Changing links in Google Scholar Profile I'm sorry if this has a very obvious answer, but I've looked around and haven't been able to find one.

I set up my GoogleScholar Profile and added my publications to it without a problem. So far, so good.

However, most of them are linking to publisher websites that people won't be able to access. Is there any way to change this so that the links point to, for instance, my institutional repository instead?

Clarification: The links are definitely there under the different "versions," but I'd like to have them be the FIRST link.

The answer would be both Yes and No.

Yes -- If your university repository articles are (also) indexed in Google Scholar, then these are absolutely citable. Now, when viewers click a particular article from your page--say "An article on the behavior of rat after cutting its tail"--they should be able to see two versions of the same article like the following:

[v1] An article on the behavior of rat after cutting its tail [publisher page]

[v2] An article on the behavior of rat after cutting its tail [pdf-univ. link]

No -- If your university repository is not indexed by Google Scholar.

You can check this by searching an article from your univ. repository in Google Scholar.


Citing summaries of many sources I am working on a "Handbook" on a technical topic I am personally interested in and I also need for work. To back up statements and provide reputable sources I try to cite everything even though it will never be published. Now I do not know how to cite this properly.

Example: I want to write about topic A. I have four books with multiple chapters that cover parts of topic A, as well as scripts from university, presentations and notes from seminars all around the same topic. Lots of them containing the same "premise" and common knowledge in the field. I now know quite a bit about this topic. I then write my own compact version of this topic A in my "Handbook".

How do I cite this? Normal "According to…" citing like in summaries does not work because every section is compiled of many sources. If I cite every source before or after every paragraph the thing becomes unreadable.

Is it acceptable to write something like: "Used in this chapter: Source1, Source2, etc." and when referencing to an specific statement or figure in a source using the full proper citation behind the statement or under the figure?

I have a book that does this. It just lists sources according to chapters in the back of the book: "Literature for chapter 1.8: Source1, Source2, Source3, etc." And cites only specific points in text.

I didn’t find a suitable example for this case in the citation guides I have and hope someone can help me out here. Thank you for your time.

I would recommend using a numeric citation style. Then you can say some like:

"Fooing the bar using the whats-it is regarded as producing the best results ([1]-[12])"

For even:

"Fooing bars has been addressed in many places ([1]-[5], [9], [102]-[125]), the following are common conclusions.... "


How can I move from chemical engineering into drug discovery? My situation is as follows:

I have already obtained a master in chemical engineering and my thesis is about drug delivery. I would like to continue my graduate study for a PhD, but as time goes by, I find myself begin interested in the field of drug discovery especially drug design. Since my high school I am actually more interested in chemistry and I think I should do something to try to engage in drug design in my PhD before it is too late. I have thought of some options:

Try to approach some research groups to see if they allow me to work as a research assistant first, then after a year or so with some drug design experiences, apply PhD about drug design.
Purse another master program for drug design, work crazily hard to get good grades and apply PhD about drug design. (But some of them is quite expensive, this may be a financial issue but just want to make sure it is worth)
Directly apply some PhD about drug design. I am not sure anybody will accept someone with no background.

Something more about me:

My grade average in UG is really bad. Quite rebellious in my UG.
I do have some publications and patents but they are totally not related to drug design.
I actually did not take any course in my UG and PG related to drug, or pharmaceutical science.
My current professional connection is limited to my master supervisor. Here I mean really close communication and will support me.

I am sure I have the determination to start my research in drug design. It is not an impulse. Is there any advice on my situation? Any comment is welcome particular harsh comments.

As I mentioned above, drug design is not really a "major" field, in the sense that it's rare to be able to get a diploma which lists "drug design" as the field of study. It's a dissertation topic or a focus area.

The relative advantage of this is that very few people come in with experience in the field, because it's so specialized. That means it's harder to be "picky" in selecting students—if everybody has to have lots of experience, you may not end up with enough qualified candidates.

Given your past experience with drug delivery, you probably have a fairly good idea of some of what is involved in drug design, so it's not as if you're coming from a completely unrelated discipline.

So, I don't think you have much to lose by applying to PhD positions while you look for alternate opportunities to work in the field. (Sometimes you need to apply more than once before you get accepted!)


Should I send a follow up mail to my potential PhD supervisor? I recently applied for a PhD position in Europe. The deadline for applications was the 30th of September (so almost a week ago) and the starting date for the position is January 2021. I won't graduate until June 2021, but nevertheless, I decided to send my application since I'm really interested in the position. After sending my application (3 weeks ago), I contacted the professor with the question if it's possible to start later, after graduation, and he told me that they need to discuss this and that I could apply.
I would like to send an email to ask if they already decided if it's possible to delay the starting date and to ask when I can expect to hear back from my application (there is little information about the admission procedure on the website). I don't want to be pushy, but I really want to show that I'm really motivated. Should I send an email or should I just wait until I hear back from them? How long should I wait?

Always insist on what you want. But: Always be polite. Never be too pushy or write too quickly if you can avoid it. 1 week seems too quick.


Do high-profile journals edit authors’ figures? I have a paper published in a Angewandte Chemie, “one of the most renowned chemistry journals”, and realized that the figures have been edited from the version I had submitted. They did not tell us about it, but clearly modifications have been made for typographical consistence with their style guide: some symbols have been italicized, axes labels have been changed from, e.g., “Temperature (K)” into “Temperature / K”, etc.

I was surprised, because I know that most journals don’t typically edit figures, so I wonder: is Angewandte Chemie unique in this respect? Do other higher-profile journals, such as Nature or Science, edit figures or provide feedback to authors on graphics?

Yes, high-profile journals do typically edit figures for style and consistency. You will find this information on their web sites, e.g. nature physics.


A senior faculty hates me -- should I prepare to leave? I am a pre-tenured faculty.  A senior faculty in my department hates me.  She has been  very strange to me.  For example, she sent out a dinner invitation for all people in my department.  I accepted it -- she personally approached me and said like you should not come.  Recently I learned that she has been talking about me very negatively like making stories I've never said or did.  Also it is not just her now - a small group of senior faculties do together.  I am in a female-dominant colleage - however, I am very dumb a kind of in female-relationships; all of my best friends and collaborators are male; so I simply do not know what to do.  Anyway now I am ignoring all and focusing on my works.  However, I am very worrying about my evaluation -- is it possible that I can fail in my evaluation/re-appointment for this situation.  Should I just apply for different schools now to leave?

I think it is critical for you to get more information about what's going on.
I do not know what it is like at your university, but usually starting junior faculty is assigned to one or two senior mentors, usually part of the group who supported the original hire. Otherwise, find the person you trust most among the colleagues that help recruit you for this position. You should bring up this topic gently with one of them and see if this is a common issue for others with the senior faculty member and if there is anything you can do about it.
That said, I would not even consider moving to a new place before you find out more. It is not clear that a) the senior faculty member would greatly impact your career at this university and b) there is no guarantee that things wouldn't be worse somewhere else. I would only make such drastic decisions if you have more information. Taking into account how hard it is to find faculty positions these days, I would only consider this step as my last resort.


How precisely should I implement algorithms from other papers? When I write a paper comparing my algorithm to someone else's, how should I make sure that the results are not skewed because I implemented the other algorithm poorly? Is it acceptable to write that the other algorithm was implemented to my best knowledge?

It is usually sufficient to say that you tried to optimize both your algorithm and the baseline(s) as much as you could (provided you actually did so).

Before writing your own implementations though, you should first check that the authors of the baseline(s) haven't published their source code. You may even write to them. I've heard all kinds of replies to such requests: from people sending me the code within minutes, to people telling me their code was lost in an old laptop long ago (the paper was 2 years old...). If they don't have the code, you can ask them how they would/did implement their algorithm.

It would be good practice and very beneficial for the community if you then publish both the code for your algorithm AND (if you implemented them) the code for the baselines.


Made an arXiv submission too early; How to minimize the damage? A confession first: This was our first attempt at a journal paper.

The story so far:
We had submitted our work for possible publication with a reputed journal in our area. Some time later, while the review was still on, I checked out whether this journal allowed self-archiving of author's version of the paper. Feeling glad that it did (and being quite confident that our paper will get accepted), we decided to upload our pre-print on arXiv.

And now...
The decision arrived from the journal. It was a reject. Amongst the other things written by the reviewers, one of the points happens to be:

  ...I am a bit concerned with what appears to be the same paper
  published and made available from: arxiv.org/xxx/yyy. I would
  recommend that the authors clarify this potential duplication.

I do not think that this was the only reason for rejection, but might have contributed to it.

My questions:
I know I did a mistake due my lack of awareness of the proper rules. How to rectify my mistake?
Should I consider that this work of mine cannot be published to any conference/journal since its pre-print happens to arXived already?
As far as I understand, arXiv does not allow us to remove papers. I can request a withdrawal, but even then the previous version(s) will remain available online (for any future reviewers to bug us).

What is the best course of action for me?

update based on answer by @F'x:
Adding this from the Journal's website, Guide for authors page:

  Copyright is retained by the Publisher. Submission of an article implies that the paper has not been published previously; that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out; and that, if accepted, it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the Publisher.

The answer to your question depends on the exact details of the journal's policy (and it would be good for you to quote them exactly, or give us a link). More precisely, it depends not only on the journal's policy regarding self-archiving, but more importantly on the journal's policy on prior publication.

I know that might sound weird, but these are actually two separate questions. Self-archiving is a question of copyright, a legal issue: it's a question of what rights you retain (and what rights you transfer) according to the agreement you have with the journal's publisher. This copyright agreement is not something that influences the peer review process, it only governs what you agree with the publisher should they actually accept to publish your paper. (The agreement is void if the paper will not be published, obviously.)

Now, the journal's policy on prior publication is not a legal issue, it is a question of scientific (or editorial) policy. It is decided by the journal's editorial board, and should be explicitly spelt out in its guidelines for authors, journal policies or another similarly titled document. Some journals, like those of the American Chemical Society, have a very strict policy on prior publication:

  The Journal of the American Chemical Society considers for publication only original work that has not been previously published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. When submitting a manuscript, an author should inform the editor of any prior dissemination of the content in print or electronic format. This includes electronic posting of conference presentations, posters, and preprints on institutional repositories and any other Web sites. Any content that has been made publicly available, either in print or electronic format, and that contains a significant amount of new information, if made part of a submitted manuscript, may jeopardize the originality of the submission and may preclude consideration for publication.

Thus, this journal would reject any manuscript that was posted on arXiv (or anywhere else), because it is not considered original material.

Now, what about you? Well, you have to find out what your journal's policy is, and act accordingly. If the journal policy forbids prior publication, then accept that you made a mistake, find a journal that doesn't have such requirements (it depends on fields, but it should not be too difficult), and submit it there.

On the other hand, if the journal policy does not forbid such prior publication, then you only made a smaller mistake: not informing the editor. Thus, if you want to appeal the rejection, you may want to write an apologetic letter to the editor with that information (along with answering the other comments of the reviewers). As you say that this was not the main reason for the rejection, I wouldn't advise appealing though (chances of success are very slim).


Scholarship effects on later applications I have the choice to either apply for a sholarship or get a regular salary. Economically, the position is slightly favorable (mainly due to pension prospects), but I also want to consider secondary effects such as prestige in the CV w.r.t. lateron applications.

I know it's hard to put a value on such a thing, so I'm interested in your opinions.

Your situation describes a situation that is relatively common here in Germany, with the choice between "fellowships" at Gradiuerterkollegen and traditional degree programs within faculties and departments. If this is in fact your case, I don't think I would make too much of a difference between the statuses—they are both graduate degree programs, and would effectively carry the same weight. It's largely viewed (correctly) as just different means of internally financing graduate studies. Thus, it would not really make a big difference on your later career.

What can make a difference, however, are the duties assigned to the different programs. Scholarship students may have a substantially reduced set of responsibilities, particularly with respect to teaching and other non-research activities. This may mean that you finish your degree program more quickly and efficiently than someone who has to do substantial teaching as part of the standard graduate program.


Why doesn't the academic year start on January first? The academic year starts somewhere in the middle of the normal calendar year in almost all schools. Even if the courses are divided into semesters, the Fall term is essentially considered to be the beginning of a new academic year. It is also true for the financial year in most places.

Why doesn't the academic year start in January?
If the reasons are so prevalent, then why didn't the normal calendar year start in the month of August, for example?

Basically because schooling is the inverse of farming. That is: Historically farming and feeding the family (and community) took precedence over all other considerations. This is primarily a job that takes place through the spring, summer, and fall -- with little or no activity possible in the winter. Therefore in most cultures the original calendar year starts in the winter and so spans one farming cycle, i.e., spring-summer-fall (in the original Roman calendar, the winter period didn't even have assigned months!).

When schooling historically started to be of some value, it came secondary to farming, and occurred only as farming allows. So the winter is an excellent time for it, because no useful farming can be done. On the other hand, the harvest season, around August-September, is the busiest time for farming, and critical in traditional communities to have "all hands on deck" for that work, and thus schooling would not occur at that time. And therefore the main school schedule would begin after the fall harvest, and run through to the summer of the next year.

In short, the fact that schooling and farming have an inverse schedule is not too surprising, because traditionally the former only occurred in the time not being used for the latter. Having grown up on a farm in the U.S. in the 1970's, I still experienced some tension between my family and school, because I would need to be out of school for about a week in September for a particular job that we were expected to do with our livestock at that time.


On-campus or off-campus residence for a married couple? My friend has been recently admitted to a Ph.D. program at a university in US, west coast. His wife has a specific situation, suffering from Parkinson's disease.

In one hand, his wife needs tranquility, and the chaotic atmosphere of the campus might annoy her considerably .

On the other hand, living alone in a private house sounds daunting for them, because of the unstable status of the aforementioned lady.

He is fully funded, and no concern would be asserted in view of the financial restrictions to rent a private house. An on-campus residency is also available. The situation is messy and they have to decide between on-campus or off-campus residency, as soon as possible.

Any idea to identify the better option?

Thanks for your contribution

I generally advise anyone before moving to a place they are not familiar with to visit that place in person - specifically during unusual hours. The higher the population density (such as in on-campus housing, apartments), the more important this is! If you are more particular with your living arrangements (such as having children, an ill family member, pets, noise sensitivity, and so on), it is even more important!

The most important times to visit an area are: in the early morning before you usually wake up, after the end of the usual work day (6-7pm), at your usual bed time (9, 10, 11pm - or whatever that time is for you if you have a less usual schedule), and of course "the wee hours" of midnight to 2-4am.

I've lived in many places, and these are the key "pain points" where the neighborhood can cause a problem. In "family communities" where many people have kids, it's the loudest in the morning when kids are getting off to school and after work hours when kids are out playing before dinner. Meanwhile in some more 'dicey' communities going anywhere after 10pm is going to give you something to talk about the next day, at best.

In college communities, this varies tremendously - sometimes even between individual buildings on campus! Most campuses have personnel who are very familiar with living conditions throughout, and if you have a "Protective Services" (campus police) you can talk to they can be a great resource if you are willing to strike up a conversation and explain your concerns or situation.

On many campuses there are even different types of accommodation. Sometimes there are typical undergrad dorms, buildings dedicated to older/wealthier students (at my institution they are called "suites", but this is not a universal term), and yet other buildings that are often only rented to graduate-level students and faculty. Some institutions run their dorms strictly, where excess noise need only be reported to a floor-level employee (often called a "Resident Assistant") and they will handle it - and regular offenders are fined and even thrown out without a refund or formal eviction required.

Meanwhile, other campuses may features areas of rowdy nightlife where noise and late night drinking and carousing is normal and no one calls the cops (and campus police aren't terribly bothered unless things get out of hand). They don't put this in brochures or on their webpage, so you can't know without visiting and/or talking with the right people who are willing to be a bit more blunt about the realities of campus.

Off campus housing is really no different, though! I once lived in a privately owned house where it was well known (to people in the area) that the purple ice cream truck did not sell ice cream - it sold methamphetamine, and the cops didn't bother it so long as it didn't go into certain upper class areas or along the main highway. And yes, this was in the USA and even in a small-mid-sized town.

So no matter where you go, especially if you have an ill family member, it's really advisable that you visit in person, ask around to people who have personal knowledge of common living conditions and experiences, and try to visit during common times that might cause the biggest headaches. Only then can you make an educated decision, rather than making a blind guess and just hoping for the best.


Applying to a PhD program whose offer I rejected last year As the title suggests I applied to a PhD program last year, I got an offer but accepted the PhD offer from a different school, in a different (but not too different) field.

Now, there are many reasons for me to try to do my PhD in a different department, including, but not limited to, the research interests of the department. It wasn't that I applied to and accepted the offer from a department without knowing their research, but that the research sphere of the department doesn't match my interest. I've already visited the other department, and I think they match my interest better.

I was wondering, does this situation justify reapplying to a program after declining their offer, or is the application just a waste of time?

Also, if I want to reapply to their program anyways, should I contact them in advance and tell them that and try to explain my situation, or should I submit my application just as I do for any other program?

It is likely that you will need to contact the particular program director to receive an answer specific to your situation, as a number of elements are specific to the program, the department and the institution or university. However, allow me to respond from the point of view of the director of a graduate school in a Russell Group university in the UK.

Given that you accepted an offer from University A about a year ago, it is likely that you would have turned down the offer from University B or allowed the offer to lapse. Either way, as a year as passed, it is highly unlikely that the offer from university B is still valid. Thus, you will need to reapply.

The administrators of graduate programs, whether operated centrally as mine is or devolved to individual departments, will retain records from previous applicants. The type of information stored and the duration of storage will depend on the individual unit. Regardless, it is highly likely that some record of your information -- perhaps even your full application -- will have been retained, given that only a year has passed.

Thus, I wouldn't hide the fact that you had previously applied, been accepted and declined a place in University B. It's quite the opposite, in fact. Your application should now contain some explanation about the following:

Why you are reapplying
What was the reason for your decision to decline the offer
What have you been up to in the period of time between applications

These explanation should be made on top of the information you'd be providing about your proposal, your qualifications, etc. It might form some part of your personal statement.

Once your application has been received, it will be assessed in the usual manner. A flag will be raised that you'd applied before and (at least in my graduate school) your previous record would be appended to the new application. This forms the evidence on which a decision is made.

You need to be aware that submitting an application in this round that is identical to the one you submitted previously is not a wise move. First, it's been a year or so since you wrote the proposal and the science might have moved forward in important ways. Second, you have had more experience and may have had time to produce research relevant to your proposal. Third, the program or department's staff mix might have changed, so that potential supervisors are now unavailable. Fourth, the program or department's research priorities might have changed so that the areas of research are now different. When crafting your new application, I suggest taking these issues into account.

Contacting program directors is always advisable, at least to receive information specific to your situation. Don't expect them to know your case if you cold call, but if you prepare them sufficiently, they should be able to provide you with valuable advice that you can use to your advantage, even if that advice is "don't bother applying".

Finally, reapplications from applicants who've previously been accepted into one of our programs and who've subsequently declined is unusual, but not unknown. This year, we accepted about 400 or so new PhD students. About 2.5% were from students who'd deferred their entry (that is, they accepted the original offer, but asked permission to delay their start dates by a few months). We had one reapplication, which was eventually rejected.

Good luck.


Why are there barely any Masters programs in Pure Mathematics in the USA? I was just wondering why most graduate programs in the US have no Master's programs. They mostly are PhD programs. Why is this the case? After obtaining an undergraduate degree from a Canadian university, what would be your advice about going straight to a PhD in the US? Do you gain the same knowledge en route to the PhD as you would in a Master's program or would it be more beneficial to do a Master's elsewhere first and then apply for a PhD?

If you are acceptable and accepted in to a doctoral program there is no reason to earn a Master's degree first. Many universities will give doctoral student a Master's along the way. For some (maybe not many, but I don't know anymore) there is nothing special to do but to ask for it. In my case I wrote a thesis, though not of the depth of a doctoral thesis.

If you earn a Master's at one institution you may actually have a problem in that what you did doesn't match up well with the requirements of the doctoral program you apply for later. This could actually slow you down. If you want both, it is advisable, if possible, to earn them from the same institution, perhaps with an "automatic" Master's along the way.

But for some, who don't want or need a doctorate for what they intend to do, a Master's can be earned. Some HS teachers do this. Some people are just not convinced that they want the commitment of a doctoral program after undergraduate. A doctoral program is a much bigger commitment than a Master's of course.


No response to formal Chair application. Is this normal? I have applied to a Chair position, in response to a public advertisement from a US University (not one of the top ones, of course). This included investing some good time, sending several documents, and a formal application (the first, and probably last one).

In 2 years, I never heard 1 word in response (apart the application reception acknowledgment). I was wondering if this kind of rudeness is the standard in the USA, and it is to be normally expected.

This is the typical situation normal but all fouled up (SNAFU) of job searches in the United States. Often you are lucky to get a two line e-mail or a postcard at the negative conclusion of a search.

In the case of Chair searches, though, the fouled-up nature is usually much worse. I'm assuming this is Chair-as-in-Head-of-a-Department rather than a Named-Chair-as-in-Benefactor-Sponsored senior position.

Usually universities search for external Chairs when there are problems with the existing senior faculty that make it impossible for a Chair to arise from within the department. This means that search will be similarly confused, with possible internal conflicts in the department as well as external interventions from the Provost's office.

Because of these competing interests, external Chair searches can take even longer than the usual search.

I would write to the Search Chair and ask what the status of the search is.

Postscript: The OP has clarified that this is a search for a named chair. These tend to go smoothly as the institution already has the money vested by the benefactor, who usually wants to see the position filled quickly (and is likely to give again if pleased by the results) and often puts enough parameters on the position (theoretical field, area of study) that political factions within the department can't mess it up too much. So whatever is going on in the OP's situation seems strange and rather unique.


Will my results still be publishable if I used ethically objectionable techniques in my research At the moment I am involved in a neurobiology research trying to assess the feasibility of using emotional response to elicit distinct EEG (brain wave) patterns from the brain using static images. Distinct brain waves can be used as control signals to perform distinct actions traditionally done using a remote controller (i.e. flipping through the channels).

Conventionally, people have tried using different images such as a flower or a tiger,  a spaceship or a musician in attempt to trigger different responses. The team believes that these input stimulus are too "lite" to produce consistent and reliable results. We wish to investigate whether pornographic images, or images depicting violence, death will produce even stronger responses. Nothing too wild, but definitely involves things that people do not talk about while doing these kind of research.

Since there are a dearth of publications on this technique for eliciting EEG, the best way for us to meet the deadline is to go ahead with these "non-traditional" trials. On the one hand I think my project supervisor will be shocked that we have even thought about using these method, or he will reject it out right claiming an ethical issue, but we are hopeful that a small breakthrough may be reached if the team followed through with this experiment.

What should the team do in this case? Should we go through with our experiment and jeopardize our reputation or should we just give up on this train of thought and risk failure by continuing with the methods that are likely not to yield any useful results?

All research involving EEG on human subjects will require IRB, or equivalent ethical review board, approval in order to be published in a reputable journal. Studies involving pornography, violence, and death are not that uncommon and your IRB will have procedures in place to deal with these types of studies. They will likely require you to provide clear information about what the subjects will see during the experiment if it does not impact your hypothesis. They may require you to prescreen subjects for past experiences that may make the images more salient, again if it doesn't interfere with the hypothesis. Finally, if the images are disturbing, they will likely require you to have a support mechanism included in your debrief. Often, if the subjects are limited to students, understanding how to get emergency access to a psychologist is enough. In extreme cases they may require a psychologist to be on site.

NEVER do research without ethical approval. There is nothing in your proposal that sounds so shocking that it should cause a supervisor to think less of you. He/she may not want to go down that road on scientific or personal moral grounds, but you should still feel comfortable raising the idea with your supervisor.


Applying for postdocs and for Postdoctoral fellowships at the same time On my hunt for a postdoc position, I have applied for some postdocs at many universities, but also I am applying for a postdoctoral fellowship (result date in July 2021) with a professor X at University A.
I can't help but think of a scenario where the two events will clash. Suppose I found a postdoc (university B) and started working on it, then a few months later I got the research fellowship with professor X. What's the right and "responsible" thing to do?
I can't do both because the fellowship doesn't allow it.
The applicant must not hold a permanent academic position before the start of the postdoctoral research fellowship

I know there a lot of assumptions going on here. But I'd like to know the answer for that particular scenario, should I quit the postdoc or let go of the fellowship?

A postdoc is not usually considered a permanent academic position. It is the most temporary of temp academia positions. The rule on not holding a "permanent" position likely means that you cannot be working as a (tenure-track) professor and then take the fellowship. This would be a question you would need to ask directly to the sponsors of the fellowship.
I also am not clear on how a postdoc and a Postdoctoral fellowship are different. These usually would be the same type of position in my mind. If so, the position at U of B versus the position with Prof X are really the same sort of thing. It would just come down to interests and pay at that point.


Does PhD acceptance depend on my current MA's completion? I applied to PhD programs on my supposedly last semester of my MA. I'm doing thesis, and I am worried I won't finish in time.  I have been accepted to the PhD program I wanted, and it is in a different field than my MA, though it is still somehow related. I did say in my personal statement that I'm completing my MA.

The PhD acceptance letter didn't say anything about conditional acceptance, so I guess it's just acceptance? Does that mean even if I did not complete my MA, my PhD acceptance would still stand?

We can't know for sure, though if the letter of acceptance did not state anything to this effect, then you're probably good. Generally, acceptance is predicated on having completed a bachelor's degree, which I take you already have. Having finished a MA is generally considered a plus, but mainly because it allows the selection committee to see your grades at the grad school level -- whether or not you actually complete the degree may in fact be secondary.

The only way you can find out for sure is to write to the graduate director of the school you got accepted at. If they do care, they'll check on your degree completion when you get there and will find out -- so knowing earlier is better for you. If they don't care, then it doesn't matter one way or the other. So I don't see a downside to just asking.


Etiquette of amending others' published work I would like to use a psychology framework that has been published by a third party but amend one aspect of it. I intend, of course, to reference and attribute the model and make it clear that the amendment is mine. Would that approach be in line with etiquette?

Etiquette is neither here nor there in this matter, as pretty much all of academia is based on taking what has gone before, and augmenting / amending / modifying / building on it.

What matters is whether what you are doing is rigorous. Referencing, attribution, and identifying your own contribution, makes the writing rigorous. As to the crucial question of whether or not your amendment to the framework is scientifically rigorous, is only something that someone close to the subject can know.


Author without institutional or professional affiliation Here is the case: An author has made substantial contribution while not been related to any institutional or professional  affiliation.

The question I sent to Nature:

An author has made substantial contribution while not been related
to any institutional or professional  affiliation.

Is it okay for this author to include his personal email and postal
address as his affiliation in the manuscript?

Nature answer:

  Thank you for your email. At this stage, please just include the
  author and mention this in your cover letter so that the editor is
  aware of the situation.

The question I sent to PLOS ONE:

According to your submission guidelines "Each author on the list
must have an affiliation". However an author has made substantial
contribution while not been related to any institutional or
professional affiliation.

Is it okay to include "Independent Researcher" as an afilliation
in this case?

If not, what is the recommended Affiliation for this Author?

PLOS ONE answer:

  Thank you for getting in touch and for your interest in submitting your
  work to PLOS ONE.

  Your suggestion of recording the author as an "Independent Researcher"
  for their affiliation is acceptable.  May I ask you to clarify in the
  cover letter if this co-author is self employed (i.e. charges for
  their advise/service) when submitting your work.

  If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact
  us again.

Any thoughts and previous experience with something like this is greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

This is an unusual situation, but when it arises giving your personal address as the "affiliation" is an acceptable approach. (Whether you will get a different reaction from journals and reviewers after doing so is another question...). Note that many journals still refer to this field as the "address" rather than "affiliation", which answers the question for you ;-)

I've seen personal addresses used in papers several times in various fields; most frequently in avian ecology, a field with a strong tradition of independent local researchers. However, it crops up in various places to a smaller degree.

In some cases, I know it's a retired academic continuing to publish (without an "emeritus" status) while in others it's almost certainly "spare time"-type research. I can't speak to how common it is outside the sciences, but I've seen a number of history papers with what are almost certainly personal addresses on them, so it's certainly a known practice there.


What is the etiquette around blogging about conference talks? I've attended a couple of conferences, and just standalone public talks held at universities and I've found the topics interesting, so I've written a summary on my blog to share with others (and also as a way to help myself remember the content).

It just occurred to me that I'm potentially "stealing" someone else's IP. I always mention the name of the person / people giving the talk, so I'm not passing it off as my own research, but perhaps the presenter may not want this information shared via a channel other than their own. Some of them aren't just presentations, but may involve a panel of experts answering questions from a presenter / the audience.

What is the general etiquette when it comes to writing about this on my blog? Is it enough just to cite the author(s), or should I contact them beforehand and ask if they mind me writing about them?

(I don't know if it's relevant, but I get about 4 people a day reading my blog, so it's not famous or anything.)

My general rule of thumb in these matters is the following. If you don't want to communicate your results yet, you should not be talking about them in a public seminar. Or, at the very least, you should put out a disclaimer initially that you will be discussing confidential material (I have seen some company talks that started with a similar disclaimer, but probably more for legal reasons than because the presenter themselves cared deeply about it). Barring such a disclaimer, I think it's a fair default assumption that the presenter does not mind their thoughts spreading.

Another safety line you can take is, after you published your blog, making the speaker aware of it. I have found that Twitter works very well and non-intrusively to that extend:

  .@coolprof summarizes topic X, feels more research is needed on Y. Summary: http://my.blog.edu

In that case you can assume that if the speaker really does not want your summary, or parts of it, on the Web, they will tell you.


Proper way of referencing ranges of chapters When I need to cite a range of pages in a source, I (well, LaTeX) write:

  See Smith (2010:30–34)

Similarly, when I need to reference a range of sections, I write:

  See Smith (2010:§§3.1–3.4)

For a reference of a single chapter:

  See Smith (2010:ch. 3)

But today, for the first time ever, I need to reference a range of chapters. What is the proper way of doing this? My first instinct was to go with

  See Smith (2010:chs. 3–6)

But then I realized that I had never seen chs. as an abbreviation of chapters, so I tried

  See Smith (2010:ch. 3-6)

Which is weird because it looks like I’m talking about just one chapter. And then

  See chapters 3 through 6 of Smith (2010)

Just looks unwieldy. So the questions are:

Is there a convention for this particular type of citation?
If not, what looks best to you, personally?

According to Wiktionary and a number of other sites, "chs." seems to be the appropriate pluralization of the "ch." abbreviation for chapters.  Note, however, that either is likely to be quite intelligible to a reader, and if the typesetters disagree with your choice, they'll surely fix it to their preferred style.  In short: just use "chs." and don't worry about it.


How can I withdraw my paper from a fake conference? I submitted one of my research paper in a fake conference by mistake. Now I want to withdraw my paper from it, But I am facing problem in withdrawal as no email id is given on that website. The problem is that now my paper has been accepted by another conference. But according to Turnitin, my abstract is already published somewhere else. Does anyone here know how and where to report such fake conferences?

The fake conference is unlikely to co-operate – it's a fake conference operating for unscrupulous reasons. You can try, but I wouldn't expect them to play ball.

Your best chance of success is to clearly explain the situation to the organizers real conference, and hope that they understand your situation and accept your paper / talk request without problems.


How to get the address of a journal's editorial department and use it in a cover letter I am writing a cover letter for submitting a manuscript to Computers & Graphics (Elsevier) journal. I saw a template for a cover letter of a different journal (AJPS), which goes as:

  December 26, 2007
  Editorial Department of Asian Journal Pharmaceutical Sciences
  Shenyang Pharmaceutical University
  No.103, Wenhua Road, Shengyang 110016, China

I am not sure where to get the address for CAG journal from. It’s not mentioned anywhere on the journal website.

On the bottom of  Computer & Graphics,

Click  "Editorial Office" button.

You get their e-mail address, if that's what you're looking for.

If you want their physical address, click "About Us" button on the bottom, you get Elsevier address.


Allegation of Academic Misconduct I completed my dissertation a few weeks ago, and submitted it the night before it was due and thus did not check it on turnitin etc for similarity reports. However, on Friday night I received an e-mail basically saying that my work was being 'withheld' from marking as a result of an 'allegation of academic misconduct'. They did not tell me what this allegation was, and all that was attached to this e-mail was the University's general statement of academic misconduct and what it can entail, and a letter addressed to me saying the exact same as the e-mail.
I looked on turnitin, and there is a similarity report of 39%, though it is entirely just the reference list at the end, and the ethics clearance documents (which take up about half the page count and had been previously submitted in order to have them checked months ago).
I was wondering if anyone had any experience with this sort of thing; for example, if it was automatic due to the high similarity score? They said that I won't know the verdict until I either get summoned to a discussion to essentially fight my case, or I get given my grade back, which is making me increasingly anxious as I do not know what the allegation would be for, if not for the similarity score (and since it's been three weeks since I submitted it, I would assume it would have been flagged up for that automatically before this.)
Any kind of help/reassurance is greatly appreciated.

Firstly, "the verdict" should be something that happens after you have had a chance to hear the allegations and respond, not prior to you being summoned.  In any half-decent university misconduct process, there is no need for the student to guess in advance what the alleged misconduct might be; if the matter proceeds then you will be informed (in writing) of the nature of the alleged misconduct at an appropriate time, and you will then have a chance to respond after reading the allegation against you and having time to digest it.  Until then, you are not required to do anything.  Stay calm, and don't try to pre-empt the process by guessing --- for more advice, see detailed advice on dealing with misconduct allegations.


Is it disrespectful to write very similar emails to multiple people? I need to write to several academics with a very similar request. Would it be disrespectful if I just copy-paste most of the body of the email, and change just the person-specific details?

On one hand, nobody likes mass-produced emails. It could be irritating for them and embarassing for me if one of them forwards the email to another, and the similarities become clear. On the other hand, what I need to say in each case is very similar, so once I write one "optimal" version of the message, it's hard to see how and why to produce another version.

For context: I have been working at a problem which is somewhat outside of expertise of me and of my supervisor (I'm a PhD student). I think I have a solution, but I am not sure how original it is and how interesting it is. It could well be that it's been known for decades, but I can't find it because of differences in terminology. Hence, I would like to write to some people who have more expertise in the field. The email explains roughly what the problem is, how I came to consider it in the first place, how the solution works, and what what specific pieces of the work of people I write to make me think they might be interested in problems like that (this is the person-specific part). If relevant, the field is pure mathematics

It is not disrespectuful per se to send bulk e-mails. Academics get them all the time: conference announcements, field-specific mailing lists, automated e-mails from submission systems. If it is appropriate for what you have to do, there's nothing wrong with it.

However, I consider disrespectful the way you want to use them. If you just want to know if something is already well-known in the field, start by contacting one researcher. Writing to 100 of them means unnecessarily wasting their time.

Also, it seems like you want to put the introduction of your paper in an e-mail. Don't do that. Keep it short. Your paper should already contain an introduction with motivation and previous research (to the best of your knowledge).

Similarly, for the same reason of not wasting people's time, you want to make sure that your paper is readable to people working in that research area. Make sure that you know the basics of the field and use accepted notation. If your paper looks like it's written by a crank, most recipients will file it directly into the recycle bin.


Do I need to send e-mail to follow up a PhD interview day? I had an inteview day for a PhD program at a US institution. I met 4/5 professors and a few phd/post docs students. Should I send a thank you email to my host professor or not? What about the other professors?

I think the interaction we had that day was good enough so I am not sure if an email follow up is really that necessary.

A polite and courteous thank-you email is never inappropriate. Also, if you've left anything out of your interview day (or promised to follow up on something), it's a good opportunity to do so.

However, you shouldn't turn this into an opportunity to go overboard and plead or beg for a spot, or oversell yourself. That is unlikely to go over well, and can undo the good job you did on your interview day.


At the various levels of a post-graduate career, how much freedom of research will I have? I'm an undergrad who is planning on a career in academia. At the various levels (graduate, postdoc, professorship) how much freedom will I have to research whatever I want?

First, you can always research anything you want on your own time and your own money.

Thus, I assume that your question boils down to what range of research topics will I be able to get paid for?  That depends heavily on:

Your level of ability.  If you are sufficiently outstanding you can get awards that will fund you to research whatever you want at almost any career stage.  For instance, grad students who have, say, a government fellowship (in the US these are things like NSF, or DOE CSGF) are often given a lot more leeway to pursue their own research agenda.  But such fellowships are rare and highly competitive.  What's more, almost any professor will be willing to take such a student.  At the other end of the pool, if you are a relatively weak student it may be difficult to even find an advisor, and when you do they will probably require you to follow their research plan.  Similarly, a young professor who gets a CAREER award can more easily follow their interests.
Your communication skills.  If you can give persuasive presentations and write excellent grant proposals, you will be able to obtain more funding for the projects that interest you and therefore be free to work on them.  You may also be able to buy yourself out of teaching responsibilities and so spend more time on research.  Of course, this is intertwined with #1 above.
The nature of the research itself.  In experimental or observational areas, you need to buy equipment.  If you want to study gravitational waves (observationally), you will need a lot of money -- or collaborators with a lot of money -- to get started.

Finally, let's talk about career stage.  The three factors above are operative at every career stage.  There are brilliant grad students who can work on just what they want because of their talent, and there are tenured professors who can hardly do research at all because they are required to spend nearly all their time teaching (this may also be a choice -- research is not the top priority for everyone).  That said, on average your freedom to direct your own research increases at each successive stage.  The "restrictions" at each stage are well illustrated by the comic linked in the comments above.


Should I put two loosely related results into one paper? I'm working on a problem A, and recently have two small results:

The first result is using technique X for A1, which is a particular instance of A. A1 is a long-term problem, but nobody has used X for it before, and I achieve slightly better performance with it. In other words, it is only an incremental result.
The second one is solving A2 using technique Y. A2 is totally new problem that nobody has touched before. However, the method is extremely expensive, and only works on toy programs.

Since both two results have clear weaknesses, and we don't know how to improve them, my advisor is suggesting me to put the two results in one paper to submit to a major conference, since each of them is not enough contribution.

It is only a suggestion and I can decide whether to do it, there is no problem with the advisor. I'm only confused if it is a good idea to do so. My concerns are:

A1 and A2 are just loosely related. It is difficult to tell a story that connects these two problems.
The first method is only applicable for A1, the second method is only applicable for A2, while they are different instances of the problem A. Putting them together poses another weakness: the usability of each method.

The other option is of course: submitting them separately to lesser conferences. We only want to do this if the first option is not promising.

Some context: my advisor is a leading expert on X and Y, but knows very little about A (but wants to explore). On the other hand, I did my PhD on A, and only have some minimal background on X and Y. I'm a new postdoc, hired to work on A using the tools for X and Y that my advisor had developed. Therefore, none of us are 100% sure about what to do in this situation.

Just reading and trying to understand your question made my head spin, most likely due to use of generalization (X, Y, A1, A2), but not only that. Therefore, IMHO, the safest approach to solving this dilemma is to separate results into two papers. The rationale for this approach is the following.

Each paper would have a clear and, thus, easily understandable scope, goals, methodology, results and their interpretation. That would significantly improve readability and overall quality of each paper and chances to form a positive impression.
Since the problems A1 and A2 are "loosely related", shoving them into a single research study simply doesn't make sense from an architectural / logistical / layout perspective. It would be very difficult to present two sub-studies in a synergistic manner ("tell a story", as you put it).
Based on the above-mentioned points, I don't see how combining the studies would make the resulting "study" of higher quality, thus, warranting a publication in a more major conference. Quite the opposite most likely would be true (due to coherence and, thus, readability issues).
Your advisor's recommendation in regard to improving your work is quite strange, to say the least. It is based on the assumption that combining two studies of different scope/topic with weaknesses would make the resulting "study" less weak. If anything, it would make it even weaker, since weakness is one of multitude of characteristics, exhibiting additive properties.


Does staying in a Master's program for too long look bad on PhD applications? I am currently a (USA) Master's student studying biochemistry. I intend to get a PhD after my Master's but I am doing a Master's first because my husband is going to finish his PhD and want to move to another city before I would be able to finish a PhD at my current university (this was planned from the beginning, I applied to the Master's program, not the PhD program).

Normally, people in my program graduate in 1.5-2 years. I could graduate in that time frame and find a tech job in the area or I could continue my research in my program until my husband finishes (~3.5 years from the time I started). Given where we live, I think the job I could find would be a job that will help me develop additional lab skills, but probably not result in publications.

My advisor is happy for me to stick around and it would be convenient for me to do so, but I'm concerned that it will look on a resume/PhD application like I was either lazy so it took so long or just bailed from a PhD and dropped to a Master's.
I understand that if I had a fantastic publication record it might make up for the long Master's program, but I expect my publication record to be average.

In summary, does it look bad on PhD applications to extend the length of my Master's program instead of getting a job as a technician for 2 years?

It seems to me that the strongest argument in favor of a 3.5 year master's degree you mustered was "it would be convenient for me to do so."  You said yourself that you don't think the extra time spent will pay sufficient academic dividends; rather, you are hoping to break even but worried that it will look bad.  I think your worries on this are plausible: 3.5 years is a long time to spend in a master's program.  The explanation of wanting to stay in the same city as your husband is certainly reasonable from the greater perspective of life, but I have a hard time seeing how your advisor could swing that in a really positive way in a recommendation letter.

Why don't you want to spend a year or two working at a "real job," presumably making real money, and (bonus) developing skills that you could then use in a PhD program?

Pro Tip: staying in grad school because it's easy, or because you're vague on the alternatives, is pretty much never a good idea.  The time dilation experienced by an insufficiently motivated grad student is amazing: it is not an exaggeration to say that many grad students spend a year doing what a really passionate (and capable, and well-trained) student could do in a month or even a week.  Again, that is not an exaggeration: I've seen plenty of instances.  The thing you're allowing a 2:1 (or 12:1 or 50:1) time dilation on is in fact (a big part of) your life.

Of course, the flip side of all of that is: tell us again why you can't do good or great work rather than average work?  And also talk to your advisor about it:

  My advisor is happy for me to stick around...

Not great or even good.  She either has an overly self-centered attitude to student mentorship or somehow has gotten the impression that you're not a very serious student.  But you could be if you wanted to, right?  And if you're really not...then just finish up your degree and move on.


Does it still make sense to reply to not so recent publications? Is there a cut off? When is a publication (paper or book) considered to be a recent publication? Does it still make sense to reply to publications, even if they are not so recent, or will it look silly to respond to something someone else has written 40 years ago, (assuming the debate surrounding this topic is not considered to be of prime importance anymore)

I am not talking about referencing that work, but directly responding to it, published in the same journal, entitled (for example): A response to X...

My field is Political Science / Political Theory.

I was sent a reply article like this to referee recently, and I hope my experiences will provide from guidance.  The original paper was in theoretical physics and was published in the early 1980s.  The journal editor who contacted me informed me that, as a matter of procedure, they would normally send the submitted reply to the author(s) of the original paper as well as one or more additional referees.  However, the journal had actually been unable to locate the original author, because so much time had passed.

One of the key questions the editor wanted me to address was whether it was worth publishing this reply article now, more than three decades after the first publication.  I read the short reply and determined that its criticism of the original article was technically correct.  The paper had misstated the precision of an inferred constraint by about a factor of two.  However, I still advised the editor that the reply was not important enough to publish.

The reasons for this were several, and if you are interested in writing a reply to an older paper, I would suggest you think carefully about whether analogous arguments could be made against the publication of your own work.  The first reason was that the error was relatively minor.  Yes, it was a genuine error; but no, the major results of the first paper were not materially affected.  The second reason was that the original paper had not had a significant impact on the field; it has less than five citations, and none of the papers citing it made use of the erroneous result.  The third reason was that, because of more recent work, the old results had been superseded anyway.

If you want to reply to an influential work, which you felt has made some kind of logical or methodological errors, there may be valid reasons to publish your reply, even if decades have passed.  However, if the errors are minor or the original work's influence on the current state of the field is small, I would not suggest that this would be a good use of your time.


My Professor is pushing me in a problem that isn't solvable for the deadline I have a month to finish an undergraduate research project required to receive my diploma and I am facing the situation when an undergraduate is too low in the academic scale to fight his/her professor, a very stubborn one indeed. Just to say that in a previous situation I warned him/her about certain approach that I knew was not going to work (because I checked) and, besides being scolded, was obliged to loose an entire month of my project doing menial things.

Yes, I made mistakes too. This is my first research project in his/her field and some scripts needed corrections. I don't want to sound that harsh. The professor went discontented and very stressed for a couple of weeks due to finals and similar stuff and, during that time, the amount of data exploded.  Furthermore, He/She is an excellent Human, willing to support you in every possible situation, but, when it comes to work, I have been feeling like Sisyphus, pushing a stone that goes nowhere for most of the project and then obliged to fix up everything that went wrong (and made responsible of it).

I put sweat and tears in the project expecting, after all the ordeal, something good will come out, but this definitely won't happen. The project involves funding and my professor wants the most accurate results, but I have to think about myself and my graduation too. This is Computer Science and, although we have lots of machine power, there are always amounts of data beyond our capacities. Did anyone in computer science had a similar problem with his/her advisor? What did you do?

So, if I understood you correctly, your professor wants you to run some time consuming program on the data, and it will not be finished before the deadline for your graduation, right?

If that is the case, you can just include in your report the subset of your data that is finished, indicating that the rest is being processed. Try to make that sample as representative of the whole, if that makes sense in your case (so, if your data goes from x=0 to x=100, try to get evenly spaced values of x, not just from x=0 to x=1.5).
 After all, what you need to show for an undergrad project is that you know how to do research, but not necessarily get results all the way.

Another thing is that if in four days only 1% has been processed, it would take a full year to process the whole dataset. You seem to need* either more computer power, or rethink the strategy; but now you have some hard data to bring up to your professor. Then, it is up to him to decide if he can get access to more CPU muscle, or if a compromise in the quality is acceptable.

Check also your cluster occupancy. If you are sharing it with other students with the same deadline, it is possible that it very crowded; more resources may be available after the deadline has passed.


How to start doing undergraduate research in mathematics when I have limited support from my professors? I have no research experience and I'm in my junior year of college. I'm very interested in doing research in any field at this point (combinatorics or linear algebra would be especially preferred) and I fully intend to apply for math grad school during my senior year.

I have a decent amount of coursework (abstract algebra [groups, rings, fields and special topics], analysis [real, complex, functional, measures], linear algebra, topology, combinatorics, number theory, partial differential equations, and more). I want to do research this summer (even without funding if need be) and throughout my senior year (I was declined to every REU that I applied for, unfortunately) and I plan to work alone since I have no other options (that I know of).

There aren't any student projects going on at my own college (except for one on wheels) and my professors (5 total though one is leaving and another will be on sabbatical) only seem willing to help if I provide a research topic and if that topic is related to their own expertise (I don't fit in this category) which means that I've had no help so far. I don't know where to look since most journals and blogs seem to be deeply invested into very complicated projects where my ability is likely not high enough to understand. There is no graduate program at my college so there are no grad students.

My questions is this: Where can I find potential research projects or at least a start? How does one decide on what they want to do? I know people from other colleges but they were simply given projects to work on so they didn't know how to find on otherwise.

I think this can only be explained with a personal story. I did my undergraduate at a small liberal arts institution and because of that there were not many professors to choose from. However, I knew who I wanted to work with since his general area (dynamical systems) always interested me, although we had never met (since he was on sabbatical for awhile).

I sent him an email listing 3 different projects I had thought of, and he emailed me back saying he wouldn't do those, but he had a project I should do (climate mathematics, never even thought about it before). I was kind of taken aback, but in the end I thought, well this is the best I am getting, and took the project.

When we finally met the following year, I was still a little skeptical, but as we started working through the problems I found out how interesting the subject was. I learned a lot through his mentorship, and gave chalkboard talks on different papers / analysis results (working out of Courant/Hilbert and Wittaker) every few weeks and a few months in I was very fond of the project and was spending all of my time on it just because of how interesting it was, and the story ends with it turning into a good publication.

Turns out the professor had the idea planned out during sabbatical. He was working with a research team there where many ideas were created, and the papers I worked from were recent results by newly minted PhDs he was working with. He had even published a paper on how to teach undergraduates climate science: this man had though it through!

There are a few morals to the story. First of all, when you're young in your research career, you don't know what is interesting yet, and a quick read of the literature is not enough to gauge this. Also, if plenty of people are researching a subject, it's probably pretty interesting and worth a try. Lastly, for research with undergraduates, the good mentors would like you to go with their ideas because they have a plan for how to teach it / work through the problem.

All together, I would say find a mentor you respect and trust and just ask them to take you under their wing. It may not be the project you had in mind, but you will learn a lot more this way, and you'll be surprised how interesting the project is.


Is it common for professors to ask a postdoc to start working without compensation while waiting for paperwork to be completed? I was wondering if it is common for professors to ask a new international postdoc to work without compensation while waiting for paperwork to be completed.
I was in an interview and the professor hinted at something along this line, when I brought up the topic of the lengthy visa process to be expected.
A few notes:

The professor is not my PhD advisor. He's at a different university in a different country. So, my question is not similar to this one.
The whole visa process could take 3 months.
The work contract may include a start date that is earlier than the visa issuing date (in this case ≈ 3 months earlier) but the university cannot pay me for that period without a valid document/visa. That's why I mentioned 'without compensation'. Correct me if you think I am misunderstanding this aspect.
I understand that the scope of the postdoc's work is related to a project that has tight deadlines, which is why the professor wants work done as soon as possible. But, I find that the duration in which this situation would last is long. A maximum of 1 month may seem tolerable but not longer.

Is this common in academia for international hires? And would it be ethical?

Asking someone to work without compensation is illegal in many jurisdictions. It is also hardly ethical. Unfortunately, it is also not uncommon in academia.
In modern "publish or perish" academia professors are often under a huge deal of pressure from university administration to produce countless high-quality papers and teach ever-growing number of courses. A significant proportion of academics feel that they are forced to work extra hours to meet the expectations of their universities. This draining and insecure work environment often impacts the judgement of academics when they manage the work of their PhD students and postdocs.  Many  sincerely believe that they should "prepare" their students/postdocs to the hard realities of academia and make them more competitive by demanding to produce results at a cost of personal life and well-being. This is wrong, but unfortunately, wrong things do happen in this world and in academia as well.
UPD: Answering some questions in comments, I feel that I have to explain why the PI's behaviour is wrong. I don't think it is a subjective judgement.

Forcing someone to work without compensation and without contract is modern slavery. Slavery is wrong. Postdoc are employees, they have terminal education degrees, they are professionals and they do important research work, not some glorified "training". Forcing a postdoc to work without contract and compensation is wrong.
But perhaps, the PI was not forcing the postdoc, but merely asked them nicely whether they would like to volunteer? Well, let's see. Postdoc does not know whether they can say "no" to their PI without risking their contract or compromising the work relations with their PI during their contract. There are so many ways in which postdoc's whole career depends on their PI's opinion (access to research resources, appraisals, extensions of contract, letters of recommendation, etc).  In this situation postdocs are under a huge pressure to say "yes" to unfair and illegal proposals. That's why even proposing to work without contract is abusive, morally wrong and often illegal.


Expelled from undergrad university for poor academic performance, can I go back there (years later) for Masters? I want to obtain a masters degree at a certain top university (in Canada).

However, I was kicked out of the department due to my bad performance. Repeated attempts at getting back in were unsuccessful.

I have since then fixed my lack of discipline, achieved top grades at a "lesser" university, graduated with a bachelor's degree, and have worked (in a relevant field) for 7 years.

I was wondering how, or if I should even consider applying to my original university.

The reason is purely for my self confidence and, I guess, my ego. I got into that top university with excellent grades, but I was not ready to become an independent adult; computer games dominated my life until my final semester when I finally couldn't hang on anymore.

Graduating with top grades at another university showed that I picked myself up, but I want to prove to my family, the university, and mostly to myself, that I have the abilities to achieve what I could not 7 years ago.

The university is the top university at the field I study, in Canada. US have a couple comparable or better ones, but I cannot afford to go to those...

I know I can apply to another university, but I really want to find a way back in to my old university, and only apply elsewhere if no other options are available...

Any advice is fully appreciated.

Update:
Clarification - I am asking this because that university has my status listed as "may not continue in Faculty"

Keep trying!  I was on academic probation (at a Canadian university :-) ) after my first year of undergrad (2.88 gpa). Thankfully I did not get kicked out. I persevered and now have an MSc and PhD and have been doing medical research for many years. Don't take this as gloating, just trying to say anything is possible :-).

Now, it will depend a lot on the university or department, but if you can convince a faculty member in the department that you want to do research and that you have completely changed your attitude, maybe they will have some sway (at least with the department).  In my field, it is primarily a matter of convincing a faculty member (assuming the grades in the "lesser" university were good).  Again, this will depend on the department.

Alternatively, maybe you can make an appointment with the admissions department and make a case to them why you should be allowed back in to the university.  I suspect many would take your 7 years of experience as a growth experience.

Good luck!


What can I do if a student in my lab threatens to tell lies about me, and my advisor doesn't want to fire her? I'm doing my Masters right now and I am a new lab member (I've been there for just 4 months). A undergrad student didn't like it when I told her to follow biosafety rules when handling dangerous chemical reagents. So by e-mail she said she would tell our advisor lies about me and that he will believe in her because she's there for 2 years and he likes her, and I am a newbie.

I took that issue to the advisor, who read the e-mail that she sent and he was 100% supportive of me. However, they used to go the same church and he either pities her or really likes her, I don't know. Then he asked me to forgive her. But I can't, I can't even look her in the face anymore. I think she's evil and mean: she even told me I'm making my own grave and would spread lies about me to him. Now he knows the truth about her, but I think their personal relationship is blinding him. He should fire her! But he wants her there, so...

I don't want to change labs because I really like my PI. How should I deal with this situation?

She and I will have a one-to-one meeting next week, and my advisor told me she will apologize to me in that meeting, but I'm still worried she can sabotage my experiments in the future.  We are not in the USA.

UPDATE: I had another conversation with my PI today, and he's dealing with this situation as "teenage fighting" - his words, not mine. He's being complacent about all of this and laughs about my worries and insecurities. He does not think that abusive and threating language from a student to another to be a big deal.

Religion plays a big role here I guess. He does not want to fire her in ANY hypothesis. Same religion; knows her parents and so on...

I really really like him, but I don't know if I do anymore. I think he's not providing a safe mental health environment for me...

He was too perfect to be true...

UPDATE 2

She lied, lied and lied again and it blew up on her face! Now, ALL* lab members wanted her to go. The PI cut her funding, and she finally left our lab! Now we can live at peace, right? Not so fast...

*She has a friend (just one - and also an undergrad like her) that is still here. And he's full of revenge! Another sociopathic liar. Sabotage is being a big issue here. All mice from a PhD student were found dead inside their cages. We cannot prove anything, but they had a fight two days earlier... Also, controlled drugs are now missing, and my PI is being once again complacent about it. I can denounce him to our correspondent DEA, but it could backfire somehow, I don't know. He still likes me, but I don't think I like him anymore. Actually, nobody in our lab trust him anymore.

She has been mean to you, not the PI. He clearly signals that he likes you and your work. You say that he also realises she has an immature attitude. I think that you are in a good position here, unless you mess it up.

The superviser clearly sees the situation and - in veiled form - tells you to be the mature part of the interaction. When he tells you to forgive her, that's very clearly what he means. In short, at this stage, you have to show maturity. Clearly, you need to work on that (I quote your response: "Hahaha...." - SE is not the place for such formulations).

You should not worry too much to prove that she lies about you, as the superviser made very clear that he will not pay heed to her stories about you (why otherwise would he have emphasised that you are one of the brightest students he had?). He has sent you a clear message of confidence.

Whether he likes her or not, you do not know, but it seems very clear, even through your report, that he takes pity on her. He will not fire her; it is not your job to make him do so. He also will not remove you, unless you decide to go. He seems a very reasonable person.

As for her using threatening language, you have a number of options: when she does that, you ignore it. Or else, you find a reason for yourself to go away, without responding, to some made-up excuse (for yourself), such as the bathroom. Or else, you respond: "This is not the place for threatening language. Please refrain from such language, it is inappropriate to talk like that to your colleagues." - or something along those lines. In a cool, calm, and collected manner. If she indeed has the maturity of a 12-year old, she may not absorb the words, but she will absorb the tone.

She presses the buttons where she sees an effect in. If you signal to her that you have no business with her, and that you are unaffected by her threats, you will become an uninteresting target.

Forget about winning/losing. You just do not have to play her game, you decide which games you play, and which ones you don't.

Bottom line: stay away from her; relax, the PI trusts you; and follow your maturity level and do not let yourself be dragged down to hers. She is not the one to set the agenda, your PI is, and he unambiguously signalled his trust in you. When he sets the meeting, if she apologises, graciously accept the apology (even if you do not believe in it, take it at face value), but still stay away. Her safety procedures are not your business anymore - you have made your case.


How to locate most important literature in an unfamiliar area I'm a pre-doctoral researcher (does it exist?) figuring out my true interests and learning the craft. When I start exploring a new (that is, unfamiliar) area, I try to find the most influential literature and scholars in that area through a haphazard and unsystematic process (such as starting with some highly-cited papers, consulting their list of references etc.). And because this is an unsystematic process, I'm never sure that I've not left unexplored some really important work.

I wonder if there's a more efficient process. How do you all go about this?

Also, (and this is a more specific question) what are some online forums where I can ask for more experienced researchers' opinion about what they consider to be the most important literature in a particular area?

Edit: To add some context, I work as a researcher in a US business school. My main area of work is entrepreneurship. Since this is an interdisciplinary subject, I have to consult literature in a wide variety of fields (some recent examples: psychology, complexity science, economics; of course, I access a very small part, the part that is the most relevant to my question). Entrepreneurship itself is in the process of defining its own scope and boundary.

The process you are currently using was the basis of my process. Unfortunately, I do not know of any real systemic way. I always found important papers way later that were disconnected to the main body of work.

Here is what I did, using the Papers app (for Mac), but subsitute any paper repo of your choice:

Find the top few highest cited papers in this area; usually these
can be found easily or from pointers from others
Scan the references of these papers to find papers they cite in
common or papers with titles that look very relevent; these are likely prior works that are also relevant
Use Google Scholar to find highly cited papers that cited the
papers found in 1
Repeat 2 on those references list

...
stop when exhausted.


Finalist for fellowship at prospective grad school. Does this mean I'm admitted? I was recently emailed that I am a finalist for a fellowship for a prospective grad school I've applied to (this is for math PhD), and that I need to email back to confirm that [school] is a top choice of programs for me. I have not received an admittance letter.

Does this usually imply that I'll be admitted? I've tried asking the grad coordinator, but she was pretty vague and said something along the lines of "After assistantships/fellowship decisions are made, the admissions chair will begin the admissions process."

I am the Graduate Coordinator for a mathematics PhD program.  But even I don't know the answer to your question (except possibly if  I'm the one who contacted you...but I don't think I sent out any emails quite like that).  So I don't think that random internet strangers can give you a definitive answer.

It's clear that you haven't been admitted yet, or the Graduate Coordinator would have told you so.  As for "usually imply" -- I am not willing to go so far.  What I can say is that being informed that you are a finalist for the fellowship certainly increases the chances you'll get admitted.  But for instance this fellowship may allow the department to admit a student that they would not otherwise be able to admit.  In that situation you would still think that they would admit someone that they put up for a prestigious fellowship ahead of most other students, but there could be exceptions.

As my favorite Harvard Square chess hustler used to say, "Sometimes you never know."


Will it be a good idea to write professor who has just interviewed me for a PhD position? I had been interviewed by a professor recently for a Ph.D. position(US). During the interview, he asked me if I had gone through his homepage. Actually I went through superficially as the interview was the very next day after he wrote to me (Also his works are a bit off track with my work). So I answered yes I went through superficially ( I did not want to lie about anything). He seemed quite ok with that and it was kind of a good conversation (maybe he was satisfied with my answers/he was being extra nice-not sure). But before hanging up, he asked if I want I can write to him emails too (he meant further queries).

Is it a good idea to write to him? I mean will it add extra value in my application? (Like I can go through his homepage or publications and ask some questions? or Professors just say it formally?

How long it takes to declare their decisions if I am accepted or rejected? One more thing to share. Some of my scores (GRE, IELTS) is not submitted yet, I mean I sent them but they are on the way). But I got this interview call within two days after uploading my other papers, even before the deadline.

If you have questions then ask them. Otherwise a simple Thank You note would be appropriate. But just asking questions in an attempt to pad your application probably won't do any good. But thank him now and ask questions later if they arise.

How long it takes is variable and up to them. But they need all required information before they make any decisions. There is probably a committee that has to get involved in such decisions in the US, also.

Patience. Keep all your other options open.


Is it common for a publisher to offer monetary compensation for a book proposal review? I received a book proposal review request from Elsevier. Despite some reasons to believe that it is credible, there are a few things that look suspicious to me:

A monetary compensation is offered. Is this common, and how does this work in practice?
The request is sent from a personal email account.
It says that I was suggested as an expert in the field, but in fact it is not closely related to mine.

I was asked some time ago to review a book proposal by a leading academic publisher, and offered to choose between receiving some token monetary compensation or having them send me a few of their textbooks of my choice (I opted for the latter option and remember feeling quite happy when the "free" textbooks arrived :-) ). So yes, publishers offering payment seems not uncommon.

I do agree that the use of a personal email is suspicious and not consistent with professional email standards associated with large and respected organizations like Elsevier. It could be completely innocuous, maybe due to an employee with slightly rebellious tendencies who refuses to kowtow to his corporate culture and insists on using a gmail account, or it could be a scam, who knows. Caveat emptor - obviously do your due diligence before compromising any bank account information. (And let us know what you find!)


Should I address an EiC by his given name after he undersigned an email with it? An EiC very politely answered an enquire of mine via e-mail. He signed with his given name. In case I write to him again, should I keep greeting him as "Prof. [His surname]"? That strikes me as perhaps a little too stiff. On the other hand, calling him by his given name sounds way too familiar to me. What is the etiquette in this type of cases?

Dealing with a superior is always tricky. And I would say, replying with his first name does not give everyone a pass to just address him like this.

A few things to consider are:

How well do you know him
Have you done work with him
How does he addresses you in the reply
How do other people of your social status address him

My rule in a general business is to follow how the person is calling me. If they use my family name or first name, or even use my title or not. Copying this form of address is usually safe.

With a superior, my default would be to use at the very least his family name, and even throw the title in it if I want to show deference (especially if he's doing me a favour). Now, if you know that person and have a good working relationship with him, it might come a point where you want to just skip the formalities and be on first name basis. That's a judgement call and I don't think we can help you with this, as it comes with your personal experience with that particular person. Furthermore, some people are really tight on with being called by their full titles.

In the end, if you are unsure and it is expected that you will have an extended correspondance/work relationship with him in the future, I would just advise you to just ask him if he would be OK with it, and keep using the formal titles until then. The worst that could happen is you're gonna look stiff/strict/pedantic about etiquette maybe... it's not as bad as being painted disrespectful.


Can I write the same text in method section in two different project? I am working on two projects now and both of them have similar methods. What if I write the same text in the method part? Will it be count as plagiarism? I am almost finished working on them and both of them will be submitted in a different journal(one already accepted; under review, another one will be submitted soon)

Reusing the text from a previous paper in a new paper is a form of "self-plagiarism" that publishers are increasingly unwilling to accept.  It's true that this was a relatively common practice in the past, but the advent of plagiarism detection software has made this practice visible and publishers are starting to crack down on it.

One reason for this is that publishers want to publish "original" content and not repeat previously published material.  Another reason for this is that publishers want to avoid violating copyrights owned by other publishers- the publisher of the first paper could easily sue the publisher of the second paper for copyright violation.

The way things now, chances are that when you submit the later paper you'll have it sent back to you with instructions to remove the self-plagiarism before the journal will review the paper.


Is there any limit to the amount of data that can be taken from a research paper for writing a review paper? I am writing a detailed literature review of some twenty papers available on a newer topic of interest, which form the core of the topic. I am extensively using data from all of those twenty papers.

I want to know whether there is any limit to the amount of data that can be  taken from a research paper (with proper citations and referencing) for writing a review paper. Will the excessive use of data (methodology,  experimental results, author's proposed and unverified hypothesis etc.) from a research paper be called plagiarism?

Plagiarism, according to Marriam-Webster, quoted here:

  to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
  to use (another's production) without crediting the source
  to commit literary theft
  to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

From your description, it seems you are not committing any of these offenses. Review papers necessarily report large amounts of work and results from other researchers and are therefore, in a sense, derivative. This isn't plagiarism, as long as the sources are painstakingly referenced and acknowledged (as you do). The originality of a review consists in synthesising the existing body of work, identifying different strands in it, examining present shortcomings as well as best practices, and suggesting further research at the cutting edge.


Advising a high school research project I have been contacted out of the blue by a seemingly highly motivated high school student who has requested the opportunity to do a research project under my supervision (in the field of stellar astrophysics). I am not opposed to supervising such a young student, but I fear that they will lack all of the prerequisites to even get started on any kind of project.

How should I approach this?

I supervise high school research students every summer. It is very rewarding. But, it is a lot of work, so keep that in mind when deciding whether this is something you are interested in.

Besides for the obvious issues (lacking background knowledge, field-specific skills, and other preparation), I find that high school students tend to need more emotional support from me than other students I work with, so that is something to consider as well.

I interview the students and ask them questions to assess their personalities. I look for the following qualities specifically in would-be high school researchers:

Good attitude. Younger students can be a little bit immature, and this often manifests as a bad attitude. Working with a high school student who does not have a good attitude, does not take criticism well, and is just generally unpleasant to deal with, is just not worth it.
Willingness to fail. The high school students who do research are used to being very successful at everything they do. Sometimes, research can be paralyzing to them because they aren't going to be successful at it immediately (or even after lots of work).
Works hard. (Obvious prerequisite. Without hard work, they will not be successful and working with them will be a waste of my time.)

The high school students I supervise come to me through a K-12 outreach program run by my university. (When I am contacted by a student "out of the blue", I tell them to apply to that program.) As part of that, they commit to five weeks of full-time research in my lab in the summer. After this, some continue to work with me after school during the academic year. I would not agree to work with a high school student who wasn't prepared to make a specific commitment and identify in advance exactly when and for how long (at a minimum) they'll work on the project, because of the high probability that it would end up being a waste of my time.

Designing projects for high school students is actually similar to designing projects for undergrads, because the very strong high school students have a level of preparation that is similar to a typical undergrad sophomore or junior. The basic characteristics of such a project are:

It should be appealing to the student. (I want to encourage them to get into science, not scare them off by giving them a niche project with very little general appeal.)
It should be something that I am 100% confident I could do myself, if I had to. I should be able to plan out (roughly) in advance what they will do each week that they are with me, and even prepare general instructions for every week in advance (so that they are never waiting uselessly for me to tell them what to do next).
They should be able to start doing some useful work after only a few weeks of topic-specific preparation. I give them very focused homework - lecture videos to watch, things to read and answer questions about, tutorials to go through - and expect them to do that mostly independently before they start.
It should be a project where they will be able to make some progress after about five weeks of work.
The project should have potential to turn into something bigger, in case the student turns out to be amazing!

I also have a bunch of material about doing research in my field, and about expectations I have of students I supervise. I've prepared these for my undergrad students, so I already have them on hand for the high school students. It is very helpful for them to have these as reference.

P.S. I have co-authored two papers with my high school students. Don't underestimate them :)


Going to conferences: all the research team members together or everyone alone? I have been discussing with friends and colleagues about the strategy to use to decide, in a research group, who has to go to a conference and with who.
The issue is: if someone in the research group submitted a scientific paper to a conference, and it was accepted, should he/she go all alone to the conference, or with other group members?

Basically, I found two different way of thoughts:

1) since money is always lacking, and it is important to broaden the scientific discoveries and to have new professional relationships, only the main author of the paper should go to the conference, all alone. If everyone goes to a different conference, the team works will better scatter, and they will get more visibility.

2) since to work as a group, it is important to think as a group and, above all, to team up (if there is enough money), all the paper authors or all the research group should go to the conference. This way the group will team up and personal relationships between the research group members will strengthen.

What do you think?
Which school of thoughts do you stand for?

If I

had the time, and
had the money,

I would go to every conference directly related to my field that I could.  They are a fantastic way to find out where the tip of the spear is in your field, to network and meet new people, and to see parts of the world you might not be able to see otherwise.  Additionally, many conferences have workshops, expos, and special speakers that all add to one's professional development.

Why do I bring all that up?  Most, if not all of the time, it is professionally advantageous for everyone involved with a paper to attend conferences.  Practically, this rarely happens (at least in my field), simply because funds can't support it, and time commitments make it difficult to travel to various parts of the world.

So, my answer is, send as many people as can practically afford to go, because they will almost certainly gain from the experience.