Confused about masters project I am an integrated master student doing a rather short project of only 4months in the lab (due to covid). The project is quite a weird one as it either works or it doesn't and if it doesn't I have no data at all cause it is a cell based project. I'm about a month in and my cells keep dying and I have no data. I am super concerned that I'll have nothing to show or write up at the end of my project. I want to ask my supervisor if I could simultaneously work on something that would generate data fast as a backup project if this fails to generate any data but I'm not sure if it would look like I'm "giving up" on this project. Also, I have only 3 months left to start a new project. I'm not entirely sure how to deal with the situation. Additionally, I am currently applying to PhD and would need my current supervisor's to act as a referee.
Thanks!

Yes, you could ask your question, but you could also ask a different one as well. "What do these dying cells really tell us and can we gain some scientific insight from that?"
I suspect that you could formulate it better, but the idea that a "failed experiment" yields nothing is false. Negative data is still data. The fact that something doesn't work is still, in some cases, valuable scientific information.
I can't say for sure that this is the case here, of course, but it might be worth exploring it with your advisor.


Final exams: What is the most common protocol for scheduling? At my college this semester, just a few weeks before spring final exams, the administration decided to entirely throw out the prior process for scheduling final exams (which has been in use for at least two decades, I think). Whereas scheduling, duplication, and collection of final exams was formerly centralized, basically it all immediately regressed to being each department and instructor's responsibility. Suddenly there are many (hundreds) of instructors and students with conflicts (two courses at same time in different rooms) and no defined process for solving them. Various instructors and departments are arbitrarily shifting finals to other days, times, rooms, etc. (which seems likely to cause more conflicts).

Our day class meetings are traditionally one-hour apiece, and our final exams have always been two-hour blocks. One of the people partially involved with the recent decision has claimed that these problems would be best solved by having a few days where departments with large common finals hold theirs, then followed by standard class meetings for a week in which the majority of instructors can do whatever they want; possibly extend the meeting to two hours, or split the final into two separate days, etc. The final claim is that this latter protocol is "how it’s done in almost every other college in America".

In my limited experience, it's hard to see how this proposed process (keep standard class meetings and let instructors work out final exam times on their own) is common or feasible. Is it truly how it's done in almost all U.S. colleges? If not, what is the most common protocol? Any references or evidence to support claims one way or the other?

In the two major US state universities that I have either been a student or taught in, the process was roughly the same:

Final exam times were based on the first day of the week course time for the main course meeting, typically a 'lecture' section. Every course that started at 9am on a Monday had the same final exam time. Every course that started at 11am on a Tuesday had the same final exam time. All these decisions were made centrally.

The exam times were mostly unrelated to the actual course times, since the final exam slots were longer than the actual class meetings, but it ensured that no one had overlapping final times because no students would have two courses that met at the same time. The exception was courses that were specifically night courses, which also had night finals, with the assumption that some proportion of the students in those courses were not full-time students and may have had other daytime responsibilities.

I believe there were procedures to allow for simultaneous finals for courses with multiple sections, but I am less familiar with how those processes worked; I believe the centralized time was chosen and then arrangements were made for the small number of students for which there was a conflict.

There were also processes for students who ended up with >2 finals in the same day to make alternative arrangements, but again, these circumstances happened rarely, especially because not ever course actually utilized their final exam slot as anything but a due date for a paper/project/etc.


Backing out of accepted post-doc position in favor of a permanent faculty position I got a PhD in mathematics three years ago, and am currently a post-doc. My appointment is due to finish this August, so I am now looking for a new job.

My dream job would be a permanent faculty position in my home country. The problem is that in my home country, the recruitment calendar is considerably later than the international average: if an offer comes, it could be in mid- to late May (most likely) or possibly even June (if I have to wait for people above me in the shortlist to step aside). Also, the competition is very tough; even though my CV (as far as I can judge) seems fairly good, there is a real possibility that I will not get any such position this year.

If I cannot get a permanent position, I would like to do a second post-doc (somewhere in Europe). But the calendar for post-docs, on the other hand, is much earlier: based on my experience so far, it seems that the vast majority of offers that I could get would have a reply deadline somewhere in February.

All of this puts me in a tight spot:

either I could sit idle until the permanent position interviews; and only if I fail all of them, start looking for a post-doc. But the chances of finding, in June, a post-doc to start in September seem fairly slim. If I did this, I am genuinely scared I would end up as a high-school teacher.
or I could apply to post-docs now, and accept one of the offers without telling them anything; then quietly go to the permanent position interviews, and if I pass one of them, renege on the post-doc I had already accepted and take the permanent position instead. But this raises obvious ethical issues.

Of course backing out of a commitment on a job A to take a better offer B is usually frowned upon. However I think I heard people saying that the case when A is a post-doc and B is a permanent position is exceptional, and that in this case such behaviour can be forgiven. Still, I would feel more comfortable if I had more opinions about this. If you were in this situation, what would you do?

Anticipating some objections:

Applying to post-docs now, all while being upfront with them about my parallel permanent position search, seems more or less equivalent to not applying at all. In fact there is already a post-doc position that I failed to get for this very reason (this position actually was in my home country, so I could not hide anything from them).
From what I have heard, requests to postpone the permanent position's starting date by a year so that I could do my post-doc are usually not granted (since they need someone to teach their classes).

(This question: Accepted post-doc and have subsequently received offers for full time faculty position - quandary is similar, but their exact situation seems somewhat different.)

Getting a permanent position is the goal of every post-doc. That a post-doc is applying for such positions and will leave as soon as an application is successful (which is a quite rare and lucky event) is expected. No need to delay applying for post-doc positions or telling anyone about your plans to apply for permanent positions. You also won't tell them about that lotto ticket you plan to buy, will you?


How do the committees think of an international student who is exempt from the English admission requirement(TOEFL) but has poor GRE verbal score? I am planing to apply for Ph.D programs in Mathematics in U.S.

Since I have studied in U.S. for two years and eligible for TOEFL waivers according to the websites of many math departments, I don't have to retake TOEFL in order to apply. But my GRE verbal score is between 150 and 155, which is less than many applicants who have never studied in English-speaking countries.

I wonder how do the committees think of my case when I don't send my TOEFL scores to the school? Can I increase my chances of being accepted by sending my good TOEFL scores(say 100+) to the math departments which don't require TOEFL scores for my case? Or the committees simply ignore the TOFEL scores sent to them when they know the applicant doesn't have to send them?

If you meet the requirements of a TOEFL waiver it would be a waste of your time to take this test. I would only worry about the GRE score if there is some sort of minimum admission score for the school you are applying too.

It's better to make sure that your statement of purpose is written in excellent English and that you provide other evidence of academic and research potential. Committees are used to dealing with international students and the challenges of English.


Advisor's/University's rights in the PhD/MSc alumni's research projects and publications After a series of discussions about the level of dependency of a research student on his advisor in this link and this link, a question comes to mind that when the person is graduated and leaves the university; even he is now working independently in a company or he is a faculty member of a university; as far as most of the researches he is going to do may be based on his PhD dissertation;

Until when should this person contact his supervisor about the researches he is doing?
Should he ethically acknowledge that his researches is roots of his PhD project under his advisor's supervision?
If, based on his dissertation, he works on a research project; should he talk about it to his supervisor and he should be aware on every single after-PhD project? Just because the base of the publication and research is the PhD dissertation which is done under his supervision?
To put in a nutshell, as a matter of academic ethics, what are exact rights of a supervisor in projects done based on his student's supervision (after graduation of the person)? What are the rights of the university from which the student is graduated?

I am currently returning now to a thread of work that I started as a PhD student many years ago, but have not had opportunity to work on since then. I will not be including my advisors as authors on the new papers that result, because the work goes beyond anything that we worked on or discussed during that project. So there's no direct overlap there, and thus they have no intellectual investment in the project.

I would argue that you would continue to include the advisors if they are actively collaborating with you on the current work that you're publishing—or if the original work that you're publishing was done while you were under their supervision.

Of course, you do need to cite the previous work that you've done on the topic as part of placing the work in its appropriate context within the larger experience. You should also be notifying your advisors of your recent work because it's the smart thing to do—you should always keep mentors apprised of your ongoing research activities!


What do I do with my exam tomorrow given that I supplied medical certificates I missed 3-4 weeks of class this semester due to a medical condition. This was around 3 weeks before exams which meant I had to catch up with other subjects  as well as doing assignments and tests.

I have to sit an exam tomorrow even though I missed a chunk load of the material and was too ill to be able to study at home during those weeks. I sent the university all of my medical certificates as I missed a couple of tests and had to resit the exams.  I also sent  my medical certificates to the special consideration committee telling them that I want my exam deferred, but this was denied. I sent the lecturer my certificates and told him about the situation but he told me the matter was out of his hand.The thing is I really studied hard during this swotvac period even though they only gave us a week before our first exam,  and I had to study for the other subjects that I missed as well.

I want to get a good GPA to transfer universities but I know if I sit that exam tomorrow I will probably fail because it's a hard subject and I'm just lost.

Should I fake sickness and get a medical certificate like food poisoning? What do you suggest? Any other suggestions on what I can do in this situation?

This isn't an answer, just some points you can consider and some 2 cents:

Given the short time, if I were in your shoes, I'd:

Comb through the student academic handbook about sick leave and how should the makeup examination be scheduled. Look for keywords like "... upon mutual agreement." or "... student and department will decide." etc. and quote that in a written document to urge the committee to honor the wording in student academic handbook.
Identify the chair of the grievance committee. Every department/school should have one, and inform him/her about your situation. Ask for guidance and potential on filing a grievance.
Objectively figure out what are the number of quality days available for a non-sick student to prepare for the tests, and then come up with how many quality days you have been given, minus the ones that you have spent. Ask for the exam to be rescheduled to a reasonable time that would provide a fairground to you. Down play the fact that you "want more time," emphasize on the desire "to be judged fairly." Should the number of days are actually comparable, chance is you really have no ground to delay.
Chat with the admission people and discuss the possibilities on the followings: i) retrospectively request a medical leave (this is more viable if you are on a trimester system or this is a half-credit course, missing 4 weeks might as well mean you have not taken it at all) for this semester, and retake the whole thing again. ii) Negotiate for fee reduction or fee waiving so that you don't have to pay again. iii) Also make sure the half-done course will not end up as F or even appear on your transcript.
If you think you're not being fairly judged, never take the exam. Once a grade is given it's next to impossible to revoke. Inform the school as soon as possible with your reasons (preferably sound and focusing on the lack of fairness), give them a summary of your arguments and what you have talked about with different representatives in the department.

I think, in a sad way, that you only decide to decline one day before the rescheduled date is an extremely bad move. If indeed everyone also had one week to prepare, then it is pretty much done for. When the decision was just made, you can still negotiate for 2-4 more days to collect lecture slides, notes, and meet with the lecturers. Now, it's a bit too late to do that.

In a nut shell, set your worst scenario and figure out what are the things that you cannot afford to mess up. If your first thing is GPA, then strive to make this trimester/semester not counted. The cons: you may need to retake, but given your circumstance, retaking seems a lot more viable than taking an exam. Also, don't position yourself as a victim. It's unfortunate but you're not asking for leniency or special treatment. Show them that you're very conscious about the grade situation and your determination to work through this glitch with the department, and hopefully they will reopen the case.

I wish you best of luck, and if you have time, come back to update us by revising your question.


What exactly is a Postdoc in industry? While looking for research jobs in industry, I noticed that some companies over both, research positions and postdoc positions. What exactly is a postdoc position in industry and how is it different from a research position that requires a PhD? Is it just that you spend your postdoc years in a company instead of academia?

Post docs in industry do work similar to university post docs, but their research is a property of the company they work for. Typically, a position advertised as an industry post-doc is one that would allow for external publication (i.e., in scientific journals) of the work completed (but if publication is important to you, you should of course verify this before taking such a position).

Post docs in industry are typically fixed-term appointments, like in academia; there may be opportunities for continuing or for promotion within the company, but these aren't guaranteed, and you wouldn't have to be "fired" or "laid off" at the end of your term to be without a job - you would need to check with someone to see how this would affect your eligibility for unemployment benefits, etc, depending on your location.

I would expect that a company that is offering both full research positions and a separate post-doc program is expecting that applicants for the full research positions will have either relevant post-doctoral experience or industry experience: their post-doc program is probably intended for recent PhD graduates.

Lastly, although these generalities may help you, there is no legal definition of a post doc for these purposes, so you should be prepared to ask questions about everything that is important to you before accepting a position.


Does it look bad to have a PhD thesis unrelated to the rest of future research? The short version of my question is: will it be perceived negatively to have a PhD thesis unrelated to the rest of my future research or work?

For more context, I currently hold a bachelor's degree in computer science, and am working in my first full-time job as a software developer. I have a unique opportunity to pursue a PhD as part of my day job, with little change to my economic/living situation. I already planned to do a PhD in computer science in the near future, so this works well for me. The downside is that while the project I would be working on for my thesis is exciting and interesting, it is not what I would have picked for myself or an area I foresee wanting to work in long term.

I am not worried about lacking the motivation to finish the thesis, or the opportunity cost of not starting directly researching the area I am interested in. What I am trying to get a feel for are any unexpected roadblocks I might hit in the future for picking a PhD topic more for convenience than passion.

Will it be perceived negatively to have a PhD thesis unrelated to the rest of my future research or work?

Relative to what?  Having a PhD is generally perceived positively relative to lower levels of education, but it is perceived less positively than a PhD that is more directly in the research field in which you intend to practice.

In your case it sounds like you will be within the general field (computer science) that you want to practice in, but you are considering doing a research project that is not of great interest to you.  The PhD program is generally considered to be a training program for researchers, and the goal is to get you up to a level where you can do independent peer-reviewed research that is up to the standard acceptable for academic publication.  You will probably find that a PhD program in computer science gives you a wide range of high-level skills and abilities in that field, and you will benefit from it even if you end up doing research in other topics in computer science.  Having said that, if your PhD is in your future field of research then you get a little head-start, since you are already more familiar with research in that particular topic area.  This will not be much of a head-start, since you should graduate from a PhD program with the ability to learn a new area quicker than you learned it during your candidature.

In regard to this issue, it is worth noting that it is extremely common for PhD researchers to move around into different research areas as their career progresses, and correspondingly, it is uncommon for experienced researchers to still be doing research on the same project that they did in their PhD candidature.  As you get more experience you will get better and faster at absorbing and understanding material in a new research project, and so the disadvantage of not having researched in a topic before diminishes.  Once you are adept at research, you will find that there is not a huge difference in difficulty in researching in the topic of your PhD candidature, versus researching a new project.

  ...it is not what I would have picked for myself or an area I foresee wanting to work in long term.
  ...
  I am not worried about lacking the motivation to finish the thesis, or the opportunity cost of not starting directly researching the area I am interested in.

Now for some unsolicited advice - You say that you are not worried about lacking the motivation to finish the thesis.  You should be worried.  It is a bad idea to take on a PhD candidature unless you are confident that the topic will be able to command your interest and passions for a period of several years in your candidature (usually 3-4 years full-time).  If you are already viewing the topic in this way before you even start, it is highly likely that you will lose motivation and struggle with maintaining interest in the topic well before the end of the candidature.  This will make your candidature a major burden on you, and it is likely to lead to failure.


How can I learn to establish good research questions? My problem is that I struggle with finding/posing questions that are worth researching.

I think the reason is my lack of experience, but I am eager to learn and don't want to only rely on my supervisor.

Hmmm. Muddle. Try. Fail. Muddle. Repeat. Repeat. Try. Succeed (partially). Muddle. Refine. Muddle. Succeed (maybe).

To paraphrase a bit of wisdom from another field: Posing good questions comes from Experience. Experience comes from posing bad questions.

There isn't a plan in mathematical research (or in most other fields) that will guarantee success. You are moving into the unknown, which is, well, unknown.

But there are a few hints that work (sometimes...partially). First, you need to deeply understand the essence of what you are about. This requires insight and insight isn't always gained even by earning a doctorate. Insight is what knocks you off the donkey when you aren't expecting it. Insight is understanding something one moment that eluded  you the moment before. Insight sometimes comes from hard work, but it also sometimes comes from just riding on the donkey to get somewhere.

The hints:

Read a lot of papers.

Think about possible extensions of those papers.

Think about possible variations of those papers.

Think about applying the method of proof of those papers to some other, possibly unrelated sub-field.

Take a lot of notes and update them when you have any small insights. I find it useful to carry some of those notes around on index cards, just to refresh my memory (on the donkey).

Think hard about the essence. What is the derivative? What is the essence of the derivative? Why is the definition like it is? Are all of those parts essential? Can they be changed? What would I learn if I change something there? Derivatives work nicely on nice functions. What if the functions aren't nice.

Talk to a lot of people. Share ideas, don't hoard them. Work together. Ask "what if".

Take risks in your thinking. New sub-fields of math have often arisen from "risky thinking". Algebraic Geometry? What a wild idea.

And, finally:

No guarantees.

Try again. Make notes.


Passionate about a PhD in math, but unsure how to explain my chaotic transcript due to mental illness I'm passionate about getting a PhD in Math for a career as a research mathematician and then as an educator working at a community college.

I got A's in community college. I transferred to our local University and for my 1st semester got a 3.67 taking science courses and 300 level math courses. The next semester I got a 4.00 taking more science and math courses. The next year I started exhibiting symptoms of bi-polar and my grades tanked pretty hard. After that I muddled through, graduated with a total GPA of 3.5 and started on a long journey of learning to live and thrive with bi-polar and depression. However, I did probably the dumbest thing ever. I convinced myself that getting a C.S. masters was a prudent idea and proceeded to re-enroll at our University and fail a bunch of CS classes. Now my overall GPA (despite already having graduated) is 3.19. Since then I went into the workforce, decided I really just want to get my PhD in math and teach a community college and have been pursuing that for a year now. In working toward that goal I took an independent study course with one of my professors to refresh my linear algebra and got an A. Then I took graduate level analysis (B+) and graduate level applications of linear algebra (A-). I'm currently in the 2nd semester of graduate level analysis and feel like I've gotten the hang of graduate level course work (I'm confident I'll get an A in this one).

So despite having early success in math (A's in the Calc series and A's in several 300 and 400 level courses) I have what looks like a really really confusing transcript because I tried CS, actually hated it, and go F's in two of those classes. To add to my transcript/GPA concerns I have C's in the undergraduate analysis courses from when bi-polar threw my life off the rails and around the same time got a D in diff-eq (which I retook for an A) and a C in combinatorics.

Now that I'm looking to apply for grad school in Fall 2020 (possibly out of my small state if the program is good) I don't really know how to communicate what probably seems like a very confusing academic record. For what it's worth I have 1 math professor that will write me a good letter of rec, a retired math professor that will write me a good letter of rec, and the P.I. from my internship at a big name research institute that might write me a letter. So at least I have that. But damn, my transcript looks like something that will hurt me without explanation. How do I explain it? Is it possible? Should I reconsider my path? I'm very dedicated to this path but I worry that despite my passion current and ability to pass graduate level courses it won't be enough. Any suggestions on how to explain my transcript would be so wonderful =)

TL;DR - I got good grades at my local Uni in nowhere USA. Then I got bi-polar disorder and so did my grades, then I graduated, then I tried CS and got even crappier grades still. But now I'm doing well and getting better grades in grad-level classes but have no idea how to explain all of this to grad programs I apply to =/

You need to focus. Why do you think you need a PhD in mathematics? If you plan to be a serious researcher, how do you plan to balance that with working in your under-performing school district? What specific area of math is your intended focus? Are you trying to get into a top 5 program or any program? That also makes a difference. If you can show that you are focused today and have doable plans with a PhD, telling your story won't be as difficult as explaining a low grade in an entry-level math course such as differential calculus. You will have a hard time living that one down. Figure out why you earned a D and how that changed your approach to understanding math. You might want to consider applying to a MS mathematics program and state your intention to seek the PhD at that institution.


Using research paper as guidance vs research plagiarism? I am an high school senior who has recently started getting into research in Electrical Engineering and CS. One thing that I have trouble in understanding sometimes is determining the difference between using an already-publish research paper as guidance vs going so far as to copy a lot of the ideas and methodology. Let me explain what I mean.
Let's assume there is a paper on building an autonomous drone which explains the drone hardware design, software design, autonomous flight algorithms, etc. If I read the paper, understand the methodology, and implement the methodology using my own code and effort, perhaps making a few small improvements, is that ethical?
If I don't copy any of the actual code or any verbatim phrases from the research paper, does it ever count as plagiarism? What happens if parts of the research/presentations/papers are very similar by accident?
I know that with high school science and engineering fairs this is sort of looked down upon by students but that might just be because it is high school.
Thanks
~ An aspiring EECS engineer

There's nothing wrong with replicating a paper as long as you cite and credit it. If you pass it off as your original contribution, that's never okay, but science works by advancing on previous work and it's not expected for any work to be completely novel from top to bottom (nor is it desirable).
If all you do is make some minor improvements on something already published, though, that may not be research per se, even if it is still a good exercise for a beginner. Whether that's sufficient for some competition you might submit to is up to the standards of that competition. As long as you are up front about what you have borrowed and where you've borrowed it from, you are in the clear ethically, but it's possible your project won't be judged as highly - it all depends on what those criteria are.
When you make improvements and advancements, it's also important to be honest and thoughtful about where those ideas came from, too. They can still be your contributions, but if you got the motivation from some other source then you need to cite the source. It's good to keep some documentation of the things you've read because it can become difficult to remember where exactly you got an idea from and you may even inadvertently fool yourself into believing you came up with something that you actually read days or weeks ago.
Also, be wary when actually writing up a paper that it isn't enough to make something "your own words" just by restructuring sentences and replacing words with a thesaurus. Your "own words" should come from your own head, without making close reference to another document except to refer to where specifically your ideas and knowledge are coming from.


How to address in-group bullying without compromising PhD/career? I've been bullied by my supervisor and other members of my research group for the past couple of years.

Some of the things which have indicated bullying include snide remarks being made during group meetings, exclusion from the group inside and outside of the research environment, not being kept in the loop for group projects and even my own project, having key work on my project assigned to someone else, being given unreasonable loads of work to complete in an unrealistic time frame, being called upon and humiliated during meetings in front of colleagues, being immediately blamed for any issues in the group without allowing for an explanation, having rules change on me last minute and not being informed of these, and being subjected to massive double standards overall.

There are also a few more serious issues, involving threats to remove me from the program, use of my content without referencing me, removing me from projects I had planned on publishing from and giving them to others without informing me until they have conducted 'my' work and published it, and having them ignore university policies in favor of their own rules.

I have spoken to PhD advisers, advocacy reps, and other staff members about this, but have not wished to pursue any formal complaints procedures out of fear my supervisor will compromise my PhD (by reassigning all the novel aspects of my project to someone else, or not providing feedback on my thesis), and ruin my ability to work in research (by preventing me from publishing during my PhD, providing negative references, ruining my reputation in the field).

Long story short, does anyone have any advice on how to approach this situation without compromising my PhD or future career in the field, something my well-respected and rather manipulative supervisor could easily do without getting caught?

I have spoken to … but have not wished to pursue any formal complaints procedures out of fear my supervisor will compromise my PhD … and ruin my ability to work in research …

Okay, so I am going to be the bad-guy here.  What you say you fear will happen here has already happened.  What you describe ---if accurate--- is already massively compromising your PhD and your ability to research.  The university has formal mechanisms in place to deal with this kind of issue.  If you are not willing to avail yourself of the mechanisms in place to deal with these problems then there is nothing that anyone can do.  (And frankly, it is quite difficult to muster sympathy for complainants who refuse to make a proper complaint when avenues are available for this.)  You should have complained formally or got out years ago, but since you are still there you have a choice: use the mechanisms available to you for complaints of this kind, or not.  Do not become a victim of the sunk cost fallacy.

If you decide to avail yourself of the complaint mechanisms at your university, the main thing you should do is this: document, document, document.  Document everything well, and collect and keep all relevant evidence of treatment that is unfair to you.  Make a chronological list of incidents, since the start of your candidature, detailing dates (or rough dates if you can't remember exact dates), what happened in each incident, and any documentation (emails, etc.) that constitutes evidence of the incident.  Write this in a neutral factual way, but make sure you briefly explain how each incident negatively affected your candidature.  Seek written statements from other sympathetic students that can back up your assertions.  You have said that the university has breached its policies when dealing with you.  Make sure you document instances of this as well.  If that is correct, then the university will be in a weak position in respect to the conflict, and you have a greater prospect of extracting some reasonable concessions in a complaint process.


Margin spacing on graduate school applications (PhD) in the US I understand the standard margin spacing on personal statements is 1 inch, but I've read that 0.75 inches may be okay.

Most of the statements specify 1-2 page limits and nothing else. I'm wondering if 0.75 inch margins are okay, given that I have 3 significant research experiences to describe in my statements.

Any opinions on costs VS. benefits in my case: to lose content (it would have to be from my research experiences, as I already have the bare minimum writing that addresses other aspects of the statement, such as why I want to attend the school or long-term career objectives) or to possibly annoy one of the readers that I have 0.75 margins as opposed to 1 inch margins.

Thanks!

Whenever in doubt in such situations, it is always best to err on the side of fewer words. You do risk annoying the reader (who will see that your margins are smaller than the margins on the others they are reading), and you are assuming that the reader will actually finish reading your longer statement. Page limits are there to guard readers' time, and if they only have x minutes to devote to each statement, your longer statement will not be as thoroughly read and digested. Yes, they should probably have word limits to get around this margin problem (my Uni works with word limits, not page limits, for this reason), but you do risk diluting the time they spend thinking about you.

While I know you think your three experiences are so significant that they each deserve extensive treatment, being concise about important things is part of academia. For example, I recently had less than a page to display how my research background is world-leading enough to warrant being awarded €1.5million. You are given 2 pages only to describe why you want to go to graduate school. Having to express important things in little space isn't going to go away as you progress with your academic career; as time passes, more info goes in less space.


Who owns the laptop bought with funding for student training etc. in a fully funded PhD project? I am a PhD student at a UK university and the project is a collaboration between the University and an industrial partner. My question is when the laptop is bought using the extra money allocated for training etc., who owns the laptop?

If it isn't specified in the collaboration contract, ask the funding agency for clarification - this may be determined on a case-to-case basis.

Single data point: I had funding as PhD student via a sholarship that also had an expenses budget.

When I bought stuff that was in between consumables and small instruments (to be precise, VUV-quality CaF2 slides). At reimbursement, the funding agency stipulated that they should become property of the institute.
In contrast, there was no such stipulation for some books I bought from the same budget.


Will 2 years of non relevant work ex affect ms in cs prospects? I have completed Bachelor's in Computer Science ( from India) with an 8.7 CGPA. During my engineering I've done a couple of relevant internships and published a couple of papers. After graduating, I've done a two years non-relevant job in a reputed bank.

Will this non-relevant work experience hurt my chances of getting admit in a good university for MS in CS? (in USA)

Every university is different, but two years shouldn't be a big problem as long as you haven't lost the knowledge you once had. But in the US, even that is less of a problem as the MS usually involves a lot of course work.

Most admissions systems are looking for evidence of success that you can demonstrate. If your record is good and you can get good letters of recommendation you will have a chance. And, the internships and papers are a plus, of course.

But note that, depending on where you apply, you may find tremendous competition for limited slots. Don't make your search for a university too narrow.


Telling where I am originally from at the first lecture? I am going to start teaching next year in a university in the UK. One common question I get with students in one-to-one conversations is about my origin. I certainly have an accent, and they are naturally curious about it. I was wondering if it is fine that, when I introduce myself during the first lecture, I tell them where I am originally from?  This is not an issue for me.

I understand that some lecturers get offended with the question "where are you originally from?", but I think sometimes students are genuinely interested on knowing this inconsequential information. I was, when I was a student, so I understand.

You can certainly do so. Something like "I was born here. I did my undergraduate degree here, my masters degree here, and my PhD here. After my PhD ..." etc. It doesn't have to be very long and could also be part of your lecture slides.

One of my lecturers from my bachelor's degree did this, and I still remember she and my brother shared an alma mater.


Should I pursue a PhD if I am clearly not qualified for it? I know this board isn't meant to answer deep personal questions, so I try to keep this rather general as it is kind of related to this and this.

I pursued the goal of getting a PhD / doing research for a long time. Mostly for personal (/ego) reasons.

Now, as I am about to finish my master's degree, it becomes more and more clear, that I am probably not qualified for a doctorate. I prolonged the time on both of my degrees. My grades are average at best and I rarely enjoyed sitting in lectures. I am particularly bad at writing anything scientifically like my thesis, papers or even emails (which leads to massive procrastination and delay on this tasks). Researching on theoretical topics is often difficult for me as I tend to skim most of the papers. And, to be honest, I enjoy practical tasks like creating, implementing or improving algorithms, the most.

Soon I have to decide if I find myself an industry job or a PhD program. But should I even pursue a PhD with this kind of flaws?

Nothing has said that you're not qualified to be a researcher—getting good grades and being a good researcher are not entirely correlated, and having the skills for one is not necessarily a guarantee of success for the other.

What your comments suggest, though, is that you would likely not enjoy the process of getting a PhD. Given how long it takes to get a PhD, that's an awfully long time to spend being miserable.

So ask yourself:

  What is it that I enjoy about research? Is it enough to justify all the drawbacks it would bring?

If you can't justify getting a PhD to yourself, don't make yourself miserable by forcing yourself to do something you don't want.


Is There a Way to List Writing Recommendation Letters on a CV? As a PhD Candidate, I've written several successful recommendation letters for students who I've taught in my classes. Is it worthwhile to include this information on a CV, say under "Service"? I've never seen this included before on a CV, but I was hoping there might be a way for me to highlight my contributions to teaching outside of the classroom.

I have not seen this and wouldn't recommend it, I would not consider writing recommendation letters to be under academic "service."

If you specifically mentored particular students then it makes sense to note that mentorship, but if they were just people who took your class then writing them recommendations is just part of your teaching responsibility, it doesn't mean anything for your qualifications if your students were successful when you wrote them recommendations, those are your students' accomplishments rather than yours.


What is meant by the requirement for an "outstanding academic record"? I am going to apply for a PhD program. What does mean when one requirement is "Outstanding academic record".

That means you have to have demonstrated that you're a really good student. Your "academic record" is what your undergraduate career says about you (transcripts, letters of reference, publications, awards). It must be "outstanding" - top of the heap.
Only very select schools (or those that think very well of themselves) can ask this explicitly of their applicants, though many require it.


Why do math/physics professors publish textbooks? Does it help their tenure case to write an expository textbook? I'd be surprised if it does, seeing as writing a textbook on, say, quantum mechanics, is not original scholarly work.

So why would a professor, say an aspiring full professor, write a textbook? Money?

Does it help their tenure case to write an expository textbook?

While I cannot speak for math or physics, in many of the biological and medical sciences, it would likely actively hurt your tenure case. "Why did you spend your time writing a book instead of getting more grants/writing more papers?"

  So why would a professor, say an aspiring full professor, write a textbook?

There are a few reasons one might be interested in writing a textbook:

You have, effectively, already written one. Many professors, having taught a course for a number of years, have accumulated a body of lecture notes, slide figures, exam questions, etc. that might be the foundation for a decent text on the subject. Writing a book is a way to get "credit" for all that.
There is no book on the subject you're writing, and you want one.
Writing a well-regarded textbook is a means to influence the direction of the field. For example, if you wanted to push a particular perspective on how one should approach the field, etc. writing a textbook on the topic is a way to do that. Again, not in math/physics, but in my field people are writing textbooks with either a causal inference or systems science bent to them to try to help push those methods forward.
Simple desire. Books are neat. They feel important. Many people are rather fond of them as objects. Seeing your name, and your thoughts, in a proper book on a shelf is an appealing concept. That may be enough.


Do all authors have the right to access LaTeX source code of the PDF manuscript uploaded to a journal's portal by the corresponding author? I am a PhD student about to graduate (finished defense/Viva, pending final thesis corrections and final upload before conferral of degree).

I am a co-author on a manuscript for a journal article. There are 5 other authors on this manuscript. I wrote some chunks of text and created a few figures of the manuscript.

Our initial manuscript submission to a journal (Elsevier is the publisher) came back after peer review requiring us to do major corrections. The first named author on the manuscript and my two supervisors undertook the majority of this task. For the manuscript writing aspect, I also contributed a revised figure and couple of paragraphs of text for the pending resubmission (I also did other tasks to address peer-review comments such as doing long-running simulations with different parameters etc).

Right from the beginning, the manuscript was written in LaTeX. I had also written some of the LaTeX code (for a couple of sections of the initial manuscript submission which came back after peer-review requiring major corrections). In fact, the first named author and myself were using git and a shared github private repo for pulling/pushing our TeX source code as we were working on the draft of the manuscript. However, post peer-review, the first named author took upon the manuscript re-writing task for resubmission entirely to themselves, and stopped pulling/pushing TeX code on our shared github repo.

Today, the corresponding author sent me the PDF of the revised manuscript for my comments and approval before resubmission. I requested the LaTeX source code of the revised PDF for my personal archival purposes. However the other authors who worked hard for the re-submission are reluctant to do this. They reasoned to me that a PDF version is sufficient for me to review and offer my comments. My personal thoughts on their behaviour is that they might have strong ownership feelings about the  revised manuscript since the rewriting was quite demanding in effort with large changes/rewrites necessary to address peer-reviewers comments.

My question therefore is: "are all authors on a journal manuscript automatically entitled to see all artefacts submitted by the corresponding author to the journal's portal (such as the LaTeX source code, covering letter and other relevant submission materials)?"

Your collaborator seems unnecessarily protective (or maybe insecure) about the TeX source, and I don't really see what they think they'll gain from it. Hiding some super awesome macros, or ashamed of shoddy TeXing? Take your pick.

That said, if you haven't worked on the source yourself or established things clearly beforehand, well, you probably don't have any automatic legal rights to it. You'll have rights to the end product, the words and the figure - at least until those rights are signed over to the publisher - but not necessarily the source. If a collaboration is to be, you know collaborative, they absolutely should share the code. Yet if they don't, it's not really worth pressing the issue. Just label this colleague as difficult to work with and remember that before considering working on new projects with them.


Who should be proofreading journal articles? I try to have any manuscript proofread before submission to an academic journal, where proofreading typically involves checking/fixing the spelling, grammar and overall style in English.

This decision often involves somewhat difficult decisions to make on how best to proceed. Here I am interested in one particular dimension of the problem. How to select someone good to proofread an article for an academic outlet?

To proofread something, you need somebody who knows about the subject matter. They have to gain something too, doing the work just for "fun" doesn't cut it. So your best bet is a coauthor, a colleague who is willing to swap proofreads with you, someone in the research group (understanding what others are doing should be beneficial), even perhaps your advisor.


Advisor writing bulk/entire student thesis I am forced to write this question as I believe it is unethical and needs to be addressed in my faculty. I suspect a faculty member in my university has the habit of writing his master's degree students' thesis (for free or for a fee). I believe he does that for a fee. A colleague has mentioned this before but that colleague isn't a board member so I can't really take his word officially. I noticed that for several thesis I examined for the examination board, his students have very solid thesis but would have you questioning their abilities during oral presentations. Some colleagues think it's stage fright but I believe it is more than that. This faculty member always requests that corrections for the thesis be mailed to him to "pass to his student". I think he's just doing the corrections and submitting final copy. This faculty member taught me in my undergraduate years in the same faculty and I heard some stories of his shady dealings with students then.
Question: How can something like this be investigated since there are no mechanism in place to limit what a supervisor contributes to his students' thesis? It is difficult to get the students to testify as this is what most of them would want by default.

Contact the University Thesis Office regarding policies regarding professors making edits. Maybe what he is doing is sanctioned; maybe there is a strict policy against it. The prof. won't tell you, and the college won't shake the boat. University administration offers the only chance of independent administration.


About to write my PhD thesis and I don't know the basics and fundamentals. I am feeling unworthy of the PhD title. What should I do? My PhD work is on modeling a 3D printing process using a commercial FEM software. But I am not confident with basics of finite element theory, non linear Finite element analysis to be accurate, which I learnt by self study. My work was mostly application of established models, so I didn’t have to do any numerical work in my research. It's my final year (starting to write my thesis) and I am not happy with my level of expertise. I am freaking out. What do I do? Sad part is I am in 6th year of PhD.

Nobody knows everything. In many fields it is impossible to know everything about that field. In mathematics it was possible for an individual to know everything up through the end of the 19th century, and a few people did. Henri Poincaré was a likely candidate. But after that it soon became impossible as there was just too much. Computer Science has probably passed out of the era where it was possible to know it all, but it was (possibly) somewhere around the end of the 20th century.

There is a psychological effect called Imposter Syndrome in which you don't believe that you are as good as others know you to be. It affects many people, including many academics.

Learning is a life-long activity. I suggest that in the short term you just get on with it and write the thesis, working as you normally do, which I'm sure includes study. In the longer term you can, as you would likely do anyway, work to fill in those bits that you think you are missing.

But don't delay your work now until you think you are ripe. That point may never come, even though you are perfectly capable at each point at which it matters.

The feeling may never go away. But if you know it for what it is, it needn't inhibit you or become debilitating.


Is it reasonable to get the university's legal team to advise on an open source licensing issue that affects software developed for research I am developing some open source software for use in research.
I intend to publish a paper about it.
(It is marginally novel, and there is a venue I have in mind that accepts such.)

One piece of existing code I would like to derive from to make my tool,
is released under a problematic crayon license.
It basically boils down to the code is either public domain, GPL, or all rights reserved. (and I can't determine which, and nor can Open Source stack exchange).

So it seems like maybe interpretting the license is a job for an actual lawyer.
I know my university has a team of them on retainer.
(and I know they do process some documents for students. I had an undergrad unit that required working with a business and we were instructed to forward any NDAs to the lecturer who would get them checked by the university lawyers.)

Making this code is not the primary goal in my research, but it is a stepping stone, and it does furfill some of the stated objectives of one of my supervisor's grants that has been funding me. but it is not a primary part of either.

I can't directly request anything from legal myself, but I could get my supervisor to do so.
But I don't know if it is a waste of everybody's time.

Your work is important for your supervisors grant.
Your supervisor is employed at said university and thus his grant is important to the university.
The universities legal team deals with legal issues that are important for the university.

Sounds rather clear to me. Furthermore, asking your supervisor or even sending a short "can you help me with such an issue" mail to the legal team takes only a few minutes of their time.
Of course you should clarify who to ask first and not start off with 10 pages of legal "bla" in your first email.

PS: On the other hand, you might get yourself and the legal team in a lot of trouble if you publish something, under the universities name and with your supervisor employed there, without taking care of such issues first.


Changing affiliation on publication I am moving from one job to another (postdoc to tenure track) this summer and I have papers in several stages of being written, these go from handwritten notes with all the necessary arguments to under revision at a journal. All the papers will have my new contact information put on them but where is the line for changing affiliation? It seems obvious to me that the one that is still in the handwritten notes stage will get the new affiliation and that the ones under revision won't. So somewhere in between is a line.

Where is it?

There are some similar questions so far (see here and here but they do not seem to be quite the same situation since I am not changing fields and the appointments are not concurrent.

I would argue that it's a question of resources—if you have used resources (equipment, personnel, computers, financial) of both institutions in executing the paper before its initial submission, then you should list both institutes as supporting the work.

On the other hand, if the core of the work—both research and writing—were done at the old institution, then the new institution should only be listed as a "present affiliation," rather than as a "co-sponsor" of the work.


How to find out if my specific idea is really new, or if someone has already worked on it? I started working on my PhD few months ago and I am trying to solve a problem in a particular topic. The topic is quite specific and many people have already worked on it before. I am stuck at the following two scenarios:

I would like to extend the topic in some particular direction which I think is interesting and new. How will I know if people have already worked on that 'new extended topic'? I google hoping to find something, but I don't. I read some review papers (but most of them are old) and they don't cover any. Also, I think it is very difficult to read all recent papers related to the topic of research in a hope to land on my specific topic.
I would like to solve an existing specific topic in a new way, which may be quite simple, but looks efficient. But, I have the feeling that people should have already solved the problem in 'my new way'. How will I find if that has been done? I use google again and land up in quite interesting papers but it still do not solve my problem.

How do you tackle the above situations? I think one way is to do a very extensive literature review of the topic, but how will you achieve that? Review papers? Reading 'all' papers in that topic? I tried to do that right at the beginning, but I realized I can not and should not know everything, but should have a very rough overview of the topic and in depth knowledge in my way of solving the problem.

Edit: My research is in the topic of Computer Vision, in the field of Computer Science. My very specific topic is the topic of marker-less augmented reality.

What I find most critical: figure out the nomenclature. Look for articles about your research question in your own words and create a list of keywords that are frequently used. There is usually no consensus, so you will end up with synonyms.

Once you know the words used by the community in your field to describe the concepts and problems, literature searches get a lot easier. My usual approach is to use a large database of publications (in my field Medline is good, I guess your field has its equivalent) and look for the few keywords I listed. Now, don't read all articles of course, do a selection based on the title first, then on the abstract. There is a lot of redundancy in published papers so you will be able to weed out a majority of the papers at this point.

In some fields, senior researchers sometimes write review articles that list the 'open problems' in the field. Even if they don't give such a list, good review papers give an overview of the state of the art and are a great source of secondary citations.

Of course, discuss the matter with your colleagues and adviser, read prominent blogs and if possible go to (a) good conference(s). Conferences are great to grasp what others do and don't, and they help to make sure you don't reinvent the wheel.

Finally, I think you shouldn't worry too much at this point, here are a few words form my answer to this question Is there any research on the prevalence of academic theft?

  The chances that your idea is absolutely original is close to zero. Concepts, ideas and theories are almost always due to an
  intellectual environment in which many researchers are present. Even
  theories traditionally attributed to a single individual [...] were the result of
  inputs from several individuals over several years.

  The chances that your state of research, access to resources and previous intellectual work is similar for someone else is very small.
  Research breakthrough are a result of the right coincidence of
  opportunity, resources and intellectual maturity.


PhD Supervisor warnings I'm a third-year PhD student. First year, due to my ill health and lack of command over the subject research progress was slow. My second year, I picked up well but still no clarity over the research problem.

After secnd year, on a monthly basis my supervisor asked if I am interested or not, and said things like "You have improved but within three months if I don't see immense progress I'll give you a master's and get rid of you."

I'm interested and trying really hard to keep up to them. These questions demotivate me regularly even though I'm still confident. With this state of mind, working has become difficult.

If I get masters, it'll be of no use since I'm already a Post-graduate. How do I make this situation better?

Have never been at either side of the table in this kind of situations, but I can share some of my thoughts based on conflict resolution.

First, as I have stated in the comment, you need to let us know where you are at. Have you passed the qualifying exam? Have you submitted your PhD proposal? Was your proposal rejected? etc. All these can help the viewers here to give more concrete suggestions.

Think in your supervisor's shoes

First, you'll need to realize that mentor-mentee is a very delicate symbiotic relationship. The mentor guides the mentee by provide intellectual, physical and financial supports, while the mentee helps expand the research base of the mentor's, publish papers and solicit funding. Even you don't mind your progress being slow, you can significantly slow down your supervisor's career advancement, especially if he/she is struggling in a tenure track. So, the urge for you to get done is reasonable and you should understand that.

I am not entirely sure about your institution but in my institute, for a supervisor to keep a PhD student for two years (notice: not three, three is impossible) without producing any progress, a LOT of work has to be done (explaining to the promotion committee, to the dean, to the funding source, etc.) to keep the student safe. I suspect that your supervisor might have done a lot to protect you already, and finally gave in to the pressure and reality.

Ask for an evaluation guideline

If you really wish to stay and are confident that you can do that. First, ask for a set of criteria on what is meant by "immense progress within three months." Be it a draft of a proposal, a draft of a paper, a list of research aims, or whatever. Ask your supervisor for a list of deliveries and how they will be evaluated.

Then, go home and break them down into 2-week chunks of work. Turn the results into a monitoring chart. Every two weeks, you'll meet with your adviser and check off the items.

If anything slows you down, don't wait till the meeting, ask for help. If your supervisor is not giving you help, ask someone else or work it out yourself. Never attend the meeting without the promised delivery.

At the end of the third month, if both parties are happy, keep going and repeat the system. If for any reason it does not work, then bow out. At least you would get a Master in three years, and in that sense your resume wouldn't look too wrong. Getting a master after post-graduate is not rare, a lot of people get MBA or MPH after their doctoral studies. It's the nature of the Master degree and your work that matter.

Get professional help

You may also get some outside help (from someone who has no vested interest in your PhD). A career coach or an outside mentor would be a good choice. Frankly share with them your problem and let them give their diagnosis and suggestions. Be open and try them out.

In conclusion, get the requests in writing, and stick to it. Dive into the process for three months and see if both parties are happy. Leaving does not mean you lose. It may just mean this supervisor or this research topic is not a good fit. You may be amazed how much more you can actually get just by letting go.


Citing medium of access for a book in MLA I'm trying to write an essay with the following MLA citation in the bibliography:

  Hoffman, Conrad. In the Prison Camps of Germany: A Narrative of "Y" Service among Prisoners of War. New York: Association,  1920. Print.

After reviewing it, my teacher posted the following comment:

  Be sure to include the medium of access.

The resource in question was virtualized via Google. How do I represent the medium of access in an MLA citation for a virtualized book?

According to the Purdue Online Writing Lab, which is usually a good source for such things, journal articles that are available both online and in print should be cited based on which medium you actually used to access the article:

  Article in an Online Scholarly Journal That Also Appears in Print

  Cite articles in online scholarly journals that also appear in print as you would a scholarly journal in print, including the page range of the article. Provide the medium of publication that you used (in this case, Web) and the date of access.

I would thus anticipate that the same principle should be applied to a scanned book.  Even though the original was generated long before the web existed, you accessed it through the web today, and since you are recording publication medium, that's the publication medium by which it was actually delivered to you.


Is there a correlation between how enthusiastic reviewers are and how much impact a paper has? If I have a paper which five reviewers agree is good, does that mean it'll probably also have high impact? Both reviewer enthusiasm and impact can be difficult to measure objectively, so I'm thinking of indicators such as the language used by the reviewers, the number of reviewers, whether the paper is accepted outright instead of revised, and the number of citations it generates.

From personal experience the answer seems to be "not really", but I don't have a lot of data, and I'm wondering if editors see a correlation or (even better) if there's been a study on this.

I doubt there could possibly be a measurable correlation. I don't know of anyone collecting data on "reviewer enthusiasm". But even informally, can you expect that in general enthusiastic reviewers is likely to result in more citations?

Here I doubt it also, but only because the number of researchers in arcane subfields of a field isn't uniformly distributed. Your profile suggest that you work in Physics, which has a lot of quite different subfields. Some of those have a lot of current activity and others are more arcane. If you work in a popular field you are much more likely to get citations than if you don't.

My own early work, for example, was rarely cited, but there were only about five people worldwide who worked in that tiny subfield. That was true even though the main result was very interesting. A lesser result in a more popular subfield would have likely generated more citations because more people could make use of it.

However, there is enthusiasm and there is enthusiasm. If you prove a long studied conjecture that has been a bottleneck in your field, reviewers will be enthusiastic and the nature of the work will generate the citations. On the other hand, a great result the completes a field, meaning that there can be little follow up (rare, I know) would generate citations in the popular press, but, since there isn't any follow up, few in the scientific literature.


How to critically review an article when one doesn't have proper background knowledge? I am in talks with a PhD supervisor for admission to university who likes my profile but has given me an article to review. Although the article is related to my broader research area, there are some terminologies that I don't have proper background knowledge. I have read the article and have fair understanding of it. I have written a summary, problem statement, proposed solution and methodology  in review format provided by supervisor but I am stuck at critical review section as I don't have proper background knowledge. I want to know how to go about in this case? How should I review this critically?

Any help would be appreciated.

This is really the whole point of the challenge the supervisor has presented you. I bet he was hoping to hit you with something that wouldn't exactly be easy for you. He's trying to get you to stretch a bit and get out of your comfort zone. I don't know what he intends by the review format that he gave you, but if you have any critiques, concerns, or other thoughts about this article, this is where you should put them. It almost doesn't even matter if you're right (almost), but you need to show him that you've thought about the article, that you can explain its implications, and that if there are things that worry you about it, that you can explain them.

If you are really stuck, it's probably worth looking through some of the articles that are cited by the article in question to give yourself some more background. This should also help you set the article in the context of some of the rest of the literature.


Is it possible to write good papers in a startup? I don't know if there are some small startups in the world where they hire researchers to write papers. If so, is it possible for them to write good papers almost without advisors and professors or even doctors? What they only have is probably the open source materials like papers on Axive and Sciencedirect and etc..

I have never encountered any small company having research department only for publishing papers. Is it common?

A small startup will not have any money for hiring a person to write papers or form an independent research department.

Yet you can see startup companies appearing as author affiliations on academic papers, so a question might be how that is possible.

What happens is that some startups are funded out of research activities at universities, and at least during an initial growth phase they keep a tight connection to the university they are funded out of. Typically that would work in the way that a university research group develops a technology, and maybe a PhD student or post-doc working on that funds a company to commercialize the technology. Nevertheless, the research group may continue improving or working with that technology, and if that is in collaboration with the company, then of course company members will appear as co-authors on the papers coming out of that.

In that case, also the professor who originally supervised the research would also stay in contact with the company, usually even in some formal role such as on an advisory board, and would thus be available for further academic support.


Is it normal for adverts for US jobs to give much less information than European ones? At the moment I'm looking for my next position (most likely postdoc level, potentially one step up from there).

When looking at advertised positions in Europe I generally expect to see a brief summary of what the job is about on the advert, and then have the ability to click through to see one or more multipage documents detailing the responsibilities of the post, the exact qualifications that are required and desirable, and so forth. Typically these detailed specifications will be used in the selection process - and so an applicant will use them to inform their application, making sure to address each point.

When looking at a couple of positions in the US, there has been the initial brief summary... and then nothing else. The entire job advert seems to consist of one paragraph giving an overview, plus some boilerplate about equal opportunities.

Is this normal? If so, what are the reasons? Since the selection criteria aren't being disclosed, how can an applicant go about identifying what attributes they need to highlight in their application?

In Europe, at least in science, a postdoc is generally hired with specific funding to undertake a specific project. This might not be the case in the US, where lab heads will take on postdocs with a general idea of the area they will work in, but then it will be up to the postdoc to design their own research program.

Also note that the law around employment in the US is much less restrictive, so where in Europe an employee can call foul if asked to do something not in their job description, and an employer can only sack an employee if they prove to be below a what would reasonably be expected on a listed responsibility on their job description, these things don't apply in the US.


How can I better deal with position papers? Here is some context, I am currently a graduate student in education but I come from an art background. Needless to say, writing papers is not something I've done on a regular basis since high school.

Although I've gotten good grades on the two previous ones I wrote, I suspect they drained me a lot more than they should have had. I tend to be able to see the contradictions in everything, which I find is very helpful (as well as annoying) in my life in general but it makes writing position papers a living hell. I always feel like I am presented with a question that can not be answered and that I am forced to give a definite answer to it.

An example of question from a previous paper would be:

  Learner-centered approaches should replace teacher-centered approaches

Once I find an angle on how to go about it while feeling reasonably comfortable, things flow and it's not a problem but I always have this nagging doubt that it's not good because half the time I end up not really answering the question but dismissing it because nothing is this black or white. I tend to want to run everything by the teacher to get feedback because I'm never sure what we are really expected to do. I would fare much better if the question was in the likes of:

  What should one take into account when choosing between teacher-centered
  approaches and learner-centered approaches?

Don't get me wrong, I have opinions but I feel like they're not applicable in all scenarios.
Sometimes I feel like those papers are only used to see how well we can write, how well you can form an argument and be convincing but I see little value in convincing just for sake of it. How can I get out of this rut?

Writing position papers does not require any special innate talent or disposition. You can develop these skills through the combination of systematic method and frequent practice.

First, you need to understand that a "position paper" (a.k.a. "analysis paper") is very different from a "survey paper" or an "essay".  A position paper is somewhat similar to a legal argument for each side of the question.  Your only goal is to communicate and evaluate the arguments for and against each alternative.  You don't have to describe the whole issue, its history, its cultural setting or social significance, or many other issues. Deconstructing the question or alternatives is not in-scope for a position paper.  Neither is your impressions, experience, or personal value judgments.  Don't go "meta".  (Those are in-scope for an essay.)

Here's the method, boiled down to its essence:

Be clear about the scope of the question and alternatives. Make
assumptions if you have to fill in blanks.
Identify an ideal advocate for each alternative or position, even if you imagine a fictionalized advocate.
For each alternative and idealized advocate, make an outline of the following:

Their strongest argument in favor of that alternative
Their strongest argument against the other alternatives
Their counter-arguments to the criticisms of the advocates of the other positions

Once your outline is complete, rewrite it in sentence and paragraph form.
Finally, add introduction paragraphs setting up the debate and conclusion paragraphs that evaluate the relative strengths of the various arguments.

From your professor's point of view, the most important paragraphs are the conclusions where you decide which of the arguments is most compelling and with the least number of unanswered flaws or voids.

In your example:

  Learner-centered approaches should replace teacher-centered approaches

Who best advocates learner-centered approaches?  Who best advocates teacher-centered approaches?  What arguments do they advance to support their positions?  What criticisms do they level at the other?

In examining these arguments, the following questions might come to your mind to compare and contrast the positions: Do they both agree on the criteria are for "best" or "better"? Whose values and needs are most important? Do they both agree on what the implications are for "change" vs "status quo"?

What evidence does each advocate have to support their position?  What credibility and relevance does the evidence have?  What are the uncertainties and voids (lack of information) in each position.  (No argument is perfect or free from some uncertainty.)

The best way to learn this is to practice it frequently. The best way to practice it frequently is to start a blog and write a post every day or every other day on a topic area that is important to you. Aim for 'minimalist' position posts, which are probably four paragraphs.

After you do this for a couple of months, you will find that you are no longer seeking your professors' feedback regarding whether you are giving them what they expect to see.  Your confidence and efficiency will rise.


How to start an official email to a professor I want to send an email to a professor to inform him that I want to accept the offer of PhD admission and Research assistantship. But I do not know how to start email. Is the following good? if not, would you please recommend better phrase.

  Dear Professor,

  I hope you are keeping well ....

Congratulations on finding a PhD position :) When sending an acceptance e-mail to a professor, I would say the "general" rules of communicating with professors via e-mail apply.

Be polite, and extend thanks when appropriate, but don't overdo the social pleasantries.

The polite part basically holds for any e-mail and live correspondence.

I would say that "I hope you are keeping well" would be a bit unnecessary.
Be short and to the point. Respect the professors time.

Professors receive many e-mails a day, and are usually very busy. Saying what you want to say clearly not only shows respect for their time, but also makes it more likely that everything written will be carefully read.
Do at least a basic spellcheck.

Especially in the beginning of a communication. It doesn't cost much time and effort, but could leave a bad impression.
Do not attach big files unless explicitly asked for.

Anything larger than a few MB should not be sent unless asked for (e.g. sending all your credentials / application papers when first contacting somebody is bad), and especially not to somebody who you are not collaborating with at the moment.

Beyond this, there is not much else. I already feel like it's hard to call any of these rules, they're just guides based on common sense. Just say what you need to say. I put and extended the comment by @user11259 here as an example:

  Hello Dr./Prof. Brain,

  I gratefully accept your offer of admission and research assistantship, and I look forward to working with you.

  (Please let me know about the next steps in the admission process I need to take.)

  Sincerely,

  user11259


How to explain to my supervisor that her style of input is hindering my progress? I am in the fourth year of a part-time PhD. I have at least another couple of years left, the next two years are for writing up and this year was supposed to be for data collection.
I hit problems with research and data collection because of COVID, a lot of us did. But one of the things that has come to my realisation is that it is my supervisor who chiefly hindered my progress.
I cannot blame her for this, she is just doing her job and she is very respected in her field. I do like her. The main problems came in November 2020. I had a tutorial and I said, "I want to do X this way", she came back with "why don't you do it this other way?" I initially agreed but then, a few hours after the tutorial, I felt like the wind had been taken out of my sails. I didn't know it at the time, or understand it, but she had totally killed my enthusiasm, not only for the piece I was working on, but for the project. This has been going on since November and I have found it very hard to produce anything. In fact I haven't written anything since November apart from one piece.
The crunch time came a few days ago. I wrote a paper plan for her, something that I was interested and intrigued to get on with. The same thing happened again, she wrote back and said, "this is too broad, remove this [very interesting] part and focus on this [not so interesting but practical] part". Try as I might I could not muster the enthusiasm to continue and the paper has been shelved.
I had a discussion with her yesterday and we have agreed for me to take three months off. It occurred to me after our talk yesterday that the problem is that I am not given enough freedom to do my work how I want. YES she is the supervisor, and I am here to learn, I understand that, but this is not working for me this way. I now have three months 'off' but I am thinking of not not doing any work but doing things how I want to do them: I have enthusiasm again for the PhD and am starting to get filled with ideas. I have a research blog which I haven't updated for months because she wanted to vet anything I put on there, but, I asked her yesterday if I can put things up there ANYWAY in the next few months regardless of her input and she said yes.
I am worried that, after these three months, I will have put entries on the blog - much of the content/themes of which I want to put in the final thesis - but we will just go back to doing things the old way and she will say a lot of the stuff I wrote isn't that relevant and she will want me to focus on authors I am not interested in and for me to remove ideas I had.
How do I explain I need more freedom and her management style/suggestions are not working for me? Or should I not say that at all? I respect her and want to put this point across in the best way. Or do I just do three months of work my way and then, when she sees how effective a more hands-off approach is, she will agree to do things that way?

There are several intertwined issues here, and it is going to be difficult to sort them out:

Your supervisor is an expert.  She likely knows things you don't.  So if you suggest one way and she suggests another, it may be because she has seen that way tried before and knows that it doesn't lead anywhere.

Your supervisor doesn't seem to be great at leading, or doesn't recognize that you are not her colleague yet.  If two people at the same level are trading ideas, shooting them down or poking holes to patch can be a very useful exercise.  As a new researcher, you aren't at this level yet, but she may be treating you as though you are.

What you consider interesting and what she considers interesting may not overlap

What you consider interesting and what is actually publishable within the scope of a single paper or blog post may not overlap.

Let's treat these individually.

I have seen many grad students (and I have been one myself) who don't fully grasp the field.  I've read papers, thought "Oh, I can fix that problem", then gone on to work for a week and then find the paper written 20 years prior that solves it.  She has a much broader understanding of the field than you do, and she knows what's been done.  Take her suggestions helpfully: "I want to do X, but my supervisor suggested Y instead.  I'm going to compare and contrast the two methods in a literature review and see which is best".  That's your job as a PhD student anyway.

This is time for an awkward conversation.  Depending on your personality, I personally suggest being a bit blunt but polite.  Tell her what you told us: "When I suggest something and you change it, it takes my enthusiasm away.  Can we work together to make sure that my ideas are fully explored, even if they aren't the best?"

This is up to you two to figure out.  This is more fun.  Ask her what she thinks the big problems of the field are, why she's in the field, what interests her about new research etc.

My supervisor was phenomenally good at writing.  I am not.  He was also very good at focusing a paper onto the key relevant points.  I was not.  We fought over papers a lot, to be honest, and to be equally honest it was a mutual problem.  Both of us had reasonable ideas, but he was better at it and knew what it took to get published.  I did not.

If your supervisor thinks that you are proposing something too broad, that's a very, very good indicator that you are.  Think of those broad ideas as your research program, and the individual smaller ideas as your research projects.  Projects lead to papers, programs lead to careers.  Don't take it as "this is a useless idea", but more as "this is not suitable for publication because you haven't actually solved the big problem.  You have, however, solved a smaller problem that moves us towards the bigger solution.  Let's publish that and keep making progress"


Are there any known Universities that refuse to pay for paywall access to academic journals? Are there any known Universities that refuse to pay for paywall access (for moral, intellectual, inability to pay, or other reasons) to academic journal articles?

No University has enough funding to spend on subscription fees for all existing paywalled research articles (e.g., Harvard University says it can't afford journal publishers' prices). As a result, some of their faculty and student resort to free alternatives SciHub/LibGen/emailing colleagues/etc.

Many universities located in developing countries cannot afford paying for paywalls.

If you need a particular University name, here are some:

University of Sierra Leone:

  When he needs new books to teach one of his courses, Professor Ibrahim Abdullah orders at least two from abroad: one for himself, one to give to the university library. If he needs scholarly articles, he writes to his friends overseas and asks them to send copies, since the university cannot afford journal subscriptions.

All public universities, research institutes and state agencies in Peru (translated by Google):

  Bad news for research and technological innovation come from Peru. The
  National Council for Science, Technology and Technological Innovation
  (Concytec), a government agency, will no longer offer free access to
  the ScienceDirect and Scorpus databases by the end of the year. The
  lack of funding from the central government has been the cause of the
  closure of these platforms for Peruvians.

  Access had been enabled for public universities, research institutes
  and state agencies. ScienceDirect (Freedom Collection) gathers more
  than 1,800 titles in full text scientific journals in 24 thematic
  areas and Scopus meets "relevant sources for basic research, applied
  research and technological innovation and is a tool for bibliometric
  studies" according to the portal Concytec .

  Access was open since 2014 and during that time 3.7 million full-text
  documents were downloaded. The downloads, according to Concytec, would
  have cost US $ 131 million if they had been isolated. While
  subscribing to these services for three years cost the agency only US
  $ 10 million.

A few other places:

Dutch universities start their Elsevier boycott plan
Germany-wide consortium of research libraries announce boycott of Elsevier journals over open access
Taiwan Tech to Discontinue Subscription to Elsevier ScienceDirect Starting 2017

Some interesting maps showing the location of Sci-Hub users (at least the location of the machine that makes the final request):


Do U.S. PhD students who engage in research during summer or intersession breaks get vacation time? When a PhD program in the United States like this states that students are expected to engage in full-time research during the summer months and the January intersession in addition to their regular coursework, should one expect that vacation time is out of the discussion, unless it is unofficially granted by the advisor?

If your advisor is providing your pay, then you should negotiate vacation with your advisor.  About 2 weeks per year is considered standard in US employment.

If your advisor is not providing you with pay, you should still discuss it with your advisor to make sure they think you are making progress and are committed to your research.  However, your advisor should realize they are not in a position to dictate terms.

Do not be surprised if nobody cares.  But don't abuse it.

I recommend planning your vacations at the same time as everyone else's.  The benefits are that other people will not notice you are gone, and it can be hard to get work done anyway when the people you work with are gone so less is missed.  Typically these times are late December and August.


Do I add an acknowledgement upon initial submission? (to an anonymous review) When do I add anacknowledgement to a (philosophy of science) article?. Even though the acknowledgement does not specify my name, it does say something about where the work was done. Do I add the acknowledgement only when the article is accepted?

Personally, I only add acknowledgements after the paper no longer requires blinding. Acknowledgements add nothing for a review, and "Thanks to [blinded], supported by grant [blinded] from [blinded]" always seemed too silly to bother with.


How should I structure my CV since my degree doesn't reflect my primary studies? As per the title, how should I structure my CV since when I'm done with my course of study my formal degree (PhD, Computational Science and Engineering) will not reflect my course of study and research (environmental modeling and sustainability). Based upon my projected coursework I will get a graduate certificate in sustainability along the way. Furthermore, most of my publications will be related as well.

Currently my goal is to secure role in academia, ideally a professorship, but my background is industry so I'm used to automated application filtering, it is a concern of mine. As such, how should I structure my CV to reflect my actual research interests, or is this effectively a non-issue in the long run?

I have a PhD in Computer Science and work in social sciences so have a similar situation as you. I get away with it as a 'methods' person rather than a 'subject matter' person. In the long run, it will be a non-issue because your research interests and jobs that interest you should overlap. But for the first post-doc position, you may need to be careful in your presentation.

First, an academic CV looks nothing like an industry CV. Get hold of some CVs from more senior academics and peers and attend any training offered by your institution. There is usually considerably more detail in an academic CV (sometimes excessive, which gives the impression of insufficient analytical skills to assess relevance).

While I am not specifically familiar with the US context, based on UK and Australia it would be unusual to use any sort of application filtering past the basic level of 'do you have a PhD'. It is important though to include your thesis title, which hopefully reflects your interests.

Any application process will include your publications. Almost all will have some sort of 'research statement' or cover letter etc. Take advantage of these to emphasise the relevance of your research and experience to the particular job. While it is fine to have a standard CV, you need to actively think about why you would be good for the particular job, not rely on fairly empty stock phrases. It is very important to write this statement or letter from a blank page for each job.

Interdisciplinarity is also attractive, but only if it's relevant - being able to use different methods is a plus in a larger research group because there's not much point in having multiple researchers with the identical skills and knowledge.


Is it good to work in a funded PhD project to complete it within time? I have enrolled my PhD in a German institute. The project is proposed by the institute and funding is by another agency. Based on my master work, I got selected for PhD. The proposed PhD work is not related to my M.Tech work. The application is different but the fundamentals are same. The project is funded for a limited period. The supervisor there has given me a research paper to follow.

May I know what is the probability to complete it within that time. Moreover, what sort of guidance I should expect expect from him.

Any necessary and advice in this regard would be highly appreciated and acknowledged.

Kind regards,
Manish

May I know what is the probability to complete it within that time. Moreover, what sort of guidance I should expect expect from him.

The answers will differ greatly based upon individual factors. Your primary source of information will be your advisor and your fellow PhD students and other researchers in your institute.

Some general points with respect to your questions, though:

Whether or not you can complete your PhD by the time your funding ends may or may not be relevant. Your advisor may be able and also willing to arrange for or help you get some other funding after your project has ended.
The project itself (i.e. the tasks mandated in the funding contract or similar documents) is probably feasible in time; especially as such documents are often kept a bit vague to allow for enough flexibility to finish things in time and work on your PhD.
It is difficult to say now whether your own research and your project are different, especially if they are somewhat related. They might remain separate, or either of them might become much more aligned with the other than it seems now.
The guidance to expect is very much dependent on the advisor and their resources. Maybe you will have weekly meetings, maybe you will have a hard time catching him to even read manuscripts before submission. Maybe he will advise himself, maybe he will delegate that to his postdocs or senior PhD candidates - or expect you to turn to them on your own.


Writing letters of reference for a faculty position in China? Does anyone know how to write good letters of reference into a Chinese university? I have an awesome former PhD student who is looking at a position that exactly suits their experience.  Is China like the USA that you can write something that is all praise, or is it like some countries in the EU where you are expected to comment on both strengths and weaknesses?  How should the letter open?

Writing my comment as an answer, following a suggestion.

I’ve spent two years in China as a postdoc. I have never read a recommendation letter (LoR) but I’ve experienced the culture in academia. As someone else hinted I also do not think anybody will actually read the LoR in any detail, but just skim through it. The focus is on who wrote it (more precisely, what is the author's university ranking and impact factors).
About the contents I’d recommend just dropping cliche positive comments but without any exaggeration. The Chinese are extremely sensitive to any form of criticism, and will generally not appreciate outspoken, frank discussions. This will look particularly "serious" if put in written, from a "leader" and addressed to 3rd parties, and might be interpreted as a gentle warning against the candidate.


Borrowing figures from the literature In my dissertation, I have felt the need to illustrate some ideas with the help of figures and illustrations which I have found available in existing literature. I have borrowed a number of them and I give proper citations and everything. My question is:

Will it be considered a negative point to have multiple borrowed figures from existing publications?

Also, in two cases, I found it hard to rephrase the captions for the images and I just quoted the captions(the proper way).
Does that look like I am being lazy?

The issue here is not "laziness"; the real issue with reusing figures from the literature is that, without appropriate permissions, you do not have the right to do so.

If you reuse a figure in the literature without the appropriate permission from the rights-holders, you are effectively stealing their work, which is not allowed. Therefore, you need to make sure that you have gotten the right to use the figures, and have the proof to back it up if challenged. Normally, for scholarly works such as theses, such rights are routinely granted and cost-free. However, you need to check with the publisher (or author of the paper, if she holds publication rights) before using the figure. Then, next to the figure you are reproducing, you'll need to have a statement such as "Figure reprinted by permission of X," where X is the person or institution authorized to grant reproduction rights.


How do you interpret the feedbacks of my boss I have a PhD in biological sciences but working (for two years by now) as a data analyst (I can say something like a bioinformatician) in a university analysing cancer omics

My boss says that I am an excellent bioinformatician but I must learn how to structure my data when presenting or even before any analysis

He says I would not get any credit unless I learn this

Every morning we have online lab meeting, when seeing my colleagues presentation I feel too bad about myself

I see how they are deep and accurate in their statement

But me only see frigid feedbacks, even PhD students in our lab don't take me serious never ask me to help them in their data

I feel too isolated.. I am getting to the end of my career but everyday I feel the current position would be my last job opportunity in my life

How would you approach such an annoying situation in your academic life?

Thank you for any word

There are certain conventions on how to structure thoughts, write texts, present information, and give talks. Find out and learn them. A first step is to ask your supervisor for specific advise, so you can improve these skills.

For example, is is common to finish sentences with a period and to group sentences together to form paragraphs. Note that practically everybody does this. It is a convention to efficiently convey ideas by giving the reader some expected structure she can hold on to. If you don't do this, this already sticks out as part of a "bad presentation". So, learn what conventions exist and use them.

This may help to address presentation and writing part:

http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~oded/R2/re-writing.pdf

http://www.math.wisc.edu/~ellenber/mntcg/TalkTipSheet.pdf

PS: This should have been a comment rather than an answer as it only addresses one aspect. I don't have enough reputation to comment.


Postdoc application asks for both cover letter and research statement, can they overlap? Most postdocs I have applied for wanted a cover letter (including research interests) and a CV.

I have now come across one that wants both a cover letter and a one page research statement.

The cover letter should be a very short document just stating my interest in the position and what is included, while the research statement should go over what research I have done an my interest in the project, right?

Yes, you have it right. Just be very careful not to repeat yourself in either of the documents.

The reason they're asking is because they feel they are different enough documents that they should be completely separate, and you should probably treat them the same (in this case).