How to take the endorsement request for arXiv? Very recently, I received an email from a student (probably, undergrad) from some country asking me for an endorsement for his/her paper to be submitted to arXiv. I do not know the student. I have never cited his/her work in my publications and possibly not vice-versa. Basically, there is no link at all.

The mail to me was also cc-ed to some big persons in top-ranked universities. The email was similar to the following along with the forwarded mail from arXiv.

  Hello,

  I would kindly like to ask your help to endorse me to submit an
  article. My research is already published on [some unknown journal].

  I appreciate your  kindness,

  Thanks in advance

  ---forwarded message from arXiv.

However, I didn’t understand how it works? Somewhere in arXiv page, it was mentioned that we are not supposed to review the article. – Then, how am I going to take this endorsement request?

Is it somewhat based on the hypothesis that if you know a person A and you have already published in arXiv before, then the work of A is also publishable in arXiv?

First of all

  The mail to me was also cc-ed to some big persons in top-ranked universities.

For me this would already be a red flag and result in not endorsing them. The Arχiv explicitly instructs you not to spam when seeking endorsement:

  Please note, however, that it is inappropriate to email large numbers of potential endorsers at once, or to repeatedly email the same endorser with a request for endorsement.

Endorsing somebody you do not know

Endorsing somebody you do not know is somewhat equivalent to saying that the article would pass the initial check of some (reputable) journal, i.e., with endorsing you confirm:

That the article adheres to basic standards of scientific writing.
The article is not complete bogus (e.g. neglecting well-established facts).

From the Arχiv’s help pages:

  We don't expect you to read the paper in detail, or verify that the work is correct, but you should check that the paper is appropriate for the subject area. You should not endorse the author if the author is unfamiliar with the basic facts of the field, or if the work is entirely disconnected with current work in the area.

Endorsing somebody you know

  Is it somewhat based on the hypothesis that if you know a person A and you have already published in arXiv before, then the work of A is also publishable in arXiv.

Not exactly; it is based on the assumption that if you have published on the Arχiv and know person A, you are qualified to judge whether person A is likely to attempt to publish sub-standard content on the Arχiv. If you know person A and also know that person A is not remotely capable of proper scientific writing (and research), you should not endorse them. For example, you should probably not endorse the ghost-healer who happens to live next to you.

Explicitly not endorsing somebody

It may be helpful to explicitly not endorse (instead of doing nothing) if you think that somebody should not be allowed to publish on the Arχiv. Otherwise some sloppy endorser may unilaterally allow them to do so.

If you do not want to endorse somebody, you have to select either “I do know […] personally” or “I have read the paper […] intends to submit” (at least this was the case half a year ago), even if neither applies and you refuse endorsement due to them spamming their endorsement request, publishing in predatory journals, or similar. (This was confirmed to me by the Arχiv when I had this problem.)


How are textbooks meant to be referenced? I'm studying maths, and I've found it beneficial to write my notes as if I were writing a textbook for someone else's self study - forces me to understand the material to some extent.

It's of course incredibly unlikely these notes could actually be made into a textbook, but hypothetically, if I decided in some distant future to attempt to publish a textbook on maths, what are the rules for referencing?

Is it acceptable to source material almost solely from other textbooks, and simply place in the references at the back the names of those text books, or...?

Exercises. If I borrow exercises from other textbooks which look challenging (not every exercise) then how required am I to reference the book I found the exercise in? Even if I do reference, is there any issue that could stem from using those exercises? I've seen Wilson's theorem used as an exercise for almost every abstract algebra book I've read.

I strongly disagree with Dirk. You should not "always strive to keep the number of such references in a textbook as small as possible."

Also, I would say that this: "Also keep the number of different books to which you refer as small as possible." is very poor advice.  It is a disservice to your readers, and wholly unnecessary.

Instead, you should have extensive references in a textbook whenever you draw on other materials. This is a matter of intellectual honesty and to provide your readers (and their teachers/advisers) links to source material. If your content or results come from other sources, including from textbooks, you should make explicit references to them.

Exercises are only in "the public domain" if they are from sources whose copyrights have expired or are from authors who have explicitly made them public domain, or variant thereof.

It may be advisable to have a section of your textbook that minimizes references -- mainly to improve readability.  If so, then you'd be advised to have a parallel section titled "Sources and Further Reading" where you recapitulate the content in the main section and include all references.

Dirk says that textbooks are to be "as self-contained as possible. Hence, there are few references." This is poor advice since it confuses readability with completeness and usability.  To omit references when you have copied or otherwise drawn material from other sources is both incomplete and disreputable.  It harms usability because some students and many teachers will want access to the original books and papers.


Are there any changes in NSF proposals/awards processes that are likely to be of special interest/relevance to PIs? The NSF has recently released a new version of their Proposal & Award Policies and Procedures Guide, releasing their previous guides.  (See their Dear Colleague Letter.)  This contains a number of changes to the policies regarding grant proposal reviews and ongoing reporting.

However, it is unclear to me whether any of these are likely to be significant in practice for PIs; many of them sound primarily bureaucratic in nature.  The list of changes seems like it was written by a bureaucrat and seems likely to be of interest only to a bureaucrat, and of modest relevance to PIs (e.g., it might change a few section headings in proposals to comply with the new requirements, but not make any fundamental changes to what we propose or how we do research).

Are any of these changes significant enough that PIs should be paying serious attention to them?  Are there any changes that are important enough that they would make a substantive change to how we write proposals or do research or interact with the NSF, and if so, which changes are those, and what will their impact be?  In short, if a colleague of yours (a fellow PI) asked you what the impact of these changes will be, are there any changes that rise high enough that you would highlight them as important to be aware of?

At the top of a recent NSF Solicitation the following note exists:

  A revised version of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures
  Guide (PAPPG), NSF 13-1, was issued on October 4, 2012 and is
  effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after January 14,
  2013.

  Please be aware that significant changes have been made to the PAPPG
  to implement revised merit review criteria based on the National
  Science Board (NSB) report, National Science Foundation's Merit Review
  Criteria: Review and Revisions. While the two merit review criteria
  remain unchanged (Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts), guidance
  has been provided to clarify and improve the function of the criteria.
  Changes will affect the project summary and project description
  sections of proposals. Annual and final reports also will be affected.

  A by-chapter summary of this and other significant changes is provided
  at the beginning of both the Grant Proposal Guide and the Award &
  Administration Guide.

By my reading of the section in the PDF that lists the changes, the following might be of interest to PIs:

  Chapter II.C.2.f(i)(c), Biographical Sketch(es), has been revised to rename the “Publications” section to “Products” and amend terminology and instructions accordingly. This change makes clear that products may include, but are not limited to, publications, data sets, software, patents, and copyrights.

Plus, a minor change to the Indirect Costs section w.r.t. international participants, a minor change in the Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources listing,

A change in the definition of "New Awardee":

  Chapter II, Introduction, has been modified regarding the period of time after which an organization is considered a “new awardee”. Organizations that have not had an active NSF award within the last five years (formerly two years) should be prepared to submit basic organization and management information and certifications.

Prior funding:

  Chapter II.C.2.d, Project Description, has been revised to clarify that, in the Results from Prior NSF Support section, “prior” NSF support includes current NSF funding. This section also was updated to indicate that information should be included irrespective of whether or not the support was directly related to the proposal, or whether or not salary support was provided.

References Cited:

  Chapter II.C.2.e, References Cited, has been updated to specify that if there are no references cited, a statement to that effect should be included in this section of the proposal and uploaded into FastLane.

And various other minor changes...


Fixing mistakes from math's thesis and put that to the Internet? I wrote a bad master's thesis, got a work but now I'm unemployed. I would like to improve my probability to get a work and show that I can write a better thesis. How wise it is to rewrite the thesis and say that I wrote the thesis on the subject, the grade was bad but I have learned from my mistakes? Some students might think it is easier to read my corrected work than the original paper. I wrote my thesis on particular mathematics article. I'm going to say honestly that this is not my thesis but a learning material for someone who is interested about the subject.

Yes, several people have done that (including myself, though the errors were typos). It is almost always looked upon positively in the academic community.

Will the industry look positively upon it? Not sure. On the one hand, it's a positive that you are taking responsibility for what you wrote and correcting the record despite not being required to. On the other hand, it's a negative (for them) that you are still doing research despite intending to leave academia. Most realistically, they won't care or even notice.

Do you have to disclaim that it is your thesis? I don't think so. Writing "corrected version of my thesis" or "thesis (updated)" should be perfectly enough; I don't recall anyone getting in trouble for it. Out of an abundance of caution, I would remove whatever parts of it signal that it is literally the version you submitted -- such as the university's logo and whatever statement you made on the first page about it being your thesis. (Readers won't care about them anyway.)

Don't declare it "learning material", though, unless it has genuine expository value.


How should I disclose a data extraction error when submitting a revision? I was recently asked for a minor revision a review paper submitted, including more detailed reporting on parts of the analysis. When performing this additional analysis, I noticed a big data extraction error which had a small effect on the results and conclusions. It has no relevance to our main conclusion. This wasn't picked up by the peer reviewers, who were generally very positive about the paper and I think it has a good chance of being accepted.
Obviously I intend to correct this error and the conclusions derived from it. What is the proper way to go about disclosing this? My plan was to include this as a general note to all reviewers at the start of the response document before addressing all of their individual comments. Should I explictly point this out to the reviewers and explain, or just fix it without explanation and only address their comments directly in the response?
Any and all suggestions much appreciated.

It is probably better to point it out. A note to the editors/reviewers is fine. You and everyone want the best science to be published. Full disclosure is best.
I doubt that this would lessen the chance of acceptance, but it might draw a bit more scrutiny overall. But that is a good thing in general.
This is similar to pointing out other changes in the paper, those that were called for and those that you think are relevant to improving the paper.


Diplomurkunde and Diplom (Diplomlehrer) in English? This might be off-topic but I thought I would try here since I know we have people who will know the answer.

I have received two documents from a prospective teacher. They seem to be German diplomas but I do not understand clearly what they really mean. The names of the diplomas are:

Diplomurkunde, and
Diplom (Diplomlehrer)

(1) translates (via Google) as Diploma Certificate. This is a bit confusing because I normally think of certificates as something and a diploma as something else (which requires more studying).

(2) translates as Graduate Teacher. This seems to be quite different from what I'm used to as a graduate teacher is something you are (or something you do) rather than something you've achieved.

Is there a more detailed explanation which would tie back to the UK or US educational system?

Pre-Bologna process, a German Diplom (which is no longer being awarded, and [see cbeleites's comment below] is mostly replaced now by a Master's degree) was generally the rough equivalent of a US Master's degree, attaining it is one of the requirements to start Doctorate studies.

Your applicant sent you two documents:

The Diplomurkunde is roughly the Master's diploma in the US. It is called a "certificate" (Urkunde) to distinguish it from the Diplomzeugnisse which also includes the transcript of grades. It is the one that one may consider framing and putting on the wall.
The Diplomlehrer tells you what subject the applicant received his "masters" in. In particular, he received it in Lehrer, which translates directly to Lecturer Teacher. Or, as we may say, it tells you that he received something like a Master's in education.

To clear up any doubts, though, you could just ask your applicant to ask the Akademisches Auslandsamt of the place where he received the degree to send a letter attesting to the equivalency of the degree. (That shouldn't be too hard, since now they should've converted to a Bachlor/Master system anyway.)


Academic publishing: why placing figures on top/bottom of pages in single-column layout? When you turn in a manuscript to an academic publisher, they may insist (referring to their style guide and publication process) that all figures are placed on top/bottom of the manuscript's pages rather than exactly where you need them (e.g., in the middle on one page and on top on another page). Why? Assuming single-column layout and that no huge line stretching, no huge vertical gaps, and no vertical overflows occur, what good reasons could exist nowadays for figures to be moved out of the very place where you need them?

An example could be the figures in the CSP book: they are placed typically where the reader needs them rather than always at the top/bottom of the pages.

Consider a page structured like this:

where A, B, C, D are columns of text. In such a case, should one read in the order A–B–C–D, or A–C–B–D? For me, it's natural to read in order texts that are close to each other – so here: A–B–C–D. So I'm always annoyed when the text makes no sense because I read it in an incorrect order. The same applies for a layout like this:

where the text nearest to A is C.

In case of this layout:

the page seems too divided – the continuity between A and B is broken. Also, it doesn't look nice when A consists of 15 lines, and B of only 2 lines (or vice versa): the reader could miss the shorter block, and – again – be annoyed that the text makes no sense. So, one wants to have a layout that will be easiest for the reader to follow.

And the layout when the figure is embedded in the text (e.g., with LaTeX's wrapfigure) can be sometimes found in books – I guess journals decided that this would be too distracting in an article which is usually very condensed.


In a paper, how would you name a part that describes the big picture before the technical details I have been struggling with finding the right title for a section in a scientific paper (in computer science but I think it can apply to many other fields). I know it's not the first time I encounter this problem, so I guess it's worth asking the question.

For now the outline of the paper resembles something like this:

Introduction: where I describe the problem and the outline of the paper
Background/Related work: where I describe what the state-of-the art is in the field
Big picture: where I describe where we want to go and how we will go there from a high level standpoint (more detailed than the intro, but less detailed than what follows)
[... Implementation ... Technical Details ... Application ... etc]: the body of the article
Conclusion

I'm struggling with the title of the third part Big picture. I want a title that conveys the idea of a high level description of what will follow so that the reader does not get lost in the technical details and keep in mind what the general plan is. Things I had in mind so far: big picture description, methodology, strategy, overview, plan of attack, ... However, none of these section title conveys exactly what I want.

Is there a common practice for the title of such a section of a paper?

What could be a good fit?

In my research area (software engineering), a widely used name for this section would be Overview.


Use of "we have a large backlog" euphemism by journal editors when rejecting articles without sending them out for review Several times now I've had desk rejections from journals in pure mathematics that are variations on the theme of 'we have a large backlog of very good articles, so unfortunately we won't even be sending your paper to a referee even though we might ordinarily do so'. I suspect this is just euphemism for 'we aren't interested in your paper/your paper is not good enough/go away', as claiming a large backlog seems to me to be more objectively defendable than making an editorial decision (ie 'not significant enough') and standing by it on its own terms. Alternatively, it may be phrased this way to soften the blow in claiming to not make an explicit judgement call on paper quality.

Is this common practice among editors and/or journals? I haven't in my admittedly limited experience heard similar wording in rejections from, say, experimental sciences journals. More controversially, am I correct in my reading, that it is just euphemism? (If so, I do not appreciate it, in the interest of academic honesty over lawyer-approved weasel words.)

Ideally answers would come from people who are editors and/or those with extensive experience in publishing. A bonus would be answers that can detail whether this sort of thing is on the rise, coming from people who have decades of experience.

Although I've not been "an editor", I've been involved-enough with refereeing in "pure math" for almost 40 years now that I can observe some patterns:

First, the last several decades were very productive in the sense that many, many people got PhD's in math from pretty darn good places, and were focused on research. Second, the advent of TeX + internet (as opposed to paper mail) has effectively decreased the "friction" of submission so that the volume of submissions is insanely higher than 30 years ago. Maybe 100 times that rate? Meanwhile, the number of reasonably-substantive-status mathematics journals has not at all increased, and the refereeing system (pro bono, in people's spare time) has not changed. I hesitate to suggest that referees should be paid (jeez, for one thing, this starts to create conflicts of interest worse than those already present...), but the "old" system cannot cope with the new volume.

Thus, desk rejections will be more frequent, and more aggressive. That is, in particular, editors will not want to annoy/burden their "stable" of expert referees with a higher volume of papers... (One could hope that the pool of expert referees would grow proportionately to the number of TeX'd-up manuscripts, but this seems not to be so.)

Yes, I'd be willing to believe that the rate of inaccurate desk-rejections has gone up... not through malice or prejudice, but exigency.


What do the abbreviations 2:2, 2:1, or 3:2:3 mean in terms of teaching loads? I often see people abbreviate faculty teaching loads ("course loads") as 2:2 or 3:2:3 or 2:1.
Sometimes a note such as "3:3 with 2 preps" is added.

What do these abbreviations mean?

They refer to the number of classes you teach in each semester. ie 2:1 would mean two classes one semester and one the other.

Three numbers (like 3:2:3) refer to the number of classes in each quarter for schools on the quarter system (i.e., three terms per academic year). [Thanks to Mark Meckes]

Not all courses are the same size, although I suspect that the vast majority are the standard "3 credit hour" size. A minority but reasonable number of courses, though, are 4 credit hours (particularly in my area, math). A few courses are even 5 credit hours at some institutions. It depends on the field to a great extent. Nevertheless, the number of courses is still very important. Teaching a four-hour and a five-hour course for a 2-course load is less work, usually, than teaching three different 3-hour courses. [Thanks to Oswald Veblen]


Can I reuse a recommendation letter that was given to me a year ago for PhD applications now? I took a recommendation letter from one of my Professor last year and I want to apply for a PhD position now.Is it OK if I send that recommendation letter or should I ask for a new one?

Would you send a CV that's a year old?

You have hopefully been doing something in the time between when your professor wrote the letter and now. Your reference letter should reflect that. If you can, ask them for a new one, otherwise find someone who you've been working with more recently to ask.


I'm very frustrated about what "research collaboration" is I cannot blame anyone but myself for this because i created an illusion of what "research" would be. In my case, i am a Computer Science Masters' student of a quite large university. I have met some people and started to visit the CS lab often.

In my thoughts, i was hoping to find groups or students interested in collaboration. Instead, i found individuals working on their solo projects without a break. I can't stand a chance to explain my difficulties and share experiences. My advisor told me that his best works came from when he spent his time in lab as a student with other students.

I know that is none's purpose to be there helping others out or work in my projects, but what is the meaning of the lab existence if not providing an environment to share experiences and helping others?

So, for my point of view, i feel a little disappointed about that. I don't know if either i am quite anti-social or my lab isn't good. I'd like to hear some advices about start engaging with other researchers.

Collaboration is not something that can be forced. It is built on top of personal relationships, and requires some element of trust to have been established. The best collaborations emerge organically over time: really, the best strategy is just to spend as much time as you can working in the lab, talk to people, show interest in what they are doing, and allow relationships to develop.

Also, bear in mind that collaboration is a two-way street: both parties have to expect to benefit in the long run. You say that you are a masters student in a large university. From the perspective of a more senior researcher, this means you probably don't yet have enough experience or expertise to be particularly useful - or at least, you have not yet had the opportunity to demonstrate this. Again, the only real solution is to be visible, proactive, and give people an opportunity to see how you stand out from the crowd.


Any risks down the line choosing maths vs. stats PhD programme? It seems funding for a PhD (at least in the UK) is a lot easier to get for a PhD in statistics rather then maths. Provided one can find a supervisor who has the background and research interestes that would allow one to keep extending ones pure mathematical toolbox are there any major risks in going for a PhD in stats ?

It seems to me that at any given stage there is a lot of flexibility with a degree in mathematics. (For instance people seem very open minded to let a maths MSc do a stats PhD). Is it justified to be worried about losing this flexibility if one opts for the PhD in stats rather then maths?

In particular I am worried about whether it is possible to transition back to the maths departement for a postdoctoral position or something equivalent. So essentially I want to know whether one will get branded to an extend that would make it difficult to go on and work in pure mathematics after the PhD.

Provided one can find a supervisor who has the background and research interestes that would allow one to keep extending ones pure mathematical toolbox are there any major risks in going for a PhD in stats?

There's a small risk, but it can be managed.  The first issue is that you need to make the mathematical content of your work very clear, for example by publishing in journals that could be considered both math journals and statistics journals (e.g., IMS journals).  However, if you're interested in math departments I assume you'd be doing that anyway.

The slightly more subtle issue is how mathematicians view statisticians.  There's sometimes a mild prejudice that people in mathematical statistics are overly specialized and outside of the mainstream of mathematics.  For example, it's possible to get a Ph.D. in mathematical statistics while having considerably less breadth of mathematical background than would be considered acceptable for a math grad student.  (Of course, the flip side is that you are expected to know other things instead.)  There's sometimes a fear that a statistician would be unlikely to talk much with other math department members, or might be unwilling or unable to teach anything but statistics.

Plenty of statisticians have found jobs in math departments, so I don't want to be discouraging.  However, I'd recommend focusing on mathematical breadth.  For example, if you work with people in combinatorics or algebra, then it will be clear to everyone why a math department is a natural fit.  If you talk only to statisticians, it will be less clear.  It can still work out even then, but generally when the department either has a thriving statistics group or has decided they really need a statistician (and either way this cuts down on the flexibility of your job search).


Is it possible for non-debating person to survive in research? I am a computer-science PhD student. I like to work on things and I enjoy doing computer science. But here is a problem: I am not that much into debates. When I meet with my supervisor, he asks me some questions and I try to answer those. I don’t go into debates on the research questions. I like to do research independently, also in a collaboration, but only to a small extent. Many of my friends ask me to enter into debates, but I don’t like it much. I like mostly objective sorts of questions. I like subjective questions also, but to a small extent.

Question: Is it possible for non-debating person to survive in research?

You don’t need to debate as a researcher, but you do need to be able to defend your ideas to someone who’s going to want to know the details. This will apply not only to your advisor, but attendees at conferences and seminars, and people who read your work and respond to it.


Can one hire an illustrator to make drawings for a paper? I am curious if one is allowed to hire an illustrator to draw images for a paper (e.g. a cartoon of some chemical reaction). Should this person be included as an author or in the acknowledgements? Or is this outright not allowed?

It is entirely reasonable to hire a graphics designer or similar artist to make illustrations for scientific manuscripts, and I do in fact know people who have done so. For example, many journals now invite one to submit a "striking image" to be the splash graphic for the paper online, and this is a great place to get an artist involved.

An artist working on graphics for a paper would typically be given credit in acknowledgements but not be a co-author, since they have not made a contribution to the scientific work. There might be cases where "graphic design" might expand to become "visualization and analysis of data" worthy of an authorship, but those would likely be rare and relatively easy to distinguish.

The primary complication that this can add is one of copyright, as some journals require you to note images that need to have their copyright handled separately from the body as a whole. If you make an arrangement where the artist transfers the copyright to you, however, you can likely transfer it onwards to the journal without problem.


What tense to use when writing a thesis? I am well aware of the fact that there are a number of questions that talk about tenses in research, but I still have not found exactly what I am after.

Basically my question is this, in a Master dissertation, should the tense be the same throughout the entire text? Or is it acceptable (or even required)  to use different tenses in different structures?

Assuming the following structure, if you believe that there should be separate tenses, would the suggestions in brackets be correct?

Title (Present)
Abstract (Imperfect Past)
Introduction (Present + Future)
Methodology (Past Perfect, Present, Future or Mix?)
Results (Past Perfect)
Discussion (Present*)
Conclusion (Mix?, conditional present)

*Would the choice of any present tense put all preceding sections in a past tense?

Looking at that structure I find it hard to see that only one tense should be adopted throughout the entire text.

Sources: This, this and that.

The answer to this question varies across disciplines. Your dissertation presumably falls within some academic discipline. Look at other papers in the same discipline, and see what tenses they use. For example, unlike your suggestion, in math papers the abstract is usually present tense.

If some of the premier journals in your discipline have a style guide, look at these style guides and see what they say.

The journal Nature, in which the majority of articles are in the  sciences, has the following suggestions for verb tense (I've left out a few of their examples):

  Past tense

  Work done

  We collected blood samples from . . .
  Consequently, astronomers decided to rename . . .

  Work reported

  Jankowsky reported a similar growth rate . . .
  In 2009, Chu published an alternative method to . . .

  Observations

  The mice in Group A developed, on average, twice as much . . .
  The conversion rate was close to 95% . . .

  Present tense

  General truths

  Microbes in the human gut have a profound influence on . . .
  The Reynolds number provides a measure of . . .

  Atemporal facts

  This paper presents the results of . . .
  Section 3.1 explains the difference between . . .
  Behbood's 1969 paper provides a framework for . . .

  Future tense

  Perspectives

  In a follow-up experiment, we will study the role of . . .
  The influence of temperature will be the object of future research . . .


How to accept admission to graduate school I have made my decision on where I want to attend grad school (for a Master's program) and I am ready to accept. My admission letter was attached in an email, and there were no instructions on how to accept (there is no online portal as far as I can tell). I am wondering what the standard protocol is since I am unable to find specific instructions on my school's website.

Do I accept with a simple email reply back on the original thread?
Do I need to write up a document and attach it to an email?
What information is necessary to include in my reply?

Reply in the same form that was used in the acceptance. In this case, by email reply. You don't need a document beyond the email, but it would be polite to thank them.

And be sure you are clear that you accept the offer.

If it had been done by postal mail, the reply should be also by postal mail.


How to get a .edu email address as an independent mathematician? I am a hobbyist mathematician in China. I study maths by myself and make some course videos to teach commutative algebra, functional analysis and other topics on the internet, like the Khan Academy and MIT open courses.

Now I need a .edu email to get into some sites such as ResearchGate and arxiv. Is there any organisation that will help me like this: I show them some material, such as videos and papers, and if they think I am no weaker than some college teachers at least, they would give me a .edu email?

Of course, becoming a student or staff member is one way to get a university email.
Some institutions provide alumni email.

Many universities have various unpaid affiliates. Such affiliates are sometimes eligible for a  university email. However, such affiliates are often expected to contribute to the school, faculty, or university. For example, you might publish with the university as your affiliation or you might give occasional lectures or you might supervise a research student. These sorts of affiliations are typically obtained by building up a relationship with some academics in a given department and making enquiries.


Can my proposed supervisors for my Masters by dissertation be my referees? I am applying for grad school, and its the same institution as my undergraduate studies. Can my proposed supervisors write me their recommendation letters as they are the ones that I interacted most closely with?

Obviously thats the whole point. It is unethical for an academic to write a recommendation letter for a student, he/she didn't interact with. Also, it does not create a problem, if the supervisor is at the same university where you are applying for a master course.


Patent trial data set I am looking for a data set that would list patent trials that involve an academic institution, if possible with the date, the parties involved and the outcome.

I am aware of this list of number of US patents awarded by academic institutions in 2014, as well as (1), which lists the evolution of yearly aggregate costs for resolved lawsuits, unresolved lawsuits,
and nonlitigated assertion for patent trials (non-academic specific), but I couldn't find a similar data set for academic patent trials.

(1) Bessen, James, and Michael J. Meurer. "The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes" Cornell L. Rev. 99 (2013): 387.

If you're asking about a (presumably, preferably, open) data set, this question might be a better fit for the Open Data SE site. However, since you express some interest in references and I was quite curious about what information on the topic is available, I will try to answer your question here.

I would start searching for the relevant data sets, at least, on U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and European Patent Office (EPO). Doing so reveals some data sets that certainly could be useful for the task at hand. In particular, the following data sets & services might be of interest:

Data sets and databases

USPTO Patent Assignment Dataset
USPTO Historical Patent Data Files
USPTO's PatentsView Datasets (query tool and APIs seem to be unavailable at present)
Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) by U.S. International Trade Commission
EPO Datasets
Databases by Darts-ip (commercial; see "Patent focused" quadrant)
LITALERT (LITigation ALERTs) Database (commercial)

Services (search + analytics, etc.)

Lex Machina
Docket Navigator
Patexia Litigation Search

Papers / Books (bonus)

The effects of patent litigation on university licensing efforts
Innovation and litigation: Tensions between universities and patents and how to fix them
The trials of academe: The new era of campus litigation

P.S. Obviously, for most data sets and databases, you would have to perform data pre-processing to select/associate data relevant to academic institutions and, perhaps, some additional steps. Considering your background, it should not be a big problem. I hope that my answer is helpful.


What is the name for the copies of a paper that you receive once it's been published? After an article has been accepted, all edits finished and finally published, some (many?) journals mail 10 or so printed copies of the completed article to the author. Not full copies of the entire journal issue but just the single article. I believe traditionally this was done so an author could prove to their institution that the article was indeed accepted and published. This is still standard practice for journals in South Korea where I live. I'm aware of the Korean word used for them but colleagues have been asking me what to refer to them in English and I couldn't offer an answer.
Is there a special name in English for these copies?
The best I could think of was just "excerpt".
Other terms I've found that don't seem to fit: "advance copy", "proof copy", "galley proof", "final proof"

They are called offprints.  From Wikipedia:

  An offprint is a separate printing of a work that originally appeared as part of a larger publication, usually one of composite authorship such as an academic journal, magazine, or edited book.
  [...]

  Offprints are used by authors to promote their work and ensure a wider dissemination and longer life than might have been achieved through the original publication alone. They may be valued by collectors as akin to the first separate edition of a work and, as they are often given away, may bear an inscription from the author. Historically, the exchange of offprints has been a method of correspondence between scholars.


Is it appropriate/safe to ask for help on major theorem proof of my paper online? I have been stuck on the proof of a major theorem in my forthcoming paper for about two weeks. Since offline help is limited, I'm trying to see if there is more help online. But I have two concerns.

I am the author of the paper and am supposed to work out the heavy-lift proof. I want to see if someone has worked on similar proofs who may point me in the right direction. What if someone comes up with the complete proof, rather than just suggestions/comments? Should I offer co-authorship or just appreciate their help in the acknowledgement?
For others to offer concrete help, I may have to disclose the proposed algorithm as they suggested. So there is the risk, even remote, that someone just uses it for their publication purpose before my paper is submitted.

How should I proceed, keep grinding hard on the proof offline, or solicit help online with the still-to-be-published algorithm, or something in between?

This answer is meant to apply to graduate students (like the OP).

Talk to your advisor. She is the designated person to help you with your research.  You should do so because:

  1) Your advisor will probably have some help to offer.  Give them more than one chance to do so, and be clear in communicating how much help you want/need at any given time.

In your case I believe you said earlier that you talked to your advisor and got some but not enough help, because she only thought about your problem when you were there.  To me that is the opposite of strange: being a thesis advisor myself, I recognize it as the classic tension inherent in the job.  How much help do you give the student?  How much time you do spend thinking about the student's problem so as to be able to give help? There are usually no easy answers to these questions.  Even in dealing with the same student, over time I often find myself: giving too much help; giving too little help; being put in a situation where the question they ask is too hard for me to give an answer on the spot and then having to try to find time for outside thoughts about their question.

When you talk to your advisor, make sure she understands that you feel so stuck in your research that you are considering seeking outside help.

  2) If you get outside help without telling your advisor about it, it could be embarrassing to her.

It can be tough to ask the same person for help on the same thing more than once.  But it is part of the advisor/advisee relationship.  If my students showed up on SE sites asking questions that I feel that I could have answered, I would not feel great about it.  (Most of my negative feelings would be directed to myself rather than at them, but still: not great.)

  3) If you are truly stuck, your advisor needs to know.  It very often happens that the best thing to do is to switch to working on a different aspect of the problem, or perhaps a different problem entirely.  Your advisor is the one to help you with that.

Let me also say that in the realm of mathematically-related research, two weeks is a fairly short amount of time to be working on something.  If after two weeks you are completely out of ideas and don't even know what else to try, then you should address that.  If you simply haven't proved the "major theorem" yet: join the club.  To prove a major theorem usually takes me at least two months; two years is not at all unheard of, and is not a maximum.  As long as you're making some progress thinking about the problem, I don't necessarily see anything wrong here.

Added: The lack of directness of my answer was intentional, but let me add one comment.  In my opinion the greatest risk in asking in the internet community for help in solving your mathematical research problem is....that someone will solve your mathematical research problem.  As mentioned above, your advisor is optimally briefed in the matter of how much help to give you / how any one question fits into the larger scheme of your research program, and still advising a student is a matter of successive errors and corrections (i.e., helping too much and too little).  Being a PhD student has a highly egoistic aspect to it: you are not just trying to find solutions to problems; you are trying to find them yourself.  There is a real risk that the right expert will simply leave you without a problem to be working on.  This is why talking your advisor is so critical: she may in fact decide at some point that asking for help is best, but in that case she will know exactly what and whom to ask in such a way that the rug is least likely to get pulled out from under you.  This is very important!


Renewal of postdoctoral appointment I noticed during my application process for post-doc jobs that several say "1-2 year appointment" or "possible renewal for second year". I understand from this answer that it is in everyone's benefit to not be "stuck" in a postdoc situation for too many years for fear of starving oneself.

My question is, if not mentioned, what is the general criteria for a renewal of postdoc appointment to a second year (or perhaps to a third)? Most of the applications I have put in to labs/univs. are not clear at all on renewal criteria. Is it based on need? performance? Mutual understanding? Does anyone have examples on some of these situations?

My feeling is that unless there are funding issues, there would be some resistance to firing a postdoc unless there were real problems: the startup cost/time for a new postdoc can be high.

Having posted ads like these myself before, I can say that one non-funding-based reason to mention a 1-2 year postdoc is to allow for a hedge in case the hired person turns out to be really bad. In that case, you have the option of doing a first-year review and dismissing the person (i.e the default bit is set to NO and some activation energy is required to make it a YES)

In the reverse case of a two-year postdoc, the default bit is now YES and significant activation energy is required to make it a NO. If not done right, this could even lead to charges of unfair dismissal and so on.

So since there's a glut of postdocs and a short supply of positions, the "buyers" have some power to shape the position to suit their needs.


In what cases should I completely state a theorem I'm about to use? This is the question. The theorem is taken from someplace else.
In my case, I want to use the asymmetric case of local lovasz lemma , and I am not sure if I should completely state it, or just refer the reader to (lemma 5.1.1 on pg ..).

If the answer is yes, the next question is where. Specifically, in the middle of the proof, it is strange to have all of a sudden another lemma. So I guess I should state it before the start of the lemma(should I write: I am about to use this lemma?).

Thanks.

For my taste, I'd "recall" the precise statement exactly when you need it, in the internals of your proof, as you seem to indicate. I myself have become ever fonder of a math writing style which does not require so much flipping back-and-forth to understand what's being said. (Especially the otherwise-precise quasi-Bourbaki of referring to things by some (necessarily artificial and meaningless) numbering scheme, rather than any sort of descriptive reference.)

In particular, for simply the statement (rather than proof) of a result, adding an appendix would make things harder to read for many people, and the people who already know the result would not gain much. Skipping over known things is easier than flipping back-and-forth.

That is, allowing your readers to read straight through seems to me the ideal. So, no, similarly, don't introduce all the notation at the beginning and then expect people to remember it. Sure, you could have an appendix for reference for notation, but it really should be explained when first used, ... in my opinion. That kind of thing.


What is the difference between credit hours carried and hours earned? What is the difference between hours carried and hours earned on a college degree audit. For example, I have this:

LSU Totals: 68 carr, 60 earn
Cum Totals: 77 carr, 69 earn

Can anyone explain to me how to interpret these 4 pieces of information individually? I can't find a direct answer on the internet and it's important for me to understand the difference for accuracy on applications. Thanks in advance.

If you want an authoritative answer, contact your university's registrar office.  Terms like this are not completely standard around the world, so we can only guess as to what they mean at your institution.

I would guess "carried" counts all the classes you have taken, but "earned" counts only those which you have passed.  So on the first line, the extra 8 hours might represent some classes that you failed, or that you are currently taking and have not yet completed.  "LSU" probably counts only those hours corresponding to classes taken at LSU, while "Cum" (presumably standing for "cumulative") might also count classes transferred from other institutions.


How to politely and logically explain that I don't want to receive notification at my private social media account? My department is becoming more and more annoying by posting everything in Facebook group, from exam results, seminar schedule, to private information about students ( telephone numbers, addresses, emails, etc.)

I don't know how to explain them  that I care about safety of personal information and that privacy of my personal information are important to me, but please be aware that I don't want to sound pretentious. Is there any way to address this issue correctly?

I agree with Captain Emacs that you have a right to privacy. Private information(exam scores, contact information) should not be posted on Facebook but general seminar schedules can be.

I think the best course of action is to discuss this with the head of the department, and request in writing, that your information not be posted there. If that doesn't work then you will have to speak to someone above the him/her. If this is not an option see if there is someone you trust that you can ask for their help or advice to bring this issue to the right person's attention.


Is it any unwritten rule, that for how long after getting PhD is it appropriate to publish with your advisor? After reading this question on What is wrong with continuing to publish with your PhD adviser I wonder whether there is something like an "unwritten rule" for how long after getting your PhD is it suitable to publish with your supervisor.

Is there some sort of, let's say "secret statistic" related to the ratio of your own papers vs. your papers with your supervisor, upon you are rated among fellow scientist long after your graduation?

You should not only publish with your advisor, because it suggests a lack of independence, and that rather than emerging as an independent researcher, you are still essentially "doing the work" for your advisor's ideas.

That being said, I know a number of people who still work with their advisors on projects - the key is to project an image of "long-standing partnership". This is especially compounded in public health (my field) where a single large study is a vast mine of potential papers, and so it's likely someone will be working on the same data with the same people long after they've started their own careers. The key is to have a place carved out that's clearly "Yours".

If there's a secret statistic for it, I must not have gotten my copy in the mail yet.


How do the grades of higher degrees equate with undergraduate qualifications, in terms of quality of work? How do the grades of higher degrees math up with undergraduate qualifications, in terms of quality of work? I'm in the UK. At my current institution, where I'm sitting an MA

70+ -- Distinction
60+ -- Merit
50+ -- Pass
< 50 -- Fail

At undergraduate, again in the UK

70 -- 1st
60+ -- 2.i
50+ -- 2.ii
40+ -- Pass

I would very much like to know if the standard of work matches up to the same percentiles, in the UK. So, not how well someone is doing on the course, but if an undergraduate dissertation could be handed in and get the same mark on a Masters. This seems unlikely, of course.

You state (emphasis mine):

  "I would very much like to know if the standard of work matches up to the same percentiles, in the UK. So, not how well someone is doing on the course, but if an undergraduate dissertation could be handed in and get
  the same mark on a Masters."

If this were possible surely the need for Master's degrees would not exist. Besides, don't you feel that the standard of your own work at Master's level is much higher than that at undergrad? I know mine certainly was. That's kind of the point.

Say you need to get a 65 at undergrad to start a Master's degree, but you end up failing the course and getting zero. This doesn't nullify the 65 you already achieved in your undergraduate degree- but nor does it mean that you should have also got 65 in the Master's course.

The root of this answer is that you simply can't compare apples and oranges. Undergraduate and Master's degrees are designed to do completely different things, and just because one piece of work satisfies the requirements for an undergraduate degree does not mean it will satisfy the requirements for a Master's (and vice versa).


Can I directly use a professor's suggestion? A professor that I have been emailing for advice on graduate school offered to read one of my works for applications (specifically my statement of purpose), and he offered some suggestions using a commenting system on my paper. In the email back to me, he gave some general improvements on things that I could say, but he also crafted a few sentences that would get some of the points across by using quotes.

For example, the email would say something like "You could say something like 'sentence that is applicable to my SOP' to convey your interest in this topic."

Can I use his quoted sentences in my SOP? Was his intention in providing them so that I could directly use them if I chose to?

Yes, you can. If the professor did not want you to use his words verbatim, he'd have described the ideas, but not provided words. Example:

  You could say about how you organized a public talk on this topic to convey your interest.

This gives you an idea of what to write about, but doesn't give you the exact thing to write.

Of course, you don't have to use his words if you think you can express the same idea better in your own words.


Is it cheating to give someone my old exam revision notes? Last year I completed an exam at University and a friend is doing the same exam/class this year.
Would it be cheating  if I gave her my revision notes of the semester (written before I did the exam)? They don't have any exam-related answers, just summarized lecture notes.
I read that it is cheating if a student has an unfair advantage over other students.
I don't want to get her or myself in trouble.

Thank you.

No, it is not cheating.

It's also not cheating for them to go to the library and find a particularly well written textbook that no-one else had.
It's not cheating for them to hire a tutor.
It's not cheating to share your revision notes with other students before your exam.
It's not cheating to do a unit completely including exam, then repeat it in the next year to get a better mark (In fact, this is normal if you fail)

Most would say not even cheating (or facilitating) to tell them about the exam in your year.
E.g. along the lines of "I focused my study too much on the topology part of the unit, but there was only 1 topology question in the exam. But I don't know how it will be this year."

Some would even argue that its not cheating to share with a past student a copy of last years exam, with fully worked solutions. On the basis that the instructor is not going to use the same exam twice. This is a bit more dubious though.

At the end of the day, the purpose of the exam is to test how well they know the content.
So the context of an unfair advantage is one that lets them do well in the exam, without learning the content.
No one cares how they learned the content.
They might have gone to lectures, read the textbook, watched youtube lectures from other universities, read notes from a friend, or even have been working in the field for decades and just be attending the exam to get the paper to prove it.
No one is assessing an unfair advantage at learning as cheating.


Do I have to ask a research advisor before sharing a technical report? After finishing my bachelor's degree, I received a fellowship via my home university to conduct independent research at a university of my choosing. All of my living expenses and stipend were taken care of by this fellowship, and the project I worked on was my proposal. I reached out to professor Z to see if he would host me and supervise the project if I were to receive the fellowship, and he said yes.

I'm now applying to PhD programs, one of which gives the option to submit a research writing sample. I would like to submit the final report I wrote up on my project, but I'm not sure if it requires my advisor's permission. This report would presumably be shared among the graduate admissions committee.

Some other possibly relevant info: there are no plans at this time to publish the results. The project wrapped up over a year ago now. There is no ongoing research on this topic in professor Z's research group (which I know because I keep in contact with a few students in his group). The report does not (to the best of my knowledge) contain any information on ongoing projects within Z's research group.

The deadline for my application is soon and I haven't received a response from my advisor yet (which is my fault for not asking him sooner, but not relevant to the actual question I'm asking). If he doesn't respond, I've told myself that I won't submit it. I have actual published work that the committee can pull up if they like, I just thought it would be a plus to show the results of a research project that didn't lead to any publication, but which highlights my research abilities anyway.

I'm curious though what the etiquette is in this case. Would it be a major faux pas for me to submit this writing sample with my application?

I haven't understood why you were hesitating.  You shared several reasons why it would not be a problem.  You made a convincing case that there would be no danger of some publishable results being scooped.

I suppose now that you asked Prof. Z's permission, with brief lead time, it could be awkward if you submitted it and then he wrote back subsequently to say no.  You could get around this, however, by writing again, to ask if he received your email, and to say that you would very much like to submit the report in your application, but will omit it if he notifies you by (date).  Put something like "time sensitive" in the subject line.

If you're asking just to satisfy your curiosity, sort of in hindsight, then my answer would be no, you wouldn't need to ask permission in the situation you described.


Replying to a reviewer - should use (Anonymous) if citing paper by co-author? I am writing the response to reviewers of a paper I submitted to a journal. This journal's policy is to cite papers by any author as "Anonymous, year". In one of the responses to the reviewer I want to mention that the only research that, to my knowledge, has been conducted on a point he brings up (he asks for me to cite any research on it) has been this paper by one of my co-authors. Should I cite it as "Anonymous" too?

Thanks a lot in advance.

Put yourself in the shoes of the reviewer, They may want to check that paper, having to search for it just by title (and finding out the author's name as a byproduct) just gives them a hard time. Or just say that the only work on the subject you are aware of is by the work group of the current authors.

Yes, "blind" review is often less than totally blind. It can't be, reviewers do work in the same (or nearby) area, and so know the say hundred or so researchers working on that topic, at least superficially.


PhD admissions: Overlap between B.Sc. and M.Sc. transcripts As I wrote in my previous question, I am currently applying to PhD departments in the US (from a German institution). Beyond the language problem, there is another aspect that worries me:

I finished my degree back in March 2015 and then decided to fill the time from then to Fall 2016 (start of PhD programs in the US) by starting a 2 year M.Sc. in the same subject, which I planned to finish in 1.5 years (and will also manage to do so).

Officially I enrolled in that degree this September. Nevertheless, I "unofficially" started with the degree already during April 2015, by staying enrolled as an undergraduate and taking "additional courses" (i.e. graded courses beyond the required number of credits, which also do not influence the final grade). Since the Master and Bachelor degree were offered from the same university, they then simply approved all those additional credits as part of my MSc degree.

Now, my problem is that these courses are mentioned twice in my transcripts, once as additional courses of my Bachelor's degree and once for my Master's degree transcript. Do you think this could confuse the admissions committee? Should I maybe refrain from submitting the M.Sc. transcript since officially I am enrolled only from the Fall semester and the universities do not require transcripts from the Fall semester? Also note that currently the M.Sc. transcript does not contain any information about courses not included in my B.Sc. transcript. Or should I try to mention this somewhere (I am particularly worried about some universities which do not provide any opportunity to leave such comments/remarks).

Your two degrees sound reminiscent of the "3-2 combined" programs that are common in the U.S.  Read up on a couple of those and I think you'll start to relax.

Please do let the admissions committee know what you're doing this year.  Perhaps that information can be fit into one of the standard documents -- perhaps your CV, perhaps a cover letter or the statement of purpose.

No matter how streamlined an online application process is, I would think you could contact the department and ask them what email address to use for submitting an additional document that didn't fit into any of the pigeonholes provided.


Question about adding co-first author The subject of authorship is always a bit challenging, but here's a dilemma: Person A recently graduated from a PhD program in Molecular, Cell Biology. Prior to graduating, A submitted his manuscript for publication listing A as first author, one middle author and the PI as corresponding author. A had conceived of the project, spent 3+ years of full time work conducting the experiments, wrote the manuscript, did all the analysis and put together all figures. The reviewer comments came back as a revise and resubmit. At around the same time A was told by the PI that he needed to graduate and be off the grants for funding reasons, and that student B, a third year in the same lab, would be able to help with increasing replicates and the few experiments required by reviewers. A also continued to analyze data and offered to help with experiments in the lab on a volunteer basis, but the PI said that wouldn't be necessary as B could take care of it. B conducted some replicates at the rate of 1-2 experiments per month for 3 months (he was juggling several other projects) until the revisions were due. Two nights before the revised manuscript was due the PI said that B should be added as a co-first author, indicating that A and B have contributed equally to the work. My question is this: Is this normal in academia? Is it something that should happen and is no big deal, as indicated by the PI? Also, what can A do given that he has already graduated and will be starting a post-doc and will need recommendations from the PI in the future?

Sadly enough it is pretty common. Not universal, but more common in certain fields than others. You can fight it, but I recommend that you don't.

The reasons for letting it go is that you have finished and have a position (I assume). Over the course of your career, this sharing of first authorship on one paper will mean little, even if it is based on your dissertation. But the good will of your advisor, and possibly the other student can pay dividends in the future.

Your dissertation work is your first work, but, hopefully, not your best ever. And having the old professor being willing to work with you to advance your career and so breaking ties now is probably a sub-optimal move.

Yes, fairly normal. Questionable ethics. But optimize a path for yourself, and a single paper is only a small part of it. Yes, I know it is disheartening. But the long view is worth considering.

And, I've assumed you are A, here, hence the wording.


Difference between paper and master thesis presentation I am facing my Master thesis presentation (in Europe), and have read the excellent article by Matt Might on technical presentations.

Most of his points seem very logical to me (avoid too much information/formulas per slide, whenever possible simplify, and refer to your written thesis for more info, etc.)

However, I was wondering if there is specific advice compared to the talk of a paper or at a conference for the presentation of a technical (engineering) Master thesis presentation? What are the key differences?

I am tempted, as it will be graded, to "show off" my knowledge by complicating it, and I wouldn't like to follow Matt's advice too much and come off as if I don't understand the math/material.

In a thesis presentation/defence you are talking to a jury who has already read your thesis.

In a conference talk, your goal is to get an audience who has mostly not read your paper interested enough to get the general ideas and read the paper in more detail if they care.

The thesis defence protocol depends on where you are, but if you get 20 minutes or so to present, then you don't have time to get into many technical details. However, since the jury has read the thesis, the presentation is mostly a formality, and is a chance for you to show them the big picture, and how your work instantiates the expected research methodology: problem - state of the art - solution - validation.

To "show off" you should have one or two slides explicitly listing your research contributions, and the publications derived from them (if any).

Regarding the problem of looking like you don't understand the math, don't worry about it. If the examiners are in any doubt about that, they will ask specific questions after you have finished presenting, and they will refer to the thesis, not to your presentation. if you have some ideas of what they will ask, then prepare extra slides to be able to answer those questions.

Here is also some great advice from a prof in my department. (note that the first 8 slides or so refer to the specifics of the protocol in use here, duration, jury composition, etc. But what comes after is more generic and useful for anyone, I believe. Also, take it as "do as I say, don't do as I do", since these slides are choke-full of text!)


Lack of undergraduate research experience and impact on PhD applications I am currently a second year (final semester) undergraduate enrolled in Nagoya University's G30 program. After I graduate, I intend pursue a PhD in the chemical sciences, and I am looking to apply to universities in the United States and the UK. So far, I have been doing well academically--I'm at the top of my class and have cumulative GPA of 4.08/4.3.

Unfortunately, till date I haven't been able to secure any research experience whatsoever in my university, and not for lack of trying. I have approached research groups in my departments whose work I found interesting, but have been turned down by all of them. The rules prevent them from taking on undergraduates students who are not in their 4th year, and they have stuck by them adamantly.

I do get to work on a research project in my fourth year as part of my graduation requirement, however, I do find it disheartening that I can't start early.

Regardless, I am still approaching people, looking for a break and also looking into other avenues outside of university.

However, what if nothing works out--would one year of research experience be sufficient? Personally, I don't think it is enough to prepare me well for graduate school. Moreover, I am concerned about how an admissions committee will view this lack of of research experience?

Additionally, in the UK, most universities that I am interested in encourage applicants to get in touch with faculty/potential advisors before the make a formal application. By my estimate, I ought to be doing this sometime during my third (early 6th semester) year, and thus would have had probably little to no experience conducting research in a laboratory. How can I overcome this potential handicap, and get them to take me seriously?

Keep going at it!

If local colleagues only take students from 4th year onwards, there must be good reasons - like fairness, openness, transparency, risk assessment... Look forward to your 4th year and beyond :)

Also, how typical is your 'lack of experience'? If all students of your 'class' share this, you will not stand out negatively, and PhD recruiters will expect you by default to have limited experience. Then of course if you manage to acquire relevant experience, that will make you stand out from the crowd.

Your question 'what if not...?' seems to go far beyond your original point and your main ambition.

Take it as a game and keep the flame alive. Keep looking for opportunities, and you are bound to find one that will fit your circumstances.

Another way to go at it could be to approach higher education institutions where you would be interested in applying, and ask them what their expectations are in terms of lab work experience.

This way you will have a clear vision of the standard you have to meet to have a good chance of being offered a place, and potentially a scholarship.
You will not have to second-guess what they want any more, and you can focus on achieving what they look for, and more.


Is it Common to hire and fire people in lab frequently? I have never seen this happen in other research labs in my university and I am trying to get into the mind of my advisor and understand what his intentions are! We are an HCI lab of two people. In last year, we have hired and fired seven people. They get hired, work for a month or two, my advisor is not satisfied them and removes them from the team.

My professor is new to the lab, it was given to her upon joining in Summer 2012. Another PhD student and myself have been working since beginning of the lab before the professor. We are the only permanent fixtures.

I am the defacto programmer and I program all the projects in lab. I had asked my advisor for PhD last week, as I completed my thesis defense last year, but she said she needs to check her funding and will get back to me. At same time she is putting out a word to other professors that she needs good RAs.

In the interim, an established tenure professor in our department in operations research had asked me to join his lab as PhD student for a project in data mining. He said I am very good at Computer Science and he needs my skills for his projects. I had asked him if its common in his lab to change people constantly and he told me there were only four people working in his lab for past 5 years and he said always asks for input from his own students in lab before contacting anybody for RAs.

The professor I am currently working with has never asked me or the other PhD student for advice before taking on people or firing them. It puts an uncomfortable pressure on me as I feel that she is not happy with my work and looking for replacement. I really don't like working with new people every two months. So why is my advisor doing this?

How frequently do you hire and fire people in your labs?

First, it is uncommon to hire and fire people that quickly in almost any context.  Evaluating and hiring good people takes time.  Training people to do anything useful takes time: usually more than two months of time.  What you're describing is incredibly inefficient and, as you note, bad for morale.  It's also bad hiring practice in a small lab to not conduct a group interview with the potential coworkers.  To be frank, your adviser does not seem very good at the HR aspects of running a lab.

However, as a counterpoint, it depends very much on the funding situation.  A new professor, unless they're particularly lucky, may not have very much funding on-hand.  Especially if their funding agencies pay out the award in installments, they may literally have to let people go because the funding has run dry.  To be quite honest, a new professor supporting 2 full-time PhD students and their own summer salary is already looking at an annual outlay of $100k-$150, at least in the US (most of which is tuition, since they're supporting two students through grad school).  Many grant agencies (e.g., NSF) typically award $100k-150k per anum grants.  So they could be scraping very low on their funding and have to cycle through people for that reason (e.g., can afford them for the summer, have to dump them in the fall due to tuition costs).  Funding has been particularly tough the last few years.

Secondly, if they are not sure if they can cover your tuition, but the other professor certainly will?  It's possibly time to jump ship to the other guy.  Currently, having just finished your masters and early in your PhD, this is the best time to do so.  If I were you, I would do the following:

Talk to the tenured professor to ensure this is a serious offer, backed by grant or internal money.  Inquire about how long currently awarded funds are likely to last.
If the situation sounds good, ask if it would cause any political problems to talk it over with your adviser.  Ideally, you want to do this (they are a reference), but not if it might sink the sure offer.
If it won't ruin the new opportunity, tell your current adviser the situation and ask the same questions (is there money, how long).
If they're comparable, choose the one that seems like a better fit for your interests and your academic security.
If it's lopsided, go for the funding security and find a way to work your research into what you are doing.  To be frank, I would avoid any PhD that you can't get funded for.  If there's not enough money in the area to train you, why would there be enough to hire you when you finish?

Finally, if your adviser takes it personally that you are exploring other opportunities when they can't assure you funding next semester?  Jump ship.  A boss who takes things personally is a bad boss.  I had a great programming intern last summer, who we would have loved to keep as an RA.  Unfortunately, a big chunk of funding was delayed due to Congress playing chicken.  A company affiliated with the university offered four years worth of tuition and stipend, guaranteed.  We do work he is more interested in and we could almost certainly cover him over that whole period.  But the key word is "almost."  I told him that I would not blame him at all if he took their offer (which he did).  I hope he's doing great over there.  If your adviser doesn't have that attitude, it's time to go.


Applying Late to Mathematics Graduate School I have posted a similar question to this previously, but would like to reword it and re-ask it.
I just recently completed my undergraduate studies with a degree in mathematics from a relatively well-known US university. During my time as an undergrad I took many advanced (first and second year graduate courses) as well as one-one reading courses with professors on topics in Probability and mathematical analysis (topics like stochastic differential equations, large deviations theory, linear/nonlinear PDE at the level of Caffarelli and Cabre, as well as topics in Calderon-Zygmund and Littlewood-Paley theory).
Due to my indecisiveness and the insistence of my family for me to find "gainful employment", I chose to not apply to graduate school, and instead work full-time in private-industry (quantitative-finance). The work is challenging and sufficiently interesting, and of course pays well, but I still feel that I would be remiss if I did not purse a PhD in mathematics (or related fields). My main issue (in my mind) is letters of recommendation. While I am confident that the professors I have worked with would be willing to recommend me, I am in some sense taking a non-traditional route by delaying my application (for example after one year of working). In turn, I am afraid that the more time I take for asking a recommendation, the less-likely it is that my professors will remember me and be able to write a strong letter for me.
Does anyone have recommendations as to a best course of action here? I am wondering whether I need to bite the bullet and apply to programs this year, and hope they offer deferrals (for say, one year of time) although I'm not sure how the current situation (with covid etc.) could impact this. If anyone here is on mathematics graduate decision boards (or any graduate decision boards for that matter), I would appreciate your input. I am also wary as to the perception of "non-traditional" applicants as my self and how they might be perceived by admissions committees, although it is too late to modify that status.

There's an easy way out of this dilemma: talk to your professors now, tell them that you intend to apply to graduate programs in another year, and that you hope they will be willing to write recommendations.  The professors can then draft a letter right away, or at least notes for a letter, while their memories of you are still fresh.  When the time comes for you to apply, they can update their draft to discuss any additional accomplishments you have achieved in the intervening year, and send it in.
I don't think that a two-year gap between undergrad and grad school is likely to make a big difference in admissions, especially if you describe it as your plan all along.  You just want to avoid giving the impression of "I went to go work in industry but immediately discovered I hated it / got fired / etc, so now I'm applying to grad school because I can't think of anything else to do with my life". If it were five or ten years, there might be some impact, but that's not the case here.


My supervisor is putting my name on a paper I disagree with. What will happen if it is found to be wrong? My supervisor is publishing a paper and naming me as the first author. I did the data analysis for the paper but part of the interpretation in the paper I regard as wrong.

I argued with him but he insists that he would not change that point.  (The point serves many of his other papers.) The paper correctly attributes that I did data analysis and he designed and wrote the paper. It also says all authors agree with the content. Because graduation requires a paper, I have to accept that.

What if the point turns out to be wrong? There are numerous records showing that I argued with him and I disagree with that point. I have done my part faithfully.

Usually nothing happens to the authors if the paper is wrong.

Circumstances vary based on the topic and the way the paper is wrong.  So you, having read the paper, know more about the risks than we do.


What should I do if my advisor is replacing me with younger, more energetic masters students? I was working on a project with my PhD advisor that was going kind of slowly.  Now he has hired two masters students to "help" me.  They are better at coding than me and seem a lot more interested in and involved with the project than I am.  What should I do?  This is my only project with my advisor and I think he doesn't think I'm very smart.

I think he doesn't think I'm very smart.

More probaby, instead, he just thinks that you're not enough committed to your project. In fact, you write (bold mine):

  They are better at coding than me and seem a lot more interested in and involved with the project than I am.

You are a PhD student and this is your project, and you should be the one who boosts the project with work, ideas and enthusiasm: how come that these two students seem a lot more interested in and involved with the project than you?!

So, take the bull by the horns and be the booster of your project. Otherwise, it's time you rethink about your motivation in doing a PhD, about your interest in this specific project, and about your future goals. And talk to your advisor.


How to show extreme gratitude in an email? When contacting universities, in many cases, I find the replies to my emails extremely well detailed and helpful, therefore in such cases I find a simple "Thank you" to be just insufficient.

For example, when you have already applied to a program, and then you email the department to ask a simple question about supplementary documents, but they put SO MUCH effort in their response and even analyze your application before the application process has even started and they tell you that they are very certain that you will be accepted. How would you react? Is it rude to say something like: "I'm very glad to hear that."

In such situations, I do not really know how to best answer the person to show them that I really appreciate their email very much.

Politeness never hurts. "Thank you for your very detailed and positive information" could be one option or something along those lines. I am sure most people providing this type of response do not expect much in return (not that they do not deserve it). But as with many other instances, keeping the thanks short and concise is necessary, do not overwork it because that just seems suspicious. Remember that the person is doing their work (well) and should be praised for just that.

If the school to which you are applying is large then it is not very likely you will be remembered and so the response will have little significance other than to show appreciation. In a smaller school, however, your politeness may be noticed and can help you build good relations with administration for the future so politeness never hurts.


Who holds the copyright if I did research at one university and write a thesis at another? I worked for a research project on the migration of a prototype to a low-level consumable solution. I am also co-author of a paper that describes the math used for that project (my contribution was not the math, but the tests used to evaluate the performance of the algorithm). According to the work agreement I signed, the copyright of the paper and the code belongs to university A (although it acknowledges the author's attribution).

I am also writing a thesis for an academic program at university B (paying the tuition by myself). The main researcher of university A gave me permission to use the algorithm as the basis of my individual research. I also have some ideas that can improve the overall performance.

If I base my work on the algorithm of university A (which was already published) and write a different implementation (even in a different language), could I still lose ownership of my thesis? (I am trying to avoid any infringement)

PS: the abstract of the paper of university A was accepted and exposed in a conference, but the final document has not been sent yet (as usually done in these kinds of events).

You confuse two different things: The copyright attaches to the written work (in your case the thesis). The intellectual property attaches to the content of the contribution (in your case, the algorithm).

Likely (though I'm not qualified to give legal advice), the copyright for your thesis resides with you and/or university B, whereas the intellectual property in the algorithm resides with university A.


Is it possible to ask about RA positions after being rejected by the same lab for a PhD? I am currently looking at PhD programmes (mainly in the US) and have been advised to email potential PIs before I put in an application. I am afraid my profile isn't very competitive and my back up plan is to go get more research experience if I get rejected by all the programmes I apply to. In the case that occurs, would it be acceptable/is it normal to email the same PIs I wanted to work with to ask about research assistant positions? And if I re apply in the following year, is it acceptable to email the same PIs asking about their work since the PIs I have short listed and people I really really want to work with!
I hope I haven't rambled on too much!
EDIT: So is RA positions are given to grad students, how do I get more research experience to strengthen my application for grad school after I have graduated from my degree with a masters? (I'm international and so would need some financial support and visa sponsorship and can't "volunteer")
Thanks!

You can ask for employment, but the title and work would probably be different from that of an RA. And the opportunity for authorship of papers might not be available.
In some fields, labs are very large, usually grant funded. There may be more need for lab assistants than can be fulfilled by graduate students. Someone has to watch that the kettle doesn't boil and bubble too much over night.
Holding such a position could possibly lead to interactions that open additional possibilities. But you would be an ordinary employee, subject to rules and protections for employees.
For an extreme example, I doubt that everyone working on projects at CERN is a student or professor. On the other hand, some at least, of these people wind up on long long authorship lists when experiments succeed.


Website allowing one to look up mathematicians, publications, and number of references for each paper I have been to such a website about a year ago when deciding which PhD program/advisor I wanted. I can't remember the name of the website! You could search someone's name and university etc. and it would pull up their publications, which journal they were in, and number of references that paper had in other papers.

I used it specifically for mathematics, although it could have been a more general data base (I can't remember).

Maybe it was Zentralblatt (math-specific, partially free)?

Other possibilities (gathered from the comments to compile an answer) are Google Scholar, as well as Mathscinet (math-specific, non-free), Scopus (non-free), Web of Science (non-free).


Professor is planning on delaying our paper I'm working on the project of a professor in my school, expecting its results to help with my graduate admissions. We're already on the process of writing the research paper, but my professor told me he's planning on delaying its publication so he can work on another project while getting funding for the work we're doing. So I have two questions about this:

Is this a common practice in a professional level?
What can I do to get this paper going? Even if it's not published. I was thinking about presenting a preprint as part of my applications, but I'm not sure if it'll work since it hasn't started a peer-review process or something of that matter.

Doing research means working on questions for which the answer
is unknown, and in fact may remain unknown for a long time.
Unfortunately, this simple fact is only moderately compatible
with project-based research funding, since funding agencies
would like to know right now what you're going to discover
in the next two years. Some funding agencies have a rather
relaxed attitude in this matter: My late doctoral advisor
used to begin every project progress report with the statement
"We had promised to investigate A, but in the meantime our
interests have changed, and so we've rather investigated B"
and he always got away with it, because the funding agency was
only interested in the number of publications. But if a
funding agency gets picky when comparing project proposals
and progress reports, things become more difficult. In such cases,
researchers are often tempted to simplify
writing the progress reports by
putting those problems into the project proposal for which they
already have a rather good idea how to solve them, but no publication yet.


How should I handle reviewing a paper that is very similar to something I am working on? I was sent a paper to review recently. I decided to review the paper and saw that part of the paper is on a very similar method that I have been working on recently. Not the wording, of course, but the main ideas.

One of the problems is that they did not mention that part in the abstract, so I didn't know about it when I accepted the review. An even worse problem is that their paper is poorly written, full of wrong theorems, terminology etc. so I have no choice but to recommend rejection.

I know reviews are anonymous. But I want to avoid two things:

Them reporting me for a plagiarizing or stealing their idea.
Them thinking that I have stolen their idea, even if they do not necessarily report me.

What should I do?

I am going to answer based on an implicit assumption I feel much of your question hinges on:

  One of the problems is, they did not mention that part in the abstract, therefore I have accepted.

This sounds like had you known that their work is so similar to yours, you would have rejected the review.

However, I would argue that that cannot possibly be in the interest of the review system.

Yes, you could argue for a conflict of interest, but it is the conflict of interest that exists generally, based on the simple fact that other people beside you do research in the same or similar topics as you. It is not a conflict of interest on a personal level (e.g. you being part of the team whose paper is being reviewed).

Instead, it is a conflict of interest that, in theory, should quite often exist in the review process - for reviews to be meaningful, reviewers need to be familiar with the topic to some extent, and thus, a similarity of the research topics between authors and reviewers is hardly avoidable.

I see your concerns about what the authors of the paper under review might be thinking, though you might have to brush them aside for the time being. However, what you can do is draw the benefit from being the reviewer and thus having early access to a manuscript:

While your method may be very similar, it is most probably not exactly the same. When describing your method, try and insert a few sentences that focus particularly on a few aspects that you do differently from them.
For future publications you might write on similar topics, keep in mind that there may be a similar publication by those authors around that you can cite.

This has advantages for both sides:

You increase the chances to include a relevant citation that you might otherwise miss (and thus the authors' chances of being cited by you are increased).
Even though you cannot yet cite the work of the other authors, your clear description of some different aspects serves as a way to "preemptively" establish the differences between your work and theirs.
If they happen to publish a revised version of their paper after your work has appeared, you have already provided them with quite a straightforward foundation for describing their differences to your work.

In the comments, the concern has been voiced that even without the assumption of plagiarism, the authors of the other paper might still feel by rejecting their work, you intentionally stalled their progress for long enough so you could publish your own very similar work first, and now it's their problem to care about the prior art.

However, there are some aspects of good scientific practice that speak against that line of reasoning:

You do not provide an unjustified judgement, you provide a review. If you choose to reject the paper, you have the opportunity to describe objectively and in detail why you deem the work in its current state not ready for publication.
The other authors have not yet published their work in a properly citeable fashion, but that still just means you have plausible deniability on your side when you are asked whether you knew about the other work. Scientific integrity still demands that you consider the existing prior work, published or not, which is exactly what you are doing by specifically describing some aspects that you do differently than the reviewed paper, as described above.


Making a Lateral Jump in Fields for a PhD Currently I am an MSc student in Resource and Environmental Economics. In the pursuit of further graduate studies, I think that I would be a lot more interested in pursuing something along the lines of quantitative sociology or applied mathematics. But what I am not sure about is how often people are able to make lateral jumps to different fields.

I finished my MSc course work with a 3.8/4.0 gpa and I did my undergraduate degree (after having floated to different faculties in my earlier years) in economics with a minor in math while finishing my last two years with a 3.5/4.0 gpa. However, my early years of of schooling were pretty crappy (2.6-2.7 gpa), and so I bring these numbers up to both assert resiliency as a student and as merit to suggest I have matured in many faculties of my own learning abilities. Hopefully with those numbers, it would suggest to faculty from another field that I have the capabilities of pursuing studies in that area, although the area would be fairly different from what I did for my MSc.

Do you think it is possible to shift fields and directions or do people often find themselves on a similar track when pursuing PhD level work?

Sure.  After all many "sosh" and applied math programs take direct BS grads versus masters.

There may be some benefit from your masters econ work, but probably a lot won't carry over and you will need to take the regular grad curriculum for the new field.  I would expect to spend the regular amount of time to get the Ph.D. degree in either field as a direct from bachelors would.

There's also the possibility of some gaps from your lack of a bachelors in either field.  This can often be remedied just by taking the starter grad school classes.  Many other fields get people coming in off-normal track (e.g. physics to material science) and those students get up to speed fine.  Both of the fields you are looking at are reasonably "close" to economics.  It's not like English major to physics Ph.D.  Also, even if there is not a direct benefit from the econ masters, it will help your maturity and push you to get up to speed and done on time.

Note that the two areas you mentioned are rather different in math demands.  Stereotypically, applied math > econ > sosh.  Yes, I realize you said "quant" soc. problems...but still if we are talking a school of sosh, the professors/students won't have the same basic math chops that applied math does. Nowhere near.  Yeah, they have to do some basic stats and read Lieberson's Making it Count, but this is not their total cup of tea.

Conversely, if you are being pulled by the idea of special social problems and fixing society, a sosh department may be right home for you.  Note however, that you can do quantitative sosh analysis/research from many fields (econ, psych, education, jurisprudence, etc.)  So think about what is attracting you and what kind of colleagues you want.

In addition to the fields you've mentioned, I would also consider a stats department IF that is of interest (some places this is separately named, not "applied math").  Super portable degree.  But not the warm comfort of the sosh world solving society.  And of course...much stronger stats!

Finally, worth considering why you want to move from the current program or if you could get an econ Ph.D. and still do sort of problems you want.  Clearly there are social issues with respect to resource use by society.  Also econ at the higher levels can be quite mathematical (if that is more what is drawing you).  Not giving any strong opinion here and you know what turns you off.  But articulating it might be helpful in going forward.

P.s.  I wouldn't mention/worry about the high school grades.  That's ancient history.  It is normal for some bright students to mature later and then do strongly in college, after subpar high school career.


advantages in applying early to PhD programs I am applying to PhD schools in physics in the United States. I would like to know if there is any advantage to applying early rather than just before the deadline. Honestly, I was trying to focus on research and I was also trying to write a good statement of purpose, hence this delay.

The only likely advantage to applying early is that you won't run into unexpected events that make it difficult to meet the deadline, and that this could improve the quality of your application (especially the written/essay portions) as well as avoid simply failing to meet the deadline at all.

That said, this can be a very valuable advantage. You'll find a lot of other questions here from people panicking about having missed application deadlines, having deadlines approaching too quickly, being unable to reach their writers for recommendation letters, etc.

I would not recommend applying extremely early (as-in, months in advance) - in that case, you'll instead be regretting having missed your most recent accomplishments. Give yourself some cushion against the deadline, and don't worry about gaming the system beyond that. No one cares (or probably even knows) if your application is officially submitted 0.01 or 1 or 2 or 3 weeks before the deadline: the deadline is there so that the admissions committee has a known day to start the job of reviewing while being fair to everyone. That's the only game.