Research comparing paper and online student evaluations of instruction What research exists (point me toward references) that compares the effectiveness, validity, and security (or at least a subset of these) of paper and online student evaluations of instructors?

At my institution, a working group of faculty and administrators have proposed switching from a paper-based student evaluation system to an online system. I do not doubt that an online system will save time and money. The current system involves printing, sorting, distributing, collecting, sorting again, reading, and processing three pieces of paper for each student enrolled in each course, followed by data entry and number crunching. I lose an entire period of class time when these happen so that we can guarantee most students participate. According to the office that coordinates this effort, the time and cost involved are equivalent to one full-time employee above and beyond what people are already paid to do.

However, many faculty members have raised concerns, among which are the following:

Participation will decrease. Only the motivated (very conscientious and very irritated) will participate, potentially skewing the results.
In order to increase participation, instructors will be required to offer "carrots" that amount to grade inflation.
Since all students on the roster will be notified by email, even students enrolled in the course, but who have never come to class, will be evaluating instructors. These students who have not participated, do have a right to evaluate instructors, but usually do not because it occurs during class time.
Student evaluation of instructor surveys will no longer be anonymous. Students will have to log in with a certified log in to verify that they are who they say they are and to match them to surveys for specific classes. While this data will be "anonymized" prior to processing and distribution back to instructors, it will always exist somewhere with identifying information attached to it.

Members of the working group have responded to these and other concerns with statements beginning "Research shows..." However, as an academic, I do not believe "research" until I have seen it myself. The working group has not yet provided a list of references.

There has been quite a bit of literature on this topic. Because your question is broad (regarding acceptability, security, reliability, and validity), I have provided a brief overview; these articles should provide you with a starting point to locate additional information.

Reliability and Validity

A recent article providing an overview of the validity of different student evaluation methods in general may be of interest; the article does address online administration as one component impacting validity (Spooren, Brockx, & Mortelmans, 2013).

In a longitudinal study of over 63,000 student evaluations over 10 years (comparing paper in-class with electronic out-of-class evaluations), no significant differences in evaluation scores were found due to administration method (Risquez, Vaughan, & Murphy, 2015). However, one study had nearly 200 business management students evaluate the same teaching with both on paper and electronically within two weeks (Gamliel & Davidovitz, 2005). Although the mean scores were similar between the two groups, stability of scores was higher in the paper method. Thus, if the same teacher were to be evaluated multiple times, there might be more variance if the method of administration changed. The authors suggest that paper evaluations may allow students to look at the written horizontal profile of their responses, which they may recall on the second administration. In contrast, electronic systems that display questions differently may remove this effect.

A small study of over 120 medical students found that those who submitted paper evaluations immediately after training gave more favorable reviews than those that submitted electronic feedback at a later point in time (Palmer, 2009). The author posits that it is possible the rapport between the instructor and students immediately after session lead to better reviews, while those providing electronic evaluations did not have that social pressure. However, they state it is also possible that the time required to log-in and take the electronic survey may have been irritating, resulting in more negative evaluations.

Response Rates and Timing

Adams and Umbach (2012), reviewed 135,000 online course evaluations completed by 22,000 students. They found that students were more likely to respond to evaluations for courses within their major, and less likely to respond for ungraded courses or if the student was receiving a D or F grade in the class. They also noted some differences in response rates across majors, and evidence of survey fatigue that may impact response rates. Similarly, a study of graduate students using online course evaluations found that those students who responded earlier had more positive course ratings and expected to get higher grades, while those who submitted information later had lower grade expectations and course satisfaction (Estelami, 2014). The author suggests that universities must be aware that early/late responders differ in several specific ways that may impact the data they provide. In contrast, Pegden and Tucker (2012) found that the timing of completing the evaluation electronically did not impact responses, as evaluations were generally stable regardless of when there were completed.

Another article based on online evaluations at the University of British Columbia provides guidance on how to assess adequate response rates to enhance reliability and validity (Zumrawi, Bates, Schroeder, 2014). Nulty (2008) provides suggestions for improving response rates for teaching surveys, and compares paper/electronic methods; he suggests a mixed method approach may result in the highest response rate.

Acceptability

A study of nearly 1,000 students found fewer students completed the electronic version compared to a paper survey; students reported frustration with the site’s complicated and time consuming log-in process and were concerned about anonymity (Dommeyer, Baum, & Hanna, 2002). However, those authors caution that these burdens may be reduced as technology improves. Indeed, a more recent study of over 1,000 students found that students preferred the electronic evaluation option because they felt it was more anonymous, convenient, and presented less time pressure than completing the survey in class (Kinash, Knight, & Hives, 2011). A study of student perceptions about what is important in an online evaluation system reported a list of student concerns related to anonymity, ease of use, and being made aware of the impact of their responses (Nevo, McCLean, Nevo, 2010); this study provides information on a range of student concerns related to the evaluation system, with suggestions for other universities to follow.

Anecdotally, my graduate school recently transitioned from paper to online evaluations. I prefer the online evaluations because they allow me time to gather my thoughts, and I can provide more structured feedback regarding the class. Log-in is simple and is based on the universal log-in for our university; I take it on faith it is de-identified before being sent the instructor. Given how small some of our graduate courses are, that actually feels more anonymous than turning in a paper survey with my handwriting. We receive multiple email reminders to take the surveys during the last two weeks of class, which indicate the overall percent of students that have already responded (a form of social pressure, I suppose). There are only two things I dislike about the system. First, the response period ends before the final exam period begins, so you cannot include thoughts about the exam in your evaluation (the survey ceases to function). Second, responses are only available to the department chair, tenure committees, and the professor being evaluated. At my undergraduate institution all course evaluations were public, so students could read the evaluations of past classes to determine whether and when to take the course.

Adams, M. J., & Umbach, P. D. (2012). Nonresponse and online student
evaluations of teaching: Understanding the influence of salience,
fatigue, and academic environments. Research in Higher Education,
53(5), 576-591.
Dommeyer, C. J., Baum, P., & Hanna, R. W. (2002). College students'
attitudes toward methods of collecting teaching evaluations: In-class
versus on-line. Journal of Education for Business, 78(1), 11-15.
Estelami, H. (2014). The Effects of Survey Timing on Student
Evaluation of Teaching Measures Obtained Using Online Surveys.
Journal of Marketing Education, DOI: 10.1177/0273475314552324.
Gamliel, E., & Davidovitz, L. (2005). Online versus traditional
teaching evaluation: Mode can matter. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 30(6), 581-592.
Kinash, S., Knight, D., & Hives, L. (2011). Student perspective on
electronic evaluation of teaching. Studies in learning, evaluation,
innovation and development, 8(1), 86-97.
Nevo, D., McClean, R., & Nevo, S. (2010). Harnessing information
technology to improve the process of students' evaluations of
teaching: An exploration of students' critical success factors of
online evaluations. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(1),
99-109.
Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and
paper surveys: what can be done?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 33(3), 301-314.
Palmer, R. (2009). Evaluation of teaching--paper versus electronic
methods. Medical teacher, 31(12), 1094-1094.
Pegden, J. A., & Tucker, B. (2012). Does the timing of evaluations
matter? An investigation into online student feedback and whether
timing has an impact. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation &
Development, 9(1), 55-65.
Risquez, A., Vaughan, E., & Murphy, M. (2015). Online student
evaluations of teaching: what are we sacrificing for the affordances
of technology?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(1),
120-134.
Spooren, P., Brockx, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2013). On the Validity of
Student Evaluation of Teaching The State of the Art. Review of
Educational Research, 83(4), 598-642.
Zumrawi, A. A., Bates, S. P., & Schroeder, M. (2014). What response
rates are needed to make reliable inferences from student evaluations
of teaching?. Educational Research and Evaluation, 20(7-8), 557-563.


Do universities typically cover publication fees associated with open access publications? I am an undergraduate student in a private Indian university. Last semester I worked on a research project with another undergrad student and under the mentorship of a PhD scholar.

We have submitted a paper to an Elsevier journal which charges a mandatory open-access fee of $500 on acceptance of the paper. In such cases, does the university typically cover these costs or are they borne by the authors of the paper?

Which department of the university should I contact to ask for funding for the same?

Talk to your professor who will know better than us. It's possible your professor has a grant that also has an open access component, in which case that's where the money will come from. It's also possible your university's library has set aside some funds for open access. Here's an example page from the University of Hull. If your university has something similar, you might be able to get funding from there.

If you find you don't have funding, you can pay the OA fee out of your own pocket (probably not a good idea even if you are wealthy), decline OA (if it's a hybrid journal which publishes both OA and non-OA papers), ask for a waiver (Elsevier might grant this since you are from India, which is a developing country), and finally withdraw and submit elsewhere. If you take the last option, do so quickly so as not to waste the journal's time.


Can I mention the weak points of the department I am applying for in my cover letter? I am applying for a faculty position in a small department, which is not very active in research but there is a strategic research. Comparing my previous papers and grants, I can project that I will have a significant contribution to the department to become research active.

Is it appropriate to provide a statistical projection that how the department figures will be changed by hiring me? I mean isn't it impolite to highlight the weak points of the department to justify why they should hire me?

Don't mention anything negative about the department you're applying to. That would serious jeopardize your application.

Instead, emphasize the benefits that hiring you could bring to the department. Do this in a way that pleases the current members of the department.


No response from Professor; how should I remind him about writing a recommendation for me? I'm applying to a BS/MS program and I'm gathering recommendations. I'm an international student from China and I was transferred to my current college last year.

Two weeks ago, I went to see my professor during his office hours to ask if he could write me a recommendation letter. He agreed and told me to email him.

I sent my request a week later and it was just a general email asking for recommendation (without mentioning when I'd visited him).

I still haven't got a response from that professor. It's possible that the professor didn't recognize me in the email, since I sent that only one week after going to his office.

Should I leave him a reminder in a follow-up email? Or should I do so in person?

I would send an email along these lines (taken from Cindy Au on Quora):

  Dear Professor [Professor's name],

  The deadline for submitting letter of recommendation for [name of
  program/ fellowship] is quickly approaching. I would like to
  inquire if there is still any document I can supply to make your
  writing easier in addition to what we discussed during office hours 2 weeks ago.

  I understand that this is a very hectic time in the school year and
  thus can't thank you enough for your time and support.

  Respectfully yours,

  [Your name + ideally a link to some website containing your photo]


How to justify not using a certain program or API or framework because it is not free I am trying to write a justification as to why some tools were discarded in my project. My reasoning is that if I have 10-20 tools that more or less solve the same problem, and I have no clear insight on which one may perform better or any other characteristic like that, some kind of explanation as to why choosing one over the others is the right approach: some are simply not compatible to my particular project and others require payments. I talked with my tutor and I was told to evaluate the options, present them, and then pick one that would better fit the project.

But money was, and still is, a limitation, since there is no financing for the project, not for 10$ nor for 1000$, since we don't really know how they'll behave beforehand, one limitation in order to pick a tool was money.

What I am doing is write a state of the art of the different options, explaining different characteristics about them: how they work, what they require, and also how they are sepparated in terms of monetization. There is open source, there is what I would call, for lack of enough vocabulary, rental of the tool, you pay per minute used, and there is contracting of services which is a model that does not even offer a price, they offer you to get in contact with them and get to an agreement.

Is this a valid explanation? Am I looking wrong at the problem? Thanks in advance for the input.

Most of the reasons you gave in your post seems justifiable enough. I'll just list them to make it clear.

You have sufficiently abled tools to solve your objective without the proprietary tool.
You don't have a funding to cover the expense of certain proprietary tools.
You are able to use limited licensing to cover up most of the commercial options.

Apart from the good excuses, you could at least request the tool provider to see of they would sponsor you with a temporary research/student licence (or a similar sort) by stating your objectives.


How to increase the odds of becoming an invited speaker at science conferences? Invited talks are important for moving up the academic ladder, so I'd like to know how one maximizes the odds of being offered to be an invited speaker at conferences.

I am aware of the most obvious things like having important results to report. However, apparently this is not always necessary: one often sees in the list of invited speakers some fresh PhDs neighboring the really big shots. So, are there any non-obvious strategies to increase the odds of becoming an invited speaker at a conference?

I realize that the advice may be field-specific, and I am most interested in the tips for conferences in mathematics and physics.

Give some colloquia (departmental seminars or lab-specific talks) in the departments of organizers of conferences. You can sometimes invite yourself by writing to the organizer of their seminar series and offering yourself as a speaker but better might be having your phd advisor write and recommend you.

This will increase your name recognition with the critical people and can give you a reputation for giving good talks. Organizers are unlikely to take a chance on someone that is junior and none of them have heard speak. If you can give a talk somewhere that will be videoed and posted online, that would also help with this issue.

Finally, if you work with a more famous friend (or phd advisor) in the same area who is frequently invited to give talks, you could mention to them that you are trying to do this and they may recommend you for talks they have to decline.


Should continue PhD or leave after 2 years and no progress? I need your suggestion on my situation.

I am a second year PhD student in Chemical Engineering in Asian country.
My situation:

When I was admitted to PhD program, I was not given any project and my supervisors suggested me to choose. So, I choose X project for which we had no fundings but one person was working on it. After completing my coursework in first year, I started working on my project but after few months I realized it is not progressing well so I talked to my supervisors and he advised me to  continue to work on it. However, after almost a year also I cannot find that the project is progressing.

Thus I need suggestions on how should I proceed from now on as the projects in our group are very challenging to start over again and complete in another 2 year and in our university we dont get fundings after 4 year of PhD . Indeed,we should pay tuition fees.

Will it be a good idea to leave this university and apply fresh in some other university?

I am afraid my supervisors will not agree to give me masters degree or transfer of candidature from PhD to masters by research.

Please suggest me in this matter.

True answer: we do not know. It really comes down to the cause of the lack of progress, but from this distance, it is impossible to know the true cause. I would recommend speaking with a trusted advisor -- maybe your supervisor, or another professor that you trust.

Speculation: less than a year is a reasonably short time. Are you learning anything? My experience is that students spend the first year or so just learning the basics, so your advisor may be leaving you to your own devices for now. I would speak to older or former students who have also worked with your advisor to see what they think. In any case, I think a year is long enough for you to address this with your advisor. I would ask him for a time when you can block off 30 minutes for a formal meeting, rather than just dropping by his office, and candidly explain your concerns, and ask him what his plans are and when he sees you graduating. You may want to discuss the technical reasons for lack of progress, but make sure the conversation focuses on your pathway to graduation rather than just the technical difficulties you've faced.

More speculation: I would focus completely on making things work out at your current university, and not think about or mention transferring out. You may consider trying a different advisor if you think that is the problem, but do so ASAP. Leaving with a master's degree may be a good solution if you can arrange it, but (at least in my [Western] experience), it is pretty unusual to get a PhD after getting a master's from a different institution.


Do researchers do their own statistics? I'm writing a small paper on statistics in science and I was wondering whether in most fields researchers do their own statistics, or do they usually have a statistician in the department to do it for them?

For example, say I am a researcher in psychology at a university and I designed and performed an experiment. I now have the data I wanted and it needs to be analysed. Will I do this myself or will I ask a statistician to do it for me? What is usual in science?

Both scenarios are quite common, and commonality varies by discipline - but I can tell you for certain both happen enough that you should not be surprised by either case. There is also somewhat of a hybrid approach, where many researchers do their own statistics (or have a favorite collaborator who does it for them as part of their contribution) but they may consult with a statistician for some additional guidance or advice, formally or informally. If I were forced to guess, I'd say that in most social science fields I'm familiar with (many with connections to Psychology) I'd be somewhat surprised if less than 75% of statistical analysis was handled by non-statisticians.

In practice, it tends to vary by individual study as well, and will change over time with any given researcher or team. Some people do certain kinds of stats only (ANOVA for everything, yay!), and if they can't do that they won't do any - or they just do an ANOVA anyway. Some people do no stats of any kind, ever. Some people develop a quantitative focus and start doing their own stats, and then become known as "the stats person" and end up becoming involved as a collaborator for others with a focus on research design and analysis, even as they continue with non-stats tasks (coming up with their own research ideas, running their own studies, etc.). Some people end up running into problems they realize don't fit the stats they are comfortable with, and work together with an outside person (consultant, statistician, etc.) to guide them or handle the analysis, but only for that problem (ex: they realized they needed a survival analysis but hadn't done that before, so they wanted to be sure they were going about it reasonably but then did the actual analysis mostly themselves).

So, in a nutshell: researchers of all kinds do stats always, sometimes, and never, and the mix varies heavily by discipline, problem type, and weather.


Whom and how to include referees in the CV? Many job offers state that they the applicant should include the full contact information for three referees in the CV. I was wondering about two things:

1) How to decide upon the inclusion of scholars? Naming your supervisor of the PhD thesis might be obvious, but then? Do only professors count or should the referees come from different institutions, etc.? Especially as an ERC (Eraly career researcher), I don't have many senior co-authors or collaboration partners at other universities.

2) Do you ask these people whether it is okay to name them in the CV and they might be prepared to get contacted or should I avoid this?

Are there any recommendations or past experiences that people are willing to share?

Thanks in advance!

How to decide upon the inclusion of scholars? Naming your supervisor
  of the PhD thesis might be obvious, but then? Do only professors count
  or should the referees come from different institutions, etc.?
  Especially as an ERC (early career researcher), I don't have many
  senior co-authors or collaboration partners at other universities.

This would be a good question to ask your PhD supervisor. They will have a good idea of what is the norm in your field. You have to weigh up the pros and cons of getting a reference from someone who knows you and your work well, but is not in a senior position. Often this can be balanced by having at least one of the other references come from someone senior (likely your supervisor or even head of department).

  Do you ask these people whether it is okay to name them in the CV and
  they might be prepared to get contacted or should I avoid this?

Personally I only list referees in my CV that have explicitly agreed to write me a letter (i.e. I have asked them before even sending any application). Consider how you might feel, as a busy professor, receiving a request to write a reference letter for someone that you didn't even know was applying for jobs. If they are annoyed at the surprise request, this may affect the tone of the letter they write. Overall, it's definitely far more polite to ask them in advance. Furthermore, the majority of jobs (at least in my field) ask the reference letters to be sent with the application, so you have to ask your referees beforehand anyway.


How common is it for journal to reject a solicited paper? A guest editor at a peer-reviewed academic journal solicited me to write a paper. I initially hesitated for lack of time. But the editor's invitation was courteous. So I sent an abstract, which was accepted by the editor.

I submitted the 6k-word paper a few weeks later, taking care to comply to the submission guidelines (I downloaded the journal's CSL file for bibliographic references, for example).

I just received a rejection letter. I know an invitation is not a ticket to bypass the reviewers. Still, I am rather stunned. I'll get over it, but I was wondering how common it is for academic journals to reject solicited papers?

This is not common, but it certainly does happen.  I know a small number of people who have had their invited submissions rejected.  Whether it is a likely possibility in particular instance will depend on how many invitations the editor(s) send out—and, correspondingly, how well they know the potential contributors and their work.  If the invitations are kept to a relatively small group of individuals familiar to the editor, it is less likely that anyone will submit a manuscript that is of low quality or is not topical.

Whether this is likely to happen also depends on how the submissions are being evaluated.  Sometimes, an expert guest editor for a special issue may take care of all the refereeing themself.  However, this will not work if the topic is too broad or there are too many submission.  I was actually responsible for getting a low-quality invited paper rejected from a special issue once, when I was asked to referee it.  The work was simply too shoddy to merit publication in any venue.


When are authors on publications in Google Scholar clickable Whenever one searches for publications on Google Scholar, some of the authors of some publications are clickable (underlined / hyperlinked), but others aren't.

What determines this behavior? Is there a way to manage this as an author?

I have a few publications that are in my profile, but I am not clickable as an author in some of them when searching for the publication.

Some authors have published their Google Scholar profiles and other authors have not.  If you click on an author's name and the author has a profile, then you'll see that author's profile information.

You might think that Google Scholar would show you the list of all publications by authors with that same name, but there are so many name duplications that this isn't done.

If you have a public author profile, then it should be possible for anyone who accesses one of your publications to click on your name and get to that public profile.


When is it acceptable to ask a graduate program about their admissions decision? I've recently applied for PhD programs in mathematics. I received an offer not long ago, and in light of this offer, there are only a few schools that I would consider an offer from. From past years results (and this year's), I expect to get results from two of them in the coming week, but another of them usually only sends out their final decisions three or so weeks from now (though they do, and have, sent decisions already to some applicants). I would like to make a decision fairly soon, and knowing about the status of my application at this final school would indeed make a difference in any decisions I make. When is it acceptable to ask them about the status of my application? Should I simply wait until they send me the result, or is it OK to ask earlier?

In more generality, so that this question might be useful to somebody that's not me: in general, when is it acceptable to ask schools about their admissions decision if they've not notified you yet?

If there's a specific reason, such as a deadline at another school, that it would be helpful to know your status, then I think its very reasonable to send a message to the graduate director at a program you're considering.  Asking just because you're curious is generally discouraged, but if you have new information, then its reasonable to ask for an update.


Potential advisor ask for a paper review as a part of interview process, any difference between journal and conference paper? I am applying for graduate studies in CS, and one of my potential advisors asked me to review one of his papers (listed on his homepage) and send him back a single page report. (discussing strengths and weaknesses)

As long as he did not specify journal or conference paper, is it appropriate to pick one of his conference papers? As it is shorter and regarding the deadline he set for me (1 week), I might be able to analyse it better.

Does it create any negative image of my work and research?

Actually, in CS, conference papers are treated with great respect. Much more so than in some other fields. In CS, most new results are presented in conferences and the proceedings are very important.

So, contrary to your worry, picking a conference paper would probably be preferred.


ACM-IEEE Proceedings publication notification (2015) Is there a way for me to be notified automatically when a ACM or IEEE conference proceedings is published? I was unable to find such option in either of their websites. How else do researchers (professors, students, industry folks) who are interested in a particular conference, know that the Proceedings for a particular conference have been published?

TIA,
Jake Clawson

PS - I am aware of Google Scholar Alerts but I wanted to know when the entire proceedings have been published as compared to following an author or a specific paper.

Last year, I was the publication chair for an IEEE conference, meaning that I was responsible (among other things) for working with IEEE to get the proceedings onto Xplore.  Now, more than six months since we turned in the proceedings to IEEE, and nearly as long after the conference was held, only one part of the proceedings is online.  The IEEE repeatedly promises that the rest will go up "soon," but no schedule is forthcoming.  Moreover, even as publication chair, I have do not get any sort of systematic notification about the proceedings.

Long story short: with IEEE, at least, it seems you can't. Maybe ACM is better, but I haven't worked with them on this...


Transitioning from MS to PhD - International Student I will be enrolling in a Master's program for Biomedical Informatics next fall.

I already know the faculty member that I would like to be mentored by (working as a student intern with one of his graduate students). However, I was told that I will most likely be assigned another mentor upon starting the program.

Would it be best to work under a new faculty member while under MS program and attempt to transition into PhD later and talk with the professor that I would like as my mentor? Or would it be best to talk to the professor before starting the MS program about possibly having him as my mentor in the first place?

Thank you.

P.S. Also, what is the best way of approaching a professor about receiving support as in funding?

However, I was told that I will most likely be assigned another mentor upon starting the program.

Does this mean, you haven't yet corresponded with the professor you have in mind? If this is the case, why not write to him directly and express your interest in joining his group? You can also try to meet with him once you join the program. I would think that mentor assignments are not set in stone.

  What is the best way of approaching a professor about receiving support as in funding?

Are you asking about seeking financial support from the professor you have in mind? If yes, write to him first to see if you can join his research group. If there is interest, the professor might let you know whether he could provide some support or not.

If you have more flexibility about to who you want to work with and/or the research area you want to be in, you can also write to the departmental graduate program coordinator and let him/her know your research interests and see if he/she can circulate your interests among the faculty working in those areas.


Is it common to provide digital notes (slides or handwritten) for students? I am preparing a lecture course for this semester and I am planning to teach from slides. I will consider these slides my notes for the course. However, the following points may also apply to handwritten notes that a lecturer might use as a reference.

I can see several advantages and disadvantages associated with providing the students with the notes for a given lecture prior to that lecture:

Advantages:

Students have to write less (because the core of the material is already present), so more material can be covered;

Disadvantages:

Students may lose focus more easily when they have digital notes because they do not have to copy everything down (this was my experience as an undergrad);
Students may choose not to attend class because notes are available elsewhere (of course, they may choose to do so anyways...).

One alternative I have considered is to distribute all of the notes relevant to an exam some suitable time period prior to that exam. However, this may reduce the effectiveness of the advantage, although it will mitigate to a certain extent the disadvantages. So, my question is as in the title: Is it common for professors to distribute digital notes to the class? If so, what methods are common?

I used to distribute slides before class, and found that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.  I now distribute them shortly after each class.  I tell students to jot down important points during the class, but not to worry about things like lists because they'll have the slides available.  I also suggest that they merge their classroom notes onto the slides.  The ones who listen to me tend to do very well.

I base my decision on the premise that learning should be effortful.  I think, hope, and expect that providing slides after class is a compromise between no slides and slides before class.

As an aside, I also record my lectures and make the podcasts available.  I do that because I have students for whom English is a second language, and non-traditional students who are sometimes called away for work.  I'm a little torn about the recordings because some students do try to use those as a substitute for coming to class.  I console myself with the thought that they were destined to fail the course anyway and would do even without the recordings.


Under what title should I list my graduate program on my CV? I'm a PhD student, but wish to leave my current institution and am applying for PhD positions elsewhere. I'm not a PhD candidate yet, since I haven't still finished the courses and qualification exams that are required for candidacy. I was wondering if I should list my current program on my CV as

University of Stackexchange
Stack Exchanching, PhD

or just something like "graduate program" or nothing at all instead of "PhD".

I thought maybe I should list it as "MSc", because our department awards an MSc degree to PhD student if they complete the Master's courses, and I'll complete those courses before I move to my prospective PhD program.

Also, should I write an "expected" date? If yes, should that be the date I'd finish my PhD if I was staying here, or should that be the date I'll finish my 'integrated' MSc, or what?

You're applying for a PhD and you're on an MSc program (at least, the MSc part of a PhD program), so list your MSc program on your CV. (We could quibble over details, but MSc will be easily understood by all, whereas your precise situation seems overly complicated and possibly country specific.)

Write the expected completion date (for the MSc), because the reader of your CV wants to know when you're available to start a PhD.


How to politely say in a paper that most of the published research on a topic is by the same person? My field is cardiovascular epidemiology, and my current research question relates to some risk factor which is supposed to strongly elevate cardiovascular risk in a defined subgroup. However, my data do not indicate any such association, and power analysis shows that I have about 0.85 power to detect an effect of the size previously published. I see my findings as evidence for the null hypothesis.

Most of the available work on this risk factor in this subgroup comes from papers that all share one author. He is the leader regarding this question. He also holds a patent for assessment of this risk factor and possesses shares of a company that develops and plans to sell diagnostic tests to assess this risk factor.

I would like to make a statement in my paper that politely mentions these facts. This other author has published virtually everything there is that reports this positive association, and would profit enormously if it were true. However, I'm only a PhD student and they are top tier.

So how would I best go about this in my paper?

First off the fact that one group is dominating will be implicitly understood if you provide a paragraph or two summarizing their work and cite their publications. In such a paragraph you could add words like "ground-breaking" or phrases that describe the dominance of the group on the field.

You could for example start the paragraph by saying:

  "The work concerning risk assessment of [...] has largely been carried out by [the research group] (example citations)."

(I hope you see the main idea of my attempt) Then you follow up on what they have done and cite their work.

It is just important to keep the tone as neutral as possible and let the citeable work speak for itself. Spending one or more paragraphs describing the work should be enough to make everyone understand the message.


How to test students in computer science lecture? Preliminaries

I am giving my first lecture at university. The topic is about Big Data and takes 40 hours (1 hour = 60 minutes). I am wondering how to test the students. I am at this university for the first time and I have no idea how full the student's schedule is and how good they are. I am also not sure how many students I will have, but I think it should be between 20 to 30. I think they are going to be at the end of their Bachelor / beginning of Master.

Options

I see three options:

1. written exam

It's the least amount of work for the students (only learning) - which might be a good thing if their schedule is very full.

Disadvantages: They learn the least I think.

2. presentation

I'd let the students present a topic - probably a software technology that wasn't part of my lecture so far.

Advantages are that

they learn more,
they learn research technologies (I've been working in the industry for a while and researching how technologies work is an important part of the work in this area, so it's a real-live skill in itself).

Disadvantages are

that it might get difficult for me to judge their effort in terms of grades,
it might take quite some time for them to prepare (issue if their schedules are really full),
they might not be able to find good information and might not have the skills to put the information into a good presentation.

3. project

I'd have them do a small software project.

Advantages are that they would gain practical experience.

Disadvantages might be that

these take quite a lot of time,
it might get difficult for me to judge their effort in terms of grades,
the projects might fail if they are not proficient enough, which might be rather frustrating.

Question(s)

I tend to take either 2 or 3 since - back in the day - I learned most from those and little from tests. However I fear that those might fail, because the students don't have the time or skills to excel in those.

For 2 and 3 I would put the students into groups.

I might be able to decide after the first week of lecture, but not just before the course ends.

Going out to fellow professors, lecturers etc.:

What are your experiences? What options would you suggest? What do I have to consider?
If I'd take 2 or 3: How many students should a group have approximately (minimum, maximum)?
Can I simply ask them how they would like to get tested?

My experience: One thing I do see in your question is a sensitivity to your students work load. In my experience when I have taught courses involving less "homework" the course may be looked at as "easy." In higher education, students expect a challenge and teachers need to bring it. Worry less about their workload and more about what you want them to learn. If all else fails, grade on a curve.
Groups are hard. It's an unpaid environment. Slackers will slack, pushovers will get pushed, and a group of real team players will rarely shine through. If you are going to do groups, let it be a part of the grade, but not nearly the full grade. Information comprehension/retention should be tested individually. Working in groups is a whole other set of skills that some thrive at and some falter at, and that's not the class you are teaching(I assume.)
You should know what your students expectations are and they should know yours. Have that conversation, but come prepared.


Can I update my research paper before the camera ready date? I am trying to finalize the last version of my accepted paper. I have followed the suggestions that I got from the reviewers. While I am editing, I found that a relevant research paper that could benefit my argument if I include it in the related work.

I am just asking if it is ok to extend my reference list (one of the references is self-citation) will it have any bad implications?

I would say the common-sense rule is that minor updates are ok, but major updates - roughly, something that makes it into another paper, or would have required a new peer review - are to be avoided unless explicitly authorized.

Adding a few more sentences mentioning related work is fine, but if you think your changes are significant, describe them in a few (short) sentences and ask the editor/program committee chair.

Also: consult your co-authors before making changes and before requesting authorization for the changes!


At what point in the writing process should one contact an academic book publisher? Is it better to contact a publisher early in the writing process so that the editor can be involved in shaping the project, or is it better to submit a full academic book manuscript? In my case, this would be for a first academic book. If this is something that is dependent on particular academic fields my field is digital humanities.

Book writing is a very thankless task—it takes a long time, and the profits probably don't make up for the cost of the time it takes you to write the book, unless you happen to write a textbook that becomes the default for a field. On the other hand, in some disciplines (particularly in the humanities), a published book is practically a requirement for tenure, so you'll want to make sure that you do things right.

So my advice would depend upon where you are in the process. If you haven't already started writing, I'd shop around a prospective outline of the book plus an introductory chapter or two before you get too much further. Then you'll have a sense of what the publishers would be interested in. If you've gotten a lot written, then you just need to start shopping the full idea around.


PhD funding - other sources I found a lab offering the kind of research that I really want to do. I approached them and they were very happy to take me in. However, there is no funding and we all hoped I could get into a PhD programme at my university (their lab was on the list for rotation year). Sadly I was not selected for an interview, apparently the competition was very fierce this year. I contacted the lab again and now they are asking if I have other PhD funding? I wonder how I should reply to them, because I don't have any and I tried searching. From others I heard that you can get accepted and then look together for funding or there is a funding (the PhD programme that I was not selected for) and they just search for a suitable candidate. In my case they kind of ask me for the funding, is that right?

Self-funding would be very hard and I even tried looking if my country offers any government funding but I found none. I was told I could try getting maybe an assistant/technician job in their lab and hope that they might apply for grants? I'm very new to all the PhD issues so I'm not sure how I should deal with this but I would appreciate any help!

They are asking if you are able to self-fund or if you have received any of the (extremely rare and competitive) bursaries/scholarships. It sounds like the university thinks you would be a capable student, but unfortunately the other new PhDs were considered more competitive than you in the eyes of whatever committee decides funding. These decisions are made by a university committee, so this does not reflect on your prospector's adviser's opinion of you (most of the time).

What country are you in? This is a very common thing in (e.g.) the UK for international students. I wrote a very extensive answer about this topic here although the advice is UK-centric.

If you managed to get an assistantship/technician job, it would have to pay well enough to pay both your tuition as well as a suitable salary for you if you have no other financial sources (jobs/loans/scholarships). I think that parallel teaching/lab jobs are commonly done in the US to fund PhD students, but I'm not sure whether it would pay 100% of your needs or not. If you're in the US, hopefully somebody more familiar with the American system will chime in here.

Personally, I would not recommend self-funding unless you are rich. If you are good enough to get a position here and to have an interested adviser, you shouldn't have trouble finding a paid PhD elsewhere. Alternatively, you could enquire about a full time position with the lab, and use the experience gained during that period to leverage your application in the next admission cycle.

If you think that your adviser intends to apply for a grant to fund you, you need to ask them. Basically at this point, go to your adviser for advice.

Typically, students apply to a range of universities so that when something like this happens, they have other options. To give you an example, I applied for 6 PhD programs in the UK and whilst I had offers for most, I ultimately could not get funding (my tuition alone would have been 22k per year) and went to Europe instead where everyone has an equal chance at being funded.


How long are "brief statements of research and teaching interests"? I'm applying for a computer science tenure-track assistant-professor position in the U.S. Some job announcements ask for brief statements of research and teaching interests. How long is this "brief" typically? I.e., how long is a

a brief research statement
a brief teaching statement?

If that helps, you may assume single-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font, 1.25-inch margin on letter-size paper.

(An aside: such job announcements remind me of cake recipes containing "add nuts according to your taste". Such a phrase always drove me crazy. Does it mean 1 g, 5 g, 25 g, 125 g, or 625 g of nuts? I am in great difficulty when I am reading "add 1 cup of milk, 3 or 4 apples, and cinnamon according to your taste". My gosh, how large is your cup and how big are your apples? Sour ones or sweet ones? And how much cinnamon do I really like? Having said that, when seeing brief above, I am feeling hopelessly lost.)

Coming from pure math at a research institution, typical lengths are 1-2 pages for teaching statements and 4-6 pages for research statements.  However, some people go overboard (e.g., including loads of teaching evaluations) or write long research statements (8+ pages) targeted at experts.  I would interpret "brief" to mean: don't do this.  Moreover, if the school is not much of a research school, I would recommend the research statement being closer to 2-3 pages.

Incidentally, I don't think having page lengths written into the job ads is a good thing.  This isn't a high school assignment.  You are free to say how much you want to, in what format you want to.  Some 2-page statements take longer to read than 4-pages ones, depending on how they're written (bullet points, figures, references,  etc).


Creating a permanent URL to put in a publication In an upcoming publication, I need to link to the data I used for the publication so that others can see/use the data as well — both for reviewing the given work and also for intended use in the future. However, my institution has not offered any hosting solutions and I have not (yet) found any acceptable external solutions which absolve me of financial and legal responsibility for maintaining the data and the hosting infrastructure. I will not be at the given institution for very much longer, so e.g. putting it on my personal site at the institution is not a solution. The primary data in question is about 12GB in size, so it needs to be a proper "repository" for the data rather than just e.g. an attachment distributed with the publication itself.

Nevertheless, I need to at least have a stable link to some place where the data can be located; The stability of the actual location is not as important as the stability of the link itself. How/where can I procure a permanent URL to link to research data in a publication which does not cost me anything as an individual?

Maybe Zenodo or other "Academic Data Repository". Googling this would give you a list. Zenodo have some advantages.

Gives you a DOI, Digial Object Identifier, a unique link and a academic standard for citations.
You don't need acceptance to publish your data.
Is a official EU project, used for giving research grants in Open AIRE project.
Is hosted by CERN.
Runs free software in the entire stack.


When do researchers decide to be listed as last author? As I see, most if not all Ph.D. students strive to be listed as the first author of the research paper, then followed by coauthors and finally the Prof who is responsible for the lab.

While I am checking my professor previous publications; I noticed that over the last 30 years my professor name slides from being the first author to second and lately the last-mentioned name in the affiliation list.

For my understanding, the first author is always the person who contributed the most to the manuscript. So when/how do these professors decide to stop being first authors and be listed as the last author?

This depends a lot on the field, but for many sciences and engineering the following is (at least to some extent) true:

The amount of work invested into the manuscript decreases with position in author list.
The amount of responsibility/funding for the project increases with position in author list.
If a publication has many authors, the ones in the middle are probably the ones with least significance.

The first author usually wrote the most of the manuscript and submitted it. These are PhD students. For some programs, first-authored publications are a requirement, therefore it is desired by many PhD students to get the first place.

The last author(s) are usually the supervisors and professors overseeing the research effort. They probably took part in discussions, maybe even drafted some text. In most cases, they just supervised the process/project. The "big boss" will most probably be the last, though.

For everyone in between, the contribution can be very diverse. It could be someone who did experiments, someone who helped by discussing the matter (mostly these people get an acknowledgement, not authorship) or in some cases even everybody who worked in the building.

Therefore, in an average academic career where somebody progresses from PhD student to professor, they will advance in the author list. This is because they do less practical work and more coordination and organisation. This is some kind of established system that has no written rules to it. I know of professors who demand they be the first author on every publication of their PhD students. While strange, it is not forbidden.


Should I not hire someone who does not get along with me? When I was doing my postdoc, there was a PhD student who shared the same office with me; he didn't get along very well with me or anyone in the office. He could be described as unfriendly and a little bit rude.

As we were working on different projects, I didn't know much about his research ability.

I am now a lecturer (at the same university) and have just received funding to hire a postdoc. The same PhD student applied for the position and has since been shortlisted along with another candidate. Based on the CV alone, the PhD student is comparable to another candidate. However, based on his behaviour in the past, I don't want to consider him for the job (my department lets me make the final decision who to hire).

Is it ok to not hire someone because, from past history, I believe that we will not get along?

This question is fascinating to me on many levels. It shows a weird tendency that we have in academia to equate job offers to something like awards, where the decision for or against a candidate has to be based on scientific (or educational, or whatever) merit alone. I argue that if you posted the question "Should I not hire someone who does not get along with me" over at Workplace.SE, you would get very confused people asking you why you would even consider such a thing.

To answer this very frankly - no, you should not hire a person that you suspect you will not get along with. Not over an equally qualified person  that you might get along with better, and arguably not even over a slightly less qualified person that you might get along with better. Your main metric for deciding for or against a candidate should be how good you think he will be able to do the job. For a postdoc under your guidance, your suspicion that he will not get along with you means that he will likely not do a good job. That he might do a good job working under somebody else is not relevant to this decision.


PhD student target of crazy department head I got behind in my program because of illness. My university says it's ok for me to have extra time, but the department head of my program doesn't like this because he thinks all students must get a certain time. He wants to cut my funding, which would force me out of the program. He doesn't even care that right now I am doing good work. He just wants me gone. He spreads false rumors about me to other professors. The graduate director does nothing and says it is not his place.

My adviser likes me, but I don't think he is willing to always stand up to the department head. It is late in my program and I can not start over at another university. Thank you for your advice.

Edit: Getting behind was not my fault and my adviser knew of my illness. How can I persuade the department head that he should forget about my illness and let me work now so I can finish?

Have you considered reaching out to your office of the Ombudsman/woman? Often times, they serve as the official/unofficial mediator when it comes to conflicts within an organization.


Is it safer to carry on undergraduate research areas to gradschool or start from scratch in an unknown area? This question is in spirit a very general one. When a person (say in CS) is choosing among multiple options for gradschool, which one would experience and prudence point towards? Along with research interests and all that, things to factor in would be the extra strain involved, to be honest.

Case in point:

Choice A: PhD advisor in the field of computer vision and machine learning. My undergrad experience was mostly in image processing, with one instance of training a rather vanilla backprop neural network. So this would be pretty much be building on the base of undergrad research experience. Yeah, the school is a tough one, and my math background is rather sparse. lots of catching up to do on the maths front.
Choice B: PhD advisor does work in graphics. mostly interactive graphics, lighting models and all that. These are topics i am vaguely familiar with, never having taken a graphics course during undergrad. Nor did any research project on that. Its a fresh topic for me, but I am not qualified enough to judge whether to pursue this or not.

If you start by thinking about what's safe as an undergrad/grad, I think you may experience (unpleasant) surprises down the road. Do what you like best! Grad school is not an easy path, and motivation is sometimes hard to maintain throughout, so the best way to help your chances of success is actually to do something that you enjoy (and hopefully will enjoy for the next few years).


Is it possible that implementations based on same paper show different performance? I'm a junior research engineer of AI.
Looking for the code in the particular paper, I found two git-hub repositories.
However, I think it's weird that how they show different performance, even though they are based on exact same paper and have a similar structure at the code level.
(Of course, I didn't compare the code line by line)
Is it possible, and common things?

It's certainly possible. You just demonstrated that. (I assume you have compared implementations in the same language, compiled the same way.)
I don't think it's surprising. Implementing any reasonably complex algorithm calls for many choices that can affect performance to different degrees - choice of data structures and libraries, efficient use of space or memory.
Whether you should or want to compare the implementations "line by line" to ferret out the differences depends on how the difference in performance matters to you.


Should I send a mail to query the process of my manuscript since it is in the "Awaiting EIC Decision" status for two weeks? One of my manuscript was submitted to a journal in one year and four months ago, and after two rounds of reviews, its status was changed to "Awaiting EIC Decision" two weeks ago. As far as I know, the "Awaiting EIC Decision" status is the final time when the chief editor to decide whether to accept or reject the paper, but it seems the editors handled with my manuscript a little slow. Is there a chance the CE(Chief Editor) overlooked the status change of my manuscript? and should I send a requesting e-mail to speed up the process?

I am not sure my e-mail will affect the final decision of my manuscript, and whom should I sent the e-mail to, the AE or the CE? since the manuscript is in the "Awaiting EIC Decision" status.

I am encountering the same situation and I fully understand that how it feels when it comes to a final decision.

There must be many papers awaiting EiC's decision. The request to jump to the queue is a bit impolite.
I think it has small chances that the requesting email would affect the final decision because I think AE already has a decision or recommendation. But it would have a negative effect for your next submissions;
I would suggest to send email to EiC directly after 4 weeks.


Potential consequences of the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) for US job prospects In answer to a question about moving between employment in the UK and the US, user StrongBad suggests that "the obsession with the UK REF will likely push your CV in directions that are not ideal for getting a job in the US."

This point struck me as interesting, as in some respects it appears counter intuitive. When I asked why this was the case, he suggested that it would make a good question. I'm now asking that question.

For those unaware of the REF, it is a regularly occurring (and not uncontroversial) nationwide assessment exercise which is used to guide the distribution of funding amongst UK universities.

In order to perform well in the REF, there is a pressure on researchers in the UK to produce a number of publications (four, to be precise) which are deemed to be of a high level. In assessing quality, reviewers are guided to consider whether a piece of work is "world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour". Furthermore, since the most recent REF another consideration for assessment has been whether research has "an effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia."

What's therefore not clear to me is why would building a CV containing publications deemed by peers to be world-leading, and conducting research which peers deem to have benefit outside of academia, not be ideal for job prospects in US academia?

The REF credits departments for grant capture and not the individual. This means that large grants with multiple PIs tend to be prioritized over smaller grants to individuals. In terms of the US job market, being able to demonstrate grant capture at the individual level is important in many fields. For example, generally in the US being the only PI on a $200,000 grant is viewed better than being one of ten PIs on a $5,000,000 grant.

The REF "requires" academics to "produce" 4 high "quality" publications over a 4 year period. Only the 4 "best" publications matter. This results in a push for splashy, as opposed to solid, research. The goal for the REF is to make your work look important to people peripherally related to your field and not the people who specialize in your subarea. Authorship across the 4 publications can also be shared so teaming up with a more senior colleague and being a secondary author is very desirable for the REF. For the REF, someone who is a co-author on 4 Nature papers with colleagues at different universities, and nothing else, could easily get a position as an associate professor, if not a full professor. In the US, search committees want to see a body of solid work that is clearly done by the applicant.

Being able to demonstrate impact is also important for the REF. This requires wider engagement with people outside your field. Having research that can be link to a "change in process" is key for the REF. For example, a clinical trial that shows X is better than Y would be considered "high impact" while the development of X would have less impact. Blue skies basic research has essentially no impact and is discuraged. US job searches do not really care about impact.


Reference management software to get the link of references I use Mendeley to organize and view articles (pdf files). It is almost good, however I wish something similar with one additional feature. A software to make a link for every reference in the Reference section of any article I read (not my own articles) and when I click on the link it searches the web for it, or if it has a downloadable version, directly points to that file and if it is already exists in my articles opens it.

Digital Object Indentifier (DOI) names might be a possible solution. Sometimes article citations in major databases come with them - if so, you can use them to directly access the paper (in a web browser, at least).

For example, for Claude Shannon's seminal work A Mathematical Theory of Communication, the DOI name is 10.1109/9780470544242.ch1. This can be resolved either by using this website, which also describes DOI names in detail; or by using a direct link, such as http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/9780470544242.ch1.

You can find these DOI numbers either by checking reference databases (which often include them) or by checking a website such as crossref.org.

IIRC, Mendeley actually includes a field for the DOI name, if known. I've seen it automatically populated when I use the browser clipping tool (sometimes, not always).


How to stop a former collaborator from (re-)publishing joint work Let us assume that my prior coauthor plagiarizes our common work and is going to re-publish parts of it under his/her sole name in a conference.  I see a preprint of the work on a well-known preprint-site; the venue has not yet taken place. I ran  free plagiarism tools; they show between nothing and 20% (tool-dependent) coincidence with public sources that the tools are aware of, whereas typical "new" papers show up to 2%. The rate would go higher if the 20%-tool were aware of our latest commonly published work before the collaboration broke apart. The author made some textual  substitutions (variable XXX -> variable YYY, function(object) instead of object.function, etc.) and set-theoretical replacements (functions into powerset instead of binary relations) so that the text formally looks different. The author added a tiny bit of new (though, frankly, mediocre) content.

Does the prior coauthor commit plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or both?
I would like to prevent the prior coauthor publishing the paper. Moreover, I'd like the paper to get off the preprint site. The prior coauthor and me don't speak to each other, so, contacting him/her is unlikely to help. Is it possible for me to actually reach my goal, and, if so, how?

Contact the editor and provide all the evidence that you have to support your claim.

Do not keep going back and drip-feeding the editor with bits of evidence over time, make sure it is a complete package.

Also, consider the possible effect on you and your reputation for the future - if this goes the other way, how do you look...


Publish pre-research code on Github? In preparation for future PhD work I came up with some ideas & protypes for software components that might later become scientifically relevant, both from a CS and application viewpoint. My natural reflex to having a working proof of concept for an idea is to put it on Github under GPL.

However all (or most) of my colleagues strongly recommend against that before I haven't built any scientific credit based on that code. Their reasoning is that someone else might "steal" the idea and "usurp" the scientific precedence.

Given that the scientific and open source communities do seem a bit detached in places this appears plausible.

Does anyone have actual experience from a similar situation? Did anyone ever have scientific credit stolen from open-sourced code? The other questions, namely 19348 and 17740, don't even mention the appropriation issue. But when it's not an issue, why are my colleagues so frightened about it?

If you make your code public, you need to think about the consequences. If your goal is to contribute toward academic research, the GPL should cover you just fine if someone wants to use your work. Remember, this means people can (and might) use your code for their own work. This doesn't stop someone from taking your incomplete idea and running with it. However, it can ensure that you are credited for your contribution (at least in the codebase) and that your code cannot be monetized for someone else's benefit. But remember, this is the internet we're talking about. Not everyone is conscientious.

I generally go by the belief that an idea is worthless without execution. Thus, if someone beats you to the punch, it sucks but that's life. Nevertheless, the best way to curate a good idea is to get input from others, hopefully some of whom may be more knowledgeable about the topic than you or have different takes on it than you. Therefore, it's a cost-benefit trade-off. You should decide whether the risk of someone completing your idea outweighs the potential improvements you may make from sharing your work and receiving feedback. If so, don't make it public. If not, share it with the world and seek informed feedback.

I am personally inclined to go with the latter case. There's a lot of stuff out there. The chances someone steals your ideas are often pretty slim.

To answer why people are often so afraid: I think most people have tunnel vision about their work. Because everyone is an expert on their own work, it seems pretty easy to them. They've also put so much time in to it that even the most minute chance of someone taking their idea frightens them. Having read plenty of OPC (other people's code), it's usually a pretty high bar for entry in order to actually try to steal someone's ideas.


A senior colleague that belittles my contributions, expertise and won't acknowledge a published error that I identified I am a PhD student and the most junior person on our small team (me, a lab manager, a statistical analyst, a wet-bench scientist, a senior statistician, and our PI). The statistical analyst has been on this team for over 15 years--we'll call her Emily. Emily trained me in some areas when I started, but I've learned a lot and I have become very independent in the 5 years I’ve been a trainee.

Some Context

Emily and I have been working closely on a project lately.  Because we work so closely, I often ask her for documents related to relevant analyses that she has previously done. I have come to realize that Emily is very error-prone, which I believe our PI already knows. Lately, many of these errors have been discovered when I say something like "that estimate doesn't seem quite right to me" in a lab meeting. I nearly always turn out to be correct and Emily is livid with me for pointing it out. She is typically very defensive and it's very difficult to persuade her to re-check her work. She is dismissive of pretty much everything I say to her directly.

When we went to publish a paper for which I wrote the entire first draft, contributed half of the figures/table, and designed ~90% of the experimental approach, my PI said that Emily and I should be "co-first" author. I agreed because Emily had done ~80% of the experimental work (she wrote most of the code). When my boss made the suggestion that we equally share first-authorship, Emily was so upset that she wasn't the sole first author that she literally screamed in my PI's office about it and then didn't come into lab for 3 days after. These things have set up a poor working relationship between me and Emily.

The Problem

That paper was published, and I'm currently working on several papers that build on those published findings. In working on these new projects, I've discovered an important error that Emily made in the published paper that we are co-first author on.

I made the decision to go to Emily about the error first so that she had a chance to address it with our PI. She denies that there is a mistake and tells me that I'm "too confident about myself" when I say that I'm 100% certain that there is a mistake and lay out all of the evidence that definitively proves it. Unfortunately, I lost my cool a little bit and some of my responses to her were harsh and less-than-professional.

So, I have an email thread that documents Emily's mistake, that I approached her about it directly, and that she actually doesn’t understand what she was doing and therefore denies that the mistake is real; however, we both made some statements that were unprofessional.

The mistake needs to be corrected in order for me to continue with publishing my recent projects (but fortunately does not change the main takeaway of the paper). Emily plans on telling our PI that I’m just a trainee and that I don't know what I'm talking about and that she did not make a mistake (again, I can definitively prove that she did with the email chain). She also has some clout with our PI because she's been there much longer than I have and is more experienced.

How should I proceed?

When we went to publish a paper ... my boss made the suggestion that we equally share first-authorship, Emily was so upset that she wasn't the sole first author that she literally screamed in my PI's office about it and then didn't come into lab for 3 days after.

If possible, it is always a good idea to negotiate contributions and authorship of a paper prior to conducting the relevant research and drafting of the paper.  This kind of dispute can best be avoided by having all the researchers sit down prior to the research project and agree on the roles of each of the researchers, and how the authorship will be allocated (i.e., who is a co-author vs an acknowledgement, order of authors, etc.).  In some cases the actual contributions may end up differing from the initial plan, and so a renegotiation of the authorship could occur, but in many cases you can avoid disputes by having a clear set of expectations at the start of the project.  Once a dispute arises, there is going to have to be some negotiation and decision made about the dispute, but in the future it would be best to avoid these problems by agreeing on authorship details in advance.

  ... I'm currently working on several papers that build on those published findings.  In working on these new projects, I've discovered an important error that Emily made in the published paper that we are co-first author on.  She denies that there is a mistake...  The mistake needs to be corrected in order for me to continue with publishing my recent projects (but fortunately does not change the main takeaway of the paper).  Emily plans on telling our PI that I’m just a trainee and that I don't know what I'm talking about and that she did not make a mistake (again, I can definitively prove that she did with the email chain).  She also has some clout with our PI because she's been there much longer than I have and is more experienced.

Firstly, you should do everything possible to see if you, Emily, and your PI, can reach an agreement on whether or not there is an error in the published paper.  I would suggest making a meeting with your PI where all of you can look over the details of the claimed error, check your working and discuss the matter, and see if you can come to agreement about whether or not there is actually an error.  If you can get your co-authors to agree with your view, then you could all submit an erratum to the previous paper correcting the error.  If your co-authors can convince you that there is no error, the matter is also resolved.

It sounds like this might not be possible, and so if you try all this and exhaust all possibility of agreement, then here is what I would suggest.  You are the author of your new papers, so it is up to you what to write in them.  It is perfectly acceptable for you to claim in your new papers that you have identified an error in the previous published paper.  For full disclosure to your reader, you should make your claim in the paper, but also note that the claim of the error is disputed by your co-author.  (You can give relevant details in a footnote, but keep it succinct and professional.  Do not bog the reader down with excessive detail or a big shit-fight.)  Re-run the previous analysis without the error, note the new results, and proceed with your new papers on that basis.  Emily will be just as entitled to submit new papers claiming that she is correct and there is no error.  (Both sets of papers would be vetted by referees, but it might be difficult for them to tell who is right, so you might find that some referees will be reluctant to recommend publication.)

If you are unable to come to an agreement on the alleged error with your co-authors, ultimately that is going to mean that you end up claiming one thing and she ends up claiming another.  If these are your papers, and you have tried and failed to reach agreement on the matter, I see no reason why this issue would require any further intervention of your PI, so her greater "clout" with the PI should not make any difference.  You are entitled to submit research to journals making claims you believe in good-faith to be true.  (If you want to, it would also be legitimate for your to submit an erratum for the previous paper to the original journal, notifying your co-authors, and noting clearly in your erratum that your claim of an error is disputed by your co-authors.  I suspect that the journal might not accept this, but you could submit it if you wanted to.)

  Unfortunately, I lost my cool a little bit and some of my responses to her were harsh and less-than-professional. ...  we both made some statements that were unprofessional.

That is a problem, and you are both going to need to cool it.  (And it is probably worth apologising for any comments that were unprofessional.)  Keep your focus on the work, and the correctness or incorrectness of the methods and results.  If you cannot engage with Emily without making unprofessional comments, you should disengage communication with her.


Should I change “colour” to “color” when incorporating a Canadian article into an American book? I’m working on a book, written in American English for an American market. I’ve asked a Canadian author to contribute an article which will be included in its entirety in the book and attributed to her. She uses the colour spelling, while the rest of the book uses color – should I change the spelling throughout her article to color to conform to the house style or leave it as is?

Changing the spelling of a single word, in multiple places, from British to American English seems odd. Enforcing a particular writing style (e.g., American English) on all authors is fairly common. Ideally, you will have a professional copy editor edit the book. The copy editor will need to be given stylistic guidelines including spelling, word usage, abbreviation, citing, referencing, numbering and many other aspects. Once the chapter has been copy edited, it should be returned to the author for her final approval.


Should someone excited about research but who really wants to earn lots of money do a PhD? I'm asking on behalf of a friend.

He currently holds a temporary position at one of the top research institutes in the country. I know that he is excited about his work because he talks enthusiastically about it all the time. He'd ramble on happily for hours about the developments in his field and how the work done at his institute has a very real effect on society.

However, he has recently been offered a place to study for a PhD at the same institute. Though a great opportunity he is rather worried about the financial cut he would have to suffer if he takes up the offer.

Given all the stuff that's around on the net about how you should not do a PhD if money is really important to you, I'm wondering what a person in his position should do (i.e. loves research, but really wants to earn money) and what I should say to help him make a decision.

For what it's worth I'm a PhD student too (studying a different field at a different university)

You shouldn't do a Ph.D. if you don't love research.  You also shouldn't do a Ph.D. if you want to get rich now, since it will require a number of years living on a graduate student stipend.

However, most STEM field Ph.D. graduates have ample opportunities to make lots of money, including:

Founding a startup based on technology developed during their Ph.D., or joining somebody else's startup
Selling out, particularly if they have a solid mathematical background: there are any number of hedge funds and such that are desperately hunting for magic dust to give them an edge.
Just about any industry job will pay a well-suited Ph.D. well - not enough to make you rich, but enough to live a very comfortable life-style.

Of course, there is the danger that by the time one finishes a Ph.D., they may have become twisted such that they are no longer quite so interested in money per se, as happens to many of us.


What does status "Undisclosed" means for a conference paper I had sent a paper in a reputed conference. The status changed from "Under review" to "Decision pending" to "Undisclosed".

What is the meaning of status "Undisclosed" ? Does it indicate something?

"Undisclosed" means that the conference chair (or the in-charge of decisions) has already made a decision based on the comments received from the reviewers, but the decision is not yet made visible to the authors.

Wait for the decision notification date. You can see it on that date.


Does Iran's sanction play a pivotal role in rejecting papers from a journal? After 1.5 years of hard work on a project,  my former supervisor sent our paper to a journal. After about 10 hours, they sent the following response:

  After careful internal editorial consideration of your manuscript, we regret to inform you that we have decided not to pursue further peer review. We receive an extensive number of quality manuscripts each week and must make difficult decisions regarding which to progress in the peer-review process.  Generally, no editorial comments are available for papers that are not sent for external peer review.

My professor said that these kinds of things are happening frequently nowadays.

I supposed that is because of sanction (we are Iranian). Is this likely to be the case?

We are ordinary people with an academic background who caught up in tensions between countries and do not know what to do. I am going to pursue my Ph.D. in a university in Europe, Australia or New Zealand. In the admission board, they may look at my published papers sections on my CV, and with these kinds of behavior from international journals, I do not know what to do.

Speaking as an associate editor of a US-based journal that receives many international submissions, I can tell you that:

There are absolutely no guidelines or even informal suggestions that any paper should be handled differently based on the nationality of the authors or their institutions.
I have never heard of anyone making editorial decisions on such a basis or suggesting that they should.
In my own opinion, which I believe is shared by most or all of the other editors, to do #1 or #2 would be highly unethical.

I couldn't even tell you, without going and checking one by one, whether any of the papers I have handled recently had Iranian authors, because it absolutely doesn't matter.

Edit: following up on @Allure's answer below (which links to some older information), it seems there is a very slim and rare legal basis that would hypothetically prevent some editors from handling some manuscripts from Iran and other countries under US sanctions.  It definitely does not apply to the case discussed here, and would not be grounds for rejection since practically any major journal will have editors who are not bound by this restriction.  The most clear and recent explanation I could find is here.  The current rules are the result of a 2004 lawsuit that overturned much more restrictive rules in place back then.

Further edit: It seems that there is a recent instance of misinterpretation of the laws mentioned above, which led to rejection of a manuscript purely on the grounds of one author having an Iranian affiliation.  Eventually this was resolved and the rejection decision was reversed.  Note that in that case, the authors were specifically informed that the decision was based on US sanctions (albeit misinterpreted), and the decision was not made by or communicated by the journal editors.


How should I approach the scholarship committee for reconsideration if they have rejected my application? I applied for a scholarship at Ecole Polytechnique in France and received a rejection early this morning. I want the committee to reconsider my application but I can't find a good enough reason apart from saying that I will not be able to attend the institution without financial support. I have been admitted to another university (HKU) with a handsome scholarship and I was wondering if informing them about this might work. Any advice about this issue would be much appreciated.

Give Yourself another Chance

You can conduct your second try during the next scholarship application cycle - and the time frame of a cycle varies between scholarship providers. Some scholarship providers have an all-year round application cycle, which means you can re-apply for a scholarship as soon as you hear of your unsuccessful application. On the other hand, the time period of other scholarship providers' application cycles is more limited, only allowing you to make a second application a year later.

Write an Appeal Letter

While it is recommended that the next application cycle would be the time you attempt your second try, it also wouldn't hurt to submit an appeal letter to the scholarship provider directly.

In your letter, reiterate that you are trying to apply for the scholarship a second time (even you got a scholarship with another institute but you prefer this one). Make them aware that you are not one to give up after a failed attempt, and are more eager than ever to receive the scholarship in question. Apart from your determination to reach your goals, this will also speak volumes about your courageous, indefatigable spirit.

All in all, it is important to allow your humility and sincerity to shine through in your letter, or in your interview if you are given a second chance. And if, in the end, you do not secure the scholarship of your dreams, don't be disheartened - work towards your career goal anyway. You can always do well in university and clinch a college scholarship, one that comes with no bond and essential financial support. There are many paths towards your end-goal and you should never put out the fire of your hope.


What are the chances of being rejected in situation when applying for post. doc. without PhD supervisor's reference with valid reason? I have a horrible experience with my PhD advisor. He is the worst person to have as a PhD advisor. I should have judged him before but after 4th year of my program, I got what kind of a person he is.

Despite all these, I continued for my degree and will finish it in a year. I have almost decided if I apply for post-doc position, I'll not include his recommendation letter.

One big reason for this is the a "very serious academic misconduct" He did with me. I have documentation with proofs.

I will be very grateful for your suggestions/experience regarding my situation.

One of the largest fears of the people judging your applications is that they will be falsely accused for some "serious misconduct". And now you want to apply to them, accusing your ex-prof with a "serious misconduct" in your application.

You are harming yourself and not him.

If you decided to not start anything against him, you abstained your right to intervene. Accusing a prof with some serious is a really hard thing, best if you are far, far away from anything even similar to that.

If you didn't do anything at the time he committed the misconduct, and if you "defame" him later, retroactively, it looks very bad for you.

Even if you have documents and proof. The first question what would you hear: "And why didn't you do anything at the time?"

Despite that you had the obvious reason to not do anything at the time.

Furthermore, the people judging your applications probably won't know what he did. The strength of your application should be the possible strongest in their eyes, and not in yours. Missing his recommendation letter may be understable - for you -, but it will look very differently for them.

They will simply think that you don't have a recommendation letter because you are bad. And anything what you say about the case, will most likely further decrease your estimated value in their eyes.

Logic would dictate, the best would be in your case if you could somehow utilize the power of your proofs to let him to help you on your academic career. However, any possibility I can think for that, would be far more risky for you, as for him.

I am sorry to say, but I suggest to play this: "everything were happy, look what a wonderful LoR I've got". This maximizes your chances in the future.


Advice on what to do before applying to Grad School in CS I’m a graduate of Carnegie Mellon, B.S. Computer Science. I am contemplating doing a masters in something Computer Science-related as well, but my GPA is a bit on the low side (barely above a 3.0). I went through a rough patch during my time at CMU, and in many of my core CS classes I struggled a bit, oftentimes not getting anything better than a C. I also found it quite tough to find a internship/job in the tech industry in spite of doing all the interview preparation I could possibly think of. I eventually ended up getting a full-time software job at a corporate and investment bank, where I currently work. I thought I would take a break from school and get experience working for at least a couple of years before deciding what to do further.
Although I don’t miss the stress/anxiety that I went through in my undergrad years, I do kind of miss some of the challenging material I got exposed to in my classes (especially those related to algorithms, complexity and machine learning), and I feel like I want to contribute something to the world of Computer Science, as crazy as it might seem. In particular, I am interested in applications of Computer Science in Economics, as well as in addressing the issue of Climate Change. Since my time at CMU, I have taken a really hard look at myself and what went wrong back then, and am determined to change myself for the better. Right now, I feel convinced that I had the wrong mindset and simply made a series of poor decisions that prevented me from doing well, learning, growing and getting opportunities.
Given the position I am in right now, I know it is really difficult to get into grad school with the grades I have, especially after reading a few forums online (Need help and advice concerning how to apply and look for grad schools and How do you get a bad transcript past Ph.D. admissions?) and discussing with a few people. However, I do feel that I am still interested in Computer Science, and would consider having a research job in the future (apart from being a senior software engineer), either in academia or industry. Does anyone have any advice on what I should do before I even bother applying for a masters to advance in my career path? Should I take online classes as well? I know for a fact that I need recommendations from research professors and quite possibly even a published paper on a research project, but I’m not even sure where to start or how to get there, given where I work right now. Any advice would be greatly appreciated - thank you!

It's good that you have some sort of (specific) idea as to what you may want to do.  I'm a potential applicant for grad school in CS myself, so take this with a grain of salt, but...
The fact that you went to a top CS school like CMU will carry some weight.  A 3.0 from CMU will definitely carry more weight than the same GPA from a lesser-name school (maybe even a little higher than 3.0).  However, a 3.0 GPA is still low, regardless of where it comes from, so you will still need something to show for that.  As you mentioned, you'll need recommendations that can speak to your abilities and convince departments that you are much better than what happened in your undergrad.  My advice would be if you have some sort of connections with a few professors from undergrad, feel free to reach out for advice and see where you can go from there, maybe even see if you can get recommendations from them.  In addition, without focusing too much or being too negative, explain in your statement of purpose how you recovered from your earlier issues in undergraduate, especially if it was because of an extenuating circumstance(s).
As far as research experience goes, you could see if there are any options back at Carnegie Mellon, although options may be more limited there, especially if professors can only afford to bring on enrolled students.  Even if not, they may be able to point you to other opportunities that could help you get where you need to go.  For CS + economics, there are also opportunities at other institutions or even in industry if you look around.  You don't necessarily need a publication (you may if you want to get your PhD at Carnegie, Stanford, etc. but others will take students without publications).


Will working with a less involved supervisor hurt a student's career? I am a PhD student works in theory. I have good relationship with my advisor. I am currently after my mid stage. I come to know that my research supervisor does not help means ( in research problem finding etc) much. It is his way of supervising which is not uncommon in academia, but I have seen many supervisors who help their students a lot(type 2), due to that they have early publication and also more number of publications. In my case, I have the advantage of becoming more independent researcher. I am worried about my future as there are many many research coming from type 2 supervisors. I always try to work hard, but I can not beat people who works in a team.

Question: Will working with a less involved supervisor hurt a student's career?

The minimum you need from an advisor is to (a) sign your dissertation, and (b) write you a good letter of recommendation. Everything else can be helpful, but whether it occurs or not depends on too many things like personality, time, field, etc.

Whether a "helpful" or "hands off" advisor is better for you depends, again on a lot of things, but primarily on you and your field. But that really only matters up to the point at which the dissertation is ready to be signed and submitted. Some people, actually, have a better grasp of their research problem than their advisor and don't need any assistance. Others work closely together with the advisor on carrying forward on the research. Either can work, either can fail.

A close "working" relationship can fail if the advisor dominates the student too much, not leaving them time to develop proper insights in the field, or forcing them into work on something the student doesn't find interesting.

The only serious problem arises when the student truly needs help and the advisor is unable or unwilling to give it. There are quite a few questions on this site exploring that problem.

But you would like your advisor to be "hands on" for a few years after you finish your degree to help you along with your career. This can be in writing letters, of course, but also in introducing you to her/his circle of contacts, perhaps at conferences and meetings. That is when it can really count.

Ultimately, if you want to succeed, especially in academia, you need to become your own guide and to be able to guide others. An advisor can help bring you to that point either by helping you directly, or by just letting you work and then giving you feedback so you don't get too far off course.

My own advisor was helpful when he needed to be, but otherwise let me explore the problems I was working on in math.


Proper way to Format text related to Functions in an Article about a Computer Package I am new to software development and my background is not in computer science. I am writing an article about a software package I developed with some collaborators and I was wondering about the proper way to format the appearance of certain text in the body of the article. The article is being written in latex. It is not technical documentation, just the proceedings from a conference.

My understanding is that the package should be written in typewriter text font:

We developed the \texttt{Package Name} package to solve a problem

The issue I have is the correct formatting for functions. Should we include parentheses or not when discussing functions in the body of the text?

Should I write the form without parentheses:

A useful function is \texttt{ function1 } which performs a task.

or should I write the form with parentheses:

A useful function is \texttt{ function1() } which performs a task ?

Unfortunately my collaborators are unable to assist me right now and I have heard conflicting arguments from different graduate students and I have not been able to find a journal article which discusses a function in the body of a text.

I am not requesting information about the format of code or output, just the proper way to write about a function in the body of the text (i.e. inside a paragraph).

Thank you for looking at my post.

First, as I argued in this answer, I suggest you to not use directly the command \texttt but to define a new command reflecting its purpose.

About your specific question, a common way is as follows:

Don't put parentheses if you are declaring the existence of a certain function  or making a reference to it (example from the Matlab documentation):

  The inv function and the expression A^-1 both compute the matrix inverse.

Use the parentheses with the input argument list  when you want to describe the details of the function and its calling syntax:

  The function max(a,b) finds the maximum between the variables a and b.


How to search web for patents only? How can a search be made at google-scholars, Scopus etc for only patents?

I want to search patents on a given topic or a set of keywords, but the results mostly include papers. Where I have to scan through all the results manually to reach a patent.

To search for patents only, Google Patent Search, rather than Google Scholar, is the right tool for the job.