How to stand out in mathematics PhD admissions as a student from an online school, with no research or opportunities to get strong recommendations? After reading some the posts here about graduate admissions for PhD/masters in mathematics in different countries, it seems like the requirements are quite a lot higher than what I have in my country. Just for clarification, in my university (the Open University of Israel), there's no undergraduate research besides one undergraduate seminar. I've never heard of anyone from my university writing a paper in mathematics while attending the Open University of Israel. I've already read the ways to stand out in admissions on this site, and for me, research cannot be one of them.

In addition, since my school is an online school, none of my recommendations will be personal, and none of my teachers writing the recommendations are well known in their field, since they all only teach and don't do any research. I suppose that in this sense my university is the equivalent of an American community college.

Therefore, based on my readings here, the best ways for me to stand out for graduate admissions are on the Cover Letter (which I need to write), GPA (currently around 88% average, when the average for mathematics in my university is around 65%), and TOEFL/GRE (TOEFL, I may not need to do, since I'm a native English speaker, and the GRE's I still need to decide if I want to do, since I'm not yet sure that I want to apply in the United States). In addition, I'm graduating in a year and a half, so until then, I'm planning to fly to different universities around the world once every six months to meet with the graduate math program coordinators (I've already met with the coordinator for the math program at Bonn University and I've set up a meeting at Trinity College Dublin already) to get information and to also start making connections.

Given these specific circumstances that cannot be changed (graduating without a single paper from an unrated university, with weak recommendations), are there any other creative or unusual ways (which I will really need), besides improving the GPA, getting excellent GRE grades, and working on a great cover letter to stand out in graduate admissions for universities in the United States, Europe, and Canada? If I can't get accepted after graduation to a university abroad, my alternate plan is to do a masters here in Israel, and then do a PhD abroad.

tl;dr
Get a MSc from a top Israeli university first. It will practically ensure that you will get accepted to just about any PhD program that you want to. And a math MSc from a top Israeli uni is a pretty good thing to have. (edit see below)

I'm an Israeli currently studying outside of Israel, so I might give you a more relevant perspective on the issue. Although I'm in earth sciences, and not math, I think you will find this useful.

I am having a hard time understanding some of your circumstances. You claim that you will graduate in a year and a half. Assuming you are studying full-time, you are only halfway through and it may be too early to start thinking about your PhD, let alone fly to institutions in the world and meet with them (unless you happen to be there as a tourist).

You are correct that graduating from the Israeli Open University is hardly beneficial in terms of reputation and prestige. It is also close to impossible to get meaningful and honest recommendation letters. I do not know how much people trust GPA scores from a distance learning institution, and this may also hurt your chances. Unfortunately, as hardly any research is done at OU, I doubt that you will find a research partner to work on a publication. Even if your numbers are right, the fact that you do not study in a university where you have day-to-day interaction with other students and senior stuff is not going to help the admissions committees to choose you over other candidates.

Instead of thinking about PhD research abroad, I suggest you start with a MSc degree back home in Israel. There are several reasons for that:

Math degrees in Israeli universities have excellent reputation (particularly Tel Aviv, HUJI and Technion). This alone might boost your chances.
You are still an undergrad, halfway through. You have not been exposed to research yet. If you were in a physical university, you might be exposed to research around you, which is something. Yet you don't even have that. You do not know if research is what you want to do. Who knows, you might get offered a job and leave academia. Going for MSc will be your "introduction" to research and will give you a chance to get your desired publication, if you wish to pursue this further.
Starting a PhD program with MSc background will make you a much better student. I can sometimes see the difference between PhD students with and without prior MSc experience in the institution I am currently at.
Admission committees, in general, look favourably upon applicants with proved research experience in the form of MSc.

I will give you an example from my own experience. Having graduated my BSc with a research component, I was eligible for PhD studies abroad without having to get MSc. However, I did study for MSc in Israel, mostly for the reasons above. It made getting accepted to my institution of choice much easier, I had more than one publication by the time I applied for the PhD, it gave me a different perspective on what research is and what is it that I want to do, or more importantly, do not want to do.

EDIT

OP mentioned that conducting research in Israel is not possible due to personal reasons. I don't see how this sits with OP's idea of taking MSc research in Israel, but here are two more ideas:

Go for a one year Honours degree in countries that have it (for example, UK or Australia). This is something that's usually done straight after BSc and is one year of research.
Go for MSc in a country where doing this is common as a precursor to PhD research (continental Europe mostly, also Israel btw).

These two are very expensive solutions because you can't usually get funded or a scholarship for this, unlike doing PhD research. I would personally go for number two from the list above.

Again, getting straight to PhD after finishing your BSc in the Open University is almost impossible. If you do get it, it's probably in a low ranked institution and that might not be the best thing for your career. Regardless of whether you are accepted or not, I still think that you should have some kind of research experience before going for a PhD, particularly as you're done your education so far in a research-free environment.


Can you send a university a protected PDF of undergraduate transcripts for graduate applications? I am applying to graduate school using an online application service. There is a field to upload an electronic transcript, so I ordered transcripts from my university and saved it as a PDF. Unfortunately, the application service will not accept this PDF because it has certain restrictions (it cannot be opened after 30 days). I want to know how I should approach getting my transcript to the universities I am applying to. If I change the security measures on the PDF, will it no longer be an official transcript? If I have an electronic transcript directly sent to the university, will they be able to view it after 30 days?

Usually, universities have explicit and hard rules about transcripts. Here's an example. See what you can find out from the institution you're applying to. If they accept official transcripts electronically, they probably only do so through some third-party service, and not by you uploading a PDF to their system.

Such a PDF will likely be considered an unofficial copy. It's still useful for considering applicants, but they'll likely need another version to verify its authenticity. Typically, for US grad schools, this can be an official version submitted by your previous institution through a third-party web service, or a signed printed version sent in a sealed envelope.


How can I know if I’m working through my PhD correctly? I’m a math PhD student in a university in Europe, working in a highly abstract field. I’m halfway through the intended three years. But I have the feeling I’m not doing it right.

When I look back, two years ago I knew almost anything of the theory I’m working in. So from that point of view, it’s reassuring. But I am still learning. My supervisor has given me a problem which is not very definite or well-defined: I have to abstract some structure from some old, classical scenario and try to update it to some more modern objects, in hopes of gaining insight and computability.

This has proven a bit formidable to me, even if he said it shouldn't "take me more than some weeks". After trying the “hands-on” approach my supervisor had some months ago, I got to realize that it wouldn't work, at least not naively. So I started thinking of an easier case, and then the problem started to divert and I feel like I’m on very loose ground now.

The situation is the following: my supervisor has a very computational approach to math, whereas I err on the conceptual, abstract side. So when I started getting farther away from his line of thought, he progressively stopped being helpful to me, to the point where in our meetings I usually tell him what I have thought of or learnt, he nods, sometimes gives me an idea, but most of the times he just doesn’t help me. And the main problem is, I think, he doesn’t think about my problems at all outside of our short meetings (even when our meetings end up with a very well-defined, specific question from me). So it’s all up to me and I feel inept and insecure, especially because I try to apply stuff I learn on my own, stuff my supervisor doesn't really know, many times.

I also think that I’m thinking -too- conceptually, I think much more by analogy than by computation, but since I’m a beginner I don’t know if I’m really thinking about the objects like I should, but my supervisor doesn’t speak to me much so I’m confronting articles, books, monographs by myself. I have learned much more by myself than from him. It's been a long while since he's tried to transfer some knowledge to me (as I said, our meetings consist mostly of me showing my current problems). Honestly, I feel like I'm doing my PhD unsupervised, and I'm scared to be leading my mathematical thoughts into unfertile regions.

My question is: how can I know that I’m working through my PhD correctly? I feel aimless, and moreover for the moment I feel like I’m just juggling with other people’s knowledge. I keep incorporating knowledge that I try to juggle. To put it differently, I feel like I’m collecting by myself pieces of a puzzle, and I’m just putting them together, without creating any pieces. I’m just picking up other people’s fruits. I feel like whatever result I might end up converging to will be just a trivial consequence of some stuff done by others. When I read articles, I many times skip the proofs, and I feel like I know many things at a “moral” level. I really don’t have the time to go through the technicalities, and at the same time, they look so daunting! I always skip the hardest parts, stacking them into “black boxes”.

I have read other posts about the “impostor’s syndrome”. I certainly suffer from this and other related issues, but this question is not about coping with the issue “how not to feel worthless”, but rather “how can I be sure that I’m doing this right?”. I feel like this will just go on and it just doesn’t feel like anything will come out of my struggling. Am I wrong?

I am a hard worker and I have had good results getting here (as in, grades, scholarships, etc.). I have managed to learn a lot of different math successfully. I have a very good memory and an uncanny ability to find references, which is what my impostor’s syndrome tells me it’s what has been saving me; I feel like I am a good bibliothecologist, a good organizer, a good cleaner, but that doesn’t imply I’m a good creator; I have given no signs of being able to -create- anything. How should I cope with this?

My question is: how can I be know that I’m working through my PhD correctly?

Well, you can't as you haven't done it before, but in some sense you can never truly know anything, if that makes you feel better.  In any case, there's no "right way" to do a PhD.  Research is by nature a process where you wander into unknown territory, and at first you have no maps or guideposts.  Then maybe you find what you are looking for, and maybe you don't, but as some measure of reassurance:

After wandering around long enough, you can usually discover something new.  Many times it may just be a different point of view or minor results, but at least you have understood something new.  Still, usually when you spend a long time on a project you can get something publishable out of it in my experience.

Here are some other points regarding other things in your post:

Many PhD advisors are very hands-off.  It's also natural that they become less helpful as you go beyond the bounds of their expertise.  However, it's probably not great if your advisor is thinks what you're doing is uninteresting.  (I don't know if this is the case or not.)  It's probably worthwhile to have a meta-research talk with him, including whether he thinks it's worthwhile to continue along these lines or consider a different approach.
If you go out of the realm of your advisor's expertise, it might make sense to try talking to an expert who can give you better feedback.  Conferences are one good opportunity for this.
No professional mathematician has time to understand all or even most papers of interest to them.  You need to learn to prioritize, which it sounds like you're already doing.
You actually don't have to be that creative to do new things, or have too many new ideas, or be successful in research.  Many PhD theses boil down to learning a bunch of stuff and then doing computations.  This does not mean they are bad--many of them are very good.  It's also hard to be creative before you reach a certain level of understanding, so you may not realizes your creativity till later, at which point you will almost invariably think, "How did it take me so long to come up with that?  That's so simple."
Organizational skills are not so separate from creativity.  Many times problems can be understood easily after organizing your thoughts about them in the right way.  This was part of the Grothendieck philosophy, and I doubt many mathematicians criticized Grothendieck for not being creative enough.
While research can be frustrating and disheartening, you should generally enjoy learning and thinking about math, otherwise a PhD or academic track is not for you.  Most people have good times and hard times with research.  This is natural.  I view one of my most important duties as an advisor is to encourage my students to help them get through the hard times.


Using grant proposal for applying to faculty position My grant application for independent research as a PostDoc got recently funded in Germany (the position started at the beginning of this year). This grant required me to choose host labs to work at. I had written the proposal by myself, with inputs from the host professors in Germany regarding the language and phrasing.
Concurrently, I have also started to apply for faculty positions in different countries. The institute at the very top of my list asks specifically for a research proposal which will play a key role in the selection process.
Since the PostDoc grant proposal is filled with many unsolved and interesting problems from my research career (in Mathematics), I would like to reuse it for my faculty application as well.
I have a few questions regarding this:
(1) What is the code of conduct around such a situation where I want to reuse the grant proposal in a faculty-position research proposal? I have never been in this situation, and I am completely unsure of how to proceed.
(2) If I am allowed to reuse the material from the grant proposal, how closely can I use it in the faculty proposal? A lot of thought and time was invested into the phrasing of the original grant, and it very concisely written. If possible, I would like to stay close to the original phrasing.
Of course, the faculty proposal will several new problems as well. Maybe, this question has an obvious answer, in which case I apologise for it. Any ideas/thoughts are very welcome.

Unless there is something tricky that I can't see, there should be no problem, though I'd suggest some rewording, just to make things clear.
For example, the grant covers "work in progress" perhaps, rather than "work to be done".
But the important thing is to be clear in the faculty application about what is past, present, and proposed for the future. I think you will be in a strong position if your "Statement of Purpose" is a continuation of a research program that is already in progress and has seen some results.
I think that the rewording, rather than just copying, would make it stronger.
I hope I'm not missing something.


Postdoc before PhD completion I am in a situation where my PhD funding runs out in 5 months and I need to have secured a job regardless of whether I have submitted due to having a family.

Although I think I may be close to submitting by then, it may take longer. Is it worth applying for postdoc positions or would universities not consider you until you have completed the PhD? I assume that the pass rates of PhDs are very high if the candidate has got to the submission stage.

Edit: This question is aimed at the people that are are the submission stage but haven't yet defended their thesis. It is not a question asking if I can get a post-doc without a PhD.

Groups seeking postdocs will absolutely consider you as an applicant before you have completed your PhD. They will, however, want to be certain that you have completed the entire process and all its requirements prior to officially beginning your new job, as the comments above have said. Be as honest with them as possible about when you expect to finish.

Universities will vary in terms of how they expect you to prove you've completed your PhD: some will accept official letters while others will want a photocopy of your physical degree (I was asked for the latter and found it rather, er, surprising). Luckily, none of that is likely to happen during an interview.


Use of data that may contain future ethical complications Suppose that you are afforded an opportunity to examine data that was, on the surface at least, collected legally and ethically, but that may contain hidden ethical dilemmas. What precautions, if any, should you take when working with this data?

Two examples that came to mind for me were data collected from a social media site and DNA/genetic data obtained by a genomics company that is supposed to trace your genetic ancestry. These data sources are covered by a consent waiver that gives the service provider certain permissions to use, distribute, and monetize your data. To use those services, a patron is required to sign a waiver/terms of use agreement. A person's data is only collected with their "consent," albeit at times a blind consent.

If I was a geneticist, suppose, and obtained via appropriate means genetic data for a population of interest that had submitted their saliva/DNA to one of these genomics companies, what would be some ethical issues I would need to consider? The subject consented to giving their data, but many times did not necessarily give informed consent. In this example, could it still be unethical to do research on data that was likely obtained from people who just quickly passed through the consent agreements and signed blindly?

This issue is even more relevant in cases of social media data. Most users likely had no idea their data was even being collected because the did not read the user agreement they consented to. Would it be unethical to then use data collected from this social media site, even though it was legally obtained?

Suppose that you are afforded an opportunity to examine data that was,
  on the surface at least, collected legally and ethically, but that may
  contain hidden ethical dilemmas. What precautions, if any, should you
  take when working with this data?

There is no simple way to answer this kind of general question, but thankfully most institutions in the academic world are equipped with ethics committees whose job is exactly to answer such questions. They provide general guidelines and can be asked specific questions, their role is to guide researchers through potentially difficult questions and to set the boundaries. Depending on the specifics of your case, they might for instance ask you to take additional steps to protect individuals privacy, or even tell you that the study that you are considering is not ethically acceptable. Their expertise gives you legal and moral clarity in an area where you are not the expert.

On a related note, in large research projects it is usually a requirement to plan for this kind of ethics expertise and oversight.


What to do with dead times during your PhD? I am about to finish a phd in economics (couple of years left). I am in good shape:

I have a nice on going solo authored paper
I have a co-authored paper submitted to a journal and waiting feedback
One other large project on-going with another co-author
I starting to work on a new project that requires heavy computation.

Now here's the thing. At the moment I have a lot of dead time.

Paper (1) - I do not feel there is much I can do now. I am presenting the paper in couple of places in the Summer and hope to get feedback.

Paper (2) - We are waiting for referees to come back to us.

Paper (3) - I am waiting to discuss with my co-author next steps - he is on holiday for the next 3  weeks.

Paper (4) - I have setup what I could on this paper. I am running preliminary results (but the codes take up to 4 days to run).

The key question is what to do in the meantime. Of course, I could work on paper (1) a bit more, but I feel that productivity is low on that one at the moment. I could start something new as I have some ideas on the pipeline, but I am avoiding this as something might come up unexpectedly on papers (1), (2) or (3), and giving a false start to a new project might not be optimal.

Edit: A suggestion below was to learn a programming language. However, I am "fluent" in Fortran, Matlab, Python, Stata and SAS ... and I have no use at the moment for other languages.

I could always read papers, but how much can you read if do not have a proper goal in mind?

Any advice?

The best thing to do in the summer after your "third" year of PhD is to take stock of where you are and where you want to be. Then you want to create a plan to get there - basically, write yourself a realistic roadmap, working back from what a successful job search looks like.

In Economics, you will be focused on the job market in year 5. You will want to be prepared to convince committees that you are a good hire - that you are prepared to hit the ground running and get tenure at their institution. Look at the CV of the hires from this round for your ideal institutions and compare your CV. Do you need another paper? A grant? A major award? Make a list.

Then create your calendar. Put on important deadlines. Plan when you want to submit other things and what the turnaround is likely to be (it will be long).

Keep in mind that the fifth year is basically a wash. You don't achieve anything of note. You may finish an R&R, but other than that, refining your job market paper and your presentation plus applying to and interviewing for jobs takes all your time. If you are not clear on what that year will look like, read some of the excellent job market guides from AEA or Econ bloggers. Also consider the book "The Professor is In" or Vitae columns.

Given this, I would probably argue for thinking hard about grants and what proposals you might want to have ready to send during year 5. This involves some real generative, creative work. It means thinking about what you want your research agenda to look like as an Assistant Professor. Having this sort of thing in the pipeline will be impressive to hiring committees.

Once you have done this, you should also consider doing things that make you happy. See some family and friends and get some exercise. Or do something vaguely work related but actually pleasant like creating your website or signing up for some summer institute/workshop. This summer is the last time you will have to really kick back (presuming you are worrying about moving after you graduate)!


Should I mention strong engagements on the CV which are not related to the domain I want to get in touch with some professors for PhD applications. Thus I will send them my CV and I am wondering if I should mention achievements and engagements which are in general strong, but not related to the domain of the PhD. (I want to do a CS related PhD)

E.g. organizing conferences, McKinsey distinguished, Delegate at International Relation conferences, Banking Conferences, etc.

Is it beneficial to mention it or in contrary even counterproductive?

Such details do not seem so counterproductive. In fact, it shows your versatility and that you possess effective communication skills.

To avoid blurring achievements from your primary domain, you may add a separate Ancillary Achievements or Other Accomplishments section.


Qualifications needed to teach math/statistics at US university A friend with a B.S. in Mathematics and an M.S. in Statistics would like to teach math/statistics at a US university which is not research oriented as a full-time faculty member. To do so, it seems like it might be necessary to have a PhD. However, my friend is not interested in statistics research, so she's thinking instead about trying for a PhD in Math Education. Is this viable? Are there alternative routes?

A friend with a B.S. in Mathematics and an M.S. in Statistics would like to teach math/statistics at a US university which is not research oriented as a full-time faculty member.

I have some questions.  First, do you mean a specific university, or will any university do?  Second, do you really mean "university," or could it be a "four-year college" or a community college?  Third, by full-time do you really just mean full-time, or do you mean tenure-track?

A few data points:

In my department (mathematics, UGA) we have faculty with master's degrees who are teaching full-time, but they are not tenure-track.  Some of these positions are "permanent" by any reasonable standard -- e.g. some of these faculty have been there for multiple decades.  A friend of mine just got hired into one of these positions, so I know a bit about them and I don't think they're going away anytime soon.  In fact my friend has a bachelor's in math and a master's in statistics.
At my PhD program's Visitation Day on Friday, I met with a woman who is a faculty member in the math department at a four-year college relatively nearby.  She has a master's degree and has been teaching there for about five years.
In some regions of the country (e.g. New York City) even community colleges tend to hire people with PhDs.  But there is a lot of variation.  You can read e.g. here for more details.  My understanding is that even in the community college scene having a doctorate makes a difference in your job titles and responsibilities.

  However, my friend is not interested in statistics research, so she's thinking instead about trying for a PhD in Math Education.

The "so" confused me.  This makes as much sense to me as saying "physics" or "computer science" in place of "math education."  In other words, these are all academic fields that are closely connected to mathematics but distinct from it.  So far as I know (and I do know about the math ed PhD program at my university, although I also know it's one of the best in the US and therefore is probably not representative of all departments) being a math ed PhD student is much like being any other PhD student: you are being trained in research and implicitly/explicitly groomed for an academic research career (though many graduates will end up elsewhere).

So getting a PHD in math ed is an excellent idea if your friend is deeply interested in math ed research.  Well, and also if she can find funding: in my experience, one of the main differences between math and math ed PhD programs is that the former are much better funded than the latter.  But since you didn't mention any prior training in that area, I'm a little concerned that you are viewing this as some kind of degree for people who are interested in teaching rather than research.  That might be true for certain people and/or certain programs, but it's not true for all.

The idea of someone joining a PhD program in field X because they don't like field Y makes me very nervous.  I would certainly encourage your friend to learn as much as she can about post-secondary academic jobs available to people with master's.  A combination of math and statistics sounds rather valuable to me, and it may well be that your friend is employable now.


Mendeley Harvard reference format Does anyone know where I can find a correct Harvard reference format to upload on Mendeley Desktop and use it with the Mendeley Word plug-in?

It seems that the ones available are not correct.

Thanks

You can use the Zotero Style Repository and search for the term "harvard".

You can preview a style by hovering over its name:

Once you've found your style, right click on the "Source" link and click on "Copy Link Address". (e.g. https://www.zotero.org/styles/harvard-cite-them-right?source=1)

Now in Mendeley, go to "View > Citation Style > More Styles... > Get More Styles" and copy/paste the link in the "Download Style" box (and click "Download")

Then go back to the "Installed" tab and select the style you just downloaded and click "Use this Style":

(You may have to restart MS Word)


"Catching up" after two years in the wrong school I'm a student in a mid-ranked computer engineering school in France. This is unsatisfying to me for several reasons:

I recently discovered that I strongly prefer the mathematical aspects of computer science to the programming side of it, and I would like to continue my career working on machine learning/statistics, which is not an option in my current school. I've done pure mathematics and physics in my two years of preparatory classes, which ended a year and a half ago, but haven't had a proper math course since then, except for some probabilities and Boolean logic.
The school's ranking and course offering are disappointing to me. I am there as a result of a bad personal situation during my first undergrad years, and I would have aimed for a completely different path if I could.

I'm in my first year of Master's degree (4th year after high school), and considering my options. I wonder if, by working hard enough, it's still possible to get a more theoretical degree from a good school, or if it's already too late to try again and my academic path is set.

Additionally, I would like to go finish my studies abroad at some point, and already have a few cities and universities in mind. I would like a researcher or research engineer's position in the private sector.

I am considering the following options:

Finishing my Master's degree while catching up on maths on the side, then trying to get into a PhD programme abroad.
Finishing my Master's, finding work in a machine learning- or statistics-related field for one year, then applying to a PhD programme. The year off would give me more time to get the required level in maths, and the professional experience could be useful when applying.
Trying right away to get into another school's Master's programme that would be better adapted to my plans.

For all I know, all of these may be unrealistic (starting a PhD after two years without math courses would at least require a lot of work on the side, and I don't see how my application could have a chance without a math-related degree to prove I'm competent; getting into a foreign school's master's programme is probably a very selective and/or expensive transition, especially if I'm coming from a lower-ranked institution).

The ideal way would be to go back to high school and do the preparatory classes again, this time without external problems to discourage me. Of course, this isn't possible.

I realize that what I want to do is hard. I kind of regret the low motivation I had and the choices I made a few years ago. I am mostly trying to get an overview of what I can aim for and what is off the table. What would be a good way to proceed from here?

First of all, nothing is off the table. You are still in the very beginning of your academic path and nothing is closed off irrevocably. You are correct in thinking that a CS degree will require you to catch up on fundamentals. The question is how much time and effort would you like to invest in this endeavor. I don't think that dropping out of the engineering program is necessary. A lot of people transition from engineering to CS, you are by no means the first to want to make the switch.

So what are the options of a master of engineering holder to get into a CS PhD?

Doing nothing: You can probably get into some CS PhD program right now if your research statement/references are good, though you are not likely to get into one of the top international programs. School rank does not matter in PhD as much as your ability to find a good advisor with whom you are able to publish! This is a function of your mutual fit and joint capability, not the school's ranking.
Getting a master in CS: if you want to get some foundational knowledge and have time to familiarize yourself with the field, you can just take 2 years to complete another master's degree. The downside here is that it takes time and money, the upside is that you get another degree to your name and time to gain the necessary experience.
Getting a CS undergraduate degree: this is really resetting your academic clock to some degree. It will take you a while (though you may have the option of getting credits for your existing classes, depending on where you take your undergraduate degree). There's nothing wrong with going back to basics, but it is a bit extreme.

To conclude, what you want to do is not easy, but certainly within the realm of plausibility. I would say that the current hype around AI/ML is not playing in your favor. The competition for these programs can be quite fierce, especially in top schools, so if your life dream is joining them it may require you getting some professional training via a masters at least.


Importance between the American Mathematical Monthly and Research Journals I am an undergraduate and have been working with one of my math professors over the past year on proving some new results.  These results are interesting and are approachable enough to be understood by most graduate students.

My professor and I have agreed that this work can certainly be published in a "professional level" research journal (I would be first author), however because the problem is approachable and would be interesting to a wide audience (and is not highly specific) we think it could be a good fit for the American Mathematical Monthly.

I want to go to graduate school, and I am wondering if publication in the American Mathematical Monthly would carry more or less weight in graduate school admissions than publication in a journal specific to the research area of the work (dynamical systems).

I understand the AMM is geared more towards publishing expository work, however publication in the journal would tend to yield more reads than in a more specific journal (I am looking at the Journal of Dynamical Systems and Geometric Theories for example).  Which would be best to publish in, or look best to a graduate school admissions committee?

You're probably right that more people would see something published in the Monthly than in a "research" journal. But if you are aiming primarily to optimize the positive impact this paper would have on a CV for grad school (in the U.S.) I think it would be much better to say that it has been published in a good-quality research-oriented journal, since that will attest much more strongly to the quality of the research (as opposed to attesting to general interest).

EDIT: in contrast to some other answers' implications... The Math Monthly is not at all a research journal. It is an expository and (mostly elementary) problem/puzzle-oriented journal. Publication there is viewed (in my experience, and in my own opinion) as a good thing, but no indication at all about "research potential" or such stuff. That's not the fundamental criterion for publication there!

So, if you are wanting to give evidence that you have already made (and thus in the future can make) research contributions... publication in the Monthly gets you close-to-nothing. Sure, "it's nice", but it's not at all about making significant new contributions to live subjects. It's an entirely different thing. It's not just "a somewhat different journal"... it's in an entirely different category.


How to title a research paper of a problem which can have two solutions? I have been working on a problem which, after a research turn out to have two solutions. One of the solutions is realistic while the other is just a proposed and abstract model.

So for example:

The problem P and two solutions S1(more realistic) and S2(abstract idea).

How can I title the paper?

If it is possible (you have worked on each solution perfectly and each can be published separately), you can publish two papers each include one solution. I mean, you can publish solutions separately if (and only if) each of your solutions are perfectly developed and publishable.

However, if you have derived two separate solutions to a problem, it is not that much difficult to find a title for your paper. Here is one possible title which comes to my mind:

  Solution of problem P by means of two separate methods, S1 and S2

But, if you think the second solution is only an abstract and it is not developed enough to be mentioned in the title, you would better not to mention the second abstract idea in the title of your publication.


How do I submit interdependent papers? I recently submitted a paper for publication and received feedback that the paper was too complex. It contained two relatively independent concepts. The material would best be served by splitting it into two papers and submitting them independently.

I have to say I agree with this editorial analysis.

However, I am now stuck as to what to do. The first concept can stand on its own, but it is largely useless without the second one. The second one has to assume the first one exists so it can build upon it.

But, as I understand it, for a journal (or a good one, anyway) to publish an article, its research must be not only sound but properly justified as well. Only, I can't justify the research in the first article without referring to the second one, and I can't present the research in the second one without using the first one as a basis.

To further complicate the matters, I'm working at an intersection, and the two articles would probably work best if submitted to different journals in somewhat different fields.

How do I format my abstracts, introductions and conclusions to pass this message across and improve my chances of acceptance?

This is one of the things pre-print services can address quite readily, even for fields that don't normally use preprints. Putting both papers on arXiv (or another field-equivelent) allows them to exist in a citable form, and as one or both of them make it through the publication cycle, the linking citation can be updated to reflect this. FigShare will also let you upload documents and provide you with a DOI, though I've never actually seen this done in practice, and it's likely arXiv or an equivalent is more appropriate for a full-sized manuscript.

If you're in a field that has conference presentations and the like that aren't equivalent to publication (for example, much of biomedicine) you may also be able to cite a poster or presentation given at a conference.


How do you convey your idea when you can't convey your idea? I am PhD student works in a computer science. I have given lots of presentations in the institute level and one or two at the conference level. I have been told by my fellow researchers that they did not get much from my presentations/talks. Even I have presented one paper in the conference also and got the same feedback. I spend more time on making slides as well practise at least two three times on the projector also. I think I am kind of person who is worst at presenting the work. Assuming this Is there any way through which I can deliver a good talk?

I'm also not great at presenting. One method I've found useful is to present to and get feedback from people who have around the same level of knowledge as your intended audience (i.e. people who are not too heavily involved in your project, but are in your research field). This means they will be able to tell you which parts you need to explain in more detail.

Also, look at other people's presentations to see what's the standard level of technical detail in your field - I've seen presentations where the focus should be on the scientific analysis and results, but instead too much time is spent on the minutia of how the analysis was performed.


Should I let a bad mark from 10 years ago discourage me from taking on a TAship? 10 years ago it was my first year in University and I bombed a course in programming. I had no programming experience and was competing with people have been programming since 10. I felt stupid and my confidence crushed back then.
Since then I have done much more programming in a variety of settings, worked in industry on software projects, and created many projects using various programming languages often under deadline.
I have now returned to school and I am deciding to TA a course on the very same subject I bombed in 10 years ago.
However, I feel discouraged given my bad performance in this course. I feel like I still don't deserve to help to teach young people. I feel that other people are much more qualified than me even though they may be much younger. Plus I am also questioning if I actually know the concepts. Logically, a lot of the things I know and done are transferable, but I can't get over my self-doubt.
In this situation, should I decide to TA this course or not?

This is ultimately a personal decision for you to make and it's likely that the question will be closed.
I assume that you now have adequate background to be a TA for this course, so you've overcome the difficulties that you had when you first took the course.  Let me suggest to you that your experience in struggling with this course as a beginner is something that can help you in working as TA for the course because you'll understand how the students are sometimes struggling with the course.


What does "Awaiting Reviewer Scores" mean within the context of a ScholarOne submission system? I submitted a paper to a Taylor and Francis journal that uses the ScholarOne submission system. The manuscript status has changed from "Under Review" to "Awaiting Reviewer Scores".

What does this change mean?
What is the flow chart of the different statuses for a manuscript?

With a typical ScholarOne configuration, "Awaiting Reviewer Scores" means that it is actually out with (at least some) reviewers, while "Under Review" would instead mean the previous stage, where it is being considered by the handling editor(s) and might still be rejected without review.

After the review scores come back, a manuscript then returns to the handling editor for a recommendation, and thence up to the chief editor(s) for a decision.


Where are all the citations going? I started noticing something that left me wondering a bit. My estimate is that the average paper (for example submitted to physical review journals, contains of the order of 50 citations). But if the average paper cites 50 other papers, then each paper should also receive 50 citations on average.

This is definitely not my track record. One could argue that cited papers are dominated by a few rare events (very important papers with thousands of citations), but by the very definition of an impact factor this cannot be the case, (unless one considers books, but I would assume they comprise max 20% of the citations): only top journals as nature reach an impact factor of this order, but these are far from the only papers cited. Many of them are other physical reviews, with an impact factor of order 3.

So that leaves me wondering, where are the missing citations going?
Is it just a matter of delay, or is there a flaw in my logic?

The impact factor is not the right measure. The impact factor counts the average number of citations a paper receives in the two years after publication. But in most papers, most of the references given are for papers (substantially) older than two years, and consequently they don't count for the impact factor of the journals cited. That means that the average impact factor over all journals is not equal to the average number of citations.

Second, as others have pointed out, the distribution is heavily skewed. That's true for papers in general, but also for papers by the same researcher. To take just my own papers (see this google scholar page), there are a couple with over a thousand citations, but #10 on the list is already below 100 citations and there is quite a long tail of papers with far fewer citations than they have references themselves.


Interviewing for a lecturer position in the UK I have been invited to interview for a lecturer position (AFAIK, equivalent to assistant professor elsewhere) in the UK, after being pre-selected following a Skype interview. This means that the department is probably reasonably interested in me as a prospective hire. I have been a postdoc for 3.5 years now, and this is my first interview at this level.

I also do not have much experience with interviews in general, since I got my PhD position at the first try, and then was offered my postdoc position (I did not interview for it). In the middle I had two other interviews for postdocs that I didn't get, one of which went badly on my part. The other one went well but the position was extremely competitive (1% chance) which makes drawing conclusions difficult.

So I would like to have some pointers from academics who are familiar with the UK system on what to expect and how to best prepare for the interview. The email they sent me asked me to deliver a 30-minute presentation on "your research, enterprise and teaching aspirations at [univeristy name], with the first 5 minutes directed at an Undergraduate audience". Then, there will be a panel interview, followed by tour of the department and lunch. I should add this position puts more emphasis on research than teaching (externally funded).

Specifically, I'm interested in:

What to focus on during the presentation, e.g., what is a good balance of my past/present research versus future plans
Should I link the undergradute part to my research topics?
What kind of content the panel is expecting from me: "research, enterprise and teaching aspirations" sounds a bit vague (perhaps that's intentional?)
What to expect from the panel interview: technical questions, career plans, ...?

Update:

I had the interview, which I think went reasonably well. I found the advice given by the accepted answer to be quite valuable in the end. Things that came up were for example 1) subjects that I can contribute to the teaching portfolio of the department which are not currently taught, 2) what kind of funding I am going to secure to do research, 3) how my research ties in with what current members of the department are researching, 4) why I chose this university/department, 5) some more technical/specific questions about the research project attached to the position (as I said this position is externally funded).

Things that did not come up were salary or REF.

Update2:

I was offered the position. Unfortunately (or maybe not) I could not accept it because of a mixture of personal and professional reasons.

This is all pretty standard practise for UK  lectureships. They are basically testing your skills that will be required in the position.

In the presentation they will want to see a demonstration  that you can communicate your own specialism to both an undergraduate audience (as in teaching class) and your research peers (like for a conference). They want to know that you understand how research  is done and where the money comes from (knowledge of funding sources), and some assurance that you demonstrate the basic skills to communicate and cooperate with others already in the department to achieve  that goal. They will also want some indication that you have done some background intelligence to discover their particular departmental specialisms and how your skills will fit in their niche. You should at least have read the pages on their web site!

The presentation is likely to be done in a "public" venue with most staff and PhD's invited, who will also ask you questions at the end, just as if it was a research  paper.

The  interview will be behind closed door with the panel, often with senior staff such as Deans and HR who will ask questions that verify things from your CV/Resume. They will find out about your past employment, measure your level of experience, salary expectation plans for career development and so on. They would want to know how long you planned to stay with them to know if their investment in you was returned. They would want to know that you were self assured and reliant and not dependant on your previous supervisors, but conversely not a loner who could not collaborate with the existing and future teams.


NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Proposal Requirements I'm looking to apply this coming fall for the NSF GRF and was wondering about the two key components of the proposal that will affect how I apply. I couldn't seem to get a clear answer to these questions in the program solicitation or prior Academia SE questions

Is the proposal for research to be done or is it meant to be an idea? That is, am I expected to carry out the project I suggest or is the award to the applicant rather than the specific idea?

@JeffE's comment on NSF graduate fellowship: how specific should the statement of purpose be? suggests the award is to the applicant, not the project, but I would like to be sure if this is still the case and the degree to which I'm tied to the project I propose.

Should the project be something I come up with essentially independently or is it allowed to be an extension of a project I'm currently or nearly working on (I'm less than 12 months into grad school)?

If you are applying as a senior, and not yet even accepted in your graduate program, it is understood that this is a goal.  If you are already placed in an established lab, you can be more precise -- but these are not research grants.  Reviewers are looking for your ability to write out a cogent, hypothesis-directed proposal.

It can certainly be an extension of work you've done.


Should I chase up confidential feedback not being "sanitised" I'm not sure how to phrase the question exactly in the title, but the issue is essentially this. I gave some feedback for a subject I did, which I was told was confidential. The lecturer found out I gave the feedback and approached me about it. From what she said, they were able to piece together who I was from the examples I gave of my concerns.

I realised from their statements that the feedback was given directly to them, but with no names attached (I assume). I don't feel that this was adequately stated in the survey. Now while I no doubt they will be a professional moving forward in this situation, I cannot know for certain that they now hold a vendetta against me. Conversely, they could also inflate my marks to appease me as well. Either circumstance I think we can agree is not favourable.

I have already emailed the university about this some time ago, but never received a reply. The thing I am most concerned about is the lack of clarity about the feedback, I would not have included "incriminating" evidence had I known this was given to the lecturer's directly - though I am unsure if that was an incorrect assumption on my part.

Anyways, my question is: should I chase this up or should I let it go?

At most institutions in the United States, instructors are given their course evaluations in toto, only stripped of names. It's up to students to not write anything which would lead to deductive disclosure. But there's plausible deniability, so you could have feigned ignorance when she approached you (which was an entirely unprofessional thing to do).

If you are worried about retribution then speak to your chair or at the very least send an email note so that you have a paper record of your concerns.


Will I look bad if I'm never in my office as a graduate student? I just checked out my office. It looks like a dungeon. There are no windows. It is kind of cramped. Everything looks kind of industrial. I don't think I would like to study/work there. There are other places in the math building that look like much less depressing places to work such as the math library. Also coffee shops, at home, etc.

I have to have some number of office hours which I will gladly have. But for studying for my classes, working on research, etc. I would much prefer other places. There is no formal rules on where you have to be. I don't have an adviser yet and when I do, he won't be watching over me just looking for results. So there is no formal reason why I have to be in my office other than office hours.

If I simply don't use my office will I look bad to other grad students or professors? Will I maybe miss out on productive discussions? I can see if my office mates are in the same classes; we can work on the problem sets together.

What are the potential pitfalls of not being in my office other than for office hours?

Look bad, not necessarily. Will it be good for you? Maybe not.

Assuming that you don't have a really significant reason not to be on the lab, you should be. Stuff only happens with people that show up. If you are not in the lab, you won't talk to people as much. I literally can't count how many good ideas (and papers) came out of random coffee talk, that wouldn't happen on an otherwise "official" meeting.

full disclosure: That's something I didn't do during my phd and I regret it. I had my reasons, probably not really good enough, but I was almost never at my office and that hindered my development. I could have done more if I was there.


Inclusion of a non-contributor co-author On the last day before the submission of our paper, a Ph.D. student in my group got her name added on the paper. She did not do anything but reformulate a sentence in our manuscript. I replied to that decision saying that I was surprised to see her name on our paper.

And now I feel horrible. I did not talk to other colleagues in the same lab about this, because of I afraid I might blame her. However, when I came back to work, other colleagues (even the one who is not related) came and asked me why I was sad about that. I then understood that I made her hurt a lot by being surprised at the decision and that she had to talk to our colleagues to clear her image.

She said that she didn't take anything away from me as I am still the first author, that she couldn't care less about the paper and that I made her a wrong person. She could not understand why I took such an importance on the coauthorship.

I do not know why I was that sad about it, or why did I value my works that much. I was too egocentric and egoistic, but even until now, I could not make my feelings of unfairness go away. I do not know why I am that sad. Maybe it was because I did a lot experimentally and numerically I felt entitled. I do not even know, and I was just really sad.

I always say I want to help her with the experiment and works and everything as I am finishing my Ph.D., but I do not understand why I couldn't be happy helping her by having her name on my paper.

My feelings are really weird. I felt so wrong on something that shouldn't be a big deal. I only cause hurt to people, everywhere I go. I want to disappear.

In general, my existence in the scientific workplace is wrong. The boys always say that I was not normal and that I have sexuality's problems because I refuse to date them and remain single. The girls always say that I was slutty because my classmates and co-workers are mostly male. But other people did not have such problems to blend in and did not cause so much pain to others. Because of me, people do things they do not usually do, such as sexually harassing me or verbally abusing me. Maybe it was the way I dress, or the way I talk, or the way I work. I made others unhappy. I only victimize myself while I was probably the main reason for every sadness.

People were so happy without me, and I have to come to disturb everyone. I can not be an egoist and remain. Why can I not die, is it because I am a hostage of life? I'm still chained to my family. But I hate myself so much. Why am I like this?

I just want to vent, I guess. I am sorry for saying all of this nonsense, because, the problem was just me

I'm sorry to hear all of this (and also sorry about the downvotes without hints how to improve the question (but sometimes they seem to be just a way to greet new users in this site)).

It was right to question the authorship. On this site you can find many good answers on this topic.

I have two hints for you: first, as Mr. Eldredge says in the comments, please see a therapist. Your problems are far too serious, you need someone to talk to.
Moreover, please look that academia is not your complete life. Do other things in your spare time that fulfill you. Don't work too hard. Spend time with hobbies and friends. Then problems at work/university will be not so important as they seem.

Good luck! I give you morally 1000 upvotes and wish for your best!

Edit: I don't know whether it is allowed to say here, but there is also "AskAcademia" on Reddit. My opinion: The topic is similar to this site, but the people there are much more "human" than here and in general, friendlier. (The quality of answers is not always so high as here, though.)


Is it advisable to cite papers in PhD Statement of Purpose? I found out some similar questions, such as https://www.quora.com/Should-I-cite-papers-in-my-Statement-of-Purpose, Is it advisable to use formal citations in a statement of purpose?. However, I think my question is more specific.

I am preparing statement of purpose for PhD in Material Science (in US). I have some professors in mind to work with. To demonstrate on what problems I would to work, should I formally cite the professor's paper in Statement of Purpose? The idea is not to write a technical paper but to illustrate on what problems I would like to work.

If someone does not write citations, how would you convey what problems you would like to work on? I think that it would be too generic just to describe research interests. I see some pros in citations:

Being specific in what you want to do
Indicating you studied professor's work and showing interest in the professor's research.

Is citing papers statement of purpose a normal practice?

For the specific question of "should I cite a paper by one of my people of interest whom I want to read this application", I don't see a reason why you couldn't. I think there is no way in which your question, at the high level, is any different from the others you referenced.

However, there is more subtext to your decision to cite this professor. "I know your work", you want to say: "I'm ahead on my literature. I stay up to date." Well, you need to be careful making that statement because you could totally be wrong and not know better. If you say you want to work on exciting new problems and pick a 2012 paper (it's the latest on his CV!) where the conclusion is "this field is tapped out", the professor will specifically know you're talking out of your ass.

You need to do your research here especially, and be very careful about your statement. Don't be stupid, generally. But no, I don't think the answer is any different still, it's just a more careful balancing act. Go for it. One of the other questions points towards successful NSF applications, and I find them to be generally good guides. I used my application as the basis for all but one of my personal statements.


Is it okay to keep pdfs of journal articles from my previous university when my current university does not have a subscription? I've been wondering about this for some time. I did my PhD at the big university A. I had access to hundreds of online journals and ebooks. I was downloading papers and ebooks, classifying them, reading them, taking notes on the pdf, etc. At the end of my PhD, I had some 1.2 GB of annotated ebooks, papers, and digital material. None of the material is confidential (no datasets, project material, etc.), just journal and conference papers, ebooks, book chapters, etc.

Fast forward today, I am working at a small university B, that is subscribed to a small subset of the journals/publishers of A. Is it ethical/ legal that I keep the material and use it for my research? Should I delete all the papers from journals my current uni doesn't have subscriptions?

This is an interesting question -- and yet when you think about it, it's horrifying that we'd have to consider even for an instant the propriety and legality of keeping our own annotated research materials. But, to provide a proper answer:

In principle, this may depend on the terms of the license under which you downloaded these papers. In practice, you are very likely to be in the right, both legally and morally. In general, I believe that the licenses allow you to reproduce (i.e., print or save) the document for research purposes -- without specifying a time limit or maximum duration of their subsequent use. See e.g. JSTOR's terms of service.

If you are asking about the ethical/moral propriety of what you are doing, you are clearly in the right to retain your collection of papers and notes on those papers. In fact, you may even have an ethical obligation to retain those materials if the notes therein are necessary to reproduce any of your present work.

As an analogy, think about what I did many years ago when moving from one university to another. I had an extensive paper collection of reprints, many photocopied from my institution's library and many extensively annotated. I boxed all of these up and brought them with me. No one in their right mind -- nor even most copyright lawyers, I'd imagine -- would have had me go through those files and discard the articles not in volumes held by my new institution.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. It does seem to be good common sense, though, and sometimes that can be worth at least as much as anything a lawyer would tell you.


Diverse forms of testing and grading I am close to an academic who is facing heavy criticism for having used an unorthodox grading scheme in a final exams (there was a multiplication involved to ensure a good grade would mean decent success in two independent parts).

My main question is:

  Q0: what are the main guiding principles you use when designing a test and a grading scheme? Are there any clear limitations imposed to you (legal, moral, or traditional; internal or external)?

Let us assume that the tests handed out are completely anonymous, so that it is given that the grading only depends on the test handed out, and on no other element.
In particular, of course discrimination by gender or race or religious beliefs is not acceptable, but no need to mention it since (proper) anonymity should prevent it.

I would also like to gather a diverse array of ways to test and to grade. This type of "big list" question is sometimes seen at MathOverflow, I don't know if it is welcome here but I think seeing a variety of grading scheme and exam designs would help inform the answers to Q0.

  Q1: What kind of exam design and grading scheme did you actually use (or enforce if you did not grade but coordinated graders)? What are the motivation behind this choice, and what did you conclude from the outcome? Multiple answers for various pairs of exam design/grading scheme is better unless they directly benefit from being gathered.

It is been asked in comment to specify, so let me add that I am more interested by scientific fields. The question clearly makes sense more generally, but is already quite broad.

I've designed a number of assessments, and also have had recent experience of a rather complex grade calculation going wrong for some students, so I would say first of all that it needs to be kept simple, so that it is transparent to students how you have arrived at the mark. Of course, there needs to be a close correspondence to the curriculum/learning objectives. We also try to think about applying Bloom's taxonomy, so that questions mix the descriptive and the evaluative.

Q0: We have some constraints, some of them being mandated, but others really an attempt to standardise the rubrics within the department where I work. One of these, which makes a fair amount of sense, is to use an assessment grid, so that for each thing the student is graded on (e.g. level of critical analysis), there is an example of the kind of quality level expected within each grade boundary. We also have spent a lot of time thinking about group work and how to fairly grade it. A common approach for us now is to allocate an overall mark for a student group but also have an individual element, or allow for an adjustment based on individual performance. This is hard to get right, as you need to avoid a) team members not pulling their weight; but also b) one "stronger" team member taking all the work on themselves.
Q1 These days I avoid exams in the main, and use mostly assessed presentations, vivas and poster presentations. The grading scheme typically is something like 70/30 aspects of between content and presentation.  As I teach HCI & Information Science, there often needs to be evidence of following a structured design process, rather than merely giving this process lip service. This is almost always clear to see in the student work if it has been done well / at all.


Is it okay to send a letter of intent to attend a grad school, but withdraw if a scholarship is not provided? Is it okay for a potential student to send a letter of intent to attend a university's grad school program, but withdraw if it becomes clear that a scholarship is not available. What are there any repercussions to this?

I do not think that this should be a problem. Even if you get accepted for admission, and they send an official offer letter. You can always accept or decline it. If you choose to decline it, that is totally fine.


How to find out whether potential advisor will retire soon? I am interested in a PhD program and would like to work with a particular advisor. He is 69 years old now, and I am wondering whether he will retire soon, but I am not sure whether this is not a bit rude to ask. What can I expect, generally speaking? Shall I email him and ask him directly?

By asking, "are you accepting PhD students in the coming academic year?" you will find out not only whether they are openly planning on retiring soon, but also critically whether their docket of students is full.  You can do this via email without risking offending them.  In your email, also justify why you are interested in working with them.

I personally have experience with this, and unfortunately the person I contacted was retiring in the next year, and they told me so when I emailed them.


How do you answer "Oh, you're a professor? What do you teach?" I suspect anybody who's a professor knows this story: you meet someone new in a social setting and it comes up that you're a professor.  The inevitable next question is, "oh, what do you teach?"

It's a perfectly reasonable question, and one simple answer is: well, tell them what you teach!  But the question also implicitly suggests that professors do nothing but teach, and to answer it directly feels like you're only reinforcing that perception.  It also does nothing to steer the conversation toward your other passions, like doing research and writing grants.

Q: How do you answer this question without being rude, while still painting a more representative picture of what a professor actually does?

I usually get assigned to teach ____________ (e.g. introductory biology classes), but actually, most of my work at the university involves research in the area of ____________.


Why should the scientific community avoid double submissions? Every journal has strict rules about duplicate submissions, and I do not mean publishing the paper in 2 venues.

My approach is mostly from an economics point of view: Given the fact that most reviews take between 2-3 months, plus any number of months for a resubmission, limiting yourself to only one journal seems not only a waste of time for the individual, but an overall drag for the scientific community. Even if you make a groundbreaking discovery, it won't get published until about a year later.

Multiple submissions dramatically increase the chances of getting your work published, and if you get accepted in both, you can always pull out your paper. From a marketplace point of view, this makes sense, since in this way, journals would be fighting for authors and not the other way around.

Models like Arxiv have proven that this is not such a crazy idea

One possible answer is that the referee process of a paper is a very professional and time consuming job (at least I am sure it is in mathematics). Therefore it is not fair you submit your paper to several journals and make them to referee your paper by different experts and then you withdraw your paper just because your paper got accepted by another journal.


How many courses should I discuss in an academic video interview? One of the questions some academic hiring committees sometimes ask job candidates during the interview process is, "What courses would you like to develop and teach?"

How should a candidate respond if asked that question?

How many courses should they describe?
How detailed should their description of each course be? (Is the title sufficient, or should there be 2–3 sentences describing the content?)
Should they mention courses they could potentially develop -- but might not be an area of direct expertise -- given sufficient interest/demand?
Should they be prepared to discuss the curriculum of these courses in detail, or is it okay to leave that level of planning to the future?

I am the job candidate, and the institution emphasizes teaching. I have already started planning one course that I would love to teach, I have thoughts about another I'd love to develop, and could list another one or two that could be useful to their department and that I could develop and teach, given sufficient time to prepare them. I expect that I should try to answer this question in less than 90 seconds.

Think about your audience. They are asking this question because they want to know how you'll contribute to the teaching of the department. Only listing the title of the course would provide a little information (what you'll teach), but probably not all of what they're listening for (how you'll teach or how your teaching interests will fit in their department).

So, for each course you would answer for, be ready to give at least two sentences that focus on any of the following:

Key learning objectives - what would you focus on?
Motivation - why does designing this course interest you?
Fit - how do you see this course fitting in? Is it for majors? Is it a core requirement? Is it a special topics course?
Key curricular approach - how would you teach it?

Which elements you choose depends on you, your field, and the program you're applying to. For me, if it was an established course that's part of their own major curriculum, I'd talk about motivation or curricular approaches, since it's not like I anticipate changing the learning objectives radically at the start. If I'm proposing something not in their major plan, I'd want to address fit, because it may not be obvious how I see the course contributing to their department. If it's a fairly broad course like a survey, I'd speak more to learning objectives or (again) curricular approaches, since people can approach surveys in a variety of ways. In other words, I explain what I think would be either most interesting or least obvious to my audience.

Also, consider the balance of speaking to what you'd like to do and what the department needs in the next year or two. They do want to hear the former, but it may also help if they know you'd be interested in teaching a workhorse course that's always in demand. If you can communicate that you'd teach that workhorse course in an interesting way, even better.

The number of courses to describe is dependent on field. In English, I had a freshman composition course, a sophomore-level survey, and an upper-division course ready to go, and I'd talk about 1-2 of them in any given first interview, and then add examples of other courses to teach at the end of a question. I'd take about 2 minutes total with that question, and select the courses based on research.


How and where to get you research work assessed for PhD? I completed a masters in Chemical Engineering long ago. I have since done some research which I think suffices to achieve a PhD. Can it be done (and how)?

How and where to get you research work assessed for PhD?

The first person to evaluate if the work is sufficient to warrant submitting it for official PhD evaluation is the PhD supervisor. Therefore you need to find a supervisor first.

  I have since done some research which I think suffices to achieve a PhD. Can it be done (and how)?

These things vary a lot by country and by institution, but it's common nowadays that the requirements for passing a PhD involve:

validating some classes (in particular about general scientific methods, ethics, etc.)
having published a few papers in peer-reviewed journals or conferences

The question doesn't specify whether the work has been published/peer-reviewed or not? If not, it's a bit risky to assume that it is sufficient for a PhD.


How to resolve disagreement with project teammates over which professor to work with? I would like some advice about a conflict I am having in a graduate course taught by two professors. I am pursuing a masters (MS) degree in Finance and for the capstone course in the program, each group (3-4) students is required to complete an individual research project.

The professors responsible for the course both have PhDs in Finance but in slightly different research areas. My team-mates both insist that we only work with the professor who is more specialized/knowledgeable in our area.

As the course is taught by both professors  equally, I feel it is important to keep both professors abreast of our progress. I feel fairly confident that both have equal weight in evaluating us and I don't want to slight either. How should I explain this fact to my team members as I am the leader of our team?

For additional background, my team members are all from China whose academic culture is wholly different from Western standards.

To expand the comments above into an answer: ask the professors what they think is a good idea, ideally both at the same time (e.g., at the end of a class where they are both there).  You have less chance of coming off as disrespectful, since you approach from the perspective of a student desiring guidance.  If they say you should work with both, then that's probably a fine plan to follow as well.


Enhancing the plots from another person's research paper I get some plots for comparision of different network simulation software. I need to include them in my thesis to provide details about the tool. The problem is that these plots are not of very good resolution and I want to enhance them. Although I must provide the reference of the paper and I downloaded these plots from IEEE library, I am not satisfied with the resolution.

Can anybody please tell me the method to enhance plots. I am including one plot as image here:-

If you don't like how they have plotted the data, or there isn't sufficient resolution in their graphic (e.g., they used a PNG rather than PDF so that blowing up the document doesn't help resolution) then the only real solution is to ask the authors for a copy of their data, as suggested in the comments above.

You also may consider that if this does not work, the ugliness of their figure is not your responsibility: really, you are only including it as a courtesy to the reader, in order to make your document more self-contained.


Math papers and open problems Most published math papers are answers to open questions posed by the authors of the papers, right? So why is this problem that the paper responds to is never explicit in the text by the authors? Would not that be an important thing since it would save time for other mathematicians not to waste time formulating problems that have already been answered? Or is an expert in the field able to identify the open problem that a particular paper responds to even if it is not explicit in the text? Could someone explain to me in detail how this works?

Most published math papers are answers to open questions posed by the authors of the papers, right?

Most math papers are proofs of theorems. For instance, "I" might prove the following theorem:

  Let m>n>0 be integers. Then for a=m^2-n^2, b=2mn, c=m^2+n^2 it holds that a^2+b^2=c^2.

"Open questions" usually refers to problems left open by someone else in another paper (or sometimes, left open by the authors in a previous paper). Now, "me" proving this theorem is probably in response to a question I had: for instance, I might have wondered which integers satisfy a^2+b^2=c^2. However, if no one else had previously considered this problem, it doesn't count as an "open problem".

Typically, in the conclusions sections of a paper, the authors might mention several problems that they consider interesting but didn't manage to solve. For instance, in my paper I might mention the question:

  Are there any strictly positive integers satisfying a^3+b^3=c^3?

If someone subsequently were to solve this problem (whether in the margin of their paper or not) they would almost certainly write something to the effect of:

  We solve an open problem due to van der Zanden [2017], showing that there are no integers satisfying [...].

The point of mentioning that a question is "open" is to:

Credit the ones that formulated the problem (formulating a "good" problem can be as hard as solving it).
Demonstrate the significance of the problem (they considered it interesting enough to mention as an open problem).
Show that the problem is not trivial (they tried solving it but couldn't).

If I am solving an "open question" that I posed myself then none of these points apply (I could prove an utterly trivial, uninteresting theorem and then invent an equally uninteresting "open question" question that it answers) and so it doesn't make much sense to state an "open question" if there was no open question to begin with. Sometimes people answer their own open questions, but only if they previously stated them in another paper. If I just prove an interesting theorem (e.g.: "All swans are white") then reformulating the theorem as a question (e.g.: "We answer the question of whether all swans are white") doesn't add anything to the paper - especially if no one previously considered that question.


I found an error in my exam that caused me to lose time on other questions, resulting in a lower grade. How can I appeal? I'm a student in college, and while I was taking a linear algebra  exam, I noticed that there was a mistake in the last exercise. Our exam is composed of two parts: multiple questions and  exercises. I usually prefer to start with the second part while everybody starts with the first one.
I spent about 15 to 20 minutes before I called the teacher and said that there is an error. He confirmed the error and announced it to the rest of the class. At the end, I left some questions in the first part blank because I ran out of time.
The problem is that I received my grade (16/20) and I'm not really happy because if I had more time I could've done so much better (19/20 if I had finished the  three other questions).
How could I ask him to upgrade my grade  and explain to him that I really deserve it and that I really need to have (19/20) so I can pass my semester?

Update:
I saw my teacher today, and he didn't even give me a chance to talk and said that there is nothing he can do. When I said that this is not fair and that I spent time to find the error he said "You should've passed the exercise". I don't know what to do now, any idea?

How could I tell him to upgrade my grade and explain to him that I really deserve it and that I really need to have (19/20) so I can pass my semester?

Don't tell him how to fix the error, and don't open with this being a make-or-break for passing your semester. This will probably put him on the defensive, and make him less likely to be sympathetic. In fact, the first time I read your question, I thought you were in the wrong, but upon closer reading, I understood your issue better.
I was in a similar situation, except one whole quiz section learned about the error half way through, whereas the other two learned about it at the start of the test, through a TA's error. It was a headache for the professor. If I recall,  they ended up giving everyone in that section a percentage boost.
Be polite, and straightforward:

Hi Professor,
In our last exam, I pointed out an error in the last part of the test. I spent 15-20 minutes working on the question before I figured out the error. Since I like to start with that section, I wasn't able to finish the first part of the test. Because of this, I didn't score as well as I could have.
Other students didn't have to spend so much time working on this question because I found the error for the class. Is it possible to adjust my score to reflect this?

Honestly, he probably didn't even think of it, or forgot by the time he was grading. You have a totally reasonable request.


Learning/Reviewing New Material Quickly My question is : What is a time effective way to learn new material/ reviewing old material you don't completely remember?

Motivation:

For my research in Computer Science, I need lots of elements of hypothesis testing that I learnt in Statistics 101 (Roughly 10 years ago). I haven't taken a single stats class ever since. I vaguely remember the terms involved in the subject and am somewhat conversant with the basics of statistics (so I don't need to retake the course). But all in all, it's as good as a blank slate right now.

I have read How to efficiently read mathematically and theoretically dense books in STEM fields? but that targets a specific topic that the OP wants to learn, not an entire book. The top 3 answers talk about reading only those sections which you are interesting in. I, on the other hand, need to understand the whole of hypothesis testing which by itself is a book.

My options are (As far as I can see):

Take out the book I used / "Best" book of the subject (i.e. the one best suited for my background) and read it from page 1 till I am comfortable. Too time consuming
Read the chapter I need and then go back to the terms I don't understand. Time spent in confusion and direction-less reading exceeds the time actually spent adding value.
Take course again/Read cover to cover. God No.
Any other?

EDIT : I wish to add that I can sacrifice depth for familiarity and savings in time. (Is this a good idea but? Assuming that it's not a central part of my research)

First of all, you will spend virtually your entire career doing this (trying to remember stuff you forgot), so this is a question that's worth really working on. You'll hopefully receive a good few answers; try them all over the course of a year or two in different situations and choose the one that works.

My personal method is very similar to your (2); review the specific parts of the material that you need to know for that specific situation. In most cases, you'll find this to be sufficient for solving a particular problem. If you don't understand your material, then either Google the topic and try to read someone else's overview, or simply take a step back and go over the more fundamental material, working your way back up to the topic at hand.

Note that this will not work for situations where you need everything, such as interviews. For those, you'll want to read outlines and try to summarize contents for yourself. I've also gone back and looked at homework problems, which (assuming they were well-written assignments) can provide you with a good overview of the material that you need to know about the topic.


How to write a statement of research interest for postdoc positions that already have a defineed research direction I'm currently applying for a postdoc position in a particular lab. The lab has several postdoc positions available at this time, those postdocs will work on different aspects of a larger research project.The application need to include statement of research interest, CV, references and recommendation letters in one document, and also clearly state which position (which aspect of the research) I apply for.

I feel I'm a good fit for two of the positions. However, I don't know how to write a statement of research interest that is suitable for both positions, although those two aspects of the research are connected. From all the examples I saw for research statement, future research is a big part of it. With the research direction and aspects are clearly defined for the positions, what should I write in the section of future research?

One way is to write an SOP that is a bit more general then you would do otherwise, but not so general as to seem unserious. If you do it carefully, it can be an advantage. I think that an SOP too tailored to a particular position might not be taken seriously -- too good to be true. But don't go to the other extreme of suggesting that your interests are so broad that you don't/can't specialize as needed.

I wouldn't recommend this for positions that were widely different, but it might be good here, as you say they are related.

But, as you say, the direction of the lab is set and a post-doc isn't likely to change that. If your research interests are aligned, your "future research" ideas will probably fit as long as you don't overemphasize the specifics more than needed.

This is a Three Bears sort of problem. Too general. Too specific. No, just right.


How do you organise scientific articles with and without annotations? Like most of you, I read several scientific articles every week and annotate them on my tablet.

Do you know of a useful way to organise "clean" vs "annotated" articles in a way that is searchable and mobile-device friendly?

I use Papers now, but it isn't useful to have two copies of everything: a clean one and an annotated one.

Maybe one of you guys have a brilliant method to deal with this.

Mendeley

This should cover nearly all your requirements -- with or without annotation.

Although my personal choice would be BibDesk (which I use nearly every day), Mendeley hits it for a cross-platform mobile-friendly experience.


What does it say about someone that accepts adding their name to a publication without doing any of the work? I'm a government researcher in R&D and have spent my career doing and publishing my own work.  Some time ago I was asked to take over some research from another scientist that was being transferred.  She barely started the work and all I ended up receiving were some rough notes for background info - no actual analysis.  I told her that since it was her project at the start, I would add her name to the publication as a co-author.

I have since spent several months doing the research and analysis and am ready to submit the publication.  Since I did promise her to add her name, I did so fully expecting her to tell me to remove it since all the work was really mine - I didn't even use her notes.  All she did was thank me for adding it.

I guess I'm disappointed in her decision to keep her name on the publication.  Is that unethical on her part?

No, it is certainly not unethical. You made an agreement at the beginning and you fulfilled it. She thanked you for your courtesy. All is well. The one, perhaps, contribution that she did make was to get you attached to the project idea, from which you will benefit. You are the primary author, in this case, of course.

There are many reasons for including someone on a paper and not all are benign, but I think this one is. I assume the other person is quite grateful, and maybe even a bit embarrassed. She may even not want to insult you by asking to be removed, since you had the earlier agreement.

But judging her ethics will get you nothing but trouble.


If I see a research paper published in multiple places, how can I tell whether or not it is unethical dual publication? I have come across a publication by a set of well recognized professors that has been published in both IEEE and ACM in two different years.

I know that IEEE punishes scientists who publish material which uses more than 25% of the content from another publication. Accordingly, I cannot think of a reason how the later publication, which is just a copy of the first, could be ethical. What am I missing here?

Could someone please tell me if this type of academic publication is doable? If so, how do I get permission to do something like this?

The paper was first published in 2014 in the ACM SIGMETRICS conference, and in the journal that automatically publishes those conference proceedings. The second version of the paper was published in 2015 in the IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications. The list of authors is identical on both. The changes (which I think are minute) are:

The second (journal) paper has some additional results (a few figures and explanation) that were not in the conference paper.
The second paper also has a short appendix with proofs that were omitted from the conference paper, which refers the reader to an online technical report for the proofs.
The second paper lists the conference paper first in its list of references.

Generally, a publication is an unethical dual publication if

the editor didn't know about the previous publication (i.e. the authors did not disclose it), or
the author didn't cite the previous publication (and policy requires them to do so), or
the authors have violated the "dual publication" or "extended paper" policy of the journal, which may have its own specific requirements. (For example, many, but not all, journals in CS and EE have a policy that conference papers republished as journal papers must contain 25% new material, a determination that is made by the editors based on the reviewers' assessments.)

In your example, the authors do cite the previous publication in their reference list. There is no way for you, the reader, to know whether the editor was aware of the previous publication during the review process, but it seems likely (since the authors cited their previous work.) If you're concerned that they didn't know about the previous publication, you can always send the editors an email and ask them.
The policies of IEEE, the IEEE Communication Society, and JSAC, all permit conference papers to be re-published in journal form, as long as it's cited and properly disclosed to the editor at submission.
The document you've cited from the IEEE is about using CrossCheck, a plagiarism detection tool that finds "similarity" between a submitted document and previously published material. It says:

Interpreting Matching Percentages of Individual Sources
It may seem that any source of matching text should be a concern, but in fact many matching sources are likely to not be the result of plagiarism. For example:
...
>25% match - This level of similarity from a single source should raise serious concerns about inappropriate reuse, and should be checked very carefully

which is probably why you believe that IEEE punishes authors "who publish material which uses more than 25% of the content from another publication." That document then it goes on to say

Factors to Keep in Mind when Reviewing Individual Sources
Is the similarity to the authors’ own work?
This can often be the case. Authors build upon their own previously published work, and will often reuse portions of text. While this would not be considered plagiarism, it may still indicate a potential problem if the reuse of previously published content is not cited properly.

The plagiarism discussion with the ">25%" guideline is not about authors who reuse their own material.  A separate "self-plagiarism" policy applies to them. The policy on authors republishing their own work (in identical or modified form) is called the "dual publication policy." The IEEE Communication Society's (JSAC is a ComSoc journal) dual publication policy is:

The guidelines recognize that it is common in technical publishing for material to be presented at various stages of its evolution. As one example, this can take the form of publishing early ideas in a workshop,  more developed work in a conference and fully developed contributions as journal or transactions papers. This publication process is an important means of scientific communication. The editor of a publication may choose to re-publish existing material for a variety of reasons, including promoting wider distribution and serving readers by aggregating special material in a single publication. This practice continues to be recognized and accepted by the IEEE. At the same time, the IEEE requires that this evolutionary process be fully referenced by the author.
Authors submitting manuscripts must disclose whether there are prior publications, e.g. conference papers, by the authors that are similar, whether published or submitted. They must also include information that very clearly states how the new submission differs from the previously published work(s). Such papers should be cited in the submitted manuscript.

In other words, they permit re-publishing as long as the editor agrees and:

On submission, the authors disclose that the work is previously published, and state the specific differences between the new submission and the previous publication.
The previous publication is cited in the new submission.

This is consistent with the general IEEE policy on author originality.
The journal's specific policy is also consistent with the IEEE and IEEE ComSoc policies:

With respect to authors' previously published or to-be-published work, material which has been previously copyrighted, published, or accepted for publication will not in general be considered for publication in J-SAC. Exceptions to this rule include an author's prior publications that have had limited distribution, have been printed in abstract form only, or have appeared in conference records or digests. All papers are considered on the basis of their individual merit alone, and the fact that a paper may have been accepted for presentation at a conference does not ensure its acceptance for publication in J-SAC. In many cases, a conference paper must be substantially revised to meet the technical standards maintained by J-SAC. A manuscript identical to or largely based upon a conference paper must be so identified. Please refer to IEEE's policy on originality of content for more detailed information on the use of previously-published work as the basis for a J-SAC submission.

Specifically,

Work that has only appeared in conference proceedings may be considered for publication.
Authors must disclose at paper submission time if they are submitting a paper that is "largely identical" to an already published conference paper.


In UK, is the advertised salary range before or after tax? I've been offered a faculty position at a British university (Russel group). I'm slightly confused about the pay/salary. specifically, my questions are:

I understand the single pay national spine (which is a point system), but each institution decides what point range would correspond to the grade of the post? for example, while at institution A, a point 44 position would be in grade 7, at institution B it would be grade 8? Is this a correct understanding?
I found from UCU the spine for 2017-2018, for the point that I'm assigned, i see that my stated salary is a lot LESS than what is stated on this chart (and I've checked with my university, they do use this single spine chart). Therefore, I was wondering if the salary they told me is in fact AFTER  income tax and national insurance (NI)? (i.e. the £ they quote me is in fact what I take home?). Or is this my wishful thinking? Or am I reading the wrong chart?

I've seen other posts on here noting that salary in the UK is not that negotiable (compared to north America). I was wondering if this is still true? for the record, I've already inquired with the University and they told me they've already assigned me the highest points possible given my experience.

Mostly I'm just trying to understand this pay grade and point system so I can make realistic calculation for my living arrangements.

thanks!

Yes. Internal "grades" usually don't transfer between institutions.
I have just compared my (Russell Group, UK) university pay scale against the UCU one you link to and it is identical. That scale is gross, before tax, pay. I would expect net, take-home, pay to be about 30% less (after PAYE tax, National Insurance, and pension).

It is usual that the best I would expect you to be able to negotiate is one or two points on the spine system, in my experience.


Reusing part of my thesis within the same thesis Doing an engineering thesis, and I have presented a detailed summary of my data in the abstract.  Is it ok for me to copy/paste entire paragraphs of my abstract to my conclusion without changing a word?

Yes, of course. There are no issues with this at all. Self plagiarism only occurs when you don't cite your own words from other publications. Within a single document there is no problem. The reason that we self-cite is to let readers easily find the original source. But that doesn't apply here.

OTOH, make sure that it doesn't read "awkwardly" when you do this. It is just a style consideration, though.

I'm assuming that your abstract is actually part of the thesis, say a preamble.

However, if the abstract is to be published separately from the thesis, you should cite the thesis in the abstract. But you would do that in any case.