Disagreeing politely Suppose I disagree with the methods and/or conclusions of a paper published in a scientific journal, and I produce some new results that refute the claims in this paper. What would be the best way to publish my contradictory results in a way that challenges the original paper, but also shows respect for the authors of the previous paper? Should I explicitly mention the positive merits of that paper before explaining why I think that the conclusions are wrong? Or would it be implicitly assumed that I disagree only with the previous paper's scientific conclusions, and I have no negative feelings towards its author(s)?

I would like to ask a counter question; what it the main motivation in you wanting to publish your contradicting results and your disagreement with the authors of that one paper?

I think the main motivation of a publication should be to add something to the literature, not the discuss results back and forth. That's what conferences are for.

Without knowing the specifics of your particular case at hand I see the following possibilities:

Experiment presented is not the best way to test the hypothesis

If your reasons for refuting the article originates from the approach presented in the paper, then you are merely proposing an alternative approach to  solve the same problem.

That's the easiest scenario, in my humble opinion, since you can easily refer to Smith et al. and say that your approach is superior/more accurate compared to theirs because X,Y,Z. That would essentially be a standard "original research" paper.

Incorrect results

if you have tried to replicate the experiment by Smith et al. and cannot come up with the same results, then you can adopt the following steps in that order:

Redoing your experiment, once more, retracing your steps to make sure you have done exactly as explained by the authors.
Contacting the authors to tell them that you cannot replicate their results and whether or not there might be a key step that you might have overlooked. This is a sign of good faith for your fellow researchers.
In the case where despite all your efforts there is something just not right, you can try contacting the editor with evidence on contradicting results, which may lead to a correspondence type paper. This approach might come across as a more or less accusatory approach however.

Misleading conclusions of results

If you think the specifics of the experiment (or equivalent) are solid but the conclusions drawn and presented are misleading, you can write an opinion piece, or a commentary and send it to the editor.

Be sure that the discussion (i.e. whose conclusions is more accurate) is actually relevant to the general audience in that field. Otherwise it's just scientific banter which can be carried out by email.


Good at coursework and learning background material, but attempts at original research go downhill. How to overcome psychological block? Okay, so I am a math student currently on leave from a graduate program in math and computer science.

I have always been good at coursework. I ace examinations and manage good grades. I can understand and explain concepts well. All my professors have liked me because of all this.

But somehow it feels like I have tricked my way up. Everything goes wrong as soon as I take up a project or open problem or any kind of research. I start out beautifully- read and understand all necessary background instantly, get up to date on current results, impress my guides with my clear understanding. But things go down fast after that. I lose motivation, I get lost in digressions and extensive learning. Or I just slack and avoid the project altogether and somehow try to make a dignified exit.

This has happened too many times now. Each time I thought it'll all come together the next time. But nothing has changed. I have tomes and tomes of notes and expository material on all topics remotely related to my research areas. But I don't have a single original piece of research. It got so distressing that I was diagnosed with depression, OCD, etc. and subjected to medication and therapy. But somehow the problem seems beyond all that.

I really want to do research and solve problems. Even an insignificant, but original, result might greatly elevate my confidence.
Are there others who have been through this? Is this just a difficult phase some people go through?
Or am I just an idiot who's reaching beyond his level?

It is hard to give a good answer here, but it seems to me that you, despite being a good student, haven't learned to do research yet.

When you describe what you are good at, you describe all the things you need to be a good student. These things are all necessary to be good at research, but alas, they are not sufficient. To do research, you need to shift to a different gear.

For example: Do not read a paper thinking "How does this work?" but more "What does that mean? What can I do with it? What could be done differently?". Learn to read articles and books through different lenses, e.g. with a lens that focuses on broad understanding of concepts, a lens that focuses on fine details, a lens that focuses on open problems or possible improvements,…

Also, find a problem to work on, not a topic to learn. Ask some supervisor to provide a problem to work on at the beginning, but note that later on you should come up with interesting problems on your own.


Is it normal that journals strongly suggest a professional English editing service? It is quite common for me to receive emails from the editors of a journal asking me, before or after the referees have given their approval, to review and improve my English. Then, the editor suggests a professional English editing service for this purpose.
My question is: Is this common practice, independently on the quality of the English of the manuscript (as an attempt to sell a service), or is it only for the cases where the English really needs improvement?
Here is an example of such an email where the reviewers had no further comments and recommend acceptance, but the editor asks for an English review:

The reviewers judge the technical content of your revised manuscript satisfactory. The English, however, is awkward, and needs improvement. Reviewer comments are included below and/or are attached.
The language quality must be improved. We advise that you seek assistance from a colleague or have a professional editing service correct the language in your manuscript, which can then be resubmitted to us.
AIP and the JAP recommend Edanz for authors who wish to have the language in their manuscript edited by a native-English speaking language editor who is also a scientific expert. Edanz is a global editing service with offices in Japan and China. Use of an editing service is neither a requirement nor a guarantee of acceptance for publication. Please contact Edanz (http://www.edanzediting.com/aip) directly to make arrangements for editing and to receive a quotation regarding price and time.
Please edit the ENTIRE paper.
Please indicate how the manuscript has been revised. Either include a list of changes that addresses each point indicating how the manuscript has been revised as a separate document titled, Response Letter or submit a copy of the manuscript with the exact locations of the revisions titled, Marked Manuscript. That will enable the editors to see whether you have complied with the reviewer comments.

In one journal where I am familiar with the editorial workflow, the review form explicitly asks reviewers to rate the language quality of the manuscript. Based on this rating, the editor can tick an item similar to "Needs language revisions" when putting together the decision letter. The decision letter will then contain a paragraph that advises the authors to do a language revision. I am not sure at the moment whether a particular service is being recommended there.

The point is that such a recommendation can get into the letter easily, but will not be included by default. Probably the editor only wrote the first two or three sentences of the letter, maybe without thinking carefully about the exact formulation, and the rest is based on a customizable template. Nevertheless, it usually means that at least one reviewer was criticizing language usage, maybe even without giving specific comments on it. I would advise you to at least double-check on language usage, and if possible have it proof-read by someone else with very good English skills or a native speaker.

However, as long as the reviewers can understand the technical content well, these points are usually not decisive for the acceptance of the manuscript. Especially, as long as any language problems are corrected, I can't imagine that the editor will care whether you use the suggested language service or not.


After what period of time does a PhD position count towards the two possible attempts in Germany? I am not sure if this holds true everywhere, but here in Germany you only get two attemps at getting your PhD. I am currently wondering at which point it counts towards those two attempts. If I were to start a position and quit during the first few weeks, would it still count?

I don't think this is quite true in Germany either - or at least not in the generality that I read into your question.

Here is example 1 (Promotionsordnung (PhD bylaws) for psychology and sport, Muenster), and another randomly selected example 2 (Promotionsordnung math, Bonn).  Both stipulate much more restrictive conditions that relate to your question. They somewhat overlap, but not completely - so there is also no uniform answer for Germany. Simply stepping away from a PhD early on would not be a problem in either case. The restrictions on the number of attempts to be successfully awarded a PhD are as follows:

Example 1: you get one and one only attempt to resubmit a declined thesis, and to re-take the oral defense each

Example 2: no restrictions are mentioned on the number of failed thesis attempts. You get one attempt to re-take a failed defense

In particular given that even these two sources don't agree, you just need to pull your program's Promotionsordnung, and confirm which rules apply to you.


How much can/should quotes from student evaluations be edited when preparing a teaching statement? I'm writing a teaching statement and want to include quotes from student evaluations. How much can/should I edit these (for grammar)?

In general, quotes should always be edited as little as possible.

The only changes you should make are:

Truncations to remove sections of quotes that aren't relevant for your purposes.
Edits to fit the grammatical structure of the existing sentence.
Correcting small errors in the original text.

However, any changes to the quotation must be clearly indicated. Truncations should be marked with an ellipsis (" . . . "), while all other changes should be indicated using square brackets.


What can a person who hasn't enough time do about the unpredictable nature of the publication process? I'm talking about a narrow sub-field of Computer Science - algorithm execution high-level simulations. However, I guess, this applies to many fields to some extent.

When you are submitting an article to a journal (peer-reviewed, indexed, with a track, not from a ranking bottom), you can't send the same article to other publishers. After submitting, editors often do not update anything in Elsevier's or Springer's systems about the status of your submission. The first move from the editorial board usually takes 2-8 weeks. 2-8 at best, if you sending them emails to track this, at worst they can just lose your paper and/or ignore emails. Usually, the next stop is a desk rejection (the shortest and the way causing least headache, just isn't leading to the goal) or sending it to the reviewers. The reviewing process in this narrow research area takes 3-12 months. A reviewer may say something not really relevant and short (or something you can use to improve your text, but this doesn't matter in this case) after a year and the article gets rejected. This can take longer if you aren't keeping an eye on it.

Then you have to repeat the process. This is not a short story process either, reformatting the article, pictures, editing (for the next journal's unique rules while you still remember that they can just ignore it or responding once a month to emails) etc. You can't speed this up, you can't even predict the time it will take. Seems like a kind of strangely convoluted hell just for presenting your results in some peer-reviewed (not high tier) journal if you're outside academia.

Disclaimer: the author is outside academia currently, but he has publications, teaching and research experience. 3-month tool development and output analysis results sometimes need 1-2 years to be published (just accepted, to be more specific). Maybe, the situation isn't as rough inside academia, but for one has no proper business relations, and paying all fees as an author and without an ability to focus on this process because it isn't one's main activity - it is.

Any advice?

Since you are in CS, the solution is easy: Submit your results to a conference first (at least as an extended abstract, if the full paper is too long for the conference). For conferences, there are fixed deadlines for the review process, so you are guaranteed to get a decision within two or three months (even though it need not be the desired decision). After the first version has appeared in some conference proceedings, you can still submit an extended version to some journal. Then: be patient. There is no guaranteed way to speed up the reviewing process. Live with it.


Should one disclose "red flags" when contacting a potential supervisor? If one has a "red flag" in their history (in terms of non-academic issues), is it best to disclose it to a potential supervisor? This can apply to any type of situation (a conflict with a faculty member, another student, a mental health issue that affected one's behavior etc.) Obviously, one wouldn't want to disclose something minor when the supervisor/university probably wouldn't hear about it anyway; I'm referring to situations that reach administration and that might be mentioned in a "letter of recommendation" (or when there might not be any letters from one's dept. etc.)?

I would treat this like dating.  You'll need to be honest and disclose red flags before you get engaged/married.  But it doesn't need to come out on the first date. The reason is that so many other things might happen that would make disclosing the red flag totally unnecessary.
For example, you write a professor expressing interest in working with him/her, and he/she writes back "sorry I'm going on sabbatical next year and not taking new students", or "sorry my lab is full right now I don't have room for new students".  In those cases, disclosing a red flag is pointless.  He/she isn't going to work with you anyway, so why bring it up?
Or maybe, he/she writes back "yes I would love to work with you, I have an immediate opening for <extremely boring project>".  In that case, you don't want to work on that boring project, so why bring anything else up?
Now if you've exchanged a few e-mails, or a phone call, and it looks like there is some mutual interest, you are interested in his/her projects, and he/she is interested in you, but before you have formally accepted the position, that's when you should probably say, "before we go any further, I wanted to be honest with you and let you know about <potential red flag>."


Unrealistic demands for minor revisions I just got a paper back from review, with a comment from the editor:

  "As the suggestions are primarily editorial I deem the revisions required to be minor."

I have been given one week to revise the manuscript and write a response to both reviewers, but unfortunately both reviewers suggest me to do quite some extra work: additional analysis of data, additional numerical experiments, ....

As the editor describes the reviewers suggestions as "editorial", and I have been given only a week to revise the manuscript, I don't think that the editor expects me to do all that extra work (which would be impossible), but how do you deal with this in the response to the reviewers? Is it acceptable to basically say "interesting idea, impossible to do within a week"?

My guess is that the editor didn't read the reports carefully and didn't notice that the reviewers suggested significant extra work.

Contact the editor and point this out, and give an estimate of how much time you will need for revisions.  (Try to be conservative in this estimate so you don't put yourself in an unnecessary crunch.)

It's up to you to decide whether to actually do some or all of the extra work requested.  For anything you don't do, write a response explaining why you don't believe the extra work is warranted. (You might want to consult with colleagues to get another opinion.) The editor and reviewers will reconsider the paper and decide if it is acceptable with the changes you made.


What does it take to get a worthwhile recommendation letter I am now looking for people to write recommendation letters for me so as to prepare for graduate school application by the end of this year. I found I still need one more person(I want to have 3 letters, as is required by almost all US graduate schools), but I don't know what does it take to get a recommendation letter that is worthwhile? I mean, is it OK to ask a professor write a recommendation letter for you only based on your behavior in his/her class? or you must do research with a professor for some time so that the letter can contain something really meaningful? (The problem I have with the second choice is that I am already participating research with a professor, and I guess it is not a good idea to distract myself to another professor's field at this time.)

I mean, is it OK to ask a professor write a recommendation letter for you only based on your behavior in his/her class?

This is fine for one letter, especially if you did really well in their class, went to office hours, got to know them, etc. As you say, your main letters should come from research advisors or people who know you better than just one class.


Should a student mention about contacting a faculty in a SOP even if the faculty has not replied yet? In most cases it is advisable to contact faculty while applying to the graduate school. But not all professors reply to the emails and in most cases none of them reply to emails, so is it advisable to mention in the statement of purpose (SOP) that a faculty member was contacted even though no reply came from their side ?

I would recommend against mentioning e-mail contact with faculty unless you've had a substantive interaction, one that leads you to believe they would remember you and support your application.  In particular, you don't want someone on the admissions committee to mention to a colleague "So, I hear applicant X has been in touch with you; what was your impression?" and receive the reply "I have no idea who that is."

If there has been no reply to your e-mail, you could still indicate interest in your statement of purpose ("Based on my interests in X and Y, I envision Professors A and B as possible advisors.").  This would help classify the application and indicate who should look at it, without setting up the expectation that they will already know who you are.


How do instructors grade a one-person project when everyone else in the class worked in pairs? I shall note up front, I am myself a student looking for insight from any lecturers or professors who have had a class with this situation and what I might expect in my case.

I am on a "Computer Engineering" integrated masters degree for which much of the assessment is done via assessed projects and coursework. Most of these projects are undertaken in groups of two where students are expected to share out work and each create a logbook also which documents their progress and individual contributions.

In a particular unit my class has an odd number of students, which after being split into pairs (using a random process) left me as the "odd one out". I discussed this briefly with the unit lecturer who felt that it would be inappropriate to create a group of three as there would then not be sufficient work for each student to demonstrate mastery over the subject.

I agreed that I would attempt the project on my own (admittedly there were not any other obvious options). Fortunately I have significant prior experience in the subject area and have therefore been able to keep up with the workload despite working alone. However I cannot help but feel that I would be able to accomplish a more polished and complete piece of work if I were not working alone.

I am therefore concerned that my work may not reflect what I would otherwise have been able to accomplish in terms of feature richness and polish and fear that this could negatively affect my grade in the unit. Note that I have completed all the basic requirements of the project fully but feel that the lightened workload from having a partner would have allowed me to explore and research in greater depth as well as complete a range of interesting optional features which would have been credit-worthy.

Firstly, what should I expect in terms or grading? Should I expect that they will grade my work exactly as they would that of a normal team of two, or are they likely to take into account the situation?

Secondly, should I try and talk to my lecturer and see if there is some way I can express my mastery of the more advanced areas without having the time to implement them in the project? or is this likely to come across merely as begging for lenient marking? If I were to have such a talk is there anything specific I could say to clearly express my concerns as I have stated here?

My institution does not appear to have any specific policy regarding uneven group sizes such as this case and as it has not happened before (as least in my classes) so the lecturer has not made any statements of how they will treat this situation.

TL;DR:

I am the last odd numbered student in a class for a pair project and am therefore working alone. What can I expect regarding grading and are there any actions I can take to express my mastery of the topic area to my lecturer without enough time to implement all the features in my project to prove this?

First, I'm surprised the instructor didn't ask for a volunteer to work alone. In a reasonably-sized class with pair projects, there's almost always at least one student who would rather not work in groups or pairs.  It seems a lot of this angst might have been avoided had the professor simply polled for a volunteer. Is it too late to ask for groups to be rearranged? He could ask for a volunteer, and you could be paired up with that person's previous partner.

(Then again, maybe those students who would rather work alone are the very students who need group experience the most – and maybe that's why your professor opted to do this at random.)

Getting to the crux of your question, though, I would first study the assignment carefully and imagine how things might be different if you were working in a team of two. Would you be able to divide up the work? Brainstorm ideas? Once you have something concrete in mind, I'd reengage with the professor and ask for more clarification about how you will be graded.

In other words, if you simply say, "Will I be graded more leniently?" that might be regarded as premature grade grubbing. However, if you say something more specific, like:

  I noticed this project has a lot of work, and I think I might be at a disadvantage working alone instead of in a team. For example, if I had a partner, we might divide this up, so that he was working on the interface while I was writing the guts of the program. If I have trouble getting this assignment completed on-time, will you take into account the fact that I had to work alone?

then I think you'll get your professor to think objectively about your disadvantage and answer accordingly.

It's generally best to be up-front about potential hardships that might affect the quality of your work, and to do so early. Otherwise, you risk coming across as a whining procrastinator. However, your question is reasonable, and I think it's best to get an answer sooner rather than later.


Is a PhD right for you if you hate doing research in your free time but love doing it as a job? Say for example you are a new PhD student and realize that you hate doing research in your free time but you are more than willing to spend several hours in the morning to do research. Was your decision to become a PhD student right for you or not?

I'm asking because people are suggesting that "you have to be really passionate and curious about everything all the time"

what if you want to be curious during your work and just relax and have fun doing unrelated things when you have some free time in your hands?

I guess this indicates that you aren't really passionate, but what's the threshold for "being passionate enough for a PhD"?

These thoughts have really made me somewhat confused over my decision of going for a PhD. It's been a few weeks that I'm into this program and after reading a lot of stuff online addressing the question whether the PhD is right for you or not, I'm already starting to question my decision.

The other answers already explain that no, you shouldn't be doing research all the time, with no time for breaks, relaxation and other interests. All this is quite correct.

However, I am a bit unsure whether the stark dichotomy "all research all the time" versus "a few hours in the morning" is really helpful here. Maybe an answer to the following question is more helpful:

Is doing a Ph.D. right for you if you plan on doing it as a 9-5 job, 40 hours per week?

And there, I would be a bit more careful. Yes, there are people who can do a Ph.D. like a "normal job", at their desk at 9am sharp and dropping their pencils at 5pm. It is possible. However, my personal impression is that these people will avoid the typical Ph.D. burnout, but they will likely not be top performers. So my answer to the modified question above is:

You will probably do fine with a 40 hour workweek, if you make sure to stay self-motivated. However, you should think deeply about just why you want to do a Ph.D... because unless you are uncommonly brilliant, you will likely not be productive enough to stay in academia and compete with people who routinely put in 50-60 hours per week. You may want to think about leaving academe with the Ph.D. and going into industry.

Note that I am not saying "40 hour Ph.D. students" are lazy. However, if you can't work up the level of passion and commitment to your topic that makes you want to put in 50-60 hours per week often, then there will likely be someone else, and that someone else will have more publications five or ten years down the road.


How to verify authenticity of submitted assignments When teaching 250 students in the same subject, knowing each student can be quite difficult. In smaller classes, it may be possible to learn enough through classroom interaction that when assessing the assignments it may be easy to tell if it is their work or not. For example, if a student can never form a coherent argument when asked in class, but that same student submits extremely high quality work, the teacher might want to dig a little deeper to see if the student is just better at writing or if they are hiring a ghost writer to produce their reports for them. However, in large classes, there is too little interaction with each student to form a strong opinion of everyone. Those who can 'hide' in class are the least likely to be 'caught.'

I see one option as incorporating an oral exam into the overall mark and using that mark as a basis from which to judge the student's future work. It's not perfect but it's something. One problem is that with 250 students, oral exams end up consuming so much class time that little time remains for lectures.

Running through something like TurnInIt will only catch if they are taking from an existing work but it will clearly not catch ghost writing.

What are the most effective ways of verifying authenticity of student assignments?

I'm going to give you an answer you may not want to hear: it isn't worth it for a class that big.

The pedagogue in me doesn't like my own answer, but as they say, you have to choose your battles, and I believe there are more important issues when teaching a class that large than to worry about catching the homework cheaters. Mitigation can include reducing the impact that homework has on the overall grade (but this leads to other issues, such as students wondering why homework is necessary if it isn't worth much in the final grade).
Another (probably less successful) method is to instill the fear of [insert deity of choice] into your students when it comes to cheating. If you do catch a cheater, make an example of that person that the other students won't forget -- I threaten to fail any cheater instantly if I can prove they cheated in any way, and I say it as matter-of-factly as I can on the first day of class: "Look, if I catch you cheating, I'll fail you, end of story."

If you have a balanced set of assignments that includes in-class exams, then poor performance on exams should produce final grades that indicate that the student hasn't learned the material.

If you can work out the oral exam, that might help balance out any poor knowledge, but beware that some students are absolutely terrified of oral exams, and they might know the knowledge as well as anyone else on paper but not be able to perform out loud.

I suggest not losing sleep over a few cheaters in a class that big, and to ensure that you're giving good assignments that are challenging and provide a good means for learning the material.


Should I use schema.org/CreativeWork to publish my list of talks/papers/publications? What's the best practice on publishing your list of talks/papers/publications on the web?

Is there any benefit with annotating it with http://schema.org/CreativeWork properties?

Are there any samples/examples of any famous people doing just that?

Is there any immediate benefit in having any such markup?

Using machine-readable vocabulary like schema.org is generally a good way to allow people and non-humans to re-use the information you supply on the web. For example, this will make it easier to process your publication data and get a formatted, database-like normalized list out of it.

One might think that search engines use schema.org vocabulary to analyze your website and hence make it better visible on the web. However, what search engines do is somewhat a black box (in the sense that something is happening in there, generating output from user-driven input, but the algorithm inside is not known in detail).

If you would like to reach a better visibility on the web for your publications, you might also like to consider using ORCID which is based on linked-data principles, widely known and used in library and information services - and some research funding institutions are starting to require complete ORCID profiles to be submitted with proposals anyway.


What is the "chalk talk" at job interviews? It was only recently that I heard about the academic "chalk talk" at job interviews (from biologist friends). As I understand, this is a closed-doors talk the applicant must give to the existing faculty. I was shocked that even through I am preparing to apply for faculty positions, I never heard of this practice before.

So my questions are:

What is this "chalk talk", and how common is it at job interviews?
Is it specific to biology, or at to least experimental fields? Almost all the information I can find about it online is focused on biomedical sciences (and the few articles that don't, still assume an experimental field). Perhaps the concept exists in other fields too but people use a different term than "chalk talk" to describe it?
My work is in one of the hard sciences and is purely theoretical. What are the main differences between experimental and theoretical (mathematically oriented) fields in how this chalk talk is given? Since most of the online advice I found concerned biology, I need to decide how much of it is relevant to me.

Update:

Many of the comments (and one answer) show that several people have completely misunderstood my question.  I would like to emphasize once again that the question is about the specific part of faculty position job interviews referred to as "chalk talks".  In the meantime, I found a hint that this concept might be specific to life sciences.  My question is not about lecturing techniques with white- or blackboards, nor about why this part of the interview is called a "chalk talk" (i.e. etymology).

It's about what this part of the interview is about, which fields have this as part of the job interview protocol, and what differences are there between biology and theoretical (math/physics) fields (i.e. what part of advice given by/for biologists should I take or ignore).

Here is an example of a blog post discussing interview chalk talks.

I can't comment on how common this is outside of biomedical sciences (my field), but it's becoming quite common in this field.

In terms of what it is, the "Chalk Talk" is a chance for you to talk about your research (past, current, and future directions) without hiding behind Powerpoint slides.

You'll typically be given up to an hour to do this, in front of the hiring committee and/or faculty. You'll have a whiteboard/blackboard/flip-chart so you can draw down a key figure or two, or write an outline of what you're speaking about. It's less formal than a normal talk at a job interview - if you are asked to do one, expect to be interrupted and questioned throughout.

There are many reasons these are becoming popular. It's easy for candidates to talk through a deck of slides they've had weeks to prepare, and the hiring committee doesn't necessarily learn that much about them as people or scientists. This is more dynamic - it lets you see how people think on their feet - and gives a real opportunity for people to display their passion. It's daunting to speak for an hour with no props or prompts, but a good academic who knows their field, has a clear research plan, and cares about their work should be able to do this.

Source - personal experience (I have been on training courses specifically about giving chalk talks in faculty interviews, albeit in a different field).


How to find a practical part for a master thesis in IT (Blockchain) I am writing my master thesis in Computer Science. My topic will be related to the Blockchain. I have no problem finding theoretical research questions, that I am really interested in. But the thesis should include a small practical project, where I actually write code. It should be something that I can work on alone over the course of half a year and have at least a prototype finished by then.

I have difficulties getting help in this area from my professor and supervisor as they allow maximum liberty to choose what ever I want to do.

How do I go about to find a suitable project that relates to one of my theoretical research questions?

You go around organisations and ask them about what they would be interested. Having a network is a huge benefit here.
You look into the introductions of the academic papers. See what real-life problems are recent articles talking about.

Basically those two. It does not need to be that good of an application, because it is even customary that the applications are stupid (simple) in academia. Real-life has all those legal issues like information security, confidentiality and such that you may not wish to be bothered with.

EDIT: Also real-life corporations are extremely unwilling to reveal their data, but also the intent of entering a market. An academic version is not even nearly ready business. I have seen applied math papers about how well the food and wine work together done for chemical corporation. You can guess that the end-project the theory was made for had only a little to do with wine and food.


How to respond to reviewers that ask you to "look again at your results" without providing further details? Recently my research paper got major revision in which one of the reviewer ask me to look again at the results I have derived without pointing to any specific item of results. I have double checked my results and all results found to be correct and now I am confused that what actually reviewer is trying to say as he/she did not specifically mentioned nature of error in my results.

So how should I respond? (The second reviewer is satisfied with my results)

Email the editor to ask for clarification. They are the person you need to satisfy. If they don't understand what is needed either, they will either get in touch with the reviewer to ask, or they will tell you not to worry.


How to start a startup based on university research? This is a follow-up to How good are entrepreneurial opportunities for faculty members?.
Say, a few researchers, professors and their students, at a university would like to start a company to exploit and commercialize their research.

Who owns the copyright/patent of their research? Will the university claim ownership of the startup company? What is the general procedure?

This will heavily depend on the specific country you are talking about. We have a so-called Innovation Lab that aims at encouraging "entrepreneurship and innovation by identifying, supporting and providing guidance for potential high-tech startups and spin-off companies originating at TU/e." Specifically, they guide researchers along the entire process: from checking whether the idea can be patented to actually establishing a startup / spin-off company.

With respect to copyright: lion's share of our research is being published so there can be no problems for companies to use the ideas presented in scientific papers. Using unpublished results might be more tricky but I can imagine that the university will agree to formally keep copyright and allow the company to benefit from it under some restricted conditions.


How can I progress with researching/working with profs with a bad transcript? I've been asking a lot of questions on here lately (my apologies to the admin for that), but I've become very worried about my future as I've had a terrible semester.

I'm a second year student currently studying mathematics at a Canadian university and as of now, I have two Cs (one in a math course) and an F on my transcript (thankfully, from a non math course). I'm very worried about how this will hurt my application to grad school (in terms of getting research experience and my transcript itself), particularly as a MSc candidate. I know I have a lot of time to make up for my mistakes (academically) this semester, but the way I see it, I'm pretty much out of options until maybe next year when my GPA (currently sitting at ~3.4-3.45) goes up, considering a lot of research opportunities at my school are based on GPA.

I am very interested in pursuing research in some areas of pure mathematics. However, like I mentioned earlier, I know for a fact my school operates research grants and applications based on GPA and seniority, thus because I:

Am a second year student and do not have many higher level maths courses under my belt and;
Have a mediocre GPA and;
Have received lower marks for second year courses rather than first...

it is highly likely I will get rejected by the professors at my school and not get the grant.

My question now is what else can I do to help me gain experience/skills/contacts within the department at my school? My lackluster grades were a result of poor time management and I know I can do better. When I asked a similar question, I was recommended to seek professors to do informal reading with. I am still planning on doing that, however, is there anything else that I can do? I was hoping to ask one of my profs, but I ended up doing much worse in his course than I expected, so I don't know if contacting him would be reasonable anymore?

Anyway, this is a question mostly to see what I can do to redeem myself more than anything. I still have two more maths courses this coming semester I have the chance to do well in, and so far this C would be my lowest maths-related mark yet. Hopefully that doesn't completely take my out of the running.

Thanks in advance for all your help.

Honestly, you should take a step back and focus on your coursework first. Research experience is great and often necessary for graduate applications, but it's useless if you don't have good grades in upper-level classes. Focus on showing that you can do well in courses before worrying about adding research to your workload.

Also, excelling in an upper-level class is the probably the best way to connect with a professor and get a research opportunity at this point. If you can get to know a professor a little through class and office hours and impress them there, then it's much easier to ask them after the class is over about research opportunities. The key, however, is that you have to actually impress them, and no professor is going to be impressed by a C or even a B in their class.

It also helps if you are willing to work as an unpaid research assistant or similar. Getting funded positions as an undergraduate can be very difficult, especially in math since it's unlikely you will do any real work. But unpaid positions can still be very valuable and are much easier to obtain.


Handling reviewer comment challenging the novelty of a used method One of the Reviewer comments for a paper that I sent to a journal is the following:

  The authors claim that they are the first to use subjective
  questionnaires  to develop predictive models. This is not accurate, there
  are many studies on the literature that use questionnaires  and some of
  them even compare PQ to objective data coming from sensors in order to
  find correlations.

Now the problem is that I have done a thorough check and have observed that this paper indeed is first to use questionnaire to develop predicitve models for the particular disorder. Now how do I handle such a comment?

I think there's no contradiction. The reviewer said "...first to use subjective questionnaires to develop predictive models", while you said "...first to use subjective questionnaires to develop predictive models for the particular disorder" (emphasis mine).

I would just write in a response what you said, and ask for clarification - something like "I have done a thorough check ... the particular disorder. If the reviewer is aware of a previous paper has also used subjective questionnaires for this disorder, please point it out".


Is it a good idea to write a larger than expected project report? A professor expects a report for a project to be around 3-4 pages (but never said anything, this is only my guess).

Is it a bad idea to submit a report of 12-13 pages if it contains useful information and detailed analysis? Doesn't this show I am interested in the subject?

If I say "3 or 4 pages" and get 5, not problem. If I get 12, my first reaction is to give minimal grade, for not following simple guidelines. If I'm in good mood, I'd read it (unlikely, term's end isn't a time for jollyness ;-), and if it really dazzles me (no rambling, no unending tables that could have been summarized in a graph or two, does the work asked, and goes far beyond it in useful direction) I might even give some extra credit (and bookmark you for later). If just longwinded explanation that could be summarized in 3 pages, again fail.


Is it advisable to publish a paper with the same name as your thesis? I am about to submit my MSc thesis which is written in the shape of a paper manuscript plus introduction, extended conclusions and the appendix. My research group encourages this format to streamline the publication of research results. I now have to chose an appropriate title for both the paper manuscript and the thesis itself.

Would it be ill-advised to choose the same titles here? On the one hand both works deal with exactly the same topic and I initially put the same titles, on the other hand it might be weird to end up with two publications of the same name once the paper gets published somewhere (considering search engines etc). This whole format is fairly new to me (and my supervisor) so I am interested in opinions and experiences from the community.

I agree with Buffy that this is a bit tricky. One could argue that using two different titles (or even two different texts sharing the same thoughts) for two documents with practically the same content is an effort to give the impression that you want two "publications" for one. For this aspect, the title or the text themselves are not so important, but the ideas are. In this sense, all thesises with results published in a paper share the problem with you. But I do not recall that this was ever discussed as problematic, so I see no fundamental problem here. But the discussion here already shows that there are different opinions.

In my experience, it is extremely rare that an MSc thesis is good enough for me to publish as it is. I usually have to improve the discussion a lot to be completely happy. So you can be proud of yourself if your advisors will pass your text including the exact same title to peer-review. Have they said that they will do so without major editing?

Self plagiarism might be an issue, if your university has a policy on that, but I have not yet really understood why this term exists at all. However, you should check the copyright situation in general with the journal you select. Many journals allow to use the contents of the paper for thesises and the like, but you might have to ask for permission. Or you could go for open access.

By the way: I know many people who change titles for instance when they present the same results at different conferences, just to make it look better on the publication list. I would not call this good practice. Buffy hits a point when encouraging you to make things transparent.


Dvorak keyboard accepted for testing purpose? Have you ever heard of Dvorak keyboard being accepted by a testing department due to health reasons (carpal tunnel)?

I type on Dvorak keyboard and have realized that computer based admission tests for Masters programs may pose an issue.

Dvorak is the closest thing we have to an alternative standard to Qwerty which is preinstalled on all modern operating systems.

When it comes to the big standardized admission tests for (mostly) US graduate programs, such as the GRE and TOEFL tests, typically only Qwerty is allowed. See below for their policies. That said, they do make some accommodations for disabilities. Being a Dvorak typist does not count by itself, but if you have carpal tunnel it can't hurt to ask for special accommodations ahead of time. By the way, that link leads to a Dvorak community on Reddit. You might get better answers there.

For admissions and placement tests administered by individual universities, you would have to ask them. No universal rules there. For computer based exams and similar once admitted to a program, I think your chances are quite good. Few people would care about what keyboard layout you use, and even if they would, student disability offices tend to be quite flexible.

GRE

  The GRE General Test uses a standard English-language (QWERTY) computer keyboard. It takes its name from the first 6 letters in the third row of the keyboard. If you haven't used this kind of keyboard before, practice on one before test day to become familiar with it.

The GRE Bulletin Supplement for Test Takers with Disabilities or Health-related Needs does mention some keyboard-related accommodations (e.g. ergonomic keyboard), but I don't see anything about layout. Unfortunately, I don't know how likely they are to make other accommodations.

TOEFL

  The TOEFL iBT test uses a standard English-language (QWERTY) computer keyboard. It takes its name from the first 6 letters in the third row of the keyboard. If you haven't used this kind of keyboard before, practice on one before test day to become familiar with it. In some countries, the common keyboard used is configured to QWERTY and a template is provided to each test taker to help with locating the few keys that are in a different location.


My PhD work is too simple. I don't feel good about my work, my abilities and my future career I am about to defend my PhD in materials engineering. My work is related to numerical modeling of an additive manufacturing process. When I joined for my PhD, I was offered a different topic which was rigorous and 100% in my interest. However, my research topic was changed after few months into something much simpler and less rigorous but still aligning 70% to my interest.
I have couple of papers and I am decently published at my particular field. But I feel that I am doing very simple work, something even a master's student could do in a year.
I was an experimentalist before my PhD. However, I was frustrated with carrying out experiments and thus opted for a completely computational research. I think it was a mistake. I used to find doing a good Experimental work much easier than a good computational work.
Even though I like them, I am objectively bad at mathematics and physics. I shouldn't have gone for computational studies. I am good with simple work but I will never be able to get published in computational mechanics and numerical methods intensive journals (Journal of solid and structures, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering).
I publish in applied journals like additive manufacturing, surface and coatings technology, materials and design, where new numerical methods need not be developed or theories need not be implemented for successful simulations. Existing models can be repurposed for my work. I just use a open-source software to carry out my simulations without changing anything in the software's source code. I just write python and Matlab scripts to analyze the simulations.
I am worried about my future career. My work is too simple for academic or industrial positions. I don't know what to do after graduation.

One reason that people like yourself see their own work as "simple" is just that they are the world's foremost expert in that narrow subfield. They (you) know it better than anyone and you've lived with it for a long time so you see how it fits together. This is related to Imposter Syndrome, of course.
Your dissertation and degree aren't the end of your career, but the beginning. You've crossed one "finish line", the degree, but that opens out into a world of opportunity. You aren't limited now to what you have done in the past but can start to move to adjacent areas if you wish. The degree process is a pretty narrow funnel, but, once through it, the opportunities open again.
Don't be discouraged. Leverage what you have into what you want.


Is there any requirement to cite recent literature in publications? Recently I submitted my first paper to a philosophy journal and got a rejection. This is of course nothing unusual, but as someone with a STEM background, I was surprised by the reason for the rejection: While there were no complaints regarding contents or correctness, it was felt that the paper failed to cite and engage with the recent literature on the topic.

The latter is indeed true: I did ignore the latest papers in the field and only referenced a handful of "classic" papers from the last century. But I also thought this was okay, as it seemed to me that the recent literature didn't add much to what was already covered by the classic papers, and was in any case not essential to the discussion.

Now, I'm not here to complain about having my paper rejected, or to argue about who's wrong or right. I just would like to know whether the requirement to cite the recent literature is a humanities-specific thing, or whether this is a common requirement in most fields. For instance, I imagine that if I had submitted a maths or computer science paper that referenced only a handful of classic and old, but relevant papers, my own paper, if correct and substantial, would have been accepted.

Note: Since people seem to misunderstand me, a bit of extra clarification: I don't have a problem with citing recent literature, if that's what it takes to get a philosophy paper published. I just want to know if this is more or less the same in most fields, including maths and CS. In the latter, so I believe, it's less of a big deal to cite the latest papers as long as the submitted paper correctly solves some well-known open problem.

This question seems to be based on a common misconception about the role of citations (see this question for a related issue).  Citations aren't just there to list content your work builds on; they're also there to provide the reader with context and motivation.

The reason you should be citing recent work is to help the reader.  If you were familiar with various unsuccessful solutions, it's likely that some of them motivated the successful one, even if only by identifying things that couldn't work, and that merits a citation.  Even if not, many of your readers are likely to be people who've thought a lot about one or more of those unsuccessful approaches; you're in the best position to explain how your approach differs.

(I'm writing from the perspective of mathematics, by the way.)


Need ideas for postdoc application re support of sponsoring institution I am applying for a prestigious postdoc in social sciences. I need to make a case for why the sponsoring university is particularly well suited to support me, and what unique forms of support it has to offer me. A representative of the postdoc informed the dean that the support has to go beyond what all postdocs receive. Thus I can't list "professional development" because all postdocs and grad students can access that.

The dean has offered me priority status for an internal grant of $5,000 to travel to conferences. What further types of support could the sponsoring university offer me that would advance the research, teaching, and committee work of a social science PhD?

Here's some ideas about what you could ask for:

A course that is not generally available - such as a leadership program
Support to spend a few weeks at some other institution to build a relationship?
What do you need for your research? For example, funds for transcribing interviews, or a few months of a data analyst?

But it sounds to me like you are being asked not for a wish list, but for some thought about what is both relevant and unique about the university you are applying to. For example, is there a respected researcher in your field and you could spend some time working with that person.


Sharing information between two mutually uninvolved collaborators Let's say I am working on two, similar projects, on two separate grants with collaborator A and collaborator B. In the process of working with collaborator A, I came up with an idea for a new project which I am now working on based on ideas from collaboration A. Collaborator A will be a coauthor on the first manuscript on this new, tangential project, which will also acknowledge their grant.

However, I believe collaborator B would be much better suited to carry out this project in the future. Furthermore, I do not believe collaborator A is interested or competent in continuing my project. When and to what extent am I able to share the preliminary results carried out in my project with collaborator B? Should I wait until the manuscript is published? Am I breaking an implicit information embargo? (I came up with the idea for the project and carried out all the theoretical work. Collaborators A and B are experimental scientists.)

I would simply ask A. Say "this project has been fun, but I assume you don't want to continue to work on it for reasons X, Y, and Z. Do you have any objection to me continuing the work after this paper is published." You don't need to wait for this to be published, I see nothing wrong with saying this while writing the paper or even while concluding the research.

If they say that they don't mind, great. You don't need to tell them about he other person you will later bring in.

If they say they do mind, find out why and address their concerns.

The third option is that they surprise you and say "actually, I want to keep working on this." In that case I wouldn't try to push them out. Instead I would continue the research with them and at some point later suggest bringing B onboard as an additional collaborator.

You can inform B of the contents of the project as soon as you bring them onboard or as soon as you have a public preprint, whichever is earlier. Alternatively, you could also ask if A has any objections to you sending the paper around to a few people and send it to B.


Required reviews completed vs ready for decision elsevier In elsevier journal publication process, what is the difference between "required reviews completed" and "ready for decision"?

From the outside, it's difficult to tell. Two possibilities that spring to mind are:

The journal requires two reviews, but regularly invites four (this makes sense because reviewers decline to review, never respond to the invitation, agree but don't submit a review by the deadline, etc). Two of the reviewers have completed their reviews, but as long as there's a reviewer who did not explicitly decline still invited, the status remains as "required reviews complete". However if all the reviewers have either submitted a review or have declined to review, then the status updates to "ready for decision".
The journal is set up so that the handling editor makes a recommendation which is then forwarded to the associate editor/editor-in-chief to make a decision. "Required reviews complete" would indicate that the handling editor hasn't made a recommendation, while "ready for decision" means (s)he has.

Either way there's nothing to do except wait.


How does one find an advisor doing research on a niche interdiscipinary subject? I am very interested in in-situ resource utilization (ISRU), the use of lunar/martian/asteroidal resources (generally regolith, atmosphere, and water ice) to produce propellant or construction materials on those bodies. It's a new & growing topic--the first instrument to test production of rocket fuel from the Martian atmosphere is due to launch a month from today (June 20th, 2020) aboard the Perseverance rover--and it's an interdisciplinary one, lying at the intersection of geology, mineral extraction, and aerospace and chemical engineering.
How do I find potential doctorate advisors working in this field? I have been looking through Google Scholar & conference catalogs (eg.: AGU) to find the names of those writing & presenting on ISRU techniques. However, the majority of the papers authored on ISRU implementations are by industry & government authors, and there are no dedicated graduate programs I am aware of aside from Colorado School of Mines' Space Resources program. The majority of academic work in ISRU seems to be by faculty in either the aerospace or mining engineering departments.
This concerns me. I am not an engineering student: I am a geology & math undergraduate, and I am worried about the quantity of deficiencies I may need to take entering into an engineering graduate program (if I can get into ISRU research, it's absolutely worth it though). More importantly, I doubt I am exactly the type of student engineering programs are looking for. My grades are good, I have a lot of undergrad research experience, but like I said, at the end of the day, I have no engineering background. I anticipate rejection, and I anticipate a lot of it. Even if it's not outright rejection, odds are there won't be that many doctorate positions available with funding when I am applying (for next fall).
Therefore, I'm trying to track down almost everybody I can find who is active in both academia and ISRU research, to maximize my chances of making a connection with a potential advisor and finding a place for me in their department. But as I mentioned previously, it's difficult to do so because a) authors on IRSU in academia are few & far between, and b) the departments in which people are doing ISRU research are much broader than my interests.
Do you experienced people have any advisor-finding advice for a lowly undergrad?

From my perspective (as an advisor), you sound like the ideal candidate: someone who is self-driven and motivated to work outside the regular comfort zones.
Assuming you can't find anyone at the exact intersection you're looking for, my advice would be to find a potential advisor who values interdisciplinary science like you do, and works in one or more of the disciplines involved. I would start by asking the most relevant faculty at your current university if they might know of someone who fits the bill that you could email.
For an advisor that values interdisciplinarity, your background shouldn't matter so much - they will be looking for initiative, drive, and decent grades. Argue those three things as concisely as you can when you send those emails.


Term for someone with a doctorate in nursing What would you call someone who had a doctoral degree in nursing? I wouldn’t think you’d be able to call them doctor as this would be confusing in the hospital setting. Is there a title used for a nurse with a doctorate degree?

You call him "Doctor Surname" unless you are sufficiently well-acquainted to call him by his given name.  (I worked with someone with a DScN degree and she was called "Doctor Smith" by the physicians in committee meetings, etc.)

If you and this person will be working with patients, ask "How should I address you when there are patients present?" before the need arises.  As guifa states in the comment above, the badge, or embroidered name, will show the degree, not the honorific.

Edited to add: The scope of practice of licensed healthcare professionals is set by state law, and the doctorate in nursing does not widen that scope in any state that I know about.  Guifa's comment that some states, including my home state, restrict the title "doctor" in the context of health care is correct.  You can expect the holder of a doctorate in nursing to know the restrictions, and to have a preference, so the best way to find out what to do when there are patients around is to ask.


What is recommendation/reference draft copy? I am applying for a PhD program and reached out for a recommendation to a professor under who I had done my master’s thesis. He told me to:

  send a draft copy as per the requirement

What does that mean? Am I to write my own recommendation and how?

It is fairly common, though not universal, that a professor will ask the student to write a draft of a recommendation letter. More generally, he is asking what you would like him to stress in the letter. This frees him from the need to investigate the requirements of the individual university and will refresh his memory about what you did together.

So, yes, provide a draft. Say what you have done and what you think your future potential is. Don't make it too obvious that you are writing about yourself, of course. But make it positive.


What is the best way to ask for a lecturer position in a cold email? I am interested in becoming a lecturer at the school I received my Bachelors. I am in love not only with the school, but the field of communications. The department has been looking for ways to bring in more students, and I feel as if I could become a lecturer there and also rebrand the department. I have spoken with a professor in the department and she gave me the appropriate contact information, but what is the best way to inquire and cold email about it?

If your background is only a BA, it is unlikely that you will be able to snag a position as a lecturer.

Usually these are highly competitive, and are either:
1. reserved for graduate students in order to provide a stipend,
or
2. posted publicly as jobs for PhD holders who have gone the teaching route versus research route.

TBH it sounds like you're interested in working with recruiting for the department, and not actually teaching courses. Lecturer positions pay very little, are highly teaching intensive, and will not offer a lot of time for "rebranding" as you put it.

It is great that you have enthusiasm for the field, your school, and the department, but it is likely that your passions would be better fulfilled by working with the department in an administrative capacity. I would write a general letter of interest to the department and see if they can propose a position that would fit your background.

Edit: I should say that my response is based on knowing very little about your background. If you do have an MA in the field you can send a CV including teaching experience, cover letter, teaching philosophy, as well as a sample curriculum to the person.


Gift for mentor after his thesis defense? I'm attending the thesis defense of one of my undergrad mentors this week. I owe almost everything about where I am today to him. I want to get him a gift, but I'm not sure what. He owns his own business, so a gift card seems pointless when he won't be short of money. I have never seen him eat or drink anything, EVER, so I'm not sure what kind of candy or food would be appropriate. He's a guy, so flowers are out.

We did have a shared love of a certain book series, but I already got him one of those for a Christmas gift and I feel like it might be weird to get another one again.

His thesis is something pretty abstract—even the name of the project has no real-world analogue. So a "cute" gift related to his thesis would be tough to come up with.

Also I'm a girl, if that matters, and I don't want to give him anything that would be creepy/weird/over-the-top with the gender difference taken into account.

A short (1-2 paragraph) hand written note on a card or postcard would be an appropriate gift.

I have mentored about a dozen undergraduates and I still have the thank you notes they sent to me on my pin board in my office. The notes are nice reminders about the impact I had on the students.


No startup funds for new tenure-track hire? I am an internal candidate for a tenure-track position at a major university in northern Europe. I think I have an excellent chance, however I am slightly worried about negotiating a startup packages. Here's why:

My department chief has insisted that I ask for my own salary
    in funding applications. This seems crazy to me - why would a
    funding agency justify paying the salary of a PI in a tenure-track
    position?!
As far as I can tell, no other recent tenure-track
    hires in the department received any startup funding, or equivalent
    funding for PhDs or postdocs. Whether this was because they did not ask I do not know.

I have a strong impression from colleagues that I am the favoured candidate, and I am sure that, to some extent, asking for startup funding would make me look ungrateful for the opportunity. On the other hand, I cannot conceive how the department might a) expect to be internationally competitive if it does not provide incentives to new hires, and b) expect these new hires to achieve anything useful without any resources whatsoever.

Is this standard practice? Should I try to squeeze blood from the stone?

Many thanks!

In my field (biological sciences, US), receiving no startup funding at all (at least for lab space and basic equipment) would be unusual. Maybe I could see a case where departmental overhead is sufficient to start a lab but I would still think of this as "startup money" even if established professors have access to the same pool.

However, asking funding agencies to pay your salary would be the usual course of business and the expectation by the funding agencies is that they would cover the portion of your salary corresponding to your effort towards the project: if the project is going to be about half of your work, it would pay at least half your salary.

If you have a gap in extramural funding, the expectation is that the institution would pick up your salary in the meantime, though this may come with other institutional responsibilities attached like an increased teaching load or some administrative work, especially if you have more than a brief interval without outside funding. I would be greatly worried if the institution isn't willing to contribute in this circumstance, but it is reasonable for them to ask for you to look outside for funding.

Funding for students in my field would also typically come from extramural grants: you would ask in a grant proposal that the work fund a graduate student to complete the experiments. Direct departmental support for students to do research is uncommon, but they may be supported by other external fellowships such as institutional training grants or grants directly to that student, or through a teaching or project assistantship through the department.

On a side note, I could see the situation for startup funding being a little different as an internal candidate, that is, if the institution is expecting you to continue working in the lab space you are in (i.e., if you are a postdoc or scientist, taking over some space from your current PI) and grow your independence over time.


Apply to math Ph.D. programs If I were to apply to a Ph.D. program for mathematics and in the application mentioned that my intended field of study would be something in algebra, would the admissions committee be interested in a paper on graph theory that I wrote and gave a talk about at an AMS conference for undergraduate research?

I think I did some good work (for an undergraduate), but I don't know if application reviewers would value work in graph theory for somebody looking to go into an algebra related field. If it matters at all, the paper was on various forms of dominating sets.

Yes, a graph theory paper is just as relevant as an algebra paper for graduate admissions, even if you plan to specialize in algebra.  There are several reasons for this:

Many people applying to math graduate school don't really know what they will specialize in.  (This is true even for the very strongest applicants.)  It's OK not to know, and everyone realizes that you may change your mind in a year or two even if you think you know now.
Undergraduate research is generally limited by the availability of supervision.  You may not have had the opportunity to work on your favorite topic.
Undergraduate research is not intended as a head start for graduate school.  Even if you had written an algebra paper, you would almost certainly not end up building on that work for your Ph.D. thesis.  Instead, the real purposes are learning about research and demonstrating your talents, and the research topic itself is not so important.


How shall we reply to an editor after a minor revision of a paper? I received the editor's comments as follows:

  The revised version of your manuscript xxx has been reviewed by our referees. Referee A is now satisfied with your paper, while Referee B is more or less satisfied but supplies a long list of remarks that need to be taken into account. While we cannot make a definite commitment, we will probably accept your paper for publication, provided you make changes that we judge to be in accordance with the appended comments (or other satisfactory responses are given).

I have revised my manuscript and prepared a detailed explanation of how I have dealt with all of the comments of reviewer B. Actually, there are just 7 comments on the manuscript.

Now, I am going to reply to the editor. Could you suggest me how to write a reply to the editor like this, such as ''While we cannot make a definite commitment, we will probably accept your paper for publication, provided you make changes that we judge to be in accordance with the appended comments''? And What should I need to notice?

Thank you in advance.

There’s nothing going on behind the scenes here. Just send it back and say “I’ve made the requested edits, I hope the manuscript is now satisfactory,” or whatever you would normally say to an editor when sending back a paper.

You seem to think that there’s some kind of implicit social dynamic going on with the editors comments. There isn’t.


Scientific authorship: including a former lab member who collected (unused) pilot data? I am working on a manuscript of a project that I am first author on, and am wondering whether it is proper to include person X. X has been gone from the lab for 3 years, and none of her data is in the manuscript or really informed the conclusions. However, my experimental design (for one figure out of 8) is very similar to her original plan, although the analysis is different. It's not clear if the original idea was X's, or my PIs (it was a pretty natural extension from a paper we read in journal club). Any advice about whether X should be a coauthor? Does anyone have any examples of this happening, and what was the outcome from each perspective?

Update: thank you for all the input! To clarify:
1. My PI was actually the one who asked ME for my opinion in this situation - I think she was on the fence. But you're right that it is her job to make the final call, she was there when the original pilot experiments were performed.

The experimental tools were not new, they are common/published already. The details of the design (I.e. vary x in increments of 5) were the former student's
Looks like we are planning (at least at the conference stage, could always change when paper is closer to submission) towards not including X

There are two key questions, as I see it.  The first is whether the experimental design you used was originated by the former student.  If it was the PI's idea (or somebody else's), and the student merely implemented it, that the former student does not need to be an author.  If, on the other hand, the apparatus and techniques were truly originated by the former student, there may be a strong case for making them an author.  You should ask the PI specifically about who designed the experiment (as well as consulting them about the whether the previous student should be a coauthor; the PI is likely the best person to evaluate whether the student made a meaningful contribution to the current paper).

If it is established that the old student did originate the experimental arrangement, there is then a second question:  Was this experimental design already used as the basis for a published paper with that student as an author?  If there was already a paper on the older results, then the student has already received credit for designing the experimental setup.  In that case, you can cite the older paper as originating the methodology, and the former student does not need to be an author on papers describing further developments made after they left.


For what reasons might a full professor lose tenure? Recently, a full professor at my university lost their tenure and had their employment with the university terminated. I have never heard of a tenured faculty member "being fired" before. I am not sure why this happened or what the former professor did that resulted in this outcome.

I know that assistant professors can be denied tenure for poor performance. But for what reasons might a full professor (or an associate professor) lose tenure?

(In this question I use US-centric academic ranks. An assistant professor is tenure-track, an associate professor is tenured, and a full professor is tenured with a slight increase in pay/benefits/responsibilities.)

The details are likely institution (and or state) specific.

From the University of New Mexico Faculty Handbook one sees that the options there are:

"Adequate Cause", including academic incompetence, neglect of duty, serious violation of policy, serious crime, loss of license (medical), or other serious deficiency.
Financial emergency - that is, the university runs out of money to pay them.
Termination of the program/department.
Health reasons (permanent disability with no reasonable accommodation possible).


What are some good ways to keep students coming to lectures? Having taught calculus for several semesters, I've noticed that the number of students attending lectures are gradually declining (especially for the 9am session). I would not be worried if they have learned the material by themselves so don't see the need of coming; However looking at their exam scores I concluded that a lot of them are not doing so well in the class when they miss lectures.

So what are some good ways to keep students coming to lectures?

Here are my suggestions:

Make sure your lectures actually add something to their learning experience. Ask one of your coworkers or someone from the teaching support center (if you have one of those) to come watch a class every now and then and give you feedback on how to improve. (Even if you are a teaching super star, there is always something you can improve.)
Take 5 minutes to ask the students to fill in anonymous "exit tickets" with three questions: Something you should keep doing, something you should stop doing and something you should start doing. This should be done in class after a few weeks, but before the attendance starts dropping. Actually follow any reasonable suggestions.
Over the long term, create a scatter plot of number of lectures attended versus final grade. If your lectures are useful, then there will be a strong positive correlation between the two. Show students the plot during the first class every semester and tell them to make their own decision about attending or not.
If you really want to make them attend class, schedule daily quizzes that account for some not insignificant percentage of the grade. If they don't attend class, they receive a zero.
Remember that your students are adults. They are responsible for their own learning, and if they decide to sleep in rather than come to class no matter what you do, that's still their choice and their responsibility. You can't force them to attend. If your lectures add value, and they still choose not to attend, that's ultimately their problem.


Neglected many aspects of knowledge during my PhD research. What's the best strategy to learn and be comfortable in it? My question is very vague. I just realized that there are many aspects of my research field that I have very limited knowledge in but would like to explore as a future research direction. Is it too late or I can use any strategy to gain the knowledge and be in a position to contribute in the field?

I have spent 5 years PhD in an applied field. Publishing in my field of work is not mathematically intensive. It's more of utilizing the tools available for carrying out simulations and analyze the physics of the problem and results.

However, now I am beginning to realize that development of the tools being used in my field (materials science) is much more rewarding in terms of research output, securing a position in a national lab or a tenure track position than just using an open-source software or making minor tweaks to it.

I want to learn the mathematics behind the tools available for my field to such a degree that I can comfortably develop my own code. I have good programming skills. Is this a too far a goal for this stage of my studies? I am about to defend my PhD thesis.

I should have realized this years ago...but here I am. Is this an achievable goal?

Ps: I have an understanding of the mathematics that goes on under the hood of the softwares. But I have never actually coded a simplified version of the tools myself. I self-studied few books to gain some insight on the tools and just leapt in using them to my research.

Actually, your experience is probably (nearly) universal. Doing research requires a deep dive not a broad view. But it also gives you skills. Employ those skills to things that seem "interesting" to you and you will fairly naturally expand the horizon.

In many fields it is impossible to know everything, as there is too much. Math passed that boundary sometime in the early 20th century.

Take a long view, assuming that you have suitable employment. Pick a topic that you think would be worth a look, for whatever reason and study it as intensively as you can for some period of time. When you are comfortable with what you have learned or you become bored with it, move on to another.

Earning a doctorate doesn't mean you have learned everything you will ever learn. Many people even radically change fields after earning a PhD. Many people in one field invent another field. Computer science, for example, grew out of math and engineering.


Advisor promises letter of recommendation, but hasn't produced letter I have unfortunately been put in a position where my advisor has neglected to write me a letter of recommendation for a whole year. We have a good working relationship, and I have no reason to suspect that my advisor is unwilling to write a letter, however, for some reason or another it hasn't been done even after numerous requests (on my part) and assurances (on theirs) that it would get done. I was unable to secure a post doc in part due to this, and I am starting to become exasperated with how this situation is playing out. Has anyone faced a situation similar to this before? What steps would (did) you take to resolve this without burning any bridges? Does anyone have any advise on how to move past this in the event that I cannot get the letter?

I wouldn't say that you haven't been able to get a job due to 1 letter not being written.  What about teachers? What about any internships?  Is there anyone in the field that you know who can write you a letter of recommendation that has seen your work?  Also for the record, letters of recommendation are becoming less popular due to the fact that usually they are written by people who will write it from a biased point of view and not objectively if it is for employment.

I always maintained a close relationship with all teachers so that, if one fell through or they were unable to, I had other teachers to go to.  In terms of not burning the bridges, I think it would be best to be direct, without being offensive (as in being combative). Also it is possible that people are simply not comfortable with writing one but don't want to say no.

I would say something to the effect of:

We have a good working relationship.  Something I greatly value and I respect your opinion.  I understand for the last year, I have been asking for a letter of recommendation.  I also understand that people are busy and writing one of these could take some time.  I was wondering if you feel comfortable writing this for me?  My opinion of you won't change if you actually decline to do so but if you can please let me know so I can see about getting it from other sources.  There are a few jobs coming up that I would like to apply for and would greatly appreciate it if you can provide the letter or let me know if I should ask someone else.

you know? something that shows you value them and won't be offended, but also calls them to let you know honestly.  Gut says, if they have been putting it off for a year, there is a good chance that they actually DON'T want to write it but don't know how to say no.  The above paragraph gives them a door to kindly decline without hurting you and you don't burn any bridges.  One thing I would avoid though is state how you lost out on jobs due to it.  You don't want to create a negative aspect and it won't help him choose to write one or be more honest.

Some people simply don't write these letters.  My programming professor that I had for 5 of my classes told me that he wouldn't write a letter.  This was a bit shocking because he was someone that spoke very highly of me and allowed me to visit his other classes to help him with struggling students ( I was also the head tutor of the campus so I was able to legally TA anyways).  He stated though that he didn't want to write these letters because they are hard for him to write.  They put A LOT of stress on the writer to say the right words.  If they say something wrong, they could end up being the reason you don't get the job.  A lot of people don't want that kind of burden and will decline writing them.  Many teachers want to see you get the job on your own merit and not based on someone else's words.

EDIT: OP has modified the question to reflect post doc.  Though the thoughts about getting him to be able to comfortably state his honest opinion on whether he really will or not still should apply.


can an unemployed person publish an article question

what is legally needed to be able to publish an article, in respect to the person submitting the article?

does he/she/it (it for computers) need to be employed by some particular entity or is it enough to have a reasonable idea?

Anyone can publish an article if it is accepted by the editors. There are no restrictions in any reasonable circumstances. Of course, there are places where publishing anti-governmental articles is dangerous but that is a different question.

Editors want to see some "affiliation" for authors, but that is mostly for identification purposes. Others have been named Schopenhauer, of course.

Science and academia generally are driven for the most part by ideas, not by prestige, though the latter gets in the way on occasion. But the ideas of luminaries are questioned as well as those of unknowns.


Imminent unemployment, I have a screwed up CV; incompetent in my own field of PhD. Hoping for some perspective and advise? I did my PhD recently and it took 5.5 years to complete. I had just 2 courses in my PhD, so the timeline is excessive owing to my lack of motivation during my 2-3rd year.

I have also not taken any advanced graduate level courses in my PhD and am entirely relying on my publications for portraying my quantitative, technical and programming experience.

I had changed my field from materials engineering (undergrad) to mechanical engineering during PhD. But, I did not take any courses to address the lack of technical background (advanced mathematics and computational fluid dynamics).

My research was not that rigorous programming and technicality wise. So, I kind of survived through it. Studying other publications, self studying concepts through books was enough.

But now, since I have graduated, I am finding it severely uncomfortable to apply for positions that seek a different more rigorous job description.

I think, I made some terrible decisions along the way. I should have taken the courses as that would have built up my confidence.

On top of that, I have no job experience or internship experience. I have lost hope on academia and chances in industry appears slim too.

I have 6-7 months of a temporary gig to regroup myself and survive from imminent unemployment. Hoping for some perspective and advise?

Actually, I think that the way you did your doctorate implies that you can, in fact, learn the things you don't know now. In fact, you may have more skills than you realize, but I'll leave that aside.

But first, the courses you took in the past are nearly irrelevant to the process of getting a job once you have a doctorate. The skills, yes, but not the courses. But few employers will feel the need to do any real examination of your coursework.

I agree, however, that having some structure to learning is a big help. But you can address that in a variety of ways. Your alma mater might permit you to take some courses for a reasonable fee, especially if there is some service that you can supply to them in return. This might be an option if you do wind up unemployed for a bit.

But there is now a world of online study possibilities. For many people they have little actual value, since the credential they come with might be suspect, but you don't need credentials at this point. But, if you do sign up for online instruction somewhere, be aware that just reading and watching videos isn't enough. You need to put the new information into practice so that it becomes actual knowledge. Use exercises for reinforcement and try to find a place that will also give you appropriate feedback on your work. Some online courses are better at this than others.

So, I think that a two track plan would be worth pursuing. Work both in the job-seeking realm but also in filling in knowledge.

If online courses don't appeal to you, but you have research skills, then there is no reason that you can't start on some project that requires the skills you don't have but can, as you did in your previous work, fill in via self study. If it results both in publications and in skill building all the better. Perhaps your old advisor can help point to some things, even if you are now remote.


I am interested in researching two very different problems (Genetics + Computer Vision). Haven't started a PhD yet I have two topics that I really want to get involved in.

1) Confirming current research in chromosome structure while using machine learning to find relationships in genetic motifs. For instance, is function associated with how the genome condenses?

2) Developing novel Computer Vision algorithms to learn from small sample sizes and video using specialized equipment.

Maybe there is a common problem between 1) and 2) that I can study in depth, but these seem like very different projects.

Would it be feasible to apply for a Master's in Quantitative Genetics (+ Research Thesis) with electives in Machine Learning and Statistics, then apply for a PhD in Machine Learning? I have a double major in Math and Computer Science with a few electives in genetics.

Your approach sounds reasonable to me.
Both problems do share some elements in common:

both operate on a larger data set, so efficient algorithms are needed.
both may profit from novel approaches to identify patterns

Both could be based on AI. I know greedy algorithms from traditional computing for genetic research as well as for vision. Why not trying that way with you specific ideas?
As I did a PhD in high performance computing, I can recommend doing your way. You should have passion for your path; it may take a while.


Software for extracting data from a graph without having to click on every single point? There are many times when I am faced with the task of extracting data from a published graph (usually a bitmap image in an paper). For example, a scatter plot from which I would like to get a list of individual (x, y) coordinates for the points.

One option is to ask the contact author for raw data. Most will do it, sometimes in nice ASCII format, sometimes in Excel files, sometimes in formats that I cannot open (chemists are fond of software like Origin or Igor Pro). Some authors never reply, or ask questions like “what do you want to do with it?”. In all cases, it takes time. Sometime, it's not even possible (I can hardly email the author of a 1936 paper!).

The other option is to extract the data. I currently use g3data to do that, but for large scatter plots having to click on every single point is tedious. Thus, I am looking for a data extraction software that could recognize individual points automagically, and possibly filter them by point color or symbol used. Is that even something that exists? What other tools can you recommend to work around this issue?

I don't think it'd be appropriate to have extra requirements on the software, so I'm happy with free or commercial solutions, running on any OS. Of course, if given the choice, I'd prefer open source software running on Linux and Mac OS.

Here is a very good online tool: http://arohatgi.info/WebPlotDigitizer/app/


I missed an application deadline, but it wasn't entirely my fault. How can I still be considered? About a week ago, I went to submit the application for the mathematics PhD program at one of my top choice schools.  The form told me I had missed the deadline, which was December 15th.  I had January 5th written down on my list of application information, but when I looked it was indeed Dec. 15 on the department website.

I distinctly remembered seeing Jan. 5th, however, so I looked it up again and found the website for general graduate admissions where I found the deadline to begin with.  It said/says January 5th, and is even program specific (under the "PhD in Mathematics").  So I emailed my application to the mathematics department graduate admissions email address explaining there was an incorrect deadline on another part of the website, provided a link, and requested that I still be considered.

I haven't heard back from them aside from an automated "we'll get to this eventually" email, and it has been about 7 days now.  I think I have a strong application for this school in particular and really don't want to lose my chance to apply.  What do I do?  Should I try to call the math department?  Submit it to a different email?  Or am I just boned?

EDIT: I should note that this is a big school which will probably get a lot of applications, so hopefully they haven't gotten far through review yet.  Also, everything except my personal statement was on the website before the Dec 15 deadline, but of course the submit button was not hit so I don't know if this helps.

I would try and personally contact someone at the school, like @gerrit commented, call them. Try and explain your situation, and say that you hope you will still be considered for the program. Do mention that it was not that you simply forgot the deadline, but that an official document stated the wrong date and include this piece of evidence. Stress that you are very enthusiastic about the program, and that you would be disappointed if this communication error would prevent you from having a chance to enter the program.