Should I list all my research on a CV? Or should I only put the most significant medical research trials? I am updating my CV and applying to jobs in medical research. I am wondering if I should put all the trials that I have worked on with various other doctors or just the most significant ones?  I have like 40 research trials I have worked on and it seems immodest and overdone.

Ah, this is a good question!

Unlike a resumé, in which one includes only the experiences/skills that are relevant to the position being applied for, a CV is meant to document all  reasonable academic endeavors and accomplishments. In some cases, lines on your CV will be only loosely related to your main research interest; my CV for instance includes several co-authored papers I am not particularly keen on.

I don't know that there is any hard-and-fast 'rule' stating your CV must be complete, good and bad, but it has been my impression over the years that one includes pretty much everything.  If you've ever wondered why your department chair's CV is 35 pages long, now you know why.


Appeal on overpunishment for exceeding word count was denied – how to proceed? I made an academic appeal over the marking of an essay, which was 13 words over the word limit.  The mark on the word-count section was unexpected, but was not consistent with the formal university word-limit marking rubric. (I cannot change the essay anymore.) Unexpectedly, my appeal was denied.

How should I further advance the appeal?
Here is what I considered so far:

Rely on independent student advocate, found by internal university contact. The issue with this is that I don’t know whether they play their role effectively. My first appeal was already denied. And before marking academic appeal, I did request for independent student advocate to be involved and witness debate of academic appeals process.
Approach an ombudsman and independent student advocate to invite them observe the entire process of complaints to the university registrar (invitation goes before arrival of formal approach, so there are witnesses to breakdowns in procedures)? This seems workable solution, and is an option I believe I can trust.
Consult the family lawyer to engage in challenges and observe the review process to make sure no more maladministration.
Perhaps a combination of 2 and 3? This may be too aggressive, but seems to have a higher chance of success than 2 or 3.

Is my thinking sound? Is there a better way I haven’t thought of?

Details on word count inconsistency are as follows......
a/ There are 5 gradated sections for word count limits.  There is no hard public published specification on when you transition from one gradated section to another.  There is no published specification that suggests that if 5 (or 10 or 15)% over word limit then you lose marks.  The marking rubric is vague and does not specify what percentage over word limits, transition you from one gradated marking section to the next one down.
It is at the marker's discretion

b/ My essay had a word limit of 2500 words.  My submitted essay had a word count of 2513 words, or 13 words (0.5 %) over the word limit. From my understanding based on experience from submitting previous essays within this department and university system, it should have gotten in the top section (because it was within the previous experience of applied margin of errors before mark degradation), or one down from the top gradated section.  The mark I got for the word count section was the 2nd section from the bottom.

c/ I did email the instructor (before essay deadline) for guidance on when word count limits transition from one formal marking section to another, eg 5% or 10% etc.  The instructor never replied to this query.

d/ the word limits was only for the main body of the essay only -where the substantive argument is.  Word count does not include title, references, bibliography, footnotes.

e/ the essay word count was not changed after first formal deadline.  It was the same word count at the time of submission of first formal deadline, as it was at the time of academic appeals denial.

Would you like any other details?

Accept it and move on.  Consider:

You had a clear rule for the word count
You violated that rule
You appealed and were denied

And that's it.  Engaging in other extreme forms of behavior, such as trying to involve a lawyer (!), will surely sour the attitude of everyone involved toward you.

To address one point specifically, when you didn't hear back from the professor about word count rules, you should probably have defaulted to following the rules to the letter.  I personally try to always respond to the emails I get, but I admit I vastly deprioritize emails that are asking me things with clear answers already available - such as a word count limit.


When an academic researcher receives a gift funding from an industry partner, does the academic researcher's university take a cut? When an academic researcher receives a gift funding from an industry partner, does the academic researcher's university take a cut, or does the academic researcher receives the entire gift funding?

If this is university and country dependent, I am mostly interested in the United States, and I'd be interested to have some survey (e.g., x % of universities % take a 20-30% commission, y % of universities % take no commission).

@Closevoters: according to What is our stance regarding questions asking for survey of institution’s regulations?, the question is on-topic. Closing the question would prevent future readers to add surveys as an answer. For example, someone who work in the industry with many university partners might have a good idea of how often universities take commissions for gift fundings. Buffy's answer shows that one can give a good answer to the question, stating factors that may come into account.

In response to comments:

the expression "taking a cut" is neutral. I'm not trying to imply anything in my question.
Definition of gift funding: see https://doresearch.stanford.edu/policies/research-policy-handbook/definitions-and-types-agreements/gift-vs-sponsored-projects-and-distinctions-other-forms-funding#anchor-1102 (mirror) "A gift, on the other hand, is defined as any item of value given to the University by a donor who expects nothing significant of value in return". A gift isn't a grant or sponsored research project.

Than can depend on a lot of things. The answer is often yes, occasionally no.

The question may depend, in part, on what the university contributes to you as a researcher, including office space, lab space, RA support, whatever. It might also depend on whether it is the university that has to manage the grant and verify to the funder that the funds are properly spent - accounting for the funds and seeing that any necessary taxes are paid.

Universities have policies about these things and you should find out what those policies are in your case, but the answer is more likely that you and the university share the proceeds. The university "cut" might be quite a lot, actually.

And the characterization of it as a "gift" might be questioned or contested.


Concern about possible conflicts between research sharing policies Funders, publishers, institutions and others are increasingly moving towards policies that are aimed at sharing research.

The degree of openness — and other stipulations in those policies — vary quite considerably, so some sort of conflict between policies of a researcher's institution, funder and publisher or between those of collaborators is to be expected.

How much should a researcher be worried about these sorts of conflicts?  Are there examples where sharing policies that differ have turned out to conflict in a way that actually inhibits the sharing that they were intended to enable?

This question was originally posted on the Open Science SE private beta, due to be closed tomorrow.

From a UK standpoint, I've yet to see an example of two open-access funder/institution policies that fundamentally conflict with each other. There is a lot of variance between them in details, and some are more stringent than others, so you could certainly do something that would be enough for Policy A but not enough for Policy B.

However, it's very hard to think of a situation which would be required to comply with one but also prevent you from complying with another.

The main problem in practice is not that they conflict, but that they're all subtly different and they ask for subtly different things. This increases the reporting burden on institutions/researchers who may have to demonstrate compliance with subtly different policies, and provide almost-but-not-quite identical reports to different funders. It also increases confusion among researchers ("which policy applies here?"), and can understandably lead to frustration. More friction, more indirect costs, more headaches for all concerned...

On the plus side, there is definite interest in convergence. I strongly suspect that within a few years, we'll see more funders adopting a standardised OA policy (perhaps one of two or three versions - all-Gold, green permitted, etc), which should help solve this issue.


Will US graduate schools accept me retaking a GRE subject test in the spring? I just took the GRE Mathematics exam and I think I didn't do very well. I answered only 39 of the 66 questions due to lack of time (I knew I could answer a lot more but it would take some time to do the calculations so I left them for the end and never managed to return-I didn't even get to question 60). What I want to say is that I know I can do better but I am not that fast. I tried to register for the October exam but it is impossible-everywhere in my country! So I want to ask:

Will my score be sufficient to at least have a chance in good PhD programs (my goals were UCLA, UIUC, Berkley, Stanford...)?
Do you think that these universities could accept my application if I say I will retake the test in April?

A poor test score is not disqualifying if the rest of your application is strong.

However, an April test date will not work for admission next fall. The reason for this is that the US admissions cycle requires acceptance decisions around mid-April. Since the test is in mid-April, and scores won't be available until mid-May, they would have to accept you "blind," without knowing what your scores would be. So you're essentially "stuck" with the scores you have, at least for admission for the upcoming fall semester.


Why do many instructors avoid giving personal introductions? I recall that as an undergraduate, very few of the older instructors ever presented basic details about themselves. While I can understand how most would not reveal much about their family life, I cannot understand why few told about their academic background, research interests, work history, or other details which seem connected to the course. This was not the case with the younger instructors and graduate student teachers. Now that I teach undergraduates, I wonder if these older instructors knew through experience that it is best to keep quiet about one's background. Is there a good reason for instructors to keep back such information?

I am not sure whether this is in any way related to the age of the instructor, but the primary reason that most people I know don't do a "this is me and my vast experience and research results" style introduction is that it is all too easy to come across as bragging. Even if you have the best intentions and just want to explain your background to the students, so that they can judge your qualifications for themselves, it may sound to them like you are really just showing off.

Most students assume that the instructor knows what he's talking about, until they have solid evidence to the contrary. There is really no reason to explicitly talk about your experience beforehand.

That being said, if you feel like a short introduction of yourself will add to the course, go ahead. In the grand scheme of things, I am sure whether you talk for 5 minutes about yourself in the beginning of a course is the tiniest of issues. What I would avoid is what one industrial lecturer in my alma mater did. This guy spent 5 - 10 minutes of the beginning of every lecture talking about himself and his company (and was ridiculed a fair bit for this by the students :) ).


What to call someone that is currently studying for their PhD? I'm using a PhD student as a reference for an application, and I wonder what title I should use for her. She hasn't yet got her PhD title but is still writing her thesis. Is there a name for that position?

The title would likely be "Mr." / "Mrs." / "Ms.". There is no prepended academic title that means "will likely have a doctorate at some point".

In other news, a PhD student is probably not a good reference in the first place. You should look for somebody who has been in the game a bit longer and provide a reference that more plausibly compares you against a wider range of previous students.


How to find out someone really holds a Doctorate in Electrical Engineering from Hungary? How to find out if someone holds a Doctorate in Electrical Engineering from Technical University of Budapest?
I know that the university changed its name to Budapest University of Technology and Economics.

He claims he got a Doctorate in Electrical Engineering from that university in 1972. What I know is that he has a professional "engineering degree" from that university registered in the Engineer Association in my country. But the translation of his degree does not say Doctor nor PhD, just electrical engineer. The certificate is in Hungarian with a translation to Spanish, but translation has no word of "Doctor" anywhere.

Another thing is that I find no record of any article nor paper nor publication from him on any journal. Well obviously I can not look for in Hungarian language.

When I finished my PhD (in math), I was registered in math genealogy project and I have one paper published on a reputable math journal.

Is there a web-page similar to Math Genealogy Project for electrical engineering?

I have also written to the university but have no reply until now. I do not know also if Hungarian Universities may release records of former students.

Is there anyway to verify that person really holds a doctorate? Or how can I prove he does not have it?

You could try writing to someone who teaches mathematics there --- see the course coordinators listed here. Pick someone who is likely to have heard of you (or your Ph.D. advisor, or any of your co-authors, or someone who might be marginally interested in anything you've worked on) and make sure the email subject line reflects this connection. I've done this sort of thing MANY times, even a few times in the early 1990s by postal mail. Also, try writing to a reference librarian, something I've also done successfully several times.

To hopefully not overstate the obvious, if you write to someone in mathematics (a field I chose because you said you are in mathematics), this person is almost certainly not going to know the answer to your question, but he/she should be able to assist you in locating someone who can investigate your question, and you should be clear about this in your email to any such person in mathematics.


Will the January 2018 government shut down affect the NSF postdoc awards? I very recently learned that I will be awarded an NSF postdoc!
And then the US government shut-down.

Should I expect the NSF postdoc to work out once the government starts running again?

Note: The email I received from the NSF is not an official award notice. From the NSF website is says that during this shut-down period “no new grants or cooperative agreements will be awarded”. It does not say anything about whether grants that have been scheduled will be awarded once operations resume. Perhaps I am overthinking it, but I am worried that the NSF postdoc might fall through and it will be to late for me to make alternate arrangements.

The NSF recently changed its accounting practices, so that money for awards are committed all at once, rather than year-by-year. So, that means that the funding for your award should already have been “available” when you got the notification. Unfortunately, a shutdown means that no further processing will likely take place until it ends, so there may be some delays in the start of your award. But I can’t imagine a scenario where the NSF cancels awards it was planning to make because of the shutdown.


Have there been studies of differences between journal paper authors and conference paper authors? In research fields such as computer science, academic publication mostly happens at two kinds of venues: peer-reviewed journals, and peer-reviewed conferences. The main difference is that conferences usually require that some author presents the work at the conference and pays a registration fee for the conference, whereas journals do not.

One criticism of conference in this light is that they are not open to all academics: they exclude researchers in poorer countries and institutions which cannot afford the conference registration fee or trip, they discourage geographically remote authors for which attending a conference is complicated, they discourage people who for personal reasons cannot easily travel (caring for a child or family member, having a disability, etc.).

My question is: has there been any systematic study to estimate the magnitude of this effect? E.g., take the dataset of article metadata for articles and journals of various fields, and study if there are systematic differences in terms of the author's institutions, countries, gender, etc.

My relatively quick Google and Google Advanced searches didn’t identify empirical studies that address the question you ask. However, a search using the terms [scientific conference presentation] and [diversity] yielded this article discussing the need for actively working to increase diversity among conference presenters:
https://physicsworld.com/a/fifteen-tips-to-make-scientific-conferences-more-welcoming-for-everyone/
This article does not address your question directly, but it makes me think that framing your question in terms of a comparison between authors of published papers and authors of conference papers may not be the most productive approach to finding relevant literature.
The majority of researchers who have published in peer-reviewed journals have also presented their work (sometimes the same work) at conferences. By making the author/presenter the unit of analysis, one risks substantial overlap in the two groups—-very likely washing out any real differences that exist. “Noisy” data are problematic in their potential to overlook effects as well as to suggest them erroneously.
I think that a reasonable answer to your question would be more likely to come from separate examination of the two avenues (journals vs presentations)for the diversity of their authors.
In 20+ years’ experience with both conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications, I note barriers to diversity in both venues. It is certainly true that attending a conference takes time and money that many researchers lack. However, research of sufficiently high quality to obtain inclusion in peer-reviewed journals typically comes from well-funded labs to which only a small percentage of the academic world has access. Biases in admitting students into graduate programs, biases in hiring academic/research personnel, and biases in the awarding of research grants guarantee that both journal and conference avenues will have less than optimal diversity. I think that separate investigations of the two would be very interesting.


Reference letter from visiting faculty vs unrelated faculty? We have a visiting faculty in our department, her main research area encompassing Embedded Systems, which happens to be my area of research as well. I have worked with her on my Minor Project (Undergraduate). I asked her if she could write a recommendation letter for me, and she said she sure can but I should approach other Professors/Assistant Professors who are not a guest faculty in my department. (She doesn't yet have that "Prof." in front of her name.)

There is one more Professor, with whom I haven't worked but have taken four-five courses and hence he knows a lot about me and my abilities. However, since I am applying for MS, prior research experience of course matters. Also, the problem is that that Professor's field doesn't include Embedded Systems.

And since my research field is going to be related to Embedded Systems, wouldn't it be better to get it from the teacher who teaches Embedded Systems and with whom I have worked?

I am confused as to which faculty to get the reference letter from. Would it be beneficial to get it from the teacher I have worked with but is a visiting teacher?

If you are applying to a M.Sc. position in a particular research area, and there is a senior researcher (i.e., someone with their PhD) in this area who has supervised your work on this topic and can speak positively to your research abilities, then I think it would definitely be beneficial to get a letter of recommendation from this person, whether they are a Professor yet or not.  At the same time, a professor with whom you have taken a number of courses could also provide a strong reference for you.  And yes, if they are a more senior figure, then that may carry more weight with an admissions committee.  A senior person may also be better able to compare you to other students that they have encountered over the years, and, if this comparison is positive, this can be really compelling in a letter.

But there are a number of other factors you need to consider in getting the best possible letter of recommendation.  First of all, the letter needs to be positive.  Secondly, it needs to contain specifics.  Third, it needs to speak to the requirements/criteria of the position/scholarship that you are applying for.  So you need to figure out which of these people can write the better letter, all considered.  If you were to provide them with some talking points for their letters, which set of talking points would be stronger?

I am surprised more students do not simply ask the person whether they can write a positive letter in advance.  It's amazing, but you do occasionally see support letters that actually criticize the applicant.  I think it's fair to establish in advance whether the referee can indeed produce something positive.

Of course, cultivating both of these relationships would be a good idea to help you in your future career.  There may be other cases where you need three letters (e.g., for scholarship applications).  Some people also list references on their C.V. in a special section.  You might ask them whether would mind being listed in this way, whether you use their letter or not.  When an applications committee reviews your application, they put a lot of weight into references from people they are familiar with.


Requesting endorsement for arxiv from future professor as a high-school graduate I finished high-school, and would like to publish articles on arxiv. I got into university, and found out that a professor of the institue of mathematics is submitting papers to the site. I start my first semester next month, and do not know him, however I would like to publish an article this week.

Is it a good idea to ask for endorsement from him? If so, what is the “best” way to ask?

I would like to do research in the future too, as I am extremely interested in the subject (analysis) and I have been learning it for a long time.

This sounds to me like a great opportunity to introduce yourself and possibly find a mentor relationship in the bargain.

Just be succinct and straight-forward about who you are and what led you to contact this particular professor.  I would also recommend taking the opportunity to invite the professor to give you feedback, which 1) may be sorely needed and 2) might be the beginning finding some interesting research connections as an undergraduate.

An email you write might go something like this:

  Hello, Professor Ridcully:

  You don't know me yet, but I'm going to be a student at Unseen University this Fall, and I am interested in mathematical research.  I've already been working some on my own, and have put together a manuscript that I would like to post on arXiv.  I'm contacting you because I need somebody to endorse my submission, and noticed that you have recently posted on arXiv as well.  If you would be interested in giving me feedback on this work, I would be interested in that as well.

  Please let me know if you are willing to help, and I will send you my manuscript.


How to work in a group where the group members need to be taught everything? Edit: I met with the prof and she agreed that it wasn't my responsibility or place to teach my group mates the foundations they were supposed to have learned.  A direct quote was that "everyone has to fend for themselves."

There are several similar (and very helpful) questions which address some points of this question, but I feel this question is a bit different and thus merits being asked.

(1) How to handle team member who is unable/unwilling to collaborate

(2) How to handle a colleague who hasn't pulled their weight

(3) How to make group work work?

The first two questions do not apply because each of the collaborators wishes to contribute and not just ride the wave so-to-speak.  I attempted to follow some of the suggestions of the third question, but the group thought it was insulting.

  add more structure to the group project. This increases the workload
  on your end but it mitigates the most common issues you'll see in
  groups during group projects.

  Use and quality based hierarchy, assign the hard-working students as
  group leads.

I am in a group to complete an assignment.  The teammates are very willing to collaborate and work, but the problem is that they did not actually learn the course material when they were supposed to.  Therefore, they cannot actually help out without a significant amount of learning.

The group expects me to sit down with them for many hours (whole days) to teach them and collectively complete the assignment together.  I feel that this is far too much responsibility, effort, and time required on my part, since my teammates lack the skills to contribute because they were unsuccessful in keeping up with the course material.

How should I proceed?

You don't really have many options. As I see them:

You can talk to the instructor, explain the situation, and ask to move to another group
You can talk to the instructor, explain the situation, and ask to do the project individually
You can actually sit down and teach them

As far as which you should do, there are too many variable for us to answer here. However, it seems the best would be start with (1). If that fails, try (2). If that also fails, do (3) and try to find the pleasure in teaching others.


Should I mention undergraduate research history when writing a resarch statement for a faculty position? I am a PhD student applying to academic faculty positions in mid-sized institutions in the United States. I am writing research statements for ecological/environmental positions with a major focus on my current (graduate) research and my plans for extending my research in the future. However, I had almost 5 years of research experience prior to coming to grad school (4 of the 5 were while I was an undergraduate).

My question is, should I mention or incorporate in any way the research I was involved with as prior to graduate school? I am especially curious about work done as an undergraduate.

Also, does the quality of work matter? for example, I researched and published an undergraduate thesis but also worked as research assistant on a number of projects.

Do you feel that your undergrad research is a significant part of your research profile, or tied in with your current research interests?  If so, then yes.  If not, then I don't see it adding much value to your research statement.  For research schools, you want your research statement to be impressive, not watered down with minor results.  I was involved in 1-2 (unpublished---1 became a paper, which got accepted, but I decided not to publish) research projects as an undergrad, but I did not even think to mention them in my research statement.
Note any papers you published will appear on your CV, so the committee will already see these.

However, one place you might mention it is in connection with the prospect of supervising undergrad research.  You can say what a good experience it was for you, and how you would like to be involved in it on the other side now.  This could come up either your teaching statement and/or your research statement, depending on your application.  (I might put it in my research statement if the projects I was already discussing lead to good projects for undergrads.)  This could be a boon, depending on how much the departments you're applying to value undergrad research.


How to cite in text a citation translated by me Thats the question. I'm writing a paper in Spanish and I need to cite (APA) several citations in Spanish of books written in English that doesn't have translated versions. My reviewer is telling me that I need to be explicit about it but I don't now how to do it. Should I write "Name (2001, translated by me)"?

I have it clear for the reference, put it on brackets with my translation, but I don't know how to do it in text.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Your suggestion "Name (2001, translated by me)" seems good to me.  Or else "Name (2001)" and then include translation information in the reference.

However, in a formal paper you would not say "translated by me".  Maybe "translated by the author" or "translated by AB" your initials, or even "translated by Alexis Brown" your name.

If there are several of your translations in the paper, maybe say once at the beginning: "Translations are by AB, unless otherwise attributed".


How do I reference/cite a figure created specially for me by someone else? A friend of mine helped to created figures shown in my thesis. I know that you do not need te reference figures created yourself. (How) am I supposed to give credits to my friend?
Is there a special Latex record or field?

There are the usual LaTex characters for registered trademark and copyright though I doubt if your friend will press for these. It would be unseemly I feel if you were to put ref numbers on each or any of these figures with a footnote on the page end; or even to make a reference comment at the end of the thesis. However I've seen trademark symbols in engineering theses where a branded material was being evaluated - in fact they were everywhere that material was mentioned !
In every research publication there is a space for Acknowledgements. Journal publications have it towards the end, theses have it before Chapter 1. In this section you pay tribute to many named and/or unnamed colleagues and friends for practical assistance and helpful discussions. Explicit mention of the party providing the set of figures in question would be best placed here. If the person normally provides such figures on a professional basis, e.g. a graphic content designer in private practice, you may mention the business name but not perhaps any web site address. If the person is a university employee, e.g. someone working in the university printing press, you may mention their bureau. For example,
Acknowledgements
" ... and a special thanks to John Smythe of Magraphix for design work on figures 3.m - 3.w . . ."
or
" ... and a special thanks to Soraya Helegloglu at Trinity College London Press for design work on figures 3.m - 3.w . . ."


How can I convey my knowledge about a field without publications in a PhD application? I'm a CS undergrad interested in Machine Learning. During the past year, I've delved deep into a theoretical book in Machine Learning and wrote many programs to demonstrate / visualize concepts and algorithms. I hope, when I apply to a PhD program, the advisor can know about this, because it displays my dedication and passion about this field. However, I don't know how.

Any broad or specific advice will help.

Additional notes: I'm not in a desperate situation in which I have to depend on showing off the books I've read to get into a PhD -- I have relevant research experiences and recommendations.  I am currently a sophomore.

Given that you're a sophomore at a fairly selective liberal arts college [*], you still have plenty of time. Indeed, in two years time the work you're doing now might seem rather simplistic and quaint to you, due to your likely much greater "maturity" in relevant subject-matter knowledge by then.

[*] You mentioned this in a comment. You should probably include this information in your question, but perhaps omit the name of the college.

I recommend considering doing a more advanced independent study course with an appropriate faculty member, impress the faculty member, and ask this faculty member be one of those who will write a letter of recommendation for you when you apply to graduate programs. And also do what @Dan Romik suggests.


Why are Macbooks so ubiquitous in Science, if they are status symbols In Biology, I was told, you will almost not be able to find a professor that does not have a Macbook. And as soon as they have enough money, students and scientific staff will follow.

But also in my own field, mathematics, I have seen lots of highly respected professors with Macbooks.

Now, I have never worked with a Macbook myself, but I have helped out colleagues with problems a few times and I have really have not encountered any advantages over a regular and half as expensive Windows laptop, or an even cheaper Linux laptop.
Those that I know good enough to question their choice of laptop confirm exactly my suspicion, saying they thought it was pretty/everyone in their lab had one, or swear by it but never had a different laptop.

Is there something I am missing about Macs? Maybe some recent convert out there?
If not, why are academics so keen on status symbols? Isn't academia the one place where content should count, not looks, or even worse, depiction of wealth?

EDIT: while I agree that this question is prone to flame wars and the question about mac vs. anything else is also not really new, I DID want to know about the specific situation for scientists and the two answers so far are exactly of the kind that I wished when I was posting the question. Now of course mentioning that Macs might(! "if they..") be regarded as status symbols attracts attention to my question ;)

Rest assured that there are reasons enough for using good quality hardware. Those of us who purchase a Mac do not do so because they are a "status symbol". We do so because they are the best tool for the job.

In many fields, using Windows is simply not an option. We need UNIX.
Linux is a good operating system, is free, and can be installed on a wide variety of hardware. However, Linux is nowhere near as refined as OS X in terms of its overall usability. We can often be much more productive on an OS X machine, and reserve Linux for use in virtual machines or on a powerful desktop when we need software stability or heavy-lifting power.
The other side of the coin is hardware. Until recently, there was very scarce competition in terms of hardware quality. Macs are built well, thin and light, and have long battery life – great for conferencing. Now, other manufacturers have caught up and are making hardware that is at least as good – but a high quality Thinkpad or Dell XPS is still just as pricey as a Mac. I repeat: comparably high quality Windows hardware is just as expensive as a Mac.

The money spent on a good machine pays for itself in productivity.


Reporting in first person singular where two authors are listed I am proofreading a text where two authors are listed (one of which is the writer, and the other, apparently, only a "supervisor") and in reporting the author(s) use first person singular (instead of first person plural): I believe, I was surprised etc. I find this very illogical and was wondering whether there was a rule for this type of situation.

To be more specific: right below the title of the essay two authors are listed. However, in the introduction and in the conclusion, the author(s) say that "I was somewhat surprised..." and, towards the end, "it is hard for me to..." It seems illogical to me to list two authors and then report in the first person singular. When I suggested this be edited, they told me only "one person was the writer, while the other one was the supervisor".

What should be done in such a situation? Should the "supervisor" also be treated as one of the writers and verbs be written in plural, or should this person simply be removed from the list of authors regardless of his or her contribution?

Number in scientific writing is fairly straightforward:

Multiple authors should be plural.
Complementarily, a single author should be singular (except when speaking of author and reader together), but many academics are uncomfortable with this and end up either sort of doing a sort of "royal we."

The response of the authors seems to be asserting that the supervisor is not really properly an author.  As such, I would suggest pointing them toward the Vancouver Protocol and giving them a choice:

If the supervisor is really an author, the paper should be changed to plural.
If the paper remains singular, the supervisor should be demoted from authorship to acknowledgement.


Gift to a second-advisor I have just defended my MA thesis which I have one advisor who does not live at the same place with me, and therefore I have build my thesis and discuss all the results around bi-monthly frequency with an academics who works at the same institution with me.
She also came to my defense (which was at another city we live) and from the beginning to the end supported my and my work as if she is my primary advisor. (FYI, my main advisor even said to me that "you did all the work by yourself and I did not contribute anything). Plus, the academics I work with is also my boss and she's an executive person in the workplace. I have two questions in mind:

I want to give a copy of my finished thesis in a hardcover format, is it okay to give the final version with a hardcover one to the advisors? (+ I did not want to give it to my main advisor as he did not care/direct me at all) I heard some people give the hardcopy, but I am not sure about it. In fact I want her to read the Acknowledgements part that I thank to her in a detailed way..
I consider giving a nice present to her, could be a good quality pen etc, but should it be appropriate because she holds also an executive title at the workplace?

At the beginning, I was hesitant to work with her as people around may misunderstand it, but we started somehow. But since completing this thesis meant a lot to me, I want to give a nice gift to her? If it could be appropriate, what would be your suggestions?

Barring any specific restrictions in your country or institution, a gift is fine in this circumstance. I'd suggest something small, fairly inexpensive, but thoughtful. I've got chocolates from a master's student sitting on my desk right now and I appreciated them. If you are from another country or region, some treat from your place of origin would be appropriate. Really, just a thoughtful card in which you've written how much they helped you is enough (and greatly appreciated).

I'd not give the hardbound copy unless they specifically ask for it. We supervisors only have so much shelf space and most of us don't have room for all the physical master's dissertations we supervise. I'd personally not want one. Digital copy, sure, but I don't have a use for a physical copy and your supervisor likely doesn't either.


My name in publications as an author is different from my name in the passport, how to prove that I'm the same person? My name in all of my publications is Mohamed Abd El-Ghafour (Abd El-Ghafour, M.) while in passport is Mohamed Abd El-Ghafour Omar, so Abd El-Ghafour is a middle name, is this will be a problem in linking my publications to my passport?
Thank you very much

I would not be worried about the passport having a different name. However, if you want to claim the publications as your own, I would setup an ORCID. That would link them to you and each other. On your ORCID account, list your full name. ORCID also lets you list other names as well.


Can we modify some part of a standard benchmark? Will the results be accepted by the community? I am researching on spinlock synchronization method used in parallel applications. Unfortunately most of the standard benchmarks in the parallel computing area use another type of synchronization method called mutex locks. I am thinking to replace mutex locks in these benchmarks with spinlocks and get the results? Will the results be still considered by the scientific community if I inform the modifications done to the benchmarks? Will that be a valid claim? Any pointer in this matter is highly appreciated.

You can always propose a new benchmark and demonstrate that it measures what you want. Once you've done that, you can show how your new thing compares. The scientific is not guaranteed to care, but if your methodology is good, it may catch on.


Is it okay to directly copy a diagram/image from another research paper into yours? We are writing a research paper and for our experiments using a model/architecture that was created by other researchers for a specific task. We are using the same model in a modified way for a different task, but the model at its core is the same.

Is it okay for us to directly lift the image/drawing/diagram of the model/architecture and post it in ours? We would give due credits of course. We thought about drawing it on our own again and posting it but we did not want it to seem as if we are hiding the fact that we are using someone else’s model and trying to pass it off as ours.

The paper in question is available in the open domain, so I doubt there will be any copyright issues.

If the image/research paper is marked as released to the Public Domain, then you can use the content as you wish. That being said, if the image is actually from someone/somewhere else, you may still be able to use it as per the Fair Use Act:

These sites may help you understand more:

Stanford University - Fair Use Overview
FairUse @ US Department of Copyright


Should we tell students they need to improve their English? As an instructor or teaching assistant for a graduate class at a top institution, is it okay to tell students (e.g. in homework feedback) that they need to improve their English? What's the best way to do so without offending or discouraging them?

I'm specifically asking for math/science-based classes where, for instance, students are required to write proofs which involve a lot of "informal"  (i.e. using English rather than mathematical notation) proofs and reasoning.

This happens mostly with international students.

You may prepare a list of local resources where an international student could improve his or her English language skills.  For example

campus writing center
volunteer language practice pairing service
special courses or workshops for English language learners
opportunities to improve one's public speaking skills (the focus may not be on English, but this can be incredibly helpful) -- this might be offered in the Business school in your university
literacy volunteers program located in your town or city

Once you have your specific list prepared, you might ask your professor to distribute it for you.  You can point out in the intro that strong English skills increase one's employability!

In the meantime... set yourself a maximum amount of time per assignment you feel you can afford to spend correcting a student's English, and go ahead and make some corrections.  (Think what this will do for your karma!)

If a particular assignment is not gradable due to incomprehensibility, bump it up to the professor.


Extending a paper being peer-reviewed? I'm currently peer-reviewing a paper (for a computer science conference; review is double-blind). While reading it, I came up with a method for the problem they're solving, somewhat inspired by their approach but fairly separate. I haven't implemented and tested it yet, but I expect it to be better than their approach, and it is definitely (in my mind) simpler. The idea came from slightly reframing their approach based on papers that they've cited in their submission, so they had the tools to do so, but they may not be as familiar with as I am (it happens to be right in my wheelhouse).

I see two options here:

Suggest the reframing and the new method to them in the review. They may or may not do anything about it, but if they do, all I get is thanks to an anonymous reviewer in their acknowledgements, assuming the paper gets in. (In my opinion, their paper is probably borderline for this conference.) If they don't use the idea, then it just goes away.
Don't say anything about it in the review; develop the method independently. think, at this early stage, that it's reasonably likely a whole new paper can be written based on this method and related improvements I have in mind. If their paper gets in to this conference, or is put online / gets in somewhere else before I'm done with my paper, cite them. If it doesn't, I could either ignore their paper and write my own – which feels somewhat dishonest, though I wouldn't really be using their results in my new paper – or ask the PC to get me in touch with the authors for possibly collaborating on a single joint paper with both methods. I don't know if that kind of thing is ever done.

Option 1 is clearly ethical, but if option 2 is also ethical, it's both better for my career and possibly better for scientific progress as a whole (if they don't end up using the idea). So my question is: is option 2 okay? What do I do in the case where their paper doesn't get in?

I am hesitant with this question because the ethics of the fact that you are in a position of authority over them and what you do could affect whether or not they are published. The point of research is to advance the field, so by reading their paper, you have had a reactionary idea that will advance the field even more. So, I vote to mention it in the review and see if they pick up the idea, if advancing scientific progress is truly what you are worried about. If they don't do anything with the information then go ahead and develop it yourself.

Otherwise, you risk rejecting them for personal gain, on an idea that you said you haven't even implemented or tested yet, something that they have done.


How to get information about new citations in Google Scholar without making profile public Once per week I check my Google Scholar profile and I can see my citations count is increased. I would like to know, to which papers/works my increase in the number of citations is related to. How can I know this without making my profile public?

You can set an alert on "New citations to my articles" and receive this information by email.


What should I do when the recommender is not replying? I am applying for Ph.D. in US universities. I already applied in some places and suggested my recommenders name as well. Now one of my recommender (who previously wrote a recommendation letter for me) is unreachable. I mean I wrote her earlier and she gave me permission. Also, I had a copy of her letter which she sent me earlier. I wrote her emails but she did not respond.
Now my question is can I ask the universities (where I applied) if they will accept the letter from me as my recommender is unavailable at the moment? If I have to ask, whom should I ask? The graduate program coordinator or the graduate office? Will it make a negative impact on my candidacy?
(All my application papers, other two LORs have been submitted, only this one is left)
Also, it is quite impossible to manage another recommender as the university is closed and the deadlines are nearer.

I would do a couple of things.
First, see if you can quickly organize a different recommender. Maybe futile, but it might work. Long term it might be useful to have a backup in any case.
Second, but simultaneously, inform the university to which you are applying that you can't reach the recommender and that Covid may be the reason. Tell them you have a copy of another letter from this person and ask for their advice on how to proceed. Give the name and email of your recommender, I think.
I suspect that people will be reasonable, given the general disruption. It shouldn't reflect badly on you if you do due diligence in getting recommendations. They may even be a bit "soft" about deadlines for such things. Note that admissions to doctoral programs is normally handled by people, not machines, and the people are all facing various kinds of disruption.
Finally, note that you not getting feedback from the recommender doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't otherwise doing their part. There may be a lot of reasons for not replying, many of them valid.


When does it make sense to send more inquiries asking about review progress to PLoS ONE? My paper has been under review for 2.5 months now at PLoS ONE. I am still waiting for the first review result.

I have sent three inquiries to ask about the progress, and all the responses were telling me that the paper is out for review and PLoS ONE is doing their best to process my paper efficiently.

In the title of the PLoS ONE website, it writes "accelerating the publication of peer-reviewed science". I am really disappointed. PLoS ONE is the slowest among all the journals to which I have submitted.

My question is, does it still make sense to send additional inquires about the progress to the journal? If it does, what should I write in the inquiry?

===update===

Three months now from the submission, I still have not got the first decision. My case is an example showing Plos One is very slow. If you want to publish something quickly, Plos One is the wrong choice! Indeed, it is the slowest among all the journals I have submitted to.

===update===

Just got the first decision a few days ago. i.e. The first decision is made around 3 months after submission. The review results are very simple and positive actually, simply asking to cite more references and add some discussions. Still can not understand though why so simple and straightforward review comments need 3 months to conceive!

PLOS One are pretty good at hassling editors to get a move on (I know, I am one) and if an editor doesn't move on a paper, they will reassign it to a new editor. So I don't think asking what's happening will help.

The usual reason for delays is reviewers. You ask someone to review. They don't reply. They are reminded. After two weeks, you give up and try to find a new reviewer. You invite them to review. After one week they agree. Two weeks later  a reminder is sent. A week after that another reminder is sent. A week after that you give up and invite a new reviewer. We are at two months, and we don't have a reviewer yet.

The one thing that you might do to help is suggest reviewers. You might be aware of people who are working in the area that the editor may not know about (for example, because you have seen them present at a conference).


Would it be ok/wise to end my PhD contract after submitting my PhD thesis in order to be able to start a new job at that time? I would like to start looking for a job in the period preceding the submission of my thesis, so that if I’m lucky and I find a job, I could end my PhD contract (around PhD submission time) and take on that job.

I am asking because my PhD contract allows me to remain employed until my defense date (already fixed). During the time between the submission and defense (around 2.5 months), since the work expected to be done during my PhD is already done, I would be spending this time doing tasks I’m not interested in, just to fill this gap. The thing is I’d rather spend this time working on something new with a new employer.

Worth noting is that in our lab there is a history of other students ending their PhD contracts at early stages or mid-way (for different reasons) but not at an advanced stage, like I’d like to do.

Are there other considerations I should take into account if I do something like this (Besides the risk of being unemployed if I’m not lucky enough to find a new job) ?

It is entirely common for students to take on a job before they have formally completed the program, and then do the defense and submit their thesis in the coming months. It happens all the time, and everyone understands that if you have a job offer that you intend to take and can't defer for a couple of months, then you should of course take the job. Employers will also understand if you tell them up front that you will want to take a couple of days of vacation early on in your tenure at the company to travel back to your university to defend your PhD.

So, yes, it is ok to do what you propose.


Why attend predatory colleges in the US? I just read this article about predatory colleges in the US:

  S. Cagle, These students were ruined by predatory colleges. Now they’re getting even.

I am not from the US and didn't ask in the comments of that site because I wouldn't want to insult anyone concerned.

I just wondered: before you enroll for any degree, would you compare what the college's officials say with reality? Like, looking on the internet to find people with a degree from that school who got jobs, asking a local employment worker, asking at a local employer if they would consider giving a job to someone with a degree from that school, etc.

How is it this article says the students were so young they could not possibly have known they were being tricked? If you are old enough to go into debt with thousands of dollars for a college education, how can you not be old enough to check for the quality of that education first?

Why would people attend predatory colleges?

A few possibilities:

These people genuinely don't know any better. They think a degree is a degree. I would guess that they come from parents that did not attend college. A friend of mine started at a for-profit school because she really didn't know that there was a difference between my 4 year bachelor degree and her 12 month online degree.
People want to take shortcuts and these schools know that.
These schools spend a lot of money on commercials and marketing to try to convince people to attend. It isn't surprising that people would fall victim if you see a commercial for a school 3 times a day.
These schools also promote their currents/past students to help recruit their friends. I have certainly seen this on my own social media feeds.
I once had a manager at a large company that was working on a degree from a diploma mill because the company was imposing a new policy that all managers had to have a degree, but it didn't matter from where.

So to directly answer your questions: No, a lot of people probably don't look into the details of past student success. The type of people that would do this, aren't the ones being targeted by these schools. And even if they do, you're bound to find some successes (confirmation bias) which the school will proudly advertise.

Unfortunately, these types of schools prey on uneducated people, so while it seems like common sense to us, those people may really be getting tricked and yet the government continues to have surprisingly loose regulation.


Is there a branch of sociology that deals with nutrition and active lifestyles? (Please excuse my ignorance if this is an obvious question, but my Googling skills don't seem to be up to par today.)

I was just wondering if there is a branch of sociology that deals with health and wellness - like nutrition and exercise - when looking at a community or nation as a whole. If there is, would this be something that one could study in graduate school? (I'm interested in how lifestyles affect societies, not really the biology and chemistry part of health. I mean, I realize that I'd probably have to learn about those things, but they're not what I want my main focus to be.)

There is a branch of sociology, which would be the sociology of health. Research into 'active' lifestyles and nutrition would fall under sociology of health.

Unlike public health which will take a much more straight forward approach in addressing issues based on biological/essentialist research, sociology of health will look into the social constructs of health, how that's implemented in society and the issues surrounding it (i.e. fat discrimination, issues of class/race/gender in the 'health' rhetoric' and so on.

Many universities with sociology programs might offer an undergraduate course in the sociology of health. I took one and loved it. It's not my main focus in sociology but I do find the social construct of health and medicine highly fascinating, especially in the way in seems to be used to justify our discriminations.


Methodology as a Body of Methods? I'm currently having a hard time understanding if authors are using the word methodology correctly, or if their papers should be classified as BS. Hence, I set out to get a better feeling for the correct use of the word, but now I'm even more confused than before:

First I had a look at wikipedia which states:

  Methodology is the systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods applied to a field of study, or the theoretical analysis of the body of methods and principles associated with a branch of knowledge.

This sentence is followed by a second sentence with reference to a paper from S.I. Irny, which as far as I could see, states something very contracting:

  Methodology is generally a guideline for solving a problem, with
  specific components such as phases, tasks, methods, techniques and
  tools [two sources are given]

Even though I think the wikipedia description is identical with my understanding of the term, the reference is confusion. I then asked Merriam & Webster for help. Here it says:

  1:  a body of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline : a particular procedure or set of procedures
      2:  the analysis of the principles or procedures of inquiry in a particular field

Oxford says a discipline is branch of knowledge, which I would interpret as things like math, sociology, computer science and psychology, but not things like UML modeling, crossword solving, methods for solving a problem, or even sticking together methods to solve a problem. This does not match the discipline : a particular procedure or a set of procedures part of the definition.

And then again they give a weird example:

  «for solving crossword puzzles my usual methodology is to begin by
      filling in all of the answers I'm reasonably sure of»

Maybe the « and » brackets indicate that they chose a poor example, or they consider crosswords a discipline (case 1). It obviously doesn't qualify for case 2, as the example does not analyse methods used in the crossword domain.

Sadly, Oxford defines the term as:

  a system of methods used in a particular area of study or activity: a
  methodology for investigating the concept of focal points

Which again is used as a method/solution for a problem and not the theorecial study of methods in that field. Only the "Methodology as a buzzword" section on wikipedia seems to back up my understanding of the term:

  Many recent uses of the word methodology mistakenly treat it a synonym
  for method or body of methods. Doing this shifts it away from its true
  epistemological meaning and reduces it to being the procedure itself,
  the set of tools or the instruments that should have been its outcome.
  A methodology is the design process for carrying out research or the
  development of a procedure and is not in itself an instrument for
  doing those things. Using it as a synonym for method or set of
  methods, leads to misinterpretation and undermines the proper analysis
  that should go into designing research.

Question 1: Is my understanding that a methodology is, as the name suggests it, a logic behind methods, and consequently must not deal with the topic per se, but address some meta level of the used methods, wrong?

Question 2: For my particular academic problem in CS: Is the combination of general priciples and rules as part of a standard for creating a particular type of operating system a methodology (e.g. as used in AUTOSAR)? Such principles and rules govern and describe communication mechanisms, memory access methods, scheduling and the like. I would call this a body of methods, hence this must be a buzzword?

Additional fact: My Sixth edition Oxford from 1976 says:

  Science of method; body of methods used in a particular branch of
  activity;

So in the current version they dumped the actual meaning and only used that weird body of method definition.

I'm happy about any source bringing some clarity into this mess. Don't worry if you can't answer the CS specific question, a general purpose answer may well be just as good.

Words don't have a fixed meaning, and dictionaries only follow usage here. That is what is happening here.

The “classical” meaning of methodology is (my own words): a branch of epistemology that studies scientific methods, i.e. the systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods applied in science. (Epistemology, in turn, is a branch of philosophy dealing with knowledge).

This classical meaning is what the eponym Wikipedia article discusses (WP being an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, it doesn't have to list all meanings of a given word). It's also what one of the Merriam-Webster definitions says:

  the analysis of the principles or procedures of inquiry in a particular field

Now, language evolves, and in addition to this “classical” meaning of methodology (which is, in that sense, a mass noun), a second meaning is developing. This new meaning is “a collection of methods used in conjunction”, as you noted.

Now, as with every language evolution, some people complain about it (and the Wikipedia article on Methodology is clearly written from this point of view; see “Methodology as a buzzword” section). The Wiktionary article goes on to say:

  Etymologically, methodology refers to the study of methods. Thus the use of methodology as a synonym for methods (or other simple terms such as means, technique, or procedure) is proscribed as both inaccurate and pretentious.

Well, sod them to Hades! It is clear that this newer meaning is abundantly used in the academic literature these days, and can thus be considered acceptable.

(If you've never seen it, this wonderful tirade by Stephen Fry should cure you of prescriptivism. It is delightful to hear… “They're no more guardians of language than the Kennel Club is the guardian of dogkind.”)


Is there a minimum amount of methodological modifications for extending previous work from other authors? Given a published paper, as a Computer Scientist, I see an opportunity to extend the work and methodology of previous authors.

By modifying the presented work, introducing some concepts and a different approach for input parameters (for example) my "new" work can achieve better results than the results presented by the original authors.

In some cases, the modifications I suggest are not extensive or radically divergent, but even this way the results are better than the current state of the art.

Is there considered to be a minimum change from the methodology in the original paper, to publish an extension of that earlier paper from other authors?

EDIT: By extending I mean: writing a paper emphasizing the modifications that produce improved/better results, instead of copying significant passages from the original work results.

You need a little bit more than for the results to be better than the state of the art - you need the modification to be a non-obvious one that moves the field forward.

For example, there are a lot of results in my field that I can improve by tuning some parameters (to make the results in a given scenario "better") or by combining two known methods. If the modification involves new intellectual or technical insight, it's a meaningful extension and can be published. Otherwise, it's probably not publishable.

The "minimum" modification that is necessary for the work to be publishable is the modification that involves (at least) the amount of new intellectual content that is necessary for work in your field to be considered publishable.


What supporting documents to send along grad school application? when applying to grad schools most university portals allow applicants to upload additional documents; I would like to know how can applicants make use of this opportunity and add documents to alter their status in the admission process.
though this question might be considered as not having a specific answer I must say: what type of content can be added to be considered useful. e.g. Drafts of manuscripts, research proposal (if it is not included in the required documents), other related works (such as projects, dataset, tools etc.), and CV (if not included in the required documents).

Ask them. I very much doubt there is a uniform document package requirement. If you come from a different country, the documents they'd want to see might be quite a bit more detailed than if you come from the same country.


Where to Place Master-class Certificates in Curriculum Vitae? I shall soon get my degree in Biochemistry. Recently I attended several professional master-classes on film-making and producing, and now I want to get a MA in Film. For this masters, my CV is needed. Thinking that the master-classes I attended will help me in my admission, I am unsure under which sub-category I should place the names of the certificates; under 'Certificates & Awards', 'Education', 'Experience', or something else?

My $0.02-- Education appears to be the most relevant category in this instance. A master-class, unless I am mistaken, is neither a certificate nor an award, so wouldn't truly fit there. 'Experience' could certainly be a valid option also, but since you are moving from one discipline to another, it may benefit you more to be able to show some educational experience in film-making and producing as you apply for the Master's program.


Can I upload a national report which I reference in a paper to a preprint server so it has a permanent location and/or DOI rather than a URL? I recently wrote an editorial article which referenced several national (UK) reports. These are typically freely available as pdf files online via institutions like the British Medical Association, the General Medical Council and so on. They are not published articles in peer reviewed journals but are major and important pieces of work. When I referenced these reports in my editorial, I initially referenced them as online sources (with date accessed, date published and the URL where they are available from).
During the course of peer review and submitting to journals, one of the national reports (from 2015) disappeared from its URL which was not permanent. The organisation probably removed it as it was old. I had saved a pdf copy of the report. It was no longer easy to find a copy online and the one place I found it was not a professional website URL (just some person's blogging site or something like that).
My question is, to future-proof my article from reports like this disappearing from non-permanent URL, can (and should) I load my "hard copy" pdf into a repository and provide a permanent location to the report. This can be done with OSF, Zenodo etc and it would then be permanently available with a DOI.
Otherwise any URL cited can just be changed or the report can be made unavailable any time.
Alternatively, should I just leave the "date accessed" as an old date (from a time when the report could be accessed) and readers would understand than the reports might not be there in future?

It would be very good to upload the reports in a repository, for the reasons you give. You can do it provided this is not explicitly forbidden by a copyright statement on the reports. If the copyright status is absent or unclear, do it anyway, the worst that can happen is that you are asked to remove a report. (This once happened to me after I posted financial data on journal subscriptions on my blog, but these data had never been made public before.)
Asking the authors may not succeed, why would they do it now if they did not do it previously? On the other hand, it would be nice to inform them after you post the reports.


Working with a professor who does both mainstream and non-mainstream physics research I'm currently an undergraduate physics major in my final year at a US institution; I've recently finished applying to physics graduate schools for theory. With one of the schools in particular, I'm facing a bit of a dilemma:

Within said school there is a professor who is very well known and well regarded within the field of my utmost interest. What's more, said professor is still doing interesting research within this field and as such I would love to work with them, especially given that this field tends not to have dedicated research in many US departments.

But at the same time, this professor also does research in a non-mainstream, but not to say crackpot, field. That is, it's perfectly legitimate research but it's not mainstream. There are very few people in the US working on this particular subject and it's often looked down upon by people working in its much more mainstream competitor. While I think the subject itself is pretty cool to learn, I don't want to work in it by any means.

As such, do you think it would be potentially harmful for post-doc applications or general physics academia related career goals if I end up working for this professor? Would working for said professor also associate me with the non-mainstream work, even though I don't want to involve myself in it whatsoever? Would there necessarily be any kind of negative impact?

Thank you all very much in advance!

A well-established researcher usually has multiple research programs that are loosely united under one common theme. As such, they will have different reputations in different circles of academic research. A professor, for example, may be well-regarded in computational chemistry, but his work in biological modeling may receive little attention. Since a researcher in computational chemistry will probably not follow the literature in biological modeling very closely, the computational chemistry community may actually know little about the said professor's work in biology. Thus, to answer your question, how you will be judged depends on which of the professor's research program you are associated with. If you are really concerned, then you can simply stay away from the non-mainstream research that the professor is working on.

With that being said, I want to push back a little bit on the assumption of your question. It is sometimes joked that the sign of senility in a biologist is that s/he starts to work on the problem of human consciousness, which for a long time was not regarded as proper research subject in biology or psychology. But if the "non-mainstream" research that you are referring to is not downright unscientific, your concern may not be well-founded. Sure, as a young scientist it is not wise to work on unpopular subjects, but the popularity of a subject and the fad associated with it is not always correlated with the soundness of an area of inquiry. Sometimes good science is just not popular (such as Mendel's work that laid the foundation of classical genetic analysis).


Removing outliers. Would it be called cherrypicking data? Could removing outliers be called cherrypicking data? Because, to run some tests, outliers have to be removed. And they even turn up unexpectedly ruining good data.

I still haven't yet started acquiring data for my project. Still collecting samples. I've heard a senior say that he removes them and I really doubted if such a thing could be done. Also, I've read that ANOVAs work on the assumption that outliers shouldn't be there. (correct me if wrong)

One major pitfall is going into analyzing the data without an a priori protocol to deal with outliers. Time to time, tension rises between analysts and investigators on whether a point should be removed or not. Investigator may wish to keep it because it drives the significant result; analyst may be anxious to keep it because, well, it drives the significant result. Much can be avoided if there is a agreed-upon standard.

Anyhow, here are some suggestions (slightly scrabbled):

Reconcile if it's an instrument or data entry error.
If it's a plausible value but behaving like an outlier, a few methods exist:

Do not bury plausible extreme values in favor of showing the after-trimming data only.
Consider reporting with and without it, discuss the differences.
Use statistics that are more tolerant to extreme values. For instance: Non-parametric statistics or robust estimation methods.

Keep all written record about related changes, make sure date, time, person, decision made, etc. are all recorded.
If correction needs to be made, do not change the raw data. Do so using script/syntax and save that syntax for reference.
Explain all outlier-related data change in the report/manuscript. Reasons and methods should be provided so that your analysis can be replicated.
If there isn't a protocol, set one up now before more instances like this came up.
Do not identify outlier after data analysis results are known. If possible, discuss with your colleagues about the outlier without telling them the hypothesis test results.


Can I count on "future works" ideas in a paper to work? Can I count on paper future work or not? in order to work on that for my master thesis. I have a paper and its implementation. and I work on that for some months.

This paper belong to 2013 and the author work on another fields on 2014. I track his publications and I am not sure he goes back to his 2013's paper future work.

I want to know and make sure if the idea will work or not? How can I make sure if it will work or not?

How to make sure if it will work or not?

The reason why it's in the "future work" section is that no-one knows because it hasn't yet been done (and it's easily possible the original authors never will try it). "Future work" ideas can range in feasibility from wild speculation to simple, almost-guaranteed-to-work extensions that just need a bit more manpower or computer power to finish.

This is a good topic to discuss with your supervisor as soon as possible. You should be asking questions such as:

How feasible might it be for these ideas to lead to some useful conclusions?
What if it doesn't work? How soon will we know, and what alternative paths are there?

Of course, some ideas are much easier and more feasible than others.  There's no way to know for sure but to try the idea yourself (after making sure that the problem is not already solved in later literature). Because dead-ends often go unpublished, it might even be worth contacting the relevant authors to ask if they attempted to follow up on their future ideas.

It's a courteous thing to do especially if theirs is a recent publication: if the original authors are still working on the problem, publishing the solution first might annoy the other researchers. Though whether to proceed anyway (and give them notice that you're working on the idea as well), stay silent, or offer to collaborate, is a dilemma that's off-topic for this question.


How to deal with Educational Testing Service (ETS) inefficiency and awful post-exam service? I took the TOEFL test more than three months ago (outside US). Well before my deadlines. But I haven't received the paper scores yet and I shall mail them to the admission committees as an obligatory in my application package. Now, I'm running against the clock. Although I contacted customer support at ETS, the only thing I got is copy-pasted information of mailing time (allow 4-6 weeks abroad...) with a we-can-do-nothing-else statement.

This is totally upsetting. I don't want to lose my applications (and the money I have spent to get all my document translated, legalized, etc.) because of such kafkian situation. Also, it doesn't make sense to order extra reports; probably, they will get lost again.

Has anybody else passed throughout this predicament with ETS? What did you do? What should I do?

I faced similar problem during my undergrad application process. The admission officer told me to fax them a print of my score report from my online account. You can try asking the admission office at the institute that you are applying to and see if there is any way you can self-report the score before the official report arrives.
Good luck!


Is it a good idea to convert from a percentile GPA to a 4.0 scale GPA? My school gives me my GPA as a percentage out of 100. If I have 91.55% overall, websites like this and this claim that this is equivalent to a 3.7 GPA. Is it then valid to write on my resume that I have a 3.7 GPA, or would this in some way be misleading or disadvantageous?

Furthermore, if I am able to raise this percentage to 93%, would it be valid to then report that I have a 4.0 GPA?

To raise a 93% to a 4.0 is being slightly dishonest especially if you have a more specific metric. You can always list your GPA out of 100 -

GPA: 91.55/100

Most employers/colleges understand that not all schools have a grading system out of 4.0


Do students needs to be specifically mentioned on grant proposals for projects funded by government agencies in the US? Let me start by giving some background.

I joined a research group about 3 years ago and at the time the PI (who became my advisor) told me that he would not be able to support me until either one of his PhD students graduated or he landed a new project from the agency that funds the research group. He told me that the wait wouldn't be too long because two students would graduate within the next six month (however he did say that it was not guaranteed) and I would be next in line to receive funding.

Well, it took those two students another two years to graduate. However, before they graduated the PI told me that their contract with the funding agency was being restructured and all current projects were being abandoned. He was proposing new projects instead of them however that meant that I was pushed back 3 or 4 places in the line to receive funding (which was based on seniority).

About a year later now, I am first in line again and the next project was suppose to be mine. However, my advisor just told me that they forgot to put my name on the project proposal and that although the project was approved I would not receive any funding. There are several staff members in our research group who are part of each project and he tells me that they are the only ones that were named on the proposal.

Does this sound plausible? I don't know much about how project proposals are structured and how funding is awarded. I'm getting a feeling that my advisor isn't being completely honest with me. I get the feeling that because I haven't complained much about funding to him in the past three years he is assuming that I can afford to go without it.

I've actually had to hunt for a TA position every single quarter which would pay my tuition but provided a very small stipend (not enough to cover expenses).

P.S. these "projects" are separate from our thesis related research and are really just a means for supporting the students in our research group.

My experience is that students are not put in NSF proposals by name, but a slot is put in the narrative and budget with the name listed as TBD, "To Be Determined". It's possible that the PI failed to count all the heads correctly and was off by one. I would be surprised for this to happen in a small group, but if there were 10-12 students in the group, it could be easy to miss one.

Edited to add: It's worth noting that a particularly excellent student with lead or primary authorship on the papers that constitute the prior work for the grant might be highlighted in the grant text and budget, especially if the student has won some awards for the work


How to think while comparing approaches I'm a CS master student. Now I'm doing my masters thesis and the contribution of my thesis is to compare different approaches/methods of one topic (e.g. clustering of text documents). What I have done so far is look at the state of the art on the topic and read the papers. However, now I need to think of what to compare. Of course there is the obvious comparison question: which method gives the best results? But that is so obvious. My supervisor once suggested to see how those methods compare their results and see if maybe there is a better way to compare the results of the methods. It was helpful to me to think about questions like this. But still I'm so stuck and I can only think of obvious stuff. This is the first time I am doing something like that.

I'm sure some of you went through something like this, so I was wondering if you can even tell me some /basic/ stuff and questions that people address when they compare methods in computer science. My main questions to you are:

1- When I read the papers of the methods to compare, in which way I should read it? Critically? Questionable? What exactly to look for in them?

2- Is there a general scheme for comparing methods in academia?

3- As for a masters thesis, what stuff is a must-do for comparisons?

4- Any great references/papers related to comparisons that could help me?

Not knowing the details of your project, I'll offer some general suggestions.
In a sense, it seems to me you're asking two problems:one question is how to read papers, the other question is how to compare methodologies.

As far as comparing methodologies, the key concept in my mind is that of a "metric" or some means of judging/ranking methods. In CS, for example there are many such metrics: computational complexity, run time, stability, theoretical results regarding convergence, etc. Metrics often are often context dependent, meaning that different classes of users may have different ways to rate/rank a method. An algorithm may give an exact answer, which to a theoretician may be great, but if the algorithm can't function in real-time, another use may prefer another method that gives an approximate answer but quickly. So know who is going to use the methodology often helps you understand what metrics are really significant. So two thoughts to keep in mind are the methods you learned in class for judging how good an algorithm was and also who is going to use the algorithm (what are their concerns/needs and which methods best addresses
them).
A suggestion in this regard that will also help you with your paper reading is to look at what the authors of each paper say are the advantages of their method. In the introduction every author will give a reason why their method is "better" than the other (existing) methods.


Stamp of electrical department on letter head of recommendation letter My referee is a pioneer of my university in my home country.  I am applying for PhD in Australia. My referee has signed the letter of recommendation in hardcopy form but he hasn't put a stamp of his name on it saying that letter head needs no stamp. I have mentioned on letter head that he is Professor and Trustee.  I have asked electrical department to put department stamp on it and they agreed. In this scenario is it likely that my chosen university in Australia may question why the pioneer and professor hasn't put his own stamp? Is it likely that the Australian university would contact my referee for it? Note that I am applying for a highly competitive scholarship in Australia.

Australian universities do not use or expect stamps.  However, they may be familiar with the practices of universities in Asia and notice inconsistencies.  I suggest this is unimportant.


Why does my Arxiv paper not show my affiliation? I am a graduate student and have just submitted one pre-print to Arxiv. However, there is no organization name before the author name although
the Arxiv endorsement system automatically accepted my submission due to my .edu email address.

How can I fix this?

By default, the Arxiv does not show affiliations of paper authors on its webpages. You apparently can add them by adding them in parentheses behind your name. See the help pages:

  If you wish to include author affiliations, put them in parentheses. Do not put a full mailing address. At most, include a city and country (no zip codes, postal codes, or street addresses). If you have several authors from the same institution, you can use a footnote style for the affiliations. Here is an example (be sure to do it in the form presented here, including all parentheses, and using numbers and not letters):

  Authors: Author One (1), Author Two (1 and 2), Author Three (2)
          ((1) Institution One, (2) Institution Two)

However, this feature is rarely used in my experience.

However, on the actual preprint (i.e., the PDF, PS, or whatever), you can show affiliations as you like (well, they should be correct). These are not automatically added by the Arxiv; you have to do this yourself. The content and layout of the actual preprint is controlled by you (except for a watermark from the Arxiv).


What should be the path to go from an R3 to R2 or R1 school? I am currently a TT faculty at a R3 (4 year teaching) school and I would like to go to a more research focussed place. After talking to seniors in my field, I understood that I need strong research program to be able to make the transition from R3 to R2 or R1. However, I feel it's very difficult to continue research while I'm in a R3 school because 1)teaching load is high 2) my school doesn't value research that much so there won't be many opportunities like course buy outs etc 3)I need excellent teaching evaluations because I will be applying for jobs. Is there a better way to plan and execute this transition or is it even possible to go from R3 to R1? Am I chasing something that's not achievable? It would be great to hear success stories and some tips as well.
ps: I have other questions about whether or not to disclose to your current department that you are applying for jobs. But I will ask that in a separate post.

I'd suggest two things. First is that you don't risk not getting tenure. So, keep doing the things that your current institution values and do them well.
But to move on into a more research oriented situation, you can get yourself connected to others who do serious research and work with them as a collaborator and eventually a co-author. This can build a reputation for yourself that might be attractive to an R1 or R2 institution.
I suspect, from your "handle" here that you are in mathematics. Fortunately that field is easier than many others for collaboration at a distance. You can attend seminars at some nearby R1, perhaps, and introduce yourself. Conferences are another possibility. Your school library may not be adequate, but interlibrary loan will get you anything you need.
The plan may take a while to reach fruition, but it can be done.


Is it necessary to report every single finding, even if they're not relevant? I conducted a study a while back that I'm writing a manuscript on for publication.

The study was broken down into 5 different parts. Let's call them parts A, B, C, D, and E for simplicity.

Suppose that parts A through D were all connected to each other, but part E only provided descriptive data from a set of items that hasn't even been tested for Cronbach's alpha. I included part E more or less out of sheer curiosity, but it presents no reliable data or relevant information to the understanding of parts A through D. It also isn't important in replicating the study, nor does it counter any findings in parts A through D. In other words, it's more of an extension to the first four parts, but not directly related to the findings of them.

Is it necessary to include part E in the manuscript (i.e., in the methods, results, and discussion sections) since parts A through E were administered in the same overall study?
Or is it okay to simply not report parts of the study, so long as it does not bias the results of the parts you are reporting?

You can consider including this in your "Supporting Information", which is available in many publications. Sometimes, for the sake of presenting a coherent and concise manuscript, it may not be necessary or could even be detrimental to add portions which are orthogonal or simply irrelevant to the main line of your argument. However, by including it in the supporting information, it can still provide the necessary exposure of these findings without disrupting the flow of the paper. It can also have the additional benefit of allowing reviewers to see additional work done or preempt certain questions they may have in their review.


Bibliometrics analyses with Pubmed metadata I just started to have interest into bibliometric analyses, and so far I am struggling to understand the tons of copyright policies. However, these are (from my opinion) quite vague and with too much grey areas.

Let’s say that I constrain my analyses on the metadata from Pubmed (not PMC) considering basic classes in it (i.e., title, publication year, citation number, MeSH terms, author names…);
but I never touch or analyze the abstracts (text mining or anything alike whatsoever on abstracts).

Do you think that such analyses would pass without copyright infringements?

Publication metadata does not have license restrictions. I work for the European partner of Pubmed - Europe PMC, and you can get metadata for every article available in Pubmed via the open API (https://europepmc.org/RestfulWebService).

In some countries publication abstract may be under copyright. For UK and USA it is possible to reproduce abstracts if your use of this data falls under "fair dealing claim" (see https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/ukcs/docs/edupack.pdf).


Are athletes' college degrees discounted by employers and graduate school admissions? This question and the pertinent answers suggest that, as a rule, college athletes in the United States are not held to the same academic standards as other students. It also seems that this is well-known.

If so, employers and graduate school admissions committees can be expected to discount the degrees and the GPA of college athletes in order to control for an informal "athletes' bonus" when screening applications.

Do employers and admissions committees, in fact (but likely not formally), discount athletes' grades and degrees? What is the approximate "discount rate", as it were (e.g. the average athlete's bonus)?

"College athletes" is much too broad a brush.  The kind of double-standard you're referring to is mostly focused on a much smaller group of men's basketball and football players at Division I schools.  These are essentially full-time professional athletes.  A lot of the very best athletes among this group do not stay long enough to graduate anyway.

I also think you're overestimating the value of academics and underrating the value of athletics to employers.  It takes incredible dedication to become one of the best people in the world in a sport.  That's genuinely valuable to employers.

Finally, even in the revenue sports, there are many fantastic students who get good grades in rigorous classes.  I've had great students who are world-class elite athletes.  Looking at the major and the grades gives a pretty clear indication of the level of rigor involved.  And of course there are plenty of non-athletes with non-rigorous majors and mediocre grades.

This last point is especially clear in the context of graduate admissions.  Graduate applications include letters of recommendation and a full transcript. It is easy to see directly whether someone is taking rigorous advanced classes and doing well in them. There’s no reason whatsoever to discount athletes based on the existence of easier classes when you can see what classes they actually took.


Is it possible for MPP students to apply for an econ PhD position? I'm an admitted master of public policy student at Harris School of Public Policy, U Chicago. I'm an international student from China and graduated from Peking University. My interested area is economic policy, and the reason I choose Harris School is the strong quantitative background and academic atmosphere.

After being admitted, I start to think about the future career plan and what I really want. Not like the majority of MPP students who wants to work in the private or public sectors after graduation, I prefer applying for a Ph.D. in the econ or econ policy area. Less than 10 students will choose to continue a PhD at Harris every year. I know it's difficult because Harris is a professional rather than an academic school. But I still want to try and make some preparation before.

So could anyone guide me or give me some advice, please? Thanks a lot.

As you might guess, it is more common for a MPP student to apply to a Public Policy PhD vs a Econ PhD. However, you may be a candidate for the Econ PhD if you work the opportunities at Harris.

Like other PhD programs, Econ programs are looking for students who will be successful Economics researchers. You should try to get research experience at Harris and take the most quantitative classes possible. You may also need to take some advanced Math or Econ courses.

The best way to prepare is to talk to faculty at Harris. You will especially want to discuss the situation with faculty who have PhDs in Economics.


Are there any differences in how new vs. well-established professors select students? For any professors out there, do you feel that there are any differences in how you selected and recruited students from the time when you were newly hired, to a well-established stage (i.e. after getting tenure)? I'm asking this out of curiosity. There are oftentimes questions about whether students should choose a new/old advisor, but I haven't seen any that asked about this from the prof's perspective.

I would assume there are since the challenges and priorities for the two groups are normally somewhat different, but I'm not sure exactly how it would differ. For instance, it might be more difficult for the new PI to recruit students (especially good ones) when they have to "compete" with older, better funded peers. This would lead one to think that new PIs might be more likely to take on students they might not necessarily love, but just need bodies in the lab. However, on the other hand, new PIs are more likely to have limited funding, and if they are on the tenure-track, would need their few students to succeed in order to establish a name for themselves in the industry. In this case, it would be detrimental if they chose the wrong student(s) in the beginning, especially if they are limited to the number of students they can afford due to funding issues. I realize that this is field and situation specific, but I'm looking to hear stories/insights from people who have gone through/know about the process.

Thanks!

This will indeed  be highly  dependent on field. For instance,  in pure mathematics, there's a rather dramatic difference: most faculty don't take on any graduate students at all until after tenure.

The American Mathematical Society has written one of their culture statements about this issue. Generally, (pure) mathematicians have no labs and hence no need for bodies to fill them. And in math, on the time scale of a tenure clock, advising grad students is felt to have a net negative effect on research productivity (in the longer run there can be dividends). So the clear incentive is to wait until after tenure, and departments are usually fine with this.


Which authors should be listed in a conference presentation? I asked a poorly-worded question previously, so I'll try again.
Suppose someone is submitting an abstract for a talk that is based on joint work with other researchers. Further suppose that the other co-authors will not be presenting (or even attending the conference). As a matter of attribution, should all authors be listed on the talk?

The practice that I have typically seen is to list all authors, but highlight/bold/underline the name of the speaker.  That way, credit is given both for speaking and for production of the material being spoken about.


Advisor gives me no choice on research topics - should I tell him my real feeling? I am a 3rd year physics PhD doing high energy theory.
This field has two large communities -- phenomenology and formal theory. I am interested in formal theories.
Faculties hired with either background join the theory direction of the department. Not until I had already fixed my advisor, I found out he mainly does phenomenology, which requires simulation more than derivation and math.
My advisor asked me to join some projects, without asking me if I am interested. Most recently, even though he asked me if I am interested, he did not understand my tactful refusal.
We talk every several months about my career. He believes that doing simulation for phenomenology is the only path to success (that is being hired eventually). However, I am extremely not interested in this path, and would rather quit academia if I would have to do simulation.
As I said, my advisor mainly does phenomenology, but not completely. He is able to give me theory projects, but not willing to do so. When I tell him I wish to do a certain theory topic, he asks me to look for questions myself and eventually discourages me out of it.
I am extremely discouraged and spend most of my time arguing with him virtually in my head.
Should I explicitly tell him I don't like the future he plans for me? I tried several times with tactful wording. He couldn't get my point and ended up persuading me harder and harsher.

You should clearly and explicitly state to your supervisor what you want to work on, and realise that this may not be possible in their team.
Once your supervisor knows what you want, they may be able to help you find a different supervisor to collaborate with during the remainder of your PhD, if the proposed research is not possible in your current group.
Of course, there is the possibility that your supervisor is right: maybe the theoretical problems you are proposing to work on are not publishable, or too difficult to complete during the time you have. This is something you can talk about with them. Maybe it is possible to work on your topic of interest, if you can convince them that it can be completed in time, that it is publishable, and preferably related to the current research topics of the team.