Who owns things bought with research funding after project ends? In my research group, some time we use our funding to buy things required for our research. They can be pretty cheap (e.g. books) or quite expensive (e.g. machines).

When the funded by the project is over, I wonder who will own those stuff.

In the US, at least, there is a generally clear distinction between two classes of things bought with funding:

"Capital expenditure" items are individually identified in a project budget, e.g., "36-node computing cluster" or "Materials for building prototype robot".
'Overhead' or 'Material and Supplies' items are more routine items that are not individually identified, but are considered part of the routine cost of business, e.g., office supplies, laptops, laboratory reagents.

Capital expenditure items are typically owned by the funder, and their disposition at the end of the project is at the discretion of the funder.  When this is the US government, it is called GFE - Government Furnished Equipment.  In most cases, the funder lets it stay at the institution (effectively giving it to them), but not always.  An institution might even be required to give the equipment to another researcher.

Overhead items are generally owned by the institution that is executing the project, and are often owned by the institution in general, rather than being associated with the particular project. These typically further break down into two sub-categories: tracked, and untracked.  Tracked is things like laptops, that many institutions still consider expensive enough to keep track of who they give them to and (at least theoretically) ask for them back eventually.  Untracked is things like paper and staplers, which are below the threshold where the institution cares.  Again, typically all of it technically belongs to the institution, but in practice many institutions will let somebody keep a low-value 'personalized' item such as an old laptop.

The exact definitions of which things go in which categories depend on the institution, the funder, and the particular contract, but this covers most of the typical cases.  Make sure you check particular regulations and customs with any particular institution before taking anything, though!


Reverse engineering the acceptance rate? Assume that we have an educational instance X which requires a certain prerequisites (mininum TOEFL, GRE score, etc.). In total 100 applications have been received and 50 students have failed to score above the minimum threshold while the remaining 50 have scored above it. The acceptance rate is given to be 10%.

Is it calculated basing on all applications or only the applications that have passed some certain criteria?

In this case,

if taking into account all applications => 10 students accepted
if taking into account only those who meet criteria => 5 students accepted

I would suspect that the acceptance rate is calculated against the total number of applicants (so 10 acceptances). But, unless you read the number in some official document that also precisely specifies how exactly this number is to be computed, I don't think you can (i) say for sure what it means, (ii) assume that the number is accurately computed against any particular approach you know, or the person who computed the number knows. For example, if you get the percentages of acceptances from a department web site for the previous 10 years, you have to expect that these ten numbers will have been computed by different people and with different definitions.


How to supply proof that you are a reviewer for a journal? How can you prove that you are a reviewer for a certain journal. For example, I have been invited to review a paper in a certain journal and on my CV I want to write that I have reviewed in this journal but since reviewers are supposed to be anonymous, how can I supply proof that I have reviewed in this journal?

You don't need to prove it. If someone thinks you're lying, they can just contact the journal editor and check. Reviewers aren't supposed be completely anonymous, anyway. It's just that no one outside of the editors should know who reviewed which articles.


How to answer a non-specific point of a review? I'm in the rebuttal stage of a conference paper and I'm having trouble to answer in a specific way to a point raised by a reviewer. The reason is that is completely non-specific:

  [...] and some subtle conditions are not discussed by the authors.

and the previous sentences are unrelated with the final one, so I don't have a clue on what he's speaking about.

It's quite frustrating, since it seems to me very unfair that he/she doesn't give me the opportunity to defend my paper. How can I answer in some constructive way?

I guess I won't be too popular for saying this, but you seem to have the wrong idea about what is going on. The point isn't to "defend your paper" or "rebut the reviewer" but to take constructive criticism of the paper so that you can improve it for the conference and for the future. It isn't a debate. It is a search for a way to express some scientific truths through a cooperative process.

That said, you can't respond to what you don't know. As user Miguel says in a comment, the editor may be able to help you here if you say that you don't understand the comment and ask if the reviewer can give more specific advice.

When you get the advice, hopefully you will, you can take it into account for a revision. But not just to complain about it. You won't win much by arguing. Your paper will only be accepted if it stands on its own, without side arguments in its favor.

Please note that I'm not being insulting here. Nor were your reviewers if they made suggestions about the paper that you didn't really want to read.


Reusing content in papers, conference preceedings and lecture notes In physics, it seems to be common practice to reuse your own introductory material, verbatim, multiple times in online lecture notes and conference preceedings, and a final time in a journal article. In most instances, it isn't indicated that the material was previously posted elsewhere, and the original documents may not be referenced at all.

This surprised me. During my undergraduate studies, we were given strict warnings about plagiarism, including self-plagiarism. I understand that authors are reluctant to reuse introductory material once it has been published in journal articles because it would violate copyright.

Is this practice really above board? and does it differ from other fields? If so, why?

Research ethics: At least around mathematics, self-plagiarism is defined much more narrowly than plagiarism. Essentially, in order to self-plagiarize, you have to write a paper that contains no new results whatsoever (compared to your older work); just having some overlap is not a problem. Verbatim self-repetition is not regarded as problematic (although it will make people think you are lazy or a bad writer) as long as it does not pretend to be new material. Repeating research papers in lecture notes or textbooks is not considered wrong.

Some even take the point of view that publishing the same result many times (first sloppily, then better, then really well) is legitimate; see Rota's "Publish the Same Result Several Times" advice. (Note: This advice is probably controversial, particularly these days, when there are few "obscure" journals, and when there is no reason to publish a crappy draft when you can just post it on the arXiv. But a second publication that subsumes and improves on a previous paper won't usually be considered improper. Also, you can publish a draft of ongoing research in conference proceedings and then re-publish it in a proper paper; that's what conferences are for.)

Copyright: There is, as always, a noticeable disconnect between what is legally required and what is actually done. In terms of the former, there may well be problems. In terms of the latter, you shouldn't worry. Unless you copy and republish a whole book, no one will sue you. (And even annoyances such as takedown requests to your university tend to be rare -- and don't always correlate with actual breaches of copyright.) Academics disregard copyright six ways from Sunday; if they suddenly started to care, research and teaching would probably slow down to a grind for a year or so until the most important sources are rewritten and published as open content. You should almost always ask yourself "what will the reader think", not "what will Elsevier think", at least if you are planning to get hired by academics rather than by Elsevier :)


Using leaked proprietary information in scientific paper I am working on a project in the area of IT security where we are analyzing a proprietary embedded system. While researching the system, we came across a confidential data sheet that was made publically available by a third party without the consent of the manufacturer of the system. The datasheet is marked confidential and usually only given out after an NDA is signed. It describes an outdated version of the system we are analyzing, but is partially relevant, as some parts of the system have not changed since then.

Is it ethical / acceptable to use and reference this resource in a paper?

"Related Work": this and this question ask about citing documents that aren't widely available (while my document can be found by anyone using Google, and none of the involved researchers have signed any NDAs).

Edit: To add some additional information that I added spread over a few comments:

The datasheet in question describes the security protocols used by an older version of a popular embedded security chip, current versions of which are being used in payment and access control systems
The manufacturer is aware that the data sheet has been leaked and is not happy about it, but has not gotten the datasheet removed from the third-party servers where it is located for the past two years. The reasons for this are unclear
The data is confidential (as in private-sector NDA-confidential), but not classified in a government sense.
The company has already stated that they would prefer if we did not publish based on this document, but that they would not be taking any legal action if we did, as long as all information was factually correct.

Sounds like you have found an interesting source and are considering the moral implications of using it. What I will say is based purely on personal opinion and probably what I would do unless instructed otherwise.

Leaks are a fact of life. With the proliferation of digital material they are commonplace. Look at Wikileaks, the Snowden revelations etc. Once material has become public there is - fortunately or unfortunately - no going back, regardless of how that information became public. It is the responsibility of the owner/creator of the material to ensure it says secure.

Dissemination of such material could be highly fruitful - but think of it this way - will your publishing research based on the material be ultimately constructive or destructive? Will it benefit just you or the wider world? Who is it really advantageous for? If the answer is just you, I would probably withhold your research based on it. If it has wider ramifications of great import, go with it. Also consider the reasons why it is confidential. Who does it serve - who does it protect? Was the confidentially because of financial reasons, incomplete research, company policy, or 'national security'?

There is a heavy moral tinge to this question, and you may have to do some soul-searching. But ultimately, if it serves the wider discipline in a positive way, and such servitude grossly outweighs the few individuals who it would ire, I would use it, as long as there are no legal implications for yourself [unlikely since a third party leaked it, but you can never be too careful].


Does publishing a monograph with Springer in computer science have any academic value? I was recently invited by Springer to publish a book: I proposed a table of contents, it was internally (in Springer) reviewed and accepted to be published as a monograph. I am at the stage of finalizing a first draft.

The content is mostly based on previous peer-reviewed publications (around 15 journal and conference papers in the computer science domain) along with more introductory material, state-of-the-art survey, and use-cases.

Is there any academic value in publishing a book that is based (approx. three quarters of it) on existing (peer-reviewed) material?

Also, as I am considering applying for assistant professor positions (I am currently working on contract basis), I would like to ask how is this book monograph viewed at by hiring committees? Is it considered vanity or a plus?

Is there any academic value in publishing a book that is based (approx. three quarters of it) on existing (peer-reviewed) material?

If well done, this seems like a useful book to me. Bringing together various related papers, adding some expository material for readers not yet intimately aware of the field, providing some perspective through use cases ... why not? Remember that in CS, the point of books is almost never to have original material. Books in CS are meant as a collection / introduction to a topic, not as a venue for new research contributions (that's what we have conferences for).

  Also, as I am considering applying for assistant professor positions (I am currently working on contract basis), I would like to ask how is this book monograph viewed at by hiring committees? Is it considered vanity or a plus?

Springer isn't a typical vanity press outlet, so I can't see a hiring committee outright discarding your publication there. I guess it will be a small plus (or a bigger plus, if the book turns out really good and becomes better-known in the field). However, your actual original research will probably be much more significant.


Assistant professor position in USA (9 months). Is it badly seen to spend the summer to work at distance in my home country? I will start soon an Assistant professor position in USA in Engineering. During the first 2 years the summer is paid. From the third I hope to get funded with grants. Is it badly seen if I spend the summer to work at distance in my home country?

EDIT: I will have 2 PhD students in the start-up, mine will be a computing lab so 99% percent of things and supervising can be done remotely.

A lot of this will depend on your department's culture regarding 9-month appointments. There are at least two different aspects of this I can think of:

How are 9-month appointments actually viewed? In some places I've been, 9-month positions, especially if the pay is spread over 12 months, are functionally just "75% Hard Money" positions, and there's a pretty clear expectation that you're working in the summer, etc. rather than "an unfunded summer is a summer off". If the summer ends up having a lot of committee meetings, etc. that could be a problem.
How are long absences viewed? There are some departments, especially those with lots of field work, being gone all summer would be quite typical. There are others where it would be extremely conspicuous, and probably be the source of some concerns about collegiality come evaluation time.


Can I use figures from my article on my website after it is accepted but before being published, if I publish open access and retain the copyright? I have a paper that was just accepted (but not yet published) in an open access journal. I am also upgrading my website right now, and I would like to know if I am allowed to post pictures which are in the paper (which I made) on my own personal website. I know that by publishing in a journal, I am giving up some rights over the material to the journal itself, and that certain actions are grounds for the journal to remit the article such as trying to submit the paper to another journal.

Can I use the pictures on my website, now before the paper has been published?
Do I have to wait until after the paper is published to use them?
Are the rules different for journals that are not open access?

I found the license information:

  Ownership of the copyright in the Contribution remains with the Author(s).
  However, the Author(s)’ re-use rights in the Contribution are subject to the rights and restrictions set forth below in this Section, and in clause 3 and 4(a). After the Author(s) have submitted the Contribution to NPG hereunder, the Author(s)’ rights to re-use the Contribution shall be the same as those set forth in the Creative Commons licence selected above, with the following additional re-use rights:

  (a) to reproduce the Contribution in whole or in part in any printed volume (book or thesis) of which they are the Author(s); and

  (b) to reuse figures or tables created by the Author(s) and contained in the Contribution in oral presentations and other works created by them.

  Notwithstanding, if the entire Contribution is rejected by NPG and not published, all rights under this licence shall revert to the Author(s).

(b) reuse figures [...] created by the Author(s) and contained in the Contribution in [...] other works created by them.

does IMHO cover your pictures.

However, depending on you legislation you may need to get approval (legally speaking: a license) by your coauthors.

IIRC in the US each coauthor can excercise the copyright independent of the other coauthors (please correct me if I'm wrong)
but e.g. in Germany all coauthors hold the copyright together, and must act together.

I guess that already single figures are works of their own and thus may only have a subset of the paper's coauthors as authors (but IANAL). But IMHO figures in scientific papers still frequently have multiple coauthors: in analogy to what constitutes authorship for a paper, I'd say that everyone who had an important contribution to the figure is coauthor of the figure.

Examples:

A suggests that a hexbinplot is more appropriate than the current pseudo-3d scatter plot. B accordingly changes the figure => I'd say both A and B are coauthors of the final figure.
A result plot showing a model and the experimental data: experimental design & measurements by A, theoretical bounds for models by B, and modeling of the experimental data & plotting of all into one figure by C => IMHO makes 3 coauthors.

Note: things may be even more complicated as e.g. in Germany the right for secondary publication according to §38 UrhG refers to the authors, while the commercial rights are typically with the employer.

Practically speaking I guess it is easiest to ask all coauthors of the paper (and if relevant your employer) for permission to re-use the paper or parts of it on the web site. I'd anyways consider piecemeal asking of some coauthors every time you want to put another figure on your blog as impolite.


Why are the acceptance rates for publications in subfields higher than others? For example in computer science, systems conferences have low acceptance rates hovering around ~20% as listed here: https://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~almeroth/conf/stats/

But in robotics many of the conferences, even the major ones, seem to have acceptance rates of ~40% (ICRA, IROS) as seen here: http://www.adaptivebox.net/CILib/CICON_stat.html#ICRA

Why is this, and are any steps taken to equalise the playing field between subfields? Does this simply mean that those doing systems research are just going to have a harder time publishing than those in robotics?

You can't judge a conference by its acceptance rate because you don't know what is in the rejection pile. For example, I know of a computer science conference that regulates its acceptance ratio by determining it in advance and then just setting the number of parallel tracks to fit.


Switching research topics to something less interesting? I'm finishing my undergraduate degree this year, and I'm deciding which PhD program to attend: School A, or School B. I do have other offers, but these two stand out to me. My background and current interests are in topic X.

School A has exactly one professor working on X, but my would-be initial advisor works on topic Y. I don't oppose doing research in Y, but my background and current research interest really is X. This initial advisor is recruiting me very aggressively, so it'll really hurt turning him down.
School B has 2-3 professors working on X, but I can't see myself working with anyone here whose research is not in X, which would be bad if I lose interest in X someday. If the would-be initial advisor at School A weren't recruiting me so aggressively, I'd choose School B.

All of the aforementioned professors are quite productive, though the students at School A are slightly more productive than those at School B. If it matters at all, I prefer the location of School A slghtly.

tl;dr: School A is aggressively recruiting me and may be the better place overall, but for my current research interests, School B is the place to be.

If you want to do research on X, you should go to a place where you can do that! Going to school A, working on Y, and hoping that you might be able to switch advisors does not sound like a good idea. How much the professor at school A wants you should not really matter, you have to do what is right for you; he will find someone else. Moreover, I would not already think about what to do if I lose interest in X. This is hypothetical anyway, and in this case, there might be some topic Z that is more interesting than Y etc.


When PhD advisor (in an interview) says "Tell me about your research interests", should you also say how it relates to their interests? Just curious about this.
On the one hand, I feel like it's a bit heavy-handed to say "And these interests relate to your research interests because of XYZ." It sounds like you are trying to sell them on something.
On the other hand, it is important that advisors feel your interests align.
Note: These are advisors whose interests do pretty obviously overlap with mine -- it's not a stretch.
What is the consensus on this?
UPDATE: So I had two advisor interviews today (back to back, same dept). The first thing both possible advisors asked me was something like "What are your research interests and why did you apply to X department at Y school to study with my group in particular?" (emphasis mine).  So that made it a little easier because they explicitly asked for the link.

This is different enough from the answer of Bill Barth that it should probably be factored out of comments. An alternate consideration for you in any case.
The question you ask is subtle. Maybe the approach should also be subtle. Start out assuming it will be obvious and see where that goes. You can always make it more explicit.
If it is immediately clear that the prof "groks it" then you don't need to do anything else. If they are confused, make it clearer. Because if they are confused then it needs to be made clearer.


Legality of collecting/distributing a dataset of screenshots of websites I'm doing a research project where I want to collect thousands of screenshots of different websites, for training/testing of image models. Ultimately, I am trying to create a dataset that I can present and distribute to the community at various conferences/symposia.

My primary concern is how legal this might be. My assumption would be that taking a screenshot of websites of private companies like newyorktimes.com would be some sort of copyright violation, but that may be a faulty assumption.

I'm also unclear as to grey areas like:

reddit:  user provided content
twitter: user provided content
wikipedia:   open source knowledge base
google:  content scraped/sourced from other providers

Essentially, what copyright considerations, if any, would I have to keep in mind when collecting, annotating and distributing screenshots? How might licensing/attribution work when making this data publically available to others for use?

Given the state of copyright law, this sounds like a minefield. There are people trying to sue Google, just for indexing sites.

It isn't so much that you want to do research on these "images", which is likely ok, but I think that distributing them will be almost impossible. Many sites won't want to give you permission and will complain (via lawyers) if you haven't obtained permission.

The general law about copyright is that people own what they produce, whether they register a copyright or not. If there isn't a clear license offered such as a Creative Common license, then the owner retains all rights to the work unless they explicitly put their creation into the public domain. Most of the sites you will probably want to visit likely will NOT have given up rights. The deal is supposed to be time limited, but that idea has been nearly eliminated in the law.

Places like wikipedia have clear statements of licensing and rights transfer. But individual users at reddit, twitter, etc. likely still have rights unless they have yielded them (as part of signing up) to the hosting site. I don't participate much in social media so haven't investigated these user agreements.

Attribution isn't enough. You need permission. Once you have that, you need to provide attribution.

However, if you want to "process" images, gleaning characteristics of the sites (but not text and images...) you can probably do it without permission.

Also note that copyright law is in flux and varies greatly around the world. The EU is currently trying to work out very restrictive laws, for example.

The core problem is that IP owners often have a lot of political power. Disney, for example will declare war on you if you try to compromise their rights to Mickey Mouse. Common understandings that once permitted Voltaire to make a living from his writings have now expanded to unlimited rights to lock up the culture forever by large commercial firms.

Another problem is that many formerly lucrative publishing strategies have been money losers lately because of the internet. The NYTimes, for example, if it wants to continue in business needs to achieve income somehow. They can't do it printing on paper anymore, so their web sites have value to them and they are fearful (maybe overly fearful) that re-publishing, or even indexing, their material will cost them enough that they can't sustain their business model anymore.

It is even worse for sites that show advertising. You not only have issues with the site itself, but all of the images shown by the advertisers are, themselves, likely copyright protected with teams of lawyers ready and willing to go after you.

That said, you might be able to do your research on a wide range of sites/images without formal permission, depending on what it is, but then only publish a smaller set for which it is clear that you have a right to do so.

Note that there are a few exceptions to strict copyright law. These fall into the realm of formal criticism, and parody. There is a notion of fair use that is being eroded, so can hardly be depended on anymore.

If you are part of an institution, such as a University, then the institution probably has an Office of Research that can give you explicit advice for your locale. That office probably has access to lawyers that can provide explicit legal advice. Tread cautiously.


Found a major flaw in paper from home university – to which I would like to return During my Ph.D. in condensed-matter physics, I published a paper together with two other students. The research group of the university that I am originally from (in Madrid, Spain) happened to work on the same subject and, later on, published another paper where they criticize our work, propose their own, and claim that theirs ‘works’ better. This group includes a famous and highly influential professor.

I could finally get around to study their results, reproduce every single bit of them, and found a major flaw, which invalidates their conclusions, including the superiority of their approach over ours.

I am now a permanent researcher in another country, but would like to go back to Madrid some day for personal reasons. It is a small world, and it is likely that I will have to interact/negotiate with that group if I ever want to go back.

On the one hand, I would like to publish this work where I found the flaw, in order to get things straightened out and properly settle the scientific issue. On the other hand, this may cause a strong embarrassment for them and be detrimental on a relational/political level, possibly implying a revenge from their side.

I could certainly write them a polite email before publishing, trying to be as delicate as possible and frame the whole thing in a positive way. However, I doubt that this will make a difference on the long term.

How can I deal with this? Have you ever been in a similar situation?

Don't make it personal. Keep it about the science. You can inform them of the flaw and let them fix it or you could just publish a new paper with better results, pointing out the flaw if needed. That would depend on whether you want the new result under your name or are happy enough for it to be under theirs.

If you write, however, and get pushback, evaluate it fully and then publish or not as you choose. But I wouldn't get into an argumentative back and forth about it. And if you just decide to publish it, as a courtesy you can send them your paper when you submit it to a publisher: For Your Information...

The science is the important thing.


Been working towards undergrad degree on and off, now finally found my passion and want to go for a PhD. What should I do? I went to college right out of high school not really knowing what I wanted to study. I ended up with medical issues about two and a half years into my degree, lost motivation, and dropped out. After taking the occasional class at a community college, I helped open a math tutoring business with my parents. I've always been good at math, but I have absolutely fallen in love with it now, often spending most of my free time going through early graduate level textbooks and staying up all night reading proofs. I now hope to pursue a PhD. in Mathematics. I have been accepted as a transfer student to finish up my bachelors degree in mathematics, which is quite different than my original intended major of theology. I graduated from high school in 2007 and will likely finish my undergraduate degree around 2018.

**QUESTION: ** as a result of being unmotivated in my years right after high school, I have some F's which have resulted in around a 2.5 GPA, although I do not know if that will be shown on my transcript, since it came from a different institution. If I show motivation and a passion for constantly striving to push my knowledge in mathematics and receive over a 3.7 in my 300-400 level math courses, can that overcome my failures in the past?

What matters most to be accepted into and succeed in a PhD program is an advisor who values you and your work and will vouch for you.  Grades only matter if you're applying through the front door in a pile of 1000 applications, which you want to avoid.

During your remaining years in undergrad, look up and seek out the Mathematics professors at the college or university you want to attend.  Read their research, journal publications, conference presentation, research agenda, etc. and figure out how you can contribute to that and build upon it.  Then reach out to a select couple of them and have coffee with them, discuss your plans, volunteer to join one of their research projects as an undergraduate research assistant (sometimes it's even paid), and so on.  If you demonstrate aptitude, particularly when it comes to novel research and deep understanding of the subject material AND you have found the right advisor who wants to work with you, that person will help you with the application process and take you on as their graduate student.

Good luck!


Immigration and tenure track in the United States I have plans to apply for some TT positions in the US. However, I'm Brazilian and I don't even have a visiting visa. I've never been to the US.

Therefore the whole immigration process is mainly unknown to me, with the exception of a small amount of information I managed to gather online.

Ignoring the CV, merits, etc, which I know play a decisive part in the TT hiring process, my question is :

  How much the immigration hassle can change the outcome of the hiring process?

Just to clarify further, I'm interested in the immigration factor only. Is it relevant?

Of course, a foreign superstar would be good enough reason to overcome these obstacles, but I'm no superstar and I was wondering where they draw the line, if it is even worth to do the applications... (If you are extra curious, my scholar : https://scholar.google.com.br/citations?user=0D1ExLoAAAAJ)

Possibly related: Is it more difficult to score a Tenure Track position in the US when applying from outside?

I've taught at both large R1 universities and small liberal arts colleges. For the large R1s, we don't care -- we simply want the best person for the job, regardless of their nationality. R1s have very competent foreign scholar offices and lawyers who know how to do the proper visa paperwork.

At smaller schools, it's more difficult. Budgets are tighter and the provost has more say over searches. If there are two candidates that are almost equally ranked, then the provost may suggest one over the other for non-academic reasons. There may not even be approval for international airfare for job candidates at the interview stage.

You have to remember that an H1B application will cost at least $10,00-$20,000 in lawyer's fees, staff time,  and application costs. The stack of paperwork for the Department of Labor certification itself is about 3 inches thick. Furthermore, even though there is an exemption, sometimes H1B applications can be very, very slow -- which means that an instructor hired in March might not be able to join the campus by August. This can be deadly for a small school that needs its faculty present.

tl;dr Be the absolute best candidate possible for the position and the visa status won't matter. Otherwise, it is a factor amongst other factors.


Showing figures from a paper in presentation I'm giving a talk summarizing someone else's paper and I'd like to show some figures from their paper during my presentation.  It's an informal talk to fellow students and a few professors at my school.  Would it okay to just have a PDF of their paper up on the screen showing the figures needed?  Should I obtain permission before I do this?

In my field, mathematical physics, I've seen many presentations with figures from papers, and it's perfectly acceptable to do so providing you reference the work either at the end on a separate slide or as a footnote.

If the figure does not consist of data collected by the authors, but rather, for example, the graph of a function, then you could of course plot it yourself and include your own figure. There would be no need for citation.


Feeling pressured to publish thesis results by advisor I don't want to work with anymore A couple of months ago I finished my masters in computer science. A few days a go the following happened.

My main supervisor wrote an abstract of results from my thesis. He put me as the first author along with the two others, and himself.Then he sent a group email informing that the abstract is going to be submitted to a conference. In the email he refers to a previous agreement to submit a paper to this conference.

I have three issues.

I don't remember agreeing to submitting the results anywhere. We did talk about trying to publish the results and I was, at the time, very positive to the idea, but I always understood that we were going to "get back to it" at some point.
I don't want to work on this any more (Nor do I want want my name put on any thing.). There is a reason I didn't apply for any phd position, despite encouragement. Academia stresses me out. I have a job now and am very pleased with that.
His first draft of the abstract was either written to be misleading (over-emphasising a connection to a much cooler subject), or he doesn't understand the context of the results, which makes me feel uncomfortable.

I feel pressured to let them write a paper about the results and put my name on it.. but I'm worried they will misrepresent things and do a bad job. I don't want my name on something I didn't actually write.. even if the results are mine.

Am I making a big deal out of nothing? Or should/can I put the breaks on the process?

You may be overreacting -- there aren't enough details to say that you aren't. In particular, suggestions that your supervisor is acting unethically are very much not grounded, at least in what you've said. Slinging around such accusations carelessly will only hurt your reputation. (You probably shouldn't care much about that reputation if you really have left the field, but given that you worry about your name being attached to something not up to your standards, I guess you really do care about it.)

I would suggest analyzing this from your supervisor's side. He had a student in whom he probably invested a fair amount of resources, including grant money and time spent training that student. The student ended up producing good research, novel enough to be worthy of publication.

Now the supervisor is certainly aware that the student left the field, but he has an interest in getting the results published. He offers to do (or delegate) the remaining housekeeping in putting together a final manuscript, but wants to give credit where it's due. Unexpectedly, the student comes back with "I'm too busy, and I don't trust anyone else to publish my results."

Sure, you can prohibit a manuscript from being submitted with your name on it, and you can also prohibit having your name removed from something where you were undeniably an author-worthy contributor. But now that means the field is permanently deprived of your research. What was it all for, now that you refuse to let it be shared? Being uncooperative to the point where you censor your research can itself be unethical.

  We did talk about trying to publish the results and I was, at the time, very positive to the idea, but I always understood that we were going to "get back to it" at some point.

Well, you never did, so your supervisor is stepping up and doing what needs to be done.

  I don't want to work on this any more

Then don't.

  His first draft of the abstract was either written to be misleading (over-emphasizing a connection to a much cooler subject), or he doesn't understand the context of the results, which makes me feel uncomfortable.

Dressing things up to get attention is not unusual in academia, nor is it unethical. At worst, if one goes too far, one gets a reputation for having too large an ego. If no lies are being told, then don't worry. If you want to micromanage every sentence of the manuscript, then you have to write it yourself and forbid anyone else from contributing.

  I feel pressured to let them write a paper about the results and put my name on it ... I don't want my name on something I didn't actually write

I've seen a lot of papers published by more than one author. In a majority of cases, only one person ever did write all those sentences. (Where this isn't true, there tends to be a disruptive change of writing style.) The other authors contributed in other ways. If you were key to getting the results, your name should be on the paper, whether or not the manuscript was drafted by you personally.

  I'm worried they will misrepresent things and do a bad job

In which case is the world a better place: (1) this research never sees the light of day, or (2) this research is written up in a more grandiose way than your modesty is comfortable with? Those are your only options, and unless this paper is going to be so misrepresentative as to be harmful (and how can you know that given that you've only seen an abstract?), you should probably go with (2). Be wary of making the comparison to (3) the paper is magically written the way you would like without any effort on your part. (2) might be worse than (3), but (3) isn't on the table.

There really is an easy negotiation here. Ask that whoever writes the manuscript be made first author. That way the research gets published, but everyone understands that the style and tone and other such soft features of the writing are probably not yours. If your name is on the paper you will be held accountable for its factual correctness, but no one is going to ambush the second author and say "I think you personally could have given a better account of how your paper connects with that cool subject."


How to survive as a theoretician in computer science? I am currently a PhD student in the mid of my PhD. I have seen many of researchers in my field have published just one or two articles. My research more precisely is related to designing algorithms for problems related to polynomial factorization. This field requires two three years of background for research work or even more for some people. I am very much interested in this field, but worry about the future of my research. Here are some problem which I think may be problematic after my PhD:

Getting a post-doc seems quite challenging as my field is purely theoretical.
Suppose I join some institute as an Assistant professor then it will take longer for me to become Associate professor. Because the rate of publication is slow.
Funding also seems also quite problem

I am only motivated by theory and not that much interested in practical aspects.

Question :  Is there any way to avoid above mentioned problems to some extent?

The above information I have collected by searching online and talking to few researcher who works in the field mentioned above.

One solution that comes directly to my mind is try to relate my research to some practical side but that does not seems to be solution in my case.

Here are some problem which I think may be problematic after my PhD:

Your first course of action is to find out if your worries are actually true. Talk to your supervisor(s), who are presumably also working in theory, and find out if they share your concerns. Some countries and universities are more amenable to highly theoretical work than others. For instance, I work at Chalmers University of Technology which prides itself on industry impact, so doing purely theoretical teaching and research is not of highest priority here. However, if I look at some other research universities, things appear to be quite different.

In general, you may see things too pessimistically. It is true that, by and large, researchers in theoretical fields publish less than in applied fields. However, faculty search and promotion committees are usually aware of that and factor this in when making decisions. That is, they will not put your CV next to a person in software engineering and conclude that the SE person is better than you just based on publication or citation numbers. Generally, you will be compared against people in your own field, and your achievements will be measured against the standards of your field.

However, specifically when it comes to funding, your stance that you are entirely disinterested in applications may in my experience indeed become a limitation at some point. There are funding agencies in most countries that focus purely on foundations, but competition tends to be stiff as all theoretical researchers compete for the same funding. Applied funding is often more plentiful and also more varied, and simply due to there often being more diverse avenues to get your research funded, competition is often less intense.

That said, I have seen many theoretically minded researchers develop some interest in applying their theory at some point in their career, so just because you are not interested in applications right now does not mean that you will remain entirely disinterested forever. The other question is how much funding you really need when you are only interested in theory: given that you will not have much need for infrastructure and staff programmers, often a little funding can go a long way in theoretical fields.


Being "good enough" to do research with a professor? ( cse, undergrad ) I'm a computer science student at Stony Brook University. As the undergrad final project next semester, I am to do a research project under the supervision of a professor, whom I have to find this semester.

I have not yet taken any classes with professors whose research I am interested in, How can I show that I'm "competent enough" for them to spend time on me? It feels like standards for computer science are different than say, biology. I also currently don't know a lot about the area I'm interested in (data systems/mining), though I will be taking the database course this semester. Would this be a major negative factor?

Research means diving into the unknown.

Committing to work on a research project with a mentor is also diving into the unknown.

What I can reassure you about is that

Professors are used to undergraduates signing up for research projects with less preparation than would be seen in grad students
The stakes will not be as high for this as they would be as a grad student.  If you don't have any original findings to show for yourself at the end of the project, that won't be a disaster.

This is a chance for you to get your feet wet, to ask, I wonder... and then figure out how you might start working on an answer.

Give it a try!


Citing a project performed in a previous class that was never published? In a past class I completed a project whose results and methods will prove useful in my current class project. This project, written in a journal style format, was never published, and will most likely never be published.

How do I go about properly citing this project? Should I simply list the title, college, and date? What is the accepted format?

You could publish it as a preprint. Or if you want to publish some specific section you could use some dedicated service that provides with with a doi, e.g. you can use protocols.io for your protocol or figshare/zenodo for your dataset. This way not only are citable but it will have a unique identifier.


One Extra Semester - Benefits? Trouble Planning I am a junior mathematics/philosophy double major looking to pursue mathematics into graduate school. Philosophy is a hobby which turned out to satisfy many degree requirements at first. Now, due to some unfortunate planning on my part, and the fact that the university schedules mathematics and philosophy courses almost exclusively in the same time, I'm in for a real crunch to finish the philosophy side of the program. In short, I'm considering taking a 9th semester of undergraduate, but I'm not sure it's worth it for me. I have a few reasons to consider this decision, but I'm not sure how bad that lost semester matters. I understand that it might implicitly translates into an extra year, since many first year graduate courses come in fall/spring sequences.

In order to graduate on time, I would have to take 18 and 19 credits in senior year, respectively, as well as write a thesis in mathematics (it need not be any new or groundbreaking work, but it must be at minimum an expository paper covering some highly non-trivial theorem and/or applications). However, since I have completed all of the mathematics courses for undergraduate necessary, I am free to take graduate level classes. Since I'm primarily interested in algebra and geometry, I'll be taking the core courses in those two subjects that year if possible. However, I could always nix these to work on philosophy, but since I'm really going to school for mathematics, that seems less than wise.

But in the event that it's too much to handle, I have only two choices. Drop the philosophy major and make it a minor when nearly finished, or take an extra semester of undergraduate.

How much does one extra semester hurt my application? There are quite a handful of benefits to the extra semester if I stay:

It takes stress off senior year proper, which is important to me because I struggle with moderate anxiety, and the high course load could impact my GPA. I could do 12 credits/semester taking 6 in graduate mathematics and 6 in philosophy quite comfortably, with room to meet with professor and work on my mathematics thesis.
It let's me spread the philosophy work sufficiently thin that I can take an advanced algebra course, and/or a graduate course in real analysis. This is particularly important because I didn't do so well in my undergraduate course because of that anxiety. In a lighter semester, I could do much better, since I do understand the material, in spite of underperforming on exams. At the very least I could retake the undergraduate course and do better in it.
I can be a TA, something I have not otherwise had time for and I understand to look good on an application.
I can continue to work as a peer tutor at my university. I am a certified tutor through the College Reading and Learning Association. I don't know if that's useful or not on a graduate application, but it can't hurt. The extra semester would get me another level of certification. I don't know how much graduate programs know about this organization, so I don't know if this means much or not.
Since I'm not graduating after "senior" year, I can possibly partake in a (second?) mathematics REU. Hopefully I will be admitted to one this summer.

So in short, the question is, should I try to get through in two semesters, and nix the philosophy program if I can't make it, or do I go for the ninth semester with all the tradeoffs?

I would recommend eliminating the philosophy major in order to start your graduate degree in mathematics sooner.  It seems to me the philosophy major does little to advance your career goals; you described it as a hobby.  Taking an extra (presumably fall) semester to graduate will delay your career by a whole year because graduate admissions typically only occur in the fall.  The year you lose comes at the end of your career, when you will presumably have the best and highest paying job of your life, or can retire a year earlier.  On the whole, the costs of an extra semester seems very high compared to the benefits.


What is the location of the nomenclature section in a scientific paper? I received this comment from a reviewer: “ It is better to add a nomenclature section with a list of all the used symbols and their meaning as example (DVB-T, DVB-S2, BCH, OSFBC, LDPC...), consequently the paper should be re-arranged eliminating all the definitions given in the sections”.

Are there any specific position for this section ?

The correct position for a nomenclature section is the location normally used by the journal in question. While as Paul suggests, the logical location for this should be at the start of the paper, in many journals, the nomenclature section is placed at the end, largely because it does not "look as good" to have the nomenclature section right on the first page (which is optically the "prime real estate" of the paper).


Answering an email regarding recommendation letters I asked a professor for a recommendation letter last Thursday to apply to a certain grad school program (and others), and she agreed to do it. However, I received an e-mail yesterday from her that said that the deadline is too soon (I completely understand that I was irresponsible), and that she may not complete it in time. What would be a good/diplomatic way to respond? I do not want to give the impression that I'm forcing her to write the recommendation letter for me.

Oy.  [In the future, give people at least a month for this sort of thing] Here's what you can do.  (1) Be very polite and thank her a lot.  (2) Say that you would like her to write a letter and submit it when she gets the chance [perhaps late as needed].  (3) Email the grad department and say you're applying but one of your letters will be late.

Hopefully that works out at some level.  A few things could go wrong with this plan of course, but it's worth a shot.  In any event, be sure to thank the letter writer profusely before and after the fact.  Cards are nice.


What do I need to do to get a master's degree in neuroscience? I am an international student in the U.S who recently got a B.A in architecture. I am currently looking for a full-time job in architecture to support myself. But my future plan is to study neuroscience in graduate school and go into science field.
I want to know:
how possible it is for me to get into a masters degree program in neuroscience without any background in it. Now I am thinking to take GRE in physics, chemistry, biology and math. I think I will also need to take some required courses that I didn't take in my undergrad level either online or either at the university where I am going for a masters degree.
I also want to have an idea of how long it is going to take me to pursue it. A regular masters degree program takes about two years, but in my case I think it will take more than that.
Lastly, what are the other things I need to do to make my transition from architecture to neuroscience less time-consuming?
Thanks!

I used to have some interactions in department of neuroscience at my university and I can definitely say that this field is filled with opportunities for people with strong natural science or engineering background but is very forbidding for everybody else. Neuroscience is applied science and to do applied science you need a lot of experience in science in the first place and I am not sure whether architecture has given you the exposure required, perhaps you should tell us why you are interested in neuroscience in the first place and what you are planning to do.

From my observation, to do research in neuroscience you either have to have:

option A) a strong biochemical background or
option B) a strong engineering background particularly in statistical signal processing, computer science or electronic devices

And this illustrates the research direction of neuroscience departments in general, which is really to understand the brain and its connections from an input-output perspective (hence signal processing, computer graphics, machine learning, devices) and find ways to control it using drug or other stimuli (hence biochemistry background). Of course the type of research being performed varies widely and have many softer areas such as psychology, emotions, learning styles, etc. but these are experiments backed up by theoretical hypothesis and scientific methods which translate into hardcore math and science. Even if it doesn't actually involve that much theoretical calculation, the course work will definitely involved detailed knowledge of mathematics, physics, electronics and biology.

There are many top neuroscience faculties around the world, and in the US, John Hopkins and Duke University comes to mind but these faculties are specialized in the sense that they are sub-disciplines of sub-disciplines i.e. a special branch of psychology, a special branch of electrical engineering. Therefore I am not sure whether GRE subject tests in physics, biology, etc. would impress such a specialized faculty. Most importantly you should show aptitude in doing research in this area by demonstrating the reason behind why you are interested in neuroscience and back it up by some form of outside experience that deals with aspects of neuroscience but again these opportunities are very hard to come by outside of formal university setting.

Some strategies:

Look at some of the programs offered and their research direction, do you want to go into a biology based stream or engineering based stream? Which appears to be most feasible?
Look at some of the courses in neuroscience (enroll in a college program or find online courses such as Coursera's Bioelectricity course) and see whether you have the prerequisite to engage in this field, if not, work on those preliminaries by enrolling in some form of college program
If you have the prerequisite and you ace the course with flying colors, then apply what you learned in some special project, look at some of the project involving neuroscience or bioengineering in general such as EEG/EMG/EKG control, etc. and produce a product that is interesting, maybe even marketable
Look at the companies currently doing applied neuroscience related work and see if you have the credential to work for these companies. They maybe related to software for some sort of real time image processing of the brain, psychological tests with fMRI data to backup hypothesis, neuro-interface devices

Architecture to neuroscience is a big leap but then again it all depends on what kind of architecture degree it is, if it is some sort of engineering physics program with architecture specialization you might just have a better shot. While GRE is necessary and good and all, it will not likely to satisfy such a specialized group and reveal your aptitude to produce work in this field


Uploading a revised version of published journal article on arXiv I uploaded a pre-print of an article on arXiv 1 year ago. The article was accepted in SCI journal and currently available online. However, I found a typo mistake in one equation and want to add more discussion related one figure (On researchgate I am receiving a lot of queries regarding that figure). Should i upload a new version of pre-print on arXiv? (How citations will work in this case? as arxiv version is more advanced compare to Journal version) OrI may upload a short document on arXiv as an errata/correction with extra discussion?Or I may address errata and discussion in online page of journal? Actually this journal allows the registered users to comment and start discussion related to published article.

This has happened before. Just update the arXiv version and indicate in the "Comments" field and ideally also inside the file itself that the version is newer than the published one. Examples of such updates:

https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.3306v4 (sadly, the Comments field isn't too clear here)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04832v1 (here, the fact that this is a post-publication update has been made clear in the file itself)
https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0602634v4

The fact that I found/recalled these three links within 10 minutes should suggest that this is not a rare occurrence, although I wish that people would make the status of the preprint as being a more correct version of the publication clearer. Either way, the update is highly encouraged from a reader's perspective :)


How to argue against questionable research practices such as P-hacking and Harking? I have come into conflict with co-authors when being asked to do things that I consider to be questionable.

Once I was told to try every possible specification of a dependent variable (count, proportion, binary indicator, you name it) in a regression until I find a significant relationship. That is it, no justification for choosing one specification over another besides finding significance. The famous fishing expedition for starfish (also known as P-Hacking).
In another occasion I was asked to re-write a theory section of a paper to reflect an incidental finding from our analysis, so that it shows up as if we were asking a question about the incidental finding and had come up with the supported hypothesis a priori. The famous hypothesising after results are known (Harking).

In both cases I refused to comply and explained my reasoning, what led to conflicts with the other party. I tried my best to not sound accusatory (not to give the impression that I doubt the ethics of the other party), but it nonetheless led to attrition and a worsening of the working relationship. In the long argument that followed, I was told that 'social science is not done as the natural sciences,' and that I was 'too inflexible,' 'too positivist,' and that everybody does these things that I was being asked to do. The argument culminated with me being asked to 'stop obstructing the progress of the paper,' what made me feel very frustrated.

Since then I have seen several cases of what I suspect to be this type of research practice. For example, PhD students coming to me to ask about what they should change in their models so that their results come out significant, and people working at the same computer lab as me asking me for the same type of help.

I do consider these things to be seriously questionable from an ethical point of view, and would like to be able to argue against them effectively. However, the other parties are usually experienced researchers or students under the supervision of an experienced researcher. As a young researcher, I feel that I'm at a disadvantage when arguing against. It is often the case that I'm arguing against the instructions of someone who has more experience, publications, and, supposedly, knowledge than I do.

Is this one of those cases where we can't do much but try to be the 'change that we want to bring about,' shud it, and just make sure that we are doing the right things ourselves? Should we speak up more often? If so, any good strategies to be more effective and convincing?

p.s. The tag is social sciences because of my field, but I reckon that this happens in other areas as well, and I welcome input from other fields.

EDIT 1: In example 2), at no moment anyone suggested that we would confirm the new hypothesis in a new set of data. The intention was to pretend that we got it right from the onset, which is why I objected.

EDIT 2: Just to make clear. I am aware of the right way of doing these things (i.e. cross validation, confirmatory analysis in a new dataset, penalising for multiple statistical tests, etc.). This is a question about how to argue that p-hacking and harking are not the way to go.

EDIT 3: I was unaware of the strong connotations of the word misconduct. I have edited and replaced it with 'questionable research practices'

This sort of thing happens in both the social sciences AND physical sciences.  For instance, often a scientist will collect data to test a theory but will also collect lots of extraneous data.  Analyses on these extraneous data often should be considered exploratory and labeled as such (because significant results could be due to the multiple tests)  [As another example, you don't want to know how often chemists repeat an experiment until they get a good yield, then stop and report that yield without mentioning that that was the best in 20 experiments!]

The fastest solution is to agree to do the multiple analyses, but then tell what you did in the methodology section.  If you say that you analyzed it several ways and one way showed significance, readers can decide whether or not to believe the result.  Just tell your co-authors that not mentioning that you did multiple analyses is leaving the research improperly described.

However, you can (occasionally) save the day.  If, for instance, you did 10 different analyses and picked the best one, you'll be ok if the result would hold under a Bonferroni correction (i.e. instead of requiring significance at the 0.05 level, you require significance at the 0.05/#tests level).  So it the final test shows a p-value such as 0.000001, you probably are on safe grounds.

Another approach is to a priori decide that some tests are obvious (confirmatory) and some are just searching around the data (exploratory).  Then you can demonstrate the confirmatory results, while labeling anything interesting among the 'exploratory' results as 'needs further research'.  That is, you can mix well-founded tests with 'data dredging' as long as you acknowledge the difference between the two sets of tests.

But if it isn't possible to rescue the result, I'd go with insisting that they describe what they did, with the comment that if they are embarrassed to describe it, they shouldn't have done it.  :)

You might also add that it is often obvious (at least to statisticians) that a researcher has pulled this trick.  When we see a test in isolation that would not occur to us to be the obvious approach, or a hypothesis that we'd not choose a priori, it looks suspicious.  For instance, I recently read a paper that claimed that a certain group of people tend to commit suicide more often if they were BORN in the Spring.  It was clear that JUST testing the effect of birth in Springtime was not something that would occur to anyone, without testing the effect of birth in other seasons.  So they probably had a spurious result due to multiple comparisons.


Do people still have to write thesis after finishing their master/phd? I know that the thesis is needed when doing their master.
But do people still need to write a thesis when doing research as a past-time?

What if they just want to publish an article but not thesis?

No, people don't have to write theses after the Masters/PhD. The thesis is a formal requirement for those degrees, but after that, it's just not necessary anymore.

Actual research papers, though ... those are effectively "compulsory".


Postdoc in good environment, but haven't accomplished anything on my own: How long is it reasonable to stick around? I'm about 5 months into my postdoc now, and I am seriously questioning the choice. Most posts I read about this mention bad advisors, situations with the lab, etc. but in my case actually everything about the lab is great. I'm at the top institution in my field, with an advisor that is well respected in the field and has been around for a long time. The advisor is also an extremely nice person, supportive and consistently provides positive feedback when you present work. The group is also great, full of really smart, but really friendly people. They work a lot, but that's really the only flaw in the group culture (aside from not being the safest in lab maybe). The group is also well funded, and my advisor is supportive of working on anything that is interesting. It seems like this should be an amazing opportunity. Resources galore, support, and scientific freedom.

But here's the thing, I'm totally miserable and haven't accomplished anything tangible that I can call my own. I have helped some people with their projects, but I haven't been able to figure out something to work on that is my own. My PhD used some of the same fundamentals, but this was a relatively big switch moving into the postdoc. I expected some time would be necessary to learn new things and get going, but I barely feel like I've moved forward. I tried several ideas, but nothing panned out. Now my advisor has suggested a new project to make this device, it would be slightly more related to my PhD and we have some of the resources needed to do it, and wrote a proposal to get more, but I'm still really struggling to get going. I feel like this new project doesn't involve many fundamentals, and is just engineering together existing pieces that have all been done before. If it works it might be interesting, but I really struggle to see how I could use it to do fundamental science, which is what you need to apply to academic jobs in the field. I just feel like I am failing at a key part of being an academic, which is coming up with new ideas. At some point that has to catch up to me and my advisor will notice.

So what I am struggling with is whether I should stick it out and grind away on this new project that I don't have much faith in, find a new postdoc and try to move labs (I am not willing to move cities since my partner is also here doing a postdoc), or should I just start looking for an industry job in the area (which would almost definitely come with a much worse commute, but twice the salary)? But if I did the industry search I'm not sure how I could do that without telling my advisor because I would only leave if I got a decent offer. The other labs that would be relevant for my experience are a lot less well known, and I don't think any of them would have as nice of an advisor.

Welcome to the club of being a miserable postdoc!

I was and am in quite a similar situation.  I had the benefit of my first postdoc being with a horrible boss and lab, and my second being with an amazing boss and lab, so it has been easy to figure out which aspects of postdocing are me sucking and which aspects are the environment sucking.  During the second postdoc with the good people, it became clear that the persistent lack of passion was on me.  Even after I finally saw a few projects to completion, the emptiness remained.  I think if you're feeling consistently unhappy, it's a good sign that the academic research life isn't for you.  There are tons of other career paths where you can engage in the activities you do find fulling (mentoring, teaching, counseling, etc.) that don't require slogging through miserable research hours.

It also sounds a bit like you have a touch of imposter syndrome.  Read this for some tips on how to work through it.

I'd hold on to the postdoc at least a few months longer while you start investigating new options and figuring out finances in case you need to go jobless or re-train for a bit.  Once you've figured out a plan, just be honest with your supervisor-- it's unlikely to be the first time they have had a postdoc jump ship.


How to write literature review when several systematic reviews already exist I'm currently getting stuck into writing the literature review for my PhD thesis. (Provisional literature review anyway, given that it's my first year.) In my field, there are two or three published systematic reviews of the subject matter I'm covering. I'm uncertain as to how to make use of these in the context of my literature review: if I were to review all the literature independently I'm effectively reproducing the existing systematic reviews, but if I simply report the systematic reviews I'm not demonstrating an in depth engagement with the literature.

How should I make use of these existing systematic reviews in my literature review, without either duplicating text or appearing to take short-cuts?

Your systematic review (SR) need to fill a gap in knowledge that was not covered in the existing SRs.

By filling this gap, you will be building on, extending, and/or updating the existing SRs and the related literature.

Normally, the research question in your SR should therefore be novel and not duplicate of those in the existing SRs. This will produce different and novel findings.

In the discussion/synthesis of your SR, demonstrate how your findings fill the gap, and put your SR in the wider context: your narrow (and possibly wider) field, the exiting SRs, and other related studies.

Also see this question: A systematic review already exists in the literature. When is a newer one required?


Is it legal to download textbooks from academia.edu? There is a website called academia.edu. It seems like they have papers on various topics - but my question is about their textbooks. It is possible to download certain college textbooks for free through their site. This is a link to a calculus textbook you can download through the site.

My question is: Is it legal to download textbooks from academia.edu (in the United States)?

Someone who downloaded a textbook from there could make the argument that they had good-faith belief that the content on the website is available for public use, and was not aware of any legislation barring them from such download.

Thus, even if somewhere in the world it is illegal (which I doubt), the person downloading the book is extremely unlikely to get prosecuted or sued, and were they to be prosecuted - extremely unlikely of being convicted.

This, as opposed to textbooks you somehow got (without being able to make any assumptions about the source of the file.


What kind of research failures are publishable? Suppose that a physicist has discovered that the presence of X causes Y in a certain kind of systems. So they go a step ahead and try to work on a similar idea of X being the cause of Y in a little different kind of systems and it takes them months to arrive at the results.
But lo! That relation does not hold true here.
Is this result publishable? In general, what kind of failures in research are not failures from the point of view of writing papers about them? For example, if someone starts off hoping to prove the Riemann Hypothesis and discovers that it is not true, that is 100% publishable since a lot is riding on the RH.
Is a lot riding on it the only thing at work in such situations?

A lot depends on the message which is conveyed by the paper and how it is formulated. In your example, essentially, researchers take system A, use theory A' to explain the experimental results observed in it, publish 1st paper, then take system B, use the same theory and find that the theory does not work in the sense that it cannot describe the experiment there. So, a paper saying "system B shows interesting behaviour which is not captured by theory A', see how" has higher chances being published than a paper saying "we tried to apply theory A' to system B and it does not work".
Further, it is very common that if you achieved a "failure" (which is not the best word if applied to research), that is, a negative result, you can reformulate your message to make it sound "positive". In particular, you can analyse why exactly your attempts did not work, what was lacking in your theory (theories usually have assumptions and/or model simplifications) and how further theories can be improved to actually do the job. This is valuable information and often is perfectly publishable.


I put a paper on arXiv and now I want to send it to a double-blind journal. What can I do? Several months ago, I wrote a working paper and put it on arXiv. Now, the paper has improved considerably, and I would like to submit it to the American Mathematical Monthly. Their author instructions clearly say "please refrain from putting your paper online until you have heard from the editor" (this is probably meant to keep the review process double-blind). I see in arXiv that I can withdraw the paper, but its title and my name will remain there, so it will still not be anonymous.
Is there a way to temporarily hide a paper from arXiv, until the review process is done?
EDIT: I asked the editors about it, and they reply was, essentially: it is preferred to not put the paper online before submission, but it does not disqualify it. However, the fact that the paper is online should be noted in the cover letter, and preferrably, the submitted paper should be given a different title so that it is not too easy to find it by Google.

This may seem like a digression at first, but wait for it:
The main purpose of double-blind peer review should not be to prevent the reviewers learning the authors’ identity by all means.
This can be a welcome side effect, but often this is impractical not only due to preprints but also due to previous work, conferences, idiosyncrasies, etc.
If a malignant reviewer wants to break the double blindness, they often can.
Fortunately, many peer reviewers don’t want to do this:
They are completely fine with performing an unbiased review of a paper that is only based on its own merits – as they ideally should.
However, no matter how good our intentions, we are still prone to subconscious or at least implicit biases.
The main goal of double-blind peer review should be to help reviewers to eliminate (or at least reduce) those involuntary biases¹.
By contrast, with single-blind peer review, it is impossible for reviewers to be unbiased, as the names of the authors (and their affiliation) are inescapable.
In light of this, I suggest to submit your (anonymised) paper. In the submission note that you published a preprint already, but that this does not relevantly compromise the double-blindness of the peer review (as it is about allowing the reviewers too be unbiased, not about forcing them). Bonus points if you can point out other ways in which a malignant reviewer could have found your identity despite the preprint. Should the journal not be convinced and actually reject your paper because of this, they should arrive at this conclusion quickly and you waste not too much time.
On the other hand, even if you should somehow manage to unpublish your preprint from the Arxiv, search engines and similar would still connect your paper to your name for a while and thus a malignant reviewer could find out your identity anyway. Therefore, it does not matter for the double blindness at all, no matter what your stance on its purposes is.

¹ … or analogously to prevent authors from flashing in their or their affiliation’s reputation at the reviewers without them having a chance to ignore them.


Can abuse break a genius? This question is motivated by the movie Whiplash which justifies the abusive behavior of a teacher by the future success of the student. The idea is that if a student fails to become fanatically driven to the degree that (s)he ignores/survives/enjoys teacher's abuse, then (s)he is no potential genius and his/her departure from the field is no loss to the field and Humanity.

Science is, of course, very different from music (which is the subject of the movie), e.g., they have very different Lorenz curves. I.e., a Ph.D. in Physics at the 50th percentile in his class can still have a decent professional life. In Music, he will probably drop out of the field (like the drummer who switched to medicine in the movie).

Still, I wonder what influence abusive professors (e.g., Landau) could have on science. We will never know, of course, of any potential Einsteins who left the field because they were mistreated by their thesis advisors, but we might be able to find circumstantial evidence.

Statistical evidence: are there any studies correlating students' success with teachers' personality at the high end of the spectrum? (I.e., very talented graduate students, very famous professors, success is measured in Nobel Prizes or something similar).

Anecdotal evidence: are there any examples of students leaving their advisors because of abuse and still achieving great success in science?

PS. Please note that the important point here is the high end of the spectrum (i.e., not elementary school, and not even college). The critical aspect of the question is that the teacher can claim that he is the senior colleague of the student, and that their common interest is advancing the field rather than educating the student.

Because of the way our systems work, at the top end of the distribution in fame, you will find people who are not only very good, but who also strongly desire to be famous and are very skilled self-promoters.  The market is simply too large for people to rise to the very top without that being the case.  And that means they are more likely to be abusers as well.

Sufficient abuse, academic or otherwise, can destroy any person.

Abuse can also help the abuser, by allowing them to effectively exploit other people... and that in turn might help those who survive (or who also learn to profit from the strategies of abuse), because they have a famous supervisor.

So: abuse can be profitable to the abusers and their chosen disciples, but it's a bad deal for the rest of the human beings they interact with and should be resisted at every turn.


How very high reading/listening but low speaking/writing TOEFL scores are usually judged on graduate admission? Can you please let me know how following TOEFL scores are usually judged on graduate (mainly master) admission if a) minimum requirement is 100 and b) minimum total requirement is 80 and minimum speaking requirement is 24?

Reading & Listening: 29
Speaking & Writing: 20

Probably I would not have the chance to provide this explanation to admission board however it may be worth mentioning here that I communicate very well in my native language and I can speak better in English without exam pressure. I have learned English on my own and I have not been able to practice speaking/writing enough.

Speaking ability is considered very important; the TOEFL is used to determine if you can speak well enough to teach as a TA at US universities.  Keep in mind teaching is also high pressure, like taking an exam.

These scores might do better with degree programs which do not require the graduate student to teach.

http://www.ets.org/toefl/ibt/scores/understand


How to deal with math problems if there is no solution book and no helpful teachers? Since a short time ago, I refuse to try solving math questions of which there is no solution available, unless I'm working on an own/open problem in my thesis. In subjects however, I refuse, because it is frustrating to get stuck for days and knowing that a solution exists. So knowing that I miss some important way of thinking.

Now you might think Why? If you can't solve it, just look at the course material and if that doesn't help then ask the teacher. Yes I tried that. By both mouth and mail. Unfortunately a lot of them don't like to get disturbed by students, because they are actually not real teachers, but very busy researchers who hardly have time for anything else. I also tried google, mathstack and asking students, but without a solution book it seems like it is always possible that nothing helps and you thus stay where you are: stuck.

Having said this, is there a way to learn without solution books but with the guarantee that you can always get access to the solution for the problem you work on? Maybe I do something wrong with the ways already tried?

frustrating to get stuck for days and knowing that a solution exists.
  So knowing that I miss some important way of thinking.

So your solution to missing some important way of thinking is ... to not think at all?

If you try hard to solve a problem, you are learning. You learn what doesn't work and why. That's a valuable lesson, and it's how you get better. In fact, I'd venture to say if it takes you 4 days to solve a problem, then even if you don't end up solving it, you probably learned more than the person who solved it in 1 hour.

In mathematics, knowing the exact solution of some made-up problem usually isn't the key. After all, the exercise question tells you the conclusion of the solution. You already know the result from the onset. You just have to prove it, and it is the things you learn from proving it that are important, and that's my point: even if you don't manage to prove it, you still did worked with the details and learned similar concepts to the person who did manage to prove it. You just learned it slighty differently, e.g. somebody who proved it learned "okay, this technique works in this case", while you learned "okay, this technique doesn't work in this case". Both are equally valuable.


Is unfinalized information in graduate application considered "misleading content"? I'm applying for grad schools (in the US) for next fall, and am currently a graduate student elsewhere (again in the US). This semester I was on a leave (with a research position at a third place), and the original plan was to take courses again in the spring semester, so I registered for those courses. Now, it seems more likely that I'll stay longer in my current research position and continue to work on my projects here. So, it seems like there is a high chance that I'll end up extending the leave and dropping my spring semester courses, but I'm not yet certain about that, and that probably won't be finalized before I submit my applications (also it probably won't be finalized before the deadlines either).

So, I am submitting a transcript with the next semester courses ("in progress") on it, because that was my original plan (and arranged with my department), and right now, that's my official transcript. But I think there is a considerable (and increasing) chance that by the time I (hopefully) get the offer and am required to send the updated transcript, my transcript would be different and won't have those courses.

Here is my question:
When I fill in the application forms, in the end, I need to confirm that there is no "false or misleading information" in my application and that I understand that giving such information can result in revoking my admission offer. I was wondering, is my current transcript considered "misleading information"?

++ I did not mention that I attend or don't attend the spring courses anywhere in my application, or whether I'll continue staying in my current position or not (because that's still unclear). Perhaps the only piece of information in my entire application that could relate to that is the "valid to" date on my mailing address, which is the date I was supposed to leave my current position  according to the initial plan. Could that be misleading? Should I change that to the most likely date (which I actually don't quite know when it would be to be honest)?

+++ In case it matters, chances are I might continue working on my projects in my current position until the end of the academic year, and never go back to my current department (if I get into a Ph.D. program this year). I don't think that has anything to do with my question, but I said it just in case someone thinks it does.

It is pretty unlikely that anyone would consider it improper. Things change. If your information is accurate when you submit it that is all you can do. It is what it is.

But you might get questions on why you dropped the course(s). Be sure you have an honest and accurate answer for that.

And if things change while you have an open application, just update the institution when you know the new situation.


Discussing diversity and underrepresented groups in personal history statement for PhD application I am applying for a PhD program in US. The university has asked to address the following in personal history statement:

  How your perspectives or activities contribute to social or cultural diversity and/or make you sensitive to the experiences of underrepresented groups

Honestly, the statement does not make sense. What is social or cultural diversity? Why it is important? Who are exactly underrepresented groups? What is experiences of underrepresented groups? I would be grateful if someone help me to understand this statement and give some examples about it. Many thanks.

"How your perspectives or activities contribute to social or cultural diversity and/or make you sensitive to the experiences of underrepresented groups"

I think a useful way to approach this question is to not think about it in terms of race, but instead consider what it means to be socially diverse. As an example, consider this brief response to the question:

"Growing up in a small farming community in Canada has given me an opportunity to see how many of those in my community - many of which have never stepped foot on a university campus - can benefit from feeling represented in institutions that they might not naturally feel apart of. Growing up in a rural community gives me the advantage of being able to personally relate to people who might not have college degrees, or even high school degrees, and develop a level of trust when communicating scientific information that might be the topic of the day in the news. When I come to U of X, I hope to be able to share and encourage this level of empathy among my peers to help unify communities that might otherwise feel divided."

So, what's happening here? In this paragraph I mention that I am an international student - as I assume you are - and I am reflecting on how my own experience in my country might be able to bring about some type of positive change to the United States and the immediate community I am hoping to be in. In the example that I listed above, the 'underrepresented community' happens to be just the local people I grew up with. What I believe you should do is examine your own lifestyle in your home country and think about what you have experienced that might bring about positivity in your studies. Your response does not have to include gender or race because there are TONS of communities that might be relatively disadvantaged to you - these could even be immigrants from your own country that are not in touch with the institution you want to attend.

The question you ask is a challenging one, because it's actually a somewhat divisive question: Do you talk about racial disparities? Do you talk about gender disparities? What you want to really try to reflect on is how your own story can bring about some type of positive change when you go to the institution that you want to attend. It's a tough question to answer, but hopefully this response gives you some type of idea about what you want to say.


Is it appropriate to have multiple recommendation letters for an application? I'm currently enrolled in a university program and looking to switch. I know the program I'm looking to switch into is notoriously competitive, and I'm looking to improve my chances in any way I can. I have a few profs who I know quite well and I think would write good letters of recommendation for me. That being said, is it appropriate to submit multiple letters of recommendation?

My inclination to submit so much more than is required is because the application process caters to high school students rather than university students, on top of the already competitive nature of applications.

A letter of recommendation is not required for the application, but I know it will improve my standing significantly. So I assumed having multiple really good ones would put me even higher up. On the other hand, it could also seem like I'm reaching for praise, especially when no letter of recommendation is technically required. I may be completely misinterpreting the purpose of a reference letter.

In addition to that, if the answer to the above question is that only one letter of recommendation is necessary at most, then is it ethical to ask multiple profs to write letters anyways and then choose the "best one"? My gut reaction is that this is very unethical, as it is wasting the time of the profs, especially after reading this question, but I thought I'd ask it in this context anyways since it might be slightly different.

You should submit what is asked and nothing more.  If they ask for 3 LORs, submit 3, not 5 or 7.  If they don't want any at all, don't waste everyone's time submitting any.


Would it be OK to ask a professor who recommended me to take a specific PhD program to write recommendation letter for another PhD program? A professor recommended me to take PhD program A. However, I want to take PhD program B. Would it be still OK to ask this professor to write a recommendation letter for this PhD program B despite he recommended me to take PhD program A?

He would be an ideal professor to write recommendation for me.

(I am in Germany.)

Yes.
And any sane person would not hold this against you. It is also reality that people often have to apply to multiple places.
 (Also note that if you apply within Europe, you probably might upload the refeence letter yourself and can still decide to find another reference if the professor is insane.)

It could be different if the professor explicitly tells you not to apply to program B (but this does not seem to be the case from your question).


Work Resume vs Graduate School Resume I've been working in corporate IT for the last two years and would like to apply to graduate school for a MA in East Asian Studies.

I was told I should keep my work resume to one page, so I have done that. It wasn't that hard to do because jobs aren't as concerned with your volunteer experience as a masters program would be.

The MA program is asking that I attach my resume. I'd like to add back in my volunteer + other experiences a graduate school would be interested in... but that would put it over one page.

Is that okay? Is there any difference (apart from content) in the structure/general guidelines of submitting a resume in the work world vs the grad school world?

I am not a fan of the "1 page resume." If you have had a number of relevant educational experiences and work experiences (and relevant volunteer experiences), and it goes over two pages and is in an aesthetically pleasing form (e.g., 10-12-pt font, 1-in margins, etc.), don't worry about it.  I've seen some absolutely horrible resumes where the applicant has tried to cram everything onto a single page, and it is a detriment to that person's application. I haven't had a 1-page resume since just after undergraduate school.

Graduate schools are normally looking for a proper Curriculum Vitae (CV), which would include education, work experience (primarily academic), publications, awards, and possibly references. Now, this isn't to say that you must reformat your resume into a CV, especially if you don't have research/publications/awards/etc., but you do want this document to highlight your experiences to some degree.

Finally, your resume/CV is not as important as some of the other documents you will provide with your package: letters of recommendation, transcripts, and your research/personal statement. Your resume/CV should list the pertinent information from your past, but it will be amplified in your other documents.


Independent research after grad school while holding a somehow unrelated career. What are the potential caveats or problems? I recently graduated from a master's degree while working on an interesting but niche intersection of machine learning and biology. This area is of my personal interest and I believe it can impact the world in the future but it is not readily marketable. Therefore, I decided to choose a position in a tech company as a software engineer, with works and responsibilities that are unrelated to this niche area. I don't want to give up my efforts in my previous research area and want to continue doing research as a personal passion in my free time such weekends or when I come home from my daily work (which btw I enjoy very much). I find this idea particularly interesting as I would have more freedom to think freely without feeling the pressure of publish or perish and I think it would make the research even more enjoyable to me compared to when I was in grad school and under pressure. However, there might be potential issues and caveats that I am blindsided to them, so I wanted to ask the people here about the potential downsides or considerations in doing research as a part-time or second career.

The main issue I can think is time. Other people who will be working on the same research field will spend their full working week on the topic while you will be working only in your free time (weekends etc.).
So you will be progressing very slowly and there is a high chance that you might get scooped if you are working on some hot research topic.
All that assuming that you have some average productivity aptitude and you are not some productivity beast that is able to finish up work in 1/10th of time than the rest :)


Should I continue a project someone else started? I think there are two situations where your supervisor might ask you to continue a project someone else started:

Someone produced some data, but never wrote a paper about it
Someone wrote a paper and your supervisor thinks there is more to investigate

My question is: How can I decide whether it is worthwhile to continue a project or not?
And I ask this question independent of whether the field of research is worthwhile.

You might also ask my question this way:
What are clear indications that my predecessor did sloppy work that might look good in a paper or presentation, but might become very annoying if you trie to understand in detail how he/she did it.

I mean first of all there are technical things:

Did your predecessor leave a structured folder system of his work?
Did he (I'll stick to he) leave all raw data?
Are the sampling methods well documented?
Did he document more about his analysis than you can find in his paper? (papers are sometimes not very informative about how it was done, I mean how it was actually, actually done)
What analysis tools did he use? Will it be available to you? How good will it be replicable? (Think of software compatibility and licensing issues)
Is there a "source code" of the analysis that you will be able to reexecute and modify or will you get only vague descriptions of how the analysis was done?
If it involves code: how well is it documented (commented)?

The social component:

Is your predecessor still approachable and how (meet in person, phone, e-mail)?
How willing is your predecessor to still contribute to the project?
How much time does he actually have to support you?
Is he still interested in further insights about his past project?
How much does your supervisor really know about the project? Will he be able to help you with details?

There might be other things to consider:

Will I be able to produce substantial additions to my predecessor's work? Or will my work be the "and someone else tried this with it". You either might benefit from the fame of your predecessor's work or might stunt in the shadow of it.

Of course my supervisor should know better than me, whether its worthwhile. He has a better overview in the field of knowledge and he probably supervised the project, so he was somehow involved and should know what was done and how it was done.
But I think you can't always trust the judgement of your supervisor. Especially if he is a visionary, he might see more in the data/project than there actually is. He might see more what he wants to see in the data than what there actually is. And my experience is, the higher up someone is, the less he really knows about the projects he is "involved" with.

It would be good to have sort of a checklist. When most of it is checked you could say "Ok, let's start the project" and if not it is a clear indication of "Keep your hands off this project".

Maybe in a continuing question I could ask "How to leave a research project for someone else to continue" or "How to work in a way that someone else can join in or continue on his own at any time".

Choosing a research project has always an element of gambling: the more challenging the project, the higher the risk. Meet personally with the potential supervisor and talk openly with him/her about your expectations and doubts. This way you will learn about the project things that you will never find out in publications or presentations. You will be able to see how enthusiastic and honest he is. Meet also with other members of the team and find out from them how it is to work on this or related projects with this supervisor. Ideally meet with the person who did the initial study. (If you start the project, you will probably spend more time with the other members of the team rather than with the supervisor.) Find out if someone recently dropped out and why. Finally, find out how "rigid" the initial topic is: is it possible to alter it in case things do not work out as initially planned.