Guidelines for creating/designing an exam? Are there (general) guidelines for creating an exam? I am a TA, and one of my tasks is it to design a written exam for the students. The students know that it will be based on one book, and on which chapters. I am using the questions after the chapters as guideline (and modify them). Course theme is (from nature science) derivation of formulae (which are also done in the book) and calculation of values by using formulae from the book.

Now my problem is: How many points should I award to which part? The students can choose between either using a hand-written cheat sheet or nothing. In the first case the formulas will not be awarded with points, in the latter they will. But I am not sure how much points I should give to a specific formula. 1 Point, if correct, 0, if not? 5, if completely correct, 2.5, if partly correct, 0, if not?
Thus, is there a general way of doing that, or do I have to experiment with it?

In my opinion the most important question is what should the exam measure?
Depending on the institution, the type of exam, and the course this can vary a lot. Basically, exams are to learning what thermometers are to temperature. You want to have it as precise as possible, and not to build a barometer instead.

Once you know what you want to measure, check it once more: are these expectations realistic given the course and training given to the students? Are they enough to ensure that passing students will benefit from the follow-up courses? Here you will usually need some coordination with other courses.

I advise not to adapt the exam to the level of effort actually produced by the students, but to the expected level of effort. Since my students seem to produce much less effort than I expect, I usually give quite low grades (I always warn them of this fact). This may seem harsh, but in fact I think I am doing them a favor not to blind them with artificially boosted grades that let them believe they will do great with little effort in the following years, which is usually a lie. I have seen too many students stuck in third year with no hope to go forward, after hardly passing the first two years thanks to very generous grades. Of course, this point of view is hugely dependent on the environment.

An exam should be too short rather than too long given the allowed time. If it is too long, you will have to boost the grade to be fair, but that will probably give too high grades to students who master only a small portion of the course. If the exam is too short, you can still measure the level of mastery they achieved. The only exception is when you really want to measure their speed, but it is rarely relevant. My personal guideline is that I let my students three to four times as much time than I take to write the complete solution to the exam (I have been trained to take exams quickly all along my studies, your preferred ratio may differ but it is useful to establish a ratio in a way that ensures that time is not too much of an issue).

I advise against always giving more points to more difficult questions, especially for numerical grades (a note is in order : in France we grade on 20 points and the passing grade is always 10, and in higher education one can almost always compensate a grade below 10 by better grades in other courses, even in minors). The point is to have a grading scheme which actually matches what you want to measure. I thus usually assign about 8 points to very basic or classical questions, 8 points to questions that are easy but necessitate some understanding of the material (as opposed to reproducing a method seen ten time without the need to actually think), and only 4 points to more sophisticated questions, even if they are long to solve. I try to make this clear to students, so that they first solve the easier questions. The more sophisticated questions thus only serve to do the difference between student with a correct mastery on the course, from truly bright ones. I also want to prevent students who don't really understand what is going on in the course but manage to reproduce standard exercises to get a passing grade. This grading scheme is not necessarily appropriate in other systems, but the important point is that your grading must be tailored to your goal, without letting other principles getting in your way.

Another point to think about is whether you want to have your exam very close to the course itself (which is what student prefer and what gives the highest grades) or on the contrary to have parts which are significantly different, but rely strongly on the course material. This later choice is in order if you want to measure how much your students are able to use what they learned in another context. Be warned that results are often disappointing, and choose this option with care.

On the long run, try to adjust your exam depending not on the percentage of passing grades (unless you are forced into it, which often happens), but depending on the correlation between passing grades and future success of students. The information is often difficult to obtain, but if you realize that your students struggle to get a passing grade with you but have good success in follow-up courses nonetheless, you should be more gentle in your questions or grading. On the contrary, if many of your passing students struggle a lot with standard follow-up courses, you should probably be harsher.


Is getting a PhD position in the US easier with a prior degree from the US? I'm currently an undergrad in Statistics from India, with a keen interest to pursue higher studies in Biostatistics/Bioinformatics. Is getting a PhD position in US easier for students who did their degree in the US, because the admission committees are more likely to trust a degree from the US itself? I intend to complete my Master's here before applying for a PhD.

Yes and no. In principle, the admissions committee doesn’t care where your previous studies were. However it is easier to evaluate qualifications from a university or system that they are familiar with.

US PhD admissions committees will be more familiar with US universities in general. However, it really depends on the specific institution. Non-US universities like McGill, Oxford, Cambridge, ENS, ETH-Z, Tsinghua, Shanghai Jiao Tong, Sharif, IIT-K, etc. all have established reputations for producing strong students. So a degree from them is probably better for PhD admissions than from a weak US university.

Of course, more important than where you studied is what you individually did! A degree from Stanford won’t help you get into a PhD program if your recommendation letters are terrible.


If undergraduate Honor's Thesis printed/shelved in Alma-metar's library & checked out a number of times -- does it count as "published" on a CV? As an undergraduate, I joined the Honor's Program, and completed the program by conducting original research and writing an Honor's Thesis. That Honor's Thesis has since been printed and shelved in the library. I never included it as "published" in my CV because I didn't think that it legitimately counted as a published document. However, I have been informed that professors and students and the local public have been checking out my Honor's Thesis over the last several years. In fact, I checked the university's library database and someone does indeed have it checked out for six months. But this work is still not considered officially published? Or is it? How do I list it on my CV?

Any work that has been made publicly accessible in an archival manner can safely be considered published (along with some that are a bit more tenuous).  That includes all manner of theses, whether or not anybody is actually reading or citing them.  Thus, you should definitely list it in your CV as part of your publications.

In a typical academic CV, however, publications are separated into different categories.  How many categories depends on the particulars of one's field and record, but it typically at least divides into peer-reviewed (e.g., journal articles) and non-peer-reviewed (e.g., your thesis).  I would further recommend having a specific category for large non-peer-reviewed works like your thesis (on my own CV, it's "Book Chapters and Theses"), to distinguish them from smaller tech reports, abstracts, and the like.


Research assistant wishes to remain anonymous, what to write in the acknowledgement? So this is pretty much it. My co-author, who is also the main author, has hired an assistant through Elance (an online work outsourcing platform) for doing statistical analysis and also to collect and annotate some relevant literature about connected topic X. I was aware of this and was OK with it, knowing that his or her work is not significant enough to claim authorship but will be acknowledged properly. Now it turned out that, for reasons not entirely clear to me, the RA does not want their name to be disclosed in the acknowledgement section. Even funnier, we do not even know their real name or email address, just the nickname and the profile they use on Elance.

We have the following options:

Do not acknowledge the contribution at all (at first, out of question; but see below why it should be considered)
acknowledge the contribution without naming the contributor. (Like "The authors would like to thank <Main Author>'s research assistant for their help in preparing this manuscript...") As far as I know this would be nonstandard.
acknowledge the contribution without naming the contributor but indicating that remaining anonymous was his explicit request.
acknowledge the contribution and identify them by their Elance nickname
(Like "The authors would like to thank to "FyI1978" from Elance for their help in preparing this manuscript...") This would make us seem unprofessional or laughable; if I have the right impression.
redo the statistics and clean the manuscript from any elements that might bear the mark of the RA's contribution (so that we would not have to acknowledge them at all).

What is your advice, how should we proceed?

There are several reasons for which that person might want to remain anonymous (e.g. s/he has been a victim of stalking).

I'd then write something like:

  The authors would like to thank an anonymous contributor from Elance for their help in statistical analysis and...

Edit: I amended the sentence above as suggested by Jonathon Wisnoski in a comment ('his help' -> 'their help') to reflect the fact that the gender of the contributor seems unknown to the OP.


Total Grant Amount or Amount from Government on CV There are several questions on here that talk about adding dollar amounts of grants onto CV's. The consensus has been that it is a good idea.

I just won a national fellowship from the government to fund me. The funding amount is X units of currency. One of the contingencies is that, if successful, the university throws in X/5 and then the UK government funds 4X/5.  I am not sure if I should put X or 4X/5.

The offer letter states X, so it makes sense to put that number on there; however, the publicly available amount that the government posts on their website is the 4X/5 total. I am fearful that if I put X then people will fact-check and see the 4X/5 amount and think that I'm exaggerating. Which is the appropriate number to put on a CV?

Thank you for your time!

In the US, this kind of arrangement is called "cost sharing." Under current rules federal agencies are no longer allowed to require cost sharing and institutions cannot propose cost sharing, although this was sometimes required in the past.

The way to describe this in a CV would normally be to give the amount of the award as one number, plus the amount of cost share as a second number.

e.g.

B. Borchers.  Searching for Tribbles in the Oort Cloud.  Extra Terrestrial Biology Funding Agency, 2015-2017.  $100,000 award plus $20,000 in institutional cost sharing.


What can I do to be able to understand conference presentations? (I wish to remain anonymous, so I've omitted many details here. If those
details make this question unanswerable, please don't hesitate to vote it
down or close it.)

I've been a PhD student in mathematics for about two years. Whenever I am at a
conference, summer school, or a small seminar talk in our university, I
usually don't understand anything about the talk after the first two minutes.
Sometimes the speaker goes quickly through some basic concepts about group
theory, finite fields, or similar, that I'm able to follow because I know the
stuff already. But when the new stuff starts, most of the time I get so lost
that I can't even answer the simple question "What was the talk about?" when
my friends ask. So I just sit there with an open notebook, and after the
first few minutes of each talk, I start scribbling some unrelated things to
kill time before the next talk. If I see an interesting formula or similar on
the slides, even if I don't know what the speaker is talking about, I
sometimes try to see if I can figure out what that formula means, just because
simple mathematics is still fun - what I do still does not help me understand
the topic of the talk.

The problem might be partly about being able to focus, but I guess it's mostly
about the actual scientific content. When taking courses as an undergrad, I
never had problems of this magnitude while attending lectures because I had
time and material for studying the topic before and after the lectures,
and the lecturers had a decent estimate of what the students know before the
lecture.

Do you have similar experience? Is there something I can do to actually
benefit from listening to conference presentations? I hope this is not the
impostor syndrome - if everyone in the audience feels like this, conferences
are horrible waste of money, time, and natural resources.

I came up with a few ideas but they don't seem practical.

"You're not really supposed to understand anything as a PhD student.
Just sit there and wait for a familiar term, theorem, concept, whatever to
appear. Conference by conference, talk by talk, you'll probably encounter more and
familiar stuff, and before you know it, you don't have this problem any
more." If I had to decide, I'd never fund a learning process this slow. Or probably it is much quicker than I can imagine.
"Go to conferences with topics closer to your research." Well, they don't exist, unless I organize a conference about my research. And the point of going to conferences is to learn about things in your field that are not exactly your research (of course in addition to telling others about your research).
"When the conference schedule is published, pick one interesting
presentation title for each day and try to learn something about that topic before
conference." It might take a few days of focused study for each talk, so some weeks before the conference. I guess that time would be better used doing research.

It's not your fault if you don't understand a talk

Unfortunately, many speakers at scientific conferences do a poor job. Most speakers I've seen talk more for themselves than for an actual audience. Unwittingly, they focus more on exhibiting knowledge than on being actually helpful towards the people sitting in front of them.

This mostly happens because people don't know. They see bad examples, which they assume must be good because everybody does it and just do what other people do.

So if you did not understand, don't blame yourself. It's the speaker's job to make you understand something. It's quite a paradox that many speakers thank the audience for their attention (!) after a talk—as if the audience did them a favor by paying attention. Instead, good speakers should be thanked by the audience, because they made things understandable.

Become a better presenter yourself

What I recommend to understand other's presentations better is to start giving better presentations yourself. Effective scientific communication cannot be explained in a simple post, but here are some basic principles:

Before starting to introduce yourself or reading the title of your talk (which is unnecessary anyway), draw the audience's attention. Explain to them in a way they can relate to why your problem domain is relevant.
Then, explain the problem you are addressing (and why it is a problem).
Next, immediately state your conclusion. Don't make your presentation a cliffhanger. Tell people the main point upfront; this helps them (decide to) focus on the remainder of the presentation.
Continue with a preview of your main points that support the conclusion. This is a mental map for the rest of your talk.
Elaborate on your points as necessary.
Close the story by putting your points and the conclusion into perspective.

Many speakers fail to do one of the points above; especially postponing the conclusion towards the end is a common mistake that makes it hard for the audience to follow.

Why should you do this with your own talks?

You become part of the solution. Other PhD students will now finally see a presentation they understand.
You will inspire people to give better talks, which you will understand more easily.
Doing the exercise for your own material, will eventually help you do it for others. If you see a poorly structured presentation, you will mentally start rearranging it into a better talk—helping you finally understand what others do more clearly.

Why is the above presentation structure relevant?

By stating the conclusion first, you give people a mental map. If they get lost during elaboration (like you often do), it's not a disaster: they know the most important thing already. Furthermore, the preview will help them get back on track if they get lost during one of the subpoints.


Is it a good idea to put equations in a research proposal? I am preparing a grant application for personal funding to carry out a 3-year project. The topic is in the field of computational condensed matter, and the work will focus on i) method development, ii) computational implementation, and iii) application of method/code to interesting systems.

I think it's easier to bring across some points by (light) use of equations, but I'm not sure if the reviewers will frown upon it. The committee members should be either experts in the particular subfield or at least fairly familiar with it (i.e., it's not a multidisciplinary committee).

This website for instance states that

  [...] the best proposals contain no equations at all!

So, is it a good idea to include equations in a research proposal or should I strive to avoid them?

While I am not a physicist (I'm a mathematician, but this doesn't particularly make me any more partial to equations), the point behind the quote on that website is that you want your proposals to be easy to understand, and not make the reviewer wade through a sea of technicalities.  Since you're writing for experts, if equations make the proposal easier to read and understand, please use them.  Everything should be made as simple as possible...


Do I have any chance to apply to a graduate school after a bad junior year? I am a senior at a top 15 public university in the states and planning to apply for graduate school in mathematics. Having been a top 100 Putnam performer and won a couple of medals at IMO in my high school, I believe I have a strong enough mathematical background to be a competent student at a top 5-10 graduate program. However, my application will not be stellar.

In the beginning of my junior year, I got severely addicted to a computer game and my grades suffered from it. Now I have one C in an economics class and an F in summer English class as well as two B's in upper level maths classes. Luckily, I have completely recovered now and performing very well in all of my current classes.

On one hand, my addiction problem in the past would certainly make it look like I am not strong enough to get through long and hard five years of a maths PhD student. But I do know that a researcher in pure maths will be my career and is what I am passionate about the most.

On the other hand, my adviser at the current university believes that I belong to a top school. He said:

  ...a student of your talent really needs to go to one of the best maths programs...

Now I am taking a second course in complex analysis with him and he seems to like me.

Because of my financial problem, I can apply to at most a dozen schools and want to make the best out of it. I thought that top 20-40 is my reach and top 40+ is my safety range. I had completely ruled of the idea to apply to a top 20 program. But what my adviser told me made me confused.

So my question is will it make sense for me to apply to a top 20 school? I have a really tight budget and do not want to waste spot for a school that I do not have a shot at.

I think you should not worry about the 'junior' days. You are now equipped to apply anywhere.  If you are concerned about not making at the top schools, also apply at say five second choices.  If you get accepted at one or more top schools, you can pass the others. Get best testimonials in your hand so you are ready for the next move up.  Best of luck.


Is it weird to have a one-year, master's level "general studies" program? I am a recent grad & my main goal is to do a Ph.D. in Computer Science, but I have some interest in math and physics.
I recently found this Masters in Science program offered by a very reputable university in the US. It looks nice to me because I get to do a Masters to strengthen up my PhD app and also take classes in other topics that I want to learn but didn't have the time for in undergrad (like quantum, analysis, topology, etc.). But, it seems a little weird to me:

It is only one year. Most universities have master's programs that take 2 years.
If I understand correctly, you can take a random array of classes. This seems kind of ridiculous to me (even though it's what I want).  I never knew that there existed these general-studies-like Masters programs.

Am I correct to find this weird? Is this program comparable to other 2-year degree-specific Masters? Would completing this program help me get into graduate school for computer science?

Unless you have some weakness in your undergraduate record, I doubt that this program or another masters will "strengthen up" your PhD application. Most US students apply for doctoral studies immediately after the BS.
And doing it now, rather than later, will give you experience at the doctoral institution with faculty contacts, etc, that can build up your reputation there.
And most doctoral programs will have coursework first, though not "random" courses. Do it now.
I'll guess that most of the students in such a program are not in preparation for a doctorate, but seeking a terminal MS for some purpose.

Note that outside the US, the situation is often very different with an MS required for doctoral study in some situations. Not so the US, however.


Transferring to a PhD program I had been previously admitted to I will be beginning my PhD (in a field that's halfway between social sciences and humanities) in the fall. During my application cycle, I was admitted to all three of my top choice programs, and was heavily recruited by all three - to the extent that when I turned one of them down, the admissions committee chair emailed my undergraduate advisor and asked her to try and change my mind. Eventually I committed to the school that I thought was the best match for my research interests, with one professor in particular I was extremely excited to work with and who was excited to work with me. This choice was a bit of a gamble- while the research going on here is probably the most exciting in my subfield at the moment, the program itself is pretty solidly second tier (as opposed to the two I turned down, which are definitely top 5) and fairly narrow in its focus (i.e., if my interests shift even within my own subfield, I'm not sure the department will be able to accommodate that).

Even with the potential risks of this program, I decided the research was fascinating enough, and I wanted to work with this professor and his lab enough, that it was worth it. However, since committing I've heard some things about the organization of the program as a whole, and specifically the advising styles of this professor and a second professor I would likely want to collaborate with, that really worry me. Also, I've had some conversations with my future advisor that similarly make me think that it may be a bad fit in terms of our working/learning styles. Basically, I'm afraid that I chose the wrong program for me and that I'll end up unhappy, unproductive, and (in the end) unemployed.

My questions, then, are if, after a year or two in this program, I feel like I have a bad "fit" with my advisor, am unhappy, and/or my research interests have shifted so that they will be better served by one of the other programs:

1) Is it generally possible to transfer, assuming that my academic and research performance at this PhD program are still very strong?

2) Is it possible that one of the programs I turned down in the past will accept me again? Or would the fact that I turned them down previously make them reluctant to do so, even if I made it very clear that I would definitely attend if accepted (I would probably only reapply to one university, so that I could say with confidence that I would attend if accepted)?

3) How seriously would this burn bridges with people at the program I'm currently attending, and the people they work with at different universities, if I did decide after a year or two that I wanted to transfer?

First of all...you haven't even started the program yet. Give it a chance. Go in with an open mind. Hearsay is unreliable and it's normal to have second thoughts about something once you've committed to it. So put the question of transferring out of your mind for now, and focus on getting fully integrated into your department and your program. If you're mentally one foot out, you might simply turn this into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

To more directly answer the questions:

1) Yes, it's generally possible; I have a couple friends who have "transferred" PhD programs. However, "transferring" usually just means reapplying to a new program; you usually have to start over. So if you've done 2 years elsewhere, it may mean absolutely nothing and you may have to retake all of your coursework. At best, you might get credit for one semester's worth, but you're probably not going to be able to pick up where you left off at the old program. Generally, you also need the support of your advisor at the Old Program. In other words, the advisor you are going to work with in the fall would need to write you a recommendation letter for the New Program. In some cases where the relationship has gone sour, students have successfully gotten letters from other professors in Old Program, but those professors need to be very skilled in explaining why the relationship went south (in a way that reflects positively on the student.)

2) Maybe. It totally depends on the department. If you were so good that they were recruiting you heavily, and you produced evidence that backed that up in your first year or two, they might be eager to take you again.

3) It depends on how you do it, and the reasons that you transfer, and how reasonable your advisor is. Most professors understand a transfer that has to do with a shift in research interests - if you came to study X with Professor Smith but Professor Smith leaves, or Professor Smith radically changes his research direction to Y, or you change your research direction to Y - explaining to your advisor that you have appreciated your time at Great U, but your research interests no longer fit the program and you'd like to transfer to Awesome U to work with Professor Jones in your area, usually engenders understanding.

In the not-uncommon case that your relationship with your advisor goes south and you're transferring not because of research but because of personality mismatch, that can burn some bridges. But they may be bridges that you have to burn if you want to retain your sanity. Only you can make that decision.

In the less common but still possible case that your advisor is simply a jerk and hates when his students leave for any reason, even a reasonable reason can set him off. There's nothing you can really do about that, but there are typically sympathetic other professors that you can turn to for support and recommendation letters.

And how you make the break also plays a role. These are obvious things, though - don't badmouth your advisor, don't badmouth your program, don't disparage your classmates or other professors. Stay positive and make the transfer about you, and not the program itself.


Approaching research adviser with worries about project feasibility I'm a brand-new (read: started 3 weeks ago) Ph.D. student in Computer Engineering at an R1 institution in the U.S.  I was offered a position in a particular lab due to some prior experience I had on a topic of interest; my funding isn't tied to this particular lab though.  The faculty member heading the lab offered me the chance to start early and get a head start on research this summer, which I gladly accepted.

As I said, I'm about 3 weeks in now, and I'm starting to get worried about the feasibility of the task they've assigned to me.  Part of me wants to just chalk it up to my own inexperience and tell myself that it's nothing, but I had an unsettling experience with one of the other graduate students  recently.  Specifically, he told me that he had been originally assigned to work on the same task, and after some research he had concluded that it was infeasible at best (due to the sheer complexity of it) and a waste of time at worst (since even if it was completed, its performance would be terrible compared to existing applications).  This grad student is getting ready to graduate with his M.S., so he's not brand-new like I am.

So my questions are: (1) do my concerns about the feasibility of the task have any substance (given my inexperience with large research projects) and (2) if they do, how do I approach my adviser/faculty member with them?

Ultimately you are the judge but by the looks of it, I would consider 3 weeks as too early to decide if a task is feasible or not. I am assuming that you know the colleague who graduated just for 3 weeks. That is a short time to know someone and calibrate their opinions with your own understanding and capabilities.

If the supervisor has given you the task despite the other colleague did not doing much on it there might be some weight in the task. I would suggest you do your own thorough investigation and give at least 3-4 more weeks trying to understand all aspects of the task at hand. Prepare a document and clearly mention what are the risks and opportunities in front of you, what are the related works surrounding the task.

At the same time, try to best gauge the intentions of involved folks, may be ask questions to other people around the lab, find experts online and write mails.

With this strategy, I think, at best you will lead to some groundbreaking ideas or findings and at worst you will learn a lesson in how to systemically conduct research, gauge opinions of others and strengthen the collaboration channels.

Hope this helps.


Can I copy the "background" and "related work" part of my published paper? For example, I want to propose a new algorithm for an existing problem, and I already have published several papers about this topic, they share exactly same background, is it OK for me to copy the "background" and "related work" part from my published paper?

The background contains some already well-studied techniques, in order for the paper to be self-containing, they should be briefly introduced (instead of just being cited).

I don't see the meaning that I have to express the exact same thing in a different way for every new paper

This is called "text recycling" or even "self-plagiarism" and generally frowned upon by editors. It's better to avoid it as much as possible, even if it results in more work, particularly for non-native speakers of English. Too much overlap can result in rejection or later retraction, where "too much" is at the discretion of the editor. You are also very likely to annoy reviewers if they notice the overlap with your previous publications.

The Committee on Publication Ethics has the following guidelines for journal editors:

  When should action be considered?

  Text recycling can take many forms, and editors should consider which
  parts of the text have been recycled. Duplication of data is likely to
  always be considered serious (and should be dealt with according to
  the COPE guidelines for duplicate publications [1,2]. Use of similar
  or identical phrases in methods sections where there are limited ways
  to describe a common method, however, is not uncommon. In such cases,
  an element of text recycling is likely to be unavoidable in further
  publications using the same method. Editors should use their
  discretion when deciding how much overlap of methods text is
  acceptable, considering factors such as whether authors have been
  transparent and stated that the methods have already been described in
  detail elsewhere and provided a citation. Duplication of background
  ideas in the introduction may be considered less significant than
  duplication of the hypothesis, discussion, or conclusions.

  When significant overlap is identified between two or more articles,
  editors should consider taking action. Several factors may need to be
  taken into account when deciding whether the overlap is considered
  significant.

  Text recycling in a submitted manuscript

  Text recycling may be identified in a submitted article by editors or
  reviewers, or by the use of plagiarism detection software, e.g.
  CrossCheck. Editors should consider the extent of the overlap when
  deciding how to act. Where overlap is considered to be minor, authors
  may be asked to re-write overlapping sections, and cite their previous
  article(s). More significant overlap may result in rejection of the
  manuscript. Where the overlap includes data, Editors should handle
  cases according to the COPE flowchart for dealing with suspected
  redundant publication in a submitted manuscript [1].


International postdoc struggling with PI demands. Should I quit? I am an international PhD graduate who joined a postdoc in a private univ in the U.S. four months ago. After careful research and studying the group profiles, I joined a group (less than 2 years old) with a dynamic PI who seems genuinely interested in pursuing similar research interests as mine and moving the field of research forward with some great ideas.

In some sense it was all going well.

I was asked to come up some research topics and systems that I would like to work with. I ended up spending some time (nearly two months) doing some simulations, writing a fellowship grant and coming up with some workable systems that I can start with.

The problem is he has very high expectations and it's getting tough to live upto his expectations, which is in turn stressing me out. We have frequent meetings and discussions, which is a good sign, but I am always focused on living up to his standards rather than research itself. Almost everything, like plotting my timeline sheets to plotting data to presenting PowerPoint, he always has constant criticisms. I took it up as a challenge and tried to do the best I could.

But lately, I feel intimidated and totally worthless. I find it difficult to contribute to group discussions with the fear of uttering something stupid.

That happened today. I froze midway my explanation (got stuck while deriving something). When asked to explain something basic, I totally blew it off. I should have known how to explain it, but I somehow couldn't. This pissed the PI off and he went on a rant about how he expected me to know at least this and it was unacceptable.

While I do agree with him, this has again instilled a fear in me if he is going to throw me out of the lab. Work wise, I have just started with my initial experiments and I am trying my best. Altogether I don't feel too good and feel like I am in a soup. Almost re-considering my options of moving away from the lab.

Some of the questions that I have are as follows:

Is it ok to feel intimidated as a postdoc? Or, is it a sign that it may be a postdoc position is not suitable for me?
Should I give myself some more time and see how my research work progresses before I make the decision of moving away from the lab?
Am I just over-reacting for not being able to answer a few questions and not taking it as a positive sign to improve myself?

Brief answers, then suggestions.

  Is it ok to feel intimidated as a postdoc?

It is ok to feel intimidated when someone with power over you is doing intimidating things. Also, it is rarely "not ok" to feel what you're feeling; it's more of a question of what to do in order to improve how you feel.

  Is it a sign that it may be a postdoc position is not suitable for me?

It's not suited for anyone to be in a position where your living is dependent essentially on this one person who can throw you out almost on a whim, post-doc or no.

Also, you can't judge your performance or capabilities as a researcher until you've had some time to actually do some research, and the opportunity to strike up collaborations etc.

  Should I give myself some more time and see how my research work progresses before I make the decision of moving away from the lab?

Wrong question. You should do something now in order to improve your predicament; and your options are not just "quit" and "toughen up, take it and stay".

  Am I just over-reacting for not being able to answer a few questions and not taking it as a positive sign to improve myself?

Personally I would be super-ashamed if that were to happen to me and would be preoccupied with it for days, if not weeks. What can you do, it is embarrassing - and it's not helping that your PI is berating you for it.  But the point is why it happened. I mean, if you froze up that means the issue is more the state you were in before rather than this event itself.

Now for some suggestions:

First and foremost is caring for your emotional well-being. It's not only first in the answer, it's first on the list of concerns, because if you don't do something about that your life is going to be continue being "poisoned" by anxiety and self-doubts.

Even though, of course, what you're feeling is a result of what happens to you professionally, that's not the exclusive cause. I mean, someone else in your place might tell him/herself "He's such an asshole, but I know I'm make a decent effort and by my self-evaluation I'm fine"; and other people are on that spectrum. This is not just fate you have to resign yourself to.

So, my first suggestion is to consider seeing a a psychotherapist. Don't be put off by the stigma some people assign to that; you're having an emotional problem that you have not been able to resolve yourself, so ask for more personalized help than you can get on this site.

I would have suggested to first have deep talks with co-workers you feel you trust, but I'm guessing you don't have those since you haven't mentioned them. If you do have them, consider confiding in one or two of them - even if that seems even more embarrassing. That embarrassment will go away once you talk to them.
Try to explicitly negotiate expectations and workplans with your PI. Meet with him in a one-on-one, acknowledge your feelings, his and your behavior (Without going into emotional details or being to combative), and try to focus the conversation on how you two can work together with aligned mutual expectations. Discuss things like timelines, targets, deliverables etc. A framework of mutual expectations might help in making him feel you're not doing poorly since it's what you agreed on.
Your academic advancement should not by wholly determined by your relationship with a PI. As soon as you can, if you have at least some research involving people out of the group - not only will that improve your standing with the PI (I think) but it will also improve how you feel and will be a sort of a partial crutch in case you're somehow threatened with termination.
I would not advise you to switch workplaces at this point since on the one hand you've been investing in setting things up, and it's a shame if that went to waste considering how you see research potential there, and on the other hand you've not been there for long enough to say with clarity that it's a hopeless work environment.
Try to find some kind of activity which you believe would be a confidence-booster for you - at work - and would not be disparaged by the PI. For example - giving a talk or a workshop on something you know very well and others at the lab know little about.
Try to find some kind of activity which you believe would be a confidence-booster, or that is otherwise satisfying, outside of work. I know this is kind of vague, but it really helps if you have an emotional anchor that is not depend on your academic success and your appeasement of the PI / employer / the system.


Re-asking a professor if I can write my thesis after I chose another one I am currently a student in computer science. Because of my specialization, there are only two groups I could choose for writing my thesis. I spoke with both and then chose one.

But now, my current professor is very hard, unfair and personally attacking me when giving feedback. This is a known issue with him amongst the other students but until my last oral test (which was not good), I never encountered problems with him.

I want to speak with the other professor and ask whether I can write my thesis in his group. I wonder what I should answer if he asks why I changed my mind. I would answer that my professor is becoming enormously rude. But I do not feel that this is the professional answer. How can I prepare for this second talk?

All you should admit is "a discrepancy, strictly on a personal level, not subject-related". That must be sufficient. You might add you made an error in your first judgment (probably due to the limited time-frame for decision) - which actually seems to be the case: so don't lay the blame on prof. A.

Even if prof. B knows everything about the conduct/character or prof. A (which is more than likely!), he or she will probably appreciate integrity - coexisting with your ability and willingness to admit a mistake and to revise your decisions in order to find a solution.

Please, don't get prof. B into a situation where he has to (or could feel obliged to) comment on the actions of prof. A. They have to get along on a professional level until retirement (while students come and go, in a manner of speaking).


Is it better to NOT have an RA, and instead be doing a TA for the first couple of years of PhD? I am a first year PhD student intending to work in convex optimization and its applications. I don't have an advisor yet, so I am still TA-ing. I had a long talk with a very helpful senior grad student in this field at my university today, and he recommended that I focus on taking lots of classes and learning a lot of mathematics for the first couple of years while working on small class projects and reading lots of papers in different areas, as opposed to trying to find an RA. He said having an RA means one is forced to work on  one problem, and that doesn't let you explore on your own.

This is a totally new perspective to me. Until now I felt very ashamed of not having an RA, as I thought it reflected professors' lack of confidence in my capability as a researcher. Now maybe I am starting to see this as an opportunity to explore. However, I want to know other people's thoughts on this too; is it wise to spend the first two years just studying? He said that this would make life very easy for me about three years down the line when I am actually attacking problems. But I am just scared that this would be too late.

Do people in theoretical fields typically do this? Or do they learn on the fly? I don't want to be left behind and have regrets after two years at having taken things too slow now.

There are two separate issues here, and it is important to keep them separate.

You absolutely need to get involved in research as soon as possible.  The entire point of a PhD is to do research.  It's important to get into the practice of doing research from the very beginning of your PhD program, if not sooner.  Do not wait until you're done with classes.  Do not wait until you've read another book, or five more papers.  Do not wait until you have an advisor.  Start now.  Yes, your inexperience does mean that there are problems you aren't prepared to work on; work on something else.
It is not necessary and it may not even be desirable to have an assistantship to support your research.  First, you work in a research area that does not require specialized equipment or a laboratory; your research only requires time.  You can acquire that time either by acquiring a research assistantship or by signing up for research/independent study/thesis credits. If you can't do the former, do the latter; arrange your classes accordingly. Second, accepting a research assistantship may constrain you to work on one of your advisor's research projects, but you need to develop your own independent research agenda.  It's your PhD.  You need to hunt it down and kill it.

In short: You absolutely need to be doing research now.  Being an RA is of secondary importance.

(My students and I are theoretical computer scientists.)


Xilinx university program terms issue I work at a university and want to get some FPGA development boards sponsored by Xilinx for labs. They have a donation program, so I filled a request. But after the final submission I've been presented with the following license agreement, which I find quite reasonable, except the two following points.

I couldn't find this agreement publicly accessible on their website, so see my gist for full text. Also, "XUP" stands for "Xilinx University Program".

  7) Recipient institution grants a worldwide, royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, perpetual license to Xilinx, Inc. on any intellectual property rights, including but not limited to rights under patents, copyrights, mask works, and trade secrets, derived from, or related to, Xilinx products, technology, or confidential information to which the recipient institution obtains access in to under the XUP (the “Derivatives”); provided however, that institution shall have no obligation to disclose or provide such Derivatives to Xilinx.

After removing all visual noise, I got that Xilinx wants to have a license to everything I'm going to develop using their boards. I especially fear here words "perpetual" and "trade secrets". Which implications may this point have? And how wide they can be? May they involve someone besides me, my students or someone actually working with the donated FPGAs?

For example, if my students are designing a microprocessor for their coursework, does Xilinx get the right to use the design to manufacture and sell the chips? Or what if I develop some device using their FPGA, use it to obtain some result, and then write a paper; which rights Xilinx gets then?

  8) If requested, the School Representative agrees to share relevant teaching materials with XUP. If deemed appropriate, XUP may disseminate materials to other XUP member institutes.

Does it mean that if I have written a textbook for my FPGA course, I must share it to Xilinx if they wants so? What if I used third-party materials for my book, or wrote it in co-authorship?

Are these terms okay to accept at all? I would appreciate if someone clarify this points for me. And, by the way, I'm in Russia while Xilinx resides in the US.

I am not a lawyer.  This is not legal advice.  It is how I would look at this agreement, and reflects how I might evaluate the situation.  I have only partial information, and context always matters.  I read many license agreements, NDAs, and other matters that affect IP.

Section 7 doesn't seem to cause a problem.  If you disclose anything to them related to their stuff, they can use it for anything, with anyone, forever.  But, you have no obligation to disclose anything.  If you don't tell them, they can't use it, and you can't sue them for misusing it.

Section 8 could be more of a problem.  The question if how is "relevant" determined, and it seems vague.  Unlike section 7 where there is a full enumeration of all the cases, section 8 is unclear.

In any case, both you and your institution's legal department should be comfortable, and you should have guidelines from your legal department showing how they would interpret the agreement, and what they expect from you as you operate subject to them.

If this is a large enough deal, your institution should support you and may negotiate alternative terms with the vendor.  If the deal is too small for the legal team to engage, then you may want talk with the vendor about changing, or even eliminating, most of the agreement.  Some parts are likely to be non-negotiable (such as limits on their liability, and probably section 7).  Some parts (like section 8) they could be willing to strike.

Section 7 protects their critical interests.  It prevents a customer from suing them for IP infringement, be it intentional, accidental, coincidental, or in any other way.  Section 8 helps them improve their offering.

Whatever the final agreement, if there is any agreement at all it will probably require review from your institution.

Again, I am not a lawyer.  I have not trained as a lawyer.  This is not legal advice.


Journal paper submission practices to improve review quality and reduce delay I'm trying to think of things that can contribute to reducing the review time of a paper, and to get the most relevant reviews.

Are there some best practices with regard to submitting a paper to a journal?

For example: Is it better to wait until after big holidays? How long in advance of an holiday should one submit? Does it help to suggest reviewers to the editor? Are there certain things that should be mentioned in the cover letter?

In my experience as both and author and an editor, the number one thing to reduce the review time of a paper is picking the right journal:

A paper well-aligned for a community is likely to get reviewed more quickly than one that is dubiously aligned.
Even amongst good journals, some operate much more quickly than others.  For ones that show: "received, revised, accepted" dates in addition to publication, you can check this directly in their archives.

Beyond that, the next big barrier is finding reviewers and getting them to return reviews on time.  Recommend a couple of people who would be fast and enthusiastic reviewers --- but also leave off some obvious choices. Editors will take some recommendations (and if they're good folks who return reviews quickly, that helps a lot). They will also typically want the majority of reviewers invited to not be your buddies that you recommended, so only recommend a few and leave off people they are likely to think of on their own.

Finally, papers that are easier and more pleasant to read get faster reviews as well.  Pay close attention to the flow of your narrative and the ease of grasping key points from skimming through and looking at the figures.  Good reviewers will read the whole thing, of course, but if you make it easy for them to organize their mental framework, it will go much better and faster and you'll be less likely to get misunderstandings.


How complete are academic databases? Right now I'm using Web of Knowledge, ScienceDirect, etc. to find papers to read and get some metadata. My university has a subscription, so this is nice. As far as I know these databases simply have a selection of journals, download all of the articles from those journals, and display them for me, updating every time the journal publishes. My question is: what percentage of journals are actually represented here? Some people say there are between 10,000,000 and 100,000,000 published academic documents in the sciences. Web of Science has about 50,000,000, and it's not clear how many ScienceDirect has.

A good comparison would be: if you take everything that Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, and Nature have, combined, and subtract everything that Web of Knowledge has, how many things are left?

Another way to phrase it: Of the major publishers (like the ones I listed above), how many are represented in these databases?

The precise extent of scholarly publishing is unknown, difficult to estimate, and the subject of some debate. That said, there is lots of evidence that Web of Knowledge and ScienceDirect are likely only the tip of the iceberg.

That is sort of the takeaway from an article I found in from Library Journal on Online Databases-Online Scholarly Journals: How Many? (Google WebCache because the LJ copy seems gone) by Carol Tenopir and published in February 2004.

Apparently, one of the best sources online is Ulrichsweb which is a serials tracking website that is part of ProQuest. I just did a search for "Academic / Scholarly" and "Journal" and came up with more than 107,000 different results.


What license to choose for preprint on OSF (Open Science Framework) when the preprint has been published in a journal? I'd like to put two preprints on OSF to make them available for everyone. One paper is already published, the other is in press. I've checked on SHERPA/RoMEO if the publisher allows preprint to be put on another server and everything seems to be ok. For example for the Journal "Nursing Ethics" it says "author can archive pre-print" and "author can archive post-print".
I then tried to upload the preprint to OSF, but I don't understand the option for licensing. I can either choose
- CCO 1.0 Universal
- No License
- CC-By Attribution 4.0 International

I've read the FAQs on licensing but I don't understand these options well enough and I'm wondering if the right choice depends on the publisher's copyright policy. So which one shall I choose?

In most cases, as long as you post your version of the paper (not the typeset version that your publisher agreement is likely owned by the published), then you choose the license that you want for your work.


How to cite scientific laws There are several laws that many people know verbatim and could quote off of the top of their heads. Take Gay Lussac's (The Pressure) Law for instance:

  The pressure of a gas of fixed mass and fixed volume,is directly proportional to the gas's absolute temperature.

Which is the wording that is used in many textbooks and on Wikipedia. However, in many instances, this included, it can be difficult to locate the original paper where the law was defined due to the passage of time. A similar example of this could be Pythagoras' Theorum:

  The square of the hypoteneuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides.

So my question is thus, how should one go about citing these definitions? Should we just assume that everyone is aware of their provenance due to them being universally understood laws in academic circles and thus they can stand on their own axiomically?

If it's relevant, my university conforms to their own variant of Harvard referencing.

Common knowledge doesn't need to be cited. The threshold for what counts as "common" varies: My rule of thumb for a scientific publication is that if it is taught in the intro lectures of your discipline, it's common knowledge. I sometimes mention Planck's law at the start of a Methods section, and don't give a citation. Exceptions are of course if your paper is about the history of the law itself, or a related topic, in which case you would be interested in specific historical formulations and usage contexts anyway and should cite a source. (Or for example in the pedagogy of physics, if you want to compare textbook formulations - cite them.) Another case is if you use something that's common knowledge in a different discipline. I find this to be the case with statistical and machine learning techniques which a reader in my (geosciences) area might not be familiar with, but which would need no citation in a statistics paper. In this case, I found a widely used textbook to cite (with "e.g." before the reference).

References have a purpose. You can ask yourself: Who is my reader, and would they either know this or recognize it as background knowledge that they can look up in standard basic references? Pythagoras theorem - taught to every teen in the country, so needs no cite.

For a class paper, you should probably ask the instructor about where the limit for cite-worthy lies. I've found that "what was taught in THIS class and its immediate predecessors" is usually considered common knowledge. If you want to cite something, a standard textbook will do.


Should I reply to a university admission offer email? I got an admission offer email from one of the universities that I've applied to for a graduate course. It seems to be from a departmental email ID and has generic content with my name and address filled in. It also contains details about next steps, documents, deadlines, etc.

Am I expected to reply to this email? Since I am waiting for other universities' decisions, how do I send a neutral reply to this one?

Thanks!

It isn't necessary to reply to an offer of admission until you decide whether you will accept.

If you feel you must reply, you can simply say something like "Thank you for letting me know.  I will be sure to let you know my decision before the deadline."


How to make the most of a currently unfulfilling post-doc experience How to make the most of an nnfulfilling post-doc experience

Before I pose my question, I would first like to describe the circumstances and provide as much "quantitative data" relevant to this as possible.

Background

I am on a leave of absence from a US university for 1 year (2014-2015) and currently working at a lab in France as an Engineer II (let's face it, E2=fancy_way_of_saying(post_doc)). I posted a question about the merits and demerits of doing this a few months back and received some useful feedback (in hindsight obv.!)

I am at an early stage of my career. I received my PhD in Mechanical engineering in 2013. From Aug 2013-May 2014, I worked as a non-tenure track instructor at my US university. I will return to my university in May 2015 to take up a non-tenure track lecturer position. I prefer teaching track to research track. The idea was to diversify my portfolio to work and hence the leave of absence to work as an E2 in France. I am in month 3 of my E2 position.

Gist of current position

To introduce major modifications in a "spaghetti code" developed by my E2 supervisor some 6-7 years ago. The code itself is quite obfuscating and models certain thermal engineering physics problem.

My perceived failings as an E2

The code is obfuscating! No, I am not making excuses but the previous two E2 quit to go on to purportedly greener pastures.

I was given tasks to modify certain aspects of the code and in my opinion (I have no yardstick for comparison), I have not done the best job at it.

Result (for now)

My supervisor has hinted that "we must hurry as there is a deadline next month we must meet" (I did not know of this deadline prior to taking up this position).

I am making a sincere effort to accomplish the tasks but I am not sure if it is my ineptitude or lack of scientific maturity that I constantly see myself failing at my job.

Over the last couple of weeks, my supervisor has not asked me to do any important things with this code/project and I think I have been relegated to "just check the code for mistakes".

Also I find that unlike my previous department head, my current supervisor treats me like a student and is sometimes disparaging in his comments. I suppose this is normal.

Also, what is normal in my current lab is that post-docs share the office space of their supervisors and the supervisors LITERALLY are looking over their shoulders at all time. Yes, I know what LITERALLY means.

I understand that this is a character building exercise for me and I'll treat it as such.

Future

Do I have a future or am I looking at a premature "pink slip"? My contract doesn't mention conditions of being fired.
How should I make the most of this situation? I want to have a positive impact on this project which in turn will have a positive impact on my career. Although I am in a teaching track from 2015, I feel that this research experience will only enhance my teaching capabilities.

References I have used to understand this better

A postdoc experience

Making the most of your post doc

However, I would feel better if I got "real time advice" from the diverse membership of this forum.

Do I have a future or am I looking at a premature "pink slip"?

This is unlikely, especially in France. The financial savings from firing a one year post doc is pretty small compared to the hassle and bad blood that will result from doing it.

  Although I am in a teaching track from 2015, I feel that this research experience will only enhance my teaching capabilities.

Is this really your goal of the post doc? It is not clear to me how a year spent disentangling spaghetti code is going to enhance your teaching capabilities. Most engineers do not take up a non-teaching post docs to enhance their teaching. I am not sure that most post docs would spend a year disentangling spaghetti code with supervisors hovering over their shoulders. Are you sure that an E2 is really the equivalent of a post doc? It is probably worth talking to your supervisor, hopefully again, to make sure you are both on the same page.

Realizing that you are unhappy with the current state of affairs does not really help you to change things. I think grad students and post docs sometimes have unfulfilling experiences because they do not know what they want. You need to figure out what it is you want to get out of the post doc and then figure out a way to work towards that goal. Often once you know what you want the road to obtaining that goal becomes clear.


The benefits of the social connections made in attending a conference? So I wanted to ask a question about the benefits of attending a conference and then found this: Advantages of attending a conference

I realized from the answers that there are two advantages of attending a conference:

Making connections.
Learning.

While I believe that for the second point, by not attending one can just grab a copy of the proceedings and then he will have a pretty good idea of what happened and learn better (because you really can't learn much from presentations), the first point was harder to compensate for.

Suppose one made connections from a conference, then what are the potential benefits of making those connections? i.e. how to make value out of them?! Because I personally believe that a lot of people make connections but they just end up knowing each other without any collaborations or a value that I can see. Also the majority of the connections would be with researchers and students, not hiring managers so I wonder if there are any value for job search after graduating 4 years from the PhD.

Edit: I've never been to a conference, but I hear what my friends say and also I see couple online videos.

Suppose one made connections from a conference, then what are the potential benefits of making those connections? i.e. how to make value out of them?!

For most people, new connections found through conferences at a later stage become either

Potential references
Potential collaborators
Friends or at least acquaintances

(or, in the optimal case, a combination thereof)

For all of those, it is hard to put a numerical "value" on them, but as you progress with your academic career, you will find that it is hard to be successful in academia without a healthy set of all of the three. Without references that vouch for your scientific merit, it is hard to get any advanced academic positions. Without collaborators, it is hard to write strong papers and grant proposals. Without friends in the community, future conferences become a chore and it is very easy to lose track of where the community is heading as a whole (also, the third item quite naturally leads to the former two items).

  Also the majority of the connections would be with researchers and students, not hiring managers so I wonder if there are any value for job search after graduating 4 years from the PhD.

In academia, the notion of "hiring managers" is somewhat suspect. You can definitely meet senior professors at conferences, and those are the ones that decide whether you get a faculty position down the road. Further, never make the mistake of assuming that the "researchers and students" you connect to don't matter, and you shouldn't talk to them - the PhD students from today are the people that review your papers and grant proposals tomorrow (hence the name "peer review").


Include Acknowledgements while submitting PhD thesis for review I will submit my PhD thesis for review next month. Do I already include Acknowledgements within this version?

This seems a bit wrong to me since it indicates that I expect that I will definitely receive a PhD even though I have not had my defense yet (anything might theoretically happen...).

There is a similar question (Should supervisors read acknowledgments before the printed version of the thesis?) but I need a more PhD related answer. I mean, all members of my dissertation committee will read the Acknowledgements before I actually published my revised thesis.

Yes, include them. I don't find it arrogant at all that you believe at review time that you will do well and pass even if there are changes to be made. Lots of people are asked for some minor revisions, and your committee members know that. Your supervisor should not let you submit it for review if they don't believe that your work is sufficient to pass review. They should also not allow you to have a defense or viva or whatever it's called in your locale unless they think you will pass. It's fine, but you could also ask your supervisor their opinion.

Believing in your work is OK. How would you ever publish a journal or conference paper after your PhD if you didn't think it would be accepted? You have to start believing in your own work, on your own, at some point soon. That's part of being an independent researcher which is what your near future is about.


Can you have a career in academia without having to write grant applications? I really like doing research, but I've heard that all the fights for funding can be a major headache. So I am wondering, how can I enjoy my work without worrying about grant applications? Are there specific fields or positions that don't require this?

The need for grant funding depends a lot on the type of research that you do.  The more that your research requires laboratory facilities and equipment, graduate student research assistants to run the equipment, or travel for field work than the more that you're going to need grant funding.  In the other direction, grant funding is less important if you do more theoretical research by yourself or with collaborators at other institutions.

No matter what type of research you do, you're going to need time to work on the research and some money to travel to conferences and present your research.

One of the few ways in which this can be done is to hold a faculty position at an undergraduate liberal arts college.  Some of these positions have reasonably light teaching loads (although typically higher than at research universities) and funds to send faculty to conferences.


What kind of citation is needed for a whole paragraph? I'm writing a paper on The Beatles and in this paragraph I'm talking about the formation of the group. I got the info from their biographical book. So it's just a summarized version of a chapter. I have no idea how to state that this info is from a book?

You are paraphrasing the material, not quoting it.  (You summarized it.)  Put the citation at the end of the paragraph and add the source to your bibliography.


How to recover one's career opportunities after a period of poor performance I read this question about falling behind, but my question is more about the long term.

I find myself becoming depressed at lack of overall opportunities in graduate school (in mathematics, specifically, though this question is more about the general case). I had a bad relationship that messed up a few semesters for me at the beginning of grad school. I'm more or less recovered now, but I'm having difficulty trying to support my progress in any way outside of classes.

My field is computational, so I really want to get a summer internship at a software company, government agency, or some other place where I can get exposure to research and skills that are not immediately available in the department (like coding). My advisor's perception of me formed during my period of low performance, too, so he hasn't invested much in teaching me. I have some mediocre grades on my transcript from this time, so the profs from these classes so far don't have such a good impression of me, either. I don't know who to ask for recommendation letters or networking opportunities. I had shining recommendations from undergrad, but that was years ago, which will raise obvious questions on any application.

Meanwhile, my friends are doing interesting projects they can associate with their name. They're giving talks, going to conferences with their advisors, being awarded fellowships, etc. Feeling like I have nothing going on except for classes and an advisor that doesn't believe in me is no good, and though I'm performing better than before, I am still far under what I know to be my potential.

In other words, I feel like I'm stuck in a cycle of poor opportunities, and I'm not sure how to break out of it. I had a lot of momentum when I came here. People were offering me all manner of things, I had many side-projects in different areas, and I was beginning to make a name for myself in research. Now, all I do is try to get my homework in on time. I'm just bored, and don't know how to get back to a successful state of mind.

How could one recover from this type of setback?

You've got a few problems here, so I'm going to try to address each in turn.

Depression: As has been noted before on several occasions, depression is very common among graduate students and faculty.  The important thing to remember is that you're not alone.  Most universities have counseling centers that are available to students for free - take advantage of that.  Psychotherapy is effective for most individuals, and a trained professional can help you come up with strategies that are tailored for you.

Adviser Troubles: It's unfortunate that your adviser seems to be less interested in your progress because of some poor grades early on.  The trick now is how to make your adviser regain interest in you again - whether that's through more frequent meetings with them (out of sight, out of mind, so stay in sight) or by being proactive and finding interesting research directions to pursue is something you'll have to decide.  As a last resort, consider finding a new adviser - it may mean losing several years worth of work, but if it can rekindle the adviser/advisee relationship, it may be worth it.

Letters of Recommendation: One option is to consider alternative sources - are there professors of not-as-relevant courses that you can go to?  Past internship employers?  For networking - are there career centers or fairs at your school that you can leverage? Think outside the box.  Moreover - don't give up on the professors that you've had so far.  Asking for a letter of recommendation, with an acknowledgement that you may not have done as well as you hoped in the course, but you still learned valuable material may yield at least an "okay" letter of recommendation.  And there's always the possibility that their opinions of you are not as poor as you think they might be.

Boredom: This may be the biggest problem of all.  You can see a therapist; you can meet with your adviser weekly; you can cobble together LoRs - but if you're still bored stiff and have zero motivation to do anything, you've got a problem on your hands.  Generally, I've found there are two solutions to boredom:

Power through and do the best you can do.  As Randy Pausch (late Prof. at Carnegie Mellon) said, "The brick walls are there for a reason. The brick walls are not there to keep us out. The brick walls are there to give us a chance to show how badly we want something. Because the brick walls are there to stop the people who don’t want it badly enough. They’re there to stop the other people."  Show that you aren't "the other people".
Find something else to do.  Sometimes there's nothing you can do about it - you're bored, and no amount of self-negotiation will change that.  In those times, you just have to find something else to do.  Here that could mean a new research project, or even just a new angle on the current one.

Which solution is the "correct" one is entirely dependent on you.

Summary: My overall point is that it's going to be an uphill battle for you.  If you want this degree, you're going to have to prove it, and ultimately only you can decide what's best for you.

Here's a little inspiration to get you through your day:

  Optimist: Someone who figures that taking a step backward
  after taking a step forward is not a disaster, it's a cha-cha. ~Robert Brault

Best of luck!


MAster's Thesis: How to find the way collaborate and consult multiple people about my work I am having couple issues here. First I am an International student and English is my third language. I am very shy and having tough times approaching people for help. I am writing my Master's thesis (in Art History) and I am still in the beginning and while I struggle in formulating my thesis and question, I know what is my topic going to be about. There were two academics who have written about this topic and I do not know how to connect with them and perhaps ask for a help with literature or advice and perhaps discuss my topic for ideas. My thesis advisor hasn't been responsive to my emails and last semester she was on sabbatical which slows me down significantly. But he is a wonderful advisor and have given me great direction regarding the topic and what arguments would have been possible to discuss.

I would welcome any suggestions on how best to approach a professor/ academic from a different university/ organization to help me with literature choices, give me  a feedback on my topic choice, and with general help to work on a research topic.

... a professor/academic ... to help me with literature choices, give me a feedback on my topic choice, and with general help to work on a research topic.

From the last part of your question, the tasks you describe sound like the responsibilities of a supervisor or co-supervisor. If you need that much assistance in your research you should talk to your current supervisor about getting a co-supervisor to help you with topics in which your current supervisor isn't knowledgeable. Also, it is helpful to have a co-supervisor when one supervisor is away for any reason (conference or sabbatical). Usually a co-supervisor would come from within your university, but I have seen cases where professors from two different universities supervised a student together.

Another option, since you're a Master's student, would be to have a PhD or post-doctoral researcher in your department help to mentor you in your research. They won't necessarily have all the answers, but they could help point you to helpful resources or research methods that they have used.

Either way, you really need to talk to your supervisor about whatever is preventing you from progressing with your research. It's your supervisor's job to make sure you have access to the right resources and that your research is moving in the right direction. If you can't reach your supervisor, talk to your graduate coordinator or department head about getting someone to help you while your supervisor is away.

  I am an International student and English is my third language. I am very shy and having tough times approaching people for help.

If you're uncomfortable approaching people for help because of a language barrier, then look into language resources at your university. Many universities where English is the primary language offer language lessons for non-native speakers. Hopefully that will improve your confidence in speaking with others. In any case you should be very proud to speak three languages!


Citing my own thesis in the extracted paper I am going to extract a paper from my MSc thesis. But I am not sure how to point out that this paper is the synopsis of my thesis. What is your suggestion? In which section should I refer to the thesis, in introduction or related works? Is it allowed to insert some part of my thesis to my paper without modification?

This would be an excellent question to ask your advisor, who will be familiar with the norms of your field.

If your thesis is already finished by the time you submit your paper, treat it as you would any other reference. In particular, you may want to cite it if you wish to refer the reader there for more details on certain points.

In my opinion, it's not necessary to explicitly state that the paper is extracted from your thesis, though you could if you want. (If it's your first major paper, people will probably assume it's from a thesis anyway.) Normally the place to mention this would be either at the end of the introduction, or at the end of the paper.


Has anyone had to switch to a different research/study focus to obtain an RA postion? To give a bit of context: I got accepted to UIUC for the Fall 2015 semester to start my graduate studies in Mechanical Engineering. I've been interested in Fluid Mechanics and Thermal Sciences as a field to specialize in for quite a while now. As such, I've been contacting many professors in that area to see if they have RA positions, but all have not been fruitful (no open slots). Having some sort of assistantship is the only way I can pay for tuition there without resorting to loans, which I really want to avoid since I was able to do so for my undergraduate studies. There are still professors I can contact in the area, but the number of options is dwindling. I've considered looking into the other departments in hopes of finding something before the Fall semester starts. I would like to "stick to my guns" on this because it is an area that I am actually interested in, but time is catching up with me quickly.

It says on the MechSE website that 85% of students receive funding this way, so it seems like I would have a good chance of getting something. Should I be worried that I don't have something definite at this time? Most of the professors have been able to respond quickly (less than a week sometimes), but some simply do not respond. I'm not sure of what to do except keep emailing professors and consider my other research options.

There may be general assistantships available outside your department that could serve as a stop-gap until you can get within-department funding. The first year of my PhD I got funding working under a Dean in the School of Graduate studies. I also was a library GA during my master's. While funding specific to your degree is ideal of course, there are some fringe-benefits to some of these other positions. The library position allowed me to do my own work for 15 of my allotted 20 hours, and the Grad Studies position gave me a ton of insight into the inner-workings of administration that I may not have gotten otherwise.


What does archival contribution in journals mean? When I submitted my manuscript for publication in a journal, the editor rejected it with the comment "not enough archival contribution".

Please help me by saying what he meant.

Presumably, he simply meant that your paper does not have enough long-lasting contribution to your field of study. That is, there either is too little contribution at all, or the editor assumed that your paper only has a very temporary contribution which will be outdated soon.


My lab achieves better results than another lab on the same problem – should we collaborate? Recently, in my research lab we were able to achieve a performance of X % for some problem. This X is far better than the performance Y which was achieved by some other research group for the exact problem, very recently (two months ago).

Yes, we can always compare X and Y and publish the paper alone. But, I was thinking that it is better to collaborate with that research group and share with them the results of our approach.

Should my research group collaborate with them?
Is this a proper way of collaboration?
Should they feel that our group is weaker than they are and that this is why we are trying to collaborate (a feeling of insecurity)?

Could I get some suggestions on this?

First, it not just to say "Let's us collaborate with them!" That's not how collaborations start in the first place. To get a collaboration started you need several prerequisites: Genuine interest in the same problems (seems to be given here), similar knowledge and similar goals but also complementing expertise, being open for new ideas from the other side, and most important: Genuine interest in a collaboration in the first place.

Based on the above, I would never approach somebody (or some group) with the question "can we collaborate on this" but always start differently. The start may be different in different cases, it can, e.g., be just informal discussion with an individual without any particular goals besides getting to know each other, it could be a meeting of the workgroups with the purpose of exchanging ideas or it could be an invitation of somebody to give a talk. To see if this may lead to a collaboration is the second step…

  Should my research group collaborate with them?

I can't answer it, and probably nobody here can. If you think that a collaboration can be beneficial, than go ahead and contact them.

  Is this a proper way of collaboration?

I don't see an answer here either, since I do not see any collaboration yet. I can say that working on the same problems may be a basis for a collaboration. What would also be helpful, would be if your groups attack the same problem with different methods so that combining expertise may be helpful.

  Should they feel that our group is weaker than they are and that this is why we are trying to collaborate (a feeling of insecurity)?

I don't think that anybody will jump to this conclusion just because you asked for collaboration. I would also not jump to this conclusion based just on results for one single project (but you told that your results are even better than their results…).


What is expected from a "Contributions to Department Statement"? Background: I am a final-year mathematics student in the US applying for jobs at small colleges.

One of my job applications at a small, teaching-focused school requires a "Contributions to Department Statement", but elaborates very little, saying only that it's "a statement on how the candidate can contribute to the academic programs and activities of the department."  That being said, what exactly are they looking for?

A few things I thought of:

Undergraduate research mentorship
Supervision of math club/honorary
Proposals for new courses
Incorporation of technology (Mathematica, for example)
Recruitment/retainment of populations underrepresented in mathematics

Any thoughts whatsoever are appreciated.

It sounds like you're on the right track.  What can you do for them that they're not already doing?  What special expertise do you bring?  How can you move the department beyond where it is now?  And -- unspoken but most important -- how does this distinguish you from other applicants for this position?


How to get started with submitting first peer reviewed paper based on PhD? I am not based in academia so unsure what the protocols (and the underlying and unwritten conventions are) in regard to getting my first paper published in a peer reviewed journal.

The paper will come out of my PhD dissertation.

How do I start the ball rolling?

The procedural parts are pretty simple:

Select the journal you're interested in submitting to.
Read their "Instructions for Authors".
Follow those instructions.

It may sound trite putting it that way, but journals are typically pretty good at being clear about what they want, both in terms of content areas and format & typography.

What you also need to do is identify what you want to take from your PhD, and determine what the "narrative" structure of that material is - a paper that's just a bunch of random things with no through-line is not a great paper.

You may also want to take the time to look at the editorial board of the journal you're interested in, find who is knowledgeable in the topic of your paper and be sure to indicate (in the manner proscribed in the instructions for authors) that you'd like them to be the editor in charge of your paper. A good choice here can help ensure that it's reviewed by the right people for the job.


pros and cons of one's own papers covered by media One published a paper on a journal. The communications team of their school want to publicize that paper in media. Is there any substantial pros and cons for the paper writer?

The main effect of media coverage is increased visibility. In case of very controversial research that might be considered a con, as it might invite harassment or people running with unsubstantiated and possibly dangerous claims. In most cases, however, I'd see it as a pro. You get to communicate about your research to groups that would otherwise not have seen it, effectively doing a form of outreach and educating the public on cutting-edge research.

Other pros:

It can be fun - especially if well-received.
It can be good practice in communicating to non-experts.
It improves your professional visibility as well as the visibility of the specific research project, and the visibility of your institution. It's hard to measure this effect I suppose, but it might produce new opportunities to e.g. give an invited talk somewhere, or lead to students being interested in working with you.
Your employer or funding agency might also like seeing this kind of non-citation impact.
At least some US institutions would consider media coverage of your research as evidence of service (along with committee service, traditional outreach and so on) for tenure evaluations. One big reason to have this factor in to the decision is that such activities help promote public awareness of the work that takes place there.
Some members of the audience might find the research an appealing answer to "why are we funding these people with our taxes again?" in a way that wouldn't happen if we only ever communicate with other experts through pay-walled journals.

Other cons:

It does take some time. (It's almost always a negligible amount compared to the time you spent on the research in the first place, but busy people are busy.)
Misleading reporting could be hard to deal with in some cases. If you work with a university or journal press office on a press release you can usually make sure that the release itself is accurate, but then a game of telephone may ensue as different outlets pick it up. The risk seems to be higher the more impactful the result, as the media coverage after the press conference about the OPERA neutrino anomaly clearly showed, or if the research is politically controversial - e.g. climate change.
Attempting to maximize coverage could lead to overhyping the research, which eventually erodes trust in academics as a whole.

So overall, I think the only real con for most regular-stakes research is that it could use up a single digit number of hours. Hence, I'd suggest trying it at least once. For
 research that's potentially more controversial it would make sense to first discuss the likelihood of adverse consequences with a more experienced colleague in your field.


Getting a recommendation letter from a professor at the same university What do graduate programs think of positive and strong recommendation letters from a professor at the same university? Are they valued more than letters from other universities?

A letter from a professor at the same institution can be extremely valuable.  I would not necessarily say that they are more valuable than equally on point letters from outside.  However, if a professor is writing a letter to a graduate admissions committee at the same institution, the letter-writer is almost certainly going to have a very good idea what the program may be looking for and how to emphasize the student's suitability for the program.  The reference writer can tailor the letter to make the best possible case, in a way that might be more difficulty for an outside writer.

Moreover, the letter-writer's influence may not end with the written letter.  I have written letters for undergraduate students at my university (some applying to graduate programs in my department, some others applying to programs in other departments).  In some cases (mostly when the students were applying to programs in my own department), I have been contacted by the other faculty members reading the applications, to get a better idea of the students' strengths and potential weaknesses.  (In my reference letters, I always invite the addressees to contact my if they have further questions about a candidate, but it is very rare to get such follow-up inquiries from departments at other institutions.)


Are there any online tool for translating a Russian-language PDF to English? I am reading a paper on arXiv

However the paper is completely in Russian:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1701/1701.02595.pdf

Is there any free online service I can use to translate this paper to English?

During my PhD work, I've come across many non-English articles of interest that have no English translations best I could tell. Copying and pasting into Google Translate is good when you have a text or vectorized file. If you do not, OCR software, careful editing, and then copying and pasting into Google Translate works.

A member of my research group pointed out to me that you can get Google quality OCR by uploading the document to Google Drive and then editing in Google Docs. This can work very well, or not well at all. I typically find I need to clean up the scan enough in an image editing software that using a local OCR software is sufficient, so there's often no reason to use Google's OCR. I use Tesseract for local OCR. In your case, no OCR is required.

For longer documents, Google Translator Toolkit can be better than copying and pasting small segments. This will translate the entire document. I'd copy and paste the text of the document you are interested in into a text file and upload that to Google Translator Toolkit. Afterward, you can readd the equations and whatnot in Word, LaTeX, or whatever you believe would be best.

Also, my own experience with Russian and German in Google Translate for fluid dynamics related papers suggests that the translation often leaves something to be desired. Google Translate tends to give literal translations which may not correspond to what is said in English. (Frequently the differences in terminology are thought provoking, actually.) A scientific dictionary can help here, as also can having a copy of a related foreign language article and a professional translation of that article (to see how certain phrases are translated by a professional). All is not lost with Google alone, however. Google does take into account the edits you can make in Google Translate, and I've noticed over the past few years marked improvements that appear to come from my own edits.


I have an issue with one of my teachers and a chance to address it, but they're writing me a letter of rec. Should I address it? I'm trying to transfer, I'm a good student and one of my teachers is writing me what I assume will be a fantastic letter.
I am in an upper undergrad level (200+) CS course with this teacher. We had a group project, and without going into too much detail, I was discouraged from intellectual exploration and feel like I was put into a box.
We're submitting our individual write ups, so I have the opportunity to address my feelings about the project. What I wrote is strongly worded but I feel like it gives a fair assessment of what my problem was.

Is this a bad idea? I will feel awful if I have to let this slide without saying something about it, but I also strongly dislike my institution and want to do what I have to do in order to transfer. Should I include my assessment or should I hold off until after I apply?

What I wrote is strongly worded but I feel like it gives a fair assessment of what my problem was.

I would reconsider the strongly-worded part. Giving a fair assessment is good, but people rarely react well to sharp criticism, and this can burn bridges. My advice is to state facts, not conclusions. For example, rather than saying that you were "discouraged from intellectual exploration" (a conclusion), you could say that you were "disappointed not to be able to pursue X" (a fact).

  Should I include my assessment or should I hold off until after I apply?

Assuming what you write is not ridiculously far over the line, I would not expect your professor to change their letter of recommendation. Particularly if they've already written it, I doubt they would take the time to go back and make changes.

But, consider the cost-benefit analysis. The (potential) cost is burning a bridge (you can mitigate this by being diplomatic). The potential reward  is that future students might have a better experience, but this is likely only if the professor (a) does not already agree with you, (b) agrees with you after reading your report, and (c) chooses to address your feedback.


Is generic "thank you" email a waste of time in academia? A very busy professor just responded my email. He answered my questions, and in the end, he explicitly said something like "Please let me know if you have any questions" or "Please respond if you have further questions".

So, I am trying to think as if I am in his shoe. Is he not expecting me to reply to this email, if I do not have any further questions?

Is it impolite if I do not respond to this email and let it go? Or, is it considered impolite if I spam his "already-too-full" mailbox with a generic "Dear XXX, Thanks for XXXXX, Regards, XXXX" ?

If you send a thank-you note, in addition to being polite, you let the professor know that you received their email and don't need anything else from them. That lets them avoid trying to follow up with you later.


How to know the full name of paper authors? I have the following citation:

  M. Hama and T, Imahashi. Periodic β-expansions for certain classes of Pisot numbers. Comment. Math. Univ. St. Paul. 46(2):103–116, 1997.

I prefer citing the full names of the authors, however, I'm unable to find them. I tried googling their names, finding what is their affiliation, but I did not succeed. Is there any standard way how to find scientists' full names?

First go to the original journal web page for the paper in question. That might have more information. It may have their full names, links to other papers by them, and will almost always have their affiliation at the time of submission of the paper.

You can also search the usual literature databases for other papers in the same field by the same author: other journals may have the author' full names; furthermore, more recent papers will have their most recent affiliation.

Once you've got their most recent affiliation, you can then search that institution's website for the authors' home pages.

In this particular case, the paper is listed here. By clicking on the author names, I find that Hama Masaki is one of the names you are after: by using the distinctive "Pisot" from the paper title, I can narrow down to an individual. A bit of searching for the full name and Pisot gets me what I think is a different form of the same name: 浜, 正樹 ; searching for that with Pisot gets me what looks like the author's home page. This should be enough to enable you to contact that author.

And for goodness sake, don't go directly citing a paper that you haven't read. I'm grateful to Peteris for the comment on the original question that deserves higher profile than a comment: indirect citations are one of the ways in which myths are born and are spread: see this excellent read on "Academic urban legends" from Ole Bjørn Rekdal. (full text here)