Academic literature on the construction of dangerous things I'm sitting at some boring ethics lecture and was surprised that few academics worked with formally classified or otherwise dangerous information.

I'm curious how this knowledge is published, stored, and disseminated in practice.

A few ideas come to mind:

Research on the blast radius of munitions
Imaging and communication systems for military hardware
Culture of pathogens such as Anthrax

What happens if your research was commissioned by the DoD?

For the US Department of Defense there is the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). It is like PubMed Central but for DoD documents. Some of the content has been cleared for public release and is open to the public. Much of the content, however, has not been cleared for public release and access is controlled by a DoD employees common access card (CAC) and the network that DTIC is being accessed from. Not cleared for public release is not the same as classified/secret/top secret. Access to classified material is again CAC controlled and requires a dedicated computer on a protected network. I think, but am not sure, that DTIC is the gateway to much of the classified literature within the classified network.


What's the best way to share a Zotero collection (without creating a new "group" collection) I've got a large Zotero library split into several large collections. I know that I'm able to share collections by creating a group in Zotero and then creating a collection within that group. Is it possible to share a pre-existing collection, though?

Alternatively, can I synchronize a collection in a group with a collection that is already in my local library? Sharing a collection within a group is great, but if that collection starts off as a copy of a collection I already have in my Zotero then I'm going to have to maintain two collections independently.

The following was posted in response to the OP's question on the Zotero forums:

  adamsmith Sep 14th 2015

  Easier sharing of parts of your library is planned, but currently, unfortunately, the answer to all of your questions is no. The only way to share a collection is to drag it into a group and it won't sync with the original collection.


In which case does PLOS ONE use a third reviewer? We have submitted our manuscript 10 weeks ago to PLOS ONE and are still waiting for a first decision.
We sent an inquiry, and they replied that the paper is under review with a 3rd reviewer. Does it mean there is a split decision? How much longer can it take to receive their response?
It is my first manuscript submitted for me, it is on cancer biology (leukemia) and it feels very frustrating.

The email reply was:

  "Thank you for your submission to PLOS ONE.

  I would like to take this opportunity to update you with regards to the current status of your manuscript, as we are aware that it is taking longer than we anticipated for you to receive a decision on your submission.

  As you know, we always strive to provide authors with decisions as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, this is not always possible especially when it proves necessary to consult external referees. In regards to your manuscript PONE-D-15-0812 it appears that the comments from 2 reviewers have been submitted, and we are waiting for the other review which is currently outstanding. We are aware of this delay, and are following up with the relevant individual. Once all the reviews are submitted, the Academic Editor will be able to make a decision regarding your manuscript, and inform you of their decision.

  We appreciate your patience, and hope you will contact us if you have any questions or concerns.

  Kind Regards,
  Tresa

I'm not certain what PLoS ONE's exact criteria are for number of reviewers (and there is likely to be some discretion allowed for individual editors as well), but in most venues that I have encountered, there is a preference for having at least 3-4 reviews to increase both the breadth of opinions and the likelihood of "consensus" on a paper, and often a required minimum of 3 reviews.  So most likely 3 reviewers were invited from the beginning.

Moreover, the asynchrony of journal reviewing means that it is very easy to end up waiting for a final review.  The typically process for managing journal reviewing is something along the lines of:

Invite a set of reviewers, who have 1-2 weeks to respond to the invitation.
If some reviewers decline or fail to respond, invite more reviewers and iterate until a sufficient set accept.
Once reviewers accept, they have 2-6 weeks to return the review.  Many reviewers put off responding to the last minute, and some ask for extensions.
One or more reviewers may fail to return a review at all, at which point the editor puts a black mark on them in the system and has to start all over again inviting a new reviewer.

You can see how this can quickly add up to 10 weeks or more, and it can stretch even further if the editor isn't acting immediately upon events in the reviewing process (as often happens).

So take a deep breath and don't worry yet: there is nothing you can really predict about your paper based on the current timing, since you're well within the normal range of journal review time (unlike the request for revisions I got today for a paper submitted 14 months ago).


Would a B grade PhD-level course in part time help or hurt graduate application? After graduating from college, the student (in part-time) took a PhD level course while working. It was a very difficult hardcore course and the student got a B.

Would this grade help or hurt the student's application to for example a top 5 graduate school?

If it does hurt and the student is not required to report the grade to the schools that s/he is applying to, can s/he choose not to report the course?

Probably many of you might think that this practice is unethical; however, I do not see an ethical problem, as the school only requires the applicant to put on schools that they've attended for at least a year.

So let's put the ethical issue away. Would hiding that course from a resume help?

Hiding the grade is unethical and if discovered will haunt you. But lots of doctoral courses in the US, at least, result in B grades. It isn't a huge problem if you learn something in them. Their purpose is to prepare you for comps, not to show a high GPA.

I'd call in more or less neutral for your application. But the application, overall, needs to show both preparation and likelihood of success. I don't think a B in a difficult course is a negative for either. But the application overall has to demonstrate excellence. It needn't be perfect in every detail.

For students already in the program, a B grade is considered acceptable.

But, if you restrict your search to "top 5" graduate schools you are already likely to miss the mark due completely to the small number of slots and the large number of highly qualified applicants.


Article submitted and clearly referee cannot understand basic premise-What to do? I have submitted a mathematical investment article to a new journal (maybe two years old), based on the suggestion of the editor-in-chief, whom I had sent it to earlier, and who claimed he liked our article very much. A version of the article had been sent to a number of individuals, one or two senior mathematicians who are very capable, and a number of these people had good suggestions and helped us find appropriate extensions. Basically, it has been read a good many times and many people seem to think it important and well-substantiated.

So, we formally submitted the article to this new journal, partly because we cited an article that appeared in the journal last year, and partly because we thought it appropriate given that our article was at the junction between mathematics (probability), theoretical statistics, and algorithmic investment.

The referee report came back and it was clear that he understood the importance of our goal, but it is also clear he had no idea about the underlying mathematics. It was accepted (rejected?) conditionally. Conditionally on redoing the entire paper  (i.e., even the report recommendation was wishy-washy).

Basically, he said that the basic premise of the paper was incorrect, and if we revised it, he would accept it. It was also clear, the referee was not capable of understanding the math in the paper or hadn't bothered to do so. The error in his review was so basic, that any grad student in math should know it--the sum of two (or any finite number of) Guassian random variables is a Gaussian random variable.

I have two basic solutions:

Write a nice letter to the referee, spelling out exactly why we have already addressed his concerns in the paper and that perhaps we could spell this out more explicitly, showing him how.
Submit to another journal, and write to this first journal's editor-in-chief, questioning the quality of his referees (who may be capable in terms of 'investments' but no in terms of 'mathematics'). Perhaps it was not a mathematical enough journal, anyway and is not the most appropriate for our submission. Then again, it could be that this new journal has growing pains.

My tendency is not just option 2, but to be somewhat more ballistic.

Edited question:
I am asking, given the combined experiences of academics in this forum, there must be creative means of dealing with this problem which are deemed to be more successful. I'm sure going balistic feels immediately rewarding but doesn't help one bit in achieving our goal of getting published quickly.

Is there a way to both educate without belittling someone who seems really lacking in basics in the topics we cover in our paper? Is there a subtle way to suggest that the referee may be ok for non-mathematical papers but not appropriate for any paper with more serious math?

I understand how you feel, but what you propose in solution 2 does not sound productive. I try to see (after the initial phase of being dissapointed and annoyed) the reviewer as a potential reader of that journal who is gracious enough to spent more time on your article than most readers will. Apparently, my article wasn't clear enough at a point, and that is something that needs to be fixed. It is easy to think something is too basic it needs no explaining, but there are a great many such basic facts; many more than anyone can remember... I suggest you take the same approach.


Professor charging class cash for magazine I'm in a writing comp class and my professor is charging the class each a cash fee for a New Yorker magazine which is part of the required classwork. Is this allowed and is it considered ethical, especially knowing there are textbooks and other avenues that she can get our classwork from where we can go through school sources such as our book store or library to get our course work? Personally it is not even the fee I'm worried about, I am worried about a professor taking advantage of her students for her own personal gain, it just doesn't feel right or professional, and it definitely doesn't seem like it is good conduct.

This is a bit subtle in general, but the specific case seems benign unless the professor requires you to buy if from him/her specifically. If you can show that you already have access to it (possibly destructive access, depending on the use - cutting it up) but still must again purchase it then it would be questionable.

However, note that many professors assign required textbooks that you must purchase. Sometimes, believing that the best book for the course is the one they wrote themselves, you are actually contributing a few dollars to their pocket when you buy it. Noting that a $US100 textbook gives the author(s) around $5 back money probably isn't an important element of their decision. There are some professors who will return there royalties to students in some cases when the student buys a new copy.

I once wrote a supplementary set of notes for one of my advanced classes. They were required (and referred to daily in class), and cost the students the amount required to duplicate them. I didn't gain from the transaction, nor was I specifically paid to create them.

It is acceptable, in my view, for a professor to require such a resource. It is less acceptable to require purchase from a specific source from which the professor profits.


Article with unspecified-but-present authorship ("consensus document") I'd like to properly refrence an article whose author is mentioned as A Consensus Document (it has some 25 authors).

I have never seen this kind of authorship before; the citation entry generated by the website does not contain an "Author" field (which is problematic for BibTeX and somewhat intriguing on a personal level).

I don't know what would be appropriate to remedy this situation. Would adding an author such as Consensus Document make sense?

Otherwise, could I just add the first author in alphabetical order1, or would this misrepresent the authorship?

Another possible alternative is that, since one of the authors (not the first one in alphabetical order) wrote a foreword to the paper, maybe he could be considered as the first author instead?

1 The authors are only presented in alphabetical order.

The website you've linked to, under the "How to cite" tab, suggests the following format for the entry:

  (2008), Vacuum Assisted Closure: Recommendations for Use. International Wound Journal, 5: iii–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2008.00537.x

Note that there's no author information at all. I suppose that's not a problem for numeric-style citation call-outs, but it sort of begs the question what should be done if authoryear-style citation call-outs are to be used.

The printed article itself provides the string "Expert Working Group" (followed by the names of all members of the group) where one would usually provide the authors' names. This suggests using a "corporate author" approach, along the following scheme:

@article{vacrfu:2008,
  author  = {{Expert Working Group}},
  title   = {Vacuum Assisted Closure: {Recommendations} for Use},
  journal = {International Wound Journal},
  year    = 2008,
  volume  = 5,
  pages   = {iii--19},
  doi     = {10.1111/j.1742-481X.2008.00537.x},
}

Note the use of double curly braces around the argument of the author field.

If that's too unconventional for your taste, you might try either

  author  = {{Expert Working Group (Apelqvist et al)}},

or, more simply,

  author = {Jan Apelqvist and others},

as the content of the author field.


Organizing technical documents and reports At my university, I work on an aircraft design project. I’m building a fairly hefty collection of technical and design reports I’ve written as well as documents about things I’m trying to research to help with my design.

How can I organize these documents in a professional and a formal manner? I’m thinking of something like a document numbering system with hierarchy. For example, I’d like the numbering scheme to reflect document type (technical report, research findings, data, calculations, CAD drawings) and aircraft element (control systems, control surfaces, wing, landing gear, etc).

It might help to add a few details to enable specific constructive responses. What is the purpose for organizing the documents: personal use, internal use within your team/department, public but less formal use such as your personal webpage, public and more formal use such as website of your research group, or inclusion in CV?

Each of these uses is aligned with different (though possibly overlapping) audiences, and might imply different approaches for what and how to present, what to highlight or omit, etc. etc.

So, first I recommend to organize your organizing needs/priorities, then address details.

A few general ideas, with regard to organizing in "professional/formal manner":

Personal use: There are tools such as Mendeley that can be helpful for figuring out and experimenting with ways to categorize the documentation. Mendeley can be leveraged for open/public access to materials as well as private use (e.g. uploading citations but not actual attachments).

Research team website: collaborate with your team to determine what might be worth sharing publicly (beyond what has already been made available). For instance, you might collectively decide that adding some previously un-shared white papers/tech reports, or even datasets might "fill out" the public profile of the group's research and allow the team to cite/reference these resources.

Personal website: Regardless of whether you make the material available on a collaborative formal webpage of your department/group, I see no problem with also featuring a few technical reports/white papers that you have authored or co-authored on your personal department page. Technically, if you work for a public university and unless your research is classified, your research output is in the public domain and you should be able to enable public access to it without any negative consequences. (There may be other specific caveats around this in each case, but you need to explore those and use your best judgment).

CV: In my experience, citing technical reports or white papers in your CV is totally acceptable and could serve to boost your research track record. Since tech reports are not typically externally peer reviewed, a safe approach is to place them in a separate dedicated section, e.g. "Technical Reports."

Finally, there are numerous sites out there such as Mendeley, Academia.edu, ResearchGate, etc. The sites differ in functionality, target audiences (e.g. more hard vs. more social sciences) and visibility/uptake within a given discipline. Here is a fairly complete listing as a starting point:
http://connectedresearchers.com/online-tools-for-researchers/. Good luck!


Should I list talks I invited myself to give on my CV? I'm traveling a lot this summer, and I invited myself to visit and give talks at a couple of universities in other countries.

Do I list these talks on my CV? If so, under what heading? They're not exactly "Invited Talks." I don't have a general "Talks" section on my CV because I want to exclude conference presentations (which are already represented as publications, and which nobody lists in my field). I could have a "Seminars and Colloquia" heading, but people might assume these were invited.

Yes.

If you discover that a friend in a distant city is having a birthday party, and you ask "Hey, can I come?" and they say "Sure!", you've been invited to the party.

Same thing goes for talks. When the host institution agreed to let you talk, that was your invitation, which makes it an invited talk.

That said, you may want to distinguish plenary talks at conferences and formally organized departmental colloquia from random seminars run by individual faculty.


Is it necessary to send a "thank you" email to reseach commitee after on-campus interview? I have made a campus interview. I want to send a "thank you" email to research committee. Is it make sense to do ?

In my experience this is somewhat uncommon, but not unheard of.  When a candidate did thank everyone they met with it made a positive impression on me and at least some other faculty I talked to.  So if you'd like to send such a note I'd say go ahead and do so, but you should not feel obligated.  I'd suggest you keep the note very short though and not say anything weird.


Is it possible to obtain feedback from a declined NSF postdoctoral fellowship? I applied for a NSF post doctoral fellowship in mathematics last fall...and I got rejected.

Is it possible to obtain any feedback from NSF or from the reviewers?

I applied for a NSF post doctoral fellowship in Math last fall...and I got rejected.
  Is it possible to obtain any feedback from NSF or from the reviewers?

I believe it's not possible.  According to the program solicitation, "No written reviews are generated during the review process for this program, so the Fellow will not receive copies of reviews for proposals submitted to this program solicitation."  This agrees with my understanding that no feedback is provided.  There is definitely no feedback from the reviewers, and I believe the program officers also do not supply feedback.


notification e-mail and invitation letter I submitted a manuscript to an international conference. Later I'm told to download the invitation letter and attend the conference. The question is I have not recieved a formal e-mail notification, presumably titled Acceptance or Rejection Notification, of the paper. So what do you think of this? Are there any international conference that notifies authors by the provision of only a downloadable invitation letter but with no formal e-mail notification?
Thanks!

I don't want to presume, but a quick look through the conference website makes me suspect that it may not be the top of the line for its field. Take a look at the program committee, are they reputable people that you know? If you're a student, can your advisor comment on the conference's value? Can some expert comment on the conference's quality?

Did you receive any reviews?

Were you asked to pay a lot of money to attend?

If any of the above hold, this raises some red flags.

If it's indeed a disreputable venue, I would avoid publishing there. Retract the submission and thank them. There are some places where you wouldn't want your work published.

Again, I'm really not from the field, but not getting reviews, the general look and feel of the conference website (conferences that go out of their way to tell you that they're indexed by all of these libraries is not a good sign) etc. would make me think twice.

As my own advisor wisely said: there are some conferences with a negative impact factor...

EDIT:

This conference is sponsored by WASET, which is almost certainly a predatory publisher. Do NOT publish there.

See here. It is also listed on Beall's list - see here.


How to keep code and output organized? I am having trouble keeping organized the files for the computational component of my research project. In brief, I have written computer code which I use to run computational experiments. For each experiment, I get a set of output files, from which I generate output such as plots and tables.

The trouble stems from the fact that I have multiple experiments (say exp1, exp2 and exp3) and each experiment has multiple output files (say a.txt, b.txt, c.txt). This is further complicated by the fact that I have multiple versions of each experiment (say exp1 2014-01-02, exp1 2014-05-06, etc).

How should I organize the code and the output in a systematic way?
The system should satisfy the following key requirements:

It has to be easy to rerun version X of experiment Y.
I occasionally have to rerun earlier versions of the experiments in order to check the results or to make slight modifications.
It has to record the output for each version of each experiment.
I often have to run many slight variants of a single experiment
to tweak some small aspect of the results,
so it is essential to record the output for each run.

Funny you should ask, because I'm currently answering this question as I take breather from a project involving just such a family of experiments and variations.

In my own self-organization, I typically distinguish two types of such variants.
If some variants are "dead" and would only be referred to on rare occasions for historical purposes, then they get checked into version control and deleted from my working set---they can be exhumed by the powers of SVN/git/Mercurial when needed.

For the "live" versions, some experiments get grouped thematically and some chronologically.

Thematic is for when I'm it's a purely computer-based experiment (which can be re-run arbitrarily), e.g., "overlay-network", "random-network", "unit-disc-network"
Chronologically is for when my computer-based runs are based on real data from a physical system that can't be regenerated, but only replicated, e.g., "2013-05-09 Alphavirus", "2013-06-09 Alphavirus run #3", "2013-07-02 Repeats of Failed Samples"

I maintain a strong distinction between several types of files, which must never mix:

Core code: there is precisely one version of any core code system, maintained by version control.  If I need to maintain variants, they have to be set by option flags, not by forking the codebase (that way lies madness).
Each thematic/dated directory gets a README file, whatever notes are neecessary and (typically) two subdirectories: experiments and analysis
Experiment scripts for a thematic cluster live in the experiments directory
Each batch of experimental data lives in its own subdirectory of the experiments directory where its script lives.
Analysis contains scripts to process the experimental data.  Often there are two layers: one to process raw data into results, and another to plot the results.  This is because extracting results is often time intensive and figures are frequently tweaked.  If there are a lot of results files, they get their own subdirectory too.
Plots, living in a subdirectory of the analytical scripts directory

I also typically maintain a few master scripts which allow me to re-run large swaths of experiment / analysis when the core code is improved or a bug is found, which happens more frequently than one would like.


How to deal with coauthors that have left academia Researchers might take different paths other than staying in academia after completing their PhD, postdoc or even later. This happens for a number of reasons. The most compelling of all is that there is not enough room for everyone, but it could happen that these people lose interest in research, find a good opportunity in the private sector, or (more often than we'd like) get burnt out.

For a typical researcher, there is a body of work that they have done and is susceptible to be published by people who they were collaborating with after they have left. However -beyond possible personal satisfaction- they do not have the motivation or time to publish this work anymore. This leads to poor communication between the authors that stay and the person that left, usually motivated by the latter not replying (perhaps reading) emails concerning the work or taking too long to do so. These people will usually be fine with having their names on a new publication even without the need to go through the manuscript before submission (this might also be true for reckless researchers in general, but that's another story...) because they might not be concerned about their (former) career in academia anymore.

How should this situation be dealt with? Is it ethical to submit a paper when a coauthor that left academia has not actively taken part in the preparation/proof reading of the manuscript, considering he/she has contributed significantly to the work?

First of all, it doesn't matter where, how, or even if a person is employed.  Science can be done by anyone, anywhere, "academia" or not. Assuming the person has made significant contribution by the standards of your field, the only things that matter are:

Is it possible to contact them?
Do they want to be an author?

If they have contributed significantly and want to be an author, it is dishonest to not list them as an author.  If they've dropped out of research entirely, you may find yourself doing the writing work without their help, but they still should be an author.  If you can't contact them, err on the side of inclusion.

In fact, this is a place where I disagree with the letter of the Vancouver Protocol, which states that somebody can only be an author if they are significantly involved with preparation of the manuscript.  The spirit of the Vancouver Protocol is to prevent "gift authorship" and other unethical types of inclusion.  Imagine, however, writing an acknowledgement that says: "John Smith did all of the experimental work, but the long hours burned him out, so he left for a job at Netflix and we cut him out of the author list."  To me, at least, this feels like denying credit inappropriately.


Review process for comments on an article Recently I have submitted comments on a article to Elsevier journal. These comments include rectification and proper implementation of certain technique. The editor of journal told me that, they will first send my comments to author of article for response and after that my comments will be sent for review.

  Now my query is, why and for what purpose they are seeking response from author of paper ? Although I have no problem with that but I am curious to know,  how that author would responds to my comments on his/her paper ?

PS. I have checked similar question here but I find this question not so useful.

The procedure is quite common, and frequently comments and response to comments, if significant, are then published together.

  Now my query is, why and for what purpose they are seeking response from author of paper ?

Why shouldn't they? You are actually criticizing their work, highlighting some flaws. You might be right, you might have misinterpreted their paper, or you might be plainly wrong: whatever the case, it's fair to allow the authors to reply to your criticisms and explain their point of view, if different.

  Although I have no problem with that but I am curious to know, how that author would responds to my comments on his/her paper ?

Well, there's no general answer for this: it depends on the kind of comments. Sometimes they might simply acknowledge the issues, whereas sometimes the authors write another commentary explaining why they think the comments are wrong. And sometimes the two parties reach a common point of view.


Should you hide that you are already enrolled elsewhere when applying for another PhD? I plan to re-apply for a PhD in the US next year, but meanwhile, I decided to enroll in a PhD in my home country
I read the similar post: Is it a good idea to stay an extra year at my masters institution while re-applying to PhD programs elsewhere?

However, I am wondering whether you should admit/declare (in your application), that you are currently enrolled in a PhD program or it is better to hide this information from the US universities?
Thanks!

I answered a similar question here: No, you absolutely must not hide it.

The application will request your complete educational history, with official grades and records from each institution.  At the end, you will be asked to sign a statement that everything is true and complete.

Submitting an application that is false or has significant omissions is considered completely unethical.  It's very likely that the institution where you're applying will eventually find out, and there can be extremely serious consequences.

If they find out while reviewing your application, they'll reject it immediately, even if you would otherwise have been accepted.

If they accept you into the program and then find out while you're enrolled, they may kick you out of the program, even if you're doing well.  With a record of dishonesty, you will probably not get into another one.

If you enroll in the program and finish your PhD, and they find out about the false application years later, they can revoke your degree.  You will almost certainly be fired from whatever job you have at that time, and you will not work in academia again.

So you really do need to include your current institution in your application.  You'll probably also need a letter of recommendation from someone at your current institution.


Detect cheating in Microsoft Excel submissions I have a homework assignment where I require students to create a set of pivot charts in Microsoft Excel. I know that I can reduce cheating by changing datasets or chart specifications around, but because of the complexity of the assignments and my practical constraints in not being able to mark more than five or so different versions, this does not prevent students from finding those who have the same specifications as themselves and copying among themselves. (I am coordinating a course with over 700 students, so I can only do so much as far as alternate versions go. The students are well connected to each other by Facebook, so communicating among each is quite feasible for those who want to cheat.)

On one hand, in my situation, creating alternate versions is difficult because of the complexity of the assignment, and its effectiveness is limited because hard-working cheaters can cheat anyways. On the other hand, I believe that if I can effectively detect cheating after the fact, then giving a strong warning to students about this could serve as an effective deterrent that should greatly reduce the incidence of cheating.

Are there features in Microsoft Excel that make it easy to detect cheating by copying between students? I don't expect to easily detect if a student copies elements like pivot tables from one file to another, but perhaps at least I might be able to detect if a student copied someone else's file altogether. I'm not necessarily looking for anything foolproof--I expect that the cheaters in this assignment would be those who don't even know basic things like how to manually change author information in an Excel file.

Speaking of which, unfortunately, as far as I can tell, Excel overwrites author information with the last person to save the file, so I couldn't even use that to tell if someone has copied a file created by someone else.

I would appreciate any suggestions.

EDIT:

Some answers have suggested asking students to submit a written explanation of their reasoning. Although I mentioned that there are over 700 students, let me be more explicit: I do not consider solutions that require reading and marking additional textual submissions to be feasible for my context. On one hand, there are multiple instructors, so any instructor would only have to mark a few dozen assignments. On the other hand, if there is cheating across sections, then reading text submissions is not a feasible verification technique. Thus, I was looking for a solution that could easily indicate that a student's submission contained undeniable traces of some other student's work.

Figure out a way to generate data sets and results programatically so you can uniquely verify each student's assignment separately.  This would imply lots of effort initially but may payoff for later courses.
Use a single dataset and a single result set.  Ask them for their reasoning behind for achieving the most complex tasks of the assignment.  Use this to check for cheating.  No one person thinks exactly the same or describes something complex in the same manner.

My recommendation is for the latter.  Most jobs that can be done with tools like Excel will be automated in the near future.  The best that your students can learn is to reason (and articulate this effectively) and choose the appropriate tool/technique for the job.


Are possibly outdated and damaging studies being taught in universities, and should I be worried? As someone who is soon to be going to an online university for a degree in Psychology, I have been reading a lot of criticism on the academic field being inundated with "outdated" and click bait style studies being cited as solid fact with little ground to stand on. Some have even said the published studies were more for a paycheck than furthering the field.

Is this just a horrible misconception or does this field have a problem that still needs to be addressed? And as a new student, should I be worried?

Some parts of the field of Psychology move very quickly. The pace of the field makes keeping course up to date difficult. For example, in 2013, there was a major update to the DSM. Some classes were ignoring DSM-IV and teaching based on what eventually made it into DSM-5, others kept teaching based on DSM-IV. Some of these classes are still being taught on DSM-IV, despite the new guidelines since it takes time to get new text books and revamp lectures. The same thing happens with courses that look at pharmaceutical treatments and drug addiction. The fields move too quickly to keep up, and many teach based on a snapshot of the world.

As for cutting edge research, Psychology, like many fields has lots of great research and lots of questionable research. Not all Psychology programs get so far as to expose students to cutting edge research. Those that do, tend to try and teach students to read critically.

In summary, the point of a degree is to become a critical thinker. The fact that there are alternative theories is not something to worry about, but rather something to embrace.


Abstract-only presentation - How does it work? I submitted an abstract for presentation in an international conference. The paper was accepted, but with a caveat. The organizers replied me that it is an abstract-only presentation. Please what do I do?

You go and present a talk. No paper will be published in the proceedings. If proceedings are published at all for this conference, your abstract will probably be published therein. This is a pretty common conference format in many engineering disciplines. You should take any review feedback, apply it to your article, and find a journal to send it to. If there is a distinction between published papers and abstracts at this conference, you should think about beefing up the paper before you send it to a journal.


Thesis' "Future Work" section – is it acceptable to omit personal involvement in a mentioned project? So I've been doing my bachelor's thesis. Alongside my bachelor's thesis, I've been taking a course that trains students in working in teams for projects. Let's call this 'course X'. Coincidentally, the project that I'm working on in course X happens to be very similar to my thesis topic. So, in the Future Work section of my thesis, I wrote about the project that we're working on in course X. Except I didn't mention that I'm working on the project. Rather, I mentioned that this project is an example of something that can be worked on (since it has similarities with the concepts implemented in the thesis).

Now, I recently passed my thesis. However, my examiner is oblivious to the fact that the project that I mentioned in the Future Work section is something that I'm actually working on in a different course. And this is stressing me out. Soon, we will be writing a sort of report on our project. I'm worried that my examiner will find out about this project someday and accuse me of lying in the Future Work section, since a project that I'm working on doesn't really count as 'Future Work'.....but does it? Should I be worried about this? Because I'm really worried about this. Should I tell my examiner or supervisor that the project that I mentioned in the Future Work section is something that I'm actually working on in course X?

And for the record, that's not the only thing I mentioned in the Future Work section. I mentioned other potential areas of research in that section, but these aren't bothering me as much. Am I overthinking this?

Am I overthinking this?

Yes.

  my examiner is oblivious to the fact that the project that I mentioned in the Future Work section is something that I'm actually working on in a different course.

Your examiner probably isn't oblivious: Many researchers discuss other works in their future work section, without mentioning that they are already working on them.

  I'm worried that my examiner will...accuse me of lying...since a project that I'm working on doesn't really count as 'Future Work'.....but does it?

A project that you are working on is future work, in the sense that it hasn't appeared publicly yet.

It can be useful to discuss future work without explicitly mentioning that work is already in progress, since such work may never be published, due to unforeseen circumstances, for instance.

  we will be writing a sort of report on our project.

You can cite your  bachelor's thesis in that report.


Recommendation/reference letter request I am planning to apply for The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) scholarship and applicants are encouraged to have a recommendation letter from members of the TWAS. Is it ok to ask someone who is not personally familiar with my work?

There's no law that says you can't ask but it's pretty unlikely they'll agree to write the letter and, even if they did, it's unlikely it would help you.


Do I need a mathematical background to study astrophysics? I don't know where to ask this question and I have found this site. If this is not the right place to ask it, please tell me and I will delete it.

I've been a computer engineer for 20 years but my true vocation is astronomy and astrophysics.

This autumn I'm thinking to start an astrophysics degree but I don't know if I need to do a transition year because I don't remember a lot of the mathematics and physics that I studied 20 years ago.

I'm interested in studying mathematics at university also, so I thought that I could start off studying mathematics first and then physics.

What do you think?

I ask it because physics has a lot mathematics and I don't know if it is better to study mathematics first and then physics.

In a nutshell:

  I'm a computer engineer that has ended his studies twenty years ago (I
  don't remember a lot of things about mathematics and physics) and I
  want to learn astrophysics. Do I need a transition year or maybe I can
  start studying mathematics (that is something that I want to do) first
  and then astrophysics?

Speaking from my experience of doing an astrophysics degree in the UK, I would say that you don't need to do a transition year beforehand.

University lecturers are aware that students will be coming from a variety of backgrounds and structure the course to accommodate that. In particular, there will be at least one or two mathematics courses in the first year designed to get everyone on the same page mathematically. For example, in the first semester of my degree I had a module called "Algebra and Calculus" which covered things like set theory, matrices, differentiation, integration etc. Then we had "Further Algebra and Calculus" in the second semester and "Mathematical Physics" (this was about modelling heat transfer, waves on a string etc) in the second year.

Furthermore, if you've already been accepted by a university, then they clearly think you are mathematically prepared enough. If you're still not sure, get in touch with a lecturer or two there and ask about suitable preparation materials; for example, a textbook or old problem sheets you could work on over the summer. If you're in the UK, take a look at the A Level Maths syllabus. This will give you an idea of the typical maths knowledge a first year physics undergrad will be starting with.

Also note that unless you go into very theoretical parts of astrophysics, you won't need that much complex mathematics, and certainly hardly any pure maths, so I wouldn't recommend studying too much of that beforehand, it's not necessary. If you can differentiate, integrate and know what a Fourier transform is, you're basically set.

One caveat: don't go into an astrophysics degree expecting every lecture to have an astro angle. The first half of my degree was almost purely maths and "classical*" physics-- you need that solid foundation before moving on to the specialised topics. Having said that, it makes it all the more worth it when you get there.

*Thermodynamics, optics, lab work etc.


Searching for PhD theses in google scholar It seems like PhD theses are way more rare in the Google Scholar index than globally done.

If my assumption is correct they get published as well, is there a primary search engine for that?

Specifically I am interested in comp. science and information systems mgmt topics.

Aside from a university's own digital archives, you have several options to get copies of dissertations or theses.

A large fraction of the world's libraries list their holdings on WorldCat, and it's one of the first places I check for dissertations and theses. Ask your librarian if you want to get a copy of something on there via loan or look on your library website for interlibrary loan. I have received many dissertations via interlibrary loan.

You can also find many dissertations and theses listed on Google Books or HathiTrust, but they rarely can be downloaded. Google Books does not seem to have more than Google Scholar, but it provides links to WorldCat on the left side for each item. I often use both Google Books and WorldCat to do full text searches of books, and I sometimes find dissertations this way.

ProQuest is also a good source of digitized dissertations and theses. The service requires a subscription, but if you're affiliated with a US university then they probably have one.

Usually it's easier to find journal articles based on dissertations than the dissertation itself. So keep that in mind. I usually try to get both if the journal article is important as the dissertation often has extra details or tabulated data (compared against the plots in the journal article).

Few Russian libraries are on WorldCat. So, for Russian dissertations, I've found most I've wanted to be at the Russian State Library, but from what I understand you have to be present to read them, or have a library card to download more than the preview for the digitized ones. My university's interlibrary loan service has been able to get abstracts of these after many months of waiting, however.

One last option is to contact the author. I've done this many times and have received everything from no response at all, apologies that they are not able to provide a copy for technical reasons (old document format), to a copy of the dissertation or thesis in question.

Here are some related questions with other answers:

Is there a smarter way to search for PhD theses for a specific topic?
Worldwide Dissertation Database? or French, German, Italian ones?
Search all Theses online


How do I incorporate/emphasize my experiences teaching at an HBCU? I have an adjunct position teaching at an HBCU (Historically black colleges and universities).

I was wondering what is the best way to emphasize teaching at a minority institution on my CV?

Where do I stress that the school is an HBCU? - teaching experience, mentorship, other? ...

I want to emphasize that I have experience teaching at an HBCU, but I almost feel like it's too forced to mention it in the teaching experience area of my CV.

Suggestions for how to best "sell" myself with this experience?

Usually, academic CVs aren't really the place to "sell" anything. Unlike professional CVs, academic ones are usually fairly comprehensive, but ultimately boring, listings of everything you did and achieved. Think of them as the phone book to your entire academic persona - it's a good place to check up on specific things a committee might be interested in (how many papers has this person published, and in which journals? how much money has he brought in? etc.), but not much more than that. That means that you would definitely add the information to your CV, but should probably not attempt to sell your experience through it.

The place(s) where you as a candidate would frame how you want to be perceived, and what of your activities you want to emphasize, are the cover letter, and your research and teaching statements. In that sense, you would want to emphasize your teaching experience in your teaching statement if, and only if, you think this is something central to your teaching philosophy, or if you think that this is going to be a big plus to the place you are applying to. If you really want to emphasize it you can also add one or two sentences to this end to the cover letter, but I would probably only go that far if the place you applied to is also an HBCU or has made clear that such experience is of particular interest to them (a standard blurb at the end of the job announcement does not count).


Using nonstandard gender-neutral pronouns to refer to myself in academic writing I am currently preparing my first formal work for publication, which I am the sole author on. While working through final edits, I've come across a few places where I refer to myself and would prefer not to gender myself as female (eg. "the PI also presented on her research at a local event...") as I do not identify as female (non-binary), and prefer to use the pronouns ze/hir if I need to refer to myself in writing.

As this is my first publication, it feels like this may be a good opportunity to start as I wish to go on, and just go for it. But I also don't know if it'll just read as awkward, and possibly requires a disclaimer/clarifying note in institutional affiliation (eg. Author Name, University Affiliation, Department, (ze/hir) or Author Name, University Affiliation, Department; Author uses ze/hir pronouns.)

My question, therefore, is as follows. Is it appropriate to refer to oneself using gender neutral pronouns in academic writing? And if so, do I need to include a disclaimer/clarifying note somewhere?

An additional note: I've unfortunately not had a chance to discuss this with my supervisor yet. Input from others would be most appreciated!

(Note: I've read through as many similar posts as I could find and did not see any duplicates or anything that answered this question, but please do steer me towards any questions that do if relevant.)

EDIT: Thank you all for your answers. I'm in Psychology, where depending on the document, it's okay to refer to yourself in the third person. In this case, I've removed all references to myself by using the passive voice. In the future, I'm going to go for singular "they" when possible, and in submissions that deal more with identity or LGBTQ+ young people (one of my areas of research), I'll probably go with ze/hir since that's in line with my principles and the theme of the research. Unless your answer will add significantly to the value of the discussion, I think this thread is pretty complete! (other nb researchers, I hope this has been helpful. Feel free to get in touch.)

It's your decision what to write, but to my mind, adding a note trying to explain your preferred pronouns seems like it puts the emphasis on something which you probably don't want to make the focus.

I'm young enough to be fairly familiar with this stuff, but I have to be honest, the thing I'd remember after read your paper would be "Huh, I've never seen anyone write a note like that before."  I don't want to suggest the way you identify is something you want to hide, but remember that your article is going to be read (hopefully) by a lot of older people or people from other cultures who have no idea what "ze" is supposed to mean, and I assume your main goal is not to educate them about that stuff.

I would encourage you to instead use "they" or "we" when referring you yourself ("the PI presented on their research" or "we presented on our research"); these might be a little awkward, but they have an established pedigree in writing, and shouldn't strike people as too out of place.


How to replicate others' results quickly? Lately, I've been getting the impression that before I can conduct cutting edge research, I have to first master state of the art methods/techniques.  Often, this requires spending (i.e. wasting) lots of time trying to replicate the results that others have already established (i.e. make sure that I can do what others have done first before moving on to other territory).  When I try to master a new technique, I often find that it is extremely difficult because

Research papers don't seem to disclose enough details to replicate their results easily.
There are no advisors/colleagues that are familiar with these methods
Emailing the corresponding authors with questions about specific details about their research tend to go unanswered.

The only advice i've been given thus far is simply to read and re-read the research paper and dissect every little detail until I figure it out.  But are there any other general strategies I can use to replicate others' results more quickly?  In particular, I'm looking for strategies for replicating numerical results that require very careful implementations of mathematical algorithms.

As JeffE points out, trying to reproduce existing results before embarking on new endeavors is not a waste of time. It can be particularly useful, especially in tracking down issues that you have within your own code—or, perhaps, in the existing literature. My most-cited paper, and much of the research work currently ongoing within my group, came about precisely because I could not replicate an existing paper. As it turned out, there were some significant methodological problems in the existing literature, and this led to a fair bit of digging around, plus a lot of careful analysis to demonstrate what had happened and why. As I've also said, the issues we uncovered there indirectly led to a different line of inquiry that has already led to half a dozen additional manuscripts.

If you are determined to speed up the process, however, you might try to consider simplified versions of the research cases presented that can validate what you're working on. For instance, can you find a "prototype" problem whose solution would be known with your method as well as the existing methods? Can you find one or two test cases which can test most of what you're looking for? Can you devise a new problem that compares the two better than the existing cases, and is also simpler to execute?


Removing an author from a future publication I published a conference abstract with a undergraduate student of mine as a co-author. The work was presented as a poster and the conference doesn't publish proceedings/papers. I am now planning on publishing an extended version and want to drop her as a co-author. Can I do this?

Prior to the student starting the project we discussed authorship and agreed that it was unlikely that she would contribute enough to warrant authorship on anything that came out of the study since the experiment was conceived and implemented by me and I designed the statistical analysis. At the time of the conference, the student had collected approximately 1/4 of the data on the poster and did a fair amount of the statistical analysis, but her contribution was essentially just turning the crank. Given the effort she put in, I did not think it was out of place to have her as a co-author on the poster, but nor did I think it was required. I wrote the abstract and poster and asked her if she wanted to be an author and if so for any input on the abstract and poster.

Since then, I have collected a second independent data set and come up with a completely new analysis. I now feel her contribution (1/8 of the total data set and helping with a partial preliminary analysis) does not warrant authorship and I think it would be better to acknowledge her work in the acknowledgements then to add her as an author. I would discuss this with her, but she is out of the field and I cannot contact her easily. Can I drop her for the list of authors?

Most authorship questions are a gray area: she did contribute to the paper, but was it a significant intellectual contribution (which is one usual criterion), with emphasis of both significant and intellectual (or scientific)? That's for you and her to decide, taking into account the customs of your field.

From her point of view, I can see two reasons why she might be consider a rightful co-author of the paper:

If the data collection was itself part of the scientific research, i.e. if it could not have been done by an unskilled worker following instructions. If so, then her data collection was significant (and it doesn't really ).
If the conclusions drawn from the preliminary analysis were useful in tuning your final analysis, i.e. if her work helped design a better analysis method.

Though by your description it seems like she may not pass the threshold, it is true that having her as a co-author on an earlier publication (conference abstract) gives her a stronger case than otherwise. If her contribution was deemed important enough for authorship at first, and you now publish work that includes this contribution, why shouldn't she be an author? I don't think that authorship “dilutes” because other larger contributions were added…

In conclusion: you maybe have good reasons not to make her a co-author, but if she feels like fighting it, she does have valid enough arguments that it could get messy. I'd advise discussing it openly with her, but being ready to have her as co-author if she feels strongly about it.


Hours worked in research vs teaching professorships Are there any studies that have compared the number of hours worked by faculty members who are teaching-focused vs. those at research intensive institutions?

I have the impression that faculty that balance teaching and research tend to work longer hours and on weekends more than faculty who do not have any research obligations. I don't know where I picked this idea up and I'm suspicious that it is biased and based more on opinion than fact.

Any studies/surveys out there to support / refute this idea?

I'm interested mainly in science departments in the USA.

Looks like Jacobs and Winslow (2004) address this issue.

"the average workweek for full-time faculty exceeds fifty hours. These long workweeks are characteristic of all groups of faculty, irrespective of rank and institutional type. In other words, assistant, associate, and full professors all work in excess of fifty hours per week, as do faculty at research, liberal arts, and comprehensive institutions."

Jacobs, J. A., & Winslow, S. E. (2004). Overworked faculty: Job stresses and family demands. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 596(1), 104-129.


On the importance of an "honours degree" for PhD applications I am currently studying in an undergrad programme in the social sciences/humanities in North America, and I am debating whether I should pursue the honours degree option (which would require me to take additional coursework, choose a concentration, as well as write and present a honours essay).
I want to apply to grad schools (MA programmes, but I want to try to apply directly to PhDs as well) when I finish my BA, so I'm wondering what is the impact of the "honours degree" in the application process? Will this improve (significantly?) my chances of receiving an offer?
The main reasons why I'm hesitant about the honours degree are (1) that it would cost me more money and (2) that since I've already graduated from a different programme (in a different discipline) this is my second BA and time is starting to be an issue.

Serving on a doctoral faculty for many years, typically when candidates are evaluated there are specific criteria that first have to be met. So, they will evaluate basic things like your GRE score, GPA, TOEFL score (if applicable). They will also evaluate your writing sample, if required to make sure that you will be able to write at the graduate level (use of references, clarity of writing, etc.).

Other than that, they will evaluate how well you fit with their program. Are you planning to study a topic that is aligned with the work already being done? Do they have an appropriate mentor/advisor to match you with? Do you express a sincere interest in research (our program emphasized research, but we would receive applicants who wanted a PhD and continue working as practitioners in the community. We weeded some of them out if it looked like they would not excel at research).

So, the Honors designation alone won't necessarily put you ahead of other candidates. That being said, if a doctoral program has a limited number of graduate stipends available, they may only accept the most qualified candidates - if the honors program you mention has specific coursework that is in strong alignment with the graduate programs you plan to apply to, then you may want to consider the additional study. However, if you have a strong record of the programs' requirements and write a compelling statement or writing sample, the honors program may not be your best investment. Best of luck!!!!!!


What is the impact of a radical change of opinion for early-career academics? I'm wondering what are the potential consequences of a change of mind in the social sciences and humanities. More specifically, what would happen concretely if I publish a peer-reviewed article in which I develop a fierce critique of, say, Rawls and then, change my mind and publish another peer-reviewed article in which I adopt a Rawlsian approach to politics?

Another example would be beginning an academic career as a liberal and then changing to a socialist perspective (or vice versa). John Stuart Mill changed his mind and, more recently, John Gray also did.

But what happens if a regular young academic like me does it? Would my peers consider this as a weakness?

This is a very good question and one that I have given some thought to when my own opinions changed while I writing papers expressing particular positions.

While there are different ways I could see this playing out, I will focus what I see to be the most probable outcome - that totally changing your position on your core area of research (which for a young academic is probably your only area of research) would be a bad thing to do for your career in academia. I feel that it would be a bad thing to do as it would be detrimental for how you would be perceived, and in turn have implications for your ability to effectively befriend other academics and build networks - something which is very important for career development.

Just to be clear about my assumptions in saying that - I assume that academics are much like normal people, and therefore that success in an academic discipline will be influenced by many of the same factors that lead to success in other social systems. Additionally, I am assuming that what you are doing is contrasted against publishing a paper which builds on the prior paper - probably a more common approach. I am also assuming that what you are interested in here is the likely impact on your career.

Operating on these assumptions and my intuitions from my own experiences over the last 4 years, I think that it is likely that your act of inconsistency, i.e., changing your views 180 degrees, would alienate a lot of fellow academics. As you are clearly being inconsistent - in the sense that you once strongly advocated one position, but now advocate another, you will be seen as an inconsistent person, a personality characteristic that people generally dislike/disapprove of[1]. As fellow academics will perceive you as being inconsistent will it is more likely they will like you less and be less willing to work with you. For example, they will be more likely to think that in the midst of a positive professional relationship, you might suddenly going to decide that you no longer share their beliefs; that you might even turn on them and publish a critique on work that what you have done together. Thus they will percieve greater uncertainty and risk in forming relationships with you. This concern may also be shared by those who are considering hiring you. For instance, when applying for a job the review panel might look at your resume and be unsure if you are going to work well with the ongoing research within the faculty - you are not really

You might also end up slowing your reputation gains. People usually associate researchers with a particular position - i.e., "he/she researches x". The researchers who make it are those who become really well known for researching that area. People say "oh, you want to know about x? Have a look at Y". By being more inconsistent you may slow and weaken that association and become slower at building reputation. For instance, if your second paper extends your first paper rather than invalidating it, then it is probably more likely to build the link between that area of study and your expertise as it will involve you covering new content and further emphasizing that you know a lot about this area. In contrast, if your second paper is saying " you know that things I was sure of last time? Well I think I was wrong about it" then this doesn't really signal that you know what you are doing, or that have really figured the area out. It also begs the question; "if you changed your mind before, then might you not change it again?".

[1] Guadagno, R. E., et al. (2001). "When saying yes leads to saying no: Preference for consistency and the reverse foot-in-the-door effect." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27(7): 859-867.


When you are doing a second round review, do you read other reviewers' comments? Why? When you are doing a second round review, do you read other reviewers' comments? Why?
It seems to me that all I need to do is seeing whether the author/s satisfied my comments and whether I find any more problems in the current version of their manuscript.

I do read the other reports, and other reviewers should too.  A few reasons:

If the editor has an author's response letter and two reviews, and the three documents say different things, then the editor will be very confused.  If I see the other reviewer and the author disagree, then I try to be a tie-breaker to help the editor.
Authors are not in a place where they can convincingly say the other reviewer is wrong.  If I see that the other reviewer has made a mistake, I can point it out much more effectively than the authors because I am a neutral party.  Ideally, editors would be able to do this, but they have limited time.
By reading other reviewers' comments, I can learn to be a better reviewer.


Is it normal for a PhD program to retract or delay financial offer for international student? I am an international student and about a week ago emailed my top-choice PI about the current status of my PhD application (top-50 university in USA). He said, that he is going to offer me a position with full funding via "graduate student researcher" assistantship.

Next day I have received a letter of acceptance. The email says "we are unable to guarantee you financial support at this time", blah - blah, please contact your department. I have contacted dept and PI, they say everything is OK, my program offers funding for everyone, I will get stipend and GSRship with full funding. Ok, I have accepted this offer officially.

But until now they refuse to tell me my exact salary and now i do not have any financial certificate, I do not know my GSR appointment, I do not know anything. I asked them to give me any financial document because I need one to apply for my visa, but instead they tell "you will get about 1,5-2k$ stipend, everything will be ok".

Ok, now I have to apply for I-20 and I can not do this because I do not have financial certificate for my first year in the program. The grad coordinator does not answer my email.

So, is it normal? What should I do? I am just waiting like an idiot because I even can't find housing (because I do not know anything about my funding)? I have rejected another offer (with official TA contract, which was attached to the acceptance letter). As I believe, they can just tell me something like "oops, we don't have funding offer for you" and I will search for another job outside academia.

Many departments guarantee that their students will be funded got a given period of time, although they can't provide specific details on where the money will come from in advance. That's probably what's going on here; they can't issue the letter yet because they don't know what they should write.

If you can't afford to wait to apply for the visa, then you should contact the international office at the school you'll be attending, as Bill Barth suggests in his comment. They should have plenty of experience issuing such documentation, or helping incoming students to get the information they need for their applications.


The use of words such as "clearly", "obviously" etc. in a technical paper Is there any hidden rule for using the words "clearly", "obviously" or similar ones in a technical paper? It can be offensive to the readers in many cases (especially in mathematical proofs), since the reader may not find it "clear" or "obvious". But does that mean that we should completely avoid the use of these words?

Seconding posdef's appraisal, but being a little more blunt: if one is in a position to get away with bullying or intimidating people by implying that it's their problem if one has not explained well enough ... well, I'd say it's still a jerk-y thing to do. If one is in a lower-status position, such words will often be red flags.

Or, coming to functionality versus rhetoric versus "formal proof": at best these words are functionless filler. That is, saying something is clear is not what makes it clear: if it is clear after these words, it was clear before. Conceivably a thing is clear _once_noted_, and thus deserves "Observe that...". But this, too, can be abused if used outside situations where one is noting that something is "a-fortiori" true, that is, is weaker than what the argument has already demonstrated... but presumably suffices for the issues at hand.


Do people want to work in overseas branches? As an example let's take the University of Southampton, Malaysia branch. At face level, the university opened a branch in Malaysia because it's a symbiotic relationship: the university earns more revenue + spread its brand name, and Malaysia gets to leverage the university's expertise to train its future engineers + provide employment (administrators, academics, support staff, etc).

For the Malaysia branch to have some legitimacy, some of its staff must be from the main UK campus. From the branch's "our lecturers" page, this is indeed the case.

My question is, did these lecturers volunteer to go to Malaysia, or were they assigned by the university? Is it a good thing to be able to say one has worked in an overseas branch, or is it a distraction that must be endured for the sake of the university?

You will have to ask these specific people to know the exact details. But in general, in the UK, the employer cannot force you to relocate unless you have a mobility clause in your contract and the relocation is reasonable. It's unlikely that the employees had a relocation clause to Malaysia right from the start, and asking an employee to relocate halfway around the world is probably not reasonable. So no, these people certainly volunteered to move abroad.

More generally, most (tenured) academics expect to be considered more like citizens of their universities than the usual work-related subordination relationship implies, and tend to want to have some agency in defining their working conditions and goals. In particular, this implies stable employment conditions unless the employee wants to change.

As for why they wanted to move abroad: there can be plenty of reasons. They want to form new collaborations with people from there. They want to strengthen existing collaborations with people they already work with. They want to take up the challenge of teaching to students in another country. Their pay is better compared to the local standards of living. They want to learn a new language. They want to discover a new country. Etc.

(PS: This isn't the 16th century anymore. The mindset of thinking "We'll open up an establishment in the colonies to spread our wealth and knowledge for the indigenous people" should be a thing of the past. There are simply smart people living and working in Malaysia, and the university of Southampton wants to work with these people.)


Do certificates from accredited online courses play any role in applying for a graduate program? I am very interested in an online course which can be enrolled either for free without a certificate or with money and a certificate.
The contents in both cases are absolutely the same. I wanted to know whether a certificate makes any difference in the grad application since as far as I know they don't ask to show certificates and I can mention the course even without a certificate in my CV.
So, is there any use at all of the certificate if the course content without the certificate is exactly the same?

This is a personal view and I think that there would be a lot of variation in what people accept for a graduate program; especially for a doctoral program.
I would tend to discount almost all such courses for the simple reason that I have no real idea about what the student learned in the course, independent of whatever grade the received. I have no idea what they did and I have no idea how to evaluate a course that relies only on online quizzes and tests. To me, the value of a certificate is just that of a piece of paper. Probably virtual paper, actually.
I would think that such courses are fine for the person who simply wants to learn something and is willing to do a lot of work (exercises, projects,...) based on it, but not for any "accreditation" purposes.
The exception would be a reasonably scaled course with a professor and sufficient staff so that the student/staff ration is less than 30/1, preferably closer to 20/1. Most online courses don't have that characteristic (though Harvard's CS50 does, actually, as do courses run by Open University in UK).
A person learns through reinforcement and feedback. Massive online courses have no real way to judge whether such learning has happened. The reinforcement can't be enforced (so to speak) and the feedback to the student is minimal. An individual might be able to judge that they, themself, learned something, but an outsider would find it difficult to impossible.
I can't guarantee (or even guess) how many feel similarly, but the educational background of most of the people judging things now is very different from such massive "courses".
I don't think they are worthless, though it is impossible for me to make a judgement about their worth with enough confidence to predict the success of a student in a graduate program (especially, again) at the doctoral level. I would base my judgement on other factors, and especially those of recommenders.


What should I do when I do not get a reply to an email? I have sent out emails enquiring about academic positions in departments active in my field. I did my best to write them properly, consulting websites and more experienced academics.

However, it has been a week since I sent them, and have not heard back.

Should I do something? Or wait?

Clarifications:
I am in Zoology, and have enquired about potential applications.

This differs hugely by field and country, but in mine you don't contact the professors directly. If positions are available, then they will be advertised. Now you need inside/national knowledge where these positions will be advertised, but typically they will also appear on the website besides the "normal" venue.

Imagine how many people are looking for a job. A prof would not be able to do her job if she had to answer all the job enquiries, so they are typically just ignored. This is not very nice, bit an understandable strategy of dealing with too many e-mails.


How to search google scholar for singular and plural words? I want to look up also the plural of my words on Google Scholar.
Here is a part of my search: "entrepreneur OR entrepreneurs".
Is there a more efficient way, for example using regex-like "entrepreneurs?"?
What about woman/women?

If the alternative terms are part of a phrase, then you could use parentheses () and a vertical bar |, like "the (woman|women)".
The same applies to, for instance: "the (entrepreneur|entrepreneurs) told". I tested it and it works.

(EDIT: I originally wrote that the wildcard entrepreneur* should work, but my test was not so convincing. Thanks to lighthouse keeper's comment.)


Job application: What are "scientific highlights"? A job opening for a tenure track position specifies that the application must include "scientific highlights".

Now I am puzzled by this. I've applied before for tenure-track positions, and I've never heard of such a thing.
I don't get the difference with other more standard ingredients of an application, such as research statement, list of publications, cv, cover letter; this is even more puzzling because these latter standard ingredients are also specifically required in this job advert.

Any clue?

Here are some interpretations:

What are your top academic achievements?

If we ask a random person in your community, what will they know you for?

What are your selected publications (ones you’re most proud of)?

Did you win any awards or fellowships? What for?

The department wants to hire people whose work is outstanding in some way- they want to know how you are outstanding.


Project is going nowhere, can I nix it and try a new approach without my co-author? I work in an environment that's somewhere between academia and the professional world. I'm an analyst within this environment, in addition to my professional responsibilities dictated by the workplace's main mission, I assist the PhD's with their research.  (I have an masters in Statistics)

I've been working on a project with one of the PhD's for over a year (it goes slow, professional responsibilities get in the way of research).  The project is going nowhere for a variety of reasons (the first is that the methodology he wants to use is demonstrably flawed--from a statistical standpoint).

Several times over this time period he has dangled the carrot of co-authorship on the paper (at times saying "you will be a co-author", and a few weeks later saying "if you contribute maybe you will be a co-author".  This is doubly frustrating when it seems to me that I'm the only one contributing...).  He also has mentioned several times bringing his friend in as co-author as well (his friend has contributed nothing thus far.  I met him, he didn't even seem enthusiastic about the project).

Thus far the main methodology we used is one he suggested, but actually bringing that through to completion has been entirely me.  It yields no fruit, though, and I feel this whole enterprise has been an exercise in frustration.

I have another idea, approaching the problem in a different direction.  I haven't yet done the modeling, but I believe the idea to be ideologically consistent with the original goal of the project, and should be statistically sound.  The trouble is, I'm not sure I want to co-author with this person.

Am I wrong to consider nixing their project and doing my own thing on my own?

Do you have a supervisor who would appreciate being kept in the loop?

I think your best bet is to give this colleague a clear message that the methodology he has proposed is flawed and that the results coming from that methodology are not promising.  Ask him if he can think of any justification for you to spend more time on this project as currently contemplated.

In other words, pull the plug on the project.  But indicate that if he has any other ideas for collaboration about something else, you'd be happy to work with him on a different project.

If you work up your other idea, and publish that work, make sure to mention him in the acknowledgements.


How to avoid the "you didn't consider this" review in a scientific publication? I am a 5th year PhD student, and I have been writing scientific papers for conferences for a few years now.
One constant in the feedback that we get from reviewers is what I call, for lack of a better definition, the "you didn't consider this" comment.

I am working on an emerging technology, let's call it E, that has certain advantages with respect to the industry standard, let's call it S.
E has of course its disadvantages too, and my job as a researcher is trying to address the major shortcomings, let's call them E.a, E.b, E.c, and E.d.

The problem that I am facing is that, when I write a paper addressing E.a, a common feedback that I get is "you have good results, but what about E.b? There is no way this is going to work when you consider E.c and E.d as well".

While I understand the concern of the reviewers, I am also frustrated by the fact that a paper is rejected not because my work on E.a is poor, but because there is a lack of research and solutions to address E.b, E.c, and E.d.
Moreover, I don't know how to improve a paper that was rejected based on those reviews, because they are not specific about the content of the paper.

My question is: how can I present my work in a way that makes it clear that only E.a is addressed, and minimize the chances of getting those unhelpful reviews? Is it possible to be explicit about it without being unbecoming?

A few notes:

I am concerned about conferences, so paper are limited to 4 to 8 pages, and this limits the amount of background that can be covered in the introduction,
Because I am addressing an emerging technology, I usually have at least one page introducing the basic principles of it before moving on to my contribution on E.a,
I do mentioned E.b, E.c, and E.d and cite relevant research in that regard.

I empathise with your difficulty and wish there was an easy fix. However, going by the question and comments, it does seem like you may need to rethink your approach a little. Consider the following:

(1) In an applied research field, the bar is not just solving a sub-problem; it is ensuring that the proposed solution will work with all other factors considered. To give a very trivial and crude (pardon me) example, if a car bonnet has to be light and strong, you cannot treat the two independently and use polythene (solving light) or concrete (solving strong).

The comment : "There is no way this is going to work when you consider E.c and E.d as well"." seems to suggest exactly that. I know my example is not perfectly analogous to your problem, but I hope the essential message is conveyed.

(2) There exists an industry standard S. Therefore, any proposal to change has merit only if it can replace S on all counts. If the method S scores 70%, 80%, 60% on some relevant metrics, your method E should not score 100%, 10%, 80% , even though 2/3 metrics are significantly improved (because one metric has fallen, and that could be unacceptable). Rather, an incremental 75%, 85%, 65% would be more acceptable.

There is a constant strain in such fields between novelty and applicability,  both need to be balanced out. Depending on what conference it is, one may carry more weight than the other, but the application bit can rarely be ignored.

What seems to me a better approach is:

(1) Tackle Eb/c/d in your study, even if briefly. Not just in the introduction, in the study and the results itself. Show that you are not simply highlighting problems (i.e. mentioning only in introduction), but doing something about them even if you don't solve them fully. Even analysing and rating the magnitude/importance of Eb/c/d is a meaningful contribution, supplementing your main work on Ea. So you don't need to solve them all, but you do need to consider them and look at inter-dependence.

(2) If possible, suggest ways in which E can be integrated with S. Then, the benefits of Ea can be used without the problems Eb, Ec. Again, you don't actually need to integrate the whole method. Look at ways to do it, what problems exist, how meaningful such an exercise is vs replacing an entire system.

These approaches should be good for such conferences which are indeed intended to share a developing idea. Even in those, your eye must be on the future- on how to develop it, what can be taken forward, what can be done to make it more complete.


For a first printing of an edition, should the Print year or the Copyright year be cited as the publication date? I need some help determining the proper publication date to cite a book (a textbook). It is the 8th edition of the textbook, Print 01, Print year 2016, the Copyright year is 2017. Should the print year or the copyright year be cited as the proper publication date? Does it matter if the copyright date is in the future (for reference, this question is being asked in 2016). I understand that the copyright date is pushed as far forward as the publisher can get away with to maximize the copyrighted period.

I realize this is similar to a couple other questions, such as What determines the copyright year for a publication? but I think it is a bit different in that those questions deal with multiple copyright dates or a print date that is after the copyright date.

The textbook is:

Evans, J.R. (2016 or 2017?). Quality and Performance Excellence, 8th edition, Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

ISBN is 1-305-66222-9

Whenever you have tricky issues like this, go back to the basics of why we reference works at all.

The aim of a reference is to help the reader locate a copy of the work, so that they can replicate or investigate your results or argument.

So ignore the publisher's gaming of the copyright year — which suggests to the reader that book is an advance copy, and thus not available from the publisher, but only from the paper's author and other 'insider' sources — and use the date the work was actually available to the reader from the publisher.


Does tenure protection extend to professors saying that evolution is false in class? So I'm dealing with a very weird case here. I'm a PhD student and my wife is currently taking a history course at a different university. Apparently this instructor says he has tenure so no one can do anything about his rambling.

He spends a sizable chunk of the course ranting about how evolution is false because there's no proof of it, that Neanderthals didn't exist, and how humans aren't apes. He also claimed the Earth isn't 4 billion years old and people lived with dinosaurs.

This is obviously very obnoxious and disturbing to sit through. But is it true that his rambling is protected by tenure? If we were to complain could anything be done? Thanks.

Having tenure doesn't mean a professor can spend large amounts of time in a course talking about off-topic things. They still have a duty to teach the subject of the course.

Have your wife talk to the department chair if she feels she isn't receiving the education that she expects from the course.


What is the preferred order of information in an academic CV for computer science field? I'm sending my CV for postdoc positions in computer science in Europe (esp. Germany). My special focus is academia rather than the industry.
I was wondering what is the preferred order of information to bring there?
For instance, is the following order acceptable/preferred?

Personal information
Education
Work experience
Research Interests
Teaching experiences (TA)
Computer skills
Publications

Yes, this is acceptable as are many other formats. It is not worth obsession about the exact format you use (though it should make it easy to find relevant information -- so use a good page layout). What does matter is the content of the CV.

But if you're unsure, look at the CVs a lot of people post on their websites when they are on the market for jobs. So look at the CVs of other postdocs you know and see how they structured theirs. Clearly, what they did might not have been the best possible format, but it was good enough to get a job!


Unable to present accepted conference paper after mentioning it on submitted applications I'm applying to PhD programs in Computer Science. I recently had a paper of mine accepted into a conference workshop. In my graduate school applications (which I have already submitted), I mentioned this paper, citing it as "To be presented at [Conference/Workshop name]", with a link to the paper. I have it in my CV, and said a few words about it in my Statement of Purpose as well.

However, due to unforeseen circumstances, it's likely that I will not be able to attend the conference to present the paper. Might this be an issue with admissions, and if so, how should I go about notifying them?

EDIT: Workshop papers are included in the proceedings in this conference, but only if the author is able to register for the conference and present the paper.

Thanks!

If this is something like a doctoral symposium in which papers are discussed but not printed in the proceedings, then you should just inform everyone who matters of the situation. It shouldn't be a problem. Acceptance actually means something in a situation like this. And you can always, in this case, submit the paper elsewhere if it doesn't appear or if acceptance is withdrawn by the committee due to not being able to attend.

On the other hand, if the paper will be in the proceedings whether you are there or not, which may be the case in CS, then you don't really need to do anything. You could still inform people, but the acceptance for the conference and publication in the proceedings is all that is really required.

But in general honesty and forthrightness is a plus.


Is it worth regularly publishing in unknown business & management journals? I notice some business & management full professors regularly publish in unknown or low rank journals. Yet I have previously been advised to be very careful where I publish. Is there value in the 'Stack 'em high' method in the Business & Management field?

For someone who already has a solid academic record publishing in non-traditional, but more visible, venues can be a way to get some recognition in the wider world - outside academia. But I doubt that it has a lot of effect on the things that lead to an academic reputation.
Even in other fields, there are "public scholars" who spend time and effort on making the results of research known to non-academics whose practice might benefit from it. Think of it as a public service, not an academic reputation builder.
In physics, for example, Carl Sagan was such a public scholar, even though he had a solid academic reputation as well. In fact, it was that academic reputation that gave him credibility in the larger world.
For a young scholar, however, it may mean less.


How severe does an error have to be to warrant retraction? I have noticed an issue in one of my previously published works, which is approximately 6 months old. The issue has resulted in some minor data extraction errors and the inclusion of three studies (of approx. 20 total included) with duplicate data. These studies were part of a secondary analysis and while the error sounds substantial, there is no significant effect on the results of that analysis and certainly no significant effect on our overall findings or primary analysis.
Despite this, I feel the record should be corrected and intend to submit a corrigendum providing details and updated analysis. Is this sufficient, or should we be suggesting a retraction?

You should definitely prepare a rigorous corrigendum, outlining what exactly should be disregarded and adjusted.
Whether or not your error warrants a retraction is impossible to say for an outsider. If you genuinely believe that the core of your paper is still valid (as you seem to), I’d file the corrigendum and a cover letter with the editor and let them decide. The most urgent retraction reasons include manifestly false results or those based on fraudulent (or false) data. In your case it sounds more like a question of loss of statistical significance (17 instead of 20 studies). How impactful that is, hard to say.
An informal way to think about this would be to ask yourself: after all necessary adjustments have been made, am I still proud of my paper? If yes, go for the corrigendum.


Information technology requirements and issues for academic research I am on a committee tasked with advising my university's Information Technology  office on institutional needs and issues regarding IT.  They are pretty knowledgeable about how to support the university's general administrative IT requirements (office applications, business IT infrastructure, securing personal data, etc) as well as instructional technology (smart classrooms, learning management systems, etc).  But they have less insight into the needs of academic research.

I try to bring up issues that I face in my own research, but I am only in one discipline (math), and I am sure there are many things I am missing.  It would help to be able to anticipate some of these issues, rather than reacting after discovering problems or omissions.

What special IT resources or support are commonly needed for academic research?

I am looking for issues that are fairly unique to research, that wouldn't be as commonly encountered in other generic large organizations, or in other university business.  (So no need to mention general things like email, wifi, etc.)  It needn't be limited to STEM disciplines, though I imagine they will have the most.

It would be especially great if there are lists developed by professional societies or the like; this would be more "authoritative" than general suggestions from the community.  Especially if it explains the rationale for the benefit of non-researchers.

A few that I thought of, to get started:

Specific operating systems that might not match the organization's "standard" OS
Installing third-party and open-source software without waiting for administrator intervention
Storing and backing up unusually large amounts of data
Transferring large amounts of data between institutions, through firewalls
Access to a variety of communication and conferencing tools that might not match the organization's "standard" conferencing solution
Remote login access to work computers

A lot of the things you bring up are serious issues even for the industry, and I don't see why it would be any different for academia. You should have a dedicated IT team just as if you were a generic industry organization, even if the information is open source and non-proprietary.

  Installing third-party and open-source software without waiting for administrator intervention

This is fine on a personal machine, but on a network machine, you could potentially take down everything.

  Storing and backing up unusually large amounts of data

Typically, you'd need to have backup servers, as all the research stored on-site is a great backup until, say, the sprinklers go off and wipe your data. I'd wager an acceptable plan for academia would be the same as industry. Every week or so, send a tape off to an off-site safe area to store and recovery in case of a serious IT disaster. Losing a week of work is usually more salvageable than losing everything, as happened above with those hospitals and ransomware.

  Transferring large amounts of data between institutions, through firewalls

Depending on the data, you will likely need to encrypt and password protect stuff. Especially PCI medical data. Sometimes, out of simplicity and for records-keeping, you could send a physical media like a DVD or flash drive (also encrypted) instead.

  Access to a variety of communication and conferencing tools that might not match the organization's "standard" conferencing solution

IT typically provides this as a service, i.e. e-courses. Not sure what you're expecting out of this, but "buyer beware" is typically sufficient for those that don't follow your recommendations or provided wares.

  Remote login access to work computers

We have two-factor authentication for remote log-in. If information is sensitive, that's typically how we'd store things.


Can I take master's level courses if I decide to do my PhD in Germany (astrophysics/particle physics)? I know that it is not compulsory to taking classes during the PhD (in Germany). But if I want to take some classes in subjects that I missed during my master program, is it possible to take some classes 2-3 in the related field that my PhD is in?
I want both take the exam and follow the course

Following the course will usually not be a problem, since lectures are generally public. Exceptions are, e.g., seminars with a limited number of places. Also, if the lecture hall happens to be too small (highly unlikely) for all the students, you may be expected to leave.
Check the examination regulations of the PhD program that you would enroll in. Sometimes acceptance for PhD studies can be conditional on taking a few extra courses, depending on what the "Promotionsausschuss" decides. If that can be the case, taking the exam should be no problem, as there needs to be some way to taking the exam in this case.
Getting some kind of certification that you took and passed the exam may be tricky, though. You may have to ask the respective lecturer for a letter stating that, as there are normally no official transcripts for PhD studies.
As already written in a comment, you should check with your advisor if she/he would not oppose taking courses, though - at least if you are not on a scholarship. PhD studies typically works by getting employee status, and using normal employee working hours for such courses may not be welcome. But even on a scholarship, some advisors/supervisors may not like that.


Is reading novels helpful for GRE Preparation? I'm going to start preparing for GRE. I have great enthusiasm for reading novels rather than memorizing words. Will words learnt from novels be helpful for GRE vocabulary? Which novels/writers books should be read for GRE vocabulary?

No doubt you can encounter useful words in novels, but you will encounter them at a much slower rate than with targeted study.  If your goal is to learn GRE words quickly, a simple GRE study book would be more efficient.  At the least, you should take a practice GRE test and see how you do on the vocab sections.  If your vocab needs major improvement, reading novels is probably too slow to be of use for passing the GRE.

In the long term, I think reading novels and other texts is a better (and more fun) way of learning how to actually understand and use a wide range of vocabulary, but for the short-term goal of improving your GRE score it may not deliver as much benefit.


Is it appropriate if my current affiliation is different from the ending of my email address? I have a permanent email aliasing from my previous institute. My current academic affiliation (let's pretend it is Horvord University) does NOT give me a permanent email address.

Now, I am going to submit a paper to a journal and I wonder if it is considered professionally appropriate if I list Horvord as my affiliation but list my previous email as the contact?

Yes, I think it is true to some degree.  I received such an email before and it made me wonder what is going on.

Although it is not really prohibited and people understand that situations cannot be generalized, it gives a strange feeling to some people at least.

It is like indentation and font size in a paper submission.