The Page Rank effect of Academic recommendations for Graduate School I am an undergraduate who comes from a relatively small department, with moderate research activities being done around. We don’t have any research lab or dedicated research personnels in my field of interest at our school. I have developed an interest on my own regarding the topic and I’ve been working on it for the past one and half years. I have 2 publications and 3 more working papers , and I am pretty sure that I want to pursue this topic going ahead for graduate school. An essential component of graduate school application is Letters of Recommendations. I have learnt from many research groups homepage and some of my friends from natural sciences department that If I want to work with professors who are the leaders in research of  ‘XYZ’ , only the Professor who have made significant contributions in the field ‘XYZ’ or who is a collaborator of the potential advisor have a strong case on the letter of recommendation. I have been supervised by two different professors, who are very much unrelated to the field( as I’d discovered my interest on my own ). I have demonstrated research and other parts of applications to back me up , but I’m worried if Letters of Recommendations not coming from the same ‘XYZ’ area Professor will not help my case. Is the Page-Rank type effect which I fear really true in academia ?

I’m worried if Letters of Recommendations not coming from the same ‘XYZ’ area Professor will not help my case.

While a letter from someone who is an expert in the subject of your doctoral research is better, it's much more important that the letter writer know about your research record.

Sensible graduate admissions committees know that not all universities have faculty in every research area.  They care more about what the letter says than who wrote it.


What are the negative consequences of slacking off after attaining tenure? As I was thinking about the question
Can I slack off and get a PhD?,
I realized that I wanted to say in my answer

  If you want to slack off,
  the best time to do so is after you have received tenure
  as a college professor,
  because at that point you can't be fired
  except for egregious offences.

I am not yet even an assistant professor,
so I don't know whether the statement above is really true.

Question:
What could the negative consequences be
for a professor who has just received tenure,
if he were to put in the bare minimum effort needed in teaching
just to achieve average teaching performance,
and were to just stop doing research and publishing papers?

Note:
I don't plan to slack off if I were in the future
able to get a tenured position,
but I am just curious what happens to those professors who do.

I think the first question is, what does "slack off" really mean?  Many professors do change their priorities after tenure for a slower paced approach to their work more in line with their own intellectual values.  Many things that might be perceived as "slacking off" in a pre-tenure professor actually do have value and are much easier to pursue post-tenure, e.g., dedicating more time to students and teaching rather than research, or taking a slower pace to try to figure out an angle on deeper and harder to address issues.

But let's assume that our hypothetical professor is just saying, "I got mine, and I'm going to do the absolute minimum hereafter!"  Here are some of the non-firing consequences:

Not getting grants, it will be hard to have students.
Their professional prestige will plummet, and anything they do want to do will get harder.
They may get stuck with unpleasant scut-work tasks for the department, and will have more responsibilities foisted on them because "they have the time" that their harder working colleagues do not.
They will not get promotion to higher academic ranks, nor the accompanying pay rises.

Some people may actually be comfortable with this, and having a person who's given up ambition and embraced a comfortable position as the organization's reliable clean-up detail can actually be a good thing, as it takes those tasks away from others who have more ambition.

But what if the slacker professor really doesn't care, and does a poor (but not quite enough to be fired) job at all the tasks they are assigned by the department?
Well, every organization has ways to make a person's life hell without firing them.  In the next departmental reorganization, the slacker professor might find themselves getting moved to a small lightless basement office, the administrative staff may ignore requests for assistance, colleagues may simply treat the person as a pariah.  Few people last long in an actively hostile workplace, and it may be harder to fire a person than to make them quit...


As a new Ph.D. student (mathematical statistics) how should I read papers for research? My question is about how to best read mathematics papers for research.

I just passed the last qualifying exam as a Ph.D. student in mathematics (studying statistics) and I'm reaching the point where I will need to do more research, which involves reading papers. I used to write, in my own words in a journal, pre-reading thoughts (why I'm reading this paper, what I already know, etc.), a summary of the paper's contents while reading, post-reading thoughts (what I think about the ideas, how they connect to others, how this could be useful, opinions, etc.), and a list of potentially interesting bibliography entries for later reading. When reading I would essentially read linearly, making margin notes, highlighting interesting sections, and so on. Reading a single paper could take a day, going through this process.

This did well enough for my undergraduate thesis on a topic in economics. It also worked well for the paper that my adviser and I are wrapping up and submitting to journals. But I get the impression that this is not an optimal way to read papers, especially in subjects as technically intense as mathematics. (My role in the paper I co-authored with my adviser was to do simulation studies for a test statistic he and another co-author developed, which is more computational and programming intensive than mathematically intensive, and paper reading was basically to get background on the subject. This is fine for me as a starting researcher, but I don't think I will get by on this alone for a Ph.D. thesis, let alone in my later career.)

I'm shy about asking my adviser the best way to read papers, so I'd like to hear others' approach. Is my approach to paper reading a good one, or is there a better way?

My PhD was in statistics, and I have also supervised PhD students in this field, so hopefully I can offer some useful advice.  Here are some thoughts:

Talk to your supervisor: There is no room for intellectual shyness in that relationship.  Your supervisor is not going to be upset with you for asking questions, evening if it is something you think you should know how to do already.  The fact that you even think to think about this is a good sign, and your process is quite impressive.  Don't be shy.
Streamline your process: Your process sounds quite comprehensive already.  Personally, I find that writing a short summary in your own words/notation is probably the most useful exercise to understand math papers.  Some of the other stuff you're doing might be a bit excessive, especially if you're only getting through one paper a day.
Learn the maths, expand your tool-kit: In a mathematical field, in additional to understanding the specifics of the paper you're reading, you also want to use this as an opportunity to gradually expand your mathematical tool-kit.  To do this, make sure you understand the derivation/proof of each result, and if you see an unfamiliar mathematical technique, talk to your supervisor about why it works, and when you might deploy it.
Learn to "see the matrix": Think about the intuition of each method and and make sure you can describe it intuitively.  When reading mathematical theorems, ask yourself lots of questions:  Do I understand this result and its relevance to the field?  How would this be applied in practice?  Do I understand the proof(s)?  Are there other ways to prove this?  If there are necessary conditions for a result, do I understand why they're necessary (i.e., why does the result fail without them)?  If there are sufficient conditions for a result, do I understand why these are sufficient (i.e., why does the result hold in this case)?
Jot down your own ideas: As you read the literature, jot down your own ideas for possible extensions and interesting questions that come out of this.  At first these might be quite ill-posed, but you can gradually refine them as you learn more.


Strategies for dealing/interacting with a colleague who have suffered from academic burnout There are quite a few question aiming at or hinting towards avoiding academic burn-out, but I couldn't come across one that targets interaction with a colleague that has suffered from a serious burn-out, which can be very tricky as I am learning nowadays.

Background: A colleague of mine (office-mate actually) has suffered a pretty major crisis over the past year and had to take an extended leave of absence due to stress. The person in question was/is close to disputation but due to the fact that they could not handle being at work anymore, everything was postponed.

After several months away, my colleague is trying to get back in the game by starting off 20%. I heard that it didn't work out all too good the first attempt, a couple of weeks later they are attempting to start again. As we were chatting the other day, I realized that I can't really say much without tripping my colleague off, in the sense  that the subject often raises old issues somehow and causes some frustration/stress for my colleague. That partially originates from the fact that most of what we have in common and talk about is work oriented somehow.

My natural reflex when I realize that the subject causes discomfort is to not feed the conversation and attempt to change the subject. But that doesn't really work too good, as it's not very discrete. I also suspect that specially avoiding small-talk with my office mate isn't very nice either, I don't want the person to feel isolated and alone. I mean the fact that a person had a stress-related problem, it's not something that one should be ashamed or embarrassed about, it shouldn't be awkward socially, but somehow it does feel like that.

Does anyone here have any experience about how to tackle a situation like this?

It is a tricky situation, and there is no 'guidebook' way of helping your colleague or how to deal with their recovery - I can only offer an account of when I burnt out.

When I burnt out, my colleagues - both work and academic, rallied around and helped me get back on my feet.  The way they did it was to be there and to simply listen - this was the key thing that helped me rise up.  They also kept things as normal as possible and understood the times when I needed to vent - which over time, became less and less.

They also gave me my space - like an open invitation for me to join in the conversations or activities when I felt I could.

Having also been in the situation from the other side, listening and giving time and space did help.

One more thing, you have to take care of your own well being as well - you are doing the right thing, by being there, it is not an easy road - but believe me, you are making a difference.


How to reach out for research collaboration? I am an early career researcher (pre-PhD) and planning to work on research articles before applying to PhD studies. May I ask is there any clear cut method to approach well-established scholars to ask for collaboration? or our options are only limited to the professors we worked previously? Thank you!

Wide circles of discussion and collaboration are a good thing in academic research. If your research is close to that of some distinguished "elder of the tribe" then it is fine to reach out to them.

But, it might be better to go about it a bit indirectly. Introduce yourself with a few words about your research, and the new idea. Ask the person if they are interested in it and (most important) are there others who might be interested enough to collaborate going forward. You aren't directly asking for the professor's help/collaboration, but are seeking to build a circle of interested parties, a research group. It may be that the professor will suggest themselves, but they may also suggest others, even their own students.

That may not be exactly what you want, but in the longer term might be quite valuable. You seek to become part of their circle so that they think of you when new ideas arise. And introducing you to others is less of a commitment on their part and so might be more likely to be treated positively.


Applying to US PhD during first year of Master's program I am in the last year of three-year Bachelor's program in Computer Science in Europe. I am interested in doing PhD in the US, but I did not apply for it this fall because I did not have any sensible research, nor strong recommendation letters by the deadlines (though I have perfect GPA).

This summer I am going to do a research internship, and for the next year, I think to enroll in Master's program (two-year) at my current university and work on a project in a research institute (being enrolled is often required to do any project or internship). But I am not interested in finishing that particular Master's program.

I believe I may have a relatively strong background by the next fall and would try to apply to grad schools in the US (and probably non-terminal Master's programs as well). However, I sometimes hear that admission committees frown upon applicants who are already enrolled in other programs and some do not admit students with unfinished degrees at all.

Can having unfinished program really hurt my application? Would it be better if I delay my graduation from Bachelor's program instead?

I can't speak for computer science (my experience is in Math), but I wouldn't regard it as a serious issue.  Typically programs are more concerned with your general level of preparation (for example, the content of the courses you have taken) rather than the formalities of earning degrees, especially in a foreign system which can be a bit confusing anyway. Certainly if I saw your application and it looked good otherwise, I wouldn't have a problem with you not finishing your masters program.


How can a master student get research opportunities? I'm an international student in a master program in applied math department in the United States. There are two ways that I have known in which the person like me can find the research opportunities:

Independent research: do it on your own. Is it common for most math students to do research in this way?
Research for the master thesis: As I know, the credits for the master program in applied math in my school are mainly for courses. You will not do research until you are writing thesis.

What else opportunities can a math student like me have for doing research?

Find the hallway where your department's faculty have their offices.

Knock on the first door.

When the professor answers, say "Hi, I'm [name].  I'm a master's student, and I'm interested in doing research.  Do you have some time to talk?"

Repeat for the remaining doors.

(It also helps to have some idea what kind of research you want to do, and to do some background reading on the professors' research before you talk to them.  We like it when students say "I read your paper on X, and I have a few questions.")


Realistic expectations from a postdoc in terms of publications I am in the process of applying for a postdoctoral grant and I was wondering what the expectations are in terms of journal publications when I plan?

Would it be fine if I plan 1 paper per year if I have no PhD students? Is 2 papers/year an exaggeration?

Input from senior members, possibly those with selection committee experiences would be great.

Field: engineering (electrical and electronic)
Country: Australia, EU, USA

One per year may appear unambitious. I suggest framing them in terms of 1/year 'sure bet' publications and additional 'reach goal' publications, to show a balance of ambition and realism.


What are the pros and cons of doing a PhD in a small research group compared to a large research group? I have chosen to work under a associate professor as my PhD advisor. He has a small research group -a group of 3 graduate students and some Undergraduates. I see colleagues of my advisor have groups of 10-12 students with 3 postdocs.

Am I missing something- research wise ??

The individuals involved are more important than the size of the group.  Different faculty have different management styles.


Feasibility of using blockchain to avoid researcher bias Would it be feasible, presently or in the future, to use computers with blockchain technology to help avoid researcher bias?

For instance, in a medical experiment, when an experimenter uses blockchain to store data gathered by interviewers about a patient's condition after a new medication, he/she would be able to guarantee that it would be literally impossible to change the results to fit the expected outcome.

While blockchain might be a good solution for certain (future?) applications in research, experiments, and data collection – it is hard to shine a lot of light on it right now, as the technology is pretty new. And research techniques, scientific methodology, experiment design, and, most importantly, ethical standards have been (and will be) developed for centuries.

Most importantly, a lot of interaction between scientists is (and should be) based on trust and an assumption of good intentions.

This particular question focuses on researcher bias; however, the example is more about data manipulation or "forced outcome" research.

Regarding data-manipulation:

As correctly mentioned in the comments (@AzorAhai), it is rare to forge the raw data itself, but use certain statistical techniques to get to the desired outcome.
Using blockchain would have to be introduced on a lot of levels: not necessarily just the surveys. Blockchain for measurement equipment (which constitutes a lot of experimental data in natural sciences) is not yet there. And if one allows a researcher (how crazy is that!) to upload measurement data himself to blockchain-based storage – nothing prevents the researcher from forging data before uploading it.
Not being able to change the data might not always be a good thing. Sometimes, you have to change it (simple use – delete certain entries) due to technical (it was found that the equipment was broken) or ethical reasons. Here the "permanency" advantage of blockchain might actually be damaging. For example, even git (version-control system not allowing commit change without the change of the signature) has some widely discussed issues: ACCU talk of Alex Chan, the particular segment on GIT and personal info issues.

So, regarding the experiment data, I currently do not see the advantages of using blockchain anywhere in the research loop.

I can see some potential use of blockchain in:

review process (though, I would say it's an overkill) to anonymize authors/reviewers/editors. However, there are other simpler tools to solve it – and even they are rarely used in practice.
authorship proof – still there are other tools.

To conclude:

I am very interested to see practical uses of blockchain in other areas (let's see where the smart contracts go in 5-10 years). Academia and research process does not scream for blockchain and its usability is totally unclear and hard to implement.


My paper was too revolutionary - reviewers at a top journal rejected it "by simply reading the title". What now? Some days earlier, in the hour of contemplation, I made an extremely critical and paradigm-shifting breakthrough in my field and then, I started writing on it for a publishing and many times checked through the paper and finally submitted it after many days of proofreading.

The paper was committed to the biggest and most popular journal for my field, and I waited for a reply. And the reply was saddening, my paper was mysteriously rejected. As I contacted the reviewer, I was told that he and others "rejected it by simply reading the title".

And my title was very professional, in the sense that it was not something like "X proven wrong and Y revolutionized!".

Now I am confused on what I should do, this paper needs to be published. If not for myself, then atleast for the thousands of other researchers who have hopelessly comitted their lives to this field.

I must add here, as my advisor congratulated me and hugged me on this great discovery, he was skeptical of my paper being published because it is simply too outstanding to be true. And big journals who receive thousands of paper each day will most likely reject it in quickness, and this paper needs to be read with a lot of thought and concentration to be believed. He advised that I should submit it to a lesser known journal whose reviewers he is great friends with, so that he'll tell him to take a good thoughtful look at it. He assured me that my paper would be accepted there. However, I might have naively not considered this and simply went for the biggest journal out of extolment.

So what should I do now? And is rejecting a paper because it is too good even a valid reason?

You don't say what your field is.  I think you would get a better answer if you did, as cultural norms differ.  My answer is from the perspective of a pure mathematician.

The first thing I want to say is that, given absolutely no specific technical information about your situation, your post gives me the impression that your work is most likely not correct.  Or to be more precise: it is an empirical fact that most papers which claim to completely revolutionize a field turn out to be incorrect, so from a probabilistic perspective anyone who says that is most likely not to be correct -- and this by the way is an attitude that you need to be aware of and take into account.  What I really mean is that the way you describe your work makes me think it is more likely to be incorrect than if you had just said "I believe I have done work of the highest level of importance in my field, but I have not been able to publish it.  What should I do?"

But rather than picking apart your post to reveal why I got that impression, let me concentrate on directly answering your questions.

  And is rejecting a paper because it is too good even a valid reason?

Obviously not.  Not only is this an invalid reason, it is a reason that does not make any sense and thus is never given.  And it was not given to you.  If you really think your paper might have been rejected because it was too good, you need to have a long talk with your mentors about how academia works.

  So what should I do now?

My advice you to you is to talk to your advisor once more to make sure you've correctly understood what he told you to do.  If you have, then I'm sorry to say that I think you may need to find a new advisor -- or at least a new mentor to help you out here.  The advice as reported sounds terrible.

  I must add here, as my advisor congratulated me and hugged me on this great discovery, he was skeptical of my paper being published because it is simply too outstanding to be true.

Please remember to choose your language carefully in academic discussions.  Did your advisor really say "it is simply too outstanding to be true"?  If so, he is saying that he does not believe your work is correct, and somehow that most important message has been lost.  You are acting as if he said "it is simply too outstanding to be published in a top journal", which doesn't make sense.

  And big journals who receive thousands of paper each day will most likely reject it in quickness, and this paper needs to be read with a lot of thought and concentration to be believed.

It would be very helpful to know what your field is here.  In my field (mathematics) there are no journals which receive thousands of papers a day.  Moreover most papers which are submitted to top journals are read with a lot of thought and concentration -- in fact, the very top journal in my field, Annals of Mathematics, is a bit notorious for keeping (correct!) papers for more than a year before rejecting them after a careful evaluation.

Of course if your paper does something revolutionary and the arguments are difficult and technical, the burden is on you to present them as clearly as you possibly can, and also to make sure that your paper does not have any superficial flaws that would invite an early rejection.  The question which has been suggested as a duplicate of this one has many good answers giving advice about this issue.  Let me add that it sounds like it has arisen for you:

  As I contacted the reviewer, I was told that he and others "rejected it by simply reading the title".

(Again, please choose language carefully: do you really mean the "reviewer" or the "editor"?) Rejecting a paper simply by reading its title would be inappropriate and unprofessional.  Even if the title is terrible or worse, one should read at least a little farther to confirm the initial impression.  I have to say that I am skeptical that the editor at the top journal in your field told you this.  Could you confirm that this is exactly what happened?  (FYI, exhibiting a terrible title that you didn't use didn't convince me that your title was adequate.)

  He advised that I should submit it to a lesser known journal whose reviewers he is great friends with, so that he'll tell him to take a good thoughtful look at it. He assured me that my paper would be accepted there. However, I might have naively not considered this and simply went for the biggest journal out of extolment.

This sounds like very bad advice.  (Again I assume by "reviewers" you mean "editors".) If your advisor really thought your paper was correct and revolutionary, he should be helping you publish it in a top journal, not a journal in which he can arrange to have his influence exerted.  It is really inappropriate for him to ensure that your paper will be accepted: again, how does he know it is correct?  But I see a germ of something valuable: if he has colleagues or contacts that can give your work the attention it deserves, why don't you ask him to send your paper, as a manuscript, to those people?

In general the way that you try to publish a truly revolutionary paper is not exactly the same as a run-of-the-mill one.  Namely, as I said at the beginning, the better a result you claim the more likely it is incorrect (no matter who you are).  Everyone knows this.  So -- and here I may be talking more specifically about my own field, which has a vibrant preprint culture -- you can make your life a lot easier by circulating your revolutionary paper as a preprint, giving talks / going to conferences / visiting various experts and so forth.  If you can't convince any top person in the field that your work is correct, how will you publish it -- and more importantly, so what if you do publish it?  Conversely if you can convince several worldwide experts in the area that what you've done is correct, then the path to publication becomes a lot smoother.

Good luck.


Following up on an email to a potential adviser for feedback on research proposal? The graduate program to which I am applying has a centralized admission procedure, so individual professors cannot accept students. However, they recommend taking a look at the faculty, so that our research proposals are aligned with the work being done there. (Un)fortunately, the field I'd like to work in is quite unexplored, which might help me — but also makes it hard to find professors with a similar interest.

While browsing the faculty Web site, I found the professor whose research aligns most with my intended research proposal and whose page explicitly encouraged potential students to get in touch, so I emailed her to ask if (1) she thought our interests would be compatible and/or (2) she thought that someone else in the department could be interested in following me. It was a thoughtful email, a brief introduction and references to her previous work. It's been a week and she hasn't replied yet — and with professors I've learned that if they don't reply within a day, they probably missed your email, or they saw it but forgot it immediately after.

I really would like to follow up on my email, because the holiday break is approaching. I'd really like some feedback on my proposal before I submit it in early January. I also think that showing that I got in touch with the faculty would help my application. However, I also don't want to seem too insistent, because it might hurt my chances. Should I email her again? How long should I wait before I do so? Or maybe she did not reply in the first place because my email was inappropriate?

Also, there are a few other professors who might be compatible with my research proposal. Would it be good etiquette to email them too?

When to email somebody a follow-up email depends on how time-sensitive the topic is and other factors you may be aware of.  For people in close contact (e.g. a student taking a professor's class, or colleagues), a day or two is typically an acceptable wait time. For somebody that you initiate email contact with, a week is more typical. Other considerations are how much thinking the response might require: if you asked lots of questions, they may need more time to think about it before formulating a reply. Do you have reason to believe the person may be busier than usual (e.g. exam season or a conference)? If so, it would be polite to give them more time to catch up with their email.

In this case, a week or two is probably a sufficient amount of time. Less than a week would be too soon, as you haven't met them before emailing them. More than two weeks is getting close to winter break, at which point most academics check their email less frequently, and you need enough time to contact other professors if she suggests any. It's also possible other people are asking her similar questions. It's a busy time of year, so one follow-up couldn't hurt. (If she doesn't respond after a second email, I wouldn't send a third email.)

Here are a few resources you could check out about how to write your follow-up email:

How to write a polite reminder email?
How to remind a professor about sending papers to read?

You'll find other resources linked from these questions and by searching online, too. Most formal reminder emails follow a similar format. Remember to be brief.

It's certainly worth contacting other professors! I do not see any reason why not to.


How best to present publications in different areas on a CV? I am trying to list my publications in my curriculum vitae. But, because I have publications in three fields x, y, z of study such that x is my major and y, z are not, I am looking for how to best display them so that it can be emphasized that I have works in different areas.

Why not just make three lists of publications (one for each field) and place each with its own subheading under the general heading "Publications"?

i.e.:

Publications

Biology

pub 1
pub 2

Astronomy

pub 1

Mathematics

pub 1
pub 2


Is it okay to give link of my recent paper in the cover letter for a postdoc application? So I am applying for a postdoc position and I happen to be working on a problem that is quite closely related to PI's interests. I don't just mean that we share the same field/subfield (which we do anyway) but rather the problem that I worked out is an advancement of what he (and some other people) is doing. This makes my case particularly strong since he wants to work on related questions.

Now, I recently uploaded a preprint of my this work and I was thinking that if I highlight this paper in the cover letter for the application, my application would stand out. Including a direct link to the preprint sounds like an option to me. However, I have never seen a cover letter with links to papers. Is this possible and acceptable?

While I've only been on the applicant side of things, I expect that it would be fine to include a link. Different PIs will react differently, of course, but it seems unlikely to ruin your application. Just make it clear from typesetting that it is a link. Given that the PI might only look at the printed version you should probably make the link text self-explanatory as well, e.g. using an arXiv identifier. However, depending on the method of submission you might be able to just attach the preprint of interest to your application. I expect that this is the ideal approach, when possible.

As support for using links, see this Nature Jobs blog post

  When you’re reading an article online you’ll often find links to relevant content that is outside the article. This technique can be used in your cover letter too. Use links to information such as your research lab website, or your online portfolio and research papers. You can even link to specific papers that have been highly cited or extra-curricular projects you’ve been a part of. Let the employer know that there is so much more to you that what appears on that flat piece of paper!


Why do some publication venues prefer TIFF over some vector formats? Why do some publication venues prefer TIFF over some vector formats?

Example:

  Most figure file formats are acceptable, although TIFF is preferable.

TIFF is the preferred pixel format for print due to being able to use CMYK (the colour format relevant to printing) and being lossless in typical use (using lossy compression cannot happen without clear intention in most programs). Moreover, this was already the case long ago, when formats such as PNG and PDF were only beginning to emerge or not even created and creating a good vector graphics was not feasible for your average scientist.

On the other hand, today where online publication is standard and graphics software has advanced a lot, TIFFs cannot really compete with vector graphics for most applications. Either the TIFF is of good quality, but then its usually huge, which is not desirable for online dissemination. Or the TIFF is reasonably sized but rasterisation shows. Moreover, almost all problems in vector graphics can be easily repaired by the production department, whereas repairing pixel graphics can be much more cumbersome. There are some exceptions where a TIFF is the best choice but even this requires, e.g., that the authors and their programs are CMYK-aware to gain an advantage over formats such as PNG.

So, I cannot imagine that any reasonable production department would prefer over TIFFs over vector formats in most cases, let alone allow TIFF as the only format. Thus, the reason, why the journal is preferring or requesting TIFFs is probably is probably one of the following or somewhere in between:

It was a reasonable requirement twenty years ago, and they never changed it.
The person making the specifications asked the production department which format they prefer for graphics, and they answered with TIFF. The actual question, namely which format they prefer scientists to use for submitting graphics, would have probably received a different answer, but was never asked.

Note that the specifications you linked seem pretty reasonable to me at first glance and also marks EPS as a preferred format alongside TIFF. Moreover, it mentions embedding fonts, which only makes sense for embedding text as a vector object, which is not possible with the TIFF format at all.


What consequences are there if, having already graduated and received my degree, I do not pay up my tuition fees? Background: I just graduated from a US university. I have also received my diploma (both in paper form mailed to me and also in electronic form) certifying that I have received such-and-such a degree.

However, I have not paid the tuition fees for the very last semester in which I enrolled.

I do not plan to have any dealings with that university ever again. Nor do I intend to work in academia.

It appears that eventually they will put some sort of "financial hold" on my student account, but given that I already have what I need (namely the degree), I don't really care about that.

So my question is this: What consequences are there if I never pay those tuition fees? For example, can they (or will they) revoke my degree? Are they likely to pursue me for the money?

New information added: I originally requested that morality and ethics be left out of this question, but it seems clear that with some exceptions (notably NateEldredge), this request has been ignored. So I would like to elaborate a little more on my situation, in the hopes that the focus will be moved a little further away from calling me a thief and instead answering my above questions.

(1) I last took classes in the spring semester and was supposed to graduate then, but because of a mistake on my part, I missed the deadline to apply for graduation that semester. And so in order to graduate, I had to register for the summer semester as well. I did not take any classes in the summer semester. I did not take up any additional resources during the summer semester, unless you include whatever little manpower was required to process my graduation. Nonetheless I was fully billed for it, as if I took a full load of classes.

(2) This is perhaps controversial, but I personally view the US higher education system as being costly to the point of injustice. I have already paid >$200k in tuition and fees into the system and now I am being billed for another semester in which I took no classes.

The money is not the issue. If I go ahead with this plan, I will donate every penny of that semester's worth of tuition fees to some worthy charity instead. The issue is that I am disgusted with having to give away even more of my money to the bloated, inefficient, "not-for-profit" US higher education system.

Some here have called me a thief. But I prefer to see this as a small act of civil disobedience---akin to what Aaron Swartz did, when he "stole" millions of articles from JSTOR and refused to compensate JSTOR for the "damages". (Note: By no means do I consider this potential act of mine as great and noble as Swartz's; I'm just trying to draw an analogy here.)

(3) BTW, I am an international student. So there is the option of me simply leaving and never returning to the US, in which case the concerns associated with bad credit are moot. Although I would also like to have the option of staying in the US, and so I do welcome and appreciate the answers given thus far regarding credit issues.

Some universities (perhaps most) will refuse to provide transcripts for students who owe money. Example.

This can be a serious problem for you. Some employers insist upon an official transcript as a condition of employment. Your  diploma or similar certificate  will not suffice; the  employer wants a document directly from the university, which has not passed through your hands (to avoid the risk of you falsifying it). If the university won't send a transcript because you didn't pay them, too bad, no job for you.

Also, you say you are done with academia, but if you should change your mind someday: US  graduate programs generally require an official transcript from your undergraduate university as a condition of admission. So no grad school for you, either.

Academic matters aside, the university also has all the same options that would be available to any other creditor. This side of things is more on topic for our sibling site, http://money.stackexchange.com, but as a partial overview:

They can report you to a credit agency, which will damage your credit score and make it difficult or impossible for you to get credit cards, car loans, mortgages, etc. Bad credit can also keep you from getting a job in certain industries, especially defense and other work that requires a security clearance.
They can refer your account to a collection agency, who will try pretty hard to bother you until you pay.
In principle, they could sue you, and they'd almost certainly win, as they can easily prove you owe the money. This would enable them to get a court order to seize your assets (eg take money directly from your bank account) or garnish your wages (take money directly from your paycheck).


Should I apply for financial assistance to go to conferences? Many conferences offer some form of financial assistance, covering travel, registration, accommodation, or combinations thereof.

My university will only pay for one conference travel expenses over the course of my PhD.

While I live in a first-world country, I am not financially well-off. I can't easily afford to fly to conferences in my own country, let alone some of the more exciting international conferences.

A lot of conferences I am really interested in are of side-note to my research -- things like SciPy. Or conferences from related fields.

Is it worth me applying for financial assistance in these cases?
Or is financial assistance restricted to people from developing nations,
or to people researching the primary area of the conference,
or to people who are submitting papers to the conference?

Is the paperwork involved generally long and complex?
it is not worth the time to spend a week filling out forms, for a 1% chance of getting to go the a conference -- I could be spending that time on actual research.

Are these awards highly competitive?

Is it worth me applying for financial assistance in these cases? Or is financial assistance restricted to people from developing nations, or to people researching the primary area of the conference, or to people who are submitting papers to the conference?

Every conference has its own specifications for what kind of applicants (if anyone) is given preference for travel grants. Sometimes paper authors are given preferences, sometimes they are de-prioritized. Sometimes participants from underrepresented groups (whether in an academic, racial, geographic, etc. sense) are prioritized and sometimes only US citizens are eligible. Refer to the conference website for details.

  Is the paperwork involved generally long and complex? it is not worth the time to spend a week filling out forms, for a 1% chance of getting to go the a conference -- I could be spending that time on actual research.

No, it's not usually long and complex. Generally it involves some or all of the following: a statement from you on why they should give you a grant, a letter from your advisor indicating that your attendance will be to your benefit and the conferences' benefit, and an estimate of your expenses.

  Are places highly competitive?

Depends on the conference. Conferences that many people want to go to tend to be more competitive.


Is it okay to publish my thesis when it was done 2 yrs ago? Is it okay to publish my thesis when it was done 2 yrs ago?

I defended my master's thesis in February 2016 but the data gathering was done in October 2015 and the final revision was submitted to my university in March 2016.

I thought of submitting my thesis for journal publication. Do you think they would still accept it when it's been done 2 yrs ago? I had been very busy after graduation and I never had the chance to submit my research paper for publication.

Hope for your enlightenment

Follow-up:

Thank you for taking time in answering my query. My field of study is in Psychology. It's a causal, experimental research. After I defended my thesis, I got the highest grade in my final defense. I was told by my adviser to submit my paper for journal publication and present it on the upcoming convention (that year) but I had been extremely busy because I focused on the licensure exam that time. It's not totally an original study because I adopted the intervention from the US. My study was to try it in the Philippine setting but there were some modification on the approach to suit with the respondents. I'm concerned about the originality, if you send your paper for publication, does it really have to be fully original especially the intervention? I really want to have it published so I can teach this intervention to others  (to my community) especially to financially incapable families who can't afford to pay for a behavioral therapist or psychologist. Since the intervention is a cost-effective approach.

Is the information offered in your thesis interesting?
Useful?
Original?
Previously unpublished and not known?
Pertinent to the subscribers of the journal to which it is to be submitted?
Would the visibility of the published work be useful to you, professionally?

Now none of those questions have anything to do with how long this work has been sitting around (like for 2 years).  If all of the answers to those six questions was "yes", what reason in the world would there be to not publish?

Even if it was, say, 4 outa 6 "yeses", why wouldn't you publish?

There was some things I did in grad school that I thought was crap, yet I was encouraged to submit to publication (and I didn't).  So, Sofia, you need to look at the content of your thesis and ask yourself if the work has value, if someone else reading it will find authentic value in it.  And you need to make some attempt to evaluate its novelty (but don't worry, the reviewers/referees will let you know if there is uncited previous published work).

I can't think of a reason in the world where, if the content would otherwise be worthy of publication, that the two years would make any difference at all.


My department is not concerned with publishing, is this a valid reason to move to a different one? I received a scholarship from a funding organization to do my PhD. I chose a department within a reputable research center to do my PhD at, and I did start working there 2 months ago.

My career ambitions are to proceed in the academic career path, eventually becoming a professor in my field.

As far as I know, your experience as an academic (or as a researcher) is defined based on your h-index, citations count and publications count. The more strong papers I publish during and after my PhD, the better position I can get in the future. Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

Now in the place I started working at, turned out to be more of an engineering department. They are not concerned with publishing as much as they are concerned with applications to show off to the industry. Most of the PhD students working here intend to work in the industry (factories or companies). Absolutely no PhD student here is intending to work in Academia.

I am very concerned that I might be at the wrong place. I was hoping the place where I do my PhD at would encourage publishing, and involve me in their publications. I still need to learn how to do proper evaluations in our field, I thought that's how I learn it, by getting involved in papers they submit at top venues (not necessarily being a co-author, but just to learn by observing). They are not concerned with submitting papers to top venues because they think their work is more of applications than the research such venues would expect. Moreover, from their perspective it is not worth the effort, because it won't give them better chances in the industry.

Nevertheless, they understand my situation and they will support me financially and by providing resources if I decide to publish at top conferences. But I just feel now there's no hope I can learn to write a high quality paper given these conditions.

As I mentioned at the beginning, my funding comes from a third-party organization. Technically I can switch to a different department, and there is a department I have in mind that belongs to another branch of that same research center, located in a nearby city, they are more research-oriented and they work in the same field. It will not be easy to do that and I will have wasted a lot of time by the time I move out, but it is still doable.

So.. is it worth the hassle?

P.S. These events are taking place in Europe, where in most of the cases you spend your entire period as a PhD student working on your thesis, unlike the courses-then-thesis style in USA.

I did start working there 2 months ago.

and

  It will not be easy to do that and I will have wasted a lot of time by the time I move out

don't fit well together. If you're worried about the 2 months you've spent, I'd say that's insignificant. If you're worried that it might take (with application processing etc) upto a year, I'd say the same thing. Think of a 30-40 year long research career. A year (or 2 months) is not a long time.

It sounds like you've done your homework and have a plan for what you want to do, and you're just worried about taking the leap. Take it ! You only get one career, and taking action to further it is always "worth the hassle".


Should I ask to be moved up in the authorship list? This past summer, I started my undergraduate thesis project under two advisors. One of my advisors had done research on a similar topic to what my thesis project is covering and she had the data collected from their experiments. (For context, we are synthesizing anticancer molecules and testing them on cancer cell lines. In her research, they made different derivatives than me but with the same starting materials).
Since the two works require similar background knowledge, I was asked to write the paper for their research since I would be looking through articles anyways for my project. I wrote the entire paper and provided all analyses of the data (abstract, intro, results, discussion, experimental section) and my advisor provided comments for edits.
I am listed as the sixth author out of seven. Since I'm just an undergrad, I'm not sure how authorship works but I know that the people who contribute more to the project are earlier in the author list.
Based on your experiences, should I be earlier in the list or is this position common when someone writes the paper when they didn't contribute to the actual research? Obviously I know I shouldn't be first author but I feel like 6th/7 is pretty low for someone who wrote the whole paper. I'm not sure how to go about discussing this with my advisor.

More important than who "wrote" the paper is whose research and ideas it is based on. Who is responsible for the "intellectual content" of the work. But I agree that 6th is pretty low. Some fields are fanatical about author order. But you can ask. Ask, at least, for an explanation of the author order. Maybe it is rational, maybe not.
But for an undergraduate, any paper is a good thing and being associated with established researchers in print is especially good. So, even if it isn't exactly "fair", it is still something that you can point to in the future. Not everyone has such a thing to help them get to the next level.
Sometimes, not very rational, an author will be "high up" in the list for no better reason than they need a particular boost at the moment to get a job or similar.


Transferring from MS to PhD in usa I will be starting my MS in CS in spring 2017. At the time of admission, I was not sure of PhD and hence applied only for MS program. However, I would want to transfer to PhD program. Is it possible to transfer/convert the MS program to PhD? I am start my studies after a gap more than 6 yrs and don't want to wait another semester.
Since I am an engineering undergraduate, I am eligible to apply PhD without MS program.

It depends on the university.  At mine you have to submit a "Letter of Intent" to the graduate office stating that you wish to continue on to another graduate degree in the university without having to file a formal application. I would talk to the department about how this process works, and your school's graduate office for more information - they may require another formal application, they may not.


Should I edit reviewer quotes (typos, etc.) in a response to reviewers? I am writing a response to reviewers. One reviewer's comments included typos and other incorrect English phrasing, but the intent of the reviewer's points was clear.
When I reproduce or quote the reviewer in my formal response, should I correct these minor errors? I don't want the editor or other reviewers to think that I made the mistakes.
And if I do correct the errors, should I say anything about how the quoted portions included minor edits? I don't want to "correct" the reviewer (and it's really not necessary), but I also don't want to be seen as changing what the reviewer said.

Put yourself in the editor’s perspective:
They want to go through the reviewer’s points one by one and see whether you addressed them, having the reviewer’s comments available for comparison. They cannot rely on your interpretation of the reviewer’s comments but need to refer to the original. Suppose you misunderstood the reviewer’s intentions at some point. If you distort the quote, this is causing a lot of confusion. At worst, you evoke the appearance of cheating yourself through peer review by tricking the editor into thinking that the reviewer wrote something more benign than they actually did. Even if you make clear that you changed the quotes, this causes extra work as the editor has to refer to the original report when in doubt. (Or they just return it immediately and request that you quote accurately.)
Something similar holds for the reviewer’s perspective. If they get to see your response to them, any misquote may cause confusion or worse. They will probably also not be happy about you nitpicking their language.
The general paradigm of never distorting quotes without marking this applies here as well. And if your quotes of the reviewer are riddled with square brackets, this will arise suspicions.
The only reason where I would change a quote (with a mark) is if the reviewer made an obvious mistake in a reference or quoting your manuscript, where the exactness is crucial to understanding what happened and it would be overkill to write an extra sentence like: “We presume the reviewer meant …”. For example, I once received a minor comment along the lines of this:

Change “stochasticity” to “stochasticity” in line 42.

Taken as it is, this doesn’t make much sense. However, in line 42, I had written “stochastsicity”. Thus my reply went:

Change “stochast[s]icity” to “stochasticity” in line 42.

Fixed.


I believe my advisor doesn't think I am smart. How should I deal with this? My advisor is a brilliant new professor and my efforts don't seem to impress him.

When I show him something in person, we always have a very careful intensive discussion for hours. But he does make comments which seem to indicate that he doesn't think much of my abilities. Or he says that I am being very slow and that this stuff shouldn't have been taking months.

I think I work as hard as I can.

What can I do about this situation?

It sounds like you are interpreting your advisor's comments about how your work is going as an indication that your advisor doesn't think you're smart or capable.

However, that's not necessarily what it means at all. It's only human for an advisor to express some occasional disappointment about how the work is going. (Every advisor thinks the work should be going faster!!! It's practically in the advisor rulebook.)

And some people (unfortunately) express criticism more often than they express praise. This could just be your advisor's style.

It's not necessarily an indication of what your advisor thinks about you as a student and researcher.

So in answer to your question of "How to deal with this?":

Instead of inferring what your advisor thinks of your abilities from his comments about your work, ask him directly what he thinks of your abilities!

Ask your advisor: "How am I doing, in general? What areas do I need to improve in? What strengths do I have that I can play up?"

This is your chance to find out what your advisor sees in you, get some constructive criticism about your research skills in general (not about your current project). It's also a chance for you to tell your advisor how you think you're doing, and correct any misperceptions he may have about how hard you are working or how long the work should take.


Can an instructor ask students to write a letter of recommendation for them (the instructor)? I am considering applying for two new jobs. I love where I am now, but these opportunities would be better for me as they would come with higher compensation and are closer to where I live. One idea I had was to ask a couple of my best students to write a letter recommending me for these positions. Is that ethical? I do not need them per se (I have others I can ask), but I was wondering about this idea. It seems like this school is looking for student-centered instructors, so I thought this might be a way to set me apart. Thoughts?

As others say, there are good reasons not to get reference letters from students: they are biased to please you, don’t know how to write references, and it might be perceived as cherry picking (you’re in fact an awful teacher but one or two students like you).

If you want to offer insights about what students think of you, why not use your teaching evaluations? If you’re indeed an excellent educator, this should reflect in your evaluations. It’s also acceptable to offer snippets from written course evaluations: while this is still a bit of cherry picking, at the very least it’s unbiased. However, I would check your institution’s policy regarding this practice. Some universities are ok with it, others may not be.

Finally, if you want to show you’re a great educator l suggest indicating how you go the extra mile: participating and organizing student events, mentoring, volunteer work etc.

Good luck!


Cite only "good papers" or "all expected papers"? I work in a small interdisciplinary field in which one group writes a lot of papers that aren't good but are often read.  When I publish on a topic that they have published on before, should I cite them even if their work is irrelevant to mine?

More context:

The prolific group publishes a lot of mathematical modeling papers in which the model is hidden behind a cascade of self-citation, is written in somewhat non-standard terminology, and no code or calibration data is published.  My field is dominated by non-modelers who are often not equipped to judge the modeling, but who read the papers for the figures and discussion (and open peer review has shown that they often review the papers without reviewing the model).

The ethics of citation as I understand them agree with this answer in that we must cite (1) intellectual precedents of our work, (2) supporting evidence, and (3) papers that provide appropriate context.  Because their methods are opaque to other modelers like myself, (1) and (2) aren't possible. The papers are also not (3) appropriate context because the science between the intro and discussion isn't done well and I view these papers as opinion pieces.

But, I can expect my non-modeler readers to look askance at my minimal citations of the group's work. As a less-established member of the community, it can look like I'm playing games with priority when I'm actually concerned about advancing the poor state of modeling in my field.  I'm debating whether to stick to my principles or give in to what I perceive are poor citation practices to lower friction and look more collegial.

In my discipline the typical structure of an article is introduction, theory, previous research, data/methods, results, conclusion. In the section "previous research" you describe the state of the art in your field regarding the research question from your article. As I understand the OP's question, there is a group the OP disagrees with, but who are considered in your field to be important. In that case you need to refer to them (not every single publication, but one or two main publications), even if you think their way of doing things is substandard. That does not mean you have to agree with them; you can tell your audience how your approach differs form theirs and how your approach is (in your opinion) better. But ignoring an important part of your field is bad. Addressing substandard practices is how your field can move forward.

Pragmatically, not citing them in the previous results section signals to the readers, editors, and reviewers that you are not aware of important parts of your discipline or that you don't want to take part in a particular debate. Both can easily lead to your article being considered less relevant, which could get your article rejected or ignored.


One more year left before I apply to math graduate school. Any advice to obtain good recommendation letters? I am in the last year of my undergraduate studies before I apply to graduate school. I have some questions and I am also in need of some advice.

I know one professor very well and I plan on asking him for a recommendation letter. I also plan on doing research with him next summer. But I need two more and I am not quite close with any other faculty members.

Are letters from professors weighted more heavily than letters from postdocs?
Is one class enough to get to know a professor/instructor well? Would two classes be enough?
What if I don't take a class with a professor but I do a reading course? Is a single term of a reading course good enough for a professor to know me?

I'm a mathematician who has been on a graduate admissions committee (albeit just for a masters program) and have written recommendation letters also. To answer your questions:

Yes, letters from professors may be weighted more heavily than postdocs, but the difference will be tiny; this won't likely matter to everyone looking at things. The biggest differences will likely be twofold: first, people on the relevant committees are more likely to actually know a professor than a postdoc, and if they do, that will generally be a positive. Second, if a professor says "This is the best student I've ever had" or something similar, that will mean more from a professor than a postdoc who hasn't taught as much. That said, a good letter from a postdoc will matter more than a mediocre letter from a professor.
One class is enough, two or more is better. If you only have had one class, make sure to stop by their office hours, ask good questions, and generally excel in their class.
Yes, and if anything, a single reading course may be better than a single regular course since they'll have more one-on-one interaction.


Is it possible transfer from a MS program into a PhD program within the same school? I recently enrolled in a 2-year MS in HCI program.  My BS was in Computer Science.  Now, looking at my career goals and opportunities, I am wondering if it would be possible at all to email my director and ask if I could get into the PhD program (at the same school).

Would this be feasible at all?  Would I have to completely re-apply? Or can I do 1-year of the MS and transfer into the PhD program? Or is that something that is frowned upon?

Just to point out, I am asking about transferring from a MS to a PhD program WITHIN the same school, not switching schools. I figured that if I were to switch schools, that would be an application process from scratch.

This is usually kosher, but it can depend on the school and field. The department might want to see what you do over the first year or so, both academically and in terms of clicking with faculty and their research. The best thing for you to do now would be to find a faculty member whose research really interests you and try to find opportunities to work with them. If that doesn't work right off the bat, sign up for a class they teach and kick ass in it, then try again. Once you have this relationship, and assuming you're producing good work for them, it's rare that they wouldn't support you staying on, so long as they have the resources to fund you.

You, as a Masters student, are essentially a free trial for the school/department/professor. They get to see how you fit in the department and what you're capable of *plus* they don't have to pay for you. If you're a good fit, there shouldn't be a reason why they wouldn't want to keep you. However, they'll likely still ask you to apply (formalities).


Reapplying to a previously accepted Ph.D. program, will this be considered rude? I looked online and saw one question that was similar, but it seemed like this question was for undergraduate admissions. Another similar question here on academia.stackexchange addressed differing the Ph.D. admission to reapply elsewhere, but my understanding of deferral, based on discussion with faculty and graduate students, is that you are still committed to that school but are just taking a year off before you begin the program. Also, I have concerns with the possible issues highlighted by aeismail that may arise from deferring as an attempt to apply to other schools. In that respect, my question is a slightly different in that it involves actually rejecting a school's offer.

I am currently in a situation where it looks like I got rejected from my first choice Ph.D. program, but got interviews at some of my later choice programs.

I believe my chances for my first choice Ph.D. program will be higher in the next upcoming application cycle due to a number of additional research experience and presentations.

In other words, my situations is as follows;

I wish to go to Uni A, but got rejected.
I received interviews by Uni B & C,
I believe I will have a better shot at Uni A the next cycle,
I reject offers (assuming I receive them) from Uni B & C for this cycle,
I reapply to Uni A, B, & C the next cycle,
I will attend B or C if I get rejected from A once again,

Although reapplying to Uni A wouldn't be uncommon, would it be considered rude to reject offers from B & C and then reapply the next cycle? And how might one approach this so that it's not blatantly obvious that I rejected the offer because I wanted to go to Uni A and I am reapplying with the intention that they are, more or less, 'safety' options? I would imagine that I could mention that my current research interests do not line up and this could be a reason for rejecting the current cycle, but I was curious as to how others may perceive this.

*I would still be very happy to go to Uni B or C and work with their faculty, it's more so that I believe I would later regret not having reapplied to Uni A when my application will be much stronger.

It is possible you don't need to reapply to B and C. Here was my experience:

Applied to uni A and B, got offers from both
Accepted offer from B. Rejected offer from A.
Attended B for one year, decided to transfer/start over at A
Contacted uni A. They were happy to accept me based on the previous application. I didn't even have to reapply, they simply considered it deferred matriculation.

I don't know how typical this is, but it may be something to discreetly look into. Maybe you know an administrator or faculty member at B or C that could give you the inside scoop.


Who to include as a reference? I am finishing my Ph.D. and looking for a postdoc position.
Right now I have included my current supervisor in Ph.D. and my previous supervisor from my masters as references.
The postdoc position advertisement does not state the number of references required, only a reference list.
However, I have mostly read online and by checking other CV's that including three references is the norm when you are a fresh Ph.D. graduate.

I was considering asking a professor who I had for a class during my Ph.D. to be my third reference. We have had some discussions about my research, and we have good friendly relations.
I was also considering asking a postdoc researcher that I have worked with in the past but who is not a tenure track faculty yet.

Is it a good idea to include people that you have not worked with directly on your research as references? Or people that are still postdocs?
Who can be my potential reference aside from my supervisors?

Your help would be much appreciated.

For letters of recommendation, it's useful to have them written by people with a strong reputation, and by people who have seen you work. These do not need to be the same people. I would base your considerations off how much of this is already covered by your Masters supervisor and your PhD supervisor. There's nothing wrong with getting a letter of recommendation from a postdoc, or from someone you haven't worked with directly. In that vein, may I recommend your department head as a possible reference, if they are acquainted with your work?

Finally, I'd like to mention that I've never heard of three letters of recommendation being better than two. This is in Europe, your mileage in other parts of the world (or different parts of Europe) may vary.


Will a paper in A help PhD application in B? I understand that as an undergraduate student, when you apply for a PhD degree in the US, you have to demonstrate adequate research capabilities, such as publications. But will areas matter?

Let's say that a undergraduate student Q has been working on a networking project and she published a paper about that work. But Q is applying for PhD study in human-computer interaction. Will that paper help Q in getting the HCI PhD she wants?

Yes.

Admissions committees are looking for evidence of research potential.  Having a research publication in any area is direct evidence of that potential.

(One of the first hurdles that I encourage my own PhD students to jump early is publish something.  Anything.  The point is for them to see the publication process — writing, editing, submitting, reading reviews, revising, resubmitting — and to kill off any doubts in their minds that they can do publishable research.)


How to speed up my research as a PhD student? I am currently in a problem-solving mode of my PhD (theory, middle stage). I am working on something which is incremental on the last half a year. Until now, I did not get anything non-trivial. I noticed that I have become slow as compared to the initial two years of my PhD.

I am wondering how to speed up my research. I have tried to scan as many papers as possible. I am also trying to discuss my research problem with other students, but it is not working.

Question: Is it natural that you become slower in the middle of your PhD? How can I speed up my research?

In many disciplines, research amounts to an endless series of frustrations, setbacks, and failures punctuated by the occasional success. So while it’s not necessarily true that there’s a slowdown in the middle, it’s usually the case that there are periods of lower output than others.

The only projects that go smoothly from start to finish have either been extremely lucky or tend to be development-based or “following on” from someone else’s struggles. So don’t be discouraged by having a period of relatively fallow productivity—it happens to nearly everybody. It’s a sign that your problem is non-trivial and requires some work and effort to complete successfully.

As for “speeding it up,” I don’t think that’s really possible to do by scanning papers instead of reading them. It’s hard to make specific suggestions without knowing more about the discipline, but productivity in research can be elusive at times, and there really isn’t anything you can do to accelerate things, unless you can somehow try more different solutions during your workday. So perhaps it’s a matter of having fewer distractions and disruptions to your day.


How to get the most out of a seminar? I am a beginning graduate student in mathematics. My university holds regular seminars in different areas of mathematics, and I try to attend all of them. I like getting exposed to different areas of research I did not know of, and get updated about recent developments. Listening to different speakers on different areas of mathematical research has greatly helped me become more confident in approaching new areas with new thoughts.

Often the researchers pose open problems. I note those down and after returning home, I try to read up about them but usually I find there are lots and lots of background material to cover and certainly I would have to spend a lot of time reading things up to get to the point where the speaker leaves something as an open problem. Please note I am a beginning graduate student.

Even if open problems have not been directly posed, following the speaker's work may eventually lead me to solve related problems in the area. Unfortunately the time taken scares me and essentially those notes get lost.

I am not even sure if the system I am following is proper. How does one get the most out of seminars? Or, what message is a seminar really intended to convey? Just a demonstration of some work done by the speaker, to be validated (at least at face value) by the audience? Or expose the audience to areas they can work on? In the latter case, how does one keep track of all the information obtained from seminars? A disciplined approach would be solicited.

Mathematics is a highly specialized subject.  Unless you're an exceptional mathematician, you are not going to do research in all of mathematics.  You're not even going to do research in all of algebraic topology.  Rather, you'll become a specialist in Glauznov operators on stable homotopy groups of Alberti spaces (example entirely made up).

As a (rather unfairly wrong but not without merit) starting point, you can assume that mathematicians are all solipsists interested only in their own problems.  A seminar talk serves as an opportunity for one mathematician to advertise their problems and solutions in the hope that mathematicians in the audience will find the ideas they hear useful in their own work, or, even better, mathematicians in the audience will actually become interested in the speaker's problems.

The truth is that, as far as leading to publications is concerned, 95% of the seminar talks I go to will be a waste of an hour.  However, it's also true that I won't solve 95% of the problems I make initial attempts on.

As a first year graduate student, you are not going to get much out of the technical details of seminar talks.  What you can get (at least if the talks are good) is some flavor of different areas of mathematics so that you can make a more informed choice about what to specialize in.  At some point, you will need to spend a year or two reading up on the background to something you hear about in one seminar talk.  If you go to a lot of seminar talks, you will have a better idea of what you will want to end up spending a year or two reading up on.  In addition, you will get some idea of the broader range of ideas that might be indirectly useful to whatever problem you end up working on, so that you will know which experts to contact and what to learn if you need help on some aspect of your problem that is not directly suggested in the prior literature.


How to rephrase this statement in a paper? "Due to a limited number of pages, ..." How do you say in your paper that "due to a limited number of pages allowed, I'm not going to discuss the details how and from where this equation is derived..."

It is a conference paper, and they "might" ask us in future to publish our papers in more details in a dedicated special issue of journal X. I need to skip some calculations as I'm limited by pages, and no reference I have to refer, just some derivations.

Details are omitted to conserve space.

Terse. Because you don't want your explanation to cause you to go over the page limit.


Value of scientific community statement on brain training Recently the "scientific community" made a statement on brain training to inform users that there is little evidence to support benefits from the games. With such an impressive list of signatories wouldn't a systematic review and meta analysis that was peer reviewed be a much stronger statement? What is the purpose of scientists issuing such a statement and what effects will it have on funding to understand how brain training affects, or doesn't affect, the brain?

In addition to finding what the truth is, an (often underserved) responsibility of the scientific community is to get that truth out to where people can use it.  I wouldn't be surprised if systematic reviews and meta-analyses like you mention have already been conducted.  Those, however, will probably be effectively inaccessible to the general public, from some combination of where they are published and how they must be written.  Public statements in plain language like the one linked are important for getting the scientific consensus out where the public can use it to avoid wasting their time and money on products that don't work.


How to find the right balance between details and the main ideas? I am a young PhD-student who just started doing real research in mathematics. Of course, this starts with learning stuff which has already been investigated. If I try to understand for instance a paper someone wrote, I find it difficult to focus on the main aspects and ideas of the paper. Most of the time, I get stuck on some elementary details, which I had not thought about until I read them in that paper. Convincing myself that this detail is true is a matter of a few minutes, but the time adds up, so I end up losing quite a lot of time trying to understand details not directly related to the problem, but occurring in the solution of the problem. But if I skip this detail, I have the feeling that I did not really understand what the author is doing in the paper. On the other side, if I think about every detail, I lose my focus on the main aspects of the topic, which is not great either.

Conversely, if I work on my own problems, I tend to get stuck on minor details as well. Unfortunately, my advisor is not a good help in this regard.

My question is therefore the following, which can be also asked in other areas of research, not only in mathematics:

How does one find the right balance between focussing on the main aspects of a topic and the details, both in actual research and in trying to understand works of other people?

In mathematics, being able to read papers is a skill on its own, and learning how to do it properly is part of “mathematical maturity."  Most everyone runs into this sort of problem at first, and with practice, you get better at seeing the forest through the trees.

One concrete strategy is to skip the small steps and to assume the details in them are true.  You can verify those details after you understand the main ideas.  Of course, you still need the skill of telling apart the small details from the important ideas.  Same goes for research -- you can make a big plan of attack and assume the details will work out later, and then if the big plan succeeds, you can go back and do the detailed calculations carefully.  Here, what is needed is intuition about what "should be true if worked out."  But such intuitions take time and practice to develop.


How can I find out if someone really holds a doctoral degree? We're currently interviewing candidates at my company and I'd like to verify if some of them really have the academic degrees they claim. One in particular claims a doctoral degree from a German university.

I've contacted the university, and the dean wrote back saying that they could not provide this information without the written consent of the individual.

I found this policy rather odd; I would have thought that the granting of a doctoral degree was public information. Is this normal? Is there anything else I can do to find out?

I obtained from the library a copy of the thesis in question but it was in German. I also found through Google a spreadsheet which appears to be a list of dissertations published by that university, but it is unclear whether these are doctoral dissertations or not. The person in question and his dissertation are in that list.

You could ask the candidate to provide written consent for the university to verify his degree. If he refuses to allow verification of his CV, then he's probably not someone you want to hire, regardless of whether his doctoral degree is legitimate or not.


Does rushing work in a PhD happen by nature (of the degree) or is it applied (by supervisor)? A research paper may take several months to understand for a beginner, based on its complexity. Although a student is good with the required background in that broad domain, she has to understand several other research papers in backward chain, which takes a lot of time.
So, I feel that PhD is not a degree which has an inherent property of rushing.
If it is true, then why do most of the supervisors do rush their students instead of leaving them for sufficient amount of time? Is it a phenomenon in developing countries only or is it a global phenomenon?
Note: Rushing in the question refers to the phenomenon of asking student to perform a task (including publishing, comprehension) given insufficient amount of time, which may cause tension, panic or sense of urgency in students.

A research paper may take several months to understand for a beginner, based on its complexity. Although a student is good with the required background in that broad domain, she has to understand several other research papers in backward chain, which takes a lot of time.
So, I feel that PhD is not a degree which has an inherent property of rushness.

You have it backwards. The fact that reading, understanding, and producing research takes a lot of time is precisely why a PhD is often stressful. You have a finite amount of time to do a lot of something that's inherently time-consuming. That means you have to hurry / crunch on occasion, otherwise you aren't getting done what's required in the timeframe of your PhD.

why do most of the supervisors do rush their students instead of leaving them for sufficient amount of time?

I'm not sure if "most supervisors" do this, but if you feel you aren't getting enough time for your tasks it may boil down to one or multiple of the following:

You are going too deep (e.g., when reading previous research), and your supervisor is trying to nudge you to progress in your own work instead. Alternatively, if you are working on your own research, it may mean you are going too deep on one task and the supervisor thinks this has been done well enough and you should move on now.
Your supervisor has extrapolated that with your current speed of progress you will not finish your PhD in time (especially in countries with hard time limits this can threaten your PhD entirely).
Your supervisor is trying to establish a sense of urgency. Especially early on, a hard deadline five years from now can seem like nothing is even close to high-urgency, which for some people can translate into a lack of motivation to get stuff done right now. Having your supervisor ride your behind is a time-tested way to resolve this dilemma.
Your supervisor is unreasonable and is trying to squeeze too much out of you. Of course, what's "too much" depends on many factors, including legal requirements, standards of the institution, supervisor, and student.
[The worst case] Your supervisor values numbers over quality and is pushing you towards sloppy work.


How to decide if I want to pursue PhD I have a Master's in Computer Science and I currently work in a manufacturing company. My current role is IT Manufacturing Technical Leader with responsibilities split between technical and business tasks evenly. I've always wanted to move closer to more-technical-less-business tasks.
So my questions are:

Given I want to be more on the technical side, is it wise to pursue a PhD in Computer Science? I am not sure how a PhD will help or affect my future roles (in this company or otherwise).
Another conflict I have is regarding the PhD itself. I am not really sure what I would like to research. Is this something I should know and be ambitious about BEFORE applying to my PhD? My wife is currently in her Master's and she is really passionate about a lot of different topics in her respective field. She intends on pursuing her PhD. Seeing where she stands, it makes me question my desire to get into a PhD program when I have no idea what it is I want to be an expert in or research on. So to repeat my question, should I need to know what I want out of the PhD now or will it come to me while I am in the program?

I have always wanted to get a PhD and I am afraid I shouldn't. I would appreciate some guidance on this.

Think of a PhD as a funded research post. Its primary purpose isn't to get you a job but to give you a space to do academic research (with the minor caveat that I am not a computer scientist, and I understand that there are some job listings which ask for PhD graduates). Your research will be on an extremely narrow question, and these are usually not directed at an industry-relevant task. It is highly unlikely that the research output will make you any better at your job.
If you want to do the research, and there is a topic that motivates you so much that you could work on it exclusively, even if nobody else really cared about it, for many years, then a PhD may be right for you. Many PhD students discover that this isn't really the case for them, however, and you could be at a high risk of this if you begin without a reasonably specific topic in mind. Sometimes people phrase this in some sort of macho framing, as though PhDs are there to show you are tough - while toughness matters, intrisic motivation towards a potentially extremely obscure research topic is an absolute prerequisite. There is no point doing it for title, bragging rights etc.
I would suggest that if you aren't highly motivated by research in and of itself, you would do a lot better not to do a PhD. Nobody will think the less of you for not being Dr. Crazy Cucumber.
Edit: typo


Reviewer wants me to do x - Should I admit I don't have the resources to do so although I think it's a good idea? A reviewer pointed out that I should do an additional experiment to further validate my analysis. I agree this would be a good idea and would further strengthen the manuscript. However, I think it belongs to the category "a paper can always be better" and I don't think the additional experiment is essential to my argument.

The main reason I am not doing the additional experiment is that it would require additional funding that I don't have, and cannot acquire in the time the journal wants me to submit a revised version of the article (and even if they were more flexible, it would not be a good idea to wait two years to submit a revised version).

What is my best strategy when replying to the reviewer's comments? Should I

point out that adding the additional experiment would require additional funding and that this would not be possible within a reasonable time frame?
point out that the results are meaningful even without it?

I am a bit worried that saying "yes, that's a good idea, but I don't have the means to do it right now" would trigger the reply "Well, that's too bad for you, then the article is not suitable for publication". What's the best strategy here?

When I have been faced with a situation like this in the past, the course of action that my co-authors and I found best was to get in touch with the handling editor to negotiate.

Editors are the ones who will generally make the call, and if doing the experiments will pose an high burden in the time-frame available, it's worth having a discussion before starting them.  Sometimes a reviewer has pointed out a real flaw and more experiments really are required in order to deal with it.  Other times, a reviewer is just giving "wouldn't it be nice if..." homework.  It sounds like you think it's more the latter, but the editor may disagree.  I would recommend starting with an explanation of why you think your current experiments are sufficient for a significant publication and why the new experiments should be pushed into future work instead.  The discussion with the editor is likely to end up in one of three places:

The editor agrees that the experiments aren't necessary, and you can talk about them as a direction for future work.
The editor decides your paper will be rejected, since you can't do the experiments.
The editor agrees to a "middle ground" where certain critical studies are done (it may surprise you which ones), perhaps with an extension on time to allow you time to do them, and the paper moves forward.

Talking with an editor is taking an additional risk, since your paper might get rejected quickly, but I would recommend a "fail-fast" strategy over putting in lots of time and effort that turns out to be futile because you were working on something that wouldn't be enough to satisfy the editor in any case.


What are the common signs that a graduate interview has been a success or a flop I am not familiar with the graduate interview process. Are there signs during and after the interview that student will be able to tell whether he or she will be accepted or rejected in into the research group?

More importantly, how would an applicant know if the graduate interview was a flop. For example, if the professor doesn't follow up with a letter after the interview, is that a sign that the student will probably not considered to be a part of the group?

We try to be meticulously fair during our interviews. We tend to ask similar questions and try to retain a similar demeanor across all of them.

You should know that we don't usually make up our minds during the interview itself. It's not like a job interview. The answers you give will form just one component of our entire impression of you.

And up until the final committee meeting when all of the finalists are put up on the board and ranked against each other, it's very hard to say with specificity who got in and who got rejected.

p.s. While I try to send my interviewees a quick note by e-mail thanking them for their time, I would be aghast to think that if I forgot to do so that someone would read devastation and gloom into that oversight. Sometimes a missed e-mail is just a missed e-mail.


How to include volunteering work in CV (as a PhD)? I defended my PhD in Dec 2017 and then stepped away from academia for a while and decided to pursue other stuff. I realized I wanted to change fields and started reading books and papers about it and even contacted a local prof to write a review paper about that topic, which he accepted. Now I finished writing that paper and I'm just waiting on the prof to finish his part and we're gonna submit it in a month or so. What I'm wondering is - how do I present this in my CV? I was writing the paper since Nov/Dec 2019, so I spent a bit over 3 months on it (it's huge), and I'm wondering if I should put that under "work experience" on the first page, or under "activities", which are on the second page.

My initial idea was something like:

+------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| 2019-2020  | Volunteer work, Institute X, Department Y, Lab  Z |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|            | Project: "Name of the review paper"               |
|            | Supervisor: Dr. Proffy McProffson                 |
+------------+---------------------------------------------------+

I'm just trying to make it look like I did something of substance and I'd like to present that volunteer work in the best possible light, so that I have better chances of landing a position. Which is pretty hard, since I've been away from academia for so long.

Any input is welcome. Thanks.

Don't claim supervision nor volunteering without an agreement. (I'd consider that lying on your CV.) Your work was conducted as a hobby or as professional development or ..., which don't easily fit on a CV and their presentation will depend on the position you're applying for. E.g., for an academic appointment, you could include this information in a covering letter or in your CV's opening blurb.


What does "Revise" mean? I submitted a paper in a respected journal (Elsevier) in my field (Biology/Ecology). After 2 months, the review of the paper is out. I was expecting it to "Major Revision", "Accepted with Minor Revision" or "Reject" but it was not clearly stated in the decision letter what is really the verdict on my paper but instead it says "Revise" and Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider the revised paper for publication.

Although the reviewer's comments were positive (+constructive), minimal, some were clarifications and suggestions on what to add. But I'm still confused about what is the decision.

I’ve reviewed for several journals that asked us to pick our overall recommendation from a four-item list:

Accept, with minor revisions
Accept, with major revisions
Revise and resubmit
Reject

So “Revise and resubmit” is (in very crude terms) ranked between “Accept, major revisions” and “Reject” on a scale of favourability.  The editor is not rejecting your paper, but they are not committing to accepting it yet either — they want to re-review the revised version, before making a final decision.  At least in my field, I would typically expect that the referees for the revised version will be the same as the original referees, looking to see if their original concerns have been satisfactorily addressed.

This generally means that the revisions they want are more on the “major” side — not necessarily in their extent, but in their importance to the paper, in the reviewers’ opinion.  A example in my field (pure maths) might be: you have a theorem where the referee cannot follow your proof, and is concerned the theorem may be wrong.  The referee then asks you to give the proof in more detail, but wants to re-review the new version to ensure they are now convinced it is correct.


Will preparing for the mathematics GRE help me towards my goal of doing research in applied mathematics? I did my graduation in electronics engineering from India, and an M.Sc. that concentrated on certain "sub-specializations" (communication, DSP and control engineering) from a UK university.

I was reading for a Ph.D. in the areas of machine learning and computer vision (also at a UK university), however due to a number of factors I was unable to complete it. These factors include health problems (addictions, hormonal imbalances, depression, etc.) and trying to work in a topic that was too mathematical for my background, in addition to having too much leeway (and consequently not enough support) in my research from my supervisors. (Evidently my supervisors thought me as sufficiently capable at the beginning of my research to let me do what I wanted, but eventually I proved them wrong! :P )

A few years have passed since I terminated my Ph.D. programme. I feel I have worked through most of my health problems now (not all the way there, but I feel better now than I remember being in a very long time).

I did develop an appreciation for "pure" mathematics during my time doing Ph.D. research (the lack of sufficient knowledge and skill notwithstanding). Nowadays I spend some time studying undergraduate-level mathematics textbooks on my own.

Basically I'm examining options that would prepare me to do research in mathematics applied to the area of machine learning, preferably in a professional or academic context (rather than just at a personal level).

Studying on one's own is all very well, but I feel I need to impose more structure and have better focus.

I recently found out about GRE subject tests. I was wondering if preparing for (and taking) the GRE mathematics test might be helpful? I'm looking at it from these angles: (a) having a study "syllabus" to help concentrate my effort, rather than jumping about subjects and topics haphazardly (b) getting an idea of where I stand compared to other students, and (c) strengthening my case in case there's a possibility of going back to university (at the postgraduate level, that is; while I might seriously consider doing an M.Sc. or M.Phil in applied mathematics in the US or the UK, I don't think it's practical to start afresh at the undergraduate level now.)

So, is preparing for the GRE mathematics test a good idea? Any other suggestions (alternatively, or alongside)? And - so as not to put the cart before the horse - how likely is it for someone from my background to be considered for admission to a postgraduate mathematics programme (at a decent university) in the first place?

The mathematics subject GRE covers roughly the first half of the content that one would learn in a good undergraduate math program.  Much of it (calculus, linear algebra, differential equations) is material that an engineering student would likely be familiar with already.

I think that the only good reason to study for the GRE is if you need to take the GRE, i.e. if you want to apply to a school that requires it.  In that case, it is probably best to spend a limited amount of time studying in the few months or weeks before you take it.  Otherwise, I think your time would be better spent on more advanced topics.