Is it safe to show my old advisor my new paper? I've already graduated.  I wrote a paper related to my Master's thesis.  I am planning on sending it to my adviser to ask if I should ethically include his name as an author.  He seems to be ethical as far as I can tell, but in general is something like this dangerous to do?

Edit: I am wondering if showing your paper to other people before it is published is dangerous, I am worried about things like theft, even though he seems to be reputable, now that I am no longer connected to him academically.

If you work in the US or Europe, intend to complete the paper and submit it for review somewhere soon, and have records that show the development work that you've done on the paper, there's little harm in showing it to people that you trust. If you don't trust your former supervisor, then I'd wait until you've submitted it or even have an acceptance in hand.

That being said, I'm wondering why you don't already know whether they should be a co-author and haven't already discussed the fact that you're writing a paper on which they might need to contribute. You should at least discuss this with them if there's any contribution of theirs in what you're writing up.


Materials & methods in multi-phase experiment I'm about to write my thesis (which will also be the basis of a journal article, though not written by me). I was wondering how the materials & methods section should be written, when an experiment has multiple phases. I personally find it clearer, when for each sub-experiment, the materials are listed separately. There will be some repetitions of general materials (i.e. pipets, containers, etc.), however. I was just wondering what can be considered the best way to do this.
Another thing - during my studies, lab assistants sometimes insisted the materials section should list exactly how much of a certain material is used (i.e. 10µl solution). Is this necessary, when the exact amount is already mentioned in the methods section?

Unless you are specifically precluded by the regulations of your institution, in your thesis there is typically great latitude to present material in whatever form you find clearest.

As such, if you think that it is clearer to separate each method into its own sub-section, you should do so.  Likewise, if you have separated materials and methods cookbook-style and you think it is clearer to say a measurement one rather than twice, then let clarity of presentation be your guide.  If your readers or your institutional regulations disagree with you, however, then you will likely need to change to a form that they prefer.


4th year PhD, considering leaving for different program I'm a 4th year PhD student at a top school in Canada studying chemical physics. For the past few years, I have been floating around the idea of leaving with a Masters and pursuing a PhD at a different institute due to many factors, such as:

Poor supervision. My supervisor is primarily overseas, and provides little to no direction or motivation in work. When discussing with him, his focus is on himself and offers little advice in regards to research.
The city I live in is not enjoyable and I find it hard to enjoy being here.
The group, while great, is not very cohesive; no group meetings, no reports, no discussion of progress at all.

For the past 2 years, I have been working on a very complicated instrument. I've spent a lot of time fixing it, as many aspects of it have needed to be repaired or upgraded, but unfortunately, finding a sample to study is highly non-trivial and has been proven to be very difficult. As a result, I find that I'm quite burned out. I have also been diagnosed with depression and anxiety (but have been treating it with medication and therapy). I've been unable to publish (but I have one first author in review after revisions, one co-author in preparation) Unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that, due to the lack of direction of care from my supervisor's end in regards to helping myself (and other students) focus on to a project that has a clear set of steps or even overall direction, that I should probably leave with a Masters, and apply for a PhD at a different school with a project that I find myself passionate about.

The dilemma I have is that my supervisor has quite the ego. I'm certain he won't be happy with me proposing to leave with a Masters to go pursue work elsewhere. I'm not sure how to handle that; I can ask other faculty of whom I'm well-acquainted with for a reference, but I feel that the new school I apply to may question why that is the case. Maybe it's the burn out speaking on my behalf, but I am no longer passionate about what I do, and the day to day grind of improving things, trying to find a sample, and repeating is getting to me. I see other students with somewhat cohesive research goals and I look back on my own and realize there is no direction and that, I think, scares me more than anything. I don't want to run the risk of not being able to graduate. Of course, the onus is on me to be able to procure my own project or motivation, but alas, I think due to poor supervision and general lack of interest, it is in my best interest to move on to something more along my skillset and passion.

My question is, has anybody dealt with a similar dilemma? Were you able to be accepted at a different school, even if your supervisor responded poorly? Is 4 years for a Masters a waste of time or a bad idea, and should I just tough it out and finish, even if I hate it all?

My dilemma was broadly similar: I was doing a PhD in a top-tier university I hated; my advisor was awful; and I was considering leaving for a different program. What stopped me from actually doing the latter was that even with explicit invitations and introductions from helpful professors who liked me, I didn't get anything more useful than a desultory suggestion to find the department's webpage and send an application there to start again as a first-year grad student. I was three rather than four years in at that point, but I thought that was enough time that I didn't want to restart from scratch.

In retrospect, that was a bad decision. In my case, I finished the PhD program but didn't get the contacts or publications that I needed to get an actual academic career out of it, so the five years I wound up spending at the university were a waste of time. Grad school can be miserable, advisors can be worse than worthless, and the academic market is terrible. It's just about the only way of getting the opportunity to do certain things, though, most notably serious research. If you're trying to just tough it out and finish, that may not actually get you what you want.


Will consistent good work as a referee for a journal make it likely to become associate editor? I am apparently considered a good and competent referee and I get many requests to review papers to the point where I have to reject several (about a third) of requests.

I also have to prioritize refereeing with many other duties (teaching, research, etc.), so my question is: Is there a likely payoff of writing (many) good reports for a given journal in the form of eventually being asked to become associate editor?

Based upon my own experience as reviewer (i.e., a sample of n = 1), yes.

Here is my experience: I review for several different different journals, but have reviewed extensively for one journal. This journal has acknowledged me as an Exceptional Reviewer and I have been asked to apply to be part of the Editorial Board. For this journal, the editors vote on membership to the editorial board. Additionally, editors are usually selected from the board.

The answer to your question depends upon your subfield and the journal for which you are reviewing (e.g., is this a commercial journal or a society journal; also what is the journal's organizationally structure and how are editors select?).

I would suggest focusing your reviews on this journal (i.e., decline reviews from other journals and accept reviews from this journal if you are limited for time) and possibly dropping the Editor-In-Chief (or head editor) an email expressing interest in joining the editorial board. If it is a societal journal (i.e., published by a scientific society), I would also make sure my membership was current and possibly start raising my profile in that society (e.g., serving on committees, networking at their meetings, etc).


My mum was recently diagnosed with cancer. Should I tell my supervisor? Yesterday, my mum was recently diagnosed with cancer. However, we have yet to know what stage is her cancer and whether the cancer can still be removed from her body or it has metastasized to other parts of organs. This is a major health concern and it will of course affect my health and mental being for the next several years.

I am a PhD student and I thankfully successfully submitted my thesis a few months ago. So far, I have yet to receive the news regarding my viva. Given the history of my university and accounts from other students' experiences, my department is very tardy in processing viva examinations. It can take up to six months for students to finally undergo the viva and then a few months for correction afterwards. Now I have to worry and be stressful for two things: my mum's health condition and my viva.

I want to e-mail my supervisor about the possibility of speeding up my viva process. I have been well prepared for my viva for a month. I have re-read my thesis multiple times and re-read the journals that I cited. I really hope that my department can speed up my viva so I can move on with my life (getting a good job, taking care of my mum, etc.). Delaying my viva will certainly damage my well-being. However, I don't know whether emailing my supervisor will undermine my professionalism (the art of separating personal and work).

I am in my 20s with no experience of experiencing sudden loss of my loved ones and this news will definitely affect me in the immediate future. And I don't write this post to look for sympathy or anything. This news will certainly make me appreciate life and moments that we have now.

Should I e-mail my supervisor to state my current condition and hopefully she could do something regarding my PhD limbo?

EDIT: I do have a very good relationship with my supervisor. However, I don't want to come across as someone who tries to milk this tragedy for my own gain. Therefore, I am juggling the decision whether it will be fine or not to tell my supervisor and at the same time to request viva speed up.

Many countries have rules in place that allow employees to take paid or unpaid leave to care for an ill relative. No shame or unprofessionalism should result from making a request to accommodate a need to deal with a loved one's illness.

If you have a good relationship with your advisor, then your advisor should understand.

(That said, the advisor may or may not have much control over the viva, depending on who is responsible for scheduling and organizing it, and who else must attend. But you won't lose anything by asking.)


How do you assess programming related topics and avoid student cheating? I am teaching some programming topics to university students (some 300+) including python, sql etc. I would welcome some tips on what's the best way to assess the students and also avoid giving them the chance to copy each other.

So far the major piece of assignment, e.g., in SQL, is to give them a scenario describing an information system, explaining what are users, types of data, relations etc. And they are asked to use sql to implement a database, populate some data, and perform some queries.

The problem with this is that the correct solution is quite standard, so it is often the case that students submit same or very similar solutions. This itself may not be the problem, but combined with the factor that the large majority of the cohort gets very high grades (>70%), I fear that they are copying, but I cannot think of an easy way to find out, or address this.

Does anyone teach similar technical subjects and if so, how would you suggest to fix this?

Many thanks!

In general, it sounds like your problem is not to find out how to assess whether plagiarism occurred, but rather how to make tests that are harder to plagiarize. I will try to answer to both:

Plagiarism reduction can be achieved  building a database of questions to be leveraged to create "individualised" tests. To elaborate further, you could:

build a database with a number of questions larger than the one you intend to submit to students (as suggested in a previous answer)
build personalised tests by pulling questions randomly from the database above.
randomise the input values of the questions (making up a trivial SQL example: "what is the n_th most likely value in m_th column of table k?" where n,m and k are randomly exctracted).

Existing e-learning platforms (Moodle for example) contain all three features abobe, and allow you to collect the student responses in a centralised manner -
 so you don't need to reinvent the wheel.

Plagiarism detection becomes easier if you receive the test answers digitally. For humanities, text analytics would be needed, and I would recommend using off-the-shelf tools. For quantitative subjects, you can cluster students according to the submission time and score received in each test, and see whether some groups of students cluster too closely together (in small classes, no actual clustering algorithm is needed). This will not suffice to trigger punishment, but you can use it to focus on scrutinizing the student's thought process that led to the solution in a face-to-face exam.


Repeat same table or figure in different chapters or use cross references? It's my understanding that APA discourages repeating the same data in different tables; i.e., if you find yourself doing that, then maybe you need a table that combines the data in a different way.

However, what about repeating exactly the same table (or figure) in different chapters of a dissertation?

From a reader perspective, it's easier to see the table or figure on the same page where it is discussed vs. seeing a cross-reference and flipping back and forth.

And, if you do repeat a table or figure, then it's also better for readers if the caption of the duplicate item indicates that it is a duplicate (otherwise in the table of contents there appears to be a mistake).

The following may be relevant to those who want to answer my question.

I am editing someone else's dissertation.
The student has successfully defended.
This is the final edit before publication.
The university standards do not cover this situation.

First off, a dissertation is a very unusual document, which tends to have a lot of authorial flexibility in its presentation.  As such, there's often a lot of possible latitude for choices that would not be permitted by a more conventional publication in a journal or conference.

That said, here are the guidelines that I personally would use for considering the options:

If the table is primarily for purpose of ease of reference (e.g., table of notations), then using it more than once is fine.  Typically, one would want to reference the first copy. In some cases, however, I might not even think of it as duplication so much as convergent evolution and not needing a reference: e.g., "notation used in this chapter" might just end up with lots of overlap for some chapters.
If the table is a "significant" object presenting technical / results content, on the other hand, then reproducing it feels less appropriate, because it is taking the material out of its context of presentation. The exception I see here is if it is used as a fragment of a larger comparison, like when an image is presented again in order to allow direct contrast between it and other images.


Affiliation when I have already resigned and am currently unemployed What should I use as author address for my paper when I have already resigned from my job and am currently unemployed? Also, my previous supervisor and I did not part in good terms, so I am hesitant to use my previous employer as address.

I would still use the affiliation of the institution which paid you during the time you worked on this paper. If however, the majority of the work was done after you resigned, I see no problem in using "Independent Researcher" or "Freelance".

I faced this problem when switching institutions. Typically papers published during the transition were written by the old institution and paid for by the new. I use the new affiliation as my first and include the old as the second affiliation.


submitting pre-prints at Tenure-track faculty application First time asking here, I hope my question will be clear.

Background:

I am applying for tenure-track faculty positions in psychology (at a not US/Europe but developed ("OECD") country with strong research overall, if its important to mention).

One of the requests in the application process for some TT positions (top universities in the country- "research-intensive") is a submission of published papers or pre-prints ("Please submit up to 3 prints/pre-prints").

I have 1 top-tier publication as a 1st author from my current post-doc (at top university in North America) and another preprint of a submitted paper from my post-doc.
I also have a single paper as 1st author and about a dozen of others as co-author (several co-authors on each paper) all from my PhD, done in the same field but different sub-field with very different methods than my post-doc.

However, I don't have a second pre-print from my post-doc yet. I do have some nice and interesting data I got from the new methods I learnt during my post-doc, which requires more work before it can be published. I wonder if I should arrange and submit these data as a pre-print to the committee although its currently "half-baked". I don't have enough time to do more experiments or do a very good editing of it (my English is reasonable but I'm not a native English speaker).

I assume the idea behind the committee request is to see one's most updated work and projects and not what one have achieved few years ago (as it can be seen in the CV).

My question is:

What is the best strategy for submission, for me and more generally - for one who submit papers/pre-prints to committees.

A) Submit only 2 files- recently published paper and the pre-print from my post-doc. (the request was  "Up to 3").

b) Submit 3 files- the 2 above + an old 1st author paper from my phd.

c) submit the 2 paper from option A + writing a pre-print of the data I already have even if its not a complete piece of work and not very well-edited.

I would be most interested to read answers from people who were/are members of committees, but also be happy to read others answers.

Thanks for your help

Seems to me that (b) would be best.

"Preprint" usually means something that is ready to be published, so don't send something that isn't of publishable quality. You'll likely be asked to submit a research statement or something similar, in which you can describe what you're currently working on.

If you have at least 3 papers (or preprints) that you feel represent quality work, then there's no reason to send fewer than 3.  Obviously focus on the newest and best ones, but even an older paper gives an indication of the depth, breadth and quality of your research program.


Using photos obtained from academic homepages in a research seminar talk I am preparing a research seminar talk in an academic discipline which I'll give online (with Beamer) at University X.
I like to show images of the people whose ideas have gone into my work. Most of the time I can get images which have been clearly released under some form of Creative Commons License, allowing me to use it provided I attribute the copyright holder. However this is not always possible, and sometimes the only photo I can find of Person Y is on their personal homepage at University Z, where there is no mention of copyright on the image, or whether it may be used by others.

Is one allowed to use the photos found on the personal webpages of people working at academic institutions for non-commercial purposes such as in the slides of a research seminar talk, if there is no explicit mention of copyright or limitations on its use by others?

To avoid all questions, and in the absence of a clear license, ask the person for permission to use a picture. They might even have a better one that they would prefer be used.
For a deceased person, ask the university, either through their former department head or a university publicity office. If they can't grant you a right to use it, they can possibly put you in contact with someone who holds the rights, such as their estate, for example.
I don't guess anyone would turn you down, and this is simple enough to do.


How to overcome changing undergrad course/university due to failure Right after school I decided to pursue a degree in physics. It went well at first but then I started to struggle with depression and other personal issues. Eventually I started to fall behind and felt overwhelmed by the coursework, I lost my passion for the field and just felt frustrated.
I noticed it was time for a change, so after moving away and attending another university things were lightening up a bit.

Since I was too far behind in my coursework I was afraid of losing my financial support. Thankfully I was always good at programming, so I found a nice job to cover my expenses and switched fields to Applied Computer Science. Ever since then things are working out great. I got top grades, am nominated for a stipend, and even got the time to volunteer and participate at some minor research groups.

Anyways I feel bad for not being able to finish my physics degree. I feel like I completely wasted 2 years of my life and just don't know what to do/think about this. I do miss every aspect of physics now and secretly regret my decision every now and then.

Would it be reasonable to get my physics degree (at least finish the bachelor) when I am done with my current field? If not, how can one deal with the impression of failure and regret?

(English is not my first language, any edits are warmly welcomed)

Difficult times occur. This is normal. Unless you did something foolish that caused your failure (and nothing indicates you did), there is no reason to feel regret.

You cannot control everything in your life. Whoever does not attempt anything, does not fail; people of action fail regularly. Failure is a central part of life, and there is no reason to regret attempting to study physics and then finding out it's not for you at this phase of your life. In fact, I actually recommend testing ones limits early, and knowing where they are makes one a more mature personality. Your current success is point-in-case.

And, keep in mind: limits may be expanded, albeit slowly. Therefore, my recommendation depends on whether your regret refers to ceasing to do physics itself (the topic!), or it is rather the failure to complete (the studies!) that you regret.

If you feel that you would have liked to do physics (the topic!) after all, perhaps you can consider reactivating your studies (or add a Master's degree as suggested elsewhere). But if it is only the missed opportunity, then I recommend to notch your physics studies up as valuable experience and move on the path where you have made progress and which clearly suits you well.


Changing careers to teach Mathematics I am currently trying to change careers after doing postdoc physics research for many years and not being able to obtain a research faculty position. I really enjoyed my university teaching experiences and want to focus on teaching as a career.  But I haven't been successful in finding a nonresearch teaching position with an EECS PhD.

My goal now is to teach Mathematics at either the community college or liberal arts college level. Is it impossible to achieve this goal with only a BS in Mathematics plus EECS PhD? It seems like I need at a minimum a MS in Mathematics.

There was a related question here. There was a suggestion for that person to look into getting a DA degree in Mathematics as a way to get a doctorate with an emphasis on teaching. I've never heard of it, but based on descriptions of the DA program I've found online, it seems to match my teaching goals perfectly. (There were also suggestions to consider the PhD in Mathematics Education, but I don't think it would be a good fit for me.)

My questions:

Am I wasting my time applying to college-level math teaching jobs with only a BS Math + grad engineering degrees?
Is a Master's degree good enough or even preferable to a DA if I only want to teach?
I am interested in the DA, but I'm worried that the commenter in the link above says "It's a bad idea".  Is it true that most Math departments don't even know what a DA degree is? Will having a DA put me at a disadvantage compared to others having a PhD if I apply for a teaching position requiring a doctorate degree?
Since it's been a long time since my BS Math degree, would getting a MS Math degree first be a good idea before thinking about getting a doctoral degree?
I'm not sure if getting another degree is a reasonable way of planning my second career. It's been 10 years since my PhD and if I decide to do this I will be over 40 by the time I finish another degree. Is it a bad idea to go back to school as an older student just so I can teach college math?

I attended a junior college before finishing my BS Math at university. My University Physics II instructor at the junior college had a BS Physics and a Master in Church Music. I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to find a job teaching mathematics at a junior college with your doctorate.


How much non-salary income do computer science professors make in the United States? I have seen several questions pertaining to the salaries of professors in the United States. Is there any research/study/survey/... that looked at the non-salary income computer science academics (professors, research scientists, …)  make in the United States?

By non-salary income I mean any income that doesn't come from the salary. Examples of income source: teaching outside the university, cash from awards, running a side start-up/business, consulting, sitting on boards of directors, giving talks, book royalties, patent royalties. Ideally, the non-salary income should be broken down by the income source.

No, there has been no survey of CS professors' non-salary incomes. We can't prove a negative, but you and I both, and presumably others here, have tried to look it up and found nothing. The likeliest reason is that the research has not yet been done.

Despite the highly upvoted comment about the information being useless, if anyone reading this is interested in performing the income study, I will volunteer to be one of the datapoints.


Am I missing something or is submitting from the ArXiv really that unfeasible? Some publishers, such as the APS, allow to submit papers from the ArXiv instead of from your computer. While this seemed somewhat reasonable to me at first glance, I noticed one problem with this that seems to render this feature pointless:

ArXiv submissions as well as replacements take some time, usually a few days, to be published. So, if you just submitted your files to the ArXiv, you would have to wait this time before you can submit to a journal. Instead of waiting, you could just take the files your just submitted to the ArXiv (or download your files via your ArXiv account) and submit them to the journal directly. This should take little additional time, as you do not need to prepare these files in any special way – if you would need to, submitting from ArXiv wouldn’t work anyway, as it would yield the same files.

Now, I can think of some exceptions where your files could already be published on the ArXiv. For example, you submitted a version to the ArXiv and to “internal” review at the same time and the internal review results in no changes whatsoever. Or you submitted a paper to the ArXiv and a journal at the same time and the latter desk-rejects your paper for being out of scope or similar; then you could submit to another journal from ArXiv. But these are exceptional cases: In most situations, you would decide that a paper is submit-worthy directly after you made some changes, which hence cannot already be published on the ArXiv.

Note that at least the APS does not seem to have a way to magically obtain the paper you just submitted to ArXiv as it requires an ArXiv number for submitting, which you only obtain after publication and hence after waiting.

As it would surprise me that time was wasted in implementing this feature if it really is as useless as I consider it to be, I am curious: What am I missing here? For example: Is there some common situation in which you would decide that a paper is ready for submission without any change? Or do you not have to wait for the ArXiv to publish your paper for some reason I am missing? Please answer only if you can address the above concerns.

I think you are not really missing anything at all, except that there is not compulsion to make the set-up as minimalist/efficient as you seem to argue it should be. That is, while you and others may not find this feature useful, it's probably harmless, no? And some programmer somewhere might've thought it would be interesting to implement this, and proposed it to whatever authority, it was approved, and so on.

But, yes, there are common situations for many people (in math, familiar to me) in which the submission to arXiv is essentially simultaneous with a submission to a journal, whether or not they make use of a literal submit-from-arXiv feature. So, yes, a paper might be considered ready without-change-from-the-version-submitted-to-arXiv. Why not? (Sure, one might realize things later, perhaps upon referee reports...)

As to whether one "has to wait until arXiv publishes..." Well, apparently, yes, since your paper won't have been processed. Perhaps someone who knows the inside workings of the software at arXiv (which surely could change from time to time) knows a trick to interact with the system prior to that, but I've never heard of anyone finding a need to do so, given the quick turnaround. But I can't help but wondering why a day-or-two delay would matter...

So I think you're right that it's a fairly useless feature, but it wouldn't be the first.


How can I put myself in the best position to get a postdoc in a different field? Im a graduate student in my 3rd year studying theoretical plasma physics. I'd like to stay in academia but I think I would be better in an area of experimental physics where data analysis plays a more important role (such as High Energy Experiment). I wanted to know wether or not it was possible to get a postdoc in another field than the one I write my thesis in. I'd like to hear from anyone who has done this.

If this is a possibility (a realistic one), what can I do to prepare myself in the remaining 3 years of graduate school? Thanks!

I'm in the same boat as you, but then for my thesis I added a few elements of the thing that I want to do later in my career, so I can use it as background. If you can incorporate something related to experimental physics in your plasma physics research, that'd help. Otherwise, you may join some research lab that works in the field of exp. physics, that'd look good on your resume.


How to document teaching experiences? When applying for a senior academic position, teaching experiences play a critical role in the application. We list the corses we used to teach but when assuming the position, we need to deliver some official documents to the human resources?

What should be this document? a letter from the last university listing the courses or a detailed set of documents for each course/semester including evaluations?
Who should issue this document/letter? VP for Academics, Dean or Department Head?
Is it needed to get similar documents of teaching experiences from previous universities? or the last university is enough?

I am asking this question for the case of a full professor coming from Asia to Europe or North America.

I don't think applicants in the US are ever required to prove that they taught particular courses on particular dates, so no system like official academic transcripts certified by the university has arisen. However, if there were some doubt that courses listed on a CV were not taught, it would be a simple matter of contacting the department to verify.


In Computer Science, does a presentation of findings at a conference constitute a "publication"? Most of the research I have done so far is in Computational Chemistry, where the major emphasis is on publishing in journals. But I also research aspects of Computer Science,and I have read here that in Computer Science the standard for publishing is different. I have recently created a data structure, and will be presenting my findings at a regional Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) conference later this year. Is this considered a publication in Computer Science? While I do not mind presenting my findings--I've done similarly with posters in my Chemistry research--I would prefer to have my research published in a printed journal.  Does the conference lead to a journal publication?

There are two types of publications in Computer Science:

Publications in peer-reviewed conferences with published proceedings
Publications in journals

If you present your results at a conference or workshop but don't publish them in the conference proceedings — it's not a publication.

In general, publications in top tier conferences are much more important than journal publications for computer science researchers. Usually you can first publish your paper in conference proceedings and then submit it to a journal but not the other way around (though, of course, that depends on conference and journal policies).


How to make a bachelor thesis out of optimizing /updating an application? I work for a company and want to write my bachelor thesis there. This company has a Quality Assurance Application written in Python, that is very unstructured and follows no design pattern.
My job would be to restructure the Application into a layered architecture, and possibly get rid of the GUI and completely automate it.
My question now is how do I make a bachelor thesis out of this?

Write about software design/architecture and use this as proof of concept?
Write about improved speed and improved future maintenance (kind of hard to measure)?

The usual, and normally a good, way is to get an advisor at the university if you don't already have one and discuss this with them. It could save you a lot of grief later and their advice would be more valid in your circumstances than mine.
You may also need to discuss this with the company in case any trade secrets are involved in the application.
But, in general, reimplementing a legacy application using modern design patterns and/or improving performance and/or providing better UI is not a bad idea.


My paper was withdrawn from predatory journal after publication, what should I do? I am currently in a very embarrassing situation.

I have a paper (forgot to say, this paper takes no more than two pages) submitted to a journal. The journal accepted my paper for publication and I saw it online. But today I found that my paper disappeared without notifying me! I emailed them, and a staff member replied that a reviewer asked them to withdraw my paper. The reason given for this was:

  Your paper does not meet the requirements for publication.

And I then tracked the publisher and the editorial policy, I found the journal is nearly a predatory one. First, it is a new journal, published only for one year. They require no publication fees only this year, from next year on, they do require! Second, the publisher is in the famous list of predatory publishers. Also, it took only two and a half weeks from submission to acceptance.

On top of this, I may face problems because I have used this paper to apply some scholarship.

What can I do?

The most important thing you need to do is figure out the copyright status. If you have given them exclusive rights to reproduce the work, then you may not be able to publish it anywhere else. It is likely that the copyright transfer was part of a publication contract where the publisher has agreed to publish your work in exchange for the copyright transfer. Hopefully, the publisher will given up the rights you transferred to them. If they won't, you may need to get a lawyer to explore your options.

Having listed the paper in a scholarship application is problematic. Paper-based journals and journals that generate DOIs create a permanent record of the published papers. In your case, it seems a published paper has simply disappeared. I would write to the places you have submitted an application and explain the situation. something along the lines of

  The paper XXX, which I listed on my application, was published by YYY. Unfortunately, YYY is a known predatory publisher and has since made the paper unavailable. I still stand behind the research; attached is a copy of that work. I am currently working towards resubmitting the manuscript to a reputable publisher. I am sorry for any problems this causes.


What is the percentage of Bachelor or higher degree holder that finish calculus 3? What is the percentage of Bachelor or higher degree holder that finish multivariable calculus in US?

Please list your reference

The Conference Board on the Mathematical Sciences (CBMS) is an umbrella organization representing the main mathematical sciences professional societies in the US.  They've done a series of surveys of undergraduate mathematics programs that include numbers of enrollments in courses at various levels.  The most recent published survey was from 2010.

See
 http://www.ams.org/profession/data/cbms-survey/cbms2010-Report.pdf

and the summary in chapter 1 of
  http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/cspcc/InsightsandRecommendations.pdf

Sadly, I don't see specific data on Calculus III enrollments.

However, there are about 300,000 students per year enrolling in mainstream Calculus I in the fall semester.  A smaller number start in the spring or summer.  Many of those students won't make it through Calculus I and II, much less enroll in Calculus III (at many institutions only a few STEM disciplines require Calculus III while other STEM disciplines and non STEM disciplines don't require it), and not all of these students will go on to complete bachelor's degrees.

So I'd be surprised if more than about 100,000 students per year graduated having successfully completed Calculus III.

For comparison, about 1.8 million students per year completed bachelor's degrees in the comparable time frame of 2010-2011.  Thus the percentage is small (likely less than 5%.)


What are the potential ramifications of a student intentionally deanonymizing his/her class evaluation? Presumably, evaluations are anonymized to protect the students from possible retaliation by the instructor or institution.

Is there anything in the reverse direction (keeping that information hidden is beneficial to the instructor)?

What are potential consequences if a student chooses to place identifying information (e.g. knowledge of a particular conversation) onto an evaluation?

The exact situation is that one of my friends was considering discussing a very long conversation she'd had with the professor on the class evaluation, and how it exemplified issues she'd had with the class. She's taking a class with that professor next semester, which is a big issue for the student. That issue aside, I'm wondering if there would be good reaons to avoid this even if she would never take another class with this instructor.

The only ramnifications I can think of is that whoever handles, edits or publishes that class evaluation may recognise the deanonymisation, consider it accidental and thus decides not to pass it for that reason.

As you can always pass deanonymised criticism to an instructor, be it by mail or by putting it on public display, there seems little point to me to protect the instructor from it on this particular medium.

Something else you might consider though is that even if the professor does not want to retaliate that criticism, they will have more difficulties to fairly evaluate the critic, which may have effects in either direction. While this is some annoyance you could spare the professor, it would also happen with non-anonymous critique made in other ways.


Dual Job by a Professor in Europe I have seen many professor are working in a research institute and also a full-time professor at a University. How is it feasible? Are they involve in the dual job and getting a salary from a research institute and university?

I work at a government research institution in Germany. We consist of a number of institutes.
In the last decade, our president has worked on strengthening ties to close-by universities (we have institutes at different locations). As a result, there are now strategic cooperations in place. The most important one being that new institute leaders simultaneously become full professors (not "full-time professor[s]") at one of these universities. They have teaching duties but are not paid by the university (although they have a budget at the university).
Similar arrangements were in place at another research institution I've previously worked at (and to my knowledge at basically all of them, i.e., Max-Planck, Leibniz, Helmholtz, and Fraunhofer institutes).


I just received a shameful F on 1st Year Writing. How negatively will grad school look at this grade So this is the first time I am posting on this website, so I am sorry for any possible breach of etiquette.

I have just finished my first year with a cumulative GPA of 3.55. However, with that I have also received an F on 1st year Writing due to late submission. The excusable reasons were lack of motivation and the pressure from 3 cumulative finals, but the main reason was my procrastination habits. I wonder if grad schools will single out this F as me being a potentially irresponsible person, or will they overlook it if I get good results on most of the other courses. Also, will redoing this course with an A helps the overall outlook of my portfolio much?

I appreciate if anyone can share any anecdotes about accepted grad students with an F or two in their portfolio so that my conscience would stop gnawing on me.

It depends on the school you apply to, but it's usually not a big deal to have one failure in first year.  I am making the assumption that by "first year" you mean literally first year - as in this is your first year in university and last year you were in high school.

I can speak with confidence only from a Canadian perspective, so please see what others say from around the world.  The vast majority of schools in Canada require you to maintain a certain average in your final two years of study in your undergraduate program, and the first two years are not considered.   I have at least two colleagues who failed more than one course in their undergrad first and second year and were still admitted.  See here as an example of what these admissions requirements are.

Doing a cursory glance at some international schools, the "last two years" thing doesn't appear to be universal but the admissions requirements are.  For example, TU Delft in the Netherlands requires a minimum 75% overall GPA and "scores in key subjects to be good", which I presume is dependent on the program see here.  No mention on failing grades and no inadmissibility is mentioned due to a failure.

Since it depends so much on where you apply, I can't say with 100% confidence that you will not have any troubles with your F.  However, I can certainly assure you that you are not the first person who failed something in first year and still got in to grad school.

A more serious question you need to solve for yourself, probably with help from your academic advisors if they exist where you are, is how to recognize and prevent this from happening again.  Failing a course basically means that there is a pattern of behaviour throughout a school term that led you to that state.  Unless your writing course had a single, 100% final, it's unlikely that you were surprised by the failure.  Recognizing the patterns early will help to prevent this again.


Should I write more books as a grad student, or focus more on studies/research? I started a blog that attracted the attention of publishers and they began offering me contracts to create video courses for them. I signed on with the first legitimate publisher to contact me last year and I've already published three courses with them (I owe them one more). I got paid advances and hopefully at some point I'll start seeing royalty checks too (I don't get paid until royalties exceed the advance; fair enough).

Writing and recording videos for these courses though is a lot of work and the publisher hounds me about deadlines. I thought after I publish these courses that would be the end of it, but other (and in my opinion bigger and better) publishers have taken notice too and they are wanting to get deals too.

I'm starting to stress out about whether I should try to squeeze a couple more books/courses in, maybe try to hurry through them during the summer, or if I should just say no more until I complete my Ph.D. (or at least my thesis and I'm basically coasting to graduation). The work is stressful and a distraction from studies and research, but the money I'm paid as a grad student gets me a small apartment and no car and money is still tight, and I would love to have a little more income from royalties that could maybe make a car payment or even an apartment in a better location (one where there's actually fun places to go in walking distance; I live alone and I'm getting lonely, and my location is a big part of the problem IMO; it feels impossible to meet new people here when a grocery store is the most interesting place in walking distance). I also have this fear that if I tell publishers no, I'm "missing out" on something that will pay off in the future.

TL;DR: Should I try to squeeze out a couple more video courses/books with publishers, or say "no more" until I finish my PhD and have a good research program going for me?

Only you can answer this question. What exactly do you want to do after you graduate? Which is more important to achieving that: the PhD, or the money?

I'll only point out three things you might not have considered: first, if you're already in this much demand, you could conceivably quit the PhD and make creating video courses your full-time job. Second, you could tell the publishers you need to finish your PhD, and that you'll be willing to do this afterwards. Finally, when it comes to education, the credentials of the teacher is a big draw. Yes you might not be teaching something hard enough to require a PhD, but there's still something to be said about "the teacher cgmil earned a PhD in [the topic being taught] from [some university especially if it's a top school]".


Are there any funding sources available for OA/APC charges? I'm a self-funded part-time PhD student. My (UK) university does not provide funding for OA charges/APC for self-funded students. I had a few situations now where I've struggled to come up with funding for charges. Up until now my supervisor was able to help through grants he held.
This is getting a bit awkward and doesn't seem sustainable though. I've spoken to my department and library and they couldn't help. Is there any source of funds for APC that I could apply for in my situation?

The real problem here is your university.
Let me just point out (although you may already know this, other might not), your supervisor was almost certainly not paying OA charges with their grant, as almost all UK funders prohibit it. UK funders give a block grant directly to the university library in order for them to pay OA charges. Different universities have different rules about what they will and won't fund, but generally an application to be funded has to be attached to a grant code, even if the money isn't coming out of a grant.
As for suggestions - I don't really have any. If you've tried your library, and you've tried your department, you sort of out of luck. In this situation, there are two possibilities:

Apply to the journal to have fees wavied on the basis of being unfunded. Its a long shot that is usually reserved for researchers from places with underfunded university systems.

Submit to a journal that doesn't charge OA/APC fees. Although this is unlikely to be an OA journal, at most journals you have the option of either pre-printing, or putting the final reviewer authorized manuscript (but not the formatted proof) on an archive server, either a personal one, a university one, or a discipline-wide one (e.g. PubMed Central).


How do I politely and tactfully tell my advisor that I would like more consistency in meetings? I am a PhD student. My advisor is great, but like all academics is very busy (administrative duties, other students, research...).

What happens almost every time I try to have a meeting, since the beginning of my PhD, is the following:

We set some date, say Thursday at 10AM.
He isn't in his office at 10.
At 10:30 he arrives.
It turns out Thursday isn’t great, actually, so let’s meet Monday instead.
Comes Monday morning, and the meeting is postponed to Monday evening, and then to Tuesday.
But Tuesday is a busy day too, so let's say Thursday at 10?
But at 10 there are emails to be sent, and more meetings, so let's say 5.
At 5 he isn't in his office, but at 6 we can meet, meaning I come to his office, sit, and wait sometimes half an hour until he's done writing emails, calling people...
Then we can finally start talking. Six days after the initial meeting was set, at 6:30PM.

I think over the past three months I’ve been able to have a total of five to six hours of meeting with my advisor.

Writing all this, I realize I’m a bit upset, and I’m afraid it’s going to show if I try to talk to him about it. Because let’s be honest, I don’t want to continue like this. I cannot plan my work day, sometimes I have questions that could be answered immediately but I have to wait weeks, and it’s just generally an unpleasant experience. (And while I know some people are able to work very late into the night, I basically become useless after 6PM on a normal day...)

Of course the long-term solution is to become an independent researcher and not rely on meeting with my advisor. After all, I won’t have an advisor all my life. But right now, I’m not quite there yet. How should I approach my advisor about this, without sounding selfish or upset?

To clarify: yes, whenever I have questions I try to exhaust all possibilities before asking my advisor: internet, my advisor's other students, other people in my lab (though this is a very specialized field, few people can help me if this is about my research). But for some questions, either I am not able to find an answer elsewhere, or there is no alternative to asking my advisor, e.g. "do you think I should go to this workshop", "where do you think I should submit this paper", "is my abstract ready to go", "I found this and it looks promising, should I continue in this direction or stick to the original plan"...

Tell him you would like to have more guidance, and ask to have regular meetings with a fixed schedule, same time every week. This way he will have a permanent entry on his calendar, and be more likely to reschedule tasks around it.

Some weeks you'll have more results, some others you'll have less, but it will be good if you can keep having at least a short chat every week.


What to do if a discussion letter/paper is rejected because it's not an original research article? A while ago, we read a paper published in a quite credible journal (impact factor around 3), which we believed had a few very basic but significant mistakes in the methods and final results.

The journal's guide for authors mentioned the possibility to submit a discussion ("Discussion: A short commentary (1000-3000 words) discussing an article previously published in XXX."). Together with a colleague, we decided to write a discussion manuscript highlighting the problems of the paper in two pages. We did it twice, actually—one time very polite, and a second time more to the point.

Although each time all of the reviewers agreed on the highlighted problems and one reviewer even recommended publication "as is," both times it was ultimately rejected, because the editor focused on a comment of the reviewer like: "was not general enough", or because "it is more a discussion, and not an original research contribution." (But this was actually exactly what was intended, and fully in agreement with the objective for this type of manuscript in the guide for authors.)

It is OK if a manuscript is rejected (I am a PhD student because I like to learn new things), but it should be rejected for the right reasons. The arguments against the article did not seem to consider properly the submission type, "discussion" instead of "original research article." Furthermore we have the feeling that the editor could be embarrassed to publish a discussion highlighting a paper with such errors that could be recognized by frankly any above-average high school student. (although the paper has been cited quite a number of times, apparently without anyone noticing the mistakes).

It is probably not worth the effort, but it became a matter of principle.
We contacted a few other people (not our friends) in the field for a quick opinion about the manuscript, and they confirmed our impression that it has probably been rejected out of embarrassment. This seems quite a disgrace, but what can one do about it?

Should we publish the manuscript together with the reviewer comments on our group website? Submit the manuscript to a competing journal?  Would it make sense to contact the publisher (Elsevier) to complain about the editor in chief?

I should also mention that the writers of the original article are, according to  their group website, co-sponsored by a big company which gains obvious advantages from their erroneous findings. Is there maybe an ombudsman to which we could go to?

The first step to take, if not already done, is to answer back to the Editor in Chief, politely explaining that the status of your submission (discussion letter) seems to have been overlooked. Stress again, politely, that the policy of the journal allow explicitly such letters, and that it would be better for everyone that they either enforce this policy (and not reject letters on the ground that they are not full research articles) or remove it from the guide to the authors. Given the answer you get, there are several possible follow-ups if your letter keeps being rejected.

You can contact the authors and see what they have to say. In fact, it would be something to be done before any of the propositions below. They may acknowledge the mistake and publish an erratum by themselves, acknowledging you, and this would make things right in the best way. If they do not answer in a satisfactory way, at least they will have been warned and your case will be stronger.

You can appeal to an ethics committee on your field, if one exists, disclosing both your letter explaining the error, the written exchanges you have had with the journal, and the conflict of interest you spotted for the authors of the original paper. Do not make assumption, just present the fact and let the committee judge for itself.

You can try to publish your letter in another journal, in order to make the official record straight. Depending on the existing venues, you may have to add some flesh to your letter and grow it to a full paper, even if short. You are right in your principles, such mistakes should not be let unknown, and a blog post is too personal and too unofficial to make it right. People should get the information on the mistakes you spotted while using the databases usually used in your field.

But, given you are a PhD student, before you take any step I very strongly advise you to ask your advisor (or another senior researcher you can trust) about it. Depending on your field, your situation, the stature of the author the work of who you criticize, you could end up in pretty bad situation if you do not beware. I cannot tell from the information you gave, but you also have to protect yourself, and unfortunately this is not always achieved by doing the right thing.


Difficult to finish work started at a previous lab I finished my master's degree last year, and took a PhD position in a different country. I have several ongoing projects/papers from the previous lab but it is difficult to finish them. The reasons are

I am not allowed to spend any time on the previous projects at my new lab
The co-authors from the previous lab are not actively contributing anymore
Some co-authors choose to ignore my emails or respond slowly
The previous PIs are interested to get the projects finished but do not do much else than ask why things are not already done

The thing is, after working 8-10 hours at my current lab, I am too exhausted in the evenings to do much. Or during the weekends.

I would be quite depressed if the projects get never finished but I am running out of ideas. What should I do?

Working on projects when you are away is difficult in most situations, especially yours. Two possible options to finish them include:

Adjusting to your PhD workload until you are no longer overwhelmed. When you're at that stage, you can try spending several hours a week on those old projects of yours. This may require saying "no" to some additional projects or opportunities at your new place - at least for the time being.
If possible, taking some time off to go back to your former university. Physical presence will greatly accelerate things, and you won't have to rely on the email so much. Plus, you won't be distracted by all the other things you need to do.

Finally, you can try talking to your old advisor and admitting these difficulties. The two of you may then decide to let it go or figure out a solution together.

Remember, though: right now, it is essential that your PhD work goes well, since it is key to your future career. Everything else can wait. It's annoying when things don't get finished, but this might be a sacrifice you have to make - at least for the time being.


Why are we not teaching university student how to learn/study? Question is simple:

  Why are we not teaching university students how to learn/study ?

Motivation:

I've seen many university students who does not know how to study something, or learn something by themselves or by taking classes. I consider myself as someone who knows the basics about how to teach something to myself; I've various self-study experiences.However, all my experiences about topics that are well-localised, such as linear algebra, or analysis etc. However, for example, when I want to learn Analytical Mechanics with all of its mathematical backgrounds (starting from smooth manifolds), I get lost; I need to do both mathematics and physics at the same time in a rigorous sense, and the task has many faces, so regardless of how experiences I'm on self-studying, I don't know how to teach myself this particular subject.

Considering the fact that some student even cannot how to learn something even at the end of their second year in university, naturally this questions comes to mind.

Why are we not teaching university students how to learn/study ?

Historically, professor profess rather than teach and it was not considered part of the university's job. For example, this PhD comic makes fun of that. Thus, the onus in the student to learn rather than the professor or instructor to ensure learning. This includes both the college-level study skills and the ability to teach themselves new materials beyond their coursework.

Pragmatically, many universities (at least in the United States) recognize new students (e.g,. freshman) do not have these skills and do teach them. For example, my undergraduate school offers courses such as Wildlife 100: Wildlife Profession and Preparation that:

  Provide a background on careers in the wildlife field and an overview of skill development necessary to work in the field. Exposure to opportunities in research, internships, and extracurricular, as well as guidance on creating an effective program of study.

Furthermore, many universities in the United States offer tutoring or learning centers to help students develop study skills for their current courses (e.g., Texas Tech, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Yale).


Background check before employment offer What's the standard procedure in University jobs when it comes to "background checks"?
Do they call my current employer or is it limited to a "criminal background check"?

Edit: tenure track job in the US

I'd expect the following:

Some institutions do a criminal background check, others don't.  This will usually be disclosed in the job ad.  For those that do, they might do the check before making an offer (in which case the application will ask for the necessary identifying information), or they might make you an offer that's contingent on passing the check.
US faculty jobs will require letters of recommendation, or contact information for references.  The search committee might actually contact them to ask further questions about you.  (Your recommenders might or might not tell you if this happens.)
They will normally not contact anybody other than your letter writers or references you list in your application.  This is pretty important because people in existing faculty positions often don't want it known within their department that they are on the market; it could have political blowback if they end up not leaving.


Can I get in trouble if I submit my own paper as a sole author while employed as a research fellow? I am a research fellow at my current university. I have been working under a very difficult line manager and we could just not be on the same page. I would be asked to publish 1 paper a month, expected to work 25 hours a day to meet deadlines and run personal errands. Our every technical meeting would be him saying, "you are paid to publish, publish in high ranking journals" and any paper I would write would involve his name even though 100% of the every work was mine. But I accepted this as a given since he was my line manager and the funding was with him, I would add his name to my papers along with other names suggested by him, usually I would get 5 authors for my paper, whom I never met.

I have been working on a paper idea, which I believed to be good, but it was an idea for a conference, not a high ranking journal. I presented the idea to him and he told me not to chase it further as he needs journals not conferences. And even if does get accepted he would not pay for it.

So I have been working on it alone at home and on the weekends. It is now at a stage I am happy with and I am most probably going to publish it in a good conference.

I have given my notice for leaving, and given the above history I want to publish this as a sole author. After all, he would not be paying for it and he refused to be any part of it.

Ive discussed this with a colleague and he painted a very grim picture, he suggests that if I do go ahead with this, my line manager can even take me to court and state that he was working under me and on my funded project, he went ahead and published without me and basically stole project time and project ideas. And he suggested not to publish this paper and just abandon it.

Sorry for being so bitter, but I worked very hard on this paper and would like this to be published. Adding his name would also not benefit as he's not very happy with me leaving and he would not give consent to publish, this would make it more complicated.

Im new to such problems and wanted a more experienced approach on what to do.

Thank you

As @Richard Erickson said in a comment, the answer is specific to your university and your contract. Here's the steps I would take if I were in your shoes:

Firstly, read your employment contract. What you're looking for is any language about intellectual property and the results of research. In the comments you mention patents and profits from patents, but that's irrelevant here. If it is specific to patents then it doesn't apply to anything that's not a patent, such as a conference paper. Assuming your contract doesn't unambiguously say that the university owns the IP...

Secondly, go talk to your university legal department. Do not cast this as a dispute. Simply tell them that you were reading your employment contract and wanted clarification about what the university's policy around IP is. Inquire over email, or get them to send you an email confirming their position if you wish to talk in person. If they tell you that their position is that you own the IP to your work, then you're golden. If they tell you that their position is that you don't and you think that your contract doesn't support that claim...

Thirdly, consider hiring a lawyer. This can be expensive and can be a massive waste of time if you're wrong about your contract (lay people generally are, compared to lawyers). Deciding if this is a worthwhile step is a personal decision based on a lot of factors I don't know.

If your university owns the IP, you're likely stuck. Your manager is most likely the person who the university has selected to approve you publishing things, and that seems like a non-starter. If he has a boss who reads your work and is "really in charge" then it might be the boss, but whether you're likely to get anywhere going around your manager depends a lot on the social dynamic.

It's also possible that you can get him to disavow the IP, but I don't really know enough about the details of contracts to comment much on that.


Is it important to maintain a work-life balance as a PhD student? My apologies in advance for asking such a trivial question. My concerns may not be as urgent or serious as some of the others on here, but I have been worrying about this for some time now.
My life since starting my PhD has can typically be summed up as waking up early, getting to the office about 7AM and working on some part of my research until 5PM before going home to study some more theory. I adore my field - I really think I'm the luckiest person ever for having the opportunity to work on such interesting problems.
However, I often get comments about my work-life balance being unhealthy. People often tell me to get a hobby that isn't related to physics or mathematics. In fact, a friend even brought me evidence that the vast majority of highly successful scientists, including my scientific heroes, have had a creative hobby.
I've honestly tried to maintain a hobby but I keep getting pulled back into my old routine. The progression typically goes like this:

I start a hobby, say drawing.
I draw consistently for a week or two. I even buy a course book for drawing and work through it. I'm making progress, all is great.
By the third week, I'm plagued with thoughts that slowly erode my motivation to draw. Thoughts about how I could be studying complex analysis, or working on that atomic configuration generation code...
By week four I've forgotten that I was trying to draw in the first place and am now back to the old routine.

Yet, as my friends point out, the evidence really is against me here. A lot of successful scientists do have hobbies outside of their work. It strikes me that the problem might be a bit more deep-seated: it may just be that I've developed a very unhealthy work ethic that'll cause me to crash and burn down the line.
As academics, how important would you consider hobbies as a part of your lifestyle? Would you consider the cultivation of a field completely unrelated to your own to be an essential component to an academic career - or, as my eloquent colleague puts it, being human in general?

It is very important that work-life balance be available to people who need it.  Most PhD students and most scientists need some form of balance but exact needs vary.
You are not obligated to adopt someone else's idea of balance.  There is no evidence that what works for other people will work for you.
Healthy diet and exercise are strongly correlated with better health and longer lifespan.  There is very likely a causal relationship there.  But I don't think that's what you were asking.

Would you consider the cultivation of a field completely unrelated to your own to be an essential component to an academic career?

No.  Common, normal, and fair, but not necessarily essential.

being human in general?

That's more of a religious question than an academic question.


As a post-doc, should I pursue incremental research or revolutionary research? I've recently finished my PhD (the field almost doesn't matter, but applied mathematics if it helps), and begun a 3 year grant-funded postdoc with a heavy but very flexible research emphasis, in the same general area as my dissertation.  At their request, I sent my doctoral adviser (a super senior/recently emeritus professor) a list of the papers I'm currently working on/close to submitting, and my ideas for approximately the next 6 months to a year.

All the papers I'm currently working on represent incremental progress on projects that either developed from my dissertation, or formed as collaborations with others.  I didn't outline any wide-eyed ideas, because all the wide-eyed ideas I have will take several years and a long list of incremental progress to come to fruition. In my opinion (formed in part by reading science philosophers like Kuhn), this is how science progresses: incremental progress as long as it yields fruit.

My adviser responded with an alarming level of "concern" (to put it gently) that my current projects are not ambitious enough and he feels they don't match his expectations of me nor do they sufficiently challenge the status quo.  I got the impression that he seemed to think that by publishing works that are only a slight improvement on the existing literature, I won't amount to anything, which I took to mean I won't be able to get myself a "real" job once my 3 year postdoc is up.

Oh, and by the way, he suggested a solution, which is essentially to drop everything I'm doing and spend more time working on a particular idea that he thinks will revolutionize a particular area of science.  I'm always skeptical any time someone says that, no matter how good the idea, so I pushed back and said no, I'm going to pursue an array of topics, some of which are pretty mainstream, in order to build up a good publication record and good relationships with people in my field.

Ignoring the complexities of funding (my funding is flexible enough to permit me to work on a wide array of sub-topics), am I right to think that an early career academic doesn't really have the political (or emotional!) capital built up to make a "bold move" into an unproven field, which inevitably might involve trying to convince many experts they're doing it wrong?  It seems to me like "challenging the status quo" is a dangerous game that can only be played by those with Tenure.

Or do I have it backwards?  Is academic science so competitive that one can only progress, career-wise, by challenging the status quo?  If so, aren't we just chasing each other around in circles, scientifically speaking?

Consider that he may be correct.

There may not be an upper bound, but there is certainly a lower bound to the 'boldness' of work that will move you to the next level.

Indeed, while progress is usually incremental, few good faculty positions go to individuals that produce 'usual' work. Your senior advisor has certainly had time to feel out what is likely to succeed.


How is an engineer's degree viewed among the admission committee for PhD applicants? How is a 5-year engineer's degree viewed among the admission committee for PhD applicants? How much weight does the name of the degree have in the review process?

Assuming a choice were to be made between an applicant who has an engineer's degree and another who has a master's degree in the same field (supposing the applicants are equal with respect to the other factors: same letters of recommendation, same SOPs,...) would the master's holder be advantaged just by virtue of holding a master's degree? What if the engineer's degree holder had taken courses that would be viewed more favorably with respect to the program they are applying to, would he still be at a disadvantage?

It would be fantastic if applicants and/or admission committee members could share their personal experience with this matter.

EDIT: The applicants hold degrees in Electrical Engineering, and are applying to a PhD in Electrical Engineering. But this doesn't exclude answers from those who were in similar engineering fields (e.g., Mechanical Engineering degree holder applying to a PhD in Mechanical engineering,...)

EDIT2: An engineer's degree is a degree received after usually 5 years of study. It used in some countries in Europe like France.

It's going to be a big old "that depends."

In the case of a very similar undergrad subject to grad subject, as electrical engineering to electrical engineering, the engineering degree will be looked on favorably. Especially if the undergrad school was a high ranked school.

The farther the subjects are apart the less weight the engineering degree will hold. For example, electrical eng. undergrad to computer science PhD is possible, if the undergrad had lots of computer science type classes. And so on. If the undergrad degree had a strong emphasis on courses that are relevant, then it is possible. You will be facing stiff competition, so you would need to have some reason to be picked over more directly relevant students. High marks or relevant work experience or special projects or really good letter of recommendation or some such.

If the subjects are very far apart then you will be facing a very high barrier. Especially if you didn't take a lot of relevant classes.

It is possible to jump specialties. But it's a tough thing to do.

My PhD supervisor did his undergrad in Engineering Science. This is a very unusual degree in that students basically pick a science area, and double up. They must pass all the requirements for the other department, and all the requirements for an engineering degree. My prof did physics. So he got all the core courses for a physics degree, and all the core courses for an engineering degree. And he aced it all.

One of my co-students in my PhD did an undergrad in languages. He could speak five, and write four, including Mandarin and Russian. But he also loaded up on math and physics. So he fit in well in a particle physics PhD.

My prof's prof was John Moffat. Moffat had no undergrad degree. He was living in Paris and making a living as an artist, learning physics in his spare time. Then he wrote Einstein a letter asking him how to solve some tricky problem. Einstein wrote back. After a few exchanges, Einstein asked him why he didn't ask his own prof these questions? And when Moffat explained he was just an artist living in Paris, Einstein got him into Cambridge in the PhD program.

So it's possible. But it takes unusual circumstances. And you need to do a lot of prep work before you go.


Ideas for and approaches to adding value to literature reviews One of the tasks in my short-to-mid-term plan is to convert my dissertation into several research papers. In this context, I was thinking about extracting my dissertation's literature review (which is IMHO quite detailed) and re-working it by adding academic value, so that it can be published as conceptual paper or literature survey paper in a good peer-reviewed outlet, such as conference proceedings or, preferably, journal. With that in mind, I am interested in learning other people's ideas for and approaches to adding value to traditional review of literature and/or making it more rigorous. At the present time, my thoughts and ideas on approaching the subject are as follows:

Integrate research streams into and propose a comprehensive conceptual framework;
Identify gaps in research coverage and suggest corresponding future research directions;
Identify commonalities and differences in research approaches and methods, used to study different topics and areas within and across research streams, belonging to the paper's scope.

Your question very field dependent. In my social sciences field, literature reviews 1) answer some kind of open question in the field, just like an empirical paper does and 2) are, these days, usually systematic reviews.

You'll hear a lot of researchers talk about the right "time" for a literature review. They may say it's too early for a lit review in the field, or that it's the "right time." What that usually means is that there's enough collected empirical research in the field to do the review but ALSO that there's some sort of open question or idea that the literature review contributes to. Turn it back on yourself: if you were looking for papers in your field, what kind of literature review would you want to read? Methodological ones are good; there's a well-cited one in my field that reviews the empirical work in my area using a specific method that I use, and it's very useful in conceptualizing and writing my own papers.

More theoretical ones can be useful, too, if you're trying to answer a question: What really IS this X that people in the field have been talking about in 27 different ways - can we come up with a unifying concept or underlying theme that makes it easier to talk about that X? (I think that's the first idea that you highlighted in your question.) There are about a million papers on whether Y affects Z; have we come to some sort of conclusion as a discipline about whether and how Y really does affect Z? In my field, the people who write these papers are usually senior scholars (or a team that usually has a senior, established person on it). Some journals don't accept them unless they specifically invite the scholar to write one, or unless the scholar contacts the journal ahead of time with an outline or plan for what they want to write.

Basically, journals don't want a random summary or even a simple synthesis of several papers. They want a review that's going to push the field forward in some way. Most dissertation literature reviews don't do that - but if you can write your review in such a way that it does (or at least lay the foundation so that when you go back to it later, it's easy to transform it into one that does) you'll have an easier time getting it published.

The other thing is that in my field, these days, most journals want systematic reviews. It's a very specific way of doing a literature view that makes it akin in format to an empirical paper: with bounded year dates, specific search terms, and a systematic way of deciding whether to include or exclude papers (hence the name "systematic review"). It's a way of trying to ensure that authors don't only include papers that support their views. Many times systematic reviews also include a meta-analysis; I suspect that they are more likely to get published if they do.


I forgot to deliver tutorials I feel like I have made a massive mistake of my career. I do tutorials for three subjects and although we are almost end of the first trimester but one of the module just started last week and I supposed to do the second week's tutorial today for that module.

This morning I felt sick and i had constant headache. Even though I went in University and I did one of my other tutorials but I completely forgot to deliver tutorials for the module which started last week. I realised that I missed them after two hours. I never felt that much disappointed in my entire life.

I have Phd submission soon and the fact I was not feeling well today seems to be the major cause and I also completely forgot to organise my calendar for this week.

Well it has happened now and I have informed the course coordinator. I didn't hear back from her yet.

But my question is how today's mistake can affect my job? What likely consequences I will face? How should I handle this mistake? And finally, will they judge my previous performance based on this mistake?

Cheers

I would say that you started rectifying the mistake by informing the coordinator. I would apologize sincerely and offer to to deliver the tutorial at another time. Mistakes happen and you are only a human and you were sick and that is understandable. Also, make sure not to miss any other tutorials in the future.


Curriculum Vitae advice for PhD (non-US) I am asking this on behalf of a relative of mine. He has a PhD with a concentration in Policy Analysis and Environmental Science and is trying to get a position in either a university/public sector or the private sector (research/policy analysis). He has been searching for a while and has had little success and is getting pretty discouraged. I recently looked at his CV and it seems like it needs a lot of improvement.

There is the catch though: he is not able to look for a position in the US at the moment due to visa requirements. Therefore, he is limited to looking outside the US (anywhere really).

Does anyone have any recommendations or advice as far as CVs go for academic positions outside of the US, particularly Canada or Europe (what should be avoided, what helps/hurts your chances, etc)? Any advice regarding online resources or CV editing services that cater specifically for someone with a PhD would also be appreciated.

While people often spend a lot of time tailoring the format of the CV, the two most important things are: do you have the experience the employer is looking for and can the employer easily find it. So while I agree that career services often suggest a cookie cutter CV one size fits all mentality, it really is a pretty god approach.

Unfortunately what really helps you get a job is a strong track record and not how that track record is presented on the CV.


A major journal in my field is published by Elsevier. How can we move the field to a less objectionable, more open publisher? Many people complain about Elsevier and over eight thousand are boycotting it, but actual solutions seem hard to find for certain fields- I'm thinking of research areas for which an Elsevier journal is very important and funds are not available to subsidize an open-access journal.

How can we move an Elsevier-dependent research community to a less objectionable, more open publisher?

I'll post a partial possible answer myself; I'm asking because I think we need more/better answers than mine.

As a publisher who has launched an OA journal and seen what it takes to do so, I see the biggest problem for starting any journal being lack of an Impact Factor (IF). I've polled authors at ECVP and about 90% said IF is what determined where they submitted. Everyone knows why this is, so why don't academics turn inward and try to undermine this reliance on IFs? Doing so would insert true competition into the journals market. Maybe academics have tried to do this, though I've never read of any real substantial attempts. I could be wrong. The second problem after IF and before funding is loyalty. Ed board members are often tied to multiple journals and in those first few years you really need those big names on your board to commission for the journal. Big names often care more about another journal or just don't care.

You need a publisher, be it nonprofit or profit, that can put in the work to promote the journal and help commission. Financially, OA journals are very easy to start. Subscription journals require more financial backing, which perhaps could be gotten through grants if you don't want to be tied to a commercial publisher. The answer is long and requires lots of discussion and more important, commitment.


Advisor publishing students' work as sole author - ethics and motivation This is a question about my advisor (supervisor, professor) in a lab, where I am a graduate research assistant, and had done research together with a PhD student, as a part of his dissertation. The student happened to be one of my close friends. The professor wanted to write a journal paper based on the results of his dissertation with that candidate. This was kind of near the end of his PhD program (three weeks before final defense). At that time he said that he was already stressed out about defense and will write the paper after the event as it won't take him more than a week.

After he graduated, he had asked the professor about the journal paper but the professor kind of brushed it under the carpet saying he is looking for CFPs (call for papers) where they can write and never got back to him, despite his constant inquiries.

For his research on human-computer interaction, I had developed applications which formed the core of his project. So my advisor asked me if I was interested in writing the paper and she convinced me that since I developed the applications (that formed basis of the research) it was fair enough that I write it. But after a week, she ignored me and wrote the paper herself and submitted it to the journal.

I came to know last week that my advisor wrote the paper herself and got it published. This professor is an assistant professor trying to get tenure. I am trying to understand the motivation behind this behavior.

My questions:

The journal paper was published by my professor as sole author. Won't the paper count towards her tenure if she wrote it with a graduate student or will it count towards higher credit if she is the sole author?
Is it ethical to publish the paper based on my friend's dissertation? (I mean it is legal, because she will be referencing his PhD dissertation, but is it ethical or common in academia to sidestep the original author?)
Should I be listed as co-author for all papers coming out of this research because I developed the applications that formed basis for this research? I mean the concept for them was not mine, but I did program them.

Before anything else: Don't walk.  Run.

There are almost certainly details of this story that you have omitted, or that you have unintentionally embellished, or that you are unaware of, and clarifying those details here would be inappropriate.  What is clear is that your relationship with your advisor is completely broken.  Get help, and get out.

  Q1) Wont the paper count towards her tenure if she wrote it with a graduated student or will it count towards higher credit if she is the sole author?

All publications count toward tenure, whether solo, with colleagues, with current students, with former students, or with strangers from Zanzibar.

  Q2) Is it ethical to publish the paper based on my friend's dissertation?  (i mean it is legal, because she will be referencing his phd dissertation but is it ethical to sideshaft the original author)

There are a few different possibilities here:

Your advisor's submission does not report your friend's thesis work as her own, but rather builds on your friend's work in a novel direction.  In this case, your advisor's submission is ethical, but perhaps a bit unfriendly.  After all, the success of her students is a significant component of her upcoming tenure case.
The results in your friend's dissertation are the main topic of your advisor's submission, but your friend did not make a significant and novel contribution, and therefore does not deserve coauthorship.  But in this case, your friend also does not deserve a PhD, and your advisor's signing his thesis was unethical.  This possibility seems highly unlikely; passing a thesis defense generally requires the unanimous approval of the entire thesis committee.
Your friend made a significant and novel contribution, which is the main topic of your advisor's paper.  In this case, your advisor is being grossly unethical.  Fortunately, since your friend's dissertation is easily accessible online (Isn't it?), any competent referee or editor should quickly spot the intellectual theft.  That would just be stupid.

  I came to know last week that my advisor wrote the paper herself and got it published.

If you believe that your advisor has stolen credit for another person's work—your friend, her former student, or a stranger from Zanzibar—it would be appropriate for you (or better yet, your friend) to speak discreetly to your department head or another trusted senior faculty member, with both the original dissertation and your advisor's publication in hand, asking them to clarify the ethical boundaries.  Do not accuse; such accusations are very serious, and your advisor's colleagues may react defensively on her behalf.  Instead, explain the delicacy of the situation and ask for guidance.  And then listen.

They may react badly anyway, but then you have your answer.

If they agree that your advisor has acted unethically, get out of the way.  This is not your fight.

  Is it common in academia to do this?

No.  I won't claim they never happen, obviously, but serious breaches of ethical behavior, at the level you are accusing, are extremely rare.

  Q3 One more question i have is should i be listed as co-author for all papers coming out of this research because i developed the apps that formed basis for this research. I mean the concept for them was not mine but i did program them.

That is a more subtle question.  As a general rule, I would say no.  Of course you deserve credit for your contributions, but only once for each contribution.  If your contribution is a key piece of software, then the first paper that uses that software should describe that software in detail and include you as a coauthor.  If you walk away after that first paper, later work that relies on your software—by your advisor or anyone else—need not list you as a coauthor; you already got credit.  With good reason, Stephen Wolfram is not a coauthor on every paper that uses Mathematica.  You should of course be cited in any paper that uses, builds on, or improves your work, but that's a separate issue from coauthorship.

But reality is rarely so cut and dried.  Is moving the software to a new platform a sufficient contribution?  Optimizing the underlying algorithms?  Adding a new, easy-to-implement feature suggested by your advisor?  Adding a new, hard-to-implement feature suggested by your advisor?  Adding support for a new input device?  I have no idea.  You and your advisor should have agreed in advance on the contribution required for you to be a coauthor.

Normally, if you had not had this conversation already, I would recommend having it now, but it sounds like it may be too late for that.  You may be better off simply walking away and finding a new advisor that you can trust.


Did I lie to my friends about how long I have been studying? During my freshman year of college, I had some academic difficulties and ended up switching programs. I then had to take a semester off, during which I visited a class as a guest. So, I am now in my fourth semester of calendar time, though my academic standing is that of a second-semester student.

My question is: what should I say when someone asks me how long I have been studying? I have been saying that I am a second-semester student, but this is not really true, and it seems likely I will be discovered and called out. Did I lie? If so, what should I do if I am called out? I do not want to lose my friends or lie to anyone.

I'm not sure why you think this is an important issue.

"It's complicated" is enough of an answer if you want to be honest.

But small lies in this context do no one any harm and may ease social situations. Some simple questions such as the ones you get aren't worth the effort of composing a complete and complex answer. It's complicated. Say more to those you think need to know more or those you are closer to.

Don't sweat it.

If there were any issue at all in such a situation it would be overselling your skills to those you need to work with on a joint project. But you don't seem to be erring on that side here.


Decision making paradigm for career planning Despite receiving a job (post-doc) offer in January I have kept applying to other positions (post-doc and teaching track jobs). This was not a bad idea in retrospect, I suppose

This post doc job offer I received is in Europe (France) and required me to apply for a "long stay visa". I am currently a visiting faculty in a well known mid-western university in the USA. My citizenship is "Indian".

I did apply for a long stay visa and have not received it yet. In the mean time I have received a job offer for one teaching track (non-tenure but "long term" contract) job at my current university.

I have not been offered tenure track jobs anywhere since I have a backlog of publications right now.

Here is the problem:

My post doc job starts in 3 weeks time and I haven't received my visa yet. I have to make other arrangements too (air tickets, housing in Europe, other stuff for a trans-continental move).
I have been given 3 weeks to decide and confirm my availability for the teaching track job.
I prefer the post doc since it is a more appealing challenge. The downside is I have to exit the USA if I get my visa and go to Europe.
The teaching track job offers me stability, a full time employment and a salary that is difficult to beat in the post doc job and in my home country of India.  The downside is that teaching track lecturers are treated as "mules" in the USA and are burdened with courses that "tenure track" do not want. This would mean that any research aspirations I have go down the drain since I won't be afforded time to do research.
For me as a foreigner, it is not just working on my "passion" but also getting a lucrative position with which to support my family. I have to strike a balance between working on my passion and living in a developed country with a good salary.

I am confused as to what to do.

Here are options that occur to me (deferment of either position is not a possibility):

Wait for 3 weeks and irrespective of the visa decision, take a risk and say "no" to the teaching track job and take my chances with the European visa and miss an opportunity to have a full time job in the USA.
Wait for the next 3 weeks, if EU visa is not delivered to my house, just tell the lab that I cannot wait any longer since I have to make a career decision and take the teaching track job and miss a fantastic research opportunity for a great salary but a job that could very easily become flavorless.

Some more detail that I need to factor in:

I love to teach and have received some teaching awards for graduate and undergraduate courses I have taught as a visiting faculty.
However, I love research as well and understand that teaching and research are symbiotic activities and that the EU postdoc (which is a research position) allows me to do research and develop as a better teacher.

My question:

I am not asking this forum to make my decision for me; I just want to know how to weight this situation rationally and try and cut my losses if things go to pot. What are some of the decision making paradigms that one would use in such a situation?

If there are other details that may not have occured to me, would prove useful, do let me know via a comment below and I will try to include them.

Amendments to question:

"what is the likelihood that the visa will appear in the next three weeks, and what methods do you have to estimate this likelihood?"

The consulate tells me that it takes between 2 weeks and 2 months for a decision on "long stay visa" to be made. It is week 3 of my wait.

There would appear to be no way of estimating the likelihood other than tracking the status on a status page. All it says right now is: "Your application is under consideration". Contacting the consulate yielded the same answer.

Since the purpose of this question is to ask for general decision-making strategies that might apply more generally, here are some (that also impinge on this case):

Acquire information: Get as much information as you can that would affect the decision: in your case, estimates of time for the visa process, and so on.
Determine the "real" timeline for decision making: in this case, do you really have to decide in three weeks ? can it be delayed slightly ? and so on.
Determine how "permanent" the decisions are: can you negotiate a 1 year contract ? Can you defer the postdoc ?
Separate out facts that affect the decision from feelings/opinions: Is it true that "if the visa comes through I'm going without a doubt" ? If so, then everything depends on facts regarding the visa. Is it instead true that "if the visa comes through I have a preference, but I do enjoy teaching and like staying in the US" ? In that case, there's a personal preference coming into play that isn't usually resolved by "facts", and so timelines and data collection don't matter as much as (or are influenced by)  some soul searching.


Real co-first authors? I notice that in the physics field, there are sometimes co-first authors, both names being followed by a footnote saying "These two authors contribute equally."

Even though explicitly labeled as so, one name still comes before the other. Also, as far as I know, the one believed to contribute a little bit more goes first. Hence, these are actually not real co-first authors.

Imagine in some journal with an author-title header on every page. The name of FirstAuthorB, the co-first author who comes after FirstAuthorA, will not be shown, as in

  FirstAuthorA et al.: Paper Title

So is there some other generally accepted ways to truly display two first authors as completely equal?

Within normal procedures the best way would be to list the two first authors in alphabetical order and then make a statement in the acknowledgement that the two have contributed equally. In this we assume that the way authorship is distributed in falling order. Many journals now also ask for a specification of contributorship of all authors to distinguish who has done what. One oddity I cam across was a paper by K & H (last name initials) where it was listed in the acknowledgement that both had contributed equally. In this case H was the PhD student of K and so K may have wanted the primary spot to get the full impact of the prestigious publication.

So the way to signal contributions by ordering authors is not without its problems. But, most of the problems come from the fact that first authorship is used without discretion to assign merit. So from this perspective it is a result of a flawed system. Attributing contributorship can even out the playing field to some extent but basically we will have to live with the systems. One should also remember that the most important aspect of the reference for most is the sourcing of information, not who did what. So an example of how a system built for one purpose has been adopted to solve another.