How can I tell if I have simplified my talk too much? My experience listening to talks (of all kinds - seminars, conference talks, even Masters/PhD defenses) is that they tend to be very difficult to understand. This happens even if they're within my own field or even subfield. Occasionally there are conceptually simple talks (projects that use machine learning are an example) that can be easily grasped, but most of the time the talks are too technical, or are the "blink and you will never understand the rest" kind. I estimate I rarely get more than 30% of what was said, even when I'm in the same field.

I certainly don't feel like I'm the only one who don't understand the talks, since I notice other listeners often get distracted by their laptops & mobile phones.

I personally think this is ridiculous, so when I give talks I try to simplify them to the point where someone with an undergraduate degree can understand it. For example one talk went:

We're dealing with [technical term], which is analogous to [much-less technical term]
This is what we want to measure, why we want to measure it, and what we expect to see
After some very complicated mathematics (I literally used this phrase and skipped the details), this is what we get

I especially liked this talk since my family were able to grasp the gist of the work. However, the danger is that the talk might become too simplified. An actual expert would likely gain more by reading the paper during the talk instead of listening to it. Also, it seems some people think complicated language is the "industry standard".

How can I tell if a talk has been simplified too much?

I definitely hear where you are coming from.

In my modest opinion, a good conference talk is not necessarily the one that lets me understand the technical contribution (I can read the paper for that), but the one that lets me understand

The importance and/or hardness of the problem studied
What were the key new ideas
Why they worked and when can I expect them to work

If I got this from the talk, I may be able to recall the result or the technique in the future when I have a need for it.

Of course I am not saying there should be no technical detail, the key idea may be the way a theorem was proved, but I believe any technical content should not be gratuitous.


How does one keep informed in a field that relies heavily on scholarly books? Given that the cycle for writing scholarly books is usually much longer than journal articles, how do professors and students stay informed about their peers' current research? Are there any pathways outside conferences and personal correspondence?

The pace in such disciplines tends to be slower. That is not necessarily bad. Those disciplines tend to prioritize careful thought out arguments over the newest, coolest, most hyped finding. It is not how I and my sub-discipline works, but I recognize that it is a legitimate way of working, that has complementary strengths and weaknesses over a more article or working paper based sub-discipline.


What are positive and negative outcomes of requiring Ph.D. students to take a pedagogy course? My mathematics department (where I am employed as faculty) is considering requiring its Ph.D. students to take a two-semester course in pedagogy and educational theory. All of them also TA lower level math classes, so the proposal has some merit. I am trying to decide whether to support or oppose this proposal (or suggest modifications to it).

Although I am skeptical, I want to be open-minded. In departments that have adopted such requirements, what have been the positive and negative outcomes? Have students enjoyed such courses, and/or felt that they were useful? And has the quality of TA education been improved?

The main negative outcomes would probably be the opportunity cost - what else the PhD students could have been spending their time on - and the risk of developing a bias against such courses and the material contained therein if they are poorly designed or executed.

On the other hand, without critical reflection and exposure to alternatives, we tend to teach in the way we were taught, which may or may not be the most effective approach. Moreover, we may be unaware of common misconceptions and difficulties with our material, having either overcome these hurdles long ago or having sidestepped them. A good course can help with this, especially if it has a subject-specific component as opposed to being completely general.

Since you refer to a mathematics department, you might be specifically interested in Alcock & Simpson's Ideas from Mathematics Education: An Introduction for Mathematicians.


Providing Students Formal Exam Feedback? I'm in the process of finalising my exam for my unit in second semester (based in Australia).

The exam will have 3 essay questions out of a total of 6 that students will receive prior to the exam. They will be asked to prepare responses to these 6 essay questions, but only 3 will appear on the exam (originally I had wanted to do 3/10 as a former professor of mine had done, but was asked to reduce this to 6).

These exams will be assessed against a qualitative rubric with no comments provided.

Other than considering faculty rules/procedures regarding whether or not students can receive feedback from formal examinations (which I still need to inquire about):

Are there any downsides in providing students qualitative rubrics from their formal exams after final marks have been posted?
Does the term/nature of a 'Formal Exam' mean that students should not receive feedback?

(As a side note my course has to have an exam as its listed in the 2015 handbook, but next year this has been removed to be 100% in-class assessment).

One potential drawback comes to mind: if you release the rubrics and/or each student's assessment against these rubrics (it's a bit unclear to me which one you want to do), you will open the gates wide to long, tiresome discussions.

If students don't know the rubrics against which their work is assessed, they will have a harder time arguing that "obviously they addressed this topic, so they should get full points."

(I'm not arguing against releasing rubrics and/or assessments just to reduce the teacher's workload. I'm pointing out a potential downside. I'd still argue that releasing at least the rubrics makes sense to help students improve. Just be prepared for discussions. A small percentage of students can be very tenacious in such discussions and appear to spend more time disputing their grade after the exam than preparing before.)


I have two papers in an up-coming conference. Is it appropriate to cite one in another? I had two papers approved for a workshop in a IEEE conference and I'm going to send the camera-ready version soon.

Is it OK to have one paper cite the other? If it's OK, do I have to reference the other paper as "to appear"?

This is acceptable, and fairly common. You cite as usual, and the citation itself would be identical to a standard citation with the exception that the date and page numbers would be replaced by the phrase "in press".

From the American Historical Association's "Professional Standards" page:

  The AHA suggests the following lexicon.

  "In Press": the manuscript is fully copyedited and out of the author's hands. It is in the final stages of the production process.
  "Forthcoming": a completed manuscript has been accepted by a press or journal.
  "Under contract to . . .": a press and an author have signed a contract for a book in progress, but the final manuscript has not yet been submitted.
  "Submitted" or "under consideration": the book or article has been submitted to a press or journal, but there is as yet no contract or agreement to publish.


"Awaiting AE decision" has lasted for nearly four months. What should I do? The status of my manuscript is "Awaiting AE decision", and it has lasted for nearly four months.
I have sent two pieces of mail to AE to inquire of the status, but I have not received any reply.
What does this situation mean? What should I do?
..While, I am still waiting, no reply.

It could mean they're overworked or disorganized. Four months seems substantial.  Maybe you could try a phone call.


Using a similar application essay I used before I recently submitted an application essay for a pre-college program, and was accepted. I'm particularly proud of my essay; I put my best into it.

Now, after the pre-college program, I intend to apply for one of the institute's degree programs.

I've written an essay for the application. Most of it is rewritten, but it does have a lot of similarities (the intro paragraph is nearly identical).

  Would it be considered plagiarism for using my own work? If not, is it still frowned upon if there are many similarities, and could impact my chances of getting accepted?

I understand that it is likely that answers are individual to each institute, but I'd like to know what the general answer is.

I've read some sources that claim students applying to multiple schools use very similar essays for all (assuming the prompts are similar), only changing statements specific to each school. So, maybe it is alright that I do such a thing? But then again, this is the same institute I'm applying to.

I honestly think there is nothing wrong in applying with a similar work of yours. And I think it, well, for all the reasons you've mentioned yourself, starting with the fact that it won't be considered as plagiarism, since the primary version of it is yours as well, ending with the fact that the work is sent to the same school.
However, depending on whether you've made only minor changes to it or not, you might adjust the work a bit more, or expand it, or formulate some thoughts differently for the sake of back-up (say, if there is a chance that any of the members of the admissions know or have previously seen your primary work - then they might think that you weren't generous on the effort and,therefore, don't perceive the opportunity to be worth working more on that work or on additional ideas). After all, you're the creator, so it is still up to you to decide upon all the abovementioned things!


'Introduction to Subject X' & Guide books : How do they influence the academic reputation? Many professors publish introductory books on their subjects, for undergraduates or sometimes books for a non-academic audience. something like "Introduction to Art History" or a 'guide book' to 'Thinker X' etc.

How do these affect your academic reputation? Or are they primarily making them money? I don't quite understand, because many of these books are really quite basic and expository in nautre.

How do these affect your academic reputation? Or are they primarily making them money? I don't quite understand, because many of these books are really quite basic and expository in nature.

This question seems to be based on a false premise, namely that the two primary reasons for writing a book are developing a scholarly reputation or making money.

One common reason to write an introductory text is dissatisfaction with the available options.  If you write your own textbook, it will be a perfect fit for how you feel the course should be taught, and you can address any deficiencies you see in competing books.  If nobody else seems likely to write the book you have in mind, then writing it yourself may be preferable to repeatedly using books you dislike.

More generally, many books are written as a service to the community.  Depending on how cynical you are, this could be viewed as noble (taking on a poorly paid and not particularly well respected job for the benefit of the world's students) or self-important (believing that you have unique and valuable insights on topics that hundreds of teachers with equal or greater experience have thoroughly addressed).


Contribution of gifts and hospital services to university revenue This question is based on the pie-charts shown in this link, such as this one for the University of Michigan.

In most of these charts, around 5% of the revenue comes from gifts. What are these exactly?
How do hospitals and clinical services play such a critical role for the revenue?

Gifts are donations, typically from former students but they could come from anyone.  That's just how higher education works in the US, and the tradition of making these donations is a big factor in how some US universities have become very wealthy (some of the donations are spent each year, but many are added to the endowment).  The donations qualify for a tax deduction, so there's an element of government subsidy as well.

Hospitals and clinical services can loom large because university teaching hospitals are huge and medical services are very expensive.  (You can have thousands of employees, some of them very well paid, and elaborate equipment.)  However, this is really not relevant.  The medical revenue is typically paying for the hospital activities and medical education, but not used to subsidize the rest of the university.  Many universities do not have hospitals or medical schools.


Inquiry for Ph.D admissions in European countries I want to pursue a Ph.D in Chemistry and the destinations of my choice are Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands and Sweden. Can anyone please tell me the scholarships and fellowships available to which an Indian student can apply in these countries? (I know of a DAAD fellowship for Germany)

I would also love to know if there is any centralized admission process to these countries (similar to US)?
Thank you

PhD students in the Netherlands are usually employed by the university (these are AIO, or "assistent in opleiding", positions). As far as I know, anyone can apply for these jobs and it doesn't matter where you're from.

You apply directly to the faculty that is advertising the position, and after you are chosen for the position the university sponsors you through the visa process as a "knowledge migrant".


How to Cite an IGO Document in Chicago style I need to create citation for this document
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/countering-hybrid-warfare-project-understanding-hybrid-warfare

It appears that it is developed by an entity called Multinational Capability
Development Campaign (MCDC) which as far as I can gather, is a cooperation between NATO and individual NATO member states, but what does it mean that its a "campaign".
some more info can be found about them here
https://www.act.nato.int/mcdc
however it is not clear what exactly this entity is to be defined as. I am furthermore not clear on what to define the document as, whether its a report or something else

According to this page
https://libguides.tru.ca/c.php?g=194004&p=1277108 you can cite Reports with the format listed, however this format requires place of publication and publisher which again is not clear to me.
the website CitationMachine lists a field for University and Publisher/sponser for citing documents which I am again, not sure what to fill in as.

one of the initial pages includes the information that it is

  This document was developed and written by the contributing nations
  and international organizations of the Multinational Capability
  Development Campaign (MCDC) 2016-17.

as well as information on the two primary authors, but I am still fuzzy on how to format it to be correct according to chicago.

I need both Bibliographical note as well as foodnote for 1st and 2nd instance of citation, in chicago style.
any help on how to treat this is appreciated.

A report is referenced in the following format in Chicago style

  Last name, First name. Title of Work. Publisher city: Publisher, Year
  of publication. Accessed Month Date, Year. URL.

In the case of your report you have 2 authors and an unknown place of publishing so Bibliographical note would be;

  Cullen, Dr. Patrick J., and Erik Reichborn-Kjennerud. MCDC Countering
  Hybrid Warfare Project: Understanding Hybrid Warfare. N.p:
  Multinational Capability Development Campaign (MCDC), 2017. Accessed
  September 26, 2018.
  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/647776/dar_mcdc_hybrid_warfare.pdf.

As you can see N.p is used to show that there is no record of place of publisher. This can be seen in this guide and this question.

Your first footnote should look like this;

  Dr. Patrick J. Cullen and Erik Reichborn-Kjennerud, MCDC Countering Hybrid Warfare Project: Understanding Hybrid Warfare (N.p:
  Multinational Capability Development Campaign (MCDC), 2017), page number.

Your subsequent footnote should look like this;

  Cullen, MCDC Countering Hybrid Warfare Project: Understanding Hybrid Warfare, page number.


Preparing an IEEE conference accepted manuscript for arxiving What exactly do I need to do when arxiving a accepted manuscript to an IEEE conference? Which license to select on arxiv? Do I need to add the reference/doi not only to the arxiv metadata but also the document itself?

Background.

I've a paper that has been accepted at an IEEE conference. After I've received the reviews and acceptance notice, I was asked to incorporate changes and include a copyright notice that was provided to me, something like

  123-1-1234-5678-0/12/$31.00 c 2015 IEEE

I assume this last pdf then is the so-called postprint or accepted manuscript.

I want to post this on arxiv and wondered what I need to do. It seems the accepted answer to the following question does not really match my case:
Conditions for uploading IEEE publications to ArXiv.
Also it somewhat doesn't match
An FAQ on IEEE Policy Regarding
Authors Rights to Post Accepted Versions of Their Articles:

  Does the policy affect how authors post their articles on preprint
  servers such as ArXiv? Yes. The IEEE recognizes that many authors
  share their unpublished articles on public sites. Once articles have
  been accepted for publication by IEEE, authors are required to post an
  IEEE copyright notice on their preprints. Upon publication, authors
  must replace the preprints with either 1) the full citation to the
  IEEE works with Digital Object Identifiers (DOI) or 2) the accepted
  versions only (not the IEEE-published versions) with the DOI. IEEE
  journals will make available to each author the accepted version of
  the article that the author can post that includes the DOI, IEEE
  copyright notice, and a notice indicating the article has been
  accepted for publication by IEEE. IEEE conference authors are free to
  post their own version of their articles, as accepted by an IEEE
  conference.

Which in turn is somewhat different from the information provided in
An FAQ on Intellectual Property Rights for IEEE Authors:

  Can an author post his manuscript on a preprint server such as ArXiv?
  Yes. The IEEE recognizes that many authors share their unpublished
  manuscripts on public sites. Once manuscripts have been accepted for
  publication by IEEE, an author is required to post an IEEE copyright
  notice on his preprint. Upon publication, the author must replace the
  preprint with either 1) the full citation to the IEEE work with
  Digital Object Identifiers (DOI) or a link to the paper’s abstract in
  IEEE Xplore, or 2) the accepted version only (not the IEEEpublished
  version), including the IEEE copyright notice and full citation, with
  a link to the final, published paper in IEEE Xplore.

Here the relevant bits of a correspondence with copyrights@ieee.org.

Question:

  I am having trouble understanding the policies on what exact
  information needs to be included in an accepted manuscript before
  posting it to arxiv.

  Given an accepted manuscript at an IEEE conference, am I right in
  assuming that I need to include the following?
  (a) the full reference of the published version,
  (b) the doi linking to ieeeXplore,
  (c) the copyright notice as shown in 8.1.9.B, http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/rights_policies.html

  If yes, is there a standard procedure how to include those in a
  standard IEEEtran tex or does one just add them in any way convenient?
  If no, could you please clarify?

  Note, however, that the accepted manuscript of a conference paper
  sometimes already contains a copyright notice of the following form
  "123-1-1234-5678-0/12/$31.00 c 2015 IEEE" i.e. the accepted
  manuscript, the version finally sent to ieee for publication and prior
  to copyediting etc already contains a copyright notice that is
  different from the one mentioned above. Would this one need to be
  replaced by the other one or which exact notice would need to be
  included?

Response:

  Sorry for the delay in response. To the best of my knowledge there is
  no standard format to provide the information. You would need to
  provide the copyright notice as shown in 8.1.9.B from the PSPB
  Operations Manual:

  “© © 20xx IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission
  from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or
  future media, including reprinting/republishing this material for
  advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works,
  for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any
  copyrighted component of this work in other works.”

Not sure this really clarifies the situation..?


Preface requirements concerning acknowledgement I am curious to know what the preface requirements are for bachelor and master theses. Are you legally (or morally) required to use the full names of the people included in the acknowledgements?

Does anyone know?

The acknowledgments part is the only place where you are completely free to write whatever you want. You are not legally or morally required to write anything unless you agreed to previously. Some funding entities, generally private companies may require you to do so (e.g. NVIDIA gives free GPUs to researchers with the condition they acknowledge NVIDIA in papers).

I've seen people in this site mentioning that they acknowledged God, a fictional dog and non-existent people. Just write what you want.


Reviewing papers after leaving research for teaching? I had been an active researcher until two years ago and published several papers and reviewed several papers as expected. Two years ago I took a teaching position. I teach 3 classes/semester but most classes meet 4 or 5 times a week, so it actually feels like 4 classes. I also do extensive work with undergraduates. I do some research, but it is very minimal (corresponding to the high teaching load).

Due to my previous research past I am constantly getting requests to review papers (3/month). Due to my change in work duties, I have to decline many of them (but I do review some papers).

My question is:
Should I explain that I am declining due to my change in work duties? What about if it is the same editor or journal that keeps sending me papers to review? How do I best/ethically proceed without hurting my chances to publish the few papers I plan to submit?

Additional information to clarify: I am not too worried about my chances to publish (my current position requires very minimal research). I am mostly worried that I will get known as a bad professional. By the way, my current institution is officially a top tier research university (and they advertise themselves as such), but my department is not (we barely have a masters program). It is very easy for colleagues to think that I am active in research unless I explicitly tell them about my current duties. It gets even more confusing since some papers take a long time to get published (after acceptance).

There are (at least) three issues here:

Your time. If you're unable to spend time due to teaching, than that's a perfectly acceptable reason to decline.
Your duty. If you're no longer publishing research, then arguably you're no longer obliged to provide the service of review to those who do. So, don't feel obliged, but you may still enjoy this.
Your expertise may no longer be up to scratch. In particular, you may lack access to some relevant publications and/or may no longer follow recent research to be on top of the field. In this case, you cannot provide an adequate review (w/o an unreasonable effort) and should decline.

In any case, you don't have to feel apologetic when declining a review request, though it does not harm to briefly state a reason.


What is a reasonable number of grad schools to apply to for a PhD in computer science? I'm applying straight out of undergrad, and I'm not sure how many schools I should apply to.

However many schools you find that have academics that you want to work with.

Research is like riding a bicycle.  You can obviously do it.  The application process for graduate school is mostly to vet applicants for those who can't ride the bicycle.  Therefore, the important next step for you is to find someone you will jive well with.  Applying to graduate schools should be more about that: find a professor that you'd be willing to enter into a serious personal relationship with.

With that being said, I have friends who applied to 9, 3 schools in 3 tiers: "dream schools", "realistic schools", and "satisfactory schools".

I applied to one.  I found a professor I really liked and started an email correspondence with him 3 months before I even applied.  When applications came around, there wasn't a question of where I would apply or whether I would get in.

Oh, and I'm a 4th year CS PhD candidate.


What is "paper bidding"? I am currently preparing for the submission of my first paper to an academic conference and I've just seen this table of important dates:

What is "paper bidding"? Why is that before the submission deadline?

In conferences with paper bidding, reviewers get to indicate their preference for each paper (i.e. "I'm interested in reviewing this one, not interested in reviewing that one").

The bids are typically based on the abstract (which is why many conferences have an "abstract submission deadline" before the submission deadline). That way, by the time the papers are submitted, they can be distributed to reviewers immediately.


PhD forced out of university: Hong Kong (Too Long; Didnt Read members of academia.stackexchange, read the text in bold only)
I am a PhD student in one of the Hong Kong Universities. For those that do not follow news, Hong Kong has been through turbulent social and political changes for more than a year now. As it happens, these changes correlate with ever increasing pressure on me through-out the last year.
To the best of my knowledge, I have not associated myself with any political stand, nor showed support for either side. Despite my non-involvement, there are situations where I was at the wrong place at the wrong time, since the university was directly affected by the unrests and people have noticed (supervisor, other PhDs).
Also, to the best of my knowledge, I am not involved in academic sins, such as improper communication (quarrels with supervisor, other PhDs, technical staff, department leader, department staff), academic dishonesty (faking progress/results/documents) or similar. Further, I can truthfully say that I do not have conflicts with people around me in general, nor family, friends, and especially in academia I keep my opinions down, since it is a very small place. Further, I am not unproductive, lazy or stupid, but I have several publications as the first author (conferences and journals, that are relevant to my field).
In summary, I do not think I am a problematic PhD or evil person, and I believe there is a cause to the issues described below, that is external to my doing (it is not caused by my wrong doing, but I do not speculate as to what exactly it can be).

Situation now: I feel I am actively being pushed-out of the university. I do not have support from my supervisor, neither material/financial, nor on personal level. The supervisor kicked me out of PhD groups used to share information. Further, my forms do not get processed at the department level (no one is willing to provide signature, even if the form is rejected). I was directly told not to contact anyone (Professors) /  cooperate with anyone (Companies).
There are other unflattering situations which I will not list, to keep identity secret. But all of this correlate with the unrests. Before October 2019, my progress and relation with supervisor, staff and PhDs was normal.
From comments: I pointed out correlation and I am not here to judge causation or specific relations among academia and politics. I can add that my supervisor lost a (non-specified due to anonymity) position, which s/he didnt take lightly. This also correlates with the unrests as it happened right after the main wave.

My view: I think I have formally proven myself as a researcher/PhD. I have produced and published relevant work. And as such, I should technically finish my PhD by the summer 2021. But considering the current situation, this is unlikely. Further, the ranking of the university is not bad, neither the impact factor of my publications.
Can I resolve this situation, such that I receive the PhD degree (somewhere else)? If I reach to someone, how do I describe my situation? Can I address the political pressure in front of other professors from unaffected regions, if enquiring about potential solution/help/opinion?
P.S.
This is not a dispute with single person (supervisor or other). The department leader is not impartial. There is no third-party committee (the supervisor is at the top of everything, no relevant co-supervisors or other staff). I am willing to relocate myself to Europe, Singapore, South Korea or Taiwan. I do not want to start again, technically there is no reason.

I expect that typical European professors will be sufficiently aware of the situation in Hong Kong to understand that some PhD students will feel pressured to leave; and to be sufficiently sympathetic to the democracy movement to not think any less of those students. Mentioning political pressure should do a lot to overcome the usual stigma against people changing PhD positions. That you have not actually engaged in activism is not going to be relevant.
Some universities will have minimum candidate periods for PhD students, and will be more or less flexible in waiving them for you. I would not worry about that too much in advance, contact suitable supervisors and ask about what accommodations can be made for you. They'll know best how to work the local administration.
Since you will want to complete a particular project for your PhD, you really want the right people as new supervisor. Someone who already knows your published work will be ideal.
For context, a few years ago the Saudi government decided that all Saudi-funded PhD students in Canada (of which there were a lot) had to immediately leave and move to a different country. While this was undoubtedly very stressful for the students, my impression was that there were plenty of understanding European professors willing to help.


How to establish a relationship with a department head as an undergraduate? I am an undergraduate who is line for a first author publication in a field I absolutely love, and want to continue my research in the same department. At my school there is a program, I have heard of, that would allow me to get my masters as an undergraduate, and the paperwork requires a signature from the department head. I don't want to appear as sycophantic a-hole, I come from a very economically disadvantaged background. I am paying for my school, want to continue my research, and eventually obtain a PhD. Basically, I need to know any good suggestions of how to establish a relationship with the department head. I know email is an option to contact the department head, but she doesn't know me. I have emailed another professor, I said hello to and know his childhood friend, who has been in the same department for 15 years to see if we could get coffee and talk with him about this matter to see if he could introduce me to the department head. Any suggestions of knowing how to connect/establish a relationship with the department head?
Best

It's possible that you are misunderstanding what the signature of a department head implies or requires. In general, signatures are used to ensure that policies and procedures have been appropriately followed. Save for unfortunate cases where resources are solely allocated due to rather extreme corruption (beyond anything I've personally encountered), you don't have to have some sort of deep personal history or relationship just to take part in an existing publicly advertised academic program.

The most common way this comes up is a form that requires two signatures - one from your advisor (or other faculty member relevant to the request), and one from the head of the department. The advisor/faculty member is usually the one responsible for making sure you meet all the program requirements, and believes you should have the request indicated by the form authorized. Then the signature from the head of the department is generally just a bureaucratic formality, and the department head's job (often delegated to an assistant) is to ensure you qualify, etc (making sure the faculty member did their job correctly), maybe ask a few questions or require supporting paper work if applicable (if it's routine they won't even do that), and then sign. And off you go!

To see what is truly required to get into your school's program, you'll need to look up further information about it on the website - if one exists (it may not have useful info), and talk with whoever administers the program. You might also just go to your department office and ask the assistant for more information about the program. You can just say, "I read about the program where you can work towards a masters while you are an undergrad - how can I find out more about this program?"

You can then find out if the program is a competitive application process, are there certain qualifications you need before applying to the program (such as completing a certain number of courses, having a certain GPA, meeting with a graduate advisor, etc), and all the other details you might want to know about to decide if the program is right for you and how you can join. It could be as simple as ask to join, give your transcript to the assistant and they will have the chair sign, and you are in (so long as you pay the bills, which might increase to be a part of that program). But you won't know until you talk directly to the appropriate staff members - no need for scheming just yet!


What to do if my GRE is too low but application deadline close? I have a GRE score on hand but it is too low for the universities I am applying to and the deadlines are very near.

I am thinking of sending the application now with the current low score and I booked a slot to retake the GRE.  Can I send an email to the university again to consider my new scores?

This is entirely dependent on the program you are applying to.

Some programs are flexible with deadlines, particularly so if applicants are domestic students. Others, as pointed out are very strict. There may be some of both types of programs within the same university or even college.

You can always try and the worst that can happen is you're told no.  For example, a few options:

Call or Email the admissions staff or the director of graduate programs and let them know you're taking the exam on DD-MM-YYYY.  Ask if they will consider you for a provisional admission that's conditional on you obtaining a competitive score.
Just apply anyway with what you have. Incomplete applications rarely move into the decision process. Execute #1 as well.

Again, this is very program and personality-dependent so your chances of success will vary greatly depending on the situation.* Some programs consider your best GRE score. Some super score (take best from each category).

* And how far "off the mark" your GRE scores are currently.


How to cite regularly published editorials that have no specific titles? Many magazines and journals have standard editorial pieces such as a letter from the editor to introduce that month's publication; or closing comments written by different people.

For example, the New Hampshire Review has its "Last Word" column, such as this one: http://www.nhbr.com/June-24-2005/Last-Word/

Notice the entire article is titled "Last Word." There is no subtitle to further identify the article. (This is the case for this particular piece; other "Last Word" columns do have subtitles; so maybe this one is an anomaly.)

Some database aggregators write summaries. In this case, for the above article, the EBSCO title field has "Making history with the 80-20 rule" (see http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/17494538/making-history-80-20-rule)

How do you cite something like this in APA style?

Citing editorials, using APA Style, is actually not that difficult. You just have to specify the relevant type of material ("Editorial" or "Letter to the editor") in square brackets and provide the full date of publication. The latter, in combination with the title of the editorial, naturally serves as a unique identifier for the piece (so, no subtitle is needed). For example, for the first source that you have mentioned in your question, I think that the appropriate citation would be the following (support):

  Last Word. [Editorial]. (2005, June 24). New Hampshire Business
  Review, p. A1.

In regard to the second source that you have mentioned, I think that you incorrectly refer to the entry as summary. IMHO it is simply a bibliographic entry, referring to the corresponding regular published article. In that case, I would cite the original article and not the EBSCO entry.


Obligation to tell journal of flaws in paper previously reviewed? The blog Retraction Watch posted an interesting question the other day about reviewing the same paper twice, rejecting it both times, and then later finding out it was published in a different journal. The reason for rejection was that the author(s) failed to mention previous work using the same dataset; seemingly a case of very similar publications (or piecemeal publication, or borderline plagiarism, however you want to describe it).

So what is an appropriate course of action for the reviewer in this circumstance?

Now that the paper has been published, your role is not that of a reviewer anymore, but is the same as any reader. Anyone might read the paper and draw the same conclusions as you.

As such, you can act just as any reader would act, without having to disclose your earlier role as a reviewer. It seems to me that you then have a choice of three options:

Write to the authors
Write a comment to their paper
Write to the editor, mentioning your doubts about the adequacy of references to the existing literature (including previous studies by the authors)

In your particular case, the only additional information that you (as a former reviewer) have is that the authors have been journal-shopping for their paper, and do not want to make the necessary modifications to it. This means that solution #1 is probably not going to be productive, because the authors acted in bad faith. So, you're left with #2 and #3.

If you choose to write a public comment, you definitely cannot say that you were a reviewer for a previous version of the journal. On the other hand, if you write to the editor, I think you could reasonably give him that information (“I was a reviewer of this particular paper for another journal”), because (i) it may change his point of view of the author's honesty, (ii) he will treat it as confidential information.


Does any publication venue make rejected papers available for download? Is there any publication venue that makes rejected papers available for download?

I am most interested in the field of computer science, and English-speaking venues.

I do not know of any, and I can't imagine any that would. Typically, the journal would not have the copyright assignment until after they accepted, though I hear that some venues ask for this upfront. Additionally, this isn't really how academic publication is supposed to work. A rejection isn't the end of the road for a work of scientific authorship. Many works are published elsewhere after being rejected. This would kill that process.

(Preprints notwithstanding, for works in fields where preprints don't count as publication.)


What are acceptable citations within a research paper for a peer-review journal? For a bit of background, I'm a non-academic, so I'm not familiar with the process of submitting a paper for peer-review or anything technical (I have learned that non-academics can submit papers but have a higher hurdle to overcome).

I've often been told by various people that when presenting informal arguments or research, that what I write seems to be 'well researched'. For me, citations are often a mixture of either appropriate news articles or references to abstracts from studies for appropriate claims within a given body of text, however I feel that a research paper for submission to a peer reviewed journal is likely expecting a higher quality, EG citations to studies only.

What are acceptable citations within a research paper for a peer-review journal? If it's variable, how can I determine if a citation is suitable enough quality for use in a research paper?

The general rule is that the reference you cite must be authoritative and provide strong evidence for the claim that you are making based on it. Readers should be able to follow the citation and see for themselves the evidence supporting the claim.

For example, if the claim is "80% of basket weavers prefer to work with Australian reeds", then the citation should be to an article which describes a rigorous survey of basket weavers, including the details of the methodology and statistical analysis. Such a study would most likely be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Suppose you read an article in Basket Weaving Weekly Magazine that makes the same claim. Can you cite it as the source of the claim? Well, there are a few possibilities:

The article got this claim from study in the peer-reviewed journal. In this case, you should cite the original study (not the magazine article), crediting the authors who actually did the study. (You should also read the study and make sure it actually makes that claim, and that it provides strong evidence for it!)
Basket Weaving Weekly Magazine did a survey of its own readers, and the claim is based on the results of that survey. In this case, the article may or may not describe the methodology and details of the statistical analysis, and those may or may not be sound (up to the standards of rigorous scientific research). In this case, you'll have to determine whether the claim is even supported by strong evidence - but if it is, and the evidence and supporting details are in the magazine article, you can cite it.
Basket Weaving Weekly Online makes the claim, but doesn't give any details about where it came from. In this case, you are lacking strong evidence for the claim and you should not state this claim as fact in your paper.

Citations are most often to peer-reviewed research articles, because most of the time, these are authoritative and include strong evidence to support whatever is being cited. But there are certainly occasions where it may be appropriate to cite something that isn't a peer-reviewed research article. (See for example this answer, or this answer.)

This is just a general rule - specific fields and specific publication venues may have written or unwritten conventions, which you should learn and follow.


Is the middle of May very late for graduate admissions in the same year? Let me explain my situation a little bit, then I will try to make it more general for others to benefit.

I am graduating in a month and getting my bachelor degree in computer science. I did apply to graduate programs of US universities, and it did not end up as I expected. Right now, I am still looking for chances, graduate programs, to get in. I guess all the programs in US made their decisions already, and this is true for most of EU universities. But, still I want to check if I am missing anything.

More generally, consider an international student who wants to apply for graduate programs of computer science in EU/US. It is mid of May. Does this student still have chances to get in a graduate program with scholarship?

Yes, it's too late, at least in the US.

All the PhD programs I'm familiar with (mostly in North America, but a few European programs too) require admitted applicants to accept or decline admission offers by April 15.  The admission offers themselves are sent out weeks or even months earlier.  For example, my department tries to finalize all PhD admission offers by mid-February.  We get about 750 PhD applications every year, so to keep ourselves (relatively) sane, we don't even consider applications that arrive after the December deadline.

A few PhD programs do consider applicants for admission in the spring semester.  But I wouldn't recommend trying for spring admissions to the same programs that already turned you down.  In my experience, spring admission is more competitive.  Moreover, a few months is unlikely to significantly improve your application, especially since they've already formed an opinion.

I also agree with Joanna's recommendation: Your best bet is to strengthen your record and apply again next year, for admission in Fall 2013.  If possible, get involved in a research project with the goal of publication.  At a minimum, do something independent, creative, and technical to show off your potential for research.  Show your complete application to your letter writers (or other faculty mentors), especially your research statement, and ask for their detailed and brutally honest feedback.  Listen to them.  Finally, confirm with your references (by asking them directly) that they are willing to write you strong letters emphasizing your research potential.


Is it appropriate for a graduate student to ask faculty whether they would like assistance in writing a grant? I am a Ph.D. student who will be graduating sometime in May 2018. I am hoping to apply to the academic job market in Fall 2017. My goal is to obtain a tenure-track assistant professorship position at an R1 university in a field within computer science and/or statistics.

I recently looked at job descriptions, and found that evidence of grant-writing abilities is highly-valued, especially at R1 universities. I took a short course in preparing future faculty, and the instructor recommended that we ask faculty members in our department if we can help them write a grant. He said that most professors would be happy to have a student help write the grant.

I do feel that I am not a particularly competitive candidate, but that having grant-writing experience would give my CV an edge. However, I do not know what to make of this advice. I do not know if it is acceptable to ask faculty members about this. I do not want to offend anyone, and do not know how to approach it with etiquette and respect. I also do not know if faculty members would even find that advantageous to them - especially if the student is not familiar with their work or writing grants in general.

Would it be wise of me to ask faculty members in my department, as the instructor advised? If so, are there things I should avoid? Things I should be sure to do? Ways to ensure I would receive "credit", "authorship", or at least ways to place it meaningfully on my CV?

On the one hand, bid writing is a laborious and unforgiving activity, so any offer of help, one would hope, would be gratefully accepted; on the other hand, bid proposals do need to be written correctly and a lot rides on their success, so you are likely to encounter colleagues who are very possessive over them.

Offer to assist would likely be taken more positively than offering to write - and this could involve all sorts of things, attending and minuting meetings with stakeholders, working with administrators to develop costings, doing legwork around gathering information needed for the bid as well as drafting an argument and a case.

How to offer your services?

This will depend upon the culture within your department, however if a research coordinator or other kind of support officer is employed, perhaps they would be someone to approach first.  They would be immersed in the network in your dept and will know what's coming up.

I'd dissuade you from sending a round-robin email as this would just be annoying; an informal/social offer of help might work better - perhaps your supervisor could point you in the direction of someone currently or about to work on a bid?


Retractions in mathematical journals The number of retractions in some scientific fields like medicine, life and material related science seems rising in the past years. However, retractions in mathematics seem rare because of its rigorous nature. I wonder if there are retractions in mathematical journals.

The Daniel Biss case is one example where the retraction is due to legitimate mistakes (not misconduct). These retractions are rare because much of the time, incorrect proofs can still be salvaged with some work (recall Wiles and Taylor) and even papers with wrong results often contain enough correct material to be considered useful. Also, there are much fewer people that have the time to properly evaluate a paper in mathematics than in (say) psychology, where anyone with a decent understanding of statistical fallacies can find half a dozen bad studies per day.

There are also, quite likely, some cases where plagiarism has led to retractions.

Then there is the Ted Hill GMVH controversy (Quillette, Gowers's blog 1, Gowers's blog 2, Retraction Watch). NYJM has removed that paper from its archives, which can be construed as a kind of informal retraction, albeit easier to construe as a mess-up in the face of unexpected hostility from parts of the community. (The explanation given for the retraction is that the paper did not fit the journal's scope and level; note, however, that this is an extremely unusual grounds for retraction in academic publishing.)

RetractionWatch has a tag for retractions in mathematics.


Is it ethical for a student to edit the Wikipedia page of his advisor? I have seen quite a few students editing the Wikipedia page of their advisors. I wonder what the view of the academic community are on this. There might be some conflict of interest since promoting one's advisor can be seen as indirectly promoting oneself, but at the same time it can be argued that a student (especially graduate student) may have a decent amount of knowledge about his advisor.

It is not ethical, and is, per Wikipedia guidelines, a conflict of interest.

  If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly, from adding related advertising links, links to personal websites and similar, and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions.

There is an exception. For example, let's say Dr. Potato is listed as a life-long sprout, when he is actually a tuber.

  An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. If you do make such an edit, follow it up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons.

Other examples of non-controversial edits would be like fixing spelling and grammar errors, or linking to an article on Wikipedia that may be missed.

It is also encouraged that, instead of providing edits and information, you provide:

  Those with a potential conflict of interest are encouraged to upload good-quality digital media files that are appropriately licensed for Wikipedia and that improve our coverage of a subject.

Images and media that are non-controversial can then be used by others to be cited, as they wouldn't express an opinion.

Examples of non-controversial stuff would be like a picture of the person, preferably doing nothing controversial.


What is the purpose of women-only meetings, panels, conferences, etc. in academia? Since entering graduate school, albeit in a STEM field, I have never been exposed to such an emphasis on women-only meetings, leadership conferences, panels, etc. I have seen most, if not all of these venues, exclusive to women. Most of these meetings are hosted by the WISE (Women In Science and Engineering) organization at this university. I am sure this phenomenon is true elsewhere.

Why is it that in academe, in my experience, it is common for women to segregate themselves in the context of raising gender issues?

How does this behavior exemplify equal opportunity?

How does this behavior develop real solutions to real problems?

I actually agree with you completely. I think that the women only conference concept is very well intentioned but in practice kind of terrible. I once went to an all girl hackathon and spent 2 1/2 hours not making anything and instead watching everyone pat themselves on the back for being women. Had to sit through a ton of self congratulatory "Ted Talks" while all I wanted to do was code with some other female engineers. It was.... weird.

There are reasons for it though.

I think that the biggest threat to women is other women who view them only as competition. The women only concept removes that competition from the equation so that we can have a safe space to actually support each other.
Working in STEM, it's really unfortunate but sexism is kind of pervasive, and most women don't really feel like they have the tools to deal with it appropriately. These conferences usually provide some sort of structure to help them learn.
Women have been largely ignored by the STEM community for so long that we really do need all these outreach programs. It actually does make a difference to both the women in attendance and our level of visibility and subsequently provides opportunities for growth.
For younger women, these experiences are invaluable. It tells them that it's okay to be who they want to be, that they're not alone, and that they have people who really will rally around them and support them as they grow and come up in the world. Honestly, I wish these things existed when I was a kid.

That being said, isolationism is stupid and self defeating. I'd be much more interested in something that fostered actual dialogue between genders, or provided hands-on technical training in skills that I actually need instead of congratulatory prose about what a good little girl I was for showing up.


Extra Masters before PhD In my field it is common for Americans like myself to do a 5-6 year PhD where the first two years are basically a masters degree. However, when I first applied two years ago I was rejected from all PhD programs and instead did a free-but-unfunded MS. Now I am applying again and got an amazing offer from a top 10 US program! If I go there, will it look bad in post doc/faculty applications to have a 4 year undergrad, 6 year PhD(+MS en route), and a separate 2 year MS in between?

I am also still being considered for funding by the very top non-US program for a 3 year PhD where a MS is required beforehand. I had initially thought a longer PhD was better in order to do more research and make more publishable discoveries. But is the potential CV oddity worth considering if I get into this other top program?

No, given everything else you say, no one will give it a moment's thought. You've been on a steady path and seem to be a success at it.

And, almost any other option will be worse. A different doctorate would shorten your time to completion, but, as you say, this one gives you opportunities.

People will look primarily to your most recent accomplishments in any case. It is just how it works.

Just. Do. It.


Is it possible for me to seek a Ph.D. position in the future? Currently, I am a M.S. student in Applied Mathematics division, and I will graduate in the coming Dec, 2014.
But I want to apply to a PhD. program to continue my study. But I have a complicated situation:

I had a bachelor's degree in software engineering outside US with GPA 3.7. But I'm pursing a M.S. degree in Applied Mathematics in a US college with GPA 3.6, the reason I am doing this is because I want to improve my mathematical background, and prepare for research oriented program in the future.
My native language is non-English, and my English skills are not that strong. I didn't have a competitive GRE test.
But I had some research experiences, both in and outside US. And almost all the research is either direct with national research labs or collaborate with them. However, I have no academic publications yet.

Is it possible for me to seek PhD in the future? I would like to go for it, but it seems more and more professors and universities focus on someone with higher scores and better publication record.

Is it possible for me to seek PhD in the future?

Yes. It is possible to seek a PhD at any point in one's life, although at some point you will shift over into the "unconventional student" category.

Some universities/faculty do tend to overlook unconventional students. However, if you keep publishing articles, learning new skills (and demonstrating them), and staying up to date on the research in your field (and demonstrating that you have), then you'll be in a good position to get accepted by the more open-minded universities whenever you decide to apply.


Do schools/universities in EU prefer to appoint PhD graduates as teachers from their own student pools? As far as I understand, EU schools have high regards for PhDs from anglosphere, especially from USA and UK.

But, what about schools in EU itself?

Suppose,  an International student,

(1) has a bachelor, Masters, and PhD from a same school "X" in an EU country "A".
 (2) has a bachelor, Masters, and PhD from various schools "X", "Y", and "Z" in different EU countries: "A", "B", "C".

Does (2) make any difference if he has an intention of doing job in a school "X" as a teacher?

Do schools/universities in EU prefer to appoint PhD graduates from their own student pools?

Each EU country has quite a different academic culture. Some are perceived as being quite insular, with a lot of hiring from within; some are considered "impenetrable" by outsiders; some are quite the opposite and offer significant perks to try to attract top notch scholars from outside. Each system has its quirks and it is impossible to talk about the differences without knowing which country you are speaking about here I'm afraid.

Speaking personally, I know that the Dutch university that I am about to move to has hired people in the same department as I will be in with degrees and research backgrounds in several other EU countries, but you can't really extrapolate that information out beyond the Netherlands.


Citing in Footnote or Bibliography I am currently writing my thesis which is on a relatively new topic and as such literature is limited and I have to take note of a lot of developments that are popping up as internet articles.

Do these go as footnotes rather than the bibliography? When should I put a reference as a footnote rather than a bibliography?

Examples:

A news article
A simple website such as microsoft.com
A PDF published by an authority
A scholarly article

So far I was placing 1-3 in the footnotes and 4 as bibliography (which is short)

Should references be separated or can everything go in the bibliography?

This should be guided by 1. your institution's requirements for your thesis; 2. the standards of the citation guide referenced by your institution.

For example, most colleges have an Office of Graduate Studies to whom the final thesis must be submitted for final approval and archiving. They will have a "style guide" that includes rules about citations. These rules could indicate, for instance, the Chicago Manual style, APA, or Harvard citation style, which in turn will tell you how to handle the on-line articles.


How to suggest reviewers for a journal? I recently tried submitting a paper to a journal. It was mandatory to suggest three reviewers. Is this a norm in journal submissions? If yes, how should one choose reviewers if I do not personally know any experts in the field? I have been submitting papers to conferences and never found such conditions there.

Being editor of a journal where authors can provide preferred and non-preferred reviewers, I can provide some "inside" thoughts on the subject based on what has happened in "my" journal. Note that it is possible to suggest names for review but also provide names which are not preferred. The latter can be because of a scientific disagreement, personal issues or whatever. Such suggestions appear but not often and we usually follow the suggestions (not that we have to!).

When it comes to the preferred or suggested reviewers, I have been tempted to use such reviewers on occasion when it has been hard to identify reviewers directly. Sometimes because the topic is local and where it would make sense to have local input. In these cases, I cannot remember a single reasonable review that has come out of such reviewers. This can be for several reasons but most often the review is a close colleague who might have an incentive to help the author. In some cases the preferred names have been very senior scientists who, I am afraid, has lost touch with the subject and provide poor and in some cases almost non-existent reviews. Out of all immediate "Accept" review recommendations I get, the vast majority have come from these reviewers. So, I not longer trust these names and avoid them at all costs unless I personally know or know of the reviewer and his or her good reputation.

In addition to what I just describe, I also must state that it is often the weakest manuscripts that have listed several suggestions. This can be identified by the disparate review results, sometimes one accept (by the suggested reviewer) and one reject.

Now, in principle, there is nothing wrong with suggesting reviewers, I have done so myself when being requested. I have then as a principle gone for established and well renowned names in the community. The problem lies in suggesting names for a purpose other than to get a fair and objective review.

It is clear that the system can and is abused and since I became Editor-in-Chief, I have come to rely less and less on these suggestions and now mostly look upon them with suspicion and make selections from my own understanding of the field and investigations into the subject literature. The best suggestion, I can provide is to not avoid mentioning names but pick names that in your opinion can provide good constructive critique on your work (and not just favorable).  A note on why you have selected names as preferred or non-preferred would greatly help as well since it puts your choice in a perspective.


"Very Similar" vs "Based On" for purpose of paper "narrative" I was trying to solve a sub-problem as part of a greater problem for which I am writing a paper to propose a solution.

I'd been working on it for quite a while, when I had the thought that it could be transformed into a special case of one of the most famous and well researched problems in computer science.

I spent about a month doing that transformation while working on other things.
All the while though, I was thinking: "Someone else must have had this idea -- its too good not to have had." I didn't spend too much time searching for it, though, because I needed an implementation and not just an idea.
I finished up the method about a week ago, and ran it, and found it to work excellently.

Today, I finally found a paper where someone did have the idea.
Almost identical to mine (I'm really not at all displeased by this)
There are, as expected, a few differences, but nothing I can't explain in a few sentences.

So the question is, in my writeup I could say:

1a. We extend the method of X, by adding ...
1b. Our method is based on the method of X, but with the following variations...
2a. The method we propose is very similar to the method of X, except ...
2b. This method is similar to that of X, but developed independently. It has the following difference.

The options 2a/b  are what actually occurred.
However, I wonder if I should not write instead 1a, or 1b because they provide a better narrative.  I've been told paper narrative is important.

I don't like the way 2b sounds, even if it is the most truthful. It sounds like I feel I have something to prove.

Is it generally worth distorting the actual order of events, for a clean narrative?

In an ordinary scientific paper, nobody expects to get a narrative of your investigation, but rather a clear explanation of how the ideas fit together.  In fact, it has been argued that success in science is precisely defined by the separation of statements from the circumstances of their creation.

I would thus argue that you should no more feel obligated to tell a reader that you invented an idea independently than that you invented it while riding a bicycle.  You may not have started by basing your method on the other method, but now that you know it exists, you can skip all sorts of argumentation and verification by changing the way you think about your method in order to base it on the prior method and the work that has been done to establish it.

Thus, I would recommend using something like your statement 1a/1b.  That is not the history of events, but based on what you report, it appears to me to be a true and more accurate characterization of the current relationship between the concepts.  Since you discovered this prior method, you are no longer proposing a new method: instead, you are applying a slight variation on an existing method, as adapted to your circumstances, and should report that fact accordingly.


Make changes to (my own) already published IEEE paper? The initial copy of IEEE paper that I had submitted required some changes which the conference convenor requested after reviewing.

So I made the changes and submitted again but the convenor accidently must have forwarded the original submission to IEEE and it got published. So how can get make necessary changes (to a published) IEEE paper. Please help!

You can have the journal publish an erratum, if the changes are limited and bear on statements of fact. For example, if you inverted the array indices in proof 3, or a typo in lemma 2 changes its meaning, or you quoted from another paper and forgot the citation. The journal's web site will show a link to the update.

Otherwise, the published version is the version of record, and wholesale changes wouldn't normally be acceptable for two reasons. First, the journal would have to ask the reviewers (in this case, ad hoc reviewers for a conference with which the journal is not associated) to re-evaluate the manuscript. Second, other scientists may have already based work on the published version in good faith.

(An analogy, if you are a user of the git version control system, is forcing a push to a public repository. Don't be that person.)

If you can substantially improve the original by these changes, then it is worthwhile to make an updated version available through ArXiv or on an institutional archive. At least it will be indexed and will show up in searches. It is common to see this kind of update in CVs and publication lists.

If the changes are only cosmetic, or bear on things like citing existing work or improving figures, then my suggestion is to stick with the old version. Everybody has papers that they would have liked to improve, but couldn't. Save your energy for the next paper!


How to approach a Book Review Editor I would like to build up my publication profile, including the writing of book reviews. I am not well-known by any means having just completed my PhD, though I am now working full time (contract) as a level A academic in research and teaching in my field.

I wanted to know whether it would be beneficial to approach the book reviews editor of a journal to see if they have any books in my field/subject expertise that require reviewing, and the best way to go about this.

This question/response here advises not to approach editors; however, in a publications workshop I took in 2013, I was advised that I should approach editors who often have a stack of books that need reviewing.

Yes, it's entirely appropriate to volunteer to serve as a reviewer.  In doing so, you should be clear about your current background and current position (e.g. that you have a PhD and are working as a postdoc) and your specific areas of expertise.  The worst that might happen is that you'll get no response or be told that they want more experienced reviewers.

Book review columns vary tremendously in the number of books that get reviewed and the depth and quality of the reviews.  In some cases the reviews are brief (less than 200 words) and descriptive, while in other cases the reviews are longer and include more of an evaluation of the work. Some book review columns solicit in depth reviews from experts in the field, while other columns (particularly ones that review a wide variety of books including textbooks) may use reviewers who aren't necessarily experts on the topic.

In my opinion, it's best to try to limit yourself to reviewing books in areas where you really are an expert- I've been asked to stretch further than I'm comfortable with in a few cases, and I didn't like the results.


What constitutes a proper scientific result in Computer Science? I work at a university at an Information Technology department. My colleagues claim we are 'computer scientists'. However, from what I observed, most of our work is pure implementation and often follows the Engineering Method, not the Scientific Method (see this page). What is the proper scientific output for research on a real life problem (how to transform a data model encoded in XML Schema into a useful web form for entering/editing data) that involves implementation of a new software (a new data model annotation language and a web form generator software)? Is the resulting software a scientific or an engineering result? What would constitute a proper scientific result?

Coming from a similar research area myself, I can say that in practice the borders between science and engineering are often not clear-cut in applied computer science.

That being said, usually, the starting point of our  research is indeed a hypothesis, but more of the style it is possible to build a system that does X using Y in order to achieve Z. (and, consequently, this new way is better in some meaningful regards than the traditional way of doing it via X^*). Naturally, the way to falsify such an hypothesis is to set out and do a proof-of-concept, optimally in a realistic setting, and compare it against the traditional way.

Note that the proof-of-concept implementation here is not the scientific output. It is a vehicle for scientific validation. The scientific output is the knowledge that X can indeed be usefully done via Y to achieve Z. Maybe, the proof-of-concept can be improved into an open source tool or product (either by the researchers directly or by partner companies), but this productization is not science anymore - this is pure engineering (we know that it can be done, but now it needs to be done properly, which takes time, effort, and domain knowledge - all things that researchers often don't have in spades).

As such, to answer your question:

  Is the resulting software a scientific or an engineering result?

It is not the scientific result, but it was used to validate the scientific result. It may be considered an engineering result (depending on the quality of the proof-of-concept).

  What would constitute a proper scientific result?

I strongly dislike the term proper in this context, as it implies an ordering of value between science and engineering.


How to obtain citation metrics for a low-profile journal that is not indexed in major journal databases? I am interested in generating citation-metrics for The journal of the British Association for the Study of Religions using Google Scholar or such tools. (The journal is not indexed in almost any selective database, compounding my woes.)

Is there a way of doing this?

Not a full answer, but I just want to point out that you can to some extent retrieve citations from, for instance, Web of Science (WoS) to journals that are not covered by the citation index per se. For instance, by doing a "Cited reference search". There you will find citations to documents, based on the citation information given in reference list of WoS publications, irrespective of whether the "target" publications (the ones receiving the citations) are covered by WoS.

For instance, when searching for "BRIT ASS STUDY RELIG" (a generalization of "The journal of the British Association for the Study of Religions", which seems to be found in WoS) as "Cited work" I find a ten citations in total to the journal.

This is probably not completely what you are after, but might be useful to know.


What is the most effective way to take notes in class? I'm a freshman in college, so I'm pretty new to the lecture style of classes where you do most of the work outside of class, and the professor discusses it and gives more information in class. Well, to start the year I took notes basically word for word, concept for concept what my professor in any given class was talking about. However, I found later throughout the year that I didn't remember concepts that the professor was conveying because I was so busy writing. What should I do in the future? What has worked well for you all?

I'm a PhD candidate from Caltech and here are my tips:

If it's a Math/Stat class, you should always bring a notebook and a pen to drop down the derivations and you have to review the notes immediately after the class; You should always make sure you are not lost in the middle of this type of classes.
If it's a Bio/Chem or any class focusing on stories and concepts, you should always print out the powerpoints in advance and bring a laptop. So that you can highlight on the hardcopy and type fast on the text editor. The text editor on your laptop is very efficient when the lecturer refuses to hand out the notes. I'm still using my small netbook to take notes during seminars.
If it's a CS class focusing on the codes/syntax, you should bring your laptop and have all the tools installed before the class. You should always type in the commands as the lecturer does and save all the commands together with comments which include your own notes. Those are very precious materials to your own benefit.
Learn to use the short forms of words when typing:
with as w/
without as w/o
experiment as exp.
statistically significant as stat. sig.
Practice the ability to type without looking at the keyboard.
Always have a good sleep.

Hope these help you


Should I apply to grad school as an international or as a domestic student? (Canada, Engineering) I'm interested in going to grad school in Canada. I'm a foreigner but I can relatively easily obtain my PR as I satisfy all requirements.

Admission-wise, would applying to grad school as an international student give me any leverage? Considering that the tuition fees would be far higher and Canadian universities are run with a business mindset.

I did my undergrad in Canada but my GPA is far from stellar (well below 3.0). I'm trying everything to improve my chances of admission.

In most English-speaking countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand), "domestic student" means "citizen or permanent resident of the country" - regardless of where you graduated.

Please notice this definition may be different in other countries (for example, in Germany, grad school applications by anyone who completed their undergrad in Germany are considered "domestic" for all purposes - barring, in some cases, tuition fees...).


What should I do if a professor is not writing the recommendation letter whom I already suggested? I have applied for a Ph.D. position and I had to suggest two referees who will write a letter for me. Previously one of my professors had written one for me so I write her name again. The system is you need to meet her in person and then she will write one in front of you and send it to the university.
After applying I came to know she had taken sick leave for the whole week and she asked me to meet next week. But the last day of letter submission is this week (Friday). I had written her mail about my problem and urgency but she did not reply. In this case, what can I do? I had some other referees too but she is a big shot that's why I put her name in the submission form.
Should I write the Ph.D. coordinator regarding this?

Update: I wrote the program coordinator and she replied that one recommendation letter is enough to make a decision.

Use a different referee, time is now not on your side and she did not plan to be sick.

If she is not capable of replying to emails she might be very sick so have some respect.

You might consider sending her reference late with a note of explanation but I suggest you send the initial application fully complete. Many times the first stage of the sorting process is « is it complete » and only those that are get to the next round.


Discussion turned into argument with the conference keynote speaker, would it be appropriate to email an apology? I had a chance to visit as an audience to an international conference in computer science. As usual, there were few keynotes before the scheduled paper presentation is carried out for the day.

During the presentation of one keynote speech, where the speaker (quite renowned in the field) made a very strong argument that the equation/method that he is using will solve a lot of problems. However, I could point that there was a mistake in the method (rather the equation) itself. The method did not obey the basic laws to solve any possible problems.

The discussion with the Professor continued for a while and he never agreed to what I was saying and I also never accepted those not-so-possible facts. This whole thing converted into an argument.

I understand that it happens during such process because of adrenaline rush. Now, after few days of wondering about it, I am thinking that I made a mistake. I am feeling bad. Could it hamper my future/present career prospectives? I am presently in my PhD research. I want to mail to the professor and say sorry for the incident. Not sure.

Academia is one of a few areas where it is still OK to have a discussion and even an argument. In fact, some research groups are involved in long-standing discussion / heated competition / argument. Academic discussion is considered a way to improve our joint understanding of the world and to further the scientific progress and knowledge.

However, as in any game, there are some rules to understand and follow.

It is OK to disagree with someone's argument, but you should listen and do your best to understand it first. If you don't understand something, ask politely. If you still don't understand, ask someone for a third opinion. If necessary, allow yourself time to think before you continue the discussion.
It is very important to be polite and not to become personal.
Seniority per se does not matter so much: professors do make mistakes sometimes, and they know it. However, it is important to remember that most of professors are called professors for a good reason, and they are indeed experts in their field. Their words are not always infallible, but usually quite well thought through. It is OK to ask a professor to explain his/her statement, but it is good to show that you generally respect and trust them as colleagues and experts.

As long as you followed these rules, I think you are fine and there should be no hard feelings. Otherwise, it could be a good idea to write back with a sort of apology. Professors are people first, and as all people, they have feelings, which should be respected. So if you fill you hurt their personal feelings, an apology would be nice.


What to do if a university is pushing for a response before making a formal offer for a tenure-track position? I have interviewed for a tenure-track position. I got a call (followed by an email) saying that they would like to offer me this position and I am their top candidate.

This being said, in the negotiations that followed for a few days after, the department showed no desire in increasing the salary or startup package (which are already pretty low compared to other institutions). This is even after I told them that I have two other offers pending.

I have not seen the formal letter yet, and they are pushing me for a response only a few days after they offered the position on the phone.

I feel like they are low-balling me and being very aggressive. What actions should I take?

BTW, I asked for an extension and they gave me less than a week.

"I would like to see a formal written offer before we move forward."

Any department that's unwilling to do that is sending up huge, brightly colored red flags. With fancy gold tassels. And embroidery that reads "DANGER".


How much political influence is involved in the academia in Germany? I heard that German national politics influences the appointment of tenured positions in their universities.

E.g. if some party is in power, they would like to see somebody loyal to them as the head of a faculty or even the rector of the university. Also, if someone is loyal to the party in power, his PhD students have better chance of getting into the university and obtain tenure.

I also heard that, even getting a "Habilitation" requires a lot of political backing.

To what extent is it true?

The answer is a definite no, none at all. Each open professorship is filled by a committee consisting of students, employees and other professors at the hiring institution.¹ There is no political appointee in those committees, so there is no way for national politics to influence those. There is of course a lot of internal bickering between the professors involved (which is what most people mean if they talk about politics in an university), but nothing to do with any political parties.

Appointments of higher positions such as the rector are a bit more involved and the details may vary a bit more between different universities, but the principle is the same. Normally the decision there is made by the senate (of the university), which in turn was elected by students and employees.

In general, there is a reason for all of this, which is the German constitution, which, in order to prevent history from repeating, in article 5, paragraph 3 specifically states that "science and teaching is free", meaning free of political influence.² This includes all specific appointments. So while some politicians might try to wield some influence, any attempt to actively get a specific candidate appointed for political reasons will be met with strong backlash and a successful challenge in court.

There is one famous exception, which is theology, where an appointment can be blocked by the corresponding church. There was a scandal last year, when a bishop seemingly tried to force his preferred candidate this way, but again this has nothing to do with national politics.

¹Technically they just decide on a list of three people, which then is given to the university administration and in some places to the ministry, but if they cannot state a compelling reason to do otherwise, those then have to take the first person in the list. Except in those rare cases the second and third choice are basically spares, in case the first declines.

²Specifically, this is one of the few unchangeable articles that not even parliament is allowed to abolish. They aren't taking any chances this time.


Paper with multiple authors If I have a question about a paper which has multiple authors, who should I email? The professor whose lab the paper came out of maybe? The first author named on the paper?

If I understand it correctly, you're a reader of the paper and want to contact the author(s)?

In most journals, one author is marked the corresponding author (and their email address is provided more prominently. It's a good first port of call, and the right thing to do on recent papers.
Otherwise, depending on the field, the first author is likely to be the principal author and most able to speak to the entire article.
If the paper is very old of course, you might have to do some research of your own to find out who is still active and which email address is still valid. In this case, if you can't find the first author's (who may have been a junior researcher and moved on) it might be ok to inquire with the lab director.
If you have all email addresses, you might want to send it to all three. Three is not that many addressees. Five or more would be different - you don't want to send a mass mail.

Also, the content of your letter would be slightly different based on which option you choose. You didn't tell us why you want to email them. (If it is to get a copy, first author is probably the one who is maintaining a personal file.)


How to save my academic career after ending up in a deeply problematic lab for PhD? I graduated with an excellent master's degree from one of the western European countries. I thought it would be good for my career development to do a PhD in another university but unfortunately I now find myself in a lot of trouble. The lab I am working at has several issues and there are many deeply unethical things going on. I am pretty confident that if I leave the lab without completing a degree, the professors will try to hamper my applications to other places.

Is there anything I can do? Obviously I am no longer a good applicant but someone who (at least seemingly) "failed" first. I wish this was my fault but it is not.

To make the question clear, I am contemplating on leaving due to ethics issues, general unfairness, and repeated mistreatment of employees (not just me).

Deciding to leave one university for another is in my belief, beyond the scope of asking strangers on the internet. However one thing stood out.

  The lab I am working at has several issues and there are many deeply unethical things going on.

If things are as egregious as you claim, you are beyond, "should I leave" territory and cross into "what are my country's whistle-blower laws"? Is your lab injecting subjects with unknown substances or diseases without their knowledge? Is it stealing or utilizing funds in an unscrupulous manner such as buying personal items?

If things aren't as serious as claimed, I don't see why you couldn't have a sit-down meeting with your researchers and inform them of your dissatisfaction and hope things turn around. If it comes to applying to another program, you can always inform your potential institution of the shortcoming of your current situation.


What if your advisor excludes you from lunch with students during conference? I am attending conference with advisor and the other student from our research group.
I saw my advisor and the other student went to lunch together. They didn't offer me to go together. There were also the her (other student) husband, the graduated student from our group, his (graduated) wife. People going lunch together are all chineses, and they know each other very well. I am an international student from another country). Does it mean that advisor want to avoid me? Does he hate me? Can I proceed my ph.d. In this group?

Does he behave similarly in your University? Do you find anything else in his behavior which hurt you often e.g., he doesn't talk to you much, he doesn't pay much attention to you, he doesn't care about your research etc etc..? How about other group members? Do they behave in a same manner?

If all these yes, then he might be avoiding you. If no, then did you have refused to have Chinese food before? If this is the case, then he might be thinking that you may not like Chinese food, because you had refused before to have Chinese food or there may be some other silly reason. So you should not think much.

  Does it mean that advisor want to avoid me? Does he hate me?

Just knowing from this incident it is not possible to say anything. As I mentioned, if similar kind of things happens in your university also, then you may be true to some extent.

  Can I proceed my ph.d. In this group?

Do you really feel very uncomfortable to continue your PhD in this group? How many years you already completed? If it is just a begin and you have other option, then you can think of alternative.


Career in applied mathematics after MS in abstract mathematics? For someone who is more interested in applied mathematics than abstract, which degree should one pursue in order to have a career in applied mathematics, considering he/she has pursued an MS in abstract mathematics?
Is it advisable, considering that the person does not know much of the basics of applied mathematics?

If you already have a Master's degree in mathematics, you should be capable of learning additional mathematics topics yourself. If you are interested in a particular field in which mathematics is applied, you can always spend some time becoming acquainted with that field and the mathematics involved. The Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (http://www.siam.org/) is one  resource to get an idea of what's out there. You might look for a smallish project to test the water and pick up some experience in mathematical modeling and, if relevant, computational mathematics. Years ago as a student, I did a summer project on modeling measles epidemics using difference equations. It was a valuable experience and taught me more than merely reading about mathematical modeling in a book or on a website.

You may also wish to bear in mind that seemingly pure mathematics can often end up being very applicable, so you may be able to have the best of both worlds. For instance, Bernd Sturmfels has used algebraic geometry in statistics and computational biology and Robert Ghrist has applied algebraic topology to signal processing and sensor networks.


Is ABET accreditation important for a bachelors degree in software engineering? Would getting a non ABET accredited degree in Software Engineering put a person at a considerable disadvantage when it comes to employment, or applying for graduate school?  I ask because I was accepted into San Jose State Universities Software engineering program and have learned that it's not ABET accredited.

My experience is that ABET accreditation is generally not very important, in the fields of software engineering and software development.

If the University program is well-regarded by employers, ABET accreditation is not important; their positive impressions will outweigh any accreditation.  If the University program is poorly-regarded, ABET accreditation is not going to make up for their poor impressions.  If the University program is unknown to employers, they will probably look at other measures first (like past projects you've done, your performance on a phone interview, etc.) before they care about ABET accreditation.

What is important is the quality of the undergraduate program.  Since you are choosing among multiple universities, you should be looking carefully at the quality of their programs.  While it's true that ABET accreditation is potentially a signal or indicator of quality, I don't think it's a very good measure of quality.  (I know of some extremely high-quality computer science programs that are not ABET-accredited.)  Instead, to decide where to study, I'd be looking closely at the programs, to assess their quality in as many ways as possible.


Writing a commentary about a paper from a collaborator -- is it research misconduct? I want to write a commentary (for a journal) about a paper a collaborator has published.
Is there a conflict of interest? Is it research misconduct if I write the commentary?

If you want to be "safe" just reveal the relationship. Then people can better judge whether what you have to say is just fluffing (if it is too positive) or grumpiness/sabotage (if it is too negative) or that it is a fair assessment of the other work as it should be.

For an explicit answer to the topline question, however, motive matters. It is possibly misconduct either to try to "catapult" the work of a collaborator or to sabotage it. Writing a fair analysis isn't misconduct.

Following up on a comment, if the editor thinks that writing such commentaries is a clear conflict, then you shouldn't bother to submit it. In such a case, publishing it without disclosing the relationship would be misconduct, not because of the writing of the commentary, but from the deceit of withholding information from the editor.


How to proceed when reviewers reject your manuscript but you believe there is no scientific basis for their objections? I am doing my PhD on a small field in engineering where even if the review process is double blinded you would know who is going to review your paper.

This incident that I am going to mention is very odd and this is the first time that happened to me since I switched my research area. I am currently struggling to get my work accepted in a conference knowing that I have already 10 papers published among them 2 journals and most of them I wrote them when I was doing my master (I am mentioning this to let you know that I have already a little experience with the review process)

There are two groups in our field who are doing the same work that we are doing but they are applying an existing approach naively whereas we came up with a big novelty.

So they rejected our paper twice: once for conference submission and another time when we submitted an extension of the same work to transactions since it got rejected for the conference so we thought that we could argue with the reviewers in a journal but it didn't even go through the pre-screening process and these reviewers gave same arguments.

"First reviewer reason from the first group: Your method is very effective and definitely you have tested your model with the training data"

"The other reviewer reason from the second group is pretty much the same: Your model is over-fitting or you are using the training data to test your model"

However we explicitly stated in our manuscript that we use a testing data that was collected separately and was not used for training the model.

On top of that they mentioned also things that prove they did not even bother to read the manuscript for instance one of them said that we should run an experiment that we have already included it in the paper with a big figure.

My advisor has emailed the Editor-in-Chief of the journal but as we have expected he didn't even read his email and he replied with one sentence mentioning that we can consider re-submitting the manuscript.

So I am wondering are there other means and ways to win such a battle when the scientific field which is supposed to be decent and fair turns to be unfair.

EDIT:

I forgot to mention that as opposed to the review policy which clearly states that reviewers are supposed to not know each others or read other reviewer's comments, one of them discussed the comments of another reviewer and he clearly referred to them in his comments.

You can complain to the editor, but you should not expect too much from it. Remember that reviewers work for free, so unless there are a lot of complaints about one reviewer, the editor will not take action because the reviewer would just stop reviewing for this journal. Moreover the editor, who quite often is  also working for free, may not take your complaints seriously, or judge that your case is not important enough for him to invest some hours of work - remember that he has to read your article to judge your case.

So the easiest thing to do is to submit your paper somewhere else, there are plenty of possibilities. However, if it is rejected again, and you didn't aim at the best journals, you should think really hard about trying again. There are many articles that should not have been written.


Where to find latest videos of colloquia or other talks in your field? I am wondering how I can find and keep updated of the latest colloquia and talks videos. I imagine that schools may take videos of talks they hosted and upload them somewhere. Of course not every school/department does this, and this depends on the field that one is interested in. But if I know where they are, I can check for updates manually, or set up some sort of feed/automated notification with keyword filtering.

To be more clear I am not looking for videos of online classes (e.g., http://coursera.org), but talks about the latest work in one's field.

The only ones that I found are Stanford and UC Irvine, but I suspect there must be more out there that are not on youtube.

Mathematics

From my experience not very many schools record talks as a matter of policy. But the special institutes often do.

MSRI has videos available for workshops dating back to at least 2004.
Fields Institute also has a large collection.
Newton Institute records almost all of its seminars and colloquiums.
IHP has a Youtube Channel, and if you follow them on Google+ you get updates (sometimes even hourly) on new videos.
Clay records their research conferences.
Simons Center for Geometry and Physics no longer maintains a central list of videos. But if you visit the individual workshop pages the videos are made available very soon after the talks.
QGM (Centre for Quantum Geometry of Moduli Spaces) records their conferences and master classes.
Banff International Research Station (BIRS) makes conference/workshop videos available.