Is it a good idea to do a (cs) phd in France with a fixed topic? For what I know, one finishes PhD with only 3 years in France which is rather efficient, but one may suffer if one's research interest gets changed in the mean time, because the thesis topic is locked by the funding and by the advisor right from the beginning of the PhD, which could be disturbing in a fast changing field like cs. Besides, PhD programs in France don't seem to get global recognition as the ones in the US or even some in the EU, with one or two exceptions. Even within France, PhD is condemned to belong to the academia and is rather ignored in the industry (if there's any).
Could anyone familiar with the French system correct me on this? Is it possible/typical to research on a different topic from the one that I'm getting paid for, to change the PhD topic, or even to quit the PhD in France?
Thanks.

Most of your questions are field-specific, so as a physics PhD student I might be a bit off the reality of CS. Still, here are a few hints:

the thesis topic is locked by the funding and by the advisor right from the beginning of the PhD

This is only true in principle. If you don't have any obligation of obtaining a particular result, things are not that black and white: a PhD is about investigating some ideas, which for instance might turn out unfruitful and need some more or less drastic changes.
Depending on the advisor and funding entity you may also simply switch your research topic (if this is a relevant move -scientifically and timewise-, of course!).

PhD programs in France don't seem to get global recognition as the ones in the US or even some in the EU, with one or two exceptions

Recognition first comes from (i) the quality of the work, and (ii) how you communicate about it. That's where working in a team with good connections with the community can help getting your work known in your field. Attending conferences is also a must!

PhD is condemned to belong to the academia and is rather ignored in the industry

If the skills acquired during your thesis can be exported to industry, finding a position in industry afterwards is far from impossible. As an illustration I've seen quite a few students in theoretical physics move to data science or machine learning straight after graduating. Doctoral schools are aware of this, and some (if not all) organise events to put students and people from industry into contact.

Is it possible/typical [...] to quit the PhD in France?

Afaik, there is no official data on the dropout rate of doctoral students in France. But quitting is absolutely possible a not to be ashamed of. A PhD is a three years contract, which you have the right to resign by formally notifying your employer. (Note that you can't just notify them and leave, there is a legal period to be respected.) On such kind of matter, checking on this official page can be helpful.


When did US undergraduate education become so expensive? As far as I know, in the majority of  countries in the world, especially in Europe, undergraduate education, even at the top universities, is almost always significantly less expensive than at prestigous US universities.

For example, for the 2018-2019 academic year, the standard cost of tuition and fees at MIT was $51,520. Add in room and board and other fees, and the price tag reaches $70,240 annually. The average cost after aid was around $ 22,549.

At Cornell, the cost after aid was $30,498 and at NYU $37,362.

This is representative of most of the Ivy League schools as well as many liberal arts schools which are less well known internationally.

The average tuition cost at my school in France is a mere 2000 euros per year whilst other French schools have tuition ranging from 300 euros per year to 15,000 in one extreme case. In several European countries, tuition is either free or students are payed to study.

The student debt crisis in the US is a recent phenomenon, but how recent? I suspect that that students at Ivy League schools in the 1930's weren't paying anything close to their present counterparts, adjusting for inflation.

So when exactly did top tier American schools start raising  tuition and board fees to the astronomical levels we see now?

I will leave out the question if whether this is sustainable or what the consequences will be, as this is speculative and opinion-based.

This article in USA Today from 2017 shows the graph below, which is average tuition and fees adjusted for inflation from '71-'72 to '16-'17.

To answer the question in the title: it looks like it started rising above inflation in around 1983.


Difference between contributed and invited talk I am a second-year PhD student.

Through a grant I was able to organize a scientific visit for myself to another university. The aim of this visit was just to talk and discuss with some of the staff there about their research.

Prior to my arrival, my host notified me that they frequently hold internal seminars/colloquia etc. and would I like to give a talk. I obviously accepted this offer.

My question is, when listing this talk on my CV, should I list it as contributed, invited, or just a 'Talk'?

I only ask as typically I think of the term 'invited talks' for more senior, established academics and it was I who petitioned my host in the first instance for a visit.

Any input welcome. Thanks

The distinction between contributed and invited talks applies to conferences, and not to departmental seminars.

The details of who asked first, etc, are no reasonable basis for any distinction between seminar talks.

Since getting yourself invited to give a seminar talk tends to be very easy, I would recommend to list them apart from invited conference talks. One can either go for "Invited talks / Contributed talks / Seminar talks" or for "Invited talks / Contributed & Seminar talks" as subcategories.


How does Google Scholar rank coauthor list? I don't think the rank of the co-author list is random. It must follow some order that's definitely not the time order. I used to think that this rank depends on the number of papers you and the co-authors wrote, the number of citation of those co-authored papers have, etc. But I don't think this is true now since I found some hard evidence that this thought failed. So my question is how Google Scholar ranks the co-author list?

The coauthors are ranked by relevance, and the exact definition of relevance probably changes over time. Papers and citations are obviously important factors. Google may also consider other factors such as the age (or age distribution) of the citations or the overall ranking of the coauthor among all researchers. The ranking of A in the coauthor list of B might also be influenced by the ranking of B in the coauthor list of A.

In my profile, a coauthor with 2 shared papers (20+3 citations) is ranked higher than a coauthor with 3 shared papers (9+3+0 citations). This person is ranked higher than another coauthor with 1 shared paper (35 citations), who is in turn ranked higher than another person with 2 shared papers (5+3 citations). You could produce a ranking like this with a weighted sum of the number of papers and the number of citations, but that's probably not the whole story.

It's good to remember that Google is a search/advertising company. Ranking pieces of information by relevance is their core business. They won't disclose the exact details of the rankings, as those details are important trade secrets. Google also keeps changing the details, as advertisers and websites would otherwise learn to game the system, making the rankings less useful.


What are the impacts of implementing a hot-desking model for grad student workspace? The Dean of my faculty recently made the suggestion that we change the graduate student office spaces to a "hot-desking" or "hoteling" model. This is only being suggested for office space, not lab space which obviously has certain safety/operational requirements that would preclude this model.

In a nutshell, hot-desking involves shared office spaces (normally open-plan) where no individuals are assigned specific seating. Instead, individuals can pick any available desk whenever they enter the office. It is generally expected that individuals do not "claim" certain desks by leaving personal items on the desks.

The current state of the graduate student offices vary from department to department: from small offices shared by a pair of students to open-plan offices with around ten students. Current indications are that the Dean would like to have less desks than students, the rationale being that most grad student offices are half-full at any given time of the day (instead they would be working in the lab, performing TA duties, or working from home). My faculty is Engineering and Applied Science so most students have laboratory/experimental components in their research that take a significant proportion of their time.

The argument that I have seen for this model are that it encourages collaboration, but the more likely explanation in this case is that enrollment is up and space on campus is limited. I have found some articles online about implementing this model in a typical office, but I think there are many ways that graduate schools differ from a typical office environment.

As I said, this was a suggestion by the Dean, so he is looking for input from the students and faculty before they begin drawing up floorplans for renovations. I've taken part in a committee to investigate attitudes among faculty and students towards switching to a hot-desking model. The general feeling is between "not enthusiastic" to "downright hostile". I'm personally on the fence about the idea.

So my question is, what are the impacts of implementing a hot-desking model for graduate student workspaces? I am looking specifically for answers from students, staff and faculty in the sciences, applied sciences and/or engineering who work at a university that currently uses a hot-desking model. Can you say whether there are tangible/measureable benefits or drawbacks to more traditional office models?

I am not looking for an opinion on hot-desking is good/bad, I already have lots of those from my own colleagues, thanks!

I have seen hot-desking (or the equivalent) work well with undergraduate researchers. In the particular incarnations that I have seen it, however, it wasn't a large-scale formal hot-desking model like you're talking about, but rather a sort of "pool office" that was the shared space of a bunch of undergrads.
With the undergrad researchers, this worked well because the number of hours each student typically spent in the office was quite small, and they tended to work on projects for relatively short periods of time.

Graduate students are a different matter. They tend to be around for a much larger fraction of their time, and you want them to be in the office more and to develop professional networks and commitment to the group. Thus, I don't see the advantages of hot-desking for undergraduates translating well to established graduate students in most STEM environments.  Here is a report of a personal experience that seems to corroborate the problems.

That said, there are some environments where is seems like it could be appropriate, in which one does indeed expect an office space to be transient and sparsely used.  For example:

If students spent most of their time in lab, then their "home base" is their lab bench, and a hot-desking space for non-lab tasks could be workable.
Some graduate programs start with a year of "rotations" in which students work with a number of different groups before committing to one, and since rotation students are inherently transient, hot-desking might work for them as well.

This all seems to point to some potential metrics, along the lines of measuring how much time is spent working in the hot-desk space vs. how much of the tasks done in that space are being done elsewhere.  If students are elsewhere because they are doing different types of tasks, then it might be guessed to be succeeding; if they are doing the same sorts of tasks in coffee shops, libraries, etc., then it might instead be driving them away.


Will self-citation be viewed as self-promotion in academia? As we know, citation counts are important to judge one's research activity. Is it good to cite one's previous works? Will it be viewed as an act of advertisement or self-promotion?

The ethical rule has to be: cite your work if it's relevant, and don't give it preferential treatment over the work of others. In short: use the same criteria for previous references to your work as you would use for citing others. No excessive citation, no self-censorship.


Should I offer to pay (some of) the travel cost from the UK to the US for an interview? I'm applying for tenure track jobs this year, and unfortunately the silence from universities I've applied to has been almost deafening so far. While I'm sure there are several factors contributing to this, one concern that has been nagging me comes from the fact that I am currently finishing up a postdoc in England, and I've been applying to North American institutions exclusively. My questions are:

Would the potentially high cost of flying me to an interview lead to some institutions passing me over?
If so, would it help if I offer in the cover letter to (at least partially) pay my way?

I am concerned because I feel that by far my best chances are for positions at smaller liberal arts schools or state colleges. My guess is that these types of institutions may have smaller search budgets than so-called R1 universities, and really for the cost of interviewing me they could interview two or three equally qualified people who live nearby.
At the risk of making this question too localized, I should mention that I am working under a very generous grant with a substantial research expense budget, and so the cost wouldn't necessarily be out of my own pocket, assuming I can give a research talk at the interview.

Would the potentially high cost of flying me to an interview lead to some institutions passing me over?

I believe many universities, especially smaller universities, will balk at flying overseas candidates in for interviews. Often they will move down their short lists and only if they are unable to find a suitable candidate that is higher than you on the list, will they be willing to fly you in. This isn't a huge disadvantage, but it is a disadvantage. In my experience candidates often hurt themselves during interviews and rarely perform so well they substantially move up in the rankings.

  If so, would it help if I offer in the cover letter to (at least partially) pay my way?

I would not offer to pay for an interview directly. This would in essence be calling out the search committee for being cheap. A better strategy would be to mention in your cover letter that you will happen to be in the States, possibly even states/cities near by, on a couple of dates and you would be happy to extend your trip and come to them for a visit. It would be nice if you have an academic pretence for those visits (conference, seminar, or visiting colleagues), but even saying you will be in the States for personal reasons is fine. If you do not get an interview, you do not have to go to the States.


How to handle PhD student who expects help with technical problems? I am a postdoc supervising a PhD student in Computer Science.

Unfortunately, I have a lot on my plate and I cannot help him with the solution of the technical problems (they require a lot of time to solve them). The PhD student often gives me some tasks and I execute them to help him go forward with his research.

What are the suggestions you have? Should I talk about it with my Professor and maybe find a more suitable advisor for him?
Honestly, in my experience, I did not meet many PhD students who receive technical help from a Postdoc, but I could be wrong of course.

I would just like to do the best for him and for me.

Thanks for your ideas.

Strategically, it might be a good idea to prioritize helping the PhD student. You might gain some second authorships on papers, credit for PhD student supervision (which you will need for your next career step), and make a potential collaborator for life. It's a win-win situation.

  Honestly, in my experience, I did not meet many PhD students who receive technical help from a Postdoc, but I could be wrong of course.

It's a sign of a well-managed group if PhD students have access to experienced people who can give them technical guidance. In a small group, that person can be the PI. In a big group, PIs often hire post-docs to do that job for them.


Should I hold the same writing standards for international students as I do for domestic students? I teach courses in physics, astronomy and planetary science.

Often, but certainly not always, international students (and even some domestic students, for whom English is not their primary language), write worse than their domestic peers who have grown up with English.

For most assignments, I take up to a couple points off for negligence of spelling and grammar, depending on how bad their writing was. The point is to remind students that their writing should be professional. I never nit-pick about a typo here or there, but if there is a whole slew of them, I'll make a note and take off what would amount to be a few percentage points of the assignment's total score.

I'd like to give grace to those for whom English is not their primary language. At the same time, I need to be fair and grade equally. As it stands, I grade equally for everyone, but I try to give more feedback to those who need it.

Does anyone have any better ideas about how to do this?

There are two different types of value judgement that you are discussing here---communication goals and grading---and I think it's important to carefully separate them.

Communication Goals: I think that it is unfair to a person who isn't a native English speaker to not expect them to aim for the same goals of clear and lucid communication.  When giving feedback, don't brush over the language and grammar errors just because a person is not a native speaker.  They should have the same chance to learn and improve as anyone else.
Grading: Unless the class is about English grammar, making English quality a significant part of the grade is generally a bad way to evaluate a person's work.  If the language is bad enough that it interferes with your ability to understand the class-relevant content, then yes, that's a problem and should receive proportional demerits.  If the class-relevant content is clear, however, it's questionable to me whether any points should be taken off at all.

In short: grade very generously on language issues, but point out the mistakes so the student can continue to learn and improve.


Maintaining sustained productivity and enthusiasm There are researchers who work each day, every day of the year from the moment they reach their office till late. As a young and upcoming researcher, I find that I need breaks after a few days of this kind of heavy working or else I have a mild "crash" following which I get back on the productive track.

My question is: how do these researchers continue to work with no breaks and remain creative and productive? Are there concrete tips that researchers use to ensure they don't keep having periodic crashes and burn-outs?

I think you have some imaginary researcher in mind. They may seem to be working but without any productivity. They may take "breaks" by moving from task to task, say working on a problem, getting stuck, working on a lecture, thinking about family, back to the research problem, etc.

I think there is research that suggests that breaks aid productivity. I've found that active breaks, are very useful when creativity lags. Bike ride. Then back to work. Aerobic things are especially good.

Taking regular breaks or "breaks when needed" can actually help you avoid burn out.

But, more important, when your mind gets into a pattern of ineffective thought, hammering at the same problem over and over is less likely to be effective than putting it down for a bit. Even a nap can sometimes break a log-jam.

My advice is to not try to work past your natural limits. When you feel the need for a break, take one, even if it is only to walk around the room for a few minutes. Even stretching exercises. Anything to get your mind out of the rut that suggested the break was needed.

Don't over glamorize work. Probably you are misinterpreting what you are seeing in others.

On the other hand, many people can (occasionally) get into a groove and are very productive for several hours running. There is a flow and you just ride the wave. I used to do that when programming. But you can't schedule it. Serendipity. It comes. It goes.


Hearing back after an academic interview in the UK I had an interview for a lecturer position at a UK Russell group University 2 days ago and haven't heard back yet. From previous experience, I am usually given a call within 24 hours of being successful in an interview. I am holding off signing an offer by another University (not a great University) and being pressured to respond. I really want the first job but feel my chances are getting lower by the day?
I'd like to hear about other experiences and whether this timeline is unrealistic? I work in the field of science, not sure this makes a difference?

Depending on the customs and practices in a particular University, it can take from one to several days before the decision is made, approved, and the first candidate is contacted. "Several days" is typically below a week, but in rare cases can be longer.
If you are not contacted within 2-3 days, you may not be the first candidate. However, there is still a slim chance that the first candidate does not accept (for whatever reason), and the offer goes to you.
If you hold another offer, it is usually the best to let both Universities know the date, when you will make the final decision, based on what you have at this date. Everyone understands that candidates are usually applying in several places simultaneously, and HRs/HoDs can be quite efficient when they must (i.e. if they are interested in hiring you), and inefficient otherwise.


Already in grad school, but is grad school for me? I'm sure you've seen a dozen variations on this question in this forum, but here's mine:

I've just finished my first year in a top US PhD program in the physical sciences, which I never dreamed I would be admitted to (ok, that's not true; I dreamed about it quite a lot!). It's gone all right, I guess--I wrote some code for my lab, got As in classes (although grades are utterly beside the point). But I'm not sure it's working out, or that I can make it work out. I'm not sure I have what it takes.

I mean, I can hold my own in technical conversations with senior coworkers--even (tactfully) point out flaws in their methods, suggest new approaches, pitch new experiments, and things like that. I've often heard "yeah, good idea!", only for nothing to ever come of it. What's that about? Are they being merely polite? Or am I supposed to be more "enterprising," somehow (whatever that means)? Is it my personality? I'm sometimes told that I need to be more aggressive or self-assured or something like that, but I don't really know what that means (other than "act like more of a jerk"), and don't feel comfortable trying to artificially change my personality in that way. What's wrong with saying "sorry?"

It seems like I'm missing something fundamental, maybe socially. It's been extraordinarily hard for me to get into the flow and be part of the team. Some other students walk into a room where people are discussing a project, make some goofy offhand comment, and get a coauthorship. On the other hand, I'm somehow having a hard time even figuring out who I report to, or if I have a me-project, or how to answer my questions about things like reporting and project ownership. There is something going on that I'm deaf to. I don't get it. Students at $PRESTIGIOUS_INSTITUTION aren't supposed to have this problem.

I also haven't really made any friends here. I'm on the shy side, but this isn't like me. I never knew I was so socially inept. If I'd been able to make friends, I wouldn't be bothering you kind people.

On top of it all, I'm no longer very sure that I believe in my subfield. It's not what I want to think about anymore when I go home. But I'm too old now to throw away the last couple years and start over.

I feel like I've wasted my year. Like I'll never, ever, ever be able to get a thesis together. Is all this the "bad fit" that people talk about when it comes to picking a lab? Am I just incompetent? Do I like reading about science more than I like doing it? Who do I even talk to about this? What do I say, and how do I get answers? Am I just completely trounced? Why don't I go take a job in industry and >quadruple my salary?

Maybe it's as simple as "you're fine; this is normal. Get some sleep and go join a club to find friends. Then you'll get less unhappy, and your work situation will improve." I just don't know.

I know there are no clear answers here, but maybe others have had similar experiences. Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this kind of question, or if there are rules around asking imprecise questions or ones that are similar to previous ones. I also know that it's borderline impossible to infer my actual experiences or mental state from this kind of limited view, so there's no easy way for you to judge what's really going on. But I thought I'd try. Thanks.

On the other hand, I'm somehow having a hard time even figuring out who I report to, or if I have a me-project, or how to answer my questions about things like reporting and project ownership.

This seems like the real problem. If you don't have a well-defined goal, it's natural that you would feel like you're floundering. Advisors are busy; if you don't tell them you need guidance, they will assume everything is working out (until they realize that it isn't, at which point they'll blame you). So, I would recommend asking for a meeting with your advisor (or whoever is in charge of your lab) and try to better define your research goals.

I think everything else you describe comes from this. Once you have a good project and are getting interesting results, you will feel more like a part of the lab and some of the other angst will disappear. Your lab might never be a perfect match for you, but I suspect it will suffice in terms of giving you a PhD and a chance to figure out what's important to you when you choose your next position.

  Maybe it's as simple as "you're fine; this is normal. Get some sleep and go join a club to find friends. Then you'll get less unhappy, and your work situation will improve." I just don't know.

Pretty much. I would be aggressive in terms of finding a tractable project as described above. But I suspect the lack of sleep and friends are exaggerating the issue, and this is indeed very normal (as you say, there are dozens of posts here about it).

  On top of it all, I'm no longer very sure that I believe in my subfield. It's not what I want to think about anymore when I go home.

This is perhaps the secondary problem -- after you get into a rhythm in your current lab/subfield, you may be able to pivot your projects towards areas you are more interested in.


Is transferring to another university an option for an unhappy PhD student? I've heard of people transferring between graduate schools because of their advisor moving to another school and taking their students with them.

Do students ever transfer for other reasons? If a student isn't happy at the school they choose, could transferring be an option? Presumably they would frame it as something positive such as "turns out I really want to work with Professor X" rather than "I hate my school", but does this ever happen? Is there a certain timeframe in which this is possible? (Assume it's a 5 year PhD program.)

If the answer varies by subject please mention the subject in your answer.

(Context: many friends have told me that if it turns out I'm not happy with my choice, I can always transfer. My impression is that this is actually difficult since many schools don't accept transfer students and in any case not being able to stick with a program looks bad -- but I don't have evidence either way so wanted to ask people who are in academia. Of course the ideal would be to pick a school one is happy with in the first place!)

Mathematics

Let me specify that by transferring, I mean moving to another university in the middle of a graduate program.  Switching universities between undergrad and grad or between a master's degree and a Ph.D. is very different.  Basically, those are the only mainstream opportunities to move, and anything else will require an exception.

Transferring is certainly not unheard of, but there are some serious caveats:

It's difficult to transfer to a substantially more prestigious department.  It can happen, but the admissions committee will be very skeptical, and it's just not going to work out unless the application is outstanding.  In particular, many committee members specifically do not want to reward rolling the dice again and seeing what happens, so for transfers the question is not "Does this application look better than our weaker students?" but rather "Is this application so obviously wonderful that we would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we accepted someone else instead?"
Expressing any unhappiness will make it much harder to transfer.  You may think you'll be happy at the new school, but they will worry about ending up with an unhappy, unproductive grad student on their hands.  And they are right to worry about that: the best predictor of future happiness is past happiness, and many unhappy people have unrealistic beliefs about what would make them happy.
It's hard to transfer once you start seriously working on a thesis.  If your work isn't going well, then that's a reason not to accept you.  If your work is going well, then that's a reason you should continue working with your current advisor.  Unless your advisor has died or left, it will be tough to convince anyone you are a good candidate for transferring.
No matter why you say you want to transfer, there will be some suspicion that your goal is to end up in a stronger department or a more desirable location.  If you have another reason, you'll have to make a powerful argument for it.

  I've heard of people transferring between graduate schools because of their advisor moving to another school and taking their students with them.

Sometimes they transfer officially, and sometimes they still get degrees from the previous school but complete their theses while in residence at the new school.  The latter is generally easy to arrange when an advisor moves.


Am I considered fulfilling postdoc duty in this situation? General question:
I am a postdoc supported by a grant A. Is it OK for me to work with people not in the grant supporting me on a topic related to grant A, given that I will acknowledge the grant in all publications? Am I expected to include the PI as co-authors?

Details:
I am supported by a grant A. Then I did some works related to grant A and got a publication with other individuals not in the grant A. I acknowledged the grant supporting me in the publication, but without including the PI of grant A as a co-author.

I already did this, it seems the PI of grant A is OK with that. But I am not sure if I am doing something wrong/unethical. I just wonder if it is commonly acceptable. I am doing that because we are not fit each other, I stay for family reason and will leave soon.

I don't see any ethical consideration as long as your PI is happy and you aren't violating any specific contractural arrangements from your funding. I think that is unlikely. Whether you need to list the PI or not is a different question, and depends on your field and somewhat on the PI. If the PI can help in your future career, it would be good to consider them as author, but my opinion is that would imply that they contribute something.

But authorship of PIs and supervisors varies by field.

And yes, acknowledge the grant and its funders.


Relation of lecture mandatory attendance and lecture quality My university recently made a direction that lectures attendance is mandatory. Now my question is, are there any studies that compare mandatory and not mandatory lectures quality? The university is trying to increase its quality and this was its main step this year.

More description:
As lecture quality comparison I mean, when is it easier to concentrate, study, teach and learn? When lectures are mandatory, there are a lot of students that doesn't have real interest in subject and are disturbing and making noise. That influences all students, as you can't hear what professor is saying, professor is disturbed and interrupted in teaching. So are there any studies that prove this?

Is this in overall a good step of university? I believe that good professors can motivate students to come to lectures, and if lectures are empty, it's a sign of something (not necessarily bad quality of professor) and this doesn't solve it at all, or am I wrong?

In fact there are many studies undertaken in this topic. Below you may find the link to some of these papers.

Classroom attendance: Factors and perceptions of students and faculty in US schools of pharmacy
Student nurse absenteeism in higher education: An argument against enforced attendance
Student and teacher attendance: The role of shared goods in reducing absenteeism
Why do students miss lectures? A study of lecture attendance amongst students of health science
Does lecture attendance affect academic performance? Panel data evidence for introductory macroeconomics
The impact of charter school attendance on student performance

You can find tons of papers in this topic. Look at this link and her

Hope it helps


Can i copy a slide from another presentation or is it plagiarism? For my seminar work i want to use a slide which i found in a presentation available on the internet. Now i wonder whether it is considered plagiarism if i copy the slide into my presentation while citing it.

If copying is okay, do I have to quote it on the slide itself or in the references at the end?

Standards for attribution are a lot lower in presentations than in formal papers. There is simply not enough time and space for it. It is unlikely that you will be accused of plagiarism for copying slides.

However, to be safe, you could add a small note to the slide or verbally say something stating where you got it from. Perhaps the creator put a lot of effort into the slides and wants to be credited.

Standards vary from field to field and country to country, so ask someone in your department to be sure.


Can I ask a journal editor about an invited review paper? I would like to know whether I can place an inquiry to a journal editor about writing an invited review paper. In particular, I would like to write a review paper on a particular topic which is currently of significant research interest. However, I have not been invited to do so from the journal (where I would like to publish this review paper). In this regard, I am wondering whether I could draw the editor's attention via email and ask him whether I could be requested officially from him to write this review paper. Is it a valid inquiry from my side?

Is it a valid inquiry from my side?

NO. Invited reviews are the word "invited" means. The other party invites you to write a literature review paper because of your great expertise. You do not invite yourself. If you are Mr.Nobody, the whole effort of self-inviting will be embarrassing for you.

That does not mean that you should not actually proceed with the review paper. Just keep in mind that review papers are usually done by respectable and well-known authors who have contributed greatly and have great expertise in the suggested area. Also, remember that writing an extensive literature review may be very time consuming if you want to cover a great area. This is why review papers are done my multiple well-established authors who contribute almost equally and not by a single inexperienced author.


How much time do I have to spend for NSF panel? The field is mathematics/computer science.  If one were to be selected to serve on an NSF panel, how much time/effort, realistically, will one be expected to spend?  Especially for someone with no prior experience in this role.

Here's my typical calculation: It takes me ~4 hours to read a proposal (applied math/computational science, but I assume it's the same in other areas) and write a meaningful review. You'll get 8-10 proposals to review for a panel, so plan on a full week of work before you even travel to Alexandria. Then you'll spend 1.5 to 2 completely full days there. Expect to read more proposals on the evening of the first day.

If you have no prior experience, make sure you have a mentor in your department with whom you can talk about expectations for reviews. I see a lot of reviews, in particular from younger and less experienced reviewers, that are really just 3 or 4 short sentences for each of the 3 categories (intellectual merit, broader impact, summary), but these are really not very useful to either the program manager nor the applicant. Be the person you want your reviewers to be and write long, meaningful reviews. You're doing the right thing to your profession, and your program manager will like you too -- which is probably a thing worth striving for anyways. My reviews are typically 1-2 pages long. That takes time, but I think it's time well spent.


How to find papers having datasets? It is becoming common for authors to upload raw data of their research when publishing their papers. However, it is still a small fraction of papers include the dataset.

Is there a way to search for papers whose data are available in repositories?

My field is computational chemistry, and I hope to find papers which have posted the raw data for the DFT analysis.

Do you know if there exists a database for the type of data you are interested in? That would be the easiest way: browse the database until you find an interesting data set, and the paper will likely be referenced by the database entry (if it is a serious database).

Here is an analogy with my own field (structural biology): most (if not all) journals require that structural models of biological molecules be deposited in the PDB in order to publish the article describing the structure. Only the model used to be deposited, but nowadays researchers are also encouraged to deposit the data that led to the model. Therefore, if I am looking for the article describing a particular structure, it is often easier to look up the molecule in the PDB, possibly choose between different entries (one of they may have associated data, not only the model) and find the paper from there.


How important is the Statement of Contributions to Diversity in applications for faculty positions? I have(am) applied(ying) for a junior faculty position (i.e. tenure track assistant professor level) at research-intensive US universities from this fall. One of the opening announcements I recently came across is asking to submit "Statement of Contributions to Diversity - Statement addressing past and/or potential contributions to diversity through research, teaching, and/or service. (Optional)" in addition to standard documents. Does anyone have any experiences with this document? Since it is optional, I am not sure how important this document is to be submitted. If I submit it, will it strengthen my application?

If you submit a strong statement of contribution to diversity, it will help your application in the sense that if you are clearly qualified for the job, this statement would be a plus and would get people excited about your application.  On the other hand, if there are reservations as to whether you are really qualified for the job, in terms of academic merit, teaching experience -- basic stuff -- then a strong diversity stance will not help you.

If you have no previous or well thought out contributions to diversity to speak of, then submitting an anemic diversity statement might hurt you more than not submitting one at all would.

If you are someone who has never given it much thought, then I would advise you not to submit a statement for this particular application; but at the same time, I would encourage you to start doing some thinking about the special challenges diverse students can face getting started, continuing with, and finishing their studies, and what you could contribute to lessening the difficulties.


Amount of pseudo code in the thesis body I'm writing my undergraduate thesis (~25 pages) on a computer program I've developed. Naturally, I'm expected to explain what the program does and how it is implemented. However, the algorithm is quite complex and I simply cannot afford to include a full description.

What do you think, should I:

Lay out the general contours in writing and leave out the semi-obvious implementation details. The amount of detail should be enough to reproduce my work, but it would look rather vague and hard to read.
Include main pieces of the algorithm (written in pseudo code) in the body and use comments to explain what is going on. I'm leaning towards this one, as the work looks more readable this way. However, cumulatively these bits and chunks amount to 3.5 full pages of code.
Put pseudo code in the appendix. But in this case the major part of the explanation would be done in the appendix and the body would look kind of empty.

Use block diagrams

Block diagrams are effective for conveying the functionality of the program and abstracting away complex and/or banal code. For my dissertation (novel implementation of controller for exhaust gas recirculation), I used block diagrams to cover the overall functionality of my code and subsequent sections to explain non-trivial implementations.

If you are not pressed for a page/word count and feel like the only way for the program to be understood is a full explanation: fully explain it. For the sake of the sanity of your reader, your second bullet point seems most prudent: Explain rather than disclose simple and obvious code in the main body and disclose it in the appendix. Novel code implementations should be disclosed and explained in the main body of the report.

For my undergraduate dissertation I opted for this method. For example, my code modelled the control system and a DC motor. The DC motor model was trivial and unoriginal (the governing differential equations can be derived or looked up easily) and so a simple mathematical explanation of the torque and armature current equations in the main body was sufficient.


How do math PhD admission committees view reading courses when your university doesn't offer graduate classes? I go to a small liberal arts college most people haven't heard of, but I really want to get a PhD in math from a decent (top 20-ish) school. From what I can tell, many serious PhD applicants have a wealth of graduate courses under their belt. My school only offers the standard undergraduate real analysis and abstract algebra sequence, both of which I've completed. Since I ran out of higher-level math classes to take, I've resorted to doing a few reading courses with some of my professors next semester, which will be the semester I'll be applying to graduate school.

I'll be studying algebraic topology, algebraic number theory, and category theory. How will an admissions committee view this?

I also have other things of note in my applications, like a semester abroad in the Math in Moscow program, and two REUs, one of which was at an ivy league school. At the ivy league REU, I was able to secure a rather strong letter of recommendation.

Admissions committees in math departments know that a "small liberal arts college most people haven't heard of" might not offer the sort of advanced math courses that are available elsewhere.  If your REUs and Math in Moscow lead to strong letters of recommendation, you should be OK.  I'd suggest that you also get a letter from one (or maybe more) of the professors who are supervising your reading courses.  Even if (s)he has to write before the reading course ends, it would be good for the admissions committee to have some idea of the level of the course (e.g., what book(s) are you reading) and how well you're doing.


Is there benefit to publishing the abstract of an English article in multiple languages? I noted from a previous paper I worked on, that when it was published an abstract was included in Spanish as well as English (https://bjssjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bjs.11422 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31976560). The article itself was in English.

I have had another article accepted with a different journal and publisher. I asked the editorial team if they would like abstract translations and they stated that they don't really publish abstract translations alongside the English abstract. I had the impression they had perhaps not thought of it before.

Is there benefit, such as for the article to be found in foreign language search results and potentially reach more readers, to providing translations of the abstract (even if the paper itself is in English)? I have lots of co-workers who are fluent in several languages and could provide abstracts in different languages fairly easily and for free.
If a publishing journal does not do this, is there benefit to putting up translated abstracts on ResearchGate or some other website with a link to the online version of the published article at the journal website?

EDIT 04/05/2020: I recently submitted a different article to different medical journal (a BMJ subsidiary journal) and they had a specific section in the submission process which was for uploading of foreign language abstracts. So I think it is something forward-thinking journals are starting to do but not all journals are doing it yet.

I am Spanish, so I think I can argue why it would make sense to publish abstracts in two languages, in some fields, based on the Spanish context.

Most people in Spain are not fluent in English, and many have a lot of trouble understanding even the basics. This is more true when you consider older people, some of whom studied French as a second language, rather than English, which is currently the overwhelming choice.

Most people actively carrying out STEM research (I will leave out humanities since I don't know much about the situation there) will be able to read and write technical documents in English, however some papers are intended to be used also by people who are not actively engaged in research. Obvious cases are most engineers and those medics who do mostly only clinical work. Even many clinical research studies carried out in Spain are published in Spanish, because 1) many medics who can benefit from the information would not be able/willing to read it in English, 2) the authors are not able/willing to write in English, or a combination thereof. The paper you link is in a field of medicine, so it does not surprise me at all that the abstract is also in Spanish.

That said, I do not believe that in my particular field, physics, where the overwhelming majority of people interested in reading a research article are themselves actively engaged in research (and therefore routinely exposed to technical English), we would benefit from bilingual abstracts.

So, in summary, it makes sense in some fields but not in others.


Jobs with PhD requirements There many technical focused roles which demand a PhD degree as a necessary qualification. Is it possible to access those roles with a Master's + work experience?

This is completely up to the job. Maybe they will accept a Masters degree + work experience. Or maybe they won't.
Example:

The ideal candidate will have post-graduate qualifications (PhD, or MSc plus relevant experience) in molecular biology, molecular genetics, bioinformatics, epigenomics or a related discipline. A few years of practical experience working in epigenetic analyses would be preferred too.


Is it a good idea to submit to a single-blind journal when I have no affiliation? I am looking to publish a paper in computational biology. However, I have no affiliation (I have been affiliated with some institutions in the past, but am not currently affiliated with anyone now). I am also looking for a journal that will publish with no charge as I am low on funds.

I understand I should be able to publish a paper when my work is evaluated solely for its quality. However I have been unable to find any non-predatory and at least semi-legitimate computational biology journals that use double-blind review and are free to publish in.

I will submit my manuscript to bioRxiv, but would really like to publish in a journal. I am unsure how to proceed - should I try and submit to a single-blind journal and mark my affiliation as "independent scholar" or try some other way to publish to a double-blind computational biology journal?

Well, you have the following options:

Write up and publish your article as an independent researcher. If your work is theoretical and mathematically provable then, there is a high chance that the lack of affiliation doesn't affect the way the editor approach your paper. However, if you are using a large volume of data and providing surprising results, then there is a high chance that your lack of credit (if I may assume it.) discourages the journal from publishing your work. The fact is that most of the journals cannot dig down and verify the reproducibility of large-scale analyses so their best bet is relying on the credential of institutes.
Approach a PI in a related field to review your work and see if he can provide some feedback/comments on that. You can revise your manuscript based on your mutual discussions and add some potential experiments up and then publish it together. You probably would save a huge amount of money as you can depend on their funding resources.


How should I avoid being in the shadow of my PhD advisor after I have my own faculty position? I would like to receive some feedback from the community about the following situation.

I have a permanent position as associate professor in an institution for some years now (3). This institution is the one I did my PhD 10 years ago, and in particular I am in the same department as my PhD advisor (who is a Full Professor).

Despite having my own research line independent of the one of my PhD advisor (namely, I have my own research problems, projects, collaborators, etc), the truth is that I also continue working with her, and being sincere I trust that my contribution on works is as important as her contribution. I am advising PhD students on different topics, I have my own national research project, etc.

I know that this should not bother me too much, but the truth is that at the end the person who receives the recognition of our work is her. Here by recognition I mean invitations to conferences, seminars, being in committees and things like this. I also know that being on an early stage is not the same as being a well-stablished professor, but when this happens on a regular basis, it makes me start to feel bad. Just to give an example, in the last year I have not been invited to give any seminars abroad, while she has been invited to present our work at least 3 times.

It has come to a point where I believe that having worked as crazy to get this position in a university in the city I wanted to live (because this one of the main reasons I picked this position... I love the city and most important, it solved the 2 body problem), it comes with the problem that I will always be 'the student of *' in the eyes of everybody, even if I obtain significant breakthroughs on my own. I trust that this will affect, for instance, if I want to become a full professor some day soon.

The question is the following: how to act when you have tried hard (and in part having been successful) to be (researchally speaking) independent of your PhD advisor, but in the eyes of almost everybody you are still her student? If this situation is rephrased saying that we are in the same institution then it explains a little what I was explaining in the previous paragraphs.

So, I would really appreciate advice from the community. I find it a little radical to stop collaborating scientifically with her (in part because there is no one around working on this area!), but as time goes by it seems to me that the best option is to start working alone on this common area, or some similar solution...

I find a little radical to stop collaborating scientifically with her (in part because there is no one around working on this area!), but as the time goes by it seems to me that the best option is to start working alone on this common area, or some similar solution...

There is some truth to the often-heard advise that one should stop regularly collaborating with one's PhD advisor after getting a PhD. I would argue this is doubly the case when you and your advisor work at the same place. To the outside world, you will always appear to be the "junior" in your collaboration, independently of who does how much work, who has had which ideas, or who is where in the paper author list.

My impression is that in the career stage that you are in, you should prioritize collaborations where you are the most senior person in the team, or where you are at least not overshadowed by somebody much more famous than you. Work on papers with your students, or with other people in a similar or earlier career stage than you. Avoid collaborations where you do all the work and some other eminent figure in the community (your advisor or some other senior professor) could be seen as the strategic brains behind the work.


What benefits are there to peer reviewing papers? I am a first year PhD student, and have been asked to peer-review a paper.  The paper is not really in my field, so I will not learn anything valuable by reading the paper.  The publishing venue is not open-access, so it is difficult to justify on altruistic grounds.  Also, the reviews are double-blind, so there is no potential for networking.  As I have never been a reviewer, I am wondering: is there any other possible personal benefits that I might realize from performing this task?

One benefit is that you are now part of the academic game and you'll learn how it's working, esp. if you have a chance to see other reviewer's comments (which is not always the case, but sometimes, all comments have to be adressed and then you can see them).

Someone might have proposed you, and this person wants to promote you.

If the paper is clearly off-topic, I would avoid reviewing it, especially if it is your first review. You should thank the editor for the trust in you, but send them a list of topics you would happliy review.

If the publication venue is a conference, you will be listed under "program committee" and gain visibility in the field.

If it is a journal: Is the journal trustworthy? I'm getting two invitations per day by some predatory journals...


Meaning of "delocalized campus" While filling a PhD application for a European university, I came across a field  that needed to be filled. The field - to be filled by 'Yes or No' -  asked if my master's or bachelor's universities are 'delocalized campuses'. This is the first time I have come across this term. I am not a native English speaker.

What does 'delocalized campus' mean?

look at the link below.
http://www.business-school-pgsm.com/delocalized-programs.html

for delocalized institutions….understand them as partner institutions.

Oxford Dictionary:delocalize
verb
[with object]
detach or remove (something) from a particular place or location, or from local limitations:
(as adjective delocalized)

Merriam-Webster: Delocalize:
to free from the limitations of locality; specifically :  to remove (a charge or charge carrier) from a particular position

Definitions aside:

Some smaller institutions/colleges have partnerships with big colleges/universities to confer degrees. For instance if you attended an institute that offers degrees with a bigger universities' name, then Yes your diplomas were obtained from a delocalized campus.

I attended a university with more than 7 campuses.
So if you attended any of the six campuses apart from the main campus or if you took your studies online; then Yes, your bachelors/masters degrees were obtained from a delocalized campus.


How to arrange a multi-topic academic homepage I would like to build my academic homepage and I am not sure how to organize it. I did research in several very different and unrelated topics, and in every topic I have different types of materials (e.g. introductory texts for students, published papers, presentations, working papers and open questions).

One option is to arrange the website by topic. This will help students and fellow researchers quickly find the material that they interests them and maybe lead to useful collaborations.

On the other hand, potential employers (academic personnel) looking at my website may wish to see the material arranged by type, e.g. see all the publications by years, all the teaching materials, etc, regardless of topic.

What is a good way to arrange such a website? Examples of good multi-topic academic homepages are welcome.

CONCLUSION: Thanks to all the repliers. I learned from all the answers and examples, and finally created my academic homepage here: http://erelsgl.github.io . The main technical decision I took was to use Jekyll - a tool for automatically building a static website from templates. It allows me to put all publications in a single data-file, and then automatically creates pages for each topic and a general "publications" page. It is very flexible and lets me easily manage a bi-lingual website.

EDIT: one thing I am very happy to have put in my website is the wishlist page. In it, I put some open problems and research projects I am interested in. So far, 4 different researchers have contacted me regarding these questions. In two cases, this have already lead to a joint paper. I warmly recommend this idea.

My opinion...Perhaps instead of trying to sort the 'topics' or 'content' on the site, you could instead sort by user with a menu bar on the home page.

Have separate tabs/buttons in the menu linking to separate pages: 1 for "Students"; 1 for "researchers/peers"; and 1 for "prospective employers".

That way, you can put exactly what you want that particular audience to see (even if some content is the same across audiences) on individual pages. You will have 1 site, with 3 distinct sets of content arranged by topic independently of each other. On each of those 3 pages, there can then be a specific menu or something for the content on that specific page, for that audience, arranged by either a topic, date, tags, whatever.


How many referees are required on a resume/CV? I have looked at a number of academic resumes to get a feeling for what people expect. I see that the number of referees that people give at the bottom of their resume varies quite a bit.

My question is whether it is essentially always better to provide more referees or whether one should rather stick to a maximum of say 4 ?

I assume you are creating your CV for some application (job or graduate studies). I understand that having three to four good referees is good enough. You need not provide more than that. I am particularly speaking about the academia in US and I  believe it would be different elsewhere (e.g. UK).

Of course you may put different referees according to the requirement. I mean you may need to create different CVs for different occasions. Some referees would be better able to acknowledge your work for a given situation. For example you may need to take a recommendation letter from a (for example) Mathematics teacher when applying for graduate studies in Math.

In fact I have also seen that many people do not put the references. In an application process, they are required to separately provide the names and contacts of the referees.


Is it disrespectful to invite a renowned lecturer if I know that he will be travelling through my city? Actually I am working in an Information Systems Faculty in the main capital of my country. A few days ago I receive an email in which a university located in other city of my country; will have a renowned lecturer to make a small conference for the students in that university. I would like to invite that lecturer for a very brief speak with the faculty and some students, because I know that this professor will arrive first to the capital before moving to the other city.

The question that I have is how can I make him an invitation so that it does not sound disrespectful, because I think it will be a great opportunity for us to have this type of academic contacts. Should I write him directly to his email to see if he will available? or should I travel to the other university to see if I can catch him up after his lecture? The problem with the last option can be that he could be on a rush to return to his country and it will be a missed opportunity.

Any advice?

Thanks

This is a completely fair request, and you can ask her/him without any worries. That said, there are some aspects that you may want to take into account to increase the chance of the speaker actually saying yes:

Please do not just show up at the lecture and ask there. Almost certainly (s)he will have made other plans at this point. Ask in advance, and as soon as possible. This also has the advantage that you are not putting her/him on the spot directly, but give time to ponder the issue.
If possible, use a joint acquaintance to put you in contact rather than cold-mailing her/him. The probability of the speaker actually taking time out of her/his day to speak to your faculty will be so much higher this way than if you are just a random stranger who sent her/him a mail.
Frame the meeting as starting point for collaboration, not just an informal chat. Prominent people tend to not be keen on wasting their time on meetings with unclear outcome, so make sure that you and (s)he knows what to expect.
Relatedly, have a clear agenda in mind and make sure in advance that, should the speaker decide to visit you, the key people that you want her/him to meet are actually available. It apparently happens quite frequently that a motivated individual invites a prominent professor over, and then all the other faculty / students are actually not particularly interested in talking to the guest. As you can imagine, this tends to be embarrasing, for both, the guest and the host.


Research Proposal for PhD - Rude or Good I have completed my bachelors and am now nearing the end of my Master's, and I am looking for PhD positions across the globe in the field of Computer Science. While applying/perusing possible application paths for PhDs, I realized that while all universities recommend contacting a prospective advisor beforehand, none explicitly state whether or not I need to write a research proposal (some do enforce it during the application).

Now I am unable to decide if writing a research proposal (during the prospective supervisor search phase) is a good idea or if it is, well rude.

My justification for each are:

Good: The prospective research guide gets to know the academic aspirations of the prospective students, analytic abilities etc.
Rude: He may not be interested in my area of choice at all and think of me as a know-it-all guy, who is not welcome to changes, analytic shortcomings etc.

What is the standard way of handling this dilemma (or is there an academia wide sweet spot on how to approach this)? Are there any major points that I am missing/should be aware of, in order to tackle this problem?

Thanks.

Added Info: I do have a specialization and an area of interest and competence.

The first point to consider is whether you have a prospective research area in mind. Ideally at this stage you should have some specialisation, and a general idea of the field out would like to enter. If this is the case, it makes sense to write a proposal reflecting your interest. Don't make it too specific, but let it show that you have done your homework.

On the other hand, if you are unsure and open to exploring different fields, first select the groups you would like to join, see what work they do. Find a common area of interest and write a proposal based on that. This means you could potentially be writing many different proposals for different universities. The focus would be to ensure that the proposals are relevant to the audience in each case.

Either way, my opinion is that you should have a proposal ready. When you first contact the supervisor, you needn't attach the proposal, just convey your interest to work with him/her, mention some areas of interest and attach a CV.


Does a tutorial type conference submission differ significantly from a regular submission? I work mainly with in silico method development and data analysis within biomedical research. For an upcoming conference I intend to go with a tutorial-type of submission instead of a "regular" conference submission, which in our field would be a teaser of upcoming papers or application of something that is already published.

Based on what I read here on Academia.SE, in other fields (e.g. CS) conference papers are more prestigious (and thus more desirable) than conventional journal papers, but in our field it's the other way around, people prefer getting a "real" publication rather than a "conference paper" and thus typically don't want to give away much at a conference. This is simply because a) the same set of results would not be novel if submitted later to a journal, and b) if the results are still preliminary there is always the risk of being scooped.

At any rate, given the background, I consider preparing a tutorial type contribution where I present the practical _do_s and _dont_s of this one particular type of data analysis. I have noticed that many scientists in the field are not very comfortable with this type of analysis and it would also be a nice way to promote my methods. I am mostly considering this as a poster presentation, but of course an oral presentation would work as well.

So my question is:
Does a tutorial type submission differ significantly than a regular submission (for instance with respect to how the abstract should look like)? Is there anything in particular I should be careful about?

Tutorials at conferences in my field (supercomputing/HPC) are half-day or full-day sessions where you and your co-authors get up and teach lectures on your proposed and (maybe) have hands-on sessions where the students can try what they learn. These sessions are usually on a special day either right before or right after the regular paper talks and cost extra for attendees. There are often honoraria for the presenters due to the level of work required to organize the sessions. The submissions tend to be much shorter than the papers, but they also include CVs for the teachers and sample lecture slides from related or prior tutorials or lectures. A tutorial would never be given as a poster.

Given that, perhaps you mean to present a paper or poster that would be more of a  "How To" guide. Which is to say that you don't intend to give a half-day or full-day lecture on your topic. Perhaps you don't intend to give any new results, but simply show how certain methods are applied to you field. This might be acceptable to your conference's program committee depending on what is asked for in the call for papers/participation, but I suspect some sort of novel result will be required.


Criminal record and work on federally funded project I have recently interviewed for a position with a project with a major university. It is funded by federal grant (mainly NSF). It is not an academic position per se, but is led by a few principal investigators who are full professors. This is my first encounter with academia since completing my undergrad degree (I have worked entirely in private sector since then) so it's fair to say I'm pretty ignorant of many of academia's inner workings.

I think the interview went fairly well, and I like what I know of the job very much, but I have a concern: I was convicted of selling drugs (a felony) about 4 years ago. The position I interviewed for is software related and has absolutely nothing to do with pharmaceuticals.

While my layman's impression is that universities are fairly tolerant of such background in general (Bill Ayers and Timothy Leary come to mind. I'm sure there are better examples) I know that charges like this have bearing on eligibility for FAFSA student loans. Therefore I am concerned that there may be similar restrictions for projects that are the recipient of federal funding. The team may have liked me for the position, but they certainly don't like me several million dollars worth!

For what its worth, it is a private school. This is in the United States.

Any insights into any potential for conflict with federal rules? Any other potential roadblocks, or comments on the culture/conventions concerning these kind of issues?

My apologies for an anonymous question, but I think you can see why. If this question indicates lack of research I apologize as well, but I am outside of my realm of knowledge here and had little success with googling the topic.

I was not able to find any documentation directly related to the NSF, however, I would find it unlikely that it would be a problem.

If nothing relevant is mentioned in your employment agreement/contract, then you are probably fine from a legal/regulatory perspective.

As for the ethical question of whether you should volunteer the information to your employer, I can say that if your performance on the NSF grant were contingent on criteria like your criminal history, the professors would have likely asked you directly during your interview.  If they did not feel that it was important enough to interrogate you about it, it probably does not matter either way.

Where it might be a problem is if the grant requires you get a security clearance, as felonies usually invalidate candidacy for a clearance.  It is very unlikely that a clearance would be required for NSF grants; it's more likely from funding agencies like DARPA and ONR.  With that said, grants don't last forever, and the professors might eventually get one that requires you to get a clearance.  If the professors thought that might be a possibility or concern, though, they would have likely brought it up during your interview.  Also, the government often makes exceptions for software engineers/computer scientists since there is a shortage of ones who are otherwise eligible for a clearance.


Doing two PhDs one from Electrical Engineering and other from Theoretical Physics I am currently doing MPhil degree in Electrical Engineering (Sensors & Robotics). I did my bachelor degree in Electrical Engineering as well.

I have real motivation and love to do research on Theoretical Physics as well. The more I learn physics more I need to do a research on physics.

My initial thought was to get an M.Phil on the current University in EE and get my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from some other more reputed university. But since now I have an idea of doing Ph.D. in physics, now I am thinking of extending my M.Phil to a Ph.D. and finish it and do another Ph.D. on physics in a foreign University (Australia).

I have two questions,
1)what is your opinion on this path? I appreciate answers, especially by PhD supervisors.
2) Does getting a Ph.D. in electrical engineering minimize my chances of getting selected for a PhD( funded Ph.D.) in theoretical physics? (I mean is it better to apply for Ph.D. in theoretical physics after completion of just M.Phil).
Note: It takes only one extra year for Ph.D. if I extend my M.Phil.

If your aim is to do a PhD in theoretical physics (TP), then you should attempt to get on a corresponding PhD programme straight after your MPhil.

However, this may not be so easy, depending on the suitability of your current qualifications and qualities to TP research (and to the openness of potential supervisors to applicants from EE). So, failing to secure a PhD in TP, you can attempt to secure a PhD in EE (though in practice you may need to apply to both options simultaneously).

I don't think that obtaining a PhD in EE diminishes your chances for a PhD in TP, on the contrary. However, after a PhD in EE, you may very well change your mind and go for a career in EE. You should definitely allow for that option at the outset, i.e. choose the University for any PhD with care: don't just consider a PhD in EE as a step towards TP or a stop gap.


IEEE transactions specific: Is it necessary to number unreferred equations? Question: since the equation number is mainly a tag for referencing, I usually omit the equation number whenever an equation is not referred throughout the paper. Is this in violation of any standards, in particular those of IEEE transactions?

since the equation number is mainly a tag for referencing,

In fact, a reviewer or someone else writing another paper might need to refer to any of your equations, even those you don't refer to. Thus, better number all the equations.

The IEEE Editorial Style Manual specifies (p. 16):

  Consecutive Numbering:
  Equations within a paper are numbered consecutively from the beginning of the paper to the end.

Note also that the typesetter would probably put all the numbers anyway.


Changing a graph during a review? I am writing a machine learning manuscript for publication.

In a figure I had two learning curves for parameter 1 (P1) and parameter 2 (P2). Now, the reviewer asked to incorporate parameter 3 (P3) and show the learning curve for that.

The assumption is that the curve for P1 is better than P2 (P1>P2) and the curve with P2 is better than with P3 (P2>P3).

However, after training with parameter 3 I found a curve that shows (P3>P2). Probably P2 curve was stuck at a local minima. Since, my original P1 curve was okay, I was not bothered with the P2 curve that much when I submitted the manuscript.

Since, it is not expected, I retrained all three curves and after retraining I found the desired curves (P1>P2 and P2>P3).

Now, can I put this newer curves in the figure and submit the manuscript? Or I have to keep the original P1 and P2 curves intact?

You are allowed to improve a manuscript during review in areas other than what the reviewers specified!

Just make sure that you call attention to the changes and explain why you made them somewhere in your response to the reviewers.


How do academics change their area of research in the middle of their academic career? Often, I have come across profiles of tenured faculty members who are now doing research in completely different topics than what they had done in their PhD, postdoc or in the beginning of their academic career. For example, a professor in our department had done his PhD, postdoc and initial career in using molecular dynamics for nanomechanics. However, over the course of time he also added quantum mechanics (density functional theory) and continuum mechanics in his research. In other case, I have seen a faculty with an engineering-physics PhD related to thin films shift to working on 3D printing and developing aerospace materials.

My question is, how do academics change their area of research and what efforts goes into establishing oneself in a changed research area?

I have seen academics hire a PhD student to work on a new research area and learn as they guide the student. But, how can someone guide if the area of new research is very minutely related to their area of expertise.

There are two parts to this. The first is easy. If you are tenured then you just make the change, either immediately or gradually. Tenure gives you the freedom to do that. If you are untenured then you make the change and worry a lot about whether you will get tenured.

There is, however, one scenario in which it is advantageous for even an untenured person to change. If you are the new hire in a department in which there is no one to collaborate with then it might be an advantage, even if you are untenured, to join a research group and move toward their interests. It could, perhaps, enhance tenure possibilities.

The second part is a bit more complex, assuming you want to behave ethically. You can't really advise students very well if you have no knowledge, though a surprising amount can be accomplished. It is, in theory, possible to teach things that you don't know yourself, but you have to do it carefully, putting the student on a learning path that you haven't followed yourself. This is possible if you know about research and how to conduct it and are sophisticated enough to follow the arguments put forth by the student, just as you would the arguments of any colleague. I'll note that research groups actually do this - exploring a path that no one has followed.

But if you change fields gradually then you can also work into the advising role gradually, perhaps by being a co-advisor of a few students - even if informally until you get the required background.

I'll note that advising students outside your expertise, while possible, is risky and so the methodology used needs to remove risk for the student. A student, on the other hand, is best advised to choose an advisor who already has sufficient expertise in the direction to be followed in the research.

Note also that at the end of doctoral research the student is actually expected to know more about the specific research area than the advisor, unless the student has brought the advisor along on the journey to the end. If the opposite were true we would never advance, with each student being somehow less than the advisor.

Note that I've assumed here that the change is to a field that has similar research methodologies, such as changing subfields within a larger field. It is harder otherwise, of course. But the way we do mathematics or computer science is pretty similar within most subfields. Similar for chemistry, say. But to switch from math to history is a bigger challenge as the research methodologies are (I assume) much different.


Transparency about candidates selection for a post-doc position I recently applied to some post-doc positions at well-ranked universities whose number of candidates is usually not so large (ca. 15, at most 50). Usually, the recruitment process consists of a formal interview, and sometimes, a pre-informal one where candidates are first "filtered".
I'm not aware about the main procedure after such interviews conducted with candidates. I got only 1 feedback from a university being totally transparent on this procedure; i.e. you get a document showing (1) the candidates selected and those non-selected, (2) their ranking in the selection, and (3) comments about the selections made. This makes me think, is it authorized in general as an unsuccessful applicant to request feedback on the outcome of my application? I wish decisions taken were more transparent so that unsuccessful candidates could at least situate themselves in the pool.

Rules, regulations and customs vary a lot between different countries and institutions. Generally, candidates are informed that Universities are not able to provide feedback for candidates who were not shortlisted for the role. Candidates who were shortlisted and interviewed can have some feedback, but the quality differs widely. In my experience, the most detailed feedback I received from a nordic University, containing about three sentences from the Panel about each candidate. The least useful feedback I received so far consisted of one sentence:

Unfortunately, you were not successful, because we found a more suitable candidate.

In about 1/3 of cases I received no feedback at all even when I asked for it post-interview.
I have to say that currently the post-interview feedback tends to be rather useless, and in most cases it is a mockery of the transparent approach. I suspect that HRs are just too cautious that a frustrated candidate might submit a legal complaint, and are trying to "protect the University" by not saying anything specific or useful.
My experience mostly covers UK/EU. As I said the situation in the US might be different.


How do I respond to "how do you like your program" if I completely hate it? I hate my PhD program. I absolutely despise the program and many people in it. Sometimes at conferences, with new faculty, etc. I get asked what I think of my program. The real answer is "it's horrible, I despise it and I  totally regret going. Please stay far away".

I don't want to lie and many people seem genuinely curious especially new grad students/faculty etc.

When I say things like this, the conversation either turns really awkward or they start asking questions. I really just want to keep my head down, do my job, and finish. I don't want to complain. I don't want to cause problems. I just want to do my job.

Many people seem genuinely interested like new faculty etc. I hate lying. And I especially would hate saying anything good about the program after being burned. I felt like when I was choosing grad programs people lied to me about this one and I'm super resentful. I never want to do that to someone.

I also don't really want to elaborate because some things are sensitive. Say, a professor is a jerk and is screwing me over somehow. I don't really want word to get out that I'm talking about that person.

I've found answers like "Well, I'm working on a cool project right now" or other deflecting responses sometimes work but some people keep pushing and really want to know.

  How to I respond to this question without lying?

"My experience hasn't been great" is a clean way to indicate the problem without criticizing anyone. You may want to couple this with something honestly positive -- such as "I really like my research topic, but overall, my experience in the program hasn't been great."

If they follow up -- and they probably will -- you can say something like: "I've had a number of issues with the faculty. I probably shouldn't go into all the details though." In this way, you give a reasonable answer to their question without inviting further discussion. You can then redirect the conversation to something you're more positive about -- for example, your research or graduation plans.


Do MDPI reviewers have access to each other's reviews? Follow-up question to discussion in comments of this question.
Summary is that in 2015, there was a MDPI reviewer who was unhappy because their recommendation wasn't followed. The reviewer complained in the blogosphere claiming that the paper was published in spite of his serious objections, and that MDPI refused to let him see the other reviewers' reports or their contact information.
It's normal to not provide contact information of the other reviewers (since it breaks anonymity), but providing the other reviewer reports seems fine. I asked an MDPI employee about this last week and they claimed that it's already possible as a matter of course - their editorial management system allows each reviewer to see the other reviewer reports.
Something is contradictory here. I can think of many possible explanations, e.g. the reviewer didn't know how to operate the editorial management system, MDPI changed their review process between 2015 and 2021, or even the MDPI employee is lying/mistaken. I don't have any firsthand experience of MDPI's review process, hence I'm asking if anyone who has reviewed for (or has experience operating their editorial management system) can confirm if MDPI reviewers can see each other's reports.

I confirm that you can see all the reviewers’ comments. I review for them since January 2020.


Choosing between an older, prominent supervisor and a younger, junior supervisor for PhD I'm searching for a PhD position in theoretical physics. My question is:

Should I do my PhD with a prominent professor who is 60 years old and does not care too much about their students or with a junior professor who is not famous and does not have published too much papers, but cares too much about his students and is very supporting and nice professor?

I'll talk from my own experiences, as in my career I have worked with both kinds of supervisors: I was under a really famous professor, who did not care about his coworkers at all (to the point of not knowing my name) and with a little-less famous person (who became a professor only after we started cooperating). The former was a complete disaster, as he was not interested in my work at all, did not offer any advice (and you, as a junior researcher would need advice from the wiser ones) and was unpleasant in personal contacts and eventually ceased all communication, thus hindering my academic progress.

The latter offered interesting guidance and by the end helped me to settle down in academia by recommending me to a position.

After all, you do not work with names, but with people. Even younger professor is probably much more experienced than you and can share some of it to you.

Also, bear in mind that this is only my personal statement and your mileage may wary. While reading questions here I, for example, got the impression that names play quite big role in academia (not in work, but on recommendation letters, etc.), so you have to take that into account as well.


Do I have to include my pronouns in a course outline? I am a TA in a US school and my professor told me to include my pronouns in the course outline. I personally would rather not for social and religious reasons.
Her argument was that I will confuse students because they do not know what my pronouns are. I find this argument not convincing since it is very obvious what my pronouns are from the way I look. We ended up having a heated discussion and she was very upset with my opinion. We had a great professional relationship, but once she found that I am on the opposite spectrum of her social/political opinions I can feel that the interactions between us are not "good" compared with our interactions before this argument. In the end, she wants to escalate this situation to a higher level.
Am I legally obligated to do so? If not, will this affect my academic career?
Responses to comments:

I tried to avoid my view about the gender issue but since people are asking me to put it here, I will do so: If a student asked me to call him/her/...etc by a specific pronoun, I will do so (actually, I use names to overcome this issue, it is easy to do). I am here to teach them the material X, and I will make sure they all get the same opportunity. This includes trans and non-binary people. Even though I am not convinced; I do not support non-binary genders and I do not think it is possible that a one can change his/her sexual identity.
If I start putting my pronoun on my cv, it will contradict my beliefs since it implicitly says that I am ok with that movement. I do respect people's choices but I do not like to be involved in it. I am talking about myself and what to do with my "pronoun".
Some of the answers suggested to find an alternative and I did: I suggested to use my name instead! For instance: poman's stuff, poman said, I deliver it to poman. That is how we keep mutual respect. I always do this. I call people by their names, and I will ask about their names if I don't know.

Instead of the legal aspects, I would like to address the professional and ethical aspects of the pronouns trend.
In my opinion, the purpose of announcing your pronouns is to indicate that you will address other people with respect.  The message that is sent is: since I told you my pronouns, you know that if you tell me how you want to be addressed I will not disrespect that preference.
There is a secondary purpose.  People whose pronouns are not obvious may feel stress because they are the only ones who have to announce their pronouns.  If you announce your pronouns, you are reducing that stress.
Therefore, the professional way to behave is to announce your pronouns.  It's respectful.
Requiring people to announce their pronouns is, however, unethical.  Some people are not sure how they wish to be addressed.  Other people may not feel safe discussing their preferences.  Requiring these people to announce their pronouns is abusive.  Not announcing your pronouns is not necessarily wrong or disrespectful.


Is copying paragraph structure plagarism? While helping a friend with a research assignment (basically find some studies on a topic, compare them, and then evaluate the work as a whole), I noticed that the professor had provided a sample paper.

They had one paragraph for every study, and they were all in the same exact format. For example:

  [Authors] conducted a [type of study] to investigate [phenomena]. The
  study was conducted at [institution] and involved [N] [types of
  people]. The strengths of this study were [...] etc.

Is it plagiarism to copy this exact format? Or is the structure of paragraphs not something to worry about?

It's not "plagiarism" because you are copying a standard format. That is known as scenes a faire in fiction, but can apply to Academia. This is not only allowed, but encouraged, because you are conforming to a "formula."

You should be worried if you were copying an unusual or original format. That's not the case here.


Need suggestion on simultaneous submission in journal and conference Is it correct to submit a revised version of a paper to the same journal while some application part of the paper is under review in a conference?

I have received a request for revisions on a journal paper, and am thinking to submit some part of it to a conference. I can't wait for the conference decision, as that will cross the journal revision deadline. Therefore, my question is can I submit it to the same journal while the paper is under review in conference.

The conference and journal version have similarities, but they are significantly different at the same time.

It sounds like you've gone in the wrong order, here.  In computer science, it is common practice to initially publish a work in a conference, then the follow it by an extended version in a journal, which is more thorough and takes into account all of the feedback from the conference and advances during the time since the conference version was completed.

Going the other way, however, strikes me as unethical and a form of self-plagiarism.  You have already produced a journal-scale paper, and mining a smaller conference paper out of it is just double-publication.  Now, in certain cases a conference might accept this if explicitly declared (there are some conferences that have a special track for reports on journal publications).  If the conference expects original work, however, you cannot ethically submit your paper to the conference.


How much experience is required to apply to be on the editorial board of a journal Background: I am a pretty early career academic (a couple years out of post-doc) and am junior faculty at a research intensive school. My CV is not bad, but is also not overly impressive. I'm a quantitative researcher in a science field and have around 20 publications, many of them in good journals but most of them not as first author, and a small amount of success in acquiring funding (have 1 small NIH grant as PI). I can say with confidence that I do NOT have a "national reputation" at this point.

Like many people in my career stage, I am on the mailing list of many journals I've submitted to, etc., and have some experience as a reviewer. One slightly-above-average journal has made an open call for statistical editors and has solicited applications. This interests me but I've always imagined editors as the super-experienced researchers who have had long illustrious careers, which I most certainly have not.

My question: when open calls are made for editorial positions, what is the general requirement for those who apply? Would an early-career researcher who has the proper expertise, but not necessarily the name recognition/reputation, be considered? I.e. the issue is not about "how much experience do you need to perform the duties of an editor"--it's about what kind of credentials do you need to have your application taken seriously. To be clear, these are volunteer positions.

I believe this will depend partly on the field, and heavily on the journal. Is this a prestigious journal? Is it an area specific journal? In my own field, however, you can often email the editor (for smaller journals specific to your own specific area) if you've published a few articles with that journal, and they ask you regularly (say, 3-4 times a year) to review an article for them. In those cases, they will sometimes be happy to add you to the editorial board if you ask. Obviously, more prestigious journals will have steeper requirements, but if you're an early career academic, you should probably start off with a smaller, area specific, journal.

In this specific case, it can't hurt to apply. But if it's a prestigious journal in your field, I wouldn't keep your hopes up. If it's a smaller journal in your field, ask yourself if you want them to send you every paper with odd-ball stats that you need to review. Is it worth it in that case? It's helpful to everyone to be on an editorial board, so be sure to ask yourself why they have to put out an open call to find a board member. It may be because it's a smaller journal and there are no experts in the field, or it may be something else. You'd be the best judge of that question.


If you work at a university and take courses, is the degree the same? I know someone who works at a university and is considering taking courses there (which the university allows and subsidizes for its employees). If they take enough courses to make up a masters degree, will they be accredited a masters degree? Will employees, schools, etc. See this as the same as if they had just done the masters program regularly?

EDIT: In this case, their work isn't directly related to the MS program. Instead they work more generally for the university, in a capacity that isn't related to any particular department. They also hold a bachelors of science in the given field so I don't think prerequisites would be an issue.

Many master's degrees have other components besides required coursework, e.g. "comprehensive" exams, projects, a thesis.  Certainly to get a master's degree you need to fulfill all the requirements.

Someone who is taking master's level courses piecemeal should check to see whether and in what way they can fulfill these additional requirements.  This may depend on the details of the enrollment.  However, in most cases that I know about, the department and the faculty won't care much about the administrative fine print, so long as the student is doing well in the courses and shows herself capable of doing whatever extra work is required.

If you do fulfill all the requirements of a master's degree, then you get a master's degree.  Whether you were employed by the university at the time has nothing to do with the degree and probably would not show up on the transcript.  By the way, in many academic fields most or all graduate students are employed by the university in one manner or another -- e.g. as a PhD student, I taught every other semester, and every semester that I was teaching I received a separate ID card listing me as an officer of the university.  I had quite a few of these cards by the time I graduated.

Added: In order to get a degree, you need to be enrolled in the program. There is such a thing as a "non-degree student"; you might want to look that up. What I and Bill Barth are saying is that, in practice, a non-degree student who is doing well in the coursework and shows herself able to complete all the requirements of the degree has a good shot at getting enrolled in the degree program.


Asking to visit a university, and be given workspace for a week We have a few questions on offering to give a talk at a university.
And the general response is that is pretty acceptable.
It is basically asking to be invited as a speaker.

What I am wondering about is:

I am asking to be invited to speak and to be given a working space.

Details:

My university has a spare office or two in every department for "visiting academics". Is this typical of universities?
I believe they are intended for professors on sabbatical. But perhaps not exclusively so, last year an engineer with a well-known company's research group invited himself to use one such space in our university.
We also have a few spare spaces in the lab, I've never seen our space used by a visiting student, but friends in other labs tell me they fairly regularly have visiting student's in their labs.

I am going to a conference about a month before my PhD thesis is due.
It is in a city where I have a few contacts.
I've heard about some of the work their groups are doing, and I'd like to be able to meet with them.
I'ld also like to have a place to sit and work on my thesis when I am not.
I thought I might talk to my contacts and see if I could arrange to be invited to give a talk about my thesis work, and also be given some space to work.
(Whether a desk in a lab, or in an office, is of little consequence.)
I thought perhaps a week before the conference would give me plenty of time to meet with people and have deep discussions etc.

Asking for an invitation is of-course a favour, but I'm not sure how big a favor I'd be asking.

Is asking to be invited to visit a lab for a week a big favor?
Is asking for space to work on top of that a greater favor? (or is that implied?)

I disagree with the existing answers. I don't see this as a "big ask" at all, as long as your expectations are reasonable. You should not expect to get a nice individual office, but if I know you at all I would definitely be able to find you a space somewhere in my or my division's labs. My students have also done similar visits in the past, sometimes in labs that we did not have extensive connections to, so I guess other people also don't see this as a huge deal.

Of course you should have some idea what you and the host will get out of the visit - people may not be thrilled to host you if this is really just a cover-up for a private visit. Conversely, for a week-long visit, you should also not expect to be "entertained" for the entire week. People will not be able to cancel everything for an entire week.