Citing an unpublished paper? plagiarism? Here is the situation: I am working with 2 others on a paper A, and simultaneously by myself separately on a paper B (which is a thesis).

A and B are on very much similar topics.
I started with paper B slightly before we started working on paper A, but the ideas in paper B build upon the ideas in paper A.
Moreover, paper A will very likely be published sooner than paper B. My plan at first was to cite paper A in paper B.
However, my other 2 co-authors have now started to shift their idea about what domain of paper A should be, and they are shifting towards the topic of my paper B, and have even started to reinvent some of my ideas in paper B.
Therefore, I am very concerned that this will cause a plagiarism issue: If we decide that paper A should contain many of the ideas in paper B, then ideally, I would want A to cite B: I came up with these ideas independently and for a different paper, so if A wants to use them, paper B (i.e. myself) should get credit for the work (since I put in all the work and came up with it first, and we originally didn't plan to put it in paper A). But paper A will likely get published before paper B is handed in as a thesis.

Most importantly: I need to hand in paper B as a thesis, and I cannot afford not to hand it in, or to make a completely different thesis. Therefore I need to be sure that paper B does not commit (self?) plagiarism.

Is there a way for paper A to cite paper B (my thesis), even though paper A will be published before B?
If no, how to avoid (self?) plagiarism in this situation? (somehow integrate parts of B in A while still recognising B as the original work that is a separate thesis and gets credit as such?)
Is it generally stupid to work on two papers simultaneously like this? Did I make a big mistake...?

There is no particular problem with citing unpublished work. Just list it as such. There is no problem with citing work that will not ever be published in fact. Just name the author and list it as "private communication". Give a title if appropriate, or a description.

In the case at hand, it seems wiser to cite A within B as it is likely to be published first, but since you don't have the final version, it could be listed as "unpublished, in preparation".

Talk to your advisor, of course, about what he/she recommends here. I think in most cases the rules on a thesis can be, with permission of the advisor, a bit looser than for formally published work. You need to cite, in any case, but the fact that things are a bit tentative can be finessed.

As for plagiarism, cite your own work, whether joint or not, just as you would the work of another.


Can I quote from my interviewees before the methodology section in my dissertation? I would like to use a couple of quotes from my interviewees (primary data) before the methodology and results section. Is there any hard and fast rule about not introducing research data before the methodology used for data collection is discussed?
In summary, can I use quotes from my interviewees in the introduction section to advance a point?
edit: I have permission from the interviewees to use quotations and approval from the University ethics committee to conduct research. My question is to do with methodology.

I have been working with qualitative (semi-structured) interviews for years and I read a lot of literature that uses such data. I am neither aware of any rule that prohibits or any convention that discourages quoting interview statements before the methodology section/chapter; nor could I see any reason for such a rule to exist. It makes sense to describe the methodology before the analysis and results sections, in which you will draw on your interviews most extensively, but individual interview quotes are not equal to "analysis" or "results". They are just that: Quotes. I would also add that a catchy interview quote can be a good way to introduce a paper/book or to illustrate an empirical result or theoretical conjecture.


How should I describe a result from a submitted paper such that the reviewers can do their work? A month ago, I submitted a paper to a prestigious journal. In that paper, we proposed a general method (method A), and we proposed a set of methods  for doing some work based on this method A. I now have to work on another paper, which relies on method A, which I will be submitting to a less prestigious journal. Since I need this paper to graduate (I am a PhD student), I can't wait for the first one to be accepted before submitting the second one.

I didn't find any policy regarding referencing a submitted paper in the second journal (from Elsevier).

Is it a good idea to very briefly describe the method A in the second journal paper and also reference it as a submitted paper? Method A has some proofs which I will not restate in the second paper.

This way, the reviewers will be able to do their work. Note that it is very important that I don't want to hurt the chance of acceptance of the first paper or my reputation in any way.

In other words, how can I describe a result from a submitted paper so  that the reviewers can do their work?

What would you suggest for someone like me who has to submit another paper (for faster graduation) in this situation?

When submitting a paper, you are normally able to provide attachments for consideration by the reviewers. You can include a draft of the submitted manuscript as a reference for the readers.

However, if you're in mathematics or another field which encourages preprints, you should in principle be able to post the paper on a repository like arXiv and point the reviewers to the repository version while the paper is under consideration. If the paper is accepted and appears in print before the new paper is accepted, you can change the reference in the proof stage.

What you can get away with depends upon the editorial policies of the journal. Some journals require you to provide copies of any material that is unpublished (such as correspondences with other researchers or unpublished manuscripts). Other journals will let you get away with less. But in general, you need to show some sort of evidence that the work is under consideration. Perhaps an email confirmaing submission, plus the abstract, will suffice?


Changing from 100% research to 20% teaching and 80% research: Seems like a raw deal, would you do it? I'm a named researcher (but basically a Postdoc) on a funded project in the UK which pays my salary. I've got a good CV and currently do 4 hours of teaching per year.

The principal investigator (PI) has asked if I would take over their teaching, marking and project students in exchange for renaming my contract to 80% research and 20% teaching. The increased estimated total workload would be 140h, mostly before Christmas. Seems like a raw deal as I get nothing apart from CV experience, in return. What would you do?

The PI said they would use the money saved on my contract to pay for someone else to do something unrelated to my work (but still on the project). It's not clear to me what 20% of the project I wouldn't be involved in anymore and I think I would be expected to do it all anyway.

I asked for a salary increase: No. I asked for a lectureship: No.

My choices:

I'm thinking about asking for a funded PhD student if I get a fellowship in return for doing the teaching.
Do the teaching as a "favour" but don't change the contract.

What's my leverage and what are the pros and cons?

As I understand it, after you've been hired, the person who hired you wants to change your contract in a way that would be more advantageous for them.  Well, they can ask, but...the whole point of a contract is so that you (and your employer) can be held to the parameters you agreed upon.

I must say that although I've been in academia for my entire adult life, I still find myself baffled by some people's academic cultural expectations.  You are considering taking on what you view as 140 hours of additional work in the remainder of the calendar year.  That's almost a month of full-time work.  It is absolutely absurd to me to do that amount (or anywhere near that amount) of work "as a favour."  Are you not a highly trained professional?  Don't highly trained professionals (in particular!) get paid for their work?  Again, even as a lifelong academic, I've always thought so.

On the other hand, most academics I know are at a lot less than 100% research.  It sounds like you currently have a temporary, "soft money" academic job.  Do you want a permanent academic job?  If so, that will probably involve some teaching.  (Right?  This is probably field dependent.)  In that case, getting teaching experience is not just a CV-stuffer: it is actually valuable for your future.  Getting used to a balance of research and teaching is of some value, at least in my neck of the academic woods, where most tenure track faculty eventually teach at least 1-2 courses per semester while maintaining their research activities.

But back on the first hand: if you are currently at 100% research and are happy with that, then I understand how you are viewing this as time away from your research and are not thrilled.  If that's how you feel, then that's how you feel, and I think you should just say no, explaining that you are really excited about doing what you are doing and would like to continue with it.  You gave your PI some chances to come up with something in exchange, so it's not as though you will come off as completely unwilling to help.  Being unwilling to take over someone else's work in exchange for nothing is really not a character flaw.

Finally, I don't quite understand the financial aspects of the situation.  Why would you teaching the class generate funds that are not generated by the PI teaching the class?  Maybe I'm missing something here.


Would it be OK to in-text cite a paper without mentioning the name and year explicitly in APA? For example, would this be allowed in APA:

Ohme, Reykowska, Wiener, and Choromanska (2009) showed...; in the next year, the same group of researchers conducted an experiment which also focused on ... to show...

Or do I have to add (Ohme, Reykowska, Wiener, & Choromanska, 2010) at the end of this sentence?

I think this is covered in the APA style blog. The example they give boils down to instead of using

  This idea was recently explored by Palladino and Wade (2010). Palladino and Wade’s (2010) results indicate that “a flexible mind is a healthy mind” (p. 147).

you can write:

  This idea was recently explored by Palladino and Wade (2010). They noted that "a flexible mind is a healthy mind" (Palladino & Wade, 2010, p. 147).

So yes, you need to give the full names and year of the reference in the body of the text.


How to refer to a university that changed its name? More than 10 years ago I went to University A School of Engineering, in the USA and used this name on all resumés, etc. Now, I am applying to attend this same school again (for another degree).

Over a week ago, the university changed its name to University B School of Engineering (due to a hefty donation). Even the name outside the University (I pass by it everyday) still says University A School of Engineering, and so do places like LinkedIn, but the University website changed its name.

My question is: How do I address the school on resume, essays, etc? Do I say University A School of Engineering or University B School of Engineering? Because by reflex, I still say University A School of Engineering, because that’s its name for over 100 years.

By the way, my references already uploaded letters of recommendation to the university’s online system, and they referred to it as University A School of Engineering.

Always use the name of the school that was correct at the time when you were doing something. So, if you mention your first degree, use University A and when you mention your current activities, use University B. If there is a chance that whatever you are writing is read by somebody from outside this university or who joins this university years later and could be oblivious of its past name, use footnotes or parentheses to indicate the name change like this:

University A School of Engineering (now University B School of Engineering)
University B School of Engineering (formely University A School of Engineering)

Furthermore use pronouns and referrers to avoid confusion, when both of them appear close-by, e.g.:

I apply to University B School of Engineering because I already did my BSc at this institution and this was a positive experience.

Unless the university failed to make all its personell and students aware of the change, I do not see a reason to mention the name change on documents that do not leave this university like essays and applications. (In particular the administrative staff is probably rather annoyed by the name change and prefers to be reminded of it as little as possible.)


Points to consider when deciding whether to get married during a PhD Marriage is a recurrent topic in the lives of most PhDs. The meagre pay and the burden of responsibility could make marriage in the middle of PhD look like a terrible idea. But on the positive side, marriage gives one an intimate companion in a long and bleak journey. The pay hurdle could also be overcome if the partner finds a job.

While eventually it is a personal decision for the couple based on their commitment and readiness, what are the points to remember when one thinks of getting married in the middle of a PhD?

If you've found the right person to marry in graduate school, what's the alternative?  Getting married as a postdoc or tenure-track faculty member is also difficult, since you still have a lot of career pressure and uncertainty.  It won't go over well to say "I love you, but let's wait until I have tenure to get married," since that's way too far in the future, and I don't see any real advantage to saying "let's wait until I'm a postdoc."

Before marrying a non-academic, it's important to make sure they understand some of the basic parameters of academia:

The job market is incredibly competitive.  Harvard probably won't hire you even if everyone agrees you're really smart, and getting a job at a less prestigious university is not a form of career failure.  Indeed, just the opposite is true: any career progress in academia is a success that should be celebrated.
There is a national, and even international, job market with universities in many locations, but that doesn't mean you can choose where you want to live.  Instead, it means you need to apply everywhere and take what you can get.  Unless you are really lucky, having an academic career may require living somewhere you do not consider desirable, and you won't even be able to predict in advance where that might be.
Having a successful research career requires a lot of work, but it's a little different from many demanding jobs because the work is mostly self-imposed.  You need to do it, but nobody is specifying what, when, or how.  This can lead to resentment since everything you spend time on seems like a choice, rather than an externally imposed requirement.  So you need a partner who is not inclined towards jealousy over time commitments.

If these issues are not an obstacle, then it's reasonable to get married whenever seems appropriate.


Word limit for paper after addressing reviewer's comments After submitting a paper, receiving comments back from reviewers and revising, the paper manuscript may be longer than the given word limit due to the additional content added (even if it was at or below the word limit in the original submission). For the sake of argument, say the revised paper is 10% or 20% longer than the word limit.

Shortening the paper without loosing any information may be difficult. Moving some paragraphs into the Supplements may be possible, but may make it more difficult to find relevant information or be aesthetically displeasing, such as writing "Additional discussions can be found in the Supplements." in the middle of the text.

Are there any guidelines on how willing journals might be to accept papers above the word limit after revisions? Is word length still strictly enforced or is this mainly checked upon initial submission? Would simply submitting and hoping for a quick response from the editor (in case this is unacceptable) be a good strategy? Or is this a bad idea since either it highly unlikely to be acceptable or has a risk of annoying the editor? Do you have any experience with this issue either from an author's or an editor's point of view?

I can now provide an answer to my own question (I hope this is alright): I recently submitted a revised article that was about 15% longer than the word limit to a small biomedical journal. The original version of the article kept to the word limit. In the rebuttal letter, I explained that the article had become longer due to the reviewers' question. This article was accepted without further comment from the editor.

So it seems that at least some editors do not see a problems with longer articles, as long as the original submission keeps to the limit. I suspect that the rules may vary greatly between disciplines and journals and that no journal will ever explicitly state "we do not care about length for revised submissions". My PI was very confident that the article would be accepted, so it may be advisable to ask an experienced colleague in the field for their opinion.


Is it safe to commit to the hiring process of an academic research position without an official offer letter? After being offered a postdoctoral position by email, I was asked by the university’s administration to submit some documents allowing them to start the hiring process. According to them, this process will take 2 months.
I was wondering if it is wise/safe to wait this long without an official letter at hand. If not, how should I proceed?
Note that I am aware of the position details based on the job description and the discussion with the PI, but I was expecting some official document (signed by the administration/PI).
I have seen this similar question, but I have added a country tag to my question so that I can get specific answers.
Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts on this!

I wouldn't be concerned.
In German academia, it is rather common to make PhD/postdoc offers informally (i.e. just via email etc.), and the formal process is only completed at a much later point.  I know of many cases where people only sign their contract on their first working day (in particular in pre-Corona times, administration wanted to do the signing in person, so if you were in a different place, this would be postponed until you arrived).
On the other hand, even without the contract, you can get a confirmation that you will be hired in the future, once the necessary paperwork is completed.
However, it will be impossible to get such a confirmation without having the required paperwork completed - just imagine that in the course of that, it turns out that you don't have the required qualifications (no PhD, no degree, ... ) - the administration will not sign that they will hire you unless they are sure that this is legally possible.
One thing you can do to speed up at least part of the process - to make sure that you don't "accidentally" miss a qualification (very unlikely) - is to supply all required documents as soon as possible and check that they are sufficient. Even if the process is not completed yet, this should give you additional security that things will not go wrong for formal reasons (again, rather unlikely - they hire people all the time).
Finally, while on the one hand I understand that you want a more formal "safety" that you will get the job, as I said this is rather normal, so no need to worry.  But more importantly, you should note that even if you have a contract, within the first 6 months you can be usually fired on short notice and without a reason given (I'm pretty sure this is more or less the same in other places, that there is an initial period where both parties can terminate the employment on short notice, not to speak of places like the US), so even if you have a written offer or even a signed contract, there is still some amount of risk involved, like essentially always in life (unless you have a tenured position).
Edit: Maybe to add a comment, hiring decisions typically have to be approved by the personnel council, and possibly other bodies (equal opportunities, etc.), which can take its time, especially at large universities or research institutes. In addition, if this a position funded by public money, it has to be publicly advertised in one way or the other, and the advertisement has to be open for a certain amount of time (I think 2 weeks at least), before the whole process can even start.
So putting all these processes together,
2 months might well be the minimum time it takes.


Omitted from paper for which I gathered data I collected a large amount of data for a research project at my university for a professor who is not my advisor. I was originally told that I would get the opportunity to collaborate on a manuscript. I would write one paper while the PI would write the other.

Now that I have collected huge amounts of data, it appears that the PI is no longer interested in talking with me about the data. However, I see that the PI is writing a manuscript that very likely contains some of the data I collected. The PI now seems very secretive about the manuscript and does not show it to me. Any ideas about what I should do?

If you gathered data for a manuscript, you should generally be given a chance to participate in the writing of that manuscript and to become an author of the resulting paper.  Moreover, it sounds like this was an explicit understanding at the time when you started the project, in which case it would be even more clearly inappropriate to renege without a clear discussion.

Regarding what you should do: the first key question is whether you have documentation of the earlier plans the PI had made with you, e.g., in email.  If so, then you have a much clearer and less ambiguous position.  If not, then it is possible that there might be a legitimate misunderstanding---or that the PI might attempt to convince people that this is the case.

I would then recommend beginning by talking with your advisor.  I would also recommend approaching the subject not by claiming that you have been wronged, but from a perspective of discomfort and concern about the situation.  Your advisor will probably have longer experience with this colleague and a better outsider perspective and can hopefully help to either mediate the situation or else point you to the appropriate people in the department or larger university who can do so (e.g., ombudsmen).  The best case scenario, however, is that this can all be sorted out amicably with a minimum of fireworks, and a quiet approach beginning with your advisor is a likely good path for doing so.


How to change corresponding author of my published papers? I have few publications in which my previous supervisor (X) is the corresponding author and I am the first/lead author. However, he passed away few months before.

Recently I got to know that a reader of one my paper had emailed to X for some explanations, but the reader did not get any response because X is no more.

The reader and me accidentally met in an academic conference, where he came to know that I am the lead author of that paper and cleared his doubts from me.

So I am wondering is it possible to change the corresponding author of those published papers? May I request to the editor in chief to change it?

I do not know whether it is possible to change the corresponding author, but I suspect it is not something journals do as they are reluctant to change published articles.

To reduce the issue, however, you could improve the online profile of the article:

Have a Google Scholar profile, so someone interested in the article has a link to your profile
Similarly, you could have a Research Gate profile and an Orcid number
Have a professional website

In this context, someone with a question about the article can easily find you, if they do not receive an answer from the corresponding author. Yes, it is less direct than corresponding author, but I think it is the best you can do.


Doing a master's degree after PhD. Is it advisable? I have a Master's degree in Materials science and am soon to finish my PhD in computational materials science. I am fairly well versed in programming (python, MATLAB, FORTRAN), linear algebra, calculus.  While pursuing my PhD, I got exposed to machine learning and got fascinated by the possibilities of utilizing it properly in my field of study. I have done courses on Coursera (Andrew Ng course), Bayesian statistics, another ML course in Udemy and have gained a good insight into the process. But, I have not yet solved any big problem or developed the knowledge or confidence required to properly implement ML into my work.

I was thinking if I could pursue a master's degree after completing my PhD as that would give me proper structured know how and would provide me with tools to actually be able to include it in my field of study.

I realize that, I  should have taken some actual courses while staying in university. But, I did not get the time to go for these. Now that I am about to complete my degree, I was thinking whether a master's degree a possibility for me or not? Also, my aim is to be in academia, so will this help me?

Also, if there's another alternative way to achieve my goals, I will delighted to know about them.

I think a postdoc would better suit your purposes. The benefit is just not there to pursue a masters degree. Further, unless you are trying to go into a field that requires that specific degree as a prerequisite for entry, you can easily teach yourself from open source material.

The benefits of a postdoc are that it allows you to make a transition in your academic career while getting paid better than a graduate student. You also do not have the pressure of course work or degree requirements.

I used my postdoc to strengthen my programming skills, begin work in machine learning, and to expose myself to bayesian statistics. This sounds pretty similar to where you are at.


Is it the number or quality of internships that is more important for Graduate School admission into Computer Science? I'm an undergraduate in Computer Science who's has just completed his 2nd year. However I could not get an internship for the summer leaving me extremely tense about the future since there would be only one summer left (i.e., the summer of 2015 since I graduate in 2016).

I intend to apply to graduate schools in North America and Europe after my UG. However since I will have only one internship under my belt (assuming I bag one in summer 2015) will it put a damper on my prospects? Or is it the place of and quality of work done in my internship (coupled with good recommendation letters—which I doubt I will get) that would be far better than the number of internships under my belt?

I'm in the process of building a portfolio of real-life projects to demonstrate my skills and capabilities. I am also contributing code to open-source organisations in the next two months à la Google Summer of Code (however without the formal recognition) on a totally voluntary basis. Will that help in overcoming lack of an internship between my second and third year? What else can I do that can help me build a better application for graduate school?

The short answer is a lack of internships is not a problem.

The long answer has two cases:

MSCS programs in the United States are profit makers for
universities.  It is much easier to get into an MSCS program at a
top university than the PhD program at the same university.
Research experience is a plus, but I don't think industry experience
matters.  Grades and recommendations from professors are most
important.
CS PhD programs in the United States almost exclusively admit
students that they are willing to fund, so they are much harder to
get into.  In addition to strong grades and letters of
recommendation, schools want to see that you are capable of working
independently at research.  The best way to do this, as Leon palafox
answered, is to have research experience, including a thesis and/or
publications.  Next best is to have completed projects not required
for any class.  That shows you are capable of doing a project
without its being broken down into lots of steps with intermediate
deadlines.  I'd say Summer of Code-like experience is at least as
valuable as an industry internship.  It shows passion and the
ability to work independently.  Incorporate that into your essay,
and get a letter of recommendation from someone on the project (or
from a professor at your institute if one is nominally supervising
your work for internship or independent study credit).

I am not knowledgeable about admission into programs outside of the United States.


How to withdraw from an application process in a polite manner? Say a candidate has met with a potential PhD supervisor and it was rather evident that he would be willing to take on the candidate. You have emailed a lot and met in person a few times, but nothing has been formalised yet.

Suppose now the candidate decides to take it into a different direction simply because there are better options.

What is the most polite way to withdraw ? Is it polite to send an email and explain, or does this come across as arrogant since a PhD candidate is not really in the position to turn down a Professor ? Would it be better simply not to get in touch again ? Is there some standard etiquette in the US and/or the UK ?

Just send a polite email stating that you found another position or that you simply prefer to take a different direction. Be sure to thank the professor for the time he has put into you. The email does not have to be long, but it should give a reason. You do not need to be overly elaborate, though. And don't forget to be polite.

The thing you do not realise is that the professor wants to find a student who will be committed to his topic for several years to come. If you are not such a student, it is best for the professor to know that before taking you on as a student. In a sense, you are doing the professor a favour by withdrawing.


Is a PhD in a specific field of mathematics (combinatorics) instead of a mathematics PhD disadvantageous in faculty applications? In recent years I have become aware of a few PhD programs specifically in combinatorics and optimization. Most notably, Georgia Tech and Carnegie Mellon both have PhD programs in Algorithms, Combinatorics, and Optimization, and the University of Waterloo has an entire department of Combinatorics and Optimization with a PhD program. (I'm not aware of any other such PhD programs, but please let me know if I've missed any.)

What are the advantages and disadvantages of getting a PhD in combinatorics rather than a PhD in mathematics, specifically career-wise. Really I'm asking if anyone who has completed a PhD in combinatorics has been disadvantaged from getting a faculty position in mathematics.

I don't know about combinatorics in particular, but I did get a PhD from one of Carnegie Mellon's other interdisciplinary programs (Pure and Applied Logic); I was offered the choice of whether my PhD would officially be in the program name or in "Mathematical Sciences", and was advised to choose the latter.

If you're PhD is in something other than "Mathematics" or an obvious synonym, and you want to get hired as mathematics faculty, there are two concerns that might come up:

Do you know enough math, broadly speaking, to be a good colleague (for instance, be out outside member on thesis committees, to talk to people, and so on)?
Can you teach introductory courses?

I do know of people with degrees called "Logic" where these concerns were raised about hiring them.  In the cases I know, someone was around to address those concerns, but it might be a disadvantage in departments where no one in the faculty was familiar enough with the program to address them.  (On the other hand, places where no one is familiar with your program aren't as likely to hire you anyway.)

With a degree in something as clearly mathematical as combinatorics, I think the first concern is unlikely to be an issue.  The latter might be, especially if those programs don't necessarily include any TA-ing/teaching of intro calculus courses, but this is also a concern that can be preempted (for instance, by making sure to pursue enough teaching experience as a grad student).


Grad students/postdocs taking ideas with them, what's normal? If a graduate student or postdoc develops or plays a large role in developing an idea (this could be anything from a new experimental method or new code for running simulations), what's supposed to happen when they move to a new institution?

Can they use these ideas on their own after the move, share them with their new PI/colleagues, use them to get their own funding? I assume the answer is generally yes, but

what if the idea is unpublished with the original group?
does it depend on the idea, code/scripts vs. less tangible ideas?

Just not sure what's the normal protocol or if I'm assuming incorrectly.

I think the main thing you should keep in mind is, did it seem like people in your old lab/group will be or would like to be working this?  You don't want to end up "stealing" someone's project, or competing with them.

There's a difference between an idea you've come up with completely on your own, and something you've come up with together with other people.  For ideas of the latter type, it's reasonable to suspect that your former colleagues may still be thinking about this.  In addition, if they contributed significantly to the ideas, they should have a chance to be included in the project.  If how the other parties feel about working on this idea is not clear from your prior interactions, just talk to them about it.


Is Master Program Rank Important for PhD Application I am looking to go into the neuroscience or stem cell research fields. I was recently offered unconditional acceptance to the University of Edinburgh for Regenerative Medicine and to University College London for Neuroscience. Both are one year masters programs and included a dissertation.

Essentially, I am wondering how rank plays a role in applying to PhD programs. Does rank play a part in doctoral  acceptances? Both are well ranked, but UCL is ten or so spots higher on a world ranking scale.

Most of the research I have done has said that rank can be important for jobs, but I have not found much regarding the transition into a PhD, which I plan on.

I appreciate any input or opinions on the matter. Thank you.

I don't think it's so important for terminal masters degree, although it should not be completely disregarded. What is much more important, in my opinion, is the exact field you are intending to work in and the person you will work with and the references that you will get in the end (and, again, who they come from).

So if Edinburgh would give you the chance to work with a leading scholar in a subfield you are interested in, and UCL is ranked 10 ranks higher generally, but not as compelling for your more specific interest, I would go with Edinburgh.

Also, 10 is really not much of a difference.


Supply and Demand of Academic Research? My question needs prefacing. I was thinking about an analogy between research and a macroeconomy.
In the macroeconomy, there's a supply of investment funds from households that ultimately goes toward firms' production of goods and services. Households then consume those goods and services, and judge the value added by those goods and services to their original investment. The cycle repeats. Government acts as a large "resource allocator" by investing some fraction of household investment funds at their own discretion, and the "outside world" likewise contributes to investment funds, consumes, and produces some of the goods and services.
It seems natural to extend this analogy to research funding and "consumption." The private industry produces research "investment" money that is then used by firms and government to fund research. That research is then "judged" for its viability by its spawned correspondence in the short term (forward citations) and the related goods and services ultimately produced in the long run. Some fraction of the value added by that research then goes back into investment funding that repeats the cycle.
An idea follows from this analogy. Just as there's a finite propensity to "consume" and a finite supply of investment funds, there's also a finite amount of productive research that can be performed and a finite supply of research funds. This seems to imply that, though the government can choose to throw more and more investment into any research field, there'll eventually come a point where there aren't enough labs that can draw up useful grants and then reasonably complete them for that investment. Research funding supply "shocks," such as government suddenly quadrupling fundamental research spending in renewables, may have a diminishing return issue.
I understand that there are several conflated classifications here (research vs. R&D) and that many segmentations exist for "research" that may behave differently (laboratories vs firms vs industries). But I'm only interested in the behavior of research grouped as a whole.
So my question is this: are there any analyses of research as a whole that treat it somewhat like a macroeconomy? Is there any value to such an analysis? And if not, why?

Yes, there are such studies. Here is the result of one. The Economic Laws of Scientific Research by T. Kealey.
His basic thesis is that private firms must find out how to motivate researchers. Only part of this is money. It also includes many things that come under the heading "academic freedom." Freedom to publish, to exchange ideas with colleagues, to be or host a visiting speaker/lecturer, to go to some lab or archive or special site with special resources, etc. etc. etc.
If government takes money through taxes and gives it out, there are many downsides. The persons in government don't usually know what is "good" research. Their motivation is to stay in power rather than doing what is, in any sense, the best thing with the resources. Governing persons do what they calculate will keep them in power. Period. Because anybody who does not do so is soon not in power. Sometimes this results in good things. Usually, mostly always, it results in mediocre things at best, or horrors at worst.
In addition, operating the government funding agencies and tax machinery uses up a non-trivial portion of the total money. And applying for grants uses a non-trivial portion of the university people's time.
Consider a company such as an electronics firm. They want some research done, but don't want to buy a complete specialist lab as they only want it once. So they go to a university that has such a research program. And they must find a way to get those university people to agree to do the research for them. So they drop a stack of cash on the research lab. And another stack of cash on the university. And the only restriction is that the research be held back from publication just enough, and just long enough, so that the electronics firm can commercialize the results.
As to how the lab and the uni spend the money, they literally do not care. The lab can buy new equipment, pay post-doc salaries, buy journal subs, whatever they like. The university can use their cash any way they please. The money can stay in the same department as the research was done. Or go to overhead. Or be used to subsidize some other department that does not have corporate clients. Or be used to fix up the landscaping around campus, or whatever the uni decides.
The important thing is, the uni and the researchers get to decide how to spend the money. The electronics firm gets their research and goes away happy, not placing any restrictions on the  money. And once they have commercialized it, the researchers can usually publish the results, possibly withholding certain details such as detailed measurements required for the commercial process. And even those are usually available to researchers on a non-disclosure agreement basis.
The net result Kealey found was this. Private research funding winds up producing roughly 50% more money for the universities. And the restrictions on how they spend it are far less with private money. And research of every kind is funded more. Not just "practical" things like making better electronics. But abstract things such as philosophy, art theory, linguistics, etc.
What does it mean? It means that, by treating research as a human activity that needs to be negotiated for in the same way as any other good, service, or commodity, you wind up with more and better results. And so, university research can get on the slope of The Most Important Graph in the World. The application of freedom to human interaction results in exponential expansion of human knowledge. That in turn results in exponential expansion of every other measure of human well being. A free market for research is objectively a massively preferred choice.


Can section numbering depth exceed table of content depth in thesis? I’m writing up my thesis and use two levels of structure in my table of contents, which looks something like this:

  Table of contents

  Introduction

  1.1 Subsection intro
  Methods

  2.1 Methods subsection

  2.2 Etcetera

However, the section numbering in my thesis has three levels, so for example section 2.1 contains a subsection 2.1.1

  2.1 Methods subsection

  blablabla

  2.1.1 Methods subsubsection

  More bla bla bla

I don’t want to have three levels in my table of contents because that really clutters it up. However, I don’t want to reduce the number of actual levels to two because I refer to the subsubsection in my text as well. Is this OK or is there some convention that says you have to have the same numbering depth in your table of contents and text?

Is this OK or is there some convention that says you have to have the same numbering depth in your table of contents and text?

There is no general convention against this, but your supervisor or university may hold dogmatic views on it, so you have ask them or read their regulations, respectively.

That being said, the question whether it’s a good idea can usually be answered best if you consider the purpose of the respective elements:

The purpose of the table of contents is to allow the reader to quickly find a specific part of your text and to give a rough overview over your structure. You do not need a certain subsubsection or similar in your table of contents, if both:

it is safe to assume that everybody who is looking for the contents of some subsubsection or similar will find them as well if it is not explicitly listed in the table of contents;
the subsubsection is not essential to your thesis’ structure (which is very likely).

Actually, I think that many theses do not need a table of contents that goes beyond the first level.
The purpose of having subsubsections (and similar) is to structure your text and to be able to have precise references within the text (e.g., “see Sec. 4.3.2“). Thus a subsubsection is not needed, if both:

You do not specifically reference it.
It does not help the reader to see how your content is structured.


Do I inform my Professor that our digital exam isn't recording us? For one of the classes I am taking at University, our exams are administered online. We were told that each of these exams would start a special browser that recorded you as you took the test, and also prevented you from visiting other tabs in the browser.

A few minutes before our first test, one of the other students in the class tells me that his friend from the earlier section took it and it didn't record him. I didn't run the risk, but I am quite certain that the browser is not recording us when we take these exams. The light for my laptop camera does not go on, and in past experiences with online exams we were told to download a special browser (you can take the exams for this class on chrome, firefox, etc.)

I'm torn, and I'm a little annoyed considering I got a 77% on the first exam. Ultimately, I don't think I will tell the professor, that really isn't my nature. However, in a situation like this I felt I should at least turn to strangers on the internet to possibly change my mind.

Should I tell or not?

(the exams are not curved)

From your comment, I note your concern that if you report the matter, you might be required to sit the exam again.  I think that is unlikely.  It is unlikely that your professor would impose additional work on the students due to a technical error that was not their fault.  It is more likely that your professor would be glad to have been informed of the technical problems, and would use this information to try to have the technology run correctly in future exams.  It's really up to you, but as an academic with experience in teaching, it is certainly useful if students report problems, so that you can improve future iterations of your teaching.


Is positive discrimination in faculty hiring really efficient at promoting diversity in an academic department? I have questions about affirmative action as described in this answer to another question (also called positive discrimination) in the context of US universities, more specifically departments recruiting assistant professors.

What is the evidence that using positive discrimination to select assistant-professor candidates is efficient at promoting diversity?

How does it compare to granting scholarships to (or waiving tuition fees for) minority undergraduate students as an attempt to promote diversity at the very beginning of the academic curriculum and hoping this diversity will propagate to the pool of applicants to assistant professor positions when these students arrive on the job market?

I would like to learn about real examples and facts and figures suggesting why these policies worked or didn’t work.

The effects of affirmative action in academia and corporate environments is a matter that has been the subject of an immense amount of study and scholarly literature, so any detailed answer to this question is probably going to involve some engagement with that literature.  Nevertheless, at the outset, there are some aspects of your question that could be unpacked and clarified, so that you can focus your analysis more effectively on what exactly is of interest:

Define what you mean by "diversity": I suspect you are referring to the promotion of outcomes where the racial composition of the faculty is closer to the racial composition of the host society (e.g., increasing the proportion of people from "underrepresented" groups and decreasing the proportion of people from "overrepresented" groups).  Or do you mean something else?  Either way, you should take a moment to consider exactly what "diversity" would entail, so that you have some basis for assessing efficiency in its promotion.
Consider what you mean by "efficiency": What constitutes "efficiency" here?  Is it the speed with which a particular outcome is achieved?  The cost?  Some combination?  If it includes some consideration of cost, then what counts as a cost?  Does "efficiency" require the academic system to remain functionally efficient, or do you simply mean that the method used to promote diversity must itself be efficient?
Some results follow virtually by definition: If "diversity" is defined as above, then positive discrimination in favour of "underrepresented" groups is likely to increase diversity (at least in the short term) virtually by definition.  If efficiency refers to rapidness and simplicity of the processes then the simplest and most overt forms of positive discrimination are likely to be the most efficient, again virtually by definition.  In such a case, the consequences are so obvious that it is unclear why you would need empirical evidence at all.
Are you even asking the right question? If the sole goal of interest in your question is to be "efficient" at achieving "diversity" then clearly the most efficient way to achieve this is simply to impose immediate quotas in faculty composition without regard to any other considerations.  It could even be achieved simply by appointing all academic positions via random lottery among the entire population.  In other words, your question is rendered trivial.  This happens because you have not posed any trade-off with other considerations in your question.  Does the actual merit of candidates matter?  Does the quality of academic work matter?  Does fairness matter?  If so, then you now have a trade-off between multiple things, and you will have to adjust your question accordingly.


How to study with ADHD During my childhood, I have had ADHD. My last visit with a psychologist was over a year ago and he said ADHD is gone and now is filled with anxiety. I agree that I might be anxious sometimes.
My problem is one thing: There are things, courses I do not like, and do my best to procrastinate them and even if I commit myself to do them, I get distracted surfing the web and social media. I also close them but open them later.
In contrast, in those courses in which I'm interested, I have good focus (maybe hyperfocus) and have good efficiency. The problem is that most part of the university doesn't amaze me and hence it is boring and my efficiency is low.
I'm currently an honors bachelor's student and I'm doing good. But how could I increase my efficiency in doing tasks that I HATE? As you know, a bachelor's degree is filled with miscellaneous courses
Thanks.

Here is what got me through Undergrad:

Sit in the front row, even if you stick out like a sore thumb.
Write down everything the professor says by hand. Don't type it out, just write.
Focus on one subject at a time. If writing a paper, just write that paper for a couple of days.
Turn off your phone. If you don't need a laptop for the class, don't bring it.
A spiral notebook helps you focus more than a binder. Loose pages are the enemy.
Avoid scheduling classes in the evening or around times where you would rather be doing something else.


How many self-cites to other works are too many in my paper? Currently I am writing a paper which is related to my previous work. However, there are several publications that I would like to cite from it. I do not want the new manuscript to feel like a easy-self-citing paper, so I wonder which is the limit of self-citation.

Of course, the self-cites correspond to different works, some of them poorly correlated with the others.

The answer, of course, is to cite the relevant papers and only those.

This is not very actionable advice. Rather, here is what I would suggest. My discipline is mathematics, for context.

If you use, expand, contradict, give a new perspective to, etc,  a previous result, then you should cite it.
You can usually decide how much space and writing to devote to historical overview and establishing context for the paper. Cite relevant literature; everything if there is only little, or representative sample if there is much. Cover different perspectives at least briefly.
At this point, ask yourself: Given the references here, is there something that is missing, or something that seems to be excessive? These questions should weed out excessive self-citations or add citations to other relevant literature.

If you afraid that some citation is not relevant, then consider writing at least a sentence to describe it in the context of your present paper, rather than writing for example

  similar questions have also been considered in [1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 13].

A few sentences of context will also serve your readers, who might find your paper when looking for something related. The sentence can guide them towards more relevant papers and away from less relevant ones.


I want to participate in a summer research program, but my GPA is not high enough. Should I still apply? I am an undergraduate chemical engineering student who has been participating in research for a little less than a year now. I was able to get a paper published on one of my previous projects. Since I do not feel that the automotive industry is for me, and since I really like doing research, I have realized that the biomedical engineering path is more suitable for me.

I started looking for summer research programs at different universities throughout the US, and also found one in Switzerland, but some of them require a very high GPA. The reason why I want to participate in these types of programs, is because I truly want to make my research skills more versatile - I also believe that being exposed to different research projects, will help me on my own, current, research project.

I do not have the high GPA, but I have the stamina, ambition, and research experience that I believe it takes to complete such an intensive summer program. Should I still bother applying to them, is there any chance they will consider me?

I do not want to ask my research professor for letter of recommendation, when I know there is no possibility of me being accepted. For anyone who has participated in said summer research programs, what was your experience like? Do they really place such a strong emphasis on GPA, or do they take into consideration the work you did/have been doing in your lab? I was thinking of emailing the department head of these programs, introducing myself, "bothering" them, but I am not sure whether starting off with "my GPA is not high enough" is the best idea.

I think you should. If you don't meet the requirement which you get the same result with "not applying". It wouldn't hurt to try, so I think you should totally give it a try. Good luck.


What does it mean for a paper to be "under review" I dont know much about paper submission as I am not that matured enough.

Can someone kindly say what does it mean for a paper to be "under review"?

First I was informed that it was "Initial version" and now the status says "under review".
How long will the tag "under review" stay?

As I am a Master's student I dont know much about publication.Can someone please say what does the above means and what are the steps that follow in order for a paper to be accepted in a journal.

Do editors send the authors mail keeping them informed about the steps that are being done ?

I will be grateful if someone helps me here.

When you submit a paper to a journal (conferences are a bit different), it first goes to an editor who has some familiarity with the subject area, but may not be an academic. He or she will make an initial determination of suitability and (possibly) quality. If the paper is deemed worthy of examination it next goes to a few reviewers who are experts in the field, usual academics and volunteers.

Your paper is being reviewed at the moment by this group, who probably don't meet together. They may or may not have your name listed as author.

When a reviewer completes review he/she writes a report back to the editor. When the editor gets all the reviews back a decision is made (accept, reject, accept with revision, more review,...).

Usually the author is kept informed, but there are often delays in the system as people are busy and not dedicated totally to this one paper to the exclusion of all else. Reviews can take a long time if people are busy with other things. They don't usually have hard deadlines.

The author will normally get a copy of the reviews, but not the names of the reviewers. The author is usually expected to write a new version taking the comments of the reviewers in to account. Then the paper goes back to the editor who may decide to publish it or start the process over again with more reviews.

For conferences the process is similar except that the reviewers may be the conference program committee who do meet as a group for acceptance/rejection. Here the process is time constrained by the date scheduled for the conference itself. The committee may also be limited in the number of papers it is allowed to accept to keep the cost of the conference and the resulting proceedings reasonable.


Pros and cons of publishing in a mega journal? The open access journal Scientific Reports publishes original research in all areas of the natural and clinical sciences.  That's broad; it's a mega journal.  With such a broad scope, I initially thought it a predatory journal, but it's published by Nature, so it isn't.  What are the (dis)advantages of publishing original research in such a "mega journal"?

In my opinion there are almost no disadvantages here compared to similar well received and indexed journals.

The usual argument would be that people who read this journal aren't from this field, so it might not be as interesting to them and people within that field might rather read the specialized journals and might miss it so you get less exposure.

I think this might have been true several years ago or even more some 30+ years ago. However, today there are so many publications every week, even within specialized subfields, that it's basically impossible to read all the journals relevant to your field or even just the biggest ones. Most people I know (including leading researchers) have given up on reading certain journals. What people do instead is creating alerts for certain subjects and frequently share intersting new articles which means as long as the journal falls into the index they use they will find it anyways.


A very complicated F1 visa administrative processing issue... What are my chances if I reapply? Greetings from Turkey,

I got a fully funded PhD offer from Illinois Institute of Technology on last April. I applied for an F1 visa to enroll in for Fall 2016 semester. Even though I got an approval on my interview, my application status remained under administrative processing for almost six months. I had to defer my admission twice, regardless of my efforts and the university's efforts to contact the embassy several times, since they were extremely indifferent and unhelpful. At the end I got really upset and sent the embassy a veeeeery long e-mail that contained literal sentences like "I can't take this anymore", "WHAT COULD I HAVE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS?" and "Even if I get cancer and the only cure is in the US, I will never set foot in your country" (I wasn't drunk or high). At the end of the e-mail I requested the withdrawal of my application, which they instantly agreed to like they had been waiting for me to give up already.

My supervisor is trying very hard to help me and he is the coolest person on earth. So, I don't want to let this chance slip away. My question is, what would happen if I tried to apply at the same embassy. %100 administrative processing again? refusal for life? Should I apply for this visa at a different country with a valid excuse (I might do an internship abroad). Any suggestion will be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Visa questions are best asked in expatriates.se but here's an abbreviated answer.

Visa application voluntary withdrawals are normally without prejudice towards future applications, however you showed a great deal of emotional immaturity in writing the letter the way you did.  This might have been noted in your file.

The only way you can know is to try again. Note that trying to game the system by applying from another country may actually result in greater scrutiny of your file than if you simply reapplied from your home country.

Returning to questions of academia. If I was your future advisor, I would certainly consider this a negative indication of your maturity and readiness to engage in a PhD program.


How to handle a colleague who hasn't pulled their weight I'm working on a project with a partner that involves developing a mobile app and corresponding server. I won't bother with the specifics, but both involve a fair amount of work (both require some custom algorithms as well as thousands of lines of code). This project will serve as a final for one of our classes.

Originally, we agreed that I would write the server and he would write the mobile application. I stayed up for a couple nights straight and got together a working server in no time. He told me he was bogged down with papers/family life/etc., but he'd handle the client side.

About two weeks went by and still no progress had been made. I had some free time so I figured out how the app needs to be written (i.e. writing out the pseudocode and sketching wireframes). When another week went by and still no work had been done, I went ahead and wrote a good deal of the client code. My partner is also my friend and I trusted him when he told me he would do his part and he was just totally bogged down.

Now the project is due on Friday and I'm still the only one who's actually done anything. I find out today that he still has yet to write a single line of code because he's so busy (but not so busy that he couldn't go to a baseball game, a concert, and spend all of Friday night getting drunk).

I'm not sure how I want to approach the situation. Even if my partner finished the project on his own, I've still done 80%. I don't think its fair if he gets an A because I killed myself to do the work of two people. At the same time, if I tell the professor how little he's done, the professor will fail him (rightly so) and I will lose a friend.

How can I get the credit I deserve for my work without losing my friend? I feel like I have the Hobson's choice between getting credit for my work and keeping a friend.

EDIT: I did choose a specific answer as my accepted answer, but all of these answers are of really good quality. If you're having a problem similar to mine, I highly suggest reading through all of the answers here.

When students come to me with problems like these, I very rarely just take the side of the active student against the "lazy" one.

If you work in a group, you're both responsible when the dynamic doesn't work. And keeping the group dynamic healthy is something every student should learn. I know how difficult it is, I've been both the lazy student and the active one.

It may feel to you like there's nothing you possibly could've done. But that's never true. You started the project by immediately splitting the work load, and reducing the level of necessary communication to a bare minimum. He took the easy half, because he was busy. When his work started to lag behind, you began to write specifications for him.

All this combined probably sapped his motivation. Every step along the way took the challenge out of his part, while he still had those thousands of lines of code to get through. Meanwhile you felt like you were doing more than your share, but you were getting things done, and things that you designed, problems you solved.

In a healthy project, you communicate and you meet often. You don't divide the workload to minimize communication, you use your shared expertise and you design together. That way, you both stay motivated, because you both feel like it's still your project.

What you're doing now is focusing on everything that he could be doing differently. That may be the fair option (cause you're doing all the work), but it's not a productive option, cause that's not a dimension you control. You should be asking yourself what you could've done differently. It may feel unfair, but it's something you can actually implement, so you'll feel a lot less powerless.

Anyway, that's a lesson for the next project. For this one, I'd say remain detached. It's not your responsibility to make sure John learns something, and you'll get the same grade either way. Talk to him, tell him you're unhappy with the way the project's gone and ask if you could've done anything differently to get him more motivated. Let him know you don't expect to be working with him on future project and you're better off as friends than as collaborators.

Just make sure you don't get angry with him. Anger might've been productive halfway down the project, but you're too late now.


What's the "proof" of having presented a project results in a conference? I am a Physics master's student trying for PhD. During my summer internship I worked on a project in a research lab. During the work I found a a few inconsistencies with work done by the Post-Doc and I also redid the analysis with new data. Because of this I was included as second author in a presentation given by the Post-Doc in a conference (our common guide was the third author). I do not have any "proof" as such for this, except for the keynote presentation. How am I supposed to mention this in my CV? I mean, if it was an actual paper I can give a link to the paper, however the conference presentations do not have  any such things I think. Is there any official way to do this or should I just give my guide as a referee so that admission committee will contact the guide in case they need to verify this?

Because it was presented in a conference I am hoping it'll be published at some point in the future(we are still working on the project), but I have to apply for few institutes with next few months, and the project won't be completed by then.

Most of us have some items on our CVs that have no supporting proof.  I recommend checking what can be found on the internet to be sure the information on your CV matches that information.  If there is a big mismatch between your memory and the written record, you should ask for advice on that. However, if there is no listing at all, go ahead and put down the facts as you know them, before you forget them.

The real issues is whether in your field, people generally list presentations by collaborators.  If not, perhaps it is normal to list on-going projects and collaborations.  Or, if you have a short CV, you can buck convention a bit and list what you think is relevant.  You can remove it later on.

The confirmation of many facts on your CV will come from letters of recommendation.  If your "common guide" writes in a letter it will likely mention the collaboration.  Also, most letter writers will ask for a recent CV, and will tell you if you have anything that looks misleading.

By the way, you probably should not list a URL to any paper you get published.  Stick with the formal bibliographic conventions, and perhaps list at DOI.  If you have something like a code repository, you should then put in a URL.

On more thought.  The fact that your guide can validate this work is just one reason to pick that person as a letter writer (referee).  From what you wrote that seems like a good choice, but you need to think about all sorts of facts. (There are Lots of questions on that sort of thing on this site.)  If you have other letter writers who can expound on your research accomplishments and abilities, you might not select this person as a letter writer.  It still could be fine to list this item on a CV.


Is it possible to get a PhD in field X with research that isn't really in field X? People obviously change their mind sometimes. So it is possible that someone starts out with a PhD in a certain field, but may want to switch to another field.

I am wondering, is it possible, or generally deemed acceptable, for someone to receive a PhD in a field, let's say political science, but for the PhD thesis to really not be political science related (e.g. it could instead be a piece of research in economics, or theoretical statistics, without any reference to political science)?

Edit: it seems that it is required to at least relate your PhD to field X. What would one do if one really did not want to relate it to X at all?

It is possible, usually, to work in another field on your thesis at least in the sciences. However, the thesis defense and dissertation will have to relate to the program you are in.

i.e. I had friends in physics PhD programs who worked in biology labs. The research had to be tied to physics for the dissertation and defense (light diffraction, computational modeling using physical concepts, etc.)

There will always be people who look down on specific disciplines, but I would think that usually it is acceptable if you can make it work.


How would the UK leaving the EU affect academia and PhD admission? Will all European applicants count as ‘international students’ then?
Are there any proposals on this yet? I am finishing my BA in two years and was considering applying to the UK, but am worried now that I will have to pay international fees.

The following are opinion, not fact, as AFAIK nobody has a clue what a potential post-Brexit academic situation would look like:

It's standard for qualitative features in regulations and costs to remain fixed for students over the lifetime of their studies. So I would guess that the fees won't change halfway through: you'll know the approximate costs at the start. It wouldn't surprise me if in two years fees for EU students would remain the same, especially if (as your question seems to imply) you've been normally resident in the UK for 3 years.
I would always expect a PhD studentship to cover fees. I would be very wary of one that didn't guarantee this. The risk of higher fees should be on the studentship, not on you personally. (Of course, you may self-fund, which is a different issue)
In the current UK climate I would be more worried about visas to study. With the current arguments around net migration, and the crazy situation where students are counted as immigrants, I would expect student visas from the EU to become a problem.


Should I skip MS in Computer Science and directly opt for PHD? If so, what to expect from a PHD program? I just finished my Bachelor of Science in Computer Science. I'm 100% sure that I want to pursue a specialization in AI and ML through Computer Science. And becoming a Professor is something that I really want.
I'm taking a gap year to work on my personal projects and I'm also doing some certificate courses online through Coursera.
Part of the reason why I made this decision was that I wanted to be absolutely confident in myself before I went into a professional post-grad program. But, mainly, the reason was that I was scared.
My family can't afford my education any further and not a single member(male or female) in my family (both immediate and distant) have ever studied beyond a Bachelors. I personally don't know anyone who's done a PHD and I'm not sure exactly what to expect from further education. I've been looking up post-grad degree programs in USA, and in Cornell University's MS in CS page I read that students who wish to pursue a PHD should directly apply for the PHD in CS.
That sentence intrigued me. And after looking up some more information, I found that yes, people can opt for PHDs right after Bachelors, it will be difficult obviously, but it's possible. I also found some scholarships online whose eligibility criteria I fit in, but I would still need to work while getting my degree.
But I don't know what happens in PHD programs.  Will there be lectures like in normal degree programs or just research and practicals and thesis and projects? Can I work while doing a PHD? And do I really need a Masters degree ? Will it become really difficult without a Masters? Also, what exactly is a fellowship? And what is a Graduate Research Assistant?
I'm genuinely confused. Any advice would be greatly appreciated (not that anyone needs my appreciation). Thank you in advance.

Yes, in the US most students start doctoral studies immediately after a bachelors. Yes, there will be quite a lot of coursework before you get to the dissertation stage. The courses prepare you to pass the qualifying exams and assure that you have a broad grounding in the field.
However, almost all US graduate students work as part of the program, usually as a TA (Teaching Assistant) or RA (Research Assistant). A TA usually does grading and meets with small "sections" of a larger course so that students can get questions answered. An RA works with a professor on research and the tasks depend on what that professor is doing. It might be programming or library research or whatever.
Holding a TA or RA position also means that the student doesn't pay tuition and has enough of a stipend to live (modestly), perhaps even with a family. I had two kids by the time I finished my PhD though my spouse also worked. That would be harder for a foreign student because of visa rules.
You don't need to have a research project in mind to apply for admission, nor do you need to immediately connect with a particular professor. The first year will feel a lot like the final year of undergraduate but with more advanced courses and possibly an introduction to research process.
Apply to several schools, probably in the R1 (Research focused) category. It is best if the general area you want to study within CS is represented there by several faculty so that there is the possibility for a research seminar.
At many such doctoral programs you can be awarded a masters, also, part way through your studies.


How to increase the reach of my bachelor thesis with little effort? I wrote my bachelor thesis about a topic that recently deserved a lot of attention because of global media and geopolitical development (See Title below [1]). Therefore I know would like to publish it. But because I changed my research field from European Studies to Sustainable Development, I am not in the right networks anymore to get official assistance with the publication and I am not really aiming for a peer-reviewed paper either. But I still would like my finding to be "out there". Therefore reach is also my priority. If possible I would of course not be upset, if I could be financially reward-ed for each download, but that is rather a minor priority and bonus.
So far, I have found and considered platforms like StackExchange, Scribd, reddit, Academia, ResearchGate or LinkedIn. And now I would like to get some insights from practitioners or experienced academics what to do. Thanks in advance.

EDIT:
I have decided to go with GRIN now. Thanks for all people commenting and taking time. [2]

[1] "Theories of Democracy in Comparison: The Russian Case - Output-oriented Legitimacy, Defect Democracy, Political Culture, Path Dependence and Public Opinion" - Why would Russians, interested in democracy, vote for Putin, while being aware that he is not beneficial for a democratic future of the country?
[2] Theories of Democracy in Comparison: The Russian Case. Output-oriented Legitimacy, Defect Democracy, Political Culture, Path Dependence and Public Opinion, Bachelor Thesis, 2013.

In the following, I will assume your thesis is indeed of excellent quality, and brings interesting new insight into the field.

First, your goals: you say you are primarily interested in reach, with potential for (I am assuming financial) rewards being a nice-to-have. The options you have proposed were:

StackExchange and Academia

Not the right place. More or less by definition, Stack Exchange sites do not want to have original research. Your research would also definitely be out of scope here.

Scribd

No personal experience. Maybe somebody can edit this in?

ResearchGate

As I and others here have experienced, ResearchGate is a terrible place to communicate ideas. Honestly, this one is probably just a waste of time.

LinkedIn

In my experience this is similar to ResearchGate, but, for academic topics, even worse. I do not know anybody who uses LinkedIn to discover interesting content. Probably also a waste of time,

reddit

This could be an idea, but not to write the content on, but as a means to advertise the content you have hosted elsewhere.

What I think you should try is make a blog. First, start off by summarising your main theses and results in a poignant way (and linking to your full thesis for those interested in details). Keep the blog up-to-date by following recent events (in your topic, there are new events almost daily at the moment). If you get questions, address them.

Advertise your blog heavily, on Reddit, on Twitter, on Facebook, and on other suitable platforms. In terms of monetization, you can either get your own server going, host the blog yourself, and make some modest money via ads, or use a free Wordpress (or similar) account. In the latter case, all ad money will go to Wordpress, but you will have very low setup effort and do not need any upfront investment.

To wrap this up, one word of warning - having a blog, or really any widely known published material, on such a sensitive topic may well be actually, physically dangerous to you. People have certainly been threatened and harassed for less than publishing unpopular opinions about Russia.


Why should a publication present results in a way that significantly differs from the discovery of said results? In the various projects I've worked on, professors have insisted that a writeup for a journal submission should state and prove only the final results (rather than describe the process of arriving at those results). I see how this makes things concise, but it seems to obscure the process of discovery.

Here's an example of this situation from a mathematics paper I've worked on.

What I did:

I have a direct proof for "X".
After looking at my direct proof for "X", I see that I could generalize "X" if I prove "Y" (it was not immediately clear that proving "Y" was useful for proving "X").
I prove "Y", then prove "Generalized X" (duplicating some work from the proof of "X").

What the paper does:

Prove "Y".
Use "Y" to prove "Generalized X".
Refine the proof of "Generalized X" ever so slightly to get "X".

My frustration:

I feel like the paper is good reference material, but it's not educational. I think a reader would stand to benefit much more from a direct proof of "X", since it shows why I would try to show "Y" in the first place.

I think this comes down to the subtle but important difference between communication and education. The target audience of a research paper is experts in the field, not students. Most readers want to know what your theorem says, why it's important and relevant, intuition about why it "should" be true and why the proof works, and (sometimes) the details of the proof. Few people are reading in order to learn how to prove theorems, which is what your suggested presentation would serve.

Having said that, it's possible to take the "uneducational" approach too far and actively cover one's tracks, so that the paper is hard to understand but looks impressive. By all means, if an informal discussion of the special case "X" will help give intuition about the main theorem, include such in your introduction.


How are best reviewer awards given (in a computer science conference)? I have often seen people(postdoc, etc.) listing in their CV or webpage that they were awarded best reviewer for conference X. I have recently been invited to become a reviewer for a conference, which has made me ponder over what are the criteria for giving such awards? (My field is computer science if that makes a difference.)

Here are the criteria used by the ACM 2012 International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval (ICMR) for the "best reviewer" award:

  The criteria are that the reviewer should have demonstrated the expertise to provide insightful and knowledgeable feedback, should have provided quality reviews which are helpful to the authors of papers, should have displayed collegiality and constructive feedback, and should have completed reviews on time. The award is selected after examining all of the 400+ reviews from the 101 reviewers.

Conferences with an author response phase may use the authors' replies to help choose the best reviewer. For example, the CFP for the 2014 Conference on Software Language Engineering says:

  Authors will be given a brief opportunity for a reply to the reviews. The replies will be considered in the PC's discussions, and considered in the selection of the best reviewer.


Time difference between admission offers and rejections in US PhD Admissions? Being that I am currently awaiting offers of admission/rejections for some of my PhD applications in the US, i regularly frequent the website http://thegradcafe.com, which, if you've never heard of it, has a forum where just about any subject relevant to graduate students is being discussed, and, most importantly, maintains a database of admission/rejection dates for various programs at various schools (see http://thegradcafe.com/survey/index.php).

While discussing with other members of the forum and browsing through the database myself, I have noticed the following pattern: For many PhD programs, year after year, all the offers of admission (the ones added to the database, anyway) will be made on a single day, and then, some time later (often 2,3 weeks or even almost a month later), all the rejection notifications are made.

Of course, it should be said that this "data" is fairly unreliable, since it is all added anonymously and most likely very fragmentary, but assuming this is actually a trend, here is my question:

  What is the explanation for such a long delay between offers of admission and notifications of rejection in (some) US PhD admissions?

The possible explanations I have in mind are the following:

The candidates that are assuredly admitted are sent offers as soon as possible, and then the admission committee takes a lot more time to choose a few more candidates within the (probably very large) sample of not-so-surely admitted students. (This could possibly not be reflected in the Grad Cafe's database, as very few candidates could be admitted this way)
Universities wait to see if some of the strong applicants will answer positively or negatively to their offers before deciding to reject other applicants (but then, why not waitlist them in the mean time).

However, I would be very interested in hearing about anyone who has been in (or knows about) an admission committee that operates like this, and the reason behind this.

Both your reasons are in play, although the second far more so, in the math dept at my "R1" university in the U.S. That is, we make a certain number of offers to well-qualified people, expecting a certain approximate rate (perhaps 50 percent or more) of acceptance of our offers, with considerable variation. We cannot risk far too many acceptances, because of funding limits, but, at the same time, we need a fairly precise number of TAs for the following year. So after we receive some rejections from that clear-first-round bunch of offers, we can (and must) make the corresponding number of second-round offers. Inevitably the number of such is not zero, but is unpredictable, and the financial set-up is such that we do not want to risk over-committing... and under-committing for too long risks students already being informally (if not formally, since nothing is set until until April 15) committed elsewhere.


Confusion about writing acronyms in section title In writing one article, I came across situation where my section title has one long word which I wanted to use with acronym later on. Now should I put acronym in section title or repeat word in text and write acronym there ? Take a following example for illustration...

Option 1

  Section 1: Effect of Very Long Word (VLW) in section title

  It is seen that VLW used in article sections are confusing part.

Option 2

  Section 1: Effect of Very Long Word in section title

  It is seen that Very Long Word (VLW) used in article sections are confusing part.

Which one is legal or appropriate in scientific writing ?

A third option:

Section 1: Effect of VLW
It is seen that Very Long Word (VLW) used in article sections are confusing part.

This is useful if VLW is truly very long, and messes up your titles, and you can trust most people have at least heard of it, and will have a clue of what you are talking about. Placing the full version next to it makes it discoverable.
Note that the operating distinction is "will have a clue", reading the title should give the reader a quick idea of what it is about.
If the acronym is not well known enough, use the full word, and assume people will skip titles when they read the article in detail.


How to politely describe a situation where you have no publication because both you and the advisor are inexperienced in a new research topic? How to politely describe a situation where you have no publication because both you and the advisor are inexperienced in a new research topic?

The lab previously only did research on topic A (e.g. protein factors) and lacked the experimental conditions for conducting research on topic B (e.g. circular RNAs), which is a very hot topic recently. BTW, which word should be used? topic, subject, field or area?
The student is the first and only one that conducted the project on the new topic.
The student started from scratch and faced many difficulties. The advisor was willing to but sometimes powerless to help when the student got stuck.
However, there is no publication after several years, since both the student and the advisor lack experience in the new research topic.

I do not know how to politely describe such situation from two distinct perspectives：

From my advisor’s perspective: I requested my advisor a letter of recommendation for PhD application. He suggested that I write a draft first.
From my perspective: I need to describe it in my personal statement.

However, I do not know how to politely describe such situation and meanwhile let the reviewer understand why I have no publication on this topic. Also, I am afraid my PS and the ROL draft would make him seem inexperienced in the new field or look like that I’m blaming him, which is rude and arrogant.

I suspect the answer for this strongly depends on cultural context.  My answer is for applications to PhD programs in the US (and probably Canada also), but it may not hold for other countries.

In the US, it's not expected that every student going into a PhD program has written a paper.  (In some subjects, almost no students entering a PhD program has written a paper.)  Your advisor should simply not mention that you haven't written a paper, but explain what you have done successfully (and there are other notions of success than writing a paper!), and what positive character attributes you have that lead him to believe you will be a successful PhD student.  It will be necessary to go into details of your project, but no mention needs to be made about the lack of a paper coming out.

You should have a similar approach in your personal statement, emphasizing what you learned from your research project and your coursework and explaining what research you want to work on for your PhD.

The PhD program will be admitting you as a person, not your package of previous accomplishments (although of course your previous accomplishments will tell them something about you as a person).


My internship is going to sponsor my bachelor's thesis (which will require more hours in the office). Should I ask for more money? I have worked for the past year as an intern in a company that is partly based in my university. I have been receiving a scholarship for my work.

We agreed on how much time I was going to spend at the company and how much money I would receive. My scholarship amount was determined by the time I agreed to work monthly, at least that was how it was explained to me.

During the interview for this position, we agreed that I would do my bachelor project here, which basically means I will do the research they need and then write my bachelor thesis about it. This is a win-win for everyone, because instead of working ON TOP of school, I would work for the company AND work on my degree at the same time. The company benefits from this because it allows me to spend more hours weekly working.

My work on the bachelor thesis is about to start, which means I will be able to spend about twice the amount of time in the office than before. My boss and coworkers expect me to be more often in the office.

I would like to get double the scholarship, but I heard from someone who was in the same position as me in the past that his scholarship did not increase and he was told that he would have to do the work for his bachelor project anyway, so even though he spent more time working, he received the same scholarship.

This is basically free work for the company. I don't like working for free. Is this normal? I will try negotiating, but what should I do if the boss doesn't change his view? One thing I was considering was that if they don't increase my scholarship, I would spend the same time in the office as before and do the rest of the work at home/elsewhere, which is more convenient for me.

Everything is already agreed, I can't change my bachelor project (do a different one, for a different company) without delaying my degree by at least half a year, so basically the company now holds my academic progress hostage, which from what I have heard is the situation of some PhD students.

I don't think you have a lot of leverage here other than by disadvantaging yourself.

First, scholarship money is not always abundant and people like to spread it around to help more people, rather than to concentrate it.

And, you are getting something for your work, beyond the money. You are getting a degree. It isn't that they get your work for free. You made an agreement, I think, if I have a accurate reading here. Live up to it.

I think your statement that the company is holding you hostage is misplaced. In fact, they are helping enabling your future. Even just providing a project that you can develop into a thesis should be worth something to you.

I suspect that starting over with a different situation would be worse for you in every way: time, money, and more.


Informal enquiries for faculty position I am a postdoc in the physical sciences. I have recently decided to start applying for some faculty positions. One open position in particular was recently brought to my attention, and I want to apply for it.

If I compare myself to other people I know in my field who are getting offered faculty positions, I'm a little bit on the young/inexperienced side but I do have a comparable publication record, so I would estimate my chances of landing this job are very low, but nonzero.

I discussed this with my former PhD supervisor when asking him for a reference, and he encouraged me to apply and advised me to send an informal enquiry to the head of department before preparing my application. I have seen similar advice elsewhere. My problem is that I don't really understand what kind of thing I should write in such an informal enquiry. Should I directly ask "would you like to me apply for this job"? Is it like a cover letter?

What is the style and content of a "good" informal enquiry for a faculty position?

If you’re going to send such an email, I suggest you make it short and direct it to either someone you know or someone in your research area. (Hence this advice is mainly for research universities.)

You can introduce yourself, say you’re applying, and mention that you’re excited about this job.  Taking the extra effort might show that you’re serious, but I honestly find that it rarely helps and can even hurt in the case of a lengthy letter to a busy department chair.

I think if you know someone in the department, that’s when it’s probably most effective; e.g. an email can alert them to your application so they can mention you to the hiring committee, even if they’re not on it this year.


How to write the data section when data is reused from a previous work? I am writing a paper where I am using the same dataset that was used in the previous work which I co-authored. I have written the data and the methodology part of that paper. In the new paper I am using the same dataset but a different approach and different methodology.

When reusing the data, do I have to write a normal “data section” as in the previous paper, or I should rather give very general information and refer that first work if readers want to know more about the dataset?
Both papers will be part of my PhD thesis.

If the context is that of a three-paper dissertation, my opinion would be to refer to the earlier paper which has the thorough description. You should ask your supervisor to be sure, but a collection of essays allows that. A monograph type thesis is much preferable.

If the context is that of a journal submission, then each paper must be stand-alone and the data must be described in according detail. A self-citation is allowed, and some common phrases will save you time, but you cannot self-plagiarise and some rewriting is necessary. You can have one paper being more detailed than the other but the less detailed paper must still contain enough information. So yes, you should describe your data twice.


How to address bad research experience I want to apply to CS PhD programs this year. Just a litte background: I did my BS and (non thesis) MS in EE/ECE at the same school. During my BS I did two semesters of undergrad research that went fine and gave me valuable experience.

During the second (last) semester of my MS I took on for-credit research with a professor. We got all the forms settled and decided on a project. However, after a certain point (me reading papers to catch up on the work) he stopped responding completely. I sent him emails frequently asking for resources to start my project (required some simulation resources at the least), but he never responded. I also tried to catch him at his office whenever I was free during the semester but completely failed. At the end of the semester I was awarded a B. Should I even address this on my application? Would it look bad to not include this experience at all?

The other weird caveat is that this is the only B throughout both of my degrees, so it is pretty noticeable.

If I had no further information about what happened and it was me, I'd not mention it on application materials. That is, not try to explain it away. List it as a research experience on a CV, without other explanation. I'm assuming the grade you got is on a transcript. So, it isn't something you are hiding, but just not emphasizing.

If you are asked about it, you can honestly say that you don't understand the grade and that your supervisor stopped replying to your updates. You don't know why that was. Things happen. They aren't your fault. If the experience itself was valuable in setting your thinking then it was a net plus in spite of the mediocre grade. You can say those kinds of things.

But, as I mentioned in a comment, it would be good to also know why it occurred. I think I'd refrain from explaining it in written materials in any case, but you would have some additional background if the issue comes up.


Can I include online reading guidance as research experience? I graduated back in 2015 and have been serving my military obligation. Though I was off from academia, time to time, I kept in contact with former research supervisors. They gave me a list of papers to read and when I am free in the army, I read some and reproduced results of the papers in the list. I even ended up publishing a paper with my supervisors.

As my service ends in early 2018, I plan to apply for Ph.D. programs this fall and I am wondering if the activity I described above can be seen as a research experience. If so, I would like to put it on my CV, however, unlike my other experience, which was done in a specific institution as a research intern, I had no affiliation nor was a member of any institution. How can I elaborate my activity in CV?

This is something I would just explain like you did in this question. From a potential supervisor's perspective, it is important to know that a PhD candidate is willing to go an extra mile and you clearly did that. Since a paper came out of this, you even have some evidence that you did not make up a nice story to impress someone, but you did actual research work.

I would just put a line in the cv like "independent research work jointly with xxxx, resulting in publication [yyy]".