Role/importance of letters of recommendation for PhD-applications in Europe? In the US PhD prospects apply to several universities and those select an amount of applicants from that pool according to how many open spots the universities have for that term. Criteria for admission are GPA, GRE/SAT and research experience documented by 2-3 letters of recommendation.

In Europe the application process is often times quite different in the way, that not a selected number of applicants get admitted each year, but each available research/teaching assistants position is treated individually. Because the requirements differ vastly, a lot of the times the only formal requirement for application is a 'good' or 'very good' masters degree and/or experience in field x or with technology y.

I wonder, are letters of recommendation expected, if so how many, and how important are they actually?

We can distinguish two different kinds of doctoral graduate studies in Europe:

Programs through "graduate colleges" and "graduate schools" with centralized admissions policies
Individual PhD positions in the research group (or institute, chair, etc.) of an individual professor

In the first case, everything is essentially along the lines of an application to a US-based graduate program, and letters of recommendation still carry the same weight.

For an individual position, letters of reference may be important, but as you suggested, it depends on the individual professor doing the hiring. For some research groups, the posting of an application is a formality, as they're only interested in hiring "internal" candidates (that is, people who have already worked in the group as bachelor's or master's students, and who thus can be "directly" evaluated). For people doing real searches, however, letters of recommendation are also important, because they can provide information about a candidate's research abilities in a way that is not possible just looking at a transcript or set of certificates.


How is publishing in JoVE (a "video journal") perceived? There are many questions 'should I publish in journal x', but this is not that.  The journal JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments) claims to be the world’s first video journal.  It seems to have a specific mission, and if the mission becomes well accepted, can be a big change in how knowledge is disseminated through the academic community.

It’s not on Beall's list.  It does not have an impact factor, although the journal says it expects to be included soon.

I cannot find many discussions on this journal, as opposed to, PLOS, on which many people seem to have opinions.

Does anyone know of negative feedback to the journal or publishing in the journal? Such as administration or peers believing it is not inline with academic publishing.

Some examples of 'reputable' schools (in my perspective), UPenn Yale Johns Hopkins Harvard

Based on our work with them, it seems to be a high quality publication. We published a JoVE article last year and several of the protocols we use in the lab are adapted from other JoVE articles. So it seems effective in its mission. The video format really works for certain protocols, and it may make it easier for people to reproduce your work (thereby getting you more citations).

That said, there is the price tag to consider, and the editorial process is extensive and time consuming (you write an article, then go through normal peer review, then work with them to turn it into a screenplay, then get everyone together with the videographer they provide, etc.). So I would say that if your method does not specifically benefit from the video format, there isn't an advantage over a conventional methods journal.

As far as how it's received, I haven't noticed any differences from any other small journal.


Is it preferable to cite the dissertation or a publication based on the dissertation? I'm currently in the process of writing a literature review for a methodology and I came across two relevant works by the same author. The first is their dissertation which includes expanded details about their research questions the methodology they developed to address the research questions. The second work is a publication that is based upon one research question and doesn't contain as much detail about they methodology. My instinct is to cite both,

  method is used by Author et al. (YYYY) in an evaluation of system, which is described in more detail in (Author YYYY).

but generally it seems like only the publication is cited if available. Is it preferable to cite the dissertation or a publication based on the dissertation, or both?

If there is a published version of the paper, you usually want to cite that first. The main reason is that it's the version you're most sure has undergone rigorous review and revisions. As a bonus it will often be easier to find (e.g. through DOI numbers), and citations for papers "count more" so it's nice for the author(s) too. The latter two points should be in favor of also preferring citing preprint versions instead of dissertations, if that's all that's available, but it's a less clear-cut case.

However, if you find that the dissertation provides particularly helpful exposition or, as is often the case, contains information or details not published elsewhere, absolutely feel free to go ahead and cite both! (If you specifically make use of that information you clearly need to cite the dissertation.)


How can I increase the chance of receiving review requests? Is it appropriate to contact editors to offer my services as reviewer? I have a couple of published works, and I have received, so far, three review requests from three different journals. I have decided that reviewing service will help my resume at this stage. How can I increase my chance of receiving review requests from good journals? Is it appropriate to contact an editor and offer my service? Is it appropriate to contact the editors of the same journals that have already asked me to do review, and offer them that I would be willing to do more in future?

I think being a reviewer can round out your overall scholarly portfolio, but that is definitely not the big ticket item for a CV, especially if you are on or seeking a tenure track position.  If you are an early career investigator, focus on publishing high-quality articles, and then the request for reviews will start to flow.  You can reach out to editors and offer your services.  But, to be frank, I would invest your time in producing, rather than reviewing, scholarly works.


Can I get a tenure track Applied Math assistant professor position in a top US college if my PhD was in a similar ranked private U.S. college? I have almost completed my Ph.D. in applied mathematics at a highly ranked private U.S. college. I am an older student with almost a decade of industrial work experience between undergrad and grad school, and so I would prefer not to go through a postdoc before I can get my teaching career into motion. As for publications, I have two (maybe three by the time I graduate) first-author papers. I have some teaching experience as a TA in the first couple of years, and I also taught my own course here last semester. My career interests mostly lie in the form of teaching, but I would also like to conduct some good research.

I have observed hiring trends and it appears as though it is impossible nowadays (without a postdoc) to get a tenure-track position at any college of higher rank than the place you got your Ph.D. (The rank doesn’t matter that much to me, but I understand the correlation between such rankings and the quality of research (and research funding) that will be available to the assistant professor). The alumni from my program, who are in tenure-track positions, are all in lower-ranked colleges – except for one holding a postdoc position in a college of similar rank.

Would you say I probably have to choose between doing a postdoc at a higher-ranked school (then apply for TT jobs at such higher-ranked schools) or simply return to industry?

If you want to get your "teaching career" going, I wouldn't worry a lot about the ranking of the school. Teaching focused positions are going to look at your teaching experience, if you don't have a lot of this then you may need to take a visiting position to get some experience.

A school ranked lower than the one where you got your PhD might view the name of your school as something they want associated with your department. Or they may assume you are more interested in research and not with teaching. These positions can still be incredibly competitive, but if you have the right background you may have a chance to be hired right out of your PhD.

If the school you attended was highly ranked, then schools ranked the same or higher are going to want most of their tenure track faculty to be focused on research, or at least to have a good research program to get undergraduates involved in. If you don't have a stellar publication record, you will absolutely need a postdoc. Even then, you will need a good postdoc with good research results. Even then, it will be very competitive.


Faculty hiring after campus interview I did a campus interview two weeks ago (US universities, R1, Engineering). I was not the last candidate, so, by considering the last one, the search was closed one week ago. In the last meeting with the department chair, he said the department will select the final candidate next week and it seems they have made some decisions based on the information I have. I received an update this weekend from the department chair indicating that they are working with the dean's office and I should get an update this week. First, I interpreted this email positively in a way that probably I will be their first choice since they should keep all finalists on hold until the first candidate (assuming to be me!) signs the offer, which normally takes time (negotiation, salary, lab space, ...). So, there is no reason to notify me if I am not the first candidate.
Then, I looked at this matter differently and thought maybe they already have offered another candidate and they are indeed waiting to get some approval from the dean for that person (probably the candidate has some requests). Because sometimes dean's office can approve the final candidate after a few days since it should not be a long process. I am not sure which case is more likely. I know that I should be more patient, but it is honestly difficult!
So, my question is about your experience with the hiring process and its timeline.

It is most helpful to think of the faculty hiring process as a black box. Decisions get made according to some opaque process of which only a small amount of detail is revealed to you, the candidate. But the bureaucracy of a university, and the dynamics of a job search involving multiple finalist candidates, are complicated, so the reality on the ground can involve a lot more that’s going on than what you are being told. I don’t mean a lot more necessarily bad stuff, or a lot more good stuff - just in general more people and more decisions (some perfunctory and some that are more uncertain) on which the outcome depends. Some of those decisions can be purely logistical or financial in nature (or even political) and quite far removed from the question of whether you are “good enough” to get hired by university X.
The bottom line is, if the department chair is competent then they have likely shared the maximal amount of information they can reasonably share with you at this point without risking misleading you into believing the outcome will be either better or worse than it might end up being. The only thing that’s reasonably certain at this point is that you’re still a viable candidate. For anything else, you’ll have to wait for the black box to do its thing. Good luck!


Main author might want to exclude me from the list of authors About a year ago, a foreign researcher invited me to co-author a review paper with him. He had already a 50 page long draft that needed editing and improving. After I was done with it (literature review, re-writing big parts of the text, adding big parts to the text, enlarging the bibliography) the paper was 70 pages long; submitted, accepted, in press. So far so good.

A few months later, he invited me to co-author a follow-up review, to which I happily agreed. This  time his draft was of a poorer quality, so in fact I re-wrote it from scratch, using the first version as a skeleton or table of contents.

After I finished and sent him the paper, he stopped responding to my e-mails since several weeks (I don't know him personally). I fear he might want to submit the paper without including me as co-author (it's a justified fear, but I'll refrain from describing the details of our collaboration).

What can I do if this will indeed happen? In its current form, the paper is partially my intellectual property, and I don't allow to publish it without me. I have all the source files and e-mails regarding this work. Could I write to the publisher explaining the situation and demand to withdraw the paper?

If he's stopped responding to your emails and you don't know him personally, it could be very difficult for you to figure out where and when he may submit this paper, and without that information, you can't contact the publisher to explain your position. It may be wise to maintain records (ideally timestamped) of your email correspondence with him, and of your version of the paper.

If you have these artifacts saved, and you later see the paper without your name attached in a journal somewhere, then you can contact the publisher to explain the situation, and provide your timestamped records as evidence that the paper contains your intellectual property.

I would recommend continuing to try and contact the professor. If you're very concerned about them publishing without your name, you could email him and ask that if he publishes the paper, not to use the version you wrote, and not to attach your name to it (save any and all of this correspondence). In this case, you would lose the opportunity to be published, but you would also retain your intellectual property and refrain from having your name put on a paper published without your knowledge.


Change grad school and get accepted. Worry that no prof in the new university wants to work with me My supervisor and I are not a good match and there is no one in my department has the same interest. Therefore, I applied to a new university in my second year of Ph.D. and got accepted even though I did not have any LORs from my current university. Now the problem which I am worrying is that I will be looked down by the faculty in the new university. They might not be interested in working with a student who changed grad school. Even I get accepted, but if no one wants to work with me, So how I am going to get PhD?

Your admission to the new school was decided upon by members of the faculty of the department to which you applied. So it's unlikely that you'd have been admitted without there being at least one or two people in the new department who think you'd fit in and would therefore be interested in working with you.

If you still have doubts, there is an easy way to answer the question. Just ask the professors you're interested in working with if they are likely to have positions available when you arrive, and if they'd be willing to consider you for them.


positioning yourself for research positions after graduating from a PhD in a different country I asked this on  Reddit also but didn't get any responses so I am trying here.

I am a first year PhD student thinking about how I can start to better position myself to get a research position after completing my PhD. I am doing this because after graduation I will be moving back to my home country (Australia) which is different to where I am currently doing my PhD, and want to make the transition as smooth as possible.

Because of this, I feel I should consider how I can start preparing myself so that when I graduate I can more easily move into a research position. My first thoughts were to find professors in my area (cyber security) and email them about doing some type of collaboration or joint research, this way I can start networking and get used to the different expectations there may be between labs.

I have emailed a few professors but they haven't replied, I will follow up again to see if they just missed the email but can anyone recommend any other methods/ideas that I can use to start preparing or setting myself up to be able to obtain a research position after graduating when it in a different country to where your obtaining your PhD?

The most important thing you can do in your first year is to master the material and do well in your courses.

Present your research at conferences in Australia (assuming your program has some funding available for this). This is a more effective way to meet people in your field than sending emails to busy faculty who know nothing about you or your abilities as a researcher.

I don't know how long your PhD program is, but you have time, and presenting repeatedly at Australian conferences would be an excellent way to develop professional connections. You will encounter the same people multiple times at these events over the years. I have even developed lifelong professional friendships with colleagues I first met on the conference circuit.


How can I justify doing a second Master's in Mathematics? I'd like to apply for a PhD in Mathematics/Applied Mathematics in Europe. I have a BSc in Math and a taught 1-year MSc in Applied Math (without thesis) both from top US universities. I have taken advanced courses during my undergrad, I do have research experience, but not in Mathematics (it was in Data Science, mostly involving computational programming) and have no independent research experience (all of it was directed research).

Now I'm looking for ways to make myself a more competitive applicant, for which I asked for suggestions in this questions. But here, I wanted to ask specifically about doing a second Master's in Mathematics.

I have seen this question, but this doesn't apply to my case, since I may actually pursue a Master's in a more general field (Mathematics instead of Applied Math). I've also seen this one and this one, but these two don't apply to my case either, since I'm actually open to getting my second Master's from a "lower ranked" university (especially since I'd most probably need a scholarship, which would be hard to get from a university at a level of reputation comparable to that of my undergrad and MSc institutions).

Do you think a second Master's, most probably in pure Math (not Applied Math), and most definitely with a substantial thesis component, would help me to get into a competitive PhD program (in Math or Applied Math) in Europe? If yes, how do you think I can justify that in my SOP? My personal justification is the thesis, and the fact that most of my MSc courses were in Differential Equations and Numerics (and very applied stuff in general), and I definitely miss graduate-level knowledge in areas such as Algebra, Analysis (proof-based side of it), and Geometry. But would that be acceptable for the committee and would I have any chance for a scholarship with that justification?!

Edit: As for the specific countries in Europe I'm looking for, my top choices are Germany, Switzerland, UK, and France, but I'm open to other options if I find a good opportunity.

(Note that my perspective is US.) I think your first priority should be applying directly for the doctorate. You can simultaneously apply for an MS, of course, but I suspect that you are underestimating your chances for doctoral admission.

Yes, candidates are expected to have a pretty broad education in math on entry. Yours seems pretty broad if a bit non standard and you are missing a few things, but you won't know until you apply.

Doctoral studies are almost always about specialization, however. If you intend to work in an area in which you are already prepared, and say so in your application, then the missing bits might be overlooked. Not necessarily so, but you won't know unless you get into the process.

A second master's will broaden your education a bit. It may make a difference. Or not. Many places (US, at least) will treat the Bachelor's degree as enough. UK and EU may be more strict.


What does this number represent in the information about an article? Phys. Rev. B 61, 14095 – Published 15 May 2000

I am reading something from this publisher for the first time. What do they want to tell us with the number 14095? Is it the number of the page where this article is? How is it possible to have so many pages?

It is indeed a page number, as evidenced by this overview of the issue and the fact that that very article’s pages are numbered accordingly.

The reason for this is that Physical Review B is a very big journal and (in 2000) used running page numbers for all articles of an issue, which in turn spanned the entire year.


Should a PhD Supervisor have a PhD in the same research subject, as the PhD student? Is it generally accepted in academia, that a PhD supervisor should have a PhD in the same research area as the student's PhD research area?

For example, let's assume that my research area is the ACM subject area "Information Systems" and the supervisor's research area is in Sociology > Psychology.

It doesn't matter what the supervisor's Ph.D. was in, originally: fields are protean and careers take all sorts of strange paths.  What really matters is whether the supervisor's knowledge is sufficient to supervise the research that the student will be conducting.  That depends on the path of their career, the precise focus of the student's research, etc.

My advisor, for example, had a Ph.D. in mathematics (since computer science didn't really exist as a separate field yet), but has worked in artificial intelligence, electrical engineering, physics, VLSI, biological modeling, and astronomy, and would be quite appropriate to supervise students in projects in any of those fields, if their focus and his background had sufficient overlap.  Likewise, my background in artificial intelligence was no barrier to supervising a biology Ph.D. (which I have done), given the path of my own research over time.


How to politely tell a colleague they won't be an author of my article? Looking for advice.
My coworkers and I have been working on a project for about two years, and we are right now in the process of writing a paper. About a year ago, we contacted a friend of mine who is also a researcher, told him about our results and asked for his insight. After a couple of zoom calls, he pointed us toward a research direction we had not thought about. After pursuing this direction for some time we found out it did not work, so we ended up doing something different which does not include our colleague’s suggestions at all.
Now, after discussing with the coauthors we have concluded that it is not fair for any of us to include this person as an author, since his contribution has been of no impact for the paper in the end. I agree with this decision. I also believe it would not be nice for our colleague to just find the paper online without any news, and especially since he is my/our friend I feel that I should send him the manuscript via email before sending it for publication. I wonder how I should I deal with the issue of authorship in this email: should I just send him the paper without him as an author? if so, should I explain to him that we do not think his contribution deserves it? or should I ask if he wants to be one? I am not familiar with the authorship etiquette…
Thanks in advance for your advice!

TLDR: Unless explicitly discussed otherwise, your friend does not expect to be a co-author. Just write a friendly email thanking them for the discussions and asking them if it is ok to include them in the acknowledgements.
As pointed out in the comments, this highly depends on which field we're talking about. In some fields, even pointing in a direction that actually turned out to be right might only be worth an acknowledgement (probably specific though, "we thank X for point to the results published in <obscure jounal 60 years ago>"). Since this is clear to most people, based on the information you provided, I would not think that your friend even expects to be co-author at all (unless they explicitly asked to be co-author, which would be border-line in terms of academic integrity but happens when the person urgently needs another co-authorship for formal reasons - in that case, however, one would expect that person to (a) communicate this clearly beforehand and (b) do much of the mindless busy-work, e.g. beautification of images).
That being said, I would assume that your friend knows they're not going to be co-author and thank them by email for the interesting, albeit ultimately fruitless discussions (but hey, maybe we can explore this in the future,...) and ask them if they agree to be mentioned in the acknowledgements. In other words, put a positive spin on it.


How common are recruitment fellowships for students accepted to PhD programs? When I was applying for PhD programs, only one offered a recruitment fellowship, a small (but more than $1,000) fellowship to be disbursed in the August before the initial semester began. This turned out to be the program I joined, and as I now am beginning to look for positions, I realized this could perhaps be listed as a fellowship on my CV.

How common are recruitment fellowships for students accepted to PhD programs? Would it be appropriate to list on one's CV as "[University] Fellowship" or something to that effect?

You could, without any ethical pangs, but please realize that it will not carry much weight with hiring committees. Overall, it's a feather in the cap, as they say.


At what point should I stop caring about writing papers after leaving academia? Some background: I'm near 40, I have a PhD, I work as a computer scientist at a Very Large Company's R&D Lab, and I have about 35 reasonably non-embarassing publications to my name.

Writing papers is "encouraged" by my company, but it's not core to my job. My main job duties are managing projects and transferring R&D ideas into products, and I get paid a very nice 6-figure salary for this. Frankly, I'm one of only a few people here who care about writing papers, and recently I've only had enough time to submit to workshops and mid-tier conferences.

At what point should I just stop caring?

I keep saying to myself that once I reach 40 papers, I can stop.

You shouldn't feel any obligation to write papers if you don't want to and you aren't required to for your job.  At this point, you've written 35 papers, which more than repays any investment the research community put into training and mentoring you.  (This shouldn't be a concern in any case, but with so many papers you're extra safe on this count.)

It will be a loss for the community if you decide not to continue, but you shouldn't decide on that basis unless you anticipate world-changing outcomes from your future papers.  Think of it from the perspective of someone reading one of those papers.  How would they feel if they knew you had forced yourself to write it at the cost of personal unhappiness?  If the paper leads to a cure for cancer, then they'd think you made the right decision, but for most papers they would probably feel sorry and wish you had chosen otherwise.  If the potential audience for your papers would feel sympathetic, then you shouldn't hold yourself to a stricter standard of community service than they would.  (I wouldn't assert the converse: you can legitimately quit even if the potential audience wouldn't feel sympathetic.  However, they probably would, and that may make your decision feel easier.)

Of course, quitting research may close off future opportunities.  If you'd like to move to a research university someday, or a more publication-focused industrial lab, then you'll need to maintain an active research program.  (Having done compelling research in the past doesn't count for much if you haven't published recently, since potential employers will assume that your knowledge and skills are rusty and that your not publishing recently reflects a lack of ideas or enthusiasm.)  Maybe research would be more fun in a supportive environment with coworkers who are also actively engaged in research.  If that's the path you'd like to take, then you should keep doing research while you figure out what sorts of jobs might be feasible.

However, if you don't want to write papers now and you don't anticipate wanting to do so in the future, then it's perfectly fine to stop.  You can quit with a clear conscience and be proud of the work you've done, without feeling any need to continue.


How can I prevent students from writing answers on an assignment, then claiming I didn't see their answer? What is a good way to prevent students from writing an answer after you hand back a graded assignment (exam/homework) and claiming that you did not see their answer?

It is clear to me that this particular student even used a different pen for their answer, and I am 100% sure that the answer was not there. I would have seen it, and I even remember double checking to see whether the answer was there.

This is the second time this has happened to me in this semester (different students), and both times I am sure that they wrote the answer afterwards and are trying to gain more points.

Use placeholders

You can use

a sign or an indication that you would never use in any other circumstances (red cross, three question marks, etc.),
a short sentence ("No Answer Given", "I'm sure you knew it!", "You should have tried!"),
a sign that occupy the whole space (as suggested by Elizabeth Henning in the first place): slashes, X, Z,...

Don't try to catch the students that came back to you (supposedly) cheating, you just learned a lesson, and won't be caught again.


How can I express "I can't find any papers written about this"? I'm an undergraduate writing a paper for a philosophy course in logic. My paper is exploring a relationship between Leibniz' logic and graph theory. In writing the paper, I've found some material in Leibniz' work on combinatorics that (to me) strongly resembles graph theory. However, I can't find anything that seriously discusses Leibniz in relation to the history of graph theory --- everything seems to start with Euler. (Most read "Leibniz made early contributions to topology. Later on, Euler developed graph theory" and continue onward from there)

I'd like to be able to say "I looked around on Google scholar, etc, and I couldn't find anything about this topic" by way of suggesting "It's possible that the midterm paper that you're reading is bumping up against an original area of research."

What kind of evidence is appropriate in this situation? Would providing something like the number of results of a search on Google scholar be worthwhile? In general, is there a technique to demonstrate the absence of literature about a certain topic?

(disclaimer - I come from computer science, and the little I know about conventions in philosophy is from hearsay)

  I'd like to be able to say "I looked around on Google scholar, etc, and I couldn't find anything about this topic"

The usual expression for this kind of thing in my field is "to the best of our knowledge, this topic/idea has so far not been considered in literature". It tells the reader that you think that nobody has published this idea yet, but clearly the absence of existing literature is something very difficult to be sure about. Hence the rather defensive formulation.

  In general, is there a technique to demonstrate the absence of literature about a certain topic?

Nope. How would you do that? It's a bit like proving a hypothesis - you can only find counterexamples (papers that do cover the topic), but you cannot prove that in some weird journal nobody reads somebody has expressed your thoughts already.

  What kind of evidence is appropriate in this situation? Would providing something like the number of results of a search on Google scholar be worthwhile?

The accepted convention in my field is to explain the methodology of how you searched for literature (you had a defined methodology, right?), and then explain / list / discuss what you found. Be specific - which keywords did you use and why? Why Google Scholar and not something else? Can you be sure that all papers that you would expect to be relevant are indexed by Scholar (some of those should be pretty old, long before the Internet was a thing)? Did you also check your library for dead-tree literature?  Number of results and or similar metrics seem pretty much useless to me and would likely not improve your paper in any way.


What is the best way for an amateur researcher to communicate with an academic? If a  amateur researcher believes that he  has a result (average result,not ground breaking result),   what  should he  do  to communicate  an academic (who is a stranger)?

How should one approach?

There are some general facts to consider here. First, researchers are always busy. This means you only have a few seconds to attract their attention. Second, they're usually knowledgeable in very specific areas of interest. This means, they will be more willing to consider your idea if they know its background already. The "crank" should consider these facts to improve her chances to attract the researcher's attention:

Choose a researcher who has investigated the specific problem addressed by the result before.
The initial e-mail should be brief as well as terse. 3-5 sentences. One sentence should state the problem. One sentence should intelligently summarize the researcher's previous work on the problem. One sentence should summarize the novel idea to solve the problem.
Any more detailed explanations should be attached to the e-mail in a readable and well-organized form, preferably as a PDF file.


Can I post on the Internet a page which summarizes the essential technical contributions of a paywalled article? This is a follow-on to this question.  Suppose I have a collection of research articles, written by other people, and related to a specific topic.  Suppose I want to post on the Internet a page which is a bibliography of those articles together with a link to an elsewhere-posted PDF of the article, when that is available, which could be either free and open or paywalled.  When the article is paywalled or not available on the Internet, I want to post a summary of the essential technical contributions of the article.  The summary would be what I would provided as lecture notes for a class if I read the article for understanding, and then wanted to teach the article to a group of students.  Do you see anything wrong with that?

As long as you write the summary yourself, rather than copying the important sentences, there is no problem. It would be the same as an open newspaper article reporting about some research study.

Don't forget to provide proper citations, but as far as I understand, you are already doing that.


Student essay feedback for a large class I am teaching a large Humanities class (150+ students) in the US this semester and am in the process of grading midterm essays. This is my first time teaching a class this large and I'm not sure how to handle feedback.

With smaller classes, I always liked to give students very detailed feedback, so that they could understand why they got the grade they got and so that they could improve their writing in the future. This is very time consuming and therefore unpractical with that many students. I also do not want to burden the TA helping me grade either.

I'm wondering what the best course of action is?
Should I just give them their grades and tell them to come to office hours if they want to have more detailed feedback ?

Here are some options/ideas to consider:

Giving just a grade and asking to come to office hours is certainly defensible. I've read that most students don't read extensive feedback.
Commit to giving a grade and very short feedback.
Create a written rubric with check-off categories for various scoring criteria. Require students to staple this as a cover sheet on their submissions. Grade by checking appropriate boxes.
If you have an online learning management system, it may support rubric grading as above, so you can do the check-off grading without additional paper. (e.g., I do this on Blackboard for computer programming assignments).
Set a budget as far as time you can legitimately devote to this task. Keep written records (e.g., spreadsheet) of how much actual time is spent on this overall task. Have the TA track time as well. If time spent is over budget, iterate and cut/modify/streamline something.


Is it weird to contact a professor in foreign university for research internship opportunity if I am not a student? I got a Bachelor degree few years ago and I have worked (non-research job) for few years since then. Recently, I would like to pursue a master degree in a foreign university but I cannot obtain sufficient academic references because no professor from my previous university seems remember me.

I am planning to seek for an short term(< 1 year) research opportunity (internship would be fine) of a foreign professor whose research area is really attracting me so I can hopefully ask for his reference after that.

Is it weird or appropriate for me to contact him directly for such research opportunity since I am not a student (Assume I have already been granted a 1-year working visa from that country)?

It's not weird, but do be prepared to have your email ignored or politely declined. Professors regularly get such emails, especially if they're famous.

In particular, what you should do is to show the professor what you can do to help them in their research. Which works of theirs are you going to focus on? What does your experience mean for the professor?

Good luck!


Can New Zealand/Australian academics do consulting work during summers? Is it possible (if not usual) to do consulting work during summers while working as academics in Aus/NZ universities? I guess the more important point is, is it allowed by the universities to earn extra money/work through outside consulting work?
Thanks,
John

This is dependent on the university. This is allowed (generally) but you have to get into contact with the designated person(s) for your department/faculty/school regarding the appropriate procedures in taking on paid consulting work while employed at the university.

Usually you have to have an agreement/contract set up that stipulates specific rules and regulations regarding this. Most universities would have something like this available as many academics do consulting work depending on their research expertise.

I would get in touch with HR and/or your supervisor to find out about your options.


Cover letter: List strangers as potential collaborators? And/or, can/should I be contacting them? From The Professor Is In and from other sources, I've gotten the impression that it's very good practice to refer to possible collaborators both within and outside of your department or academic unit. This makes sense to me. Doing so demonstrates that you're not just applying blindly, but rather have thought through how you fit in on that particular campus. It also makes the sale that you're a good fit with the folks already there.

I'm unsure if this practice should start at the cover letter. Is it appropriate to mention potential collaborators (either within or outside of my targeted dept) whom I don't know in the cover letter?

Talking about working with people I don't know feels a little bit pretentious--how on earth should I know what they want to collaborate on?--but I can get over it if I have incentive.

Meanwhile, it also feels natural that I should be contacting these potential collaborators if I'm sincere about thinking there's potential to work together. OTOH academia's a bit emphatic (relative to industry) about recusal so contacting such people might seem pushy, or even like trying to cheat.

Is it OK to contact potential collaborators at the institution/in the department to which I'm applying? Is it ever expected?

I think your need to trust your instinct that this kind of 'name dropping' is pretentious and avoid it.

By contrast, if you have carefully read someone's papers and truly believe you might
want work on a closely related topic, then you might mention
that as a one possibility.

Personal mentions can backfire as often as they may have some positive
effect. For example, suppose you make a strong case in your application that you really want
to work with Prof X. But Prof X is about to go on sabbatical or to change
universities. So the hiring committee figures you're not such a
marvelous fit to the department after all.

However, I think you are right to realize that it is helpful to show that
you have background, interests, focus and organizational ability that will make you an
asset to the department.  Obviously, it should be clear in your mind
why you want to be accepted. Giving some inkling (without being pretentious)
of why they should accept you is a good idea.


How to negotiate with referees of your paper I have submitted a paper several years ago and its referee process took about three years and I had to revise the paper six times to get the final approval. The paper had two helpful and knowledgable referees and I appreciate their comments and suggestions, but I have also had the following problems with their suggestions:

sometimes their comments contradicted each other. For example, one of them wanted me to add a discussion and when I added that part he wanted me to remove it in the next revision.
they often wanted to expand the scope of the paper, but due to some technicalities I had to consider some restrictions to get the expected result.
they gave me new comments and proposed new modifications after every single revision, while they could suggest all their comments in their first report and this made the referee process this long.
one of the referees wanted me to address some related works in other papers in my paper, which was actually unnecessary.

I pretty much obeyed all their suggestions and comments and finally the paper was accepted and now it has been published. Although I learned a lot during the referee process, I wished I could negotiate with referees and do not have to obey them in every little detail. Besides I had this feeling that I have somehow lost my freedom as the author of the paper during this process and I have no control on my paper any more. I had to do whatever they asked me even if I was not completely convinced it is a right thing to do. I have also had some of the abovementioned problems with the referees of my other papers. You perhaps know that journals often have this policy that you either should implement all the changes suggested by referees or withdraw the paper. This policy leaves little room for negotiation. So my questions are:

An author, in order to discuss his/her points with referees and do not obey some of their suggestions and comments  or ask them to not delay the referee process further, what is the best strategy to negotiate with referees? Is there any diplomatic way for this negotiation or we have to obey referees all the time? Have you ever had similar problems with referees of your papers? How did you overcome these problems?

You perhaps know that journals often have this policy that you either should implement all the changes suggested by referees or withdraw the paper.

Which journals have such a policy?  I don't think this is the case for any AMS, MAA, or SIAM journal, for example, and I'm not aware of any journal with such a policy (although of course I have direct experience with only a small fraction of the journals in mathematics).  Here's how it works in the cases I'm familiar with:

Any changes suggested by the referees are merely suggestions, which do not need to be followed if the author and editor are in agreement.  If the change involves fixing a mistake or correctly attributing work, then no responsible editor will accept the paper until the situation is resolved (either by making the change or establishing that it is not needed).  Matters of clarity are also taken seriously.  However, some referee suggestions are just opinions that the author may reasonably disagree with.

It's perfectly reasonable to write to the editor and say "Here's a new draft of my paper.  I've made changes A, B, and C proposed by the referees, and I'm grateful to them for identifying these issues, but I have not implemented D and E.  I think those changes are not truly needed, because ..."

  what is the best strategy to negotiate with referees?

I'd think of it instead as negotiating/discussing with the editor.  The editor is the one who makes the decision, with the referees providing advice and expert opinions.  Ideally, you'll be able to convince the referees that not all of their proposed changes are necessary, but the editor is the only person you need to convince if the referees are stubborn.

Editors are used to this.  As an editor, I've occasionally written an acceptance letter (conditional on revisions) that says explicitly that only some of the changes are really needed, and even when I don't say so authors certainly don't always make all the changes.


How to deal with my PhD supervisors rudely critiquing all my draft papers? I'm a PhD candidate in biology about three semesters in. I am co-advised by two young married principal investigators (PIs), who are just about to get tenure. Things were going great initially, as I completed a medium-sized project and got publishable data very early on. However, now that it has come to writing papers, I’m finding my PIs to be rude, unpleasant, and excessively hands-on.

First of all, almost every time I send something, they respond with something like: "don't send us manuscripts with errors, next time they'll be sent back to you", or: "don't waste people's time with unpolished manuscripts." Of course I do check over them obsessively before sending, but I'm only three semesters in so I'm not perfect. They also will give me comments like, "you didn't explain how you mixed this solution," so I will write, "I mixed the solution by adding XXg of XX to XX." Then they have the nerve to tell me, "you're not doing a good job, you add useless details about adding XXg of XX to XX." Really?! They also make jokes about my writing, like "impossible [to test mice immediately upon birth] unless you're a mouse midwife." I know, it's not even clever. There's also random comments like, "what are you doing here [in reference to a statement]?," "stop doing XX," "don't do that," and "wrong, read it again." They also rewrite almost everything I write. None of my writing ever makes it to the final cut.

If I'm just being a baby, totally feel free to tell me just to suck it up. I'll submit a manuscript, and a certain section gets no comments. Then, I submit the manuscript again and the previously fine section is now crap! Why was it ok before, but now it's not? They're nice to everyone's face, but they have been very rude (i.e., actual severe harassment) to at least one other person over email that I know of.

I'm middle-aged with a spouse and kids – I don't need to take crap from PIs my own age. I've had two-dozen jobs, and I've rarely been treated so rudely. Switching labs is out, because our department is super tiny. I don't want to leave because I don't have much else going for me job-wise. I don't want to confront them, because past experience has taught me that it makes them even more aggressive and rude.

Is this type of behavior normal and acceptable in a lab? Should I just grin and bear it? How do you cope with rude and demeaning PIs?

There needs to be a little bit of context in this situation...

Incoming Masters and PhD students often come in thinking that they are going to write one draft of a paper and submit it. The thinking is that writing a scientific paper is no different than writing a paper for one of their previous class assignments, and that they did well on all of those, so their writing must be impeccable... English is their first language after all...

To the contrary, I have never had either a masters student or PhD candidate who went through less than 10 revisions on their first paper before we submitted to a conference (let alone a journal). In all likelihood, this number is closer to 25. Even toward the end of their PhD, this often still involves about 5 revisions.

Everybody hates the advisor after the first few revisions (I hated mine), and does not see the point. However, I feel that if I have not taught you to write an impeccable scientific article by the end of your PhD, then I will have failed as your advisor. And in fact, everybody who completes a  PhD seems to be grateful for the struggle.

Typically, I tell students that they must "finish" a paper 2 weeks before the conference deadline. Then we do one revision every single day until the deadline. I mean no malice in the corrections. But there are some common mistakes that need to be refined and refined. Furthermore, everybody asks, "Why can't we just do one revision?"

The answer is simply that often the writing in the first few papers is too ambiguous and vague for me to infer how the rest of the paper should be written. For example, "Are you stating A or B as your hypothesis? Are you stating C or D as your takeaway from the plot you are showing?" These lead to further questions like... how did you come to that conclusion? These things cascade, and the process ends up taking several iterations, particularly at the beginning of a PhD.

With that out of the way... let's address your case...

  you didn't explain how you mixed this solution

This is a legitimate point. A scientific paper must detail every minute detail in the most unambiguous way possible. If the paper is at all ambiguous, then the results cannot be reproduced, and the work is not science!

  what are you doing here

This is a comment that I would write when I believe that you have not unambiguously explained your procedure. Or perhaps you added a plot, without explaining why it is relevant.

  don't send us manuscripts with errors, next time they'll be sent back to you

This is a bit cheeky I think. I wouldn't write this, but I can imagine that the advisors are perceiving that you are not trying hard enough in your edits. When I make edits, there are often errors that are repeated over and over again. If I correct 2 or 3 instances, I expect you to spot this pattern and propagate the corrections to the rest of the paper. If you aren't doing that, I would get very annoyed. The reason is simply that it may take you 30 minutes to apply all of the changes I suggest. However, on my end, I will spend hours going over your paper. Literally I can be spending 2 to 3 times as long reviewing your paper as you are taking to write it. If I don't feel that you are pulling your weight, then I will let you know.

  EDIT: They also rewrite almost everything I write. None of my writing ever makes it to the final cut.

Quite common for the first paper a student writes.

The final point I want to make is concerning why we do this? Why do we go through the trouble?

The most obvious answer is that if a paper is not clear, concise, and unambiguous, then the work is not reproduceable, and hence not science.

However, as you will no doubt have seen, there ARE many papers in very well respected journals that are extremely poorly written. These are the ones that you and your advisor will debate for weeks on end... I think they are doing this! I think that their results show that!

Those are bad papers. If I was reviewing them, I would reject them.

By going through this process with you in writing your paper, I am not only helping future scientists (by making your work more clear), but I am putting you in the best possible position to get your paper accepted into the conference or journal. The worst reason to get your paper rejected is because, "I could not understand what the authors are trying to accomplish", or a review which suggests a misunderstanding as to what the paper is trying to accomplish. That is just a waste and completely avoidable.

The papers that have been rejected by my group will often start with, " This paper was extremely clear and well written. However..."

EDIT:

I think that in general, it sounds like the PIs may be going a little bit too far in your case, but it is really hard to tell without knowing your research topic, the scope of the revisions, and your conversations with the PIs. So the following are some more takes on the things you wrote which I did not initially address:

  "you didn't explain how you mixed this solution," so I will write, "I mixed the solution by adding XXg of XX to XX." Then they have the nerve to tell me, "you're not doing a good job, you add useless details about adding XXg of XX to XX."

I can see 3 plausible explanations for this:

The PIs simply changed their minds about whether this information was relevant. People make mistakes, and opinions change...
They meant something different when they asked for "how you mixed this solution". I am not a chemist, but perhaps technique or something else matters and they wanted you to describe that???
Perhaps over the course of several revisions, this information got included earlier in the paper, in which case, you should avoid writing this info again at this specific point in the paper.

In any case, the statement "you're not doing a good job" is a bit  aggressive from my point of view. My guess is that they are getting really stressed about reviewing this paper. Perhaps they have been putting in a lot of work doing revisions and don't think you are "getting it" yet, or aren't trying hard enough. Whatever the case, they snapped at you here when they probably shouldn't have. In cases like this, you should have a sitdown meeting with them to understand why they do not think you are doing a good job. Did they sincerely mean it? And if so, how can you improve? If they really meant it, then this needs to be clarified in person.

  Really?! They also make jokes about my writing, like "impossible [to test mice immediately upon birth] unless you're a mouse midwife.

Probably they are trying to show that your logic is flawed, and simply giving you a counterexample. It probably isn't meant to be funny, it probably was just the first thing that came to their mind which conclusively showed the logical error in your writing. Scientific writing needs to be extremely precise, leaving no room for doubt. If there is an easy counterexample, then the writing is not precise enough.


What to do when people in a research group use different programming languages for computation (e.g., Mathematica, Python, Matlab)? I am a very happy user (in 98% of the time) of Python/Numpy/Scipy (anaconda distribution). I switched from Matlab and do not regret the decision. I have reached a level of expertise, which enables me to help others with their computational tasks and encourage people to use Python.

Unfortunately, the situation is not that easy. A senior researcher in a very closely related working group is using Mathematica. One of his students is using Mathematica, one is not sure yet but honestly it would be stupid to use a different software.

If I switch to Mathematica, everyone may benefit from it (code sharing and building up knowledge). I think you can understand that my motivation to do so is not the highest (not again another language; I use Python, Fortran and a bit C++). Additionally, the Python user community is very vibrant, and they frequently come up with interesting projects.

In order to avoid a nonsense discussion about what software to use, let me rephrase my questions as follows:

Have you ever been in a similar situation (either as student or supervisor)? And if you have, did you try to get everyone to use the same language? Did any situation occur where it was good that not everyone was using the same tool?

EDIT:

My field is biotechnology. We do calculate: ODE'S, PDE'S,fractals, system of equations (ODE's, DAE'S, algabraic). Most of the time we do some rapid prototyping (e.g calculating linear pH gradients in chromatography, some combinations of reactors etc., using/extending chromatographic models). I am a PhD student and will continue as a post doc at the same institute including occasional lab exchanges abroad.

This is very familiar to me - people come into my field from a number of different places, and each has not only their own preferred software, but the software they think "everyone" uses - which invariably isn't true.

At the moment for example, I have implementations of various bits of my work in MATLAB, Mathematica, C++, Python, Maple, R, SAS...

  Have you been in a similar Situation (either as Student or Supervisor) ?

I've been in groups that successfully united everyone under the same language banner, and some groups that did not (intentionally or otherwise).

  And if so, did you tried to get everyone using the same language ?

I have definitely tried, and occasionally failed. You've mentioned some of the benefits, but beyond merely code sharing, everyone using different languages makes it extremely hard to learn from others, share solutions, or collaborate really in any way. If you have a problem, and it's written in another language than what other folks are using, that problem is entirely your own to deal with - even if folks want to help, they may not be able to.

  Did situations occur, at which it was good that not everyone is using the same tool ?

The only time is when the "usual tool" is somehow terrible at what's needed for someone's work. For example, a few years ago, when Python's statistics ecosystem was much worse, it was good to have people who knew R. But assuming they can all achieve roughly the same thing, I've never gone "Oh thank god we're all writing in different languages!"

The one exception is I did encounter someone whose ability to parse whitespace-based code is...less than stellar, which made me glad I could run things in MATLAB as well as Python.


Should I switch from an M.A. to an M.S. program if my department allows me to choose? I work in industry and am also attending a major U.S. university to get another master's degree, this one in Applied Math.

When I entered the program, the department offered a Master of Arts (M.A.) degree for Applied Math. This year, the department made a change to Master of Science (M.S.); any new students coming in Fall 2014 will be M.S. students, and any current students will be given the option of switching their degree from M.A. to M.S.

Should I make the switch from M.A. to M.S.? I already have a M.S. degree in engineering. In my opinion, all other things equal, M.S. is considered more rigorous from an employer's perspective.

In general, I believe your assessment is correct—for scientific disciplines where both an MA and MS are possible, the MS degree is usually regarded as more rigorous than the corresponding MA degree.

That said, whether you should switch is a matter that requires some thought. Does the change require you to complete more courses? Will there be any impact on your expected graduation date, and the cost of getting the degree? If not, then I would definitely switch. (Moreover, since you already have an MS in engineering, there's no point in getting an MA afterwards. If you didn't have a master's, you'd need to figure out the relative advantage of finishing faster versus the more rigorous degree.)


Patents associated with research papers Is there a way to know if the authors of a paper filed a patent related to their content?  Is this usually documented in the paper, or is it not notated for some reason (i.e. information asymmetry)?

I just want to know if I can use the techniques described in a paper without infringing on a patent.

You can lookup the names of the authors in a patents search engine such as Google Patents or PATENTSCOPE. Each patent application has three dates: filing date, publication date, and the issuing date. Once a patent has been filed, it becomes in a state called patent pending. In the US, a patent application is published after 18 months of the filing date and so people can loop it up using search engines. However, in the US, before that, there is no way to tell if the authors submitted a patent application other than asking them. However, that does not constitute a legal issue for you because the authors' work, in the US, is not protected until the patent is issued. So if you cannot find a patent using one of the search engines, it means that the work is not protected and it would still take several/many months for a patent to be issued. Note that in other countries, published patent applications may be protected even if a patent has not yet been granted.


What does "author title" mean in a manuscript submission system? What does the author title mean in a manuscript application form? Does it mean {professor- assistant professor- lecturer} and if he/she isn't a university's staff what would the title be? Presuming he/she is master degree student in a medical specialty?

If the author does not hold any of the usual academic tiles such as Dr/Prof./Asst. Prof. the status quo defaults to Mr/Ms/Mrs.


Some results of my grad research have been used in a recent paper, but I was not told. Should I do something about it? Some of the work I did during my undergrad research (before my PhD, 4 years ago), exactly two figures, have been used in a recent paper. My ex-adviser (at the time of my undergrad research) is co-authoring the paper but she did not tell me about it. We kept being in contact after my undergrad research and we had planned to write a paper, then I started my PhD somewhere else and it did not succeed.

As I keep having good relationship with her, I don't know if I should do anything about it.

You should have been cited, at least, if the old figures were used and you created them. There may even have been a copyright violation here as figures are sometimes (often?) considered to be a "complete" work for such purposes.

You could ask for an explanation. You could express disappointment for the lack of acknowledgement. I can't predict the outcome, however. It might be an apology. It might be rage. What should happen is a correction, but that doesn't seem very likely.

I'm assuming, of course, that the figures really were re-used, rather than just being similar and generated from the same data.

But you have to judge whether to rock the boat a bit. It is your right to do so. If you need her as a source for your future advancement, then tread carefully.


Senior professional admissions for a PhD I am an MSc of urban planning with more than 25 years of professional practice. Can someone please tell me if age is in any way negative for being considered by a top university in the USA or UK for a PhD, especially for international applicants?

No, so far as I can tell, age is not a negative for application to graduate school in the US.  But you will have to explain your reasons for wanting to do a PhD and provide some evidence of your interest and ability to do research and that could be harder for you.  Admissions committees like to see published papers and letters of reference from academics in a position to comment on your research skills.  If you've spent your career in industry, it could be difficult providing that kind of evidence.


Which google scholar citation format is IEEE standard? When I want to use formatted citation from google sholar it;s show 5 option to copy. Which one is IEEE standard? I add an image for clear my question.

None of the "standard" citations that they provide is IEEE format.

Instead, you should use one of the links at the bottom to take the format for your preferred citation manager, such as BibTeX, which can then be used to format following any publication venue's guidelines.

For IEEE in particular, the best option is generally BibTeX, because IEEE strongly pushes its authors towards preparing their publications via the IEEE LaTeX package and its accompanying BibTeX style format.


How to make good use of compulsory study plans in connection with PhD studies? I am not sure if this concept sounds familiar to you but in Sweden PhD students are expected to have a study plan, which is revised every year, in connection with a meeting between the student, the primary and secondary supervisor(s). It's the closest thing I have to a contract actually.

Theoretically the concept is great, there's a formal demand to plan and revise the projects, so that things don't get out of hand. The study plan typically defines:

the nature and title of graduate studies
an expected time of dissertation
the responsibilities the student has towards the department (teaching, lab/IT responsibilities etc)
the extent of research/course ratio per semester
courses taken/planned
the project that planned to/will be a part of the thesis

Then comes a series of so-called "lärandemål" which I could possibly translate as "learning goals" mandated/advised by the board of higher education services (Högskoleverket) and what is planned/completed to achieve these goals. This piece constitutes a majority of the study plan essentially.

So far so good... I think conceptually it's a great idea. In practice, the part regarding learning goals becomes a whole bunch of formal gibberish that does not reflect reality but looks fancy on paper. My supervisor does not really care much about the plan, at least not in the format it's forced on both of us. I am not sure if this is the impostor syndrome speaking, but I feel like it's essentially an annoying piece of paperwork, on which I am forced to write what I am doing/have done in rather exaggerated fluffy words. I have also considered the possibility that I perceive it thus because even though I am very fluent, Swedish is not my first language. I could not say for sure...

I am trying to force myself to see the benefit in having and updating such a study plan. I could just do the minimal amount of work and get it over with, but seeing that this is actually my chance and legal right to influence the development of my graduate studies, I feel it'd be a waste of opportunity if I did not take the chance to make the best out of it.

Any ideas as to how I can make better use of these study plans and study plan meetings that go along with it? Likewise any plans as to how I can avoid seeing it as an annoying piece of work that has to be done and have no practical meaning?

I can sympathise with your sentiment about the study plan. The idea is generally good but it will only be as good as one makes it. In my department we started with study plans long before it became a mandatory requirement. The reason was mainly to establish a contract (although strictly speaking it has no legal meaning) where student and advisor agree to the terms of the work. We had instances where both students and advisers were not doing their part and lacking a paper trail made discussions difficult, usually both parties blaming each others for the catastrophe that emerged when it was too late.

So, I still look at the study plan as a tool when things go wrong, actually to identify when things start to diverge and nip it in the bud. There are students who do no appreciate the plan but as subject responsible (and in our case the discussion involves also me) I try to make it a good and reflective discussion. I do believe it is good to take the opportunity to reflect upon what has been done so far and try to lay out the plans for the next year because in a PhD project the nose is often close to the work and perspective may be difficult to get. Providing an opportunity to express the plans can therefore be enlightening for all parties.

I must, however, add that the bad cases which the study plan is supposed to reduce, still are very difficult and the study plan is not enough to resolve such cases. So my recommendation is to try to find a format for the discussions so that they become useful and positive for you. I would not expect everyone to experience these discussions the same way so in the worst case, try to make it as pleasant as possible.

EDIT in response to comment.
As with most things that are forced into action from "above", the way to handle study plans and how to relate to them has become unclear. I can personally see that different departments view the document differently and although the Science faculty of my University has issued guidelines, my suspicion is that they have no clue what they are trying to say. So it is all confusing.

Now, recently I heard a lecture by Bob Harris at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm which concerned the so-called Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs; another fancy term). You can listen to a talk similar to the one I attended on BrainShark, however, a warning is issued for the poor sound quality. The talk was for director's of graduate studies and the Faculty. The point made here is that we need to decide what it is that we do during a PhD and it is only then [my interpretation] that we can make use of the study plan to see if we meet the expectation from the side of the Higher Education Act as well as from our personal viewpoints. All of this becomes very involved and I am myself in the process of changing the way we look at the study plan to also include the goals of the research education as formulated in the Swedish Higher Education Act.

A problem with study plans as they stand now is that everyone must be involved in the process and as with everything else, they are not necessarily so and opinions will vary. Some will find it very useful and some will not. If a study plan is merely a meeting where one says 'done that; will do this' then its use is very limited. At best it is a time to actually reflect upon the progress or lack thereof. In the end, I think we have all lost track of the purpose of a PhD, we do not see the forest for all the trees. Publish has become the (only?) goal but all the other skills are not highlighted well or even considered. Integrating the wider goals with the study plan to record and view progress, could in my opinion be a useful tool but it requires more or less reorganisation and additional adaptation by many.


Meeting dishonest ex-supervisors at large international conference -- Should one speak out? I have returned to my country after one negative experience as a postdoc in China.
In short, I was hired based on false salary & funding expectations supported by shady vague contracts written in Chinese. I stayed until the end as to escape a raging crisis at home.

Now I am back home, among long-date colleagues & collaborators. A large international conference in our field of study starts today. The very same PIs who lured me into their trap are coming, now in my country, actively seeking for new candidates. Surely they expect me to treat them politely, coldly at best. These people owe me a lot of money, plus stolen time and project ideas.

I think they expect me to stay nice and quiet for fear of getting bad recommendations and in the hopes of perhaps getting paid/compensated in the future. The culture here is certainly different from what they expect. In just few hours I will meet them at the conference hall, for the opening.

I am revolted. At least in my country, LoRs are not required for getting jobs, and I do not think they're too influential outside of their institutions.

Should I openly expose them? Or would that just label me as some begrudged nuthead?

There is one special roundtable about work ethics included, and I am thinking of approaching the organisation about this. Any suggestions, ideas on this, would be appreciated.

P.S. This is not in the US.

UPDATE:

Finally the event is coming to an end. I have carefully considered the views of commenters and answers here. Thanks to all for so much attention.

I have avoided the scammers as best as I could. They approached me individually, on different casual occasions, to greet and initiate some chat. I was just plain cold, cutting it short. Fortunately they got the message and have been also avoiding eye contact and interaction.
I have outlined the absurd situation to a large number of peers, yet only when asked. “How was it in China”, “I remember you complaining about some problems, how did that fare” etc. I did not mention names, except when directly asked for confirmation.
A couple of friends are part of fhe organizing comitee. They agree in that it’s best to only bring this up to the chairman in case these scammers are openly advertising positions with false information.
I did contact some local reporters I know who asked for an outline. Yet once they had the story they didn’t reply. I don’t think then this will hit the newspapers unless something new and remarkable happens.

The event ends tomorrow. They might approach me one last time. If they do I’ll comment below. Otherwise I’m leaving this at this. I’ve focused on intensively networking and getting collaborations moving, learning new ideas. Much easier without having to interact with this mess. Hopefully I’ve warned enough people to at least avoid someone else fall in this trap. Hopefully they’ll move to a different field or just stop. Thanks to all here.

There is a lot going on here. If you want to play power politics make sure that you have the power first.

You contemplate making an accusation. Depending on local law and custom this could open you to a charge of slander that you would have to defend. Far in the past a duel on the green would be seen as the appropriate response. Now it is lawyers instead of pistols, of course.

If you can make the claim fairly and can also do so anonymously you protect yourself. If the journalists you intend to speak with can really protect "their sources" (i.e. your identity) it might be possible. But they will need evidence even though they are less susceptible to a charge of slander.

But an emotional response won't help anyone and might reflect badly on yourself.

But I see your dilemma. Others may be at risk here if you don't make some attempt. I think that the conference chairs that I have worked with would listen to your complaint if you can contact them. This won't guarantee anonymity, of course, but in the best case it could put other powerful people in your camp. On the other hand, if the committee is somehow aligned with the PIs in question it would be the worst situation of all.

One rather scary possibility is that you confront them privately and tell them your complaints and that you don't like to see them recruiting others into the same situation you faced. If you know of any others who already faced the same situation and you can confront the PI as a group it would be even better. Some people have no shame at all and some are driven by forces even they can't control, but you might let them think that withdrawal is a better option than continuing. Scary, though.

Ethics don't require, in a case like this, that you put yourself at risk to save others.


PhD application recommendation letter from 2 supervisors who guided the same project? I need 3 recommendation letters for my US Science PhD application.

I have 2 supervisors prof. A and Dr. B who have guided my thesis project.

Prof A knows me very well. I have taken multiple courses and research projects under his supervision. He will no doubt give me an excellent recommendation.

Dr. B is a researcher at an institute. He knows me well and has co-supervised my thesis project. He might give me a good recommendation (possibly not as good as prof. A). He has a few personal contacts in some universities that I will be applying to.

I have an inclination towards taking recommendation letter only from prof A. However, in specific universities, it might be helpful to have a recommendation from Dr. B as well, due to his contacts and reputation.

Will it do more harm than good if 2 out of my 3 recommendation letters are from the supervisors guiding the same project (assuming that both the letters are positive)

You have to weigh asking B to write you a letter against an alternative.  If the alternative is somebody who does not know about your thesis work, they are probably will not know enough about you to write a letter that is as informative as the letter B would write.

You can use a different strategy for each application.


How to make citation for a new paper in arxiv? I have uploaded a preprint to the arXiv. I can find it in google search now. However, I cannot find it in google scholar. The reason for searching in Google scholar is that I want to make a BibTeX citation for my paper as below. Do I need to do something for my paper to appear in Google Scholar or do I just have to wait?

@article{tatarchenko2017octree,
  title={Octree Generating Networks: Efficient Convolutional Architectures for High-resolution 3D Outputs},
  author={Tatarchenko, Maxim and Dosovitskiy, Alexey and Brox, Thomas},
  journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.09438},
  year={2017}
}

As Christian mentions, there are already BibTex entries for your articles.

On NASA ADS: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2017arXiv170309438T&data_type=BIBTEX&db_key=PRE&nocookieset=1

On the University of Trier database: http://dblp.uni-trier.de/rec/bibtex/journals/corr/TatarchenkoDB17

Whether you use one of these or wait for the one from Google Scholar, the main issue will be how your bibtex style renders the citation. You may need to adjust the fields "journal", "pages" and/or "eprint" to obtain a suitable result.

EDIT: I found those links on the arxiv page https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.09438 on the right column, as mentioned by ff524


Contribution vs. novelty in the papers, especially in computer science? I'm a little confused about the two concepts of contributions and novelty especially when I want to clarify them in my papers (CS scope).
For example, as a common practice, people talk about their contributions at the end of the introduction chapter. So, is this the place that I have to emphasize all the novel parts of my algorithm/approach? Or should I talk about how better is the performance of my approach comparing to others?

If I do not have to mention the detail novelty of my method in the contribution section, then where should I clearly emphasize them to make sure the reviewer get them without too much effort?

It depends.  Novelty simply means "something that hasn't been done before", while "contribution" specifically talks about pushing the state of the art and solving a problem that hasn't previously been solved (or solving an old problem better).

To illustrate the point, assume you are working on a big data application and you realize that no one yet has ever tried algorithm X on that problem.  You apply algorithm X and try to publish simply because no one has done so before.  This is novelty, but it probably wouldn't be considered a contribution unless algorithm X is clearly better and you provide a solid justification for why.

A contribution is all about pushing the boundaries of what is known.  To continue our example, let's say now that you produced a new algorithm, Y, and are able to prove that in this specific problem it is better compared to other algorithms.  Then this would be both novel and a contribution.

When writing a paper with a "contributions" section, you usually should stick to the contributions in the sense described above - how does this work push the boundaries of the field.

It should be clear from the introduction that:

A problem exists in the field that hasn't yet been solved (or that can be solved better)
Your work solves/helps that problem (this is the novelty - if your work doesn't do this, then what's the point?)

Then in your contribution section, you can specifically explain what your contribution is ("we propose an algorithm for... that uses... to solve...")


Letters of Recommendation for economics grad school for non-economics majors? I understand there are many people who major in math or physics and get into elite economics graduate schools. I'm sure that I will be able to find math professor who will with letters of recommendation that say I can successfully do research in math, but it would be hard for me to come up with such letter from economics professors. What do non-econonomics majors generally do for letters of recommendation?

Most committees are happy to see letters from mathematicians, although they might like at least one from an economist (and you probably should have at least one upper division course in economics if possible).

Just be careful. One eminent mathematician once wrote "X is not smart enough to be a mathematician, so I suggested he study economics." I don't think we admitted him.


What are the primary causes of conflict between PhD advisors and their students? Here's a very interesting analysis from a professor's point of view on the primary causes of conflict between PhD advisors and their students:

  In my experience, incompatible personalities account for a large
  fraction of the conflicts that I have run across over my 13 years
  since college.  Basically, the student has the wrong advisor.  No one
  is at fault – it's like a marriage that doesn't work out.

I would like to get some more perspectives on this question though, as graduate students may perceive this question differently.

The biggest causes of conflict, beyond personality-related issues, I believe stems from a point made in the linked article—lack of communication.

When advisors and advisees are not on the same wavelength, either because goals have not been clearly communicated, or because the frequency or quality of contact and correspondence between the two has broken down, conflicts can result. This is especially true when it comes time to graduate: the advisor may have specific expectations on what the student is required to provide; however, unless this is directly communicated to the student, there will potentially be a lot of conflict in getting to a point where both are satisfied with the final results.

Often, this can be solved by having a direct discussion about the unresolved issues. However, if there is a pathological problem—in other words, one that can't be resolved through communication between the student and advisor—it may become necessary to invoke the thesis committee, graduate officer, department chair, or other authority who can help to resolve the problem.


Lack of passion from the beginning of my PhD I chose my current PhD position because of funding limitation and the reputation of my institute last year. After a year, it's a disaster, because I have no interest in my PhD project. I haven't read any papers in my personal time since I started my PhD. I'm not interested in what my labmates are doing whenever they are presenting. Though my project works perfectly fine, I just don't care about it.

Many rumors prevail in our lab regarding our supervisor; for example not supportive to graduating PhD students. Therefore, the morale and atmosphere in our laboratory has been strange. Yet, I've managed to maintain a moderate relationship with him. I have worked as a summer student in several labs and understand that no lab is free of anecdotes from the supervisor.

My only concern is that my passion in science will decay with my project. A year ago, I still had the lust to ask infinite questions in the summer lab, but I'm like a dying whale on the beach today. I feel very sad, because my family and my friends have great expectation from me.

I would like to change labs or start from a master's degree level again, but I'm not sure if it is feasible, especially since my supervisor is rather special. Please help me and give me some suggestions.

I'm afraid to say that I think you've worked this one out for yourself.

Completing a PhD requires passion and determination to get over the finish line. I remember someone once saying to me that they had done two PhDs but hadn't written either up... So they had actually not done a PhD at all. The point is that in a lot of ways, the writing up and creating a thesis is the hardest part because it requires so much time, energy, and dedication. If you don't feel like you have that for your subject then I would really consider your options.

As for your family (and friends)- they don't love you because you're on a PhD programme, that doesn't even come into it. More than anything in this world, they want you to be happy doing what makes you happy and I'm sure if they read your post just now they would tell you to stop and find something you really want to do.

Right now, it may be best to have a sit down with your supervisor and discuss how you're feeling and see if there is a way for you both to move forward that suits you both.


Is there any reference management software that supports hierarchical tagging? At the moment I'm using Zotero to organize my paper collection and for my current work I'm very happy with it's possobilities to organize content (folders and tags).

However, working on bigger projects a hierarchical tag structure would come in handy where subtags can be assigned to lead-tags (or something similar). Is there any reference program that can do that?

JabRef is a reference manager using the BibTeX format. It uses the concept of groups, i.e. papers can be put into groups, and it allows to create a hierarchical group structure. Since one paper can be put into any number of groups, it is essentially hierarchical tagging.

With JabRef, one can even configure for individual groups whether a group will automatically include the content of any subgroups (analog to tagging), or will include the content of any supergroup (refining), or just include the papers assigned exactly to this group (as in a classical folder structure).


Should major awards be included in an NSF postdoc application? If so where? I am applying to the NSF postdoctoral fellowship in mathematics. As I understand it, I am essentially trying to convince the NSF that my proposed work is interesting, and that I am able to do it. In service of the second point, it seems like I should point out major professional awards (departmental awards, for instance). This information would appear in my cv for a job application, but the closest document for the NSF application is the biographical sketch, which has strict requirements on its contents.

Should major awards appear in my nsf application? If so, where?

Parenthetically, same question regarding invited talks (although this one is explicitly ruled out as part of the bio sketch)

I think that you should follow the NSF's application instructions to the letter and not include any information that has not been asked for. In particular you should not add any sections to the Biographical Sketch beyond what appears in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide. This guide explicitly states, by the way, that "Inclusion of additional information beyond that specified below may result in the proposal being returned without review."

As you state, you need to convince the NSF that the work you are proposing is interesting and that you can actually complete it. For the former, this is what your Project Summary and Project Description are for. As for the latter, your best argument will be to rely on your previous work. You'll be able to list some of your publications in the Biographical Sketch, and can mention your previous work more explicitly in your Project Description.

Finally, if you really think that it will help to point out departmental awards, invited lectures and whatnot (and it is far from clear to me that this will help you all that much), you can always ask your letter writers to include this information in their letters.


Teaching with a textbook In the past, I was only teaching graduate-level courses where I was creating the material myself. It was slides with material from various books, research papers, and my own work. Accompanied by exercises and small projects that I would build from scratch.
This year I have to teach a new undergraduate-level course. The material I need to cover is more standardized and there are at least two very good textbooks that cover the material nicely (pdfs available at the library, incl nice examples, etc.).

Should I still build my own material? It seems like a waste of time since the material is very basic and standard and I could not reach the quality of the textbooks that are at several revisions. On the other hand, I would avoid issues like this: Professor only teaches what is already in textbook. Should I quit going to the lectures?
If I teach the textbook, doesn't it feel like cheating? I mean, I'm explaining things they can find in the textbook. For some students, it's useful because they need someone to ease them into the subject before they dig deeper. For others, they can simply read the book.
Another way to go is to develop complementary material to the textbook (lab exercises, computer examples, etc.) but still, teach the book. But, I am not sure how I feel developing supplementary material to someone else's textbook.

Any experience to be shared or references?

I think that the third option is widely accepted. Students will complain about the other two, though different students and for different reasons.
The book is an outline and is a fallback for students. If it has good exercises, then they can get practice. But you will still want your own exercises to supplement in many cases, and certainly for exams. But I think a lot of, maybe most, professors follow the outline of the book even if they don't lecture precisely from it. Their exercises may be a mix of those taken from the book and those they develop themselves.
And, encourage students to take good lecture notes and not depend completely on the book.
And using your own material lets you adapt a bit for your students if they don't fit a standard model.


Does the NSF award grants to foreign researchers not affiliated with US instutitions? I mean the foreign researchers who are not affiliated with US institutions, and are located overseas. I suspect that NSF would not award them research grants, but need a confirmation.

I also imagine that NSF may award grants for collaborations of US and foreigners. It would be interesting to get a pointer to a resource which describes the conditions for such collaborations.

From the FAQs:

  NSF rarely provides support to foreign organizations. NSF, however, will
  consider proposals for cooperative projects involving U.S. and foreign organizations, provided support is requested only for the U.S. portion of the
  collaborative effort. For further information, contact the Office of International Science and Engineering. (Reference GPG Chapter I.E.6.)

Individual funding opportunities list specific eligibility requirements. These generally say something like "The PI must hold an appointment at an eligible US institution."

There is an office of the NSF specifically devoted to encouraging international collaboration, and there are often specific funding opportunities earmarked for collaboration with a particular country. You'll find examples of many such opportunities on the linked page.

Having said that, it's not impossible for NSF money to trickle down to foreign researchers. For example, I am at a US institution and I participate in a project supported by the NSF, in which our budget includes a subcontract arrangement involving researchers in Australia. As far as the NSF is concerned, this money is paid to a US institution (mine), but we are allowed to use some of it to pay our foreign colleagues as subcontractors. (The details of this arrangement were of course specified up front in our proposal.) Specific grants may have different requirements with respect to subcontracting to foreign institutions.


Do I still need a PhD to do research if I have double honours in CS and Pure Math? I'm planning to get double honours in CS and Pure Math. I'm confused what's the biggest benefit of Ph.D. will be for me? People say you learn to do research, but I can do research(as I have the appropriate background, CS and Math) sitting at home or in industry. Then what's the biggest benefit of Ph.D.? Why should I do Ph.D.?

EDIT1: The only thing that is stopping me from getting a PhD is time.

EDIT2: Link to my new post.

I can do research sitting at home

Read a few research papers published in highly regarded venues in your field of interest. Are you capable of producing that kind of work at this point in your training?

Do you know how to identify important and original research questions?
Do you know how to select an appropriate methodology for answering a particular research question?
Do you have a "toolbox" of methods you can apply to different research questions as appropriate?
Are you able to critically evaluate your own and others' work as experts in the field would?

If not: a PhD is an apprenticeship in which you learn how to do the things mentioned above under the guidance of an expert advisor, in an environment that is designed for learning those skills, hopefully with a salary that allows you to focus on improving your research abilities.


Is Mozilla Developer Network a valid source to cite? I'd like to cite MDN for my thesis, but since it's a wiki I'm a little afraid to cite it, although it's peer reviewed as well.

If that's where you got information you used then that is what you cite. Whether it's a reliable source of information is a question you should probably take up with your advisor.
Sometimes you can trace information found on a secondary source back to primary sources. That's often the case with wikipedia. When that's possible it's preferred.


Conference presentation as an advertisement for a paper I have read in a few places, for example here, that a 20-minute presentation (or indeed, any presentation at a conference) is an advertisement for the paper or research program in question. I had never thought of it this way and have tended to worry that I have not been technical enough. I now see that this is probably a mistake.

I want to incorporate this advice, but I'm still faced the problem of determining the best way to translate a full-length paper into a 20 minute presentation. That is to say, I want to get some idea of the process by which a paper is "converted" into an "advertisement" for presentation. I am wondering about which of the following, for example, is advisable:

Presenting all of the arguments and objections in the paper, but in a more surface way.
Limiting the paper to a few key points.
Leaving certain questions open by spending more time motivating the question and then suggesting or gesturing at the answer that the paper gives (this fits with the idea of an advertisement).

I realise that answers will likely take be "all of the above" or "it depends", so really what I'm interested in are additional suggestions, some idea of priorities, and some way of figuring out given the situation how to make the decision.

P.S. My discipline is philosophy.

Actually, all three of those points apply and in fact what is recommended for a conference presentation.

Additional suggestions would be the following.

In case of an original research, focus on the overview of algorithms/procedures and its nuances with respect to the existing ones (if any) or the novelty involved without jumping right down to the algorithmic details.
For a survey paper, note only the highlights of the survey and studies that provide the most impact to the field in each sub-topic. Avoid jumping to rabbit holes and missing out the opportunity to cover the big picture.
Spend a bit more time on how your findings impact your area of research. Discuss the applications and scope and detail the conclusion. I see may participants miss this one out by just elaborating on the technical aspects of their implementation without conveying what is it applied for and how could it be applied.


Summer programs for European undergraduate mathematicians There are many summer programs in the US, aimed at motivated undergraduate students of mathematics, that offer lectures and mini-courses on a variety of topics. However, as far as I know, most programs require that the applicant is American or a permenant resident in the US.

My question:

  Are there any such summer programs in the US, Europe, Asia, South America,
  or Africa to which a European student can apply?

Park City summer program organized by the IAS (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton) is worth trying. In particular, they have Undergraduate Summer School. Here is their Application procedure.

However, non-US permenant resident/citizens may have to pay more as in their web page

  Undergraduates funded by PCMI may receive lodging, travel, meals and a stipend (stipends are awarded to U.S. Citizens or U.S. permanent residents only).

Please note that the application deadline for 2015 is already passed (January 31, 2015).


Is it acceptable to submit papers anonymously to Computer Science conferences that don't ask for anonymity? Normally, a CS conference will give a clear indication in its Call For Paper (or in its submittion instruction) if the peer review of the conference is blind. However, if an author forget the anonymity requirement and submit a named paper, the result may be a merciless rejection even without any peer review. I have encountered such a thing, so I am just wondering is it acceptable to submit a anonymous paper to a conference even if the conference does not ask for it ? whether an anonymous paper would cause some trouble to the reviewers or the Program Committee of a conference if the peer review is not blind? Of course, the submittion system of a conference would record the information of all authors, including their names.

This is not a good idea. You just have to read every Call for Papers carefully and submit according to the instructions. That being said, I'm surprised that your program chair didn't ask you to resubmit with proper blinding instead of outright rejecting your paper. Submission errors happen, and authors are frequently given the opportunity to resubmit as long as the content isn't changed. The latter fact might be a little hard if the self-references weren't originally blinded, but I would think that most program chairs would have worked with you on this.