. I kept trying to mention that the paper needed to be submitted. He relented, and we ended up submitting at the end of March.

Now, he doesnt even have the time to give me feedback on a draft of the rebuttal until after I put everything together (meaning I may be wasting my time on things that he will ultimately throw out or veto)

Therefore, I feel he has fanagled things so that he can get the most value out of me without regard for me as a person, and that includes this new period of being asked to do work with no mention of pay. Is this unethical and should I ask him to pay me for my work on the rebuttal?

You are thinking about this like an industry employee (which you are, so that's a reasonable stance).

Your advisor is thinking about this like an academic (which they are, so that's a reasonable stance).

Some perspectives:

Academic work is personal work and community work

You don't work for someone in academia as much as you work with someone. It seems like you are feeling a lot of conflict with your advisor right now, but I'd step back a bit and think about whose research this is. Certainly at some level your work benefits your advisor, but isn't it your own work, too? Do you not want to see your results published?

Is your advisor making decisions about suggesting further experiments that pushed your timeline beyond what you hoped because they are getting free work out of you, or are these steps to make the paper better and importantly to make it publishable (see below)?

In academia, it is normal to work on projects from a previous position; in industry it is not

Almost every academic will, at any time they move positions (including graduating as an undergraduate/graduate student, between temporary positions like post docs, and when getting hired as a professor and any moves afterwards) have some unfinished business at their previous place of work.

It's not reasonable to expect every research project to fall neatly into the academic calendar, conveniently finishing right at the conclusion, especially given the unplanned timelines surrounding peer review. Therefore, people tend to spend part of their time in their new position finishing up things from their past one, while being paid only by the new institution.

This gets "paid forward" in the future when the same happens during the next transition. A frequently asked question here at Academia.SE is some version of "which institution/affiliation should I list on this paper, new or old?" because of how often this happens.

Unpublished work is worthless to you and the academic community

Maybe your work is in a thesis in some draft form already, but all of the work you've done that isn't published is doing nothing for you or for academia. Maybe you're fine with that, because you aren't an academic anymore, but ultimately whatever funding agency funded your research and the university you worked for did so because they wanted you to produce published results, not just to give you the PhD title. If you think there is value in the work you've done, then that should be an incentive to get it into a form that can be shared.

On the other hand, you may decide that publishing is not actually of any benefit to you. If you don't feel intrinsic worth in the project, and if you don't plan any return to academia, then probably one more published paper won't mean anything tangible for your CV.

Given these differing perspectives...

I don't think there is any fixed answer. Should you do work for a past advisor without compensation? No. Should you collaborate with people you've worked with in the past to share your research with the broader academic community? Probably yes.

Ultimately it's up to you to define where those boundaries are. Personally, I would think it to be irresponsible to fail to follow up on basic authorship duties like responding to reviewer comments, editing manuscripts for submission, etc. These activities shouldn't replace paid employment, but they can be completed in a few free hours during a transition period. Coming in on several weekends to run experiments sounds like a bit much - maybe there is a compromise solution where you can train a new student to run those experiments, add them as a coauthor to the paper, and continue helping with the manuscript(s)?


How to provide attribution to a media source in a research paper? I'm working on a project report which we plan to publish as a research paper later after some more work. In my report I have used some images from the Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. They all are either in the public domain or licensed under the Creative Commons license.

I would like to provide attribution to the media source in the report and the paper. I have googled it but could not find a source which explains it with an example.

Is there a standard way of providing attribution in a report/paper?
Can I provide attribution in the  bibliography along with the cited papers?
I'm using bibtex for references. Is it possible to handle the media attribution using bibtex?
Does anyone know of a published paper which provides attribution to the media sources so that I can have a look?

EDIT:

Does anyone know of a proper way to provide attribution in captions because I think attribution in captions will reduce readability.

Why don't you provide a list of media sources in the appendix similar to the obligatory literature list.
You number the images anyway inside the paper, so you can easily reference them in an appendix. Depending on your textprocessing tool you also can generate backlinks to the images for hypertext reading.
This could look like this:

Apendix C...
sources of media used in this paper
For detailed Information on Licences see [Link... creative commons, gnu, whatever...]

Figure 1 (p. 42) Apples, Takeaway (Own work) via Wikimedia, Licence CC-BY-SA 4.0
Figure 2 (p. 69) Oranges, Finsh, Ellen Levy (own work) via Wikimedia, Licence CC-BY-SA 3.0
Figure 2 (p. 104) Tree, Gimmel, Benjamin (own work) via Wikimedia, Licence CC-BY-SA 3.0


Splitting a relatively long paper into two shorter papers I have recently submitted a 40 pages paper to a journal, say (A). After about 6 months, the editor let me know that several reviewers have declined to review my paper, and so he decided to reject the paper. He suggested that I submit my paper to a more specialized journal. Journal (A) is already a specialized journal and I only know 1 journal more specialized than (A), let's call it journal (B). So, one of my options is to submit my paper to journal (B) and accept the risk of a similar feedback from the editors of journal (B), of course after several months.

In the mean while, I think the main reason several reviewers declined to review my paper is that (1) my paper is relatively long, (2) My paper consists of two parts and each part addresses a different subject. Therefore, the set of reviewers who have expertise in both subjects and are willing to read and review my paper is very small. Due to these facts, it is very likely the editors of journal (B) face the same problem. So, as the second option, I am thinking of splitting my paper into two shorter papers each consisting only one subject of my original paper. Regarding this option, I can think of the following pros and cons:

Pros:

(i) There are a good number of experts in each subject and it is fairly easy to find a reviewer for each one of my shorter papers.

(ii) This facilitates the referee process of each paper and hopefully reduces its time period .

(iii) Two papers (each approximately 20 pages) look better than one paper (approximately 40 pages) in my CV.

Cons:

(a) The second part of my paper depends on the notations and results of the first part. So the reviewer of the second part may prefer to read and review the whole paper at once, or even worse he/she may call the paper containing the second part incomplete.

(b) Part of the motivation of the developments in the first part of my paper comes from my work in the second part. By separating these two parts, the reviewer of the first part can complain about the lack of enough motivations and justifications for my results. In my opinion, it is not a serious problem because I will explain the application of my works which is going to appear in the second paper. But I am not the person who makes the final decision and the reviewer may blame this and reject the paper.

(c) I can imagine that it would be a difficult path to follow the referee processes of two related papers simultaneously, because of the following reasons: It is possible that the opinions of reviewers of the shorter papers differ significantly. Or it is possible that these papers get refereed in two very different time periods. It is also possible that one of the papers gets accepted and the other one doesn't, which is a pretty ugly situation.

Unfortunately, I have faced each of the above difficulties ((a), (b) and (c)) in my previous submissions and I know how they can ruin my papers. In fact, the main reason that I organized my results collectively in one paper was to avoid the above issues. But now that my paper has been rejected without any peer review, I am considering the option of splitting my results into two papers. So, I have the following questions to ask from people who have more experience and have been involved with similar situations (for instance as an editor or a referee):

(1) What do you think about the above pros and cons? Do you know any other pros and/or cons? And, is it a good idea to split my paper into two shorter papers?

(2) If it is advisable to split my paper into two papers, should I submit them to the same journal, (maybe same editor), or should I submit them to different journals according to the best editors who can handle my papers?

Well, in my opinion, the following fragment of your question outweighs everything else:

  (2) My paper consists of two parts and each part addresses a different subject. Therefore, the set of reviewers who have expertise in both subjects and are willing to read and review my paper is very small.

I appreciate that you are able to imagine the problem that will be faced by the journal editors. So, splitting into two is certainly not a bad idea in this case.

I can mention some instances where this has been done in the past. In each of these cases, the problem wasn't as acute as yours (i.e. both could actually be reviewed by the same expert), but perhaps the authors chose to do this because of length considerations (or some other reason that I can't imagine). Also, in these cases, it wasn't a case of two different journals A and B - it was two sequential papers in the same journal. So, that creates an additional option for you, if you find it appropriate. (The context here is Physics, but I'm sure this can be generalized to Maths, if I'm right!)

Example 1: R. P. Feynman was a charismatic Nobel Laureate (Nobel, 1965), as you probably know. Here are his two significant contributions to QED, appearing back to back in Physical Review:

Paper1, Paper2 (both are free pdfs officially, given their landmark status.)

In particular, he began Paper 1 by writing:

  This is the first of a set of papers dealing with the solution of problems in quantum electrodynamics.

and started Paper 2 with the sentence:

  This paper should be considered as a direct continuation of the preceding one ...

He had developed the formalism in the former and applied it to the problem in the latter. That makes a candidate for splitting into two.

Example 2 Here are two papers by Sidney Coleman which form the backbone of phenomenological effective Lagrangian method in low-energy Nuclear Physics. (These aren't free and I'm not sure you will be able to get past the paywall here!)

Paper 1, paper 2.

Notice again, that they are consecutive papers in the same journal. The second paper also has an extra author, and that could be one reason for splitting into two. But once again, from the point of view of content, the general method was devised in paper 1 and applied to some context in paper 2. But here, the authors spent a section of paper 2 in explaining what they developed in Paper 1.

Thus, long story cut short - it should be possible to go ahead and split into two parts. If they are consecutive, you can carry over everything directly, if not, spend a few sentences explaining your notation etc.

PS - Congratulations for doing this sort of work which could put the editors into this type of a fix. That smells like a significant contribution to Maths, having applications elsewhere (other branches?), which is probably why you insist that it would be rare to find a referee who can ably judge both!


Doing a PhD in sociology as a computer scientist – is it possible? I am a PhD student in CS. I am also interested in the humanities and I would like to pursue a PhD in sociology. I know the traditional way is to repeat the cycle starting from undergrad studies but that would require a lot of time (which I do not have, given that I have other concerns).

Is this possible (ideally online)?

No, there's no legitimate way for you to get an online PhD in sociology (which is a social science, not humanities, but eh, lables are silly anyway), at least not with the profile you describe. You are also extremely unlikely to be considered for a normal sociology PhD programme. Speaking as a member of a sociology department, you quite simply do not have the background in the method and theory of the discipline needed to produce PhD level work. Just like I don't have the tools to suddenly do a CS PhD, you don't have the tools to do a sociology one. Successfully applying sociological theory and producing competent, critical analysis, not to mention data collection itself, is actually extremely difficult. You can't just casually pick it up. It recently took me 8 months and 40 pages of evidence just to get ethical approval to start a sociology project...

What you can consider is a taught one year masters programme in sociology, either in the UK or elsewhere. Some of them are available online and some are willing to admit students without a sociology undergraduate degree if they can articulate why they are making a disciplinary shift. Mine wouldn't accept you with an undergrad in CS without a strong focus of that CS research being sociological in nature, but others might.


How did conferences "work" before the e-mail era? Some friends and I were discussing a certain conference that has a "rebuttal" phase, in which the authors can see the reviews and reply to them. We realized that this rebuttal phase probably couldn't happen before e-mail was common, which lead us to think on the question

  How did conferences "work" before everybody had e-mails?

I don't know about other fields, but in computer-science, some of the conferences are dated to early 60's. Back then there was no email and internet (were fax machines common enough?).

I have plenty of questions about how the process worked back then:

How did one submit a paper? (I assume one had to print the paper and mail it? Was the "deadline" determined by the post-date, or maybe there was no deadline?)
How did one get the reviews back, if at all?
Where did one send his paper? To the program chair? How did the reviewers get a copy of the paper (I assume the chair would first need to look at the abstracts and then assign to other PC members/reviewers? or maybe the entire committee would get copies of all the papers, and there was no sub-reviewing?)
How much time did the entire process take (seems like the overhead of mail adds quite a lot to the already-long process)

(maybe I'm taking it all wrong, and conferences back then were not peer-reviewed, and anyone that came could give a talk??)

Some things that I (think that I) know, and might help to complete the atmosphere of 'making science without the supporting technology':

How would the program committee make the decision? - they'd meet in some place together, and decide.. Which means that one had to travel quite a lot to be on a committee.
Proceedings were sent to print months after the conference, so they actually described what had happened during the conference.
Presentations were done using a projector and transparent slides (it's funny to think about it..)

Conferences were organized pretty much as they are now, only slower and with lots more paper.

Conferences would advertise by physically mailing paper fliers to potential authors (primarily past attendees) and perhaps some department chairs.  Postage was a significant portion of the conference budget.  Professional society publications (like Communications of the ACM and SIGACT News) would include several pages of calls for papers with upcoming deadlines.  These calls for papers were typically prepared and sent to publishers/printers about a year in advance of the conference.
Authors would send multiple physical paper copies of each submission by post (or FedEx, or whatever) to the physical address of the program committee chair.  Typically, the author would send one copy for each member of the program committee.  Papers usually had to be received, not merely postmarked, by the submission deadline.  (Hence the probably-not-apocryphal stories of grad students flying to the PC chair's city with a box of last-minute submissions from their home department.)
Submission deadlines were typically about six months before the actual conference date, just as they are now.
The PC chair (or more likely, their secretary and/or students) would collate the received submissions into boxes/binders, which would be physically mailed to each program committee member.  Thus, each PC member would receive a copy of each submitted paper.  Shipping costs were a non-trivial portion of the conference budget.  (Having never been on a committee organized this way, I don't know how review assignments were done.  I assume the now ubiquitous practice of sub-reviewing was very rare.)
A couple of months later, the entire program committee would fly to a central physical location with their submission boxes/binders, to decide which submissions to accept.  Conference budgets sometimes included travel costs for the program committee, but not always.
The PC chair (or more likely, their secretary and/or students) would send a physical letter to each submitting author informing them of the committee's decision about their paper.  Often this was the only feedback from the program committee.  Authors who wanted more information about why a paper was rejected often had to contact one of the committee members directly.
About three months before the conference, authors of accepted papers would physically mail camera-ready copies of their papers to the publisher, after following formatting instructions received by physical mail.  The publisher would duplicate (using an actual camera!) and bind these papers into books, along with front and back matter prepared by the PC chair and also physically mailed to the publisher.
The publisher would ship physical books containing all the camera-ready papers, which would be distributed to the conference attendees.  (Again, shipping costs were a non-trivial portion of the conference budget.)  Faculty attending the conferences would often buy extra books to distribute to their students who could not attend.  Other copies of the same book would be physically mailed to hundreds of university libraries and other subscribers.


How to determine effectively whether my paper is in scope Given the title and the abstract of a yet-to-be-published paper, I asked the PC (co-)chairs of several A/A* conferences whether my paper would be in the scope of the corresponding conferences. Surprisingly, I got an unconditional "yes" answer each time, even for really far fetches for which DBLP showed nothing close in the past years. I suspect that the PC chairs wish to lower the conferences' acceptance rates by welcoming my paper and having the reviewers rejecting it quickly for some formal reasons unrelated to the content (since the content wouldn't be that interesting to the reviewers).

Officially, the scope is formulated very broadly for each of the conferences.

Now, what's the right way to get an objective opinion about whether my paper is in the real scope (vs. an official one)?  I'm working completely alone without helpful colleagues to ask.

I don't know of PC chairs who would deliberately "game" the acceptance rate for a conference, especially an important conference. On the other hand, they do want a lot of submissions. Often they want to build a variety of viewpoints and research into the program, so your "outlier" may actually be a good thing to them. A lot of submissions makes the reviewing more tedious, of course, but allows the program committee to build a more inclusive and "interesting" program.

Of course the reviewers will give detailed feedback to the chairs and the conference program committee so the answer you got isn't indicative that you are more or less like to have the paper accepted.

Some conferences have very narrow scope, of course, and I suspect that the answer from the PC would be different if your abstract didn't sound relevant to them.

I suspect that you already have the best advice you are likely to get.

The only caveat I have here is that if the conference is so gigantic that the PC can't really respond to such questions they just have boilerplate answers to all conferences. But usually, someone would take a look at it. Committees are generally big enough that someone will look.


What can a non-researcher/academic do to promote open access? When presenting the academic publishing system to people who don't have a job related to academia or research, they sometimes ask me what they can do to promote open access.

What can a non-researcher/academic do to promote open access to research papers?

The "how to promote open access" lists (example 1, example 2) tend to focus on researchers/librarians/funding agencies/policy makers/students/University administrators.

Some thoughts:

Write their representatives in government. Encourage them to support open access mandates for publicly funded science.
Write the authors of open access papers they do read, and thank them for making their work open access. Positive feedback, even if it's not career-altering, is always nice.
Give to their local university/alma mater/etc.'s capital campaign, specifically to support funding to help cover open access charges for projects that don't have enough funding to pay for those fees themselves (often grad student/postdoc projects).


Would it be okay to reapply to a Ph.D. program after getting a Master's Degree elsewhere? Let’s say person A has been accepted to a Ph.D. program at Harvard, MIT and Princeton. In addition to this, he has been accepted for a one-year Master’s Degree at Oxford University. If he decides to pursue the Master’s Degree because he wants to spend a year abroad in Europe, can he reapply to the Ph.D. programs he turned down?

How would an admissions committee react to this, given that the very same applicant applies one year after having been accepted, but didn’t accept the original admissions offer?

Note, that there are very similar question on stackexchange already. But they didn't ask for the situation I have described above.

I think you should ask the three schools in the U.S. that offered you a spot.  But don't tell them the reason you shared with us for why you want to go to Oxford for a master's.  Just say it's an exciting opportunity.

Ask whether you can defer your admission for a year or whether you should reapply.  If they say you should reapply, then do so.


What are the minimal screen parameters for tablet bought for reading papers Kind of related to my last question: Is typical ebook reader with pdf support enough to read scientific papers (but I guess that this is distict enough).

What are minimal sreeen parameters for tablet so I can read papers with ease:

is 7'' screen size enough, or do I need 10''? I figured out that 5'' is not enough (to much scrolling).
Is getting additional 3'' (from 7'' to 10'') worth about 70% price increase?
is iPad's retina display (2048 x 1536) really usefull or I can stick to cheaper tablets?

The screen size really depends on how much scrolling/zooming you want to do...I would suggest trying both the 7" and 10" out in person.

As for the retina display, text is going to be much sharper. Again, I would check this out in person.