What can/should be done about journals that spam potential contributors? I'm a very early stage researcher and my first two conference papers could have been better, but that doesn't stop new journals spamming me with offers to publish my work. This morning I received two emails from:

Journal of Communication and Computer (http://www.davidpublishing.com/)
International Journal of Advanced Computer Science (http://ijpg.org/index.php/IJACSci)

Now this is clearly spam, they know nothing about my research area or they wouldn't be asking me, and my first reaction is to not waste my time reformatting work that I've already done. But am I missing something here?

Personally I feel that publishing in these general purpose repositories dilutes the (our!) publishing model and makes it harder to find related research.

So what is, if anything, being done about this?

So what is, if anything, being done about this?

Ignore them.

No, you are not missing anything.  These journals are scams, not serious scientific literature.

If you plan to publish a longer version of your conference paper, send it to one of the journals that your paper cites, or at least to a journal where you recognize a significant fraction of the editorial board.

Sadly, trying to "doing something about" these scammers is as futile as "doing something about" fake email quota warnings, diploma mills, exiled Nigerian princes, international email lotteries, and three-card monte.  Set up your mail program to blacklist their emails if you can, but then move on with your life.


Can someone ever be accused of self-plagiarism after the course is over? I submitted a philosophy essay to a professor for his 2nd year class that was almost the same as an essay I submitted to a TA for the same professor's 1st year class.

I thought that I had authorization from my professor but I recently discovered that I needed permission in writing. It's been almost 4 years now and I graduated last year...can I get in trouble for this/get my degree revoked? Would the university have kept a record of my assignments from both first and second year? Would this written permission only be submitted between the student and the professor or does the university keep the letter/email on record?

Any info on the types of penalties that could result from this would also be appreciated.

Thanks in advance for any insight.

In theory, you could get in trouble for this, but the risk is very low.  Universities generally retain the authority to change grades and revoke degrees forever, at least when matters of academic dishonesty are involved.

However, nobody is likely to be looking over your old work to find this.  It probably doesn't even exist in recorded form any more.  So I see little cause to concern yourself, especially if this was a product of a misunderstanding.


How to respond a reviewer's reply when he is asking about much more to be discussed? I got review reply with three reviewers comments. Most of them are workable. I can address them while revising the manuscript. However, one reviewer is asking much more work, and based on my understanding, I feel that can be a another work. Thus, I want to politely answer that query with proper reasons. However, I am wondering if there is any formal way to address this issue?

I can say that, we totally agree with the reviewer's concern. However, this study which itself is a novel work, is a part of our future work.

One thing to make clear at the outset: it is the editor who controls whether your paper is published or not. Your task is to convince the editor, not necessarily the reviewer, that your paper merits publication.

Most editors will not blindly require you to implement all the reviewer's suggestions to get the paper published. After all, it's not like the reviewer necessarily knows better than you do what is going to make your paper publishable. (If multiple reviewers all make the same suggestion, that's a different story and an editor will put more weight on that.)

If you have a good reason not to do something suggested by a reviewer, you can not do it and point out in your response to the editor why you made that decision. The important thing is to make it clear that you didn't simply decide to ignore part of the reviewer's report. If you're going to avoid implementing any of their recommendations, you do need to justify it. It then falls to the editor to decide whether the paper is still publishable without that particular suggestion being implemented.

I'd add that saying that an addition to the paper would be too large and would justify an entire followup study on its own is a valid response. Even a reasonably common one, I would think. Reviewers haven't done the research themselves; they don't know how much work an extension would take, and if you say it would be too involved, there's a pretty good chance the editor believes that you know better than the reviewer on that point.


Is it possible to support oneself as a lifelong graduate student? I don't care much for being rich. I don't mind a modest life if I can just do research in the field I love.

Thus I am curious to know if it is possible to make a living just by studying. (Suppose I could hypothetically get funding for every Master or PhD program). Is there an age limit or a limit to the number of PhD degrees that I could get? Are there any other reasons that prevent this?

Why would you want to get multiple PhD degrees when the first one is all you need to do research for life? Much of the point of the degree is a certification of your ability to do independent research. After you've done that, you can get a job where you do research all day long! Many people get a professor's job where there are other duties, but plenty of people get jobs doing just research at government labs or non-teaching academic departments (like me!).


Do graduate schools check the disciplinary record of PhD applicants? Do Physics (STEM) graduate schools in the US check for disciplinary record if they don't ask for it in the application? The outcome of the violation doesn't appear on my transcript. Only way a graduate school can find out is if they ask my school (in US) for my academic record. I am not going to lie if they ask but some school's application form doesn't ask for disciplinary records. Does that mean they will not check for it?

Generally speaking, in the US, you can depend to some extent on a "right to privacy" that would make such an inquiry improper and replying to it also improper. But it isn't necessarily assured.
The US Constitution is silent on a right to privacy, but many Supreme Court decisions have expanded that right, though not to the extent of the EU's Right to be Forgotten. Also, many US states will have privacy protections in place that make the communication of certain kinds of information improper without the consent of the person involved.
However, if some transgression of a student is also law-breaking, then the rules may change and the information may be part of the public record in that case.
In addition, most (I think) US colleges and universities would treat disciplinary action against a student as a private matter and some might purge the record upon graduation (or after some time period). Part of the philosophy is that if we are to punish a student for some act then that should be the end of it, though the record might be retained until graduation to guard against recurrences.
Overall, I doubt that, given the more or less general, if informal, sense that privacy is a right, that any graduate school would ask and that the likelihood of getting an answer would be very small.
Part of the reasoning here is that the grad school would have no particular reason to ask, having no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of an applicant.
Of course, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the candidate would be asked directly about certain kinds of misbehavior, and if asked it would be a potential problem if a candidate were to lie (as noted by Anonymous Physicist).


What should I do if I have previously seen a problem on a homework assignment? Suppose I am taking a mathematics course on something I have studied partially by myself. Say the professor assigns a problem whose proof I have already seen before, whether through owning a textbook that contains it, a lecture or assignment in a different course, or elsewhere during the natural course of pursuing a curiosity.

What is the best course of action in this case? Does it matter how I originally learned it, eg. if I have previously solved the problem myself versus having previously seen a solution?

This is not a difficult situation, you worked on a problem and understood the solution, then having it set as an assignment - your grade is based on the effort you have put in - either during the course or before.

Benefit from it - other topics you may not be so lucky...

Whether it is an assignment or a final exam - this is NOT cheating - you put the work in and that's fine.

If the professor was meant to write "new" questions and did not, instead re-using old ones then that is their problem, and they may not see it as a problem ie back to "it's the work you put in".

Some students will do every problem they can find on a topic, others will only do two and say "that's enough" - apart from the students with "genius" level or a photographic memory then the grades tend to follow effort...


How to get into computer science research as a college student So I saw this article on getting into computer science research; it helped me but I still have questions more relevant to my position.

I'm getting ready to start my sophomore year at my university. I'm a computer science major (software engineering concentration), good GPA; I'm also thinking about doing a minor in physics, and minimally my masters in either computer or electrical engineering. I've been programming since the beginning of high school, and I know (based on my college classes) that my skills are strong. I have a lot of projects on Github and a personal tech website that shows my skills.

I'm very interested in getting into research, I feel like that's really my thing, but I don't really know where to start. My question is basically how should I go about it in a college environment. I'm assuming that getting to know my professors would be best; would it be a good start to contact past professors and maybe my upcoming ones for this fall? One professor I had in my first semester was in research so I feel like that would be a good start. Or should I go to my advisor first? I want to start looking now, but school starts in a few weeks so I could always wait till then.

Any advice is appreciated. Thanks!

PS: Apologies in advance if the tags or anything isn't right; first time posting here...

The first problem you will have is coming up with a problem worth exploring. If you don't yet have much experience it is a very hard thing to discover. So, yes, talk to one or more professors, perhaps your advisor, about what sorts of problems they are interested in.

Perhaps they can get you started with some part of their own explorations, or give you a problem they have set aside for lack of time to explore it.

In your first time out, it may not be vitally important that  you actually come up with results. Learning the process may be enough. But who knows. Maybe you learn something that can be published.

In fact, some problems worth exploring don't really have accessible solutions. They may be beyond the current state of knowledge to solve. The same is true in math, of course. It is very difficult to predict in advance whether a problem is actually solvable with the resources available - including time.

Eventually - many years - you will probably develop the insight to see the problems that are unsolved, but solvable, and also worth the effort to explore. But like anything else, that takes practice. Start with someone who has already been there to help guide your initial steps.


Citing an ISO standard with multiple parts, using Harvard style? I would like to cite an ISO standard that is split into multiple parts, I want to cite the whole standard but am unsure of how to do this in Harvard style.

ISO 14230 Road vehicles – Diagnostic systems – Keyword Protocol 2000 has 4 different parts

ISO 14230-1 Physical layer
ISO 14230-2 Data link layer
ISO 14230-3 Application layer
ISO 14230-4 Requirements for emission-related systems

In my text I would like to cite the whole document something like ISO 14230 (year) but am unsure whether this would be correct, Which year would I put the year of the first part or the last part? (The different parts of the ISO have been published or updated on different years)

My bibtex currently looks like this:

@techreport{ISO14230,
type = {Standard},
key = {ISO 14230},
year = {1999},
title = {{Road vehicles - Diagnostic systems - Keyword Protocol 2000}},
publisher = {British Standards Institution},
institution = {International Organization for Standardization},
note = {Available from: \url{https://bsol.bsigroup.com/en/}}
}

After speaking to university librarians about this and although they could not find any official guidelines, they suggested that within the Bibliography I reference each part of the ISO individually:

@techreport{ISO14230part1,
type = {Standard},
key = {ISO 14230-1},
year = {2012},
title = {{Road vehicles. Diagnostic communication over K-Line (DoK-Line). Physical layer}},
publisher = {British Standards Institution},
institution = {International Organization for Standardization},
note = {Available from: \url{https://bsol.bsigroup.com/en/}}
}

@techreport{ISO14230part2,
type = {Standard},
key = {ISO 14230-2},
year = {2013},
title = {{Road vehicles. Diagnostic communication over K-Line (DoK-Line). Data link layer}},
publisher = {British Standards Institution},
institution = {International Organization for Standardization},
note = {Available from: \url{https://bsol.bsigroup.com/en/}}
}

@techreport{ISO14230part3,
type = {Standard},
key = {ISO 14230-3},
year = {1999},
title = {{Road vehicles. Diagnostic systems. Keyword Protocol 2000. Application layer}},
publisher = {British Standards Institution},
institution = {International Organization for Standardization},
note = {Available from: \url{https://bsol.bsigroup.com/en/}}
}

@techreport{ISO14230part4,
type = {Standard},
key = {ISO 14230-4},
year = {2000},
title = {{Road vehicles. Diagnostic systems. Keyword Protocol 2000. Requirements for emission related systems}},
publisher = {British Standards Institution},
institution = {International Organization for Standardization},
note = {Available from: \url{https://bsol.bsigroup.com/en/}}
}

and then within the text to reference using the years in brackets: ISO 14230 (2013; 2012; 2000; 1999). Noting that even though the years do not correspond with the order of the different parts but when referencing works by the same author the most recent comes first.


Decline the PhD offer during the deferral I've got a fully funded PhD offer from a US university. The department is open to deferral without any reason.
I want to go to work for one year before my PhD. If I feel satisfied with the job, I may decline the PhD offer and stay in the industry. Is this common in the US?
My concern is (1) if I decide to drop out one year later, my advisor may not have enough time to admit new students. This may negatively impact her tenure. (2) My break of offer may cause the department doesn't consider students from my country/undergrad school.

I think this is fine in almost every case. If it weren't they would have you sign some legal document, but it is hard to see that happening. They might not be terrifically happy with you, but that would pass.
In a situation in which considerable university funds had to be spent (not just reserved) for you there might be complications, but then, any conditions would be clearly spelled out in advance.
I wouldn't worry about it unless something is said or implied in anything you sign.
Ethically, though, you should let them know as early as possible if you won't be taking it up later. But you want to keep your options open, also.

Generally speaking, though, in a situation like this, worry about your own best interests and assume that the other party is competent to worry about theirs. And since this is a friendly, rather than adversarial, situation, it will work out ok.


Telling a former supervisor you don't want to publish I graduated from my PhD in the middle of last year and have since landed a full time job in industry. Currently I'm pretty ran off my feet with work, but I'm also enjoying having free time at weekends to spend with my Husband.
My supervisor has been in touch pretty relentlessly about publishing some of my last results from the thesis (also saying that I "owe her" and it would destroy my future if I don't see it through). Now I'm happy with never going back to academia, and career promotion isn't my focus if I'm honest.
I've tried to cobble together a draft but it keeps getting ripped apart (she was pretty notorious when I was doing my PhD for brutal feedback) and I'm looking at it and realising I don't care about seeing this through... I don't appreciate the pressure from her, it's not truly beneficial to me, it's taking up my personal time and I have a lot of things going on with family difficulties lately.
I've always been a bit of a wimp with confrontation. So given all I've said about this how would you advise for me to tell my old boss I don't want to publish (preferably without triggering an intense vendetta)?

Keep it short and sweet:

Dear [her name],
Thanks for the reminder about our project. I thought about it some more, and for personal reasons I won’t be able to continue with the work. Since you have all the data I suggest that you pursue publication by yourself or with other collaborators. And, if it matters, I do not care very much about the issue of coauthorship, so whatever you end up deciding about who should be a named coauthor of the paper once it’s finished is fine with me.
Regards,
Gerilk

An important point is that, since you’re worried she will try to pressure or guilt-trip you, you should not apologize for or explain your decision. Manipulative people are expert at using every sign of guilt or embarrassment to pressure people relentlessly until they get what they want from you. I can almost guarantee it from experience: if you give her a reason — any reason — she will find some counter-argument to make that reason look invalid or insufficient, and will repeat this as many times as necessary with any additional details you add to your explanation, until you give in. Do not give her an opening to do this. A firm “no” with no explanation is the only approach that works with this type of person.
Good luck!
Edit: there’s been an extensive discussion in the comments about whether the email should mention the subject of authorship. To clarify, I don’t think it matters very much if you mention it or not. I included that part since, first, it seems factually true based on what you said that you don’t care about authorship; and second, letting the former supervisor know this eliminates one possible pressure point she will surely try to use to keep pressuring and annoying you in the hope of getting you to change your mind.
But if you prefer not to mention this, that’s pretty much just as good and won’t particularly affect the outcome.


When can I send a status update query to editor for paper under major revision? I submitted a paper to elsevier and it got major revision. I proceeded as per the suggestions and submitted revision. After few days the status changed to "Under Review". Now the status is still under Review even after 45 days. Can I ask the editor for a status update or should I wait further?

Depending on the field, "Under Review" can also be 6 months. The reviewers review in their spare time. If they don't have spare time or are unorganised reviews take very long time.


Good GPA at not so great school I am nearing the end of my undergraduate career at a not so great school (UHCL for those who are curious). I have an excellent GPA and an internship with a stellar company. The catch is I will probably have to go to grad school in order to work at that company, and this company likes to get full time talent from "top schools." My study performance looks stellar but honestly I feel a lot of that was just because my school is so lackluster concerning challenge (that's how I feel, at least).

I'm wondering if anyone has been down a similar path, moving from a low tier college to a high tier graduate school and if so, what their experience was like and what advice they may give. Wherever I go, I would really like to thrive.

I switched gears in a radical way after several years working in my Bachelor's field, by taking the additional classes I needed, primarily at a community college.  Then I started graduate studies in a strong department in my new field.  The professors didn't distinguish between me and fellow students who had gone to bigger name schools for undergrad.  Chances are they didn't even know.  To them I was just another student, interested in learning, asking good questions, working hard.

The admissions committee members would have known, but I never knew which professors had sat on the admissions committee.  But even the ones who had looked at my transcripts (whoever they were) might have forgotten by the time I took a class from them.

I only had a problem with one professor.  He assumed I didn't know my stuff when he was grading a qualifying exam.  I think the root problem was that he was the one professor in my sub-field that I had not taken a class from.  So to him I was a nobody.  I found this out when I asked to see my exam and how it was graded.  I discovered that he had graded it rather subjectively.

Thus, the one thing I would do differently if I were to go through it all again would be to take a class from that one guy.  He only taught one class.  I sat in on a couple sessions at some point, and found his teaching deadly boring, with very little homework.  So I would have had to go to his office hours and really work to find something to talk about.

But that's what I would do differently if I could.  Note, that had nothing to do with the schools I had been to prior to grad school.

Note that as a former intern, you will be a known quantity to the stellar company.  That can be a real foot in the door.


How do I politely decline student requests to meet during my "research time?" I'm a young (female) professor in a (U.S.) department with a small graduate program and a research expectation.  I usually teach Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and try to save Tuesday and Thursday for research (where possible).  On MWF, I'm quite good about meeting with students, even if they stop by outside of office hours (or on any day during exam weeks).  My week or more homework assignments are generally due on Monday, Wednesday, or Friday (there's no good place for students to drop them off outside of class and I like discussing them as they turn them in) so I get requests by students who have put off their homework to meet on Tuesday or Thursday, even when I mention this preference in advance.  I've yet to come up with a nice response that I'm satisfied both:

Reminds students I'm busy with other work (despite the fact that
their tuition pays part of my salary).
that still encourages them to keep reaching out for help and encourages them to think of me as the approachable professor I try to be (at least on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday).

Suggestions for a nice email response?

I've yet to come up with a nice response that I'm satisfied both:

Reminds students I'm busy with other work (despite the fact that their tuition pays part of my salary).

There is no need to "remind" students of anything. They likely neither know nor spend any meaningful amount of their time wondering what you are up to when you're not teaching them. Nor is it any business of theirs where your salary comes from.

that still encourages them to keep reaching out for help and encourages them to think of me as the approachable professor I try to be (at least on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday).

It is commendable that you want to be approachable, and to be seen as approachable, on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. However, from the students' point of view it is likely to be seen as inconsistent that you are so approachable on those days and yet refuse to meet them on other days. In my opinion, any attempt to explain the logical reasons for this inconsistency is going to have very limited (if any) effectiveness -- the students simply don't have a good enough understanding of what the life of a professor (or any professional of a similar age and career status) looks like to be receptive to your explanation.
The upshot of this analysis is that you need to accept that setting the boundaries that you need to set to get your distraction-free time for research is going to make you look slightly less approachable and/or likeable in the eyes of the students. The problem is not one of finding the right words to put in an email, but instead of accepting that "nice" and "approachable" is sometimes inconsistent with "gets things done".

Suggestions for a nice email response?

Here is my suggestion:

Dear [name of student],
I am afraid I am not available to meet with you tomorrow. As I mentioned in class and in the syllabus, my office hours are [insert office hours], and I may have limited availability to meet at other times on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, but I am not available on Tuesdays and Thursdays. If you have an urgent need for help, feel free to try talking to [name of TA] or to a fellow student. I do very much appreciate that you are seeking help to improve your understanding of the material, which is a positive thing that sadly not enough students do, and look forward to seeing you at my office hours sometime soon.
Best,
[your name]


Is it harder for academics to make fundamental discoveries than in the past? In present day academia, it seems much harder to make foundational breakthroughs than it was in the past. Most work now synthesizes previously discovered results to study something extremely specific. Although this extremely specific thing may be valuable to know, it generally does not have the potential to rewrite the field.

For example, in physics, the beginning of the 20th century saw the revolutionary development of general relativity and quantum mechanics. While there is still much to be learned in modern physics research, it is much more difficult for someone to make large, fundamental contributions to the field, simply based on the fact that the large, fundamental contributions were already made. Now, even an extremely productive researcher may only become well-known in their immediate subfield. Similar notions can be applied to art and a variety of other academic disciplines, in which it is more difficult for one single artist's work to be foundational to the field.

Do academics worry much about the growing insignificance (for lack of a better word) of their work? Or is any knowledge gained worth the effort, simply because the academic enjoys studying the topic (no matter how esoteric)? Any sort of discussion about this concept would be enlightening.

Actually, exactly the same question might have been asked around 1900 when Henri Poincaré ruled the world.

There is a tradeoff, of course. Some fields get saturated and the seemingly important questions get answered, closing the field in some ways. But those fundamental breakthroughs may open new lines of inquiry. And there is the corresponding effect that other fields open up. Mathematics is like the latter. People today think about a lot of mathematical ideas that didn't really exist historically.

Whether physics is a fixed field in which everything will eventually be known is, I think, an open and debatable question. I suspect that there will be new ways of thinking about things and thus new and important questions as long as humans can manage to still exist. Quantum entanglement is still pretty "spooky".

And in the social sciences we may be only at the beginning of what can be known.

Moreover, each new generation of scientists, in whatever field, starts out at a higher level than their predecessors, and so, have a base on which to reach still higher, with a deeper understanding. Poincaré had problems grokking relativity, as did many of those in his generation. After they started to actually die, relativity came to the fore.


Should I update my arXiv submission after it's been reviewed and published OA in a Springer journal? I recently had a paper accepted in a Springer journal, which allows "Open Choice", meaning that the article can be made Open Access. My institution covers the charges, so I agreed to do it and now it's in process of publication.

My question is: when I first submitted the manuscript, I also put a version on the arXiv and on my webpage. Now in the accepted version there are a couple of updates coming from referee revisions. I already put the new version in my webpage, since I know I can do that.

But what about the arXiv? When using non-Open Access, there is a 12 month embargo period. But it's not clear for me from
https://www.springer.com/gp/open-access/authors-rights/self-archiving-policy/2124
whether I can update the version with the accepted version in the arXiv. I don't care for the journal typesetting; I'm happy with just putting the revisions in my own LaTeX file.

Can I do it without issue?

Under Springer Open Choice, you retain copyright and the journal releases the published article under a CC-BY license.

So:

By the terms of CC-BY, everyone can make a copy the published paper and redistribute it under the same license, including on Arxiv.
Even better: you, the copyright holder, can relicense the paper to anyone, with the terms you want. As long as you don't give them an "exclusive right to distribute", of course, because you cannot take back the rights you have already granted others.

Some Open Choice journals use CC-BY-NC, though which may make redistribution under the first method trickier, because Arxiv does not have an option for CC-BY-NC. The other method is always ok, though.

Note: I am not a lawyer.


As a graduate, is creating a log-in in the university online campus considered an acceptance of their offer? Is creating a log-in in the university online campus considered an acceptance of their offer?

For any normal and reputable University, no - logging into an online system is not a "got you now, sucker!" moment.

The only way to accept an offer is to formally respond to your offer of admission to the graduate coordinator or graduate school, usually in the form of a signed document - or otherwise unequivocally answering "yes" in a digital form, such as an e-signature.


Is Academia really just a huge competition? I am currently an undergraduate student. I noticed that regardless of what courses I'm taking, there are always a handful of people who view everything as a huge competition. That is, they would do anything possible (other than committing academic offenses) to ensure that the final grade they receive is higher than everyone else's. They create a rather hostile environment.

However, I always thought that Academia is about advancing knowledge, which means we need to help each other, not put each other down.

I am still young, but I have been thinking of pursue an academic career. So my question is, are there any reasons for this competitive behaviour? Is this just an undergraduate problem that will go away when I enter graduate school? Or am I just way too naive of how the world really works?

You've asked a question that is both very important and very difficult, as well as one that is likely to draw different answers from different people depending on their own experiences in academia.

This is because there are both competitive and cooperative aspects to academia.  Different people take different strategies with respect to the balance between these two, and that affects their communities as well, so that the mixture of competition and cooperation that you encounter will also radically differ between different academic communities.

Some of the key factors for inducing cooperation are:

Science is hard.
Working together, people can accomplish things that they cannot possibly accomplish alone.
Cooperation in a team gives you an advantage when competing with other teams.
Many people enjoy working together in teams, and this is just as true for science as it is for any other human endeavor.
Scientific discovery feels awesome and it can be really fun to share that feeling with other people.

Some of the key factors for inducing competition are:

Inherent conflict of ideas: when theories compete, people often become polarized and begin competing based on the "team" they support intellectually.
Limited resources: you've got a good idea, but a lot of other people have good ideas too, and there is not enough funding to support all of them fully: some people will not get what they want.  Likewise, the Hubble space telescope can only point at one thing at a time, and there are a lot more things people want to point at than time to point at them.
Explicit competition set up by external agencies. For example, DARPA will sometimes make scientists in the same program compete with one another, and the loser gets their funding cut off.
Many people are just plain competitive, and want to "win" over other people in various different ways, and this is just as true for science as it is for any other human endeavor.

Bottom line: just like everything else, academia can be a competition, and everyone faces some aspects of a competition.  But it's not just a competition, and I feel sad for anyone who experiences it in that manner.


Are full-time and part-time postgraduate students who graduate in same year considered to be the same batch? As I understand, in academia 'Class of 20XX' refers to students graduating during the year 20XX irrespective of the year they joined college.

Suppose for a postgraduate course, one person chooses the full-time study mode while another chooses the part-time one. Both of them graduate during the same year. Are the both considered as the same class?

Both of them graduate during the same year. Are they both considered as the same class?

Yes and no.  Yes, if there's a concept of the "Class of 20XX", then anyone graduating in 20XX will be considered part of it (regardless of when they started or how long they took).  However, in my experience this terminology is much less common in graduate school.  It makes some sense for programs that typically take a fixed amount of time, like medical school or law school, but it's not a particularly meaningful concept for Ph.D. programs.  It's much easier to talk about a Class of 20XX if you can predict well in advance which class you'll be in.

When I was a graduate student, we primarily identified with the cohort we entered grad school with (because of time spent studying together and preparing for the qualifying exam), rather than those who ended up graduating in the same year.  Nobody talked about a Class of 19XX.  If anyone had, it would have been clear what it meant, but it would have sounded odd.


Phd Supervisor is asking me to work remotely with him for next 3-4 years? What should I do? My current university is not good and the other faculty are not good enough for my field, I only joined that particular university to work with my supervisor and now he is leaving. Please help.

I am currently considering applying to a better PhD program but it is going to cost 2 more years of my life as the deadlines for applications are on December and I can join the programs only in next September.

You don't mention where you live; my answer is based on experience in the US.  You also don't say whether your advisor is moving to a different department, moving to a different university, leaving academia for industry, or simply retiring; my answer assumes they're moving to a different university.

You and your supervisor should have been talking about this from the moment they decided to leave (if not sooner).  If you haven't been, START NOW!  By agreeing to advise you, they accepted an ethical responsibility to guide you to the completion of your degree to the best of their ability.  That obligation survives their departure and extends to their new employer.  Similarly, by admitting you into the PhD program, your current department accepted an obligation to help you complete your degree, despite your advisor's departure.  Everyone involved is supposed to have your back.

When faculty move from one university to another, they rarely move only the books in their office; they more typically move a large fraction of the system that supports their research.  That can include funding, equipment, postdocs, and yes, PhD students.  It's quite common for students to keep their advisors even after they move.  I've seen this happen a few different ways:

The student enrolls in the PhD program in advisor's new department and moves to the new department.  This can happen "off-cycle", bypassing the normal admissions calendar if the advisor negotiates for that.  If the new PhD program has course requirements, the student may be able to transfer some or all of the courses taken at their original department, especially if the advisor negotiates for that.
The student moves to the advisor's department, but remains formally enrolled in their original PhD program.  This may require the advisor to negotiate with both departments, to retain advising rights and grants in the old department, and to get access to office space and equipment for a non-student in the new department.  This may also require the advisor and student to physically travel to the old department for formalities like the defense.
The student formally enrolls in the advisor's new department, but remains physically at the old department.  (Some students have family or other geographic constraints.)
The student stays in the original department, both physically and formally, and is advised remotely by their advisor via email, phone calls, video chats, and sporadic physical visits.  This is really advisable only for students late in the PhD program, who can work more independently.  If the advisor retains advising rights in the old department, they can remain the advisor or record; otherwise, the student needs to find a local co-advisor to sign the paperwork.  The advisor would likely need to retain some funding at the old institution.
The student transitions to a new (co-)advisor at the old department, with the old advisor's help.  This may require your current advisor to delay their departure for a semester or two while the transition is underway.

There are similar options for faculty who are retiring, and possibly (depending on their new job) even faculty moving to industry.

All of these options require your current advisor to negotiate on your behalf.  This is why it is absolutely vital to discuss your options with your advisor as soon as possible.


US university scholarship for international students what the US universities look for for giving scholarship?Can an international student get scholarship from US universities through sat exam?

The very top (mostly private) universities will decide which students to admit without considering the financial circumstances of the students or their families.  Then they will look at the student's family's financial situation and cover whatever the student's family is unable to pay.

Slightly less top universities will consider your financial circumstances in making admission decisions, but will admit you (and provide a combination of scholarships and loans sufficient to pay for your education) if you are sufficiently better than their average student.  (How much better is sufficient depends on the financial circumstances of the university, and in particular whether they really need tuition to cover their expenses or cover much of their expenses using interest from prior very large donations.)

The universities that are well off enough to subsidize their international students in this manner almost all do admissions holistically.  That means, for a competitive candidate, someone will take some time to get a complete picture of you as a person from all your application materials and decide on your application on that basis.  They are interested not only in your academic abilities, but also want to consider how much you will contribute to the university community (both academically and socially) as well as how much you are likely to make a contribution to society (and hence to the fame of the university) after your studies.  Note your likely contribution to the university community may depend on who else is already on campus and who else is applying that year.  If you are a good bassoon player, this will help you more in a year when a bassoon player is graduating and only one other bassoon player is applying than in a year when two bassoon players enrolled the previous year and three others are applying.  (It is quite common at top US universities for people to participate in activities unrelated to their studies, so students may continue to play the bassoon in the university orchestra even if they are not interested in further musical studies.)

To make such a judgement, a university will look not only at your standardized test scores, but also at your complete school records, recommendations from your teachers, your activities outside of school, and your responses to the (longer or shorter) essay questions on their application.  If your country regularly sends students to the university in question, someone at the university will be familiar enough with cultural norms in your country to interpret these other parts of your application appropriately.  If not, they will try to learn what they can.

Doing admissions in this way is time consuming and expensive, but if a university is using substantial resources to subsidize its students' education, then it will find it worthwhile to spend some extra resources in trying to get the students it wants.


When do I tell my advisor that I'm leaving the PhD? I am doing a funded PhD in humanities and don't really enjoy what I am doing (the topic and area). I applied for another PhD and got admitted. The problem is that I need to apply for visa and wait a few months to see if I'll be granted visa.
I don't want to leave my current position before I know I have the visa (don't want to lose everything and don't want to be forced to go back to my home country as I'm on student visa here).
The question is when and how should I tell my advisor that I'm leaving?

I've had experience with similar issues and in my opinion, honesty is the best policy assuming that your advisor is a reasonable, non-vindictive person. If the issue is just the topic and the area, and not your advisor personally, then they probably want what's best for you and could actually help you out in working out the details (perhaps offering you an interim position so that you don't lose everything, or agreeing on you acting as a visiting scholar in your institution while your admission to the other place is finalized etc.). If your advisor is not on your side, then I would get out regardless, even risking going back to your home country. There's no point in suffering through a PhD you hate.


Is it possible to apply to a masters program without letters of recommendation? I've been out of undergraduate for several years and am applying to graduate school. However, I'm hung up on how to obtain the required letters of recommendation.
While I did exceptionally well in undergraduate, I am pretty introverted and I graduated awhile ago. I didn't cultivate deep, long-lasting relationships with any of my professors.
Since graduation, I have worked exclusively with individuals who speak minimal English and come from cultures where letters of recommendation do not exist besides, and with people who are living with extreme mental disabilities. In both of these professions, I have been my own supervisor.
Frankly, I am feeling very up the creek without a paddle. I don't know where I would be able to get one letter, let alone multiple. Is it possible to apply for graduate school without letters of recommendation? How do you go about compensating for this?

If it is within a few years, you may be able to contact prior professors that you feel may remember you.
Otherwise, if you do not think that you can produce letters of recommendations, then I recommend you contact potential graduate schools. In fact, I believe that you should always contact potential graduate schools BEFORE applying (no matter the circumstances.) This helps you understand what they expect, prepare for potential problems, and ask any questions that you may have.
In your case, they will be able to talk with you on how to “compensate” (as you called it) for your lack of letters of recommendations. I do not know what country you are applying in, but I know that in my country (America) there are admissions counselors per each school you are applying to (for instance, religious studies admissions counselor for somebody who is majoring in Southeast Asian Religions.) If that is the case with you, then make sure you contact the school rather than the university directly to get the best possible answer.
Every school, let alone university, operates differently, and there are some schools where it may be a nonstarter to apply and then there are others that you may be able to get a waiver and/or a probation easily. Honestly and again, your best bet is to contact potential graduate schools directly.


Thesis writing; bottom up vs. top down Situation: I’m completing a master’s degree in computer science. Currently, I’m at the final stage and finishing writing my thesis.

Usually, similar theses in my institute have the following structure:

Introduction.
Literature survey.
Proposed solution, method, framework, ...
Implementation and case studies.
Conclusion.

Problem: Actually, the research problem that I’m undertaking is a little complicated and crosses multiple landscapes; it’s about designing data warehouses using ontology. So the way I have followed is bottom-up, providing a chapter of foundations before the solution chapter (point 3 above). These foundations contain multiple basic definitions, constraints and rules that I build upon in the next chapter (including some novel theoretical issues), in order to give the reader the sufficient tools to launch reading my work.

However, my supervisor told me that this is not the best way, and that reader may be confused with all this much of theoretical knowledge in a bottom up fashion, that may lead to getting lost. Instead, he suggested to define any concept only whenever I need to use it, even if it this concept is proposed by me.

Question: Though I know that there may be no specific answer. However, in such a situation, which is better? bottom up or top down? Any suggestions?

I have not enough reputation to comment. So, we will have to go with an answer. I disagree with Cameron Williams and I agree with your supervisor. Your thesis is not a textbook and front loading in a thesis will not have the intended effect. Frankly, if you start with basically a set of definitions, it is quite likely that your assessors will only cursory read that section. They might then be confused when they read the actual solution chapter because they don't have the necessary understanding of the concepts you thought they would have.

I think you should follow your advisor. Think of your thesis as telling a story where you introduce new concepts at the point where you need them. You can always have a glossary at the end of your thesis to gather all relevant terminology in one place.

The exception to this advice would be if you are writing in an area where there is a lot of confusion around terminology and names of concepts. If your goal is to argue that prior literature was sloppy in naming its concepts and you want to clarify the literature, a discussion of definitions at the start could be warranted.


Providing additional material for a paper in external source I have a short paper and there is a need to include additional material like figures, graphs, and tables. I want to keep the paper short.

Is it acceptable to upload all the additional material on the external source (github or other), and to add a link with description in the paper?

Short answer: it depends on the publisher/conference organiser.
Unless there is a strong reason not to, ask them.

It is quite common to host additional material on a website.  Generally speaking, though, the paper should stand on its own, and any background reading and data visualisation should not be necessary to follow the narrative. Imagine an interested reader would want to see some more material after reading the paper, but not need it to understand everything.

On the other hand, if there is no need for it at all, then it is best to not even refer to it - by referencing an online resource you commit to maintaining this, keeping the same URL and so on, and a strong, self-contained paper is always nicer.


Journal copy-editors: why is their work productive? You worked on your manuscript and its language for a year and a half, carefully choosing every word; what is there left to do for the journal's copyeditors after acceptance? What is the point of copyediting your manuscript?

The writer of a document is often the worst person to verify its wording. There are two reasons for this.

Often, when we write something we have a certain mind set. But we aren't perfect, so we occasionally make mistakes. Then, when we revisit it, we make the same mistake again, "seeing" on the page what we thought we wrote, rather than what we actually wrote.

Second, and more important, the author of a manuscript has a lot of background knowledge that they bring to bear on the subject that isn't actually written in the document. The reader, on the other hand, may not share this background, and usually won't to the same degree.

An informed copyeditor can correct for both of these situations.

I've learned that I can't really reliably proof my own writing and make both of the above "errors".

But copy editors don't just make changes without the advice of the original author. They provide a new version and the author gets to approve, reject, or improve the "corrections". It is a very valuable service.

But even just in the use of language. A good editor can improve the presentation of ideas by improving the structure of complex sentences and suggesting where the statements made could be confusing to a reader.

It does require some subject level knowledge to do it well, of course.


How to prepare for a graduate school fair? My school is offering a graduate school fair in one week, and I am interested in graduate school. I am already planning to take my Biology GRE as soon as possible, but not soon enough to bring the results to the fair. So, how should I prepare myself for this event, this being my first time at one?

Background info:

They state that there will be recruiters there, so I assume formal/semi-formal attire. But do schools really even bother recruiting for graduate programs at these events or is it more of a general advertisement/ tour? I also assume bringing my CV would be smart, but my GPA is not stellar ( 3.0ish at lower-end school), so would that leave a bad impression or no?

The "nail in the coffin" for me is my indecisiveness in what to actually study in biology. My advisors often tell me to only consider graduate school if you have something you are really "passionate" about. I never really felt "passionate" about biology or any subject though, I simply liked it better than others and found it cool. I have done so much in my undergraduate studies that I have liked, such as working in a greenhouse, to doing undergrad reserch in genetics, it is hard for me to set my heart to something.

This is all assuming I could afford to attend grad school without sinking myself further into debt, given I have no more financial aid or federal loans left to my disposal. I have read that some people get "free rides", but those are few, far between, and for the very gifted/focused students I assume. Thanks for your time.

A grad school fair is not quite like a job fair, where many people bring CVs and hope to get interviews---no one is expecting you to apply to a grad school at a fair.  It is a place for you to go to learn about grad schools: what programs are out there, what they are like.

As for how you should prepare: think some about what you might like to study and what things would be important to you in choosing a grad school.  For this, it may be helpful to first try to find general advice on choosing grad schools.  Then you can ask appropriate questions to each program.


Quote Without A Source I'm writing a paper about Fernando Pessoa and his heteronyms and want to use a quote from Pessoa as written on the Wikipedia article:  "the theatre of being" or "drama in people."

Wikipedia does not cite the source of these quotes, and I assume from the context of the sentence they're in that it is a direct quote from Pessoa's work, but I can't read through everything he's written to try to find it. Is it possible to cite quote as "source unknown" or something similar? I'm fairly certain I've heard the quote before from a professor (she also did not know where to look for the quote's source) so I don't believe it's fake.

I would recommend against it. I've been bitten by this in the past: A famous quote attributed to a certain person, that after some investigation seems to be mistaken.

Specifically: Many sources claim that Newton referred to "The Great Principle of Similitude" in regards to dimensional analysis, but having searched all through his Principia and other writings and not finding it, I'm now pretty sure the phrase comes from Rayleigh in a letter to Nature (No. 2368, Vol. 95; March 18, 1915). There's even a class at Stanford by that name, which recently changed its description to attribute Rayleigh instead (link).

In summary: If you can't source it, then you probably shouldn't reference it. I feel pretty bad about saying something to several years of math students that turned out to be incorrect. Make a commitment to not distribute misinformation.


What is the perception of students who take a gap year between their graduation and starting graduate school? I am an undergraduate mathematics major, entering my fourth year. I plan on applying to graduate school, but I have not yet taken the GRE exams, and there a few key courses (Topology and Algebra in particular) that I have not taken yet, so I am hesitant to take the Advanced Math GRE too soon. (If you're wondering why I haven't taken Topology and Algebra yet, it's because I was trying to secure a CS degree, which sidetracked my mathematical studies last year. It was a healthy branching out experience, and one that helped me realize my true academic passion.)

My main question: what is the perception of students who take a gap year between their graduation and starting graduate school?

I think I will take the GRE tests this fall, a) for practice and b) if I score high, then I might as well apply sooner rather than later. However, I ask this question to gauge how much energy I should put into preparing for the tests this fall. If I hear, "You should really do your best to avoid any gap in your education," then I will work my butt off in preparation for the tests. But if I hear, "It's totally okay take a gap year before going into graduate school," then I would give myself more freedom in terms of my non-standardized-exam studies, extracurriculars, and in general social activities. I figure the answer to this question won't be as cut-and-dry as I hope, but any advice would be appreciated!

Just to clarify, my gap year would not consist of me sitting at my desk taking practice GRE exams all day... That would be a pitiful use of my time. I definitely plan working either as an intern or a research assistant at a successful organization. It seems like the general consensus is that taking time off is okay, and potentially beneficial, assuming you actually do something in that gap.

When I was looking into this for a former student of mine I spoke with the head of the graduate program at the US Top 20 program I was working in at the time. He actually viewed a gap year as a good thing. His rationale was that students who had held jobs and managed to live for the gap year were more likely to have the work habits useful in graduate school.

When it comes time to write your applications you just have to remember to explain how that year has made you a better candidate for their program. It might not be more math that you've learned by it may be maturity and a renewed sense of purpose. If you chose to take a year off do something worthwhile and don't just study for exams.


Who reads the NSF postdoc fellowship applications? (mathematics) I am applying for the NSF Mathematical Sciences Postdoctoral Research Fellowships, and I noticed the guidelines say the following:

  The Project Description should be written with both specialists and non-specialists in mind.

I am not sure what exactly "specialist" and "non-specialist" refer to. Suppose that in my application, my proposed research objective is to solve the Navier-Stokes equation. (This is just an example!) Will all the reviewers be experts in PDEs? Or at least in analysis? Or is the most I can assume that they are mathematicians (possibly working in areas like algebra or topology)?

Some NSF programs are reviewed across sub-disciplines with reviewers that present a cross-section of mathematics. If memory serves me right, then that's true for CAREER proposals, for example, and I think also for the postdoc fellowships. In those cases, you'll have to expect that your audience consists of people in applied and pure mathematics, and you will have to find a level that keeps both of these groups interested in your proposal.


What are pros and cons of submitting a PhD thesis to ProQuest? Many people published their PhD theses in ProQuest, and it looks cool. The thesis is indexed by ACM as a book, so you can list them in the publication section in your CV. I wonder if there is any disadvantage if I do the same?

To be honest, I really doubt that anyone will ever read my thesis. But I have spent 3 (extremely painful) months to complete it. So I want to decorate it a little bit.

My university has a public repository for PhD theses, it is googlable, but not indexed. I already put my thesis in ArXiv.

I don't see any advantage to posting your thesis to ProQuest, but I don't see any real disadvantage either.

Since your thesis is already on ArXiv, it's already permanently (and freely!) available. So I don't see any advantage to also making your thesis available through a more painful interface that requires your intended audience to give other people money. Presumably the results in your thesis will also be (or have already been) published in other indexed publication venues, so even having your thesis indexed by ACM isn't a clear advantage.

You can list your thesis in your dissertation even if you don't submit it to ProQuest. In fact, you must list your thesis in your CV, even if you don't submit it to ProQuest.

(JeffE's answer.)


Asking for reimbursement for visa costs I recently started doing a PhD and am soon going to my first conference as a PhD student. Its expenses (registration fee, accommodation and travel costs etc.) will be covered by my university.

I need to apply for a visa for the country the conference is in, which costs a significant amount of money (approximately 200$). Would it be appropriate to ask for a reimbursement also for this application fee?

Here is some more information that could be relevant:

Even though I wouldn't apply for this visa if I didn't go to the conference, the visa will be valid for 6 months, i.e. far beyond the dates of the conference, so I could theoretically use it also for private purposes.
There are some other PhD students who will go to the same conference and whose costs are also covered by the university, but I am the only one who needs a visa, so I am worried that this could sound like asking for "special treatment".

Most universities have detailed "travel policies" that describe their rules for allowable travel expenses.  Try to find your university's policy; it may state explicitly whether or not visas are an allowable expense for reimbursement.

If you can't find the answer yourself, then it's certainly fine to ask whether this expense can be reimbursed.  I don't think you need to worry about this being seen as "special treatment".


What happens when a PhD student finishes the thesis but is forced to defend way after the contract ends? The following case came into my attention.

A PhD student, A, has a contract until month X. A finished the write up of the thesis in month X-5 (5 months before the contract ends). Till X, none of A's supervisors read the thesis. A asks what about A's funding. A receives reply: "we can extent the contract by 1 month but do your best to defend during this time" (although I fail to see how this is in A's hands).

A receives the approval from A's adviser during X+1.5 and they send it to the external committee members. They schedule the PhD defense to be at X+4. For the 3 extra months, the student is not supported by any grant/scholarship and goes to the unemployment office to support A's living. A's institution blames A for being late ad not doing what A could to defend earlier.

I know for a fact that A's institution can very well support A if they want: there are PhD students well into their 5th-6th year and A is exactly 48 months (at time X, and finished the write up at X-5).

Question: Is this treatment considered fair for A (given that other PhD students in the same office stay 5 or 6 years without anyone being bothered)? Is there anything A could do to avoid being in this situation? Or A should just accept that "that's how things are" and move forward? How can A then ask for a recommendation letter with such treatment?

And finally: What does this say to the external committee? Is it possible that this would create a very bad image for A to the reviewers?

Any feedback or advice would be greatly appreciated!

It is fairly common (at least in Germany) that the date of final defense is after the contract/funding ends. What should happen in this case is that this is discussed between the PhD student and the advisor as soon as possible. And with "that" I mean the funding/employment situation. Actually, there should be a discussion about the future plans of the PhD student somewhere around the last half year of write-up and if the advisor does not initiate this, the student should do it. Indeed, PhD students can have different plans, e.g. "having a job outside academia secured an wanting to start as soon as possible", "wanting to apply for postdoc positions", "continuing at the current place in some way", "applying for a fellowship somewhere"… In each of these cases advisor and student should proceed differently and without knowing the situation, things may go the wrong way.

  Is this treatment considered fair for A (given that other PhD students in the same office stay 5 or 6 years without anyone being bothered)?

I can't judge "fairness" but for sure it is unfortunate. But if nothing regarding the defense date and the further plans of the student has been discussed, delays in the defense date are common (and in some cases no problem for anybody).

  Is there anything A could do to avoid being in this situation? Or A should just accept that "that's how things are" and move forward?

See above: Discuss exactly this matter as early as possible.

  How can A then ask for a recommendation letter with such treatment?

I do not see how recommendations letters are influenced.

  And finally: What does this say to the external committee? Is it possible that this would create a very bad image for A to the reviewers?

Since procedures for the review of PhD theses are quite different at different places, I don't think that the process has any influence of the external reviewers.


Is it possible for people to go into math or physics fields from a degree in biology? On this website (and on the Internet in general), it looks to be in vogue for physicists and mathematicians to move into biological fields to apply their mathematical knowledge and also the general methodology to biological problems. However, there's very little discussion on biologists moving into mathematical or physics fields. I am roughly two years away from taking an undergraduate degree and am torn very much between my love for biology and mathematics and consider it likely that I might end up in academia.

Is it feasible for someone who studied biology to move into a math field? Is it possible, but rare? Would the possibility of doing a joint degree, or a biology degree with a higher amount of math content, sway this at all? Or are such people better off doing a pure math degree and then moving into a biological field later on?

"Math" means many things - just at the start, that can mean something like applied math vs. pure math, for which this answer has very different tracks to it.

I'd say it breaks into two potential tracks:

Track One: "I want to be a mathematician" - you want to move in this direction, and either do math for its own sake, or math as it's applied to a wide number of different things. Here, in my experience, the answer is "it's possible, but hard". There will be expectations about your coursework background that you may not have been able to do without effectively double-majoring, but it's not impossible.

Track Two: "I want to be a very mathy biologist". As you've noted, the "in vogue" way to do this is to move from math to biology, but the other way is certainly possible. There are a number of labs that would fall under the heading of "Mathematical Biology" that accept biology majors into their ranks, and if you're willing to put in the work, there's no reason you couldn't build a very strong background in math in the process, while keeping the value of having subject-matter expertise (something that is undervalued, IMO).

I took the latter track, and have ended up moving from an undergraduate background in laboratory microbiology to something that very much fits the description of "mathematical biology".


How should one address negative circumstances with past advisor in a Statement of Purpose? I am referring to a situation described in a previous question of mine:
How to deal with an abusive advisor?

To summarize for those who don't want to read the lengthy story: I had a difficult relationship with my previous Master's advisor, who was psychologically abusive towards me. I was also dealing with (unrelated) clinical depression at the time, which affected my productivity.
Eventually I decided to switch to a different advisor in an unrelated field. I am happy with my new advisor, and am being more productive, and the split from the previous advisor was on decent terms (that is, he still had a bad impression of me as a student, but he supported the decision).
Due to the previous issues and the switch of field, my degree took twice the "standard" time to finish (4 years instead of 2, although at my university/in my country even the top students often don't finish in 2 years).
In addition, my previous advisor's name will appear on my graduate transcript (along with the period of time during which he was my advisor).

In my PhD application (specifically, the "Statement of Purpose") I will probably have no choice but to address this issue. Since there is no option for anonymity, the story is not just about me, it is an "accusation" against him, which means the committee might want to hear his side of the story, in which case it will of course not go in my favour. Also, while he is not very famous, he is friendly and popular with colleagues, so if someone knows him personally they might simply not believe me.

What should I do? Should I actually mention it? For those of you who are a part of admission committees, would something like that be a red flag? Would you investigate further, or take it as a reasonable explanation given positive letters of recommendation from other professors (and current advisor)?

Also, is past depression which caused lack of productivity considered as a red flag?

Congratulations on the switch, I'm so glad to hear your update.

There will be an ongoing need to heal from the trauma you underwent.  The SOP will be separate from that.

If you are concerned that an admissions committee might raise a red flag for the extra time you spent in your program, you may address that briefly in a cover letter.  For example, "You might notice that I spent longer than customary on my degree.  That was due to some health issues exacerbated by an uncomfortable advisor fit."  That's enough.

You might also alert your new advisor to your concern, so that s/he may choose to consider this when writing letter of recommendation.


Is having done research a must when applying to a graduate program in CS? I live in Mexico and I go to a private University where doing a thesis isn't a requirement for graduating (many universities in Mexico follow this). I only take classes and do small projects for exams. But I want to do a graduate program in Canada or USA or Europe. I don't have any experience in the field. What are my chances in getting into a graduate program without any relevant work?
What should I do if it is very important?

I'm studying actuarial Science so I don't have any sort of Github account or online work. And I'm not aiming at a very top university.

In Europe you typically do not need any research experience or industry experience to get into MA programs.

You typically do not need this to get into a PhD-program either, but it helps to have something to show; a very nice MA-project, perhaps a published (or publishable) paper from your MA-work, popular publications such as newspaper article or similar where you communicated you subject, a nice open source project you contribute to, etc. Some contributions to the field you apply in. This is not a requirement, but it helps when candidates are evaluated. The admission for PhD-programs mainly depend on the research proposal you have submitted: do the comity have faith in your project, it's potential impact or interestingness, does it align with the institutions research goals, and does it seem realistic to complete in time?


Be a member of TPC of a low quality conference Recently I have recieved few emails from conference organisers to become a member of conference technical program committee. Three of them are international conferences and going to held in China and Thailand. I am a fresh PhD is it good to participate in low quality conferences as TPC member?  it will have a positive or negative impact in my resume?

I strongly suspect that these are fake conferences, ultimately designed to scam you, other researchers and/or grant agencies for money. Any voluntary association with such events is a sign that you are rather clueless as an academic, and should be avoided.

There, however, plenty of small, very specialized conferences with high acceptance rates. These serve more as meetings and get-togethers for their research community than as highly respected publication venues. Being asked to serve on the TPC here is essentially a statement by your community that you are a respected member of this community, and would be a nice addition to the CV of a recent graduate.


Switching from Computer Science to Historical Linguistics for Master's degree I am a 19 year-old student in my second semester of my junior year of a Computer Science degree. I graduate in May 2020, but I would like to make the switch in postgrad to historical linguistics (not computational).

My long-term goal is to work in academia, hopefully as a professor. I want to eventually get a Ph.D, but I know there are several steps I need to take first.

I have no debt, and I'm willing to take on loans (within reason) to help pay for what's next, and work to pay it off over time. I'm on a scholarship for my tuition, and I work on campus to save extra money. I have a few thousand at hand to tide me over for a bit after I graduate.

I'm bringing all this up because I would like some advice. If I were jumping into computational linguistics, I might be able to apply directly for a postgrad program, but that's not really what I want to do. Would it be more reasonable to seek a second Bachelor's in linguistics, and then look at doctoral programs later? I am willing to do that. However, my school doesn't offer a linguistics degree, so I'd have to go to a different college for it. Do most colleges allow students who've already earned a degree to go back in for another at the same level? I'll only be 20 when I enter again.

Or is there a better path?

Thank you all for reading.

If this is in the US where the undergraduate degree is very generalized then you might be able to go directly to a graduate program in linguistics. You should at least explore that by either visiting a university with the desired program or applying. Of course, your application will need to stress the things that make you suitable for a switch and good reasons to expect success, but everyone needs to do the latter.

But repeating a US undergraduate degree would also mean repeating a lot of things that you already know because of the long list of requirements. Much of what you already studied in the humanities as part of a CS degree are exactly the same as if you'd studied linguistics from the start. You are missing a few key courses, obviously, but a master's degree, which is more specialized would probably let you fill in any blanks.

For places with a very different educational structure, like UK with its more specialized undergraduate program, this path might be less feasible, but might be possible even there. But you won't know that until you actually explore it directly.

However, being successful in any undergraduate degree gives you two vital skills that become more important as you go along. The first is the ability to learn and to demonstrate that you can. The second is the ability to write and to otherwise express your thoughts. Those are both strong indicators of future success in any field.


Is contacting this expert in the field something acceptable or would it be discourteous? I have a major in Mathematics and Mathematical Physics and a masters in Theoretical Physics. I have enrolled the PhD course and must pick an advisor/theme until june.

I have three main big fields of interest and for the PhD I wanted to work in the intersection of these themes. I then got interested in one particular formalism which is related to all three themes. This particular paper is written by an expert in the field and seems to be part of the people who initiated this research effort.

I did talk to a professor in the department that has knowledge in one of the fields and has a lot of interest in the others (despite being no expert there) and which is usually open to new things.

He, however, said that I should come up with a concrete research objective inside this field.

Now, I must admit I can't do it. I look at what has already been done and I admit I have no idea what is still open and what can specifically be done. I just know I want to work with this and start a career with it.

So I considered the option of writing one email to the author of the paper that got me interested into this and ask for advice on what can be done.

The point of the question is that I'm unsure if this is acceptable in the academic world and if this would be well received.

So my question is: would be it ok to write an email to the author and ask what for advice in what is still open and can be done for a PhD research given my interests? Or is it discourteous and shouldn't be done? Or is there some specific way in which this should be done to not be discourteous?

Yes, you can ask and you might get a reply, or not. If you demonstrate that you "have done your homework" and have some knowledge and not just interest then you will stand a better chance of success. What (or who) have you read? What have you explored? What ideas have you tried and failed with?

You can certainly state that you are looking for a research problem suitable for a dissertation and that you are coming up short. You can ask for guidance on where to search (additional papers to be read, people to contact...).

However, it is unlikely that a problem will be dropped in your lap. If you were able to attend a seminar with the author's group you might be able to do better. And be aware that a "problem" quickly thrown out may not be suitable as it may end up trivial or impossible. Such things are often approached only gradually.

But it isn't discourteous to ask as long as you can show that your search isn't just a random one.

But in general, also be prepared to work on a few problems before you come up with the one that leads to success. Even an unsuccessful attempt can teach you how to be more successful with the next one.


As an undergraduate, is it alright to get help finishing my paper? 15 months ago, I improved the bounds for an open math problem which I think is worthy of publication. Later, 9 months ago, I came up with two further results that I also would like to publish. I have even confirmed with the authors whose work I have improved upon that my results are interesting and my techniques seem valid.
However, I have gotten myself hopeless lost in the editing process for my papers. With the pandemic, professors I know from college and REU have been too busy dealing with shifts in administration to take a look at my work. I’ve written drafts for two the results which I feel are “mostly there,” but I’ve been floundering when it comes to wrapping things up. I have some learning disabilities, and so on a number of occasions I’ve been stuck for an unreasonable amount of time on something basic such as clearly phrasing a particular definition. I have become frustrated with myself and the writing process because it doesn’t feel like I’m making progress anymore, which just drives me to write less.
Obviously, something has to change. To the best of my knowledge, my school does not have a writing center. I’m thinking I will have to pay a technical copy editor look at my work, and perhaps advice me on how clearly express some definitions. I was wondering if this would be looked down upon, and would devalue the worth of my papers. I am also interested to hear where I can find technical copy editors, and if there any other options I should consider.

For scholarly work, as opposed to classwork, it is fine to ask for help whether you are an undergraduate or a full professor.
However, the nature of the help needs to be considered. For simple editing and phrasing, an acknowledgement of the help within the eventual paper is probably enough. But if it crosses the line to the point where the "helpers" are contributing ideas, then they become collaborators and co-authors.
Some publishers will provide technical copy-editors if that is all you need, but I think this is more likely for books than papers. It might even be that most of the editing you need can be done by a general text-editor as long as you vet what they suggest. Sometimes they will get it wrong and you need to be able to see and correct that. But such services are likely more available than someone with experience in your field.
After submission, some reviewers will suggest rephrasing as needed. But there is no guarantee of it. Telling an editor of a journal that you need a bit of help with the language might be worth the effort, but, again, no guarantees.
And, no, having collaborators and co-authors doesn't degrade the work. Collaborations with the right people can enhance it. But if you originated the key ideas you want to assure that you get credit for that. In some fields it is being the "first author". In others it is just a short paragraph describing contributions. But at such an early stage, any publication will help you along. There aren't a lot of people who achieve that.


On tenure track and department chair wants me to consider leaving A few weeks ago after my grant meeting my department chair asked me if I still wanted to do research. She said I didn’t have to if I didn’t want to. She went on to say that I appeared to be struggling and that I could leave the tenure track. She said no one would judge me or think that I was a failure if I decided not to do research anymore. She said I could return to practice if I wanted to. This was pretty much an invitation to quit. She said she couldn’t promise I could get another non-tenure position and that the other departments did not have any needs.

It turns out that the department does need someone but she lied to me. She told me to think about what I wanted to do. Last week she sent me an email saying that she wanted to meet with me about my grant. So I invited my other grant team members. She then emailed me back to say that she did not want them present. She said that the meeting was not about the grant and that she wanted to close the loop on our discussion. Basically she lied again with a misleading email. The subject of her email even read meeting to discuss grant.

We didn’t meet that day. I was sick. This week she emailed me again to get on her calendar to have this meeting. I feel like she is trying to force me to resign. Do you have any advice about how I should proceed?

As an untenured faculty member your options are limited and the risks are high. Depending on local law you may have some protections, of course.

What you do depends on what her actual power over you is. If she is part of the tenure decision process, then the situation is worse. Likewise if she can influence others.

But, she may just be signaling you that your tenure decision is likely to be negative, whether from her actions or just a general assessment. You don't say, for example, how the research is going or the state of the grant (or even if it has been awarded or is just being applied for).

You will probably learn more when this individual meeting happens. Sadly, you won't have any other person present who can support you or attest to any improper statements if they occur. I've been in such a situation, actually.

My suggestion is that you immediately get into the job market and start to collect colleagues who will support you both in finding a new job and in maintaining this one. Long term, it doesn't seem like this environment is supportive enough.

If she has doubts about your work, her response should be about how she can help you. That may be her intent and you aren't recognizing it as such, but it is impossible to say from what you write.


Should I include high school details in Grad School Resume? I was wondering if I should include my high school details in the resume of my graduate school application ? It's unclear about this bit since we are not actually submitting any proof of high school records during grad school application( they only ask for undergraduate details).
But my high school final examination details are particularly good (better than my undergraduate credentials infact!)

I have to disagree slightly with the stark "No" answers.

Only when those details provide evidence of your potential for research.

Some information about your high-school experience may shed light on your research potential.  Certainly you would want to mention winning the Intel Science Talent Search or the International Olympiad in Informatics, or describe the peer-reviewed research papers you published as a high school student.

But your high school grades?  No, leave them off.


Re-implementing one's own proprietary code as open-source I wrote some software as part of an internship. It worked well for the task and we published a paper on it. However, because the internship was at a company, not my graduate institution, the code is technically property of the company and they do not want to release it. I've received several requests for the code, and I know that releasing the software will increase my paper's citations and impact. Is it okay to re-implement the code I wrote and release it as open source, or could that violate some laws or policies?

For the record, when I say re-implement, I mean start from scratch, not reuse most of the same code and change a few things.

I am not a lawyer, and if you are seriously considering going ahead with this project, I suggest consulting one.

The problem is that copyright infringement is not limited to direct copying. See, for example, the "My Sweet Lord" case. George Harrison is not believed to have consciously copied "He's So Fine", but he had heard it.

You have much deeper familiarity with the existing code. It is going to be very difficult for you to write anything similar without being inspired by what you wrote before.

If your former employer's reluctance to release is related to liability and support issues, they may be willing to permit re-implementation, so it is worth asking. If they are hoping to make money off the code, they will not agree.


Should I speak to my supervisor about changing my undergrad project topic? I am going into my third year at university of my Math degree and have decided to undertake an independent project under the supervision of a lecturer who is, primarily, a number theorist. One of the main reasons I wanted to do this project (which includes producing a presentation and report) was for the experience.

At first discussion with my supervisor I had no clue what I wanted the project to be about so he threw out some possibilities. We ended up agreeing on the topic  "solving polynomials by radicals": charting the historical and logical development of formulae similar to the quadratic formula for cubic and quartic equations, and a why no such formula can exist for degree 5 and higher.

However, recently I came across a numberphile video with regards to the Collatz conjecture and it seemed quite interesting. I know that as a third year student I definitely do not possess the capabilities of making any sort of impact on the conjecture and that my project would have to focus on its origin and the work done on it so far but the little research I have done has piqued my curiosity.

Would it be worth it to speak to my supervisor about changing the topic? I dont want to irritate him unnecessarily.

By the way, I am also a number theorist.

In my recent answer to another question I described the fickleness of undergraduates in a way which I hope comes across as largely sympathetic.  The point of being an undergraduate is to explore the academic terrain a bit, flitting from topic to topic.  If you're not a bit flighty you'll have trouble flitting properly, which is more dangerous: you don't want to spend years working on something and discover at the end that you don't like it at all (you want to spend much less time).

However, my answer concerned research, and your project doesn't sound like a research project.  It sounds rather like a reading project, or in other words a  (largely) independent learning experience.  (For those who don't know, "solving polynomials by radicals" is an important topic in mathematics which received a definitive solution in the first half of the 19th century.)  For a reading project, you do want to exert some care in choosing something that will be worth the reading.

So I think you should definitely talk to the lecturer right away.  He gave you a topic because you didn't have something in mind, now you have something in mind, so it's time to go back.  However you should not be surprised to receive an explanation of why solving polynomials by radicals makes a better reading project than the Collatz Conjecture.  In the former case, there is an absolutely central question in number theory and algebra, it has a great answer, and all the steps leading up to that answer are also highly central and important.  In the latter case there is a rather isolated, curious open problem.  It's elementary, innocuous and catchy, which combine to create the psychological impression that it can't be that hard...but it is that hard.  In particular I am struck by the statement

  I know that as a third year student I definitely do not possess the capabilities of making any sort of impact on the conjecture[.]

To that I reply:

  I know that as someone with a PhD from Harvard who has successfully solved some open problems in number theory that I probably do not possess the capabilities of making any sort of impact on the conjecture.

The point being that nobody does, so far as I know.  If you think you want to tilt at windmills, it's a good time to check in again on what the assignment was.  (This is not to say that you should stop thinking about the Collatz Problem altogether.  Rather, if you like it, think about it in your spare time.)

I will end with a story.  I taught an advanced undergraduate number theory course twice: see here.  Each time the course included a final project.  I gave a lot of suggestions for these final projects, and so far as I can remember most students did follow up on one of my suggestions.  Certainly that is true with the two best projects, which both led to other (novel!) work by those students later on.  The first time I taught the course, a student told me that he wanted to write about what ancient Greeks knew and believed about perfect numbers.  I told him honestly that I knew almost nothing about that and therefore couldn't be confident that there was much to say.  He replied enthusiastically that there were many things: did I know for instance that the Greeks thought that there were no odd perfect numbers, that there were infinitely many even perfect numbers, and that the final digits in this infinite sequence always alternated between 6 and 8?  Well, no, so I let him write on that topic.  When I read his paper, I found...well, I have already told you everything I remember on the subject, but it turned out that I had made the wrong decision.  Some topics are more fruitful than others.


How to publish review of commercial software I really like software product X and been using it for >6 years. I am unaffiliated and never have been linked to company or anyone involved with X.

I would like to publish a paper that explains why and how X can be useful to other people. How can I do that? Are there example of this?

"Application Note" seems like a possible format, but I am not part of the developers. To some degree, "how to use X to do Y" seems like a novel application of an existing technology and can be written as original research paper.

Software is Basecamp and really helps me with research and project management. I think it merits discussion, as we are barely starting to recognize the issue of project management in academic research labs.

There are popular magazines and some (semi) professional ones that might be appropriate for such things, but it is less likely that any scientific journal would be interested. For this reason, it is unlikely that such an article would do much for a scientific reputation. But for a person in industry, it might give them some visibility that might help in a job search.

Some people do such things on personal blogs, of course.


How relevant is it, if updates to a journal paper are not reflected on third party websites? My friend published a paper. After few months he found some error present. He asked the journal editor for a correction, made the changes and replaced the old version with the new one. The old journal paper is still present in websites other than the journal. Will these websites replace the old with the corrected new paper? If not, will it be a problem?

It depends on the third party website. If they are constantly monitoring the main journal, it might happen, but I would assume that this is not true for every website. On the other hand, in most cases the journal should only be available via the journal web site thanks to the copyright regulations of that journal. And people citing the work should always look for the original source.

Therefore I would say it is not a problem of your friend, maybe it can be a problem for people working with unreliable sources. But I would not care.


Should I quit PhD after 4 years? I am at the end of my fourth-year in the Ph.D. program at an average university and I am trying to decide if it's the right decision to leave without getting Ph.D. degree. I have an M.Sc. degree and it's ABD. Although I published many conference papers, I didn't publish a journal. One reason is that I worked a lot for many projects as the lead research assistant. Other reason is that my motivation to work on these journals keeps decreasing. I am making very small progress and I always feel very bad about it. I feel like I will never be able to finish these papers. Quitting will give me relief but it also means that I wasted at least two years of my life. Also, I don't want to regret this.
My relationship with my supervisor is not good. Working with him made me really depressed. I lost all my self-confidence. I sought professional counseling but it doesn't help much. Also, my partner is graduating next semester and needs to leave and find a job. I don't need a Ph.D. to get a job. I've already got many job offers. I don't want to work in academia.

Think of being a PhD student as a job.  If you think there’s another job you’d prefer, then switch jobs.  It’s no more of a waste than spending two years at another job that you end up leaving.

That said if you already have some substantial work finished you might ask your advisor if you can just graduate this year with a weak thesis.


Are reviewers supposed to know each others' identity, after the reviewing process is finished? I reviewed an article and submitted my review along with a short letter to the editor. As a service the journal permits to see the decision letter and the other review. However, I am also able to see the other reviewers' letter to the editor, which is signed with a name. My own short letter to the editor I did not sign with my name.

Is this supposed to be? If not, should I do anything in particular if I do find out by accident?

The issue is somewhat addressed in some of the answers for the question Are reviewers allowed to discuss their review with each other?. One answer states you're not meant to find out, while another one states once you've submitted your own review, it is normal to know who the other reviewers are and be able to see their reviews. There are two different issues here:

Knowing the other reviewers' identity during the reviewing process.
Knowing the other reviewers' identity after the reviewing process.

Is case (2) normal?

Edit: I might add that the policy of the journal is not a double-blind: the full list of authors and affiliations of the manuscript were purposefully disclosed to the reviewers.

No, its not normal to know who the other reviewers are if the journal has a double-blind review policy ( my background is Engineering disciplines, might be different in other fields).

What I have experienced in the double-blind review process both as a reviewer and the author:

Knowing the other reviewers' identity during the reviewing process? NO, not normal.
Knowing the other reviewers' identity after the reviewing process? NO, not normal.
Knowing whether the editor accepted or reject the paper? NO (a very good practice as I have learned).


Is it worthwhile to publish short paper as graduate student? I am a computer science student. I have done some work on algorithms and I have got one result. The result is small, 6-7 pages long (entire paper). I want to publish it and my adviser is also motivating me to publish.

Question: Is it worthwhile to publish short paper as graduate student? Will it enhance the significance of my research work?

There are many reasons why it is helpful to publish. The usual reason is that it enhances your standing in the community of scholars and professionals. But another important reason, in my view, is just for the experience of it. You force yourself to bring your ideas into an understandable and maybe usable form. That is good for your mind and publishing is just the goad to get it done.

Submitting to a conference or journal will also get you independent feedback on both your ideas and your writing. That is valuable also.

In CS, however, most of the work is presented in conferences, so you might look for a suitable one and submit there.

If you want a career in academia, publishing is essential, and starting early gives you more experience for when the more important results are ready.

It is also usually good advice to follow your advisor's lead.

Good luck and see you at the conference.


Should I delete my question on Stack Exchange to reduce my own plagiarism? I created a new account and posted a question on Math Stack Exchange asking help for a specific part in an exercise from class. It was duly answered.

That question went on to gain a lot of hits and I received an email notification which I had set, of a comment left by a person who said I was stuck too. I didn’t know him as the class strength is around a hundred, but on checking on social media, he turned out to be my classmate. Now with nearly eighty hits on it, presumably from my classmates looking at this problem, should I delete it because I feel that Turnitin would end up holding me guilty for plagiarism from my own content if other students post it before me?

I did attach my files and everything including the idea which should easily enable anybody else from my very class to use it in the assignment.

So is it wise for me to delete the question now or is it too late? Is it ethical for the community at Math Stack Exchange to lose a question that garnered so much attention and I did gain my share of points. Will I lose my points as well?

From what you have reported, it does not sound like you have committed plagiarism, i.e., you have not claimed the work of anyone else as your own work.  So you don't need to worry about that---and if other people steal your work, that is their fault and not yours.

You might, however, also be concerned that you have broken a class policy on obtaining outside help, and that you might be exposed by others plagiarizing you.  If you have not broken class policy, then don't worry about it.  If you have broken class policy, then 1) don't do it again in the future, and 2) trying to hide it probably won't help you, since this site gets widely copied and cached in any case.