Algorithms, Combinatorics and Optimization graduate programs Does anybody know of any other ACO (algorithms, combinatorics and optimization) graduate programs besides the ones at Carnegie Mellon and Georgia Tech?

From what I have searched, these two schools were the only ones that offered such a multi-disciplinary program. I like this intersection in CS/MATH. The only other multi-disciplinary programs are scientific computing ones where the focus is in numerical algorithms, differential equations, and parallel programming. Scientific computing would be my second choice type of program.

There are TONS of scientific computing programs, where aren't there more ACO programs? I think both topics are fascinating, but I just have more fun with ACO types of problems. Ideally, I would enjoy a 70:30 ratio of ACO and Scientific Computing.

I really want to do an inter-disciplinary program because, in a general computer science program I would most-likely have to do systems (ewwww!) and in a general math program I would have to study analysis and geometry (which is cool, but I would rather focus on ACO!)

Are there any other ACO programs besides the ones offered at CMU and GA-Tech?
Why are there so many scientific computing programs vs ACO programs?

Thanks for all the help

You should consider applying to "Operations Research", "Computer science", and "Applied Math" programs (note applied math and not math), all of which can potentially have concentrations in your desired field of study. Make sure the schools have professors publishing in the journals and conferences that interest you. Courses you tend to take in these programs include. Every course below can be used towards a degree in applied math at Cornell (not sure about other places).

Analysis of Algorithms - CS

Simulation - OR

Machine Learning - CS

Combinatorial Optimization - OR

Algorithmic Game Theory - CS

Optimal Learning - OR

Theory of Computing - CS (complexity theory)

Stochastic Dynamic Programming - OR

Networks - CS

Mathematical Programming - code word for analysis with an eye towards optimization and algorithms

Nonlinear Programming - OR

I know that Cornell has a very strong theory component to both their OR and CS programs and you should probably look into them. No matter which program you choose at Cornell, you can bet that you will be able to take a lot of OR,CS and math courses and count most of them towards your PhD requirements (this may not be true at all other universities, you'll have to check). The above list is just a sampling of some of the courses offered at Cornell in OR and CS. Combinatorics is offered in the math department. The difference between all these programs will be in the required courses you have to take, for example OR requires stats, CS requires the theory of programming languages etc., but no one likes every single course they take in their PhD.

Edit: Actually at Cornell, Applied Math has the most flexibility of any program. As long as you have some background in undergrad algebra and analysis (which you can make up during grad school) You can affectively create your own curriculum, with very few requirements. Its very easy to focus on ACO there. Note that many applied math programs are not so flexible, so you really have to look around.


Re-submission of rejected manuscript without informing co-authors A paper we submitted was rejected without a review because of journal scope issues. After the rejection, I decided to send the same manuscript content (changed formats only according to the journal's guidelines) to another journal where I believe it fits. However, I missed informing other co-authors about the rejection as I presumed it is unnecessary because I am submitting the same version of the MS and we are not particular of the journal and its metrics as long as it is fitting. I experienced the same thing before where the primary and corresponding author did not inform us of the rejection rather send it to another journal without our consent (for me that time it was fine). However, this time one of the co-authors scolded me because of the actions I made and I realised it was wrong. Any advice on how will I handle and respond to this?

You should apologize and admit you were wrong. Don't try to defend your actions. It is a head-slapping error. Send the apology to everyone. Offer to immediately withdraw the submission if anyone desires it. Ask for advice going forward. That should cover it.

All authors need to be on the same page for actions on their work.


Can a public university block me on their official social media account if I am a student and/or employee? I am a Ph.D. student at a large public university in the US. I am working on completing my defense and trying to graduate before the end of the summer term. I found out recently, rather accidentally, that the university's official account had blocked me on social media. This is presumably because I had posted critical comments on a number of their posts.
Are public universities allowed to do this? I believe this violates some federal precedent based on President Donald Trump, where he was made to unblock politicians he disagreed with on social media. I would like to address this for the sake of future students.
If I pursue this, is this likely to harm my academic career? I am concerned about potentially starting a legal battle with the university since I hope to graduate soon and am currently asking for letters of recommendation. The last thing I would want is for a professor who would disagree with my take on a certain issue in favor of the university's position and have that affect possible letters of recommendation.

Can a public university block me on their official social media
account if I am a student and/or employee?

De facto: yes. De jure: we don't know (see Noah Snyder's answer and the comments), but I don't see a compelling reason against it.

I am concerned about potentially starting a legal battle with the
university

Then don't.

But I'm not sure I should even worry about it because of how close I
am to graduating and whether it will affect my job search.

Starting legal battles simply because of political disagreement or because you cannot accept being blocked (after a twitter fight with you using multiple accounts) means there will be a public record of behavior which many people will find unpleasant. Such a reputation can obviously affect future job prospects. To avoid this, don't do anything which earns you a this reputation (i.e., let it go).

At the same time, even if it will have no long-lasting effect on me, I
don't want the problem to go unaddressed for other students.

As you only found out "rather accidentally" about being blocked, there seems to be not that big of a problem. Possibly other students avoid this situation by avoiding posts which get them blocked in the first place.


Changing research interests as an undergrad? I knew I that I wanted to get involved in research since my second year as an undergrad.

I contacted a few of the staff whose work I thought was interesting at my institution and managed to acquire experience with two groups at my institution (through summer work), based on what I was interested in at the time.

However, now in my final year I have settled on a topic that is quite different and will have to go somewhere else to undertake a PhD. This topic is experiments with ultra cold atoms in optical lattices. It sort of combines a few different areas of interesting physics.

Is this a viable option to go for? Is it ethical for me to now just go somewhere else, after staff have been kind enough to let me work for them over the summer? Also this topic is quite different to my dissertation topic? Does this mean its not advisable I choose projects of this kind? I think I am for sure interested in this, but I am a little ignorant about this topic.

Your undergrad career is actually the best time to explore different research interests. It is much easier now, when you are an undergrad, than it would be at any later stage.

There is no ethical problem with changing your research interests after working for a lab over the summer - working for a lab as an undergrad is absolutely not a commitment to stay in that lab for a PhD.

Similarly, you are absolutely allowed to have research interests that are different from your undergrad dissertation. Many, many students change subfields in between their undergrad (or MS) and PhD.


What happens if your handling editor leaves the editorial board? I submitted a paper to a journal and after more than one year I got a positive report. I revised the paper as requested by the referee but when I tried to submit the revised version I discovered that my handling editor is not in the editorial board anymore. What happens normally in a case like this? Should I submit the revised version to a different editor?

I sincerely hope there was more communication than just 'after more than one year'. It sounds like there are some organizational changes within the journal that may be working against you.  I've had that situation too, and it led to unreasonable delays in review.  I suggest you go straight to someone on the editorial board and politely ask for some relief. Problems within the journal editorship should not impact you so negatively, which it clearly has.  In my case, this worked, and the review was immediately reassigned to a new action editor and fast-tracked. Don't be afraid to speak up, just state the facts and be polite. The main point is to ask the journal what they think the best course of action is.


Modern replacement for slides in presentations? In academia we do a lot of presentations, it is the way we show our work to colleages. (I am a PhD in physics.) This is usually done with the help of slides (PDF, PowerPoint, etc). A slides presentation is basically a collection of images. Sometimes there are fancy animations (like the case of Prezi or its open source version Sozi, or even with PowerPoint) but in the end the concept of a slide is tied to an image. After the animation has passed, you end up in a static image to show to the audience and explain your stuff. And this, in fact, goes against a continuum and natural presentation, you are obliged to split your talk in slides which are discrete. (Maybe this is why slides have not replaced the even more old-school blackboard.)
I feel that this is an archaic way of presenting our work based on what our ancestors did on the past century using projectors, for example, because technology allowed to do that. Nowadays our slides are made and projected 99.99999 % of the times in a computer and, instead of exploiting all they can do, we are replicating an old fashioned way of presenting stuff using slides.
So, consider for example this plot which is interactive, you can zoom in, pan, see the values on hover the mouse, show/hide traces, etc. You cannot embed this plot in a typical slides presentation in PDF format. If you go to PowerPoint or something like this, you may have a chance (I doubt) but the result is barely portable between different platforms (Windows, Linux, Mac, Android, etc). Even if you make it, all these solutions still have the concept of a slide as a building block which, as I said, breaks the continuity and introduces a complication.
Furthermore, try to see slides on a cell phone, it is a pain!
So my question is: What is out there to replace the old-school slides?
I think that something with the format of a website that is self contained in a single HTML file would be the perfect next step, because it is super cross platform and as far as I know you can embed almost whatever you want (text, equations, images, videos, audios, interactive stuff, etc), you can open it with any browser in any device, you can put it online, etc. The plot in this link is an example of what I say, it is a single HTML file that you can open with any (modern) browser, and can be easily embedded in websites. And the size adapts to the screen so you can see it nicely on your cellphone too.
My inspiration for this question came after seeing this presentation by a guy which made a website instead of slides. As you can see, the plots are all interactive, for example. The pros: It can do all I want, the cons: It is not a single HTML file that you can download and save/share, you need hosting, etc. Is there an easy way to build something like this and end up with a single and self-contained HTML file?

The best replacement for "old-school slides," I've found, is the more old-school approach of writing things by hand, either with markers on paper captured with a document camera, or writing with a stylus on a screen. (I prefer the former.) Even in formal seminars, I've taken to writing more in "real time," which many people have commented positively on. We're not machines; we react with remarkable sympathy to the cadence of human-delivered speech and spontaneous writing that appears at the speed of human processing.


What is the best course of action when approached by predatory publishers? When I receive fishy emails for conferences/journals which seem "predatory" I just mark them as spam and forget about them.
(This may confuse my spam filter which would mark as spam legitimate CFP but that's another story).
Is there anything that could be done to maybe flag the conference to authorities or just to other researchers? Is there any institution that can investigate?

Flagging as spam and deleting them is the right thing to do.  Also, if they seem to be using the name of a legitimate researcher, warn that person.
Anything else is a waste of your time.

There is no organization that licenses scientific publication, nor is it clear such a thing is possible.  Even if there was, it would likely make no difference: if we cannot even limit the activity of 419 scams, which are clearly illegal, how can we do any better against predatory publishers, who are often essentially the same thing in a more legitimate mask?


"Awaiting EO Processing" for 2 weeks after submission. Should I contact? I recently submitted an article to a relatively well-known academic journal in information system.

The journal uses ScholarOne.

After the initial submission, the status of my article has been shown as "Awaiting EO Processing" for more than 2 weeks.

Should I contact the journal at this moment?

Depending on the journal, two weeks isn't really a long time for editor assignment. Your manuscript might be at the end of a pretty long queue that might take time. Moreover, getting the right editor for your topic is also sometimes an issue.

Another point to note is that ScholarOne is not always up-to-date with the process of the publisher. This may also depend on the frequency of updates sent from the publisher's editorial office to ScholarOne.

In my experience with ScholarOne, I had "Editor now searching and inviting referees" for about a month before I received the review result, "Resubmit [with minor edit]". There was no "under review" status in between. Hence, there was nothing to worry about.

If this is prolonged over a month, you may send a polite request for the current status of your manuscript through ScholarOne helpdesk. They are very helpful in this regard and usually reply within a day or two.


What attitude should a speaker have to going over time? From John Baez's Advice for a Young Scientist:

  Your talks should be clear, concise, fun, exciting, and never ever run over time. For each extra minute your talk runs over, 10% more of the audience will decide you are a jerk and start fantasizing about you falling down a trap door.

After 11 minutes, 110% of your audience will start hating you.

That makes perfect sense, because that includes the people waiting for the room to open up for the next talk to begin.

But some people at my college like to take the opposite view. One lecturer never releases his class until he's run at least five minutes overtime. In the mandatory presentation class, the teacher maintained that going five minutes over the twenty minute talk period time was ok, but when one student went one minute undertime, she insisted that he repeat the assignment.

My question is: how should the speaker treat overtime?

Speaking for longer than the allotted time is unprofessional, and it can be very damaging and offensive in some circumstances.  For example, if a conference schedules talks back to back, then it's not acceptable for one speaker to try to use part of the next speaker's time.

It may not be quite as bad in other cases, but it's still disrespectful to the audience.  It tells the audience that the speaker believes his/her final words are more important than whatever else the audience might need to do, and it forces anyone with other obligations to risk drawing attention by leaving before the end of the talk.

Classes are something of a special case for two reasons.  One is that the professor has a certain degree of power over students in the classroom, unlike a typical seminar speaker; another is that it's easy for professors to rationalize that they are going over time for their students' own good.  Going over time is still problematic, but some people don't feel bad about it.

As for how to handle it, this problem should never even come up if the speaker is on top of things.  It's important to keep track of the remaining time and adjust the presentation to omit details as needed to finish on time.  If you screw this up, then you are out of luck if anyone is scheduled to use the room after you.  Otherwise, you could apologize and offer an extremely brief summary of your remaining points.  (I.e., if you suddenly discover that your time is up, that's when you should switch to the 30 or 60 second summary of your conclusions, rather than continuing with the seven minutes remaining in your talk as planned.)


Competitiveness and Success Caliber in Academia Every day, I am figuring out that competitiveness in academia is high. Of course, there are thousands of academics, but only a small number really make an impact with outstanding research.

My goal -- since I was a young girl -- is to be a prominent researcher.

I got an assistant lecturer position at my home university, which is not top-tier, where I worked with incompetent professors. I travelled later and found that I am not good at all and figured that my goal is far beyond me, after I was forced to leave my PhD, after just one year, which is as a black mark on my record.

Maybe this off-topic, but at 28 years of age, I didn't achieve what I was looking for. I am quite disappointed. My female role-models' paths were straight; I had some bumps in my life that made the delay. I wish I can know how to find a good lab, I wish to work with a really good professor.

My question: How can one survive in academia beyond publications, because there are thousands of crappy researchers and only a small number who made a serious impact?

I'm really passionate about learning and exploring, I feel I am in a cage and I want to find the place where I belong, but I didn't yet, and I am afraid it is too late.

No, it's not too late, my former spouse finished a doctorate when over 40 and had a great career afterwards.

But you seem to have an odd view of academia, especially when you write about "competitiveness". That seems to imply that for me to "win" you need to "lose". A zero sum game. It ain't like that, and making it like that will only harm your chances of success.

Academics normally work for personal success. They want to do good work. They strive to extend what is known in their field. But one of the best tools for that is cooperation, not competition. There is no reason for me to think that I'm better or worse than you if I'm doing what I like and produce valid results - perhaps with your help. Or you produce good results with mine.

In fact, many people rise to the "top" in academia for purely random reasons. They choose to work in a field they find interesting. But at the same time, many others, seeing the history, choose to do the same. The field becomes "hot" and so some of its practitioners are seen as hot as well. But it was just chance in many ways.

But the really big breakthroughs have often/usually been the result of teamwork. The fact that many breakthroughs in computing came out of Bell Labs was due to the close association it provided among good people. Those people reinforced one another's ideas in a synergistic way.

My advice is to do what you love. And find others to work with you to achieve success. It can be great success or not, but if life is rewarding it is worth it. You don't have to "beat" anyone.

Also, prominence is a mixed blessing/curse. You will get asked to do more than you want to do. You will give yourself an ulcer if you don't learn to relax. Your personal life may come under a microscope. If it comes naturally you will be able to handle the pressure as it develops, but if you are overly competitive you will find few allies. Relax. Focus on the science, not the success.


Is physics taught using phrases that are too easily misinterpreted, and can this be improved? To explain, let me pick a particular statement: "the electrostatic force is mediated by the exchange of photons".

When a physicist (or a lecturer) says this, they mean one thing: the process described in detail by QED. When a student (or an amateur) hears this, they think of two electrons, and they imagine photons flying between them. You can imagine what follows: questions like "how do they know where to fly", or "what is the frequency of these photons", or "where does the energy to create those photons come from" etc.

When I was growing up, I had no access to anyone who really understood physics. All I had were books filled to the brim with phrases like the above. It is nearly impossible not to misunderstand something when such loose statements are used, as popular literature tends to omit the extremely important "but"s.

For example, in the statement above, the "but"s omitted are "but we don't actually mean photons, in fact we don't mean any particle at all; what we mean is a mathematical tool we use to calculate how the interaction works, which is reminiscent of actual photons in so many ways that we can often treat the calculations as if they involved actual photons".

What is the most effective way to educate students about such phenomena, where our language we use to describe them risks obscuring the reality, and/or misleading the students? Is there evidence in the pedagogic literature on this?

Yes, this is a real issue and yes, we are obligated as a community to address it because we ourselves are the source of so many of the misconceptions and errors we so often complain about. The higher the level, the greater the accountability should be, but frequently isn't.

There are nearly innumerable examples of faulty language all throughout the physics literature and physics textbook at all levels. I will list some here. Before doing so, I also want to point out that science, ALL science, is based on progressively sophisticated models. Each new level of sophistication brings deeper understanding, and the process never ends. It's okay to use simplistic models and accompanying simplistic language as long as we warn the listener that in simplifying things, we're introducing errors that will be addressed in the more sophisticated models. We frequently neglect this warning.

  "Vectors are quantities that have magnitude and direction."

It is not the case that every quantity that has a magnitude and direction is a vector (e.g. finite rotations). There are also different kinds of vectors, and unfortunately this is rarely mentioned in introductory courses.

  "Vector components are scalars."

Well, not always. Components can be vectors as well. In fact, what we call scalar components are really pseudoscalars because of their behavior under coordinate inversion.

  "Energy is the capacity to do work."

This is a model of meaningless circularity if ever there were one.

  "The potential energy of the ball..."

A single entity cannot have potential energy assigned to it. Potential energy is a property of a system.

  "Energy or momentum flows..."

Neither is a concrete physical substance so they can't flow. What we really should say is that we treat them mathematically as though they flow.

  "Charging a capacitor..."

Charge is a fundamental property of matter, and yet we routinely use it as both a noun and a verb, which is a huge potential source of confusion. When we use it as a verb, we really mean and should say "accumulating" because that's the physical process we're trying to describe. "Charging a capacitor" simply means "accumulating charge on the capacitor". Actually, upon deeper thought, it amounts to a "redistribution of charge creating the appearance of accumulation of charge on the capacitor." Sometimes more words enhance the meaning.

  "Electricity is..."

I can think of the following words used by students to complete this thought: charge, current, potential difference, electric force, power. Electricity is really a meaningless word used as a substitute for lack of understanding of the concepts behind all those other words. If you mean power, then use the word power. If you mean current, then use the word current.

  "Newton's third law says two objects exert equal and opposite forces on each other."

This directly contradicts the definition of force as a vector because two vectors cannot be equal if they have different directions. The term "equal and opposite" is inherently self-contradictory.

  "Dot products and cross products are two ways of multiplying vectors."

These are very different from students' conceptions of multiplication. Dot products require both multiplication and addition (and sometimes subtraction). Cross products also require more than trivial multiplication. We shouldn't use the simplistic "multiplying" UNLESS we warn students that we're redefining what "multiplying" means.

  "Moving clocks run slow. Moving rods contract."

These are very misleading. Time dilation and length contraction are nothing more than consequences of measurement from different frames.

  "Time..."

This problem took too much time. (time as a quantifiable concept)
Distance is the product of speed and time. (time as a duration)
What time is it? (time as a clock reading)
Six times three is eighteen. (times as repeated addition)
Please time the oscillations of this pendulum. (time as a verb)
That was a very timely remark. (time as an adverb)
Here is a time-dependent function. (time as an adjective)

These are a few from introductory and intermediate physics. Perhaps we should create a community wiki of more examples from advanced physics.


When does one / who usually anonymizes data? I'm coding some transcripts at the moment and the data I am working with is not anonymized yet. I'm a research assistant, I did not collect the data and I am obviously not the PI. What strikes me is that I know some of the people interviewed so it's a bit sensitive for me to be coding that non-anonymized data.

Which has me wondering, especially in cases where the data is analyzed by a big team, when does the data typically get anonymized and who does it? Would it be common to ask the transcriber to do it?

All aspects of the privacy and data security of the research are the ultimate responsibility of the PI.  (Though of course, you should not take this to mean that you have no responsibilities yourself!)  In your case it would be a good idea to report your concern directly to the PI for the study, to ensure that it is known.  It is fairly common for research work to be undertaken without anonymising the data, unless this is required for the purposes of blinding protocols in the study.  However, if there is a reasonable prospect of researchers accessing sensitive data for people they know, then the PI should really be applying some anonymisation protocol to prevent this.

As a research assistant for the study, you have a responsibility to maintain confidentiality of the information you access, and you should also avoid specifically accessing the data for a person you know, other than for bona fide research purposes.  In the event that there is a data breach in your study (e.g., a research assistant disclosing data outside of the team), your PI could definitely find him/herself in hot water.


Incentives for independent researchers to work on reproducible research For the sake of high-quality science diffusion, there is no doubt that reproducible research is a good practice as it helps to demonstrate the robustness of the proposed methods and boosts the possibilities of getting more citations for a published paper. Needless is to say that it also allows new researchers to continue the work of a previous mentor. For students wondering if they should or should not release their code in a public repository, this was a topic already discussed here: Is it beneficial for a student to publish their research code and data?.

However, my understanding, from this material, is that reproducible research is a practice followed by institutions in which the government takes charge of the salary earned by researchers, their equipment, and travel expenses. Given that public funds are used in this context, there is no point in publishing results in places that would keep the knowledge inaccessible to the people who need it (and pay for it with their taxes). In fact, many journals offer now the possibility of publishing papers as Open Access. Obviously, this exempts the case of national security affairs that need to be kept in secret.

For independent researchers or non-granted students, the things change a little bit, as they don't have to follow the reproducible research practices because they pay for most (if not all) of the expenses during their studies. My question is, what are the incentives (if there is any) for this group of people to release their code on the internet if they are not looking to exploit it commercially? Is reproducible research something that they can use to improve their chances to get a job in academia or an R&D department in the industry?

Note: by reproducible research, I am taking the definition stated here: all the results from a paper can be reproduced with the code and data available online.

I hope I understand the intent here well enough to offer guidance. I don't think there is any inherent incentive for most researchers to publish more than they do. The current system works well enough for them, so the added effort makes little sense.

The reason that many US government agencies publish more than the minimum is that much (most?) government funded research here has, traditionally, been considered as owned by the American public. Public Domain, if you like. On an orthogonal dimension, the fact that a lot of science has become politicized, implies that many want to be as transparent as possible so that the inevitable conflicts and charges can be openly refuted. But an additional reason is that "public servant" researchers are also generally interested in others being able to leverage and extend the work they do - for the greater good. They don't work for a profit motive and so have little incentive to hold things close.

If individuals want to publish code and data, it is, for the most part, permitted, as long as journals don't impose restrictions for reasons of copyright, etc.

However, a beginning researcher should carefully consider what openness implies. In particular, while you retain copyright (which you can license), you complicate the possibility of obtaining patent on your ideas. It may even be that others, with whose policies you disagree, can use and monetize your ideas against your wishes. Openness in general is good, and being willing to "reveal all" is commendable, but be aware of the implications when you do.


How to establish a global authority to deal with academic plagiarism? In the vastness of today's academia, the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work prevails regardless of institutional measures to curb this kind of plagiarism.

If there were to exist a global authority to monitor journals and other publications for plagiarised material, it may benifit the academic and scientific community greatly.

We can keep a watch on material being plagiarised or uncredited. Then, blacklist authors who repeatedly steal other's works.
I am not sure how ethical it is to do so but it sounds just.

Does there already exist such a recognized global organization?

After I graduate, I seek to help academia by setting up an establishment that focuses solely on eliminating the plague of plagiarisation. Then, expanding it be a watchful protector for the entire academic world.

What is your advice for me? At this moment, this is simply an idea.
Even if I do set up a thing like this, how can I hope for it to be one day recognized by people like you?

I'm unsure of the process (toil) involved in setting up such a huge authority. I would ofcourse need expert academicians and scholars. Programmers and scientists to find detection algorithms. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people to go through material looking for similarities.

Do you have any idea how such an organization would function? I'm just day dreaming here.

I'll try to shed light on how a Russian group of this kind, Dissernet, works. They run full texts of the theses through their own homebrew plagiarism detection system and employ volunteers to examine possible cases of plagiarism and check the proper attribution of quotes. As their call for action describes, checking a single thesis requires:

obtaining a digital full-text version or OCR'ing a paper copy
running a plagiarism match
searching the Internet for possible sources of misappropriation
preparing a report on the results, filing it in the database and giving context to the results

Apart from that, running a society of volunteers requires:

running a server for reports and databases
paying for full-text theses access
paying for OCRs and paper copies
paying for commercial plagiarism detection software to complement your own software
paying for legal professionals, mailing expenses, logistics and running the office

In three years from 2013 to 2016, they have produced around 1300 reports, making a living on community donations. At any given moment of time, they had 10 to 20 volunteers active. This might give you an idea for the scope of effort in these kinds of projects.


Can I use the exact same research proposal for different scholarships? I wrote a research proposal (edited by my potential advisor) for an external scholarship application. This application is due at the end of the month.

I just found out that the internal scholarship also requires a research proposal. Would it be ethical to use to exact same proposal (i.e., copy and paste) for the internal scholarship application which is due at the end of next month? Or would this be considered plagiarism?

The department will have both of my scholarship applications. So they will be able to see they are the same.

No problem, often people in your situation do the same. Even professors try to improve failed grant proposals in order to submit it again in other calls.

In your case, I think you must send the same project, since you have already delineated the work you will perform with your potential supervisor and you are just applying for funding. After the results, if both get approved, you will need to choose only one of the grants.

Plagiarism is a completely different thing:

  the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

In any case, I think you should talk to your supervisor before submitting.


A new PI or the brilliant current PI We, STEM students, until we get somewhat a permanent position in our career, we work in different labs, with different PIs and people throughout our student life, starting from bachelor to our post-doc; we like some, we hate some, and in rare occasions, we really like some.
Even though I'm just starting to my master's degree this year, I've worked with a couple of different PIs already, seen different research environments & groups, worked with many different Ph.D./Master students & technicians, dealt with much administrative staff, got around many unnecessary formalities.
Now, I'm currently working (as a short-term intern) with a brilliant PI, with brilliant Ph.D. students in an amazing institute with friendly & supportive administrative & technical staff.
Even though my current affiliation with this group & institute is temporary, it is quite possible (and probable) that I can do my Ph.D. here.
However, if I look into the past, it is clear that all those new experiences - working with different people, in different places - had a positive impact on me, and each case I was glad to move to a new research group, with a new project.
That is why I have the Marriage Problem: I'm quite happy with my current settings here, so if I want to do my Ph.D. here I'll know what I will be getting into, who I will be working with, what the research experience will be, etc.
However, if I choose (or want to) do my Ph.D. elsewhere, I don't know whether I will happy there, whether the PI will spare as much time as my current PIs, whether I will be able to work as efficiently as I'm working with my current PI, whether the actual research will be interesting as that of my current PI, whether I can get along with other students & staff, etc.
I'm sure that this is a common dilemma that many academics have faced/been facing during their career. So my question is the following:
What criteria are important to consider in such a situation? Would not-changing-PI have a big opportunity cost if you happened to be able to work with almost anyone you want? Would I be taking a lot of risks in the early stages of my career if I happen to pursue a research direction that I'm not familiar with? Can you share you experiences if you have any?

The criteria I think are important here:

Growing your social capital. In academia, the size and diversity of your professional network is a huge determinant of your success (think co-authors on grant applications and papers, colleagues on editorial teams, and advisors for your PhD students as well as diversity of ideas, methods, and philosophies, and, yes, employment opportunities). It sounds like you've already built a great network where you are, so a good thing to do might be to go an build another one somewhere else, obviously without abandoning your current contacts and relationships.
Slightly contradicting my first point, what kind of professor do you see yourself in a couple of decades? Some people love interdisciplinary research projects, leadership positions in international networks and consortia, and variety and mobility in general. Others do their best work spending years or decades looking into one or two big questions, surrounded by good PhD students and loyal colleagues. I.e., it's also a personality question.
How would the move affect your life outside work? Will you have to sell your house, move to another part of the country you've never lived in (or to another country that speaks another language), and rebuild your life? Do you have care responsibilities for your parents or children? Can your finances handle it? All this is a huge thing that often gets overlooked in the pursuit of some imaginary professional success. Over the decades, I've seen junior colleagues move to the UK from the other side of the globe just to pack up and go somewhere else 2 years later, without much to show for it.


Importance of order of authors in published paper when applying for PhD positions In some subfields of Computer Science, usually the order of authors in papers indicate the importance of contributions of authors to a paper. I am currently contemplating the possibility of pursuing a PhD degree. Accordingly, my question is, when applying for PhD positions, do admission committees consider (and if so, how do they evaluate) the order of authors in papers that I have published. Is the number of papers in which I have been the first author an important factor for admission committees?

It depends. Authorship order doesn't always indicate who did the most work or the most important work on a paper in many fields. Some fields are alphabetical. Some fields have the lab leader or the person who won the gran last. Hopefully the admission committee understands the norms of their own field and the field you are coming from (if they are different) to be able to make a good evaluation.

I've never served on a PhD admissions committee, but I understand that they generally will try to determine your contribution to your publications when evaluating your application.


How much should we trust that the approach described in a paper solves the problem that it addresses as well as it claims to? To be honest, I'm not sure how exactly to word my question in order not to cause any miss-understanding.

During my literature review sometimes I encounter with researches which propose an approach with promising results. Then when I try to use it or to investigate its theoretical principles I notice it is not as straightforward as it was mentioned in the paper to expect such great results. Then I contact the guy asking for more details about the method or even for the code to implement the approach and reproduce the results, but I hear no answer from them or some thing like "sorry we do not know where the code is now!" or "we have no right to give the code" or some vague answer which is not helpful.

Well, these papers always have tables and numbers related to real data to support their hypothesis, but sometimes I wonder if it is even rarely possible than the authors were faking something? or I'm totally wrong about it?

Even some of these papers are published in high ranked conferences which makes it harder to be skeptical about them!

So my question is how much should we trust works of others in academia even if they published their work in well-known conferences?

p.s: my field is computer science and mostly about algorithms and methods and the implementation results which can support the claimed performance for the algorithm.

I think there is more than one type of "trust" here: "trust" as in whether to believe the authors are being honest, "trust" in terms of the state and certainty of knowledge in a field, and "trust" in the value of the peer review system.

Although misconduct is possible, and it is worthwhile to consider, another possibility is that the approach used in a paper relies on assumptions that were either taken for granted or are stated in the paper but you have overlooked them. For a signal-processing algorithm, for example, there may be an assumption that external noise has a particular color (white, pink, etc) - with a different color noise, or with real world signals, the algorithm may not work as well; for code optimized for a particular architecture you might get different results with different hardware or a different software environment. You shouldn't "trust" that a result in one context will apply to all other contexts that have not yet been tested.

Peer review is meant to improve the quality of and confidence in published material - it is not a flawless fact-checking system. Even when everything in peer review goes perfectly, the best you can assume from a peer reviewed paper or presentation is that the methodology is sound and the conclusions are reasonable based on the data. You should never "trust" a published work as the last word on a topic, and be wary of far-reaching claims - these are often stated for the potential of the technique, not necessarily the implementation as presented - these statements are intended to gain support for further work on the topic, so feel free to treat them with some skepticism. I wouldn't classify any of these as misconduct, just a potential for miscommunication between what is written and how you are expected to interpret what is written.

Lastly, the issue of sharing code differs by field, but at least in the biological sciences it has become standard for journals to ask authors to make analysis code and raw data available on request. I am not sure about the norms in computer science, and it certainly might depend on the potential for commercial application. It seems unlikely that someone would truly have "lost the code" to a recent paper, but if you are going back more than a couple years it is certainly possible that was indeed the case.

It is also possible, if you are a student, for example, that the authors felt your request was bothersome. How did you ask? "Can I see your code?" is a lot different from "I implemented the algorithm you published in 2014, and I got a different result from what you published. Here is the code I used - would you be able to share your original code, or have a look at mine to help find the discrepancy?" If you are truly skeptical, this is the approach I would suggest - science would benefit greatly from these types of replication and confirmation attempts.


How can I add a DOI or link to my article on Google Scholar? My article was published in a very mainstream and widely-read journal several months ago and has been available online since then, but I cannot find it on Google Scholar. I tried adding the article manually, but I cannot find anywhere to put either the article's DOI or a link to the online version. It would be convenient to allow people to link directly to the article from the Google Scholar entry. Is there any way to do so?

The Google Scholar help page says

  If you're an individual author, it works best to simply upload your paper to your website, e.g., www.example.edu/~professor/jpdr2009.pdf; and add a link to it on your publications page, such as www.example.edu/~professor/publications.html.

But I don't see anywhere to include a link on the "Add article manually" page.

Yes, I agree with other posters that it is best to upload your paper to your website. Either post the full paper with title page, citation, etc., on a website within your institutional address, or on a known repository like a pre-print server such as https://psyarxiv.com.


Why might my tutors from several years ago not respond to my email request for a meeting? It has been 3 years since I contacted my former school tutors.
During the past few days in New Year, I wrote 7 emails to them (with contents as shown below), but I have received only one reply.

  Dear XXX, Happy New Year. My name is XXX, and then year of graduation,
  student ID... During the xxx course, I had learnt... I hope you can
  arrange a time for a meeting with me... closing greeting Kitty

I am thinking if my tutors have marked my email as spams.

The absence of a response can be because of several reasons. Your mail can indeed end up as spam but it is usually the e-mail system that sorts it there automatically, not the person. Sending additional mails will then be pointless unless the recipient actually goes through the spam folder to look for erroneously sorted mails.

A more likely reason for the lack of response is a matter of priority. I think etiquette would dictate at least a brief answer to the effect that the mail was received but cannot be followed up. You are requesting something that is a personal favour to you. As such, and as has been commented, it is only fair and indeed professional to provide a short and clear statement of the purpose of the meeting. After all to meet someone during work hours better be about something work related.

The tutors have probably also tutored many others. From their perspective, you, without any derogatory intent, will be one of many. I often get requests from students who apparently think that because they are out of the program they should be "friends" with me. I would end up with many such "friends" but none that would have any significance either professionally not privately. Hence there is an unbalance between how your tutor has meant something for you and what you have meant to the tutor. This is built into this sort of relationship. Hence, you need to look at the formal role of both parties and evaluate if your reason for contacting the tutors is mostly a professional issue or a private issue. In the latter case, the response may be less than what you would wish for. If your cause is professional, you are far more likely to get a timely and satisfactory reply.


Sample Profiles of people who got into top PhD programs When I was applying for undergrad, I could find a lot of profiles of people (with their educational backgrounds, grades, etc) who had got into top universities (like Harvard, Princeton, etc) and that gave me a good idea of what it took to get into an institution of that caliber.

I'm interested in applying for a PhD in economics, and while chances of getting in are extremely slim, I'm still curious to know more about what it takes to be a PhD student in a place like Princeton, Harvard, Chicago, Berkeley, etc. Can I find profiles of people who have got into these places somewhere, or has anyone here got into such a place for grad school?

Lots of departments list their Graduate students on their websites. Web search for their personal website, find their CV, and what research projects they worked on as undergraduates. Do this over and over again and you should start to get a good idea what a successful candidate looks like.


How do I ask instructors for more challenging and/or interesting homework? This question is prompted mostly due to a Numerical Methods and Computer Programming In MATLAB course I took this summer (textbook). To summarize the course it's basically methods for solving linear, nonlinear, and differential equations and systems of those equations, and learning how to program the respective algorithms in MATLAB.

I'm a fast learner for most topics. I already have programming experience, so that half of the class was no challenge. The mathematical concepts I grasped quickly, and as a result most of the lectures were too slow for me.  This isn't anything new for me, I often have this issue.

The bulk of the homework problems given were standard book problems and had no real significance or relation to the application of these methods. There were one or two problems that were applied and those were great, but to be honest I have a problem doing homework and have had it for around 20 years now (since grade school). I understand the importance of it, it's rarely (if ever) difficult for me, but it bores me and I have no motivation to do it. It doesn't help that now I work full time with a wife and 1.5 children, so there is a small window in which I even have to fit this homework.

A couple of weeks into the course I thought perhaps if the homework was more interesting somehow (puzzle-like, application problems (aka story problems), etc) then that would be better for me, but I didn't know how to approach the professor about this. Long story short the bulk of the grading is homework and I'm not doing as well as I could be. It's likely too late for this class, but how would I approach this in the future? It'd be torture to have to continue down this road.

Why not just ask?  Maybe this seems naive but if you approach the professor and say, honestly, you don't feel you are doing as well as you could or even should be, they would be willing to discuss that; a student taking an interest in their learning is a valuable thing.  You can state your desire for creative questions, and ask if the professor has any recommendations for outside material, or has some of their own.  I can't imagine any professor being anything but delighted at the prospect of a student being self-aware of their performance hurdles and seeking more advanced knowledge in the professor's field.


Copyright Status of a Math Text If this is not the correct forum for this question, or too specific, feel free to close it. I'm more or less from MSE, and this seemed like the place to ask.

There's this well-known math text called "Characteristic Classes" by Milnor and Stasheff which is regarded as a staple among topology students in the field. It's a classic, and is highly regarded by everyone. The problem is that it's old, comparatively speaking. I don't seem to be able to hunt down a 'new' copy in the sense that it's updated printing, font, etc, and it's kind of an eyesore to read. For me personally, this writing actually causes headaches, to the point where I can't read for much longer once it starts. The copyright date inside the text is from 1974.

I don't know anything about copyright law at all - I'm just a graduate student. Since I have time this summer, I was thinking about trying to transcribe some sections of the book into LaTeX, with modern diagrams and fonts that might be a little easier on the eyes. It would probably involve some headaches along the way, but I can't be the only one who experiences this, and it might help someone else down the line. Plus this would let me insert in footnotes or endnote comments about things that jumped out at me while reading. It's a rich text so there are lots of places where this happens.

Obviously if I do this for myself and don't share it with anyone, there's no problem. But if I were to do this, it would really be for the benefit of other grad students or mathematicians. If I were to post it on a blog or something, it might violate some kind of copyright law, and obviously I want to avoid that kind of problem. Is this sort of thing legal, and more generally, how do I go about finding out what is or is not legal in the United States?

I would encourage you to contact the authors. Both John Milnor and James Stasheff have their contact info on the web. As Stasheff is emeritus, Milnor might be a better bet.


How to stop being obsessed with manuscripts status I have two manuscripts with status under review (and a third with ``ready for decision" status). I can't stop refreshing the journals homepage especially the one in the decision status. I know there will be an email. But I feel I'm too much on refreshing. I do check every five minutes or less.

I do have a conference submission though where I'm not doing any refreshing. I know notifications will be out on a certain date.

I feel I'm too obsessed. How to stop doing this?

Start on a new paper.

Fall in love.

See a therapist.

Take up a new hobby or sport.

Get a dog.

Talk to your mom/kids.

Re-read Lord of the Rings.

Design a new course.

Go for a walk/run/swim/ski.

Repeat as necessary.

Not joking here. You are probably just bored. Do something that makes you less bored.


How young is typically “young”? I was reading about a “young researcher award” recently being attributed in my field to a colleague who is 40 years old (and has had a permanent research position for 12 years now). It may be viewed as borderline ridiculous, so I must ask: in this context, how young is typically “young”? For the purpose of this special projects/grants/awards, how do research and funding organizations define “young”?

The Fields medal also has an age cutoff of 40 (Andrew Wiles being the most recent example of someone who missed the age cutoff for an otherwise sure award).

Grant agencies usually define "young" in terms of "years since Ph.D", or "years in academic position" with the typical cutoff being 6 or so.

Note that while for most things*, 40 might not be considered "young", in many disciplines you might only get your first academic position near that age (especially in biology).

  * politics being the other venue where 40 would be considered young :)


Research fund for PhD students in Italy Are there any sources where I can find the information regarding the research funds for PhD students and the purposes list on which it can be used?
There is 10% of annual stipend amount available as research fund for PhD students in my University, however I cannot find the regulations for it in English, only in Italian.
I know that these money might be used to cover the travelling expenses for the conferences, but what I wonder is if I can transfer these money to my stipend if I don't use it totally?

but what I wonder is if I can transfer these money to my stipend if I don't use it totally?

No, usually you can't.

In Italy, typically, funds cannot be transferred directly to non-employees (a PhD student is not an employee of a university), and only certain funds, like those coming from research contracts, can be transferred to employees. In the latter case, the payment should be approved by the department.

Moreover, as a PhD student, you are probably not even directly responsible of those research funds, which are probably under the responsibility of your advisor.


When is a good time to go visiting potential post-doc opportunities? I am in my last year of graduate studies. I have lately started networking for post-doc opportunities with some of the prominent people out there. I believe I have done a decent job in presenting myself so far, and I have gotten some people interested in discussing it further. The typical scenario would be to initiate formal contact by email then, if both parties are interested, pay a visit to the lab and talk with the people working there.

Now that I am starting to plan these things, I am wondering if the timing is optimal and if not how I should be putting them. I like planning these things in advance and not having to end up stressing about it all the way in the end. Heaving a big margin also provides time for project planning, as well as finding and applying for post-doc grants.

On the down-side, this last year is all I got to finish my projects, get papers out and also write a good thesis. All of which, I am sure, will take a significant amount of time. Ideally worrying/planning about the next step, should not prevent me from progressing as efficiently as I can.

So, in general, when would be a good time to take active and serious steps towards the next employment after graduate studies?

The answer depends on your geographical and academic areas.

Postdoctoral positions in Europe are often attached to specific research groups and are funded through grants obtained by the head of laboratory/research group. As such their availability are often announced after the successful grant application, which means sometimes in the spring in general. On the other hand, if you have a specific person you want to work with and you have discussed this, it is good to get started early so you can help out as much as reasonable with the grant application process. (This is assuming that you have struck a mutual agreement that she will hire you if the grant is successful.)
Postdoctoral positions in the United States and Canada are, depending on field, are sometimes funded as in the European case described above, and sometimes funded by the department (departmental, "named" postdoctoral positions). In the latter case the application process may have begun already and you should consult the appropriate trade magazines or bulletin boards to keep yourself posted of these opportunities. (I see that your profile indicates an applied math background; many math positions are posted on MathJobs and AcademicJobsOnline, and you should of course keep an eye on SIAM publications.)

In fact, the schedule is also similar for faculty positions in the United States: you generally expect to be applying during the fall and winter (and sometimes the summer) of the year prior to the start date. (Something you should keep in mind after you land your postdoc job.)
The various countries' equivalents of the National Science Foundation also offer postdoc funding opportunities with varying deadlines. For example, the United State NSF funds postdoctoral research in various fields. And you are likely already too late: the Mathematics deadline was last week. While the Swiss NSF has a postdoct program whose due date is not under February next year.


Unable to complete journal paper by deadline, is this a problem? Main Question:

I submitted an abstract to a well known journal (in the field of Civil, Aerospace, Mechanical Engineering) a couple months ago and the abstract was accepted.  Due to major changes in unrelated circumstances, it will not be ready/adequate.  Is this a problem?

Background:

I am a graduate student at an American engineering university.  I submitted a journal paper a couple months ago and it was accepted.  However, my circumstances changed over the past months, and completing this paper is no longer a priority nor plausible.

My funded research (unrelated to the said journal paper) is requiring too much of my time, and I am likely planning to leaving the program.  Also, my wife would prefer me to leave the program and pursue an engineering job with a salary.  To further compound problems, my personal computer (which carries the work corresponding to the paper) has broken down permanently (that is, the computer is completely dead).

As a result, my priorities have dramatically shifted to job applications and interviews.  At this point, completing the paper by the due date (one week) is no longer a priority, nor feasible.  However, I would like to one day return to a career in academia and get a PhD.  Would neglecting to submit this paper negatively effect my reputation?  In your opinion, would this hurt my professional relationship with my advisor (who was working on the paper with me)?  Would this hurt my ability to publish in the future with this journal?

I will focus on the journal, as your plans and relationship with your advisor really need to be worked out between you and them, and follow much the same lines.

Withdrawing from submitting an anticipated journal paper is not the end of the world.  Yes, people will think less of you than if you submitted it, but it is better than either writing a bad paper or dragging the process out indefinitely.  Sometimes bad stuff happens, sometimes plans change, and journal editors will not be shocked or startled.  Moreover, they will likely be happier to have a clear "no" than an open unresolved question.

To handle this as best you can, you just need to make sure that you communicate your change of plans clearly, e.g., emailing something along the lines of:

  Due to a chance in circumstances, I will be unable to submit this paper in a timely fashion.  My apologies and thank you for your patience.

No further explanations or excuses are needed, just a clear statement that you aren't going to write the paper after all.


Could a second masters hurt my PhD application because expectations will be higher? I would like to do a second masters, because I would like to change focus to a certain subfield within my field (not changing fields) and have the best shot of getting into my favourite program. I also had some personal problems both during my BA and my first MA, and think I could do much better.

I am worried though that having 2 masters will set the bars slightly higher for me in the application process. Is this true? Phrased differently: are admissions people more likely to look at the my CV in a 'absolute' way, or do they judge it 'relative' to the amount of time spent in academia maybe?

In the parts of academia I'm most familiar with (mathematics, US), even one master's degree is not a necessary prerequisite for a PhD program.  Some students do improve their application and chances by doing a separate master's degree, but (when a master's degree is not a necessary prerequisite) I would advise any student to also apply for PhD programs and see what they get into.

In your case, having completed one master's degree in your field and having the desire to go on to a PhD program, I think you should certainly apply to PhD programs.  If there is a second master's program that you are extremely excited about -- in particular that you think is prestigious, would improve your academic record and offer you critical new skills that you would not necessarily pick up in the PhD program -- then you should apply to it as well.

If you get into a solid PhD program with funding, I advise you to take that over any master's program.  This is your life, and at some point you will want to have your student days behind you while you are still somewhat spry.  However, if you get in only to PhD programs that are substandard and you get into a very good master's program, then yes, taking that is probably a good investment for the future.

All this is definitely something to discuss with your current thesis advisor, by the way.


How to write about the history of a new line of research in a grant application? I'm a Ph.D. student and my advisor has asked me to write a few paragraphs about the history and the existing literature of a relatively new line of research (the first paper on this topic was published in 2014 and there are only 3-4 major papers on this topic) to be included in a grant application. Since this is my first encounter with grant writing, I would appreciate any help with what to include in these paragraphs given that there are only a few major papers on this topic.

Thanks a lot in advance!

Your goal isn't to write a history per se but to support future research funding. Keep that in mind. There may be only a few papers, but there may be many ideas. I suggest you focus on those ideas and, especially, what they suggest for the future.

Some things in the new field have been settled, but, I suspect, many questions remain unanswered, suggesting future lines of inquiry. Mention both of these things - what we know now and what we need to explore.

So, focus on the ideas, not the specific papers that contain them.


Is it ethical to reference a work accused of plagarism? I have been using a book as reading for the background of my dissertation, but have just found out that it has been accused of being an unauthorised translation of someone else's work: http://www.mathematik.uni-marburg.de/~gumm/Plagiarism/index.htm

Can I still reference it in my dissertation, or should I reference the original author's work but using the material in the translation, or use a completely different reference instead?

First, you need to decide if you find the plagiarism charges credible.  Assuming that you do (the material at the link you include certainly looks damning), then you certainly should not give any citation to the plagiarists.

But that still leaves a dilemma: if you can't read the language of the original work, can you honestly cite it?  To think about how to solve this, let's return to the principles of what a citation actually accomplishes:

A citation justifies an assertion in your work
A citation gives appropriate credit to the related and supporting intellectual work of others
A citation gives readers links to follow in learning more about the subject.

If this reference has been helpful to you, then the original author deserves citation on the basis of purpose #2.  That does not, however, support purpose #1 or #3 if neither you nor most of your readers can read the language.  The ideal solution would be if the original author has material with similar content, but written in English, which you can cite instead.  Switching citations like that still fulfills all the criteria.

What if there is no appropriate source in English by the original author?  If you can verify that the original work really does contain the parts that you find useful (e.g., via online translation or a friend who speaks the language), then cite the untranslated original, fulfilling purpose #1 and #2.  Then, since this is textbook-level background material, there should also exist some non-plagiarized English works that are appropriate background to cite: find them, and add them in as well, strengthening purpose #1 and fulfilling #3.


Are there laws preventing someone from collecting data not connected to a sanctioned research project? I would be interested in conducting a survey of Japanese learners of English to find out what they find difficult about learning English. I'm a university graduate, so no longer part of the university in effect, and am not connected to any research institution, nor any business. I would be an individual acting out of my personal academic interest.

My question is, are there rules or laws that prevent me from doing this? I would have no access to journals or similar, so the most I could do is publish anonymised data on a blog or Reddit or similar. I could collect consent from each participant, but if the survey hadn't been approved by any particular ethics committee would this act be essentially meaningless?

I'd appreciate any advice or input on this matter.

Since you ask for legal advice, only a lawyer in the country in which you intend to do the research can really answer your question with authority.

However, the usual reason that it is useful to be part of a University or Firm when doing research, is that they normally employ lawyers that can answer these questions. Affiliation isn't essential, but good advice is. A university may (will in the US) have an office that will help assure that you don't overstep legal or ethical boundaries.

I would try to visit a local research institution and see if they can give you guidance on your proposal. There are some things you aren't allowed to ask human subjects and some restrictions on data use, etc., but these differ by country. Perhaps a local university publishes its guidelines and they may be available to you even when unaffiliated.

Different countries also are likely to have a bureau whose purpose is to publish legal and ethical advice to researchers. A local search may turn up the information you need.

But proceed cautiously in any research that involves human subjects in any way.


Reference manager that sorts by number of citations This question is related to: How to sort search results from SCOPUS or Web of Knowledge by number of citation in a specific field?
but a little bit different.

Is there a citation manager that keeps number of citations current for articles that are found in common databases? I have looked at popular ones like Mendeley, ReadCube, and others but haven't seen this feature.

I think that if number of citations was a field in a manager database, it would probably be easily sortable.

Zotero has a plug-in that will allow you to add a field called 'extra' that contains the number of citations. Keep in mind that the number of citations are taken from google scholar and not from WoS or scopus. But it's a starting point.


How to find DOI for article in JSTOR? I have a link to an article on JSTOR.  I can't see the DOI mentioned.  Is there a standard way to find the DOI?  Do all articles on JSTOR have an assigned DOI?

DOI's are managed by Crossref.org.  For each DOI, Crossref's database has a redirect to the current location of that digital object, and the owners can move things around and update the Crossref database as needed.  When you follow a link to https://doi.org/<DOI>, the crossref servers redirect this request to the current location of that paper.  As mentioned in another answer you can lookup an article in the crossref.org database to see whether or not it has a DOI.

Recent articles have typically been assigned a DOI by the publisher, and most publishers put the DOI on the title page of the paper so it's easy to find that way.

Older articles were originally published without a DOI, but the publisher may have assigned one after the fact.  If the publisher has not already assigned a DOI, then JSTOR may have assigned a DOI to the article that will point to the copy of the article in the JSTOR database.  This is a service offered to publishers by JSTOR, but not all publishers use it.  Thus not all articles in JSTOR have DOI's.

It appears that the article you linked to has not been assigned a DOI by either its original publisher or JSTOR and thus has no DOI.  I can't find the article in the crossref database.  The "stable URL" that you linked to is probably the best way to link to the article.


How to deal with class partner who always wants to answer professor's question? I have just started master's in math. There is a class with a very "powerful" (great researcher) professor and I'm taking it. However, there is a classmate of mine who, every time the professor asks a question, she answers it. I find this a little bit anoyying because sometimes I want also to participate in class because sometimes I also have an idea and also because it seems that in academia there is a big component on "reputation" and I'm afraid that if I don't talk in class, I'm not going to get a letter of recomendation of that professor (and I make a big effort in class!). At the same time, I don't want to start a war about who answers questions more quickly.

As in masters program, teachers don't grade exams, the only way to get a good reputation, letter of recommendation and so on, is by participating in class.

How can I deal with that situation? What is the best strategy to get noticed in class with such an anoyying student?

To answer your first question, there's nothing stopping you from answering or asking questions in class. If the other student answers questions by raising her hand, you could do so too; if she speaks out to answer questions, you could do so too.

There is also no way you can ask someone else to change the way they behave in class as long as it is not disruptive to others. Just as you have your own reasons for wanting to answer questions, so may your classmate - maybe she wants a letter of recommendation too; maybe she just is the kind of student who naturally tends to voice out her thoughts while learning; maybe she just doesn't like keeping silent when she knows or thinks she knows the answers. Do you really expect to ask someone to not answer something so that you could get a letter of recommendation?

To answer your broader question, trying to impress a professor by answering questions in class isn't probably the most efficient way to go about it. Make sure you get high scores in their homework/exams. If you get a good enough grade, you might even request doing a research project with them (if that's where you are interested in going). Professors understand that several bright students may stay silent in class for various reasons - maybe they are shy, maybe they aren't comfortable speaking publicly in English, or whatever other reason.


Why is manuscript review in mathematics taking so long (over 8 months)? I  submitted my paper on mathematics to a journal  8 months ago but I have no received any reports or comments yet. I sent an email to the editor asking him about the manuscript, he just replied that it is still under review. What shall I do?

Mathematics tends to have a long refereeing process.  It's nice when it can be completed in a few months, but eight months is not especially worrisome.  The editor should be sending the referee(s) periodic messages to make sure they aren't just forgetting, and you can send status inquiries to the editor every once in a while if you'd like (it shouldn't be necessary, but it can't hurt and could conceivably help).  I tend to ask for a status update every six months or so.

One reason it takes so long is that refereeing a mathematics paper is difficult.  The referee has to read and understand the proofs, which is one of the slowest and most painstaking forms of reading.  Another issue is that there is no expectation that it should be done quickly: a referee who takes eight months isn't generally considered problematic by the journal or the community at large.

In practice, the lengthy refereeing times are not a problem.  Mathematics papers are typically circulated publicly (for example, on www.arXiv.org) long before they are accepted for publication, so the publication process isn't holding up progress in the field.  And the mathematics community is well aware of how long it takes to get papers officially published and takes this into account in career evaluation (hiring, tenure, etc.).  For example, if you're applying for a job, nobody will expect your papers from the last year or two to be published yet.  If they are at least on the arXiv and submitted for publication, then everything is as it should be.


When does "distributing the submissions" process usually start for conferences? For a conference, when do the chairs distribute the papers to referees for review?

I have submitted a paper and discovered an error in the paper. Now, I want to withdraw before the submission deadline. Is this something advised against?

I doubt that the distribution time is important for your actual concern. It probably wouldn't be prior to the deadline, but might be. There are too many conferences with too many policies to be definite.

But you can withdraw your paper and it is unlikely that it would be a problem even after the deadline. But if you want to replace it with a newer version, rather than just withdraw it, you should probably contact the program (or conference) chair and ask for advice.

Many conferences give you a chance to provide a new version after review in any case. If the error isn't such that it would result in rejection, you might be able to just provide the corrections as part of the regular process. But for a serious flaw, contact the chair.


Graduating in 4 years vs graduating in 6 years I'm considering graduating from undergraduate school in 6 years in 2024 to build up my resume and pursue interests for graduate school admissions. I feel that I would not feel ready to attend graduate school if I graduate undergraduate school in 4 years. However, most successful people (past U.S. Presidents, successful scientists, people in high political offices, etc.) have graduated undergrad in 4 years. I've no idea what to do.

From the point of view of a graduate admissions committee*, the undergraduate degree is just one step in the sequence:

elementary school
middle school
high school
undergraduate
graduate
postdoc
tenure-track
associate prof.
prof.
named professorship
chair, dean, provost, chancellor, ...

*although they'll realize that many applicants will want to stop going down this list after the graduate degree.

It's okay to take extra time in any of these, but it does delay moving on to the next one.


Is it possible to write two separate Master's theses? This question doesn't seem to have an answer anywhere, which makes me suspect I'm missing a fundamental point.

Is it possible to do 2 separate Master's theses on topics related to your degree, but for 1 degree? Are there any benefits to doing so? I'm really not satisfied with the one I'm currently working on. It started out optimistically, but my advisor chose to take on something in which he has no specialist knowledge.

No one cares about your masters thesis.

Stated differently, your masters thesis will serve a single, time-bound goal: earn you a masters degree. To that extent, the amount of work you put into the thesis itself should be just enough to get that goal, and no more.

That said, you should definitely look to publish your work in as many reputable journal articles as you can. Rather than focusing on writing a second thesis, I recommend (a) writing up your first thesis topic as a paper, and then (b) writing the alternative thesis that you want to write as a second paper.

Please please PLEASE talk to your thesis advisor before taking the above advice. He or she will know whether your research is at journal-level quality and can save you a lot of unnecessary work if the answer is "no".


Why don't high-ranking journals go solo? There are so many debates and criticisms around the topic of publishers, who are accused of charging excessive fees for access when all the work of the journal is done for free by academics. But why don't some of the big journals just go independent and open access? What do publishers actually provide as a benefit?

These are some of the things that publishers might provide, but it seems to me that they are easily replaced:

Typesetting

I edited a postgraduate journal and typeset it myself on LaTeX. It looks as good as any other journal. Surely there are many students familiar with LaTeX who would typeset for not much money, especially if people submitting papers were required at the minimum to provide an endnote/bibtex file of references and use proper document styles etc.

Paywall

Obviously, this would not be a problem for open access journals.

Promotion

Do academic journal publishers really need publishers to do this? Do publishers actually do this?

Website

I design and host my website on Weebly. It looks professional and costs hardly anything.

Printing

Well it's the 21st century, so print articles out yourself or read on a tablet. If this is absolutely necessary, print on demand.

It seems to me at least that to cover the costs of typesetting and webhosting, a journal would require hardly any money. They could raise this through a combination of charging authors (but not crazy money), donations and grants.

Either I'm missing something really important that publishers do or there is something holding back the likes of Mind (top-ranked philosophy journal) from doing this. All I could come up with was that perhaps publishers own the past content of the journal.

UPDATE

Some great responses below. To summarise, it seems there are broadly two answers to the question:

Journals offer more than I and other people sometimes think (e.g. secure web hosting, submission handling, registering papers with various databases).
There are costs associated with trying to leave a publisher. The name of a journal can be owned by the publisher, and the impact factor etc. are all held along with that. These costs present a barrier that already overworked academics rarely consider taking on.

Many journals are publishers' own products, "going solo" makes no sense. It's like asking why Gmail does not segregate from Google. In some cases, professional societies hire publishers to take care of their official publishing organ, I imagine your question relates to these cases. Otherwise, there have been cases of the entire editorial board leaving for another journal, I've heard it happened to a Frontiers journal over concerns on quality, but in this case the journal is still there, just edited by other people.

Running a professional-level journal is not trivial and there are reasons to favor established organizations, commercial or not, to handle that part. These include administration, secure web hosting, a long-term back-up strategy, typesetting, distribution, submitting accurate and complete article metadata to third parties like Pubmed or Web of Science, printing when applicable, etc. and of course finding the money to do all of these.

For many editors, it's a pretty straightforward decision to outsource these hurdles to a specialized organization, be it for profit or not, especially if there is an ongoing issue-free relationship going on for years.


What to do about collaborators & co-authors who fail to understand authorship & plagiarism? I've been working on a research paper in the field of education with co-authors for the past year. I know both of these individuals professionally for several years. One is a more seasoned author than the other, and I am the most published author.

The manuscript is currently back from review and we are working on the revisions.  We also co-authored and presented at a national conference presentation last year. My status in both is second author. My co-authors/collaborators are newly tenured, and one is not tenured. I am a retired professor who is still active in research.

My plan was to attend this research conference and I am looking through the program and I found that  my 2 co-authors are on the program to talk about the topic of our paper! I also see that their abstract includes ideas and references from sections that I wrote in the paper.

When I asked why I was not included one responded, "so sorry, that was so unethical" while the other said she got the invitation to present and it was quick turnaround. They both offered to have me on the program but only after I found out. Both have apologized for both not inviting me, although if I hadn't found their presentation, I am not sure either would have told me.

They did not apologize for using my ideas and citations of other research in the abstract because "currently our paper is unpublished" and they did not see a need to cite our paper? Yet, my ideas were used without my consent or knowledge.

One author tried to make the claim of 'ownership,' and basically no one owns ideas. I responded it's an issue of authorship. I did 'pen' my ideas to that paper and since we formatted the paper in a dialogic format (narrative research), it's clear to see where my ideas begin and end. I see it as plagiarism.

So, there is an issue of excluding me as a co-author in a conference presentation,  not citing our paper in the abstract which I consider self-plagairism as well as not citing me-plagiarism.

What do you all think? What would provoke 2 co-authors to do this? Am I correct in my assessment of the issues of authorship and plagiarism? What strategies would you recommend for addressing co-authors and collaborators who don't understand what I consider to be basic professional etiquette, but also have a motive that appears to be more devious? One co author appears to be more sincere and apologetic but the other one, I think the one who submitted the proposal appears cold, and indifferent.

What do you all think?
On the surface, I don't think this is plagiarism.  When a group of people  author a paper, imho the entire group can be considered the originators of the ideas in that paper.  Basic professional etiquette (as well as any co-author situations I've been fortunate to be in) is that each author, when speaking about the ideas, typically says, "We" did such-and-such, or "we" had this idea.  In my experience, many high quality authors, out of modesty, or an abundance of honesty, will often credit their co-authors for many of the ideas.  But unless a person specifically says "this-and-such was my idea" when indeed it wasn't, then I don't think this is plagiarism, but rather as you put it a matter of "basic professional etiquette."

What would provoke 2 co-authors to do this?
Could be anything from a simple lack of social skills and/or social awareness, to major ego subterfuge and game playing.  Depends on the personalities.

Am I correct in my assessment of the issues of authorship and plagiarism?
As I said above, I personally wouldn't label this plagiarism, but rather a lack of professional etiquette -- unless they outright state that your ideas were their own.  In my opinion, if they use the word "We" (and at some point state the names of who "we" are) then they are entitled to do that, by dint of being co-authors together, even if it was your idea.

What strategies would you recommend for addressing co-authors and collaborators who don't understand what I consider to be basic professional etiquette, but also have a motive that appears to be more devious?
Discuss with them, as you have, and if that gets you nowhere, chalk it up as a life lesson and avoid working with that person in the future.  Unless it has a true consequence of facts harming your career (in which case you may want to seek legal advice).  But if it's just your pride that has been hurt, because the other person is unprofessional or petty, then remember the phrase, "Every dog has his day."  Move on, a let fate take care of them.

One co author appears to be more sincere and apologetic but the other one, I think the one who submitted the proposal appears cold, and indifferent.  Trust your gut; perhaps avoid all interactions with the "cold and indifferent" one in the future.

One comment that you mentioned but didn't specifically ask about: You mentioned that they didn't reference the unpublished paper, but only the ideas.  Imo this is also unprofessional.  I was taught to reference every source, even if it is unpublished work (just say so).  My graduate adviser impressed this on me years ago, as a strong ethical concept.  I had made some statements in my dissertation that everyone in the field regarded as completely common knowledge (but possibly someone outside of the field would not know), and he made me go back and find the original paper from the 1950s and reference it.  So I have taken it on as an ethical imperative: don't make statements or present ideas without referencing where they came from.  If you agree, then perhaps you may want to convince the co-authors to mention the unpublished work.


A technique adopted from a paper Can we use a technique (equations and approach) from a journal paper in one section of our paper if we cite it like this: "Method X has been adopted from [Y], modified, and used in this paper"?

Method X has been adopted from [Y], modified, and used in this paper

I don't see why not. This is acceptable. In fact that is the most common form of citations you tend to see in papers that make an improvement over an existing method.

Just make sure you know ample knowledge of what you cite in this case as you are to make a modification to what is published. It would be best to know well about what X really is before you try to modify it.


My PhD seems daunting and overbearing. How shall I regain motivation and interest? EDIT: I should clarify this is not the first draft of my PhD, it's the first draft of my upgrade document to go from MPhil to PhD.

I have been working on my PhD for about two years now, it is a six year part-time program. I have a very good relationship with all my supervisors and they are very supportive. I am fortunate to be part of a good university which is open-minded and free-thinking. I also have attracted the interest of a well-known external academic who is an authority within the field and who wants to be involved. I am very lucky.

The problem is that I am just not that interested or convinced by my research [chiefly its significance]. I have to submit my upgrade document [MPhil > PhD] in about five week's time, and the viva is a week after that. I have written a draft document which is 12,000 words and my main supervisor has written a lot of comments which are suggestions for improvements. The issue is that I do not feel that interested or compelled to work through them.

I am under the impression that my supervisor is not that convinced by my research, even though she keeps saying she has no concerns. I feel my research is too vague, too broad but also too overbearing. It incorporates three disciplines [at the advice of one of my supervisors], disciplines A B and C. Discipline A I am not that interested in - I was for my master's but now I find it quite tedious but it is quite an important part of the whole. It is a well-worn discipline and feels rather old and stale to me now. Discipline B is quite new and interesting, I have published within this discipline. Disipline C is very new and up-and-coming. I find it quite exciting and my supervisor has written the least amount of comments about it in my draft paper, which I take to mean she has the least amount of complaints about it [she has a lot of comments to make about dispclines A/B]. She has also said that discpline C is a 'key' part of the PhD.

I do not know what to do. I am really not that interested and the whole thing seems so daunting. My PhD focuses on A and B mostly with C being only a feature, but I am wondering whether I should switch things round entirely and make it more about C. I feel I will not really be able to convince my panel about the significance of my research in the viva if I am not excited about it or convinced myself. In my master's I was always keen to research and write, now I am not, but I know I would be if the topic were carried out a bit differently.

What shall I do, how shall I regain interest? My PhD seems rather fluffy and not sharp enough. Additionally, I am daunted by the scope of the whole thing: it seems too large to work through and 'bigger' than me. I am kind of at a loss for what to do.

my supervisor (...) keeps saying she has no concerns

Believe her.

Having lots of comments and suggestions for improvement does not mean she doesn't like what you have done. It may be the exact opposite: because she likes what you have done, she wants to make sure your research is presented in the best possible way, clearly demonstrating its potential and value.

I would suggest taking some time off to recharge your batteries and then working through the list. You've made it this far, now do what it takes to complete your PhD. Judging the value of the research is most likely better done in a less stressful situation (i.e. once your done).


How do I know if I am fit to do a PhD in my area of interest, specifically, theoretical CS, when my background was mostly applied EE? I have a Master's degree from a good (top-15) school in Signal Processing and my Master's research involved mainly helping out PhD students in very applied projects. The idea of the project was nice (and it even resulted in a patent and several publications), but the individual contributions to the team - and this includes mine - were not novel, just implementing existing algorithms.

I was dissatisfied with my MS research lacking any real novelty (but at that time I joined that lab because the professor had funding), so after graduating, I worked for a bit in the industry and then came back to (a different) grad school for a PhD, hoping to do theoretical work.

Over the summer, I am reading papers with potential advisors in math/applied math/theoretical CS departments at my university. I am now wondering - while I am liking the ideas in the papers I am reading, am I trained enough to make novel contributions in theory? By aiming to do theoretical work for my PhD while having a such an applied background, did I gravely confuse liking an area with ability to do something new in it?

My question is: How do I know I can do something new in the theoretical field I am reading papers in? Of course I like these papers - they have been written by leaders in the field who know how to write well; the ideas are great, which is why they are famous papers. But I have been so stupid to have assumed, all this while, that liking these papers is some sort of indicator that I can be in this field. People who actually wrote these papers are mathematicians and theoretical computer scientists who, after years and years of training, have come up with these novel ideas. Will I ever be able to do that?

I will start my second year in a few months; I just don't know if I should stick to trying to solve theoretical CS/math problems of the kind I am reading now, or if I should stick to what I have training in - applied signal processing.

Until you try, you wouldn't know if you can or cannot do it. There are plenty of people who make more radical switch of fields and make meaningful contributions. If you are very good at applied signal processing, you probably can get good at applied discret math and theoretical CS. One way to ease into the field is to take relevant grad-level courses. Try taking a theoretical CS class and put your best efforts to excel.

(I switched from CS to EE. I was very much into logic and computation theory before starting my PhD in adaptive signal processing.)


Payment for articles in journals The mainstream academic publishing model assumes that authors are somehow paid by third parties (typically universities or industry) for the time spent on research. With increasing casualisation of the academic workforce (particularly in the humanities) this is arguably less appropriate than it once was, and many authors are no longer paid for the time spent on research. Amongst other things, this has strong negative consequences for diversity, as it biases the system towards those who can afford to work 'for free'.
An alternative model could involve authors being paid directly by journals for their submissions (as is common for, say, freelance journalists). Has this ever been tried in academia? Is it a realistic possibility?

I am not aware of any journals in my field (physical sciences) that would pay cash to authors for research papers. There are some obvious edge-cases:

Some major journals such as Science/Nature contain a certain amount of non-research content, e.g. 'science news' and commentary on policy matters. I presume that the authors of this material get paid fairly directly for their efforts to produce it. However, one might argue these individuals are acting as 'journalists' rather than 'academics' when they do so.
Some journals carry book reviews. I think it is fairly common that the author of the review gets to keep their review copy of the book. For a major textbook, this may have non-negligible financial value.
Some grants/awards, especially those from professional societies, may come with some obligation to contribute a report to one of the society's journals. However, the award is not (in any case that I know) expressly claimed to be payment for the journal contribution.

Researchers in certain areas have opportunities to profit from private consultancy arrangements with industry/commercial enterprises. In some cases, this may entail conducting and publishing studies with a particular focus (typically, to prove that the company's products are safe/effective/better than the competition). Anecdotally, this is particularly prevalent in medical fields. Of course, there are many potential ethical issues here.
Otherwise, the general assumption in the physical sciences is that authors do so in the course of their employment at a university/research institute/company, or as students working towards a degree (for which they may receive some scholarship/grant). Of course, there is a big difference with the humanities here, due to the relative abundance of research funding for the sciences.
That said, it is interesting to note that publications are (largely) required only to get or improve a job, rather than to keep it. An academic who habitually failed to show up to teach their assigned classes would likely find themselves facing disciplinary action. However, an academic who fails to publish rarely sees any personal consequences until the next time their employment falls to be reviewed  (either as a tenure/promotion/contract renewal case, or because they've applied for a new job).
I presume the premise of your question is that many academics have teaching-only contracts, and therefore any research they do is 'in their own time'. The issue here, as I see it, is that people who want one career path (academic research) are being encouraged to take a different one (academic teaching) and view it as a 'stepping stone' to research. This is a huge problem, but I'm not sure that either the blame or the solution lies with the publishing process.