Employee Recognition I have recently become part of a group at my (european) university, where we are suppose to come up with suggestions for how the "the good effort" can be appreciated and/or recognized by the department managment. The idea is to find ways to recognize the good effort made by individual employees.

In the past we have celebration publications in the "best" journals, but this scheme should have a broader focus, where great teaching, helpfulness, attracting external grants and so on should be recognized. I can find many more or less good suggestions for employee recognition by performing a simple google search, however, all these ideas seem to be targeted towards private companies. My question therefore is, what do you do at your universities to recognize "the good/great effort"? And what would you like, that you did?

My former university department gave out three annual awards, with a certificate and a plaque. The recipients were chosen by an awards committee of faculty. The three awards were for research, for teaching, and for service. The committee would accept nominations from anyone. I doubt that self nominating was ever encouraged, however.

Someone in the administration sends out a "call for nominations" a couple of months or so before the awards.

In addition, occasional special awards were given for something exceptional, such as the design of a new degree, awarded to the members of the design committee.

The awards were presented at one of the "all hands" meetings that we had periodically. Presentation was usually by the dean.

The following are also possibilities. Photos taken, maybe placed on the "wall of honor". An article in the department newsletter. A public announcement to local media.

Note that this was department level. The university can also do similar things at the larger level, both regular (annual) and special awards.


What's behind the teen prodigies inventing things? Every once in a while you see a headline similar to "17 year old student finds a cure for cancer!". Here are some examples too.

What's behind this? I find it hard to believe that a teenager without any academic education (or minimal education) can solve a problem that many experienced, well-funded, scientists have been working on for years. Or make a technological breakthrough that billion dollar international tech firms could not reach by themselves.

Are they really teen prodigies with brilliant minds or are they working in a team of people who know what they are doing that actually do all the work?

I actually disagree with the answer given, and having judged a fair number of high-end science fairs myself (not Intel, granted, but the all-Chicago science fair, which is essentially an Intel qualifier), took something different away from it. I am also close friends with a number of Intel finalists, and have discussed their experiences in depth.

While most of the high schoolers at this level of science fair are extremely intelligent and will eventually become great, independent drivers of research, at this level they typically are not there yet. Their projects, for the most part, are designed by a faculty member or senior grad student/post doc, and the student is guided through the many experimental steps involved until they find something, at which case, because the research was done in a university lab and it is already better than 98% of other science fair projects (which are usually done at home with minimal resources), they typically do very well in science fairs.

Occasionally, one of the students is truly head and shoulders above everyone else, and can operate somewhat autonomously in a lab setting and can ask and answer their own questions - essentially at the level of an older graduate student. But, like a graduate student, they typically still need the oversight of a senior person who "gets" research.

I realize that this response is mostly to the answer given above, and not the the main question, but I felt strongly that the answer needed to be addressed.

As for prodigies:

In the sciences, which require tons of background knowledge to even know what's going on (see: cancer), I have never, ever, heard of a true prodigy who could, for example, be running a 15 person cancer research lab, writing papers, etc. You don't just "understand" cancer the way some people "understand" math, innately.
In math, the story is much different. There are always math prodigies, and they typically get tenure in their early twenties (see: Manjul Bhargava, Charles Fefferman, etc.)
There are, of course, CS "prodigies" who are good at coding and creative enough to think of something that hasn't been done. But this isn't really what you are talking about.

tl;dr: there are no true "prodigies" in science. There are in math, though.


PI puts up a "facade" of great research, but doesn't support real academic work. Is this common? How to recognize this kind of situation? I am not sure what word is best used to describe this situation, but the PI puts up a facade of great research, advertised to incoming students as groundbreaking, but after one or two mediocre papers in low-tier conferences (heavily publicized) the support for the research disappears, so the work never gains momentum. Is this kind of thing common? How could an incoming graduate student recognize this kind of lab?

In my situation, I am a PhD student at a well-regarded, top-15 STEM program. My advisor is decently well-regarded in field A, and also purports to do work in field B (not specifying the fields as they are uncommonly found together). He heavily recruited me into his lab for field B. In field A our lab regularly publishes work in top conferences, but in field B the work never seems to gain momentum. However, when my advisor discusses his work publicly, he only advertises field B as it is a "sexier" field and more exciting to talk about, and to hear him talk about it we are doing exceptionally ground-breaking work. However, behind the facade, I am one of just two students working in field B, my work is not supported, I have little to no funding to do the projects he recruited me for and continues to recruit good students for. I have managed to get a couple of publications in decent venues, but the last publication I tried to work on he actually told me I should not publish (upon discussion with someone actually in the field, that person said it was very worthwhile work). Instead, I find myself regularly writing newsletter-style articles about work in its infancy, for non-academic venues, which bring a lot of publicity to the lab but are worth nothing to my academic career.

Additionally, as I progress (slowly) in my research it is painfully apparent that he knows absolutely nothing about this field. In my last meeting with my advisor, I came prepared with a list of 5 different research ideas, and after presenting them all, I was told "You should work on simple, practical things, not hard academic research." I told him what the top conferences were in my field and he said I was wrong (I am right) and told me to publish in incorrect venues. I am early in the program and am looking for a new advisor, because it is obvious that if I stay in this lab I will never be able to publish in my field and thus never be competitive for an academic (or likely even an industry) position in this field--at this point I am basically an academic publicist.

A lot of detail, but is this "research facade" a common occurrence? It is almost analogous to falling victim to an "academic con artist." For awhile I thought it was my fault, that I just wasn't working hard enough and that I just had to work harder to make the work gain momentum, but every time I am on the cusp of making progress on something the funding dries up and I am diverted to another project (after of course writing several press releases). Also, how would one recognize this type of lab in the future? It seems difficult as an incoming grad student being promised exciting projects to tell the difference between active research and sham projects.

In this question, I see two separate issues: First, you have the impression that you fell for someone similar to an "academic con-artist". Second, there is a conflict of goals between you and your supervisor. Your question is worded in a way that emphasizes the first issue, but in this answer, I want to make the point that it would be more productive to focus on the second issue.

Let me summarize the situation from my perspective. Your goal is to make an academic career, and for this goal you (reasonably) strive to produce work that gets published at top-level conferences. Your supervisor's goal, however, is to establish a new research direction which may or may not ever pan out to be of interest to top-level conferences. Since these conflicting goals seem impossible to reconcile, it is clear that you need to change your supervisor.

Since you don't want to wind up in the same situation again, you're wise to ask how can avoid that in the future. By focusing on your goals, this question becomes almost self-answering: Choose an advisor whose goals are easier to align with yours. The ideal advisor would be one who lets you work on a topic where he has recently published papers in top-level conferences.


Is it acceptable for a researcher PhD or PostDoc to pay a freelancer to re-implement a Benchmark I have heard of PhD students struggling to re-implement a Benchmark paper. Many of those I know struggle hard to do this on their own which could take up to 2 semesters or more, in some cases. Others pay programmers to re-implement their benchmark paper for reasons of insufficient skill, time, etc. For the latter, is this acceptable especially when the student is not paying the programmer to implement his PhD contribution?

This is a typical case of "ask your supervisor". He is the one who decides whether it is acceptable or not in your case.

A lot of research is carried out by multiple persons, and hiring someone is simply a case of adding an additional contributor to the research: there is nothing  wrong with that as long as you are honest and make it absolutely clear what your own work was and what was done by others. But, as said, your supervisor may not WANT to add another person to the research (many possible reasons for that exist), so ask him/her.


Why isn't implementing scientific libraries in software considered equivalent to a publication? In academia, researchers live by the mantra of "publish or perish". This is because the contribution to society that academia gives is the expansion of human knowledge.

However, given the importance of software to conduct research, I don't understand why implementing many algorithms or building API's for research purposes is not equally relevant when trying to get funding.

See, for example, how few papers in math, computer science and software engineering provide source code, despite the entire focus of the paper being on the implementation of an algorithm and its performance in real hardware.

Moreover, see how much research relies on API's. We have linear algebra API's, calculus, computer visions, physics simulations, etc. Many of which are paid software (e.g., Matlab).

If someone is willing to spend time developing an API for a given subject (a computer vision library, a rendering algorithm, quantum physics / computing simulations) and that software provides new and useful tools in open software and for free so that researchers can conduct their research more efficiently, I don't see how this is not equivalent in usefulness as making a paper.

Software is a research product has value and is seen as valuable, but you as a researcher need to ensure that you extract the value out of it. Extracting value out of any research product requires doing some kind of formal write up and distributing the ideas among the relevant audience. For software, this is many times in the form of a software publication. Many traditional scientific computing journals take a software paper and these papers can do quite well in terms of citations. For example, Shampine's "The MATLAB ODE Suite" is one of the most read and cited articles in SIAM Journal of Scientific Computing.

Taking that paper as a reference, notice that it identifies the problem it's solving, explains how it had to modify the algorithms to achieve its goals, and the kind of results it can achieve. This then gives a citable resource and many of the people who use the paper will then cite this source. Software tends to be under cited, but since it can get so widely used you will find that successful software has some of the most cited publications. Another classic journal like this is ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (ACM TOMS). More recent software journals are the Journal of Open Research Software and SoftwareX.

In a slightly different direction, the Journal for Open Source Software reduces the importance of the paper by making the software and its documentation part of the peer review. As an example, Optim.jl has a JOSS paper which you can see is much shorter than traditional academic papers, but at least summarizes the value of the software in a citable form.

When applying for jobs, you'll notice that people naturally assign a different value to software papers. While it is definitely changing, some professors I know take hardline stance that software is just implementation and doesn't extend knowledge and will value it less than other papers (which is why these exact points should be refuted in a publication about said software). In contrast, some individuals care more about impact or citations, and so a widely used software will have a very large effect on them. Generally in my experience, the value of software seems to be increasing over time, with senior professors more likely to take the former stance and newer professors more likely to take the latter.

But my advice would be to just do whatever you think has a high impact to the research community. If it does have a big impact, people will notice, and sometimes just being noticed is what you need.


Travel grant request letter, should I request maximum travel amount? I was awarded travel grant from the conference. I need to write letter that includes:

amount of travel reimbursement requested
address for the check to be sent to

I have few questions about amount of money I can or should request:

Do I request maximum reimbursement amount (say conference travel grant offers up to $1000, do I request $1000 or less)?
And related, can I request partial reimbursement of hotel stay. For
example: Conference registration is $800 and hotel stay during
conference is $800, I want to as for $1000 reimbursement.

It's certainly fine to ask for the maximum, if your expenses are at least that much.  And you can combine multiple expense items, as long as they are all reasonable.  In case 2 you can certainly request $1000.

I would actually go further: list all your expenses and request the total amount, even if it exceeds the maximum reimbursement amount stated.  You can phrase it as something like "My total travel expenses are $2345.67; I understand the maximum grant offered is $1000.00."  Let them take care of capping your reimbursement at their maximum figure.

Part of the reason for this is that organizers sometimes find they have more money, or fewer participants seeking funding, than they expected, and so they can actually give more money to each participant than their originally stated maximum.  So if it turns out that they actually have $1200 per person, they know they can reimburse you for $1200 instead.  If you only mentioned $1000 in expenses originally, they might think that was actually your total expenditure, and you might miss out on the extra money.

A lesser reason is that it helps keep the organizers informed as to what it actually costs people to attend, and how much of a difference their travel grant is making.

Of course, if your total travel expenses are only $534.63, then you should only request that amount (and make it clear that this represents your total expenses).  The point of the grant is to cover your expenses, not to arbitrarily enrich you.


Tests: at the beginning or the end of class? I'm teaching a 1st year math course. I have to give a one-hour test about the content of the past three weeks during one of my two-hours sessions.

Usually I give such tests at the end (i.e. during the second hour), as I don't want the test to be disturbed by the invariably late students, and I think the students will only be thinking and talking among themselves about the test during the second hour. But now I'm also thinking that if I do this, then students will have their brains already a bit "fried" by the first hour of lecture/exercises, and will have trouble focusing during the second hour on a test that is about what they learned the previous weeks. Besides, my session is from 11h15 to 13h15, so I expect everyone to be hungry during the second hour.

In either case it's not really optimal... but there isn't much choice. What are the other pros and cons?

For all the reasons you give, the first hour is much better. Just make sure that they are told beforehand (previous day) there won't be an adjustment made for late comers. They will likely be coming to class "psyched" for the exam. The intervening lecture will get in the way of that. The material discussed might even, being the most recent, be what sticks in their heads during the exam, rather than the material tested. They will also be more likely to ignore or forget the material in the lecture. But you say something similar yourself.

But why do you have to give a one hour test every three weeks. Is that a rule imposed on you? Suppose you start each class with a 15 minute quiz that covers recent material (not just the previous day). Would that be acceptable? It makes each exam less consequential overall and gives you better up to date information about what they have learned. If you end the previous session with a five minute review, perhaps led by the students themselves, on what are the "big ideas" today, and then base the quiz on those ideas (primarily), you may turn out to be more effective.


Why are recommendation letters highly relied upon? For any kind of academic application (from graduate admission to professor position), recommendation letters have a major impact on the outcome. The basic idea is understandable: discovering what others think about the applicant. It can help the review committee to decide about the applicant.

However, recommendations letters cannot be statistically reliable. For instance, when all recommendation letters of an application are highly positive, this cannot guarantee that all colleagues think highly of the applicant. Instead, it can be the result of only a few friendships.

In a typical example, if someone has three socially close friends (including current colleagues, coworkers, past professors), then, his applications are always supported by strong recommendation letters. For example, one could have conflict with his entire university, but having close social connection with three persons who can recommend him.

So, why are recommendation letters relied upon so highly, given these limitations?

UPDATE: I do not mean friendly recommendation letters. I mean influence of friendship on a professional recommendation letter. As an another example, Applicant A who has good relationship with 20 professors of his department is an ideal academic with professional relationships at workplace. BUT applicant B who has serious conflicts with most of his colleagues (professors of his department), but having only three friends among his department professors will get better recommendation letters. Those three professors will write recommendation letters based on the applicant strengths by ignoring his weakness in the light of their friendship.

In a typical example, if someone has three socially close friends (including current colleagues, coworkers, past professors), then, his applications are always supported by strong recommendation letters.

No, that's not what "strong recommendation letter" means.

First, strong recommendation letters do not simply state the author's high personal regard for the student, but provide specific, personal, and credible detail supporting the applicant's potential for excellence.  I don't just want to know that someone thinks you'll succeed—I assume they wouldn't write you a letter if they thought otherwise.  I want to know why.  I want compelling evidence, not mere opinion.

Second, recommendation letters have more weight if they come from credible sources.  At a minimum, the author should work at a credible academic institution.  The best letter writers are themselves experienced, visible, active researchers, with documented experience mentoring and/or selecting candidates for admission/hiring/promotion at departments similar to the candidate's target.  For faculty promotion in my department, letters are essentially required to be from full professors, preferably in named/endowed positions, in top-10 computer science departments, and there is a strong preference for ACM/IEEE Fellows, NAE or NAS members, and major award winners (Turing, Gödel, Dijkstra, Gordon Bell, etc.).

The intersection of these two aspects of strong letters is direct comparisons with the applicant's peers.  An ideal PhD recommendation letter for my department includes sentences like "Among the 13 undergraduates I have mentored who went on to top-10 PhD programs in computer science, I would rank [applicant] roughly 3rd, well below [famous person who proved P=NP], but on par with [successful person] at MIT, [successful person] at Stanford, and [successful person] at CMU."


Difference between inclusion and exclusion criteria Authors frequently report criteria of selecting subjects in studies in two separate categories, inclusion and exclusion criteria, e.g.:

Inclusion criteria:

age between 18-60

has the disease x

Exclusion criteria:

smoker

has disease y

Alternatively, one can simply put these criteria under one category:

Inclusion (or selection) criteria:

age between 18-60

has disease x

is not smoker

does not have the disease y

Is there a real distinction between the two terms? Or are they used just as a matter of convention?

In some ways the second is clearer since no one will interpret it as the inclusion criteria overriding the exclusion. Your criteria is and for all items. Between 18 - 60 AND ... AND doesn't have disease y.

But in general, if it is clear what you mean it should be fine. Clarity trumps form.


Applying from a different country: can the application be dismissed because of interview expenses? I am applying for jobs currently, mostly tenure-track jobs, in mathematics. I am currently living in Europe, but I will apply to many jobs in the US and Canada. If I recall correctly, when a candidate is shortlisted for an interview, the expenses are paid by the university.

My question is: would a hiring committee dismiss an application because it comes from "far away"? The budget needed for flying in someone from another state in the US is not the same as the budget needed for flying in someone from Europe. So I'm thinking they might say "Ok, this candidate seems interesting, but we also have an equally interesting candidate which lives closer to us, so let's call the latter". But people in search committees will know better than me!

Note: I would not completely dismiss the idea of paying expenses for myself (in the case of a very interesting interview), but I don't think that's the usual process, and it would sound weird to say so in the application. So this is not really a question about money.

Also, please keep in mind that this is with regards to a somewhat normal application of a regular candidate. I'm not a Fields medallist, in which case those considerations would hardly apply.

In short, the answer is that yes, a search committee (or the administrators who would have to pay for the travel) could decide not to invite someone to an interview or invite them without agreeing to pay their travel expenses.  I don't believe that there's any legal requirement under US law to reimburse applicants for travelling to an interview, and I've seen some institutions (mostly community colleges) refuse to pay any travel expenses.  A more common thing is to reimburse only for travel expenses within the US (so you'd be responsible for paying your own way to New York or LA.)    What will happen in any particular case depends on the practices of an individual institution.

If you are planning a trip to the US for some other reason, you might mention in your cover letter that you'll be in the US and could do an interview as part of that trip.


I ran many tests for my thesis, should I report tables and graphs for all of them? I'm writing my PhD thesis. I used a number of statistical tests to test my hypothesis. Only one test was able to answer my question while the rest (3 tests) couldn't.

If I report the results of the tests which failed to answer my research question, it becomes a large number of tables and graphs. My query is whether I should report all the tables and graphs of those statistical tests which could not answer my research question or should I report only the ones which could answer my research question.

The comments are correct when they say that it is absolutely wrong to try statistical tests until you find one that you like and then report just that one.

That said, there's a little ambiguity in your phrasing

  Only one test was able to answer my question while the rest (3 tests)
  couldn't.

If they couldn't answer for some reason you can explain that's not simply "I didn't like the result" then you could discuss those  tests, explain why they were unsatisfactory, and perhaps provide the tables and graphs in some kind of supplement.

Whatever you do, you cannot just ignore them. You tried them and you must say so.

For all of this - talk to your advisor.


Is it better to use reference letters that show variety, or two letters from the same job that better fit the program I'm applying to? I am an undergraduate student getting ready to apply for graduate school in a few months.  I have worked in two jobs in Physics (my desired field), one in experimental and one theoretical.  At each job I have at least two people willing to provide reference letters, and I believe all of them would be good references.

Many of the graduate application websites indicated that 2 (or more) letters of reference are required.

When I apply to one of these programs is it better to double down and use 2 letters that apply to the same program (ie, use 2 references from experimental group when applying to an experimental graduate program)?  Or would it be better to have a bit of variety (ie, one letter from each group, regardless of whether I am applying to experimental or theoretical)?

I'm leaning towards the variety, because I think that two letters from the same job would end up having the said the same thing, whereas the variety gives the university an idea of my breadth of knowledge.

The content of the letter is more important than whether the author is a theorist or experimentalist.  I suggest you ask your letter writers what they think.  They will know if they will write you a good letter better than I will.


Why do North American law schools require an undergraduate degree, when the UK's don't? I'm aware that most NA law schools require an undergraduate degree. For example, Yale's application website states:

  You must receive, or expect to receive by the summer of 2020, a bachelor's degree (or the equivalent) from an approved undergraduate institution in order to be eligible to apply. All offers of admission are contingent upon graduation.

In Canada, McGill doesn't require a degree, but strongly recommends it for competitiveness (link ):

  While candidates who have completed 60 credits of university study are eligible to apply to the Faculty of Law, admission to the program is competitive and as such, almost all students admitted in the “University” category (see below) have completed an undergraduate degree.

That said, a law degree is an undergraduate degree in the UK. According to this website:

  Students have the choice of studying a qualifying law degree at a wide range of UK Universities immediately after high school or after they have completed an undergraduate degree.

Thus a UK barrister or solicitor will spend between 4 and 5 years in university (4 = 3 yr qualifying law degree + 1 yr for LPC or BPTC, 5 = ≥3 yrs first non-law degree + 1 yr GDL + 1 yr LPC or BPTC), while the average North American lawyer will spend closer to 7 years (4 yrs undergraduate + 4 yrs JD).

Many senior UK judges have just 1 3-year undergraduate careers, some not in law at all. For example, Lord Sumption has just a BA in History from Oxford, Lord Phillips, first UKSC President, has just a BA in law from Cambridge, and Lord Neuberger has just a BA (yes, not BSc) in Chemistry from Oxford.

The UK's leading law schools look better than Canada's. The 2018 Times Higher Education World University Rankings ranks Cambridge at 5, Oxford 6, UCL 8; but the topmost Canadian are Toronto (10),  McGill (13). The QS World University Rankings by Subject 2017 ranks Oxford (2), Cambridge (3), LSE (7), UCL (12); but the topmost Canadian LS is Toronto (17).

It doesn't appear that the far briefer university education has affected the quality of UK law or lawyers.

To that end, I'd reckon that to save students time and money, North American law schools ought follow the UK's lead in not requiring UGs.

Note that to simplify this question, I haven't discussed other similar nation-states  like Hong Kong, or asked the analogous question for medical school.

Note that a US undergraduate degree is very different from a UK degree. The latter is much more specialized. In UK it is assumed that the general education occurs before the university level.

But in the US, the degree is quite general. Students of, say pre-law also study things like history, philosophy, foreign language, etc. It isn't that different from a History major. The "major subject" in the US accounts for half (more or less) of the total credits required. Even a math major will study all those things in the US.

And, in both places, it is generally believed that a lawyer needs that broad grounding. It is really just a question of where and how it is obtained.


Developing both Applied and Theoretical Interests I've seen profiles of researchers who, over time, come to work in both theoretical and applied areas, although I suspect (having seen profiles of other researchers who recently finished their PhD) that these researchers had one forte to begin with.

As an undergraduate hoping to become a researcher, I'd like to develop both interests one day.

Is that possible in both directions? Can I go to school to become a theoretician and later develop applied interests; or go to school to become an applied researcher but later learn and pursue more theoretical interests?

As an example, I'd like to one day both deeply understand statistical theory and yet have the skillset to work with data. Is it better to start off in one area?

Short answer is yes you can. Now, how/why do researchers change directions? Many reasons;

Chasing different funding/proposals venues.
Being part of a school or department where interaction of professors and available lab equipment can lead (with time) to you redirecting your research.
When advising students for MS/PhD or being a part of search/research committees, one tend to think outside the box (outside of his research area) and incorporate different methods/ideas
You learn more new stuff with time! Remember that a PhD in subject X does not mean that you get to work in X for the rest of your life. It simply means that you know X (in details) much more than other people (or professors).


What are "Numerically Weighted Transcripts"? I was reading about a postgraduate scholarship. As part of application for the scholarship, a "numerically weighted" transcript is required.

This is what my B.S. trancript looks like:
(A part of my transcript HERE)

It shows, on a single page, all the courses taken in all the semesters, Letter Grades (LG) and Grade Points (GP) secured in the courses, Credit Hours (CHr) of the courses, all my re-attempts, as well as GPA secured in the semesters, and final CGPA --- i.e. absolutely no information is hidden.
Now my question is:

Is this what a "numerically weighted academic transcript" is; as required for the scholarship?

This seems to be explained in a FAQ from a previous year for this scholarship.

I do not have numerically weighted academic transcripts, can I still apply?
We require academic transcripts/official documentation showing specific subjects and how your overall grades were obtained. We require evidence of the progress of your studies in individual subjects, so that we can see, for example, whether your strongest subjects were in the areas in which you propose  your specific research inquiry, or whether your grades improved over the course of your  years  of  study.  We  require  evidence  of  the  subjects  you  completed  and  of  their  actual  value,  not  just  the  one  figure  for  their composite value. This  information  is  required  so  that  panel  members  can  make  appropriate  and  informed  recommendations  on  the  ‘academic achievement’ selection criteria. We would suggest you contact your University to obtain this information as your application would be deemed ineligible without this information.

So they want a transcript which has grades for every subject you took (and not just an overall rating, which is all that some very prestigious schools in England provide).
It sounds to me that what "numerically weighted academic transcript" actually means to them is one that has an overall GPA, as well as all the numbers that went into computing this value. Most schools provide this in their standard transcript; the most notable exceptions being the few U.K. schools noted above—I would guess that these schools are the ones that this criterion is directed towards.


How to deal with post-high-school gap in CV? I am currently finishing my undergraduate degree, and I am working on my CV for graduate school applications. After High School, I spent ~1.5 years traveling, mostly by myself, and with no notable employment.

Do I write this in my CV? If so, should I just mention it or say anything further about it?

Honestly, if I were you, I simply wouldn't list my high school dates on my CV.  Lots of applications don't, and I've never seen this be a problem or concern.  Given that you now are getting an undergraduate degree, the graduate schools won't care much about it.  I doubt anyone will pay much attention if you do write in your date of high school graduation and simply don't explain the gap, but why even bring up the topic?

EDIT: Just to clarify, I wasn't suggest you list your high school without dates, but that you just leave it off entirely.  I would say you definitely don't want to list it once you've entered grad school.  When applying to grad school as an undergrad, I think it's fine to leave it there, but don't expect anyone to think it's important.


Specialising in a field during a PhD at the expense of forgetting other areas I'm having a crisis of confidence: I'm a 3rd year PhD focusing on cancer genetics. Whilst I am undoubtedly developing a deep and broad understanding of genetics, bioinformatics, somatic evolution...all that good stuff; I'm also finding that my understanding of basics is all but disappearing.

I don't use or "need" (practically speaking) a working knowledge of biochemistry or molecular biology to answer my research questions. Whilst during my undergrad I could describe cellular processes like translation, splicing, various cell signalling cascades in detail, I can barely summon the basics anymore. Since genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology are so intimately related, I feel like drilling deep into one at the expense of the others is bad.

Is this something that other people experience? How do you find time to refresh the knowledge of areas that you 'should' know, even if you have no use for them anymore in your research?

Is this something that other people experience?

Yes, this is completely normal. Our memories get hazier over time, particularly if we don't make use of them. It is nothing to be worried about. We can't keep everything fresh in our minds at all times - as you learn new things, older topics get pushed to the sidelines and we may lose some of the detail.

However, memory is a complicated phenomenon, and just because you are having trouble accessing a memory doesn't mean that it's been completely overwritten. As @PatricianShanahan hints in a comment, I suspect you would find that if you had to re-learn some of these topics, it would come back to you surprisingly quickly. Partly because the memories are still hidden away somewhere, and partly because you will have been getting better and better at the process of learning itself.

  How do you find time to refresh the knowledge of areas that you 'should' know, even if you have no use for them anymore in your research?

I don't think there is any particular need to force this process. The memories that fade the most are the ones that are being used the least, and there's a good reason for that: they are the ones that are less important to you.

General reading will help to keep memories fresh - it's always useful to read broadly around your subject. If you are worried about forgetting things because they are interesting to you then try to find some enjoyable reading on the subject - perhaps pop-science books, or magazines.


What should an unofficial transcript consist of? My university only issues an official transcript on paper ( Will take me a month to get it). However, we have a separate student's portal where my "grade history" can be accessed. It is a list of all courses along with the grades and my CGPA, but does not contain anything more than that. Would this work while sending it to a  professor that needs to see it for grad school?

Yes, that's probably fine.  The list of courses, grades and GPA is about all that an official transcript contains anyway.

You can include a note to the professor asking them to contact you if they need anything else.


Do I have any chance to acquire funding for a PhD after admission? I've just received this email from a university in the US:

" Hello Ernesto,
Thank you for applying to our program! We have received your application and you are a strong candidate.  Do you require funding?
We are happy to accept you if you do not require funding, but we do not have a GA position for you.
 Please let me know your needs and if you have any other questions.
 Sincerely,"

I don't know how to reply them to have any chance to acquire funding; Indeed, scholarships and funds are necessary for my academic life.

They cannot fund you directly, so you need to bring money from elsewhere. Your best bet is to ask them, as they would be aware of the possible agencies that provide grants in your field. They should also be able to help you put together a stronger application.

In any case, your position is uncertain, so don't overcommit to this place, and keep applying elsewhere.


Can I buy individual access to SpringerLINK? My institution has access to a very limited selection of ebooks published by Springer-Verlag. Is it possible to buy individual access to their whole collection myself? I'm a PhD student in case that changes anything.

You must ask Springer; they are the only ones who will know. There's a good chance they will be okay with you purchasing such a subscription since after all it doesn't cost them much to sell their collection to one more viewer.

However: although individual subscriptions tend to be way cheaper than institutional subscriptions, you are talking about subscribing to the entire Springer collection. This is a veritable mountain of information! Checking the Springer website right now, they have a collection of 301,765 books, and a publisher of their scale is going to be publishing several new books every day. Small wonder it is going to break your wallet to subscribe! Further, most of them won't be at all relevant to you and you won't have time to read them anyway.

If you can't get institutional access to this collection, you are probably better off buying each item you need one by one. Even then, be sure to ask your institution's library - they might be able to acquire/rent copies of what you need for cheap or even for free.


When you make a thesis in a field of physics and math is it supposed to be revolutionary and groundbreaking? When you write a thesis is it supposed to all be 100% independent research?

Does the thesis need to be ground-breaking? For example, the thesis from Riemann about Differential Geometry.

Does a thesis always have to be 'revolutionary' in math and physics?

This depends heavily on the level of the thesis (Masters, Ph.D) and the educational system in which the institute issueing the degree sits.

Typically, at Master's level you need to demonstrate familiarity and competence in the execution of research. Ie, you need to show that you can understand and implement methods. However, the results may be unoriginal.

For a Ph.D, you need to do original research. This means that an original result needs to be published in the thesis. However, the interpretation of original may take many forms. As you note, it's almost impossible to publish an entirely new form of knowledge.


When receiving an answer to a question do you respond with thank you? When I don't understand something in a lecture or think I found a mistake I send professors emails, if it is not possible for me to ask the question after class. Do you send a thank you email after receiving the answer?

I don't know if this is relevant at all, but I study at a German university.

In terms of etiquette, yes. A simple "Thank you sir/mam" helps acknowledge their response. The alternative is to say the thank you to them when you meet them the next day.

Reason: Unacknowledged conversations tend to leave a doubt in anybody's mind about whether the response was useful to the recipient or not. Certain people tend not to reply to an email if they were offended or if an email didn't help them. So in the same way we were taught it is good manners to say "thank you", it helps to do the same via an email.


Does the year of publishing for corrected proofs change in the final version? I have an accepted manuscript published in an Elsevier engineering journal. The status of the article on its sciencedirect page is "In press, corrected proof". For now the article can be cited using its DOI and year of publication (2017). However, the journal is now working on two volumes: the December volume of 2017 and the January volume of 2018. I have noticed that some articles accepted after mine have been assigned to the January 2018 volume, while my article and some other articles accepted within the same week (1-7 July) are still in the corrected proof status.
So I have two question:
1- Can the article get assigned to the January 2018 volume considering that it is now cited as an 2017 article?
2- Is their any priority criterion for publishing? Topic? First submission date? ... etc?

Re. 1 - Yes. I have a paper that was published "epub ahead of print" in one year, and later published normally the next year. Both versions have different year numbers when cited.

Re. 2 - I would expect they do it in chronological order normally, but sometimes journals publish "special issues" on a specific topic that result in postponed or quicker printed versions. Also comments/replies to specific papers often get published in the same issue, suggesting that those ended up in print version quicker.


What is the meaning of h-index for a journal? What is the meaning of h-index for journals, especially those recognized Journals?

The h-index for a journal is defined is just the same way that an h-index is defined for a person: the greatest value h for which there are at least h publications with at least h citations each.  Thus, for a journal, if it has published 1000 articles in its history, and 50 of them have received 50 or more citations, it would have an h-index of 50.


Asking questions in class: how can I "exit" a Q&A when I haven't really understood? I'm an undergrad and I tend to learn better when I understand the concepts behind things instead of rote repetition. As a result of this, I often have questions.

There are times when I don't understand concepts, so I'll ask questions. If after a line of questioning, I still don't understand something, I'll just concede and say, "Oh wow! I totally get it now! Thanks!"

I do this because I:

want to avoid wasting class time
don't want the lecturer to feel like maybe they've done a poor job of explaining when perhaps I'm just not grokking an underlying principle.
don't want to other students to think, "Wow, what's her deal? She is not getting this, is she?"

However, this prevents me from learning. Because of my second bullet, even when I ask a professor in a one-on-one scenario and am just not understanding, I still do this "I totally get it! K thx bai!"

I feel like if I just say, "I don't get it," and ask the same thing over again, it gets circular and we don't get anywhere and I'm worried I'll frustrate my professor.

Is there a better way to handle this or is this a sign that I need to seek an additional resource for learning (ie. a different textbook, Khan Academy, etc...)? I read my book thoroughly and use alternative resources, but am hoping I can figure out:

Is "giving up" in order to exit a continuous loop on non-understanding fair
to me? The professor will clearly think I'm fine and that I've moved on from it.
Is it fair to the professor who may potentially learn from it as well?
For example, other students may be making similar mistakes built on a false premise the professor could easily clear up.
I've potentially robbed myself of a learning opportunity if there is
a better way to exit the conversation. What better strategies could I use?

Perhaps if I admitted (somehow) that I'm not understanding something, the professor might say, "You know who might explain it differently! Dr. ____" or "a really great resource is ___."

But I don't know how to get to that point. I don't want to just say, "Yeah, I'm not getting it, so what now?" I feel like that would be so incredibly rude!

Edit: I don't repeat a question continuously. I try to attack a problem from various angles, but sometimes I get in these situations where I feel the back and forth isn't working out or by listening to an answer, I learn a detail that confuses me more. In this case, I can say, "Wait, so why are you using A to compute B, when earlier we used C to compute B?" But in these cases, sometimes this leads to further backpedaling and confusion.

The situation is complicated so there is no simple answer. Over time you and your instructor(s) will have to work out a modus vivendi.

From my point of view as a teacher, I want you to try to continue to ask. I find more students hesitant than persistent - and it's the persistent ones who force me to be clear.

At the beginning of each semester and often again later I tell the class that any question that occurs to you has probably occurred to many of your classmates who are too shy to ask, so you will be doing yourself and them a favor by speaking up.

Students often start questions with "this is a dumb question" or "I have a short question". Often neither is true, so those are not good opening lines.

When a student seems to be in the loop you describe in your question and I sense that I am not quite helping him or her or the whole class I may say that continuing to struggle with it right now on class time isn't useful. I might cut the discussion short with "Please see me after class and we'll work this out" or "Can you come to my office hours?"

So final advice: keep asking while answers are useful, be prepared to continue the discussion one on one if necessary. Hope your instructor cooperates.


Which approach is better for publishing in good journals? I am a second year PhD student. At the end of my first year, we (with my supervisor) have prepared a paper which he advised to submit to a leading journal. I was a little bit skeptical about the matter because I've prepared the paper for a conference and not as an article for a journal, and especially when the idea was not mature enough to be accepted in a journal.

Personally, I was planning to submit the paper to a conference, and then improve the old results and add new results and then submit to another conference, and when we develop a solid contribution, we combine all results and then try a leading journal. I knew at the same, that then downsides of my approach are:

Takes time (conferences take at least 2 to 3 months to notify, and I was planing to try 2 or 3 conferences to improve the results).
Expensive (registration fees, travel cost, etc.).
And probably I might not get the feedback that will improve our paper (it happened to me in my first/previous conference).

My supervisor's approach is different, he said that top leading journals
 give really good feedback and sometimes they give the exact problem in your contribution and recommend solutions. The idea for him is submit not mainly for acceptance, but to get feedback that we could to improve and then choose a suitable journal.

As you can see, we both want the same thing but each had a different method. Of course, I've followed his approach, and the results were this: I've dealt with 7 desk rejections with no detailed remarks. 5 of these were rejected because it's out of scope, and 2 said that the results needs to be improved. Keep in mind, that "top leading journals" take a lot of time to give the first answer, so I've wasted 8 months just looking for journals and preparing templates.

Lucky, I listened a little bit to my guts and started working on some new improvements and suggested to my supervisor to add these improvements and try one last time. He accepted and after more than 1 month of working, we finally submitted the new version to another journal and now I just received an email that says the paper is currently under review :).

But I am curios about whether his approach is right or mine, what are the mistakes that I did during this whole process? Keep in mind I have no publications (*), I really love research and always try my best, but those 7 months were stressful, especially when I know 2nd years with 2 or more publications already.

(*) I did 1 conference because I did some work in my Master and my supervisor (same person) said it's good we should try a conference. But My thesis discusses (a) slightly different problem (s), so I have no publications.

The conference approach has multiple advantages. The conference establishes deadlines to force you to stop researching and advance towards a manuscript. The length requirement forces you to be very brutal about condensing the crux of your research. The creation of your presentation/poster requires this 100x more, especially given that how will agonize over how to present your work when you are standing there to be embarrassed by any weaknesses in it. The actual presentation experience produces a great deal of discussion and feedback helping you understand how other researchers see your research. And finally while at the conference you get rapidly exposed to a broad range of related research, which is of immense value to both students and researchers in the field. Note that all of these can be achieved without the work being competitively peer-reviewed. Those reviews are just a bonus (assuming you get accepted in that case).

A drawback of starting with a conference (when your ultimate goal is a journal publication) is that the journal may not accept the results as original anymore. So your journal article would need to add a significant amount of new results and/or analysis.

As for the desk rejections, it sounds like you may not be taking them seriously enough. Consider that, as a student, when you don't understand the value in a paper or text you read, you presume the fault is your own and re-read more carefully. An editor or reviewer doesn't. They quickly skim to decide if there is any value, often starting from the assumption that there probably is not, since they don't actually want to read it anyway. If editors think your paper does not contain results, then you are failing to make the results immediately obvious. If they think your paper does not fit the scope of their journal, then you are failing to make its value within their scope immediately obvious. And the best advice for how to accomplish these things is to read the journal you want to publish in. Read it a lot. Then you will be able to explain clearly how your manuscript fits in with those other papers they publish most often.

And personally I'm not so sure the "top" journals have better reviewers. Even if they do in your field, it appears you would have a lot to gain from any reviews you can get.


Getting an academic position right after an industrial based PhD program I am about to end PhD within next 5-6 months. The PhD program I am enrolled in is different compare to normal universities PhD programs. During first 2 years I took course work from a regular university as an exchange student and afterword I start working in a research institutes whose prime target is to develop projects for the local and international industries.  Luckily or unluckily I am in the section where we deal with various small scale projects; during my 2.5 years of stay I worked on 6 different projects. These projects address totally different issues and topics are independent to each other. Therefore I didn’t get chance to focus on a single topic which can be my PhD thesis.
As a first author I have published 5 SCI articles including two in top notch journals but all of the articles are not related to each other. In the given situation I am unable to write a good dissertation. I have just 4 months left to fine tune my thesis. After PhD I want to get an academics position but I am bit worrying about my profile.

Is it something positive to have the articles published in different
areas which have no link to each other?
How much PhD thesis is important for evaluation process?
As I was working closely with the researchers who mostly focus on standardization and patent activities, none of them has a single SCI publication after graduation even my supervisor had 2 publications around 15 years ago. I am worrying whether the recommendation letter of my supervisor and team leader will be acceptable and effective for the academic position?

Actually, this is a question for your university, you are enrolled to. If they offer "industrial" PhD program, they should explain the criteria for "good" PhD thesis. It is entirely possible that 5 SCI papers are plenty, given the orientation of the program.

If, on the other hand, you are worried about your future career after PhD, yes, there is reason for concern. You enrolled in a program that fits people who want to get employment in the industry, not in the academia. In my opinion it is not the question of what your CV or PhD thesis says, the question is whether you learned enough of the basic research stuff you will need as an academic scientist (as opposed to the industrial developer).

If I would be faced with a candidate like you, I would be very interested in the content of those 5 SCI papers and would like to know which parts of the research were exactly your responsibility. If you implemented a solution, but someone other did rigorous experimental evaluation on all papers, then I would consider you less qualified than someone who did the experimental evaluation part as well (which is usually the case with first authors on journal papers, written in academia).

The unrelated subjects on the other hand would not be a disadvantage.


What to do with seemingly fabricated data when researching a paper's citations One particular paper (Initial) cited a website with a basic pie chart of some data (Chart), while interesting, did not contain any of the original data, only a reference, so I dug into the original paper to get more details (Paper).
Then I found out that the original Paper had no such data at all. I'm not even sure how the numbers came about. It seems like the Chart author was interpreting the Paper's research, and basically created a new chart while citing the Paper as the "source", but that actual chart nor data exists on Paper at all.
The Chart is useful, but it seems to be, at minimum, interpreted, if not outright fabricated. I've decided that particular chart, although had useful information, is not true and I should not use it in my paper.
However, what exactly do I do with the knowledge that the chart seems to be fabricated? And what about the Initial paper that cites this chart?

It seems like the Chart author was interpreting the Paper's research, and basically created a new chart while citing the Paper as the "source", but that actual chart nor data exists on Paper at all.

Maybe the author created the chart from the paper's data and cited the paper as the data's source. You've mentioned the Chart is useful, suggesting the author added value. (Whilst also suggesting the chart is not true, which seems contradictory.)

what exactly do I do with the knowledge that the chart seems to be fabricated?

You could email the author and ask for clarification.


What to include in a letter of support for an academic assessment? I have been asked to write a short note that includes comments about the impact and importance of a colleagues' work over the course of the past year - for a pre-tenure review.

I could discuss a notable recent publication, a conference he is organizing, inspiring discussions we have had over the past year, and his public outreach at a recent conference. But it is not clear how I do so in a way that most effectively supports his work, and would appreciate advice from more experienced academics who request and review such letters.

How can I most effectively frame and focus these points while keeping the letter brief and genuine? In addition to these points, what are the key features of such a letter?

I would suggest by starting with a general statement about your colleague as an academic (quality of work, productivity etc. relative to others, in general, in the specific sub-discipline) following that you could exemplify this with the points you mention. Tiyr second paragraph could almost be copied into such a letter but with some more detail. A second item may be to set the last year performance in perspective of the longer term. This seems not to be asked for but I think it is a valuable step to set the year's performance in perspective both relative to what has been achieved earlier and relative to what can be expected visavi the person's job siuation (teaching load, admin load etc.. For tenure, I suppose personal traits and activities within the department are not of interest since they would be known internally. Other wise such points should be included.


Review process of revised journal paper A few months ago, I was asked to review a paper. The result of the review process was a "Revise".

So now I was asked again to read the revised version of the paper. But now I can only select "Accept Review" or "Decline Review".

Does this mean that the paper will be reviewed again with other reviewers?

It means they're inviting you to review the revision. If you accept the review, then you get to read the paper, make new comments, make new recommendation, etc. If you decline, they'll either find someone else or make a decision.

Based on your description, there isn't enough information to tell if there are other reviewers invited. You certainly are, but don't know about the others.


What is the appropriate length and specificity for a teaching statement? A colleague and friend has been approached by another institution (a state university in the U.S.) seeking to fill a position. My friend, who is putting a package together, has asked me to review his teaching statement. Evidently, this was a good idea.

I read the statement, and, quite frankly, I wasn't too impressed. He and I are quite candid with each other, so I'm not too worried about what might otherwise be a delicate issue: me telling him how much it needs to be polished.

That said, I'll admit: I have very little experience with teaching statements (either writing them, or reading them). I'm not usually on faculty hiring committees; I don't want to give him bad advice out of ignorance.

My questions are:

1) What is an ideal length? (So far, I've narrowed it down to half a page is too little, and three pages is too much.) Would a single page be considered too thin?

2) How detailed should it be? My friend talked about different courses he has taught, even mentioning one course by its catalog number. I initially thought that generalities would be better. In other words, instead of saying something along the lines of:

  Teaching styles should be adaptable, based on the student demographics in the class. For example, in my Intro to Programming course at Urbandale College, I taught had mostly freshman, but the Programming Languages course I taught at Westerville University, CSCI 352, was a more advanced course with juniors and seniors...

my gut instinct tells me it would be better to say something more general, such as:

  Teaching styles should be adaptable, based on the student demographics in the class. For example, I've taught some courses with mostly freshman, and other more advanced courses with juniors and seniors...

but perhaps I'd be dishing out out some bad advice if I recommended a more general wording; maybe applicants are expected to weave such details into their teaching statements.

My answer comes from Mathematics, but probably it's quite similar.

1) 1-2 pages is pretty typical.

2) My general advice is to include details and concrete examples where possible (though course numbers are not necessary).  One problem with just being general is such statements feel very generic, and lack any real content in the sense that they don't distinguish you, in the same way many political speeches turn out.


What is the purpose of an article repository I was asked by a publisher to choose a repository where the article to be published will be uploaded to. What's the point of this if the article is already available on the journal website?

Can someone please explain what is the purpose of a journal repository such as PubMed, Europe PMC, PMC?

What are the pros and cons of uploading an article on a repository? Is it desirable to use more than one?

I was asked by a publisher to choose a repository where the article to be published will be uploaded to.

I've never heard of that before. Publishers usually want exclusive distribution rights.

  What's the point of this if the article is already available on the
  journal website?

You can update the repository version to make corrections, should they be necessary.

  Can someone please explain what is the purpose of a journal repository such as PubMed, Europe PMC, PMC?

To disseminate research.

  Is it desirable to use more than one?

One suffices. Increasingly it seems that repositories don't want you to upload elsewhere.


Are PhD forums worthwhile In my field (computer science), many conferences have a section dedicated to PhD forums. For example, this one

http://ecmlpkdd2017.ijs.si/submission.html

has the following schedule

Lightning-talks session followed by poster
"Speed dating" with senior researchers
Invited talk
"Experience sharing" talks by senior PhD students/recent graduates

I have no experience of Phd forums, so I am wondering if it is worthwhile to participate at one of them. At a first glance, they seem something like an opportunity to build a bit of network, and to talk with potential postdoc advisors.

Has anyone some positive/negative experience about PhD forums? Do you suggest to participate?

I have no experience of Phd forums, so I am wondering if it is worthwhile to participate at one of them.

As usual, this depends on many factors:

Are you attending this conference anyway (e.g., because you have a paper in the main research track)? If yes, the opportunity cost of participating seems very low, so why not?
Where are you in your PhD? In my experience, the "best" time for such events is around Y2. By then you already have some initial experience doing research, but there is still time to do a major pivot if you get good feedback that you want to incorporate.
Not all PhD symposia / forums are the same. Is this the best conference to participate in such a forum for you? Most importantly, is it likely that other PhD students that attend will work on somewhat similar theses? Will the senior people there come from a similar field?
If your primary goal is to meet postdoc advisors, the PhD forum does not seem like the best way to go about this. By definition, there are more young people there than senior PIs. However, I am not familiar with the "speed dating with senior researchers" agenda item - maybe that's useful for career planning?

In my lab, most students participate in exactly one of these events during their PhD. Most (but not all) say that they profited from the event, but attending more than once is typically not seen as a good use of travel budget.


How much does TA experience impact acceptance into PhD programs? Obviously being a teaching assistant as an undergrad or a masters student looks good, but how good does it look?  Is it merely a nice little bonus, or does extensive TA experience have a large impact on one's acceptance?

From my perspective admitting students to CS PhD programs:

TAing for CS classes will be a small positive signal that you did well in those classes and were well thought of by the instructor (who presumably asked you to be his TA, or at least accepted your application). It might also let you get to know the professor teaching the class better, which will be helpful for your application if he/she can write you a letter of recommendation. But beyond that, it won't be a huge bonus in and of itself -- its mostly a signal correlated with other good things.


PhD in machine learning in my life? I'm 37; graduating with BA in math (online degree) this summer Title is a pretty good TLDR.

I would like to get a PhD sometime in my life.

I have a stable job where I can work from home frequently. Unless something catastrophic happens, I should be receiving my BA in mathematics this summer.

I would like to continue my education. I know of many data science and machine learning online master's degree programs that I would like to apply for.

I would love to be able to study some particular aspect of machine learning and become an actual expert in it one day. Automated machine learning comes to mind, but many other aspects fascinate me.

I'm perfectly fine being an older student at any college but there are some issues that are getting in the way of my long-term goal.

Right now I'm the main source of income for myself and my girlfriend. So I will have to wait until I am more financially stable before I could apply for a PhD program. From what I understand, most programs do not offer much income. It's going to take a couple of years of planning and sacrifices to be able to financially handle a lower income.

In the meantime, I feel that getting an online master's degree would be helpful. The problem is that almost all online degrees DO NOT OFFER A THESIS OPTION. This concerns me, since that would be the most enjoyable aspect of grad school. However, if that is my only option, I am okay with that.

Would it make sense to go to an online grad school and, when I'm financially stable, cross my fingers that a PhD program will accept a student who has only attended online classes for the past 3-5 years? From what I understand, most PhD programs want to see some research experience. Or at least have some professors that you can connect with. Going to school online prevents me from making a connection with professors, so I have doubts that I could get strong recommendation letters that way.

Questions:

What can I do with the next 3-5 years of my life to help my goals?
How can I connect with professors who I only interact with online?
Is it even possible to do quality research while working full time?
Should I wait until I'm financially stable and then apply to a physical campus for a master's program?
Are online degrees even worth it, if my ultimate goal is a PhD?

Rather than give a long answer to a long set of questions, let me propose a strategy for getting all your answers fairly quickly. Make an appointment to visit a quality university and a professor in machine learning. It might be a place you'd want to go, but it need not be. Ask him/her these questions and try to work out a plan that might lead you to success.

I'm going to guess that online-only education will be less valued than in-person education, but by how much, I can't say.

Yes, you can do quality research part time, but it takes a lot longer than when done full time - especially if you don't have collaborative relationships to aid you.

The other questions (and even these) should be explored face to face with someone who can answer follow up questions and help you devise a plan.

Note, too, that 37 is still pretty young. Ignore the age factor.


Is there such thing as a person who books guest lectures? I'm a professional photographer. I have done numerous lectures at colleges and high schools about photography and photo assisting. This has always been for ex-professors or peers that have become professors. I thoroughly enjoy it and looking to branch out beyond my personal contacts to do about 4 of these a year.
Do you know if someone exists that is a guest lecture booker or guest lecture PR type person? I imagine this person would contact schools and try and set something up. I guess they wouldn't have to have industry-specific experience but I imagine that someone in academia with previous relationships may be more effective.

There are certainly professional speakers, who make their money by giving paid seminars, speaking at conferences, and providing bespoke training. That said, their target audience is rarely (though not never) universities, but rather companies or industrial conferences.
The problem with making speaking at universities as a career is that, in order to actually live from this, your fee needs to be high, much higher than the regular honorarium given to university speakers (if there is any honorarium at all, oftentimes the university can only cover travel). In my experience most universities will only shill out this kind of money for very targeted kinds of speeches or trainings that fill a specific, concrete need, and where they know there is a lot of interest. For example, when there is a new European funding framework coming up, many European universities will pay for a consultant to come in and hold a half-day seminar what the new rules are and how they will likely be interpreted in practice. Another exception may be very high-profile seminar series, which are often seen as publicity events for the general public.
In summary, it can't hurt to keep your eyes open, but before you take this any further you should figure out whether there really is sufficient money in this line of business.


Donating money to scientific research after my death I'm lucky - I probably won't have to provide for any loved ones after I die (they can take care of themselves). That means I can use my assets on whatever I want, and most likely, that will be science. The exact amount I can spare depends on how much longer I have to live, but an order of magnitude estimate is $10 million.

I understand that most funding requires proposals from the scientists, which are then peer reviewed. I'm not particularly interested in that. Instead I'm thinking of finding people working on what I'm most interested in (cosmology) and funding them to do whatever they want, trusting in their integrity to use the funds appropriately.

Questions:

Is it better to use the funds as a one-shot lump sum, or make it sustainable (that is, keep the principal, and use only the interest on that for funding)?
What is a good amount to provide a single professor? Is it better to provide one researcher with the $10 million, or ten different researchers with $1 million, or some other number?
How do I go about this? Can I just ask for the professors' bank account numbers, and write in my will to transfer $X into that account?
I'd like to talk to the professors, preferably face-to-face, to assess their character. Are the professors likely to be willing to talk?

EDIT: Thanks for answers. I'll need to think about it. I'm not keen on funding PhD students since there're already too many graduates and too few permanent positions. I'm also not keen on funding a fellowship because when I wrote my own applications there were so very many fellowships, many of which required their own separate application. I'm hoping to make things easy.

I also want to free some scientists from spending so much of their time writing funding proposals. Endowing a chair is a possibility but that ties the money to a single university, which is again something I need to think about. Hopefully there'll be many more years before I die to sort all these out, and thanks again for answers.

Funding people instead of projects is in fact a good idea if you are interested in a supporting fundamental research problems to be addressed. There are multiple ways to go about this, and it's a reasonably well established principle, so you might want to search around a bit how other funding organizations and (non-profit) foundations approach this.

Lump sum vs. funding from interest is really a choice between aiming at one or two breakthroughs within a period of 5 to 10 years vs. continuously supporting research in a specific field, on a smaller scale, over 50 to 100 years. This relates to the answer of the next questions...
Amount to give to a single professor: A strategy for short term funding (using up the capital) would be to fund the establishment of a new research group, i.e., pay the salary of someone early in their career (assistant or associate professor level) plus some funds for research staff (PhD students and post-docs). I would recommend a funding level of $2M (that is what the Consolidator Grant of the European Research Council provides for a period of 5 years) to $5M per professor, depending on how much expensive equipment and materials are needed to do this research. That means you could fund 2 to 5 such groups. After the period of funding at that level, these persons should have achieved sufficient research results to be self-sustainable, though you cannot be sure that they will continue working on the kind of questions you aimed to fund.
For long term funding, I would recommend donating the whole sum as a Financial endowment (see Endowed professorships) to one university. If you assume an interest rate of 1 %, it will pay $100k per year, which might be just enough to pay a professor's salary, or, if the university agrees to pay the professor, could be used to fund 1 - 2 PhD students or post-docs working with the professor.
How to spend the money: Don't transfer that money to a professor's private account. Professors get research budgets from their universities, and if the funder wants to, the spending restrictions can be extremely flexible while still making sure that the money is only used on research related costs. So you either need to make an agreement with a university for them to administer the money according to the stipulations you agree on, or set up a foundation that administers the money and pays it to universities, who then put it in the research budget of the professors that it's meant to support. For the first option, you may want to contact a university's alumni or financial office, or maybe the dean of a department in the area you'd like to support.
Don't plan to select the persons you're funding yourself. First, it's better to fund young researchers, and if you talk to potential candidates while you still can do it, I'd hope that these will be old, or at least senior researchers, by the time the money becomes available. Instead, choose the persons that will do the selection. In the endowment case, that would be the university department that gets the endowment. Make sure that the general research direction and overall functioning of the department fits to your aims, and only select them if you're reasonably confident that they will use the money according to your aims. In the non-profit foundation case, I'd suggest setting up an advisory board with reputable scientists in the field you'd like to fund, and let them run the selection. Keep in mind that the composition of this group (institutions they come from, character, etc.) will be an important factor in who they select for funding. If this is going to operate over a longer time, make sure that there are regulations in place how new persons can enter the advisory board when you won't be there anymore.


Professor not responding to LOR email after initially agreeing My situation is a bit tricky, and I'm not sure if I'm reading too much into it.

I asked for a letter of recommendation from two professors at my university. They both replied yes to the initial email. After about a month, I sent them another email with my personal statement and resume attached, and told them the deadline. I asked them to let me know if they received everything, and if there's anything else they need. One professor responded immediately saying he got my email, but the other professor still hasn't responded 5 days later.

I am worried, because the second professor usually responds very fast. Also, the email I sent necessitates a response, so it doesn't make sense for him to not respond to it. I don't know if I'm overthinking this, but I accidentally called this second professor "Professor" in my email even though he's technically a lecturer so I always address him as "Dr. So-and-so" in my emails. I copied and pasted the email content from the first professor's so I forgot to change the title from "Professor" to "Dr." I'm not sure if he would necessarily take offense at this?

Any recommendations? Please let me know your thoughts! And thanks in advance!

I'm not sure if I'm reading too much into it.

I think you are.

My guess is that Professor #2 received your email, saw that it contained information for your letter, remembered that he had already told you he would write the letter, and set the email aside, planning to read it in detail when he got around to actually writing the letter.  He probably didn't read far enough to see the part where you asked him to acknowledge the email.

So, if you're concerned, simply send a second email:

  Dear Dr, #2,

  I just wanted to make sure you had received my email of August XX with the information for my letter of recommendation.  Please let me know if it looks okay, or if there is anything else you need.  As a reminder, the deadline to submit the letter is October XX.

  Thanks very much for writing a letter for me!

  Sincerely,

  Lily

As to your other question:

  I accidentally called this second professor "Professor" in my email even though he's technically a lecturer so I always address him as "Dr. So-and-so" in my emails.

Don't worry about that.  It happens all the time and most professors eventually just stop noticing.  It's certainly not the kind of thing that would offend someone so much as to affect their decision to write a letter.


Scholarships for Ph.D I am currently doing my M.Tech in Computer Science and Engineering in India and I want to do a Ph.D. in the US. Are any scholarships available for Ph.D. in the US that take care of all the expenses there (similar to DAAD scholarships offered for pursuing secondary education in Germany)? If there are other similar scholarships for other countries please inform me.

Normally, if you're doing a PhD in the United States—at least in the sciences and engineering—you shouldn't have to worry about having a scholarship. The department or advisor should be responsible for paying your tuition as well as a stipend for your living expenses. So there aren't a lot of "scholarships" in the same sense as for undergraduate study. However, while there are fellowships which provide "portable" funds for graduate study, these tend to have stringent citizenship requirements, and I can't ever recall seeing one for which Indian students were eligible.

Your best bet is probably just to apply to the graduate programs in which you're interested, and see if they have funds to support your graduate work.


What is the difference between a literature survey and a conceptual paper? What is the difference between a literature survey and a conceptual paper?

Here are my definitions:

A literature review is a study that searches for scholarly studies on a specified topic, synthesizes and reports the results. The explicit purpose of a literature review is to present other scholars' work.

A conceptual paper is a study that does not analyze any data. It is contrasted with an empirical study, one that analyzes data, whether quantitative (numerical, e.g. statistics) or qualitative (non-numerical, e.g. interviews).

Now, to answer a question you didn't ask but maybe you imply: Is a literature review a conceptual paper? I personally say most certainly NO, a literature review is not conceptual; it is empirical. Literature reviews analyze other people's research as their data source--the unit of analysis is one scholarly study. To me, that is definitely empirical research (even though it is often called a "secondary" study, as distinguished from a so-called "primary" study that treats a subject directly).

In the case of meta-analysis (a literature review where quantitative data from the constituent studies is analyzed statistically) most people would agree that a meta-analysis is not conceptual. There is, however, some controversy or confusion with literature reviews that "only discuss" other people's research. Some people might call such a literature review a conceptual paper mainly because they don't clearly see any analysis of numbers. I disagree with that view, but I do realize that some people take that perspective.


Is it possible to work on extra activities (start-up project) during PhD? I am about to get my bachelor degree in computer science. I have applied PhD programs of US universities to earn doctorate degree in computer architecture subject. I kept my hopes high and applied the most of top US schools, but rejected from the most of them (mostly because my GRE, TOEFL grades are not top for these schools, I think). Hopefully I will be admitted some of the schools that I applied.

I know pursuing a PhD and conducting research is not easy, but it is a serious process that requires the one to devote himself or herself to. Luckily I like working on computer architecture and learn about new innovations, techniques, ideas proposed by researchers. I think computer architecture is a field fully open to innovation, research and development. However, at the same time I love spending time on web technologies. I have been developing new applications related with web services, mobile services, social media, content management systems etc.

Do you think would it be really possible to pursue a PhD and simultaneously work on a start-up project?

I am not looking for answers saying that it would be possible as long as you manage your time to work on them both or it is up to your advisor or program etc. I know after some point everything up to you, but I don't know the PhD experience and that's why I am asking this question here.

PS: I hope this question would help others in the sense that it is about the possibility of serious extra activities during PhD process, rather than being an personal issue.

Honestly, my instinct is "no".

Both startups and PhD advance in the same way - the massive influx of effort. And that effort is often unpredictable. Both settings have "crunch time" wherein for the next few weeks, you might as well have dropped off the face of the Earth.

Balancing that is, imo, a very tall order for a human being and will probably result in one of them suffering, falling to the side and getting triaged if you try to split the middle.

That being said, there are paths you can try, particularly if you can manage to either consult for a startup in a way that has structured limits on your time, or manage to link your dissertation to the startup's work enough that your effort counts for double. But as entirely unrelated projects? Its begging to have one fall apart.


Is it possible to publish an erratum in another journal? If an author published a paper that contains errors and decides to publish an erratum, but the journal where the article was published is inactive (but its website still exists). Could the author publish the erratum in another journal?
If so, what could the author do to make the article indicate the existence of the erratum?

What can be published in a journal is up to the editors. If the original was sufficiently important and the errors less than obvious to readers, then an editor might consider it. But they would rather, I surmise, publish a full paper with correct results, citing the old, than just an errata. If you can't make the new work seem significant, I doubt that editors would be interested.
But the editor decides, perhaps with advice from reviewers. You can possibly make a proposal to an editor before spending wasted effort.


Writing papers: do I include citation into an unrelated parenthesis? Consider the following sentence:

"We can also divide calls into stereotyped (discrete) and graded (continuous) (Marler & Mitani, 1988)"

My supervisor corrected it including the citation in the second parenthesis:
"We can also divide calls into stereotyped (discrete) and graded (continuous; Marler & Mitani, 1988)"

I disagree with it because the citation is relative to the entire sentence.

Which is the correct formulation?

Thanks

Which is the correct formulation?

I wouldn't call either one incorrect or less correct than the other. However, you two are probably not the only ones who could either find the first form not very readable (or not "stylish") or misinterpret the second one. I would thus avoid both forms,  and I would try to modify the sentence to improve readability and avoid possible misinterpretations.

For example, if the referenced paper was the first to propose that division, you can avoid the issue altogether by writing:

  Following/According to (Marler & Mitani, 1988), we can also divide calls into stereotyped (discrete) and graded (continuous)

Or you can avoid the parentheses by writing (I don't know the topic, I'm just interpreting):

  We can also divide calls into stereotyped or graded (Marler & Mitani, 1988): stereotyped calls are discrete in character, whereas graded ones are continuous"


How long outside academia without publishing is too long? I finished a PhD in Earth Science 10 months ago and now work as a software engineer. I haven’t done any research or published in these 10 months. Is it too late for me to go for a postdoc and have a realistic shot at tenure track? My PhD is from a good school in our field and I have a good publication record in top journals in our field.

You should be getting advice about such things from your advisor and/or other experienced colleagues within your academic field. It’s hard for anyone here to make predictions about whether you can get a postdoc based on so little information.

In general though, I would say 10 months isn’t such a long time, so if you were in a good position to get a postdoc 10 months ago then it shouldn’t be very different now, assuming you are on good terms with your advisor and other people who can write you letters. And who knows, the skills you developed in your software engineering job might even come in handy in academic research. Good luck!


What grades do I have? In a two months I will have a bachelors degree from a German University with an degree average (Notendurchschnitt) of 1.8 or 1.9 . My programme uses ECTS Credit Points.
I am in the process of applying to British MSc programmes. They mostly require a Honours degree of "2:1" which, according to one university, is equivalent to "GPA 3.0".

Do I pass these requirements? And is it legit for me to say in my application that I have a GPA of 1.9?

I tried to get my head around these degree specifications but was unable to.

Depends what university you will apply for. However, because the Msc is expensive in the UK, even for the British students, the students tend to look for jobs after Bsc; and therefore some universities accept students with lower grades.

Little bit of advice: Look for the courses in details to cover your interests; For example an Msc in Computer Science at one university might involve more than theory; than the same Msc at another university.


What do I do if a university does not inform me of my masters application status? I have applied to a Canadian university to study a Masters degree starting Fall 2013, and they didn't accept or reject me, the online application clearly states that I will get notified by an email of their decision and I am pretty sure I didn't receive any emails from them (yes, I check my spam folder everyday).

Do I have any recourse for recouping my application fee? Whom do I contact for this information?

There are multiple questions that remain unanswered here:

Did you meet all of the deadlines for the admissions process?
Did the people who wrote your letters of recommendation send in their references on time?
Did the school promise you a reply-by date?
If so, why did you not contact them at that time?
Did you get an email confirming that the application was complete?

If any of those were missing, then it's entirely possible that you didn't have a complete application—in which case, the school is not necessarily required to do anything, because they don't have a complete record to consider.

Moreover, a lawsuit is a horrifically bad idea under the circumstances—it's far more time-consuming and expensive than anything you're going to get back from the school. It's a waste of your time and money (unless they rather unlikely made written promises of admission, in which case they may be in bigger legal troubles than just having to return an admission fee).


How much of an academic presentation should be spent on preliminaries? Considering a presentation is for a group of academics whose specialties are to some (unknown) extent related to the topic, how much of the talk should be spent on explaining the preliminaries?

I often have this problem when preparing slides for a talk where I know that my audience is a group of professors, postdocs, or/and graduate students in the same field or related fields, but I don't know how much background they have on the topic of discussion. The preliminaries are usually topics that could be covered in an upper-level undergrad course (or a first course on that specific topic), but are not a core topic in the field. I know that there could be academics out there who are either not acquainted with the topic or they need a refresher for their knowledge of the material, but I also know that with a very high probability, a considerable number of audience are so comfortable and deeply familiar with the topic that the preliminaries would be extremely boring and trivial for them (and I'm even afraid that it might sound offensively easy to them, especially when it is presented by a student).

Should I just skip the slides on prelims in such cases, or should I always consider the possibility that some members among the audience may be unfamiliar with the topic and the presentation would sound completely meaningless to them if I skip the prelims? I've seen both approaches in academic talks given by experienced professors, so I'm confused about how they decide when to choose which approach.

There isn't really an easy answer to this; it comes with experience.  Over time you get to develop a sense of "standard things" that you can expect your audience will know.  Sometimes you'll err in one direction or another, and that's just life.  And you can't expect to please your entire audience with every part of your talk.  No matter what you do, some parts will be trivial to some listeners, and other parts will be inaccessible to others.

In the meantime, if you're a student, you have an advisor, and that's a source of experience for you to draw on.  Go over the talk in advance with your advisor, and ask for their advice as to whether you have too much or too little detail on preliminaries.

One very rough rule of thumb is to assume your audience knows any topic that would be covered in a typical first-year graduate course in your field, particularly if it's the sort of course that everyone would be expected to take.


Expressing concerns about an individual starting in a faculty position This is a question that does not quite fit the bill on any particular SE forum but Academia SE comes the closest in my opinion. I will use non-binary they/them pronouns to retain some amount of anonymity.
Some background will be important: I have lived with my current roommate -- a grad student at my university in the US -- for two years, in this time I have come to know them in a way I really wish I hadn't. This person is extremely manipulative, a compulsive liar and used me and my friend for an embarrassingly long amount of time before we realized what was going on. This has not been limited to personal favors but also professional ones where this person would get editing feedback on their extremely long papers with nothing in return, not do the reading and then ask for summaries that they would then use during class discussion without attribution. This is a person who openly flouts page limits, writes in a needlessly convoluted sentences and has shown repeated patterns of not respecting other people's time. Professionally, I think this person is a total hack who uses trauma of marginalized groups to progress their own academic agenda.
Now, I suspect that this person likely has narcissistic personality disorder but I am in no way an expert. They are usually very polite and cordial to other people they do not know very well and generally have a good image in the department -- except that they often do not respect other people's time but people think it as a quirk.
My concern is that this person will soon be assuming a position wherein they will be teaching and advising students (in a different program than mine). I do not know where they draw a line regarding abuse so it's hard for me to judge whether this is something that they might do to their students. Still, is there a way for me to warn someone about this individual?
I am also afraid that if I do make complaint I will be ostracized. I have, with my own eyes observed departments side with abusers because everyone knows them to be "good guys" and I wonder if I should just let things play out and hope other people catch on eventually.
Update: Seeing your abuser succeed in their professional lives without suffering any consequence while your work suffers because of the trauma, that just doesn't seem fair. I maintain that this person is unfit to teach by their history of disregard for rules -- including syllabi, contracts and so forth. In any case, it is perhaps time I sought helped and moved on with my life.

Complaining about your roommate to the roommate's employer is unprofessional behavior.  Do not do it.
If you are experiencing domestic abuse, talk to the police or a local victim's advocacy organization.


Do I have to adapt my reviews according to the quality of a journal? Recently, I received to review two manuscripts dealing with similar topics. According to the JCR quality measures, the first one was from top tier journal and the second one from the last quartile (Q4). Do I have to take into account the quality of the journal when reviewing the articles?

When an article is technically wrong, describes things that have been done dozens of times elsewhere or is just awfully written, then I recommend rejection, no matter the journal. After that, journal guidelines (not the perceived or actual journal "quality") come into play:

Match with the journal's scope
Journal requirements on novelty of ideas (several journals are ok with articles that fill some gap in an otherwise well-understood field, but some very high-profile journals would like to see papers with significant novelty)
Methodological requirements (e.g. some journals require that simulation results are validated against analytic results or measurement results)

So, there is some baseline, but afterwards it depends on the journal scope.


Referencing references within a quote I don't think this is quite the same as enter Referencing the reference? apologies if it is.

I am quoting someone in my thesis, they say:

  ... blah blah as noted in experiments by Tom (2013), Dick (2014) and Harry (2015)...

Should the three references in my quotation appear as in my bibliography even though they are not directly referenced by me but rather via the quote?

Chain referencing is not required unless you reference some information from the chain reference that is more than what is already referenced within the first citation.

To add clarity, if you want to cite a matter from [A] which is cited as a quote from [B], then citing [B] would be appropriate. Otherwise if [A] adds some insights to [B], then citing just [A] would be fine. If in addition to this you derive some insights from [B] which is not noted in [A], then you must cite both [A] and [B].