Adjunct position at Johns Hopkins Engineering I was reading the Notices of the AMS, and saw an advertisement for a part-time adjunct position for the "Johns Hopkins Engineering for Professionals" (https://ep.jhu.edu/about/teachforus/) in the Applied and Computational Mathematics (ACM) masters program. A lot of their courses are taught online.
Has anyone taught for this program as an adjunct, and can you share your experience?
Edit: I am currently a postdoc in theoretical mathematics (in the US). I consider trying to gain more experience teaching applied mathematics or computing in the hope that these experiences will help me get a permanent position in applied mathematics/computing in the future.

This answer is not specific to JHU and I have no experience there. But it might be useful background. An adjunct position is not a career and it is almost always poorly paid. Those people generally, who live off of such positions typically do "adjunct" for several institutions, have terrible overall teaching loads, and are still poorly paid.
The "ideal" adjunct for universities like JHU is someone who is already employed in industry (say), especially in research there, and who just wants a nighttime activity to keep them engaged a bit with academia and may love teaching. You would probably earn a small stipend per course, but, given that the salary of such a person is usually about double that of the full time faculty, it would probably not change your lifestyle. A retired person from industry who meets the qualifications and who wants to do something interesting, might find it worthwhile.
If you "sort of" fit that description it would be worth applying. If you are desperate for any (any) employment, then my might want to apply.
OTOH, some adjunct positions have union protections that the faculty doesn't have.
Whether it might lead to a permanent position depends on the institution and its rules. I think that at most you would get a small boost in a later application for a tenure-track position provided you fund a way to interact with other faculty. But it isn't really a path to such a position at that institution.


A professor matches my previous research and the other matches my interest. Which one should I choose? I am a fresh PhD student and I need to choose an advisor to guide my research. Currently I find it difficult to choose.

One professor's current project pretty well matches my previous research experience. Although I would not say I am interested in it, at least I don't hate it. But I find most of his students will need 7 years to graduate the PhD program under his advisement. The speed of this professor's life is really slow. The most important thing is that he rarely gives his students constructive suggestions when they confront problems in the research. I know a PhD needs to have the ability to conduct experiments independently, but some kind of guidance is necessary.

As for the other professor, his project is really exciting and he published many papers with high impact factors. It is not that related to my previous experience but it may use some of the techniques I used before. I like it but some of my friends told me this professor is really picky and tough. With him as an advisor it may be difficult to get job after graduation.

Currently I am working with the first professor. I try my best to make myself get interested in the work, but I am still hesitant.

What advisor should I choose to achieve a satisfying research experience?

Ultimately, I would choose to work on what I'm interested in rather than what I have experience in, assuming that you have enough background to follow your interests (but in a 7 year PhD program, you'll have time to learn the techniques you'll need) and that there is a future for you after completing the program.

(Learning how to use capital letters and to punctuate your sentences properly will also help in the future.)


Publication in industry I am not really sure how research works in industry. I am an early grad student and research is my passion. However, I do want to go into industry once I am done with my thesis.

But, I do want to continue to publish papers or patents with my job. As, I would be going to industry after a Phd, I would be working in a close field. Most of my advisor's students get positions in R&D wings of reputed companies. But, it seems like many of them stop publishing once they leave. I wanted to ask, if it is possible to collaborate with universities and professors and keep publishing during my work.

My area of work is in semiconductor physics and nanoscience.

It depends heavily on the company. I know some companies that see publishing employees as a benefit and possibility for advertisement. Other companies are afraid that a competitor might steal the work. Thus, they often require that a patent is submitted beforehand and/or supervisors are required to check the paper for secret information. In general most companies do not think that publication is a great benefit and often do not support it, e.g., travel expenses.


CV for Ph.D. Applications: how long is too long? I am currently tailoring my CV for Ph.D. applications (STEM). I am applying to various schools in USA and Europe, and most of them are competitive.

Given that I will have a Master's as well as >5 years of research experience in my field, I would like to list most of what I have done/been awarded -- all of which is academically relevant, including roughly a dozen publications -- and am trying to fit everything into my CV/application profile.

Some schools specifically recommend that the CV be around 2 pages long, others make no mention. Some schools have specific fields for listing awards/publications/etc, others don't. However, the shortest I've managed is 4-5 a pages long without crowding the pages with information. Should I keep trying to make it 2 pages long? How long is too long?

You should list all relevant experience in your C.V. and application. Two pages is a rough guideline for the typical master's or Ph.D. candidate coming directly out of a university with limited research experience. This does not describe your situation. So if you need more than two pages, it's certainly appropriate to go over that limit. Where I would try to save some space is in the presentations and posters section—perhaps you could list invited talks instead of all your talks.


Acknowledge funding institute, sending and hosting universities I have a question that is related to this one and it is about a paper acknowledgements section.

I am an economist.
I am currently working in university "A."
I am preparing a paper, and in this initial stage of the study I will visit the foreign university "B," where I will collect data.
For this visiting period, I am going to receive a travel grant from the third party institute "C," which covers both the travel and the stay abroad.

Within a few months, I shall leave my current university "A," so when the paper will be published (if it will be good enough, ça va sans dire) I will be in another university, maybe university "D."

Also, assume in university "D" I won't get any additional funding for this study.

Given this situation, which one of these four institutes will have to be thanked in the acknowledgements of this paper?

the current university A
the hosting university B
the granting institute C
the future university D (I think this won't have to be thanked; I have never seen anybody thanking her own university when this university does not provide any extra funds)

What is the academic bon ton in this case?

I think that you should distinguish acknowledgements from affiliation.  You should also generally act generously with acknowledgements, because giving acknowledgements doesn't generally detract from anything as long as you're honest about them.

So, in your case:

Your affiliation is University A.  If you are at University D by the time the paper hits camera-ready, then you might add that affiliation too, as a dual affiliation.
You definitely need to acknowledge the funding support of Institute C.  You may also want to acknowledge University B if the organization has given you support (as opposed to just individual faculty members).  For example, if the department loaned you facilities for doing your work, that would definitely merit acknowledgement in my book.
Other people who helped significantly with the project (except within normal non-scientific job duties) should get co-authorship or acknowledgement.  Thus, a hosting faculty member at University B should appear in the paper, but the IT person at University B who fixed your computer would not.


Why are small cap and old style numerals not used in technical writing? According to the de facto standard book for typography, The Elements of Typographic Style, when we write abbreviations with 2 or more letters like SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope), small cap should be used and in LaTeX this would be \textsc{sem}.

Another case are old style numerals. When we write Arabic numerals in the passage, according to the book, old style numerals should be used and in LaTeX this would be \oldstylenums{1234567890}. I know mathematical equations or numerals in a table should not use old style numerals as they are considered standalone and do not disturb the flow of passage.

For me, I have never seen any publications with small cap abbreviations and old style numerals, and this seems to go against the typographic style suggested. The author of The Elements of Typographic Style said actually there is no rigid rule for typography when we aware we are breaking it. So my question is why are small cap abbreviations and old style numerals not used in technical writing when they appear on the passage? Why are these rules are broken in technical writing?

EDIT:
The papers I usually read are from natural science like physics, chemistry and biology without computational nature. It seems to me the use of small cap and old style numerals is very rare in these fields.

The answer lies in a combination of technology and efficiency. In the old days when all was typeset "by hand" and not electronically, switching between Roman numerals and old style ones was not difficult. When electronic publishing became available, typography as a whole was ruined because everyone thought they now could make professional looking typography on their own personal computer and laserwriter. For a long time the digital typefaces did not include old style numbers because the character sets were too small to include those (E.g. PostScript Type 1) but now with the unicode standard, much more is included in a single type face. Thus, for a long time one had to switch from one type face to another to include these effects. In LaTeX, this was a little easier as you point out than in, say, Word.

The use of old style numerals was thus partly lost through the "digital revolution" but I also think it was lost because they simply went out of fashion. As with everything else typography and ideas within typography changes over time. I am not sure that the loss is entirely due to the introduction of digital tools but this introduction was a sort of final "stab in the back" from which it is hard to recover. In fact we are still seeing the effects of the PC in many publications since everyone is now the typographer without knowing much about the trade.

So to cap off, in the scientific publishing world, where speed is a key ingredient, attention to these details have simply not been considered as worth the time. One therefore must look at publications with more aesthetic goals to find fine typography.


Should edited, multi-author undergraduate textbooks have many in-text citations? Journal articles are packed with in-text citations of other works to validate points and situate the work in the context of past works. What about undergraduate textbooks with multiple chapter authors? Each chapter author is likely to be an expert in the field. Are citations necessary in this case as for any other academic work? Or do citations interrupt the smooth reading of the text for undergraduates? Or are they less necessary (or less numerous) because the authors are experts?

I'm editing a textbook and want to have some uniformity among the chapters regarding the need for citations and the number of citations. Each chapter will have a reference list.

My view is that in-text citations to relevant, pedagogical references are very useful.  Introduction to Electrodynamics by David J. Griffiths is an excellent example.

  Are citations necessary in this case as for any other academic work?

Yes.  They are still an ethical obligation, but they might not be in-text.

  Or do citations interrupt the smooth reading of the text for undergraduates?

Obviously yes, but in my opinion that is unimportant.

  Or are they less necessary (or less numerous) because the authors are experts?

The identity of the author is irrelevant to the ethical obligation to cite prior work.


How long does it take to publish in IEEE transaction I'm preparing a paper about Web UI Automation Testing, and would like to publish it in IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

In this journal description they said:

  The IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (TSE) is an archival
  journal published bimonthly. We are interested in well-defined
  theoretical results and empirical studies that have potential impact
  on the construction, analysis, or management of software.

I searched their website, but can't find a clear estimation, how long does it take to publish in it, but I have heard from one of my colleague, it may take about 9 months.

I need my paper to be published within 2 months, what should I do?

I need my paper to be published within 2 months, what should I do?

You cannot expect your paper to be published within 2 months in the IEEE transactions even in the luckiest case.

First, you have to submit the paper, and from your question it appears that you are still preparing it. Then, once submitted, your paper should undergo the peer-review process, and this can take anywhere from a couple of months to around one year, depending on the number of revisions, and it can even end up with rejection. Finally, when accepted, papers are not typically published in the next available issue (*), because its composition is decided well in advance, and so your paper will be published a few months later from acceptance.

(*) IEEE Transactions have an online early publication service which is disconnected from the journal periodicity, but even taking into account this, 2 months is too short a time.

A detailed description of the various stages of the publication process, with typical duration, can be found in the answer to What does the typical workflow of a journal look like?.


Choosing an unfamiliar PhD topic? Is it okay to apply to a PhD without knowing precisely what you want to achieve? I heard advisors have projects, so would it be okay to state that you are interested in one of those projects without necessarily being an expert in it?

If so, how much knowledge do you need anyway? and in the statement of purpose letter, how do you state your interest in a specific project efficaciously giving that you are not fully aware of it?

Now you may ask, why would someone be interested in working on a project if he is not fully aware of it, right? But the thing is, some research topics are claimed to be HOT, at least that's the word on the web, some claim that certain topics have great potential in the foreseeable future. So, who does not want to work on something desirable with a future!

What you describe is often the common case for a PhD. But, in a letter and also in real you should have some related interdisciplinary or methodological background. Starting as a complete novice a PhD is very risky. An expert you have to become during your PhD, no one is one at the beginning, this would be a pointless odyssey. But a background is necessary, otherwise everybody could start a PhD without educational requirements like a bachelor in natural sciences/engineering  when looking for a STEM PhD.


How do you ask for a raise? Once you have a faculty job, how do you ask for a raise (beyond a yearly university-wide cost of living increase)? Is there any way to negotiate, short of soliciting outside offers? What should someone do if they are not willing to uproot their lives and move to a different city?

This is quite possibly both US and CS-centric.

Negotiating raises as an academic is rather tricky. You don't have the same kind of leverage that you have in industry unless you are actually willing to go out there and acquire another offer. In fact, the only times I've heard of faculty getting non-scheduled raises (i.e tenure, or when everyone gets a raise) is by

Threatening to leave
Participating in senior administration work and negotiating a deal before signing on.

Having said that, you might be able to increase the raise you get relative to others when there's a general raise if you can argue that you're underpaid relative to your peer group, or have done exceptional quality work.


What ratio of PhD graduates in STEM fields ultimately end up as (tenured) professors? I recently saw this infogram circling around various social networks:

It appeared in this Tweet with the following claim:

  Got a PhD? Your chance of becoming a Professor is 0.45%. Good luck.

Being a bit sceptical of the claim and of shiny info-grams in general, I traced the image back through this blog to this report by the Royal Society (see page 14), featuring various reputable academics in the introduction. The report cites a number of other reports from UK organisations as its source (I did not dig deeper). The infogram seemingly pertains to graduates of PhDs in the UK in STEM fields.

I find the figures literally incredible. I cannot believe them. Fewer than 1-in-200 PhD graduates become professors? This would imply, for example, that STEM professors in the UK would need to graduate 200 PhD students just to "repopulate" themselves.

I would like to compare these estimates with figures sourced elsewhere. And so my question is:

Are any other studies or sources of data for estimating the number of PhD graduates who end up with professorships? (... preferably within the STEM areas and not restricted to the UK)

There is a related question specifically for the maths field and referring to tenure-track positions but none of the answers really address this question: What percentage of phds in math actually get a tenure track academic job?

EDIT: Pointer to a follow-up question asked by @gerrit: How many PhD students does a typical STEM professor graduate during their entire career?

It's a shiny info-gram, but I think there is a lot wrong with it:

It transports the (common) misconception that the 53% leaving to industry after their PhD are sort of failed professors. At least in CS, and probably a lot of other STEM fields as well, many PhD students start with the full intention of leaving academia sometime. Hence, the better question the diagram should be asking is How many of those that want to become professors actually do?. Basically, I could come up with similar low percentages for every field. Let's say less than 1% of all working population of a city works in supermarkets. Does that mean that supermarket jobs are horribly hard to break into? No, because most people do not have the career goal of working in a supermarket in the first place.
Similarly for the 17% non-university research. In CS, good industry labs (like the ones at IBM or Microsoft) are preferable options for many researchers, so they would not take a professorship even if offered.
As already stated by commenters above, the title professor means different things in different places. In Austria, for instance, many high school teachers are officially "professors" (tenured even), despite not having a PhD or ever doing research. In Great Britain, very few people are professors (most are lecturers or senior lecturers). In Madrid I know an academic research lab (not affiliated with a university) that calls their staff members research professors. Job titles are almost never clear-cut.

That being said, I do think that there is a problem. If we assume a reasonably stable system (number of professors in a discipline stays more or less constant), then every tenured professor is in average allowed to see one of her/his students through to also become a tenured professor. Given that many tenured professors (at least here in Europe) maintain groups of 15+ PhD students at a time, I is pretty obvious even without digging into the data too much that the job market for professors is insanely competitive (which, incidentally, captures my personal experience hunting for tenure-track positions pretty well).


When to retract a submission due to excessive length of peer-review process Recently it happened to me twice that I had a paper which was under review for more than one year (first round) and that all inquiries about the status of the paper went unanswered by the handling editors. Both cases were reputable mathematics journals but not among the very top journals (not the Annals or similar).

Is it reasonable to withdraw the submitted paper in this situation and to submit it to another journal? What is a reasonable waiting time in such a situation, i.e. very long time under review (more than a year) together with an editor who does not respond at all to inquiries on the status?

There can be multiple reasons for lengthy review process.
1) Your work is very novel and its hard to find a reviewer.
2) You submitted your article to a journal who's scope is not fully relevant to your research area. According to my experience this is one of the major reason.
3) The ignorance of handling editor.
 First make your own assessment if your work is very novel or if you have submitted to a journal who's scope is not fully relevant to your research area in both cases you may expect a much longer review process.
if its not the case 1) and 2), then Check the average time of first decision for recently published article, and contact handling editor after passage of average expected time. If Editor don't reply for another extra 25%~30%  of average time, then write a withdraw letter and mention the unexpected delay as a reason for withdrawal to EiC.


Is there an official, widely used subject classification? For a university project I want to classify authors according to the subjects/domains they frequently publish in. For this purpose I want to first establish a subject classification with the according hierarchies (for example, chemical engineering would be a sub-subject of physical sciences and engineering).

Instead of creating my own classification/hierarchy, I would like to use an official classification of subjects. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find one that is universally accepted.

What I did find are the classifications of different publishers, for example the subjects listed for ScienceDirect.

So my question is:

Is there any official, widely used and accepted subject classification?

One thing I'd like to add:
English is not my mother tongue so it might be entirely possible that I am just using the wrong words for doing the search. I’ve been looking for subject or domain classifications. Maybe there is an entirely different term for what I am actually looking for.

In addition to the ones @Coder suggests, perhaps the library classification systems:

Library of Congress
Dewey Decimal
Universal Decimal Classification

might be useful?

As @tonysdg says below, there are a variety of other system, too.


How common is it to have a demo at a doctoral thesis defence session? It is customary (at least from where I'm from) to have undergraduate and masters thesis viva voce with project demos. So far, I have never been to a PhD thesis defence viva voce which had a demo in it.

How (un)common is it to have a demo at a doctoral thesis defence concerning the fields of engineering, technology and especially computer science?

Edit:

A project demo under this context refers to the demonstration of an important contribution put forward by the thesis defender. It may include one or more of the following

Practical application of concepts
Simulation of proposed algorithms
Live usecase demonstration

I've seen a couple of PhD defenses with demos (in engineering/computer science).

It's not common because many PhD theses don't naturally require a demo due to their subject, or because a demo would be logistically difficult (e.g. requires special equipment that can't be brought to the room where the defense will take place, or takes too long given the time allotted for the defense). Also, live demonstrations are somewhat prone to failure, and a PhD defense is not a good time for a failed demo :)

But if a major contribution of the thesis happens to be something demonstrable, and it's not too difficult logistically, then a demo can definitely enhance a defense. (If logistics are the issue, a short video of the demo can also enhance a defense.)


Submitting two articles to the same journal at the same time I was wondering about the acceptability of submitting two papers to the same journal at the same time. (I see some similar questions here, but they don't quite address my particular situation.) My area of interest is Media Studies. The two papers would be related but stand-alone, and I would be the sole author of each.

Rather than explain further, I'll give an example. One paper might be something like "Race Relations in Star Trek: Discovery." And the other might be something like "Does Star Trek: Discovery perpetuate some social stereotypes?"

The two papers would be on a somewhat similar theme and would share some references but would, I submit, be different enough to warrant separate treatment in two separate papers. So I would hope they would not be seen as salami slicing or duplicate publication.

Does that sound right? And would it be acceptable to submit them to the same journal at the same time (e.g. to a journal similar to Television Quarterly, which, lamentably, ceased publication a few years back)?

It is absolutely unremarkable to submit two related papers to a journal in parallel.
In fact, it is often better to have them submitted to the same journal than to separate journals, so that they can be handled as a "package" of related work by the editors.

My one key suggestion is to make sure that you explicitly call out that you are doing this in the cover letters for the papers, and to have the papers refer to one another in their related work sections. This will give you a chance to make your case to the editor and reader that the papers are indeed each able to stand alone.  Moreover, if you are up front about this and the editor disagrees, then they are likely to ask that you merge the papers rather than rejecting them or getting upset about "salami slicing".


The concept of solid when it is used about the contribution of a paper My Question:

What does it mean when the reviewer wrote the following sentence

The contribution is quite solid

Thanks in advance

From Merriam-Webster, meaning 4:

  of good substantial quality or kind

It's synonymous of sound.

Apparently, the reviewer thinks that your paper is good, constructed on "solid" grounds.


Can I leave PhD after two years to join a company? I'm from Africa. I came to the US three years ago to do my doctoral studies. Now, I am thinking of leaving my PhD, as I have found a two-year contract management job in Texas. Could you please advise me whether I should continue my PhD or join the company in Texas?

Can you quit a PhD? sure.
Can you stay in the US and take a job? probably not.
Unless you got into the US because of a family member or similar, your visa/status in the US is almost certainly tied to your PhD position. Unless your new employer is willing and able to sponsor you for a visa, quitting your PhD will likely mean having to leave the US.


How to position myself to transition from doing wet lab research to doing computational work? I am in the first quarter of the second year of my PhD. I learned to code as a hobby and have been quite passionate about analytical stuff. I got taken for a PhD basic research project which required a candidate with both wet lab and coding abilities, to be able to apply various programmatic tools to analyse various types of data. During the first year of my PhD I did an extensive analysis of single cell rna seq, bulk rna seq, microarray and Chipseq data for various endpoints. I mostly used already available programmatic tools. It was fun and my supervisor was higly impressed.

Now at the start of the second year of my PhD I discovered that my passion and motivation to perform wet lab activities are very weak. I seem to have lost many reflexes necessary for various wet lab activities. I am almost hating wet lab activities. I have to use some of my time to analyse data for my colleagues and I constantly find myself more passionate about the Bioinformatics stuff than with with wet lab activity. I am still familiar with Biological concepts.

I want  to ask my supervisor to modify my project such that I get completely exempted from wet lab activities and do only Bioinformatics. I wish is to focus on different types of analyses of genomics/transcriptomics/proteomic data within the context of the projects going on in our research group. I plan to apply available tools, modify methods in available tools or possibly develop my own methods to analyse various data. I last studied Mathematics in high school and I have never studied Computer Sciences. Online platforms including EDx and co offer basic courses in Mathematics and Computer Sciences. Could such online courses bring bring me up to date in Maths and Computer Sciences such that I can handle a purely Bioinformatics PhD project in this context? I have completed the Data Science Path from the Codecademy platform. So I have basic knowledge of statistics and basic concepts in machine learning. I am very familiar with self-learning especially online.

Thank you in advance for you highly cherished advice.

Some online bioinformatics resources that I can recommend:

Bioinformatics ALgorithms
Rosalind bioinformatics problems
The Biostar Handbook


Can a journal withhold referee reports from the authors of a rejected paper? We submitted a paper to a journal published by Cambridge Press. The paper was submitted last year (2013). After five months we got the decision yesterday. We don't mind the decision, however, we are shocked by the editorial comments that although they have the reports they don't relay the reports to the author/s for papers which are not proceeding further. Is this approach common in journals? We feel this is very unethical from any author's point of view.

I consider that not giving authors the ground on which the decision was taken to be both unethical and bad for science. How should the authors improve the paper if they don't even know why they have been rejected? How can they get a sense of what the community expects from them?

I am not alone in this: the International Mathematical Union issued ethical guidelines for journals, including that the default policy should be that referee's reports are forwarded to author. However many journals give the referees the opportunity to give comments solely for the editors, and some editors prefer not to forward some reports to avoid pissing off the authors. I never heard of a journal with a policy of never forwarding reports of rejected papers before; this sounds absurd or really cowardly.


How to increase my chance for being admitted to a PhD if my MSc is in a different topic? I have a MSc degree in Computer Science from a well known university, but the problem is that my degree is, for example in Computer Graphics. Now I would like to study PhD in computer Science, but related to another topic such as Green Computing.

How I can convince the admission committee or the Professor in charge of the research group that I can be a good student in his group?

One friend told me that one important thing is the motivation letter others about the research proposal (which for me is somewhat not so clear, because for what I know one do a research proposal only when one is inside a group)

Any help will be valuable? I have applied to a lot of PhD positions and the frustration is getting higher with each rejection.

The change of topic should not be a serious problem as long as you have a solid CS background.  What is more likely the problem is your choice of new topic, and whether the schools where you are applying have faculty working in green computing.

For PhD programs, your best bet is to send a targeted and well-informed letter to professors working in the field that interests you.  I cannot stress the well-informed part enough - this is more than just looking at the faculty member's web page.  Read some of his/her papers, think up of suggested research directions or potential improvements of the research.  Demonstrate an ability to understand the professor's research and provide novel and meaningful ideas.


Recomendation letter Can a lecturer from another faculty write a reference letter for me for my masters degree.
This lecturer has introduced me to many parent to teach their student based on my field and the result has been so good and he us willing to write me a reference letter.
Can he?

Actually, anyone can write you a letter. The best letters are from those who can help a reader evaluate your suitability for a degree and your likelihood of success in it. Usually that is people closest to your studies, but others can also be helpful.

Evaluate what you think each potential writer will say about you. It may actually be good if they say different, but positive, things.

The only letters that might be discounted, I think, are those that might be judged to be biased in your favor for non academic reasons. A letter from one of your parents or siblings, for example.


Who should cover conferences expenses for research work done in a lab a researcher just left for another lab? It would be quite interesting to have others' experience and opinion on what guidelines are followed, and/or would make sense to follow regarding conference expenses for a researcher having recently transitioned laboratories.

It is very common for PhD researchers to do a post-doc in a different lab, and for post-docs to move from one lab to another. In that case, which lab should cover the conference expenses to present the work done (and fully completed) at the previous lab which the researcher just left? Should it be the one where the work was done? If that lab refuses, should the new one cover the expenses or should the researcher give up the opportunity to present his work? Or maybe the new lab should cover the expenses anyways as the researcher is now affiliated there?

My perspective comes as a research group manager at a US national lab.

I pay for conference attendance for my people - it is part of their job, and their ability to grow as a researcher depends on attending conferences. Whether they are post-docs or new staff, I hired them in no small part because they were performing work that was at least tangentially relevant to their first assignments. So, I will get them to the conference to maintain and grow their reputation and skills. The cost of registration and travel is really small compared with a loaded salary. And I at least get my institution listed as their current address at the talk.

For post-docs in particular, I tell them that 'the job of a post-doc is to get a job.' The way they will get a (permanent) job is by doing good work, publishing, and presenting at conferences. They need to be visible, have chances to network, and come back with good ideas. So what if the first conference they go to is based on older work? They need to be out there to keep developing, and it is my job to make sure they develop.

Finally, I do this at least partly because that is how I was treated as a post-doc and new staff. That first conference at each institution was based on my 'old' work, but it was at conferences and in areas that were important to my 'new' job. And, my bosses agreed. The least I can do is arrange that for others.

I understand that there may be budget issues in other situations. However, the PIs really should consider if they are being penny-wise and pound-foolish. Good things happen at conferences, for both the post-docs and the PIs.


A generic academic reference from a random professor vs. strong reference from my Technical Authority at work? I am planning to apply for a PhD programme (probably in the UK). I have two solid sources for academic letters of recommendation (my Director of Studies and my Master's Project supervisor. Now, some places I'm applying to require three letters of recommendation and here I have a dilemma: I could go for a  generic academic reference from a random professor or strong reference from my Technical Authority at work.

Due to several random factors, I have not managed to establish a particularly strong connections at my university(ies) with anyone apart from the two people I already mentioned. I've worked with some people personally but I know if I ask them for a letter I shouldn't expect anything more than "SaladButt had been a good performing student, he grasped things fast and got good grades THE END". Being one year out of school does not help. On the other hand, I could ask my Technical Authority at work to write me one. I know it would be a solid letter as I have already seen the feedback she wrote me for annual reviews. On top of that I'm pretty convinced my field (engineering/robotics) values hands-on experience and that I could prove with my work history.

I have seen many people here say that letters from academics always win over ones from employers. Do you think it also applies in this case?

No, actually, in this case I think that the strong reference from work would strengthen your application.  (It would be different if you didn't have two strong academic references.)

I took the approach you propose.


What is the motivation for a graduate student to help to develop a professor's MOOC? I've seen graduate students act as course developers for their advisor's MOOC or play a key role in helping their advisor with some other endeavour that is not related to research. What is the motivation for them to do this if it does not help them graduate or get publications?

Why do anything that's not strictly required to graduate? For the experience. Because it sounded like fun. Maybe they're interested in teaching and really excited about the opportunity to develop a curriculum from scratch? Maybe they're excited about the pedagogy behind online courses and want to learn more? Maybe it's a rare opportunity to try something new that most academics don't get to do?

If you only do things that are strictly required to graduate and publish, you'll miss out on a lot of interesting experiences, and you'll be less interesting to a hiring committee than someone who went above and beyond seeking out experiences to develop as a researcher and teacher. The goal with grad school shouldn't be to just publish and graduate. While it is sufficient to just publish and graduate, it's hardly a good way to make the most of your time in grad school. Go for the exciting teaching project. Volunteer to help organize that conference. Apply to that interesting summer school. Get involved in that intriguing research project. If an exciting opportunity comes along, take it. Develop a MOOC instead of TAing yet another semester of calculus (or whatever grad students in your field normally do). That's my philosophy at least, and that's why I would have jumped on an opportunity to develop an MOOC.


Is it normal that my adviser presented my work at a conference while I was there? A couple of month ago, I was in a conference with my adviser. I had a poster and he had a talk. His talk was about my project. In fact, it was newer results that I presented in my poster. After he gave his talk, someone asked me "why while you are here your adviser present your work instead of yourself?"

At that time I basically didn't answer that question and just moved on with a smile. I thought that was not so important but right now, I think is it really ok ? Is it normal among academia?

Any idea or suggestion is appreciated!

It is normal assuming (a) your advisor is actively involved in the research project, i.e., would be a co-author on any publications coming from the work and (b) your advisor acknowledged your role in the research during his/her presentation. For most faculty advisors (at least in my specific STEM field), much or all of their research is done with advisees, so any research talk they give will likely describe work done with others.

For reference, my advisor gave a seminar in my own department on a project that I led. I had no problem with this -- it was nice to get their perspective on my work, and they acknowledged that I had done much of the legwork.


Reworking a Homework Project to Publish as Research During the final year of my Undergraduate degree, I did a literature review as part of a technical writing class to answer a relevant question in Mathematics Education.

I would like to rework the paper (to make it more geared toward the research community) and submit it for publication in a Math Education journal that accepts literature reviews. I would like to do this because

I believe it would contribute to the field--the question is important, and there aren't any current, comprehensive literature reviews about it (that I know of, and I have spent many hours searching)
I am applying to graduate school soon and I would like to do education research during graduate school

I have two questions:

Are there any problems with my plan--legally, culturally, or otherwise? I have already spent a long time looking through my former Universities' policies, and I can't find any policies disallowing it.
If I submit the paper, do I list the University I was at when I did the work as my affiliation?

Chances are your plan is fine. You created the piece of work, and you weren't funded, so there's nobody else that can claim that as his or her intellectual property. Still, I would suggest working with an academic over this - probably the person who set the homework problem. If there's a potential issue with your plan, he is likely to know; further, he can offer you critical comments to get your work up to scratch (writing a literature review is quite different from a homework assignment), and if he's willing to add his name to the paper that adds a lot of credibility to it. He might even be able to suggest a journal for you.

As for affiliation, yes, you list the university you were at since that's where you did most of the work.


Is including references of journals with low or no reputation considered bad practice? I am working towards my PhD in a quite specialized area of engineering, at the overlap of two technologies. Because of this, there are not as many publications available in my field compared to other topics. Furthermore, there is no journal specializing in my area of work, and articles are published in a wide range of journals, some of them not the most reputable ones, to put it gently.
I nevertheless have used such references from journals perceived by some as disreputable, just because there are not that many in total to choose from. But often also because the articles aren't of bad quality, in fact, some of the articles in "shady" journals can be of better quality (IMHO) than articles in more reputable publications.
On the other hand, a lot of academics seem to find the idea to publish in a "low quality" journal abhorrent and claim they would never do so, indicating that these journals represent second-class science.
So my question is: is it bad practice to reference journals of low or no reputation or is it OK to do so if

there is a limited overall number of references to chose from?
the quality of the article is high enough? (This would beg the question if I, a lowly PhD student would be able to determine quality in a publication...)
any other reason

I am curious what your opinion on this is.

If you use insights from a publication, you must cite that publication, no matter how low the regard in which you or others hold the venue.
If you're nervous that there's a high risk the insights will be wrong, there are things you can do to reduce that risk:

seek out an independent corroborating source for the same insight (and cite it in addition to the "low quality" source);
check the chain of logic from evidence to conclusions in the "low quality" source step-by-step for yourself (and still cite the source);
if it can be done ethically and affordably, repeat a few of the experiments (if any) reported in the "low quality" source to see if the results are reproducible (and still cite the source).


What to use as a identifier for researchers? I am preparing the final document of my PhD and I would like to include some kind of identifier to my person – something like a DOI for people. My intention is to to make it easy for the readers of my thesis to get in touch with me and to have a look at my other work. As I don't know at what university I will work in the future, it shouldn't be something related to my current university.

I feel like ORCiD or Google Scholar could be good options, but there are many others out there, such as Mendeley, Scopus, etc. However, I would prefer to include only one or two links.
What are the most professional, persistent, and commonly used researcher profiles in academia?

What are the most professional, persistent, and commonly used researcher profiles in academia?

Name, surname and current institution. :)

Everything else is just a new fad that may not stand the test of time. Although, among those that you cite, Orcid has the most potential because:

it is explicitly designed to be persistent and used for disambiguation;
its functioning and access model is more open than those of the competitors, and because of this many independent services have started integrating it;
it is backed by a large consortium of publishers and organizations, including those who make Scopus and Web of Science and most of the other (currently) big players in the publishing business.

If you are worried about proving that you wrote the document and not someone else with the same name, consider including a short bio and a profile picture, like it is sometimes done in journals.


Is it ethical for a professor to get a graduate student to complete a manuscript peer review that the professor has been assigned? Is it ethical to a professor to accept a manuscript for review, and then have a graduate student referee it? What about assisting as a referee?

I understand that graduate students can be involved in the review process- this isn't my question. As far as the journal/editors are aware, the professor is the referee, but in actuality, the student is performing the review.

If an assigned referee would like a student to participate, how could this be done properly?

Is it ethical to a professor to accept a manuscript for review, and then have a graduate student referee it?

Though commonplace in some fields (or among some professors), the practice of passing the review to a student, without the agreement of the editor, is utterly unethical for at least two reasons:

The editor expects a review from that specific expert s/he required, not from a ghost one.
The work of the student would not be credited.

Moreover, in some cases, publishers ask to treat the manuscript as confidential, and in that case passing it to someone else can be considered as a breach of confidentiality.

The proper way to handle this passage is the following: the professor should write to the editor refusing the review and suggesting the student (or any other person) as a possible substitute, possibly outlining the credentials of this person to serve as reviewer. Then, the editor will decide what to do with this piece of information: either pass the review to the suggested reviewer or choose another reviewer.


I feel I am going to have a heart attack I am doing my PhD still in the beginning and one of colleague is so bitchy, he is from the hell, he has a good and strong relationship with the head of the lab, and always fabricate stories about me, and that I don't do that good in the lab... of course, when I speak the PI is so upset and never ever you can say he is lying, he is always right, and excellent... screaming and closing the line of zoom suddenly, I did not have the chance to defend myself... I tried to avoid this colleague, but in vain, he sent an email to supervisor faking up data about me and something did not happened at all... the PI send me an email that you are not doing well, I will report you ill-performance to committee, I asked for a call to defend myself, but they made their mind, although I had pictures of my work and everything is right... I am crying all the night, how someone could be so devil to destroy me and acclaim things did not happen. He is so jealous almost from everyone, but maybe because I had got recognition and multiples awards before joining their group, this postdoc is so jealous and want only him in the scene, I really tried to avoid and every encounter made a disaster after... I am so tired there are no other labs accepting students for the moment, I feel that I am going to have a heart attack, I am by myself in a foreign country and that is so hard, I really I feel I am going to have a heart attack even the ombudsman don't reply to my emails.

When you're in a situation where you feel you have nowhere to turn, you need to go as high as possible till you get a fair hearing and positive changes start to happen. In academia, go to the head of your panel or your supervisor. If that doesn't make any difference, go to the head of your faculty or the committee. If that doesn't work, go higher still. If you are certain you are correct, that you are being misrepresented and that you can justify your position, you have nothing to lose by going as high as possible. Write to the director if you have to [you won't, but you get my meaning].
Do not worry about going over someone's head. If you have spoken to your supervisor/PI and they are not seeing the whole picture, you need to go above them. You should be able to justify why you have done this: you cannot perform in your work, you supervisors are not seeing the whole picture, vital information is being overlooked, your mental health is at stake and you are worried for your physical health. You are paying for this education, and this is no way to spend your money or time. Things will just get progressively worse if positive changes don't happen now.
Ombudsmen take a long time to respond. Weeks, sometimes months. And even then they may come back with a "sorry, we can't help" reply. If you hit a wall at the top with your communication, consider leaving and taking your research with you elsewhere. You should be able to justify why you have done at your next institution so if you can back yourself up with emails.
Research is supposed to be rewarding. Challenging, yes, but not to the point where you are worried for your physical health. I know some people think that PhDs and post-docs are everything, but they're not, they are just a part of your life. You need to change your plan of attack somewhat, and you can start by writing some emails to those higher up, but make sure what you say is factual rather than emotional. Try not to say something which you could regret later. State your case fairly and factually, what you have and haven't done, what has led to this point and why you felt writing to them was the only course of action to take. Good luck.


Who to invite to as a speaker? How does one choose which speakers to invite to research seminars? There are some obvious points of consideration, for example if it is a seminar with a more or less specific topic, then the speaker should have some work related to the theme of the seminar. However, there are still a few other points of consideration:

Is it more common to invite early career researchers, or full professors?
How much of role does personal connection play?
Proximity/travel funds available

From what I experienced so far, there often seems to be a healthy mix of younger and older speakers, as well as people who live nearby or far away. Some insight in how people in charge of organizing regular seminars go about this would be appreciated.

I organized our department's seminar series recently.  This is what I did:

know your audience

Are you trying to build collaborations with your department?  Are you trying to expose your students to new ideas?

I'm at an all undergrad institution.  We wanted speakers who might be recruiting grad students.  So I looked to bring speakers from institutions where we've sent students in the past.  I also wanted to expose the students to research areas not represented by our small faculty.

You know what you want.  Who do you want to hear from?

what's the budget

We had very little in the way of budget, so I focused on nearby institutions.  Luckily there are a hand-full of institutions within a 3 hour drive.  Plus, it's way less trouble to get a speaker to come down for an afternoon.  It's a pain for everyone when dealing with plane tickets and a hotel rooms.

I also looked around for some additional money.  There are often specific instances where a funding agency like NASA or NSF will have money to send speakers around.  You may not get to pick who you get. I was able to bring in someone from across the country who would have been way outside our usual budget.

cold call

People you already know are more likely to respond, but you won't make new connections if you don't try.

I dug around on department webpages, looking for anyone who seemed interesting and emailed them.  I also asked if they could recommend one of their grad students or post docs who could come in their place if they could not.

Many potential speakers keep a list of available talks on their personal webpage.  Ask for a specific existing talk, or a small modification to one.  That's less work for them: more likely to come.

fill in with personal connections

After I got some spots on the agenda filled, I contacted the people I know.  I can more easily convince them to come on some day that no one else wanted.

If you still have holes, go back to your closest neighbors.  There is some grad student who can come (especially if you offer free lunch).

invite a mix

Hearing about the same thing week after week is boring.  Try to invite a mix of topics and/or speakers.

junior/senior faculty / private researcher / post doc / grad student
men / women
big research university / small college
local / far flung
etc...

In the end you're in charge, so do what you want.  If your colleague doesn't like the schedule, let them put it together next time. :)


What is the likelihood of a PhD admission if a professor agrees to supervise? A very nervous potential PhD student here!

Long story short, I have been applying to quite a few bioinformatics PhD programs in the US and been rejected from most of them. I did my masters in the UK, and had unfortunately fallen ill during its course and had to take a break so didn't end up doing great. My undergrad GPA is ok (3.12). I did however do good work during my Undergrad and masters, and have a really supporting recommendation letter to show for it.

I had a very promising interview with a professor from a Flagship State University who has agreed to supervise and fund me (Research assistantship). Suffice to say our research interests match a lot and I also think the professor would be a great supervisor. The professor has also been actively following up on my application within the department.

My question here is, what are my chances of getting admitted?

The department doesn't have a "PhD program" per se (i.e. traditional program where students are admitted and then find a supervisor). Students seem to contact supervisor and find funding through that route and then apply. I am not sure how the application processes work in the US.

Your odds are better than they might be otherwise, but they're not necessarily 100%, either.

Part of the issue is that some schools may not recognize or honor such "claims" or "gentlemen's agreements" to fund people after they are accepted. More importantly, the issue is that US admissions are typically done at the departmental level, not the faculty member level. That means that a professor telling you that you'll be admitted is not necessarily a guarantee, because the admissions committee has to make that call. (On the other hand, if the advisor in question chairs or is a powerful member of the admissions committee, that changes things substantially!)


Proper way to declare; "examples are ficticious for data protection" I am currently engaged in some volunteer data work with a charity, I would like to create a write up of the work that can be shared with a few partners who do not have full access to the data.

The write up will be mostly statistical overview, which is not sensitive. The statistics are drawn from data-sets which are GDPR protected. In order to illustrate the data pipeline a few examples would be useful, so I will create a small fictional data-set with the same form as the real data.

To avoid any confusion, I need to declare that the examples are fiction (illustrative only) but the statistics are real. Is there a standard way to go about this?

It will look like;

  The result of the data pipeline will be to tranform mixed type data
  into a float vector the input is .... Output fields are .... For
  example;

  "Joe
  Bloggs|Carmarthen|06:00|Negative|1995|May|Finance|271946"

  will become

  "267.3|82.|168.|-35.|.0777|1648".

Note the example is not an anonymized record drawn from my data, it is pure fiction.

It is common to use words like "fictitious", "fake data", and even a footnote explicitly saying "these are not actual values" or "values for illustrative purposes only". It is even more common to just pick values intentionally that are obviously fake, so that no reasonable person will think they might be real, such as "John Smith|Gotham|01:11|1999|Jan|Accounting|12345" - etc.

I will however note that there is a way to handle this specific case that is even more high-level, which is just not to do this at all, because most stakeholders couldn't care less, much less even know what a float vector is or how they are suppose to interpret it. Telling people details they don't need makes many people think it must be important so they try to latch on to any random interpretation they can think of - because why are you even telling them if it doesn't matter? So if they are not a very specific type of user, just leave this out entirely.

If they are in the tiny, tiny minority of stakeholders that care about this incredibly low-level amount of detail, then it is reasonable to assume they will recognize obviously fictitious data even if you don't say it, and if you really are worried you can just give an asterisk and say its fictitious - but that's already excessive. If you need to demonstrate for some sort of officious bureaucratic sect, declare in the footnote that the data is fictitious for illustrative purposes, persuant GDPR section blah subsection blah blah blah. Give the lawyers something to smile about, if that's your audience, but you shouldn't let it take over the rest of the presentation of the work.


how should I write my first email to co-supervisor? My supervisor introduced me to a professor who has (already) accepted to be my co-supervisor, and wanted me to contact him and make an appointment. I want to write an email, but I do not know exactly what to write. My supervisor raved about his knowledge.
How can I explain my purpose of contacting?
Is the following a good email?

Dear xx
My name is ++++ , and I am a master student and my supervisor is
Dr.+++++.
First of all, I would like to thank you for agreeing to be my
co-supervisor.
I have read and heard a lot about your achievements and your extensive
research experience in the field of artificial intelligence systems.
so, I would like to discuss with you on topics such as AI, Machine
learning which will help me get started in the right direction.
Would it be possible to meet with you to further discuss?
I am available Days and Times.
Kind  Regards,
++++++
XX

Two ideas only. I don't think you need to praise him in an initial note. Just mention the general area in AI that you want to explore.

But the meeting should be at his convenience. Rather than tell him when you are available, let him set the meeting. If necessary you can indicate when you cannot meet if that is relevant.

You can thank him and tell him you are looking forward to working with him when you actually meet.


Do professors like answering questions from non-students/private citizens? I am a non-student/private citizen and I am eager to meet with professors at universities in my area so I can ask these professors a particular question about a particular subject matter.  I want to ask them the same question to see if they all will give me the same answer.  Based on their answers, I will then decide whether or not to pursue writing an article to be published which relates to this particular subject matter.

I have sent emails to six local universities requesting a meeting with a professor in this particular area of study and so far I have only received one e-mail reply. In that one email reply, the professor suggested that I meet instead with one of their graduate students because his consultation fee is very high. I am still waiting for the professor to provide me with the names of these grad students.

I have decided to wait at least a week before sending follow-up e-mails, or perhaps calling them directly to ask for an appointment, because I realize that professors are busy people.

This experience with trying to communicate with college professors makes me wonder if professors, in general, like answering questions from non-students/private citizens. Is it safe to say that professors, in general, would prefer that non-students/private citizens seek answers from subject matter experts in the private sector?

As in general, people are typically happy to be asked to exercise/express their expertise on the things they've worked their whole lives to understand.

But/and the most expert people are very busy, working on moving forward in that.

So their time is very valuable.

So an email response is much preferred, typically. The email back-and-forth, to arrange a physical meeting, is not preferred...

And if I, for one, found out that my opinion as a professional whatever was just supposed to be one vote out of some larger number... for the potentially misguided project of an amateur... I'd most likely not agree to spend the time. It's disrespectful, whatever you feel about that, for non-experts to think that the time of experts is at their disposal in this way, for free, etc. Be serious.

Many academics are kind and generous, but like to have just a token of respect and appreciation (rather than big bucks).


When should I give up on hearing back from a potential PhD supervisor? I am really interested in a position at this particular university and the deadline for applications is the 30th of April. On their website, they say not to contact more than one potential supervisor at a time.

Anyway, I wrote to one of their lecturers who is currently accepting PhD students two weeks ago and haven’t heard back. To me, he was the best fit for my research. However, there are other academics at the university who I think will be capable of supervising me.

My question is, as time is running out, should I give the lecturer I already emailed a little more time or should I forget about him at this point and ask someone else?

It might have just slipped through the cracks. Politely follow up and let him know that his position is your first choice. Include whatever attachments you sent the first time so that he doesn't have to hunt for them. If you don't hear back in a few days, move on.


Is it rude to visit a professor's office during office hours after he/she doesn't respond to my email? I'm currently about to enter my final semester of undergraduate life and plan on continuing graduate studies (master's) at the same institution.

Applications for the fall semester this year open in April. I recently (around a week ago) emailed a professor whose lab I want to enter and expressed my interest in his research and that if he would spare me a few minutes to meet in person or a phone call that would be great. I sent my resume as well. I had fairly high hopes because I have spoken to a former student in that lab and she happened to say he has a very nice reputation of communicating well and will reply to my email even if it's a rejection.

However, he hasn't. I'm wondering what I should do. I've confided with my parents who are also professors, and they told me that once semester starts next week to just visit the professor's office during his office hours. My question is, wouldn't showing up unannounced and bringing up the topic of my email come off as a bit rude? My parents say that professors get paid to deal with students and so I should think of it as my right, and also that "office hours" are meant for professors to keep their doors open and answer questions. I'm curious as to what other people believe, though.

It was either visit his office, email him again, call the student lab via phone and ask them what I should do.

Thank you.

UPDATE

I just thought I'd share the result of taking @Buffy and others' advice in case anyone's curious.

I was planning on visiting the professor in question's office today. I was planning to just visit, but yesterday I decided to send one last email out of courtesy saying that I'd love to visit his office during his scheduled office hours. If that didn't work then I would just show up "unannounced." He did reply to that and asked if tomorrow is okay.

I sent him my resume with the first email, but I wasn't sure if he had read it or not so I decided to print it out and bring a hard copy with me. Plus, I myself always prefer having a hard copy in my hands to flip through rather than looking at a computer screen. Sure enough, when I asked him if he would like a copy of my resume he said that it would be great and that "students normally send them by email but I prefer hard copies" and that likes my sense of preparation.

He was impressed at me taking the initiative and offered me an undergraduate research position on the spot - despite them lacking openings - and showed me around the lab introducing me to everyone and advising a PhD student who shares interests with me to give me a more in-depth explanation. He said that if I do decide to pursue graduate studies ("since people change their minds all the time" as he added) that it would be better if I naturally transitioned from an undergraduate research intern to a full time graduate student at the lab.

So yes, lesson learned. Also thanks for the advice from the community.

I'm with your parents on this. Go talk to him. The missed reply could be for a variety of reasons, including just needing time to think about it. But scheduled office hours are a perfect time for a conversation.

It isn't rude at all. Polite, actually, to go in person.


Will I be allowed to reapply for a mathematics NSF postdoc next year after declining one this year? I am a mathematics PhD student in the US graduating this year. I recently received a very good 3 year postdoc offer in Europe, which I have to accept or decline in early December. Not being a big risk taker, I am leaning toward accepting the offer.
I have also applied for an NSF postdoc, which I would prefer to the European offer but am obviously not a shoe in to get--and the results of which won't be known until February. If I accept the European offer, I will have to decline the NSF postdoc if awarded.

If I do that, would I be allowed to reapply for the NSF next year?

If you accept another position before the NSF Mathematical Sciences Postdoctoral Research Fellowships are awarded, you should officially withdraw your NSF application.  The way the NSF postdocs work is that there is no second round of offers: if you are awarded one and turn it down, then it won't be offered to their next choice of candidate, who might have received it if you had withdrawn your application.  Furthermore, I believe withdrawing will preserve your eligibility for next year, while you will not be eligible if you decline an offer (according to the official instructions).


How to write a review for a strong paper? I was asked by Program Committee members to be a sub-reviewer for some papers related to my research. The PC members are big shots and I really want to impress them.

It is easy to write a review if I can discover weaknesses in the paper. However, if the paper is strong or I am unable to find any weaknesses, I feel my review is useless.

Unlike the flaws, the authors tend to repeat and highlight their contributions. So my review is just rephrasing the contributions and how I am impressed by them.

If I'm unable to give any suggestions to improve the approach or the narrative of the paper, what should I do to write a good review? How to show the PC members that I didn't just skim through the contributions, and agreed with the authors (strong papers are often written by well-known researchers)?

The key principle is this: just as with a negative review, you need to demonstrate that you have read the paper thoroughly and are making your judgement for sound scientific reasons.

If you like a paper, you should be able to say why you like it.  Beyond the paraphrased summary of goals and contributions (which should begin any review), you can spend a sentence or two saying what aspects of the work or its presentation you found particularly compelling or particularly elegant, and why.

It's also a rare paper that doesn't have any minor errors or needs for improvement, and you can also point out those, prefaced with something like, "The only things I see needing improvement are a few minor points of copyediting and clarification."

In the end, your review might be quite short, and that's fine.


As first author, what should be included in the first formal communication [email] with other coathours I am in the process of writing a paper ( public health/ policy) for submission collaborating with two professors. Both are supportive and interested in my project.

separate meeting with both were held and now I would like to send a formal email to both of them. what should such email include at this stage? giving that we have an  agreement on a general deadline and the targeted journal.

Thanks!

Just don't sweat it.  They are colleagues just be friendly and share the info you want to share.

I get the sense that you are not a professor.  Maybe you're still a grad student.  I remember feeling like this but the professors are (hopefully) looking at you as kind of colleague in the making not an undergrad who needs to make some show of respecting their authority and position.  Just be friendly and make sure you communicate everything they need to know and, if you are unsure if something is ok say so and ask, e.g., don't try and dictate the author order.

Of course, I'm a mathematician so I'm not in public health but if you are talking about United States academic culture and you're a genuine part of that (e.g. grad student) don't sweat the formality so much.  Of course, cultures differ so your mileage may vary if you are working with foreign professors who weren't educated in the US.


How to keep track of line numbers in response to reviewers? I am working on resubmitting a paper to a journal and am working on my response to reviewers. I need to refer to a bunch of line numbers in my response to reviewers and it is frustrating because every time I make a change to my manuscript the line numbers change a bit.

For instance, say a reviewer writes: "you should use the word 'correlate' rather than 'co-occur' in line 243"
I would then reply. "'co-occur' was replaced with 'correlate' in line 245". Note the line number is now higher because I added a sentence to my paper. This is fine, but say I have a whole bunch of these lines, and then I decide to add one more sentence to the beginning of my paper. Right now, I would have to go through my response and update all of the line numbers. I feel like there must be a better way to keep track of these. Maybe with some sort of dynamic field or something in word or open office. Does anyone have a suggestion?

This is always a pain, but I find it's not actually hard to deal with, just somewhat tedious.  My method for doing so is rather low-tech: I keep a copy of the old document to be able to track the old line numbers, then leave all of the line numbers in the response as XXX until I am done with the revision.  Then, for each entry, you just cross-index in both places and write both line numbers, e.g.,

  'co-occur' was replaced with 'correlate' in line 245 [prev. 243]

For minor wording/grammar edits, however, I usually don't actually respond in such detail, but simplify both my life and the reviewers by just saying something like: "thank you, fixed"


Is it a FERPA violation for instructor to display grades in public computer file system? My instructor placed grade sheets for our first two projects into a "Dropbox" file system which has absolutely no access control.  So not only every student could see every other student's grades and written assessments, but anyone walking into the college library could sit down at a computer and look at our grades without having to present any kind of credentials whatsoever.

FERPA prohibits public posting of grades together with students' names or social security numbers (including last 4 digits of SSN).  (This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, posting grades where other students in the class can see one another's grades.)

(FERPA's treatment of student IDs depends on whether they are treated as personally identifiable information - in which case student IDs can not be disclosed in a way that allows student IDs to be matched to individual students - or whether they are treated as electronic identifiers, in which case they can be disclosed as "directory information" but may not be used to post grades. See this document for further details.)

In general, FERPA allows schools to put educational records in the "cloud", but places certain restrictions on how these records must be protected. Some "enterprise" or "education" versions of cloud services are FERPA-compliant (or can be made FERPA-compliant through special arrangement with the provider), and can be used to store educational records. A few "consumer"-grade cloud services are also FERPA compliant. Personal Dropbox accounts (not including Dropbox Business) are not, and should not be used to store FERPA-protected records, even as private Dropbox files that require authentication to view. See e.g. guidelines at UC Davis, University of Michigan, University of Oregon, University of Utah.


What to do if my university does not offer any advanced math courses? I am enrolled in a university close to my home in a bachelor of electrical engineering and a bachelor of data science. The university I am attending does not offer a lot of math courses. The only math courses they offer are first year calculus, discrete math, vector calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, abstract algebra, real and complex analysis. I am intending to do all these math courses as electives for my bachelor of data science (they are not core courses). My university does not offer any courses such as topology, analytic number theory, differential geometry, measure theory and other advanced math courses which undergraduate students in other universities have access to.

The only option I can think of is to transfer to a university where they offer the math courses I need but that requires me to travel about 6 hours each day (3 hours each way). Also, moving out is not an option since accommodation is expensive and I can not afford it. So that only leaves me with studying in my current university.

What options do I have to learn and do more advanced math courses?

I may be going to graduate school in math and I do not think that the math courses my university offers is suitable for graduate level math since other students have done a lot of advanced courses not available to me. What can I do to ensure
that I am a good candidate despite the fact that my institution does not offer any advanced math courses? Would self studying suffice? How can I then convince the graduate admission committee that I am ready for graduate level math courses?

I live in Australia and I like to do my graduate school in USA.

It is very unlikely that your university will start giving full-fledged advanced math courses at one person's request. However, there are multiple things you could try instead. I suggest discussing these with your program supervisor. (or whoever you can best talk to about your course program)

Take a single course at another university

It might be possible to follow a course at another university without enrolling there. Advanced mathematics courses tend to be highly specialized, so it is not uncommon that a single university is unable to provide a diverse program of advanced math courses. For this reason, some universities have programs to 'share' their advanced math courses. (see e.g. the Mastermath program in the Netherlands)

It is possible that your university does not have such arrangements with other universities, but you may be able to make arrangements for yourself.

Guided self-study

While self-study is an option, feedback from a teacher is be very useful when learning. You could ask a faculty member at your university whether they would be willing to have a short weekly meeting where you can ask them questions and they look at your progress. An additional advantage of this is that while you will not have this 'course' listed on your diploma, you can mention it during applications, as there is someone who can 'verify' that you have learned this topic.

There may be no faculty at your university that can or is willing to help you here, but they probably know someone at another university who would. It never hurts to ask around.

Research project

Since you mention you want to do research, consider approaching someone to do an undergraduate research project. This may not work out due to a lack of pre-knowledge, but as there is usually an expectation that some self-study is required, you might be able to find a project that fits.


Is it a bad idea to buy plane tickets before the conference schedule is announced? I will be attending a conference to give a presentation
in approximately two months.
I would like to buy plane tickets to and from the conference location,
especially because I am living outside the US
and the conference is in the US,
so travel to the conference is not an easy thing.

Unfortunately, the conference organizers
have yet to confirm and announce the conference schedule.
I do know that the last possible presentation session ends at 2 pm on Tuesday,
so if I wanted to book plane tickets now,
the earliest flight that I could catch would leave at 4 pm.
However, if my presentation is on Monday,
I might prefer to book a flight that leaves early on Tuesday morning,
skipping some of the sessions at the conference.

Question:
Should I book my flight tickets now at "safe" times?
Or should I book my flight tickets,
leaving early on the last day,
hoping that I don't get scheduled for the very last presentation slot?

Response to answers/comments:
I don't need to leave early.
I have just often observed that
at every conference which I have attended in the past,
the attendance at the last few sessions is rather low,
and it just seemed to be "normal" to leave early.
Based on the answers/comments,
it seems that just because many others leave early
doesn't mean that I need to when I can stay at the conference,
learning things and meeting people.

First, I would ask whether you think you really should skip part of the conference---you're going such a long way, and presumably it's a community that you care about, so are you sure you want to abandon part of it?

If you really do want to skip, though, I would recommend a third path that I have often seen work: contact the conference program chairs, let them know your travel dilemma, and ask them if they can schedule you on the prior day.  If they are likely to be flexible, this will let them be flexible now and let you book; if not, you'll know they're unlikely to be flexible at other times either and thus know that it's not safe to plan to skip until the schedule is announced.


Journals that only publish online. How reliable are they? There are lots of journals that only publish online. However they are indexed by scopus and ISI so they are unlikely to be predatory journals. Are they safe? What are the chances that some hacker erases the journal’s database and all the records of publications are lost?

Surely it’s better to have printed copies of volumes and stuff. At least that way there is always proof that one’s article has been published.

Any reputable online-only journal will have a plan for data retention that goes beyond what's visible to the user. There will be backups somewhere.

Print journals may have the advantage of having a physical repository copy existing, but even those are not necessarily of "archival quality" (that is, printed on acid-free paper and using techniques that promote their long-term preservation).


How can I address a student systematically boosting their grades by filing frivolous complaints? I was recently accused of unfair grading by a student.  The accusation is meritless, and it didn't take long to prove that I didn't do anything wrong.  No damage, but a lot of time wasted.

Later, I learned through the grapevine that I was among a long list of victims.  Indeed, in just one year, the very same student filed formal complaints against at least nine professors.  The nature of the complaints vary from case to case, but they follow the exact same script:

In every case, the student will take some small thing, e.g. a missed quiz or a late homework, and make a big argument with the instructor out of it.  The student will then escalate the issue to higher level and get the dean of college or even the president of the university involved. Of course the dean or the president have better things to do, so the student is usually ignored and the whole thing blows over quickly … or so we thought.  This part turns out to be only the lead jab in a one-two combination.  It's more of a setup.
The real strike comes at the end of the semester. When the grade is not good (which is 100% of the cases), a formal complaint will be filed stating that the student was punished for the earlier argument.  This is a very serious accusation and lead to complicated investigations in several cases.  It caused so much additional work that several professors just gave in and changed the grade to something the student liked.

This trick had a surprisingly high success rate, especially considering several victims are tenured professors.  The student is emboldened, and I have no doubt that the cycle will repeat.  If not stopped, I wouldn't be surprised if this student can earn a degree just by reusing this trick again and again.

My question is: Should we professors (as a group) react to such a behaviour and if yes, how? What could be the consequence, if any?

So far I have read the students' code of conduct carefully.  There appear to be nothing that can be directly applied here.  The closest appears to be the rule about dishonesty, but it wouldn't work by itself.

Updates:

After sharing parts of this story, I received several similar stories from friends and colleagues in other universities.  So the situation I described here is perhaps not as unique as it first appears.  It turns out, in my previous university, the department chair handled two similar cases while I was there.  But because such cases are supposed to be confidential, I was not aware of them.  I suspect this happens more often than we think.
The student does not have to prove his/her claim for this trick to work.    He/she simply has to file a complaint and a grade change appeal at the same time.  Students' have the right to do those.  That will trigger a lot of work for the instructors, the department chair, and the dean's office.  In my case, it took me 20~30 hours to respond to the complaints, provide assignment for review, and do other works.  Not everyone has this kind of time on the last day of the final week.  Given the options of doing these extra work vs. changing a letter and let it go, not everyone will make the right choice.

More update:

This student scored one more win:
The grade appeal committee's new ruling is that I should/have to change my grade (one letter grade higher) even though it was determined that I did not do anything wrong.
I now realized the student's trick work on multiple levels: It just keep on throw in serious accusations. At some point, someone, will feel it would less trouble to just give him/her what he/she was asking for. The instructor does not have give in. It could the departmental committee, or the chair, or the associate dean, or the college committee,... The only way this trick fails is that every single person along this long chain stand their ground.

When it comes to "he-said, she-said" situations, as seems to be the case here, most institutions will tend to take the side of professors by default. For obvious reasons—the 18–22 year old college student is much more likely to lie to obtain a favourable mark, than the professor is to act maliciously to sabotage a student. The only scenario where the professor might be in trouble is if there are accusations from multiple students.

The most significant red flag here is that the student is making essentially the same accusation against nine different professors. It is preposterous that nine professors would collectively decide to sabotage a single student.

  So far I have read the students' code of conduct carefully. There appear to be nothing that can be directly applied here. The closest appears to be the rule about dishonesty, but it wouldn't work by itself.

Making dishonest accusations to obtain more favourable grades is an unequivocal form of academic dishonesty. Any respectable institution would discipline a student engaging in such behaviour. If this behaviour cannot be disciplined at your university, I would suggest seeking employment elsewhere.

You should lodge a formal complaint, possibly in collaboration with the other professors who are being accused. You have a rock-solid case.


Funding situation if I have passed GATE but lack CSIR-JRF NET I have finished my M.Sc. in Applied Mathematics in 2016. I wish to pursue a PhD. Currently I am preparing for GATE (Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering, a master’s-level national entrance exam in India). In this respect, I have a few questions.

If I only have a valid GATE score but no CSIR-JRF NET qualification, will I be eligible for the 25 k funding?
If yes to above, is this funding available for any NAAC-accredited university (public or private) in India?
Is there any written statement from the government which validates this?

Although I admit that I am not fully aware of this area, here is my 2 cents on the matter based on my limited understanding:

As far as I am aware the GATE exam, is a masters level entry exam. It usually fetches you around Rs.12.4k per month of government funding during a masters degree. While it may be used as an entrance test for a PhD in India, the funding by the government is not available during the a post master level degree. Having said that, universities might sometimes have intakes on individual project based PhDs (where basically they fund you off that project) which might not check if you have a NET score. Again, I say might.
Passing the NET examination indeed does make you eligible for the aforementioned amount in terms of government sponsored scholarship. Ofcourse, you have to send a project proposal to the actual CSIR or UGC to actually get the scholarship.
Funding is usually not restricted by which university you belong to, as long as it is accredited. I am not sure of any written statement that validates this however, but it should be the case.

Please do not take my word as gospel because I am from an Engineering background and things might be slightly different in my area.


How to find top authors with most papers in a particular journal Is there a good way to find out authors and the number of papers published for each author in a particular journal? I was just wondering who are the top authors for a journal and how many papers they have published.

Discipline-specific repositories or databases might work, depending on your field - if 95% of papers in a given journal end up in DBLP or PubMed, then working through those tools will give you a good answer. However, it won't work for multidisciplinary journals (where some papers are in the repository and some aren't), or ones which aren't in that field at all.

For best effect, you need something which indexes on a per-journal basis; in other words, the database includes all the papers (or 'all since a given date') if it includes any at all. The two major commercial databases (Scopus & Web of Science) both do this.

Web of Science:

The most popular bibliographic database but not the most powerful.

On the general search, select 'publication name' and put in your journal title - it should suggest a matching entry from the index, or you can go through the index to pick one.
You may want to add a date filter at this point (if your journal is long-lived)
Run the search and glory in the thousands of results
In the left column, click the drop-down for filtering by authors, then 'refine'
Bingo - the top hundred authors, by number of records (though actual numbers are not shown)
You can download the data to play with it, but only in batches of 500 at a time

InCites:

InCites is an add-on package for Web of Science. I'm pretty sure you can get a more detailed report for a journal using this, but it's the weekend and I don't have my login details at home...

Scopus:

Never as popular as Web of Science, but more inclusive and you can do some very complex queries with it.

Select 'source title' in the standard search, and put in your title (no auto-suggestion here, but you can look through their index)
Again, add year filtering if appropriate
The left-hand column gives you a very quick summary of the top five authors with item counts, and if you click 'view more' in this box a couple of times you'll get a list of the top hundred with item counts. Like WoS, but better!
Alternatively, click 'analyse search results' and you'll get some pretty graphs; the same top hundred authors are available through this.
You can export up to 20,000 bibliographic records from a query through Scopus (as a flat CSV) if you want to do some further digging

Caveats

All of these tools are only as good as their author matching. If they think "Smith, J" and "Smith, J" are the same as a third "Smith, J" (or if they think that another is two different people because they publish in disparate journals) there's not much you can do. Author disambiguation is a work in process and some are better at it than others; generally speaking it's probably decent for recent papers and less good for records from the 1980s.


How to pull back my paper from conference? My first year undergraduate teammate submitted our paper to two conferences yesterday. I am afraid that this can lead to self plagiarism. Help me. How do I withdraw our paper? What should I say to conference organizers? This is a deeply concerning problem. Please help.

It depends on which conference you have submitted. There are several interfaces (the most popular one being easychair), and each of them has an option to withdraw paper before notification of acceptance (or rejection).

Just log into the website and click withdraw paper button.


Getting into PhD programme when having not the best grades due to personal issues I have studied Physics (Diploma) and since 3 years I work as a Software Engineer.

But I am starting to miss the high degree of intellectual challenge. So I am thinking to go back to academia. Unfortunately my Diploma grade was B (German 2), likewise the grade of my in-depth elective Theoretical Particle Physics. I think I could have done better, but my mother died of cancer during my Diploma thesis and this didn't leave much focus and time for me. Plus I started working on a Web App in the last 2 months of my studies. Other grades were better, my Math elective (Functional Analysis) was A+, likewise Theoretical Physics. My undergraduate studies' grades were mixed, between A+ and B-.

My thesis also does not look so well. Because of a lack of time it has orthographic errors, discussion of results is too short and the source code snippets in it look ugly. Once I applied for a job through a head hunter and after they saw my thesis they completely lost interest in me as a candidate.

So question: how hard is it in such a situation to apply for a PhD Programme and is it a good idea at all? What would be a good strategy when applying? I am interested in Mathematics, Theoretical Physics, Mathematical Physics or Computer Science.

In Germany even some renowned research institutes mention in the job offers that people with at least grade B should be encouraged to apply for a position. So I don't see here a major problem for you. No one looks on your pre-diploma grades, this is now different with the bachelor AND master degree. But you have to make a presentation of your diploma work for the job interview. I don't know what speaks against adding results that you worked out after that thesis to make the work more impressive, as you didn't have as much time as other students with a scholarship or rich parents and were forced to work besides your diploma work, especially as the diploma needs 12 months in germany. If they want you to send them your diplom pdf, than of course you have to look for another group.

The major problem I see is that you wrote your thesis now 3 years ago, and 2-2.5 years is also a deadline I saw several times in such german PhD job offers, as after some time you simply loose knowledge.

Nonetheless you should try it, write a few dozen applications and look how much invitations for a job interview you get and in what fields, but be clear what your motivation is. Your question does sound to me like you a bored and desperated in your current job, that is not the best reason for a Prof. to hire you, you should show interest in a specific topic, related to your diploma work would make your motivation to do a PhD more credible to me.


How common is it for grad school admissions to use a whitelist of undergrad institutions? I was talking to a professor recently and he mentioned something that I found surprising. Namely, for graduate admissions in his department (top-30, US public) they had a whitelist of universities and they only consider applicants whose undergraduate studies were at one of those universities. He went on to complain that initially the list was too US-centric and it had to be expanded because they missed good international candidates.

I was very surprised by this. I did not know that this whitelist approach is used, but evidently it is. My question: How common is this? Have others heard of this practice?

I'm pretty sure my undergraduate institution would not make it onto any such list. So I'm sad to hear about such practices. Fortunately, I did get admitted to several very good US grad schools, so evidently the practice is not universal.

I think your use of "white-list" is not accurate. Namely, usually it does not mean the exclusion of all others, but only the inclusion of those on the list.

As far as graduate admissions, yes, prior experience with letter writers from a given undergrad institution, especially via the people admitted to our program from that institution, establish a track record for those letter-writers, and for those programs. That's not to say that every individual from a good program is equally good... but that we have data points about the meaning of the letters of recommendation, and about prior preparation.

In fact, our graduate program pays considerable attention to individuals who most likely fall outside the doctrinaire "best undergrad institutions", exactly because we know that many grad programs will under-value them, so that (if we can see a good hint of potential) we have a better chance of recruiting them. So, no, there is absolutely no a-priori exclusion of people from ... odd... places.

But, again, sure, prior experience (for better or for worse) with institutions, their faculty, and their programs, obviously gives us information. Yes, it seems to be true that some institutions are a bit delusional/arrogant, but we don't hold that against their students. :)