If a postdoc is interested to apply for a future professorship in his/her current institution. What should she/he do in the postdoc research period? Based on the discussion in a previous question
Apply for assistant/associate professor at same institution as postdoc?
If someone is interested to apply for a future assistant/associate professorship in the same institution where one is currently working as a postdoc/research scientist. What one should do in his early stages of postdoc research to build independent scientific contribution so that the institution of interest would like to include him/her in its faculty members?

I could write a book about this, as I'm sure many faculty members could! My answer involves two major points: political reconnaissance and becoming intellectually self-assured.

First, I suggest you make some good acquaintances in the faculty beyond your PI and get an honest opinion on what it might take to be able to join it. The comments to your question about duplication are potentially valid, IMO, but the degree to which it matters or the precise interpretation is going to depend on the personalities involved, the political climate in your institution, and the tenure/promotion manual of the department/college/university.

Of course, you just can't show up to the bar one evening and ask people point-blank after a couple of drinks :) You need to genuinely show interest in the direction and health of the department over an extended period of time, and possibly get more involved in departmental decision making, administration, or teaching. Diplomacy and politicking is key here.

Even if you don't get to formally ask some questions, thinking about them can help you detect subtle signs of their answers in the communications between faculty. E.g., Is there a prevailing mood that your PI's research area is popular among the faculty? Is it an area that the department even wants to expand? Do they even expect to be hiring anyone in the next 2-3 years? Is your PI going to be your champion and partner (you'll probably need that!) or is he/she going to perceive your presence as a colleague to be a source of departmental competition for lab space, students, money, attention, etc. I've known some PIs manipulate and exploit their post-docs so that they essentially become trapped in their position as essentially cheap technical labor (your experience with the PIs work is very valuable to them). There is usually a lot more going on privately that will affect the eventual decision to hire anyone new. Use the chance to reconnoiter and make alliances to your advantage while you are this close to the action. It may become clear that it will be much better for you to make a clean break, and you might get a stronger recommendation from your PI as a result.

Second, you have to plan early with your PI to show off your contributions above and beyond what the PI has done in establishing this particular line of research. If, between that and chats with other friends or colleagues, you can't figure out what you are or will be doing in the very near future that distinguishes your creative input and future personal direction as independent, then you won't be successful in communicating that in your writing or presentation to hirers.

IMO, your PhD study was supposed to be the time where you figured out a line of independent thought that you take forward during post-doc work. You should be dedicating time to develop those ideas into plans for projects over the next decade or more. You should use that to (diplomatically and respectfully) push your own agenda: you must stake out your space in your work and your perception in your community. Anything less and you are frankly setting yourself up for being labeled (fairly or unfairly) as not "faculty material". Gossip works the same in academia as it does in any walk of life, don't be fooled by the intellectualism.

If your PI is dominating your direction of work then get some side projects going of your own (even secretly), but discuss with your PI how to get more involved in the planning before it's too late! You won't last a minute in faculty-level academia without being assertive and developing healthy skills of persuasion. Fakers will be called out quickly, so get ready to defend your plans.

In any case, don't get your hopes up for staying on at the same institution. An academic career path is already extremely tough to succeed in without restricting your future options like this. I know first-hand how it is hard to imagine leaving a place you know and like but there are usually other good opportunities out there that you'll need to better appreciate. Stay brave and open-minded.


Do employees in public universities pay less taxes than those in industry? Since public universities are nonprofit organizations, do their employees including faculty pay less taxes than those who work in industry?

Not in the US. There's no special tax breaks for non-profit or government employees here. They probably pay less in an absolute sense because their salaries are somewhat lower, but they don't get special rates.


What is the best way to collaborate with a professor whose current work one is extending? I am currently doing a research project and I have found some mistakes in the paper of the professor whose work I am extending. I feel that it would be best if the professor is willing to co-author my paper. There are several reasons for it. First of all the professor is a PC member of the conference in which I am willing to publish. So, the error which I am referring to can hurt his ego and I am afraid of negative review because of bias. Second of all, if he is willing to co-author, my ongoing work can definitely improve and I will have a higher chance of acceptance. In that case, he wont be reviewing my paper as he is a co-author.

But the professor is from a different university and previously there was no collaboration between their university and ours. I am not a professor but merely a graduate student. What should my best course of action to collaborate with him? (He is a very high profile professor)

What should my best course of action to collaborate with him? (He is a very high profile professor)

Your best course of action is to email him, explain the work you've been doing, and politely suggest exploring the possibility of a collaboration. However, you need to seriously work on your mindset before writing the email, because right now I feel like the reasons you are interested in the collaboration are not good reasons - you seem to be interested in the reputational benefit of having him as a coauthor and in the fact that if he is a coauthor then he can't be the referee for the paper; in other words, your collaboration offer will not be based on a genuine interest in the intellectual contribution this "high profile" professor can make to the work, and therefore I would say it is not being made in good faith. If I were the professor and got wind of what your motives are (and it may not be so easy for you to hide them, even if you try to phrase the email dishonestly, which in any case I would not recommend doing), I would not only refuse to work with you but would also develop a poor opinion of you that could be long-lasting and would be hard for you to correct.

To summarize, you are putting the cart before the horse here. You should contact the professor if and only if you are genuinely and in good faith interested in an intellectual collaboration rather than a mere formal coauthorship. Even then, keep in mind the professor may refuse your offer, because he is busy or for any number of other reasons (or for no reason at all). Your offer should be phrased in a tactful way that leaves your dignity (and any potential interaction you may have with the professor in the future) intact in the event that he is not interested in your offer. Good luck!


How to learn technique from papers (technical fields)? I'm an incoming PhD student. I did some research during my undergrad and master. One of the things my advisors told me was to read papers but not too focused on "technical details". This did help me navigate literature faster by just skimming for the "main ideas" in the paper. But is this the right attitude when the purpose of reading papers is to learn techniques (e.g. how to prove certain bounds, how to analyze certain matrix operations)? I felt that understanding an overall "strategy" or "essential ideas" has not been very effective in advancing my own research. That is, I'm still not very good at doing those type of complicated analysis and my research effort remains "elementary". It's like taking a math class without doing any homework: I feel that I know what is what but tend to struggle when actually sitting for an exam and solving problems.

What is the most effective way to cultivate technical abilities as a researcher, without the aid of textbooks and problem sets?

When you were an undergraduate, studying (I assume) math, the advice you got was good. Read a lot of papers, somewhat superficially, to get an idea of what it is possible to do and how to go about it generally.

But now that you are in a graduate research program you need to do more. The basis you get from textbooks isn't enough to get you to the research frontier in mathematics. It won't get you very close, actually. So, to approach the research boundary of what is known, you need to read (a few) papers fairly deeply. For advanced work, elementary, textbook, techniques may not work. So, you need to delve into the proofs of things to see if there are new and interesting techniques that you need in your own toolkit.

But, as you read a paper there are some things you need to ask yourself, beyond the question whether everything is correct. The big question is whether the paper is complete and is the last word on a topic, or can it, perhaps, be generalized in some interesting direction.

Another big question is whether the techniques used in the paper (not the results themselves) can be used and modified (extended) to solve other similar problems. In this sense the proofs in a math paper may be more important than the theorems.  And it is why some new proofs of old theorems are extremely important. The proofs open up new areas of exploration.

Another area of research can be opened up by comparing two papers and examining whether there is a possibility to combine what the two say to come up with something new and interesting. This may or may not require a deep reading of the papers, of course.

To do math research requires insight. Basically, it means being able to find things that might be true but haven't been proven true. Various limitations of logic make this harder than it might seem. So, when reading a paper, another question to ask is "What led the author(s) to think this might be true?" Why did they think it something worth time studying? That can lead to insights.

But, math research, of its nature is narrow and deep. So, you often need to do deep dives into ideas to discover whether there is something hidden but worth exploring. What works for a textbook learner doesn't get the job done for a researcher.

Caveat: This applies to mathematics and some theoretical aspects of other technical fields. I'll make no claim about "technical fields" in general.


What do I do if a professor at a foreign university doesn't respond to my emails? I want to know about appropriate actions to take when not receiving an e-mail reply from professors after 2 to 3 weeks of sending an e-mail.

When writing my e-mails, I try to highlight questions and important points leaving other details in normal style to make the reader quickly understand what am I asking for. Additionally, I start the e-mail with Dear Professor , I conclude with a respectful salutation form and I proof read the text of the e-mails multiple times. I am sending e-mails to professors asking them for a graduation project proposal.

E-mails are sent to professors responsible for European or North American funded research projects.
Professors to whom I sent e-mails are from various institutions and countries (USA, Canada, Switzerland).
The same problem is faced in previous occasions when I needed to send e-mails for various purposes but I don't receive replies except for one or two times.
I tried twice sending reminders after a reasonable time (one to two weeks) of sending the first e-mail but no response is received!

N.B: if it's helpful to mention, my field is not covered by any research lab and not taught in any university in my country.
And this is what makes the problem more complicated!

Professors directly teaching might have some obligation to answer your email (some university have quality of service policies, ensuring that students receive feedback within a given number of working days), if it's related to their teaching.

Professors from partner universities might fall under the same obligations, if there is a mutual agreement. However, professors from other university have no obligation whatsoever to answer you.

Professors are usually very busy, among other things dealing with their own students, they might not have the time to deal with other students. If you are asking about a proposal and you do not receive an answer, you should assume by default that they are not interested. There is no much you can do, apart from contacting other professors, or asking your own professors to contact them.


How to survive the remaining 5 months of my postdoc in toxic environment? I am international postdoc and 7 months into my 1 year postdoc. My PI is very young and the lab is relatively new. I chose this lab because after the interview I was convinced that the PI and I had similar research interests. I had also made sure the work would be experimental in nature since that is what I am an expert in.

The research direction proposed seemed interesting and I have enjoyed working on the project. But there is a major mismatch between our attitudes. I do appreciate him taking the time out to listen to my research plan and goals but I just cannot bear the abusive nature of the PI. In my 6 months time he has humiliated me in front of the whole group twice (both for journal clubs), saying my presentations should be much better than what it is. The theoretical aspect of my work is not of my interest and he expects me to know each and everything about it even though it's a new topic for me. There is zero tolerance for any mistake or unanswered question.

Long story short, I feel under-confident and bullied I am convinced that I need to look for a new position and have already started contacting some potential advisers (no luck yet).

My questions are the following:

How do I survive the remaining 5 months of my postdoc with an
abusive mentor who has unreasonably high standards?
I have been so stressed since the past month that I feel unfit for
any position. How do I regain my confidence?
How do I find a position without a reference letter from the current
adviser?

Although I may not have stood in your shoes as a post doctoral scholar, however I hope I can give you some insight on the behavior of your PI.

  How do I survive the remaining 5 months of my postdoc with an abusive mentor who has unreasonably high standards?

First and foremost, don't take it personally.

If your PI is for lack of a better word an a**. I doubt there is anything you can do to change that. On the other hand, what you can control is your perception and acceptance of such negative behavior.

Peeling back the emotional layers, is there truth to what is being said? Is there a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of a given subject matter? For example, if your PI berates you in public on not knowing that 1+1=2, you can approach the problem from two (among many) views. One is emotion: your PI just humiliated you in front of your peers. The other is the core issue at hand, knowledge, does 1+1 really equal 2?

With emotion: you can perceive it with the desired emotion or you can dust it off with nonchalance. Reply stoically "I didn't know that, thank you for pointing it out to me". Address the outburst and move on.

If you don't let hate (and in this case, a severe lack of tact on part of your PI) get to you, it robs the abuser of their satisfaction (if it was intentional). If it wasn't intentional, then it is a rather rocky learning process for your PI as one day, when their supervisor (or senior faculty) sees this going on, they will get their a** chewed out for humiliating their people or find themselves without anyone who is willing to work it them, effectively being an academic pariah. (Yeah he/she is smart, but he/she is a pain to work with, let's not).

With knowledge: it will be up to you to determine if you are in fact, in the wrong. If so, adapt your understanding with newfound knowledge and move on. If you are wrong, you are wrong, there isn't much more to discuss. If you are right... well... ask yourself if it is worth the battle to prove to a belligerent PI that they are incorrect.

  I have been so stressed since the past month that I feel unfit for any position. How do I regain my confidence?

Take a moment and look at all of the struggles that you've accomplished and overcome thus far. Your graduate tests, qualification exams, writing a dissertation, defending you thesis, buying your review board's favorite foods, for the last >4 years of your life. Putting up with an a**hole for the next 5 months in comparison is a drop in the bucket.

Keep your eyes forward on the goals you've set for yourself and what kept you going all these years.

  How do I find a position without a reference letter from the current adviser?

My understanding of a reference letter, is to have someone who is knowledgeable of your work ethic, vouch for you. I believe there would be more than your PI whom you've worked closely with this past year. A faculty member perhaps?


Options other than the NSF for PhD level grants? There is a big push in the PhD program I'm headed into for candidates to apply for NSF grants (in fact, one of the required classes for the first year is a class on writing grant proposals, and as a final project, every candidate submits an NSF proposal). I'm assuming this is the same for any Science/Math PhD program, as funding is tight for many departments, and a grant basically makes you free for the University.

Are there any other options for Science PhD-level grants I could apply for?

A few government fellowships come to mind:

DoE Office of Science Graduate Student Research (SCGSR)
DoD National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship (NDSEG)
DoD Science, Mathematics & Research for Transformation (SMART)

There are also many fellowships from industrial research labs that you could look into, depending on your field (Intel, IBM Research, Microsoft Research, Facebook, Nvidia, etc.)


UK visa for visiting position I plan to stay as a visiting teachers in two UK universities (for teaching purpose), and made some agreements. However, I wish to personally visit the universities before final agreement.

Obviously, I need a one-year visa. If I enter the UK by visa waiver, can I obtain this visa/permission to stay within the UK? Or I must enter the UK with one-year visitor visa to be eligible for working in universities (not paid of course).

I am assuming you are a US citizen.

The visa waiver scheme would cover a less than 6 month visit to the universities before the final agreement. Once you are ready to come over semi-permanently, you will need a Business Visitor Visa which can last up to a year for academic visitors. The application guidance says

  Apply in the UK: You can only extend your visa if you’re already in the UK.

Switching for the visa waiver scheme to the Business Visitor Visa would not be considered an extension of the Business Visitor Visa, so you will need to apply from outside the UK.

It is worth noting that UKVI could get a bit touchy about you visiting the UK prior to applying for the visa. For example, if you spent 6 months in the UK on the visa waiver scheme, and then immediately applied for a year long Business Visitor Visa after returning to the US, they might reject your application. A week long visit and only applying for a 51 week Business Visitor Visa would probably appease them.


How to help a student researcher with narcolepsy continue research I was torn between workplace and here, but I think the question is better here.

I have an assistant researcher that I have indirectly worked with for 3 months, and for the past month have hired directly for a research project full time (they are not taking classes for 6 months to work on my project).  Recently the student informed me they have narcolepsy, and feel it may interfere with their work but would 'like me to understand'.

An important aspect to this is, I do not need advice on legal matters in terms of workplace disabilities etc. (which is why I believe this is not appropriate for workplace), as I have already spoken with HR and I am in a country in which an employer has the power (ie. they told me I can just fire the student, in fact, they were a bit too keen on this, not that I agree with this system at all).

This is a bit different than a physical disability in terms of accessibility, and I don't think it is that comparable to a learning disability as they have no understanding or application hindrance with this one caveat of random extreme lethargic feelings or tiredness.  The closest I can think of is insomnia.  In that type of situation, I could encourage the student to work hours that benefit their sleep schedule as long as they are responsible with it.

Has anyone had experience with a student researcher with this type of disability?  Are there strategies that can help the student perform well?

Update:
The type of work is programming and algorithms.  There are no safety concerns relative to the lab work.

I have had Narcolepsy for ten years now. I am also currently an undergraduate at university. In my opinion, based on personal experience as a person with narcolepsy, there are a few things important to consider.

Firstly, the severity of narcolepsy is different for all those who suffer it so abilities vary. I am at university full time and whilst I am offered accommodations to assist me, on the whole, I produce high quality work.
Secondly, a person with narcolepsy may doubt themselves regardless of their abilities because others around them are quick to doubt them. This is why, on most occasions, I have not disclosed my condition to employees. Once I am employed, the quality of my work speaks for itself and then I disclose it for safety reasons. This is an internal battle because I fear that I am being untruthful to start with. At the same time, I know the stigma narcolepsy brings and that given the choice between a candidate with narcolepsy and one without, I would lose. If this person has told you about their narcolepsy it means they trust you and respect you and feel compelled to be completely truthful with you. They probably don't want to let you down so they will probably downplay their abilities in fear of this.
Whilst narcolepsy is characterised by 'sudden uncontrollable bouts of sleepiness', it's usually brief and full alertness is resumed after a short nap. Narcolepsy occurs because the hypocretin/orexin have been fought off by an autoimmune disease. This means sleep/wake cycles aren't regular. A person with their hypocretin intact do all their sleeping in one block, usually when the sun goes down. A person with narcolepsy sleeps in smaller blocks of time and stays alert for a shorter amount of time. Theoretically then, a person with narcolepsy can be awake and alert for the same number of hours a day as a non-narcoleptic but needs to do this by by breaking it up into smaller blocks. (You could liken this to differences in diet - some people eat three big meals a day while some people eat six smaller meals a day.)

To conclude, yes narcolepsy makes my life more difficult. I wouldn't be able to succeed at university without the support and understanding I get from the staff. But life is full of challenges and it is the way in which we deal with them that sets us apart. If you have developed a good working relationship with this person, then they already fulfil one important aspect of those needed for the position. A person with narcolepsy is aware of their shortfalls and given the chance, will do what is needed to overcome them. Don't let a diagnosis change your perception - just because a person doesn't have a medical label attached to them, doesn't mean they don't have other relevant faults or issues.

My advice is to write down what is required to fulfil the needs of the research - do it in measurable terms. For example., how many hours a day/week is sufficient? Then sit down with this person and discuss it with them. Approach the requirements as you would anyone else. (For eg. Can you commit to these requirements? etc) If you were happy with their work previously tell them that. Also admit that you don't know much about narcolepsy but you know that everyone is different. Tell them you want them to succeed and you have faith in them. Tell them how important the work is to you and if you think you are a good team, say so.

I hope this has been helpful and thank you for not listening to your human resource department who clearly lack knowledge and empathy.


How do editors guarantee the quality of peer-review? Inspired by this question (including a comment by @JeffE that a paper should be short to be reviewed within a few hours) and some other questions on this website.

Almost everyone believes that peer-review of a paper takes about 1 day and peer-review of 20-30 papers per month means low-quality reviews.

My supervisor receives 50-100 peer-review requests every month (I know because I organize his mailbox) and accepts 20-30 papers submitted to high-impact journals (say impact factor 10) to review. He never asks us to review (contrary to many comments) and he does the review personally. I do not have exact statistics, but based on his schedule, he shouldn't spend more than 1 hour to review a paper.

My question is: if his peer-review is careless and of low-quality (as assumed as a fact by many here), then, why do editors frequently invite him to review? Note that he is one of many.

If the editors do not consider the quality of reviews and simply invite famous people frequently. Then, there should be a flaw in the quality of high-impact journals.

I think you're making a mistaken assumption that your supervisor's not able to generate useful reviews quickly.  How long it takes to do a useful review depends on a few things: (i) the paper being reviewed, (ii) the kind of review being done, and (iii) the person doing the review.

Yes, if you're reviewing a long technical paper with lots of details it takes a long time to read through it.  It takes even longer if you want to check all the details for yourself.  It takes even longer if you're not familiar with these calculations.

I would assume that because your supervisor continues to get asked to do many reviews, the editors asking him find his reviews at least somewhat helpful. It's true that editors, at least in my field, have trouble finding enough good reviewers, but I can't imagine they would continue to ask someone who's review are consistently worthless.

I don't know what reviewing is like in your field (doing 20-30 reviews/month in my field would be unheard of) but here are some possibilities for how your supervisor could be doing many reviews quickly:

he's only selecting reviews he can do quickly and/or only reviews papers he wants to read anyway
since he does so many, he's probably gotten very efficient about doing reviews
he knows the field very well, so he can read the papers very quickly (and possibly assess it solely on the introduction, particular if he's going to recommend rejection)
he doesn't check low-level details, and primarily gives high-level reviews (which are still useful to editors, and depending on your area may be all that's expected)
he works really long hours


How to tune algorithm performances in computer science papers In computer science field is common to produce papers that present algorithms that estimate something with a certain accuracy and a certain speed.

Many algorithms can clearly be tuned to have high performances, compromising  a bit accuracy, or high accuracy, compromising in this case performances.

When an author proposes a new algorithm he should present empirical results about performances AND empirical results about accuracy.

Is it honest to present result about performances obtained with the algorithm tuned to be fast (and less accurate), and results about accuracy with the algorithm tuned to be precise (and slow)?

It would be dishonest to do this without mentioning that the algorithm was tuned differently. You ought to specify what the tuning changed and how this affects the results of the algorithm.

You should also list accuracy results for the fast algorithm and speed results for the accurate algorithm. (Your probably also want some numbers for middle of the road tuning too). Not listing the "bad" results isn't dishonest, but it's bad science. If you didn't include these numbers, I'd expect your reviewers to bring it up and ask for them.


How essential is curiosity? This is going to be a rather soft question, I am not completely sure it is appropriate for this place. But still.

In your opinion, how important is the presence of strong curiosity (passion for research) in a researcher for him/her to become very successful in science? Here I mean really big success (like getting top awards and/or reshaping a research area significantly) and really in science (not including management achievements, or high numbers of supervised successful PhDs or things alike).

There are many people doing research who consider (or start to consider after a while) their research-related activity as "just a job" like, say, an engineering or a carpenter one, just with a different range of required activities. So these people are not driven by a strong feeling of curiosity. Sometimes they are very hardworking and get a lot of important results, but I am not sure they get to the top (in fact, I just do not have enough data to judge).

So a second part of my question (and partly a clarification of the first one) is: do you know

examples of people who got to the top and did not have curiosity?
examples of people who are very curious, stay in research for a long time, but did not get to the top? (better if such person is somewhat known so that his/her biography could be found)

A non-answer: curiosity is not the same as "passion for research", if the latter refers to the contemporary commodified version of "research". Exactly as in the question, some clever people see that their "diddlings" could get funding from some funding agency, and "go for it", without really sincerely caring about the issue they pretend to address. Srsly.

"Academe" is a sort of game that is in fact not so wildly different from "business", although its conceits and minor dynamics are different. The major dynamics are self-confidence, ... and bluffing, up to a point. "Bluster", for sure.

I do think that the individuals who bluff-and-bluster in academe are sometimes less sociopathic than "business people", if, or when, they stay well back from wrecking the pension plans of millions of people. Faint praise, yes.

More directly, I have observed that many people find that their naive, early-life perceptions of any given thing was naive... Special case: academe.

Pro-tip [sic], lotta people who know what they're doing are "not noisy"... that is, do not violently broadcast nonsense.

I do also seriously think that the question is not "can one be a success in academe without buying into the myth of endless curiosity" (which is the best possible myth), but "will I be able to pay a modest mortgage and have health insurance for my family...?" This is a tougher question, and depends on local social politics.

Fairy tale: once upon a time, I thought I'd just live till I keeled over at the blackboard... but then there were kids, aging parents, aging spouses, kids-again, ...

"Wait, what was the question?" :)


My adviser agreed to write a letter of recommendation, but hasn't done so I am currently a M.Sc. student and I was planning to apply for PhD programs. I asked my adviser to write me a letter of recommendation two months ago, and he agreed to do that. However, now that the deadlines are approaching (in 2 days) he has refused to write a letter, and basically he says that he wants me to stay in his research group and do a PhD under his supervision. In other words, he is forcing me to stay in my current school. I have been rejected from one of the PhD programs that I had previously applied, because he did not submit the letter of recommendation.

My first question is: what should I do? I do not want to create conflict, because he is my adviser and I need to defend my thesis in peace in the next two months.

My second question: If I do not send a letter of recommendation from my adviser, will it affect the decision of admission committee?

This is a time-sensitive manner and I really appreciate it if you could give me some insights, I am absolutely stuck here.

First point: what your professor is doing is absolutely not OK. There are valid reasons to back out of writing a recommendation letter late (illness, family emergency to name a few), but what he is doing is intentionally sabotaging your PhD applications.

Second: ask for a meeting with your advisor, where you can have some uninterrupted time to explain your motivation for wanting to go elsewhere for your PhD. Focus on things like wanting to diversify your interests, work with a large variety of people, maybe work on a research project that is not available at your school. Feel free to add in things like how working with him has helped you realise how many opportunities are out there and prepared you to undertake studies at insert name of university you are applying to. Ask him if he could write you the recommendation letter and tell him that when you have your acceptances you will make a choice of where to go, and you will not rule out your current institution until you have all the answers. Explain that you feel that he is limiting your options, and feeling shut in is not a good place to be when you are trying to make serious decisions about your future. In short, flatter him and the current programme, explain your motivation in a way that doesn't come off as "this place sucks" and hope for the best. Keep the tone of this conversation calm and non-confrontational. You don't want to destroy your last few months there, and even if he says no, thank him for his time and explain calmly that you hope he understands why you will still go on with the application with another recommender, and that you hope there will be no hard feelings between you.

If this doesn't work I would go to the professor that knows you the second best in your master's program, or maybe even from your undergrad, and explain the situation to them (confidentially) and ask if you can get a letter of recommendation from them instead on short notice. It will probably be seen as a little strange that your advisor isn't writing you a letter of recommendation, but at that point it's your best option.


What affiliation do I choose if my scientific work is unrelated to my job? I left academia, but occasionally I am coauthor of a paper. These papers are in the area of research I did at university, but now I am working in a different industry.

Asked for affiliation, I am not sure whether I should state my company's name (although the company does not take part in the research and it is not done during work time) or if I should say "affiliation: none", which also seems strange.

My company has no policy (at least: as far as I know) that forbids to mention its name, nevertheless working there is not related to my research.

There are two main paths here:

You can list yourself as an independent researcher, which is appropriate if you are not doing this "on the clock" at your current position and use no company resources.
You can list yourself under your current employer, which is appropriate if you are doing this using work time and/or company resources, even if the work is not related to your position's responsibilities.

If you are working at a company that participates in research (even if in another field), they probably have policies that apply (possibly including pre-submission review), and you should have a discussion with your supervisor and/or other folks who are engaged in research there. A clause in your employment agreement might even mean that you cannot be an independent researcher.

If, on the other hand, you are working for a completely non-research organization (e.g., a paper company), then you probably should be doing this as an independent researcher and keeping everything off the clock.

Finally, there is a somewhat more complex third possibility to also consider: if these collaborations are part of a long-term relationship with a university, your collaborators might be able to get you some sort of "visiting researcher" or "associated researcher" affiliation. These "positions" have no money associated with them and are really just there to simplify the logistics of collaboration, so they are often pretty simple to arrange, and could actually be the most appropriate description of your position with regards to your research.


What can be done (by the community as a whole) to make it easy (for persons other than the authors) to reproduce numerical results in a paper? For example see reproduced papers repository.
I am restricting the scope to theory papers that have some results obtained through numerical techniques. The fields may be as diverse as physics, mathematics and the things in between.
How can one make this process of reproducing papers more frictionless? Is there a way one could incentivize independent reproduction?

Given that creators have some rights to the things they create, you need to provide incentives for transparency to creators/authors. Hopefully they are positive incentives.

But many authors are hesitant to reveal all of their computer code or the actual data that they use in research. There are many reasons for this, some valid, even essential, and some less so.

Some (many) don't reveal all because they fear, reasonably or not, that their ideas will be stolen and that others will capitalize on them before they, themselves, have a chance to follow up.

Some don't reveal their computer code, realizing that it, in final analysis, isn't very good code and is a bit (or a lot) fragile. Or, again, they want to use it in future and don't want to enable others to "scoop" them using the revealed resources.

Another reason, especially for data, is that in many cases the data cannot be revealed for reasons of privacy. This is always an issue in any research with human subjects, even questionnaires on technical topics. It is difficult to anonymize data properly as statistical methods are pretty good at extracting information about individuals from many data sets. So, recognizing the difficulty, it often seems best to just keep it private.

However, I question the value of calling research reproduced if it relies on the same code (or other method) and the same data. If you want to properly reproduce research I suggest that you take the hypotheses of a paper and devise your own experiment independently and run it on independent data. If you get the same results then you have additional information about the value of the hypotheses. The simpler way (same code, same data) guards a bit against some sorts of academic dishonesty, but doesn't otherwise advance the state of knowledge very much.

But if you want to see the code and the data, you have to find ways to overcome the reluctance of the authors to make it public. I think that is easy in some cases and impossible in others, with everything in between pretty common. Moreover, the "easy" cases don't get you very far.

Let me note an important and disturbing current situation in the US. Since the current administration is hostile to science in too many ways, it has declared that scientific studies that are not completely transparent will not be considered in matters related to human health (air and water quality, etc) or climate change.

The effect is to make almost all human studies off limits for consideration, since the law also requires privacy of human subjects and much of the research on which, say, air quality standards depends was done under earlier (confidentially required) rules. Thus, only phony "science" provided by stakeholders (coal burning industries) will now be considered to set air quality regulations. In effect, the Environmental Protection Agency is now misnamed. The administrators are actually hostile to a safe and clean environment.

This is a strong negative incentive for transparency. Reveal all or be punished/ignored for your work. I hope this sort of thing ends soon.


Suitable avenues (repositories) for self-publishing own figures (illustrations) under CC-BY-NC-ND prior to journal's final acceptance My colleague and I are planning to submit a manuscript to an academic journal.

As per the journal's policy, the publisher retains the copyright for all content. However, the journal is happy to accept an author's prior self-published content if it was published non-commercially under one of the CC licenses.

Prior to acceptance/final publication by the journal, with the goal of retain the author's individual copyright over them (i.e. not squander copyright to the journal's publisher), my colleague would like to self-publish some figures (used in the manuscript) as standalone images under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.

What are the suitable avenues/repositories for self-publishing of these figures?

I have yet to use either myself, but here are two sites to look into. Both allow publishing images/figures, and can assign them DOIs.

Zenodo seems like a good option, associated with CERN and the OpenAIRE project, and open to all fields. It also supports a wide range of licenses. Indeed, when uploading a figure under Open Access, there is a search field to pick a license. One choice is "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives", but it's not clear if this is the 4.0 version or not, as other licenses have 4.0 as part of their name (e.g. "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0)".
Figshare is the more well known option, but it has only limited options when it comes to licensing. When I try uploading a figure on a personal account, the only Creative Commons license available is CC BY 4.0. An institutional user can also use the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, however.


Is it a bad idea not to use slides in my Ph.D. oral defense? I am preparing for my Ph.D. oral defense in mathematics and am reading tips from various resources. It seems that the usage of slides is usually assumed, though it is generally not required. For me, I am more used to the more traditional way; that is, using whiteboard and markers. I have almost never used slides in my past part-time teachings.

My questions:

Is it a bad idea to use whiteboard and markers instead of slides in my Ph.D. oral defense?
If I use whiteboard, what if the committee have questions about the contents that I have already erased in my presentation?

I have seen plenty of thesis defenses that use blackboards (the boards in our department are black- rather than white-, but I don't see that it makes a difference) and also plenty that have used slides.  You should ask around -- or remember from previous thesis defenses you have attended; these are almost always open to all interested parties -- to see whether there is any local preference between slides and writing on the board.  Ask your advisor too.

I suspect that you will find that it is up to you.  In that case: do what makes you feel comfortable.

  Is it a bad idea to use whiteboard and markers instead of slides in my Ph.D. oral defense?

No, if you know it will make you more comfortable and more able to present well, it's a good idea.

  If I use whiteboard, what if the committee have questions about the contents that I have already erased in my presentation?

I don't see any fundamental difference between a thesis defense and any other math presentation.  In general people can ask questions at any time; if the speaker indicates that she would rather address them later, then they get addressed later, in which case it's up to both the speaker and the questioner to remember the question (e.g. someone could write it down).  A question which is specifically pertinent to something complicated you wrote on the board is probably better addressed then rather than later.  If you get a later question about something that's not on the board anymore, your options are to answer the question verbally, to rewrite something on the board, or to pass out some other written materials which address it.

I will mention in passing that mathematical culture seems to prefer "chalk talks" more than general academic culture at this point.  I have absolutely never used slides / powerpoint / whatever in any class I've taught.  I do it only at large conferences where I can't be confident in advance that the board will be available and easily visible to all and/or that I've been given such a short amount of time that I feel that I have to whip through slides at top speed in order to "cover" what I want to.  Writing mathematics on the board takes time.  But so does understanding mathematics, and it feels a bit dishonest to need to present material faster than you can write it on the board.  Moreover, if you're writing then you can adapt your presentation to the audience on the fly (which for a thesis can be important, so that e.g. having a thesis defense in a room with nothing to write on at all would seem weird to me).

Good luck.

Further Thoughts: Many thesis defenses have two very distinct parts, and the first part really is a lot like a conference talk in that you have a set amount of material to "cover" and the general expectation that you will get through that "coverage" with little distraction.  So doing slides for that part of the defense makes perfectly good sense to me: a thesis defense is not a lecture, and the goal of that part of the defense is not to impart the maximal possible understanding to everyone in the room.  You want to get through that first part with little fuss, and you don't want it to drag out.  So for instance if you are the type of person that prepares much more to write on the board than turns out to be realistic (as I often am), then preparing slides could be a good strategy to stay on track.  Still, if you want to write on the board during this part of the defense: go for it.


Are ECTS Credits based on performance? I was wondering if ECTS Credits are based on performance. For example, I know a course is say 5 ects credits, are those 5 credits awarded to a passing grade or is it based on performance and only a part of those credits are awarded depending on your grades?

The credits refer to the quantity of studying. 60 ECTS credits makes up one year of study. To complete a degree, you need a fixed number of credits, ie you must pass a certain number of modules (or equivalent). The grade of the degree you are awarded is determined by how well you do in those courses.


My french-to-english translated transcripts and certificates use the term Computing instead of Computer Science In order to apply for foreign universities, I translated my academic transcripts and certificates from French to English, and the sworn translator used the term "Computing" instead of "Computer Science" (French for both terms is "Informatique"). My question is: Does the difference between the two terms really matters? or do universities use the list of subjects taken to decide whether I have the prerequisites or not?

It might matter more or less, depending on the particular subject in question, as well as the given translation. Even though the terms that designate "Computer Science" were changing multiple times throughout its history (the name of the field has a rich history and interesting etymology itself), there is a standardized set of terms that people usually go by.

Unfortunate translations that might lead to using terms that are not widely accepted or using terms in a wrong way, might make a difference, depending on the situation. Therefore, even though they might not make a big difference in what they convey, they might make the overall interaction (e.g. a university application) look less professional and it is best to avoid them.
As for the concrete example you've mentioned, even though a degree in "Computing" probably can be easily disambiguated as a degree in "Computer Science", it would still be better to make sure the translation matches such widely used term, due to reasons of thoroughness and professionalism of the applicant in preparing an application.
("Computing" has a more general meaning, which does not imply science of computing, as mentioned by Dave Kaye.)

I had a similar experience with translations of my academic transcript, where the sworn translator incorrectly translated terms like "network" and "security". (I think these terms are ambiguous in multiple languages.) I resolved the issue by explicitly checking whether the translations matched "common sense" and pointed out the right translations to the translator.
(It's always good collaborate with the translator, which might not be familiar with the specific technical terminology, as mentioned by aparente001.)

Of course, this also depends on the person, the institution that evaluates your academic transcript and its translation, as well as the context. My personal opinion is that in most cases of university applications, these should not matter too much overall (unless they represent a sign of things like negligence and misconduct): 1) translated names of subjects in Computer Science cannot get too ambiguous; 2) you usually get a chance for explaining any potential misunderstandings (e.g. during an interview). Also note that, as far as I know, in most cases, universities require original transcripts as well, thus any "alarming" ambiguity might get resolved without further intervention of applicants.


What does count as "something new" in the field for PhD? I am doing PhD in AI field mainly in NLP
my supervisor told that I have to contribute something new to the field.
OK, I started doing some trails in improving one case in the field of NLP AI
I found a way that can improve that case in 80% of the times.
I don't want to go into the details of the method that I found, as it is mainly technical.
Anyway, I told my supervisor about what I found and he wasn't impressed.
The things he mentioned that this method is not provable, which means it is proved only by trying the cases without mathimatical prove.
is this enough for PhD or shall I prove it mathematically?

Your thesis committee, and your supervisor in particular, are the ones who decide if your research is sufficiently novel.
Make sure they are happy and seek their guidance if they are not. It seems your supervisor isn't happy, so work with them to find what you can add or what other direction you can take. You could provide a StackExchange answer with dozens of upvotes saying your work is a novel contribution and it won't get you closer to graduating.


Strict prohibition on overlapping data. Why? The journal Immunity says on this webpage

"As a matter of publishing ethics, we cannot consider any paper that contains data that have been published or submitted for publication elsewhere."

Why not? What if the two papers analyze rich sources of data that overlap only partially? What if they have completely different ambitions? Is the only meritorious activity in science the act of gathering data, and to hell with the analysis? And what does this have to do with ethics?

I think you're reading a little bit more into the policy than is actually there - many papers in this type of journal essentially contains data - gels, lab results, etc. That's what they're talking about. What they're not talking about is the corpus of data generated from a whole study.

  Why not?

Because the goal is not to allow researchers to publish repeated analyses of the same dataset.

  What if the two papers analyze rich sources of data that overlap only
  partially?

It's likely not what they're talking about - a rich source of data likely means that the data hasn't been published recently. What they don't want is "The same data as last time, now with a marginally different story".

  What if they have completely different ambitions?

I'd be impressed if you managed to get two completely distinct analyses out of the same data - and indeed, the stance of the journal would likely be that they'd be willing to accept a decrease in salami slicing of papers at the cost of the occasional genuinely novel analysis that's built entirely off previously published data.

  Is the only meritorious activity in science the act of gathering data,
  and to hell with the analysis?

That's reading way too far into the policy - the paper should also contain that analysis. What they don't want you doing is writing four papers on the same single assay or whatever.

  And what does this have to do with ethics?

The idea that a paper should represent a single, stand-alone contribution to science, and that ever more esoteric spins on the same data is a net negative is an ethics in science stance. One you may disagree with, but it is one.


Is a postdoc successful only when completed? Situation: one leaves a postdoc in the middle of the contract to move to another position (postdoc or tenure) at another university. There have been some questions here on SE Academia about leaving a postdoc, but my question is different: may that person still write in her CV that she completed a postdoc? I ask for two reasons:

To me a postdoc is like any other job, but I have heard a postdoc being referred to as 'postdoctoral studies'. In that context, leaving a postdoc before the project finishes might be considered 'dropping out'.
Long time ago in an office of a professor, next to his PhD degree framed on the wall I have seen a "postdoc certificate", which looks like a diploma.

Hence my questions: is a postdoc successful only when completed (like a graduate program)? Is there a diploma or certificate that postdocs receive upon completion?

"Is a postdoc successful only when completed?"

Short answer: No!

Long answer: No it's not, mostly because there is no "completing" a postdoc, much like there is no "completion" in academia beyond the PhD unless you are going after a qualification for future promotion e.g. Habilitation in Germany (and possibly other German speaking countries?).

You are constantly accumulating information and experience, and there is no end to it as far as I can tell. There is always more to read, more avenues to explore, more projects to design, start and complete. Perpetual work...

There are people who spend less than a year as a postdoc and those that are practically stuck on a forever postdoc situation. When you leave your postdoc is a interplay of several variables:

Availability of funds, or lack thereof
How well suited you are to the research group and/or to the projects at hand (i.e. mutual satisfaction between yourself and your mentor)
What other offers are on the table
Any personal (e.g. family) constraints

I have never heard of a postdoc certificate, and would look very skeptically towards any such. That is not to say that it doesn't exist or that it wouldn't be legit just because I haven't seen or heard it, but it sounds extremely old fashioned and not really relevant anymore.

At the end of the day, when you write your CV you list your postdoc experience, over a given time period and what projects you have worked with during that period. When a potential employer looks at your CV carefully (in other words if they actually consider you) they might notice if the postdoc experience is too short, or if the projects listed there aren't published. As long as you can justify why you left a postdoc "too early" (whatever that may mean) you shouldn't have any problems

Hope that helps


What is the best way to find plagiarism in a draft research? Recently I got a research from one of my colleagues. However, I suspect the draft of his work and think it is extracted from somewhere else and it is not a new research in the field of cryptography. I need to know due to the lack of the time I have can I make sure about this issue? what are the solutions for this?

It depends what you suspect was plagiarised, how and where from.

If you believe the ideas/structure/references (the latter would apply to a literature review) have been plagiarised, you're only recourse is to use your expertise and knowledge of the field to identify the sources. A literature survey of your own would help this.

If, as I suspect, you mean the text has been plagiarised, you can use services such as Turnitin and iThenticate (as suggested by others). If you work in a university, it is very likely that they already subscribe to one of those services, and you should be able to access it. Very often, universities provide (password-protected) access for students to check their work through such services, prior to submission; usually through their virtual learning environment (VLE, e.g. Moodle, Blackboard). Your librarians would be able to point you in the right direction.

However, there's a much easier way: just Google (and Google Book search aned Google Scholar search) the text you suspect of being copied. Pretty much the only sources Turnitin et al. have access to that Google doesn't is previously submitted student assignments; so (as I read this case) Google is as likely as anywhere to identify the source of any suspect passages.

I just picked a random sentence from a nearby textbook to test this. While "straight" Google didn't pick it up, Google Books did.

When I was a fresher, and we had our "don't plagiarise" lecture, I remember the lecturer telling us that the university subscribed to all these expensive anti-plagiarism services, but the lecturers just used Google instead.


Asking name to be taken off a paper I am asking about the etiquette for getting my name taken off a paper. In grad school I did a collaboration with a PI and the results were limited but okay and I used a very specific microscope to take the images. (The animal I work on has thick tissues and can really only be imaged on the confocal.). The PI wanted to redo the experiment using two replicates so that we can have images all from the same microscope so it can be uniform meaning that I have to use a different scope for the condensed repeated experiments. The new images are so blurry and do not convince me that the experiment is working this go round let alone will they convince anyone else. The PI even tried working with the scope and my animal and concluded the images are subpar. I feel like if the data isn't working this go round in the new environment and the new equipment and I feel like if it isn't reproducing the way I want the right thing to do it to bow out and take my name off (or ask to be given credit for other parts of the manuscript I have worked on).

Idk I just feel meh about my part of the data and not sure how to express that without coming off flaky.

My suggestion, actually, is that you don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You aren't satisfied with what you did. Fine. But something was learned because of it. Better.

I'd let it go. If the PI thinks you are a co-author then defer to their experience and judgement. You haven't set science back because you tackled a difficult problem and weren't able to reach a perfect conclusion. That is, in fact, the nature of scientific research.

But if you really don't want to be co-author, just say that. It should be fine. However, if you also don't want to be listed at all, even in acknowledgements, then you leave the others with a serious dilemma. They will have to write the paper in such a way as to avoid plagiarism of your work, if you won't let it be attributed to you. That seems to me to be the worst outcome. Something is known that wasn't previously, but it becomes difficult to let the world advance upon it.


Should I remind someone of a previous invitation to give a talk? I recently emailed a senior professor in a neighboring state, that I've never met, with some comments on his recent paper and pointing to some of my papers with related results. It turns out he was aware of my research and invited me to give a talk at his University. I promptly agreed, but never heard back from him. Should I assume that he gave up on the invitation, or should I write back to him "inviting myself"? Several months have passed since our email exchange.

It's certainly reasonable to send another email just saying that you would really like to visit, and that you would like to take up the old invitation. By far the most likely thing is that the professor in question just forgot, and will appreciate being reminded.


Should I tell an editor that I believe an article I'm reviewing is not good enough for the journal? Here's the scenario: I was asked to review an article for a given journal. I did, the authors addressed my comments/corrections, and now the manuscript is back with me for a second time to review the reviewed version.

I don't think that there's anything particularly wrong with the article at this point, but I don't think it has enough merit to be published in a Scimago Q1 ranked journal.

Since the editors sent it to me twice now, I have to assume that they do.

Will it look out of line if I suggest the editors that they should suggest the authors to publish the article in a more "modest" journal?

Again: there is nothing wrong with the article in itself, I just don't think it is notable enough for the submitted journal (considered by Scimago to be a top ten journal in my field).

Referees and/or editors should not invite the authors to submit a revised version unless there's a real chance that the revision will be accepted.  Also, most things could be made significantly better than they are.  If your feeling is that the paper, even though not flawed in any way, does not meet the standards of the journal, then I think you should recommend rejection unless you can identify explicitly which improvements would change your mind.  Even then, in a field with a sufficiently large number of reputable/good/great/... journals (my own field, mathematics, is certainly like this), it would be reasonable to suggest improvements that could make the paper suitable for a journal of the caliber submitted to while rejecting the paper.  A top journal is going to get more than enough papers that are good in every way than it can publish.   And finally, if you revise and improve your paper enough then at a certain point you can justly claim that it's not the same paper.  Nothing stops authors from submitting the new, better paper to the same journal.  (Once I was added as a coauthor on a paper after the first version was rejected by a strong journal in the field.  I saw how to improve the paper so significantly that I thought: why not send it back to the same journal?  They accepted it.)

Having said all that: from the comments it doesn't sound like the authors spent much time and effort making significant improvements to their paper.  So while there may have been a miscommunication of some sort among you, the editors and the authors, it doesn't seem to have caused much harm to them.  In my opinion you should reject the paper for the reasons that you say: there's nothing wrong with it, but it's not good enough for the journal.  A top journal must reject many papers for this reason -- that's what makes it a top journal.

(If they had spent a lot of time and effort: well, I would feel bad about it if I were you, but it doesn't really change the decision to reject the paper.  Anyway the time they spent improving their paper did after all result in an improved paper, which they can then submit to another journal.)

Maybe the lesson is to be more clear in the future.  It feels nice to give people a chance, but in fact you're being asked to apply your professional judgment in a way that's going to have a negative outcome much of the time.  When your judgment is negative, the nicest you can be is to deliver the bad news relatively quickly and with sufficient justification.

Finally, the fact that the editors asked you to referee it again might or might not mean that they are more positive about the paper than you -- you have no way of knowing.  Anyway, their opinions are their opinions, but they're asking you for yours.  Once or twice I have been asked to referee a second draft of a paper that I recommended for rejection the first time.  I did look at the revised versions, quickly, but my answer was essentially: "I told you that I didn't think the paper was suitable for your journal.  If you disagree, okay: ask someone else to look at it."


Numbering Introduction and Conclusion? In research papers, should Introduction and Conclusion sections be numbered or non-numbered? What does the scientific paper etiquette suggest? Furthermore, in either case, should they appear in the Table of Contents?

If the answer depends on the research field, please elaborate. I'm in electrical engineering, but do occasionally write mathematical papers as well, so those two fields are personally of highest interest.

On a side note, in case someone confuses it with the Introduction section, I am quite sure that the Abstract section should be non-numbered either way.

It's not field-dependent, it's a journal-dependent issue. Some use a format where everything is numbered, some use a format where nothing is numbered, and still others leave it up to the authors to decide.

However, when sections are numbered, everything in the main text should be numbered, including the introduction and conclusions. You don't skip numbering those sections but add numbers for the rest. That doesn't make any sense. (End matter such as acknowledgments and supporting information may be handled separately.)

The best advice is check the style guide for your journal.


Can call numbers differ between libraries? Suppose you have two libraries that use the same classification system and have not merged their respective databases. Could it be possible that the exact same book could be assigned different call numbers if taken from one library and added to the other?

I am asking this question because I am drawing up a home-library database application, and the client would like the ability to assign call numbers (even multiple ones). I have not been able to find an answer online, and I hope that I do not have to travel to the next state over to find a library not connected to the ones around I live.

I imagine the book would most likely be assigned to the same top-tier category and most likely the same second subcategory in the respective system, but, for example, the Library of Congress system incorporates the author's name and a quasi-decimal number which fine-tunes the book's location. And it seems without any external reference the assignment of this part of the call number is made on the fly for any particular library.

So, I have a couple questions. First, the title's sake. Second, is the way I'm thinking about this correct? And if I'm wrong, why?

Normally, when already available, Library of Congress classifications are usually found after the title page, and should thus be constant across different libraries. For publishers.

In any case, this should be a fairly easy hypothesis to test (at least to a certain degree). Most university library catalogues are on-line and freely available. You could sample a cross-section of titles from different subjects and see what happens: my suspicion after a few cursory checks of my own is that call numbers do vary somewhat, but primarily at the "secondary level" (in identifying the author, rather than the subject).


What is the equivalent of an Australian or New Zealand honours thesis in British universities? Although it is somewhat discipline specific, in Australia, to receive honours for a bachelors degree, a student must undertake an additional, optional year of fulltime study, turning a three year degree into a four year degree. Generally, the vast majority of that year is spent conducting an independent research project which is written up as an honours thesis. An honours project generally has two supervisors, and is examined by two independent academics, including one from another university. In my field (human geography), they are usually 12,000 - 20,000 words long, and generally include the collection and analysis of new research data. Although they are somewhat more detailed and verbose, an honours thesis in my field should contain research equivalent to one or two academic papers in terms of the quantity and scope of the work, although obviously quality varies from student to student.

1st class honours in Australia is generally sufficient for admission to a PhD program here, although a scholarship will generally require either exceptionally high grades or additional demonstration of research potential.

I understand that a New Zealand honours is similar to its Australian counterpart.

I have supervised several honours theses in Australia. I am currently applying for lectureships in Britain, where I understand that the honours system is quite different. How can I explain succinctly to a British audience the scope and magnitude of honours supervision? Is there a simple equivalence with some other form of thesis in Britain?

in England, honours is granted after three years without a mandatory thesis or essay component. Scotland is more similar to Australia but not identical.

Even in Australia, the requirement for an honours thesis varies. I don't see why you can't be explicit. Explain that honours is an optional fourth year similar to a one-year English masters and detail what fraction of the year was spent on the thesis. If your students' theses were publishable, get them published and say they led to publications.


Can I use examples of others' research in my presentation on scientific conference? I'm giving a talk on scientific conference in a couple of days and I have prepared my concept and my presentation. Because what I'm going to talk about is not done in practise in my country, I have included in my presentation examples and research results from the past from other academics and researchers.

Is this okay? I will also give credits underneath each slide to the respected researchers.

Yes, it's fine to do that. If you do an introduction on the topic or you are comparing your results/methods to others you can talk about/show their work and you even should do that.

Just be careful that you talk enough about your own research and you always make it very clear if something was done by someone else.


How do advisors typically apply pressure on PhD students to get work done? I tend to get much work done when some external force (a teacher) applies pressure. Skills such as speed reading and rapid writing come to me only while working under pressure. Also, sometimes the best solutions only come to me immediately before deadlines. I am interested in starting a PhD, but nervous that there will be long stretches where I will not have to submit progress or there might not be much pressure for me to get work done.

Do students working towards a PhD thesis typically face frequent deadlines and pressure in the form of specific targets? How do advisors typically apply pressure to their PhD students?

I am interested in starting a PhD, but nervous that there will be long stretches where I will not have to submit progress or there might not be much pressure for me to get work done.

Congratulations for having identified one of the major differences between research projects on the PhD level and earlier levels even before starting a PhD! In my opinion, dealing with problems on your own and without real pressure for weeks ore maybe even months is really a characteristic feature of PhD research. One of the competences which you should acquire before the PhD degree is to go through such phases successfully.

That said, there's of course different types of support (or pressure, if you prefer to call it so) from your supervisor and your fellow researchers, mostly your supervisor's group or collaboration partners.

Your supervisor may ask you or suggest to submit a paper to a specific conference, which has a submission deadline.
You may be involved in a collaboration project, where regular meetings with project partners take place, and a presentation of the latest results will be expected.
A third-party funded project may require regular reports on research results, which you may be asked to provide if you work on that project or a related topic.
Many groups have regular meetings where people discuss their latest research results. You'll be expected to contribute some results of yours from time to time.

But of course, how much pressure is built up by such expectations varies from place to place.
Also, a difference to undergraduate research or coursework is that consequences usually do not come immediately if you fail to "deliver", but will only be visible on the long run, over the course of one or two years maybe.

Generally, I'd say that a young supervisor with a growing group will put more pressure on you to deliver research results than a more established researcher with a large group, because the young supervisor depends more on your results for his own progress, and should have more time to work with you closely.

Also, the group you're involved in matters a lot, because discussion with colleagues stimulates research ideas, and also puts you into a mode of "having to deliver something". Check a potential group for jointly authored publications (not only PhD student + supervisor) to get a feeling for how active it is in terms of collaboration. The latter point is especially important for a large group with an established senior supervisor.


Where to submit a pedegogic physics paper My co-author and I have a pedagogic paper about a fairly advanced physics topic (we contrast relativistic and non relativistic models of atoms).

The paper doesn't contain any new research per se, but is a novel and clarifying expression of existing material.

Where can we submit such a paper?

I've seen such papers in American Journal of Physics. I would try there. Could also think about Physics Teacher.


How is a part time research job (from a University) perceived in the academic job market? In a similar vein as the question How is a part-time degree (from a reputed institute) perceived in the academic job market?, what about holding a part time research job (Research Fellow)?

Currently, I work part time as a Research Fellow, part time High School Teacher, part time Programmer and part time Drone engineer - so, as a result, the amount of research output would be considerably lower than I would if full-time - a position I am aiming for in the near future.  I already have a PhD.

In my CV, it will be very clear that this is a part time position, due to the overlap of my professions - this is different to the part-time degree scenario in the linked question, in that I am already in academia. How valuable is a part time research job with respect to joining full time academia (or industry)?

Well, it's much better to have a part-time research position than no research position---or more accurately, it's much better to be doing some research than no research.

I assume from your question you are either looking for a tenure-track/permanent faculty position at a research school or a research-oriented postdoc.  If you want me to assess your chance of success, I can't accurately do that without knowing a lot about your situation---in most areas I know of, the job market isn't great now, but certainly some fields/geographic regions/types of positions are less competitive than others.

Basically, for a research-oriented position, you want to convince the people in charge of hiring that you're going to do great research and contribute a lot to the research group you're trying to be a part of.  Generally this is easier the more research you've done.

However, if the amount and quality of research you've done is impressive for someone doing other work part-time, that will probably taken into account--which is maybe what you were really asking about.  For instance, if two candidates have comparable research and one had a heaving teaching load at the time and one had a light load, the one with the higher teaching load looks more impressive.

But if your research output is considerably
less than the competition, it's harder but not impossible to be viewed as a top candidate.  Here outstanding references can help make up for this.  Also, this is probably not a much of an issue if you are looking for postdoc positions.


How to frame incomplete previous studies when applying to new graduate school without being too negative about previous program? I had a bit of an unfortunate experience with an academic institution where I completed the coursework for a theology Ph.D. without high enough grades to continue. There were other things that were unfortunate about that experience, but the best advice I have been given is that if I try to return to studies, I need to explain why I don't have a reference from my previous Ph.D. programs, and if I document things that were wrong, that comes across as "I am a negative person who will publicly backstab a university by criticizing it after exhausting his appeal options" rather than "XYZ happened and if you can document it, we will make accommodations." (Additionally, I've tried to document the talent I have, but documenting that I am talented, no matter what talent I document, doesn't seem to trip any light bulbs of recognizing I may be a promising student.)

In graduate school admissions, what is a convincing non-negative way of explaining "I don't have references from my prior program?" And is there any way to get connections made between "gifted" and "promising student"?

what is a convincing non-negative way of explaining "I don't have references from my prior program?"

If you dwell on it, it will sound like you're making excuses. It's not really worth spending more than a sentence describing unfavorable circumstances that made you leave this place or that place. It might even be better to not mention at all. Just make sure you have favorable references from somewhere to go with your application.

  is there any way to get connections made between "gifted" and "promising student"?

Through achievements. If you say "I am good at X," no one cares, or really believes you. If you say "I did A, B, and C," it's good if you can say "I received award Y," by pointing to things that demonstrate that you are good at X, then you will look good. Talents only count to other people if you use them to achieve results.


Appropriate to mention using a lab's dataset when seeking grad student position in that lab? I'm in the scenario where I'm approaching my final year of undergrad and am looking for a potential advisor for grad school; I've done my research on their research, including reading through several of their papers and have a pretty good handle on what they're doing.

Now, obviously I'm interested in this research, and I find that some of these papers have some great datasets that I could use in (potentially) interesting ways (that the paper did not do). So I take this data and start playing with it, and let's say that I serendipitously arrive at an interesting find. In the eventual e-mail that I send to the researcher asking about the possibility of him/her taking me on as a graduate student, where I talk about their research and what interest I take in it, would it be appropriate to mention that I have worked with a dataset they had published in a previous paper?

I'm not sure how this might be taken, and I'm afraid of appearing disrespectful or full of hubris; just generally where it hurts instead of helps my case.

Potentially (?) Relevant:

In this scenario I'm just playing around on my own and my results aren't published or in the process of being so.
By 'playing' I mean in a bioinformatics sense, just manipulating the dataset.
Would the answer to this question be impacted if I didn't find anything interesting?

Interest in and knowledge of a potential advisor's work is a big selling point for a prospective student, and this is a great way to do it.  I would definitely recommend playing around with the data, and it becomes a great way to connect with the professor, providing a basis for conversations while demonstrating your skills and interest in the work.  Even if what you can do is quite limited, your willingness to "get your hands dirty" and actually dive into the data is a good thing.

Do this as a learning experience, not to discover something.

You mentioned "I'm afraid of appearing disrespectful or full of hubris", and you are right to be concerned about this.  There is a big danger of doing so if you come to this professor claiming to have made a new discovery.  It could come across quite poorly, almost appearing you think you know more than the professor.  And unless you are an absolutely exceptional student, you probably aren't yet fully equipped to evaluate whether you have really discovered something interesting and valid.

Instead, I would to this as a learning experience, and start a conversation with the potential advisor framed accordingly.  Ask questions if there are things you don't understand.  Or say, "I did some analysis like this, is this valid?" And so on.

Even if you do think you have made an interesting finding, frame it in the same way: you have done some analysis as a learning experience, and want to discuss it with the professor to see if you are doing things the right way.  If there is a real discovery there, let them come to that conclusion.  At this stage in your career, it's much better to take a humble stance of desire to learn.

Also, this is a great chance to learn about this professor as a potential advisor. Are they interested in discussing what you are doing and answering your questions about their work?  Are they supportive of your interest in pursuing further study?  Do they make time to talk to you?  If so, there is a great chance that they would be a supportive advisor.

Conclusions:

Your interest in the professor's work, initiative to explore the data yourself, and any skills you demonstrate in the process all sell you really well as a potential PhD student.
This learning experience will be valuable for you: both in gaining necessary skills, assessing whether you want to do further research in the area, and whether you want to work for this advisor specifically.
Actually making new research findings from the data should not be your focus.  If you don't have the skills yet, acting like you think you can do this looks bad.  If you are the rare undergrad student who can operate at this level, let the prof discover it rather than claiming it.


Does google scholar rescan papers and update citations? I have an in press paper (let's call it paper A) which is cited in another in press paper (paper B). The citation is complete (issue nr. etc.). The citing paper (B) was supposed to be published after the cited one (A), but it appears that one publisher is much faster, so B will be out before.

Does anyone know if Google Scholar citations will miss this citation? Or will it re-scan paper B and at some point add a citation to paper A?

Thanks!

Article metadata and bibliography management is usually a service provided by the journal. In this there might be variations in the diligence with which it is done. But in general the metadata and citations data are pushed to indexing services. So yes, Google Scholar does get the updated data, either directly or via crawling, and will update citations, page and volume numbers after publications, etc.


Exemptions to taking IELTS/TOEFL/Regular GRE IELTS/TOEFL

I haven't read up on IELTS/TOEFL, and I don't want to waste time on that if I don't have to. As far as I know, they are testing your fluency in English.

Generally:

Is a significant amount of north american/first world universities really that stubborn as to require their applicants to take IELTS/TOEFL without any substitutes to demonstrate fluency in English?

Well if you graduate bachelor's or master's from an English speaking country like Canada, the US or the UK, I'm guessing there wouldn't be need to take IELTS/TOEFL if you haven't already, but what about graduating bachelor's or master's from a country whose primary language isn't English?

My case:

I was born and raised in a first world Asian country but then later on moved to a third world country (where my parents were born and raised) where I got my bachelor's and master's.

It's sad but despite the above, I'm monolingual. I even got to a foreigners class for the (third world country) language classes in my university even though I wasn't a foreigner.

The school where I got my bachelor's and master's says its medium of instruction is English. My thesis in master's was written in English. All my papers and exams in bachelor's and master's were in English.

Given all that, do I still have to take IELTS/TOEFL?

Actually, doesn't a subject GRE or the regular GRE assume fluency in English? I'm planning to take the math GRE.

Regular GRE

Do a significant amount of north american or first world universities require applicants to take the regular GRE even if they are going to take the subject GRE?

I don't know about the rationale behind taking the regular GRE. It seems that you take such if your intended study doesn't have a subject GRE such as political science or economics?

If I were you, I'd write a letter to the admissions' departments at universities you're interested in to figure out what they'll want you to do.

I'm in a similar situation (graduated middle school, high school, and college in a non-English speaking country, but grew up in the United States until age 13), and I've already sent emails explaining my situation to universities that interest me. So far I've received a range of answers from I have to do TOEFL to I need to show evidence of living in America to they trust me and I don't need to show anything.

In regards to GRE's it differs from each university and country. In mathematics, you only need to do the GRE's (both regular and math subject), if you're planning to apply to the United States. If you don't want to do the GRE's, check out universities in Canada or Europe which don't require them.


Presentation of an algorithm Background:

I recently wrote a paper on the algorithm A that I developed for predicting fault events in the machine. The algorithm is tested, evaluated on a machine data set.

I developed another algorithm B and the inputs to this algorithm are the outputs from A. I tested the algorithm over the same data set of the same machine that I used to test A.

I am currently in the process of writing a paper to explain the algorithm B. However, it is required the numerical results of A to be presented along with the numerical results of B for the reader to understand the complete picture.

Question:

What is the best way to present the old results in the new paper? Should we create a separate section or is it better to write in the results section? Basically, it is just the repetition of the numerical results from the old paper (results are in tabular form). Any lead points would be helpful. Will it be considered as self-plagiarism or salami slicing?

Note: I had no idea about the development of algorithm B when I worked on algorithm A. I see algorithm B definitely extends the field of research and thinking.

I don't see any problem with reusing your own data from a previously published article, as long as it is cited properly. This would look like:

  We evaluated algorithm B using previously published data generated by
  algorithm A (Myself et al, 2010).

If the dataset is deposited somewhere along with the article describing algorithm A, it might have a DOI that you can also cite. If it isn't deposited, or hasn't been assigned a DOI, well now would be a good time to do that.

If the article describing algorithm A is more than a couple years old, nobody will think it is salami-slicing. And you only need to cite this article properly to rule out "self-plagiarism". Self-citation is an easy way to increase one's citation count, but it is definitely not unethical: you have to cite previous work relevant to your current article, even if it happens to be also from you.


Contact the editor on the acceptance chances of my article I submitted a paper to a journal about two months ago and now the article has been under review for a month. It is my first article out for publication ever, so I am not the best at judging my chances of being accepted. However, I presented the paper on a conference and they offer the chance of entering it as a book chapter in a publication resulting from the conference. I now wonder if it would be ok to ask the editor of the journal if they can tell me some more on my chances of being accepted. Maybe they already got one review back and they can tell me what the verdict was there? Is this appropriate, and if so, should I explain truthfully why I ask this question to the editor?

PS: I would prefer the publication in the journal rather than the book chapter, but if I go for that option and it's not accepted I also can't be in the book because they need an answer now.

I doubt that you will be able to get any answer about the likelihood of acceptance from a good editor until all of the reviews are in.  As a editor, there are just too many ways that the last review might majorly change the view of a paper (e.g., negatively by pointing out that it is a cleverly disguised piece of plagiarism; positively by pointing out a value that all of the other reviewers have missed).  An editor who is acting professionally will thus never pre-judge the result before it is in hand.

You can always feel free to reach out and ask how long it's likely to be before you get an answer, but that's not something that can readily be relied upon either, given the frequent vagaries of reviewers.


Citation Style Language (CSL) style for resume / CV I have my own publications on Zotero, and would like a convenient way to export these references directly to my resume/CV so I only have to update them once. Is there a CSL style that can generate resume-style publication lists? They should appear in the following format and be sorted in reverse chronological order:
2020  Full bibliographic reference, formatted
      in whatever sensible style can be found.

Adam Altmejd's GitHub repository has a CSL file that seems to be what you are looking for. Adam also compiles his CV from markdown with BibTeX via Pandoc and Pandoc-citeproc.


How important is the orthographic/typographic rigor? Science and Orthographic/Typographical Errors

Some people appreciate the attention to have their orthographic/typographical errors corrected/pointed out.

Others find it uncool to just point formal errors, finding it ideal to jointly comment on the content.

Given that, in terms of scientific rigor, how important is the orthographic/typographic rigor? And how does that vary?

As a side note, on a personal level, I find that reading a scientific text with orthographic/typographical errors is quite a turn off.

Orthography and typographical correctness are much less important than scientific (methodological and theoretical) rigour. Yet all scientific publications should of course also be well-written, and in general there's nothing wrong with casually pointing out a typo, wrong glyph, or similar glitch.

However, if you're writing a review, grade a student paper or discuss a presentation, this better not be your only comment!


Acknowledge the proofreader of the thesis For the proofreading of my thesis I've used the help of a paid lector.
My question is, if it's normal practice to include this person into the acknowledgements of the thesis?

I acknowledged my two volunteer proofreaders, but probably would not acknowledge a paid lector unless he went above and beyond what the fee covered.

In the case of acknowledgments, I think a safe rule is if you're not sure, put it in.  After all, you could type, "Thanks to Jane Doe for proofreading," faster than asking this question.


Can you switch from a non-competitive program to a more competitive program easily in university? I don't really know how to properly phrase this question but can you transfer from any program, maybe one that's not as competitive, to a more competitive program in university?

I've always been curious: for example, let's say I'm applying for Harvard, a super competitive school. I understand that they don't require you to choose a major until second year. If I were to indicate my interest of a less competitive program, like gender studies or african dance choreography, would I be able to transfer/select a biology program 2nd year? Surely it's much easier to be accepted into one of those programs than a competitive science program, so wouldn't people try to cheat the admissions system by applying for a non-competitive program and then end up choosing a competitive program?

I don't really see what would prevent someone from doing this, as the schools all allow you to choose whatever program you want regardless of your indicated interest.

Question doesn't really make sense but I wanna see what yall say regardless.

I'll assume that you really do mean "competitive" and not just "difficult to master". (Otherwise you've stepped into a minefield with your examples, which can be astoundingly difficult). I'll also take "competitive" to mean that there are lots and lots of students wanting to major in those things.

A priori, there is no reason for the university to care a lot which major you choose provided that it has the resources to accommodate you. But some programs that might be competitive (by the above definition) require small classes (and therefore more faculty) or laboratories with a limited number of seats available. Other majors have very deep prerequisite requirements for the upper level courses, requiring that you select those majors early if at all.

So, there are a lot of considerations. Each university will have its own constraints and those constraints will impose rules that don't seem valid until you look at the constraints that led to the rules.

Biology is a lab science, generally speaking, which imposes limits. Computer science may or may not require equipment, depending on how the program is built.

But your expressed interest on entry isn't really a constraint most places. If you want to choose a major, you will be admitted or not based on your current record and any constraints in place at that moment. (caveat: MOST PLACES)


What's the point of maintaining a CV after tenure? Once you have tenure, presumably you're never going to have to search for a job again. However almost all professors have a CV on their website, and fairly recent ones. Why? They already made it.

Upon joining the club of those who've "made it," you find that there are further gradations.  A tenured professor can safely breathe a sigh of relief for at least a year or two, but eventually she will notice (i) that her salary is lower than most of her tenured colleagues and (ii) that she is still being asked to document and defend her productivity across several axes: research, teaching and service.  (Also, in many cases, (iii) She is increasingly pressured to apply for and get major grants.  In many cases, her future salary and promotions depend on this to a large degree.)

The main tool to exhibit your recent accomplishments in research, teaching and service is...your CV, usually.  In fact, "whether they want a good raise or not," most faculty are required to submit annual "activity reports" in which a CV is often a required component.  (When it isn't, it usually means that we manually copy information from our CV into some form or type it into some internal webpage.  So having an updated CV is more or less necessary for
many faculty members.)  Certainly having a carefully groomed CV is necessary when you go up for "promotion to full", apply for an endowed chair or distinguished research position, and so forth.

The bottom line: academia has bureaucratic, competitive and hierarchical aspects all the way through.  Most people who have made it tenure in recent years have learned how to keep reasonably up-to-date CVs without too much trouble or heroic effort -- the CVs do not need to be rewritten from scratch to showcase their skills for some new job, usually, so it is mostly a matter of regular updating -- so honestly, this is not the worst part of the bureaucratic minutiae.