On how/if I should ask my supervisor about lead authorship? Some time last year, I was casually talking to my professor when he asked me to look at this paper that he and his previous student had worked on but couldn't finish. I was hesitant but I took a look and decided to work on it. I've been at it for a few months now and I've developed it beyond the scope and reach of the initial paper. As such, my prof asked me to write a new paper from scratch, but I don't know if I'll get first(or even 2nd) author on it or if I'll have to settle for 3rd behind the initial authors.

Is it appropriate to ask such a question? I feel like I deserve it but I'm not sure if it's rude to ask for it or about it. He's going to be one of my recommendations for grad school in the very near future so I don't want to do something rude and lose any goodwill.

Yes, it is appropriate to ask, but it may not be best to demand. But personalities can get in the way of ethics, as many posts here show. "I worked pretty hard on this and having first authorship would give me a big career boost." That could work. Much better than simply demanding it as a right, even when it might be considered so.

But, having some publication, no matter where you appear, is better than none. And don't think of this as do or die. There will be other papers and your professor's good opinion of you is worth more than first authorship on an early paper.

But yes, it is appropriate to ask. It won't be rude unless you make it rude.

Ideally these things are worked out before the research begins, but it often isn't. And the  power imbalance between professor and student gets in the way as does ego.


If you make a substantial contribution should you be given the opportunity to satisfy the other requirements for authorship? The ICMJE has developed a set of guidelines to help determine who authors should be. They say

The following recommendations are intended to ensure that contributors who have made substantive intellectual contributions to a paper are given credit as authors

The requirements to be an author are:

The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
Final approval of the version to be published; AND
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

I think that it is reasonable that authors should meet all 4 of the criteria. What seems surprising to me is that someone could use the guidelines to justify not including someone as an author that did the work, drafted the manuscript, and agreed to be accountable, by simply not allowing them the chance to provide final approval of the version to be published.
Shouldn't the guidelines include a condition that if you meet the first criteria, that you then be given the option to meet the other criteria?
Am I missing something?
Has this apparent shortcoming been addressed anywhere?

Further down the ICMJE remarks:

  The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterion #s 2 or 3. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript.

The guidelines do include such a criterion.


How to read and organize academic materials It's a questions that haunts me for some day. I am a phd in computer science and recently when I need to read materials of different forms and take note, I somehow don't know how to decide. With the research area of mine increases, I have to remember vividly more classic materials, or systemically build a way to review them. Currently, the materials include

Papers : only-mathematical wise, normally of pages 20-40, some are typically lengthy to 60 pages.
Classic books : 1) code/system wise, which I prefer to read on pc so I could probably code at the same time; 2) more mathematical wise, which I prefer to read on ipad so I could do derivation and take note.

The trade-off is that, the pc has larger screen and is more natural for me to read the books, while less convenient for me to take notes, especially for hand-written note. And it's even hard to collect the annotations and highlight on pdf reader. So I would like some sharing / suggestions / ideas of how to read materials(papers, books), organize and take notes ?
Notice that this is not a question about reference manager as Reference manager with note-taking/quote-storing capabilities, it's rather to balance the usage between pc and ipad for different materials and find a systematic way to combine the note-after-reading.

If you search for "a holistic method on how to deal with knowledge in your life", perhaps the Zettelkasten method might be something for you.


Is there any minimum and maximum allowed time-span for acquiring a PhD degree? Can someone finish a PhD, say, in 2 years in the USA or in 1.5 years in the UK?

Can someone take, say, 16 years in the USA or 12 years in the UK to finish a PhD?

What limitations a given student will face presumably depends on the policy of the institution in question, and in some places possibly national regulation.

At US universities, the graduate program often has mandatory courses, making it hard to finish very fast unless some requirement are waived. On the other end of the spectrum, many institutions limit funding after a certain period to try to push stragglers over the line (of finishing or quitting...), or at least make the PhD candidate jump through some hoops (e.g. petitions). Certain institutions have a limit on how long a student can be registered, but it's not clear to me whether this would block someone from submitting a thesis after finishing it on their own.

However, let's try proof by example. Here are some very short PhD durations (I think it will be much harder to finish this quickly nowadays):

Stephen Wolfram of Mathematica fame earned his Ph.D. from Caltech in a year
Robert Wagoner got his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees from Ohio State University in 1974, 1975, and 1976, respectively.

I'm less willing to list regular people who took a long time getting their PhDs, but I personally know some in the 10+ years range. A couple of more extreme example are

Theodore Streleski who ended up murdering his advisor during his 19th year. I don't think he ever received a PhD, but he was still pursuing it at the time.
Ingeborg Rapoport probably holds the record for the technically longest doctorate. She submitted her dissertation in 1938, but was stopped from defending it by the Nazi regime. Eventually, she was awarded her degree in 2015.

Obviously most people aren't going to be like these examples, so let's turn to statistics. In the US, NSF publish reports on e.g. time to degree of doctorate recipients. In education the median is 11.7 years. Presumably there will be some that took e.g. the 16 years you mention.


Am I qualified enough to apply for a graduate scholarship? I am a third year university student in Vietnam. My major is Computer Science. I focus on machine learning, especially deep learning for computer vision. I really want to have a master (or PhD) degree aboard but I'm not sure whether I am qualified for a scholarship or not. My family is not so rich that I can afford the tuition fee for a graduate program. The followings are description about my future direction and information about me.

About my future direction,

I want to study aboard and finally have a life there, my ideal destinations are Korea, Japan, the Europe (the Western and Northern), Australia or Canada.
I want to work on AI and machine learning, which expect employees to have master degree (at least)
I want to start my own business and apply my technical knowledge on that.

About my work experience and course work,

I study at Vietnam National University (1st rank university in Vietnam)
I got all A+ in mathematics-related subjects (e.g. Calculus, Linear algebra, Probs & Stats, Information theory, etc.). I also got a scholarship for excellent student given by my university (for a semester only).
My GPA is low (i.e. 3.25 / 4.0) due to low marks in non-mathematics-related subjects. As I estimated, I can reach about 3.3 or  3.4 if I get all A+ for the rest of my coursework.
I was high ranked (top < 10%) on several AI contests

Titanic contest and House price prediction are from Kaggle
A facial recognition contest held by a famous AI community in my country

I also worked on several AI projects, both in research (for my professor) and in the industry (for my company, which works on AI).
About my programming skills, I have worked with PyTorch, TensorFlow, Keras and a little bit GPU programming.

About comments from others who work with me,

I was highly qualified (currently) by my boss (at the company I'm working at).
My professor, who supervises at my university, told me that I was strong at mathematics but lack of algorithms-and-data-structure skills.

About my own thoughts,

I can read most of deep-learning-related research papers with almost no difficulty. I also write down my intuition for each of the paper I read.
I have strong mathematical intuition (as commented by my professor).

I am afraid of having low GPA (which is my biggest fear) when applying for graduate scholarships. Can anyone give my some advice ? Should I continue chasing graduate scholarships or work in the industry after graduation ?

The only valid answer you will get is from some institution with scholarship money to offer. The only way to get that answer is to actually apply. My opinion, not very useful, is that you have a chance and that you shouldn't worry too much about your GPA. Institutions look beyond that for indicators of success.

But two problems you will have are (a) some scholarships are reserved for citizens of the various countries, and (b) there is a lot of competition for admission and especially for scholarship money.

So, most of the details you present here are not relevant for an answer here but will be important to include in any application.

If you have a dream, follow it. Don't give it up based on random advice from the internet. But also, keep your options open so that you have something interesting to do if you find difficulties along the way. At this stage, however, it isn't a case of academia or industry.


How often are lectureship positions just for one year? I am an adjunct instructor in English. I do not have a PhD and don't actually want one. What I really want is a full-time lectureship that would offer job stability. However, I was recently told that they are often offered for one year and then not offered the next year. I want to know if that is how things typically go, or if some full-time lectureships are renewed after the first year. A local public university offers full-time positions that come with tenure-like benefits after five years at the institution. What are the odds they will keep me around for four years and then not renew me so that they don't have to offer the job protection?

(Edit: This is the US, NYC to be exact.)

I'm in the humanities in NYC, and I think I know the institution you're talking about. (I have friends who teach in similar places, at the very least.) Usually a lecturership in a school like that is a term-limited thing. You might get a one-year contract, or a two-year contract, maybe you'll even get lucky and get the opportunity to renew that contract a second time. But it will be made very clear in the contract you sign that the contract is not open-ended. That means that if they're going to have to pay more money for you in year 5, in terms of benefits, or negotiated salary increases, then your contract will not be renewed for year 5.

If an open-ended position does come open, the dean, or the chair of the department, or both, will want to conduct a national search to hire someone for one of those open-ended, tenure-like positions. The fact that you have taught at that school, and have relationships with those faculty will mean absolutely zero in that search. You'll be competing against several hundred faculty, most of whom will have not only PhDs but an increasing number will even have prestigious publications.

There's not really a way to sneak into academia through the back door, especially in a geographically desirable location like NYC. You might be able to go somewhere rural and find a community college type job without a PhD, but even those are increasingly competitive.


Who to ask to proofread my MSc dissertation? Who should I ask to proofread my MSc dissertation? Is proofreading required?

There's no formal process that you are required to use for proofreading, but it's certainly required in the sense that your dissertation should not be full of typos.

You are the most important proofreader.  You care the most and have special expertise on the specific topic you are writing about, and eliminating errors is your responsibility.  However, it's worth getting assistance from someone else, since some errors can be tough for the author to spot.

You should not expect your advisor to do proofreading.  It's possible that he/she will provide a list of typos, but that's really not the advisor's responsibility.  Ultimately you'll benefit far more from higher-level advice about content and writing, so it's in your interest to provide drafts that you have already checked carefully.

One good way to arrange proofreading is to swap dissertations with a friend, with each of you looking over the other's draft.  If you can't find anyone to do this, you could try asking friends or relatives to help you proofread, but you'll have to be careful not to let it become a burden for them.

I would not recommend trying to hire a proofreader, unless you have clear approval from your university for exactly what you plan to do.  (If I heard that a student had hired someone to help proofread, I would worry that "proofreading" might be a euphemism for an inappropriate level of writing assistance.)


Can you get hired where you received your phd? I really like the institution where I'm working on my PhD, and I enjoy the city that I live in. I have shown that I am a strong research, and I am really starting to make a name for myself. I was wondering if people ever really get recruited for a tenure position at the institution where the received their PhD. (I don't go to one of the top 5 universities where they kind of have no choice but to recruit from within.)

Yes, but it is rare, for most schools.

It is usually frowned upon, however, the top schools have to hire from somewhere so it is common for them to at least swap graduates. My anecdotal evidence is that low ranked universities also tend to hire a higher proportion of their own students.

A notable exception is MIT, where 39% of the CS professors received their PhD degrees from there.

Table is from http://jeffhuang.com/computer_science_professors.html


Project management techniques applied to research Are there books/writing on project management as applied to scientific research (for PhD students and higher)?

I am looking for something synonymous to Scott Berkun's "Making Things Happen", which was written for software developers.
Other interesting and useful practices I am familiar with include Agile and Extreme Programming. Maybe I am looking for sources on comparing research process to product development.

Just to be clear, this is not question about software, but about practices.

A number of things spring to mind.  The first is communication of goals and time lines, and I'd just point to Gantt and PERT charts.  Each has advantages and disadvantages, but the key is to make sure that everyone knows and understands what needs to be done, when it needs to be done by, and who is responsible for what.

The second is the amorphous management trees that come up in research environments.  A great discussion and treatment of this is in Project Management, by Heerkens -- https://www.amazon.com/Project-Management-Second-Briefcase-Books/dp/0071818480.  It doesn't  speak to research, but projects in general, and a project is a project.  I really like his treatment of the "accidental manager", where you find yourself in a position of responsibility managing people who you have no real control or influence over.


Optimal structure of cover letter for PhD application submitted directly to PI I am currently applying for PhD positions (mainly - though not exclusively - around Germany and Switzerland). As I would like to start as soon as possible and would rather be paid than receive a scholarship, I am not applying via grad schools but directly to potential supervisors.

This is an arduous process as very many PIs interest me, though most do not have the financial freedom of creating new PhD positions on the spot. Consequently I have written a lot of emails and I have developed a short formula which I adapt to each individual PI. The structure is roughly:

Title: 2-3 buzzwords related to the PIs work followed by " - PhD Opportunities"
Introductory statement - Who am I
Short summary of my experience, explicitly mentioning points relevant to his focus and including a link to my full CV
Explicitly state my preferred topics related to his focus
Explicitly ask if he has a PhD position opening, possibly including a suggestion of what sort of project would motivate me, and what about him/his group precisely I found interesting.

Here is an example e-mail:

  Neurogenetics and Psychopharmacology - PhD Opportunities

  Hello, I am a Molecular Neuroscience major from Heidelberg. I have
  recently graduated from our MSc. program and am currently looking for
  groups in which to pursue my PhD.

  I have very versatile experience in neuroscience - ranging from
  molecular biology, microscopy, and genetics in model animals up to
  fMRI, eye tracking, pupillometry, and behavioural tests in humans (for
  more on this please refer to my CV:
  http://chymera.eu/docs/cv-acad-gen.pdf ). I would like to continue
  using a broad spectrum of methods in my research, and put my scripting
  experience (Python, R, Julia, MATLAB, SPM, FSL) to good use in the
  analysis of complex data sets.

  I am very motivated by research into mood disorders and genetics; and
  I would also like to augment my methods spectrum with
  psychopharmacology and NIBS over the following years. I find the
  addition of these methods particularly important because in my opinion
  they present the most solid ways of testing causality in correlations
  between human brain activation and behaviour (as observed via fMRI or
  PET).

  I have browsed your list of publications and I found your
  neurogenetics work most motivating. I would like to ask you whether
  you would be able to offer me a PhD position in which I could
  integrate the genetic focus of your group with brain imaging and brain
  stimulation (perhaps to elucidate brain area function or
  psychopharmacological treatment possibilities resolved for
  endophenotypes). I would also be grateful for the opportunity to
  discuss further project ideas with you.

  Best Regards,

  Christian

I generally just write one email, and follow up 7-14 days later with a second one if there is no reply within the first week. Of the PIs that do not respond to the first email less than 25% respond to the second.

With this email structure (and what I believe is a strong background) I get a reply rate of ~50%, of which all replies specify that the PI would like to take me on - in principle. Actual invitations for interviews, however, are at about 5%. I am thinking this could be a lot better.

Do you have any (different) email structure which you have found optimal? Are there any other details - such as tone and style - which you think are very important to note in such a context?

I would say you are waiting too long to explain why you are interested in the research group. Your motivation for writing and taking up the faculty members' time should come much earlier in the message—I'd recommend no later than the second paragraph.

I'd also suggest that you might also want to consider sending the message to the Oberingenieur or Akademischer Rat of the faculty members' group; he or she may have a better idea of what vacancies are currently available.

Finally, "cold calling" does not get a high response rate; if there isn't an active opening, most potential advisors won't really respond unless they have to.


Are people who left academia happy with their decision? Is there any extensive research/study/survey that looked at what percentage of people who left academia were happy with their decision after X years?

I mostly interested in the computer science field (machine learning) in the US, but curious about other fields and locations as well.

People leaving academia can be PhD students or after (tenure-track, tenured, soft-money research positions, national lab researchers, etc.).

I believe some of the national longitudinal surveys would cover this for the US.

For instance, the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 cohort started tracking "middle school" age students in 1979 and is still tracking them. They have hundreds to thousands of attributes including education and many measures of health and happiness (though not all are updated every year).

Another example is the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health).


Why do strict designs of theses exist? Why do many universities require strict format on theses, when the most important thing in them is the content? A beautiful design will make a good thesis better, and a bad one worse. The work can be creative and practical at the same time, and as long as the latter is guaranteed, why restrict the former? If academia is a place for creativity and logicality, then where are the creativity and logicality in strict designs?

Note, it is practical to have a nice design.

Related: Is beautifying a dissertation looked upon unfavourably by the examiners?

Why do many universities require strict format on theses,

Actually, sometimes the requirement is not as strict as you would think, and they do accept some variety. Also, if they provide a template for you to use, that's not the same as not accepting anything that diverges from it.

  when the most important thing in them is the content?

That's the most important thing to you, or to academics interested in the content. It's not the most important thing for, say, the librarians, or the secretaries who have to process the theses.

  A beautiful design will make a good thesis better, and a bad one worse. As long as the content is guaranteed by the writer, why restrict their desire to make their work, at the very least, clearer?

Your question comes off as being rather self-centered. The university is (or may be) trying to make a collection of theses beautiful, not a single one. Don't publishers have series of books or journals with uniform design? Don't streets have rows of buildings with uniform or uniformly-changing design? ... and those streets in which every person built their own house, according to their own means, with different architects who have no sense of context and are wrapped up in their own ego (or with no architect and just some construction company just putting up whatever is currently cheap and fashionable) - are these the beautiful streets? Rarely.

  If academia is a place for creativity and logicality

Logicality? Ok, my friend, you are clearly not ready to graduate if that's your view of academia. You need to "bake" in there for a while longer and lose some of this naivete of yours...

  where are the creativity and logicality in strict designs?

I think I've suggested a reasonable argument as to why a university might want a uniform design. Well, it's either that or some administrator deciding on that arbitrarily, the same way the government has a bunch of standard forms. Which is it? Who knows.


How do I properly punctuate bulleted list of mathematical equations? Here is an example:
Theorem 1 (Important Theorem). Consider f(x). If something, then

 1. The function has property A:

                  f(x) = g(x).

 2. The function has property B:

                  f(x) = h(x).

My question is the following:

do I capitalize the first letter of the bullet points?
do I include punctuation after the equation?

I typically aim to ensure mathematical expression follow the rules of grammar, but I am stuck here. If I don't capitalize the first letters, then I am not sure how to punctuate the equations.

I agree with you that mathematical formulas are usually sentences or parts of sentences and should be punctuated accordingly. This makes your example rather difficult if you don't want to change the words. I'd capitalize neither of the two bullet items, I'd put a comma after the first equation, and I'd put a period after the second equation.  That doesn't look very good, and besides it would really need "and" between the two bullet items.  So I suggest trying an alternative wording. Here's the first that occurs to me.
Assuming that the equations are intended to define (or summarize) properties A and B, a better solution would be to change the introductory "If something, then" to "If something, then the function has the following properties." Then, instead of numbering the bullet items as 1 and 2, label them as A and B. (Even if A and B are words or phrases, you can use them as labels in LaTeX's "description" environment.) And put periods after both equations, since they're now stand-alone sentences rather than clauses in the "If something ..." sentence.


How good do I actually have to be to get into a top graduate program from an average undergraduate program? So, this is a question that I do not know much about. I might get called on not having done a ton of research on graduate school, but I am really curious about this. I am an undergraduate student of mathematics and I am certainly planning on pursuing a graduate degree. I have looked at the top schools of math and they are certainly what one would expect: MIT, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc.

My issue is this: Academically, I was a late bloomer. I did not take high school seriously because it was annoying and elementary. Where I grew up, my school did not offer much in terms of AP classes or other opportunities. So, the only thing I excelled at naturally was math classes. Of course, they were extremely easy and required almost no effort on my part, which is what made me leery in terms of taking college level classes. I figured that I was good at high school classes because they are simple, but college level will be a different story.

I was wrong. In university, the gap was wider. Once I became adjusted, I actually enjoyed mathematics because it was so much more abstract and complex. This caused me to do rather large amounts of independent research in graduate level topics (topology, analytic number theory, analysis, etc). My only issue is that I am not in a competitive environment, really. The students are not top-notch, and don't share the same drive that I have. This is why I feel like being at the top of the class is not really an accomplishment, since I am not doing anything that any undergraduate at MIT, Harvard, Yale, etc, couldn't do.

My question that I pose here is this:

How good do I really need to be?

I have a passion for mathematics and for the most part, I seem to be talented at it. In terms of GPA, I have maintained a 4.0 with little effort just because I typically have already covered the material in the class on my own. However, there is a voice in the back of my head that keeps telling me that I only stand out because I am at a school that is not top tier, ivy league.

What does a graduate student at a top tier school look like? In my mind, I see someone that has been publishing papers since their teens, and was at the level I'm at now coming out of high school (I am a rising senior at the moment). Is this true? Am I being realistic? I am concerned because I would love to apply to some of these schools (and to get in is my dream!) but I honestly don't even know what level I am at in comparison to the rest of their applicants. I would hate to get shot down almost instantly because I am a joke in their eyes.

Sorry if this was a bit of a ramble. The question boils down to the title really, the rest is just elaboration for those that are interested. Thanks!

From what you have said about yourself, I think you're very well prepared for graduate school at a very good institution. There are always a few incredibly bright, very young mathematicians that fit the image you have in your mind of students at top tier universities. I know of a few myself. However a very large number of math graduate students are much like you (and I).

I had a very strong affinity for math as a young child but grew up in one of the worst academic environments in the US. A highly nontrivial amount of students in my area didn't graduate high school, even fewer went to college and fewer then even went to universities that were not the crappy local universities. I lucked out because one of the best high schools in the nation was in my area yet I didn't feel very challenged and more or less coasted along and didn't try. Ended up with a GPA of about 3.0 at the time of graduation. I even spectacularly failed statistics with a 40 or so from lack of effort.

Undergrad rolled around. I flourished in the environment: took lots of math classes, took plenty of courses outside my degree to broaden my horizon, did lots of research, but like you I was a big fish in a small pond. I felt similar to you - that I only looked good in comparison to all of the others. I almost had a 4.0 in math and had a 3.8 overall with a couple of years of research under my belt. When it came time for grad school applications, I cast a bit of a wide net, but got rejected from a lot of universities. (This was largely my fault since I seemed to mess something up on every application. Having not really done undergraduate applications, I was a bit overwhelmed and scatterbrained.) I actually got into my top choice university which surprised me a lot.

When I started my master's, I did notice that there was a bit of a gulf between me and the other students once I got there. My undergraduate institution didn't have nearly the course selection or resources that the other students had. However in terms of math capability, I was at least middle of the pack; so while I had a bit of a learning curve and some growing pains, I think I ended up being one of the stronger master's students because I fully dedicated myself and didn't give up. I did spend a ridiculous amount of time in my office the first semester, though. I went to school around 9:30 in the morning and went home at midnight many days.

For all of it, I grew incredibly and am doing quite well in my PhD program. Coursework is a cinch now, research is going well and I'm writing up a couple of papers which I hope to submit in the not-too-distant future. With your background and love for mathematics, I think you'll be in a much better position than I was in terms of applications. Your GPA is better, you seem much more fluent in many areas of mathematics and are much more mathematically mature. The biggest factor in determining your success (outside of pure genius - which is incredibly uncommon, even amongst mathematicians!) is your unwillingness to give up. Even if you're slightly weaker than some of your future fellow graduate students right now, once you get there, all of those disparities will quickly melt away if you put in the time and effort. Where you came from does not have to dictate where you end up. You are more than your past if you allow yourself to be.

Here is some general off-topic advice regarding grad school since you seem to be lacking in advising: just because you want to go to a top tier university and get in to one does not mean you should necessarily go. For undergrad, this is not the case; if you get into MIT, Stanford, Harvard, etc. and have the financial means, you should definitely go as it is a great opportunity and can directly impact your future. At the graduate level, things are so much more nuanced. (For example, the reputation of the university doesn't directly dictate your future success provided that you put in 100%. In the internet age, it is much easier to do really meaningful research and network with top researchers at any respected university since you have access to all of the information you want.)

When you apply, you are not applying to the university more than you are applying to a professor (or professors) or at least this is the philosophy I think one should have. You should have an idea of what kind of things you want to pursue for research and you should look to those people who do research in that direction. I don't mean to say that you need to know exactly the project you want to do but have a rough idea of the field you are interested in, say commutative algebra or functional analysis or harmonic analysis. If you apply to a university in which no one really pursues what interests you, you're going to be without a future advisor or you'll have to settle for second best. Applying to a graduate program just because of prestige doesn't guarantee success or happiness. Granted, at the top universities, this tends not to be an issue as they have very broad reach but it is something to be wary about. Just because it is a great university or great department does not mean it is a great fit for you.

There are also other factors to consider when applying to schools: Could you deal with the super competitive atmosphere (or alternatively the extremely laid back atmosphere)? Could you stand to live there for four to six years, e.g. if you're from a very hot climate, could you survive the very harsh winters in upstate NY or if you're from upstate NY, could you handle a Texas summer? If you cannot see yourself being happy with (or tolerating) a lot of these extra-academic aspects of where you are, you might want to reconsider.

A PhD is very demanding and can be soul-crushing at times. You'll often run into really difficult road blocks in coursework or research and if everything else in your life makes you miserable as well, you're going to have a really bad time. Your mental health is very important. You will be pushed to the extreme at times and in many ways throughout your PhD and your environment shouldn't amplify this. If you're having a tough time in research, the weather is absolutely miserable and you cannot stand your fellow graduates for whatever reason, your mental wellness might take a turn for the worst. I have seen this happen first hand and it is really unfortunate. These are not things academic advisors often tell students who wish to do graduate school because they are easy to overlook, but it is something to keep in mind. Hopefully this has been helpful.


Not being a first author diminishes the contribution of co-authors? If a group of students (say, 3 students), produces a work which has been accepted to a reputable conference. All of them contributed equally to the project,from implementation to writing and proof reading of the paper.
How should one decide who should be the first author. Even if the names are listed in alphabetical order, so by not being the first author, does it affect the prospects for the other two in any means ?
My field of research is computer science.

(This question has been partly inspired by the  flurry of questions on ASE, regarding the importance of being the first author)

It depends on the subfield of computer science. For example, if the paper is in theoretical computer science, then author order is alphabetical, and the equal work put in by the authors is not negated by the author ordering. If in a discipline where author order is meaningful, then it's standard practice to (say) order the authors alphabetically and add a footnote saying that all authors contributed equally to the work.


Having A Third Committee Member From A Different University - How To Pitch To The Third Member? I’m starting my PhD this September in an Interdisciplinary degree that would fall in the realm of “resource economics” + “mathematical biology”. FWIW, I chose the interdisciplinary route because I want to carve out my own niche in the bioeconomics literature and my undergrad was in economics / math, my masters in renewable resource economics.
Speaking to my two supervisors, I was told I can bring a third advisor on that is not necessarily at my institution - and this offered a world of options to approach authors who’s works have encouraged me. However, while there’s so much benefit for me to have a third committee member from, say, the United States (my PhD is in Canada), it’s not clear to me what value there is for the third member. One of my supervisors is an established mathematical biologist, the other is an economist with a similar interest in bioeconomic modelling.
So I’d be curious to know, from an academic’s POV, if they were to be approached with something like this, where would the potential value proposition be for you? Keeping in mind that everything would be mostly virtual, and maybe at best case I could do a visiting appointment to work on collaborations.

I suggest two things. First, most important, is that you don't make the pitch. Let one or both of your advisors do so, perhaps to a person you suggest. You might even give them a couple of suggestions and get their feedback.
It is harder to turn down an invitation from a peer than from an unknown student. The email, if that is the communication mechanism, will be read and likely not ignored.
Second make sure you lay out the responsibilities of the advisor early on so they are comfortable with the task they are taking on.


For an undergrad, which is more important? LoR or publication I'm an undergrad studying math and CS at a US college. My plan is to go for a PhD in machine learning afterwards. Currently, I have two research experiences under my belt. The first experience has finished, and I have a strong LoR and a first-author publication at a small conference (along with two second-author workshops). The second experience is on-going.
My dilemma is that my second experience has very low probability of me publishing anything. In this experience, I work closely with a professor at my college, along with several lab mates, but she is an undergrad professor so her focus is on teaching. In other words, although she can write me a strong LoR (we know each other quite well), I basically have no hope for publishing (at least she hasn't brought this up by herself).
So, my question is, should I give up this opportunity to pursue one elsewhere that might result in a publication? Or should I stay with this opportunity and keep working hard and impressing this professor?
*Context: machine learning PhD application is quite fierce nowadays and more publications should help, but LoR also helps, so I'm confused.

In the US, good letters of recommendation are a must. Research experience, especially resulting in publication is definitely a plus, but since it is still a bit rare, you are probably already ahead of the curve there.
The "problem" with undergrad research is that, given the time (and maybe money) constraints it is hard to reach a conclusion on anything that is very significant. In research, you don't know the answers when you start and you are looking at the unknown. There is no schedule that you can apply to actually reach finality unless the problems are rather straightforward. The time between writing the paper and publishing it can also be long and indeterminate if the journal is reputable. Conference publication is a bit more time predictable, since the conference will be held on a certain date, but if you miss a deadline, the next opportunity might be a year away.
If you are doing something hard, then my recommendation would be to keep at it. People will, I think, reward you for that even if you don't reach a conclusion, provided that the advisor can praise your efforts and predict your future success.
I think you are already in a good position on this point, though doctoral admission is dependent on many things beyond the two you mention. But, in the US, letters are essential.


Best template for Poster presentation :First time(Conference) My paper has been accepted in a conference related to computer science.
I need to prepare a Poster for presentation. This is my first time, I tried to find some good templates but ended up nothing. I am confused. Could you please advise some good templates where I can prepare a poster? and please give some suggestions to prepare a good poster. Thanks

Definitely worthwhile looking at previous posters from your conferences and other plus hunting around for posters from your department and team. There are some good sites that go through the background and with more concrete suggestions.

For a more traditional style of poster - https://colinpurrington.com/tips/poster-design/

There has been a spate of new poster styles if you are feeling adventurous - London School of Economics

-


Is it appropriate for me to get a recommendation letter from a teacher whom I TA for, but whose class I have not taken in 3 years? I am a teaching assistant for a biology teacher. When I took biology 3 years ago, she was my teacher. There is another teacher who she works EXTREMELY closely with, and there is essentially no differentiation between the two teachers regarding what I help out with, and I am close with both of them.

Is it appropriate for me to get a letter of recommendation from one of them even though I took the class as a freshman and am now a junior teaching assistant? For any other freshman teachers, I would not consider getting a letter of recommendation; however, I have gone far above and beyond the normal duties of a teaching assistant -- namely designing and implementing labs, grading, and even teaching the class as a substitute (there was an official proxy but I did the teaching). Humbly, I am quite appreciated, trusted and I have no doubt that I would receive quite a stunning recommendation letter. I would love to have a recommendation from one of the two marvellous teachers that I TA for, but I cannot decide which one -- the one whom the position is designated to? I feel there is potential for the other to be offended, and I would much prefer that that didn't happen. A selfish part of me wants the 'better' writer to write my letter, although I don't know who that is and I would prefer not to think of it that way (though a part of me suspects that is it the teacher to whom my position is not officially designated).

Just to clarify, I am in high school, and the recommendation letter is for undergrad/combined university programs.

Is it appropriate for me to get a letter of recommendation from one of these teachers? If so, how should I choose?

Edit: one of the teachers is also the advisor for a club that I am president of.

yes, anyone who has supervised your work is suitable to be a recommender. You should solicit recommends who can give you the best recommendation and also whose professional status is most impressive.


Is it okay to use somebody else’s methodology in my own paper (with proper citations) or is this plagiarism? My research is a content analysis about portrayal of mental illness in films. The research I wanted to base my methodology is also about mental-illness representation. My research questions differ to the other researcher’s questions. We also have different sets of films to analyze.

I really want to know if it is okay if I use the same methodology? Or is it considered plagiarism?

Yes, it's okay to reuse other people's methodology to address an original research question.  It is not okay to copy the methods section of their publication.  You must write your own, in addition to citing them.


Does the time taken to do a PhD affect post doctoral applications? I am a non EU PhD Student in Germany in Global Studies. I am now in my 8th year of a PhD program, which is quite dysfunctional. However, with a lot of difficulty, I am about to complete the PhD and hand it in.
I am looking at post doctoral opportunities but am worried that the long time I took to complete the PhD would affect me negatively. I have published quite widely, presented work at international conferences, and am in my late 40s now. I began my career as an academic (masters in 2008) after a long career as a journalist.

The fact that you took 8 years for your PhD, the fact that you barely managed to finish it and also the fact that you are in your late 40s influence your chances of getting a post doc.
However, from the given information alone, it is not possible to tell how strongly.
If we assume about 5 years of study for bachelor/master/other and 8 years for PhD, there are still 15-20 years missing here to get you in your late 40s. What you did in this time might play an important role on your job search.
Furthermore, it is important if you just wrote down something that was barely accepted as a PhD thesis, or if you took 8 years to work everything out properly and write the perfect thesis. I think the quality of your thesis will play a bigger role than the time you needed to finish it.


Guide for Undergraduate Research (trying to find a PDF document) Some time ago, a friend showed to me a 3-4 page guide for undergraduate research, which was really good. However, now I am not able to find it online anymore (and do not know anymore, who showed me the document).
In brief, I am looking for a:

Three to five page guide / code-of-conduct for new prospective undergraduate researchers
The guide addressed all types of aspect (documentation of results, email etiquette)
PI was an evolutionary (?) biologist at a University of California-university (Santa Cruz possibly)

Does anyone know the guide/lab-homepage, that I am looking for?
PS: If anyone knows other useful guides from any other Lab homepage for new applicants (or FAQs), I would of course be interested too.

After quizzing many colleagues, I was able to find the document again. Nevertheless, thank you for the help to anyone that took the time to consider the question.
If someone is interested:
https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.ucsc.edu/dist/4/216/files/2019/12/Thompson-On-being-a-successful-graduate-student-v9.pdf


Using harry potter in my Statement of Purpose Can I use an occurrence in Harry Potter as a simile in my Statement of Purpose? I'm applying to an Ivy League university.

Can you use it? Absolutely—you have the freedom to write whatever you choose in a statement of purpose.

Should you use it? Almost certainly not, unless your research topic has something to do with literature. Otherwise, you run the risk of confusing the reader (who may have no knowledge of the books or movies), unless the reference is extremely obvious, in which case it will probably come across as clichéd and stilted.


Getting stuck with grunt work in first year undergraduate research internships I am a 1st year undergraduate student in a life sciences program in Canada. I have recently joined a lab and I feel very out of place. The lab does biochemistry and I am more interested in physiology. I am supposed to be helping out in research this summer but no-one in the lab helps me do anything. I only refill pipettes tips and occasionally make mixtures.

I was considering doing research for a living but this is killing most of my passion. I feel like my brain power is so underutilized and I hate it. I am starting to email other professors right now but I don't really know how to proceed.

I really don't  want to lose research, as I began renting a place in my area for the summer for the sole purpose of working on research. Can someone give me any advice please?

You need to talk to your advisers/supervisors/group leader about whether or not you can actually be involved in some research. The work you're describing is more aligned with a technician or lab assistant, which if you're not being paid for could be seen as a waste of your time depending on how you view it.

Be realistic though. You are a first year undergraduate and highly inexperienced working in a lab. They may have assumed that you've never held a pipette before in your life so trusting you to doing research may come with some hesitancy, especially since there will be an inevitable cost to you working there.

You essentially have three options.

1. Talk to the people you're working with to see if you can do more than you're currently doing.

2. Look elsewhere to find a position that more closely aligns with what you're looking to get out of research experience.

3. Wait until you're further down your undergraduate to find a more suitable role.

You're not a full time employee or even a part-time employee. You have no obligation to stay with them if it's not what you're looking for. Communicate with them in a polite manner and say that if they cannot provide what you're looking for then you don't want to continue.


How can I overcome academic "researcher's block"? I work as a senior academic in an important university in Europe. My name is in several publications in top journals in my field.

I have always published papers together with brilliant collaborators who really made the difference but they are not there any more.

I am working on a new paper as a solo author but I am suffering a mental blockage and serious problems of anxiety.

I have previously published some papers as a solo author but I need help with this new paper. The difference now is that I am not able to start writing the proof demonstrations and therefore I cannot attract collaborators. Blank page syndrome. When I try to work on it, I have panic attacks. It's not a lack of skills because I have previously performed at a high level, I am blocked because I am used to collaborative work and talk about work helps me develop my ideas. I am now in a vicious loop, without proofs to attract collaborators and without collaborators to develop proofs

I was invited to give a seminar on my previous paper in an American university. I could use that opportunity to talk with them about my new ideas. I also spoke with some of my department colleagues. They are waiting for me to develop a bit more the proofs to decide whether my idea is feasible and collaborate. They are busy and will not help me at the moment. Right now, I am alone with my unsolved proof and my panic attacks.

Two questions:

How can I overcome this mental block when working with theoretical mathematics?
My job is my life, I don't want to leave academia but this situation is killing me. Should I leave academia or stay regardless the consequences?

Forgive me but I'm going to just wildly speculate here and hope that you find a bit of value in it. Perhaps you are just the sort of thinker that thrives on the synergy of working with others and getting ideas bounced around and reinforced (or shot down). That doesn't make you less of a mathematician, of course, but just represents one way of getting all of the pieces together.

It seems like you thought of yourself up to now as the 'junior' member of your circle and now the others have died or retired and so you are left 'alone'. In fact, IMO, you are left, now, as the senior member, but you don't need to continue to be the 'only' member.

Try to build up the circle again with new junior members with whom you can interact, building up their ideas as well as your own. It will give you that synergy again, if this is indeed the issue (like I said, speculative). A local circle is best, of course, but today's communication resources give additional options if learn to use them intensively.

And you have the opportunity to become the master that those younger scholars look up to and revere as they grow into the profession. Very cool.

One additional factor might be at play. When a person tries too hard for too long at intellectual activity, the brain sometimes rebels and shuts down. A break is called for, especially a break that gets the blood flowing, such as physical exercise. Physical exercise that also engages the brain but in a different way from the normal research mode can be helpful. I use Tai Chi for this as it is a mind-body fusion exercise, though not aerobic. When younger, I used cycling and x-c-skiing and such though they didn't have the same mental component. But an hour or so break for physical exercise can sometimes invigorate you.

And since the mind works subconsciously as well as when forced, sometimes insights magically appear during or immediately after a break. Even a sleep break.


Fancy/pretty or concise and informative plots? I am writing my Master's degree Thesis in Economics and I'm dealing with quite a lot of plots (my topic is more related to statistics, in particular I'm working with B-spline free knot placement) and I am wondering what's better, if to provide very fancy plots (for example using ggplot2) or instead to keep things simple and use the basic plots (from R).
What do you prefer when reading an article?
Thanks in advance.

I prefer plots which communicate information and tell the story so clearly, that I do not stop to think which software was used to create them. There are several good ways of achieving it and many ugly ways of failing it. The art of preparing a good plot (and infographics in general) is a complex matter and can not be boiled down to a one-bit answer like "do/don't use ggplot".

To learn this art, read more papers, highlight plots you like and analyze what you like about them and how it was achieved. Try reproducing a nice plot in your favourite software. Consult your supervisor and colleagues for more hints.


Thoughts on if it's possible to succeed in math @ PhD level w/o natural ability in quant reasoning? As someone who has a relative deficit in quantitive reasoning (63%ile) vs. verbal (97%ile), but a strong interest in applied math, is it possible to be successful and competitive at the PhD level?

I am committed to putting in the effort, and I want to believe that this is possible - but it is very daunting.

EDIT1:

To flesh out the q:
I’ve taken Calc 1, Calc 2, Calc 3, Stat/ w Calc & Discrete Math. I got a B+ in the first 2, A in the third and 4th, and B in the 4th. Taking Linear Algebra/Real Analysis and expecting an A or a B. Calc 1&2 and Discrete math were taught at the liberal arts college I went to where I received a BA in the humanities. After my BA in the humanities I pursued ad-hoc post-bac in math so that I’d be able to apply to grad school. Calc III and Stats with Calc were taken at Columbia and LA/RA At Harvard.

I will say, I have improved dramatically since I first began taking math (w/ Calc I & II).

The test I took was WAIS-III full scale IQ test, designed to be taken with no preparation and administered at a world renown  neuropsych facility.

Regarding the GRE, I expect I’d be able to score in a percentile on par with other prospective applicants.

My plan is to apply to a terminal masters, ace that, and the go one to apply to PhD programs.

Lastly, I have significant adhd for which I was unmedicated in undergrad and may but may not account for relative split in grades before and after.

EDIT2:

I'm specifically interested in applied math. I want to pursue it because I find it challenging and interesting and immensely rewarding when I grasp a concept -- and I want to go into a field that helps people.

To know whether you can do an applied math PhD, the question to ask is: did you succeed in difficult math, science, and computer science courses in undergrad, and do you have professors in relevant fields willing to write you a strong recommendation? General aptitude tests are dramatically less informative. This is not to say that, if you’re correct that you have average quantitative reasoning ability, a math PhD might not be the wrong choice for you. It’s just that you have other, much more refined and relevant, information available to judge by.

EDIT: Based on your edits, I’d say an A in Calc III at Columbia is more informative than the IQ test. That said, you have few advanced courses-only one, once you finish real analysis. So there’s not much evidence yet of your prospects. You’re in a plausible position to apply to master’s programs, and if you get into a good one, you’ll a get a much clearer idea of yourself there.


Proper timing for submitting a paper Is there any general advise on when better to submit a paper?

I mean, should one consider the seasonal differences in the way journals work.

Let's say, I have a manuscript ready to submit at the beginning of June. Would it make any sense to withhold it until the beginning of the new academic year as there is low chance the paper would be proceeded during the summer?

You should submit it once you finished. You should not wait or think about for new academic year. This is your misconception to have less chance to publish in summer. Because all the manuscripts goes under review process which takes usually 2-3 months and then it will be decided for next step.


How to cite three things in the same sentence If all A, B, and C are from the same reference [1], what is the shortest way to cite them? Is this clear?

  I use A, B, and C [1] in my paper.

It is concise, but it is like you are not giving a reference for A, and B. How can I have a better sentence?

The original "I use A, B, and C [1] in my paper." is not quite clear for the reasons you've mentioned.

Better:

  I use A, B, and C in my paper [1].


How often do authors actually perform and publish the work they indicate as the future work they plan to undertake in a publication? Quite often authors indicate that they will carry out some more work to complete /extend the project in the future work / discussion section.

E.g.:

  We need to automatically create new entities; this is work in
  progress.

or:

  In the future, we plan to deploy more sophisticated copy detection
  mechanisms, such as those in [10].

I have a high respect for the paper I used as an example, but I have first-hand witnessed other authors who write strong commitments like "We will do X in a future work" without any intent to do so.

Hence my question: Is there any research/study/survey that looked at how often authors actually perform and publish the work they indicate as the future work they plan to undertake in a publication?

I am fully aware that some formulations seem to indicate a strong commitment, while some are more suggestive ("some ideas thrown in the air").

It depends on two factors: how well the researchers are organized and funding. I would say less than half of the research groups I know in Computer Science manage to follow their future work plans. The ones that do manage to follow their plans, have clear areas in which they are active and write their projects after half the work was done :)

Funding has repercussions on what you do at work: most of the time you will have to do the tasks related to your funding as opposed to what you would like to do (future work of your favorite article). The problem is funding stops at some point and then you take another project without getting to the future work from your previous article.

If you had worked well in a field, had some articles, there is no reason to abandon that work just because the funding ended, but you will have to follow it between the funded tasks and in your free time.

There is also the alternative that you write a follow-up research project and get to do a part of this future work in the second project.

I have gone through all these phases:

I have future work that was never done
I have future work that was done in the follow-up project (precisely a sequel project)
I have future work that was done in projects that were not related
I have also seen future work from some of our articles implemented as commercial project at a start-up by some of the co-authors of the papers

If you work around the clock and if you like the field you're working in, you will definitely find a way to integrate your long-term research goals with the current project goals or with the next project goals.

EDIT:
At least in CS there is no survey/study/article about such a thing, as far as I know. There are though articles that look at how often a certain technology gets into a new company.


Is doing two PhDs a good path? I am studying a combined bachelor of engineering (electrical) and bachelor of mathematics; I just started this year and will graduate in 2018. The reason why I am doing double degrees and not a single degree is because I love both electrical engineering and mathematics and I could not ignore any of them. So with this in mind, I am thinking of doing two PhDs when I graduate (one in electrical engineering and one in mathematics). Is this a good path or I should concentrate on only one of them?

I suspect that most people who ask about the possibility of doing multiple PhDs are missing something fundamental in what a PhD is and what it's for.  This is an understandable misperception because the general populace knows little about what PhD programs are all about, to the extent that even most people who enroll in a PhD program think they know what they're getting into and then find out that what they had in mind is an approximation to the truth (sometimes a good approximation and sometimes not).

In the various fictive media (novels, comic books, television, film...) having multiple PhDs -- often in confluence with a very youthful persona or explicitly pointed out that they were attained at an early age -- is a standard trope for a certain type of characterization: depending upon the genre it can signal super-genius types, intellectuals, or nerdy/socially awkward types.  For instance, Professor Charles Xavier graduated from Harvard at the age of 16, and he holds PhDs in Genetics, Biophysics, Psychology, and Anthropology as well as an MD in Psychiatry.  This is obviously meant to be a real-world grounding for his vast mental powers.  On the TV show House, the youthful medical student Martha Masters has previously attained PhDs in applied mathematics and art history, and the characterization is less positive: they are not trying to suggest that she's a genius per se -- House is the genius! -- but rather that she has an extremely overachieving personality type.

Of course, Charles Xavier and Martha Masters are fictional characters.  Moreover I imagine they were written by people who are not so familiar with PhD programs.  In real life, having PhDs in Genetics, Biophysics, Psychology and Anthropology is not the hallmark of a super-genius: rather it would mean that the person is pathologically obsessed with graduate study.  PhD's are not merit badges -- more of them is not better.  Rather a PhD is the necessary and grueling training for a specific type of professional career.

If you are interested in a subject then you read and learn about it.  You get a PhD in a subject because you want that subject to be an essential part of your career (which of course ought to imply that you are very interested in the subject).  Moreover, although the PhD provides specific technical training in a certain subject, it does not provide exhaustive training: in most cases people spend the rest of their careers continuing to train in these areas.  Rather the point of a PhD is to give you enough specific training so that you can henceforth direct your own training and learning.  Otherwise put, a lot of what you do in a PhD is learning how to learn.  But learning how to learn is actually a rather robust and subject-independent skill.  If you learn how to learn genetics, then if later on your interests turn to psychology or biophysics you will be in a much different and better position to train yourself in these areas.  In some ways, doing a PhD in one of these subjects and then turning around and doing another is like becoming an internet millionaire who wakes up one day and decides that she wants to sell electronics...so she shuts down her website, gives all her money away, and starts the business out of her parents' basement.  (Or maybe it is like what happens in some of my dreams: I am doing high school all over again, and somehow it is not going as well as it did the first time around.)  Why are you starting over from scratch?!?

It is true that "academic transfer" makes better sense between some fields than others.  If Martha Masters got a PhD in art history and then decided that she wanted to do applied mathematics instead then she would not have been able to "segue" from one field to the other: she would indeed have had to go back to school.  But that makes her story a bit sad: getting a PhD is very difficult and very time consuming, but it is not really a feat of strength, and getting two PhDs in two unrelated areas does not show how much of a super genius you are; it shows that you really changed your mind considerably about what you wanted to do with your life and maybe wasted a lot of your time.  No matter how smart you are, I don't see how you can get a PhD in art history and then one in applied mathematics without spending at least eight years.  You can't just skip to the end and pass the thesis defense by virtue of your preternatural brilliance: there is coursework, residence requirements, and various other mandatory things which necessarily take time.  Her character is comic-booky: it is not really plausible that she could have these two degrees and have gone on to be a medical student while still being in her 20's, no matter how brilliant.  [Well, "no matter how brilliant" is a little too strong: if she had graduated college at age 16, then the math works out okay...] Moreover, for someone who is that brilliant it would really be sad that she can't seem to figure out anything else to do besides infinite schooling.

Electrical engineering and mathematics are rather closely allied fields.  For sure do a PhD in one or the other.  While doing a PhD in either one you can choose the amount of involvement you have in the other field, i.e., you can do a very mathematical electrical engineering PhD or a math PhD on a mathematical topic with important applications in electrical networks.  Then after you get your PhD you can continue to learn and train in one or both fields as you see fit.  It is entirely plausible that you could land an academic job in one department while having gotten your PhD in the other department.  This is an ambitious goal, but any academic job is an ambitious goal.  Getting the second PhD is unlikely to be directly helpful once you have it, let alone worth the sacrifice of 4-6 years of your life!

Added: By the way, when you mention "mathematics" and "electrical engineering": I think of Raoul Bott, a brilliant and beloved professor whose long career at Harvard ended while I was studying there.  I think that his story will be inspirational for many people with this confluence of interests.  Check out his bio: he balanced his early interest in these two fields nicely...and only needed one PhD.


Why is there such variation in PhD length internationally? I'm an undergrad in Australia, and at this stage I want to go on to do further study in maths (or maybe physics/CS, still have a few years till then).

Should I do so, I imagine that I will want to complete a PhD overseas. Possibly at a university in the US or maybe Oxbridge in the UK.

In Australia, PhDs typically take 3 or 4 years, and I would be eligible to go straight into a PhD upon completion of my undergraduate degree (it is research focused and includes an honours year, see here).

But, much of what I have found for overseas institutions has been in the range of 5-7 years, or maybe a 3-4 year PhD with a few years doing a master's degree beforehand.

Does this indicate that the level of rigour and amount of work produced is significantly different for various PhD programs, or is it the case that some programs are more relaxed and simply spread the same amount of work over a longer period of time?

In the UK system (or similar systems, like Australia) students enter their Ph.D. program with a stronger background due to earlier specialization, and they typically leave their Ph.D. program at a less advanced level than a Ph.D. from a comparable American school.  The difference is not in how fast people learn, but rather differences in what a bachelor's degree means and what a Ph.D. degree means.

Note that on specialization for undergraduates the US is the outlier, but in terms of Ph.D. outcome it's the UK that is unusual.  For example, Chris Parks writes, "Across Europe the view prevails that the three-year UK doctorate is too short and thus of inadequate quality compared with the more common four-year doctorate."


Should marker TA discuss marks with students? As a marker, there are always some students who will email requesting to meet  as they disagree with the marking. According to the professor, the marker should solve students' marking issues but I am uncomfortable with those students who insist that marks should be given in their way. Some of them are disrespectful. If I refuse to meet them, they will complain to the professor about me not engaging with students and the professor will criticize me. Should I engage with these students?

According to the professor, the marker should solve students' marking issues

There you have it. Yes, meeting with students and explaining your reasoning is one of your job duties. Even good graders make mistakes, and even good students sometimes don't understand where they went wrong.

  I am uncomfortable with those students who insist that marks should be given in their way.

You do not need to negotiate with students. You need to explain why they were incorrect, and explain how the point deduction was calculated. (Hopefully you've been using a rubric so that students are consistently docked the same number of points for each offense -- if not, you should start.)

When students try to "insist," you can explain that it wouldn't be fair to adjust penalties on a case-by-case basis. You can be pretty blunt here: "I provide these meetings so I can answer your questions. I've already explained why you lost points; I am not going to debate with you on every question."

  Some of them are disrespectful.

You certainly don't need to tolerate this. "I find that statement very disrespectful. If you continue to be disrespectful, I will ask you to leave." If you do in fact ask a student to leave, or not to return, you should pre-emptively send the professor a note concisely explaining what happened (e.g., "FYI, I told John he was not welcome in my office after he called me a _.").


Estimating postdoc salary with "30% ruling" in the Netherlands and is postdoc a "scientific" position? I'm trying to estimate the salary of a postdoc position in the Netherlands. I know that if approved for the "30% ruling," 30% of the gross income is tax-free. But, there are three category in the 30% ruling: (i) Scientific position (for which salary is not a bar); (ii) under 30 with MSc (mainly for the PhDs); and (iii) 'other' category.

I'm using the tool www.thetax.nl to estimate it (I'm not affiliated with it or endorsing it)

Here is the situation:

Gross annual salary (including holiday allowance): 47297
Recruitment: from abroad. She is living (>150kms)
since forever.
Last degree: PhD (this is a fresh start to a postdoc position).
Age: 30 before starting the position.

My questions are:

If a postdoc gets approved for 30% ruling, then will he/she be considered under scientific position (for which salary is not a bar) or 'other' category of the ruling?
What will be rough monthly salary?

Normally PhDs and Postdocs from abroad would be considered for the 30% ruling, simply increasing your net salary by adding 30% of your gross salary to the net salary. Concerning the salary, normally it would be around 3.1k I have colleagues who are postdocs and their salary is in that range. HR can help you in estimating the net salary and after your friend employee, HR will handle the process of 30% Ruling after being accepted by the municipality.

  Dutch tax legislation provides a special facility for employees attracted from abroad who possess a special expertise that is scarce or cannot be found on the Dutch job market: the 30% ruling. Under this ruling, the employer can provide up to a maximum of 30% of the gross salary to the employee as a tax-free cost allowance`

For more details:https://www.utwente.nl/en/products-services/product/p339189/30-ruling#introduction

I hope that would be helpful.


No specific guideline for the template of first submission I am planning to submit my work to Pattern Recognition journal, and I am looking for its appropriate latex template.
I read the author guidline carefully, but honestly it is quite confusing to me. As to the template, all it says are

elsarticle.cls should be used for latex template
page limits to 20 to 35
double spaced and single column

Then, I am wondering if I can change the the provided template settings when there is no specific instructions for them Specifically,

May I use the template from here, and am I allowed to change its margin? (The guideline gives no specific instruction for the margin specification at all.)

My lab published several papers to this journal recently, however it was all done by docx using Word. What really confuses me is that the latex template provided here has a much bigger margin size than the docx template our lab used.
I would be very grateful if someone who published to this journal using latex could give me some template advices on the first submission.
Thanks a lot for reading my question.

I don't know the rules for this specific journal, but in most venues you're not supposed to tweak the page geometry (margins, headers etc.) of a template, if one is given. To me, it feels dishonest to secretly shrink the margins and squeeze in more content. It may reflect badly on you if the editor notices it.
In any case, I recommend that you contact one of the editors and ask them. That's the only way to get an authoritative answer.


If a reference/book authored by your professor contains typos, how should you react? My professor gave me a module on history that contains several spelling and grammatical errors. Should I tell him about this or just ignore these mistakes?

For the textbook I've written, I appreciate any feedback, including typos, misformed sentences, vague formulations and of course errors. Some points to consider (partly contained in the other answers):

Wait until you have a reasonable list or, e. g., until a chapter is over, the whole book, or the course.
Check if there is some errata available somewhere. Some authors maintain an errata on their webpage, sometimes the publisher hosts this, for some lecture notes I have a blog post. Only send the points that are not already in the errata.
There is no need to ask if such a list would be welcome. I guess it is safe to assume that this is the case (but others seem to disagree - see the comment below).
For other feedback than errors and typos (e. g.  feedback for formulations or the organization of the book) be prepared that your comments may not be taken into account for various reasons.

Oh, and for the lecture notes I reward bonus points for every mistake spotted and submitted by a student.


Can students ask for changing grades? If a student feels that the grade he received is lower than he expected, because he has been working very hard, and truly trying to understand things, but sometimes at the cost of sacrificing details. But the instructor might think differently, as the student sometimes made careless mistakes in assignments and didn't have much time doing them.

Can he email the instructor for possibility of changing his grade, stating the reasons above? He knows if he never asks, the grade will stay the same, so he wants to have a try. Also as far as he knows, course grading generally has more or less flexibility.

If he does, is there some ethic issue that the student should be aware of?

Thanks!

PS: This is in a U.S. university.

A student sure can ask for re-grading, but he or she should have strong evidence that what was graded was better than perceived by the grader. It is a very bad idea to try argue how the teacher should be grading (e.g., asking her or him to grade according to what work you claimed you provided rather than the quality of your homework or exam). These questions are up to the teaching teams, not up to the students, and yes that makes the situation rather unbalanced. What you can do about this is to ask for a general change in suitable meetings if they exist.

Moreover, I would like to point out two things :

most of the time, grading is not for acknowledging good effort, but to measure if the student understood enough of the class to have a decent chance in the next one (at least in fields where classes depend strongly one on another, like in mathematics);
my experience tells me that students that consider they understand well but do poor exams in fact understand much more shallowly than they think, and their grades should be taken as an indication that the way they work is probably not good enough.


What is the impact of using complex words on the paper acceptance probability? Oppenheimer, Daniel M. "Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly." Applied Cognitive Psychology 20, no. 2 (2006): 139-156. looked at the impact of using complex words on the graduate admission probability.

Is there any research/study/survey that looked at the impact of using complex words on the paper acceptance probability?

I am most interested in the field of computer science, and English-speaking venues.

I cannot reply directly to your question on complex words, but it appears that complex (long) titles are associated with fewer citations (see Deng). So, you might extrapolate that complex words are going to decrease the likelihood of citations and, further extrapolating, possibly also of acceptance.


Ought mainstays (people recurring in a piece of academic writing) be abbreviated? Presume that these mainstays (even if their names are short) can all be named publicly.

I fancy referring to them only with my abbreviations that I introduce on the first page, to save space and avoid typos, like for long surnames (e.g. some Indian, Polish, and Russian mathematicians).

E.g., I'd state my abbreviations of Iannis Xenakis as IXS, Jean Barraqué as JB, and Per Nørgård as PN (I chose the latter because  of its 2 accents). Then  I'd write:

  IXS won the Polar Music Prize in 1999, but fewer prizes than PN. JB won none.

I've never seen this in academic writing, ever.  At minimum it will be confusing, and some people might find it rude to obscure people's names like this.

Don't do it.  Just write out the surnames on each reference.  If they're long, so be it.

If your main goal is to avoid keystrokes and typos, use an autocomplete or "abbrev" feature of your word processor or text editor, or some sort of macro expansion.  But don't impose it on the reader.

(I think in some fields it might be acceptable to refer to authors of the paper this way.  "One of us (NE) previously investigated this question..." And in some cases, you see initials used to refer to individuals who are anonymous, such as patients or  study participants.  "R.Z. is a 59-year old female who presented with shortness of breath..."  But I've never seen initials used for non-anonymous third parties as you suggest.)


Should I apply for grad school at higher-ranked institutions besides the one I am working at now? I am trying to decide about my future and it does look like a dilemma to me for the following reason: I can probably get accepted to PhD program in a good university in europe (top 30 in the subject, top 20 in general) to work with a professional supervisor that I had an experience working with and we were happy to work together. However, friends here tell me that my resume is better than the overall student in the university and I have the chance to get an admission from top 10’s. As I am conservative, I do not want to take a risk. I want to be sure if I can get admitted to PhD programs in top 10 after starting a PhD program if I did not find the university satisfying to me. I am an undergrad student.

You should apply to programs you are interested in working in, regardless of their ranking.

If you are worried about upsetting your current supervisor by letting them know you might be interested in working elsewhere, consider this: If your supervisor won't allow you to apply to other programs they are a jerk who doesn't have your best interests in mind, and you should work with someone else.

A good advisor will write you recommendation letters for any program you are interested in and let you make the decision, because it's your decision, not theirs. They are free to be disappointed if you decide to go elsewhere because they value your contributions to their lab, but they are abusive if they threaten to withhold recommendations to keep you in place. If you trust your current advisor enough to work with them in the future as a graduate student, you should also expect that they will be willing to write recommendations for you for any programs you are interested in.

That said, it would be both impolite and misguided for you to rank the opportunities ahead of time. You should not attend an institution just because it is "top XX" on some measure of rankings: you should attend the institution where you are most likely to learn and produce good work. A key element of that is the selection of your advisor. Working with a helpful advisor who has your best interests in mind is going to be a far better learning experience for you, regardless of "rank" of the institution.


Should conferences do early rejection? A number of conferences have moved to a two-phase review system, in which for example all papers get two reviews, and then any paper that has received at least a "weak accept" advances to get two more reviews.  In the conferences that use this, I'd say that typically 1/3 are eliminated early and ultimately receive only those two reviews.

In general, conferences stick to a single notification deadline.  If they opt for rebuttals and offer a rebuttal after the first phase, authors may withdraw upon seeing the writing on the wall.  But if there's no interim rebuttal, authors don't find out until the notification date that their paper was dead perhaps 4-8 weeks earlier.

I'm familiar primarily with computer science systems conferences.  In fact, I have served on a fair number of program committees, chaired a few conference TPCs, and serve on some steering committees.   I'm curious whether the two-phase review system is used in other fields, and if so, do any release the rejections early?  And of course I ask because I wonder if I should advocate that conferences I have any say in move in that direction.

I'm in the health and social sciences and I have never attended a conference that has used this format for submissions. This seems like a lot more work for conference abstract reviewers and program committees (all who are volunteers).

I have seen a movement towards "late breakers," where you can submit an abstract for a subsequent round of reviews, often after the initial acceptance/rejection notifications are distributed. You typically are not able to re-submit a rejected abstract, but could potentially revise or (ideally) propose a different project for the conference. I guess there are pros and cons of each approach.


Publishing a single-author paper This is the situation. I am a postdoc at a German university. Unfortunately, my boss is not interested in publishing the research results. He prefers to publish just when it is strictly necessary for project reports and publishes old and unimportant results in most cases.

Obviously, it is a problem for my academic career, and I want to leave this division but for personal reasons can't do it in the nearest future. Just to mention, I do not work on industrial projects, and I want to publish the results of the projects I work on. It is also worth noting that the results in our area get "old" quite fast, i.e., in a year the community won't be interested in the results as much as it could be now.

The boss also believes that everything that is developed by people working in the division he is the head of is the property of the division = his own ideas (even though I have come up with all of my paper ideas and have executed the research and papers alone) -- and he requires that everything that comes out from the division to the public should be personally checked and approved by him.

Other colleagues seem to be OK with the situation, but I would like to pursue an academic career and get published.

My question is: if in my free time I study some things on my own that are not included in any project I work on, can I publish the results being a single author? Or, e.g., can I publish a review on the topic on my own? I don't have problems with mentioning the university as my affiliation.
Was someone here in this situation? If so, what have you done about it?

My best guess is that you are well and truly stuck. There may even be contractual considerations that prevent your desired action. Some places (though mostly in industry) claim that anything you produce, even on your "own time" belongs to the institution. You can look to see what binds you legally.

I also don't know your field and won't judge whether a paper without your supervisor would be looked at a strange or normal - especially if he objects. That expectation varies widely by field.

But my advice would be to do what ever you can to find a different, and better, situation. Run, don't walk, to the nearest exit. If this means bowing and scraping to the chief to get a good letter of recommendation, then go along for now.

I don't know how hard it will be to move with few/no publications. But it is usually pretty hard to go without good letters. If you can use him to get a better position you will have a chance for a career.


How relevant can be the major corrections in PhD dissertation? My understanding of major corrections in PhD dissertation is that there can be entire chapters to add to the presented dissertation. However for me it's very hard to understand how much these changes might actually impact the thesis.

Specifically to my situation, I negotiated with my supervisor to limit certain contents that I'm not interested in adding to my dissertation. Apparently he agreed.(1)

However, I'm afraid that these contents can pop up again after the viva, in the form of "major corrections" to the dissertation. In that case, I guess, I will have no chance to negotiate again and I can just accept them or quit the PhD, probably in the worst moment possible. (2) So, can I anticipate this to happen? How can I make sure that "major corrections" will not be used to turn my research to the personal will of the supervisor?

Moreover, since I saw that "minor corrections" could just be revised by the internal committee, I'm afraid that this can happen as well as in the case of "major corrections". But, maybe in this case the corrections cannot be that radical to change the direction of my research. Is this actually possible?

notes

(1) these contents have been forced to me by manipulative moves and have nothing to do with the thesis itself. I added some of them as a compromise to make my supervisor happy enough. I'm rejecting these contents because of the manipulation and because of my personal ethic.

(2) I would not rely too much in the other components of the committee , since they are all under the influence of my supervisor

From this and your other questions, I think you want a fight you can never win. If I remember correctly, you have actually already moved to a different institution and it is just a question of finishing your degree so that you can move on with your career.

When a king has life and death power over you and makes a demand, the only response is "Yes, your majesty". And you say it with a smile. Even that may not be sufficient, but any other response has a guaranteed outcome.

I suggest that you write the thesis in such a way that the advisor will accept it. Even, dare I suggest, accept it gladly. Fair it is not. But, you will get to live for another day.

I don't know exactly how your viva will work or whether you get a chance to respond to any objections made. I hope so. And make the required changes to please the "court". But if not, and the deck is stacked, don't present them with an excuse to condemn you.

If the situation were otherwise with your advisor being on your side and major revisions suggestions made at the viva (in the public session, not written comments later), I would respond to the reviewers that we (my advisor and myself) considered those and rejected them already for the reasons...

But that doesn't seem like the situation here. Bowing before a tyrant isn't pleasant. But, perhaps the "madness of the king" will be obvious to others.

I suspect that, having seen the worst of academic advising, you have some incentive to do a better job of it yourself, provided that you get the chance. Get past this hurdle, however you must. Good luck with it.


How to cite a conference paper with no pagination? I want to cite a conference paper that is in IEEE format. Unfortunately, the paper doesn't have any page range and volume number as I've downloaded it.

Here you can see the paper that I want to cite.  I tried Zotero as well, but there was no success.

Please help me to cite this paper correctly.

I have a confession to make: some of my citations use fake page numbers.

Why do I do this?  Because sometimes there just aren't any page numbers or I cannot find the page numbers for a document with any reasonable amount of searching.  This happens especially often to me with computer science papers, where some venues just don't bother.  Online journals also often have unusual approaches to page numbering, sometimes giving a DOI-like token rather than a number.  In other cases, such as some book chapters, there are page numbers, but the versions accessible online aren't marked with them.

My preference in these cases is simply to omit the page numbers: citations are about information accessibility, and if the page numbers aren't a meaningful part of accessing that information, then I see no point in trying to fit the citation onto that particular Procrustean bed.

Occasionally, though, a journal with a particularly zealous and inflexible copyeditor will force me to add page numbers to things that don't have page numbers, and that is when I use fake page numbers, simply numbering an N-page document as pages 1-N.

Bottom line: don't sweat the page numbers, much less the volume number.


Does anyone look at the transcripts of PhD students when they are looking for jobs? Although it is generally believed that grades in one's PhD program are deemed as unimportant (so I am not asking whether grades are important for PhD students or not), I still see many PhD students include their GPA in their CV and I guess there might be a reason for them to do so.

I wonder if any company in industry or postdoc admission committee in academia need to look at the transcripts of job applicants (PhD students).

I wonder if any company in industry or postdoc admission committee in academia need to look at the transcripts of job applicants (PhD students).

There are 200 million companies globally, so the only possible answer is that some will and some won't. As discussed here, it usually does not make sense to use it for purposes other than internally tracking the students' progress. But as discussed elsewhere, people do this anyway.

If you're asking whether there are any possible reasons for doing so, I can imagine the following:

To verify that they have the degree in question [though you don't need a transcript for this]
To see what kind of courses they took and what they already know [though this discounts whatever they learned in research, which is the whole point of a PhD]
To see if they failed classes or had to repeat classes [also not a good predictor for research]
To compare applicants against one another [but impossible to normalize]

Note also that in some countries, PhDs have no coursework and so there is no transcript to look at.


Including non first author papers as "sample papers" on academic job application Academic job applications often require one to submit a few recent papers in the application. I have been a postdoc for the past couple of years and my role has primarily been advising: coming up with research problems for the PhD students and guiding/helping them to write a good research paper. As such many of my recent and current papers have a student as the first author, with me as the second author (or third author in the event that I am advising two students on the project).
Is it okay to submit some of these papers as part of my application? Or will it look bad since I am not the first author?

Every paper published by a reputable publisher is a good paper and should be on the CV. Advising students who rightly have first authorship is also a good thing. In some fields, advisors aren't co-authors no matter the input on student papers.
It think it a mistake to leave such things off of the CV. In fact, somewhere in your application materials you might want to explain that you were advisor to the other author(s) on the papers. Probably not in the CV itself, but a statement of purpose for an academic job will benefit from indicating a willingness and history of advancing student research and careers.
I assume you know your own field's standards, but in some, people assume that the last author did the work and the others were along for the ride. I dislike that sort of thing, actually. But a faculty position in most places is more than just a heads-down-don't-bother-me researcher.

Edited to add. Including the papers themselves as separate from CV references is a bit different. The first suggestion is to ask first. The second, in the absence of guidance, would be to include a mixture, with mostly first author papers, but a sample of the others. But an explanation of the situation on the latter should be fine.


Leaving academia at 39 I am 39 and I have a good position in a European university, on my way to tenure (in the Economics Department). I am miserable in Academia, and I have been saying for many years that I want to do something else. I hate teaching, and I feel my research is totally useless. Still, I manage to publish quite well. I avoid conferences by all means, and I minimize the time I spend at university. The only positive side is the extreme freedom I have, which I have been taking advantage of by travelling a lot, for instance.

I am desperate to leave, but I am terrified. I have no idea what else to do, I feel I don't have much to propose to this world. And I am scared to lose my freedom. And what if I hate my new job, while having lost the freedom? I have been sending out my CV to private companies, and I am learning data science online, but I have no answers so far. I am really not a junior profile, but I am definitely not a senior profile as I have no experience.

I am completely depressed, feeling like I should have made the move earlier, that it is too late, and that I will never find something else. Hence I will be doomed to stay in academia forever.

Is it common for one to leave academia around during their late 40s? What factors should I consider when deciding whether to leave considering the conditions I described above? Please answer based on the fact that I need to hear happy stories, since I am currently struggling.

desparate [...] terrified [...] depressed

First of all, however, I think you need to get proper counseling.

   Does anyone have managed to leave academia after 40?

I'm maybe within 5 % of that mark - but my story is nevertheless quite different from yours: I like research, I like teaching, I didn't look for a job when I left: I'm freelancer/self-employed now, my field (analytical chemistry + statistical data analysis) is quite different from yours. I decided early that I don't want to become a professor. Last but not least, I'd been considering this step for a long time. I.e. I considered this my plan B in case I end up without a new contract at some point. As it is, it was I who didn't renew the contract, and I took the opportunity to do a slow transition by part-time remote work at my now former employer.

I'm still involved with research and closely cooperating with research groups. And I'm teaching both in industry and in academic settings.

  And are you happy with the change?

Very much so.

But I'm sure you realize that neiter is n = 1 a proper base for decisions nor will you be able to predict much how you will do even from a good poulation description of 40-year-olds leaving academia since the variance will be large.

I'd also like to state the somewhat obvious that by asking on academia.sx you'll probably get mostly answers by people who are still close to academia, since those who cut all ties to academia are very unlikely to read your question. And this means a selection of people who probably like research or teaching or both.


Putting link of full text of paper in Google Scholar I have several papers in IEEE Xplore. I have uploaded their pre-print versions in academia.edu. But when I search in Google Scholar, I can't find the links of those I uploaded in academia.

What should I do to show up the link of my free papers alongside with the original published ones in Google Scholar search? Where should I upload the free versions?
I am an undergrad student and I do not have any official website/e-mail.

If the preprint version of the paper has been indexed by Google Scholar, then Scholar should show that version of the paper as well.  Assuming that it's permissable under the publisher's rules, you could post the paper on your personal web site and Scholar would eventually find and index it.  However, you can't explicitly add anything to Scholar's index.