How does one go about doing a Ph.D. in Europe as an American? I'm entering my senior year of college in the US and I'm starting to consider my options for graduate school next year. My field is kind of blurry, in that I have certain research areas that I'm interested in, but researchers in those areas often fall into many different fields (linguistics, cognitive psychology, neuroscience, psycholinguistics, etc.)

I have some faculty that I'm interested in working with, but I have a dilemma because some people (and schools) I'm interested in are in the US and some are in Europe.

I've been reading about how graduate school typically works in Europe, and it seems to be quite a different beast from the US. Many (practically all) Ph.D. programs in the US that I looked at are entered immediately after a Bachelor's degree, they're fully funded, and the two years of course work at the beginning is to earn the Master's degree. On the other hand, all of the European programs I looked at vary greatly on how their funded (I'm so confused), and require a Master's.

So this brings me to a lot of questions.

Are Master's degrees in Europe funded? And what would happen if I would decided to get a Master's degree in Europe but then come back to the United States for the Ph.D.? Is it possible to go straight into a European Ph.D. without a Master's at all? (I'll be graduating with 18 credits of graduate coursework and 27 credits of independent research).

Does anyone know of any good resources so I can figure out this situation?

I am not even sure it makes sense to speak about “graduate schools” in Europe. In the countries I know, the big divide is between the master's degree and the PhD program, and not between bachelor and master programs. A master's degree is mostly another diploma with slightly higher requirements/more focused topic but otherwise not unlike a bachelor's degree in the way it's organized. There might be some exceptions here and there but it would be highly unusual to enroll in a PhD program without a master's degree.

Since tuition fees are relatively low in many countries, funding is not an issue in the way it is in the US (you still need to pay for the costs of living obviously but that's already the case for a bachelor's program). In some countries (e.g. France), people coming from abroad to study are treated exactly the same (which means paying something like EUR 250 plus some money for health insurance and a few other things), in others (e.g. the Netherlands), they have to pay a much higher fee (EUR 13000 per year where I work). In Germany the situation seems to be very fluid, with the rules set at the provincial level and changing all the time but I think fees are at most EUR 1000 per year.

Because local students don't have to pay that much and the fees don't differ much if at all from one program to the other, it's not surprising that you didn't find information about whether the master's program is “funded” or not, it's not a distinction that makes sense at this level. Furthermore, in many countries, support for students who face financial hardship is available from the government and not through the universities. Either you qualify and you can choose the university you want or you don't and you have to pay but you wouldn't specifically look for a “fully funded” program.

After the master's degree, the status of PhD candidates also varies a lot from country to country. In Switzerland, Scandinavia, the Netherlands and increasingly Germany, you are an employee with a reasonable salary (people will tell you it's less than what professionals with similar qualifications get, which is true, but you can still live comfortably). Some form of funding (from the main university budget, a research grant, European grant, corporate sponsorship, foreign government grant, etc.) is therefore a prerequisite. In France or Italy, you are considered a student and working conditions are often poorer. In STEM fields, PhD positions are usually funded and you do get some money and resources for your research. In the humanities, it's not uncommon for PhD candidates to have no funding, sometimes not even a desk and to scrap a little money to get by through teaching or even another job.

Here again, tuition is usually not the issue but living costs are (for at least three years, at a time where you might want to start a family, etc.) Even an unfunded humanities PhD candidate in France does not have to pay much to the university. Unlike bachelor's or master's degrees, I don't know any university where PhD candidates from abroad would have to pay more to be admitted or be categorically barred from some funding (but the situations are so diverse that it might exist somewhere I guess). The only hiring restriction of that kind I know are research fellowship from the European Space Agency.


Publishing tables in a paper I am doing some economic estimates of natural resources which require to develop some models. To construct the models, I had to aggregate data from the literature, which are represented in 3 different tables (3 pages). I have 2 other tables where I present general statistics (median, average, SD, min, and max) of these data (2 pages). The median and SD are important for the model development.

Should I includes the 3 tables of data either (1) in the text, (2) in the appendix, or (3) as supplementary data that will certainly be available online from the journal's website?

Where you include the tables is entirely dependent upon how important the information within the tables is for the text.

Three pages of tables are a lot. An average paper is somewhere between 5 and 20 pages, so three pages of pure table in between the rest certainly disrupts the text, which speaks against option (1). Option (2) will force the reader to go to the appendix, depending on how important it is that they actually read the table. If you could extract the key information in text form, you could simply reference the large table and put it into the appendix. Supplementary data is more likely to be overlooked by people reading your article, as they are separate documents that can be found on the journal web page. Therefore, I would only choose option (3) if the actual values in the table are unimportant and the statistics can be extracted in form of text or a smaller table.

You say there are two additional tables that are important for your model. It sounds like these are a case for the appendix. Again, depending on the importance of actual values, they also might better fit into the supplementary data.


Is using Mendeley to organize my files a good idea? My Library is already partially organized (manually) with regular filesystem folders. But it is pretty messy right now and getting unwieldy.
Also several files should be renamed to something meaningful (right now paper titles-author-year is best for me).
I am wary of pulling the trigger, Mendeley may make things worse, not better.

Any opinions? Experiences? Thanks.

I've personally used this feature, and I really like it - though honestly, part of the value I get from Mendeley is that I stop worrying about my files and folders and just use the software itself most of the time. As I have it sync them up I'm not even really concerned with where it stores them any more.

My recommendation is just to copy-paste your directory of files to a separate area "just in case", then fire away. File naming is (was) a pet peeve of mine, and I really like to have the files nicely named so I can search them - then I usually also sync that folder to Google Drive so I can access my documents anywhere (phone, guest account, etc).

It's a useful and nice feature, but honestly I found less value from it than I expected precisely as I began using Mendeley more. I still use the feature, but the other things the program does make it almost redundant - but still nice and I'm glad its there.


Does personal use include using the data for publication purpose I am a researcher and am interested in a weather data. I found a suitable data at Weather Grounded Organization. I would like to use this data for my research project (publication). However, I do not know whether I can use it in my publication as it will be a personal use.  At the terms of use, I found this:

1- PERMITTED USE. You may use the Site and the features, information, pictures and other data contained therein (collectively, the "Data") only for personal, non-commercial purposes. You may access, view and make copies of the Data in the Site for your personal, non-commercial use and will not publish or otherwise distribute the Data for any other purpose. Without limiting the foregoing, you may not utilize the Site to sell a product or service, to advertise or direct activity to other websites or for similar commercial activities without our express written consent. You may not modify, publish, transmit, display, participate in the transfer or sale, create derivative works, or in any way exploit, any of the Data, in whole or in part. Further restrictions on the use of this Site and its Data are provided in Sections 2, 6 and 9 of these Terms and in the Photo Gallery Agreement (where applicable).

2- OWNERSHIP/TRADEMARKS. Participant does not acquire or have any ownership, license or other proprietary interest in the Site or the Data. You understand that the Site and the Data are protected by copyrights, trademarks, service marks, patents and other proprietary rights and laws. You cannot use any protected material without the express written consent of the owner of such material except as permitted by law. Specifically, some of Data on this Site, including all data derived from the .Personal Weather Station. Network, is unique and proprietary to WUI, is not part of the National Weather Service data network and is not available for commercial use without the advance written consent from WUI. ANY USE OF THIS DATA SHALL ACKNOWLEDGE Wunderground.com AND/OR THE WEATHER EXCHANGE AS THE SOURCE. WUI will take appropriate legal action to protect and safeguard any unauthorized use of this Data.

Any help, please?

Yes, you contact them and get permission.

Section 1 that you quote states:

  You may access, view and make copies of the Data in the Site for your
  personal, non-commercial use and will not publish or otherwise
  distribute the Data for any other purpose

Which means you cannot publish that data in any form, which is what you say you wish to do.

So, contact them, you might find they give you qualified permission.

Edit: Buffy's comment is important, so I have borrowed it:

you have to assume that a non response means you cannot use it. Permission is required


In a publications list, how to categorize paper from conference whose proceedings are published in a peer-reviewed journal? In a "list of publications" (e.g. for a PhD thesis), should a conference paper which is published as "proceedings" in a peer-reviewed journal be categorized as a "journal article"?

(I'm from Liquid Crystals field.)

Allow me to disagree with @xLeitix.

No.  It's a conference paper.

A paper qualifies as a "journal publication" if (and only if) it passes through the standard peer-review process for the journal in which the paper is published.  If a paper is reviewed only by the program committee for a conference, it's a conference paper, even if the proceedings are published in a journal.

As a particularly confusing example, consider SIGGRAPH, the flagship conference in computer graphics.  For many many years, SIGGRAPH has published its proceedings as a standard issue of the journal ACM Transactions on Graphics (aka "TOG").

SIGGRAPH accepts two types of papers: (1) direct submissions to the conference in response to the call for papers and (2) papers published in TOG in the last 12 months.  Papers accepted from TOG are clearly journal publications, because they went through the standard TOG refereeing process.  (Those papers are not republished in the proceedings issue of TOG, but they are listed in the "table of contents".)  But direct submissions accepted by the program committee are not journal publications, because they did not go through the standard TOG refereeing process, even though they are published in TOG.

The distinction is all the more confused by the facts that in the graphics community, "SIGGRAPH paper" is a considerably more valuable label than "journal paper", in part because the reviewing process for SIGGRAPH is (or has been historically) considered more rigorous than the refereeing process for graphics journals.

Of course, the rest of the world doesn't share this preference—or perhaps more accurately, doesn't believe that anyone sane could have such a preference—which is precisely why SIGGRAPH publishes their proceedings in a journal.  Put bluntly, the graphics community chose to defend itself against lazy scholars who value the imprimatur of a journal above the quality and impact of the work through deception.  Or if you prefer a slightly less inflammatory term: camouflage.

It's worth noting that ACM now explicitly forbids conferences from publishing proceedings in an ACM journal.  (SIGGRAPH's practice is grandfathered.)  But this doesn't stop non-ACM conferences like VLDB from wearing similar camouflage.


Frustrations about my master's program and how I should cope I am currently a first-year master's student in a field of study with a strong international focus. The school's program that I am enrolled in is ranked in the top ten for the major, and the school is located in an ideal location. However, I have serious doubts about my program, and I am a disillusioned student. Other than the fact that I had gained acceptance to the school, the main reason that I chose to enroll at my current school was because of its emphasis on professionalism. Most of the professors in my program seem to be adjuncts who are employed full-time elsewhere and teach at my school on one of the weekday evenings. I thought that by learning under such instructors, I would be able to gain a more practical, realistic knowledge. However, I feel that I am proven wrong. All of my courses are scheduled in the evenings to allow students to work or intern during the daytime.

I am just a second-semester student, and I have taken four courses the first semester and am taking four courses this semester. So, out of my eight courses, only one last semester and one this semester are taught by a full-time professor at the university. The other courses have been or are being taught by adjuncts who work full-time elsewhere. The problem is that the ones being taught by adjuncts, especially this semester, lack clear guidelines for the expectations for the course. Also, most of them do not even have office hours, nor do they respond to emails. I only feel very lost and frustrated.  Grades are highly unpredictable, too. In terms of how grades go, I am in the situation of crossing my fingers and hoping for the best. At my current university, strangely enough, undergraduate grades seem to be inflated, while graduate grades seem to be deflated.

Also, what else frustrates me is that my courses seem to only revolve around theory. It's about trying to apply the theory in real-life situations. They don't even encourage creative thinking, just theory. One of my current courses gives out a lot of abstract reading assignments, but the instructor who is an adjunct does not make an attempt to explain them. In each session, it's like, "Hey, what did you think of the readings? I want you to talk about them."

Is it common for a master's program to have so many adjuncts who lack availability? Is it also common in most master's disciplines to feel totally lost without any faculty guidance? Would the situation have been different for a PhD program? Is my situation common or unique? If my program is in the top ten for its discipline, would it be beneficial for me in the job market? I feel very embarrassed to tell anyone, especially family members about how I actually feel about my program. I don't feel motivated about challenging myself further because I feel that taking a unique viewpoint is risky to obtaining a decent grade.

This sadly does not surprise me very much, especially if you are in a field like public policy or international studies, and especially if it is a graduate-level interdisciplinary program that is not directly run by a department with its own undergraduates and doctoral students. (In the U.S., at least, undergraduate programs have very strict accreditation, and doctoral programs are a point of pride for faculty. Masters programs often get lost in the middle, especially if the masters students don't have classes with the undergrads or doctoral students.)

If you want to stick with this degree, you will have to rely on yourself, as YakovK suggests, to get the most out of this program.

It's at the top of rankings because highly qualified students attend (and vice versa). Make the most of your classmates' knowledge and enthusiasm, and work on side projects with them.
Try to take the maximum number of classes with full-time professors, even to the point of petitioning for graduate classes from other departments to replace your requirements. See if you can do an independent study with a few other motivated students and a willing full-time professor.
Make the most of the entire campus you're on. I am guessing that, for this program to be so highly regarded, it is part of a busy university, so get on the mailing lists for departments you're interested in, try to discover funding sources for research projects open to you as a student there, and/or try to find a professor to do research with (for a limited number of volunteer hours, for course credit, or as a job).
Does your program have a capstone project or thesis? Figure out how to make that serve your career goals. (If you're interested in further academic study, then try to make the research as well-thought-through as possible; if you're interested in working in a particular company or industry, find a topic that's in demand there.)
If there's a campus writing center or tutoring center or statistical consulting center, use it as much as you can to improve your project/thesis.
If there are career counseling resources on campus, use them. You may be able to be part of the campus alumni network.

If you don't see this "self-driven" option working out, you could also find something related to do for a year and ask for a leave of absence. (E.g., if this were a public health school, you could find a relevant job in some level of government somewhere, or a job at a health-related NGO/non-profit.) See how necessary it is to finish your degree to advance in that world, and give yourself time to make that decision. (While you may have to live with low wages or no wages while doing this, it may be a better choice than paying tuition and living expenses toward a program you are not seeing much value from.)

Good luck!


Prepare presentation for Ph.D. Interview in Germany I have been invited to the second round of interviews for a PhD position in a research programme in Informatics. I haven't submitted any research proposal, but now I have 2 and a half days to prepare a 15min presentation on the potential topic of my research "How to use X models to evaluate Y systems" (allow me to disclose some information) and do it via Skype - the panel will include my future supervisor, the director of the group and the programme coordinator and 3-4 other people.

The thing is I don't know much about the X models that will be used in the research, I only know them from a course in my master studies. My potential supervisor is aware of this since I have admitted it in my first interview. I have practiced many methods of evaluation in many kinds of systems, hence the acceptance to the second round.

I would really like any tips and suggestions on what to include in this presentation. Naturally,  I can't learn everything in 2 days for X models.

I have thought the following points:

outline how X models work
include limitations and strengths
examples on how they have been used in the Y field/ other fields
a potential methodological approach (how to do it will be difficult since I lack technical knowledge)
Expected findings

I also believe I should showcase the ability to think critically and that I can focus on the main frame.

Should I include my research experience/skills and how they relate to the work?

Any other advice?

No your don't have to know everything, first of all that's impossible to do in just two days, second of all you could not talk about every aspect of the topic in just 15 minutes.

15 Minutes is really short If you want to talk about your experience/skills don't include this into the talk. I guess they want to hear you talk about the topic on the first place so use this time to do so. This is the second round of an interview so the persons not knowing you will ask if they want to know something. Of course you can create slides to do so but I would keep them independent of your main talk.

"A Potential Methodological Approach" Don't talk yourself into trouble here. If you are not familiar with the topic and they even know that I would not risk too much at this point. Just talk about stuff which you are absolutely sure that it's right.

"Expected Findings" This seems quite bold if one keeps in mind that you are not familiar with the topic. Of course everyone can dream about some nice results but without some knowledge of the field this point seems a bit too much. Just say what you want to do.

Other Idea You could include some quite new results. If you have read some papers about the topic maybe there have been some recent results. Just mention them to show that you are trying to get into the topic. (Again just do so if you are sure).

Other than that just try to give a nice introduction to the topic and explain what is known and where you want to tackle open problems. You are not giving a talk about an/your research proposal.


Should I let my recommendation letter writers know that I didn't submit my application in the end? I feel guilty and not sure of if I should inform my recommenders of this issue.

A school I intended to apply has received the reference letters from all my recommenders, but as the deadline was approaching I just found that I could not prepare something required by the school in time! So, considering the amount of application fee, I decided to close my application.

Now I feel maybe I should have told my recommenders about this issue, yet, whenever I was about to write a sorry email then I withdrew my draft.

In such a situation, am I suggested to say sorry to my recommenders formally?

This really depends on the situation. If you only planned to apply to the one school, and ended up not applying, then you've wasted the time of your references, as they did not need to write the letter at all, and could have used the time for other projects.

On the other hand, if this is just one out of some number of schools, then the issue is not as severe. The extra investment to write the "last" letter is not that great. While it is unfortunate that you might not apply, such things happen.

In either event, though, it may be worthwhile to let them know you didn't submit the application—they may ask the school directly if they have contacts, and it wouldn't be useful to find out from the school that you didn't apply, rather than from you personally.


Referring to author with their full personal name or by their abbreviated author name? For example, the author B.D. Acharya uses the shortname BD or B.D. in papers instead of his full name that is apparently Belmannu Devadas. I cannot be 100% sure for what the BD or B.D. stand for in this example. So in referring to authors, do I refer to them with their full personal name or by their author name that they use in their publications?

I think the usage of the author publication names is correct because it may even be impossible to find the full personal name. So what is more correct way to refer to the publication with the name standing in the publication even abbreviated or with full name?

It is customary to refer authors by their last names when citing them within an academic article. It would also be better to include their initials too along with their last name.

I don't think the usage of short names such as bare initials would be encouraged within an academic article. IMO, it would be better to avoid this practice in papers.


I am having difficult first year in my part-time PhD program; How can I figure out whether I should leave it or not? I have a full-time job, and am a part-time PhD student who is experiencing tremendous struggles throughout the first year, compared to my previous schooling which was extremely easy. I want to know if I'm psyching myself out / over-thinking things, or if I'm being rational or not, given all the circumstances.

My academic career began with a degree in Computer Science, but I took as many side courses in Mathematics as I could.  I did very well, loved it, and thought to do graduate studies. A couple of my professors thought it was a great idea, considering how well I did in their classes, and suggested going for a Ph.D., part-time as I have a full-time job, in the same school. They wrote me stellar recommendation letters and I got in without any issues, whatsoever (unfunded, but that was not a concern to me).

I am nearing the end of my first year in the program, and it has been an unbelievable struggle. A family/personal emergency caused me to have to withdraw from my classes for the first semester; despite how embarrassed I was, my professors told me it was okay and that things happen, and that they still had complete faith in me. Now it's the second semester, and I am struggling to keep up in my classes.  I have always approached math via my intuition, but now I feel I am able to follow my professors in lectures and participate, but when it comes to studying or applying it that's when I struggle. Self-study takes so long and is very arduous and as I'm not used to it; I get extremely distracted.

Compounded with this, is that I want to discuss this with others, but I find it almost impossible to face my professors that recommended me, anymore. I haven't spoken to them since the winter due to shame. They had so much faith and confidence in me (and probably still do), but I feel that as a PhD I should do better, but I'm not. My performance is shocking and appalling to me, considering what I was used to doing. Talking to my adviser is out of the question as well, as when I discussed my last-semester withdrawal situation with him, he made a loose implication that "he wasn't necessarily sure he would've admitted me, in hindsight," and he wondered aloud who was the one that did admit me.

I am still in a position where I feel that I would not be happy unless pursuing graduate study in mathematics, as I want to learn this subject inside and out, be surrounded by a community that I find interesting and exciting, and researching and publishing new ideas. I just have no idea if my struggle is either completely normal, if I'm horribly under-qualified, or if I am just psyching myself out.  How can I figure out whether I should stick with my program or not?

I'll keep this answer fairly general, because what you describe sounds like a fairly general situation.

The transition from undergraduate to Ph.D work is difficult because you're going from a very structured environment (take classes; get grades) to a very unstructured one (take classes, but focus on learning rather than grades; deal with material that's more cutting-edge and therefore open-ended; start getting into research, which is really open-ended).

This is hard, and it's normal to expect a period of transition where things seem out of whack.

Coupled with that is the shame: people going to grad school are usually the ones who do well in undergraduate and have done well all their life in school. You've received praise from your teachers throughout, and have received constant encouragement.

Now you're in grad school. Everyone there is like you, so the competition is more fierce. There are no pseudo-objective measures like grades so there's no way to compare yourself to others (which for high achievers often means that you compare yourself negatively). And above all, all those nice professors who used to encourage you have turned into scowly curmudgeons who expect more and more and more...

It's a wonder everyone isn't depressed. And on top of that you have a full-time job !!

The recommendation that I will give, and that everyone here is giving you, is to ease up on yourself and try separate out your feelings of shame and inadequacy from the reality. You should find a support network of friends, hang out in study groups, do extracurricular stuff. The friends you make in grad school will be friends for life - such is the nature of this crucible. Since you're working full time this is going to be even harder, but maybe you can find others who also work full time and are in a similar position. Also see if you can find senior grad students who are part-time: their experience will be very valuable.

And then in a year you'll be back year asking about how to avoid discouragement in research, and how to avoid procrastinating, without realizing that this is a sign you've made it through the first year successfully :)


How to work in academic research as an outsider/experienced software engineer? I would like to have advice on how a software engineer with a decent (>10 years) of industry experience can join a team doing academic research in the areas of physics, chemistry, biology or climate science. I am curious if there exists software engineer positions in these types of projects without having domain-specific knowledge or an advanced degree.

Is it necessary to be pursuing an academic degree such as a Masters/PhD or to have one already?

As I have never worked in academia before, I am looking for an insider perspective on this.

Yes, it's possible, though the opportunities are likely to be somewhat rare, and might require specialist knowledge within software engineering just like you'd expect in your industry jobs.

Your work would likely be in more of a support role, though. Rather than driving the research project you'd be using your software expertise to write custom software or manage data. I disagree a bit with @Buffy on the scope of project that would hire software engineers; there are much smaller projects that can make use of programming skills, and in the past my small research group has had a share of a programmer's time.

I would recommend you start by looking at job postings at universities near you (or where you would like to live).

Expect salaries that are below what you would expect for your level of experience outside academia, and that many positions will be fixed-term.


Difference between 'PhD by Published Work' VS 'h.c. PhD' VS 'Dr hab'? I have just learned of the 'PhD by published works' which appears to be a fairly common program for schools in the UK. Is this similar to an honoris causa conferral or is it some separate program?

After reviewing materials on the Oxford Brooks & Warwick sites it appears that the entire program is just preparing a defense, which sounds a bit like Habilitation at first pass but it also seems that these programs are not restricted to current PhD holders.

Can anyone shed a little light on this for me?

Thanks.

While it may be common for universities in the UK to offer such a degree, I'm not sure it's at all common to obtain a PhD in this way (i.e. 'by published works').  I think it is mainly aimed at people who have been involved in research for some time (especially as university staff members) without a PhD, but who have published material equivalent to a PhD thesis.  (As you will have read, for the Warwick program one must be either a member of staff at Warwick or have graduated with a Bachelor's degree or equivalent at least seven years ago.)
Generally someone applying for such a program would have already published the works they are planning to submit, and therefore as you say the program will consist primarily of preparing for the oral examination (often called 'viva' in the UK).  Although you probably have to prepare some kind of extra document as well (in the Oxford Brookes program this is a 'critical appraisal' of the works being presented).

This is, as Pieter has already explained, very different from either a habilitation (which is at a higher level than PhD) or an honorary PhD (which in general can honour any kind of accomplishment and doesn't require the holder to have done research at PhD level or indeed to have a university education at all).


When a conference has an abstracts and a later papers submission date, is okay to skip the abstract submission and just submit the paper? I want to submit a paper for an ACM conference and I see that there are two dates like this:

Full Papers

Abstracts due: May 10, 2013
Papers due: May 17, 2013

The issue is that I am still working in tabulating the results from my experiments and I do not think that I will reach the deadline of May the 10th. Can I skip the presentation of the Abstract and submit the full paper on the other date? or should I prepare the abstract and only submit that in the first date?

Any advice will be great, thanks.

No.

It's a deadline.  Follow it.

Program committees ask for abstracts early to streamline the reviewing process.  Asking them to make a special exception for you because you're not ready yet is unfair to the program committee, who would have to do extra work (however small) to accommodate your late submission, and to the hundreds of authors who got their abstracts in on time.

  The issue is that I am still working in tabulating the results from my experiments

The tabulated results of your experiments are not going to appear in your abstract anyway; only the conclusions from your experiments will.  If you don't know yet what those conclusions will be, you're not ready to submit.  So don't.  There's always another conference.

But! Remember that you are allowed to revise your abstract in the week before the paper submission deadline.  It is perfectly acceptable to submit a tentative abstract, which describes your results in enough detail to assign reviewers, and then include a more detailed/updated abstract in your paper submission.  If your conference is using EasyChair or HotCRP, you can change your abstract in the electronic submission form, and the committee will no longer see the old abstract.

If you make significant changes to your abstract in the paper submission, you risk angering the program committee members who were assigned your paper, who could (legitimately) reject your paper without review.  So don't do that.


Identifying the common online source of mathematical work Students A and B in my physics class turned in identical solutions to certain homework problems on two problem sets in a row. My policy is not to give credit in situations like this. The similarities are far too extensive and idiosyncratic to be explainable if the students had really done their work independently. Normally this kind of thing is not a big deal, because the assignments are only worth token amounts of credit. The students get the message and change their behavior.

But this particular case is becoming more of a big deal because A acts very upset and claims he did the work totally independently. I asked B what happened, and B said he found a solution online and copied it down. This seems plausible: A and B both copied the same online solution.

How could I determine/prove whether this is what happened? I have heard that there are web sites that students can use to access materials like these. Is there a small enough number of such sites that I could check each one to see if this work originated from materials provided there? To gain access to these sites, would I have to upload materials that they wanted, which could be onerous or unethical? If this was an English paper, I could google for the plagiarized text or use a service such as turnitin. There are also tools for use with computer code. But AFAIK there is no way to do this with mathematical material.

Please do not post comments or answers about whether it is a good idea to count homework in students' grades, or whether I can really tell that two students' work is too similar to be explainable if the work was independent. These could be worthwhile things to discuss, but they are not the subject of this question.

From a comment:

  The solutions the students turned in are basically just equations with
  no surrounding explanatory text.

Ask student A to produce the explanatory text for the equations in the common answer. If A indeed worked out the answer independently, A should be able to explain the reasoning leading to each equation. If A just copied down a solution that only contained the equations, that is less likely.


How do I judge a professor's quality while choosing a PhD? How do I judge a professor's quality while choosing  a PhD?

I have completed my Masters in Pure Mathematics.
I want to work in fields which involve Algebra,Functional Analysis,Complex Variables.

I also have my own funding to pursue my research.I have passed a qualification exam which will fund my studies for 4 years.

But I have the following questions:

Most of the questions asked here for example How to judge the reputation of a potential advisor or research group for good quality research for PhD? asks to visit the labs.
In Mathematics we don't have any labs.
I searched some Professors working in the areas I have mentioned.
Some of the Professors had great citations in the period 2005-2010 but now they don't get enough citations hardly 1 or 2.
Also should I try to join a reputed University as I believe all professors will have great publications there?
Or should I not judge a Professor on where he/she teaches?
Also it is not possible to visit every Professor personally

In other words I am confused.
I don't understand what to see and what not.

Can you kindly say how I should judge a professor or what factors should be taken into account ?

Disclaimer: My answer rather aims at underlining that judging which Professor is the best for you depends on your long-term objectives.

You might want to choose your supervisor for two reasons. They sometimes do not align (i.e., it's either-or).

Choosing a Professor for during the PhD: You might want to choose a good supervisor for the time you are PhD student. In such case, you are looking for someone who has already supervised PhD, has time, has research focuses aligning with your research topic/motivations, etc. This will ensure you have a "nice time" during your PhD, with enough support and guidance. Talking with former PhD students might help. Note that in this case, the institution (in terms of courses, funding, support, etc.) matters too.
Choosing a Professor for after the PhD: However, sometimes, what you focus on is the next step. It may vary from one field to the other (I don't know about math at all), but I know first-hand that sometimes, what matter the most for getting the position is recommendation letters (more precisely, who wrote them). Having the right (meaning "well established and acknowledged, with large network) connexions helps you getting visiting PhD/PostDoc positions more easily. Don't get me wrong: you won't get those positions if you are not doing good research. However, when you have reached a certain "enough good" level  (except in some rare case where you're extraordinarily brilliant), my opinion is that the quality of your work matters less than who recommends you — for junior researcher position, at least. So in such case, working with a Professor that has an above-average impact factor, published in renowned journals, and, most importantly, have "sent" PhD students in prestigious institutions (what they — the Professor — can easily do because their best buddy is PI there) and "landed" former students in cool positions is what you are looking for. Even if they might be less good mentors during the PhD. So track where are currently working their former students.

In both cases, look for a Professor that is interested in what you are doing.

Remember also that it's just like houses or spouses: there is no such thing as a ideal positions. You want to find the best "good-enough PI" that would accept you, even if they are not perfect in some aspects.

Finally, please consider that you are choosing a position that will significantly impact your life for the next 3–6 years. Don't neglect your personal needs/requirements (a very good position is not worth anything — in my opinion).


Check whether an article has any correction or been retracted Is there any website where I could enter the reference of an article, and see whether any correction or retraction has been made on the article?

I know some publishers indicate it on their website, but ideally I would prefer to use the same website to check (i.e. a Google Scholar for corrections/retractions). APIs are good too.

Retraction Watch has recently announced a collaboration with  The Center For Open Science (COS) to create a free, comprehensive database of retractions.

  Together, COS and CSI will develop the technical infrastructure needed to support existing and new Retraction Watch content on the OSF. Further, COS will enhance discoverability and brand awareness by integrating this content into the SHARE Notify (http://osf.io/share) system, a searchable database of over 3 million research-related events, and by associating Retraction Watch content with related article DOIs when possible. With the technical support of COS, CSI can focus on delivering new content and developing new audiences that can make more informed decisions based on accurate research outputs.

It sounds like this database would allow you to search for articles by DOI and get retraction-related events.

(The database appears to already track retractions from PubMed Central; presumably Retraction Watch would be added as another data source.)

Update (2018-11-06 by shamisen): Retraction Watch launched its database: http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx


In my thesis, can I use results for which a collaborator wrote most of the simulation code, or do I have to independently replicate the simulations? In the course of my PhD I have written a few papers that I am planning on incorporating into my dissertation. I was first author on these papers and legitimately wrote and developed the high majority of the papers (as in, I wasn't just gifted "first author" status). In the course of our papers, my co-authors and I used some computer simulations to verify our theoretical results.

While I developed all of the theory for the paper independently, another graduate student did some of the grunt work writing the code for one of the simulations. This was done mainly just to expedite the submission of our paper, and not because I had no idea what was going on with the simulations. I actually helped develop the intricacies of the simulation; it just was not my hands on the keyboard coding it. Can I just cite our own paper in my dissertation and use its results as if they are my own, or do I need to independently replicate the results that my fellow grad student found in order to use them in my dissertation?

The underlying question here comes down to how much I can "self-cite" as my own a part of a paper that I was the main author for, but did not explicitly produce? I am aware that citing a paper I wrote is fine. I am even okay copying wording directly for certain potions of the dissertation (with a note explaining the replication). However it is unclear if I can use results that someone else found as part of my dissertation. His results give application for the theoretical framework that I am establishing for my dissertation.

If those results are published, cite the publication. If those results are unpublished, you can cite the contribution of the other student either where you present the results ("Otherguy and Vladhagen, unpublished, 2015") or in an acknowledgment (I would favor the latter). Your advisor should be able to answer questions like this as you write your dissertation as well.

Note that in academic work, "writing code" is not held to the same level as intellectual input: it's good that you want you make sure your colleague gets appropriate credit, but it just isn't the same as developing ideas. The same would go for other "grunt work" in a lab: culturing the cells, washing the dishes, running the PCR. That type of credit goes in the "acknowledgments" section, or with some added intellectual work and help drafting the manuscript, they get a middle authorship. Science is a collaborative process, and no one expects your work in your dissertation to be yours and yours alone without anyone's help.

If you want to distribute the code itself, you would want to have permission of the person writing the code.


Worthwhile to put subreviewing on CV as a grad student? It is common for PhD students in Computer Science to assist their advisors with reviewing conference papers, known as subreviewing. The students' reviews may or may not get turned in with the actual reviews but it is a great form of practice for the students.

I have seen some students list the conferences they have subreviewed for in the Service section of their CV. I thought this was a little strange since it isn't official.

Should a grad student list this on their CV? It would help add some content to a short CV and show that they have at least some experience reviewing. It may also help a student associate with a conference that they haven't had the opportunity to publish at, yet.

The status of subreviewers, and even the designation as reviewer or subreviewer, varies a lot from venue to venue. In some places, reviewers are official and are listed in the proceedings. In others, it's as you say: informal assistance provided to the actual reviewer.

A student should definitely list instances of official reviews (i.e where there's documentation of their effort) in their CV. But if the subreview is less formal (or there's no record of it maintained by the conference), then I'd be inclined to leave it off the CV, mainly because it's difficult to verify. I understand the desire to indicate some degree of competence with research critiques, but the danger is that without documentation the process is ripe for abuse or at least inflated claims.


Emailing professor for help with (non class related) project I am involved in an extracurricular university-affiliated activity for which I want to do an analysis involving computational fluid dynamics (CFD). There is a professor at my university who has much experience in this area and I would like to reach out to them to ask for suggestions on learning more about using CFD, and hopefully discuss it with them to get feedback on this particular project. I would also like to get involved in this professor’s research, however, this project would be a priority for me, so I would like to express that I would like help on this particular project as well as my interest in research.

I know the basic pointers for reaching out to a professor about research, but how can I express both of my requests at once? Would it be more effective to only request some guidance on the project? Would it come across rude asking for guidance as well as ask to get involved in their research?

I want to do an analysis involving computational fluid dynamics (CFD)...and I would like to reach out to [a professor] to ask for suggestions on learning more about using CFD, and hopefully discuss it with them to get feedback on this particular project.

As mentioned already, "Visit in office hours or make an appointment." Once you have demonstrated your abilities to the professor, you'll be in a stronger position to:

  get involved in this professor’s research

Although you won't express "both of [your] requests at once," you can present both of your requests in a short time frame. If this isn't an option, then start by discussing CFD and mention that you'd be interested in working with the professor at the end.

  Would it be more effective to only request some guidance on the project?

If you ask for both at the same time, then the professor mightn't know your strengths. Whereas, asking later lets you demonstrate yourself first.

  Would it come across rude asking for guidance as well as ask to get involved in their research?

It isn't rude. You can ask for guidance and the professor can say "no." You can offer to be involved in their research and they can again say "no."


If transitioning into academic position, should I buy my PhD graduation cap and gown? My graduation ceremony is coming up in a few months,
and I have the option of buying or renting a graduation cap and gown.

I will be starting an assistant professor job this year, so I suspect (but am not sure) that I will need to wear the dress at graduation ceremonies at my new institution.

If I were to buy the graduation dress, would I ever need to wear it again?

Location: My new job will be in an Asian university.

What I did I asked a colleague at the institution where I will be working,
and he told me that indeed, I could rent a gown for free
if I were to attend a graduation ceremony.

As noted in the comment, the location might change our opinion of the problem, however I will make notes from my experience.

When I graduated with my first degree I hired a gown as I could not see the value of owning one and knew I would study for higher degrees, and perhaps I could buy one later in my career. I received my second degree in-absentia because I knew that I would graduate again with a third degree in due course.

Now I attend ceremonies on a regular basis my institution can provide my gown for any formalities. Someone really parsimonious might say that you never need to buy a gown.

However, I have great regret not getting the earlier gowns. Time has changed things in a way I could not predict when I was making the decisions. The gown from my first university was designed by the hippest fashion designer of the 1960s. It was real 1960s cool in colour, shape and cut. No black gowns and mortarboards for them. As the institution matured they felt hip fashion icons of the 1960s were no longer cool and switched to plain black gowns and mortarboards. Now, in present times, it is impossible to source the original gowns. They are collectors items that rarely come on eBay and go for huge prices. All the original graduates, like me, now realise what a fantastic item they missed and want to get them. (Because, today, they look quite fantastic again).

The Computer Science Class of 1976 - Note the curved Hats

The gowns from my second university, which some of my colleagues own, have changed in quality over the ages. When I graduated they were made by fine tailors from excellent cloth with fine silks and quality trimmings. Today they are polyester and so forth and mass produced identically to all the other university gowns.

My rented gown just does not impress half as much as the originals that others wear at these fine ceremonies.

Only you can know how fine are the gowns that you could buy. No one can know what the future brings.


Increasing speed of paper peer-reviewing When reviewing a paper for peer review, I consistently find that I spend way more time on a paper than if I were just reading it for understanding.

How can one increase the speed at which they review papers, without compromising on the quality of the review?

I think speed primarily comes with experience. Reviewing will nevertheless take lots of time for good reasons. Unlike when you read a manuscript (MS) for referencing in a MS of your own, you need to read everything. You also need to think about what has been referenced in detail and evaluate if omissions have been made in the referencing. You need to look at figures and tables for errors or problems, or just to suggest improvements. If you can, you also can or should comment on the language and structure of the paper. To cap off, you probably need to read the paper more than once, perhaps not in the same detail but one read is not enough. In all, this takes time. With each review this may become easier and you will be able to expedite the review.

I personally probably spend around a working day on a normal MS. Early in my career it may have taken twice the time. Some MS may take even longer. I don't think there exist any dependable short-cuts apart from being well read-up on the subject in general, and being experienced in reading and commenting on MS and reports. I am, however, convinced that the larger reductions in time occur early on since the benefits of experience comes quickly.


How to emphasize the main contributor to a paper when the field typically orders authors alphabetically? I am working on a graph theory paper with two of my friends. The problem stated in the paper is solved by me. However, our supervisor professor pointed out that in all of the graph theory journals (and other mathematics journals as well), names of authors are sorted by an alphabetic order which puts me in the third position after one of my friends who was mainly in charge of half of the editings (which I greatly thank his efforts) and our supervisor professor.

I wonder if there is any way to point out who was the main contributor in a graph paper or not.

I think this may be a very deciding factor in being accepted by a good university for a master program because we can only have a few papers before graduation.

I wanted to see if there is any way to point out who was the main contributor in a graph paper or not?

Generally not.  In pure mathematics it's extremely unconventional to use any author ordering other than alphabetical.  You could try, but it will look weird and attract negative attention, and nobody will be quite sure how to interpret it.  In particular, you run the risk of having people think "this jerk insisted on being listed first despite the near-universal use of alphabetical order".  I virtually never see papers with any other author ordering, and I would not recommend it.

It's also rare and considered awkward to include any discussion in the paper of who contributed what.  One reason is that it's difficult to write such a discussion fairly.  For example, suppose your collaborators try three approaches that fail before you find one that works.  Reasonable people could disagree as to whether your collaborators were obviously on the wrong track all along, or whether they pointed the way to the solution by eliminating other plausible methods.  (The general principle is that if your collaborators aren't useful, then you shouldn't be working with them.  Turning this around, if they are useful enough that you are happy to work with them before the problem is solved, then you can't retroactively decide that they weren't useful enough afterwards.)

The flip side of this is that the standards for being an author are fairly demanding, and coauthors should have seriously worked on the mathematics itself.  In particular, supervising the project or editing the paper are not by themselves sufficient for coauthorship.  But it's reasonable for these people to be coauthors if they worked on the problem with you, even if you were the one who ended up making the decisive contribution.

  I think it may be a very deciding factor in being accepted by a good university for a master program because we can only have a few papers before graduation.

The usual way this information is conveyed is a letter of recommendation from your supervisor, who can highlight the role you played in the project.


Can I recover after a really bad first year? Going into college I had a great record, 3.65 GPA and a 30 on the ACT and about 18 AP and concurrent credits in statistics, calculus, literature, and Spanish. However, trying to balance religious callings and duties during my first year of college left me very unbalanced academically, and as such I failed two major classes, one of which being college, a class that I had already passed in high school and was simply taking to help acclimate myself to the college environment.

The following semester was about the same. I ended up deferring for two years to serve full time under a religious calling, I was able to do this because the university is owned and operated by my church. Going back I am resolved to do better this time, but I am wondering if there is any possible way to wipe away my record of my first year and start fresh again, maybe by applying to a new college instead of transferring, is that possible? Or could I petition on part of my ADHD and Aspergers syndrome for the first year to be overlooked?

If you do really well from now onwards, then a couple of poor years can be overlooked, for instance if you are going to apply for PhD studies.

Also, it seems that the problem is not necessarily ADHD or Aspergers; it seems to be taking on too many different activities. So prioritising your time and commitments during your degree studies seems to be the solution to the problem and then working very hard, not getting the record wiped.


Letter of Recommendation for Business Analystics from Satisfied Client I'm looking at MSBA programs in the United States and have the two recommended academic references lined, but should get a third reference slot open. Between my previous jobs I worked freelance and had a client for about 6 months who was very satisfied with my work, and even offered if I ever needed a reference or testimonial from them to reach out.

Question:

Would a reference like this be acceptable?
How would this option compare to a third academic reference?

Would a reference like this be acceptable?

It would certainly complete your application and would likely be considered appropriate (though this is not my field and I cannot say for sure).

  How would this option compare to a third academic reference?

It really depends on who the client is. If you built a website for a non-technical person, then they really couldn't say much other than "they did a nice job, were professional, etc." This reference won't count for much.

On the other hand, if this person can say "I'm the CTO of a company and deal with dozens of contractors per year; this one is the best I've had and displayed specific skills X, Y, and Z, etc.", then I don't think anyone will care that this person is not an academic.


Google Scholar: How to search by author's email? I want to search for paper come from Google, Airbnb and Bytedance etc. (to learn about their machine learning application).

If I search for Airbnb.com, the result would look like this

Some are what I want, but some just mention airbnb.com in title or in content.

How can I restrcit airbnb to email address from authors?

Thanks!

See my answer to a related question here. Basically, Google (and seemingly also Google Scholar) appears to strip the at sign from the search query.

Unfortunately, I think this means Google Scholar is the wrong tool for this kind of search. Some of the better paywalled databases (such as Web of Science or Scopus) allow filtering by affiliation. You can check with your university librarians what resources you have access to.


Presenting a Negative Result This past summer, I came up with a research project that I wanted to pursue (I am in high school). At first, I thought that the experiment would take about a month. However, I experienced more problems than I could have ever imagined. Finally, over half a year later (and after hours upon hours of research), I ran my experiment. During the whole research process, I believed that my alternative hypothesis would be supported. However, it wasn't.

I will be presenting my research at science fairs very soon, but I fear that all of my hard work will be overlooked because of my negative result. Is this fear warranted? Is there anything that I can do to ensure that this does not happen?

Short answer: No.

I have judged science fairs in the Southern US for many years. The "negative result" is not going to affect how highly you are ranked. I once supervised high school students who won the local science fair competition and went on to be semi-finalists in the Siemens competition. Their project was mostly comprised of "negative" data suggesting that a newly reported finding in the scientific literature might be wrong: link to their project. Their "negative" data was later used in a major scientific paper link (Notice how the title contains two instances of NOT; basically a paper entirely made up of "negative" data).

Science fair projects are mainly judged on:

Clarity of presentation
Adherence to the scientific method
Logical conclusions based on the data
Coming across as professional, knowledgeable, enthusiastic, and personable during the interview

What you should do:

Emphasize why it was important to test your hypothesis in the first place.
Critically analyze why the results did not support your hypothesis. Of course, the hypothesis could have been wrong, but could you have tested it in other ways? Is a technical problem a possibility (it always is)? Could you tweak your hypothesis in a way that it would explain the experimental results?
Think about alternative hypotheses and how those could be tested. Be prepared to discuss these during your presentation.
Focus on preparing an awesome looking poster,
Do not be negative or unenthusiastic during your presentation. This cannot be emphasized enough. Keep in mind that 95% of the experiments that a scientist performs "fail". And most science fair judges know this!

Good luck!


(Re-)entering UK academic system after a long time abroad This is a sort of general existential question, but I hope it's specific enough to be welcome here.

I'm a reasonably successful not-quite-exactly-young-any-more researcher in my field, but I don't yet have a permanent position. I'm aiming to move to the UK to (re)establish my career there, but I'm becoming a little despondent about my options.

I did my PhD in a UK university, and after a short postdoc in Europe I secured a fellowship in Japan. When that ended I moved to another Japanese institute. I've been in Japan for seven years in total, as an independent researcher for all of that time. My rank is approximately equal to lecturer in the UK. This all probably sounds great, but my issue having never had an academic job in the UK it seems strangely impossible to enter the system.

Part of the issue is that so far my career has been research only - I've never had teaching duties or supervised a student. As I understand it there are no permanent UK academic jobs without a substantial teaching component, so it seems that no matter what comes up I'll be massively underqualified on that front, even if I'm a good candidate as far as research goes. (Not that I have anything against teaching - I imagine it's something I could enjoy a great deal - I just don't know the first thing about it.)

My other problem is that my research field is in basic science and is quite far from any applications. It seems to be a 'hot topic' in the Japanese and US funding systems, but it seems to be quite hard to get funding for it in the UK or EU.

So my question is simply, what kind of jobs might exist in the UK for someone in my position, and what might be a sensible strategy for re-entering the UK academic system? I'd be quite happy to have a non-permanent job at first (such as a fellowship), but I'd be very unhappy to give up my research independence. My first priority would be to get my foot in the door, but presumably it's also important to get the teaching experience that would be necessary to move to a professorship position eventually.

It is not true that there are no research only academic posts. There are post-doctoral researchers, research assistants and research only professors in many places within the UK academic system. There are also research institutes outside universities and affiliated with universities who wholly perform research.

It's just that there are fewer advertisements for  these posts as there are fewer of these types of vacancies than teaching lecturer posts. You could get the impression  that they do not exist based on reading job advertisements alone.

You would need to research more carefully what institutions are performing the research in the specific area of your skills and try to find out how they advertise.

You should  be aware of the UK Universities own vacancy notification site www.jobs.ac.uk as traditional advertising of vacancies (such as in scientific journals and newspapers) is no longer performed due to budgetary reasons.


If I am "homeless" researcher, where can I get affiliation? I cannot attend any western university right now. I can relocate in future.

But I already have article which will soon go into publishing process. So affiliation could be useful right now.

I do not like idea of publishing without affiliation or with affiliation to institution which do not work within my field (molecular dynamics).

I don't like idea of putting affiliation with institution which does not pay for my job.

Where and how I can get affiliation for myself? Should I ask for affiliation directly? What if I can possibly work for that institution in future?

PS.
I attended to many universities. Article I have was made while I attended to small one building institution (csu.ru). Institution did not pay for article nor I have any grants. Only payment I received was for teaching junior classes 2 years ago.

PS2.
Ethically I should put ALL contribution to my work.
But I didn't use laboratories, nor computer power, nor payment for last 6 months. The main expenses were computing equipment for about $2000 which I bought with money from my teaching. I was enlisted for some grants, but I already did my "payment" for this with other article, so everybody is with good relations to me.

PS3.
My previous affiliated institution is not involved for 6 months already, during this time I did my work. No, I don't intend to slap my previous institution, but I am looking for new one.

Should I just email people from other institutions with collaboration proposals and publish under their institution?

Affiliation isn't a commodity to buy and sell.  It is simply a statement that at the time of researching and writing this article, you were affiliated (as a student, employee, or similar) with a particular organization.

From your question, it sounds like at the time of researching and writing the article, you were a student or employee of Chelyabinsk State University, so standard practice would simply be to list your affiliation as "Chelyabinsk State University".  If you are not enrolled or employed there any more, then list a "current address" stating how to contact you.

Ethically, if you feel that CSU contributed nothing to the work, and you did it on your "own time", then you could omit it; in which case, you would list no affiliation at all.  But this would likely be perceived as a petty insult to CSU, to the extent that anyone noticed it at all.

Affiliation should be determined only on the basis of what you were doing while you prepared the article.  Anything that happened after the fact is irrelevant.  You can't "get" a different affiliation for a paper you have already written.


Can anyone with a PhD write a textbook? I think I have a few questions here.
I've said this before: I don't have many talents, but I can teach, and I can teach very well. Education is my passion and that is one of the reasons I am pursuing my PhD (that, and the fact that I love doing math eight hours a day).
This being said, can anyone with a PhD write a textbook? Or do you have to be well-known in the field and have lots of papers published? What if I write a really good textbook- will nobody buy it because my name is not known?

Anyone with or without a PhD can write a text book. Yet independently of how well-known the author is, text books are not particularly well-selling items, since the audience is very narrow.  And even if they sell well, you will certainly not get any significant money from the sales.
If you want to write a text book for teaching purposes and because you think you can write a high-quality text book, then do it, go ahead.  Yet its popularity will probably grow if you make electronic copies available for free.
I am writing two text books at the moment, yet not in English, so I expect the audience to be fewer than 100 people. :-) However, I am still writing them because they will be nearly the only textbooks on that topic in this language, and people have already been very thankful for the drafts.


Can I submit my old PhD thesis to arxiv with the date set to its original submission date? I have completed my PhD 10 years ago, and back then I was not sure if it was ok with my home institution to have it in arxiv. I then realized it's fine and it would actually be good as my institution never cared to set up an open database of their own PhD theses. My question is: is there a way to post it on arxiv with the proper date, so that it shows on a search but it does not show among the most recent ones?

EDIT: given the popularity of the question, would it make sense to allow the ability to backdate ONLY PhD theses? It seems like my experience is a shared one, and I can't imagine anybody in her/his own mind lying on when she/he got her/his PhD.

I don't think so.

The "proper date" for an eprint is the date you upload it to the arxiv.  If the arxiv allowed people to back date their work (by up to ten years!), then it would at best confuse and at worst totally ruin the use of the arxiv to sort out chronology and claims of priority.  So while I don't know that they don't allow this, I have never seen an example, and I hope that they don't.

What you can do, of course, is to include in the comments that this is your thesis from 10 years ago.  If you do that then everything seems clear.  If you are worried that your thesis appearing on the feed/list of new papers will cause it to get more attention....wait, isn't that why you are posting it to the arxiv in the first place?


Is this a legitimate excuse for missing an exam? The class I am teaching had a quiz yesterday. A student wrote to me 2 hours after  that he missed the quiz because he suspected he had a strep throat. He would see doctor and provide me a doctor's note.  Personally I feel this particular reason is a little lame. If he decided to skip the exam because he suspected he was really sick, he would have wrote to me earlier. My question is, if in the end the doctor says he did not have strep throat, should I still give the student a chance to make up the quiz (just because he suspected it)?

Rather than having to think about what is a legitimate excuse or not, I routinely give make-ups to anyone who misses a quiz or exam. Yes, it is explicitly assumed that they are operating with knowledge of what was on the quiz or exam that was given, so the situation is somewhat different, and the nature of the make-up is consequently somewhat different. I explain this at the beginning of the course. One might worry that there'd be too many people trying to game the system, but it seemed not so.

(I think it is not reasonable to demand that people who are sick get a note from their doctor... if it's something like a severe cold, say, because the wisest and most socially reasonable thing to do is stay home in bed, not travel to a clinic... Also, I do like to cultivate the atmosphere that I am willing to believe students' excuses, rather than have the default be skepticism about their honesty.)


Is it possible for project grants to cover family visa fees? This article from Times Higher Education tells about the struggles of Non-EU scholars with the UK’s visa policy. The article was published in January 2014. Since then, the visa fees to remain in the UK have increased in general.

My family and I have lived in the UK for 2 years now. We are non-EU nationals. Currently, I am working as a postdoc. With our visas expiring in one year, I have been contemplating about what to do next.

I quite like my project, and there is a possibility for the university to extend my contract as a postdoc, by submitting a grant application for a separate project as a continuation of my current one.

However, to renew my family and my visas would require £651 per head. This would give us the eligibility to stay in the UK for another 3 years maximum, after which we would need to pay £1,500 per head for an indefinite leave to remain in the UK. Assuming the fees do not change, this means that 4 years from now, I will need to have at least £12,000 in my account, £10,000 of which will go into paying the fees, in order for me and my family to be able to stay permanently in the UK. With a postdoc salary, this just seems daunting at the moment.

My main question is: Is it possible for a project grant, including research fellowships, to pay for my family and my visa fees? I suspect that the project grant could probably pay for my fees, but not my family.

One possibility is for me to try to go up in the academic salary ladder by getting a lecturer position. But even if I am able to get a lecturer position, I am not quite sure if the increase would be enough to pay the fees. It looks like a more realistic option would be to leave the country, although moving to another country as a family is not so simple and also needs money. From this aspect, it might be better to stay.

I think this would depend on the circumstances and there is going to be a difference between people currently inside and outside the UK. For example, the MRC, and probably other research councils, considers relocation costs as allowable. For someone currently outside the UK, visa fees for an entire family might be allowed as relocation costs, although they will probably be too large. For someone currently inside the UK, I think it would be difficult to claim visa fees are relocation costs.

When I came over to the UK as a lecturer, I was funded by an NIHR grant. I believe the grant, although it could have been a departmental account, paid for the visa fees for my family. The money paid for the visa fees was considered income, although not pensionable, and therefore taxed. The grant also covered the additional tax liability associated with the visa fees. When my visa expired and I needed to renew, the department basically laughed at me when I asked them to cover my visa renewal fees.

As payment of the visa fees are considered income, it is unclear how They could be costed into a grant. It is possible that overhead from a grant or a discretionary account could be used to pay the fees. My experience suggests that departments are not happy to allow a PI to use discretionary funds to pay themselves. I might be allowed to pay for visa fees for my staff, but I have never tried.

It is also probably worth noting that finding someone able to sponsor non-EU employees, especially at the post-doc level, is becoming increasingly difficult.


"Taking summers off" and the impact on tenure decisions Assume there is a young tenure-track professor on a 9-month salary who is a good instructor and manages to get research published at an appropriate pace during the school year for tenure consideration. Could the professor's decision on how he/she spends his/her 3 months each summer affect his/her tenure decision? Specifically, if the professor chose to do something unrelated to teaching summer courses or doing research.

I'll propose two examples:

Spend the summers working a completely unrelated (perhaps lower-level) job just to mix things up or out of necessity or delight. Let's say as a cruise-ship tour guide or as a laborer (e.g., painter, landscaper, farmer, mechanic, etc.)
Spend the summer vacationing with family / kids.

If the individual got the work required for tenure completed during the 9-months of the school year, they could do whatever they want the other 3 months (since they are off contract) without repercussions, right?

This is really dependent on your department culture.

Officially (at least for all the tenure systems I've participated in), tenure decisions are based on the quality, reputation, and impact of the candidate's research (and to a lesser extent, teaching and service), and their potential for future intellectual leadership and international stature.  (Woo, that's a mouthful.)  In particular, the decision is based on what the candidate has actually accomplished.

Are they publishing high-quality work in high-visibility venues?  Is their work highly regarded in the research community (as described in the letters)?  Do they have a solid track record of external funding?  Do they have a solid track record of successful graduate student advising?  Have they accumulated other indicators of respect within their research community: awards, plenary talks, invitations to program committees/editorial boards, well-placed and successful students?  Do they have other evidence of research impact: open-source software, community-standard data sets, or patents?

If this case is strong on these merits, then the day-to-day work habits of the candidate shouldn't matter, and usually don't.  In particular, the reference letters, which are by far the most important component of the case, will be written by people who are probably completely unaware that the candidate disappears to a fishing lodge in the Adirondacks every summer.  There have been multiple successful tenure cases in my department where the candidate essentially vanished every summer.

More strongly: If their research case is strong, then what assistant professors do during the months the university is not paying them is really none of the promotion committee's business.  I work in a field where a three-month vacation in the Adirondacks (with a sufficient supply of pens and paper and reliable wifi) would be amazing for my research productivity.

Nevertheless, faculty are apes; we do apey things.  Every department and every field has its own cultural norms, and assistant professors must be aware of and sensitive to those norms.  Some departments have a shared belief—which may even be correct in their field—that the research required for a successful tenure case requires being physically present and visibly productive 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.  Others won't even notice when you're in the office being productive, because they all keep their office doors closed, or they work at home, or in coffee shops, or in a shack in in the Adirondacks.  Others have a de facto list of accomplishments that are necessary, sufficient, or both. (NSF CAREER? NIH R1? Three papers in Science? H-index above 50? IEEE Fellow? Letters from five Nobel laureates?)

Whether or not tenure decisions should depend on these local expectations is utterly immaterial.  They do.  Either you meet them, or you find a job somewhere else.  And the only way to understand what these expectations are in your department is to ask directly, and to insist on regular mentorship and feedback from senior faculty.


Mathematical creativity: better a high profile or a "laid back" department? It seems that high profile universities are not the most enjoyable work environment to be in.
Even though big institutions attract big names and grant money, it seems to me that the pressure to perform leaves everybody, from the undergraduates to the professors, overworked.  On the other hand, the idea of less prestigious university is attracting me for the, perhaps overly romantic idea, that as passionate people could be working in these institutions.

I am thinking: perhaps moving out of a big institution to a smaller one could increase quality of academic life, as well as creativity. But surely quality of science need not be inversely proportional to department enjoyability?

-Is this a realistic expectation?

-Does this depend on the research interest?

-Does achieving a PhD in an impressive institution open many doors that would otherwise remain close (for example, being able to be an independent researcher)?

Additonal info:

I have graduated from a MSci in Theoretical Physics in a big London university, and I am currently doing a MSc in Applied Mathematics there. Interests were fairly broad and decided to prolong my taught education to "taste" more subjects.
   I love Physics and Maths almost as much as air, but I am a bit concerned with the dullness of my current environment. I haven't been to other universities, or know many passionate people from other universities, so I have not had the chance to ask these questions to many people.

Let me focus on the question in the title.  In my experience, a vibrant mathematical community is the best environment for creativity.  More prestigious universities/departments tend to attract creative and passionate people, who create vibrant communities, and being surrounded by them will help you be more creative and passionate.  While this is not a rule, and some departments just have bad atmospheres (you need some individual knowledge of the department to know about this, so visits etc are good), you're more likely to find inspiration at a place with cutting-edge research, than at a place where most of the research is "pedestrian."

There is a caveat, however.  If you can barely keep you head above water, it's hard to be creative.  Fortunately, most places won't admit you if they don't think you can handle it, though it does happen.  Again a visit, or browsing student/faculty webpages/blogs may help with this. See also this related question on MSE.


What are pros and cons for using summer-break to work in another research group? Here at my university, we have 12-13 week-long summer break for the students excluding summer-school. It is almost as long as a semester. I guess this is roughly the case for other institutions. In fact I often observe that some grad students use this break to work in another research group usually in another country (European countries mostly, USA rarely). Even some others spend entire two-semeter academic term in another university.

My question is as follows: What would be the pros and cons for using summer-time to work in another research group away from your supervisor and/or your research topic? I guess the situation would be different for a masters and a PhD student (I am currently interested in the situation for a masters student, but general ideas covering the situation would be OK).

Here are the obvious things:

Pro: the work in another group will build contacts, possibly improving your opportunities for future academic positions (PhD, postdoc, assistant professor position).
Pro: funding opportunities, if you're in need of extra money.
Con: the work done in another group will take up time and energy, and if not related to your current work, won't advance your research (experimenting, publishing, etc.). That should probably be your priority (this is related to the comment on the question about it being strange to get 12-week breaks...)
Con: if you don't coordinate it with your supervisor, this could affect the trust in the relationship (depending on the style of the supervisor).

If you wish to pursue an academic career, in some universities respectable journal articles published are worth more than contacts when competing for a job. So don't overestimate the first "pro" I mention above. At the master's level, this is less important.

The best strategy is to coordinate the "outside" work with your supervisor for maximum benefit.


How to write a strong introduction into a research paper? How does one write a strong (good) introduction into a research paper? Some introductions make me really curious about the rest of the paper while others do not. Although it is relatively easy to say which introductions are good and which are not, I find it difficult to distill what makes the difference. There is a previous question about writing introductions (How to write a Ph.D. thesis Introduction chapter?) but it is about Ph.D theses.

This is very area specific. I'll start with the caveat that I write papers in computer science, so YMMV.

The way I think about introductions (which is not to say they are GOOD introductions) is that they tell the story of the paper in brief. Every paper has a story to tell, starting with

Here's a fascinating question
Here's what people have tried to do (in brief: not a full related work section, but a high level assesment)
here's the key challenge preventing further progress
Voila: here's our complete/partial/intermediate/awesome solution
(additionally) and here's how it works.

The intro is typically the "hook" to read the rest of the paper, so you have to provide a birds-eye view that draws the reader in without drowning them in details.

The thing that separates a good intro from a bad one is knowing where that right level of detail is, so you're not either totally vacuous or mired in details. Getting this right is an art and depends on your field, your results, the problem, and your understanding of the target audience.


If you have broad interests, should you describe a narrow research topic in statement of purpose anyways? All the advice for writing a Statement of Purpose (otherwise referred to as 'Personal Statement') for graduate (Masters) on the internet usually pins it down to narrowing down your interest to specific research topics. But what if one just wishes to dig deeper into a range of subjects without committing at the outset to research?

For example, I have broad interests in computer systems (which includes the OS, compilers, processor architecture and so forth). Specifically, I like writing low-level embedded software and am very interested in learning new ways of designing CPUs. I've written toy OSes and compilers and I like reading about CPU architectures. But none of that seems relevant to current research in the field.

Maybe, if I force myself to, I can come up with a narrow research topic or two but would it be too wrong to say that I want to go to graduate school just to learn more? (Of course, I could read papers on the internet forever but I feel directed learning would serve me better)

By my own admission, I am nowhere near to knowing the state-of-the-art in systems research. If I do try to make up a topic, I am afraid it might appear superfluous in my Statement. Should I try harder to find a research topic or am I better off writing what I actually feel?

Why not do both?
The value of a narrow statement is to show that you are capable of focus and thinking deeply about a subject.  In fact, if one makes it too narrow, then it can exclude you from projects you would like because people think you won't be interested.

So you might formulate your statement as follows:

Start by expressing your broad interests and the accomplishments that you have made in the past.  For a Masters, it's more important to illustrate that you were able to build complex things than that those thing were novel.  Your breadth will be good here.
Shift to looking toward the future.  Express your desire to be doing something novel and intellectually significant. Then say, "For example, one thought that I have considered ... " and give a narrow statement focused on something that you think would be new and significant.  Just make it clear that it is a possible direction rather than something that you are committed to.


What is an effective way to copyright my teaching material? I am an adjunct instructor at a technical college in the US. I was tasked with creating a new class which I would teach in the spring. I have finished all of my course materials (.pdfs, lab sheets, power points, etc etc). When I was first hired and told to create the new course, I was informed by some of my colleagues (former adjuncts at the same institution) that I would be paid for my course content. However, in speaking with my directory I was informed that I would not be paid for my course content as it is part of running the class.

Now whether or not that is right or wrong, I'm not too horribly concerned. However alot of my own personal time goes into creating these materials and I would like to protect my time investment.

Would it be wise or prudent to try and protect my course materials through some sort of copyrighting process of some sort, or something to that effect?

If so, what is a sufficient way of documenting my materials and ensuring that any party who obtains them sees them as "copyrighted" or possessing whatever protection that is applied to them?

My interest is in ensuring that my course materials are not gobbled up by someone else in the program, then taught by someone else without having been properly reimbursed for my development work in my personal time. Everyone else I have spoken to has said it sounds "not very kosher" that I am not being reimbursed for developing the course work.

I would simply like to protect my personal investment into these materials.

Thoughts? Insights? Experiences? Thank you!

I went through my contract, and there are two subdivisions that outline IP and copyright goodies, etc etc. The first paragraphs in essence state "The faculty member is entitled to the results of their research, IP, etc, EXCEPT when we pay for the research to be done, OR give you a break in your work load but still pay you to do the research, OR" - now this is the line I'm not sure about, "C. Under an assigned duty and/or work-for-hire arrangement with an external sponsor.
" I was very informally asked "Hey, would you be willing to put together and teach a class on subject X?" Me - "Sure.". (That's fairly literally, the extent of the request and my response). Would that fall under either of the definitions of C?

To be clear, I am developing the materials while not teaching any courses or being paid by the school in any manner. It is currently the summer semester and I am not being paid to teach, develop course work or anything. I will have to try and find my contract.

The shows a misunderstanding about the nature of a teaching job. When you're paid to teach a course, you're not being paid to do work only while the course runs. You're also being paid to prepare the course, and you're going to need to do that before the first meeting.

  I have finished all of my course materials (.pdfs, lab sheets, power points, etc etc). When I was first hired and told to create the new course, I was informed by some of my colleagues (former adjuncts at the same institution) that I would be paid for my course content. However, in speaking with my directory I was informed that I would not be paid for my course content as it is part of running the class.

Your colleagues were probably confused. Nobody pays instructors extra money to produce powerpoints and handouts. It goes with the job.

If you don't want others in your department to use your lab handouts without paying, don't give them your lab handouts. If you don't want others in your department to use your powerpoints without paying, don't give them your powerpoints.

As Bill Barth and JeffE have pointed out, copyright protection is automatic in most jurisdictions. It can be wise to put a copyright notice on your work, since a possible defense against a copyright-violation lawsuit is that the defendant didn't know it was copyrighted. A formal copyright registration is necessary in the US if you want to be able to recover more than actual damages, i.e., if you want punitive damages.

In general, the question shows an unrealistic set of assumptions about what teachers do; what they're paid to do; and what the normal contractual arrangements are. Furthermore, many people who write have an unrealistic belief in the quality and market value of their writing. There is no particular reason to expect that anyone else in the department will like these materials so much that they would want to use them. Most people prefer to do things their own way.


Advice for interacting with students reported for cheating on their midterms We (professors + TAs) are reporting a few students for cheating on their midterms to the head of undergraduate studies.  We had been monitoring their activities pretty closely, since we noticed they had been cheating throughout the semester on their weekly quizzes but felt that evidence was not compelling enough (e.g., 15 minutes, few questions).  But with their recent cheating activity on an hour-long exam, we are confident in what we are reporting to the University.

In the event that they are allowed back into lectures for the remainder of this semester, how do we interact with these cheating students?  Should we ignore them?  I expect there to be some friction between them and us, and I wish to not be too distracted from teaching the rest of the class of students that have been working diligently and honestly.

Just treat them the same as all the others during lectures.

If they want to meet you outside lectures to discuss the issue then you have two options : one: say that the issue is with the Head and the result / decision will be communicated to them, or have a discussion but I would not do this as it could affect the decision process.


Should I question this grading scale I am in my second semester in a Post-Bachelors Doctorate of Nursing Practice program. The class is a graduate nursing informatics course. My instructor posted the following grading scale. My initial reaction is that it leaves little room to earn an A grade. Would it be appropriate or acceptable to raise the issue with the professor? My past experience has usually been that an A is mid 90s or above and that an A- has been low 90s.

A: 97% or above
A-: 93-96%
B+: 90-92%
B: 87-89%
B-: 83-86%
Anything else is considered failing.

No, unless your institution has a specific policy on grade cutoffs.

Grade cutoffs are arbitrary. You cannot compare a % grade in one class to another, because the assessments are going to be different.


How does one learn research methodology? I am a multidisciplinary person. I have a bachelor's degree in computer science and now I'm working on my master's thesis on strategic intelligence studies. The experience I have in writing both of my master's and bachelor's theses, and the experience of using both of quantitative and qualitative methods show me that there are so many things to learn within the scope of research methodology, be it the methods, the paradigms, etc.

So, instead of being lured into one of the related disciplines that I've been exposed to, I'm far more interested in learning the research methodologies which are applicable to them. I want to  learn them all and I want to be able to devise such methods.

Thence my question, where should I begin my journey in learning and mastering research methodology? Is there any university offering such programme?

There is a strong need for learning research methodologies, and many postgraduate research courses require as prerequisite research methodology evidence.

The good news is that many institutions do offer specific courses in research methods; the better news is that many offer distance learning and there even some MOOC/Open learning options available. Below are some examples that I'm aware of (I'm sure there are many others):

Open Learning Initiative (Open)
City University London
University of Birmingham
University of Southampton
Saylor Academy (Open)
ACS

There are also a squillion books on research methods


Reprinted or Adapted? After what type of changes must a table be considered as adapted instead of reprinted? If I reproduce a part of a table in my text (by making my own table and inserting the info) and correct some spelling mistakes, will that make it adapted instead of reprinted?

To reprint normally implies to republish something in an unaltered form from the original. In principle, therefore, any change is an adaptation of the original. If you correct an error, it could be listed as a “reprint with corrections,” but then the corrections need to be specified. Otherwise, it’s adapted.


How to increase the number of authors followed in Google Scholar? I have created alerts in google scholar (one alert per researcher). The number of authors I can follow is limited (to 200) and thus I am not able to add more authors. Is it possible follow more authors?  How?

Following multiple authors (or journals, or documents, or keywords) is in my view, much easier using a saved search rather than 'following' multiple different authors:

"A. A. Author 1" OR "B. B. Author 2" OR "C. C. Author 3"

and so on. That way, you can pack as many authors in as you like which avoids restrictions (but there will probably be a search string limit somewhere). Also, you won't receive two separate emails about the same paper if it contains two authors you follow. Reducing the number of alerts to one per category (authors, documents, sources) also cuts down on the emails you will receive.

Personally I use Scopus to do this. I have an author alert and also a journal alert. The reason I use Scopus is because authors and sources are assigned a unique ID which makes it more precise.

Simply edit the alert to add/remove authors/journals/documents when the need arises. I keep a list of the authors and sources that are currently inside the alerts, with their associated Scopus code, so I can easily swap out or add if I need to.

In Gmail (where my institutional email is redirected), I have labels set up for 'Author Alerts' or 'Journal Alerts' etc. Keeps everything tidy and separated from personal stuff.