Who issues the transcripts that applicants are asked to upload for a PhD application? For applying on PhD programm I need to upload Bachelor Certificate, Bachelor Grades, Master Certificate and Master Grades?
I must upload it in PDF files.

My question is who is the issuer of these transcripts? Universities?

Do I have to translate these documents and the scan to PDF?

Please for a little guidance.

The basic problem is that different countries (and potentially different universities within a country) have different standards about what constitutes a program of study and what official documents they provide.

I did my studies in two different Australian universities - both provided a certificate at completion and a transcript. The transcript is essentially a list of all the subjects I studied and the marks. In Australia (at least for the programs I did), there is no overall grade on the certificate. That is, the certificate just says that I completed the course but doesn't say 'cum laude' or 'with distinction' or anything else that US universities might expect. The transcipt is used instead to provide information about the student's skills. One of the universities also supplied a third document, which provides a description of the program of study (eg number of years, what a major is) to help international universities understand what the qualification means.

I don't tend to need these when applying for anything within Australia because the universities have systems in place to communicate with each other. However, they are always required whenever I am applying for anything at any university outside of Australia.

Your university should be able to provide you with something official. The best area to ask is probably whichever administration group is responsible for providing the certificates when you complete. If you don't have anything official, you could provide your results notices and the contact details of whoever at the university is able to confirm they are correct.


Author affiliation for co-authors not currently affiliated with an academic institute Similar questions have been asked here a number of times. I am raising it again to stress some specific issues that the previous threads have not resolved in my opinion.
The question is simply, what should the stated affiliation of a co-author who is employed in the industry be, considering that research was undertaken as an unpaid side-project in a field unrelated to that of their place of employment at the time (i.e. no conflict of interests).
Possible solutions are:

No affiliation.

I am concerned that this will stand out, given that all other authors have affiliations.

Previous academic affiliation.

Some users (in previous answers) seem to think that adding a previous academic institute as the affiliation for such an author is ethically wrong.
Moreover, I am concerned about crediting an institute that did not support the work, when this co-author's contribution was not supported by any institute.

Affiliation of otherwise unknown non-profit research organisation, specifically created for the purpose of providing an affiliation.

This would be ideal, as there is no misattribution or blank affiliation field; however, I am concerned that this will also look anomalous in the list of affiliations.

Listing a former affiliation as if it is current is not right. Listing an employer as an affiliation may run afoul of their rules. Permission may be required. And if they didn't support the research it is good for disambiguation purposes but no other.
Listing yourself as an Independent Researcher is correct in almost all cases, though your employer should probably be consulted as there may be contract obligations.
No affiliation is fine if the journal (or whatever) permits it, but for people with common names is less than ideal. But don't worry that it stands out. People rarely care much about it unless they want to contact you.
If you have an established personal "business" perhaps for tax purposes to manage income from publishing books and such, as I do, then you could list that. It is accurate and honest. But it might need to be public enough to enable people to use it to find you. And, creating a bespoke organization for this purpose, especially as a one-off, doesn't really help for any of the usual purposes.
But affiliation in general is used for several things. The most important is probably to indicate support from an organization, though disambiguation of names is also quite important. And a previous affiliation treated as if it were current could be interpreted as dishonest. And if someone tries to contact you through a previous affiliation and is told that you are in no way affiliated with them then you could suffer a bit.
However, specifying "Formerly a student at Universal University of the Universe" is fine, since you are clear about the intent.

And a warning. Some employers require you to get permission to publish most everything. Some will forbid publication if it affects their core business in any way. Know what is in your contract.


Which tables should be put in the appendix? I am currently writing my bachelor's thesis. I made a lot of experiments and I describe them as well as their result in the text. Currently, I have most tables with the results of the experiments within the main part. However, I am thinking about putting at least the bigger tables in the appendix as they make the text hard to read.

What should I put in the appendix and what should be in the main part?

I like to think of appendices (or supporting information, which is the same thing for a journal paper) in terms of the narrative structure of a text. The main text should contain everything that makes up the "story" of the work.  In it, a reader who basically trusts that your methods are sound should find everything that they need to understand the work.

There are often, however, places where it is important to show your work, but that are not particularly interesting.  If they are lengthy enough that they start feeling like a major detour in the flow of the narrative, then they are a good candidate for moving to an appendix.

Some examples from my own recent papers:

Theorem and proof sketch in main text, boring exhaustive proof with lots of slightly different cases in appendix.
Graph summarizing results plus an example of result detail in main text, all the rest of the results in appendix.
Data from method presented in main text, data showing that plausible alternatives didn't work in appendix.
Intuitive description of method and key mathematical concepts in main text, exhaustive mathematical details in appendix.

Exactly where to draw the line is somewhat subjective, but fortunately doesn't matter all that much unless you are dealing with format or length restrictions.


Specifying a preprint is "submitted", *to a specific journal* There are some mathematicians who are active online and who blog about their work at various stages, including when they upload a paper to the arXiv. I like this aspect as it gives a chance for the author to give a more informal explanation as to how the results were arrived at or how to interpret them. However, I've seen a few times they they say, on their blog or in the arXiv comments, that the paper is submitted for publication (which is perfectly fine), but additionally specify exactly which journal it has gone to.

As these mathematicians are in fact well-respected and solid in their career I do not wish to impugn their decision, but it smacks of me of being rather confident that the journal will accept the paper, after some small revisions. Since the refereeing process in mathematics takes months, at a minimum, and up to a couple of years in more involved cases, the statement that the submission is to a particular journal will stand for a long time before we know either way as to the result.

As a early career researcher I wouldn't presume to proclaim the journal I think my work should be published in. But am I selling myself short? Let us say I am reasonably confident the paper I am submitting is a good fit for the chosen journal, should I also stake my claim during the preprint phase, to signal at least how "good" I think my paper is? (which judgement people can then assess based on their own experience)

Edit: I see the answers at the previous similar question, while acknowledging the practice to be field-dependent generally warn against this behaviour. However I am observing a career-stage-dependent behaviour in my field contrary to those good suggestions, weighted towards those who already have some advantage (to borrow from Dan Romik's example, imagine Bob could always carry through on his promise, never overstepping the bound on what had actually been done).

No, do not specify the journal that you have submitted to.

Anyone can submit a bad paper to a prestigious journal. The sole fact of submitting your paper to journal XY can not be used to signal or suggest a certain quality of the paper or the author.
If your paper is rejected by journal XY you are forced to update your publication list and are in fact publicly admitting and documenting that your paper has been rejected by journal XY.


Why do conferences keep deferring the deadlines? We work on some research problem, obtain some publishable results, then we target an international conference to disseminate the results and methods in, and then there is a 'last' date or deadline.

We submit the complete manuscript to the conference on or before the mentioned deadline of the conference.

Then, suddenly we see the deadlines (both for submission and for the acceptance) continually change over time. For example, in one of the last year's Computer Science conference, the deadlines were changed repeatedly. Please note that the deadlines for submission were getting extended on the very day of the earlier notified deadline, which is another demotivating factor.

Why might it be happening?

Because the targetted number of submissions were not received.
The reviewers could not meet the deadlines.
Can there be any other reasons than the above two?

I have the following questions:

If the conference organizers were not so firm about this stuff, why did they even have an important date page?
It is actually frustrating for the authors who have submitted the paper on the first submission dead line and still waiting for 3 months to get the review. This is ridiculously bad for a conference.
The papers which are submitted at the last notified deadline will be reviewed in a less productive way. If this is true, then what is the point of having a peer review?
In such a scenario, is it advisable to withdraw the paper from the conference?
Does it not hamper the quality of the conference as good researchers would not submit to the same conference again in following years?

I believe that this question is not a duplicate of this question.

There are basically two approaches for conference deadlines.  In my experience, top conferences have a "hard" deadline and do not slip it, and the rest frequently slip it once.  Usually the slippage is actually planned, and it's announced pretty far in advance: for instance, a conference might say 2 weeks before its announced deadline that there are actually 3 weeks to go.  Sometimes it's a panic because of low submissions, which is probably a bad sign.

Notifications are another story.  It's considered poor form to miss the announced deadline, though if the change takes place before submission (delaying both submissions and results) that seems ok: people can choose not to submit.  Simply missing and redefining the deadline isn't playing by the rules.

I wouldn't say that the changes to the deadlines are a reason to avoid a conference.  Many factors go into the decision about which conference you submit to.


Could publishing a book on a subject prior to a PhD reflect negatively on me later if it has errors? I noticed that some scholars in my field are best known for their earliest writing, even if their ideas were later found incorrect.

I am writing a book in my area of interest and hope to publish within a year. The target audience is not academics, but practitioners, although I suspect academics would be the first to seek out a book of this kind.

Year by year, my understanding of the subject matter grows, through reading and experience. It is highly likely that in a few years time I will realize I made many mistakes in the book. Perhaps, for example, I was not aware that some of my described solutions to problems in the field did not actually work as well as I thought they did.

If I later started a PhD in the same area, would such a past publication create problems for an academic career?

Anything you write places you at risk of being wrong somehow. Certainly a book of this kind is asking for a wider audience that then might be aware of those mistakes. Alexandros points out in a comment that you certainly need to do your due diligence now to assure that what you write is as correct as it can be. No one is going to blame you if you suggest a response to a certain legal framework which is overhauled in three years but if you describe a chemical solution that could never react in the way you claim that one is on you. So how certain you can be that your work will remain correct/useful is somewhat field dependent.

The big question is about this hurting your ability to start and pursue a PhD after writing such a book. I don't think it would. Except in the rather extreme case of your book becoming well enough known and wrong/controversial enough to annoy members of a PhD admissions committee. For the most part I would suggest that already being an active member of a practical field (read: has published work discussing the field) would be a very helpful piece of an application for a PhD program.


Citing oneself in PhD application documents: Good or bad? Some PhD applications I've gone through involved submitting a research proposal, statement of interests and/or a sample article review (e.g. of a specific, pre-determined article which has relevance to the position being applied for). Naturally, when writing proposals and critiquing people's work, I will naturally have my own (ideally similar) work as a reference to compare it to, naturally knowing my own work quite intimately. However, is explicitly referencing one's own work in such contexts a good idea or a bad one? For example:

  Review: McMahon et al. 2012. "How to raise gerbils on Mars." Gerbil Fancy, vol. 14, no. 3.

  Reviewer McNotyetdoctorface

  Swiss Naval Academy

  Bern, Switzerland

  ...

  McMahon et al. reported poor results in estimating the nutrition requirements of gerbils in low-gravity environments. These results could have been improved by conditioning for effects of gerbil Earthsickness as witnessed by McNotyetdoctorface (2011) during his similar work on the moon.

For

One positive aspect of mentioning oneself which I could imagine is displaying the ability to create a "narrative" of one's own work over time and to relate it to other works in a constructive manner, and it also subtly "shows off" one's previous work to people who may have overlooked it or at least overlooked its relevance to the position at hand.

Against

On the other hand, I'm not sure if PhD application materials are intended to be either "anonymous", "unbiased" or both: If they are anonymous, then no one will know that I am in fact Reviewer McNotyetdoctorface, so there would be little benefit. However, I obviously think my own work is fantastic, and so citing it in an application might backfire in that the people reading it may think: "Well, he really likes tooting his own horn; Does he ever think that other people's work can be better than his?".

I find manner in which you frame your question quite interesting. To address your question, if you have published work then why not cite it? Of course it may reveal your identity but that can only work to your advantage in the long-run. If the professor doesn't like the applicant for personal reasons the applicant probably wouldn't want to do a PhD with that particular professor anyway. 4 years or even 3 can be a very long-time if PhD and supervisor are not on the same wave-length.
Moreover, if you do not cite your own published work you might be plagiarizing yourself.

If the work is not published at all then I would probably not mention it in a PhD application, because it can have the opposite effect. The reviewers may think that the applicant focusses too much on his/her own work and opinions and is not flexible enough. After 1.5 years of PhD I can safely say that flexibility is a key ingredient to a successful PhD journey. Therefore, show off your knowledge when your present your argument and ideas.

If the work is published, but not a in a peer-reviewed journal, then I guess it depends where you are applying to (university, department, professor).
Good luck with the application!


Is it fine to ask my advisor if I can appear as first author in our paper? My situation is the following: I am a prospective graduate student and recently worked with a professor and a high school student on writing a physics paper. This will be my first paper, and since I intend to apply to graduate school, I would like to appear as first author.
I know from other students who have worked with this professor that he gives them the opportunity to be first authors. However, this time I am not the only student collaborating with him.
Therefore, I was wondering if it would be appropriate to ask my advisor if I can appear as first author. After all, I was the one who contributed the most to the project (although the high school student also made some contributions).

Yes, of course you can ask, and give the reason. But it may be moot depending on your field. In some fields, alphabetical listing is the norm. In others it is vitally important and fought over.
If you are in a field in which it is important, then I hope your advisor is a bit generous in this since you are starting out. But if you aren't the main driver of the ideas in the paper then you should be prepared to yield graciously. Other papers will come. Your first paper isn't, hopefully, the best work you ever do. There will be future opportunities but they depend, somewhat, on cooperation with others. You can also be generous. Especially if you are willing to take a long view.


Can I include under-review content in my PhD Thesis? In the verge of writing up a PhD thesis, is it fine to include the content of the work which is submitted to a conference and is "under review" at the time of writing up. More specifically if the conference has 'double-blind' review process.Or is it advisable to wait till the review decision on publication is out.

Please suggest.

Thanks, KR

I am sure this may vary but this is standard procedure for our theses since they are based on papers. A student will typically have about four papers/manuscripts in their thesis ranging from published through all stages of revision in a journal to not yet submitted manuscripts.

You will need to check with your local guidelines what is expected from a thesis to figure out the details but it would seem difficult to demand all published papers unless the period to complete a PhD is open ended.


How many PhD students are too many? I'm a new assistant professor in the UK in Electrical engineering. I'm in the process of setting up my lab and I work in a "hot" area. Thus, I have the chance of getting good students funded by industry or funding bodies.

I know of professors with 10+ PhDs and others with 2-3. The group I did my PhD in was in the second category while my postdoc in the first.

However, I am wondering, what should be my target? Any studies have been made? Any personal experience?

I currently have three PhD students.

This is more of a qualifying remark: What your eventual target might be should probably be different from your current target. Advising students is a skill you have to learn and learning this skill will take time. So I'd recommend starting small until significant parts become routine. Also, more senior students might be able to show new students the ropes, so staggering might be useful too.

There are of course a lot of other constraints, so don't take this as your only criterium.


Can a predatory journal have a quite high Impact factor? A journal from MDPI is ranked 114 out 272 in its category according to Web of Science Journal Citation Reports. Can it still be a predatory journal?  Can a predatory journal obtain an impact factor at all ?
Thanks

Yes it can.* That's because the two things are orthogonal. The asterisk is because you need to define "predatory", and different people often have different definitions. Still, most definitions are orthogonal to what an impact factor looks at.
The impact factor is calculated by a company called Clarivate. It depends on the number of citations articles published in the journal have received in the past two years, divided by the number of citable articles published. In other words, it depends only on the number of citations received. That means all other considerations that routinely show up when discussing predatory journals, such as the APCs they charge or who they have on the editorial board, are irrelevant.
So yes, it is possible. Caveat: if you believe that the distinguishing hallmark of predatory journals is accepting articles quickly with little or no peer review or quality control, then having an impact factor practically proves the journal isn't predatory. Journals with no quality control are not likely to be indexed by Clarivate in the first place.


List of international internships/student programs Is there a website where a list is maintained and constantly updated for undergrads/graduate students looking for internships/competitions/conferences in whatsoever field?

Such a website will be an invaluable resource!

Though it may be outdated now, my father and now myself are both part of AIESEC
https://www.aiesec.org/


Citing an accepted manuscript that hasn't yet been published I'm writing a thesis for the master degree.

I'm going to include one of my conference paper in my thesis and I understand that it is common and acceptable for school regulations to include already published papers of my own work in my thesis.

But there is one problem. The defense of my thesis will be held in mid-April and this thesis will be submitted by the end of April.

But a paper I'm going to include in the thesis has been accepted by a conference and will be published sometime in June.

So, how can I cite my conference paper in the process of publication in my thesis?

How can I cite a conference paper that has been accepted but not published?

Cite the paper as if it were published (albeit without page numbers, etc.) and add to appear at the end of the citation.


What to do if Professor offers an internship position I had been offered a position to work as a intern in one of my professor's lab. He had asked me if I would be interested. But the position was not confirmed. How do I ask him about the confirmation? Would it seem desperate? I really enjoy the course and would love to contribute to the work that is being undertaken.

Then ask him, either when you happen to meet in the corridor or a nice email - he may be waiting on you...

I don't think he will run around looking for you.

But think of the difference between "desperate" and "motivated" - he will be happy / pleased to find someone motivated !


Should I talk about a unpublished paper in my SOP? I have a draft of a unpublished paper that I hosted in Arxiv that I will be attaching with my application. Should I talk about the inspiration behind it in my SOP. Like how is the method behind the paper different from the existing methods for the same problem?

There seems to be this general consensus that anything flimsy or story-like needs to be avoided. Does talking about inspiration for a paper qualify as flimsy or story-like?

The paper is a single author paper that I never talked about with my recommendors so I am afraid that if I don't talk about it, people reading my SOP will not read it at all.

Talking about an unpublished article that has inspired you is certainly fair game for a SOP essay in a graduate application.

Certainly the inspiration, and the differences between your approach and different, existing methods would be highly interesting to me.

I love to see undergrads who take initiative in research - they tend to make good Ph.D. students. Taking ownership and initiative in your project is a key step of maturity in grad school. So if you have already done so, that's a great sign.

And yes, if it's only in Arxiv and you haven't mentioned it to your letter-writers, I'm not likely to read the paper if it's not otherwise mentioned in your SOP.


How to point out a typo in an equation in an article? In an article (from 2015) I came across a wrong equation with a sign error in one term. In the publicly available code, the correct sign is used, so the results of this particular paper are correct. However, several other papers have since copied and used this equation, and therefore likely have wrong results because of it. It won't change any conclusions I think, some results would change by a factor ~1.5. Should I just email the authors, or the journal? And what about the other papers that used the wrong equation?

Yes, you can email both the authors and the editor of the journal. A correction might be issued. But it is worth a bit of effort.
Of course, if it is obvious in the paper then it may be that it has been noticed by many and they have responded, or just ignored the error as obvious and moved on.
But it you have some evidence that the error has affected the results of newer papers then it might be especially important to reach out.


publishing papers vs. receiving Masters/PhD I'm a software engineer with several years of industry experience.

If I got involved part-time in a research team and collaborate with them to publish several papers. Practically speaking what's the difference between that and actually receiving Masters/PhD ?

Mainly, What is the difference between somebody who got a PhD by publishing several papers and somebody who published several papers without even pursuing PhD ?

( Excuse my ignorance about these matters )

What's the point of any qualification? Well, ideally, it's a standard: a quick, easy and reliable way to assess a candidate's ability.

A PhD is, ideally, a standard that indicates a student is capable of independent research that results in a novel contribution to knowledge, at significant depth.

The publishing of papers can also indicate that someone is capable of independent research that results in a novel contribution to knowledge, at significant depth. Though - at least in the sciences - sole-author papers are relatively rare.

Not all papers are of equal standard: the quality can vary hugely. Not all PhDs are of equal standard, but once we exclude degrees-for-cash and other disreputable institutions, there is broadly (but not perfectly reliably) a certain standard required.

And for most people, the work and talent required to do the research to produce several quality papers, is broadly about the same as that required to attain a PhD. So the PhD provides a better route for many, because it will be more portable, and more easily recognised as a qualification of ability. The PhD course also (typically) comes with institutional support to learn the required research skills.

Additionally, some research grants require a PhD or equivalent degree, in order to be eligible to apply.

The academic posts that I've seen typically require a PhD or equivalent research background: but it's harder to make the case through the latter route. Nevertheless, there are many researchers, quite a few professors, and some heads of department without doctorates, at heavyweight institutions. And there's one department head that I know of who doesn't have any degree - and he really is exceptional.


Differences between German computer science doctorates The faculties of some German universities offer a choice of doctoral degrees.  For example, Technische Universität Darmstadt's Department of Computer Science allows candidates to apply for either a Doktor-Ingenieur (Dr.-Ing.) or a Doctor rerum naturalium (Dr. rer. nat.).  Candidates choose which degree they want to apply for shortly before they submit and defend their thesis; the only guidance provided is as follows:

  Der Dr.-Ing. wird im allgemeinen auf Grund einer Dissertation
  verliehen, die überwiegend ingenieurwissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse aus
  der Informatik enthält.

  Der Dr. rer. nat. wird im allgemeinen auf Grund einer Dissertation
  verliehen, die überwiegend theoretische wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse
  aus der Informatik enthält.

Roughly translated:

  The Dr.-Ing. degree is generally awarded on the basis of a thesis that contains predominantly engineering-related findings in computer science.

  The Dr. rer. nat. degree is generally awarded on the basis of a thesis that contains predominantly theoretical scientific findings in computer science.

Other German universities may offer yet other degrees.  I know some computer scientists who hold a Dr. phil. (Doktor der Philosophie).

In some cases where the university offers various doctoral degrees, a thesis may meet the criteria for several of them.  (For example, in the TU Darmstadt example, the thesis may contain engineering-related and theorical scientific findings in roughly equal proportions.) In such cases, is there any reason for the candidate to prefer requesting one degree over the other?  Do the various computer science degrees have different standings or reputations?  Will having one or another make it easier or harder to get certain types of jobs in academia or industry, either in Germany or abroad?

In general, the latin title of the degree conferred at a German university is of purely historical relevance (basically, indicating how the original four faculties of the middle ages split into the dozen or more departments of today, which happened in different ways at different universities -- obviously, Computer Science split off of Electrical Engineering in Darmstadt, rather than, say, Mathematics as in Munich); the important information is which department conferred the degree (which differentiates a Dr.rer.nat in Mathematics from one in Physics or Chemistry).

There is, however, one exception: The Dr.-Ing. (Doctorate in Engineering) still has a special place as an indication of the high regard in which German academic engineering is held (mostly, needless to say, within Germany, as well as by those directly influenced by this system, although a hundred years ago this was indeed something special), and is the reason why Darmstadt is offering a choice -- in effect, it's a marketing strategy to get students to enrol by offering them a degree that's perceived as more attractive. (This is also related to the fact that some universities still hand out "Dipl.-Ing." diplomas even though the Bologna process turned every other degree into a Masters.)

As to whether the choice of degree will make a practical difference in finding a job, that's hard to say. My feeling is that it will most likely play a role when transitioning to industry in Germany, where someone with a Dr.-Ing. might be seen as more "hands-on", practical-oriented, than with a Dr.rer.nat. (especially at small or medium-sized companies which might hesitate to hire a purely theoretical PhD). On the German academic job market, on the other hand, the university (and research group) where you got your title would be much more important. Outside Germany, I'd be surprised if many people cared much about the distinction (unless they themselves are the proud holders of a Dr.-Ing., of course...)


Do TAs in the US usually grade student responses? In my country, many institutes have the custom of TAs evaluating and distributing the marks of students of that particular course the TA is handling.
I am wondering whether it is a part of academic culture in the US or not.

Yes, this is common in the United States.
With the assumption that "Evaluate the answer sheets" means "Grades assignments/projects/exams"
In both my undergrad and graduate studies and personal experience as a TA, assignments/projects/exams were often graded by a TA.
In my experience I've found that a Professor will generally only participate in the grading process when:

The subject is very specialized. i.e. a semester project, or something that aligns with a professors specialty

The amount of student in the class is very low (< 50). Many of my smaller undergraduate classes were graded by professors either exclusively or in conjunction with TAs.

If we look at something like Penn State's School of Science TA Info Page they specifically list grading a a responsibility of a TA. This responsibility along with the prerequisite that the TA either took that class and did well previously or has extensive knowledge of the subject is very common across Universities in the United States.
You also mention that a TA would "prepare presentations, frame questions, do a textbook reading, take small lectures" This can also be true, but varies more between professors than the position as a whole.


Does journal access significantly influence choice in which journal to publish in? The University of California has been out of contract with Elsevier this year following disputes on higher costs and reduced rights to a number of journals.

My lab has published numerous papers in various Elsevier journals, many of which are highly considered in their respective fields, but my principal investigator has opted for other journals following the breakdown of the contract. I am a proponent of open-access, but I am wondering whether journal access has influenced your decision to publish in specific journals. I am also interested in the rationales for continuing to publish in closed access journals vs. other journals.

I could see the number of citations and h-indices being factors that heavily influence the decision.

I've asked many professors why they submit to journal X instead of journal Y. Reasons given include:

Geographic location (e.g. British astronomers are more likely to submit to Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society simply because that's a British journal)
Impact factor
Scope (certain journals are more theoretical than others, certain topics are just historically published in certain journals, etc)
Habit / familiarity (if I am familiar with a journal's style, publishing there saves time)
Personal knowledge of the editors
Open access (although the professors I spoke to were not concerned about whether their paper would be OA; they were more concerned about publishing in subscription journals, just so they wouldn't have to figure out the open access APC)

Journal access is never cited.

As for why publish open access vs. closed access, see: Why do tenured professors still publish in pay-walled venues?


How competitive are places for PhD positions in mathematics? I am a master student in mathematics at a university in the Netherlands and am currently applying for PhD positions as I will be graduating soon. Thus far I have applied for about ten positions (in the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, etcetera) and although I am still waiting on some of my applications, I have been rejected without interview from the ones I have heard back from (which is the majority).

In brief conversations I have had with academics on this issue, they have generally hinted (albeit rather vaguely) that competition is not so high (say, compared with industry) and that I should be hopeful of landing  a position. This is in spite of the fact that my grades are quite average and the feedback I received from one failed application was that my grades were too low. My academic advisor, however, advised me that the quality of my thesis (which I am currently writing) was of more importance and downplayed the importance of grades due to how they differ from country to country, university to university (among other reasons).

The problem seems to be that positions are seldom advertised and even if only twenty percent of graduates wish to pursue a doctoral position, that means that there are still a lot of people vying for say only one position.

I was wondering what the general consensus on this was and if I should maybe lower my expectations of getting a doctoral position if it is say only intended for the "best of the best"?

I don't know if my opinion is representative of a general consensus, but I would look for candidates who fit well for the program, in particular those who fit well with the area(s) I'd like to supervise and work on. Research is so broad, that a candidate can not be "best of the best" in all areas simultaneously. If you are trying to impress people and present yourself as the best of the best candidate, you end up writing a generic and vague statement, full of unjustified self-praise with a little evidence. Some of applications I deal with don't even have the University name in their statements (e.g. I apply to your University because...) - guess what happens with them?

I suggest you to really do your homework, research a few Departments you are really interested in, choose the place (or two or three) which suits you and then write your application very specifically for each place, to demonstrate how well your interests and skill set match their interests and research programs. It's all about the right match, not being a jack of all trades.


Should I switch labs, three years in? I'm in a biology PhD program, and I'm three years into the process. However, my mentor is small minded, unsupportive, and borderline emotionally abusive. I found this out almost a year into my project after TAing his class for him, where he treated the other TA with a lot of deference and respect but was really aggressive and unkind towards me. When I spoke with him about realizing that microbiology wasn't my passion, he told me that I should switch labs because this really wasn't the place for me. At the end of that discussion he said I shouldn't hold him to the mean things he'd said (which is exactly the kind of emotional abuse I'm talking about).

For a long time I've considered switching from wet lab benchwork to computational biology, but am worried that the problem lies within me, and not with the work. Now that I've realized that my mentor isn't going to be of any help, I'm turning towards the internet hivemind. In short, my questions are:

A) What criteria have people used to decide to switch the scope and focus of their PhD projects when faced with an emotionally abusive mentor who has led to the emotional breakdown of at least two, if not more, of his students?

B) what is a good way I can assess if computational work is something I would like/be good at?

This also isn't something I can easily go to the department with, because the last time I tried to speak with someone they launched an investigation into the lab and so it ended up making my experience much, much harder.

Almost all grad students feel under-appreciated by their mentors at some point.

Your adviser sounds like a top notch A-hole. Unfortunately, to be a successful researcher in academia, most institutions look at (in order): the quantity of grant money being generated, the quantity/quality of research publications, and how many PhD students you generate. In other words, most research faculty consider the needs of their PhD students last.
Therefore almost all grad students feel under-appreciated by their mentors at some point. What keeps most grad students going through the 'tough times' is they enjoy the subject-matter they decided to go to grad school in. What I recommend is:

Have you began work on a thesis paper? If not, I would consider the door wide open to a change of departments / research groups. Especially if you don't have a passion for your work. Any future career path is going to be influenced heavily by your choice of research; why go down a path you know you don't want to pursue?
Finding a major professor who can simultaneously be your academic mentor and best pal is hard. You are going to need to pick a field of research you have a passion for if you plan on making it to the end. If finding someone you get along with is important to you, the easiest way to tell is to rely heavily on the next bullet:
When looking into another graduate course of study / department / laboratory, ask the current graduate students. This is going to be by far the most useful input: if at all possible, ask them about their relationship with faculty. Ask them about their workload. Ask them if they publish. Ask them if they feel supported. Ask them how long it takes.


By what title should I greet assistant and associate professors in emails and letters? By what title should I greet assistant and associate professors in emails and letters? I study in the UK and for post-doctorands up to senior lectures one uses "Dear Dr. X", but for professors one uses "Dear Professor. X".

Assistant and Associate Professors in the US can be formally addressed by "Professor" or "Doctor/Dr.". There should be no offense given with either salutation, and either is appropriate.


Who should pursue a Ph.D degree? I am asking myself the question "Should I do PhD or should I leave academia and go for an industrial career?"

My life-goal is being a professor. And I love to do research.

PhD is surely a bite that not everyone can chew.
But I wonder who can chew it?

I never was good at tests and exams. My BSc. GPA was 2.84/4.00 but finished my MSc. with 3.50/4.00

However, currently I am working on a conference paper and I feel like even that is too much for me. It has been nearly 3 months and still, the paper draft is to be improved (not the wording but the content).

I am surely a hard-worker but not always. Sometimes, I let go of my work and absorbed in other stuff (composing, amateur radio etc). If this period is too wide, I have to spend double effort to warm-up and remember where I left.

I don't know how things work in PhD. It usually is 5-6 years. It is the one of two most-challenging milestones in academic career (the other is getting the title Assoc. Prof).
Should I completely be a "nerd" and work on my thesis systematically (something I could never make in my entire life) or working periodically but with extra effort is still sufficient?

So, here's my question: If I say "I'm considering to do PhD" and ask your advice, what would you ask me? What kind of skills/characteristics do you look for a potential academician?

I know it is way too late for me to ask this kind of question, as a person who almost finished his master's degree. But better lose the saddle than the horse.

So, here's my question: If I say "I'm considering to do PhD" and ask
  your advice, what would you ask me? What kind of
  skills/characteristics do you look for a potential academician?

The first questions I would ask is: are you really interested in the subject? Can you imagine spending the next 5+ years thinking about pretty much nothing else?
Why do you want to do a PhD in the first place?

  However, currently I am working on a conference paper and I feel like
  even that is too much for me. It has been nearly 3 months and still,
  the paper draft is to be improved (not the wording but the content).

Now imagine the same thing but replace 3 month with 3 years.

  Sometimes, I let go of my  work and absorbed in other stuff.

This is also not very helpful for pursuing a PhD.

I think in most fields (that might be different for some fields of science) getting a PhD is only for people who want to do research. Apart from that it is only a waste of time and money. So the question you should ask yourself is not: Am I able to get a PhD? But rather: Do I want to get a PhD?

However, if you decided that you really want to give it a try: talk to someone from your university about it, maybe the supervisor of your thesis. Grades are not always a good indicator of the quality as a researcher.

EDIT:

  My life-goal is being a professor. And I love to do research.

That answers most of the questions.

  But I don't know if I'm capable of doing a Ph.D.

No one here can answer this question. You should try to talk to a professor at your university, the supervisor of your Master's Thesis, or someone who is doing research you are interested in. However, do not let your grades disencourage you, I know many students who had pretty bad grades but are great as PhD students and many excellent students who struggle with their research.


Should I mail my advisor concerning his attitude towards me, and possible re-use of my ideas by a colleague? I have been doing some research for my masterthesis. I had a supervisor for this task, who was (to my opinion) quite harsh and unhelpful in his feedback. I pursued it nevertheless, and continued on the work that I had been doing; but got somewhat annoyed.
Some time ago, he sent me a (edit: yet unpublished) paper by one of his colleagues (with whom he had previously been working with) on a topic that somewhat overlaps with the topic I had been working in. 3 out of the 5 concepts that I used in my paper are also presented in this paper (with a somewhat different name, but the construct on its' own is the same); although the actual question, and other concepts were also added to it - so it's not quite a copy-paste, but I had a sense that this (not yet published paper) was in some ways inspired by my work. The most troubling aspect I found was how my supervisor treated my ideas as 'unoriginal' and also did not give me much support throughout my work while he then send me something that I felt was actually originally coming from me.
I have contacted already a third person about this (edit: an ombuds-person, who is also a professor at my faculty), and am thinking about sending to my supervisor regarding my disappointments and questions about this issue later on, once I finished my exams and obtained my master.
But I don't expect much helpful answers back (I am slightly resentful of that moment, and I am wondering how I can do this at the same time politely and honestly).
I was wondering whether anyone had some similar experience, and could help me figure out what I should do? Should I let it go, later on? Do I also have any say in this?
It is not only my own personal situation that worries me, it's also about all future students who might have him as a supervisor who might go through something like this - which is everything but a nice way to finish a degree.
So if anyone has any experience, I'd love to hear about it.
Update
I send an email to my promotor, in which I somewhat mentioned my problems. He replied to me back that he was sorry that he was not more present to help me, that I should tell something to my advisor and that he will be there to support me if there is any conflict; that definitely something needs to be fixed here and that he is willing to repair the wrongs. So to anyone feeling stuck in a similar situation, I guess my best advice would be: talk about it, and with as many persons as you can - you might not have the answer directly from one person at one moment, but it also just helps figuring what the problem is in the first place. Thanks for everyone having replied in the comments, that was really nice & helpful! :)

I have contacted already a third person about this (edit: an ombuds-person, who is also a professor at my faculty)

This ombudsperson is probably the person best suited to give advice about whether misconduct occurred and what your options may be. Given that you are already talking to an ombudsperson, I would not want to add my own speculation into the mix.

[I] am thinking about sending to my supervisor regarding my disappointments and questions about this issue later on, once I finished my exams and obtained my master.

Your instinct to wait until after finalizing your degree is probably a good one. As for the advisability of writing such a letter at all: well, I am afraid I do not see much point. Certainly it seems unlikely that your advisor will say "Egads! I have seen the error of my ways and am overcome with remorse!" Your desire to protect future students is admirable, but unless the ombudsperson recommends further action, I suspect your options will be somewhat limited.


Published paper without advisor's name while receiving stipend from her grant I know people have asked similar questions before but I feel my situation is somewhat different. I met a graduate student at a conference and we realized that we had a very similar research idea and decided to turn that idea into a paper. We successfully published the paper. I initially wanted to add my advisor's name but decided it would not be in my place to ask as she was not involved at all and she did not ask to be added, so I submitted the paper without her name. It was not quite apparent to me at that time as she did not express any concerns, but looking back, I think what I did was wrong because my stipend came from one of her grants which was not related to the topic I published on (I paid the publishing costs though). Am I right in thinking that I did something wrong? What is going to be the aftermath of this? I have the feeling I have marred my relationship with her.

I think what I did was wrong because my stipend came from one of her grants.

There is no connection between funding and authorship.  Providing funding is never sufficient to make someone an author.  So you have not done anything wrong for this reason.

  What is going to be the aftermath of this?

I cannot predict what your advisor will do.  I can say what they should do.  If your paper is accepted, your advisor should say this is evidence they trained you so well that you are able to do research independently.  This makes you and your advisor both look good.

A good rule for research in general is:  Do not keep secrets.  If you feel a need to keep a secret, it's probably paranoia.


How to integrate partial version control, data exchange and research assistants? Currently, my coauthors and I use GitHub to collaborate in coding and writing but also in data exchange. We have a lot of data, often not in text format (e.g. pdf). Most of this is collected by research assistants, which which we don't share our Git repo.

More specifically, we use python, shell, R, Stata and Latex and most of it is fully integrated. That is, python and shell scripts generate the data that is used by R and Stata whose output is directly compiled in Latex.

We don't want to deviate from this high level of automatization, but our approach has two major shortcomings:

Research assistants can and may not upload their data directly into our repo. Instead, they send us their data and files via another git repo. This puts additional workload on me but we want to make them use git for it's fascinating issue tracker. However, there is too much additional work for us and git is often to complicated for young research assitants (even the GUIs).
Because of the data, which eventually changes, our repo is very large (>1,5GB) and internet is sometimes restricted. Getting the repo on a new computer is very time-consuming and often not working. Although the raw data changes from time to time, git, which was not made for the data exchange, keeps track of these changes. But that's useless for our purpose.

Can you suggest to me other software(s) or approaches, which combine the integration we have achieved so far where we can easily exchange data?

I've run into similar problems in collaboration with biologists, and found that a two-technology approach is best.

Large-scale experimental data is shared via one or more BitTorrent Sync folders.  The experimentalists can just drop their files into the appropriate place in the folder, and they get synchronized with the server and everybody else's copy (like DropBox, but private, free, and unlimited size).
The analytical tool-chain, research products, write-ups, etc. are maintained in your preferred version system (e.g., git).  This is then integrated with the experimental data just by giving a pointer to the appropriate directories.

This has the advantage of maintaining the data separation that you need, keeping the scary version control software away from the experimentalists, and also avoiding juggling massive globs of data in a version control system that was never intended to support this.


Returning to research/academia I'm a 28 year old Ph.D. student in CS (databases), in my first year of study - I have completed a research-based Master's program and published a couple of papers as well.

I love research, and my current school + supervisor. However, I'm under severe financial pressures, and the stipend isn't cutting it (I'm unable to take up part-time work, since I'm on a visa). I have standing offers from great companies. The logical step is for me to take up a job at one of these places, since my plan was to work in industry after a Ph.D. anyway.

However, I wish to return to academia (as a professor) at some point, perhaps in my 40s. My choices are:

Continue in my current program (very stressful personally)
Re-apply (after I'm financially settled) to a Ph.D. program, in my mid-late thirties.
Try and publish from industry (collaborate with my current advisor) and apply for a position in academia later on (as a researcher/tenure-track professor).

Questions for you guys:

General advice on any other options I don't know about?
Is (2) worthwhile, will I get into a good program (mainly concerned by the age factor)
Is (3) even possible? If so, how rare is it that academic positions are offered to non-Ph.D.'s? My field is closely tied to industry, so there will be chances for me to work and publish research, but I'm not sure how pedantic academia is as far as requiring the terminal Ph.D. degree.

In deciding between Options 1 and 2, be sure to think about what your personal situation might be like ten years from now.  In particular, do you want to get married?  Do you want to have children?  If you have a supportive spouse who makes a large income and no children at that time, quitting your job and restarting your Ph.D. will probably be relatively easy.  If you're the sole breadwinner for a household of five, and your spouse's income prospects are limited, it may be nearly impossible for you to do this;  you're probably better off toughing it out now.

Concerning Option 3:  as a general rule, one has to be truly exceptional to get hired as a full-time professor without a Ph.D. in the USA.  This is because of two factors:

Universities are judged on what fraction of their faculty have "terminal degrees".  This is one of the metrics used in the U.S. News & World Report rankings, for example.
In almost every field, the number of Ph.D.s granted each year is far greater than the number of full-time academic jobs that become available.  This means that every academic job vacancy in the US could be filled several times over and still leave many Ph.D.s without employment in academia.

All of this means that if you apply for such a job without a Ph.D., and all other things being equal, it is unlikely that a hiring committee will seriously consider your application over the dozens/hundreds of candidates with a doctorate.  The situation may not be as bad in CS as it is in other fields, since CS Ph.D.s can (presumably) more easily find employment outside of academia;  but it's still a factor that's working against you. Neither of these factors is likely to lessen over the next decade or so;  if anything, universities have been steadily moving away from employing full-time professors and towards employing adjunct professors, so the latter point is likely to get worse.

This is not to say that you can't teach at the college/university level without a Ph.D.  However, your options will probably be limited to two types of jobs.  One is two-year colleges, where it is expected that teaching will take up all of your time and so the research experience & credentials conferred by a Ph.D. are of minimal importance.  However, you mention that you want to be a "researcher" at a university, so this is probably not the sort of job you want.

The other is adjunct professorships:  piecemeal employment which is not full-time.  If teaching one course per semester at the local college/university as a "side hustle" while holding down a full-time job in industry appeals to you, then this might be a viable option; the above-mentioned growth of adjunct faculty positions could even work in your favor here.  Some people try to cobble together multiple adjunct positions into full-time employment, but honestly, this is a recipe for stress and heartbreak and I cannot recommend it as a career plan.


Worth attending discipline's national conference as early grad student if not presenting? I just finished the 2nd year of a PhD program. I was planning to present a poster at the national conference but (probably) need to cancel. Now I'm deciding whether to attend the conference anyway. On the one hand: I'll meet people and probably enjoy myself. On the other hand: I could use the time for other work, would prefer not to spend $$ on the hotel, and I'm years away from being on the job market.

$$$. My plane ticket is non-refundable. My hotel is refundable. So I could save some money by skipping the conference.

Attending conferences is very useful for several reasons. Usually, the work presented at conferences involve the latest developments in the field. This may provide you with new ideas or tools for your own research. It will give you a good overview of what is happening. You will also become familiar with who is doing what. In addition to this you also have the possibility to get in touch with colleagues and strike up new contacts with persons working on questions for interest to you. This can become useful in the sense that you can possibly start up collaborations or simply become known to others in the field. The latter can be important, for example, when you publish since reviewers might easily be someone you meet during the conference. Obviously, presenting something makes this even easier but being there is far better than not.

The reason I can see from not going is if you do not think the conference is of major interest or if you do not think you will meet people interested in similar questions to yours, in other words if you cannot see any academic benefits from going. Saving money is of course also a valid question if you think you can use that money more wisely on, for example, another conference.

But, in general, go to good conferences regardless of whether you have something to present or not.


Should I agree to teach a class for my supervisor even though I don't get any acknowledgement for it? I'm not contractually obligated to teach in my postdoc position, but she just asked me as a favor... I don't mind of course, but I'd rather be formally acknowledged as co-teaching on the syllabus, etc.  It's good for my CV, etc.

Is it expected that I comply with my supervisor or am I within my rights to expect formal acknowledgement?

This already has too many answers, but I can't help myself: academia entirely runs on people doing stuff they are not contractually obligated to do.  This generates a lot of problems along the way, but that is how things stand.  "It's not a formal requirement that I do this" is not likely to be a satisfying answer for your supervisor.  If the amount of lecturing is not a huge burden, and you feel like it will not make a huge dent in your productivity, then it is probably a worthwhile thing to do (if only as a favor to your supervisor); if you feel like the amount asked is a large burden, see if you can negotiate to reduce it.  I also agree that you want to get something in writing.  I would phrase it as "I want to be sure I understand what needs to be done for the class.  If it's writing, it's less likely I'll forget or misunderstand," rather than making it seem like you are suspicious.


What makes academic failure different from failure in another career? It is my understanding that academia as a nebulous whole has its own culture and speaks its own language that makes it a very different environment to work in compared to other so-called "industry" jobs.

Indeed, my own supervisor once referred to a former student of his as "having a job", meaning that she now works outside of academia. It's clear that for him, like many other academics, academia (or maybe their own particular field of research) is a vocation or calling, rather than a job.

My question, therefore, is this: why, within the culture of academia, is failure seen or felt to be different from failure in another career? What is special about academia that makes missing out on a postdoc or permanent job so different from missing out on any other industry job?

The question that inspired this one: How to deal with unavoidable failure? which asks how to deal with not being selected for a tenure-track job.

Many other careers are not structured around "success" and "failure" in the same way that academia is, and the jobs that are are acknowledged to be high stress. I agree strongly with what Anyon mentions about the pyramid structure of academia, as well as survivorship bias. Jack Aidley also nicely captures the difference that "In most careers you do not 'fail' you simply cease being promoted." Here are a few other ways that the idea of failure is omnipresent in academia. (This is from a U.S. perspective, and I do not know how widely it pertains elsewhere.)

First, success or failure is very personalized and visible in academia. Academics are not very interchangeable: like artists and few other professions, everyone does the job differently and produces creative output. It is often hard to separate yourself from your work (whether being critiqued or praised). Further, on the research side each person is essentially an entrepreneur who is their own publicity, branding, fundraising, management (if there's a lab or students to supervise), R&D, and administrative department. There's a lot of personal investment in this job, and failure cuts deeper into the sense of self than in other jobs.

Second, in other jobs, most people are rarely evaluated by strangers, and often the people evaluating them are invested in their success. Performance evaluations in offices are usually with co-workers and they are often two-way. Managers and HR folks often care about improving the workforce they have, rather than going through the hiring process again. In contrast, the entire tenure process seems designed to give people anxiety (which a professor complained to me about when I was a grad student--he was worried another professor was working against his tenure case). The tenure process is a years-long audition, after which you can be essentially told that you no longer have a job in whatever tiny college town you uprooted yourself to live in. In most industry or government jobs, there's much more flexibility to move between jobs (not just one big annual switch), less stigma about switching jobs, and often lots of small evaluations rather than a few huge hurdles.

Third, academics need to "hustle," constantly seeking new opportunities for funding, research materials, ideas, and labor. Both applying for funding and submitting papers are processes with routine failure built in, and it can be somewhat opaque what is being sought. (Not to mention that the content of research may turn out not to lead anywhere interesting, after all.) However, many jobs don't have such stark success and failure. Annual sales income is a continuous number, or the quality of a project is within a range of acceptability. In many occupations you can gain or lose clients, but usually no one client is crucial. In the industries where grants or contracts are key sources of funding, there are large teams devoted to the project, and often a lot of projects in the pipeline. In contrast, academics are often pretty much alone in their success or failure, and for someone "on the tenure clock," how a particular project turns out--which may have a large random component to it--may change their tenure case substantially.

Fourth, professors are hired not only for what they can do right now, but an entire track record of what they have done and how they are likely to adapt over time in the future. Especially in combination with the large number of people with PhDs competing for a small number of tenure track jobs, this rewards people who have very linear career paths, moving from success to success. Many people worry about deviations from the norm, as well as about failures.

Some of these components are present in other jobs. I mention these other jobs not to compare who has it better, but to point out that things like high-stakes evaluation based on partly random outcomes is not a universal trait of many jobs, while it characterizes investment banking and (I argue) academic research.

Investment bankers are often individually held responsible for their performance, a lot of which relies on investment markets, which have a large random component.
Writers face a lot of the same problems with submissions and rejections, but writing is very rarely their main job. (That has its own problems...)
Salespeople have to deal with a lot of rejection and often work on commission. Their job and their salary are contingent on their success. However, there are low hurdles to switch in and out of sales, and often people can hedge their bets by working part-time at another job. (The precarity that goes with sales and service jobs is also part of what adjunct instructors--aspiring academics--face.)
Doctors need to pass a lot of hurdles on the way to their profession, and not getting past a hurdle may mean that one is saddled with lots of debt without a lucrative career. Then, depending on which field of medicine, failure may mean a patient dies or has bad complications. These sorts of consequences have a legal and financial complications, on top of the large emotional toll. Doctors may also have to relocate nationally or internationally if/when they switch jobs.
Founders of start-up businesses will have many of the same pressures as professors (the same people must develop and execute ideas while securing funding, with large personal investment). However, failure is a celebrated part of the culture in, say, Silicon Valley, and the potential financial rewards are tremendous. (The restaurant industry also has serial entrepreneurs, though with less potential payoff.)

While each of those jobs mentioned above has a lot of judgment of and consequences around failure, those descriptions hopefully remind you that these extreme conditions around failure are largely NOT present in many other common jobs (service industry, teacher, programmer, manager, IT person, mechanic, engineer, nurse, technician, counselor, administrator, banker, accountant, office clerk, interpreter...).


Would having two words in my surname in my passport be a problem for US colleges/GRE/TOEFL? I'm Indian and my full name is X Y Z (such as John Doe Johnson). In my passport, Given Name is X and Surname is Y Z. Would that be any issue? Or should I get it corrected to update Given Name to X Y and Surname to Z?
Would having Y Z as the surname be any issue in the US?

I am Latino, and as a result have an even worse version of this issue. My full name is of the form
A B C D E, with A and B being given names, and C D  and E being surnames. An extra complication is that D is not a name by itself, it's just a preposition.
I have given the TOEFL and GRE tests before and that has not been an issue. Minor errors may occur depending on who handles the documentation, but they have never been an actual issue. For example, my names have been agglutinated as CDE, AB (surname, first name). In a visa, I had it once written as B C D E, A. In academic papers, it has been cited as E, A B C D; D E, A B C; C D E, AB; B C D E, A. The preposition itself sometimes vanishes leading to C E, A B.
No clerk has ever questioned my authorship, or my documentation in my travels.


Masters Degree in CS with Bachelors in Informatics This kind of question gets thrown around quite a bit around here, but I think my current situation has yet to be addressed. I'm currently studying Informatics ("Information") at a school in the midwest (whose national rank is in the high 20's).

A bit of background - my concentrations are User Experience Design and Data Analytics. My GPA is a 3.6 and I have work experience as a web developer at the university's school of engineering, in a professor's research group, and an internship at a large internet corporation this past summer. I also do freelance and contract web dev work. In sum, much of my work involves front end web dev although I am also proficient in backend/database languages and have written some web scraping programs and done some natural language processing.

I am considering pursuing a master's degree in CS. Though I'm somewhat of a "jack of all trades" currently, further breadth in a more specific topic (AI or NLP for instance) via a master's degree is something that interests me greatly. Considering I  want to apply to very good (top 20) schools, I'm  worried my application may be considered subpar when compared to undergrads who have studied strictly CS, rather than a more HCI-tinged degree like the one I'm currently in.

Is this a rational thought, and how should I proceed? Should I take a year off before applying and go into the workforce to acquire more desirable CS skills? Should I study certain materials on my own? Or would I already be considered an acceptable applicant with my current academic standing and skills?

Thanks.

Apply.

Pick a couple of schools you'd like to attend, and analyze the program of studies, especially the prerequisites for the courses you find the most tantalizing.  That will show you what course(s) to take in spring and summer, to get you better prepared for your new endeavor!

See Personal statement to apply for graduate school with a change in major


Asking about the status of paper you refereed? I refereed a paper after a skim-through and a careful examination of about (1/3) of it after a couple of weeks, and then sent it back due to expository issues, a few gripes about certain things not being correct, about a dozen notes, and suggestions on what needs cleaning so that I could rigorously go through all the arguments to check everything and give a better assessment of the paper. I gave it a gut feeling of about what level of quality the paper seemed to be, relating it to another paper in the close literature. In the report, I said I would be happy to referee the paper more fully after these preliminary edits are made.

Almost a month has gone by and the editor has not acknowledged my emailing of the referee report to him. Do I wait to see if he acknowledges my report or does this get stuck in the ether without me knowing the result of the paper? Do I email him asking if he received my referee report? Was I wrong in sending it back to the authors so quickly to ask for more clarity? Or should I be taking a back seat to this and only responding when prompted and going along my merry way?

My experience has been that a review acknowledgement should come immediately---usually via an automated system, but quite rapidly even when there isn't one.  This is sensible: otherwise, how do you know that your review was actually received?  You should feel free to query the editor on this matter.

Your assessment of the paper sounds a bit unconventional, but essentially boils down to a recommendation for major revision.  It's possible you haven't heard back because the editor doesn't have all the reviews in, and some journals never actually tell you what the final result is.

Do check, however, that the journal is really a reasonable that you want to be associated with... review by informal email with a non-communicative editor would be a very bad sign in my field...


What is the difference between preparing a research proposal and writing the actual thesis in the case of theoretical research? In some countries, whenever someone applies for a Ph.D. admission, the universities ask for a research proposal. A research proposal includes a literature review and bibliography.
If the research is paper-based research, i.e. no popular survey or experiment is involved, I see no further need for research work.
For instance, say, someone wants to redefine and redescribe the origin and purpose of British colonialism in India.
In this case, if the researcher has already read the needed resources and done his desk-research, the only task left is writing a thesis that may take at most three months.
What is the difference between preparing a research proposal and writing the actual thesis in the case of theoretical research?

In general a research proposal (separate from the literature review) is a description of the questions that you wish to answer in the research and a description, perhaps preliminary, about how you intend to answer those questions. it doesn't include the results, which, we assume, aren't available yet.
The literature review asked for will probably be less complete than the one that later appears in the dissertation, since all that is needed here is the papers, etc, that you have read that lead you to ask the question and support the idea that they are important questions that haven't yet been answered. You will possibly need to do more in a formal literature review once the research begins.
You seem to imply in the question that all research questions have already been answered before you make the proposal. That is normally not the case. In the example you state, your proposal should also include how you intend to support the conclusions you reach. This might include additional library research or interviews with knowledgeable people, etc.


What is the difference between "prepare to submit" and "working paper"? I am preparing my CV to apply for academic position.

I currently have several papers that are able to submit to journals. I wonder if I put these papers on my CV, how should I label them? Should I call them "prepare to submit" or "in preparation for submission" or "working paper"? Specifically, what is the difference between a "working paper" and the paper that is ready to submit?

I have another paper, that requires language checking and proofread before submission, should I call this paper "working paper"?

Thanks for any suggestions

A "working paper" does not mean "a manuscript I've been working on". It refers to a paper that has been published in venues designated for disseminating preliminary research reports. These venues are often (but not always) internal to a department, and they are rarely peer-reviewed (usually they are reviewed only by the editors). See the Wikipedia entry on Working paper. In conclusion, you cannot call your manuscripts "working papers" if they haven't been published in such venues.

The best you can do is to call them "manuscripts", because that's all they are. They're not submitted, under review, under revision, or anything like that. I personally wouldn't pay any attention to entries on a CV that say "manuscript", as there is no way for anyone to know if these manuscripts even exist. What's worse, it looks like CV padding.

I also don't care much for CV entries that say "submitted" or "under review". Anyone can submit anything and have it reviewed, so it says nothing about its quality. I wouldn't list any paper on a CV that either (1) hasn't been published, or (2) hasn't been accepted for publication.


Clarification about MMath and PhD What is the main difference between an integrated four-years MMath degree and a "standard" three-years Bsc followed by a one-year Master’s degree?

And what is the "natural" progression (if any) after a MMath: is it a PhD or it is not possible to apply to it and a further Master’s degree is needed?

Assuming from the degree titles you're talking about the UK degree courses, the biggest difference is that an MMath student meeting the residence requirement receives some government support for the whole 4 years of her course, so that tuition fees are capped the whole time. This isn't necessarily true for a separate one year masters, which can make the courses significantly more expensive.

It's certainly possible to go straight on to a UK Ph.D after an MMath degree. However, that's actually possible after a undergraduate bachelors' degree as well, since by world standards, the UK entry requirements are relatively lax. Precisely what's required of a student will differ by field and institution.


Researcher anonymity in fieldwork Numerous posts on this site address anonymous or pseudonymous publication, but not anonymous or pseudonymous fieldwork.

There plausibly exist situations in which a researcher undertaking fieldwork would have to conceal their own identity from non-researchers they encounter in the field, in order to protect themselves or the research project. Here are some possible scenarios:

Previous research has shown that the community under study deviates from its normal behaviour when it knows a researcher is present.
The researcher would be in danger if their profession or identity were known to people in the field.
The researcher plans to publish anonymously or pseudonymously, and would otherwise risk being "outed" by people encountered in the field.

What are some good sources on research ethics that discuss protocols for handling such cases?

Can you provide any published examples describing such fieldwork?

This problem appears to have been considered by the social science community, and at least some resources have been prepared.  In particular a little searching turned up a book, "Fieldwork, Participation and Practice: Ethics and Dilemmas in Qualitative Research" by Marlene de Laine, which appears to discuss these sorts of issues---the Google Books preview only showed me so much, but there was at least some discussion of covert fieldwork.


How to make transition from trade school to graduate degree? This question is asking how to bridge the gap between knowing programming to research.

I'm an undergraduate in a decent BA computer science program at a college with a decent-to-low reputation. Most of the professors here aren't PhDs. I can't transfer to another college, because a close relative of mine is at a prominent member of this college's staff and all eyes are on me. I've taken data structures, architecture, etc but it's much more of a trade school than a rigorous theoretical foundation.

After reading a few advanced data structure books, I've become very interested in certain theoretical computer science topics. If I want to do research after undergrad, how should I go about it? I'm a pretty motivated person and I am good at self studying. Should I try to create interesting projects? work on open-source? work at a prestigious company?

Thanks for any advice.

A common piece of advice for situations like this is to apply to master's programs.

This will give you time to catch up on any background that you may be lacking and give you the chance to become more competitive for PhD programs by getting letters of rec, good grades, and research experience.


is it good for academic path if I publish too many papers in arxiv Currently, I am a PhD student from material science and I wish to become a TT professor in the future. When submitting papers, we see an option to submit it in arxiv and it seems to me that the acceptance to the arxiv would probably be much faster than usual journal. I want to ask if publishing articles in arxiv instead of usual journals would make my career less promising or not.... thank you:)

No, you shouldn't just submit to the arXiv instead of journals.

Articles in the arXiv are not considered published in the traditional sense, and they are not peer reviewed.  In fields that use the arXiv, papers are typically submitted there and to a journal (but you can do this only if the journal's policies permit it, so you should check if you aren't sure).  The role of the arXiv is then to provide access to preprints before publication and "green open access" to published papers.

You don't have to submit an arXiv paper for publication, and occasionally people use it to distribute papers they don't intend to publish (and for which they aren't looking for publication credit).  But you should be careful to avoid getting a reputation for putting mediocre papers on the arXiv.

There have been a few high-profile cases of great arXiv papers that were never published, like Perelman's work on the Poincaré conjecture.  However, you can't get away with that when starting an academic career (unless you are revolutionizing your field).  If you just submit papers to the arXiv and not to journals or conferences, it will destroy your career.  They will count for far less than published papers, and search committees will wonder about all sorts of explanations.  Are you profoundly eccentric?  Do you have no idea how academic careers work?  Are your papers just not good enough for journals?  Is there something you are hoping nobody finds out via peer review (e.g., that you plagiarized or rediscovered something already known)?  Basically, everyone will make uncharitable negative assumptions, in addition to considering the papers themselves as worth less.

The question you've asked is a perfectly reasonable thing to wonder about, but I find it a little alarming that you've basically proposed career suicide with no indication that your advisor has warned you.  This suggests that talking with your advisor more about career issues could be helpful, or attempting to find another mentor if your advisor is not so helpful.  Academic career paths can be narrow and demanding, and good advice is essential.


Finishing PhD early and becoming my PI's postdoc instead I'm PhD student beginning my third year. I plan to graduate at the end of my fourth year, leaving me with about another two years in the program. However, at the end of a productive summer of research, my PhD supervisor has mentioned that I'd be on track to finish considerably earlier if I want to. My program uses the "three papers" dissertation model, so at any given time, it's pretty easy to gauge how close we are.

In fact, I do not want to finish early because I am really enjoying doing research with my supervisor and feel that I'm receiving outstanding mentorship from him. Additionally, four years is already fairly short for my program (which is usually done in five years), so it doesn't seem that there is much additional benefit to finishing before year 4.

Instead, I'm considering asking my supervisor if I should defend early and then become his postdoc for whatever remains of my planned four years. I imagine the benefits would be:

Since I plan to apply for faculty positions after this, I would have nominally "done a postdoc" instead of being fresh out my PhD.
I'd be off the hook in terms of departmental responsibilities, like TAing, for my fourth year.

Are there other advantages or disadvantages to defending early to become a postdoc? Also, are there advantages or disadvantages for my PhD supervisor?

More notes / responses to questions:

I have reason to believe that postdoc funding would not be an issue, so perhaps let's not focus much on that.
It may be relevant that my PhD supervisor and others believe my publication record (from before my PhD, totaling around 17 papers with ~7 first authorships) to be competitive for a faculty position without doing a standard postdoc (i.e., not the truncated version with my PhD supervisor that I'm proposing).
I had an early start with research and didn't go straight from undergrad to PhD

UPDATE: 2 YEARS LATER

After weighing the various pros and cons pointed out here and in live conversations, I ultimately did follow through with the above plan. It worked out great. I am a few months into a faculty position now. It's too early to say if I'll secure successful grants, etc., but I am having a great time and feel very well-prepared. Of course, YMMV, and there were certainly multiple elements of luck, but my n=1 experience with this unusual plan, at least, has been excellent so far.

Regarding potential downsides for you:

"Time since obtaining the PhD" is often taken as the academic age, so by graduating early, you make yourself appear older. This can have a formal impact, for example, many grants meant for postdocs come with age restrictions, so are only available in the first n years after obtaining your PhD.

[Side note: This wouldn't matter for you if you get a faculty position straight away, but at least in my area, this would be quite unusual.]

The academic age can also play a role informally if people have to judge your productivity. (Number of papers)/(Years since PhD) is a formula I've seen a few times in this context.


What are the rules for applying for the same fellowship (scholarship) after being rejected? I have been applying for scholarships and fellowships for a few years, sometimes I have been successful, other times not. Last year I worked a lot to prepare the project and invested all of my time and efforts in it, however the competition was strong and I got rejected after the interview. This year I am planning to apply again but I have found little information or tips for repeat applications. For example, how am I supposed to show personal or professional growth, should the recommenders be the same, how different should the proposal be and so on. Are there any rules when it comes to applying for the same fellowship (grant) for a second time? What is the success rate? Is is reasonable to hope I can get funding when I was rejected once. Could someone maybe share their experience.

This may be more of a long comment than an answer.

Much of what you ask about depends on the specifics of the fellowship/grant you are applying to. Many (most?) fellowships are limited to the X best candidates. In this case, the fact that you did not get it does not mean you did something wrong, simply that there are other candidates that are better. In these cases I don't think "personal growth" is expected, you simply need to be better than the other candidates. There is also an element of luck, since some years may have stronger competing candidates than others.

This does not mean you should not try to strengthen your application/interview.

The success rate depends on the specific fellowship obviously.


reprinting permission of an instrument image on a website I have read about reprinting other authors tables and figures, but I couldn't find anything on reprinting laboratory instrument pictures from their manufacturer websites. Can I use instrument photos that I took from manufacturer website without permission?

You almost certainly need a copyright release in the form prescribed by your book publisher.

Track down the manufacturer's public relations office; one or two phone calls should be sufficient to find the right people. They will be very happy to supply you with pictures and the necessary copyright releases.

If you use these instruments in your own lab and they are at all expensive, or you have a lot of them, there will be an account executive (i.e. sales person) assigned to your institution.  That person will likely be ecstatic to help you get what you need.


conflicted whether to transfer or not I am a college sophomore and I am debating transferring out of my current school, Hunter college. My GPA is 3.56 and I am a CS and psychology major, concentration of behavioral neuroscience.

Now, I have always been interested in research but the resources in my school seems very tight and my overall experience has been very unsatisfying. My ultimate goal is to try out for MD/PhD program with a background in BCI (Brain computer interface) but my school offers no program in any close proximation.

So, should I transfer out or hold on until the end of my 4 years? And also is my GPA reasonable to transfer into better schools like NYU or WakeForest University?

Should I focus on graduating from my current school or plan to transfer to a more prestigious school?

I am not an expert in neuroscience or BCI. However, I found BP-Endure program where your current school Hunter College is a major partner.

On their web page,

  During the academic year students will work with a research mentor at Hunter or NYU and during the summer in one of the partnering institutions. The BP-ENDURE program selects students from both Hunter College and NYU to participate. Hunter students will receive funding in the form of tuition remission and a stipend during the academic year and will also receive summer funding.

I am not sure why you said the resources in my school seems very tight and my school offers no program in any close proximation. Are you having difficulty getting into that program?

Transferring to another school may cost you a lot than what you'll gain. You may lose the credits you already have and retake courses you have taken plus your financial loss. However, if you have other difficulties with your current school(which you have not mentioned), then transferring may be an option for you.

My advice for you specifically, stay there and study hard, grab any opportunity to enter into the BP-Endure program.

In general, however, if your research area requires resources you don't have in your current school, it's worth considering transferring. You need to weigh on the cost vs. gain. You can either stay in the current school acquiring fundamental knowledge and apply to a graduate school where you would have better resources after you graduate, or transfer to another undergraduate school with much better resources.


Forth year PhD student having trouble with his supervisor I am 24 years old, studying electrical engineering. The major is communication systems, which mostly working on wireless problems. I came to grad school in 2015 directly from bachelor. I had an advisor from beginning and I did my masters thesis under his supervision. I graduated in 2017, and started the PhD program, again under his supervision. Let me describe him a bit.

He was not pushing me at all. He was paying my tuition and stipend. He literally did not have any plans for the research we are doing.

It is my 4th year in grad school, and I have zero publication. We did several projects, but all of them failed. Either the reviewers said it doesn't have that much contribution, or I ended up in a dead-end situation where I had no idea what to do. He was supposed to guide me and advise me(as an adviser), but every time we had a meeting, he was like what do we have. what are you going to do. Even when I was facing problem, he was asking when can you think you can solve this.

Anyway, suddenly he became aware that this is my 4th year and he is telling me that he's graduating me next year in 2020 and I need to publish. But I don't know where to start. He thinks he is pushing me but honestly I have no idea how to research. I feel dumb. I am seeing my friends that publishing papers, but I'm not capable of publishing even one! And because I don't know what to do, I always try to avoid the work and waste my time on the internet.

My advisor asked me what I am going to do on the Christmas break and I had no idea. So I made up something to tell him. So he is expecting me to do some work on the break, and I am LOST.

(All people have told me that my advisor is perfect because he is paying me, so I don't need to be TA and he is giving me freedom to do whatever I like, But tbh this behavior made my the laziest version of myself.)

I hate this life that I gradually made for myself. I was wondering if anyone could advise me what to do?

I really appreciate your answers.

Well, in CS I know many people using the same approach. It works well for some students, for others it is terrible.

One thing really went wrong: You wrote several papers which got rejected - this is something a supervisor should avoid by giving feedback beforehand. This feedback could have helped you finding your way in the scientific field. Did you involve your supervisor in the paper development process?

One thing is strange about your situation: You worked for four years right now, he is paying you and he wants you to finish. If you really did not achieve anything, I would have tried to get rid of you and hire someone else. So there might be something in your work you are not aware of at the moment. Or your supervisor is very lazy. Or he just trusts in people.

If you are hired to work on a specific project: Is this project related to your PhD? Or are you just working on your PhD topic?

I would suggest to really use the christmas break to

Build a mindmap of your field / your work. Indicate all items which are mandatory for your PhD.
Honestly try to figure out why your papers were not accepted. Try to figure out if you are having any chance to change thr source of the problem.
Build a work plan consisting of simple steps which will lead you to a "just-made-it"-PhD. You can improve it later on
If you feel you are lacking skills (e.g. programming, paper writing, ...), find a way to adress them. Train the skills. It's worth the effort.
...and take a break. It sounds like you need one...


How do I cite a screenshot I've taken of a software program? How to write a proper reference for an image I'm going to use for my thesis?

This image is a screenshot of a software installed on my own PC and I am the one who took it myself. It's not from another website.

You don't need a citation if it's your own creation like the rest of the thesis.

However, per your comment, it sounds like you included an image but then never referred to it in the text (no e.g. "As shown in Figure 1,"), and the reviewer might want you to fix that.  The image must be relevant to some part of the text. Otherwise, you either have an irrelevant image or the text is missing something important.

You might also want to be sure you describe what the image is, what the name of the software shown in that screenshot is (and if appropriate, any citation to the software).

Did you use the figure in a publication (e.g. conference paper)?  If so, you do need to include a citation to that paper.

If none of those things are what the reviewer is referring to, it may be the reviewer thinks you're using somebody else's image and you can just respond to say it's a screenshot you took.  This might prompt an alternative explanation of what they're looking for.


Applying for a PhD. Is it OK to reach out to a member of the lab who gave me his card before for advice? I am currently in the process of applying to graduate school in the US. Earlier this year at a professional conference, I met a research scientist in one of my top choice university labs who told me I should "reach out when I'm applying" and gave me his card, to which I followed up later that day telling him I would be in touch.

A couple of months ago, I reached out to the professor who is head of the lab asking if he was taking student, who told me I should apply and we can talk further after being accepted.

I would like to follow up on the offer of the scientist and ask for some advice on my application now that I'm applying, but I'm not sure what is considered too much to ask him for. Ideally, I'd like for him just to look at my SOP and tell me if he thinks my goals are clear and align well with the group. It's worth noting that the university isn't too far from where I am, so I could potentially offer to meet him for lunch or something of that nature.

However, if he ends up discussing it with the professor, I don't want the professor to think that now I'm going around pestering members of his group after we spoke and trying to push my way in, so I think it would be important to somehow remind the scientist that he told me I should get in touch and that's my motivation for contacting him.

My question is: is there a way I can accomplish this without anyone being insulted or annoyed? Is this asking too much of his offer? Should I forget about it and look for my advice elsewhere?

Is there a way I can accomplish this without anyone being insulted or annoyed?

Of course, especially since the research scientist explicitly asked you to get in touch. Some people will be annoyed by contact no matter what, but the invitation to contact them seems to indicate this will not be the case. Be polite, professional, and brief in your initial email.

  I don't want the professor to think that now I'm going around pestering members of his group after we spoke and trying to push my way in, so I think it would be important to somehow remind the scientist that he told me I should get in touch and that's my motivation for contacting him.

The first line of your email should indicate exactly this sentiment. Perhaps you could write that you are following up after meeting at X event, for example. Alternatively, you could reply to the earlier email that you sent, which would convey that more explicitly, though I do not think it is necessary.

  Is this asking too much of his offer?

Asking them to read your SoP is perhaps asking too much, but perhaps not. I received help on my SoP for applications from multiple professors, but I only ever sent it to those who asked for it explicitly. Conveying your goals in a short email will probably suffice if you would like general advice, but I would avoid asking for direct editing help.

You could mention your close geographical proximity in your email if you think that it would be more helpful to have this conversation in person during office hours, for example.

  Should I forget about it and look for my advice elsewhere?

There is no reason why you should not pursue this avenue of advice and others that you feel may be beneficial as well.