Why does art history exist as a distinct discipline separate from the discipline of history? Art history is an established academic discipline and you can do degrees at all levels in it.

Why is this the case?

Why isn't it considered a sub-discipline of history?  It seems to stand separately as its own subject.

Why don't you get a BA in Music History, for example?  I am sure people study music history, but its much less well known as a discipline than art history.

Coming at this far after the OP, but as an art historian I felt compelled to reply.

The reasons for the Art History's separation from History are myriad (political, pedagogical, philosophical, etc. etc. etc.). In general, art history is rooted in objects/visual materials, and requires training in the methodologies and historiography of visual analysis. Many of the tools of art historical work overlap with those of historians––we are informed by broader methodological shifts (psychoanalytical theory, feminism, postcolonial debates, etc.) and have our own set of theoretical paradigms that have extended beyond the realm of art history (Bildwissenshaft, formalism, iconology, etc.). It's a vast field that in recent decades has splintered into related disciplines (visual culture, visual studies). Depending on his or her methodology, an art historian could likely be as well-versed in the "historical" literature as the "art historical" literature in any particular area. Art historians are, I believe, departmentally separate (or often groups with studio art programs) due to the emphasis on object-based research and teaching. That said, art historical research requires the same level of rigor and sophistication as any other form of historical research.

While many art historians choose to go the curatorial route, many who pursue advanced degrees stay in academia. Working in a cultural institution like an art museum requires a distinct set of skills from that of an academic. Some graduate programs in art history gear themselves more toward the curatorial route, while others are more focused on academic research.

One element of art history that can, I think, be a bit confusing to the outsider is the interpretative element. Any strong analysis will be rooted in historical "facts," but when examining a work of art, there's always going to be some measure of interpretation or speculation. Again, if a conclusion is not borne out by strong research, it will generally not be widely accepted. But the extent to which art historians think creatively about their objects of inquiry is one of the many reasons the field can, to me, be so invigorating.


How did someone receive an arts degree and then become a scientist? Take de Broglie

  De Broglie had intended a career in humanities, and received his first degree in history. Afterwards, though, he turned his attention toward mathematics and physics and received a degree in physics

And Edward Witten,a very famous theoretical physicist

  Witten attended the Park School of Baltimore (class of '68), and received his Bachelor of Arts with a major in history and minor in linguistics from Brandeis University in 1971. He published articles in The New Republic and The Nation. In 1968 Witten published an article in The Nation arguing that the New Left had no strategy.[citation needed] He worked briefly for George McGovern's presidential campaign. McGovern lost the 1972 election in a landslide to Richard Nixon.
  Witten attended the University of Wisconsin–Madison for one semester as an economics graduate student before dropping out.[citation needed] He returned to academia, enrolling in applied mathematics at Princeton University[citation needed] then shifting departments and receiving a Ph.D. in physics in 1976 under David Gross, the 2004 Nobel laureate in Physics.

In china,student major in history or literature won't study mathematics at all,and almost everyone think it's impossible for someone receive BA then turn to science,so how did someone receive BA and then become a scientist?

The thing to remember is that an individual is more than their degree classification.

Every person has their own interests, hobbies, skills, and personal projects.  While a BA in one field may be an indicator of a person's interests, it does not mean that the person in question knows nothing outside of what was required for that degree.

For example, it is very possible that a person receiving a BA in philosophy may:

enjoy a STEM discipline, leading them to take classes in it for their own enjoyment
enjoy a STEM discipline or topic and choose to learn about it on their own
end up in a job that requires that they learn skills that are applicable to a different discipline
apply to graduate school for a STEM discipline and be willing and able to invest the time to catching up on the material
be naturally gifted at whatever the STEM discipline is

Most likely, in cases where people change disciplines, it's a combination of several of the above.

Anecdotally, I got a BFA, but continued taking calculus as a free elective in my undergraduate degree.  I had to learn programming for work after graduating and ended up in graduate school for Computer Science.  I entered graduate school with the knowledge that I would need to work at least twice as hard to catch up on the material and just went ahead and worked at it.

It may be completely different in other countries, but even in those countries, I can't imagine that anyone is completely limited to only knowing things that are required for their degree.  There are a lot of situations that can force you to learn new skills, and that's without taking into account that some people have hobbies that are cross-discipline.

Another way of looking at it is: would you be surprised if a famous physicist played the violin well enough to perform?  There's no logical reason why someone who plays the violin shouldn't be able to do the same the other way around.  Both require a progressive learning of skills and a large time investment, unless you're naturally gifted.


Finishing PhD and didn't secure a postdoc position: how to proceed? Disclaimer: My PhD supervisor, while not a bad person, is a bad mentor and has given me bad advice in the past. So discussing this with him isn't really productive. I have talked to other people in real life about this, and the opinion of this community would also be welcome.

I'm set to finish my PhD in theoretical physics in September 2020. I applied to several postdocs, got three interviews, and in one I was rated among the top choices but, in the end, I didn't secure any position.

I don't know how similar this is to the fields, but for context I'll explain how postdoc appointments work in (edit: high energy) theoretical physics. In my field, postdoc applications run in cycles. The majority have roughly the same application periods and deadlines (around November), most offers are made at the same time (early January following year) and they all start roughly at the same time (September). There's the occasional outlier, but that's the basic pattern. This means that it's more or less hopeless that I can continue looking for a position, ask professors, etc, for September 2020. If I wanted to stay in academia, I would need to look for a postdoc in the next cycle, starting September 2021.

I am unsure how realistic it is for me to try again or if I should simply throw the towel and quit academia.

First, there's the issue of staying one year academically idle (obviously not professionally idle, that would be insane). I could work on leftover projects from my PhD on my free time, but between finishing my PhD in September 2020 and the deadline for the next cycle on November 2020, that leaves very little time to do so.
Second, how do I even explain the gap in my cover letter? If I flat out say I failed the previous application cycle, it's a guaranteed trip to the garbage can. Some people have recommended me just lying in vague terms, like I didn't pursue a postdoc immediately after completing my PhD due to "health concerns that have since been resolved". I'm unsure if this is a good idea...

If anyone has any other advice regarding my situation besides these two concerns I've raised, that would be welcome too. Basically, I would like to stay in academia as a first preference, but I have no desire to bang my head against the wall against something that, at this point, might be very close to impossible. I don't have any preference for country to work in, so feel free to give country-specific advice.

One option possibly available to you are academic jobs that are more teaching-oriented.  While (in the US and Canada) hiring for permanent teaching-oriented jobs is mostly over at this point, there is still hiring going on for temporary positions, both full-time and part-time, both at four-year universities and community colleges.

Such a position maintains an academic affiliation.  Not being a physicist, I do not know how taking such a job would be perceived if you apply for research-oriented jobs in the future.  I expect these positions (especially full-time ones) would be viewed positively in applications for permanent, teaching-oriented jobs.


How may a young scholar without tenure change their field of research? So let me elaborate on this question a bit with an imaginary scenario: John is a young, recent Ph.D. graduate in computer science. During his Ph.D. he was mainly concentrating on network science and algorithms, but he has developed a deep interest in computational social science, a related but not that closely related field. He wants to get deeper into this and even perhaps change his primary area to computational social science, but he may not be prepared for this. He has read sufficient materials and research work about this, and the required technology/math for him is not difficult, but he hasn't done any real research on this subject.
So in this scenario, what should a young scholar like John do if he/she is really dedicated to making some contributions? Please note, that we are talking about a young scientist, not a tenured professor who has much more freedom.
A postdoc is certainly an option, but how likely is John getting a postdoc position since it's not his primary research area?

Your best hope for getting a postdoc position in a related field where you don't have much expertise is when there's a valid quid pro quo (mutualistic relationship) between you and your postdoc advisor. They need to get a project done. You need a paycheck, and the opportunity for training in a different field. If you can fill in a key piece of the project (especially an interdisciplinary project that overlaps your area), then it's a win-win situation.
You might even benefit from going even farther afield, to a social science group that is not particularly computational but wants to introduce a computational component in a project (if they were already computational, they might not need your help). Or find a computational social science group that really needs to "up their game" in computational aspects of network analysis.
This also assumes that you are a flexible person who will be able to pick up the necessary frameworks largely by osmosis and self-study (with the advantage of being embedded in a social science research group); your postdoc advisor probably doesn't want to have you spending half your time taking remedial coursework ...
The more valuable your existing skills are to someone in the new field, the better your bargaining position.


Which license should be chosen in arXiv for reports and preprints to be published in Elsevier? First, imagine the following scenario: A "report" is first archived in arXiv as version one (v1). From that report, a "preprint" manuscript (with the same title as the report, but probably shorter than the report, in order to comply with the number of pages required by the journal) is prepared, archived in arXiv as v2 and later sent to Elsevier. After acceptance, the "postprint" (version improved with the comments suggested by the reviewers) is archived in arXiv as v3.

Here we consider only the case of green open-access (the copyrights are transfered from the authors to Elsevier), and not the case of gold open-access (the copyright still belongs to the authors), since in the later case it is clear that any license that the authors wish can be applied to the report, preprint and postprint.

Said that, the more detailed questions are the following:

Is the "preprint" considered a derivative work of the "report"? Is the "postprint" considered a derivative work of the "preprint"?
Do the authors of the "report" and "preprint" still hold copyright on each of them (despite the copyrights of the postprint have been transfered to Elsevier)? See a sample of the publishing agreement and Elsevier's sharing policy FAQ (where the issue is not completely clear, at least to me)

  Are you asserting copyright over preprints?

  No, preprints can be used anytime anywhere by authors. We encourage authors seeking to publish in Cell Press, The Lancet, and some society owned titles to check the author section on the journal homepage for additional information.

In case of yes, does it mean that ANY creative commons (CC) license (CC:BY/4.0, CC:BY-SA/4.0 or CC:BY-NC-SA/4.0) can be applied to the "report" and the "preprint"? See Elsevier's sharing policy (the issue is again not clear to me)

  Preprint

  Authors can share their preprint anywhere at any time.
  If accepted for publication, we encourage authors to link from the preprint to their formal publication via its Digital Object Identifier (DOI). Millions of researchers have access to the formal publications on ScienceDirect, and so links will help your users to find, access, cite, and use the best available version.
  Authors can update their preprints on arXiv or RePEc with their accepted manuscript .

In case of no, what open-access license could have been applied to both the "report" and the "preprint"?

It is clear from a previous post that the "postprint" should have a CC:BY-NC-ND license in the .pdf file and uploaded to arXiv under "arXiv's non-exclusive license" since both are compatible and satisfy the requirements of both Elsevier and arXiv.

Also SHERPA/RoMEO doesn't mention what kind of license can be applied to the "preprint".

Thank you for your help

Is the "preprint" considered a derivative work of the "report"? Is the "postprint" considered a derivative work of the "preprint"?

This probably needs a lawyer to answer definitively. Needless to say, I am not one and cannot give an authoritative answer to this question.

My experience suggests that academics and publishers often treat the preprint and "postprint" - or, in general, different versions of the manuscript - as effectively the same work for copyright purposes (e.g. copyright transfer agreements make a point of addressing what the authors are allowed to do with preprints), even though, strictly speaking, I don't believe this is supported by US copyright law.

If one is to consider the preprint and postprint and other versions as separate works, it seems much more plausible that the postprint would be considered a derivative work of the preprint, rather than the other way around. The argument that a derivative work could be created before the work it is derived from is questionable, although I suppose some odd things of this sort are legally valid, so I can't say for sure.

  Do the authors of the "report" and "preprint" still hold copyright on each of them (despite the copyrights of the postprint have been transfered to Elsevier)?

I suppose this depends on the legal interpretation of the copyright transfer agreement.

The passage you quote, which answers the question "Are you asserting copyright over preprints?" with "No....", suggests that, as Elsevier sees it, the authors retain ownership of copyright in the report and preprint.

  In case of yes, does it means that ANY creative commons (CC) license (CC:BY/4.0, CC:BY-SA/4.0 or CC:BY-NC-SA/4.0) can be applied to the "report" and the "preprint"?

Well, at the time the report and preprint are uploaded to arXiv, the authors are indisputably the copyright owners and there are no other legal conditions that might interfere with applying a CC license to the preprint. So of course the authors can choose to apply a CC license. If they do, in principle, Elsevier could refuse to accept the manuscript for publication; or, if they do accept the manuscript and later find out that a preprint had been uploaded to arXiv, they could argue that the author executed a copyright transfer agreement under false pretenses and the agreement should be voided, or something of that nature. I can't say whether they would actually do this in practice.

Elsevier's sharing policy says

  Authors can share their preprint anywhere at any time.

That means that authors can upload their preprints to a server, and one would hope it implies authors can also grant the server operator the rights to further share the preprint with readers. It's not clear whether Elsevier's policy allows the author to grant others the right to prepare derivative works, which would be (legally) required to upload it to a site like arXiv which distributes preprints under a Creative Commons license.


It seems my advisor doesn't trust me, but why? Even though my advisor is reasonably friendly with me, it feels like he doesn't 'trust me' as much as he trusts the other grad student (let's call him X) in the lab. A few examples:

I joined a lab a few weeks before X and we both worked on the same project until recently, and both made significant contributions to the project - but I was first author on the paper. Without telling me, my advisor asked X, the second listed author, to present our work at a local conference, instead of simply asking us both who would be available. I did not even know about it until X asked me to review his presentation.
He asked X to review an article in his name, about something that I know more about: the manuscript is focusing on something very similar to what I was working on during my Master's, whereas X is unfamiliar with some fairly important notions in this sub-field. One again, I learned about it by chance.
Both X and I have moved on to different projects now, and are both working full time on these. A collaborator suggested a new side project that would quickly and easily lead to a paper. Guess who was offered the opportunity to join that project (despite not having more relevant experience)? That's right: X again.

I don't think I mentioned anything along the lines of "I have so much work I can't do anything more" but I also don't think I came out as idle or unproductive. I show initiative (or at least I believe I do) so I really have no I idea why I'm not given these opportunities to learn and/or build an academic record.

I'm afraid that asking if something is wrong would make my advisor defensive, and make me appear like a negative person - which obviously does not help. But if I'm doing something wrong (or not sending the right signals, or anything like that) I have no idea what, and I would like to fix it as soon as possible.

Any idea about how to approach this issue diplomatically?

You may be misinterpreting and actually getting it backwards. Of course, I don't know the prof or the other interactions, but much of what you write here could well be explained by your advisor trusting you completely to get it right and the other student needing more help and practice to get up to where you are.

Student X may need all the help they can get, whereas you are trusted to make it without the need for extra intervention. It could also be that some people know you already have enough to do.

I could be wrong, of course.

But it would be worth having a face to face conversation asking your advisor for advice on your progress and, especially, any advice on what to do to position yourself for a great career. I'll guess that if there are any reservations about you that they would become obvious in such a conversation without having to directly ask whether you are trusted or not. And if you are trusted, the advice would probably be pretty valuable in the future.


How to answer a supervisor's email that includes and presents another professor to you? What do you do when professor A wants to present professor B to you and does that by including professor B in the same email with the formula "I have copied him/her into this email so you can make contact with him/her directly"?

I'm a little uncertain if I should answer separately to thank professor A and to present myself to professor B, or if I should answer with the same email to both. If the latter, what is the best approach to use?

It depends on what that new contact is for.

If it is for something completely unrelated to anything that you are working with professor A, then I'd suggest replying to both with a thank you message and then separately contacting Prof B.

If, instead, the work is, even sidely related to whatever you are doing with Prof A, add everyone in your emails. Transparent communication is key in any healthy relationship. If you are worried about spamming Prof A with relatively non-related content you can always contact Prof A separately and directly ask him if he/she wants to keep being CC'd in the email chain, there is no problem with that.

These Profs, they are just people, treat them like people!. Don't overthink it, as StrongBad says.


How to politely remind a Professor to re-review my application? I recently applied to a Graduate School and also wrote to a Professor, I really want to work with. She scheduled an interview and it went immensely well and she also said that I would be a fit for her lab. But just before ending the interview, she told me to e-mail her my unique application ID, so she can have a look at my complete application. She said she'll get back to me.

This is was before the Christmas/New Year holidays. I was anticipating a reply but thought of waiting further until the holidays got over. I never received a response. Now that the holidays are over, I want to draft a mail re-reminding her about my application. What would be a polite way of doing this?

So far, I've got this

Respected Professor,

Thank you for interviewing me for a position at your lab on MM-DD-YYYY.
According to your instructions, I've mentioned you in my application as a potential supervisor. My application ID is XXXXXXXX. This is a gentle reminder for my application.

Thank you for your time and consideration!

Kind Regards,
XXX YYY

I'd probably wait for some more time. The professor probably took Christmas holidays as a chance to have some time off to spend with her family or doing other things. Don't put pressure on her, let her have another week to carefully look at your application and reply to you with no hurry. In case you don't get a reply by next monday, then it will be appropriate to write an email.


How to handle research advisor meeting stress I'm starting my master's thesis work with a new professor and had a really bad meeting with them recently. They asked me questions I am supposed to be able to answer, but I was so stressed I couldn't think. I couldn't write stuff on the board. It was just a mess.

He said some things that made me feel pretty bad about myself and I really don't want that to happen again in the next meeting. Could someone please share their ways on how they prepare for research meetings they are nervous for?

It sounds like you're a new graduate student, and that you clearly care about performing well in your program. You stumbled, and you've accepted responsibility and looking for ways to correct the problem. That's great, and suggests that you will end up doing very well in your program. As a master's student, you're not expected to be able to work completely independently, and your professors will likely be happy to help you navigate your program (they certainly should). The key is to ask for help early and often.
I would consider scheduling an appointment with my adviser, telling them exactly what you've said here, and asking them for advice on how to prepare for meetings, and perhaps even advice on how to structure your independent learning so that you're learning the specific techniques/concepts that want you to know at each stage. Every adviser is different, so the best advice you can get will come directly from them. It may be intimidating to ask for help, but it is completely appropriate at this stage in your graduate education.


Can I refuse a grant position I was offered and still hope to work there in future? After an interview, I was offered a pre-doc grant for one year. Although I'm very interested in the research, I have other reasons to prefer staying in my current position: I think it would be easier for me to pursue the PhD I want from here.
Is it possible to kindly refuse the proposal and still hope to work with that group in the future, or would I burn bridges this way? If it is possible, how can I refuse the proposal without offending anyone?

Professionally, they should understand, if explained to them in a polite and respectful way. After all it is your life, and they need to respect your decision. Yes, it is disappointing, but it should not burn bridges - good people are not easy to find and they should be happy to keep in touch; who knows what the future brings.

However, if they were so disappointed that they would be indeed offended by your decision, then it is likely that there are other problems lying in wait for you at that group, anyway.


Lukewarm grade in proposed area of study? I'm applying for study in a particular area of math.

To keep matters short , I was an undergraduate that took the graduate version of a particular class and ended up with a B+ . I had never taken any class on the topic before this.

The department received several complaints about the professor in the course and other professors in the department even acknowledged that the distribution of the grades was quite terrible , not expected for a graduate course.

Since the grade is in a class that is in my proposed area of study , should I mention it at all in PhD admissions? My supervisor and other professors in the department said they would mention that the class in question was terrible but I'm not sure if I should  talk about it myself.

I feel kind of strange not addressing the fact that my proposed area is the only course which I didn't do great in. For some context every other grade I've ever received are great so there is no pattern of doing bad or anything.

A B+ is not a bad grade for an undergrad in a grad course.  I suspect that it will not raise red flags in an admissions process.  The discussion on "complaints" or "the class was terrible" has no place in your application package, especially coming from you, and it would make the applicant come off as a whiner.  You took a course, you got a grade.  Done.

If admissions slots were limited, and I had to make an otherwise equal choice between  two students, I'd opt for the one that looks more mature, and complaining in your application package about a course does not make one appear mature.


Networking in a symposium as a "non-specialist" I am going to participate to a symposium (or workshop or conference) for the second time. I am a PhD student and I'm not going to present anything there.

I know that networking is very important but I'm so bad at it!
The first time I spent my time mostly with people of my group or directly involved in my project, and occasionally speaking with people I had met before once or twice (but almost exclusively when they were talking with the people of my group/project).
In both cases the conversation was just small talk (I like this buffet, the weather is nice, there is a seminar next week at our institute) or was led by the other people, and I would intervene if directly involved or if I knew the technical topic well (e.g., I am using the same library, I had the same problem...)

I would like to try this so much praised networking, but I fear I will do just the same as before. I've seen the poster abstracts and there is only one directly related to my project, so I am afraid I will not be able to talk anything technical about other issues. I have a master in Engineering as do most of the other PhD students there, but we have different backgrounds and we have focused on different stuff in our research, so I don't feel talking about problems I have studied five years ago to people who have practiced on them until today.
Is it expected to network as a "non-specialist"? I feel like that if I want to talk something to a fellow PhD student (not directly in a project similar to mine), it would be small talk and maybe the daily problems of a PhD student, but this seems like a poor alternative to me.

Let me tell you first that I can sympathise - networking also does not at all come natural to me. However, like most things, networking can be trained. The best opportunity to train is while doing it (or at least trying to), so your symposium should give you ample opportunity to improve.

First, if possible, do as JeffE says - have your advisor or some other (maybe more senior) person introduce you to people. Don't be embarrassed to talk about your ideas or your papers, or just about what you have learned during the symposium. That you come from a slightly different field may actually be an advantage here - the most interesting conversations I had at conferences often started with somebody saying "I, as an XY, find many of the presentations here really interesting, but why is there so much focus on A and so little work on B?".

Second, don't discard "small talk". Networking is mostly about connecting on a personal level anyway - it really does not matter so much what you talk about with people, as long as you talk to them. Talk to them about whatever comes naturally. It does not have to be about their research, even if this clearly is a natural conversation starter among researchers. Other standard conference convo topics (especially among PhD students) are: (1) life as a grad student, (2) difficulty with course work, (3) estimated time to graduation, (4) the ups and downs of the student's relationship with their advisor (although the last two bullets may be a bit loaded on occasion).

Third, try to not fall into the trap of seeing networking as "work", i.e., something that you'd rather avoid, but you know you need to do. This will make it automatically appear unpleasant, and you may end up just going through the motions so that you can say to yourself that you "networked", without achieving much.

Fourth, talk to people that you like talking to, and avoid like the plague people whose company you do not enjoy (for whatever reason). This sounds like a given, but I have seen many people classify conference participants into "important" and "unimportant", and then make a point to always talk to the "important" ones despite not actually enjoying it. This is a bad idea on multiple levels, including the fact that the PhD students from today are the professors and grant co-authors from tomorrow, so there really are no unimportant people in a conference.

Fifth, don't be too hard on yourself. You don't need to spend every minute of a conference networking. Many people, myself included, need a considerable amount of quiet time to function. Give it to yourself. It is ok to spend a few hours per conference day alone in front of your work, or on your hotel room if you feel tired of networking.

In the end, networking is the part of your work where the most important part is really to enjoy yourself. If you find one friend in the symposium, who you stay in touch with over the years, and who you write a grant proposal with in a few years, you networked successfully even if you talked to literally nobody else all week.


Pros and cons of paragraph-based writing The ancient masters, such as Euler, wrote in a paragraph-based
  style, where each paragraph was numbered and tried to explain one
  concept in about paragraph-length.

Nowadays, papers seem more structured, with more headings, etc.

Is there any study as to the readability of both styles?1

(I started writing a thesis which so far has emerged in
  paragraph-based style. This has worked pretty well for writing, yet
  readability might be an issue. Is writing like this a no-go?)

1 If not, how is your personal experience if you have written both ways?

Following the advice by @jakebeal, I am posting my comment as answer.

Follow the norms of your discipline, if you want to be taken seriously. If everyone else uses sections and  subsections and you do not, it will only look bad on you.


Can PhD students publish papers as sole author without including their supervisor? If the supervisor does not actually write anything for or contribute to the paper, can a PhD student submit the paper as a single Author?

Would this be a faux pas and cause a strained relationship with the supervisor? I know they expect their name to be on all papers related to the PhD.

Also, does using their lab mean they have a right to have their name on the paper?

If the supervisor does not actually write anything or contribute in
  the paper, can a PhD student write as a single Author?

Yes. If for no other reason than I did, which suggest its possible

  Would this be a faux pas and cause a strained relationship with the
  supervisor?

It depends on many, many factors. Is this a side-project that's been taking away from your actual work? Then it probably will. Have you talked to your supervisor and decided that it's the right way forward? Then it probably won't.

  I know they expect their name to be on all papers related to the PhD.

This is not universally true. While I expect to be an author on most of my graduate student's papers, that's because I expect to have done work on most of them. With an upper, and potentially likely bound of "all of them". But if a student wrote something independent, then no, I don't expect my name on it.

  Also, does using their lab mean they have a right to have their name
  on the paper?

It depends on what you mean by "using their lab". Generally speaking, just providing equipment isn't enough to warrant authorship, but if I did use someone's lab, I'd take a long look at the "did nothing" assumption and make sure it's true.

That's also potentially the source of a strained relationship - if you're using my space, equipment, and potentially reagents for a project I'm not participating in, I'd be less than thrilled unless it was discussed ahead of time.


What to do if you don't know the terms you don't know? If in a (mathematics) research paper, you cannot seem to find the term to describe something even after much digging and questioning, is it safe to assume that a word for it does not exist?

This question becomes even more confounding the more simple the concept. For example, I cannot seem to find a common term describing the first index in a sequence that a number divides (the index it is a primitive factor of).

If this assumption is not a safe one, how should I proceed? With one of the few things stalling the self-archiving of a paper being the ambiguity over a term, do I simply assume that there is not a common term and create my own at the risk of seeming like an ignoramus? Is there any other course of action that may be taken, any general approach that other researches have taken?

It's a common problem, not only in mathematics but in all fields of research. Oftentimes, we feel that there should be a term to describe a specific concept or method, but we sure don't know what it is or how to find it if it exists. Scouring the literature for a term we don't know is very difficult, if not impossible, as long as we don't have at least a direction to look for.

Basically, the best thing to do in that case is to do due diligence (e.g., ask colleagues in a suitable field, look over papers that you suspect may have used this concept or method, check some text books), but if that ends up being unfruitful you can either coin your own term or not use a specific term at all. For the former, an academic's favorite cop-out phrase ("to the best of our knowledge ...") may come in handy.

The good news is that, if an established term actually exists, you may very easily be pointed towards it during peer review.


Career Advice (Math Major): Industry or Academia I have one year left until I graduate with a bachelors in pure math, and as registration rolls around for next fall I need some advice on deciding which path I should go down. Ultimately it comes down to the decision to eventually go into industry or stay on the path of pure math with hopes of attending a good graduate program.

Ever since I started university I have wanted to get a PhD in math. I think I would truly enjoy being a professor, and I find the idea of studying math for a living very attractive, but as of late I have been considering other options for a couple of reasons.

1) Financial Reasons:

Industry jobs usually pay much higher than jobs in academia, and although money has never been my number one priority I still have to be realistic in planning my future.

2) I'm not Competitive:

So far the upper division math classes I have taken are 2 courses in Real Analysis, 2 courses in Abstract Algebra, 2 courses in Number Theory, 1 Probability course, and 1 course in Complex Analysis from a top 40 school. I have done decent in these courses (3.4), but not as competitive as I know one might need to pursue a PhD at a good school. Originally I thought I could be one of the "top" students in math and eventually go on to make real contributions to math, but it seems that I might not be cut out for it. I definitely don't want to fool myself to continue in a field that I will never be successful in.

3) Mental Stability:

I don't know if I am as motivated as I need to be in order to pursue a PhD. I enjoy math and the mental challenge, but I find that consistently struggling with math problems every day can be overwhelming for me, and I'm not always as dedicated as my peers seem to be. I also suffer from anxiety and find myself very overwhelmed in regards to tests.

4) I might be romanticizing academic life:

I think I was originally drawn to the idea of becoming a professor because I didn't want to end up working for some corporation monotonously running through the same set of tasks daily. I also have always liked the idea of teaching students and helping them discover their interests and harnessing their potential. That being said I think I might be overgeneralizing and overlooking the good qualities of jobs in industry.

With this in mind I have to make my decision for next years classes. I have two options; I can enroll in graduate level classes for analysis and algebra to boost my application for graduate programs, or I can take classes focusing on applied math, like financial mathematics, or some computer science classes.

Sorry that this was so long, but thank you for reading and any advice would be great! Specifically if you have experience in math academia, or if you have experience with industry careers like actuarial work or programming I would love to get your opinions.

That sounds like a tough decision but I see no reason why your long terms plans need to be decided now. Keep your options open by enrolling in the graduate level classes that will help you academic applications AND find a summer internship in industry.

Make your decision only after you have applied to grad school (see where you are accepted) and have a better feeling about what you might want to do in the private sector (go on lots of informational interviews).  It is easier to change paths (and leave a PhD program early for industry) than the other way around.

I say act as if you are planning on going to grad school but have a backup plan in case you find an industry job you really like or are not accepted at the grad school of your choice.

Good luck!


How broad should the research Interests of an undergraduate applying for grad school be? I'm an undergraduate student applying to grad school. In my Research Interests section in my CV (or somewhere else), I wonder how broad should my interests be.

For example, I have worked on topics about plasmonics that fall under condensed matter physics. Now can I write condensed matter physics as a research interest? I actually like most of subjects in condensed matter physics, and have quite accidentally worked on this specific subject plasmonics. Limiting the research interests to just plasmonics may limit my choices for application, while being too broad may cause me look like someone who has not even explored current research areas.

As an applied physics and engineering student, how broad should by research interests appear on my application?

I personally make it a little more specific to the department. Something like, "condense matter physics, in particular, the faculty Prof. A and Prof. B looks interesting in that (etc)."


How do you respond when people talk about the possibility of profiting from, rather than the exciement of, your research? Let's say you are passionate, I mean really passionate, about your field.
However, whenever you try to share the pleasure induced by your findings or further understanding or even acknowledged works with those you love and who love you, could be your family members or lover or spouse, you always get a response such as "Oh yeah, that might make a lot of money."

What do you do if you are uncomfortable with such a response but do not know how to properly express yourself in this context without hurting them?
What would you do to make yourself more comfortable?

Let's pretend that it's not an academic field that you are passionate about, but instead something like train spotting or fantasy football or competitive button collecting.  Seriously, pretend that when you are talking with non-practitioners, that every technical word that comes out of your mouth is replaced with something like "'Jaques Israel' Pink Latticino Swirl" or "1820 Georgian British Livery button."

Would you feel upset by their disinterest then? Depending on the answer to this question, I think that there are two ways to approach the issue:

If you would still feel upset, then it's not so much that you want the people close to you to be button enthusiasts too, but that you want them to be excited for you and supportive of your enthusiasm. A way that you can address this in your relationships is by talking less about the subject that you care about, and more about your little triumphs and setbacks in pursuing it.  For example, if you are elated because you have just figured out a difficult problem, tell about your struggle and your joy, or about how it can affect your relationship with your fellow button collectors, but don't try to explain the problem or the solution.
If you would not still feel upset, then it seems that you feel there is something important about your field that means that non-practitioners should care about what is going on in it.  In this case, you again need to drop the technical vocabulary, but instead talk about how the ideas that you encounter may come to affect the world that we all live in or our understanding of it.  A personal example: some of my synthetic biology work focuses on the study of translational regulation of Sindbis replicons via calibrated flow cytometry ("1851 Goodyear Patriotic Lady Liberty Button"), but I talk about it with non-practitioners in terms of the ways it could make vaccination easier, safer, and more accessible.

I either case, in my personal experience, the core of the solution is to drop the technical language and talk about whichever human dimensions it is that you really want the other person to engage with.


Correction of figure in galley proofs in Elsevier journal I have submitted the final manuscript after it got accepted, but I just found one error in the figures. The mistake is copying overlap two figures (2 similar figures). This mistake did not occur in the first and second submissions for reviewing and answering revision. Hence, may I change this figures in galley proofs?

This is my mistake. This change does not affect the content of the paper. I have not yet received the online proofing version. Hence, should I wait to correct it in the galley proofs? or should I resend the correction version now?

Is the error trivial (i.e. does not need to be peer reviewed, no reasonable person would object) or not? If it is trivial, then don't worry about it now and correct it during galley proofs. A sufficiently obvious error might even be spotted by the publisher when they do copyediting. If it is not trivial then let the editor know, since they might need to get the reviewer to check it again.


Bad First Undergraduate Semester I am an undergraduate student who is majoring in physics and computer science (two majors) at Baylor University, but had a bad first semester while taking Elementary Chinese, Calculus I, General Physics I, and Introductory Chemistry I.
I withdrew from Calculus I, but received a B- in physics and a C in both Chinese and Chemistry. In the summer before beginning at the university, I took Calculus I twice at a junior college during 6-week courses, receiving an F the first time and a C the second, but began it again under recommendation from the math department until realizing that I lacked the time management skills necessary to complete all the courses successfully in the first semester. After receiving an A in every class after the first semester at the university, will these first grades harm my image in the eyes of graduate school admission boards or employers? I am seeking admission with universities such as MIT and the University of Chicago for graduate school, so I would like to know what is thought about this problem.

Your least important grades are those earliest in your college career; if you have shown improvement, that improvement will be considered by most admissions committee members, especially if you show improvement in related courses at higher difficulty level (for example, based on your majors, I expect you have had many mathematics courses and physics courses since your problem courses in those areas).

However, you should know that if you are applying to top universities in your field, you will need a strong application overall - not only grades count, and admissions might be tight even for great applications.

Although I would not stress these issues in your initial application, you can use this experience to show growth when you interview for jobs or graduate positions. The classic "what is your worst quality as an employee/student" sort of question is a great opportunity for you to discuss your struggle when beginning college and especially to discuss how you were able to turn things around. Congratulations for not being discouraged - nice work.


Free/affordable bibliographic research I have some medical device ideas and I want some basic bibliographic research to assess feasibility and novelty. Is there a free or affordable service that can do this?

In the medical (and medical devices) field, pubmed is the place to go and the search is free. In most cases the abstracts should give enough hints on whether a paper might be relevant or not.

You should check patent databases (just ask google about "free patent search") as well.


Get a second master to have better references? I obtained my M. Sc. in mathematics from a decent European university about a year ago (when I was 27). Due to various reasons of personal nature, my marks were the equivalent of a 3.0 GPA, or something like that, and it took me quite a while to finish. I wanted to drop out at some point, also because of the same issues, which led to a change in my thesis' topic, arguments and a not-so-good relationship with my advisor, who agreed to keep me until graduation anyway.

Right after obtaining the degree, my problems gradually subsided and I got a reasonably good job in the consulting industry, which of course I am not interested in, but I accepted because I had to. However, my interest for math and physics recently rekindled, to the point that in the little time I can spare from my job I find myself picking up my old books, and reading new ones and it's getting harder and harder to do something I dislike on a daily basis.

I realized I wasted a good chance and now I wish to apply to a Phd program (anywhere, really, with the condition that it be a reasonably good one) as I feel I am a bit too young to accept how things have played out, but all I have right now is a mediocre GPA and no way to obtain strong recommendation letters to compensate. Therefore I think my chances to get into a good program are very slim (feel free to correct me though, if you think otherwise).

I feel my only chance would be to get into another (1 or 2 years long) M. Sc., perhaps in applied math this time and enter an environment where I can:

improve my record
get in contact with people who could help me with recommendation letters in the future.

Here come my questions: is this plan sensible? Does a candidate with 2 M. Sc. in similar subjects raise eyebrows?
Feel free to offer further advice on what my options are if you have any.

I wouldn't if I were you. Of course grades and reference letters matter but to spend another year or two putting yourself in debt just for reference letters seems like a lot. You will also be two years older, and with no guarantee to get the position you want. I would try to apply for PhD's anyways, or if needed, try to find a project for a few months in the group/area you are interested for the PhD. In Europe there is funding for exchange students/projects. I spent a year in Sweden after finishing my MSc. back in the Netherlands. This was paid for by a stipend from my supervisor in Sweden.

Doing a project will allow you to see if this is the topic you want to do a PhD in, and also if this is the right group. If you do a good job and the supervisor has money for a PhD student, you can apply. If not, you can apply elsewhere using this supervisor as a reference.

Good luck.


How to evaluate (my) faculty application? I just got my PhD recently and have a postdoctoral position now. I started applying to faculty jobs (tenure track/US/engineering/R1) for this cycle. I know that the whole hiring process is complicated, can/may involve politics, luck etc. and since most applicants don't hear back from search committees, how can I evaluate/compare my application to others (especially those who got interviewed/hired)? I would like to hear opinions from those who have served in search committees or are involved in the hiring process. Any tips or information will be much appreciated.

Unfortunately, there's little you can do on your own.  One huge obstacle is letters of recommendation, which play a major role in screening applications.  You probably won't know exactly what's in your own letters, and until you've served on a search committee yourself, you certainly won't know what the letters look like for the applicant pool as a whole.  This makes it really difficult to gauge how impressive your letters are: you just won't be in a position to estimate whether a given opening might receive three applications with letters comparable to yours, or thirty.  This makes an enormous difference for estimating your chances.

Partly you'll have to rely on advice from experienced mentors, who have years of experience seeing how job searches play out.  Partly you'll just have to guess, and apply to a slightly broader range of jobs than you hope for, just in case.  But you can at least make quantitative comparisons with recently hired people at universities you aspire to.  (Number of publications, prestige of journals/conferences, number of citations, etc.)  Don't take these numbers too seriously, since they can offer at best a crude impression of your track record, but they will show whether you're in the same ballpark as the successful applicants.  If your application looks quantitatively similar, then it may be reassuring.  If it doesn't, then that will at least show what you need to emphasize in your application.  (E.g., if you have relatively few publications, then you'd better make sure readers are impressed with their quality.)


How to evaluate a postdoc offer, if I'm not sure I'd be able to do the work? I've been accepted for a postdoc position but after reading the research project I realised that I barely understand anything, so I'm not sure if I would be able to perform it.

Should I reject the position and inform the PI about it or start the postdoc and try asking other postdocs in the group to help me?

A postdoctoral position is first and foremost advanced training that prepares you to be an independent researcher above and beyond the training you received as a graduate student.  Your postdoctoral training should incorporate material that you are unfamiliar with, and a training plan for you to learn that material.  If you are concerned that you barely understand the research project, I would recommend identifying specific aspects of the project you are unfamiliar with (background literature, methodology, unanswered questions, etc) and talk with the PI about how, if you accepted the position, the lab would set up a specific training plan for you to learn that material.  I would only decline the position if they seem unwilling or unable to provide that training.

Personally, I struggled with the same concern when I started my post-doc, but my postdoctoral PI repeatedly reminded me that she hired me not because of what I already knew, but because she knew I was excited about the field and was confident I could learn. I've been productive thus far, and feel well positioned for the coming job search.  Plus, now I have distinct skill sets from my predoctoral and postdoctoral work, which helps distinguish me from others in the field.


Can I ask the referee for help? I recently submitted a manuscript, and the referee's response is that I did not discuss one aspect of the theory I am interested in. This is true, because I am new to this topic, so I missed that aspect.

I am wondering if I can ask the referee for help point out some references or even discuss with him/her. Is it OK?

I see no problem with asking the referee (via the editor) for relevant references. The referee is under no obligation to reply, but I don't think it's wrong to ask.  But I don't think you should ask to communicate directly with the referee.


Does arXiv prevent your work from getting scooped, or the opposite? On the one hand, it seems like a preprint can discourage dishonest reviewers or editors (who get to see new work before anyone else) from running off with ideas since you have proof of originality with a preprint. On the other hand, a preprint puts the ideas out there to the world at large. What do you think is the safest approach, submitting to journals with or without a preprint?

Preprint services prevent scooping.
Every preprint service puts a date stamp on every document that is published there (and in many cases a DOI as well). That's an effectively unmodifiable record of the time when something went live, at which point nobody can republish your result elsewhere with an earlier date stamp with any reputable publisher.
That said, preprints will not prevent competition for the generation of follow-on research based on a result, nor will it prevent somebody from claiming independent discovery of the same result. Those, however, are just a normal part of doing business in science.


Is sci-hub also used in places having institutional access? Has there a study been done regarding the issue? Because I've seen a lot of people directly pasting the doi at scihub without even checking if our institution library wifi has access to the particular journal (even when they are right in the lib).

The only study that I'm aware of is the magazine article that Orion linked to in the comments. Anecdotally, however, my experience matches yours -- even in places with institutional access, some people prefer sci-hub as it's quicker and easier. No need for a lab-specific login or password, no need to check if the journal is actually one that your institution subscribes to; just paste in the DOI and go. In fact, there are even web browser extensions that automatically append the sci-hub URL to the page you're visiting, so with a few keypresses you can be automatically forwarded to sci-hub's cache of that page.


Should I cite the latest edition of a book? Before publication, if a new edition of a source is released, should I try and find the new edition or keep a citation based on the old?

Cite the edition of the book you used, as new editions may contain the same text, paragraph or example but on a different page.


Are there really disadvantages of community college and state Uni for undergrad compared to 4 years state Uni? I am finishing up my undergrad in marketing. I started off my college career at a Community College and then I am finishing my last 2 years at a local state university. This has saved me over $50k which is beyond amazing in our current (US) student debt crisis.

A lot of people in my university "look down at me" just because I went to a Community College. While I don't particularly care what those students think I was wondering if professional jobs also "look down on" Community College?

I currently work in a corporate position but will be leaving soon after I have my degree and am looking into applying for Grad school. Will having a Community College on my record put me at a disadvantage compared to someone who took all 4 years of their undergrad at a university?

Typically no, Community College transfer credit doesn't detract from your CV or Resume.  The second part of your question is harder -- is a State University a disadvantage compared to a high performance private school?  And that answer really depends on your plans.

If you plan on entering the workforce right after graduation then going to a small not known school can be a disadvantage for a few reasons:

Job recruiters may skip your school.  But that doesn't mean you're out of luck because you're certainly able to apply to any job that has an opening.
Many times people who make the hiring decisions like to hire from either where they went to school or a school where they've tended to really get good workers from.  So a small school that is an unknown can be a hindrance here.

But there is one good reason to go to a small school (aside from not having crippling debt as you've already pointed out).  At a small school you have better access to faculty than a large R1 University.  At a large University you're mainly in contact with TAs.  At a small school you get to know faculty and you will end up getting better letters from those faculty than some TA.

These letters from faculty who know you are a great asset because they can help you get into a good graduate school, where letters of recommendation are probably the most important part of your application.  Once you get into a good grad school you're set because then you're likely to be at an institution where the hiring manager went, or where they've gotten good applicants.

In general where you went becomes more and more important as you approach a terminal degree.  So definitely don't worry about going to Community College.


Were International Students discouraged from applying to the US this year? This is out of curiously - were there many international applicants were planning to apply to the US this past admissions cycle but chose not to because of the current administration/political climate?

Here're a couple of studies on this issue: One, Two.

There was a small decline - about 1-5% - in both applications and enrollment. This comes after years of growth. Whether the decline is because of the US's political climate though remains unanswered. Possibly - but it could also be a statistical blip.

For comparison, we also have record numbers of international applicants to UK universities in spite of Brexit.


Incorporating Cellphone use in a Course Most educators have some policy regarding cellphone use in class. Often this policy is "no phones" or "I don't care."

I would like to take different approach. I would like to learn of ways to incorporate the use of cellphones in the learning experience of the students. As such my question is

How can cellphones be used in a class to the benefit of the learning of the students?

I had a professor at my undergrad who would use an online service to create "mini-quizzes" throughout class; essentially, we would log into the service with our smartphones, he would place questions on his slides, and we would answer through the app/website. He could see the results live, and if enough people got something wrong he would go into more detail (this is very similar to the "iClickers" that some universities use).

I've seen some professors use Twitter as a means of enhancing the classroom - they would create a class account, and everyone would be expected to contribute by uploading photos, tweeting related news articles, and so on. I seem to recall this working best for classes in the natural sciences (biology, etc.) or fine arts (not that it couldn't be adapted for other fields, of course).

I also know of a professor at my undergrad who taught an interdisciplinary course that brought English majors, computer scientists, and a few others together to create a mobile application for a so-called "Poetry Walk" around the town. The group worked together to choose sites around town, create a piece of poetry associated with that site, and then build an app that would trigger a particular piece of poetry/spoken word based on your location.

Long story short - there's a lot of potential for mobile devices (I'm with scaaahu, if you're going to allow phones, why not allow tablets and laptops too?). It's really up to the instructor's imagination.

Based on O.R. Mapper's comment, I want to make a note that, for the foreseeable future, any activity in class that makes use of mobile devices should still not necessarily require students to have a mobile device. Simply put - this places students from less-fortunate (poorer) socioeconomic backgrounds at a major disadvantage, and it publicly reminds them of that.

The only exceptions I can think of are:

A university such as my current one  that requires all first-year students to have a laptop that meets at least certain specifications. In that case, asking students to bring their laptop is acceptable (though personally I think the requirement is a bit unfair, but that's my opinion).
A course that requires the mobile device as a central piece of the course (i.e., the mobile app development course I mentioned earlier. Though development platforms - smartphones - were still provided by the instructor in that case).

Regardless - if having a mobile device is not a requirement for enrollment, as an instructor you have a responsibility to ensure that all students have the opportunity to participate equally in the activity.


Doing a MA / MSc in your hometown despite the fact that it's not challenging? Couple of years ago, I have been in a situation where I almost had to make a decision whether to wait for an opportunity to come in the future, or to do a MSc in my home city which was average (if not below average) in quality. Luckily, I managed to win a scholarship and did my degree abroad, on a well equipped and well-known university.

However, if a candidate keeps being rejected the necessary scholarships for him to do MSc abroad, is the MSc program really worth it despite the fact that you know you won't get a good knowledge at your homecity University? Should a student that wants to do a MSc or MA degree in a chosen field do the MSc at home despite the fact that his home institution is not 'scientifically well-situated'*?

*In lack of better words, here I mean that the department at the home University has lecturers that aren't really knowledgeable. Also there are not (m)any international collaborations and there is no possibility for you to be challenged because nobody knows the new methodologies you are planning to use.

Something is better than nothing.

If a student, for whatever personal reason, needs the degree either now or never, he should always take the local program. If it is possible to wait a year, study, retake exams or makeup weak grades, do that and then reapply everywhere. But if it's "that" local degree or nothing, go for the degree.

Any weak degree is a bummer, but it still opens doors. It instantly creates eligibility for a new tier of jobs nationally and internationally. It makes one eligible for teaching, supervisory roles, and for PhD programs. If a student goes in knowing the program is weaker, he or she should have a self-defense plan. Supplement classes with productive personal projects. Perhaps working cross-discipline with a stronger local department. Example: my university has a weak biology department and high quality mathematics/statistics department. I recommend the bio students become experts in non-parametric tests and try to get method-specific publications to give themselves leverage.

Other ways of making the best of a bad degree is to find the one or two good quality advisors who will 'understand,' getting an internship, attending conferences, joining professional student organizations and using them to build contacts.

Admittedly, this answer could be modified in the face of age, family commitments, and financial hardship of the student in question. In the majority of cases, however, the 'weak' educational investment would still pay the greatest dividends.


What's the difference between regular (aka full), position and short papers? I've sent the article to the conference and it has been accepted. However, I received a message that my paper has been accepted as the short paper.

I know that there's a difference in, for instance, the oral presentation time between those 3 kinds of papers. However, I wonder if the type (regular, position, short) can say anything about the quality or the importance of the paper's subject?

Here is what I have observed at the peer-reviewed conferences that I attend:

A regular full paper is your basic standard peer-reviewed paper.
A position paper is for ideas that don't have and results, per se, but are worth communicating to the community, or for announcing a result that has been published with another community.
A short paper is for work that is worth publishing, but doesn't rise to the level of quality or significance of a full paper.

Short papers are generally significantly less respected than full papers, but may be worth it anyway: a short paper in a high-profile conference is often better than a full paper in a less significant conference.  Position papers are funny and in a different category: they aren't attempting to be the same as a full paper, and are typically judged more by a standard of "interesting to discuss."


What are tutorials in conferences? In addition to the main sessions, the workshops, and the special sessions, many conferences provide also some tutorials, usually the day before the beginning of the event or the day after the end of the event.

Computer science NIPS conference, for example, is one of these.

I've attended some of them, and I know what they are. But, if I talked with colleagues about tutorials, each of them would give a different definition of this conference aspects.

What actually are tutorials in conferences?

Are they specific lectures for young attendees of the conference?

Are they specific talks to give the guests the opportunity to explain and advertize a particular aspect of their research?

Or are they just a way to add one day to the conference schedule?

I think this varies a lot from field to field. In High-performance Computing and Scientific Computing, tutorials are very likely to be a set of lectures and hands-on laboratory sessions giving attendees instruction in how to use a computer, API, or other software. This could include "Programming for Intel Xeon Phi", "Introduction to Computing System X", "Python for HPC", etc. (many of which I have personally been involved in teaching). These kinds of tutorials are typical of conferences like Supercomputing and IEEE Cluster.


Asking to review my research paper I recently wrote a research paper and want to submit it to a journal but as I wrote it on my own and it's my first paper, I would like someone (a faculty member or a PhD student) to review my paper and in exchange I offer them an authorship. How do I approach faculty members and have them do so?

I think it is pretty hard to make a blind contact and get any positive response. I suggest that your first step should be to contact a professor at your university for advice. Perhaps they are willing to do it themselves, since they have some relationship with you. But you can also ask them for advice as to who might be a good person to do it. If you don't want it done locally, say that you are looking for outside advice. Professors normally have a wide circle of contacts.

The best thing is for such a professor to make the request on your behalf rather than having you make it directly. It is harder to turn down a request from a colleague than from an unknown student.

But don't offer "authorship" for a review. Many people (most?) consider that improper. Authorship should only come if the project is not yet complete and you are seeking collaboration on finishing. If the request comes from another professor it shouldn't be expected in any case. It is just a favor that academics do for one another.


Working further on idea from patent for student project and publishing I have simulated and aerodynamic concept from a patent based on aerodynamics for reducing Drag. Can I publish my paper ?

What is general trend ? Most patents on Aerodynamics concepts are just ideas or first they obtain promising result experimentally or numerically, then they publish patent.

Writing a paper solo is hard. Not only do you need to do all the experimental work yourself (in this case, simulating aerodynamics), but you also need to be on top of the relevant existing literature.

You need the latter, so that when you come to write up, you know what gets written up, how it gets written up, and when and where it gets written up.

Without that, you won't be able to write a paper that would get accepted by any reputable journal.

To find precedents in the literature for a particular patent, take the names of the holders of the patent, and then search for them as author names in the usual literature databases for your subject.

There are specific literature databases that will give you false negatives, but few false positives: that is, they will find much but not all of the good relevant literature, with relatively little junk literature, e.g. sciencedirect. Then there are general literature databases, that are much more inclusive, which means you're less likely to miss important papers, but they'll be buried amid a lot of junk results - e.g. google scholar.

As to your specific question: filing a patent is usually (depending on the country) time-consuming and expensive. Which means that patent-filers will either have done their due diligence on novelty and validity, including experimental and numerical analysis; or they've got sufficient money (or are so unaverse to risk) that they can file the patent application first (perhaps to establish precedence, or just out of vanity), and then do the work later.


Do german professors like to be called "Herr X"? I am a German student at a German university. I and everyone I know usually addresses my professors with "Herr Lastname" or "Frau Lastname". Sometimes I wonder whether they would prefer if I addressed them as "Professor Lastname".

On the one hand it sounds way too formal, especially after I heard them addressing each other using their first name only. On the other hand I sometimes feel like I am not showing them enough respect. I would like to hear some personal opinions of actual professors teaching in Germany:

Would you prefer being called "Professor LASTNAME"? Please differentiate between normal and written conversation.

I am not a professor myself, but I am going to report my observations from CS in Germany as a native speaker:

Basically, this depends on personal preference. However, there are some more and some less frequently accepted ways of addressing, so I'll compile a little list of options (centering around a fictional person named Thomas Müller):

Herr Professor Doktor Müller: While formally correct for most professors, this is rarely used in spoken language and should be reserved to written letters - and even to the more formal ones among these.
Herr Professor Müller: Usually acceptable. It's the default way of addressing a professor, and even if the professor might not prefer it, it's a safe way that won't offend anyone.
Professor Müller: This is not a typical (I would even say: correct) way to address someone in German. Titles such as Herr and Frau (Mr./Mrs.) are used even when the degree (or position) is indicated - the addresses Captain Meier, President Schmidt, and Doctor Huber translate to Herr Kapitän Meier, Frau Präsidentin Schmidt, and Herr Doktor Huber, respectively. (Only when talking about oneself, such as on one's academic website, Herr and Frau are dropped.)
Herr Doktor Müller: I have never heard about addressing a professor "only" as a doctor. The higher title always supersedes the lower one, and in this respect, Professor is definitely considered higher. Calling a professor doctor would seem quite odd to me, maybe comparable to addressing an M.Sc. holder as a B.Sc. (even though they have an M.Sc. in the same field as the B.Sc. as a direct follow-up). It feels like ignoring/neglecting some of the progress they have made in their career.
Herr Müller: This is very commonly used, and quite some professors seem to prefer it. I have heard various justifications, such as avoiding overly long titles, and professor being merely the position, not a part of the name. Some professors also prefer being addressed like this by their/other university staff (post-docs, doctoral candidates, ...), while expecting to be addressed as Herr Professor Müller by students.
Thomas Müller: Using the full name (given name + surname) is not a usual way of addressing people in German.
Thomas: It is rare for professors to allow this form of addressing to students, though within their own institute, first-name policies are not uncommon, especially with younger professors.

Note that for female professors, you can also use the female forms Professorin and Doktorin, although this might make your words sound even a bit more formal (as in writing).

EDIT: As correctly guessed by Massimo Ortolano, the name can be skipped in Herr Professor, although for some reason, this sounds quite old-fashioned to me. Probably, you would just say "Entschuldigung" (Excuse me) to call for attention, rather than directly addressing the professor nowadays.


How to best leverage resources offered at small undergraduate school to be a competitive applicant to top law or architecture + planning schools I am currently a senior in high school, and will be attending Hamilton College in Clinton, New York next year. Though Hamilton does not have 'core curriculum' requirements and is a small liberal arts college, I want to prepare myself so that I have a competitive advantage in applying to top graduate schools. Among the programs I might be interested in are Stanford or Harvard law school -- I'm particularly interested in their respective centers for internet and society.

On a different note, I might be interested in MIT school of architecture + planning. Obviously this early in my career my interests and goals will certainly change, but my question now is how to best leverage the resources offered at my small undergrad school to get into these sort of graduate programs. A general answer for a broad question is suitable.

As you mentioned, your career interests may change, and at the moment seem to be rather varied. However, there are a few things you can do to prepare for a graduate career.

1) Research the programs you are interested in (Harvard, Stanford, MIT) as well as similar programs that you would be willing to apply to. You will likely need to split this into two groups: architecture and law. Once you've identified approximately a 6-12 of each type of program, look at their admissions criteria, recommended coursework, and suggested extracurricular or work experience. Most graduate programs will indicate the grade point averages, standardized test scores, and subject matter experience they desire in applicants. Generate lists of the most frequently mentioned criteria.

2) Examine the offerings at Hamilton College in relation to those lists. If the law schools all request you take Intro to PolySci, be sure to work that, or an equivalent course, into your schedule. If the architecture schools all require you to submit a drawing sample, plan on taking at least one art class so that you can develop a portfolio (and possibly a letter from the professor). If certain specialty courses are unavailable at Hamilton, see if you are able to take the class at a nearby university, or complete it as an independent study.

3) As you narrow your career interests, use the summers (or possibly the school year) to engage in internships or jobs in those fields. Entry level work in a specific field and internships are often seen as markers that students are driven, organized, and mature. You may also consider joining undergraduate student organizations in these areas, such as the American Institute of Architecture Students (https://www.aias.org/website/article.asp?id=8), which can engage you in the field at a national level.

4) Regardless of where you apply, you will eventually need letters of recommendation. Be conscious of this while in school and develop strong relationships with your professors. Speak up in class, volunteer for projects, and seek their advice on your career.

I attended a small, private liberal arts college and used similar steps to prepare myself for possible graduate careers in biology and psychology, and found them to be effective. Although the school may not have been a tier 1 research institution or offer classes in every subject, the flexibility to complete independent projects and faculty support were invaluable.


What does "30 pp" mean for manuscript submissions? A journal I'm planning on submitting an article to has not listed a word count, but rather, has listed this:

  There is a requirement of up to 30 pp. per manuscript, including references; each manuscript must also be double-spaced, font size 12, with at least 1" margins (for ALL margins).

What does "up to 30pp. per manuscript" mean? Is this "up to 30 pages accepted" in lieu of a word count?

Some journals restrict by word count, others by page count, yet others by odd hybrids such as counting each figure as a certain numbers of words.  In the case of the journal you mention, it sounds like it is, in fact, page count, with a limit of 30.

Usually, if there is a page-count restriction, the journal also prescribes submission format more precisely, so you may want to look into that as well...


Just started PhD, feel lost and abandoned I started my PhD some months ago. My advisor was also my Master's advisor. He was impressed by my skills and passion so I enrolled in a PhD program with him.
What happened is that my topic changed quite lot and he didn't tell me clearly before enrolling. Basically my master thesis topic is in the trash for him now (FYI we published in a top conference with that). He wants to work on a totally new idea, on which not even him has the right expertise, so basically I have to study a whole new state of the art, have the ideas, acquire the skills and present the results - why do I even need a PhD advisor then..?

I feel lost, abandoned (I have nobody, nor other PhDs or PostDocs to work with) and hopeless. Yes, I tried to explain my advisor that I'm not excited by the new topic, but he's like "I pay you for this, so you'll do this".

Any experience on situations like this? Should I quit and say goodbye? Am I wrong expecting more by a PhD advisor?

You have good reasons to feel abandonned, and it is the good moment to decide whether or not to pursue a PhD. This decision is a difficult one to make, and you will need to reflect on your professional goals and alternatives for you. Starting such an endeavour, and not being excited by the subject is a big deal.

No, you are not wrong to expect more. A PhD student is not a researcher you pay to have something done. A PhD student is someone with some skills, but that still need training.

There is things you can do if you want to continue your PhD on this topic:

Ask your advisor to include a coadvisor with expertise in this new subject. You could even try to find yourself a coadvisor.
Find course on this new topic, either at your university or at another. Sometimes it is possible to take classes at another university and have it include in your program. It depends on your country and university.
Make the subject your own, by developping your questions around it. A little bit difficult when you are starting, but this is doable.

... and this is not an exhaustive list.


Citing MOOCs which cannot be accessed I want to cite a MOOC, but the MOOC is no longer running. The URL I saved only takes me to the course homepage, not the page giving the information I used. Is this acceptable for a reference?
This is the page I end up on, but my citation is linked to peer to peer learning within the MOOC.

Actually, the problem is deeper than this. The web is volatile. Any time you cite the web with a url, give the date that you accessed it.
So, if you have a date, even just a month, say, then give the url and the date.
There are resources like the Wayback Machine that archive web sites. It might be possible that the pages you need can be found there.


Is hiding publications in CV a good idea? Here's my story:

I study computer science. When I started my master's degree, I had good research ideas and I wanted to publish them immideately (I now realize being in a hurry is the worst thing I did myself in my educational life).

My thesis advisor is a perfectionist. His philosophy is all or nothing. Therefore, he ignored my immature works and told me to get ready for my thesis only. He said that my thesis topic is one of the hottest topics in area and possible contributions to that topic would be huge improvement in my academic career.

But again, I was dissatisfied. So, with the ratification of my advisor, I published two conference papers with another professor. One is in ICCAE '12 and the other one is in ICKD '13. Those are not so good conferences, but still they are not in Beall's List.

Now, me and my advisor are writing a paper to submit a top conference.

Here's my question: Those publications are not a bit of scientific publications. They are barely at a level of senior project. When I'm applying to PhD, should I put those two publications in my CV or not? The acceptance notification of the conference is due to July. Until then, is it better to have no publications or two bad publications in my CV?

In most fields, expectations of publications are very small when applying for a PhD position. What the committee will be looking at is your writing. In most cases, they will have only the thesis to study but in your case, you will also have a few publications, including the one for the "good" conference. The benefit of all of these is that they show you have been active and pursued publishing your results. That the first publications may not be strong will not surprise most, after all one of the main goals of a PhD is to provide the background to be an independent researcher and publish.

You may be in a dilemma if your papers are of disputable quality since avoiding to list them may, if found out, look like you are trying to hide them; regardless of your original intent.

To take this a step further: I think that adding comments on papers you think can reflect negatively on yourself can turn a negative to a positive. The reason is that you can show that you have progressed in your thinking to a point where you can be self-critical. This means that the comments you make have to be insightful and not just a list of excuses, in fact avoid excuses at all costs and provide good arguments showing your new insights.

So, think about how you can use your experiences (good or bad) in a positive way to show your capacity as a budding scientist. We all make mistakes, but not all learn from them.


Recommended for admission by the department but still haven't received official decision I was recommended for admission into the Math PhD program at a large state university in the US two weeks ago and the department informed me that they are forwarding my application to be reviewed by the graduate school. The graduate school said they will review my application and will get back to me in two weeks for official decision. Two weeks have passed and I still haven't received any notification from them, so I sent a polite email asking about my status couple days ago. But at this point, I still haven't got any update.

What should I do now? Thank you.

Polite phone call to the graduate school.  Emails could very well be received initially by students, and given that many schools are on spring break right now, that could delay them (or just student workers losing an e-mail wouldn't be unheard of).

If the phone call isn't able to resolve any doubts, speak with the department you applied to and they can put some pressure on the graduate school.


How should I deal with discouragement looking at others success? I'm a master CS student. I had so many troubles in my life. I didn't have proper schooling and were in difficult situations which led to me being not so good compared to my peers now at the graduate school. For example I had problems with math and so and when I got into my new graduate school everyone was almost far better than me. Then I started working day and nights to improve my skills and after a year of really hard work now I achieved almost their skills. However in that time my peers were also developing their skills and doing fancy projects and so on. Sometimes when I get to look at their success and projects I feel stressed and discouraged that I really still have way too long to achieve that. Or that I'm really putting so much work into myself because of the problems I went through but at the end I find myself still far. Whereas my peers are enjoying their lifes and at the same time achieving something. I know life is not fair nor I'm jealous, but sometimes I just feel sorry about myself that I work really hard but without much difference :(. This is also is leading so some self-confidence issue, that whenever I see one of my peers I get stressed and sometimes afraid to discuss a topic with them because I don't want to look bad not  knowing that easy stuff for them.

This is always leads to a voice in my head saying: oh if only a professor in MIT or Stanford sees how hard working you are, you might be there now. But of course I won't because I will always be far from the students there because of what I went through.

What to do to overcome this?

I will apologize in advance, because this answer won't give you what you are probably looking for; but it might give some perspective so I will reply anyways hoping that helps somewhat.

First off, know this: you are not alone! It's actually pretty common to look at your peers (at the office and elsewhere worldwide) and feel shitty about the "insignificance" of your accomplishments compared to those of others. To further strengthen the point, I can say that I am battling with this every single day for instance, despite what I hear from others about the quality or importance of my work when I look around and see what others achieve I feel depressed...

Secondly it's also good to try and remember that life isn't a competition. Well, some aspects of life are competitive, for sure, but you cannot go about living your day competing with others in every single aspect of your life. This is a simple but a very powerful insight, also very hard to digest it properly and take it to heart.

Think of all the aspects your life, from research to parking your car, from buying groceries to whatever sport you enjoy the most... I can guarantee you that there will be several (if not more) people within your immediate surrounding that will be "better" than you in each one and single aspect, if you isolate them one at a time. But I can also assure you that they won't be the same people if you consider different aspects. Overall, you are the person you are and constantly comparing yourself to others in single aspects (and focusing on your shortcomings) will only drive you towards unhappiness.

So does that mean you should just relax and go with the flow? Absolutely not! You have to play catch up, if you can identify your shortcomings in particular fields (like maths, or programming experience). It'll be frustration, it'll be long hours, it'll be effort... Try to focus on setting goals for yourself when you are in catch-up phase.

I strongly recommend checking out S.M.A.R.T goals concept which helps in getting things done and bagging that sweet feeling of accomplishment, little by little.

Hope this answer helps to some extent and it all works out in the end!


Journal does not tell me why they rejected my paper, even on request I submitted my paper to one of Springer’s journals seven months ago. One month ago I received a letter from the editor-in-chief:

  Following a review of the manuscript by the editorial
  board, we have regretfully decided not to consider this work for
  publication. We thank you for your interest in our journal and...

I wrote the journal an e-mail and asked for the review mentioned in the letter, but received no answer. I also wrote to the editor himself (to his personal e-mail), and asked the fair question: “why the editorial board decided not to consider the work?”, but my question was ignored. I have been waiting for one month for the answer.

What can I do in this case? Note that I only want to know the reasons for the rejection.

"Following a review of the manuscript by the editorial board, we have regretfully decided not to consider this work for publication. We thank you for your interest in our journal and..."

This sounds like an editorial ("desk") reject more than anything else. Hence, there typically is no formal, written review that the editor could forward to you. It is just that the handling editor and/or the Editor-in-Chief have decided that the paper is either of low enough quality, or so clearly out of scope, that running it through the full-blown peer-review process would be a waste of reviewer time. While this is of course a harsh judgement for your submission, the editors are entirely allowed to do this - there is no formal "obligation" that any submission will have to be peer-reviewed before it can be rejected.

  What can I do in this case? Note that the only thing I want is to know reasons for the rejection.

Realistically, not much. Of course it would be nice if the editors at least gave you some informal pointers why your submission was desk-rejected, e.g., "I am sorry but your submission is out of scope for this journal", but maybe if your request was combative enough, the editor decided that she/he rather did not want to get into an argument with you about this. Anyway, I doubt that there is an obligation on the editor's side to always fully justify each rejection. At the end of the day, acceptance of papers is always a discretionary decision by the Editor-in-Chief, and not something you can formally object to.


Do non-native English speakers appreciate it when I carefully correct their English in peer reviews? As a native English speaker, when I review papers I sometimes carefully go through the English and list my proposed changes, which adds a fair amount of time to the review process.

The most extreme case of this was for a good paper I reviewed for a top computer-science journal, but with fairly poor English.  I went through everything in detail, marking proposed changes on a hard copy, then sent back a scan with my review.  This kind of review typically adds hours, possibly even days.

It makes me wonder if it's at all appreciated.  Perhaps the authors groan when they see such reviews, thinking there's a lot of tedious legwork to do.  Or, as I hope, they actually learn something meaningful from this effort.  I don't really know.

Question: Do non-native English speakers appreciate it when I carefully correct their English in peer reviews?

I think it is a good idea.  Yes, even in mathematics.  And even papers by native English speakers.

Sometimes, if the English has many errors, I just note that in my review, and suggest the author have the paper corrected by an English speaker before re-submitting.

Journals should have their own people to correct English after papers are accepted.  But who knows what happens with modern free-access no-fee journals who cannot afford such luxuries?


Are masters programs generally easier to get into than PhD? I'm doing my bachelors degree in mathematics right now at a state school. I know I'm not a top student and have made just pretty good grades in my undergrad career, but fell behind in others (a D in a conceptual physics course) due to numerous reason like 18 hr semesters while working, got married, had some health and family issues, (not to mention my freshman and sophomore years in which I didn't even want to be in school, and even went on academic probation). After retaking a couple core courses, I have a 3.2 GPA out of 4.0. Also, I will have done undergrad research (starting next semester).

However things are calming down too little too late, and I've got about 2 semesters left. I've really come to love the study of math, and I would really like to study at the master's degree level.

Most of the 'poor GPA blah blah' questions around here have to do with getting into a doctoral program. I'm curious though if it may be easier for me to get into a decent masters program than if I were attempting a PhD? I'm not looking to get into some Ivy or otherwise 'prestigious' school, but I would like to get into something good.

I would be doing it part time (2 courses per semester) so I can focus and make good grades.

Is there hope?

Not every STEM Master's program is going to be easier to get into than every PhD program, but on the whole they are easier. Universities are much more likely to take you if you're paying your own way (aka. a Masters) than if they have to fund you. In the US it's  common for students who didn't do so well in undergrad or are from a lesser known international school to pay their way through a Masters first and then go on to a PhD after proving their worth.

That being said, do not discount how helpful research can be. A published paper or a good letter of recommendation from a known professor can go a long way to erasing some bad grades. What counts in a PhD program is your ability to do research.


Will a PhD help me as a startup founder? I'm planning to get double honours in CS and Pure Math. (Link to my previous post.) But I'm very confused about getting a PhD. Will it help me as a startup founder?

The only thing that is stopping me from getting a PhD is time. I have excellent grades(almost perfect GPA). I'm very motivated to launch startup after graduating(maybe after working for a year or so). The only thing that's worrying me is that if I get stuck on a problem while working at my startup and the problem involves some sort of research, Will I be able to do research and solve that problem with my background(CS and Pure Math)? Say that problem is related to machine learning and involves creating a more intelligent machine.

No.

Disclaimer: I am an academic. I have zero experience with startups.

A PhD can be a great way to develop cutting edge ideas, but a startup is not the place to conduct research, it's the place to translate proven research into a business. Major conceptual roadblocks should be sorted out and methods proven before you start a company. Consider the difference between Google as a startup and Theranos. Google had a working research artifact that they needed to develop into a commercial platform. Theranos is apparently going to implode because their basic concept has never been proven even after $400 million dollars of funding.
Startups generally aren't founded on an amazing technical idea. A well-motivated undergrad could build the basic technology platforms behind successful startups like Facebook (databases), WhatsApp (sockets programming), or SnapChat (databases plus sockets programming). There are definitely some startups that are successful because they have a great technical edge that no one else has figured out (see again Google for an example), but they're probably the exception. The bigger value of many tech startups is the fact that they serve an unrecognized need. Their future value comes from their mature systems engineering and user base. For example, Twitter serves about 350,000 tweets per minute, which is not a trivial system to create. WhatsApp and SnapChat have a user base that makes them incredibly valuable.
Research conducted in a PhD program tends to be "basic research". Research conducted for business purposes tends to be "translational research" or "development". They are related but different things.
A PhD program is probably not going to afford you the opportunity to work on a project of your choosing related to your business.
If you are able to work on business-related research there will be a minefield of legal questions over the ownership of the intellectual property when you want to monetize your venture. Unless very specific conditions are met and agreements are made before you start your program, it is guaranteed that the university or your adviser will have some claim to the intellectual property that results from your degree. This isn't necessarily a deal breaker, but it's probably beyond you if you don't currently have the resources to hire a lawyer. And you're not going to get the university to sign away its rights.
There are huge opportunity costs to getting a PhD. You will only have time for a business alongside a PhD if you are extremely dedicated. It is not uncommon for PhD students to work 50-60 hour weeks. If you work on federal research your stipend will be around $25,000-$30,000 per year, which you can easily double as an undergrad doing low-level CS stuff at a company. If you are a hard worker in the right place you could easily triple that number after the five or six years it would take you to get your degree.