Should I attend a conference even if I don't have a paper accepted there Attending conferences is considered one of the perks of working in academia, for a variety of very good reasons:

networking, meeting new people
cutting edge research results and new directions
advertise your own research (while networking)
(often) nice venues

In some domains, such as computer science, conferences are (becoming) the main exchange site of top work. In some other domains, conferences are considered entertainment. Next to this quality ambiguity, there are some downsides:

travel costs can weigh on budgets of smaller research groups
conference papers more likely to be dismissed by hiring committees than journal papers

A consequence of the first downside is that many groups only allow researchers to attend conferences if they have accepted talks/papers, which is difficult in top venues. A consequence of the second downside is that some researchers prefer to submit top work to top journals rather than top conferences.

I do consider the second con relevant to the question, as this is one of the reasons for ending up wanting to attend conferences without having any accepted papers.

Given the ups and downs, I would like to assess the importance of attending top conferences (even without accepted talks/papers) for both individual researchers as well as their research groups.

My field is machine learning, but answers concerning other fields are more than welcome.

I work in computational condensed matter and have attended both computational (or theoretical) and experimental-oriented conferences. When you submit an abstract for a conference in this field it usually does not imply that you are committing to publish that work in the conference proceedings or that you thereby refrain from publishing that work in a journal. Top conferences (in this field) will encourage and give you the chance of publishing in their proceedings, but will not require it.

What usually happens, is that if you can get the paper published in a reputable research journal you do that, and either 1) choose not to submit a proceedings paper or, the option that I find most interesting, 2) submit related technical work that, while still sound and rigorous, might not get published in a journal but will get accepted as a conference proceedings paper.


Can I copyright materials I developed if it was asked to be written by the school I'm working at? I'm a teacher in a private school and was asked by the school to develop lesson plans for an existing text book.
Eventually that's going to be a manual for the teachers to use for that specific text book.

I am paid for my time doing this, however there are more things I was asked to help with during that the time frame I was given, mainly develop more materials for school.

The lessons plans can be used in any school that uses the same text book hence I would like to protect my rights and make sure it's not going to be used  in other different school without my permission.
Can I copyright my materials?

As I understand it, in the UK the answer is that your employer owns the copyright, unless they have told you otherwise:

  Where a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or a film, is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work (subject to any agreement to the contrary).

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ownership-of-copyright-works#works-created-for-an-employer

(Note: the question 'can I copyright the materials?' doesn't actually make sense. Copyright automatically exists on the creation of a work. Your question is really about who owns the copyright in this case.)


Are Assistant professorships with no starting packages/benefits and high teaching load considered normal? I am asking this question because I simply do not know.

The story is that some department (northern continental Europe for what is worth) is (unofficially for the moment) negotiating an Assistant Professor position. The offered teaching/research load is 50-50 which sounds OK in theory.

In reality though, this translates to a minimum of 3 and an average of 4 full courses per year (38+ class hours on classes of about 100-120 students) plus supervision of bachelor's and master's candidates as well as administrative tasks. I can't possibly imagine how this is 50%.

On the other side of the spectrum, they do not offer any starting package whatsoever: no PhD students, not even basic equipment like laptop or traveling allowance, only a relatively good (for EU standards) salary with no additional benefits (married/child, whatever). They said that I should (imperative hint) apply for external funding (i.e., more work).

Thus my questions:

Is this considered a true 50-50 research/teaching? I do not see how is this possible. It seems that for research would be only a modest 30% of the time and mostly during summer which is absurd for younger people (more ideas for new research). Even taking out research, this proposal is at least 60% teaching to me.
Is this considered a normal offer? I would like to see other people's opinions/experiences.

The argument for the offer is basically: take any position that comes in the way, given that the academic job market can be brutal. But I am really afraid this would mean the end of my research at least in its current form, given also that I won't be able to even have any PhD student at least in the next 3 or so years at least, if I ever have them.

I am a fairly fresh tenure-track Assistant Professor in Sweden. Before that I have worked in Switzerland and Austria, and I also know the state of affairs in Germany fairly well.

  The official teaching/research load is 50-50 which sounds OK. This translates to 3 courses (minimum) per year + bachelor + master student supervision + some administrative tasks.

In my current university, 50-50 is indeed normal, but only for tenured faculty. For tenure-trackers, a reduced teaching load of 20% or 25% seems more normal, but it depends on the position and, presumably, on the negotiation skill of the candidate. Note that 50-50 should indeed be understood as 50% teaching, 50% everything else.

Note that it is likely possible to buy out of teaching with grants - that is, if you bring in sufficient grants, it can be possible to fund yourself to a certain degree and consequently reduce your teaching percentage. You can ask about this during negotiations, but keep in mind that it is a risky business, as there is no guarantee of winning certain grants at the right time.

  On the other side of the spectrum, they do not offer any starting package: no PhD students, not even equipment, only a relatively good (for EU standards) salary with no additional benefits (married/child, whatever).

This is again the standard also in my university - ok, you get some equipment and an informal travel allowance, but no PhD students and no real start-up package. In some cases you may be able to negotiate, but how successful this can be is limited.

  Is this considered a normal offer?

Assuming we are talking about a junior professorship, and not a chaired W2/W3 professorship in Germany, then yes, this sounds fairly normal. Not great, mind you, but also not exceptionally bad. The only thing that sounds fairly high to me is the 50% teaching load.

That said, in my experience your fear of this being the end of your research career may be unwarranted. In my institution, people still regularly build up good research careers, by winning one or two grants and working intensely with a small but strong group of PhD students.

One good way to estimate this is by looking at senior assistant professors and freshly-tenured associate professors. How many students do they have? What have the published recently? If none publishes actively or was able to win significant grants, assume that they get side-tracked too much to get strong research done. If they do, assume that you will also be able to make it work.

Edit:
I will add some more information on what a X% teaching load actually means, at least in my department.

Basically, there is a standard number of yearly work hours that is assumed for a full-time employee. If you take your X% from this total work hours, you end up with the number of hours that you are assumed to spend on bachelor- and master-level teaching. Every supervised bachelor or master's thesis, every capstone project, etc., is valued at a fixed, in our case fairly generous, supervision rate of "work hours".

For courses, one person in the department is managing the distribution, and this person basically attempts to calculate "real", or at least realistic, effort hours per course, which also includes prep time. For already established courses this coordinator will basically talk to the teachers and ask them how much time they really spent in the past, and what they spent it on (we are a fairly tight-knit division, so people tend to not lie too outrageously here, although most people probably "overestimate" a little bit). For new courses, an estimation will be made, also taking into account how much material can be reused and what really needs to be done from scratch.

All of this data goes into a big Excel sheet, with the goal that over multiple years each person should end up somewhere close to their expected number of teaching hours, including course teaching and supervision.

I said above that in practice a 50-50 teaching load means 50% teaching, 50% everything else - this is simply because the teaching hours are realistically the only thing we even attempt to track. Service and research are not really tracked in any meaningful way (large department service roles get a reduced teaching load, though). This also means that, obviously, if you work until deep into the night on your research, you are not suddenly expected to teach more because your total work hours are higher.


What should I do after advisor got upset when I expressed "belief in evolution" and then said he couldn't add me to his research team? A bit of background: I am a graduate student working towards my Masters in physics. During this summer I signed up for some classes that are somewhat outside my main focus of study. For instance, biophysics; evolutionary physics and so on. The topics were very interestingly handled and I learned a lot. They were, however, not so big on the credit hour scale - just 2 CH each.
Fast forward to last week; I was discussing about my progress in the course with my advisor and I mentioned these classes that I took. I pointed out my interest in the subject and asked him if it would be a good idea to switch to those topics for my PhD research in the future. The conversation took an odd turn as he started to exhibit some strange aversion towards my suggestion. He got upset and all of a sudden started to talk to me about evolution. He didn't let me talk at all. To summarize what he said "I don't believe in evolution (he said this with air quotes), and I believe that God made us all. You should've consulted me before you registered for those classes. I have to ask you Renae, do you believe in evolution (air quotes again)?" He paused for a while. "Yes sir, I am afraid I do." I replied. "Well, that's that," he said, and soon the meeting came to a halt.
Now, the reason behind this question is this: On Friday morning, I got an email from him stating that he won't be able to add me to his research team this semester because all the positions were already filled. The email was brief and did not give any further (useful) information.
D'oh! I immediately gave him a call and asked about this, and he gave me the same answer as he did in his email. I haven't registered for any other classes this semester, and now it's probably too late to do so. I don't know if I could report this. His reasoning might be valid. May be his team is filled up at the moment, nevertheless I am stuck for this semester. If I report him, my chances for getting a reasonable letter of recommendation will be zero. I can't contact anybody else about this either. All my other professors are close friends with him and will surely rat me out. However, it also makes me worried that my advisor holds a completely different scientific view than I do.

Is it reasonable to be concerned about my advisor holding a completely different scientific view?
Should I report this to the authorities?
Will this affect my future studies?
Is it ok to continue in his research team, if he gives me another chance?

UPDATE -- (8th of September, Tuesday)
Sorry about the late update. I was in a bit of panic mode after this incident, and I hope you would understand. Let me answer some of the new questions and concerns that were raised in the comments. I am originally from Australia, but I am in a US university (south). I did not have any sort of argument or dispute with my advisor regarding this issue on that day, I assure you. Neither am I keeping anything out of the light here, as someone has suggested (why would I?).
Anyway, I did not go to the other professor. Instead, I talked to a friend of mine in the department who has a friend working in his team. According to her, the team only has 3 students at the moment, and it is not the usual maximum. Most other professors have more than 5 students at a time including post-doc, masters, honors and a few undergrads. I am still not sure if there's a correlation between the incidents, but I am considering alternatives. Meanwhile, I haven't told this to anyone else, not even to my friend. The minimum credit hour requirement (9CH) is the main issue now. I have to be registered for at least 9 CH per semester. By the looks of things, it seems like I'll be buying tickets back to Australia quite soon.
UPDATE -- (13th of November, Friday)
I quit grad school, and I am back in Australia. I can't believe two months have passed already.

Well, this is clearly not a match made in heaven.  (Sorry, I really didn't intend this as a pun.)  What a shame, you had really bad luck.

There is no need to keep this a secret from the other professors.  It is very unlikely that they are clones of this guy, even if they do have a friendship with him.

Yes, you do need to talk to the dean of graduate studies in your department and let him or her know what happened.

I don't think that particular research team would be a healthy place for you.  The guy behaved badly.  You need an advisor you can trust to act like a mensch.

In terms of the effect on your future studies -- I can't say.  If you can find another advisor you want to work with at your current institution, great; otherwise, you might want to go elsewhere.

By the way, do you mind my asking, why aren't you in a PhD program?  In physics it seems a bit unusual to be in a Master's only program.

(Just so you know, what he did was illegal in the U.S.  I'm sure the dean of graduate studies in your department will know that, and I'm not going to suggest you mention it; but I wanted you to know, so you will see this clearly as THE PROFESSOR'S problem, not yours.)

-- Edited to add: for some info about the illegality of this sort of thing, in the U.S., see the U.S. Department of Justice's intro page: http://www.justice.gov/crt/combating-religious-discrimination-and-protecting-religious-freedom-20


When is it acceptable to write a bad letter of recommendation? For reasons that elude me, a student I taught several semesters ago sounded me out about writing a letter of recommendation for graduate school. I won't go into it, but my recollections of this student are uniformly bad. There is no way I would want them pursuing graduate study in our department. I am torn between declining to write a letter, or taking the opportunity to quietly warn colleagues at other institutions about this person. Do I have an ethical duty to only offer to write a letter if it will reflect positively on the applicant?

Never write a bad recommendation letter. If you can't say anything nice, say nothing at all (and tell the student you can't write the letter).

As for warning other. Leaving aside the law for a moment, the only time I can see it being appropriate to warn others about a student is if you believed them to be dangerous. Examples of this might be a history of sexual harassment/assault, bullying or other abusive behaviour.


My professor cancelled research for the summer, unsure what to do Around halfway through my spring semester (around April), I met up with my CS professor for research opportunities and he said he'd be happy to take me on for a project. He sent me papers to read over the course of the month, but also said he wasn't expecting me to finish them all since finals started in mid-May. He also said if I'm in town for the summer I can do research throughout this period.

I told him in May that I can stay for the summer by dorming here and would be happy to continue the research through this time, but my dorm wouldn't open until June 1st. My professor was fine with that and said we could meet starting then.

The first month or so was rather good; we would meet and discuss papers, he would give me more papers, etc. We even talked about me continuing this research in the Masters program if I applied and got in. However, around June 20th he just disappeared. I emailed the PhD Student under him and he told me the professor was out of the country, but he'd be happy to take questions. I went with him for questions for the rest of June, but he ended up leaving town prior to the start of July. I never heard anything back from the professor until July 16, who asked if we could meet at a certain date/time. I told him that due to my summer job I couldn't meet at that specific time , but I could definitely meet at another date/time.

I never got an email back, and with work and all I was too busy to follow up immediately. But I followed up the next week telling him my dorm stay would be coming to an end in a week and I was hoping we could meet before then or meet once classes resumed. He emailed me back saying he decided to cancel the research because his fall/summer semester is too busy and he doesn't think he can advise new students any more, and encouraged me to reach out to other professors for research.

I'm not sure if he cancelled research for another reason, or if he genuinely realized he doesn't have time for the research with new students. I feel for investing time and money for my summer to do research, for him to cancel without at least providing a reason or giving me some sort of advanced heads-up is really unfair. How should I proceed with this issue? There was another student doing research alongside me, I plan on emailing him to see if the same thing happened to him. I told my parents and they were pretty mad and said I should take this up with the school, but I want to at least clear this up on the ground before I do anything like this. I won't get reimbursed and I effectively wasted my summer (although I did make money through a summer job, so there's that), but should I just let this die or pursue it?

It doesn't really matter why he did this, and it doesn't really matter to you that it might be unethical for him to treat you this way. What you need is a solution that will advance your studies.

I think the best advice he gave you is to find someone else. Do that. He may not be suited to advise anyone, and he certainly isn't fitted to advise you.

You have, I suspect, made some progress on the tasks that he gave you. Talk to other professors explaining what you have done and asking whether they will take you on as a student. You can also explore whether any of the work you have done is useful if you work under their supervision. Don't press it, but it is possible you can leverage it. They know what they are interested in, and you want to become part of that, rather than necessarily continuing what you've been doing. But the work you have done can be used to show seriousness of purpose to a new professor.

What you want in a professor is someone senior enough that he or she will have plenty of ideas, but also someone who will have the time and desire to help you advance. Very junior professors are too often working too hard to get tenure to be of sufficient help to students. But someone who advises too many students will have little time for you.

Also, it would probably be a mistake to complain about your treatment by the other professor, except to someone of real authority. As a student, you are unlikely to know what sort of politics there is in the department and speaking out, even if valid, might do you more harm than good. All you need is a solution. Focus on that. If you need to yell and scream, yell and scream at the moon.


Old friend wants to use me as an academic reference I was recently contacted by a friend to give an academic reference, as we were both students at the same university.

The problem is that, he only completed the first 2 years of his degree and then stopped attending. I think he received a job offer and decided to take that instead.

Me and my fellow classmates finished our 4 year degrees and got jobs in our field.

So, is it reasonable for him to ask me for such a recommendation?

Why would it not be reasonable?

It should be clear from his CV that he didn't complete his degree, but you surely could say relevant positive things about his character and skills.


Asking my supervisor to be frank and give feedback I am doing my PhD in the Britain and I've got a lovely supervisor which is like a friend for me. I want to ask her to give me direct feedback and tell me directly if I am doing bullshit or about any other thing that she thinks I am not good and need to improve (forexample if the way I send email is not very natural in the sense of language and ...). I want to say:

I would like to ask you to give me direct feedback on anything that you think I may need to improve. I won't be offended because I know your intention and I know you want me to be the best. I would be very happy to receive comment because I know that's what makes me improve.

Is it good or not? Is there as better way of saying that?

It seems that you are overthinking this. You say she is like a friend. Neither a friend, nor an advisor, has any incentive to lead you into traps. Accept it if she praises your work. Perhaps you are on the right track after all.

But we can all improve at the margins, at least. If you have specific doubts about particular things that you do, or write, ask about just those things and listen to the answers. Perhaps there are suggestions for improvement in there that aren't criticisms, but just pointers to better ways to do or say things.

But, your note almost sounds like you are soliciting negative feedback.

I'm pretty sure that if a friend and advisor saw you going down the wrong road you would be told that. Otherwise she is wasting her own time as well as yours. That doesn't seem like a reasonable action for an advisor.

After all, if you finish and go on to a brilliant career it reflects well on her also. Relax.


How strict is the definition of "native language" in PhD admission? I consider myself to have two native languages, including English; however, I'm not confident whether admission committees would consider this to be the case. One of the PhD programs of my interest requires all candidates whose native language is not English, including those who have obtained their Bachelor's degree in the U.S., to submit their TOEFL score. This requirement is stricter than that of other programs, and if I'm not considered to be a native English speaker, I would have to take a TOEFL for this program only.

I'm 22 years old, and I have lived in the U.S. for the last six years. Until the age of 15, I had lived in an Asian country, where English-speaking population is small. However, since my parents spoke both their native language and English, I have been bilingual since my early childhood. I went to a public elementary school in my home country, and I graduated from a middle school, a high school and a college in the U.S.,
 in some of which I skipped grades.

You should contact the department directly, preferably by phone. I had a similar issue when applying for PhD, and the graduate admissions person was able to help me waive this requirement since he "could confirm that I am fluent by speaking to me on the phone". It all depends on the people you run into. But most of them are reasonable, so hopefully it will work out!


How do I stay motivated with repetitive tasks as an undergraduate research assistant? In a nutshell, I'm drawing circles on images for most of my day (more precisely, ROIs around cellular components in fluorescence imaging). I volunteer to do this on weekdays from 10am to 7pm, and I stay late until 9pm once or twice a week to finish the day's set of images when it's considerably large.

I'm spending at least 45 hours per week drawing circles. I'm working efficiently (it takes me on average of 15 minutes per page of stitched images), I try not to take breaks to maintain momentum unless I'm noticeably slowing down (and limit them to 10 minutes), and I try not to take more than 30 minutes for lunch.

I understand that monotonous tasks are a key part of research, and it's suitable work for me as an undergraduate (as they're low-risk and require little experience). I'm also lucky to do research so early in my career. But in the evenings, I begin to think of all the other undergraduates out there getting ahead doing amazing work (like Martin McLaughlin, who already produced publishable, original work in his first year), and I feel discouraged and expendable.

And it's entirely my fault, too. If I spent my time in high school more effectively by learning Python coding for automation, statistics, and understanding more of the relevant literature, I could be so much more useful to my supervisor doing more stimulating complex tasks.

It's been a month since I've started, and the long hours of this repetitive task are wearing me down. But I don't want to let my supervisor down, so I intend to keep getting the daily image set done each day. She hasn't required me to set these hours or get the image set done each day, but I've been doing this for so long that it's expected (though she's always very appreciative each time I submit, and she works longer hours than me).

I plan to continue until the project is complete when my supervisor graduates in December (lessening hours to the evenings when classes resume). Until then and for future research opportunities, how can I keep myself motivated with monotonous tasks and avoid burning out?

First of all, I think you're taking the wrong approach here. Drawing circles isn't helping you at all in any way. You can't put on your resume that you know how to draw circles. You aren't getting paid. You aren't learning anything. You're burning yourself out by working 45 hours a week and you haven't even started university yet.

In my opinion this is a perfect opportunity to learn programming and image processing. I have worked with many undergraduate and even high school students (I was one myself) in different labs, and I can tell you that you're perfectly capable of learning basic programming skills over the next two months if you work at it. With these skills you can attempt to make software that recognizes these ROIs in your images automatically.

From the sound of it your supervisor is a graduate student and not a professor, and since you're volunteering, they should have no problem with you taking a different approach to solve the problem of identifying ROIs. If they want people to do simple repetitive work, they can use a service like Amazon Mechanical Turk.

So to answer your question, academia is all about coming up with new approaches to solve problems or learn new things. If you want to stay motivated, use this time to learn something new that will help you in the future, and also help your supervisor.


Will not collaborating hurt the career of a math postdoc? I am a math postdoc, and about to start applying for tenure-track (research oriented) jobs soon. Besides writing 2 papers with my Phd advisor while I was in graduate school, all the papers I wrote since then (about 10 papers) were single authored papers. As I start to think about applications for tenure-track position, I started wondering if this solo career I had so far will hurt my chances.

What do people with experience in search committees think about such a situation? should I make a serious effort in the near future to collaborate with others?

I am a math professor at a research-oriented university, and I have been on multiple hiring committees for tenure-track positions. If I were reading your file, your situation would raise two questions:

Are you doing research that is of broad interest?
Do you work well with others? Are you the kind of person that has ideas to share, that I would want to chat math with in the hallway, that would get graduate students interested in your subject?

Your application should offer evidence that the answer to both of these questions is yes. The first point will hopefully be addressed by your letter writers. It will also look good if your CV lists many invited conference or seminar talks.

The second point will again hopefully be addressed by your letter writers. If possible, I would suggest that at least one of them should be written by someone with whom you have talked math a great deal, and not just by your advisor and senior scientists who have read your papers. If you have engaged in any leadership activities (i.e., started a seminar, organized a conference, informally helped to mentor graduate students, etc.) I would make sure that your letter writers include someone who will attest to this.

And finally, like the other commenters, I would definitely recommend striking up some collaborations, although there is certainly nothing wrong with also doing work on your own.


Can a Scopus journal be fake/predatory? I get "spam" emails advertising journals listed in Scopus.
Can a Scopus journal be fake/predatory?
Or does Scopus has enough strict conditions to list only reputable journals?
Or do spammers lie about being listed there?
My question is not about other criteria of fake/predatory and how to determined if a journal is predatory in general, but namely about whether this one criterion, presence in Scopus, is enough to decide if it is fake.

A lot depends on what you mean by fake/predatory (these terms are not well-defined). Still if you demand a yes/no answer then I will say no.
As Prof. Santa Clause gave in a comment, the criteria to be listed in Scopus are given here. You need a lot of things to be listed, such as diversity in geographical distribution of editors, clarity of abstracts, and no delays or interruptions in the publication schedule. These things aren't easy to fake. The "no delays or interruptions" criterion sinks a lot of legitimate attempts at journals as well.
This particular criterion is especially hard to satisfy: Citedness of journal articles in Scopus. You can see what is needed also on that page: a journal's inclusion in Scopus is threatened if "the journal received half the number of citations, or less, when compared to peer journals in its subject field."
Based on this criterion alone, for a fake/predatory journal to still be listed in Scopus, they must somehow conjure citations from other journals that are also listed in Scopus. This isn't probable unless you go to extremes like postulating that there are a lot of fake journals in Scopus that are citing each other, but not only would the journals have to all get into Scopus in the first place, they would probably fail other criteria, such as "The journal's abstracts are used half as much, or less, when compared to peer journals in its subject field."
tl; dr: it depends on what you mean by fake/predatory, but if a journal is listed in Scopus you can assume that it is reputable until proven otherwise.


Delay in work permit processing is affecting my work. How to address the gap in my CV? I am worried about my future prospects I am an international student who's currently in a mess regarding my work permit application. I was initially supposed to get my permit the latest by March. But now, I don't know when my application will come through. I completed my Ph.D. thesis submission in December. Now, my Ph.D. supervisor had offered me a postdoc position and  I was to start it as soon as I get my permit. However, my future is seeming quite bleak at the moment. I can't return to my home country as my country is under lockdown and my application is under processing.

I am panicking as I don't have any official position since January. I have been working on the pending Ph.D. projects since February and my advisor has ensured me that he can mention in my future recommendation letters that I had begun my postdoc in February.

However, the financial situation apart (which is really bad), I am getting disheartened about my freefalling academic profile. I am having anxiety over my predicament for last few weeks. I am not able to concentrate on my work and not able to study thereby wasting more time. My decision of joining my Ph.D. supervisor for my first postdoc was to learn and explore a new technique that would have enabled me to expand my skillset and would have made me more suitable for good positions.

But now, I am just wasting my time, working 2 hours or less every day and getting minimal work done. I am not getting the motivation to work hard or study new topics.

Is there any advise, comments that you can provide under my condition? How to address the gap in my CV? What should I do?

I can't help you with your mental issues about loss of focus, but it would be good to keep in mind that you aren't alone. Everyone else currently studying for a doctorate or in a non-permanent position is in the same mess caused by things completely outside your control or influence. You aren't falling relative to anyone unless you give up. The "gap" will mean very little if anything. People will understand it because they (we) too are living through it.

What governments do about work permits is also outside your control. Make progress on the things you can control and influence.

See a counselor if you need to about depression, but be assured that people will take the current worldwide disruption in to account when things settle down. In some ways, you might even think of it as a respite from schedule demands since the delays are inevitable.

Also, you can't change past decisions. "... would have enabled ..." means nothing at this point. You are where you are. Make a schedule, get some exercise, take a nap, talk to a counselor, consult with your advisor, ... anything. But also relax. If the world ends it won't matter. If it doesn't then you will get back on track along with everyone else.

Have patience with yourself as with everyone.


Difficulty reading scientific papers in two columns It sounds stupid, but I came to realize that it's significantly more difficult for me to read scientific papers when they are typeset in two columns than papers in which the text appears in one column. Something about multiple columns feels too "packed" and wearisome to the point that it takes me a lot more time to read than a single-column paper.

Each publisher chooses its own style, obviously (an interesting discussion about it here), but what I want to know is if there is any way to transform a two-column paper into a one-column paper for an easier read? Are all papers being published with a single typeset according to the publisher's preference, or perhaps there may be different versions in different databases?

If the paper has a preprint on on https://arxiv.org/
you can select to download "Other Formats".

Then you can probably get the LaTeX source (if it was typeset in latex),
and from there you can modify it (likely very simply) and recompile it.


Does any university require reporting of misconduct at other universities? Some universities have ethics codes that require (whatever that might mean) members to report misconduct within the community.

Are there universities where such a requirement extends to reporting misconduct within the "larger academic community"?  For example, if someone at school X learned that someone at school Y had falsified laboratory data, the X person would be required to report the person at Y.

The example of falsified data is imperfect as it may be covered under legal and contractual rubrics not local to a university, such as a government grant agency requiring recipients to report any known misuse of government funds.   A better example is plagiarism in student papers, that usually does not violate any legal codes (unless additional scholarship money is earned through the plagiarism), and is treated as a reportable crime only within universities' internal ethics codes.  The question is whether any of those codes purport to protect the integrity of other institutions.

I'm asking only about reporting of academic or institutional misconduct, especially the kind where the only effective means of reporting is to the other university.

in case of publications and falsified data you are first and
foremost responsible to report it to the publication. They need to
first approve or review the technicality of the matter which can
become material for the ethics committee.
The Honor Committees of universities keep a record of students and
faculties, and when students or professors apply to other
universities they are generally being asked about the previously
notable issues with ethics in the previous institution. Lying in
those form can by itself be lying to the second institution even if
the matter can not be investigated with the first institute. That
being said Honor committees in university X might have a threshold
and limit before noting an offense or violation on the record
subject to citations and referral for future. In some cases in
universities, some mandatory 6 session therapy is being recommended
as a way to remove an item from someones active record.Those
therapies are subect to confidentiality and therfore can not be
cited by university Y.


Should I apologize to my professor for not attending a lecture? Long story short, I was unable to attend a lecture of a course I'm interested in. I met my professor directly at her office and asked questions and extra material for her course. Moreover since I'm interested in her course, I've read some extra notes, books and papers. After stating an advanced question she suggested me to read some extra papers and extended bibliography.

How can I "apologize" my professor for not being able to attend the lecture, after showing such excitement? Should I send her an e-mail or talk to her directly? (I guess face-to-face discussion is preferred.)

When you see her next, say something like

  I apologize for not showing up for lecture last week. I had a
  doctor's appointment/seminar talk/committee meeting/friend's PhD
  defense I had to attend.

Nothing more is needed than just to convey the message that you had a good reason to not attend class. Professors are busy people, they know that missing meetings is a fact of life. It only becomes awkward if you stayed away from class because you wanted to watch the last episode of Walking Dead/went out drinking with your friends/etc.


current supervisor vs. previous work My M.Sc. Thesis' abstract got accepted for presentation at a conference this year and I am about to send the paper. Should I give the paper to my current supervisor (of my Ph.D. in a different University) to read it and have an opinion?

EDIT: Including answers to comments

My previous supervisor has read it and gave me feedback. He suggested me sending the abstract and his relationship with my current supervisor does not exist since they don't know each other.

Since you already have feedback from your previous supervisor (who presumably knows the research in question much better since it was done with him) it's not critical to get feedback from your new advisor. But any feedback can be useful, especially if your new advisor is in the same area.

I would at least make your new advisor aware of the paper and ask if they want to read it, just so there won't be any surprises or perceptions that you are publishing "behind their back". Leave it up to them if they want to give you feedback or not.


Is it useful to list the exact name of a prize or grant in a resume? Given that a lot of prizes or grants are specific to a particular university, is there any point in listing the exact name of a prize or grant on one's resume?

For example, if I say that I won "John Doe Scholarship" or "Mary Doe Thesis Award", it won't really mean anything to someone outside the university. Would it be easier just to say you won scholarships/grants and an award for your thesis?

Unless you won a huge amount of awards, I would be quite specific: "John Doe award from XYZ university for best master thesis in 2014".

Even when you have won many awards, it still makes sense to be specific about the most important ones, and be brief about the others.


On getting reviews for research work as independent learners Consider an undergrad student (who wishes to dive into STEM research) in an obscure university in an obscure town who has a few ideas which he converts into a well documented article. All of this by learning completely on his own. He has no faculty within his institute (or locality) to turn to (they aren't as active in research) for help.

Where should such students/learners try to get comments/criticism on their work?

Sending it out to publishing is not a good idea because it will get rejected with cliched answers and will rarely help the candidate improve his work.
Stackexchange/Quora/Reddit etc. are great for small answers but it is too much to ask to read and rate someone's work
One can send out mails but Professors/Grad Students/Researchers in the field might not have the time to reply to such mails. Further, if the work is fundamentally flawed, the student might never get replies.
Any other repository site (ArXiv?) might cause the paper to be drowned by more successful ones and the student might never get comments.

What can he do?

You want to try a combination of networking and learning how to ask good questions.

Networking—you have to find people in your field in order to grow, and you can only find people in your field by networking appropriately. Try to find money in the department/broader university to attend a conference, or even just email authors of papers you cite. Describe your situation (briefly). If they're local, ask to meet with them for 30 minutes-1 hr; if not, try for phone calls.
Do note that, generally speaking, graduate students/postdocs will be more willing to give you time than advisors; try to get in touch with them as well.

Asking good questions—you can and should assume that no one has time to act as your advisor. Because of this, your interaction with those whom advise you will be brief. Make the most of those minutes. Give a summary of your work, ask very directed, substantial questions. Make the most of your meetings.

Personally, the most productive meeting I had in the entirety of my just-under-five year graduate school stint was one with a member of my thesis committee, and the entire meeting lasted 15 minutes. I gave the right background, asked the right questions, and came away with what turned into my thesis project. (I don't think I've done that well since.) Do your homework, and you may benefit nicely.


Harvard referencing: order of sources with same authors and same years in the bibliography I have two citations of groups of authors (same lead author) from the same year. Thus, in-text I am using (Smith et al. 2001a) and (Smith et al. 2001b).

For the bibliography should I list these references in the order that there were cited (2001a followed by 2001b) even if this bucks the alphabetic ordering of the overall bibliography? For example

  Smith, A., Zelda, C., Yates, A., Foley, C. 2001a. ...
  Smith, A., Banes, C., Yates, A., Foley, C. 2001b. ...

Or should I do the reverse?

  Smith, A., Banes, C., Yates, A., Foley, C. 2001b. ...
  Smith, A., Zelda, C., Yates, A., Foley, C. 2001a. ...

I'm thinking it should be the second option.

What you need to do: Find out the rules of the journal. For many journals, your paper will not
even be sent for review until the production staff has checked that the
references are in exactly the required format.

What you may want to support: Some journals in my field have started a policy to list all authors (up to three or four)
in the text of the paper: so it might be 'Smith, Zelda, Yates (2001)'.
The idea is that this gives name recognition to young, minority, and women
authors, who tend to be less often listed first.
This policy evolved as influential
authors (some of whom serve on publication boards) began to insist on a change toward listing multiple names.

It helps
that papers with long lists of authors are not especially common in my field.
Also, 'Smith, Hernandes, Chan (2013)' doesn't take much more space
than 'Smith et al. (2013)' and no journal budget seems to have suffered from
the change.


What is the meaning of signs and numbers appearing in scoring system of AAAI? I've received the reviewer reports for a paper I submitted to AAAI (the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence).
I found their scoring method a bit confusing and I would like some help understanding their review of my work.

Each aspect is followed by a number and some plus and minus signs. For instance:

  8(+++)

Can any experienced reviewers/authors explain the meaning of these signs and the range of scores?

I dug up my AAAI reviews from two years ago, and it looks like they've been tinkering with their scoring system, so I can't tell you a precise answer.  I can give the general principle, however:
EasyChair allows the chairs of a conference to configure a set of "attributes" for scoring.  Each attribute gets both a numerical value and a descriptor.  Some examples from AAAI two years ago:
Individual attributes:

5: (ground-breaking (top 15%), a sufficient basis for accepting the paper)
4: (positive, a factor in accepting the paper)
2: (problematic, a factor in rejecting the paper)

Overall ratings:

2: (Strong acceptance.  A 5 or 6 in some category, no 1 in any category.)
-2: (Strong rejection.  A 1 in some category, no 5 or 6 in any category.)

So as you can see, then they were using a 1-6 scale and a -2 to 2 scale.
From the sample you gave, my guess is that they're currently using a 1-10 scale, with 5 being neutral.  Thus

8 (+++)

Would translate approximately to "8 out of 10 (a very good score, three positive steps above neutral)."


Incompatibility between job and field of study Finding jobs for Ph.D graduate in mathematics is the main concern. Available options are namely in general industry and academia. I see, for instance, some Ph.D in math (algebraic geometry)  working in Bank sector! This incompatibility
between field of study and job might back to the rank of math department of graduated person.
There maybe exists some other reasons. But I want to know about the upper bound of ranks of departments might be considered as top ranks? Additionally, which university ranking is most reliable in industry sector and in academia?

As a graduate PhD your options are staying in academia and moving to industry, as you correctly point out. If you stay in academia, be it as research staff or as postdoc, it is generally because there is a interest in your field of study. In industry however, especially with rather specialized studies, you are not hired for your research to this point. With a PhD you have proven you are capable of independently solving challenging problems. And math/physics PhDs are generally considered as being good at working with numbers and abstract concepts. This is why they end up in the banking sector or working for insurance companies. It doesn't matter if your PhD is from a high ranking university or not, once you move past a certain point of specialization there is simply no demand for the research you are working on, you are hired for the skills you developed during your PhD


Presenting misleading statistics A study compared two groups (differing on factor A) on ability X and found that X differs between the two groups (effect of A). However, the groups also differ on a not interesting variable B (say, "age"). When using B as covariate in the analysis of A on X, there is no effect of A.

In the statistical analysis (ANCOVA) the authors present the statistics for X corrected for B (i.e. "no significant effect of A on X"), however, next to this analysis, they present the effect sizes (Cohen's d) of the raw/uncorrected values of X as support for their hypothesis ("large effect of A on X"). They do not attempt to make it obvious that these effect sizes are based on scores without correcting for B.

I think they have to present the effect sizes of A corrected for B (i.e. after regressing out the effect of B on X). However, they don't want to, possibly because they have a strong hypothesis about A affecting X.

Is what they are doing correct, is it normal, is it misleading or even fraud?

You found out, so apparently there is enough information present in the article to see what they were doing. So that in my mind rules out fraud.

Whether or not it is correct, normal, or misleading depends on the finer details. There is also another possibility: it is simply a mistake. Researchers are human after all.


Attitudes towards self-plagiarism I am planning to write several papers exploring various aspects of the same scientific question. Each of these papers must have an introduction which motivates it and explains the relationship between the problem and what others have studied in the past.
It would be fantastic if I could simply copy-and-paste the same introduction, or, at least, 90% of it.  This seems to me to be ethically unproblematic. After all, I need to say the exact same things every time, and I certainly don't mind the self-plagiarism. Am I hurting the reader in any way? I suppose I might be, if the reader desired an introduction which consists of original material, but that is an odd desire, isn't it? Its the research, the stuff that follows the intro, that is original.
Sadly, I have gotten wind that the majority of the research community apparently does not agree with the sentiments expressed in the previous paragraph. This leads me here to ask a series of related questions:

To what extent is self-plagiarism in non-technical bits considered acceptable? I often see authors recycle paragraphs but I have never seen anyone cut-and-paste the entire section outright.
I'd be particularly interested in learning whether norms on this vary across different scientific communities.

How often do scholars find themselves trying to same the same thing in different words to avoid self-plagiarism?

Supposing I insert a sentence to the effect of: "The introductory section 1.2 is taken verbatim from the author's earlier paper [1]." How likely are journal editors and reviewers to complain about this?

By the way, I am fairly certain they would be very likely to complain about a sentence to the effect of "We refer the reader to [1] for motivation to study this problem and a discussion of its relation to prior work."

Firstly, quoting any work, including your own, without explicit attribution of the quote, is going to earn you a very bad reputation for plagiarism sooner or later. Just say no.

Secondly, and to state the obvious, the introduction is there to introduce the rest of the paper. As each paper will be unique, so should the introduction be: the point is to lead the user into the paper, rather than to give a grounding in the whole subject area.

Thirdly, why not wrap up all of the things you want to say in all of the papers' introductions, into a single review paper?  It would contain all of the literature review, motivations, unsolved problems, areas for future research, that you want to reference in your other papers. And then, those other papers can just briefly & concisely properly reference and quote the relevant bits of that review paper in their introduction. It won't be as brief as "for review and motivation, see my paper DOI:ABC.DEF.GHI", but you should be able to distil the review paper down to a paragraph or two for each subsequent paper, and those words will be unique for each subsequent paper, drawing only on the elements you need for that paper.


Doubts about writing research paper? I am writing my first research paper in field of computer applications and artificial intelligence. I have following doubts, please answer them to help me out..

a) When explaining my research, do I need to include the whole code or just algorithms ?

b) Do I have to upload my code somewhere so that people can verify my research and give link of that code in my paper ?

c) I don't know any professor very well. Is it required to get it read by somebody because I am still an undergraduate ?

Any other suggestion from your experience ??

Definitely not the whole code.
It is a conference-specific and depends on the conference area. If the
paper is more data related (which is the case in Data Mining field
for instance) you are required at least to comment on the data usage
and from where you get it. If your paper is about a new web
system usually referring to it in the text will be
helpful.
It is not required but highly recommended since they will be able to
provide a constructive criticism for your work. You do not need to know them very well and usually they will be happy to help students.

Generally, students (specially undergraduates) publish papers with the help of a faculty member in the school. This said, there is nothing limit them to publish by their own. It is just more helpful to you to be attached to one of the faculty members and do research under his/her guidance.


Would it be an advantage in terms of admission, to study pedagogics before applying to a PhD? Currently I am in my third year in engineering - applied mathemathics. I have been thinking about what I would want to do after I get my master. I have concluded that I have 3 options.

Work as an engineer.
Study one year pedagogics, then work as a high school teacher.
Apply for a PhD.

In my country you can, if you have a master in engineering - applied mathematics, study one year where most of the studies are pedagogics, and then be considered as any other high school teacher (in math). You will have a master in Teaching.

Since I am not sure of what I really want to do, all three options are "exciting". I want to have as many doors opened as possible.

So, for example, I could get my engineering degree, then a teaching degree and after that either work as engineering/teacher or apply for PhD.

Therefore I would like to know if it is an advantage in terms of admission, when applying for a PhD, if I have studied pedagogics for one year (right after I have finished engineering school and right before applying). Or would it be preferable to go direct from engineering to PhD, if that is what I want to do.

My location is Sweden. I have not given any thought to which university I would want to do my PhD, but the country would be in Sweden or Germany.

While I have little familiarity with Sweden or Germany, for most technical fields I would see taking a year off to study pedagogy and teach high school would generally provide no advantages and perhaps even be a slight disadvantage for PhD admissions.  I see how it could be an advantage if you want to pursue a PhD in education for example as it gives you relevant practical experience and perspective, but not for most subjects as the primary goal of a PhD program is to train you to be a researcher.

As such, for a PhD, you want to demonstrate passion and dedication to research.  Pursuing another career path first may make some professors question this, and indeed from your question it sounds like you are not totally committed to the research track.  Of course, applying for a PhD program right after a master's doesn't guarantee commitment either and many great researchers got their PhD's after doing other things first. Pursuing teaching next may be the right thing for you if it helps you figure out what you want to do, but I would not recommend it as a way to help you become a PhD student.


What is the cost of an endowed chair in a medical school? What would be a typical cost for a donor to start up an endowed chair for a professor (an MD) in a medical school?  Are there ongoing costs?

For a fully endowed position, multiply the expected salary, benefits, and research funds by 20x to get an approximation.

If the researcher is making $250,000 in salary and benefits and $250,000 in funding for their lab, then you would want around $10,000,000 endowment minimum (salary and lab numbers chosen for ease of calculation rather than proximity to reality).

This assumes a 5% per annum draw on the endowment, which is both conservative and average. A university with better fund managers could draw 8-10%; a very conservative institution or a place that wants to grow the endowment endogenously might only draw 3-5%.

And as @Dawn notes, for some positions not all position costs are paid entirely out of the endowment, and thus may require a smaller investment. For example, some endowed chairs might only receive 30% of their salary from the named endowment and the rest from general funds. If that were the case in the above example, the endowment would only have to be at the $3 million level.


How to accept a PhD offer I was offered the admission one months ago but I didn't accept right away. What would be best language to accept a PhD offer?

I guess you can do that by signing the offer the letter, scan it, attach to an email with a brief "thank you" write up.


Being overqualified as a barrier for getting a job I have a PhD and whenever I apply for a librarian job I am told that I am overqualified for this position. How can I overcome this barrier?

When they say you are overqualified, it probably means:

They are afraid that someone with a Ph. D. will demand a higher salary than they can afford to pay;
They are afraid that you will get bored with the job and quit after a few months because the work won't be challenging / intellectually stimulating for someone with a Ph. D.

So, in your cover letter, you have to tell a good story that addresses the above two items (i.e., tell them why you know you will love this job and not get bored with it). If you search around on google, you can find many articles / blog posts giving more detail.


How to motivate a student to attempt solving tough questions? In any tutorial class some students seem to get frustrated with little tougher questions. While tackling them is important to learn the subject. How to motivate the students to attempt tougher questions without getting discouraged ?

This is a tough question and one that teachers have struggled with throughout the history of pedagogy.  Sometimes, students need to find within themselves the curiosity and drive to plow forward despite the frustration.  So, don't be discouraged when you see frustrated students, as every teacher has to deal with this.  Philosophy aside, here are some tips I've found helpful over the years:

Scaffolding is immensely important.  Build up to the harder problems, and give students the time they need to process how typical problems are solved.  E.g., If you're studying friction, have the students do plenty of problems that involve friction on a flat surface, then move to friction on a ramp, then work on friction on a vertical wall (by a sideways force), then move to centripetal friction that keeps a turning car from sliding off a road, then move to cars on banked hills.
Don't try to cover too much material in one sitting.  Students can only process so much at once, and many really do need time to process.
Positive feedback goes a long way.  When a student makes progression on a problem, acknowledge it.
Be available for help, but not always available.  Some students like the easy way out, which is to ask you how to do the problem!  Don't be afraid to turn a student away until they've given it a decent try.  That said, judicious pointers in the right direction can help.
Encourage them to work in groups.  This does run into the "easy way out" for some students, but more often it can lead to good ideas being generated, and students can learn from the collaboration.
Give them lots and lots of examples.  The more they see problem-solving techniques, the better they will become.

Unfortunately, given the time constraints of college teaching, it isn't always possible to use all of these strategies--I found that it was easier to find the time when I taught high school.  That said, students in college should be willing to work harder on their own, anyway (but we all know that isn't always the case!).


Should I go for a PhD topic on which I have poor coursework grades? I am a materials engineering master's student and have a poor track record with undergraduate level mathematics and mechanics. However, I like working on applied problems that involve these. For example, currently I find modeling 3D printing process interesting and want to work on the topic.
However, I am objectively poor in mathematics and mechanics. I enjoy the physics in play and have an intuitive sense, and my master's research was about using an existing tool to understand the parameters that influence a good 3Dprint. I have also published in a good journal. I am interested in a career in research (academia or industry).
I have got a PhD offer from a good university and good professor on the topic. It will involve some programming to develop geometries, but mostly use an open-source software to understand and predict the physics of 3D printing process.
Considering that this PhD is in UK and I won't be taking anymore classes than I have already taken. Should I go for this PhD? The group publishes regularly in decent journals.

First, recall that there is nothing about doctoral (or other) level research that suggests all of the necessary ideas are covered by coursework. For those like yourself and others, people need to be able to learn what is necessary to reach the research "edge" and cross it.
You may have a harder time than some, or not, depending on the sorts of things you wind up doing. But don't hesitate because the job looks hard. It would anyway. My guess is that you will be fine. If your advisor believes in you, relax.


Why do potential reviewers take a lot of time to reject the request for review? I understand that reviewers are quite busy and have not only a single paper to review. But, no matter how busy someone is, it should not take more than 2 minutes to reject a review request.

How did I get this question to my mind?

Well, it is a common question for everyone in academia, I guess. I am quite frustrated with the peer-review system and yes, I am impatient. Because after doing a lot of hard work on something and then achieving something real good out of this, which would lead to potential dissemination, turns out to be depressing.

We had submitted a work back in December 2016. Since February 2017, It was Under review. Suddenly, I see that it is Reviewer assigned. This system is really pathetic. Other parts of my question can be inferred from this.

As a reviewer, I don't reject the requests for review after 4 months. I would do the same within at most a week.

In addition to the Kerkyras answer, here is what happens all the time when I receive an invitation:

The potential reviewer needs to find the time to skim the paper to form a well founded decision to accept or decline to review.

I want to accept a review when I am sure that I have the expertise and time to do a good review. It takes about 2 minutes to decide if I have the time for a review (usually my conclusion is "no"), but to decide whether I have the expertise is more complex (and if the answer here is "yes", I often agree to review, even if the answer to the former question was "no"…). Hence, a basic skimming of the article is needed and this may take some more minutes. Some days (or even weeks) are extremely busy such that finding just 10 minutes to skim a paper is hard.


Did they do some of the project without telling me? So I am doing this bachelor thesis for a research institute and they wanted me to do different kinds of development.
Like conversions of files and implementing a system (I call it system A for mentioning later) and right now I am developing the main system which need to be connected to system A. Or at least I thought that was the plan.
So recently I found out they developed a similar system to system A, (it wasn't a big part of the project but it took me a lot of productive time to research and develop it) and this new version has to be integrated with the bigger system that I am building for them.
I asked them whether they used or will be using my implementation (system A) anywhere; They said no and it was more of a proof of concept, They said in my thesis I can write that it was 'initial implementation of the new one". How is it initial implementation if nothing is the same and they did not tell anything about it to me.
Does this situation make any sense? I am still developing a system for them which is quite bigger than system A and I still need to use some part of system A to integrate it with the new version that they totally developed themselves.
The reason of course is that their new system has a better outlook and design but they could have maybe told me from the start that they won't be using my version as I had told them from the start that I won't be using time on design and it was something we talked about on day 1.
I am not worried of what I should put in my thesis but is this really normal? If not, What did I do wrong?
Thank you in advance.

Yes, it makes sense. No, you didn't do anything wrong. Write up what you did for your thesis along with the necessary supporting material, but avoid complaining about what the institute did.
I think the key misunderstanding here is that they were giving you an opportunity to interact in a real system and that they might be able to take advantage of what you learned, but made no commitment to do so. The opportunity is the important part.
It may be that they used you as a low cost way to make an exploration. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Had they told you at the beginning that they weren't committed to what you were doing it might have lessened your enthusiasm at the time (as it does now). But, even for their own regular developers they don't make a commitment to accept any particular piece of work, especially before it is attempted.
The purpose of the "exercise" was your education, not their system. You did a good job of that ("productive time to research and develop it"), so you learned some things.
I don't have any advice about the "larger system" as there is too little information.


Proper reply for an letter "We will soon contact you for an interview" I applied for a phd position in a Austrian university. Then I got a mail which said "We will soon contact you for an interview" and I have been waiting for four days now.
Is it appropriate if I ask an update about the interview?

4 days is not particularly long. If it's cramping your decision-making - for example if you really need to know when the interview is so you can decide on a suitable date to schedule your marriage - then go ahead and ask, but otherwise I would wait a bit longer (up to ~2 weeks).


How can I ask a professor I've had as an undergrad for a recommendation I am currently a Masters student adn I'm applying for an abroad research program which requires two letters of recommendation. This professor already wrote my recommendation to get into grad school (he was my professor during undergrad) and I want him to resubmit the letter to my research program. I wanted to know if this would be an okay email to send:

"Hi Professor __,

I hope you're doing well! I wanted to reach out to you because I'm currently enrolled in a Masters Program and I found out a few days ago about a research program called ____ in Germany. I was hoping to apply for it for this summer, and I wanted to know if you would resubmit my letter of recommendation (the one which you wrote last year)? The deadline for the application is ____. Sorry for such a last minute notice, I only recently found out about this program. I completely understand if it wouldn't be doable or if you don't have the prior recommendation, no worries if that's the case! Thanks again!

Best,

"

That's certainly fine if you just need a letter resubmitted, but often the best letters are tailored to particular opportunities - i.e., a letter talking about how well-suited user130306 is for Arbitrary Masters Program is going to look funny when you are reading that letter as a committee member for Abroad Research Program.

I would suggest acknowledging in your email that the recommender may need to write a new letter (though the previous one may be suitable as a draft) and ask if they are willing to do so. Implying that they can just resubmit a previous letter might be perceived as (weakly) rude or not understanding what recommendation letters entail.

Also I presume your second letter will come from someone at your current institution? It's certainly okay to use a previous recommender when you have not spent much time at your new institution, but ideally letters come from people who can best describe the current you.


Should I include a bibliographical entry in the Works Cited pages for works I just mention? Should I include a bibliographical entry in the Works Cited pages for works I just mention?

For example, if I mention the work of an author by title just as an example without quoting from it, should I include an entry for it in the Works Cited page?

Yes.

A bibliographical entry allows readers to unambiguously identify and locate the work you mention. (Which they must be able to do if they would like to verify your claims about this work.)


Is it appropriate to describe our methodological mistakes in manuscript? I work outside academia, but am working on a project with a master's student. During data collection, we had some skip-logic errors pop up while administering the survey online and it resulted in some superfluous data. She and her adviser decided to throw out all affected data and only analyze open-field text, and outlined these mistakes in great detail on her master's paper. While writing our joint manuscript for publication, is it appropriate to outline these programming errors?

It would be inappropriate not mention the mishaps in my opinion. But there is no need to document this in great detail, as you mentioned. I would comment during the revision process that you feel the description of the "skip-logic section" is too wordy, and it should be trimmed to be more concise.

Keep the focus on the positive findings as opposed to mishaps.


Are Ph.D. dissertations always required to include new discoveries? Are Ph.D. dissertations always required to include new discoveries? I was wondering if a dissertation could, instead, consist of a reorganization or reformulation of known material. Inventing new things is not my strength. But I think I'm pretty good at organizing information and making it clear and easy to understand. In some cases, I think that this activity might even be more valuable than discovering new things, and I find it to be just as satisfying. I can see that it might lead to a nice book, but I don't know if it could ever get me a doctorate degree. The field is mathematics, if that matters.

Are Ph.D. dissertations always required to include new discoveries?

What distinguishes a PhD from all other academic degrees is the requirement of a novel, sufficiently substantial intellectual contribution.  In practice, what "novel" and "sufficiently substantial" mean are handled on a case-by-case basis.

The word "discovery" does not appear in the above description and would not be appropriate in certain academic fields, but in mathematics a PhD thesis is  required to contain new theorems or new proofs.  It is often contrasted (e.g. in various programmatic descriptions and graduate handbooks) with a master's thesis, which may contain only novelties of exposition.

So if you go around mathematics departments asking "Can I write a PhD thesis in which the novelties are all expository?" I would expect the answer to be a quite consistent no.

However:

1) "Inventing new things is not my strength." I too was once extremely daunted by the prospect of inventing/discovering significant new mathematics...so much so that I spent five years as a PhD student learning how to do it.  (I got it now.)  My point being: if you are otherwise talented and interested in mathematics, there is no good reason to think that you will not become good at this.

2) If you are otherwise talented and interested in mathematics, you will very likely become good enough at discovering new mathematics to write and defend a PhD thesis.  The requirements of a PhD thesis are partly aspirational: in reality, we settle for a bit less much of the time.  I have seen some PhD theses where I was confident that there was nothing really new in them.  To be a bit specific, I know a thesis in which a student attained the main result through five pages of calculation, whereas a more conceptual framework would yield it in about a paragraph.  The result was of the form "For all n, there is a [mathematical object of type X] for which the [parameter value associated to any mathematical object of type X] is n."  It had not been stated before in the literature, but when I searched further I found that the theorem could have been proven simply by citing extant examples in the literature.  And by the way, this was not the worst PhD thesis I've seen -- on the contrary, the theorem was natural and interesting, and I rather liked it.  It resulted in a paper published in a reputable journal.

3) You write

  In some cases, I think that this activity might even be more valuable than discovering new things,

Yes, I agree most heartily.  I suspect that the number of theorems proved in 2016 lies in the interval [10^5,10^6].  Without smart people taking time to reorganize, simplify and expose these results, we're all going to get carried away in the flood.

  and I find it be just as satisfying.

I do a lot of expository work, and I find it more satisfying in some ways and less satisfying in others than discovery-oriented research.  It is an unfortunate professional reality that its perceived value by the overall mathematical community is lower.

However, really good exposition is rare enough so that people who are good enough at it can make academic careers out of it.  Michael Spivak is a legendary figure for his lifetime of mathematical exposition.  Keith Conrad, a mathematician of my generation (and a friendly colleague of mine) is well on his way to the same achievement.  Both of these people can do discovery-oriented research and have the papers to show for it.  However it seems to be the case that they are more interested in exposition and have spent more of their time on that.  To become the Spivak or Conrad of your generation would be a worthy goal.

4) There are doctoral degrees that are not so heavily focused on discovery-oriented research.  In comparison to the PhD they are much fewer and they are not very widely known, but they exist.  Let me quote from my UGA colleague Michael Klipper's website:

  Before being hired by UGA, I received a Doctorate of Arts (D.A.) degree from Carnegie Mellon University in 2011. Instead of doing research, I wrote a textbook draft for an analysis course.

I know nothing about this degree program other than what I just said, but I know Dr. Klipper and the value he brings to my department.  Based on that alone I recommend that you give it serious consideration and search for similar programs if you feel that this is where your interests lie.

Good luck.


What are the typical steps to be admitted to a masters program later in life? I graduated from college with a BS in Civil Engineering a bit more than 10 years ago. My GPA was about 3.0, but I think that was pulled up more by some electives and liberals arts classes that I excelled in because I recall struggling a bit with some of the more advanced technical courses and walking away with an A+ in History of Rock and Roll I and II.

Since graduating, I've since tested for and passed the PE exam and am licensed to practice engineering in addition, I've since become a lot more proficient at advanced technical aspects of engineering via practice.

I've never before attempted an application to grad school, but more and more I'm finding professionally that there are a lot of advantages to having a broader knowledge in engineering than the narrow specialization that my BS prepared me with.

What are the typical steps I would need to complete in order to gain admission to grad school. Is it necessary to take the GRE? Would a GPA below 3.0 in technical courses pretty much bar me out?

Each university will have its own requirements for all these things, so the place to get answers is with them. They might be different at every place. I don't think the age of your degree will matter too much if you've been working in the field and learning things.

But your application letter should stress your experience, not just your academic credentials. It might be good to mention the sophisticated sorts of things you've worked on. It will always be good to mention what you hope to get out of a new degree.

If you did poorly in major subjects, however, you may have to account for that - not so much why you did poorly, but how that hasn't affected your capabilities since you graduated. I suspect that you will have an interview unless the new university is especially large. Be prepared to speak honestly about your background and goals.


How long does it typically take for editor's final decision after reviews are completed? According to the reviewers, the paper I have submitted is now ready for publication.
How long I should wait to know the final decision of the editor-in-chief?

Reviewers can only recommend a verdict so what they say is not necessarily the outcome, the editor has final say. Of course if two reviews agree then it is very likely the outcome will be what they suggest. In a normal review situation involving an editor, the reviewers provide their reviews to the editor who in turn will make a judgement and pass on comments and possible suggestions for improvements to you. If your manuscript is in an open review system (such as the discussion format of Copernicus Open Access journals), you  may see the reviews before final decisions are taken and in such a case, I would not trust reviewers opinions on the verdict until you also hear so from the editor.

As is pointed out in a comment, it is a bit intriguing that you seem to have the reviewers comments but not that from the editor. The time between completion of reviews and to a decision by an editor will vary depending on many factors. The editor has to read the reviews in light of the manuscript and then value the comments and provide a synthesis of the outcome for you. Obviously the editor will have other manuscripts to handle in parallel which influences the time a decision may take. To state a time that can be applied to any situation or journal is therefore pointless. I am, however, certain that any serious editor is not keen to hold on to a decision for any extended period. With the journals I have published and the one where I am Editor-in-Chief times from receipt of reviews to decision can vary from maybe days up to a month in rare cases. This seems reasonable for the field in which I work but I am sure that such times vary between both field and journals within a field.


What are evaluation criteria for NSF postdoctoral fellowships? I am currently working on applying for an NSF postdoctoral fellowship and I was wondering if anyone had insight into the following questions:

Is it practical to have a proposed research project that is not directly in line with the applicant's previous research (I'm thinking of a research project that in some way falls within the same subspeciality but none of the work I've done before naturally segues into this work)
Is it disadvantageous to apply to work under someone who already has numerous postdocs (say around 4)? The worry would be that a panel would think that this would reduce the sponsor's ability to be an involved mentor
When it comes to Broader impacts, in particular things like educational outreach, is it all right if this occurs in another country if I am applying to be supported by the NSF while at a foreign institution.

I think this depends to a large degree on how intelligently you can write about this subject.  If you have a carefully thought out research plan, and can point to how your previous experience prepared you for it, I don't think it should be a huge problem.  That said, there's no reason to really go out on a limb in the description.  It's not like you're required to do the research you propose, so I would be more inclined to suggest doing a mix of problems from the new and old areas.  Also, talk to your recommenders about it.  If they're enthusiastic, it will really help.
I wouldn't over think this stuff.  It's just impossible to know what people will think.  I would concentrate more on what you think is best for you.
You should discuss anything cool you've done with educational outreach.  If it was in another country, I don't think it's a problem at all.


Does the GDPR entitle students to see their recommendation letters? If I am correctly informed, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) entitles any EU and EEA citizen to have right of access of any data stored about them (and non-EU/EEA citizens such access to data stored about them by organizations inside the EU/EEA). This clearly includes recommendation letters which in some form or another must be linked to their identity.

This probably changes the signaling value of recommendation letters so this should be of interest to both reference letter writers and applicants.

A side question would be whether this includes reference letters written before the GDPR went into force.

In the UK, most recently, reference letters during an employment recruitment process have potentially been available to the candidate for whom the letter has been written.

Bound to be the same for academic references.

No obvious reason for this opportunity to be curtailed by the coming into force of GDPR, quite the contrary.


Late recommendation letter I'm about to apply for postdoc positions in the US through mathjobs. I already did it last year, so I have my reference letters from the previous time (which are probably pretty good).

Now here's my situation: During the last year, I was lucky to solve some well-known open problems in my field (well, it's not going to earn me a Wikipedia entry, but the tiny group of researchers in my esoteric field is impressed), which will probably turn my application from "good" to "outstanding". In order to really make my application look better, my reference letters should address the recent results, so I asked my letter writers to update their letters. Most of them did so, except for one (who didn't reply to my emails). The problem is that I should submit some of my applications by November 1, and as I didn't hear from that letter writer for several weeks now, I'm afraid that he might not update his letter by November 1.

Question 1: When job ads on mathjobs say something like "screening of applications will begin on November 1", do they really mean it, or do they mean something like "screening of applications will begin on mid December, but we want you to submit your application early"?

Question 2: What would you do in my situation (assuming that the relevant letter writer is currently abroad and I have no other way to contact him)? Should I contact the relevant search committees and ask them to check that reference letter a bit later, once it gets updated?

Question 3: If a letter of recommendation is updated on mathjobs past the submission of an application, which version of the letters is available to the search committee? What should I do in order to make sure that they read the updated version?

Question 1: When job ads on mathjobs say something like "screening of applications will begin on November 1", do they really mean it, or do they mean something like "screening of applications will begin on mid December, but we want you to submit your application early"?

It depends on the department.  It is however well known that many faculty members drag their feet with recommendation letters, and this happens more or less independently of the quality of the applicant.  So in my experience it is common to allow a grace period of a couple of weeks to allow the letters to trickle in.

  Question 2: What would you do in my situation (assuming that the relevant letter writer is currently abroad and I have no other way to contact him)? Should I contact the relevant search committees and ask them to check that reference letter a bit later, once it gets updated?

Frankly I think you're too worried about the entire situation.  You did some exciting new work: great.  All but one of the letters will describe this exciting new work.  The other letter may not.  So when people read the letters they will see that your exciting new work is so new that one of your writers is a little out of the loop.  I see no big problem here.  If one of the letters is more negative than the others, that drags your application down.  If one of the letters is less informative than the others...frankly, that usually happens and is really much of the reason why you get multiple letters.

  Question 3: If a letter of recommendation is updated on mathjobs past the submission of an application, which version of the letters is available to the search committee? What should I do in order to make sure that they read the updated version?

Hmm.  I believe what happens is that if the file has not been read by anyone, the letter updates without recording the change.  If it has been read, then both versions of the letter appear.  But I am not completely sure about this.

In summary: you solved some well-known open problems in your field. That's the dream.  You say that this will probably turn your application from "good" to "outstanding."  Well, I agree.  Congratulations, and I hope you enjoy your postdoc.


How to solicit funded research projects from industry to perform while in graduate school? My ultimate goal is to secure a position in industry post graduation. I figured a solid approach would be align myself with current problems and try and partner to solve them. This gives me resume wins for when I am back on the market. Also industry may have deeper pockets than NIH for my field. How would one go about this assuming no contacts are known a priori. Also how would a PI react to such activities if say I were to land one with funding dollars attached? I figured it would be a win-win.

Any comments are greatly appreciated.

How would one go about this assuming no contacts are known a priori.

Likely you can't go for this without any contacts at all. You are thinking about this in the wrong order - you can't get money from industry first and use this to build up contacts to industry; rather, you would build up contacts to industry to achieve a level of trust so that you would be later on in a position to receive industry funding. This also means that getting direct industry sponsorship as a PhD student is at least uncommon - typically, companies are more interested in sponsoring a professor or chair that they have positively interacted with over a sustained period of time.

Slightly longish story short, your planned approach (acquiring industry funding) is not a suitable means to your stated goal (landing a job in industry).


Sample syllabi for job application I'm applying for faculty jobs and was considering including sample syllabi for courses I could develop (which are currently not offered at the target institution). My idea was to include them as an appendix to my teaching statement.

Would this be a good idea? Are there any pitfalls I should look out for?

In particular I'm thinking for US liberal arts colleges, but I would be interested in views for more research focused universities as well.

I take it that the position you are applying for don't specifically ask for such samples. In some cases, hiring committees will look at only what is asked for, nothing more. This is to protect the commitee's time and to ensure that each candidate is considered in equal light. While you likely won't be penalized for offering more, don't be surprised if the extra pages end up in the trash can before the committee sees them.


Issue tracking when writing a paper When writing papers (and even more - when revising after collaborators', or reviewers', remarks) it's hard to keep track what is done, what needs to be fixed, what cannot be fixed, when opinions of authors are equivocal (and when an issue raised by one author is not supported by the others).

Moreover, it generates to a lot of e-mail traffic, often with a short remarks.

The question is, is there a issue tracking software (or workflow) suitable for reviewing academic papers?

(As a side note, I'm familiar with JIRA, but never used it for papers. I'm the most interested in answer when someone actually uses a given method, not "well, I never tried but here is [a link to a random issue tracking software]".)

It sounds like you want to use a version control system, combined with a bug tracker. Luckily, Mercurial combined with an online bitbucket.org repository provides a nice workflow. When remarks or notes appear, you add them to the issue tracker at your bitbucket page (note that bitbucket provides private repositories). See this example from one of my software projects.

When working on the paper you can select one of the issues, fix it, add to your repository, with a mention of the issue number in the bug tracker. This sounds like it could provide you with two important things: managing of the growth of your paper, and organizing your workflow of handeling the interaction with the other authors.


Lack of research opportunities in Israel I am currently researching where I would like to do my PhD. I have always been drawn to Israel (this has nothing to do with religion or politics or anything similar but rather with warm weather and hummus) so I also included it in a list of potential destinations. However, I am very surprised that I virtually never come across

advertisements for PhD positions in Israel
Israeli institutes being involved in research projects or international programs
someone who has studied/worked at an Israeli university
...

Also, a few years ago, I contacted multiple Israeli universities about the possibility of conducting my thesis there and got very limited response.
When I compare this to countries with somewhat similar "level of development", such as Canada, Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, etc., it feels completely different. From all these countries I get a feeling that they expect and encourage foreign students/researchers to come and that they work to attract them (both at a national level and at a level of individual universities)
Question: Are there any reasons for Israel seemingly not being (a) involved much in international research collaborations and (b) interested in foreign students/researchers?
My field is geoinformatics and remote sensing.

Are there any reasons for Israel seemingly not being (a) involved much in international research collaborations and (b) interested in foreign students/researchers?

Your assumption (a) is completely incorrect — it’s hard for me to think of a statement that’s further than the truth.
Assumption (b) is correct in the context of foreign students, and this has a simple explanation. It’s mostly a language issue: PhD programs in Israel are offered in Hebrew, and it’s extremely rare for foreign students looking for a place to do their PhD to be willing to invest several years to learn the language at the level they’d need to know it to be successful in doing a PhD. The ones who would entertain that possibility are small enough in numbers, and highly motivated enough, that there’s no need for graduate programs to do special outreach targeted at them. Any postings for PhD programs or positions will be in Hebrew, and if you are not a Hebrew speaker you will not be able to find and read them.
There are a few exceptions to this. The Weizmann Institute of Science has English as its official language and does attract a reasonable number of foreign students. Tel Aviv University has an English speaking medical school program and, I vaguely recall, a business master’s program. There might be other isolated programs for which the language barrier wouldn’t be an issue.


How to start my own research? I am currently a researcher (a postdoc) in a research group at a scientific institute. I obtained my Ph.D. degree 2 years ago and right away I got employed at this institute and started as a postdoc. I dare to say that I did a nice job during my Ph.D. and also I am working quite well here and my supervisor is happy with my outcomes.

Yesterday, after a discussion with my supervisor regarding some results he told me that now it is time for me to gradually start my own research (along with doing my job here) in order to strengthen my academic career so that I can have my own research group in the future. I am a bit stressed now because the main path of my research has been always chosen by my supervisors and also I always had their support. On the other hand, this has always been my dream to have my own research and become a pioneer in a scientific matter.

I have some interesting scientific topics in mind that I can follow but I am afraid that I cannot do a nice job alone. I think what I need is just a strong startup then I will get into my stride. Could somebody give me some good advice?

Specialize, focus and diversify your research agenda solely on 2-3 open questions/problems the next years. There is not really another path. Especially in fundamental sciences it's hard to plan an academic career, so you have to take risks, therefore diversify them. And this is also encouraged by the academic system to achieve results beyond the state of the art and knowledge. With many publications you might get a staff position, but to get tenure as a professor you need to become one of the few experts in your field for a distinct method or sub-topic. But don't understand this as a 2nd PhD, it's now your duty to acquire funding, PhD students and build a scientific network around you. You need to acquire people now that work with or for you. You showed with your PhD that you can work alone on a scientific question, for tenure you need show that you can set up aresearch agenda for younger scientists and bigger projects with several partners and that you are able to manage successfully and financially projects aparat from teaching duties. You also have to show autonomy, staying with your supervisor your whole post-doc time is disadvantegous.


Is it important to list the merits of a research paper? When we write a research paper, most of the times we need to describe in the introduction what is the merit of the present work (unless is a survey of sorts).

Many professors, tell me that is enough to write it within the sentences with some context. And is the way I see it in most papers.

Other professors, however, I've seen they especifically list the merits and innovations of the papers in the introduction, for example:

The present work presents cherries using A, which has never been done before.
We implemented the mix of berries and bananas, which has never been tried.

While I find the approach intuitive and way more explicit than the usual approach, It seems a bit condescending.

What is your suggestion, should I write a list of merits or not?

Somehow it is common to start an introduction with a general blah-blah, basically saying that a field is important and repeating some popular facts.

However, in my opinion, the most important thing of the introduction is to say

what is there,
what is the actual contribution

and said in a precise way, so reader will know if the content is useful for her. And in such a way as "we prove X1 and X2, under the assumption of Y, and conjecture Z" instead of "we investigate X1, X2 and Z".

Of course, giving the general context is extremely important, but not more that saying what's there.

Personally, I wasted a lot of time reading papers whose abstract or introduction left me believing that they solve a general problem, when in fact it was only n=2,3,4 case, or just something tangentially related to my research interests.

There is an incentive to write introduction in a big talk / general blah-blah style (because it sounds serious, because it may bait uninterested readers, etc), but (IMHO) it is very counterproductive, sometimes verging on the edge of scientific dishonesty (i.e. an implicit overclaim).