Should I sound needy in my Statement of Purpose? I am going to apply for a Ph.D. position in Europe and I am asked to write a 1200 words statement of purpose (SoP). I was wondering whether I should be cold and objective about past experiences and future ambitions or let them know my feelings and how much I care about the program. The point is that I really want to join the program and I feel like it could change my life, therefore I would be willing to work hard as hell and give them everything I can, however, I guess that other applicants might likely be in my same position and faculty could be annoyed by these kinds of motivations.

Short answer: No.
Long answer: This is from the perspective of a hiring PI. These days I am flooded with applications of candidates that seem very motivated, but give me little confidence that they are the right person for the job. This is mostly for two reasons: 1. lack of relevant background for the position; 2. poor self-presentation (for example, not reading the job description thoroughly). To address this, you need to have the right background (if necessary, you might take some additional courses), and make a convincing statement why you are the right person for the job.


How do I keep my tenure track job search confidential? I work as a research scientist for a tech company. I publish frequently in top venues in my area and, at the same time, I've been adjuncting at well-known universities to teach classes.

I don't feel I've ever left academia, as I keep collaborating and publishing with people from academic institutions, but I want to apply to a few (e.g., 10) tenure track positions in computer science, for a number of reasons that are not relevant to this question.

How do I ensure that my search/applications stay private?

My manager is well connected with the academic world (despite not being a researcher), and I do not want them to know that I applied and where I applied. Note that I do not need a recommendation letter from them, as I have multiple well-known researchers (faculty members in different universities) who will write one for me.

You should tell your references that you would like to keep your application confidential. The problem is that while the job search process is nominally confidential, leaks happen all over the place. For example, people call colleagues asking for informal assessments of applicants. They may not say the person is applying, but when you get a phone call like that, it is pretty obvious. Another example is that sometimes applicants give job talks during a normally scheduled departmental seminar. These are often "advertised" on the web. Again, even if it doesn't say job talk, it can be pretty obvious. At some point you are going to visit the school (if you make it that far) and meet tons of people. Asking/expecting the search committee to keep things quiet is one thing, expecting the entire faculty is another, expecting grad students and post docs is another.


Which of these works to cite when critiquing? I'm citing a study that brings context to my work and some of its methodology is questionable so I am highlighting this aspect. This study was published twice in slightly different forms, once in a lower scale journal with the PhD student as the sole author, and once in a more known journal with both the PhD student and their professor as second author.

This question partly addresses my problem. At first glance, I would cite the most recent, most prestigious piece. It's shorter but sums the bulk of what I need. However it does not address etiquette. If I cite the study by both authors, the professor's name is joined to the student's questionable methods (IMO).

Would it be preferable to stick to the work authored by the student only in this case?

It is not your job to protect an advisor from being linked to a paper he chose to sign. Think rather about your reader when making your choice.


PhDc - how long can you use it if it has not been completed? Many things came up during my PhD program, including personal and a horrible committee chair after two of mine left for other schools. I completed all my coursework, successfully completed my comps, and had all 3 chapters written and was in process of editing my chapters when they cut me off as it had been 5 years. I had a case against the school but the time to go to court and money it would cost would be enormous. It ended up that my advisor was retiring. When I apply for other jobs, I was a PhDc. How long can that be used for. I'm not claiming i have my PhD but want to claim I was a candidate. I am now back in school for a different doctorate, so until that is completed, I want to use PhDc. Thoughts on legality of this - has anyone done this?

I'd guess that you need to spell it out more completely. PhDc isn't really recognized and it isn't a degree or anything like a degree.
In many institutions, you have a limited time to complete your degree unless you take some special actions. Seven years, perhaps, in the US, shorter elsewhere. After that time, you are no longer a candidate for anything. If they "cut you off" after five years, I doubt that the institution considers you a candidate and it would be dishonest to claim otherwise.
Perhaps there is some way you can get back in line for your degree. ABD is a descriptive term, not an honor. Perhaps you can use what you know to get in to a different program and complete it.


Ethical Dilemma at University program I'm currently about to graduate from a US university with a MS as I didn't make it to the PhD program. For whatever reasons I was rejected even after performing quite well compared to other PhD students, I don't want to speculate. I had an idea that some of these students are cheating on the homework assignments by copying codes and solutions from previous year posted solutions. The professors are probably too lazy to do anything about it because even after I reported anonymously, nothing has changed. I had made peace with that, but in this semester, I noticed that they even have access to a drive on the network where the professor keeps the exams and solutions. I struggle to study for the mid-terms when I have so much of assignments to do, and these people get a head-start by just copying the assignments one day before the deadline. First of all, they have more time to prepare for exams or do other stuff, and secondly, they also have sample exams with solutions which the professor is probably repeating.

Instead of reporting that, I asked the professor if he'd provide sample exams to everyone. He got irritated and behaved quite badly even when I had genuine questions to ask during his office hours. After the mid-term, he screwed me in the exam and I noticed others fared much better than me. I have a feeling the professor knows and may be I inconvenienced him by reporting. I spend a lot of time worrying about this. In a month I'd be out of here and I want to have nothing to do with these people again.

What should I do? Given that I have been rejected at the PhD program, if I speak to any other professor, they might think I'm making this up. And I also can't believe that nobody knows about it and they have just kept exams, assignments, etc on a shared drive. I think they're ignoring the problem to not give the school a bad reputation and might just fail me if I speak up.

I don't know right now what exactly I should do. Except that I don't want to get hurt. Even if I report to higher-ups, I don't want to take names (not that they're my friends, but I only know a handful who are involved. Not sure if the entire class is cheating). I'm more paranoid about what the professors would do and if somehow they will pin this on me. It is easier to discredit me as a "disgruntled ex-student" than take action against PhD candidates.

Is keeping quiet and hoping to get out without any issues the best option?

It sounds like you angry that the other students were "cheating" and got admitted to the PhD program while you were honest and were passed over. To add insult to injury, the professors seem not to care. Though you don't seem to have a clear goal in mind, I would suggest that it is to (a) achieve justice, and (b) not be handicapped in your final exams.

To the first goal, you should certainly report your experiences to the graduate director or another competent person. Even without proof, if they hear enough rumors, they will investigate, and things may be better in future years.

Without proof, they are unlikely to do much. There is so much reasonable doubt. In particular, are you sure that the other students are  blindly copying solutions? At the graduate level, using solutions when you get stuck or to check your work may be appropriate (and student collaboration is encouraged)

Your claims about the exams are more worrying. Are you sure that the other students have exams? Are you sure that the professor knows this?

If the professor might not know, it is fair to tell him.
Without proof, the professor may not believe you (or may not care) -- as you say, he may just assume you are bitter and looking for someone to blame.
You can provide proof by naming names. But you seem not to want to do this, and I don't blame you -- this could open a whole can of worms (i.e., questions about your integrity for not having voiced your concerns sooner).


How big of a deal is it if I abbreviate a school name? I am writing some thank you's for interviews I had recently. How big of a deal is it if I write UCLA instead of University of California at Los Angeles, for example? I have always spelled things out in cover letters and CVs and stuff, but especially at this point, it just seems like I should just be able to write UCLA. Would anyone not think kindly of this?

Some school names are short/you should always write out like University of Michigan instead of Michigan, or University of South Carolina instead of USC, but when there's no ambiguity like UCLA, it seems silly to write that out every time.

Thanks for the help!

P.s. these are for math positions if that matters.

I can't imagine that anyone would object, as long as the abbreviation is widely used by people who work at the university.  (UCLA is fine, but I wouldn't call it UC Los Angeles, since I believe that's a much less common abbreviation.)

In fact, repeatedly writing out "University of California, Los Angeles" is more likely to stand out as strange than using the abbreviation UCLA is.


Is there any service that can i use or rent supercomputer for an hour or two? I would like to use an supercomputer to run my big data project to test it speed. I google the service & see that only this is available for free but it closed last year? Could anybody with experience in using supercomputer know to get access to this kind of hardware?

The answer will depend on where you are, who your funding is from, and what you mean by "a supercomputer".

Various countries, research councils, etc., let you apply for computer time if you are eligible. Some universities have their own in-house systems too.

But also, the major cloud providers - Amazon, Microsoft, Google (?) - will let you rent computing resources. This may be suitable for your needs.


I need certain courses not covered in my undergraduate studies, can I take them at another institution? I recently got accepted into a graduate CS program (provisionally), but I need to take two classes that my undergraduate studies didn't cover. Now, where I got accepted those courses aren't offered until the fall which poses a problem for me. I would only be able to take one of the graduate courses without those missing courses in the fall.
Question:

Could I take those classes at another institution I'm not enrolled in?
If so, is there a database I could search comparable CS classes?

I know the standard procedure would be to contact the graduate school's admissions director and see what they recommend, however I feel like I've already annoyed them when I had to defer my summer acceptance. So, I would like them to have all the information needed in order to make that discourse easier for us both.

I would still suggest you contact the admission director (one more time)! He is the one with the "right" and "only" answer you need to follow. All what we can do is share relevant experiences that may or may not be along the lines of your school's standard/system.

Having said that, If I'm not mistaken, I think you can take the courses in other schools (as long as they are accredited and/or sister schools + cover a similar syllabus as the one your school has). As for a database, try to look through your school's graduate handbook or admission website.


Could it be beneficial for me to not disclose my gender/ethnicity in an REU application? I am an undergraduate in the US applying to REUs in mathematics. Every REU I am applying to through MathPrograms has a section where you can choose to fill out your gender/race, along with a message of the form

  The U.S. Department of Education requires [university X] to report on the racial or ethnical composition of its student enrollment. Information on individual students is held in strict confidence. Self-identification is entirely voluntary.

It is not a secret that REUs want to encourage higher participation of minority groups, and indeed the web pages of some programs say things like, "Members of underrepresented groups are especially encouraged to apply."

I am a white male from a suburban area. Clearly this is not going to boost my application, so my question is, could there be much benefit in choosing "decline to answer" on these questions?

I am an undergraduate in the US applying to REUs in mathematics. [...] I am a white male from a suburban area. Clearly this is not going to boost my application

The personal consequences for you of being labeled on your application as a white male are not something that anyone can predict with any certainty. Even assuming that the data are visible to the people evaluating your application (which is probably not the case), the putative effect would depend on things like the individual attitudes of people evaluating your application. These attitudes would be variable and we have no way of measuring them.

Keep in mind that any pile of applications in mathematics in the US is going to contain vast numbers of white males, so even if there were some very strong bias against you, or some extremely aggressive affirmative action program, the result can't possibly be to exclude all white males.

Since the actual consequences of your disclosing your information or not disclosing it are unknowable and probably negligible on an individual level, your guess about those consequences is not a good criterion on which to base your choice.

You might instead want to base this on your political opinions. Reasonable people can be for or against the idea of having the US federal government classify people into racial categories. An example of a reason for: a horrific national history of slavery and oppression, which we could try to undo to some extent. An example of a reason against: race is a nonsensical and artificial construct, and there is no logical way to apply it to people of mixed race.

If your personal utopia is one that lies on one side or the other of this issue, be the change that you want to make.


Proper notation to represent a set containing sequences of numbers for scientific papers? I would like to include a set of numbers, which are composed of by multiple sequences, for example:

{1,2,3,4,5, at steps of 1 ... till 100, 200, 500, then 1000, 2000, at steps of 1000 .... till 10000}

Is there a proper way to represent this? I tried looking up some scheduling papers in OR/IEEE journals but have yet to find papers that include such notation explicitly.

I'd recommend standard mathematical notation, which should be sufficiently unambiguous yet legible. Use the standard "union" symbol (\cup in LaTeX) to denote separate sets you want to take the union over.

Unfortunately, no MathJax here - so here is the LaTeX code and below the result (done using CodeCogs):

\{k\in\mathbb{N}\mid 1\leq k\leq 100\}
\cup \{200,500\}
\cup\{1000k\mid k\in\mathbb{N}, 1\leq k\leq 10\}

Depending on your layout (one vs. two columns), insert linebreaks at appropriate places, e.g., like I did in the LaTeX code but not the result.


What does it mean when a faculty member invites the candidate to apply for a tenure-track position? I'm a postdoc in mathematics in the US.

My question is exactly in the title. Sometimes you get an email from someone that you know, usually with a link to their job ad, asking you to apply and saying that you'd be a good fit, or something along those lines.

Faculty members, how often do you do this, and how does this change the likelihood of someone getting a job (or even, getting an interview)?

When you get an email inviting you to apply for a position, it can mean many things.

It may mean nothing special. At one extreme (and this doesn't sound like it applies in your case), faculty send out a batch email to many of the other academics they know informing them of the position. This is typically not personalised.  Often there is also a hope with such emails that people will share the job advertisement around with colleagues.
It may mean that they think you would be a good fit, and that they would like you to apply. Within this range, there would be degrees of support. At the very least, the academic is indicating that they'd like you to apply. In some cases, they may be really hoping that you get the position. They may want you to get the position for various reasons: (a) they like you and want to support your career, (b) they think you'd be best suited for the job and the department, (c) they would rather have you as a colleague than someone else, perhaps because they like your area of research, they get along well with you, and so on. In other cases, they just want a strong applicant pool; so you would contribute to the strength of the applicant pool. From this perspective, their goal is to ensure that the department hires someone strong, and they see you as a strong candidate, but they would be even happier if a stronger candidate also applied and got the position.

Academics also vary in the degree to which they are involved in the decision of who to hire (e.g., no involvement, input of academic considered by selection panel, on the formal selection panel, person who makes final decision, etc.). If you are receiving an email from someone who is more involved with making the decision, then the email is likely to be more indicative of your chances of getting the position were you to apply.

More generally, if you are considering applying, receiving such an email is an invitation to have a chat with the sender to discuss the position and learn more about what the job entails and what your chances are of getting the position, were you to apply.

Update:

How do they know that you'd be a strong candidate?
You write:

  Would it be fair to say that if you get multiple of these emails from decent institutions, you are a strong candidate? It surprises me that people can make these deduction before seeing the application package, though.

PostDocs have a reputation. This is formed by many factors: (a) publications, particularly main or first author publications that give an insight into your capabilities (b) where you did your PhD, (c) where you are doing your PostDoc, (d) presentations and interactions at conferences, (e) your reputation within your academic social network, (f) your online activities, and so on. Some of this information is a publicly available. In other cases, it will depend on whether the academic sending you the email knows you personally or knows people who know you (and presumably are recommending you).

But yes, in general, I would think that if you are getting regular personalized emails from academics encouraging you to apply for faculty positions, that sounds like a good sign for your career. That said, you'd probably want to form the assessment of how your career is travelling based on other information. I imagine follow-up contact with these academics would help to clarify your chances of getting such positions. And presumably, you are starting to be able to independently assess (perhaps with advice from mentors) how your track record is going in terms of skills, experience, publications, and other academic outputs.


Is it acceptable to include a figure I did not produce on an academic poster? I am presenting a poster at a conference and need to include a figure as background information. Given that it is properly cited, is it okay to include a figure I did not make in an academic poster for a conference? Should posters contain only figures made by the presenter? Would it be seen as unprofessional?

If there's something essential in the figure that you're including that you and your research group can't reproduce on your own, then it's justifiable to include a plot or other figure produced by someone else and already published in the literature. However, such usage should be restricted to only what is essential for your poster—you should never use others' work merely to "fill out" your poster.


Leaving PhD program to apply for industry job - better to apply while still officially enrolled? I am going into the fourth year of a PhD program and my research, which is in a STEM field, has clear applications in the tech industry.

I have my Master's degree, but have decided not to finish the PhD.

Is it important to be enrolled while applying for jobs rather than be unemployed?  Will the people hiring view me differently?

Note: being enrolled brings some significant demands on my time.

Being unemployed can significantly decrease your likelihood of successfully landing a job. The preceeding link is one of many stories covering that angle. The best graph describing how bad it is comes from this Atlantic article:

The upshot of most of these is that employers have a psychological bias towards employed people. Whether this is "fair" or "appropriate" or even "smart" not is really not the question, the finding is pretty difficult to refute: you are far more likely to land a job if you are currently gainfully employed.

To bring this back to your original question, I would strongly recommend you begin your job search before you leave the program.


Should a PhD thesis reflect the state of research at the time of writing? I am currently writing up my PhD thesis and have the following issue. I wrote a paper during the PhD thesis, the result of which was developed further by third parties without my involvement. From the perspective of my published paper, this new result lies in the future and is of course not mentioned in the paper. However, at the time of writing the PhD thesis, this result is available and may be relevant for the readers of the PhD thesis.
Should the PhD thesis contain a reference to the third party paper?
Presumably the answer to above question is yes in one form or another. A more detailed question is then: How should it be included? I can imagine multiple options.

If the result is relevant to the general scientific scope of the thesis it probably warrants an explicit mention in the introduction, explaining that the work is based on the result in the thesis.
Let's say there is a close technical connection and the third party paper improves upon some aspects of the original result. Would it be appropriate to even summarize this progress rather than simply mentioning it?
If the result is not directly relevant to the scientific scope, it is presumably omitted in the thesis.

This question is generally about whether the PhD thesis is meant to reflect the state of research at the time of writing or at the time of the published results that are summarized in the thesis. An answer to the above examples would already give a lot of insight, but I am also interested in the general attitude towards this issue.
As a side note: In some countries, cumulative theses (also called "staple theses") are allowed, which are simply an accumulation of the published papers with an introduction added. Since this form would most likely not contain any mention of the third party paper, I started thinking about what a normal PhD thesis should be doing in this regard.

Some options:

Explanatory footnotes often work well and can be used to 'talk across time' so to speak;
Appendices can also be used for covering material that may be out of sink, if you think you need to go into more detail;
An afterword can also be an appropriate way of accounting for developments between the time of writing and the time of publication. This is fairly common practice.

Basically most examiners will view the dissertation as YOUR journey through the research, rather than as an exact snapshot of the state of play in your area.
HOWEVER - they will be looking for (and be impressed by) you demonstrating that you know what good practice looks like in your field of research, and this extends to how you handle (and acknowledge) circumstances of this kind.


What is considered credible evidence in computer science? Is it books or lab reports or technical reviews or something completely different?

It depends on exactly what kind of thing you're researching, but the gold standard evidence would be source code. This allows anyone to see your code and run it on their own machine, see exactly how the machine is operating, and they can draw their own conclusions.

If you can't provide your source code for whatever reason, you can still have well thought out experiments whose methodology and results are described in conference or journal papers.

In terms of academic credit or progressing towards your degree, the basic unit of scholarly merit in computer science is the conference paper rather than the journal paper. In many fields it's the opposite, where conference papers don't count for much and journal papers are the goal. In CS we still have journal papers that are often published as extensions to a conference paper, and this is an opportunity to address any initial concerns from the community or extend and round out a contribution. These are worthwhile endeavors, especially if the conference paper is highly regarded, but they're not the norm.

This changes some things and doesn't change other things. For example, I know of colleagues in fields where conference papers don't count for anything, but in those fields the conferences are not peer reviewed and essentially a good enough sounding abstract is enough to get accepted to a conference. They still publish rigorous peer reviewed works, but they do those in journals that are not associated with any specific conference.


Can individual international scholars apply for US federal funds? When checking the grants.gov I found that individuals can directly apply for available grants. Since it was not mentioned that individuals should be US citizen, I thought that everyone can apply, and judgement is based on the proposal.

Can international people apply?
Should the project conducted in the US territory? Or they care about the results no matter where it has been done?
If yes to 1 & 2; can an international person apply, and upon success coming to the US to conduct the project?

Usually, you can follow links or do a google search to find the original text of the Call for Proposals. The full text of those almost always provides clear criteria for who is eligible. Almost always (probably unless otherwise stated), the PI has to be from a US institution, but contrary to the other answer here, I am not familiar with the PI needing to have any particular academic status (especially not tenured already as an associate prof, and certainly all the kinds of non-TT research scientist positions), provided they have a position which their institution officially lists as being eligible to be sponsored as a PI. Sometimes, a post-doc, lecturer, or adjunct prof might be eligible. Remember, the grants go to the institution primarily, and the PI merely executes them on their behalf. The granting agencies defer the responsibility for administering who is legally OK to conduct the research to the accredited institution. Policies can vary between institution, so you'll need to ask your local administrators.

Certain kinds of award from private agencies or those who work with sensitive information, e.g. DARPA, DOD, or DOE, might require you to be a US Citizen (not even just a LPR), but that should be clearly listed. I am pretty sure that "unrestricted," in this context, means that there is no such restriction on immigration status.

You are always free to shoot an email or call to the cognizant program officer for a particular grant, to ask for clarification. They will expect you to have read the full, original CfP, unless you want to put them in a bad mood that might bias the review of your prospective application!


Thesis writing style: when to italicize? In a thesis or journal you write all sentences yourself, but on some occasions you prefer to take a piece of text from another source. If you do, should you use quotation marks only, or italicize it, or use both, to identify that you have not written it?

Example for quoting directly from a source:

  This can, according to Someone et al. [1], be seen as "an excellent way of representing a piece of text quoted from another
  source", and therefore it's emphasized.
  This can, according to Someone et al. [1], be seen as "an excellent way of representing a piece of text quoted from another
  source", and therefore it's emphasized.
  This can, according to Someone et al. [1], be seen as an excellent way of representing a piece of text quoted from another
  source, and therefore it's emphasized.

Example for a definition with a source:

  Wikipedia defines italic as "a semi-cursive, slightly sloped style of handwriting and calligraphy that was developed during the
  Renaissance in Italy" [2].
  Wikipedia defines italic as "a semi-cursive, slightly sloped style of handwriting and calligraphy that was developed during the
  Renaissance in Italy" [2].
  Wikipedia defines italic as a semi-cursive, slightly sloped style of handwriting and calligraphy that was developed during the
  Renaissance in Italy [2].

Are there are any style guides or recommendations that refer to italicized text, for either quotes or definitions? And related to the two examples, what is the recommended way to distinguish between a quote and a definition?

Edit: note that if a style guide is provided, the guide should be followed. This question relates to situations where no style guide is required.

There can be specific exceptions for journals, which may have conventions preserved unchanged from the past, but the general principle is to be typographically simple while conveying the necessary information. Quotation marks are required to unambiguously indicate that a certain sequence of text is a literal quotation; the quote itself should then not modify the format of the text, thus should be roman when the original is roman, italic when it is italic, and so on. Thus, your first option would be the correct choice.


Course of action after failing a (non-maths) course in hopes of entering grad school for maths? I'm currently a second year student in a general science program with a specialization in mathematics (it's kind of like a double major, almost). I'm hoping to go to grad school for combinatorial optimization, operations research, or some other pure math stream.  The problem is, I failed a cell biology course this semester (that just ended).

There are no medical reasons as to why I failed, just a matter of poor judgement when it came to choosing courses (I took an extra course than needed - the cell bio one - so that I could get it over with and take a computational biology course next year which requires this cell bio course), as well, I'm part of a major faculty society at my school and I'm doing research (non-math) with a group. All these factors lead to cell bio being my last priority and to sum it up, I have a U (0) in it, because I didn't pass.

My question is, how will this look on my grad school application? Overall, I'm a good student, I had about a 3.8 cgpa last year and at most I think this will bring it down to about a 3.4-3.5. I'm sure the next few years I'll do much better in my courses and can hopefully bring my cgpa back up to it's original glory, but for now I'm kind of at a loss as to what to do, especially given that there isn't really anyone to talk to at my school (Canadian) about maths grad school (I went to see an adviser and was told I'd get an email with some helpful info, but haven't received anything yet). I am going to write the GREs and hopefully do well in that and I'm considering taking the Putnam to further enhance my application.

I'm very sorry if this is a duplicate of a question, but so far, people have had different (I'd think more severe) circumstances, i.e. medical, failed course was taken as a high school student, etc. If anyone was in a similar situation or have dealt with this and could help me out, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you!

In my experience, this should not have much/any impact on your grad school applications (assuming you do well in all of your other courses).  A single failed class in an unrelated area just doesn't say anything about your ability to do research in mathematics.  (This is predicated on all of your other grades being very good, and the F being unrelated to any sort of academic misconduct, of course.)  As for course of action, I think you've already identified it: make sure this is a single F in an otherwise excellent transcript, particularly high marks in challenging courses related to your intended area of graduate study.

Personal anecdote:

I am currently in my first year of a pure math phd program in a (roughly) top 20-25 program, and I failed a non-math class in my junior year of undergraduate (something to do with neural networks) for reasons along the lines of yours.  My overall GPA by the time I applied was a 3.75 or so.  I didn't say anything about the F in my applications since it was not particularly relevant to mathematical research.  (In my Statement of Purpose, I wrote about research I had done and areas I was interested in pursuing further research.  A failed neural networks class didn't seem worth noting.)  I did get rejected from two top 10 programs, and maybe that was the reason, though I doubt it.

Hopefully some people who have served on graduate admissions committees in math departments will weigh in on this since my experience may not generalize.


If most universities in the U.S are non-profit, why are they so expensive? Tuition can easily get in the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars for a 4-year degree. This is unarguably many times over what the university needs to cover the costs of offering their services. Why is this the case if they are usually run under a non-profit architecture?

Where is all this money going?

I think that education in US, even in non-profit institutions, is expensive, because colleges and universities can charge basically whatever amounts they want, a practice, to a significant degree, IMHO prompted by trying to stay competitive by overspending on amenities, many of which are very remote to the nature of education and learning. Of course, there are significant costs, some of which are appropriate, such as salaries for faculty and staff, equipment for labs, some research programs and other reasonable expenses. Having said that, I believe that some of the expenses are over-inflated, such as (too) nice and fancy campuses and buildings, top administrative and executive compensation, research labs and programs that don't produce significant enough output, sports and other over-spending sources. That is not to say that tuition and fees cover all those expenses - universities traditionally rely on various financial sources in addition to tuition and fees (see the last link below). Of course, the above is just my somewhat naive (but, hopefully, not so far from reality) interpretation or, rather, impression of the complex ecosystem of higher education.

More details on the topic can be found on Wikipedia (i.e., see this section and this article) and other resources (i.e., this article). In the popular press, there is no shortage of opinions, both blaming colleges and universities for exponential increase of the cost of education as well as defending their actions and situation. Those interested in a more comprehensive economic analysis of the subject, can be referred to a significant amount of existing academic research, such as this thesis.


Is jumping PhDs frowned upon? Long story short, I am a PhD student at a University and I want to leave and start a PhD somewhere else. I am in the process of applying right now.
I do not think it is super relevant to this question as to why I want to leave my present PhD education, but let's just say that is has economic, political and scientific reasons
economic - I am not getting paid enough to make ends meet,
political - my country is going down a dark path and I want to get out asap,
scientific - in all honesty, I am not interested in my current research to the point I am getting significant burnout from it and I don't want to risk getting stuck in this specific area  (I would imagine jumping ships for PhD is easier than for post-doc since before PhD most people don't do that much actual research) + my university is not super-prestigious and I hear that a lot of post-doc applications just get thrown out if you don't have a PhD from a top university

So anyways, anyone who does a search on my name will see that I am a PhD student at my present place and I don't even want to keep it a secret, I just want to know how likely it is for this to affect my impression negatively and whether I should mention this/go over the details as to why I want to leave in my motivation letter.
On the one hand, a PhD is basically a job and people leave jobs all the time, on the other hand, one can also view this as a kind of commitment to my group that I am breaking by leaving and thus I have no idea if this is frowned upon or even a common thing or not.

Seeing that someone is already a PhD student during the application process, or later seeing that someone was a PhD student at two different institution always raises questions. But these questions are easy to answer in your statement of purpose or later application documents, and being in a country that "is going down a dark path and I want to get out asap" is a perfectly good reason anyone will understand.
In other words, I would not worry about it: Whatever questions anyone might have, you have a good answer for it and, moreover, your own personal happiness/mental health is more important than anything else anyway. So do it, if you can!


Use and costs of Creative Commons licenses in scholarly publishing How often is which Creative Commons license used in scholarly publishing and are there differences between their use in gold (fully) open acces (OA) and hybrid articles?

I am looking for a table like this, with the amount of articles:

license       gold OA    hybrid OA
CC-BY         A          B
CC-BY-NC-ND   C          D
...

Additionally, what are the average charges for both types of articles (gold open access and hybrid) depending on the different licenses?

I am looking for a table like this, with the average costs of the license:

license      gold OA    hybrid OA
CC-BY        A          B
CC-BY-NC-ND  C          D
...

Update: Some results of my further research:

As mentioned in a comment, there is a study for gold open access journals. Hybrid journals are not investigated.
There is data availible from OASPA members. They provide a chart showing the growth of Fully Open Access (OA) journals using a CC-BY license. Additionally, there is an Excel file including also data for hybrid open access journals. Unfortunately, there is no information about the charges and the source of this data.

Even though there is still no complete data set answering my question, I recently found a public data set at least answering my questions for hybrid OA. It's called Hybrid Open Access Monitor. The data and the source code is available on GitHub. It is based on data from Crossref and the Open-APC dataset, also freely available on GitHub. Some more explanation can be found on the About page. As an example, here are the numbers of hybrid articles published by Elsevier split into the different licences.

This figure is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Author: Najko Jahn (Scholarly Communication Analyst, SUB Göttingen), 2017.

You can also see, how much each country spent (relatively) of the total costs, if you go to the monitor's website.

For Gold Open Access, there is the study already mentioned in the question showing the usage of different CC licences.

Combining both will lead to a data set of the usage of CC licences in Gold and Hybrid Open Access. Nevertheless, regarding the costs, one has to dig even a bit deeper but I'm sure there will be published data soon and I will update this answer accordingly.


Guidelines for When to Acknowledge Research Assistants I know that it is general practice to include a footnote on papers acknowledging research assistants who have contributed to the project.  I am wondering, however, if any guidelines or accepted practices exist for how to determine which assistants should be acknowledged where.  In general, since it is low cost to acknowledge assistants, it makes sense to be pretty generous in erring on the side of acknowledging.  But, in the interests of acknowledgments being honest reflections of those who contributed to the project, what about some of these particular cases?

Research assistant (RA) is hired.  Does a small amount of work, but not enough to be useful, and then quits.
RA works hard on project, but is very poor at communicating.  As a result, RA goes incommunicado for a while, comes back at the end of the period having put together a work product that is of zero use to the project.
Open-ended research project begins.  At start of the project, it is not clear which avenues of research / aspects of the project will turn in to productive papers and which will not.  RA does good work on an avenue of research that turns out to be a dead end.  Another avenue of research is more successful and results in a paper.  RA contributed nothing directly to the successful avenue, but did contribute to the larger open-ended project.

I think it's best to err in the direction of being generous with attribution.  Firstly because it's hard to be accurate about how important someone was (which both applies to you potentially underestimating your contribution, or the RA overestimating their contribution) which can lead to hard feelings.  And second because it's just a few words and the power to make someone feel good about their contribution outweighs the cost of those words.


How to turn a book chapter into a publishable paper? I'm a PhD student in the field of operations management. I've just finished writing a chapter in a handbook and am thinking about rewriting it into a publishable paper.

How much of the content can be the same and what else do I need to consider - such as empirical data, new conceptual development, etc.?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using research you've already published, whether in a book chapter or any other format, as a basis for further research that could lead to a new publication. However, it sounds to me like the way you are approaching this is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse.

Your goal should be to do new research that contributes something to your area, not to artificially boost your publication list by rehashing old material, which as I said in the comments is the definition of self-plagiarism. Once you have found something new to say beyond what you already wrote about in your book chapter, it will become naturally apparent to you when it makes sense to publish your findings, so the question you are asking here will likely never need to be asked. The point is that publishing is merely the last step of the process of doing research, and in some sense the least important step. It is the means to the end of communicating your research results, not the end unto itself.

As for the practical question of how much material from the book chapter you can include in a new publication, there are different schools of thought on this, with some people viewing any inclusion of substantially similar text from earlier publications, especially without an explicit citation and mention of the similarities, quite negatively. I advise you to consult your advisor or a senior colleague who is familiar with the norms in your area about such things.


Why is a tenure defense talk necessary? Once a tenure-track professor finishes their initial 6 year evaluatory period, I imagine their publication/teaching/grant record should pretty much speak for itself to a tenure committee.  Apparently, as I have recently found out, some departments additionally require a tenure defense talk at the end of this period.  It seems to me that this talk is something akin to a dissertation defense, only on a grander scale of all the research I've done over the initial 6 year period.

But my question is:

Why is it even necessary?

What could be expected from such a talk that wouldn't be readily and easily obtainable from the submitted tenure package?  Is it just a formality or  does it really hold an important weight in the tenure committee's final evaluation to keep me?

Should I just rehash and summarize what is already in my tenure submission package?   Is there something more to it that I should emphasize in my tenure defense talk?

I haven't heard of such a thing, which suggests a simple answer: an oral tenure defense is not necessary.  But regardless of whether it's necessary in some abstract sense, it might be a requirement wherever you end up.

It's possible that your tenure defense would be a grueling affair, with the audience trying to poke holes in your research or dispute its significance, but I very much doubt it.  At worst you could expect the same treatment as an outside candidate giving an interview talk.

The tenure defense is presumably intended to give you a chance to explain your research program, specifically what you have done and why it matters.  This is in principle redundant (your tenure file should already do this), but adding an oral presentation could help.  It's often inspiring to see someone present their own work, and it can be valuable to have a chance to ask questions.  In cases where tenure seems likely, the presentation could also play the role of an inaugural lecture, highlighting for the department the work of someone who is about to become a permanent colleague.

This practice seems uncommon enough that I doubt there's a clear standard for exactly what it means.  Anyone considering taking a tenure-track job with a tenure defense presentation at the end should ask how it works at that particular institution.

  I imagine their publication/teaching/grant record should pretty much speak for itself to a tenure committee.

Publication records can speak surprisingly unclearly.  A non-expert reading through someone's papers won't necessarily appreciate their novelty or how they contribute to the big picture, and may not even understand clearly how they fit together into a coherent research program.  Keep in mind that most people evaluating a tenure case will be non-experts: even other department members will typically have different specialties, and that's not counting university-wide committees or administrators.

One crucial part of preparing a compelling tenure case is sorting out these issues and framing everything appropriately.  This is done partly by the candidate, partly by whoever is overseeing the case (typically the department head), and partly by the letter writers.

So from this perspective, something more than just a binder full of papers is definitely necessary.  However, the added context is typically supplied through written documents; if there is an oral presentation, then it is just to supplement the written file.


No response from potential PhD faculty After extensive research on writing to potential PhD advisors, I drafted three messages that I would consider excellent quality-one for each member I was interested in. I briefly introduced myself, hit the highlights of my research interests, and mentioned specific articles or books the professor wrote that I read, which explained my interest in them as an advisor (and I truly did read them).

After three weeks, I have not received a reply. Why am I not hearing back? Is it completely inappropriate to send a follow up email such as "Hello Professor So and So, I sent you an email a few weeks ago about my research interests and asked for a phone or email correspondence about the program. I wanted to touch base and make sure you received that email"?

Doctoral admissions in the United States is usually done at the departmental level. Departments convene admissions committees and these usually utilize one of the following strategies for selection:

Candidates are chosen who are presumed will work with one particular faculty member (or a small group of faculty) who will serve as their advisors or project leaders.
Candidates are chosen without faculty assignments and are expected to find an advisor / project group in the first one or two years

This is very discipline and department/university specific.

In the case of type #1, yes it helps to contact a POI (professor of interest) who will be your presumed advisor.  In the case of type #2, there's no real advantage to contacting faculty.

However, you should note that even in the case of #1-type departments, faculty do not respond to cold-call e-mails for all sorts of reasons, so one cannot read too much into non-communication.  Also, in many #1-type departments, the decision is still ultimately made by the admission committee and not by the individual faculty member, which is why they may tell you that the decision is out of their hands.

I suggest writing to graduate students in the department whose interests best align with your own. They can give a sense of which type of selection committee the department utilizes, and which faculty generally respond positively and promptly to e-mail.


When are 2 PhDs in philosophy necessary? I stumbled on Tom Angier on his UCT page, but this page details his degrees more:

  MPhil. in Philosophy (University College London, 1995), PhD in Philosophy (University of Cambridge, 2001),
  PhD in Ancient Philosophy (University of Toronto, 2008).

I grasp that a braggart may like the cachet  of having 2 PhDs. But I'll assume that there are other modest reasons.
Couldn't Dr. Angier have studied in Cambridge, whatever he studied in Toronto, by taking more time in Cambridge?
In general, why'd you need 2 Philosophy PhDs?

Just reading the two titles, those PhD's each have a different focus.

I assume that the Cambridge PhD is "modern"...
And the Toronto one is prior to some defined date.

This means that Tom decided to augment or broaden his knowledge, perhaps due to interests gained in the first PhD. I'm guessing - only he knows why for sure.


How to find PhD co-supervisor? I am looking for a co-supervisor to assist me during my research journey based on online / remote supervision.
Does anyone knows how I can make an ad or search for such a thing?

I would prefer to find him myself and to avoid my supervisor assistant since I know that he would not be helpful to do so.

Do you know nay website that I can find some ?

If you already have a supervisor, ask him first, he would need to agree either way and might have some ideas or contacts. If you don't have a supervisor yet, look for one before thinking about co-supervisors.


Is doing a PhD just for the university requirement is a good idea? I have an MSc degree and I work at university as a lecturer. However, the university has a  policy where you should do your PhD within a given time frame. The problem is that I'm not interested in any area yet, nor am I interested in doing the work associated with a PhD.

Should I just go with it because the university forces me to do it, or should I just quit from the university and look for another job?

What do you think? Can I succeed if I start doing my PhD while i feel that I'm forced to do it?

In my university back in Mexico, they had something similar, if professors want to get ahead (income, professional, etc) they had to an additional degree (Masters, PhD)

I think that if you do not have the motivation, you'll have a lot of problems, doing a PhD is already a taxing endeavor, in the sense that many times you'll start wondering wether this was a good idea or not.

As in many things in life, if you do this because you are made to (like students that go to college because their parents want to) you'll have lots of resentment.

However, not all is lost, you can try looking for something you are really passionate about, and then try to do a PhD on that.


How to show proof of publication? I have just got my first paper accepted to a reputed IEEE (say X for generality) conference. Now, one of the authors have registered for the conference as a student member of X. I have applied for student membership, but probably won't receive the member card before registration deadline. In that case, I have been informed that only the author attending the conference would be getting the certificate.
So I have the following question:

1) Do I need the certificate to proof that I have this publication in future ? (My dept has procedure of submitting copies of all certificates that you earn during the semester, and my co-author would definitely be submitting his there.)

2) Is it worth to register without availing student discount so that I may get the certificate ?

You don't get a "certificate" for publishing something. The fact that it is available online at the journal's website (which can take a while, depending on their publishing speeds) and has a doi (which you should receive soon after acceptance), is sufficient proof.
Most societies don't have a membership card either. They might send you a welcome letter, which you could use as proof of membership.

Most places accept different forms of proof of claim when a formal one doesn't exist. In your cases, the following should be just as valid:

An email from the editor, accepting your paper for publication (you should have this)
An email from the society, thanking you for your interest and membership
A screenshot of your member page, showing validity
A screenshot of the web copy of your paper (some journals throw a rough version on the web which serves till the final version is typeset).


Department policy possibly affecting inclusion and diversity I am a last year PhD math student in an university in USA-Canada.

The university I work in offers graduate students the option to teach first year calculus courses as a special kind of TA. The demand for this is high and not everyone gets a position for a given term. However, the department's policy is that everyone who passes a one-term course on teaching and wishes to teach can do it at least once before graduating.

So far so good.

The problem arises when it comes to wanting to teach a second time. It seems like whatever metric is being used to decide who gets the job heavily favours a specific ethnic group. This is, the vast majority of students who get to teach a second time are from a specific ethnic group, while  people from other less represented groups seldom seem to get a second chance.

Clearly the department's argument for this is that these people get better teaching evaluations, but in part this is an echo chamber resulting in the exclusion of members of other less represented ethnic groups in the student body.

The two immediate problems that come to mind are:

Reducing the diversity of teachers for a very diverse base of students.
When it comes to job applications teaching experience can be a valuable asset. Access to it shouldn't depend on our ethnic background.

My (perhaps naive/biased/egotistical) conclusion is that the department's criteria is flawed and it should be modified in some way to reflect this in the future. My questions are:

Who should I talk about this first? I think the best idea is to talk with the person in charge of assigning the positions, who inherited the criteria from the previous person in the position.
How should I approach this person? I think this can be treated as a potential opportunity to improve the department, but I feel like I need to be careful on my approach so that no one feels threatened or accused of anything.
What should I expect? Let me be clear: I don't expect to get a teaching position since I'll be graduating soon, but I'd like this issue to stop and I'm willing to make some noise and bother some people if necessary.

It's an interesting problem, and wanting a fairer representation is a noble goal. But the goal of fair representation does need to be balanced against another goal: giving students a good education. The first goal of having TAs is to help educate students, not to provide people a career stepping stone to the TAs.

  The problem arises when it comes to wanting to teach a second time. It seems like whatever metric is being used to decide who gets the job heavily favours a specific ethnic group. This is, the vast majority of students who get to teach a second time are from a specific ethnic group, while people from other less represented groups seldom seem to get a second chance.

There's a lot of uncertainty here. If you want to successfully challenge your institution on the facts, you need more facts.

If you go to them and say "you seem to hire a lot of X", they can just say "well it may seem like that to you but we don't recognize ourselves in that feeling". If you come and say "group X is represented as 20% of first term TAs and 70% of second term TAs", it's a lot harder to turn you away at the doorstep.

But make sure you get your ethnic classifications right. For example, a pale ginger guy from Argentina with Spanish as a first language, would you classify him as Caucasian or Latino?

The other thing you need to know is what metric they actually use. If you try to argue that their decision-making process is flawed without knowing how they actually make their decisions, you're not going to achieve much.

How are TAs evaluated? Professors are typically evaluated at least partially on feedback forms. But I don't often see specific TA feedback forms. Do other departments/universities do it differently (and do they have a different/fairer ethnic spread)? Can you point to a best practice that your institition could adopt?

The article linked by @PatriciaShanahan points out the value of blind auditions. Once feedback from students has been acquired, how is it processed? To find that out you're going to have to talk to some insiders in your institution. I would recommend finding some progressive-minded professors and asking them if they can explain to you how the internal process actually works. Not accusing them: just asking to explain.

  Clearly the department's argument for this is that these people get better teaching evaluations,

Sure.

  but in part this is an echo chamber resulting in the exclusion of members of other less represented ethnic groups in the student body.

Well, maybe. What if this ethnic group really has a property that gives them an edge in teaching? For example, they speak the local language better than other ethnic groups (such as foreign exchange students). If, as a student, I have to rate two TAs and one is easier to understand, and therefore I learn more from that TA than from the other one, is it really unfair that the first one gets a better evaluation?

  My (perhaps naive/biased/egotistical) conclusion is that the department's criteria is flawed and it should be modified in some way to reflect this in the future.

I think your conclusion is logically flawed. You don't like the outcome of the process, therefore you assume the process must be bad. But what if the process is okay, and the favored ethnic group really did have some advantage that makes them better TAs?

Are students better served by having the best TAs, or the fairest ethnic spread of TAs?

So yeah, your reasoning is noble, but naive. That said, a system which seems to produce ethnically biased outcomes should be viewed with suspicion. So you need to dig deeper into the causes, before you try to convince people to change it.

  Who should I talk about this first? I think the best idea is to talk with the person in charge of assigning the positions, who inherited the criteria from the previous person in the position.

Asking them is a possibility. But I think I'd start with a progressive-minded professor who'd been there for a couple of years already. The professor would have some idea of what happens behind the scenes, but not be as directly challenged, and might become interested themselves. Could result in you gaining an ally for your cause.

  How should I approach this person? I think this can be treated as a potential opportunity to improve the department, but I feel like I need to be careful on my approach so that no one feels threatened or accused of anything.

In the beginning I would focus on gaining information, not on insisting on change. You don't have strong enough evidence (yet). Ask how evaluations are done. Is there any broader analysis of evaluation results, that give you a picture of the ideal TA? For example, if students mention "good English" as an important criterion, you can look at your non-favored TAs and ask if there's a noticeable difference in their English.

Another question to ask is whether TAs receive any kind of training to prepare them for the job. Does the training match the evaluation criteria? Maybe the training doesn't contain something that already comes naturally to the favored ethnic group. So by evaluation time, they do fine on that criterion, but others struggle because nobody taught them.

  What should I expect? Let me be clear: I don't expect to get a teaching position since I'll be graduating soon, but I'd like this issue to stop and I'm willing to make some noise and bother some people if necessary.

That's going to depend on a number of factors, such as how progressive your institution is/wants to be, and what the reasons are that this ethnic group seems to be doing better than the rest, and on how diplomatic you are/whether you manage to find the right allies.

TL;DR -

You need more facts about ethnic representation. Numbers.
You need to know more about how the evaluation is done, what is it testing and how.
You need to find out why other ethnic groups are being evaluated worse. Look for causes, don't just complain about bad people with biases.
You need allies on the inside.
Remember that the institution can always say "our primary goal is to give our students the best education, so we prioritize having the best TAs over having the most diverse TAs". And they're not entirely wrong. You need to find out why more ethnically diverse TAs are being rated as "not the best".


Classification framework in conceptual paper I would like to ask you for a piece of advice concerning the justification of the classification framework in a systematic review article.

I am writing an article in a retailing context and I want to classify from a marketing perspective. I managed to classify some of the articles. However, I do not know what approaches I can use for the classification.

I was thinking to categorize the articles into sub-disciplines such as consumer behaviour, innovations etc. but I am not sure if there is a way to justify the subjective criteria.

Moreover, probably similar categorizations have been already used even it is in regards to other concepts, not those that I want to explore, so I am afraid if I can prove my contribution in my paper.

How should I proceed?

Read more of the articles. Or at least read more of the article abstracts, before you begin classification. If a similar classification has already been used, just re-use that--it's already been demonstrated once. For a systematic review, the classification methods are analogous to the 'methods'--replication is a virtue. The papers you review are the data. If you bring new data, apply a good method, you will make a useful contribution.


How feasible is a remote postdoc in Mathematics? I will be graduating this year with a PhD in mathematics.  My research background is in analysis in a top 20 program in the US.  However, my family situation is such that I can't uproot my family any more than I already have, and I am thus geographically limited in our "in-person" options.  There are several universities and liberal arts schools in my native region, but these days it is increasingly rare to get a tenure track position straight out of the PhD, even for non R1-institutions.
So here is my question.  How open are math departments/potential mentors  to the idea of a remote research postdoc, assuming I can make trips to the host institution, say, two or three times a year? I'm looking both at postdocs in the US and abroad.
On one hand, COVID has made online work more a possibility. And if I stick to research postdocs, I don't have to be in-person for additional tasks (I might also teach online courses in other cases, but I don't want to bank on the continuation of this pandemic, which would just be, well, awful).  Additionally, as a mother I already do most of my research from home, and I have figured out to a large extent how to balance my personal life with my professional life under the flexible time schedules allowed by academia.  My CV and research activity, as far as I know, is decently strong (two published papers, one in a good journal, two submitted papers, one to a top journal, and several more research projects along the way, several talks, including some invited ones), and both I and my advisor had correspondences with some of the researchers in potential institutions, some of who also know I have a child, so they might be more understanding (or not).
On the other hand, I fear a remote option request might be read at best as a lack of commitment to my research, and at worst an insult to the department.  I know personally this isn't the case for me in terms of my productivity (it's been my default for a few years now), but there might be prior assumptions in play.  I also know that generally, math research is increasingly social and collaborative.  There are some advantages to being able to stop by an office next door and ask a math-related/ research question. I also recognize that universities are going to want additional teaching experience if I am applying to tenure track positions afterwards. My limitation to research postdocs also makes it that the total number of postdocs I'm looking at is less than most PhD's numbers of applications.
Should this not work out, I am also applying to non-academic positions as a back-up plan (gotta put food in the table), but I really do enjoy research in pure math and do not want stop doing it.

I’ll only address the US in this answer. Some of this may not be applicable to other countries.
The large majority of US pure math postdocs are mixed teaching and research positions, typically with a three year term. Even though teaching is happening remotely at many schools nowadays, you are asking how departments view the idea of a remote postdoc; well, from a practical point of view, if one is making decisions three years into the future, one cannot assume that teaching is going to continue to be done remotely that far ahead. So, my guess is that you getting such a position as a remote-only postdoc is a non-starter.
That leaves the fairly small number of postdocs that don’t have a teaching component. These come in two flavors. The first is grant-funded and controlled by a specific researcher or research group. These seem to me to be vanishingly rare in pure math these days, but if you are lucky enough to be doing research precisely in an area someone with funding for a postdoc is interested in, you may have a chance. At the very least, it seems more plausible for an individual researcher to be receptive to your suggestion than for a department, committee, fellowship, or other institutional sort of entity.
The other type of positions without teaching are prestigious research postdocs funded by well-known fellowships such as the Miller and Clay. There are only a handful of such fellowships and they are ultra-competitive and extremely difficult to get for anyone, let alone someone who insists on doing a remote postdoc; so getting one of them cannot be thought of as a reliable career plan. But if you’re good enough to be considered seriously for one of those, I can imagine at least a theoretical chance that they might allow you to do the postdoc remotely. You’ll have to check.
The bottom line is that the job market for math postdocs in the US is unfortunately not very friendly towards people in a situation like yours who have geographical location constraints. In any case, good luck!


How can I obfuscate my writing style when I review papers? Does anyone have any good advice for obfuscating one's writing style when reviewing papers?  I have a fear that I would inadvertently use the same turn of phrase in a referee report as in some published work, thus revealing my identity, and I'm curious if there is a good general practice to follow to mitigate this as much as possible.

It's not worth it. Few waste time trying to unblind their reviewers to take retribution for bad reviews. It's just not worth it. The average journal submitter doesn't have enough power to do damage to a random reviewer.

If you need a strategy, trying passing your text through Google Translate to Spanish and back to English. It'll probably be garbage afterwards, but it'll definitely lose any idiomatic turns of phrase that might identify you.


Is the abreviation 'Doz' equivalent/interchangeable to 'Prof'? I'm doing a PhD in Austria and I noticed that people are a bit weird around titles so I'm adapting to it. I also saw that some use the abbreviation Doz (Dozent) and others Prof (Professor). Are these equivalent/interchangeable?

I've read this wikipedia page where it says:

  Docent is also used at some (mainly German) universities generically for a person who has the right to teach.

So I thought maybe it's the difference between actively being a professor and being able to teach, but later it says:

  In Germany, Austria and in the German-speaking part of Switzerland, Dozent or Hochschuldozent denotes an academic appointment at a university or similar institution, at a mid-level ranking of seniority.

So is it related to seniority? Do you first become a Doz and then a Prof?

A "Dozent" is just someone who teaches / gives lectures.

This means every Professor/Prof. is a "Dozent" (if he teaches).

But not every "Dozent" is a Professor (e.g. some people who are working in industry and give lectures as a side job or people who just haven´t made it to "Prof" yet.)


Should I go to engineering graduate school right after undergrad or after a few years of work experience? I've heard a few pros and cons about each.

If you go right away, you'll just get it out of the way.

If you wait to go, you'll learn way more and understand what's useful to focus on.

On the other hand, if you've been earning money, it will be harder to go back to living on a graduate student wage. One professor in particular said if I thought I was going to go back to graduate school after working for a few years, I was in for a big surprise. My dad thinks the people with the best experience are those who waited to get their masters after working for a while.

Interested in going into industry afterwards. Also considering a PhD, but have been told by the same professor that PhDs are a waste of time.

Of the opinions you heard, most make sense to me. However the most important part is what you want to do. If you are eager to go into industry and want to try that, then go with that. If you prefer to do your graduate (and maybe later a PhD), then choose that. But do not plan too far ahead, i.e.: "I'll work 2 years, go to graduate school, do my PhD, and go back to industry." Real life does normally not work like that, and if you really are trying to reach these goals they might give you more stress and worries than help you.

I, after my master degree was kind of tired of University, and worked for a company during three years. After those three years I looked into different options (for personal and professional reasons), and decided to go back in research by doing a PhD.

Try to make a list of "pros and cons", and make a decision based on that.


How to deal with PhD advisor ignoring correct answers I am a PhD student. I am feeling something unusual in my PhD: to me it appears that my supervisor ignores my correct answers and always gives me a feedback when my answer is wrong. I know this is a good thing, but the problem is that due to this kind of his behaviour I always feel demotivated and my confidence has gone very low. These days I try not to give many answers because I fear being wrong, which gives the (incorrect) impression that I am not curious about research. To me it looks as though in academia people will not highlight positive things about you, but they will highlight negative things about you.

Question : How to deal with this constant negative feedback in academia as a PhD student?

One obvious solution is not to pay attention to these things; but that is not working for me.

Different people have different needs when it comes to motivation, for some, this means positive reinforcement and encouragement when things are going well, for others, this means receiving negative feedback and constructive criticism when things aren't going so well. The issue is often that supervisors aren't aware of your needs, and manage their students with whatever approach they've used in the past / has worked with previous students.

I had a similar experience with my PhD supervisor, and it took us the best part of a year to come to a mutual understanding over how we could both accept things being done. Ultimately though, he's never going to be a positive person, so whilst tempering his approach, he's still far more likely to criticise than praise. A few things that helped me during my PhD:

Make use of your co-supervisor / advisor / members of your thesis committee. Personally, I had a far better relationship with my co-advisor, so would speak to her when things weren't going well / I felt my supervisor was being unreasonably critical. She'd also been in the department with my supervisor for a long time, so could often bring things up in conversation with him that I couldn't.
Make use of your supervisors other PhD students who you know have a good relationship with him. Rather than "I think this _____", go with "I was discussing this with XX and we came to the conclusion that ______"- even if you're still wrong, you avoid some of the initial criticism / hostility.
Own your PhD. One of the hardest bits of advice I got given when I was unhappy with my supervisor was that I  was somewhat responsible for owning my research. From your supervisors point of view this is your project and you should be driving it, more often than not you should know the answer, or at least be aware of the issues regarding your knowledge.


Thesis defense months after thesis submission I submitted my PhD thesis a few months back, and it's still not clear when I will have my final defense.

Since then, I have moved on to industry, and I'm very much worried that the state of my knowledge will not be at its peak when my defense finally comes. I feel that at the time of my thesis submission I knew "everything" about my thesis and could answer any question about it, but now, even if I will read it a few times, it will not be the same.

I do have papers published, so one can say I have some "proof" of the thesis merits, but I probably won't be able to defend them to the fullest, so to speak.

I'm wondering, is that something the committee realizes, or do they expect of me to be in "top shape" when coming to my defense, in that every little question I cannot answer will reflect badly on my part?

Thanks.

In my culture the thesis defense is just a formality. Basically when the supervisor allows the thesis submission he is sure that you had produced more than enough to receive the title (publishing papers, attending to conferences, etc).

Thus, even if you are not at the best shape for the oral proof, probably it will be enough to be approved. However, slipping the answers of one or two questions could be the difference between the top qualification or the second best.

In my university we have three qualifications for approved theses: "Cum laude", "Magna cum laude" and "Summa cum laude". And it is attributed the status of "Approved by unanimity" or "Approved by the majority".


Contacting professors via email I am an international, senior Economics and Mathematics major at middle-sized, private international university. I'm trying to finalize the list of schools to which I will apply (to Math PhD programs in Mathematical Physics), but I am finding it very difficult to contact professors given my unconventional background.

I know that I am not a candidate for admission at top-tier universities. For one, my major isn't either mathematics or physics, even though I have been taking physics and math courses for the last 2 years. Also, I'm sure the professors who will write my recommendation letters aren't very well-known either. I may get to work with a professor who has a good reputation in the US, though. Though this depends if the professor accepts me under his tutelage, since he left my current college some time ago. By the time I graduate, I would have taken a dozen physics courses; I'll be lighter on the mathematics side, though.

I'm not sure if I qualify to be considered as a candidate in the mathematics departments; I want my training to be like a mathematician, but I'd like to work on mathematical physics problems. So, I'm not sure how to gauge how fit I am for a department? To that end, I'd ideally like to email some professors, explaining my unconventional background, express interest in working under them, and get advice if I will be considered in their program.

What's the best way to structure such an email? Should I give an extended summary of my "situation"? Is it common to elicit "advice" from professors; we all know they don't have much time on their hands; do I need to read their papers to contact them before hand? Etc.

Before beginning to email academics at other institutions, I would recommend talking to your tutor/ advisor/ referees first, to find out what route they think is best for you to take. It may well be that they know of certain professors or departments that would be a good fit for you. It would also help your letter writers to understand your goals and hence write a better reference.
Having said that, emailing other academics is a good idea. I have done something similar in the past, with very good results (the advice I received from one professor in particular directly led to me finding a supervisor for my Masters and an offer for a PhD place).
The best thing to do when writing such emails is to keep it short and simple. You are already aware of the time constraints professors have, and an overly long email may be off-putting. Aim to summarise your situation in one or two sentences and emphasise your interest in their field of research (looking carefully at a few of their most recent papers before clicking 'send' is a must).
The resulting email may look something like this:

Dear Professor X,
I am a senior Economics and Maths major at Y University. I have found over the past two years of taking physics and maths courses that my real interest lies in mathematical physics and I would like to do a PhD in this area, possibly at your university. I noticed that you have a recent paper on Z theory, which is something that really interests me. Is it related to the P theorem from this earlier paper of yours?
Due to my non-mathematical background, I am unsure whether I should apply to the maths or physics departments at your university. Can you advise me as to which would be the better fit for my skills and interests?
Many thanks and best wishes,
Junaid Aftab

Be prepared for some people to ignore your email entirely, or to reply with a very short response (e.g. "Thanks for your email, unfortunately I can't help you with this matter at the moment. Best of luck."). The key is to be persistent. Find someone else to contact. Keep trying.
If you are successful and someone replies with helpful advice, ask if you can follow up with a chat over Skype. I have always found face-to-face conversation more effective than email, and if you are seriously considering doing a PhD under that professor it doesn't hurt to get to know them a little better and get a feel for what they might be like to work with.
Above all, remember that quite a lot of people in senior levels in mathematical physics are interested in mathematical physics and are glad to find interest in mathematical physics in other people.


Does a professor need a student's permission to cite the student's unpublished essay in their own work? Would professors keep an undergrad student's essay to contribute to knowledge in a certain field? I mean keep for the purpose of citing and using it as a reference when conducting further research on the topic.

Or are they designed to just reiterate information already known just to prove that the student understands the material to qualify to pass a class?

Consider a scenario where the prof is covering course topics throughout the semester and then tells the students to write an essay (the typical introductory paragraph/thesis, body, conclusion, etc.). For example, a student writes about a certain topic in the field and the arguments used to defend that topic over an opposing claim against the original thesis. The student may present arguments that can can be a breakthrough in the field as to why a certain position on a topic is the best choice.

This could happen where the student has a background outside the classroom that contributed to the "original" discovery.

I imagine that undergraduate essays rarely contribute to the knowledge in a field, but there is nothing stopping them.

There is no rule that you have to hold a PhD to contribute.  You can be a graduate student, an undergraduate, or completely unaffiliated with a university and contribute.


How to review a paper that relies heavily on references to unpublished work? I am currently doing a (blind) review of a paper for a Journal in the engineering field. The manuscript seems okay so far but relies to a large extent on a unpublished paper, cited as Miller et al. forthcoming. That publication was not submitted along with the manuscript. The author seems to be involved in that publication, but is not co-authoring it. Since no journal or publisher is given, I am assuming that the manuscript is under preparation and to be submitted to a Journal.

Furthermore, there is no summary of the central data and results e. g. in the supporting information. That makes it hard to follow some of the assumptions and conclusions.

How should I proceed?
And does this in principle justify a rejection of the paper?

Every matter in a paper should be verifiable, including the references. All results should be supported by relevant explanation with sufficient detail.

Instead of rejecting the paper straight away, you may initially tell the author of correspondence (through the editor) to provide the unpublished cited materials. The author is to be obliged to provide you the tangible material from which you may assess the credibility of the facts cited.

Bear in mind that all communication between the author and reviewer must go via the editor of the journal.


How to write an effective but gentle reminder email to a journal editor? I have received an acceptance email of my article from editor in August-2015 and I was told that my article  will be published in their issue of XXXXX 2015/2016. Meanwhile one issue of the journal is published in january-2016 without my article and the next issue is expected in May-2016. Now I am going to write a reminder email mentioning to consider my article for publication in the forthcoming issue. Please guide me or share some gentle format, so that I may be able to communicate with editor well in time.

Make it a question, not a reminder.

I see no particular reason to worry that your paper has been forgotten. It seems more likely just that yours is scheduled for the May issue (or later in the year) because there were enough earlier-submitted articles to fill up the January issue.

On the other hand, asking politely “Roughly when should I expect my paper to appear?” is a completely reasonable question — there are many reasons you might want to know it — and contains no implied criticism that an editor might take offence at.

And in case the editor has forgotten your paper, this will have the desired effect of a reminder anyway.


Publishing code in order to improve my chances to be admitted to a CS graduate school I am 32 years old now and I want to apply for a degree in computer sciences at a European university. I am afraid they could consider me to be too old. That's why I want to show them somehow part of my code and improve that way my chances to be admitted at my age.

I thought about uploading a video in Youtube showing how my program runs and publishing the code of the program in other place, and then putting the links inside my CV. I am not sure how to do all this. My code is an unfinished emulator. It is about 20 000 lines of pure ASM and it hard to read. I feel that I need a way to prove that the video shows a real existing program and not only fake animation I may have done.

First, I wish to know if it is good to put the links to my code and videos inside the CV.
Second, I would like to know the best site (and simplest to use) to publish my code. It would be not lucrative at all for somebody to steal my code. Still I think it would be painful to find out some day that someone copied and pasted chunks of my code and said that he made it. I need a basic protection against plagiarism provided by the site. Maybe based on the date I posted the code.
Third, I am very worried about critics. This is 20 000 of ASM code(only part of the nearly 50 000 lines long project). It is messy! It looks really ugly. It is cool and highly optimized but I know there is always place for more optimization. I love it, it uses lot of SMC and code reusing. I love it but always there are people who could say it is junk.
Fourth, it is not finished. It works perfectly, but part of the OP-codes are not coded yet. I coded more of them, the ones I think would be used more frequently.

Given a situation like this, what would be the best way to proceed with sharing code to help boost chance of admission?

It sounds like you have a portfolio that should be a part of your application to university or a job or anything. Furthermore you're saying that the working product is a better testament to your skill than the code itself. This is also fine.

The only concern I see is how much work you will require on the reader of your application. If you link to a YouTube video, also include screenshots. If you link to a GitHub profile, consider writing up some basic statistics on the activity or health of your activity there.

Regarding where to publish code, don't overthink this. Github is popular, but a Dropbox file, a Google Doc, a file sharing service, or anywhere else you can post a file will do.

I do not know the proper channel to submit a portfolio or the proper format. This situation is probably documented in the application instructions however, so you should be able to find info there, or reach out to a recruitment officer for how to proceed.

EDIT regarding where to post - actually a .zip file or similar may be problematic since they tend to look like viruses to people, who don't want to open them. Github or a competitor may be the best choice since the source code is browsable in their web UI. It is best practice to include a software license whenever you publish (literally "make public") code, even if you think it is unusable. I think the MIT and Apache licenses both amount to (IANAL) "do whatever you want with it, just don't sue me."


Cite a R function/implementation from a website I am using one-sample log-rank test in my paper. I use the implementation from this website http://www.ms.uky.edu/~mai/splus/LogRank1.r. I wonder whether I should cite this and how I can cite a function on a website in Latex.

If you use a script written by someone else, it is best to acknowledge them in some way. Citations are common, and many R packages define citations explicitly. Some authors will write papers documenting the code and publish them in journals, allowing you to cite the documentation rather than the code directly. However for one-off functions like your example, these options are usually not available. The information can be included in a footnote, or you can create a full citation.

You can cite an online resource in bibtex using the @online record and include the URL and access date. I would recommend the following bibtex record for this resource:

@online{zhoucode,
  author="Mai Zhou",
  title="LogRank1 function",
  url="http://www.ms.uky.edu/~mai/splus/LogRank1.r",
  addendum="Accessed: 26 May 2020"
}

In the latex document, you can cite this using \cite{zhoucode}

This should not be the only method by which a reader can access the source code. For reproducibility, it is best to make your analysis scripts publicly available for review so that future researchers can repeat your calculations exactly, and it is best to include a footnote in your text that links to a stable repository of your code. This can be accomplished in a number of ways.

@louic in another answer recommends publishing the script as supplemental materials (with the script writer's permission) which if available is the best option because the materials will always be available with the paper. This may not always be possible or reasonable depending on journals or the amount of code.
Some scholars use Github to host their materials and analysis scripts. Github is stable, publicly accessible, and maintains a history of changes made to your analysis scripts allowing review of the process and not simply the end point. Other public code repositories such as Bitbucket and sourceforge exist but are less popular in my experience.
If you preregister your experiment and analysis through the Open Science Foundation website, they allow uploads of analysis scripts. Preregistration is useful in its own right, but uploading your analysis scripts makes them available to others in a stable repository linked to your work.
Have the internet archive save the page and link to the archived copy. This solution is far worse than the above recommendations because it doesn't show how the script was used by you, only what the source code of that function was. While other methods should be used, this method is better than nothing.


Advisor wants me to come up with a research project. I came up with a project, but it's not with him I'm in the second half of my PhD, and my advisor wants me to come up with an original research project.  I also have a mentor (who is not a professor at my university) who has also been telling me to come up with an original research project.

I came up with a project, but it was for my mentor, and not my advisor.  I'm not sure if my advisor would want to work on the project with us, and if he did it would be weird because he wouldn't be the supervisor.

What should I do?  I feel like it would be awkward to talk to him about  this.

The best solution would be to meet up with your advisor and discuss regarding this matter.

As your advisor instructed to find a research project, you did. The project is relevant to your mentor but you are unsure whether your advisor would be interested in the project.

This is a legitimate doubt that only your advisor can clarify.


Is is okay to write "awarded" when the selected list is released online, but final offer yet to receive? Is it okay if I write in letter/e-mail, the following?
   "I have been awarded recently ..."
when the final selected list for the award is published online, but the actual award offer letter is yet to receive?

In general I would say that this is perfectly acceptable (although the phrasing more accurately should not use the past, but the future tense - "I will receive the 2019 XYZ award, see ").

The only reason I see to be cautious about this is if it's not 100% sure yet that you will actually get this award. I would say if the respective agency or selection committee has already made available a public list I would count this as sufficiently certain, but if you for instance had learned about it through more informal means (e.g., your department head has received a phone call that one of his employees will receive additional funding, or something along these lines) I would be a bit hesitant to already officially brag about your award.


Don't last-year PhD students need supervision? I am a PhD student currently in the middle of my PhD. After talking to some senior PhD students, I came to know that during the last or second to the last year of PhD, advisors don't advise their students (advice to very small extent ). There are many things last year students have to do on their own. I don't know if this is true or not in general.

  Question : Don't last year PhD students need supervision?

On the one hand the amount of support needed on how to do research should decrease as the PhD student progresses. On the other hand, at the end is "crunch time" and a lot of projects come to an end at the same time. Each project should require less support by the advisor, but now there are more projects to discuss... Moreover, there is the process of finishing the dissertation, ceremonies, etc. etc. So the amount of time I spent on a PhD student would follow more a U-shaped curve: a lot at the beginning, then decreasing, but increasing again at the end.


Advisor manipulated/threatened me into sharing my first authorship My last Phd work was submitted to a high impact journal (IF >35). The manuscript came back for revision with 2 positive comments and 1 no-suggestion on my last day in his lab. Given its positive comments, I expected to go for next round of review as long as the comments are fully addressed. The comments requested simulations and experiments, which I supposedly would not be able to perform as I graduated and was leaving the next day. So my advisor threatened me on my last day to submit to IF (~5) journal or share my first authorship to someone (person X) who was not involved in the project at all. For the later, he reasoned that X needs to commit full-time ~ 4 months just for revision and stop all other works. Although I explained to go through comments first and discuss and that I can revise, he did not agree any of it. He asked me to choose 1 of his options, no negotiation (like giving co-first after X shows to put significant effort). I agreed to give X co-first authorship under the condition that major revisions will be done to address all reviewers' requests and convince them. Then my advisor privately told X will be the co-first and to revise none, minor, or major; choice is up to X. They spent 1.5 months only for quick revision, without addressing all comments. I told X about the problems with the revision, but no any reply. It was rejected directly by the editor. (At this point, they already broke the deal.)
Then they submitted to another journal, got rejected by the editor again.
Another journal (IF >10) finally passed the editor and came back for revisions. All 3 reviewers are positive. Yet the editor asked for all the comments/experiments to be fully addressed. My advisor did not even notify me about this decision. X told me that they wanted to submit to IF ~5 journal because too many experiments need to be done for the revision. X said need ~ a month or more to revise, and my advisor wants X to focus on looking for a job. So X asked if I am okay with this decision to submit to IF ~5 journal. (This is how I know there is a revision requested.) I am very mad because how X can deserve a co-first if they did not even put in effort and time! The revision comments are very positive, but they said they think it will not go through. (I am basically #w$%t&f?)
Similar things happened repeatedly during my PhD in his lab. I am very mad, but I am helpless. I used to hope this work would help my faculty job search if it gets published. This time, I did not want to "waste" this work while it originally even had the chance to go through IF>35 journal, but they messed it up since then.
Note: My advisor is a complete a**o who used to call/write bad recommendation letters for those who were against him.
Any suggestions on how to handle this?
UPDATE 1: So they agreed to submit a revision. Knowing that they will not treat it seriously like last time again, I revised the majority myself, incorporating old experimental data. There are still many simple experiments (~ 2 weeks worth of time) needed to be done. How can I make sure they will do the job and do it right?

These are your options:

Focus on your new project in a new lab working with better colleagues.
Do the revisions yourself.
Let the former advisor do whatever they want.

I agreed to give X co-first authorship under the condition that major revisions will be done to address all ...

You agreed to the co-first authorship.  You should not break that agreement.  Unfortunately, revisions being "done" is subjective so you cannot punish the other party for breaking their part of the agreement.  Next time, only agree to someone's authorship after they have earned it.