Application for master's course: should my motivation letter include my contact? I am applying for a master's program at a german university, and as my whole application includes a CV (with my detailed personal info and contact), should my motivation letter include my contact at the begining? Or is the fact that i am submitting my CV enough for them?
Also, do I include the contact of the university as well?

You should probably make it easy to find your contact information by anyone reviewing your application. It is probable, but not necessary, that they will have your complete package, but if they can find the information easily, they will be more likely to contact you rather than delaying it.

So, a certain amount of repetition is called for, I think.


Is a Research paper possible for proposing of a Methodology? So I have been carrying out this research project related to Machine Learning and computer networks and have been writing research paper along side my work.
Now that I have reached Results and conclusion part of the paper, I come to realize that my results are not really based on numbers and values but rather it is an emphasis on a Methodology.
The Methodology is, "how data generated from any tool can be used to add functionality  in the tool given if a person is able to drive an outcome from that data".

So is a journal publication possible for a proposing of a methodology?

is a journal publication possible for...a methodology?

Yes, assuming the ability to add functionality to a tool - from data generated by the tool - is useful to others, and assuming outcomes can be (relatively easily) manually derived from the aforementioned data. Added functionality is presumably useful, so the former assumption can be dropped. (Some justification should be added to the paper.) As to whether outcomes can be relatively easily derived, that isn't obvious and requires justification. If you can justify, then the latter assumption can be dropped too, giving-way to my answer to the above question: Yes.


Phd Application follow up contact the lecturer or the school After applied to a phd offer in a cluster group in Germany.
I've had a promising phone chat with one professor of the group.  Our research interests are closely related and he told me i will receive a mail from the administration not from him.
The interview went well, he was even querying about the visa procedure. But it's almost 20 days now and i did not received anything. I'm confused.
Should i contact him to ask? And what to write?  As he as warned me that the administration always took too much time.
And i do not have any contact with the administration since the beginning.

I have been involved in multiple PhD student searchers. Things tend to be rather informal. If I were you I would send him an email inquiring about the status of the application. Keep in mind tho that sometimes things are slow in Academia.


Switching research areas & PI expectations I'm an undergraduate, 3/5 years. I've worked in the same basic-genetics lab for three years now (mostly part time, 6 months of full-time).

I'm hoping to apply for MD/PhD programs doing computational biology, and I have a little bit of experience (an internship and some part-time industry work) with translational computational but not much.

My PI, and my most supportive mentor & letter-writer wants me to work another 6-month full-time co-op in his lab.

On one hand, I am very interested in the research we're doing. The 6-months would be a chance for my first not-nth-author publication and could be fun. And my PI seems genuinely disappointed/hurt when I do research elsewhere, which is actually a big influence.

But I don't want a lack of relevant experience to hinder my graduate school application. I could use that 6-month period to work with a computational lab or a hospital or industry.

I can't be the only one to be in a position similar to this. How do I even start to make a decision?

My two cents based on this part of your question:

  On one hand, I am very interested in the research we're doing. The 6-months would be a chance for my first not-nth-author publication and could be fun. And my PI seems genuinely disappointed/hurt when I do research elsewhere, which is actually a big influence.

  But I don't want a lack of relevant experience to hinder my graduate school application. I could use that 6-month period to work with a computational lab or a hospital or industry.

You need to decide which option is most valuable to achieve your career goals between a published paper in your current field (be aware that staying 6 more months might not be enough to get the article published) and some experience in a complementary field. You must absolutely refrain from basing your decision on your PI's emotions: of course, all PIs want to keep good lab members as long as possible (and it is flattering to get such recognition), but this is about your life and career, not your PI's, and if you think it is time to move on, that is your decision.

If you're concerned that leaving would be detrimental to your professional relationship with this PI, then you should think about ways to tell them your decision in a professional and non-emotional way. If they cannot accept your rational decision without drama, it is a good indication that you should not spend more time working with this person.


Etiquettes and content of review text for replying to reviewer comments? I submitted my first paper to a reputed journal and it came back with major revisions. One review is positive while other suggests to reject the paper. Though the reviewer who rejected the paper was under a wrong impression that a smaller version of the paper had earlier been published somewhere else (I provided a preprint on arXiv and declared so in the cover letter).

I have made significant changes to some sections of my paper and now writing the review text. So my questions are:

What is the etiquette for replying to the reviewers. "Thanks for such comments" etc after each comment seem very repetitive to me and seems they sound just as formality. Are there any established etiquette to reply to reviewer comment (specifically for very negative comments)
Is it OK for the review text to have 5-8 lines in response to comments which are not there verbatim in the revised manuscript. (Since I want to connect to the revision as compared to the previous version)
Should I include the changes (such as tables for new results etc.) in the review text or rather point to relevant sections in the manuscript ?

The more you write the more people need to read before they get to the stuff they need to know, so I would keep the formalities short. I typically start my response letter with a general thanks to all reviewers. If one has been especially useful I will mention that there.

If there was a comment that happend in all (or many) of the reviews I will discuss that at the begining as well.

After that the letter becomes very "tabular", For each reviewer I just discuss point for point how I dealt with that comment. Usually it is just a sentence and the page (and line) of where that change happened in the text. Occationally it may make sense to write a bit more, and I do so whenever required.


Financials of USA PhD after study in EU I am currently finishing my MSc degree in Mathematics (Applied Stochastics) and looking into the different opportunities I have for doing a PhD in Biostatistics (or Statistics) abroad. The USA is one of the countries I am looking into. However, I am not entirely sure what to expect from trying to get into the USA for a PhD, and actually doing a PhD there.

While in a number of EU countries, the PhD candidate is treated as an employee and gets paid a salary and enjoys certain benefits, the financial context of a PhD study in the USA is not entirely clear to me. I know I would need to look for funding (which I don't know how and where either yet), but what can I realistically expect? So far I am still debt-free and would continue to be so if I were to go to a country where PhD students are paid a salary, but is hoping to have a (relatively) debt-free PhD study in the USA realistic? Would I need a loan if I were to get into for example Berkeley? Overall, looking for funding seems a stressful part of doing a PhD in the USA, or does it turn out to be easier than I seem to think?

I am a PhD student from Ecuador studying Software Engineering. I received my US green card a couple of months ago, but I did my bachelor's degree in the US and applied to the PhD program as an international student, so hopefully my experience will help you.

Something that my professors told me while I was getting my bachelor's is to NEVER accept an offer that does not pay for my education and does not give me a monthly stipend for the entirety of the program. They told me that this is very common for PhD programs in the sciences. I know that this is true for Computer Science and Software Engineering; I am getting a monthly stipend and do not have to worry about any financial obligations with my university since it is all covered by the research money that my advisor has. In fact, I have no idea how expensive classes are here in my university since I do not have to worry about that. Now, I am not sure about Biostats or Statistics, but since it is a STEM field, the same cases might apply to those fields. You might be able to contact the business offices of the programs that you want to apply to check with them.

Another thing I was told when applying to graduate school is to apply for external funding such as fellowships or grants. This is beneficial for the university since they do not have to spend money in you and they get a graduate student who will do research and make them money. Unfortunately, all the fellowships and grants I looked required the applicant to be a US citizen. So that did not apply to me. Some universities that I applied to had scholarships for international student, although I did not get any of them.

You will have to pay for your own health insurance and living arrangements, but most universities will help you with those tasks once you have accepted their offer. All graduate students who I know can survive with the stipend they receive and the expenses that they have. I have never heard of a graduate student that is struggling with their finances.

In summary, being an international graduate student in the US is not that complicated as it seems. International students are actually the majority group in graduate school! If your program is in the sciences, you might not have to pay anything for the program and you will receive an stipend for your work. I have never heard of an international graduate student that left their program with any type of debt.


Co-authors ignore comments and submit revision anyway I am middle author of a manuscript that has been submitted and received reviews asking for some additional analyses. Two of the authors (including the PI) prepared the revision, sent it to the other authors (5-7 in total), asking for comments and suggestions.

I had a very different interpretation of the results of the additional analysis, and in my opinion, the conclusion in the revised manuscript is wrong, due to the authors (i.e. those that prepared the revision) ignored the results of the additional analysis. I pointed this out in an email to the other authors, and gave my interpretation of the results. There was no direct reply to my email, however one week later the "updated" manuscript was sent to me, and submitted to the journal the same day. There was no proper chance to react to this "updated" version, and obviously, the submitted revision was not approved by me. More importantly, the "updated" version contained the same mistakes, ignoring the results of the additional analysis, and thus, ignoring my comments.

Any suggestions how I should deal with this? It feels like contacting the PI/corresponding author won't lead anywhere. Should I contact the editor directly?

I have had this kind of conflict before, and I believe the issue is much more common than reported. I believe most colleagues in your position would (i) not have offered a different interpretation from that of the PI; (ii) not protest in case others ignored their suggestions. This is generally what was suggested in this thread by "move on".

I however do not agree with this passive approach if you are truly an author involved in the manuscript. I think all co-authors should reach a logical agreement over the results. My suggestions in this case are based on a personal choice based on details I cannot evaluate:

(A) If you believe their interpretation might be right even though you (and reviewers) see facts in a different way, just let them have it their way. "Move on". You can make your different views public later on in a subsequent publication or even post-publication peer review discussion forum. Your career is longer than this study.

(B) If you believe there is an obvious flaw in the PI's thinking that will be ridiculed by your peers after publication, ask to be removed from the authors list of this manuscript. I believe once you make this decision known to the PI there will be a moment of crisis, especially since this person submitted a revised version without your consent. However it will be a lesson for everyone, you will be not doing anything harmful to anyone (your name can be moved to the acks section without major issues prior to final publication), and everyone's career is longer than this discussion.

By now you have probably made your decision, but I hope this answer helps others decide.


Should I follow-up with the editor about formatting issues on a published article? I just received an email from the editor of a monograph series letting me know the issue where my article is included is now live. I went through normal things recently to get it published, like a copyright statement, but I never saw proofs. Upon looking at the pdf as it is online, I noticed formatting concerns that I would have liked corrected. They are:

Some of the headings are inconsistently formatted (i.e., some bold, some indented, some nothing - all for what should be the same heading level)
I have some full page tables, which produce lots of empty space on the page just beforehand. Rather than continue the body of the document, it is paused until after the table (in one case mid-sentence).

Is it possible to have changes made, and in what conditions is it worth it? There are not format methods to submit corrigendum to my knowledge. I'm also part of a relatively small academic community and a young scholar. I don't want to be seen as being too picky, but I also want my work to be represented well.

A similar questions is here although I didn't get proofs and I'm specifically asking with regard to the size of the community I'm in.

It sounds like these issues are purely cosmetic and don't significantly affect the paper's content nor its readability.  I would just leave it alone.  I think you do risk being seen as picky or annoying if you make an issue of something this minor.  Yes, it's not ideal, but life's not perfect.

If you're able to post a version of the paper to your website or a preprint server, you could certainly fix the formatting in that version.  Depending on the culture in your field, it may be that most people will be reading that version instead of the "official" version anyway.

(It's also possible that you'll still receive proofs and be able to correct them at some point in the future.  I have experienced cases where the publisher will post a preliminary version of the article before the author has corrected the proofs, and update it later after corrections are made.)


Are there tools to find a subset of references shared by two or more publications? Doing a literature review on a topic that is new to me at the moment, I am especially interested in papers that are cited across several of the papers I'm currently focussing on.
I was wondering if there is a tool out there, which I can feed with a list of the papers I'm reading, and that will provide me with a set of shared references.
Looking into Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar, I couldn't find something resembling such an option, but maybe I have just overseen it.
Googling for a tool like this proved also difficult, maybe because I couldn't find the propper search terms.

I know that there is an api for Scopus, with which one could probably write a Python Script to perform such a task, but I rather not reinvent the wheel and waste time (although it'd probably be fun to check out the Scopus api).

The process of finding the intersection of the references in a given set of papers is known as bibliographic coupling and was first proposed by M. M. Kessler in 1963 in a paper that sadly remains locked behind a paywall 52 years later. Kessler was thinking about doing this for pairs of papers but of course you could do this for an arbitrary number. What might also be interesting would be to look for the set of papers reachable by following citation trails backward in time through any number of steps.

I am unaware of any on-line tools that perform this type of comparison for you, though it would not be hard to build such a thing if you had access to a big enough citation graph.


Feeling like I wasted 6 months on a side project that won't benefit me I'm doing an MSc in Electrical Engineering. In about August of 2014 my supervisor approached me, asking if I would be able to finish off a project someone else has started since I was the only one proficient in the programming language. I agreed because it didn't seem like too much work at the time, and he said there would be room for publications.

That project quickly escalated - the requirements changed, the design changed, the design became more elaborate. As a result I spent a total of probably 6 months working on this. I had to conform to my supervisor's ideas even though I probably would not have done it that way. I did work on my thesis during this time as well, but it was quite hard to get anything good done.

I kept setting deadlines after which I would stop the project at whatever state it was in, and go on to my own work. My supervisor was very aware of these dates, but he would always ask me to fix this or that.

Now I finished it, it's been tested, but I'm not seeing why I did this in the first place. There is only one paper being written related to this and what I did is being used as an example - meaning I could have done a much simpler design and it would have worked anyways because noone cares about its functionality. I'm also 2nd author on this paper, even though I did all of the programming. Multiple authors are being added to this paper  via tiny contributions (or through good will...), so it's going to end up being one of "those" papers.

I brought this up, said I feel like I wasted all this time to gain nothing. To this my supervisor replied that he plans to some day use my design for another grad student's work. But that isn't part of my work? And what if it doesn't get used? It's just wasted time...

What can I do? Anything? I was thinking of taking the code I wrote, changing the functionality slightly and publishing it on my website so that I at least gain some recognition for the work I did. Not sure if that's the most professional approach.

If you learned something --either in terms of programming, or in terms of life --then it wasn't wasted time.  Next time you're in a situation like this, you'll know to say "no" up front.

This may seem like a glib answer, but it isn't intended that way.  As long as you don't keep making the same mistakes over and over, you are moving forward in life.


I was rejected twice from two MSc programs, should I quit trying? I received my rejection letter today and I was devastated. I was shocked because I have finally found a supervisor who saw my passion in the field and didn't care about my low GPA and lab members who were welcoming and offered to help me through my project. The committee believes that my GPA and academic record is below their standards (its one of the top 10 universities in Canada). The department does not even have that many faculty members and is fairly dead ( a friend of mine with a similar GPA got accepted, so I am even more surprised why I was rejected).
Although I aced my undergraduate thesis research project (A+), I am still considered that candidate with the lowest GPA. This GPA will never change and it will haunt me forever until I get a higher one in MSc degree, so should I just give up? to be honest, I am only pursuing graduate school because it will increase my employment chances in the pharmaceutical and healthcare industry.  I have been unemployed for a year after graduating from BSc and unless I have an MSc or PhD, employers will see me underqualified.
I am in a bad place, I volunteered in labs and hospitals, but that will never offset my GPA. Should I just throw in the towel?

P.S. I could continue applying to other schools, but I'm sure my referees will not be willing to write me reference letters for the third time.

If this is necessary for your career, certainly don't quit trying yet. But realize a few things:

Being at a top school doesn't always matter much for graduate studies, especially in Canada where Masters programsv tend to be more like mini PhDs. So you may find you have more success applying to smaller schools where there is a supervisor whose interests match your own. The supervisor likely matters more than the school.
Strengthen your application in any ways you can. Take some time to get experience in your field outside of academia. Do some extracurricular activities that show leadership potential. If you can upgrade your marks, do so. See if you can turn your bachelor's thesis into a published paper.
Put lots of effort into the other aspects of your application. Make sure you have excellent references. If there's a place to explain extenuating circumstantial, use it to explain your GPA


Will "academic expert" for study website hurt me on the academic job market? I've been offered a side job working to answer submitted student questions (at my own discretion) related to my field of expertise for a study website. Seems pretty harmless as a way to earn very minor extra cash.

Would this have any implications for my prospects through the academic job market? I probably wouldn't list it on a CV, but would a committee seeing this kind of activity see it as a bad thing?

I don't see it being harmfull to your career if you don't answer asignment questions or doing something that can be thought as unethical. may be you can elaborate on why you think that it can harm your career?


Saying thanks in the personal statement? Should I include a small thank at the beginning of my personal statement? The thank can long for one line to three lines depends on the specifics it included. In the short version, it can be like this:

  I want to thank my mom, my friend XYZ and the SE community for supporting me all the time.

In the long version, it can be:

  I want to thank my mom for understanding my passion, my friend XYZ for his alacrity to make my works flows better in English, and the SE community as well as other person who I have never met has spent time advising and criticizing every time I come up a new idea.

I should make clear that the school I intend to apply requires me to write a personal statement, separate to the SOP.

  The personal statement should give concrete evidence of your promise as a member of the academic community, giving the committee an image of you as a person.

As a person, not a researcher.

No, a statement of thanks in the form you have described has no place in a statement of purpose.

The statement of purpose should be a concise, focused document. Everything in there should be there for a specific purpose: to convince the readers that you would be a strong addition to their department. Anything that doesn't serve that purpose distracts from that purpose and doesn't belong in there.

  The personal statement should give concrete evidence of your promise as a member of the academic community, giving the committee an image of you as a person.

None of the things you have written in your thanks "give concrete evidence of your promise as a member of the academic community" so they do not belong there.

Besides for being ineffective as part of your application for graduate admissions, it's also somewhat ineffective as an expression of gratitude. Private thanks expressed to the person you are thanking are nice; public thanks (like in a thesis, or a Nobel prize acceptance speech) are also nice. What's the point of thanking someone in a private document, that they're not the intended audience of? If you want to thank your mom, send her a letter, or call her on the phone and thank her.


Historical data for success rate of grant/project applications? Is there any publicly accessible information regarding the success rate of grant/project applications for science/technology and other research grant programs (e.g. NSF grants) and its variation over time?

I'm not interested in an exhaustive list but some illustrative examples would be much appreciated.

Check out the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools. It may take you some time to find exactly what you're looking for, but there are numerous reports available, with a good deal of detail.


How much more work should I put to my master's thesis? I have been doing my master's thesis for a year now. I was quite productive during the past months, so I already managed to publish one paper on the topic.
Now, the productivity seems to have drawbacks too - I have already fulfilled every requirement there is for a thesis, and even more, but I haven't described even half of the work I did during the past year.

So, I am now left wondering should I return the thesis tomorrow for evaluation, or use two or three more months writing (I'm a terribly slow writer). I would probably like to apply for a PhD position, so I guess I should make the decision from that point of view. If I have a very comprehensive master's thesis, does it add any value for application? Having the one paper would already opens all doors in my home country, but I don't know about the others.

Having a paper published on your own work, while doing a Master's degree (i.e. in a relatively short time) sure is a good point of your application to any graduate program. Having a paper submitted for publication is always a plus, but having one already published is a strong plus for you.

Regarding your thesis: the quality of the thesis itself will probably not matter much in admission to a PhD program, unless it is visibly bad, in which case it will sure hurt. Otherwise, chances are noöne will read it through when you apply. Thus, if you are strongly confident that your thesis can be accepted/graded/defended (I don't know what the detailed requirements are for your program) in its current state, don't overdo it.

Don't get me wrong: you don't want to be seen as the guy who did the absolute bare minimum to get away with it. That looks bad, and may leave a stain when people ask for references. Otherwise, if you think your thesis is of good quality, just submit it. The extra work it requires to get it to “perfect” or “awesome” is probably not worth it. The only exceptions I can see are:

if your Master's program has a ranking system, and getting a good rank (or even 1st) can boost your future applications
if the writing will also be useful for new papers, in which case you might as well include it in the thesis


Can the university you work for or study at protect your identity by listing you under a pseudonym? Some people have reasons to want their identity protected from a Google search, such as a dangerous stalker ex-spouse.

When you become a grad student, assistant professor, etc. at a university, and if the university wants to put your name on their website (directory, course catalog, departmental page, to name a few), can you refuse it or have them at least put out a pseudonym instead, assuming you have been publishing or contributing to articles (or intend to) with that pseudonym?

This is commonly done in several types of cases:

by women who want to retain using their maiden name professionally while switching their legal name to their husbands
by students from countries who have taken a hostile stance towards the United States and who want to protect their extended families back in their home country
By foreigners with impossibly long (from an American standpoint) first or last names or who use non-mainstream variations on their name
By faculty who go by their middle names or nicknames not their formal first names
By aforementioned stalking victims

If you are at a large enough institution, they are prepared to handle these types of situations. My (large enough) institution has the following:

Fields in the university directory database that allow for 'nicknames' to take the place of names. Because all of our e-mails are firstname.lastname@myschool.edu, this allows for e-mails to arrive properly.
Flags in the university directory that particular information should not be publicly released. One can prevent the listing altogether if you choose.
The only other place where names would appear would be the faculty/staff/student website, which is under departmental control and easily changed.

One of the doctoral students that I work for is from one of the aforementioned hostile countries and you will not find any web presence for her on the departmental website.

This gets trickier when you are faculty, as students need to enroll in your courses and you need to publish. I would recommend in this case either a full legal name change or pushing your university/department to recognize a pseudonym. It helps greatly if you have a common last name and only need to modify your first name.


Can affiliated university claim ownership of ideas presented in your paper? I'm a part time lecturer in a university and conducted a research independently and I'm about to publish the result. I'm concerned about assigning the affiliation to the university. I'm afraid that I give them the power to limit my full rights over the paper. It's a paper with innovative ideas and I will continue to work on the ideas presented in this paper.
I want to know exactly what the affiliated university can claim for if they want to? Can they claim for ideas in the paper as intellectual property of university?

The question is a legal one, so it would depend on what legal system you're subject to. Ideas per se cannot be legally owned, but via patent and copyright you can own the expression of ideas. With a patent, there is a legal process that you need to go through, to gain legal ownership over, say, a method of converting speech to text. If that's the case, you better get on filing right now. In the case of copyright, you basically don't have to do anything in the US, except if you need to sue for infringement and plan to go for statutory damages, then you need to register the work (also, registration is prima facie evidence of ownership of the work). But, you will have a copyright transfer or licensing agreement with the publishing venue. If the journal requires a transfer, you don't own the work anymore.

And, at any rate, your university can't claim ownership of the work, unless it can prove that this was a work for hire. The closest it could come would be if there is a condition in your employment agreement saying that anything you create is their property, then they could fire you and maybe sue you for not assigning the copyright to them. I am not a lawyer, but I seriously doubt that any clause that says something broad like "anything that you create is automatically our property" would be upheld in court. They can forbid you from claiming an affiliation, but you listing an affiliation does not create any property right for the university.


find the right journal to publish my manuscript I'm about to publish my work in a journal,

I'm searching for those having an impact factor, indexed and non-paying.

I used Elsevier finder,  Springer suggester, DBLP,...tp pick up a list of journals in my research area then, I send it to my supervisor, who shocked me with another criterion which is 'open access', he said that a journal having an open access option is a paying journal and I'm not allowed to publish in it.

Could you please tell me what is this open access option?

how to find the right journal with the criteria that my supervisor and I want?

You can find information about open access publishing in various online places such as the wikipedia article linked here.

Note the section on funding, however. Since readers of open access materials can do so without charge, the costs must be covered by other means. Often this means that the authors are charged a fee for publishing.

Perhaps your advisor is objecting to the cost of publication. But perhaps he is confusing it with predatory journals that also usually charge authors for publishing. The difference is that open access journals are often completely reputable (as are the ones you list), but predatory journals are not.

I believe that some reputable journals will publish either with or without the open access option. You can then avoid the fees (perhaps), but readers will need to subscribe or otherwise pay the publishers for access.

However, even without open access, most university libraries can obtain access to scholarly materials through sharing arrangements, so researchers can get access without fee. And when a journal is published by a scholarly society, the articles may be accessible to members for reduced (or no) fees.


I chose wrong license during submission on arXiv, what shall I do? I am a PhD student from computer science and try to submit a paper to IEEE transactions. In addition, I also submitted it to arXiv under the CC0 license (Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication), where it was already published. This might be unacceptable for IEEE.

My question is: Can I just withdraw the current version, and resubmit it to arXiv under non-exclusive license? It seems like that there will be a record in arXiv. Will it affect my IEEE publication?

There are precedents that suggest this may be unacceptable to the IEEE, although the only way to know for sure is to ask.  They may be more sympathetic if they see it as an unfortunate mistake, rather than an attempt to undermine their copyright policies.  On the other hand, they may still wish to avoid any precedents that could be used to undermine those policies, regardless of whether that was your intent.

  Can I just withdraw the current version, and resubmit it to arXiv under non-exclusive license?

If you try to do that, the arXiv's plagiarism/duplicate detection will alert them and they will be upset.  You are definitely not allowed to withdraw and then resubmit independently.

Instead, you should write to them to ask what, if anything, you can do to fix this.

One option is to update the current paper.  I think you are allowed to choose a new license for the update, but I assume it does not change the license for the previous version (which will still be available).  If that's the case, then this will not solve your problem.

Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, so there is nothing you can do to prevent the article from being distributed under the CC0 license if someone has a CC0-licensed copy and wishes to do that (see this FAQ).  However, the arXiv might be willing to change the license they distribute the article under in the future, especially if your paper was just posted recently and you explain that the license choice was a mistake.  I don't know what the chances are that they would agree, but it can't hurt to ask.

This would not completely solve the problem (anyone who downloaded the paper already under the CC0 license could still do whatever they wanted with it and redistribute it further), but it would mitigate it.  I do not know how the IEEE would react.

Ultimately, there's no perfect solution, since nothing you can do will ever eliminate the possibility of CC0-licensed copies somewhere on the internet.  All you can do is address the issue as best you can and then explain it to the IEEE and hope they feel you have done enough.


Revamping Paper Authorship, *or* Should Papers Roll Credits A junior researcher with no reputation (as we've dropped the facade of double-blind review, reputation counts) may benefit from coauthoring with a senior researcher of established reputation, and may accept such a co-authorship with no more than a nominal contribution.

Surely if a senior researcher comes up with the idea, sends the junior researcher off to get his data, provides fruitful advice on where to look, critiques the data gathering methods proposed and refines it if necessary, reviews early to late drafts of the write up, indisputably that senior researcher deserves recognition of coauthorship despite never having directly given voice to the document.

How much advice does a professor have to give before he becomes an coauthor? Isn't the below image's last author listing wrong? Isn't it academic dishonesty on the parts of all of the authors to take and give credit where it is not due? Isn't it misleading to the readers of these papers?

Further, are these semantically unordered? Maybe this indicates we can drop that facade as well, since order apparently does have meaning (unless explicitly ordered alphabetically).

If we really care about people rightfully getting credit, perhaps a paper should list credits in the same way that a movie does.

Perhaps something like:

The Prestigious Journal of Import                    Vol XLVI No 2, June 1992

                            A Paper We Wrote

                      Primary Author: Sap, P. S.
                     Primary Advisor: Oliveira, L.
                           Reviewers: Lee, E. F., Nichols, S. T.,
                             Figures: Michael, C.
                          Dept Chair: Smith, B. S.

                                 Abstract
    The time has come, to talk of many things, of shoes, of ships, of sealing
...

Question:

Do we need to revamp how authorships are credited, do papers need to roll credits, a'la Hollywood? Or is all of this inferred by our list order, and it doesn't really matter who did what, all authors signed off on it, so current practice is equivalent to as if each of them contributed equally and in kind?

There is movement towards contributorship as a concept to replace authorship. Journals like Science and Nature (and others) ask authors to provide a list of each contributors contribution. Add to that a definition of what constitutes contributorship (Vancouver Protocol; see ICMJE for the following example):

  Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;

  AND

  Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;

  AND

  Final approval of the version to be published;

  AND

  Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In this case it is the publishers and editors who will have to implement the tools to provide the correct credit. As an author it is possible to volunteer the information in the acknowledgement. It is of course still possible to give false credit by faking entries for authors who have not contributed but I doubt any system will be perfect.


Is it expected that a part-time masters student publish before transferring to a PhD? After reading this question, I am curious as to the publication expectations for part-time students. I am a Mlitt Student (working full-time and studying part-time) and am in the process of switching from my (uncompleted) masters programme to a PhD programme. My own personal feeling is that if it is expected that a full time student publish before they get their PhD then the same should be applied for a part-time one. It may take me longer to do a PhD but should the same expectations to publish not be there?

As I'm in the process of changing to the PhD I'm not sure yet if there is a requirement to publish to gain it, which of course may make the decision anyway. I am aware as per the answers in the linked question that this can vary between different institutions and disciplines. I am in the Humanities.

I am mainly asking in the context that in my Mlitt it was expected that I write my research thesis and possibly present at a conference, but there appeared to be no real pressure to publish an article etc. If this is something that will change, I'll have to factor it into my work-plan.

Edit(additional info): When I originally posted this question I attempted to keep it a generic as possible so didn't include info from my own case. I think this example shows where there can be slight differences between what can be expected from a full-time and part-time student. In my university full-time students have to do a blended PhD(about 20% coursework, 80% Thesis) whereas due to working 9-5(or more) I'll be doing a traditional PhD of Thesis only (an option not allowed to full time students). Personally I don't think this should have major impact on expectations on students to publish but does highlight that as a part-time student I shall be getting(hopefully!) my PhD by way of a different process to full-time student so there may be different expectations.

The easy answer is 'Ask your supervisor' and I will but it would be great if someone was either a part-time PhD student or supervised one etc, could give some insight on if there is an expectation in academia that a part-time PhD student publish?

The expectation to publish does not depend on whether you are full-time, half-time or spare-time student, it is based on the general expectations on students in your field, department, or academic culture, or some combination. If a PhD thesis is a monograph then the main focus will be to complete such a thesis. this commonly does not preclude publishing as well. If you need to write a thesis that consists of published papers and manuscripts then that is what you need to do.

I doubt the advisor is the key player here although that person will be representative of what you can expect from your graduate school education in terms of expectations on your writing. So check what is written in the form of PhD these and you will know. Communicating your results will inevitably be required so some form of written result will be on the horizon.


Should I turn down a PhD offer or defer for another year? Two years ago I applied to a PhD program that I was really excited about and thought was a good fit for me. I made it clear in both my application and the interview that I needed funding. Everything went fine during the whole process, however, in the end I got an offer without funding. So I deferred for a year and applied for funding again and just found out I have been unsuccessful again.

Would it be possible to defer for another year? Should I defer for another year and apply for funding again or should I just turn it down and look elsewhere? It doesn’t seem like they are as excited as I am about having my research at their university. I don’t know if this is my ego talking or if it’s a reasonable thought.

You can ask for deferral, but it is not universal that you can/will be granted it even once, and it is much rarer to be granted it again. With that said, I don't think it is a question at all of merely ego or vanity - humans universally have this annoying tendency of wanting to be able to obtain suitable food and shelter for themselves, along with other things that comprise a decent standard of modern living. It is not unreasonable of you to infer that if a group has a variety of funding options they could offer and they choose not to extend it to you, that this is a valid way to interpret that their priorities are elsewhere. You need not read into it as any deeper judgement - it is what it is, and any such ordering of priorities includes a large component of abitrary and inscrutable caprice.

If you require funding, you require funding, and that is that. I certainly insisted on it, and decided in advance that any school that did not offer funding was automatically off the list. It is reasonable for you to do likewise.

You are certainly free to ask about an option to defer to apply for funding again, and tell them you cannot accept an offer without funding, and they will do whatever they decide to do. As a rough likelihood assessment, I think it is most probable that you will need to apply elsewhere - to multiple schools you would like to attend, not just one. Even if they grant you a deferral they will almost certainly not include any guarantee of funding next round. That's just how graduate school is: no guarantees of admission, funding, success in the program, or success beyond. Life in an ivory-coated nutshell, if you will.


How to correct citations in Google Scholar? Some of the publications have cited my work. But Google scholar is unable to identify those citations and link with my account. I think it is because my name in the references of article has been written differently. Is there a way I can change that?

You think

  Google scholar is unable to identify [some citations to my work] because my name in the references of article has been written differently

But, I doubt Google works this way, because numerous mistakes appear in references throughout the literature. Perhaps this issue will resolve itself over time as Google has more time to crawl.


Seeking advice with dissertation chair: possible theft of idea and possible blackmail I am hoping for advice in how to move forward. Last spring I submitted two proposal ideas to my dissertation chair. He told me that the first idea was 'inappropriate.' I proposed a comparison of statistical methods, and my advisor said that I could not compare the 'new and novel' method to the 'traditional' analysis method. He felt that it was inappropriate to make a comparison between these methods. Before telling me that I could not continue with this idea, he asked me to type up notes about each statistical procedure (background, assumptions, how to complete, coding packages, etc.) as well as to send him the relevant literature supporting the 'new' methods. I sent him approximately 28 pages of typed notes discussing each method in depth and my entire file of literature sources. Then, he told me that I could not move forward with this idea.
So, I selected a new topic. One semester later, my advisor sent me a draft paper that he was submitting to a conference. He told me that if I completed the statistical analysis, I could be the fourth author on the paper. I was shocked to read that paper, as it was my original dissertation idea of comparing methods. I refused to work on the paper. I attempted to discuss my concern that the paper was very close to my original dissertation proposal; while my chair says that I 'motivated' him to explore a new area of research, he denies that he is using my idea.
Now, I believe that my chair is holding up my dissertation. I was supposed to defend my proposal in July, but he has refused to allow me to schedule the defense. This summer, he told me that I was ready to defend, that my proposal was solid, and that my first three chapters were in good shape. However, he thought a fall meeting date would benefit the faculty committee members. In the meantime, he instructed me to begin conducting the proposed research in anticipation of committee approval in the fall.
This semester, I have had two meetings with my chair. In both meetings, he has brought up that he wants me to perform the statistical analysis of his new project (which I believe to be my original dissertation proposal). He even suggested that I should extend my studies for an additional year and apply to be his research assistant. I have not agreed to participate in the research project or to delay my graduation. After telling him that I would not participate in the research project, he sent me an email questioning if my proposed dissertation (representing three semesters of work) was sufficient or if I should start again with a new topic.
So....
I have reached out to the omsbud office and I have debated filing an ethics complaint against my chair. I also reached out to the program coordinator of my program to request a change in dissertation chair. To change chairs, I may be required to file a complaint because I am in my third semester of dissertation hours.
I am hoping for advice. I worry about repercussions if I file a complaint. A student filed a complaint against this particular professor two years ago and that student was ostracised by both faculty and her peers. She dropped out of the program. This summer, I thought that the best course of action was to keep my head down, ignore my concerns, and finish my dissertation. Now, I wonder if I will be able to finish my dissertation as my chair will not allow me to schedule the proposal defense. I am further restricted from contacting any members of my committee; one of the covid policies that my department adopted was that all communication must go through the committee chair. So, I have five members on my committee, but I am only allowed to communicate directly with the chair. I tell you, I would not believe this story if I was not living it myself.
Currently, the path of least resistance seems to be quitting the program but then I forfeit all the time and work spent towards this degree.

In my view, you did well. It is very courageous what you have done so far and science needs people like you.
The difference with the girl you refer to from two years ago is that probably she had not contacted the ombudsperson and you are second. I suspect there are more cases. Would be good for you if you discretely can find out as it may help your case.
It is difficult to predict the outcome in these situations but I believe on a higher level in life, you will succeed whether here or somewhere else. Shallow comfort: Your case will also add to the file of this supervisor.
You did not ask for this to happen but it did. It is not your fault. It may take you extra time but in the end it will enforce your personal strength.
You may consider to ask the ombudsperson to start an independent investigation. An ombudsperson can start such investigation if there is sufficient reason. In that case he/she should able to keep you out of shot and a formal complaint from you should not be necessary.
Take care, trust your instincts and do not let this unfortunate situation break down your self confidence.


Should I go for a PhD in Oxford University? I recently got accepted into a PhD program at the University of Oxford after passing many admission stages including a very rigorous interview.

I've always been a good academic, and I do have a promising startup making around 10,000$ a month. I've got funding for my PhD as well; money is not the problem.

However, after thinking a lot of about it, I hate academia, and I do never want to be a researcher. I do not want to be a tenured professor or be in an academic environment in any way, nor I want to make future publications.

If I go for a PhD, I do know what I am signing up for; I searched for months on what a PhD sounds like. The countless hours of work, the supervision, the isolation, thesis work, wanting to quit and everything else.

I am passionate about my PhD topic, and I think I can contribute to that field using projects and research.

If I go there, it would be something I am deeply passionate about.
Furthermore, the main reason why I want to go there is that it is 'Oxford' and I get a permanent legacy being an Oxbridge graduate, as well as holding a doctorate degree for the rest of my life.

My parents are supportive and aren't pushing me to do it. They told me to do what I want.

Academia took over my life since I was 18 and wasting another 4-years for that means I finish 27 where most of my 20s would be wasted for academia.

I've asked my academic advisor, and he told me rejecting an offer from Oxford might be a mistake I would regret for the rest of my life.

Should I go for PhD in Oxford or not? I have a non-ending dilemma.

If you will think of time spent on the PhD as time wasted, don't do it.

However, in considering the pros and cons, do remember that PhD students who are having problems are much more visible than the ones who are enjoying the experience.

Supervision should be a benefit, not a downside. I remember some very interesting conversations with my academic advisor.

People working excessive hours, other than for short periods during emergencies, are less productive than those who are getting enough sleep, exercise, and social life.

If you experience isolation, you are doing it wrong. A PhD is a time to network with other researchers in your chosen field, including but not limited to fellow graduate students.

Writing your thesis may be the one time in your life in which you can write about your research area without limiting yourself to a few pages. Why would "thesis work" be a negative?


Minor Revision with suggestion of an alternative proof by reviewer I submitted a paper to a mathematical journal, and recently received a Minor Revision decision from the Editor. One of the reviewers suggested an alternative and much simpler proof to my main theorem. The suggested proof greatly shortens my paper. Now, I am in a dilemma.

1) Should I retain my original proof, which I must admit in hindsight, was overly complicated? And then simply acknowledge the reviewer...

2) Should I write down the shorter and simpler proof suggested by the reviewer, and explicitly mention in the acknowledgemnts that I have used one of the reviewers' proofs?

The reason I ask is that I am worried whether going with Option 2 reduces the value/contributions of my paper (the revised one is not my proof after all!), although the Theorem and its implications stand nonetheless. Do I have a better chance of acceptance with Option 1? Is not seeing a simpler proof a ground for rejection of the paper? Any suggestions are welcome (since its a minor revision, it's due in a couple of weeks)!!

I would not worry about the paper getting rejected one way or the other: The reviewers gave you a shorter proof, but did not suggest that the theorem is obvious or trivial. This isn't going to change once you put their proof into the paper.

So the question is how to acknowledge the reviewer. It is not uncommon in mathematics papers to show the shortened proof and then, in the acknowledgements say "We appreciate the contributions of reviewer 2 who provided the shortened proof of theorem 4." On the other hand, if you think that coming up with this proof really required some hard work even though the reviewer has seen your proof, then maybe it is appropriate to ask the reviewer (through the editor) whether they want to become a co-author.

The final option may be to show both proofs. If you think that your proof is interesting despite being complicated because it shows connections to other areas that are of independent interest, then it's worth keeping it in. In such a case, it may be useful to show the alternative and shorter proof given by the referee in an appendix, and explain why you think it's worthwhile to show both. Remember that a paper isn't just about showing a result, but also teaching others how that result came about and what it means and implies. As such, there is a place for papers with two independent proofs of the same statement.


How might a PhD-holding physicist submit independent research after leaving academia, without appearing to be a crackpot? There is a no dearth of crackpottery in the world of amateur physics research, nor in the world of independent research done by PhD-holding physicists. If I want to continue physics research in my own time after graduating and moving on to industry, what would be the best way to share my research with the physics community?

Actually, you just write and submit papers just as if you were in academia. They will be reviewed in the normal way and published if they are seen to have merit. But if the reviewers tell you that you are a crackpot, then try hard to come up with better (or more acceptable) ideas.

But I think that physics research must be pretty hard without labs and a circle of collaborators, etc, that you find in academia. Theory can, perhaps, be done while you are a functionary in the Patent Office, but you need to stand out to make a name.

But if you have a supportive advisor you can, perhaps, get connected to a research group and work with them even though not employed.

But don't publish your work in venues normally associated with crackpots.


How do admissions to UK PhD programs work? I know that in the US people apply for PhD programs, with a rough a idea in their heads what interests them, as PhD's take much longer and include time to explore the subject.

How does this work for UK students? PhD's usually last for around 3-4 years, and it seems that you would have to know exactly what you want to do when you apply?

I have completed a BA & MA in the Humanities, but I am not sure yet what to write my PhD on. I am sure though that I want to pursue this path.

How does the usual process look like? Would I first contact a professor I would like to work with and then apply to the program? And how specific should my research idea be? I have a certain subtopic of my discipline in mind, and I have also identified a few interesting potential supervisors. However, I am nowhere near having found a proper topic, or an interesting idea which I would want to develop.How do people do this? Sorry if this is a little bit general, but I am a bit stuck!

edit: Let's work on the assumption that I am in the Humanities & that I do not require funding.

How does the usual process look like?

Differently.

Are you applying for a 3+1 degree? Or a studentship? Or a normal PhD?
(Note: 3+1 (or 1+3) degrees are a combination of a 1-year Master's and a 3-year PhD. Their first year is equivalent to a Master's, and upon satisfactory performance at the end of your first year, you are allowed into the PhD programme. Sometimes the first year is done at one university, and the remaining three years at another university. Example 1 Example2)

Does the application require a research proposal? And/or a writing/work sample? And/or a personal statement?

Do you have your own funding? If not, what type of funding are you applying for? If the funding applications are separate, do they require their own documents?

Etc.

Would I first contact a professor I would like to work with and then apply to the program?

Unless it is a 3+1 course, then normally yes. You would have to find a supervisor willing to supervise you, and to help you properly form your research proposal.
If you are applying for a studentship, then it is likely that most, if not all, the information needed to write the research proposal is already available.

In 3+1 courses, the applications tend to be much more general. They often do not require research proposal, but rather personal and/or research statements. Also, you typically are not required to get in touch with any of the supervising staff, because the topic of your PhD is decided toward the end of your first year.

And how specific should my research idea be?

Research proposals are very specific. It is rare for students to deviate too much from the core of their research proposals during their PhDs.

To get a broad idea of how specific your research proposal should be, I can tell you that your research proposal would need to have introduction, background, aims, methodology, possibly a strategy/schedule, possibly a section about the importance of the research, etc.

But, many people (and most, if not all, successful candidates) get help from their potential supervisors with forming and writing their research proposals.

How do people do this?

I cannot say how other people did it, but the way I wrote my research proposal was I started with a more general idea, then I read a lot about it, which helped me to reduce it to a somewhat specific idea and to find a couple of possibly suitable approaches to achieve this idea. Then I got in touch with a potential supervisor who pointed me to a few recent papers, which further narrowed down my idea to something that looked like a proper PhD project. He then helped me write my research proposal by providing me with tips and very useful feedback.


Using an alternative name part of the way through my academic career For the first 11 years of my career, I worked as an academic in my home country. I moved to the United States two years ago to begin a new faculty position at a flagship state university.  During these 13 years, I have used my full name as my "academic" name (as would be the usual practice). However, I have noticed that a number of my English speaking colleagues find it hard not to snicker at my name. And I do not entirely blame them. They do not mean to be impolite: my native language name sounds like a rather crude phrase in English.

Although this is not my name, the Korean name Yu Seok Beom 유석범 (You Suck Bum) is an example of such a name. (Unfortunately, my name sounds like a much more vulgar phrase in English than just "you suck bum.") I have considered going by my initials, however I have had a few journals that still would highly prefer I use a non-initial name to identify myself ("for indexing purposes"). Furthermore, my initials plus my surname create only a slightly less crude variant of the vulgar phrase my full name sounds like, so the issue is not fully solved.

My latest idea is to begin using an English name that sounds good with my surname. However, I fear that this will create confusion as to my academic profile. I have numerous papers and connections in which I am known by my actual name. I do not want to lose 13 years of academic name recognition (not that I am that famous).

How should I handle having an academic profile built on a name that sounds like a vulgar phrase in English? Should I just proceed forward and embrace the fact that my name sounds like I am spewing an obscenity, or should I try to build a new era of my academic career with a new name?

A difficult question to answer as, ultimately, this is quite personal. It is "what are you willing to put up with" mixed with "how much of your own personal identity do you ascribe to your name"?

I have a colleague who has had (at least) three different names during their academic publishing career and no one knows how to cite their work: do we convert publications under old names to new names? I also constantly have to tell students and other scholars "that's the same person...". It isn't great. Perhaps if you have a colleague that has changed their name due to marriage or other circumstances, you might discuss with them their experiences of building a profile anew.

One thing is for certain: if you don't change the name you use, you'll be memorable to the readers of your work. You'll come to mind before Jane Smith and John Jones.


Master's at Undergrad University Then Pursue PhD Elsewhere My university has a 5 year BS/MS degree for mathematical sciences and I am graduating a year early, so I can do the BS/MS in only 4 years. I am considering applying to PhD programs at other universities after I complete my MS. Do PhD programs want students right out of undergrad? Or will I be at an advantage showing that I can take grad courses (assuming I do well)

My answer reflects the situation in the US and Canada.  In the US, most Ph.D. programs accept people directly from undergrad; at a few US and most Canadian schools you'll be expected to start in a master's program, but it is generally relatively easy to move up to the Ph.D. program (not significantly harder than avoiding getting kicked out of most US Ph.D. programs).  Whether it says "MS" on your degree will matter less than what courses you have taken.  Having another year of coursework will probably strengthen your application (or at least gives you a chance to), but if you have to pay a significant amount of tuition, then I have serious concerns about whether it will be worth it. If you can get into a funded master's or Ph.D. program, then that will save you a LOT of money, and you can get roughly the same boost to your future applications spending a year there that you would by being in the BS/MS program.

EDIT:  Since the OP has clarified that the extra year would be funded with a stipend, my comments above aren't really applicable.  In that case, it probably is the best plan to stay at the current university and get the BS/MS.

Maybe I'll just make a general comment here which seems relevant: its generally pretty advantageous to stay longer at the current stage of career where you already are, as opposed to moving on in a rush.  Our culture makes a powerful mystique around completing things quickly, but all other things being equal, it is to your benefit to be a little ahead in actual accomplishments of where you are in your career (which extra time is one way of accomplishing).  You get "clock resets" at various points of your career (when starting or finishing a Ph.D., for example), if you can get more done before those, all the better.  Of course, often financial or personal considerations have to be weighed against this.


What is the perception of doing a conference presentation at your own institution as opposed to another one? This is a hypothetical question so no hard facts about conferences etc.

Say for example there is a conference at your own university that you get to present a paper at but you also get accepted at another university's conference to present a paper at as well.

For this example we will say that both conferences/universities are of the same standing and there is no disadvantage to attend the other one such as cost etc.

Would both look equally good on a CV or would there be a view that the presentation at your own institution would not carry as much weight when viewed by, for example, by a hiring committee?

Rtisan is probably right about a local conference carrying somewhat less weight and prestige on a CV.

However, there are some other benefits of presenting at a local conference:

It's usually free.  With the travel money you save, you can attend another conference far away later on.  Now you have two conference talks on your CV instead of just one.  (In other words, "present locally" versus "present far away" is probably a false dichotomy.  Even if the local conference conflicts with a faraway conference, there is very likely another faraway conference in the near future that's just as good.  And if the conflicting faraway conference is, like, the one and only awesomest conference in your field, then the organizers of your local conference probably shouldn't have scheduled theirs to conflict with it.)
Less travel: you get to save a day or two of travel time, sleep in your own bed, see your family, etc.  This may make the conference much more relaxing.
Being the attraction: People may be saying to themselves: "Hey, there's a conference at Podunk University.  I think that's where gman works, so I'm sure he'll be there.  I was just reading his paper and it will be great to hear his talk and ask him questions."
Networking: as a local at a conference, people are more likely to want to talk to you.  For instance, "Hey gman, you live here, can you recommend a good restaurant in town?  Would you like to join us for dinner?" The opportunity to talk to other researchers informally can be very valuable to a career.  Even fielding mundane questions like "How do I connect to the wifi?  Where is Room NNN?  Can you help me turn on the projector?" can start good conversations.  (Make sure you know the answers to these questions!)  It can be harder to initiate interactions like this when you are a stranger in a strange city.
Help organize: Try to join the organizing committee, or at least offer to help them out.  Organizing a local conference is a lot of work, and by contributing to this you will gain the appreciation of your colleagues.  It's also valuable experience, and "conference co-organizer" is a nice line to have on a CV.  Finally, conference organizers tend to have more contact with the visiting participants, contributing to Networking as above.


Is it inappropriate to ask department staff for syllabi previously used for courses I am to teach in upcoming year? I've been hired to teach two courses as an adjunct professor in the US (my first time teaching). I would like to review syllabi previously used for these courses, simply to inform my thinking on these courses. Is this an inappropriate request? It is likely I would ask the department head's administrative assistant for these documents. (As far as I can tell, they are not available online.)

Actually, it is quite appropriate. You could also ask for a list of the professors who previously taught the course. You could then ask them if they are willing to share materials to help bootstrap the course.
In fact, the administrative assistant might not have easy access directly, partly due to the pandemic. But the professors would normally retain their materials.
You might also find recent course information online if each course has a website or if professors have websites with course material.


Is there an available network analysis of all academic papers and/or a 3D representation? I know multiple paid or open databases are available online for a meta-analysis of academic articles, but I was wondering if there are any published papers or graphics on a network analysis of the available data, particularly in reference to time.

Ideally, what I’m looking for is a three-dimensional representation of correlation of all available research papers by word similarity, keyword, title similarity, etc. and with vertical axis as time of publication and which allowed relatively assessable identification of nodes, density, cluster, and relationship patterns.

If something like this exists, a link would be greatly appreciated. If not, any nudge in the right direction of meta-research on academia would also be greatly appreciated.

I would google something like "PageRank for Research Papers", since PageRank is Google's algorithm for ranking webpages based on network analysis. Google scholar is handy for finding how many citations a paper has and which papers it has been cited by.


Citing Math Lesson Plans If I am creating lesson plans, do I need to cite the various websites I use for my work? It is for math, and the information I have used is found in thousands of sites. I have not taken any lesson plans, nor have I taken their math problems and claimed them as my own. I instead used the different websites and textbooks as a placeholder of "what do I talk about next". For example, I am on a site talking about multiplying whole numbers. The websites example is "256 times 5". I see that, and go okay how about "163 times 3".

Whether I do or do not cite, can I have my name on the lesson plans? So far, I have read if I use citations I can; "This work has been collected and combined by name".

Which brings me to my last question. If I do need to cite, can I create a work-cited page and put all my references on that page, or do I HAVE to put in-text citations? This is not for any kind of class; I am making this to help my fellow students.

Thank you for your time,

Samantha

Do I need to cite the various websites I use for my work?

It depends on the work your are referring to. In your case, it is math lessons. One ought to cite for one or of the following reasons. Let's look at whether these points apply to you.

To show you've done enough research. You wouldn't have to prove to your students that you've done enough research; the study content should be sufficient.
To give credit for the source of the work. Is your work publicly available? Would it anyhow increase the citation count of the author you intend to credit? If so, it would be up to you.
To avoid plagiarism. You are not plagiarizing as you are not claiming the work to be your own; you are teaching what is established.
To allow readers to track the sources for further information. Do you feel that your students would have the need to go through the sources you've referred? If so, you wouldn't have to cite all of them, but only the ones you feel are important.

  Whether I do or do not cite, can I have my name on the lesson plans?

Yes, as long as you don't claim the work to be novel in any way (which you obviously won't be doing). It would be better to add a disclaimer as you stated in your post like "This work has been collected and combined by name".

  Can I create a work-cited page and put all my references on that page, or do I HAVE to put in-text citations?

That would be actually useful, a work-cited page can be referred by avid students who would want to receive more information on the topic. But in-text citations would be have to be a matter of preference, that depends on the utility of the majority of your students.


What is the job market like for someone aspiring to become a mathematician (uk)? Without sounding defeatist all I have heard is bad things so far; the sector is over concentrated with more people obtaining phd's (and wanting to work in academia) than there are jobs available.
I am really enthusiastic about pursuing a phd and eventually a job in academia but to put it bluntly I'm not sure if I'm cut out for it. I will graduate this summer with a 1st in mathematics from a mid-level Russell group university and plan to apply for an MSc in Pure Mathematics (after a gap year). My final graduating grade will be 71% and I'm just unsure how that will hold up in the academia job market. I get the impression that to pursue a job in mathematics academia you have to be really outstanding, getting publications very early on and the such as it is so competitive. I feel like I'm at a crossroads now where I need to commit to the idea or not as I do not want to waste time, effort and (a lot of) money on a lost cause. I know there are so many factors involved and there is no definite answer but some advise would be extremely helpful.

You're right that the job market is academia is very competitive, across all subjects, not just maths. While raw talent is important to be able to succeed (and by "succeed" I mean get a permanent job in academia -- your definition of success might be different), your publication record is generally more important. The quality and volume of publications you write depends on many things: your own hard work, the work of your collaborators, the guidance you get from your supervisor (having a distant or disengaged supervisor can seriously hamper your progress during your PhD unless you're extremely good at self-motivating and learning), the tractability of the problem you're working on, etc etc.
All this to say that, once you start your PhD, the classification of your undergraduate degree doesn't matter. Working on interesting publishable problems with a wide range of people (ideally collaborate with academics outside your own university if you can) will give you the best chance at success. It's also important to advertise your work as much as possible, and don't be afraid to relentlessly self-promote; go to conferences, talk about your work to everyone you meet, convince them that your problem is interesting and your solutions even more so.
I think you have nothing to lose by doing an MSc (apart from a year's potential earnings). Try to choose a course with a research or dissertation component. This will give you a chance to explore what doing research is really like, and will help you decide if doing a PhD is right for you. Your Master's supervisor or tutor would also be able to advise you about that, especially if you tell them early on that's what you're interested in.


Google scholar citation and title issues First question: I have an important article on arXiv and I updated its title in the 2nd version. But after that Google never updated the article title and I know people are citing my 2nd version and because of this issue with Google citations are not visible. How can I force Google scholar to refresh my article list and update any possible change/citation?

Second question: I cited a previous work of mine in an article that is already published and Google detected it but Google didn't catch the citation. How can I make Google scholar to catch the citation?

Answer to your first question: you want to import your second version (which Scholar considers as a different paper), and then merge it with the first one.

To import the second version, on your profile page click on the squared + in the line just above your list of publications, then the new title in the search bar should get you the paper.

Once imported, tick the first and second version, and click on "merge".


Literature review help, 3D reconstruction of human organs (non-bio nature) using CAD and 3D printers My dissertation is on 3D reconstruction of a human kidney (non-biological nature) using CAD software and 3D printers. The main objectives set in brief are:

-know how 3d printers work and identify different 3d printing technologies
-learn how to use CAD software to design or segment human organs then print out using 3D printers.

Now I've never actually done a literature review before and am struggling to see how to structure it so can achieve 1st objective but still write it in a lit review format. Thought about writing about history, current and developing tech, future developments. then going to try to print healthy kidney and unhealthy kidney for comparison. lots of benefits to both clinicians and patients. I'd be grateful for any pointers.

First of all, even though you have declared that:

  Now I've never actually done a literature review before

But you must review the literature, in a coherent manner, for a couple of reasons. First of all, definition of a graduate thesis is based on the progression of a subject, had which been considerably taken into account by the other researchers, formerly. The literature review lets you depict the former struggles to address your own augmented solution for the problem. By means of such information, you can, efficiently, assert the drawbacks of those strategies and explain the properties of your solution, is which supposed to cover the aforementioned deficiencies. Furthermore, complete literature provides the interested reader a more omni-aspect overview, corresponding to the research subject. It would be very important for the people, are who eager to continue your work and the complete literature will culminate their mind set to acquire novel inceptions from your report for their research path.

I suggest you to consider the history of the previous research in a chronlogical order. That would help the reader to keep the track of the traspositions, implicitly.

Obviously, introduction section might not be a right place for future developments. You better contend those stuffs within the last section of the thesis before references, i.e. Conclusion, Concluding Remarks and Future Works or so on; because, after the conclusion, you would have enough chance to convince the careful reader that the gap between your contribution and the future-driven anticipations is, deservedly, filled out and they would be the proceeding reasonable paces for the rest of the research in this field.

Literature review's role could be summarized as: "Tell me what has been done, up to know, and clear about your own contribution corresponding to it". Therefore, investigating on the details, such as try to print healthy kidney and unhealthy kidney for comparison or ots of benefits to both clinicians and patients should be accounted within the main body of the thesis.


Can one publish papers which give an improved presentation of old results? A colleague of mine (I'm in mathematics) has shown me a splendid note. He took some of the results from a confusing, hard to read, and important paper from the 1970's, which have not yet appeared in book form, and gave them much cleaner and simpler proofs, and explained them in a very clear way.

I urged him to publish his writeup, and to submit it to a very good journal. But he feels that, because the results are not (strictly speaking) new, the paper would be unlikely to be accepted.

Certainly I feel that work such as his is extremely valuable, and I think the mathematical community ought to encourage more of it. Was I right to encourage him to publish? Or was his pessimism more on target?

If the proofs are genuinely new, and genuinely simpler, then this is a contribution.  And if proper attribution is given and the relationship between the old and new work clearly explained, then this should be publishable, assuming that the results are still interesting for the wider community.


What could be an electronic way to verify that someone is from a specific university department or university? How could I verify that a person is a student/faculty/researcher at a specific department of any university in world?  I could ask the user to verify the official email address provided by that university to him but not all universities in world provide a email address to their people. A considerably large percentage of universities do not provide.

What could be other ways to collect only verified people in some group for a university department ?

There is no good fully automated way of doing this, because there is no central clearing-house are too many ways the humans maintain imprecise machine-readable records.

If you are willing to have a human process, you can deal with a lot of the problem cases with a combination of Google and phone calls.  That still won't ensure that an institution that you personally aren't familiar with is real, given all of the diploma mills in the world, but it will at least reduce the likelihood of giving access to a legitimate institution to the wrong person.


Letter of recommendation from a professor with whom I took a class I understand that there are many posts similar to this, however I believe (upon reading other posts), that this thread would not be redundant.  I am an undergrad currently applying to grad schools and am in the process of asking for recommendation letters from professors.  Prior to my current university, I was at a different institution where I took courses.  There is a particular professor I am interested in asking for a letter from, however it has been two years and since then he has moved to a different university.  My reasoning for asking him for a letter is that I took his PhD course as an undergrad and received a better grade than over half the PhD students (not trying to brag but trying to emphasize there are some non-generic characteristics about me).  In addition, he is a well-known individual in my area of studies.  Given that I took his course two years ago is it still appropriate to ask?  A concern of mine is that it will be a generic letter of rec which I have read admissions committees don't like.

Yes, it is appropriate to ask. There is never any issue about that. He may automatically remember you if you stood out as two years isn't that long. But you may need to remind him of the course and say some things about what you've been doing since.

The best way to manage this is face to face. I mention this even though it may now be impossible with the pandemic, and may be hard in any case due to distance. But actually seeing you would help jog his memory. But perhaps you have photos online somewhere to help refresh his memory.

You can also ask him whether he thinks a letter from him would be helpful or not. He might be able to say more than you think. The main reason for a letter is so that an independent person makes a prediction about your suitability for a program and your likelihood of success. Perhaps he can do that easily. If he has any hesitation, then you'd be better off asking someone else.

I had a few standout students in my teaching career. It would be easy to write recommendations for them even though our interactions were brief. If you made an impact it can work out.


How to show interest in a candidate when no positions are available? I occasionally receive "cold-call" applications from graduate or postdoctoral candidates interested in working in my research group. Most of the time, they are of no interest—it's just a "form letter"-type application. However, once in a while, I get an application from someone who I would consider giving an interview to—if I actually had an open position.

What I want to do is to let people know that I am interested in such candidates, even though I don't have an open job for them. Is there a way to express this interest, and to encourage them to apply again when a new position becomes available. Is there a good way to do this—most of the time, such emails sound very trite, and that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid.

This answer is about faculty candidates, not graduate student or postdoc candidates.  (I misunderstood the original question.)

First, be honest with the candidate, both about your interest and about your ability to hire.  Yes, we are very interested.  No, we don't have any regular faculty slots this year.  Yes, we would love to fly you out, have you give a talk, meet with some of our faculty and students, maybe have a chat with the dean, and see where things go from there.  Make no promises you can't actually keep.

Second, a lack of open slots does not mean it is impossible to hire.  Your college or campus may have finds set aside for "excellence" hires, or for cross-departmental research initiatives (like "clean water" or "computational science"), or for dual-career families.  Some other overlapping department may be willing to give you half a slot for a joint appointment.  Another faculty member in your department or college may have just unexpectedly retired, resigned, moved to administration, failed to get tenure, or died.  Your dean may be impressed enough (or encouraged enough by other senior faculty) to give you an extra slot just for that person next year.

Creating a slot takes a lot of legwork and a lot of political capital—you may burn a future slot even if the candidate doesn't come.  So they'd better really be special, and you'd better know that they'll come if a position is actually offered.

Yes, I have seen this work.


Specific Weakness in GRE Quantitative Section - Looking for Advice I took the GRE about a year ago (for an MA program). I did very well on Verbal, but only so-so on Quantitative. I'd like to retake the GRE for applying to PhD programs.

My issue with the Quantitative section was simply time management. I understood all of the questions, but I guess I just didn't have an effective strategy for how to tackle them.

Does anyone have any specific recommendations for time management strategies on the Quantitative section? I'd be interested in books, online tutorials, and even tutors in the New York City area.

I struggled with the GRE Quantitative section several years ago; my first attempt was over 100 points less than the required score for my graduate program. I found the GRE test-prep books (Kaplan, Princeton Review, Barrons, GRE for Dummies) to be very helpful. I picked up a handful at second-hand bookstores, and then spent a few weeks drilling math problems, which helped me answer questions more quickly. Even though I knew how to do the problems before, they became more automatic with practice, which did make things easier and faster the second time around. Those books also offered time management strategies for taking the test, though you may need to purchase (or rent from the library) newer books which will describe the revised test (books prior to 2012 won't have guides for the new GRE). It was very boring working math problems 1-2 hours a night for a few weeks, but on my second attempt I achieved the score I needed. Best of luck!


Do I have any legal right to fair grading by my university? (UK) I have recently been given a 0 for one of my online exams at university due to technical difficulties that meant I was unable to submit the exam before the end of exam time. Unfortunately this was quite an important exam and will likely have a big effect on my grade this year.
I think that although I was partly to blame, the university is also partly at fault. So currently I'm trying to dispute the issue with them, hoping they will do something to make this a bit more fair such as not weighting the exam towards my grade or allowing me to resit but they don't seem too keen to do much right now.
So if it comes down to it, given that the university was partly responsible for the fault that happened, would I be able to take legal action to get my university to do something to make this more fair?

The procedure for complaints and appeals against  the decisions of UK Universities is managed by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (known as the OIA).
They will only consider your case when you have completed any formal internal processes of the institution and the institution is required to issue you with a "completion of process" letter confirming your complaint or appeal is at an end.
To make a formal complaint or appeal within your institution you will certainly be able to get advice, help, support and representation from the Students Union and their respective Education or Welfare officer. It is highly likely that there are also University staff who can assist students with this process, perhaps called Senior Tutors, or some such title.
Before going to the formal process you should also see if an informal resolution can be made, as is often the case when it is a simple error or system fault. You might need to contact the departmental Director of Studies, Programme Director or Head of Department. You are also likely to have your own "student reps" within your class or programme that also can raise a case for you within the department. They often raise such matters of quality within a framework of a "staff student committee". The UK Office for students would  likely expect such student representation to be present within a UK institution.
There will  be information about this on the web page of the university and the web pages of your students union or student association.


Should I submit a paper to a journal whose staff I am challenging? I would like to submit a paper to a particular journal. The problem is that I am critiquing the analysis of several individuals who work for the journal or are on their editorial board...and I'm providing evidence that proves their theories were incorrect. I'd like to know how to handle this, as my paper challenges their theories (and the motives behind their theories). Would this create a conflict of interest for the journal? And would my critique harm my chances of having my paper accepted for publication?

First, I do not think the term "conflict of interest" applies here, so I do not expect the editors will reject you paper just because their work is somehow related with your paper. Nevertheless, it can get quite tricky to get your paper accepted by this journal and it highly depends on the editor's ability to receive criticism, but even more on the quality of your publication! So to increase your chances, you should consider the following.

Never get personal: A paper is not a place for ranting about other people. Make sure that it is very clear from the paper that it is not the people you are challenging (as expressed in your question), but only their theories. Otherwise, this will surely result in a rejection, even if your work is otherwise groundbreaking.
State the positive aspects of the editor's work, too: This highly depends on the topic. For example, if the theory still applies to some areas, state this clearly. Even if you are not sure about this aspect, you can write something like "Our analysis has given a counterexample that shows that the statement by xy et al. is not as universal as assumed, but future work is required to find the conditions under which it is valid." And even if their theory is completely bogus in you opinion, take the editors point of view, for example with statements such as "The experiments conducted by xy et al. could lead to the conclusion that ..., but future experiments presented in this paper show that the results should interpreted differently.".
Stay calm in your wording: Keep your emotions low. Do not attack or challenge their theory. Even prove the theory wrong might be too strong. See the previous paragraph for better examples which are of course highly dependent on the topic.
Do not provide attack vectors: Every weak part or minor mistake gives a good opportunity to reject your paper, before even thinking about the validity of your arguments. Too many typos -> reject, weak related work section -> reject, unreadable fonts in the figures -> reject.
Explain your arguments very good: Do not expect the editors even understand what is wrong with their theory if you explain it to them. Unfortunately, it is a human tendency is to stay at the own belief, even if the arguments are strong enough to convince a neutral person (think about all the conspiracy theories).
Expect competition: Even if the editors are very open to publish a publication that contradicts their work and your paper is generally good enough to be published, you still compete against other good papers. If the journal usually publishes x papers per year and the editors think there are x submissions that advance science more than your publication does, they will take these x submissions. Do not expect a bonus here and keep in mind that even papers that do not challenge the editors usually have a hard time of getting accepted!

All in all, it is important to submit an excellent publication!


How to deliver thank you letter and gift to the professor who wrote letter of recommendation for me I am writing a handwritten thank you letter to my professors who wrote the letter of recommendation for me, and I am also buying them a small gift because they really helped a lot throughout the application process.
I'd love to deliver the letter and gift to them in person, but that's just not the option for me now.
I am wondering will the professors receive my letter and gift if I mail them to their department in the university? or should I drop them off at the department reception?

Another important point to mention is that you should make sure that your gift is not too generous. Some universities have rules in place against personal gifts that exceed a certain monetary value (I think that in my university it's $100 or so). Anything more than that, and the professor will have to (a) report the gift to HR and (b) most likely won't get to keep it. These rules are in place to prevent academic misconduct, so I would really make sure that your idea of small fits university guidelines on what small means.


What are some tips to keep in mind when solving back of the book exercises? I am pretty convinced at this point that the most difficult task when learning in a new topic in physics/mathematics is to actually sit down and do the back of the book problems till you figure out how to do the calculations at least once without mistakes. In my opinion, the experience of actually solving questions can be dreadful at times, so what would be ways to 'ease' /smoothen out the experience?
Tl;dr : Looking for tips on how to approach solving exercises faster

There are probably lots of similar questions on this site and on mathematics SE. Two suggestions.

Find a friend or group of friends to work on problems with.
Take a look at Polya's How to Solve It for problem solving tips.

I think your goal should be learning from problems, not necessarily solving them faster. Good problems ask for more than  calculating correctly and quickly. If that were all there was to problem solving then computers would be better at it than people.


Is it appropriate to ask journal review status after not hearing back in quoted timeline? I submitted a paper to a journal three months ago and was told that the review process could take up to three months but that they aimed to do it faster.

Since I haven't heard back within the quoted timeline, would it be appropriate to contact them and ask how the process is going?

On one hand, I could see that they may be very busy and have received more submissions than they anticipated.

However, I also wonder about the possibility that something has slipped through the cracks - like perhaps the review is over and they lost my contact info or something.

What's the appropriate action to take?

The journal is free to submit to, free to read, so I know that folks aren't getting paid, which makes it harder to expect the timeline to be met, but I'd still like to make sure things are on track.

Thanks!

As a sometime-editor, I wouldn't be offended by such an email. Not happy, but not offended. I'd say go ahead and email.

(My first editing stint significantly increased how fast I turn around peer reviews...)


Getting into grad school with a bad record. So I'm currently in junior year of my undergrad as an Electrical Engineering major. As of this moment my GPA's 3.25; however, throughout my college career I've had to retake courses multiple times in order to get passing grades, and I still have some B's and C's. I plan on talking to advisors for grad school but at this rate it feels pointless to even consider thinking about applying in the future. Especially because the classes I retook were classes I initially failed, and because sophomore and freshmen year I was a different major (Biology) so it's going to take more time for me to finish my undergrad.

I'll be blunt: having multiple failed classes on your transcript will likely not help your chances of getting into a traditional graduate program. Some B's are usually okay. But getting an F  then a C will not really reflect positively on your abilities to succeed in graduate school. Graduate school in electrical engineering is usually not for students who get C's. That's just the brutal reality. Barring a rare exception (such as the death of a parent, prolonged health issues), most admissions committees will not give much consideration to a 3.25 GPA.

Some possible hope:

If your last two years' GPA is stronger and you did well on the GRE, you could still be accepted provisionally (unfunded) to a graduate program. Become involved in research right now if you can. Build a relationship with some professors. Having a strong letter of recommendation from faculty members can certainly boost your application.