Academic freedom and unpopular or offensive views Academia values academic freedom. However, there may be some practical limitations on academic freedom. What repercussions might an academic face for voicing unpopular or offensive views in the name of academic freedom?

For example, how might a professor's academic reputation be impacted by publicly expressing views that support dictatorships (and other type of politicians) and their established crimes and violation of human rights?

First, academic freedom as it is commonly understood does not refer to one's views and publicly stated opinions, but to the freedom in which they conduct teaching in the classroom. The reference in US is the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure stating that

  Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject

But as a rule, academics do not get special treatment outside of the classroom with regards to freedom of speech. It's certainly not the case in the US, and I am not aware of any other country where it might be the case.

Now, regarding the impact of unpopular or offensive views on reputation, it will heavily depend on your colleagues! I personally find that, while freedom of speech is highly valued in academic circles in general, Academia as a system is a rather conservative institution and I suspect you would not find much more sympathy for extreme views than in any other workplace.

NB: Academic freedom is also used to refer to a US jurisprudence applying to universities and colleges; in that sense, it is unrelated to rights and duties of an individual teacher.


How to Present Two Authors on the cover page of an APA Research Paper? So I've done plenty of APA papers, but I have never done one with two authors, so I came here since it's the fastest source for information, in my opinion. I would like to know or see an example of how to present both authors on the cover page.

According to the APA 6th Edition, you list all the authors in order of contribution, or in alphabetical order if their contribution is equal. They should be on the same line unless it does not fit.

Example: Jane Smith and John Doe


How are reference letters for postdocs submitted? I am right now beginning my first application for my first post-doctoral position. The announcement lists a series of documents which should be submitted, including (quite predictably) a reference letter from my supervisor.

How would such letter normally be delivered? I am asking because of a certain cognitive dissonance. On one hand, the application lists it just like another document, which would suggest that I should simply get it from my supervisor and send it together with all the remaining paperwork. On the other hand, I remember that when I was applying for my PhD, the process of submitting references was rather more complicated, and specifically excluded me having access any of the reference letters. So maybe I should ask him to post his opinion directly to where I'm applying. How do these things typically work? (I imagine that if no clarification is given, there is a universally agreed way...)

If it matters, I’m now in UK, and applying for a position in Eastern Europe. I study pure mathematics.

Postdocs in mathematics in the US are universally* handled through MathJobs, which was commissioned by the American Mathematical Society for this purpose. Recommenders submit a single letter, which can then be attached by the applicant to any number of applications, without ever giving the applicant access to the letter. Recommenders can also send a more specific letter to particular schools if desired.

This system has been so successful that it has been made available to other fields as AcademicJobsOnline by the Duke University Mathematics Department, who originally created MathJobs.

I do not know whether positions in Eastern Europe use MathJobs, however.

*If anyone knows of a postdoc in math in the US that does not use MathJobs, I'd be interested to know; it's been a few years since I last heard of one.


How to highlight my Master's thesis grade in CV My Master's thesis was granted 9/10. It was the highest score even given for a thesis since the progam was founded (8 years sonner). How can I highlight it in my resume without looking ostentatious?
Thanks!

Great mark and well done! However, this is hard to mention without looking a little ostentatious as you say, so it's probably better to just include your overall degree result. Presumably if you got such a high mark for your thesis, you would have attained a distinction for your degree. If you did not do so and attained a pass or merit, and you include your thesis mark, this could raise questions as to why you ended up getting a lesser mark in your degree. If you did get a distinction overall - then congratulations - and that mark would speak for itself. If you really do want to include it, do so in the most minimalist way, such as Thesis - Thesis Title (9/10). Supervisor - Dr XX XXXX.


If I develop a product as part of a project at university, does the university have any ownership over it? To specify further, this is an undergraduate project, not a PhD, so (I think) that this is not directly funded by the University, and I am studying in the UK.

I ask because I have a few ideas about what I am going to make and I'd rather not use some of the better ones if I am going to get into legal debates if they do somehow manage to be successful.

It's worth noting that the "good" ideas aren't necessarily better from a technical standpoint so the only thing I'd gain from using them is a years head start on development. I guess I am just curious.

Usually, if you use the university's resources then the university has some claim to what is produced. If you produce it on your own time using your own resources, then it should belong to you. Some companies have rules in their contracts stating that anything you produce while you're employed by the company belongs to the company. Some universities lay claim to a percentage of your profits if you apply for a patent through the university's patenting office; you give up the headache of patenting, they take 30 or 50% of the profit.

In all cases, it depends on the country and your university's policies (hence the generic answer above). I would suggest you look for the IP/patenting office in your university and talk to them. You could also ask your professor. If you're really serious, then talk to a lawyer.


What is the difference between research intensive vs. research extensive universities? I keep hearing these terms being thrown around at conferences, but I'm not really sure what they really mean, if there is any difference between them.

"Research intensive" and "research extensive" are obsolete terms from the Carnegie classification of research universities.  They are terrible, confusing terms that should never have been introduced (see page 5 of Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification).  The idea was that "research extensive" means there's an extensive research program covering many areas at a high level, which "research intensive" means there's just a narrowly focused, intensive research program in certain areas.  Basically, extensive is supposed to be better than intensive.  Of course the problem is that this really isn't what they sound like.  For example, most people would say Harvard is a research intensive university, but in this classification it's not.  Because of massive confusion, the Carnegie classification was updated to use other terms, but the old terms still persist.  One reason is that some people just got used to them and found it hard to develop new habits; another is that every time the classification changes, some universities end up moving to a less prestigious category than they used to be in, so they have a strong incentive to describe themselves using the old terms.


Conference proceedings and talks on a CV? I come from a multidisciplinary background, mostly biostatistics and bioinformatics. I'm currently updating my CV to apply for a post doc and I'm wondering how do people include conference proceedings and invited talks in a CV.

In my case, I have two type of abstracts:
- peer-reviewed conference proceedings which are published in journals,
- peer-reviewed abstracts accepted in national or smaller conferences which aren't published.

Should I make a distinction between these two types of abstracts? How do you separate abstracts selected for an oral comunication and/or poster and invited talks?

I used to have a section named Conference contribution and three subsections Invited talk, Oral communication and Poster but I'm not sure about this format and I'm wondering whether it's relevant to add this information or if I should filter more. Also, do people include all abstracts or only the first author?

There is a little bit of variation depending upon the discipline, but generally the convention is along the lines of the following:

  CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

  Invited Talks

  Unsolicited presentations (ex. keynotes) where you are invited by the organizers.

  Papers

  Complete manuscripts that are published in proceedings and indexed by relevant databases.

  Abstracts

  Short (i.e., 250 words) or possibly extended abstracts intended to describe the talk.

  Posters

  Any poster presentations, these may be eliminated by senior scholars.

Generally the rule of thumb is that the section is organized by most prestigious (i.e., invited talks) to least prestigious (i.e., posters). When applying for an academic position this section should be as complete as possible as well. Additionally, it may include notation indicating you are the presenter if you are not the first author.


Create contact for future postdoc without disappointing PhD supervisor I am a physical science PhD student and after completed my PhD I would like to work as a postdoc in a second, specific, university's research group.

Therefore, I would like to start making some networking with this new group, e.g. by contacting the director OR any academic with same research interests as me, explaining my PhD project and eventually involve he/she in a possible research which will lead to a paper together. This would mean visiting that particular university, meet the staff, spend some time working with them, etc..

The point is that my actual PhD supervisor seems not so keen to these kind of connections for whatever reason (possibly because he imagines my final aim?) and therefore I feel worry to talk with him about this subject because I already know his answer, i.e. No.

I believe that starting early (i.e. during a PhD) making connections with this (or any other) research group would be better for me, instead of contacting them after e.g. my PhD thesis submission or Viva, but I don't want to ruin the relation with my PhD supervisor.

In your opinion, what should I do?

1) Should I impose to him my choice to contact and hopefully work with this particular group, because it is my PhD project but possibly ruining the relation

or

2) Wait until the end of my PhD (I am a 1st year) and tell him to write for me a letter of recommendation for a postdoc job in that group

or

other options?

In any case he will know my decision.

Thanks

If your advisor doesn't think it is a good idea then you should trust him (this is part of his job, to advise you, after all).

You're just starting out so get your own projects going before trying to connect with another group. In a year or so if you're still interested you could bring this up to your advisor again. You could always attempt to meet people from the other group casually at a conference or something.

Short answer: Listen to your advisor, especially so early in your career.


How long should you wait after submitting a revise and resubmit before you should contact the journal? It's been six weeks since I have sent paper for a second review after I received revise&resubmit decision from the first round. Is this a typical time period or should I send a query to the journal?

Currently the paper is under the status "with editor" for a couple of days after it has been "under review". The journal is in the field of telecommunications.

The time for the second go-around is often the same as for the first go-around. So, if the journal allows reviewers 3 months for a review, you have to expect this much (at least) also for the review of the revision.


Must one use the © symbol on a book's copyright page when using a CC license? Most books I've seen released under a Creative Commons license also have the copyright symbol (e.g., "© 2016 by me") plus, sometimes, "some/all rights reserved" listed on the copyright page.

Is it necessary to say copyright on the "copyright" page when using a Creative Commons (CC) license?

Is it necessary to say copyright on the "copyright" page when using a Creative Commons (CC) license?

It's not "necessary" but it is a good idea. This communicates the information that there is a copyright holder for the work and the copyright holder is licensing the copyright under the terms of the CC license. Using the CC license does not negate the existence of a copyright on the work; in fact, it is only by virtue of having a copyright on a work in the first place that you can license it to others under the CC license if you so wish.

In most jurisdictions (Berne convention), copyright is "automatic" and it is not required to claim a copyright in any particular form. However, people who might otherwise use your work as permitted by the CC license may be put off if your legalese is missing or unconventional.


Should undergrads list affiliation? If I am simply an undergraduate of an institution, am I affiliated with it? I do not want to lie about my affiliation but also do not want to permissibly lie by putting "Independent Researcher" if I should in fact list my university.

Yes, if you did the work while you were a student at your university, you should list that university as your affiliation.


Citing "In press" article I had a conference last week on which I presented paper 1.

There's paper 2 that has been accepted with the CR deadline within a week. I'd like to cite paper 1 in paper 2. I could make the reference state "In press" but my worry is, when paper 2 gets published, is the "In press" part going to remain there after the publication (forever)?

Is there a way to avoid this or solve this?

Many published articles cite "In press" articles forever and it's not an issue.

You could, however, publish a preprint (on arXiv, on PeerJ, on ResearchGate, etc). This will allow you to have a DOI for the unpublished article. You need to be very careful: not all journals allow preprints (I do not know about conferences), so it could jeopardize the publication of paper 1. You have to verify your signed agreement (if you have one) or ask.


Where to find journal impact factors stripped of self-citation? Where can I find a database of impact factors where self-citation has been removed? A journal's self-citations are defined as those citations by that journal's papers towards other papers in the same journal.

The reason I want to know this is to know which journals are engaged in coercive citation so that I know which journals I should avoid.

Update from March 2016: it seems like ISI Knowledge offers citation counts with person-level self-citations taken out. Any of that should be treated as experimental, of course. Don't know if this could work for a journal.

I don't think any of the existing systems take out the self-citations. The publishers and journals are not interested in seeing reduced impact factors, so few editorial boards and fewer yet commercial publishers would be interested in anybody producing such rankings. If a discipline has its independent referencing and citations systems, they might be interested in such more objective analysis -- e.g., economists have their CitEc (Citations in Economics), a part of RePEc (Research Papers in Economics), which does track self-citations (see the 2012 Nobel prize winners, Alvin Roth and Lloyd Shapley as examples... the first one has as many self-citations as the second one, total citations). I would venture a guess that mathematicians might have a similar system. But I doubt that natural or social sciences do.

The high impact journals are obviously important for publishing, getting good academic jobs and getting tenured. However, impact factor may only tell a part of the story, and some disciplines have reputable journals that may not have the highest possible IFs. Let me take again economics as an example that I am familiar with. In most US departments, you'd get tenured if you have a paper in either American Economics Review, Quarterly Journal of Economics, or Econometrica. (The QJE is often said to mostly publish MIT and Harvard folks.) AER is only 19th in this list of impact factors (which may be as good as any other list that's not password protected by ISI), and I have never heard about some of these journals. The AER's impact factor of 2.5 is not even funny for a biologist seeking Science or Nature publications, though -- the impact factors of the latter are what, 30 or so?

I work in industry and tend to care little about the journals outside of my area (statistics); generally, statistics journals tend to have IFs between 0.25 and 4. The reality of my particular field (survey research) is that people just submit their paper to proceedings of the annual conferences and move on with their paying projects, and don't have the time to BS back and forth with the reviewers. There are people in academia who need to publish-or-perish, so you would see some typical academic papers with rather small contributions to the knowledge, but their authors either have their own time or slave labor force grad students to write these up.

As a guiding rule of what journals to avoid, you can start with commercially published journals and respect the professional organizations publish their journals themselves, without Wiley or Elsevier grabbing them as a source of income... although I can imagine that coercive citations is what the editorial boards insist on, which may or may not correlate strongly with who publishes a given journal. I have received requests to cite the given journal more (this is a problem for disciplines with an overproduction of journals fighting each other; again, in my industry, there are probably four or five decent ones, and they don't need to fight), but tended to ignore them.


Is the Octogon Mathematical Magazine still accepting paper submissions? Is the Octogon Mathematical Magazine still accepting paper submissions?

The latest contents in the Archive section is Volume 20. No. 1 April, 2012, though I am not particularly sure if this website is updated (or if this is even the correct website that I should be looking at).

I did check WorldCat and it appears that the journal is still in print.

  Is Octogon Mathematical Magazine indeed still in print?

Yes, the Octogon Mathematical Magazine is indeed still in print.
I was advised by the current Editor-in-Chief to send my paper submissions (in LaTeX and PDF formats) via e-mail.
Here are the Rules governing submission to this journal.
(Edit June 13 2020, in response to Nate Eldredge's questions in the comments:  Per an e-mail reply from the current Editor-in-Chief:)

Dear Sir, we reorganized the webpage of Octogon, if we finished you can see the previous issues. Octogon appears two time /year (April and October) printed version. Best regards MB


Postdoc salary negotiation (UK) I am interested in taking up a postdoctoral position in a UK institution. The appointment details write:

  Appointment will be on a Fixed Term Contract for 3 years and with a
  starting salary in the range of £29,517 to £42,187 p.a. inclusive
  dependent on postdoctoral experience.  It is anticipated that the
  starting salary will be in the range from £29,517 to £33,740 p.a.
  inclusive.

I just started a family and I will need ~£36,000 p.a. to break even when calculating living costs in UK (London).
Is it reasonable to negotiate for a ~£36,000 p.a. salary? (I know it is somewhat on the high side but not insane by UK standards.)
It is reasonable to apply in such a position and explain that I will expect an substantial increase (~10%) in my salary within my first year of employment if I start around the £32-33,000 mark?

I do not want to waste my time or theirs on this matter but clearly my cover letter is not a place to put this concern forward. I also think ill of the idea of e-mailing a potential hiring manager/team lead with queries about a salary raise right off the bat.

The USA-based post-doctoral appointment I currently hold pays ~£40,000 p.a. I do not mean to sound like a money-grubber; I am genuinely interested in the position and I think I will be a great fit for that team but I do not want to endure a ~20% pay-cut.

This depends heavily on the funding source. For all UK funded postdocs the pay will be set on the national scale - current rates without London weighting are up-to-date, but I'm not sure if the comments about the London weighting are correct.

For research council funded postdocs I would expect the salary range to be fixed somewhere between spine point 27 and 40, with the initial upper limit more likely around spine point 34. This is close to the numbers you quote. I would not expect much flexibility unless they can find additional funds to supplement the (fixed) funding from the grant.

On the salary increase in post: there would typically be a 1 (one!) spine point increment after the second year. I'd be very surprised if a substantial increase along the lines you're wanting could be negotiated, let alone after the first year.

If the funding is not pure research council then there may be more flexibility.

As someone who's been on both sides: I have fielded salary questions, particularly from overseas candidates, and (done sensitively) I don't think it will be held against you. The above is more a warning that the constraints of RCUK funding may make it impossible to get a solution that's acceptable to you.


If a paper is accepted but not included in the conference proceedings, does organization (IEEE) retain the copyright of the paper? In case a paper is accepted but not included in the conference proceedings (conference fee not paid), does the organization (IEEE) retains the copyright of the paper?

Consider the case that none of the authors is able to attend the conference to present the paper and possibly they would like to submit it to another conference in the near future.

We have only uploaded the paper to PDF eXpress and then to the online platform of the conference. The copyright transfer will be signed at the end of the conference following verification of attendance.

Restating your conditions,

Copyright form not signed
Conference fee not paid
Paper not in proceedings

This implies that your paper is not published in this conference. Hence by no means can IEEE hold copyright for your manuscript with regard to this conference.

For a conference that requires fees, the respective paper it's published when the sum is paid (although there are exceptions). IEEE conferences seldom require you to sign the copyright form before the payment. They are usually done together. Once, I've noticed that some participants signed the copyright form on the day of the conference since they missed out on attaching the form along with the fee (which was successfully paid).


Issue creating IEEE Xplore-compatible document: accepted with caution I am currently submitting an already accepted paper to an IEEE conference. I validated the paper with the PDF eXpress tool. However, my paper is accepted with caution. The warning message received via e-mail is the following one.

PDF links are allowed for supplemental electronic material (multimedia) only. ALL OTHER LINKS WILL BE DELETED BEFORE POSTING TO IEEE XPLORE.

If I understand the message correctly, for the document to be IEEE Xplore-compatible, it requires me to cancel all links that are not PDFs. However, many of my sources are links to other sources (e.g., GitHub or an official wiki).
What I am supposed to do? Simply upload the file as it is and wait for editors' complaints?

Rewrite the paper without hyperlinking.  If you want to refer to a wiki or github, use a typed citation.


Refuted papers: do they belong in a literature review? I'm writing a detailed review article (for submission for publication) that aims to survey the various proposed explanations for a particular biological phenomenon. I'm aware of one explanation (that was proposed 20+ years ago), but a number of papers since then have pointed out fatal flaws in its logic. The original paper was published in a respectable journal and has been relatively well cited, since many papers on this phenomenon include some form of survey of the proposed hypotheses. However, it has not received any (published) support, experimental or otherwise.

At what point can we, as researchers in the field, consider the matter closed, and cease to refer to the refuted hypothesis? It seems a waste of space to spend a paragraph detailing one argument, only to spend the next paragraph explaining why it is flawed, and then not referring to it again. On the other hand, does it damage the credibility of my review if I omit one of the hypotheses without any justification?

Based on the background you gave, particularly that you are writing a detailed review article, then I think you should definitely include this article.

Part of the function of a good review article is that it documents the history of scholarly thinking on the topic of question. From your explanation, this article presented an idea so apparently true that not only did some intelligent researchers study it and present it as fact, but it even passed peer review in a high-quality journal and was cited by subsequent researchers (though, of course, many people might have cited it to contradict its results). This indicates that it has played an important role in the evolution of knowledge in the area.

Think of it this way: suppose some researchers read your review article that omits this idea, and then they independently get that same idea as their own original idea. Without knowing that it has already been refuted, they waste their time conducting a study based on their ideas, and probably get negative results, to their disappointment. (Or worse, they get positive results, submit them for publication, and then get slammed in peer review for not knowing the literature.) By documenting the full body of knowledge, you can spare these hypothetical researchers all that pain.

Although my area has nothing to do with biology, I still remember in secondary school biology class learning about spontaneous generation as an early theory of genetics. I was deeply impressed by the explanation of how such a popular theory was eventually refuted by better science. That case was an important educational milestone in developing my scientific thinking. By including the refuted work in some detail (in correspondance with the amount of scholarly work spent developping and then refuting it), you could help your readers in a similar way.


What to do about fellow student that hogs lecture time with many questions I am in a master's program, and one of my peers in the program is in two classes with me. He is a nice person, but he tends to ask a lot of questions in lectures; both of which are very large, and often ends up derailing the lecture for 25-30 minutes.

It has (long since) gotten to the point where many people are bothered by it. He will ask a question if he is hazy on any details, and often doesn't allow us to cover all of the material in a lecture because of it. In addition, the professor is typically forced to just repeat him/herself, so we don't even learn anything new from his questions. Of course, we are still responsible for that material regardless of whether it is covered lecture. The professors appear to be bothered by his behavior, though I wouldn't presume to know for sure.

Can and should I say something to this person? I don't want to discourage him from asking questions or feel disliked by his peers in the program, but it seems unreasonable to allow him to negatively affect my and other students' learning experience (and to a rather severe degree).

Note that I am aware of this post detailing how to handle disruptive questions, but I think my question is different because it concerns how to handle it from the perspective of a fellow student rather than a professor.

Unless this student is a close friend of yours, I think you should bring it up with the course instructors, not directly with him.  The person who is in charge of making sure the course is operating smoothly and well is the instructor.  In a class with more than a few students, spending 25-30 minutes responding solely to one student sounds like a clear mistake to me.  (The fact that this is happening in multiple classes and none of the instructors have done anything about it is curious to me, but I don't really know what to make of it.)

I would make an appointment to speak to each instructor in question about it.  I would come to that appointment with specific information about other students who feel the same way.  If we are talking about a few students, then probably you should come to the office together.  I am a university professor, and if several students came jointly to my office to express concern about the way my class was run, I would have to take that very seriously.

If the number of students who are concerned about this is more than could comfortably fit in your instructor's office, then I think you should make a list of such students in some way, e.g. by writing up a brief, politely worded statement describing your feelings on the situation and getting other students to sign it.  Or perhaps even in the second situation it might be better to start with a few students who come visit your instructor's office.  Things to worry about in the second situation are (i) you don't want to attribute a complaint to a classmate unless you have specifically talked to them about it and gotten their approval and (ii) if you don't handle things with enough discretion it could get back to your inquisitive peer in a way that you don't want.

Perhaps others will disagree, but I really do feel that if the behavior is acceptable to the course instructors then it has to be grudgingly acceptable to you: I would not try to persuade your peer to change his ways.  If the additional time spent on your inquisitive peer has consequences in terms of the learning experience, you should bring those consequences to the attention of the instructor, specifically and repeatedly if need be.  For instance, if the lectures do not cover all the material that the syllabus says they should, you could ask the instructor what to do about that and whether the exams will be adjusted accordingly.  (This is a pointed, but fair, question.)  If at the end of the course it turns out that indeed the learning experience was compromised in this way, then you should give appropriate feedback about it.

The only case I can think of in which I would confront your peer directly is if you have as much discussion with the instructor(s) as you can, they agree that the questions are derailing the lectures but are themselves unwilling to do anything in response.  They are then really not doing their job, and I think at that point you would be justified in trying to intervene: it seems like the least evil.


Where am I supposed to report a broken DOI? Where am I supposed to report a broken DOI? To https://www.doi.org/, to the  DOI registration agency that issued the DOI, to whoever is responsible for the website to which the DOI points to, or to somebody else?

For example, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(90)90002-E is 404:

It's not likely that the DOI itself is broken. However, a number of things might be happening to prevent you access to the material (I'll assume it's an article) or, more commonly, human error is at play. First, make sure that there's been no change to your the proxy settings, firewall or security settings on your computer. Sometimes, these settings return a "DOI not working" error.

If you're sure that there's nothing wrong with your system (say because you're accessing a DOI for an article from the same issue of the journal), then I suggest that you inform the journal about your error. The web staff of a journal are able to respond to these reports rather quickly. They'll also be able to determine whether the result is due to a coding error or an editing error. In one case just recently, we caught an error in the DOI from being published on the manuscript. The error was due to an intern who was unfamiliar with copyediting notations on the galleys. (As I said, human error.)

I don't suggest that you report to doi.org. They'll collect information, but pass it on to the journal and may miss something material. Contacting the journal is more efficient. Finally, contacting the journal will also allow them to send you a copy of the article you wanted to access, while you wait for them to correct the issue.

PS. I remember a while back when there was a DOI "blackout". None of the DOIs for our articles would work. We were swamped with requests. Our webteam went nuts looking for the error. It turns out that this was a human error issue, but at the DNS level. I'm not a computer expert but the head of our web team explained it to us like this: "Someone forgot to renew the license for the dx.doi.org account."

Good luck!


Do most Mathematics Phd programs accept class credit from a masters program to transfer? I'm considering entering into a terminal masters in mathematics program. I was wondering if after completing the masters, if most US PhD programs will accept the masters graduate classes I took as valid credits or make me re-take the courses at my new PhD institution.

To amplify the points in @ElizabethHenning's answer: in the U.S., in my experience in mathematics, in Ph.D. programs it's not so much "course credits" that are required, but some sort of "proof of reasonable competence", by local standards. That often certainly includes options to take an exam to prove competence (which would be helped by having your prior coursework), or sometimes by completing a (local) course with reasonable grades.

Here's the key point: why not give "competence credit" for courses taken elsewhere?

For one, if you want to claim that those external courses were sufficient for you to be competent, then you shouldn't object to demonstrating it in a half-day exam.

Second, at best it is very difficult to compare courses at different universities, all the more so to compare coursework done abroad to U.S. coursework... so, given the difficulty of comparison, we're back to just demonstrating competence on a half-day exam.

The "credit hours" themselves are usually not an issue in Ph.D. programs in the U.S., although a typical expectation is that people do register for some courses... since without sufficient registration advanced courses are often shut down by bureaucratic constraints. Advanced courses often do not have burdensome homework or exams, and are not meaningfully graded, so there's hardly anything to object to.

That is, in part, the question is a little misguided... and, no, coursework does not usually transfer in the sense of "fulfillment of requirements"... but you often can take a competence exam to fulfill requirements.


Can an article include "A Comparative Study" in its title if its main purpose is not comparison? If the main purpose of an article is to present/introduce a new method, can it still be entitled "A Comparative Study"? Or does it depend on how much of the article is devoted to the comparison of related methods? I am asking from the perspective of a reviewer.

In many ways, the title of a scientific work can be thought of as a super-short abstract. In other words, it should tersely summarize what a reader is likely to find most salient in that work.

Thus, if you are a reviewer encountering a title that you find misleading as relates to the content, then it is entirely reasonable and appropriate to suggest that the title be changed.  As flaws in a paper go, however, I would find it pretty minor from a reviewing standpoint, since it doesn't much affect the content and is very easy to fix.


Can a list of scientific numbers be shortened with only the final having the exponent? If I have a list of numbers 24 x 105, 15 x 105, 2 x 105, etc. In a medical journal article, is it acceptable to write 24, 15, and 2 x 105?

Short answer: No. It is not acceptable, because it is confusing. There are examples when a list of data points includes 3x105 and 5x100 at the same time --- how can the reader be sure how to interpret what you suggest?

If you insist on using it, you have to get around the confusion in some way. One of the used tricks is if you make it in a table:

--------------------------------------------
 Experiment           1    2    3    4    5
 Value (in 10^5 kg)  24   15   3.1   8   40
--------------------------------------------

This way you make it clear that the multiplier 105 applies to all values. This is mostly usable for large data sheets. For couple values like you show, I would stick to the standard notation and keep the multipliers with each value.


Can a university provide information about a student's activities? In the United States, if anyone, be it a relative, a colleague, potential employer, or colleague, requests to the pertinent department, in the university I study/ied in, certain information about myself, will they be able to have it?

Is all this information, such as grades, year, internships I applied to, if I live(d) in a fraternity or dorms, etc., under the same regulation; or does each of them have its own set of restrictions regarding disclosure?

Finally, does that still apply to international students and/or people who have already graduated and thus are no longer in the institution? There is indeed the Buckley Amendment (FERPA), but it only covers educational records.

In the US context, under the Federal Education Record Privacy Act (FERPA), students (whether they're international students or US residents/citizens) have a right to privacy.  This right begins when a student enrolls and continues even after a student graduates or otherwise leaves an institution.  In higher education, the student themselves has the right to privacy.  In K-12 education, the parents of a student have control over the privacy.

Under FERPA, information about a student consists of "Directory Information" as well as a broad variety of educational records that have stricter privacy controls.

The exact details of what constitutes directory information vary from campus to campus, but it can include name, address, phone number, email address, dates of attendance, degrees granted, etc.  Students have the right to restrict access to this information, but they must request that that this information is kept confidential.  In response to any request for directory information about a student who has requested confidentiality, an institution will simply not respond.  This can cause problems with potential employers confirming that you graduated with a particular degree and other situations where you might actually want to be acknowledged as a student.

Your other academic records are kept under much tighter control—under FERPA they won't be released without your explicit written permission.

So, depending on whether or not you have requested that your directory information be kept confidential, your institution might respond to a request by providing your directory information, or it might refuse to answer the request.  If the directory information is confidential, anyone who inquires about you should get an answer like "I can neither confirm nor deny that John Q. Doe is or was a student at Big State U."

There are certain exceptions to FERPA privacy rights, including situations where the student could be claimed as a dependent on the parent's income tax return, situations where university officials have a legitimate need to access the information, etc.


How has the application review process for NSF graduate fellowships changed? I was looking for some information on the site that might help for applications to the GRFP.  I found JeffE's answer to an old question extremely useful.  However, I noticed that some of the advice he gives appears to be somewhat outdated.  For example, the answer claims that it is a very bad idea to provide more than 3 recommendations, since any extra recommendations will be ignored.  However, the NSF site now states:

  Applicants are required to submit three reference letters. There are five slots available for applicants to list reference writers. Applicants are strongly encouraged to utilize all available slots.

Have there been any other changes to the application criteria in the last few years that might invalidate any of the points in the old answer? Is there anything new to consider?

First off, as a single data point, I was awarded the GRFP this year with only three reference letters.

  Each application consists of the following components: a 2-page personal statement; a 2-page description of past research; a 2-page description of proposed future research

Currently, the GRFP requires a 2-page Graduate Research Plan Statement, and a 3-page Personal, Relevant Background and Future Goals Statement. This latter essay combines and shortens the previously required 2-page essays.

That's the only thing in JeffE's post that is obviously no longer true.


Suggestions for writing short papers? I came out recently with a publishable idea. I analysed it theoretically, and now I need to simulate it - which will take huge amount of time apparently.  I wanted to publish the idea, but I can't wait until the simulation is over. My professor suggested to go for a letter journal (each paper has a limit of 4 pages). This is the first time I write a letter paper, and it does not seem easy at all.

Any suggestions or advices to keep the content within the limit of 4 pages without overcomplicating the paper?

I wish this is not a vague question, or too specific.

EDIT: my field is computer science, but the journal is managed by electrical engineers (IEEE Communications Letters - if it is Ok to name it).

First, follow Tara Bs advice of reading such journals (this will help in choosing the appropriate one as well).
Second, try to describe your idea on a level of complexity, you would explain it to your grandparents in max 10 sentences (assuming they are no experts in your field). This gives you a nice outline of the most important concepts and context of the idea.
Now dig into the topics which are really relevant, and explain them in more detail. Keep the state of the art as short as possible (but demonstrate that you know the relevant literature).

Since you have no simulation results yet, your simulation system is the result of your paper. Therefore "methods" are the way you built your system and design considerations. In the results, you can show some data from pre-tests if available.

You should keep your major paper in mind, especially make sure, the full paper will not be regarded as self-plagiarism of the short paper. But if everything goes well, you can cite your short paper in the methods section of the long one.

In my field (computer science / informatics), one would often choose a conference paper instead of a short paper, but this really depends on your scientific discipline and strategy of your institute.


Send a second follow-up to inquire about interview success? I interviewed for a lecturer position a month and a half ago, and was told that the decision would be made about one month after my interview.  I was also told that I would be informed either way, but have yet to hear back.  A week ago I sent a follow up email, asking if a decision had been made, but didn't receive a response.  Is it appropriate to send another follow up, or should I just sit tight?  I have a feeling I didn't get the position, but I'd like to know for sure so that I can start planning other options.

You won't accomplish anything by sending another email. The department hasn't forgotten that they interviewed you.


Is it appropriate to send out a manuscript under review to a professor? I have a MPhil and planning to start my PhD soon. I sumbitted a manuscript to a popular journal in the field. After two rounds of major revisions, the editor is requesting a minor revision now. I finished the revision and submitted. The revised manuscript is now "with editor".

At the same time, i am emailing an oversea Professor who is one of the big names in the field. I am trying to invite her to be my co-author of my second manuscript. She agreed to read. And she asked me to send her the one with editor. Is it appropriate to send her the manuscript which is "with editor"? She mentioned that one of her PhD students may want to read my manuscripts too.

In fact, i would like to collaborate with this professor and ask her to be my oversea PhD advisor. I am happy that she wants to read my works. But i am not sure if this is an appropriate action to send out a manuscript under review.

Thanks in advance.

You still hold all rights to your work, so yes, it is fine to send it.

I'm assuming that you don't have concerns that your work will be stolen if you show it to someone else.

Even if you sign away your copyright to the paper, no one is ever likely to object to informal sharing with colleagues.


A journal is interested in my column proposal, but so is another journal that initially rejected it. What are my obligations? Earlier this year, I submitted a column proposal (not a peer-reviewed article) to Journal A.  The proposal was rejected, and so I submitted it to Journal B.  Journal B seemed interested in my proposal and asked me to submit a draft as soon as it was completed.  I thought all was well, but now Journal A has come forward and said that they changed their mind and would like to see a draft.

This wasn't a double submission situation, but I'm still concerned about an ethics involved since both journals would now like to see a draft.  Since Journal A initially said no, am I obligated now to go with Journal B?  Or do I have the freedom to chose between either?

If you don't care which journal your column appears in, then you probably, at the very least, owe Journal A a note that says something along the lines of

  Since receiving your original rejection on Date X, 2015, I subsequently proposed the column to another journal. They have since also asked me for a draft to review. At this time, please consider my original column proposal withdrawn.

If you strongly prefer publishing with Journal A, then you have more of a quandary on your hands and should probably get in touch with the editor at Journal B handling your proposal to have a frank and open discussion about the situation. If the difference between Journal A and B is substantial in your field, then the editor at B might be understanding and cut you some ethical/personal slack and suggest that you pull your column proposal from Journal B and go back to A.

I think there's a case to be made that Journal B now has priority (dibs) over Journal A in competition for the column. Journal A originally passed on the proposal, and some sort of release from B is warranted before giving A another shot at it. In my opinion, the editor at B is in no way required to give up their priority position. You might be able to talk them into it, but since A had the initial shot at your column and passed, they don't have much room to complain that they should be the first to publish the column.


When does it no longer matter whether you got a PhD or MSc In the field of engineering and software development of computational physics, I am wondering whether hiring managers/recruiters would still look carefully if you got a PhD vs having MSc after having a number of years of experience?

Is there a point in the career when having a PhD or Master is no longer the focus point, but it is rather your experience

A PhD is just vocational training for researchers, so if a company is not looking for a researcher then the PhD should be a disadvantage; you are not going to hire a carpenter if you want a plumber.

In practice, it is a bit more complicated because the PhD has the undeserved stigma as "highest" level of education. So a PhD could still get an advantage even in situations where (s)he shouldn't. How fast this undeserved advantage decreases depends on many factors, e.g. country, industry. So there can be no single answer to your question.


Is professorship (assistant/associate and full) a title or a position? Unless I am mistaken, somehow, if you have defended a PhD then you have a Doctorate degree, which means you are a "Doctor". That remains to be the case, even if you leave academia and go work in industry, or travel the world or whatever.

Does the same thing apply for professorship? In other words, is it so that once you receive professorship, you are indeed always a professor? Or is it connected to your employment as a professor?

And of course there is the middle ground, where you might have assistant or associate professorship and choose to leave academia? Do you then revert back to being a "John Smith, PhD"? Or remain to be "John Smith, Assoc Prof"?

As a follow up question: Does this vary from country to country as well, or is there a generally accepted rule of thumb?

In the US there are no legal rules. I think that few people would use Associate Professor as a title, but rather as a description of the post they currently hold. They would probably use Professor as a title, however. It is a descriptive title even before elevation to Full Professor. Students normally call them "prof" in many places. But the "title" is descriptive, not formal. It is a term of respect when used in this way.

However, if a person leaves academia for some other profession, it is unlikely that they would use professor and variations as a title. They might describe themselves as "former professor".

After retirement you might be "professor emeritus", again a description. On your tombstone you might be "Dr. Stone, Professor of English", the final description.

Other places are more formal about such things, but in the US, not so much.

I am actually "Professor Emeritus", which I interpret to mean that I didn't unforgivably disgrace myself before I retired.


Why do "Author's Rights" in "Consent to Publish" agreements allow pre-print publications? I have published in journal X and given them the rights to my work. In the "Author's Rights" clause, it says that I am allowed to post my work to pre-print servers (in the form immediately prior to publishing and sticking the copyright on) such as arXiv.
I am also allowed to distribute the copyrighted version for teaching and technical purposes, conference presentations, or other scholarly activities, and also allowed to post the copyrighted version to a personal website.
Here are my questions:

I can't understand the logic behind why I am given so many rights. Where does the journal make money? In what scenario does someone want to read my work and not very easily find a free way to do so?

I realize that if someone wants to cite my work, they have to cite the official version, which boosts the reputation of the journal. Is the main point that journal subscriptions negotiated with research universities have more bargaining power, based on impact factor?

I am planning on posting my work to a pre-print server while referencing the official DOI of the copyrighted version. It simply feels odd to me, even though I know it's perfectly legal.

What am I missing? I realize all journals are different, but I want to better understand why author's are given these rights. I feel like a copyright transfer is a big deal.

From my perspective, I want eyes on my paper. From the journal's perspective, they want money from my work. How are there so many subscriptions to journal X if it's so easy to get ahold of the papers for free?

Short answer: Pre-prints are not a big threat to the business models of journals and there are scientific norms that mean that journals are expected to permit pre-prints.
Longer Answer:
Why do universities and others pay for journals when some of the articles in these journal subscriptions are available via pre-print servers and other means?

Readers want access to the copy of record supplied by the journal.
Readers want access to every single article, not just the subset that are available as pre-prints.
Readers want efficient and consistent access.
Readers want an attractively formatted PDF or HTML copy.
Although not a pre-print server, it's also worth noting that universities respect copyright and therefore do not see services like scihub that provide more comprehensive free access as legitimate.

Why do many journals allow authors to share pre-prints?

They don't see it as a big impost on their business model given the points above.
Many journals have an embargo period on post-prints (i.e., pre-prints that have been updated based on the feedback provided by journal peer-review). These are presumably designed to encourage purchase of journal subscriptions.
Some journals may appreciate the importance of academic dissemination even where the potential readers do not have a subscription.
In some fields, pre-prints are very entrenched to the point that if a journal did not allow pre-prints, they might be seen poorly by that field and receive fewer high quality submissions.
More generally, there is competition amongst journals, and allowing pre-prints is one small way that journals can compete for submissions.
There has also been an ongoing debate about the business models of journals. Journals are receiving pressure from various parties to permit these forms of distribution.
Also, pre-print servers are generally non-commercial. I have seen some publishers ban positing on ResearchGate because they are for-profit and serve Ads alongside pre-prints.


Re-entering teaching after working in the industry (in Europe) I have finished my PhD a while ago and have since worked at the university as lecturer. Now the contract is coming to an end and I am weighing two options: (1) Teach at the university (I am much more interested in teaching than in research) or (2) work in industry.

I have done a lot of teaching during and after my PhD and consider myself to be quite good at it. However, finding such a teaching position where I live seems very difficult at the moment. Abroad, those positions seem to be more plentiful. If it is of any matter: I live in Germany. The field is mathematics.

As I am not exactly keen on leaving the country, I would like to try working in industry. However, I worry that I might miss teaching, and wonder if, after having left academia for a year or two, it would be difficult to return. Some related questions have been asked, but I fear that my lack of interest in research might give things a different spin...

Would leaving academia now be held against me if I tried to return a few years later to teach at a (possibly foreign) university?

While it depends on where the possibly foreign university is, I can answer for the UK (...for now, pre Brexit. Post-Brexit will just be some sort of crazy nightmare so who can say). Simply put, yes, if you were applying for a teaching-only position, having a stretch of time in industry and outside of teaching is likely to be seen as negative on balance. With numerous qualified people applying for every position, committees can pick and choose and they usually pick and choose people who have fresh teaching experience rather than someone who has been out of the game for a while. It isn't impossible to come back to teaching from industry, especially if you can show how you working in industry would be an asset to your teaching, but it's hard. Indeed I only know of examples of a move back to teaching from very few fields and it would be unlikely in mine (Social Sciencey and Artsy).


Acronyms at the start of a sentence I was wondering if there was a rule regarding the use of acronyms at the start of the sentence in Journal Papers.

If so, is there a difference between the state of use of that acronym (i.e., whether it is being referred to as a noun or verb st the start of the sentence).

According to my understand and research, it seems that it is not advisable to start the sentence with Acronyms, however, there is no set reference for it.

Note: the use of that acronym is deemed necessary as it repeats over 10-15 times in the entire manuscript.

The first time the acronym is used, it should be fully written out*. For example:

  The Special Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion (SPECTRE) organization features in a number of the James Bond films.

After that, it's perfectly acceptable to use it as the first word in a sentence:

  SPECTRE is led by the notorious supervillian, Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

As for whether or not it's acceptable in journal papers -- I'm currently in the middle of reading a paper from a top-tier computer science journal that frequently uses acronyms as the first word of the sentence:

  "...for code isolation. CERE finds and extracts the hotspots of an application..." (1)

It's perfectly acceptable (at least in English) and encouraged, especially if it makes the paper easier to follow.

*As pointed out by NateEldredge and aeismail, there's an element of subtlety in this rule. If something is common knowledge in your field -- for example, most computer engineers know that "CPU" refers to "Central Processing Unit" -- you can choose to skip the acronym if you want. The same goes for well-known/standardized unit abbreviations (as your audience in a journal paper would likely know what those abbreviations mean).


Am I rushing to get into a PhD program, and should do a Masters first? I am a Physics senior, and will be graduating with a BS in May 2018. Couple weeks back when I really got into the application process, I realized that I don't stand any chance of getting into a good physics PhD program.

I have a good GPA in my major and average GRE scores but my application falls short when it comes to research experience. I tried to get involved in research at my undergrad institution, but none of the faculty members were doing research. I only have one summer research experience (at a renowned institute in Germany) but the work was mainly computational and doesn't directly relate to the research programs that I am applying for. For my senior project, I did a little bit of research in physics, but the results were not exciting at all (basically just imaging some quantum dots and finding the size distribution).

It was when I was writing my personal statement that I realized that my application will not be competitive at all. Should I still apply to PhD programs at less-selective schools? I am personally inclined to do a Masters first, not only to get some research experience, but to also figure out which field of physics excites me the most. The only thing that worries me is that most Masters are not funded (although I have found a few in Europe that have scholarships). I really want to do my PhD from a good program and I feel that I am just not ready for it.

I am losing hope and any career advice at this point will be highly appreciated.

I am a PhD in the US and in my field Master's is completely useless, basically, a waste of time. You will still need to take classes in PhD, do TAship and many other things that are basically mandatory distractions and a Master's do not waive any of them.

I would recommend skipping Master's and go with a slightly less demanding university/group for a PhD. In a Master's degree you more often than not don't get a chance to do research. However, Master's also sets the bar higher, so simply doing any research in Master's won't substantially increase your chances of getting into PhD. You can still consider a Master's degree if you can find a research program, not a taught one.

In addition to the previous point, a high-ranked university does not increase your chances of being a successful PhD. PhD is more about your qualities and habits than the rank of your university. What a high-ranked university does, though, is imposing additional stress and competition, often putting you in a situation where you struggle to even be average.


How do European PhD interviews work when a candidate is not local? How do European PhD interviews work when a candidate is not local? Are virtual interviews common?

Edit: In particular, I am interested in interviewing for a German CS position when I am in Slovenia.

Interviews through teleconferencing (e.g. Skype) are pretty common if it is not feasible to invite all shortlisted candidates for an in person interview.

However, since we are talking about Slovenia to Germany, it is very well possible they would would invite you to come over if they wanted to interview you. In such a situation it would be standard practice to reimburse your travel costs.


Does a research group actually review every applicant's documents in case of overwhelming number of applications? It's like the response to my PhD application usually includes something like "The number of the applications we've received is so high that we can't accommodate all of the qualified applicants." It's like outnumbering applicants is the general reason of rejection.

Besides that, they seldom address other reasons. Some responses of this kind were due to my enquiry after application, rather than on their own initiative. Some of them didn't bother to respond even after my enquiry.

So I wonder whether a research group or school actually reviews every applicant's documents if they receive an overwhelming number of applications compared to the vacancy number. Maybe they have a way to pick some among the large number of applications — like using the filter function of a computer to pick documents containing some kind of keywords, which may not be completely faithful — to actually review to consider who to admit and that's why they don't bother to reply to all the applicants they don't admit.

For example, recently I found the reason I was not admitted for an application to a fundamental physics research group in Europe four months ago is eventually the funding is only available for a research project which is not my research interest; thus probably they even didn't review my application as they, saying they received an extraordinary number of applications, only picked those whose research interests involve that research project to review.

When I get applications to review, I usually do a pre-pass on every application. I look for GPA, test scores, and compliance with requested application materials (i.e. did they even have anyone write them letters of recommendation?). We usually have explicitly stated bottom line cutoffs for GPA and test scores. Those falling below these marks are automatically set to the side.

I next try to scan the research statements / statements of purpose. This eliminates a large amount of the candidates usually.

I then cut the remaining applications into about half. I select who I want to accept from this half stack and order them roughly from strongest to weakest. I then do a spot check to see if anyone in the other half stack is clearly superior to the weaker candidates in the already selected stack. If so, I do an insertion of the new candidate and the weakest person is dropped from the list.

In the end, yes, I've looked at everyone's application, and no, I have not given heartfelt and deep thought to each applicant.

We then send out an accept/reject form email to every applicant. I very rarely even reply at length to students who fight their rejection.


Should you include references in a research plan for a postdoc application? While applying for postdoc positions, candidates are asked to submit a statement of research interests or research plan. Some institutes want that write up to be less than two or three pages. I was just wandering how strictly one should obey this page restriction and whether one should add references (bibliography) in such a write up.

You can, but you don't need to, include references to other works in the field. You may use them to explain in the first part of your statement what the big questions are that you are trying to answer. One could use review papers, or references to the really important papers that started a field here, but it is probably just as fine to write statements such as "In 1971, Grothendieck asked the question..." without further references -- whoever understands the question, will also know where it came from or how it fits into mathematics. (Obviously, the same is true in other fields, if you reference luminaries.)

What is really important, though, is that you reference your own papers to explain how your own (published) work fits into the field. If you apply for postdoc positions, your list of publications is likely not very long, so it is important that your statement explains not only what you are interested in or plan to do, but also where you expertise is in.


Which Internship should I take? I'm a Chemical Engineering major in undergrad, and I currently have two internship offers this summer.

The first one is a 10 week summer research internship at a top-10 program in petroleum and chemical engineering. The internship concludes with a poster presentation of the work you've done. My work here could potentially turn into a publication. It's worth noting that I've technically already accepted this position. I didn't get the offer for the next one until after I had accepted this one.

The second offer is a full summer semester research internship at the uni I currently attend. I'd be working on the research I'm doing now all summer; as a result, I'd almost certainly be published by the end of the summer, possibly twice since my PI has a couple of papers that just need one more topic covered before they get fully published. It's worth noting that this internship would get me almost twice as much money by the end of it.

My question is: which should I take? I have a very good shot at the Goldwater next year, so I need to know if it would be better to be published, or to have a letter of rec/research experience at a top university.

I'm also meeting with my PI next week to see if I could possibly postpone the one at my school to next summer, so I'd have a chance at doing both.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

This is a situation not many people find themselves in—having to choose between several very good options.

The basic issues to ask yourself are the following:

Do you have enough high-quality letters of recommendation for your future needs? If you're doing fellowships, you will definitely need three, and may need four. Again, these should be people who can comment on your abilities beyond simply just reciting grades in lectures. These must be people you have had an ongoing working relationship with. Ideally this is a full-time research mentor, but realistically also can include people such as part-time research mentors (such as REU-like work during the semester), instructors for whom you've worked as a teaching assistant, industrial employers (for an internship), and possibly your academic advisor (if it's someone who's advised you for multiple years).
Regarding the letter writers: are they all at the same institution? If so, then it might behoove you to find one at another institution. This will be helpful to you, as it shows you're not just a "system" product.
Is the research that you're doing something that you know you want to do, or just think you want to do? You will in general be more likely to have real success if you enjoy the work you want to do.
Will the pay for the "away" program be sufficient to cover your living expenses and needs? If so, then you should neglect the difference in pay between the two programs, and focus on the relative benefits of the two programs for you.

There's no right answer to this question; you just have to choose which option is easier for you to live with.


The department I will be getting my degree from and my research area have very little in common I am a PhD student whose main research focus is in robotics: I work on computer vision, mapping and planning algorithms for robots. I recently switched universities along with my advisor, and hence had to move from a 'Systems Engineering' concentration to a 'Mechanical Engineering' one, because my professor joined the mechanical engineering department.

So in the end, I will be getting a degree in mechanical engineering, whereas I personally do zero work in the conventional mechanical engineering areas. It's hard to categorize robotics as a research field but I guess it's closer to computer science. Is this even a big deal? If yes, how should I handle it in the future, say, in terms of my resume and prospective employers?

No! It is NOT a big deal. This case is not so important because nowadays the research is interdisciplinary more than any time. Faculty members affiliated with a specific engineering department are even highly-involved in a vast variety of projects with their peers in other departments. The most important thing is being productive as a Ph.D. student within your studies. It requires interest in your research + coherent interaction with your supervisor.

You may have two plans for the future:

If you would like to involved in industrial positions: They actually do not care much about your major and degree's field, but your professional credentials and your practical capabilities. As an instance, assume that you're interested in working as a robotic engineer. As long as you show potential signals to be a right candidate for the position, MechE degree, SysE degree or something else would not hurdle your way.
If you're eager to work in academia: Just do your best to flourish your publication trace. As long as you both have a fruitful Ph.D. and show enthusiasm for research, most of vacancies related to your research in various departments (such as ECE, MechE, CS, etc.) will be open to you, POTENTIALLY (don't underestimate current competition for restricted tenure-track positions!)

Best


Leave postdoc in the middle of contract to start work with another professor while being in one postdoctoral research I am little bit of confused. I have completed my PhD, I do not have any prior postdoc experience. Let me explain my current situation. I got a draft contract letter from lab in China (say, Prof. A) a couple of month ago. I have started the process, I am expecting the VISA within a month. However, the research field does not relate to my current research work. Day before yesterday, I got one reply from another professor (say, Prof. B), who's work directly falls in my PhD research area. This person has a very strong background. I was dreaming during my PhD research to do some work with him. Anyway, he asked me to write an proposal, he told me that the fellowship will be ensured after a couple of month. I believe that the fellowship can be granted, assuming his positive response from his side.

Now, my concerns are as follows:

I have heard that the contract in China a bit tough. It is not easy to break contract during the middle. My initial contract period is one year, then subsequently can be extended upto  three years. My plan is to go China first, then after 6 months, once the proposal is granted, I want to move to 2nd guide (Prof. B). Is it feasible? How can I make sure there will not be any official problem during the process.
It looks odd, if I want to leave any position after six months, then why should I join there? My point is, I don't want to loose current opportunity, I am uncertain about the future response and funding from Prof B. One point, the current funding in China is a huge amount almost double with respect to the funding assured by Prof. B.
Is there will be any way out like, I may go to the Prof. B with the permission  or collaboration with Prof. A. After all, everybody is looking forward collaboration. However, I am not sure about this. Is it normal scenario in postdoctoral research?
Should I discuss the matter of collaboration to Prof. B, with Prof. A, or vice-verse?

You should be as up front about the situation as you can --- with both parties. Prof. A needs to know that you are interested in a one-year deal but cannot currently commit to anything longer. Prof. B should know that you are interested but have another opportunity and will need to know about the funding. Worst case situation, you join Prof. B's team 12 months down the road. By that time he should know about the funding.

As to #1, you answered this yourself. Once you commit yourself for one year, you should stick it out. Of course it is always possible to get out of any contract, but at what cost? Seems that it would not be worth your while to antagonize Prof. A. What is not clear to me is who makes the decision to extend. If Prof. A does not want to let you go after 1 year, are you stuck?

As to #2 and 3, forget about it. Once you go to China, you will be there for 12 months, and you will work on Prof. A's project. Everything else is unrealistic.


Stating surprise about another researcher in my talk I will be giving a talk in a research seminar in mathematics in a couple of weeks. During this talk, I'm planning to present one particular result of mine which shows that a certain method introduced by another researcher several years ago is quite limited. This limiting result is really simple and I cannot believe that this researcher did not notice when writing their paper.

When presenting this work to my colleagues at my own department I expressed my surprise during the presentation quite bluntly.

I cannot go into much detail but given the structure of the paper in question I cannot imagine that they were not aware of this fact at the moment of writing the paper. To me it rather seems that they omitted this limiting result to make their paper seem better.

How should I behave at the research seminar at a university I'm only visiting where I don't know the faculty that well? Can I also express my surprise there or would this be considered bad etiquette? Not sure if relevant, but some of the people there might know the researcher in question better than they know me.

Edit to address some comments/answers: First of all, thanks for all the helpful answers, they really give me a new point of view. Secondly, I wanted to mention that it was not my intention to criticise another researcher in public. I was (and am still) honestly surprised about both my result and the other researcher. I learned from the answers that others could misinterpret my intentions and will therefore only mention facts. Thanks for that!

Talk about the work. Stick to the facts.

Clearly and bluntly stating the limitations of a result is fine, but criticism of a researcher during a research talk is completely inappropriate.  Your expression of surprise could be taken as criticism of either the researcher's ethics or their competence, neither of which is appropriate to air in front of a research audience.

Whether the researcher is junior or senior is irrelevant.  Whether the researcher is known to your audience or not is irrelevant.  Criticism should be delivered privately.


Can/Should I add CRAN package to my work published? I've developed a package for R and it is added to CRAN. Should I add it to my work published, although it isn't peer reviewed for content, or should I just add a single line that mentions the package?

I would definitely consider including this in your CV. It's scientific work, and you expect people to cite your package.

It would make sense to put this under a separate heading, so your publication list contains "Peer-reviewed publications" and "Non-peer-reviewed publications" - this way, you don't give the impression of trying to inflate your publication list by sneaking in some non-reviewed stuff.

If at a later date you have authored multiple R (or other) packages and perhaps published other non-reviewed material, you could subdivide the "Non-peer-reviewed publications" by splitting off software into its own section.


What database catalogues citations in the humanities? Alright so I know what I'm thinking of exists, I just have absolutely no idea what it's called, and I'm driving myself crazy googling it. I'm looking for a resource that catalogs each instance a certain work is referenced in a certain time frame. For example, something that might show how many times, say, Moretti was referenced in academic journals and books in the past year. I've had professors mention this to me in passing, and I think I heard it was run by MLA, but I'm not sure. Something that could be used similarly to the h-index, but for the humanities.

What database catalogues citations and could be used to get a h-index in the humanities?

Here are a couple of databases that may be of help.
The Arts & Humanities Citation Index by Thomson Reuters has access to over 1700 journals according to the following form their website.

  Arts & Humanities Citation Index®, accessed via Web of Science™ Core
  Collection, provides researchers, administrators, faculty, and
  students with quick, powerful access to the bibliographic and citation
  information for journal articles in the arts & humanities that they
  need to find research data, analyze trends, journals, and researchers,
  and share their findings.

  Overcome information overload and focus on essential data from over
  1,700 of the world's leading arts and humanities journals.

Also as mentioned in a comment there is scopus According to this blog scopus as of late 2012 has over 1 million articles from the arts and humanities.

  As of November 2012, the total number of Arts & Humanities articles in
  the database is a little over 1 million, just over 2% of the total
  database. All document types that are within the Scopus coverage
  policy are included in the article counts. From 2007 to 2011 the
  number of articles has grown from 42 thousand to 76 thousand articles
  per year, which comes down to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of
  16.2%

Both of them have fairly advanced search forms that should be able to do something like what you are looking for.


Supervisor not giving helpful academic direction I'm a second-year (almost third-year) PhD student having serious trouble due to lack of scientific direction. I initially worked well with my supervisor, but when COVID hit she essentially ghosted the research group for some months and has been irregularly present ever since. Lately, I've noticed that she seems checked out when I talk to her and so I started explicitly asking for clarification as to what exactly I should be working on whenever I see her. Unfortunately, this strategy has been foiled by my supervisor changing tacks about every 2-4 weeks. For example:
-Conversation 1: "You should focus on x, then do y. Do not include z until those first two are set."
-Conversation 2: "Actually doing q is a good idea, let's work on q together (for a month)!"
-Conversation 3: "What you should present at the conference (in 2 weeks)? Show the data on z, that is the most interesting aspect of the project."
-Conversation 4: "No, you should not work on q anymore, that needs to happen in parallel to z."
-Conversation 5 (after someone at a conference explicitly called attention to my lack of including y): "I understand you are asking to work on y but I think you should try to extend x. But I suppose you can include y."
-Conversation 6, only one(!) day after Conversation 5: "What do you mean about doing y, you should do your whole project without y. Also you should work on a paper with (random collaborator) on k! And actually you should also do/have done x completely differently!"
This is pretty frustrating since all the "x,y,z,q..."s I mentioned tend to be at least partially exclusive and take at least 2 months to complete, so I have sunk a lot of work into projects that are half-done. If I work on something that has lost my supervisor's interest, I don't get feedback, which makes it difficult to wrap up anything. My project is also related to two different collaborations, at least one of which seems a bit pissed off and is now proceeding to publish without our input. (The other one has shifted to emailing only me directly now, which is helpful, but I know my supervisor left the first set hanging at least once/tends to view answering emails as highly optional so I kinda get where they're coming from).
In terms of other people to talk to, our group only has one postdoc, who tends to take about a week to answer emails and is not very forthcoming in terms of mentoring PhD students. The other two PhD students in my group are close to graduation, and struggle with the same issue in the short-term (e.g. getting told to write an answer to referees disagreeing with the corrections on an article, then getting criticised for not having applied the corrections) but have already set the main academic direction of their project.
I'm not really sure how to handle this: should I confront my supervisor about the inconsistencies? Trying to set another meeting to talk long-term goals? Just do whatever I think is best and hope I don't mess up too badly without feedback? My supervisor doesn't always take criticism well, and I'm afraid that I'll just get blamed for being a bad student because I haven't produced anything publishable in a year.

As a phd student your job is to ultimately create your own track of successful research. An ideal advisor would suggest reasonable lines of research, help you develop your ideas, and give guidance and advice if you ever get stuck. In practice, advisors tend to fall in one of two camps. In the first camp, advisors treat their students as employees who produce results for the advisor's group. In the second camp are 'hands off' advisors who don't do much at all. It sounds to me like your advisor is the hands off type. Take initiative, decide what makes the most sense to work on, and do that. Unless your advisor has explicitly told you, "I expect you to work on X and your graduation depends on finishing X", they probably just want you to do something publishable and don't care much past that. Take the opportunity to work on whatever you feel is most interesting or most beneficial to you in the long term.


Is all research connected via citations? When looking at the paper-is-cited-by-paper binary relation in an undirected manner: Is all research connected to each other or will there be many connected components?

In other words: Is there a way from a, say, computer science paper to a chemistry paper by walking along the citation graph?
Let's say we are only looking at publications in established, well-known conferences conferences/journals.

When looking at the paper-is-cited-by-paper binary relation in an undirected manner: Is all research connected to each other or will there be clusters?

First, it's possible to have an unconnected paper. Unlikely, but possible, to write something that has no citations and is never cited. This is clearly an edge case, but you did say all.

Second, all research can connect, but there can still be clusters. The two are not mutually exclusive - fields will cluster, presumably, but there will then be some links between fields. My suspicion, from personal experience, is that these papers will be methodological in focus primarily.

  In other words: Is there a way from a, say, computer science paper to a chemistry paper by walking along the citation graph?

Third, yes, you could get from a CS paper to a Chemistry paper. I know this because I can trace that tree in my own work, and the work my work cites. The path isn't even all that convoluted or exciting.


What is an academic profile? I am filling out an application & research profile form for a Masters program. The form consists of four open-ended questions, with plenty of space to fill out information for each.

One question is 'Research Experience and Interests: Comment on why you would like to pursue graduate studies, with a clear identified objective. Further clarify if you have a particular research interest, possibly in the context of
past experience and accomplishments'.

A third question is 'Academic Profile: Describe your academic profile, highlighting particular achievements and relevant scholarships or awards'

My question is: I have worked on a research project which spanned over the course of a year. I would like to describe this project, but I am not sure which section to fit this information in. It initially seemed obvious to fit in the first question (research experience), but wouldn't research (especially considering it's my only major research opportunity) also fit under 'academic profile'? I want to avoid overlap to my answer for both of these questions.

Academic profile seems to have two meanings. An academic profile in the overall field and discipline is the "status" or respectability of the academic in the universe of academics in the area as implied in this other question. However, that definition of academic profile is not relevant in your current application.

Your masters application refers to your academic interest as explained by your past achievements and awards, conference attendance etc. It is more of a narrative and evolution of your work and study history. Your academic profile allows you to include all the evidence to support your interests and passions. Even school related and work related awards and experience that is relevant only adds to the development of your interest. I have seen how people incorporate their activism and volunteering roles into their profile with good effect for example.


What is a fair metric for assessing the citation impact of journals across disciplines? To quote Thomsons "a journal's Impact factor
is calculated by dividing the number of current year citations to the source items published in that journal during the previous two years."

I assume that disciplines vary in

average number of citations per paper: Disciplines with fewer citations per paper will appear to have less impact.
citation half-life: Longer half-lives means under-estimation of impact relative to journals with shorter half-lives. The Wikipedia article on impact factors summarises a study that found that "the percentage of total citations occurring in the first two years after publication varies highly among disciplines from 1-3 percent in the mathematical and physical sciences to 5-8 percent in the biological sciences." (Nierop, 2009).

Google Scholar uses the five year h-index. See this listing of top ranked journals with various psychology related keywords in their title. The five year h-index indicates the number of papers with an equivalent number of citations. E.g., a value of 20 indicates that 20 articles published in the last five years have received 20 or more citations.

However, while the h-index might reduce the issue of different citation half-lives, it does not resolve it. And it does not address the issue of differential citation patterns across disciplines.

Question

What index provides both a reliable and unbiased assessment of the citation based impact of a journal when comparisons are being performed across disciplines?

Reference

Erjen van Nierop (2009). "Why do statistics journals have low impact factors?". Statistica Neerlandica 63 (1): 52–62. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9574.2008.00408.x.

There is no such index.

Publication and citation standards vary significantly between disciplines and even sub-disciplines.  Without direct, deep knowledge of the standards in each community, it is simply impossible to compare impact of a journal in field X with the impact of a journal in field Y.  (Eigenfactor's extraordinary claims to the contrary require extraordinary evidence, which they don't provide.)

Moreover, it's not clear why you should even try.  Any judgement about the relative importance of Journal of X versus Journal of Y necessarily requires a prior judgement about the relative importance of field X versus field Y.  HC SVNT DRACONES.


Having a No Pass in major class for a reason As a freshman, I NP a physics for engineers class on purpose because I wanted to switch to the physics major, and if I finished that class I would have been unable to take the first two classes in the physics for physicists series(I attempted to late drop after realizing that I want to pursue physics, but that petition was rejected, so I had to NP the class).

I technically could have substituted the physics for engineers series with the physics for physicists series, but the physics for engineers series was quite bad in that it incorporated a flipped classroom technique(which I find unhelpful), and it was also less in depth and moved at a quicker pace. As a result, I wanted to start the physics for physicists series from scratch. In this case, would my NP in a physics class hinder my grad school application if I did well in the physics for physicist series after changing majors?

If you do excellent work for the rest of your undergraduate career, consistent
with standards required for graduate school, I doubt that anyone will notice
one NP on the record in your freshman year.

Ideally, one of the professors writing a letter of recommendation 3.5 years from now can make
the briefest of mentions of an 'administrative snafu' at the start being
the only blemish on an excellent transcript. Especially in that case, you can get by
without making a fuss over it in your letter of application. (In any case, I'm not sure you should draw attention to it.)

Two or three years from now, If this still seems an issue for you, you might investigate
whether there is some sort of retroactive withdrawal procedure. With a couple
of years of solid work in the department, you may have more leverage
for a successful investigation. Also, your current department has a stake in
establishing a record of 'getting its best students into' first-rate
graduate programs.

To be sure, there are mistakes one can make that unfairly foreclose future
options. But I would be very much surprised if this is one of them.


From which level of education, is it better to choose teacher assistants? I think that it is normal to choose teacher assistants for BSc courses from MSc or PhD students and TAs for MSc courses to be from PhD students;

In case that the PhD or MSc students are not interested or are not applying for a teaching assistant position of the lower courses (lets say a BSc course); is it a good idea to choose an assistant from the interested last year BSc students (with good academic records and background) or it is better not to have TA for the course for a period of time until a PhD student applies for the TA position?

Some universities have rules about what kind of student may be a TA.  Assuming no such rules exist, the TA should be qualified to fill that role, whatever that means for a given course.  That is, the TA should have both the domain knowledge and pedagogical ability that the job requires.

It doesn't matter what level of education the TA is at. In my own department it is quite common for TAs to be "peers" of the students in the class (B.S. students hired to TA the B.S. level courses, M.S. students and PhD students hired to TA graduate courses including both M.S. and PhD students.)


Inability to secure any research position after PhD and postdoc. I am stuck with my low prospects research field. How do I proceed with my career? My PhD research was in computational modeling of shot peening process using finite element analysis. An example publication can be found here. I did my PhD and currently pursuing my postdoc in the same Canadian university.
My research was entirely computational. It was not a high impact research nor complex. Nor did I publish in any high impact journal. The highest impact factor journal I could publish in was 3.8.
I have published 8 publications till date (4 First author, 4 co-authored). I can publish many papers on my topic as there's countless parameters to play with and so much physics to learn.
However, all jobs in my field are experimental. I have been searching for jobs (industry and academia) for the past year. I can't find any job in computational modeling. All openings are in experimental work.
I made a mistake in not carrying out any experimental work in my research. I should have thought about future aspects 6 years ago before selecting this field.
Any advice on how to change a career path after PhD and Postdoc? I have to get experimental experience in my repertoire. Also, everyone wants machine learning experience from computational researchers now. I don't have time to gain knowledge in it.
Currently, I am a postdoc with my PhD advisor and I am actively searching for positions elsewhere. However, I am not getting response from any university/industry elsewhere. I seriously need some guidance.

Never look for the job only in computational modelling. Start making a list of your skills:

Programming
Math
Mechanical engg
surface treatments

Take all the keywords from your paper. Or list common things that you can relate to industry. Search for these.
And it is not always necessary to always be in research after Postdoc. Even PhD in biology have found their way into programming.
Good luck.


How to deal with rote "publication shopping"? I spend a lot of time peer-reviewing paper submissions to conferences, workshops, and journals in my field.  Sometimes I end up getting assigned a paper that I had already rejected from another venue.  Usually the authors of the resubmission have at least attempted to address the flaws pointed out in the past reviews. But sometimes the paper is submitted in much the same form. That is, the authors have failed to correct the major errors and gaps identified and agreed upon by the reviewers. They may not even have bothered to fix simple mistakes such as typos (even when the reviewers helpfully itemized these).  It seems that these authors have no understanding of or respect for the peer review process.  Rather, they are adopting a rapid-fire approach of submitting the same paper to different venues in sequence (or in parallel, for all I know) until they luck out on a suitably unqualified or neglectful reviewing panel that happens to clear it for publication.

What I normally do when I receive such a resubmission is to copy, paste, and resubmit my previous review.  After all, if the authors haven't bothered revising their paper, why should I spend any extra time re-evaluating it?  But I wonder if that's all I should be doing.  Does it make any sense to alert the journal editors/area chairs about these time-wasting shenanigans?  Do serial "publication shoppers" ever get blacklisted, or at least a stern talking-to?  Or is dealing with the same submissions over and over again just an inevitable and unmitigatable part of the whole peer review process?

I don't know about any sort of formal blacklist, and it would be a bit hard to deal with because someone may be listed as a coauthor but have so little to do with it being resubmitted that they're truly blameless.

I've encountered serial submissions before, including cases where a draft is completely unchanged (with ample time between rejection & resubmission).  In some cases these are rejected by the program chair(s) without review and with stern words to the authors similar to what you said: they waste and disrespect the reviewers' efforts.

Bottom line: Consider a preemptive rejection with the program chair(s) rather than simply repeating your review.  But if that doesn't pull the paper, I would submit a review saying I have reviewed this before, and the paper is unchanged.  Because ignoring past reviews disrespects the efforts of the reviewers, I recommend rejection.


What is exactly meant by "research experience" in grad application? I'm confused by what the term "research experience" actually means in a PhD application. The following examples come into my mind:

working as research assistant with university professor
publishing research papers in conferences
work in R&D division of company (industry research)

Do all examples of the list above count as research experience? Or which ones do? If so, what are they?

Which ones are more important and provide competitive advantage for getting accepted to good university?

I would say all of those count as "research experience".  Which ones will be most valued depends on the nature of the program you're applying to, and the exact nature of the work you did.  In general, though, the more independent your work was, the better, and the more generic it was, the worse.  So if you were a research assistant but all you did was photocopy documents, that will not earn you many points.  If you were a research assistant who, e.g., conducted experiments, did fieldwork, participated in lab meetings, whatever, those will be worth more.  If you actually contributed to the writing of papers or presentation at conferences, even better.

As a rule of thumb, the more that what you did was something other people could not have done (i.e., it required your special expertise, not just "more hands'), the "better" it is.


In what parts of the world, besides the US, do endowed chairs exist? Browsing academia.SE, I discovered the existence of "endowed chairs" or "named chairs", i.e. professorships named in the honor of someone else and paid for by a donor with a gift to the university. I've never heard of anything like that before (I live and work in France so I mostly meet European academics).

Apart from the US (where this apparently exist), do endowed chairs exist elsewhere in the world?

Yes, endowed chairs exist outside the USA.

An example is the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, which (according to Wikipedia) was founded in 1663 by Henry Lucas, the then Member of Parliament for Cambridge. The post has been held by the likes of Isaac Newton, Paul Dirac and Stephen Hawking.