Why do past PhD exams appear more difficult than current ones? I noticed while doing practice math PhD exams that the newer exams tend to be a bit easier than the older exams. The online archive goes back about ten years or so, but I was able to dig up some old exams from the mid-80s. I was absolutely shocked. I would get wrecked if they gave me one of these. I don't even think I could finish one if they let me take it home.

I looked around at some other PhD exam records at other universities, and it seems to be an across the board thing, not just my department.

Some people I've asked about this give the explanation that PhD programs are bigger now than they used to be-- in other words, in the past, only geniuses got PhDs, and since then cretins like me have gradually wormed our way into academia and lowered standards for everybody. This would make sense, but I'm not sure if this is just something people say, or something that is actually true. People have a tendency to put the past on a pedestal, and I'm skeptical.

Another explanation I could think of would be drift in material content. Maybe they were studying different stuff back then at the same difficulty, or using different terminology to study the same thing we do now. Maybe it just seems harder to me because I'm not used to how they talk about it. A lot of PhD level material is, after all, reasonably modern.

I also wonder if exam practices used to be different-- open book, take-home, more hand waving tolerated in grading, offered at the end of the 5th year. Something?

All this is speculation, though, which I find unsatisfying. Has this actually been studied with healthy rigor and skepticism? What is the history?

(In mathematics:) I'd be willing to believe that pre-college math curricula, and lower-division college (in the U.S.) curricula have become easier to get through, for reasons mentioned in other answers and comments. But I think this becomes less universally so at upper-division level (last two years of undergrad in the U.S.) and even less so with regard to the sort of "prelims" that math grad students typically do/take in the first year or two of their graduate work. This reflects my observations over the last 45 years in math in the U.S.
So then how to account for the phenomenon apparently observed by the questioner? Again in my own direct experience, decades ago there were impulses to ask "interesting/challenging" questions on prelims, that even the other exam-writers might not be able to do. Some contest-like spirit, resembling the old Tripos in the UK? At the same time, again somewhat contest-like, the questions were at a lower mathematical level than nowadays. This, combined with the impulse to ask challenging questions, led to many Baroque, Rube-Goldberg-like questions whose statement alone might be difficult to parse, and whose relation with any known mathematics was unclear. E.g., very complicated questions about iterated operations in point-set topology, with delicate separation assumptions? Difficult questions about proving that a bunch of relations in a group implies another one?
After a decade or so of that kind of thing, it was apparent to me that such exams did not encourage forward-looking study on the part of the students, which was a bad thing. Often, as in prep for contests, some amusing tricks were learned, but basic, standard, useful more-advanced ideas were neglected entirely because they'd never show up on those exams. Thus, around 1989, we deliberately changed the nature of those exams to address less-tricky, higher-level mathematics that would actually be used by people in doing their PhD work. Another attitudinal change has been within the last 10 years, when we have moved completely away from surprise/tricky questions at any level.
At least at my own University, it's not at all the case that basic graduate education is being diminished in favor of supposedly jumping into research immediately. As in some comments above, it's not feasible to really start doing modern mathematics research while not knowing anything... But, yes, we do try to encourage a more active version of engagement than merely "fulfilling requirements" (even while those "requirements" are aimed to be useful).
So, in the end, I'd argue (as in other comments) that the exams are not truly easier, but just "modernized", so that some acclimitization to modern mathematics makes them seem easier in our context.
(And, yes, I recognize that in fact some grad programs in math have "thinned" their prelim requirements, apparently motivated by "getting students into research faster", but it is not clear to me that this can truly accomplish the avowed goals... though I am equally confident that programs would be disinclined to candidly discuss such a thing. The ever-increasing commodification of "research" does provide considerable pressure to degrade things...)


My conference paper got rejected. Will it be bad for my PhD performance? I'm a PhD student. A paper for a conference got rejected. I haven't met my professor yet to discuss about it. But is it bad for my PhD performance? I mean, probably the professor will not trust my manuscripts anymore.

In short, no. In long, this is a normal stage of going through a PhD: nobody gets all of their work published all of the time.

The best case scenario is that the reviewers have given you some useful feedback to work with, in which case now you're in a better position than you were before. Worst case, you got a flat reject with no helpful feedback (which happens sometimes: I've seen reviews that say "Insert review here"), but at least you'll still have something to talk over with your professor. In the latter case, try and work out why your paper was rejected: was the idea not considered novel enough? Was the explanation not clear enough? Or does this particular piece of work need some more data, more evaluation or more analysis before its publication worthy?

In either case, once you've talked this over with your professor, you should now have some idea of what direction you can focus your efforts on. This will help you get your paper ready for submission to a new venue.

EDIT: You mention in your comments that the reviewers said there was nothing theoretically new with your approach. This gives you a few options (which you should talk about with your professor). Firstly, if you disagree, then you need to make your case for this stronger (by citing similar papers in the field and showing how your approach differs). This is often easier than you might think; there are enough niches in research that you can often find a way to show that your work can be applied to specific cases in a new way, or in such a way as to tackle new problems. Secondly, reframe the work: the approach itself may not be novel, but you can frame it in a new way by, for example, comparing it to other approaches or by using it to form a position paper on a certain issue. Thirdly, if you've been scooped, or you feel this ground has already been trodden, then talk to your supervisor about exploring other approaches in this area.


Can I list my experience as independent researcher to my resume or CV? I have graduated from my master's last year. I am very much interested in doing an additional technical master's program and/or a Ph.D. in my field. So, I started applying for both the technical master's program and for the PhD program. In the meantime, I thought of not letting my research interest decay, I started working as an independent researcher. And luckily I got a collaboration offer from a foreign university professor who was a great scholar in my field of study. I collaborated with him from my home and did nearly 8 research articles within a period of 11 months. But at the same time, I was rejected by all the M.sc. and Ph.D. programs I applied. However, my independent research works were accepted and published in reputed IF international journals. Now, I am applying for the winter semester programs, in that case, can I please know whether I can add my experience as an independent researcher to my resume or Cv which I submit to the educational institutions? Please kindly help me in this regard. Thank you in advance.

Yes, absolutely add it, along with the publications that resulted. And, you should consider getting a letter of recommendation from the professor. Your lack of formal affiliation is of no consequence. It is the work that matters.

Don't hesitate here.


How do you tactfully inquire why a person wants your reprint? My boss is first author on several papers, and doesn't want to give a reprint to anyone unless he knows and approves the reason they want it. I know, I know. These reprint requests fall to me. How do I inquire why they want it, with an appearance of collegiality?

EDIT: By "reprint", I mean the PDF of a paper, requested from the author by someone who doesn't want to have to buy it at the journal website.

To the requester, you could say something like:

  For my records, may I ask why you are requesting a reprint?

 Though, I think a good follow-up question to ask here would be "how do I tactfully tell my boss to field these reprint requests for themselves?" :^)


Studying Abroad - do they need my high school transcript/diploma? I'm thinking about studying in Germany next year at a university. I am a US citizen. I have completed a 2 year Associate's degree program at a trade school and also finished my general education requirements, at about 45 units as a combination of AP tests and classes at a community college.

When applying, they the schools ask for an official copy "school-leaving certificate" - I'm guessing this means diploma. Do I need an official copy of my high school transcript and/or diploma? Does my Associate and other college credit infer that I have already successfully completed high school? As I haven't quite mentioned any specific schools, I think this answer is probably the same regardless of the country of the institution.

Yes, German universities oftten require an official copy of your high school certification, even if you already have a university diploma which implies the completion of a high school. The same happened to me when I was starting my PhD in Germany - I also was required to present my high school certificate, although I also had two university diplomas (bachelor and master). In a similar manner, both of my university diplomas were required.


Finishing a PhD that I started abroad, in the USA? I studied in Europe some times ago but didn't finish my PhD dissertation. Recently I finished it and I published in a math journal. I never studied in the USA, but I have been living and working there. Is it possible to finish this PhD with the same results that I have found, or I have to start all over again?

I disagree with the other answers. Virtually all reputable US graduate schools have a residency requirement. Further, they will have little interest in a "pass-through" candidate who feels that they have already earned a PhD elsewhere and wants to obtain it as quickly as possible.

Your best bet is to follow up with your old program / contacts. Even retired professors might be willing to work with you. Perhaps someone knows someone who will take a special interest in you. With a professor on your side, rules can be bended or special arrangements made.

If that is a strict no-go, then you would essentially have to start over at a new institution. You could shop for an institution that will minimize the additional work you will need to do, but I would still expect it to take multiple years.


Should you cite a paper that clarifies the name of a mathematical object? Suppose I am writing a mathematics paper and discover some object and call it a "thingy"; not knowing of its existence outside of my discovery of it.

Later while doing some unrelated research I come across a paper that uses my "thingy" and it turns out to be well known object called a "doodad".

Should I cite the paper that gave me the vocabulary to describe a well known object if it only gave me its name?

This is my first real paper so I want to get my citations right.

It is not wrong to cite the paper which clarified the term. In fact you must if you were to imply or use the definition that the paper provides.

A technical term may have multiple definitions in which some may even redefine it in different fields and aspects. It would be better to cite the one that connects to the most appropriate definition that connects to your use of the term.


Etiquette and guidelines for asking someone if they might be doing work potentially similar to yours? So, say, if I want to start on a new research project but want to be sure that someone else isn't doing the same thing that I'm doing, how should I phrase an email to them, if at all?

Oftentimes, this could lead to a collaboration between the two. But in a few cases, this could also be a case where someone might be competing with you for the same research finding, and where they might want to "take the glory" so to speak.

I'd recommend against sending such an e-mail to someone you don't know well.  If you've got serious reason to fear there may be competition that neither of you wants, then perhaps a mutual friend could help sort it out; if you don't, then I wouldn't worry about it.

One danger is that the e-mail can come across as aggressively staking out territory.  Even just asking whether someone is working on this topic can be read as "speak now or forever hold your peace", with the implication that unless they announce it now, you'll be seriously offended if they end up competing with you on this topic.  This is not a fair position to put someone in, since research can be unpredictable and their work may end up having consequences for these topics that they do not yet foresee.

Collaboration can also be a touchy issue.  It's sometimes a mutually beneficial way to resolve this sort of situation, but not always.  It can be awkward when someone you don't know well suggests a collaboration, since no matter what excuses you offer, it's hard to avoid the appearance that declining a collaboration request is a negative judgement on the person making the request.

If you know someone well, you may be able to avoid these difficulties, but I wouldn't try it otherwise.

If you're a graduate student, then your advisor should help with situations like this.  For example, they should make sure potential competitors are aware of your thesis project (at least in mathematics, it's considered extremely bad form to compete with a grad student, and part of the advisor's role is to minimize the chances of accidental competition).


Citing a passage which includes added words by the translator? I have the translation of a work in front of me and want to quote it. The translation reads:

  "This is the right decision, and yet it is the wrong [one]"

The translator added the 'one' in brackets to make sure to indicate that he added this for comprehension etc. but that the original did not have this word. Fair enough. Now to my question.

How do I cite this? I want to take it over completely like it reads here (that is, incl. the translators note). Will I have to somehow indicate  that this was added by the translators and not me?

Also, out of curiosity: Do these bracketed explanatory words in translations have a certain name?

The bracketed annotation is a gloss to support readability. When you quote this translation, verbatim, just cite the quote and have the bibliographic entry identify the translation (rather than allowing the reader to conclude that you did the job).


How should I deal with becoming discouraged as a graduate student? I am a third year (starting fourth year in the fall) PhD student in mathematics. I've passed all qualifying exams and am currently doing research. As far as I can tell, I am not doing poorly. I have the good fortune of having a great advisor, being in a very supportive department, and having friends and family who genuinely care about my success.

The fact is research is hard. It appears to consist primarily of staring at a problem for days and days and days without getting anywhere. Sometimes, rarely, I do figure something out and that feels wonderful, but the overwhelming majority of my time appears to be spent banging my head against a mostly figurative wall. I am not complaining about the material being hard, and I am not averse to putting in hard work, but I get frequently discouraged when I realize the vast volumes of mathematics that I yet know nothing about (and probably never will). It's very hard to quantify progress - in particular, there are too few tangible returns after too many hours worked. I find myself thinking along the lines of "Oh, if only someone actually smart were thinking about this problem they would have solved it in moments" and so on.

I've talked about this to some number of people; here is some advice I have received:

Take a day off. Putting in hours upon hours of trying things doesn't magically lead to a solution, particularly if the brain is tired and just wants to sleep.
Have a hobby. Since math research doesn't exactly provide instant gratification, a hobby might provide some instead.
Talk to other graduate students. Realize that many graduate students go through this.

I'm interested to know how other folks have dealt with being discouraged as a graduate student. Does it get better with time and experience? Is this a sign that research is not for me and that I should seriously consider a life outside academia?

The fact is research is hard. It appears to consist primarily of staring at a problem for days and days and days without getting anywhere. Sometimes, rarely, I do figure something out and that feels wonderful, but the overwhelming majority of my time appears to be spent banging my head against a mostly figurative wall.

Yes.  This.  And it wouldn't be so damn tempting if those bricks didn't wiggle just a little bit every time I slammed my forehead into them.  Sometimes I think my eyes must be playing tricks on me, what with the repeated cranial trauma and all.  But then I remember how good it felt the last time my head actually went through the wall, and so I keep plugging away.

I've found it extremely useful to have two or three walls to bang my head against at any given time.  Surprisingly, sometimes banging my head against one wall actually makes one of the other walls weaker.  But most walls prove considerably stronger than my head; so it's helpful to have options, so I don't feel so bad about walking away with some scalp intact.

If you're very lucky, one good smack on the bricks will actually bring the ceiling crashing around your ears.  That takes a long time to clean up, but sometimes the debris will knock down other walls for you.  And then you have a whole new set of even bigger walls to bang your head against!

  I find myself thinking along the lines of "Oh, if only someone actually smart were thinking about this problem they would have solved it in moments" and so on.

Do not listen to the Impostor Syndrome.  Everyone "actually smart" is hearing exactly the same voice in their head saying "Oh, if only someone who actually knew how to hit walls with their forehead hit this wall, it would come down like a stack of cards." when in fact the wall really is made of brick.

  Does it get better with time and experience?

Yes.  Eventually, you'll move from hoping that you'll be able to knock down a wall with your head someday, to being surprised at how often the walls you hit with your head actually fall, to finally believing that you really can knock down walls with your head sometimes.  (For me, the second transition happened some time after tenure.)

But your head will still hurt.


Can't attend conference due to canceled travel grant I am a postdoc fellow and my abstract has been accepted for present at an international conference. I also paid the registration fee and now my name is on schedule of talks. Unfortunately, I was informed that the provider of my scholarship has already canceled the travel grants for all postdocs (because of shortage of money). Due to long distance between the country where I am staying and the country where the conference will be held, therefore, the price of tickets is too high and I will not able to buy the ticket on my money. On the other hand, I believe that having a presentation in this conference will have an excellent effect on my C.V. Is it possible to ask the conference to keep my abstract in their book of abstracts if I can not go there?

It may be possible, actually, to do more. You might ask if a remote presentation can be arranged. This is possible for some conferences, but would require some setup on your end as well, perhaps in coordination with the university.

But for your actual question, yes, you can ask and explain the circumstances. Some conferences will say yes, some will say no, and some will have other suggestions. But it would be a mistake not to open a conversation with the conference committee.

Note also that not showing up without notice will probably result in the worst possible outcome.


Are there any guidelines regarding the choice of the markers in a graph? There exist some guidelines on which colors should be used in the figures to ensure that they can be read by as many people as possible, such as color blind people (example  (mirror)).

Are there any guidelines regarding the choice of the markers in a graph?

Example of markers
 (mirror):

Code in python to generate the plot (in case the link gets broken):

#!/usr/bin/env python

import matplotlib.pyplot as pyplot

mark_dict = {
".":"point",
",":"pixel",
"o":"circle",
"v":"triangle_down",
"^":"triangle_up",
"<":"triangle_left",
">":"triangle_right",
"1":"tri_down",
"2":"tri_up",
"3":"tri_left",
"4":"tri_right",
"8":"octagon",
"s":"square",
"p":"pentagon",
"*":"star",
"h":"hexagon1",
"H":"hexagon2",
"+":"plus",
"D":"diamond",
"d":"thin_diamond",
"|":"vline",
"_":"hline"
}

def line_plot():

    x_list = [1, 10, 30, 70]
    y_list = [10, 20, 30, 40]

    pyplot.clf()
    for mark in mark_dict:
        y_list = [y_val + 10 for y_val in y_list]
        pyplot.plot(x_list, y_list, label=mark_dict[mark], marker=mark)

    pyplot.legend(loc="best", prop={'size':11})
    pyplot.savefig("markers.png")

def main():
    line_plot()

if "__main__" == __name__:
    main()

The Grammar of Graphics (2nd ed) by Wilkinson has a very little description about shape in Chapter 10, which discusses the following few concepts:

Morphing (technique used to vary shapes along continuous dimension). Here is the example taken from the book:

Another variant was also displayed:

However, Wilkinson comments such format as

  "problematic [...] because it is not rotationally invariant. Shape
  must vary without affecting size, rotation, and other attributes. The
  graphics [above] could be used for representing negative and positive
  variation, but it is not clear that they would work as well as sized
  plus and minus signs."

Lastly, the following one shows categorical shape variation:

Which also agrees with many commonly used symbol scheme.

The biggest help of this section in the book, however, are two citations on relevant works:

Discriminating Strata in Scatterplots by Lewandowsky & Spence (PDF) actually carried out some experiment, showing scatterplots with different symbols to novice and expert. While the work does not recommend any scheme, it does suggest that "variations in shapes, amounts of fill, or use of discriminable letters can be used without great loss in accuracy."

Another one is A Model for Studying Dsiplay Methods of Statistical Graphics by Cleveland (URL), which investigates a lot more than just symbols, and should be able to provide a good foundation in this topic.


References in Executive Summary? When writing a Deliverable for the European Commission I'm commanded to include an Executive Summary at the top of the document. This Executive Summary includes the main outcomes of the research done for the Deliverable, including what I've read from others research.

Of course anything I've learnt is formally referenced, and by style decision I have to employ APA style. Should I put the cites and references in the Executive Summary as well?

PROS:

If by any reason the executive summary is separated from the real
document, it is stated clearly that I don't pretend to pass any
others insights as mine.

CONS:

The Executive Summary occupies nearly one and a half pages more
(APA!)
Extensive citing makes the reading slower, and more difficult if you're not used to read academic papers.

So I'm worried to make the Executive Summary unuseful by adding too much formalism.
Any experiences on that?

My general answer would be: No. Summaries should summarize the work/report and anyone reading the summary will not need to go to references to check on sources since those are given in the report itself. I can see exceptions from this if one or two references are key to the report by for example, being ground-breaking or by being in conflict. Then it may be important to show from where the key aspects originate and to perhaps list the single r couple of references after the text. But, the persons reading the summary may not be familiar with referencing so make sure you know your intended audience and the style they are familiar with. It may still not be necessary to provide references but to reference the material by stating the author name(s) and the place of publication without reference details. Again, the report summarized in your Exec. Summary will have the details.


What to do when the reviewer of a conference submission provides very negative ratings and almost no comments? I submitted a paper to an international conference and some strange things happened along the way. First, the reviews did not meet the date in which they were supposed to be send to the authors. After like four days, I saw a message in the submission site that said that my paper was rejected. So I waited for the notification to be sent to me my email, because I wanted to know the reviews to improve my paper and maybe resend it to another conference.

I did not get any reviews by email, but after like 4 days more after the notice that my paper was rejected they appeared on the submission site. When I saw the reviews, they were very harsh, and nearly non-existent, with the following characteristics:

It appears that there was only one reviewer.
In the marked items about Originality, Readability and so on; all was marked with 0.
No reviews about what was wrong, just a very harsh comment that the paper was not focused and that does not seem to be a credible research.

Is it normal to get this type of reviews? I remember that even when I got rejected from other conferences, there were like three reviewers, and each of one put their qualification and make some good comments for improvement. I have just checked the paper with my colleagues and they do not find it like is an unreadable paper or that the paper is unfocused.

What could have happened in this situation?

Lack of meaningful review feedback is absolutely abnormal and inappropriate behavior for a good computer science conference (I am guessing computer science based on your prior posts).  The late response and lack of email are within normal variance, though.

Unfortunately, what this probably means is that the conference you submitted to is actually a crap conference.  Re-investigate the conference, and evaluate its quality again: just because something is international doesn't mean it is good.  Even being sponsored by a major society like IEEE may not ensure quality.  Look at who is involved and the level of citation of past work, etc.  If the conference is a crap conference, you should feel thankful that they rejected your paper and you have an opportunity to submit to a better conference instead.

If, on the other hand, despite all expectation it is actually a good conference, then you should write to the program chairs and ask to receive a real peer review.  Every author deserves meaningful feedback on your paper, no matter how bad the paper may be (and I speak as one who has even given a serious review to a submission from a clearly insane individual).


Advice for Further Study I am currently taking a master by research in biostatistics in my home country (Not really well-known though). I recently saw the importance of machine and deep learning in the field of biostatistics and had seen about the OMSCS master program by GaTech. Will attending both master by research and OMSCS master increase the rate of admission to a better PhD program? Or should I put all my focus on publication?

I have the highest regard for Georgia Tech and a couple of my former students earned doctorates there. But I worry about any online program that has over 10,000 enrolled students. My worry is that, unless you are extremely well motivated and already know how to learn at a high level, you won't get the support you need. Certainly not the support that you get in a smaller face to face program.
Getting some publications out is a good idea, of course.
But, you've asked another question here about studying in US. I suggest that you apply to some universities here, covering a wide range of research universities, and see it you can get accepted. You may well not need any additional steps.
Don't just jump into a program because you've read that it is "important". In fact, others will also try to jump in, increasing the competition. Think, instead, of what you want to do as a career and take steps to achieve it.


To teach English at the college level, is there an advantage to having a masters in English vs Education? I'm currently in my second year of teaching English at the secondary level, and I'm wondering if it's better to pursue a Master's  in English (I have a Bachelor's in English Lit.) or Education. Is there a strong advantage to one or the other in terms of professional development for teachers? I also see myself teaching at the college level someday.

Assuming you are in the U.S., a master's degree in English may qualify you to teach at a community college (but there are enough unemployed Ph.D.s in English that the competition is tough for those with only a master's degree).  It would definitely not be enough for a regular faculty position at a four-year college, but it could be a step towards earning a Ph.D.

A master's degree in education could be a valuable credential in secondary education, depending on how your school system handles it, but it counts for nothing if you'd like to teach English at the college level.  (Furthermore, it doesn't qualify you to teach in a department of education, which would require a doctorate.)


Submit to arxiv prior to a conference or journal I'm about to apply for phd soon. I have several papers that I'm currently working on that are almost finished. That said, there is probably not enough to publish them on time. I think it might be a good idea to post them to arxiv so that I can point admission committee to my work as "preprints" in my application. But since I hope to eventually submit them to a journal or conference, what would be appropriate way to do it? for example, which license of the following should I choose? What are the difference? Would that affect my later publication?

arXiv.org perpetual, non-exclusive license to distribute this article (Minimal rights required by arXiv.org)

Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY 4.0)

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

Creative Commons Public Domain Declaration (CC0 1.0)
 None of the above licenses apply

This differs by field. Your profile suggests you are a mathematician and in math, almost all journals will publish papers previously available at arXiv.

The life sciences seem to be an exception with many journals refusing to publish anything previously published, even if informally. Wikipedia gives some guidance.

I'll leave the issue of license to the other questions linked in comments.


How To List Other Academics' Conference Papers Discussing My Artwork? I am a Fine Artist, and art historians have discussed my work in conference papers... how would I cite these papers on my CV? Would I include them under "Publications", as I do catalogs, books and art reviews of my work, or should it be under a separate heading? Also, if someone discusses my work in a Master's Thesis, is it appropriate to list that as well?

Looking at some example guidelines on fine arts resumes, it seems that one's "publications" or "bibliography" is handled quite differently than in the STEM world, being a collection of things written about you rather than things that you have written.

As such, the particular venue of publication should not matter: a conference article about your work goes in the same general section as an art review.  Now, if you've got a lot of these, you might choose to organize into subsections to make it easier to see the most significant publications, but that's a refinement rather than a high-level guideline.


How to make thesis-writing feel less tedious? I'm about to finish my master's thesis on a TCS topic (algorithms). I'm quite happy with my results; the most engaging part of the thesis was grappling with getting up to speed on the state of the art, then taking that and developing new and/or more efficient algorithms for the specific model I'm working on. Proving that the algorithms actually work has been very satisfying as well.

However, I'm having a hard time sitting down and TeXing it all; it feels very tedious. I did write out the most important bits very soon after I had them figured out so I could give them to my advisor. Yet for the better part of the past two weeks, every day I considered getting down to it and putting it all together into a presentable thesis, eventually deciding to put it off for another day. As I'm hoping to do a PhD afterwards, I thought I should nip this in the bud so I won't be wasting time like this for too long.

What are effective methods to motivate myself to do what is necessary in research as efficiently as possible so I can focus more on the actually interesting, creative parts?

(I could not figure out how to tag this; feel free to edit tags)

There is a number of great answers speaking to organization and extrinsic motivation by now; I was wondering if anyone has had any success in finding/improving their intrinsic motivation with regard to writing? Possibly a change in attitude, maybe a point of view that may not have occurred to me that makes writing appear more useful?

tl;dr: Divide and conquer. –  aeismail♦

The Balloon Analogy
I used to hate writing with a passion. Trying to squeeze a 5 page paper out of me was like trying to juice a rock.
Eventually, though, I figured out the root cause for my procrastination.
The biggest sense of daunting I found when writing a paper is that you start with nothing, and have to end up with a significant something.
So, let's look at what you have set up. You create a new Word/TeX document, and it's there. Page 1 of 1. A blank page with that blinking cursor.
Pretty intimidating and most likely the reason why we push it off till tomorrow until it's due next week and then we've wasted forever. This is basically like us trying to inflate a big weather balloon. You do a little work, and it doesn't seem inflated at all.
I eventually got over this intimidation by reducing the size of the problem to its individual parts. Imagine trying to fill up a dozen individual party balloons with the same amount of air as the weather balloon. Each bit of inflating goes a long way, and a fully inflated mylar balloon is much easier to achieve.
Transforming one Big Balloon into a Bunch of Smaller Balloons
A strategy that we all learned in K-12 is outlining, which actually helps more now than it did then. Now, it doesn't have to be a formal outline. However, the idea behind the outline is that it can transform into a full-sized paper much more easily than a blank slate, for little actual effort in.
Stub out each individual section of your paper. If you have a glossary, add that. If you have a bunch of subsections, create them, and add the titles. Don't be afraid to dedicate an entire page to a chapter with no content, if you feel that eventually you will need it.
For basically 12 or so lines of typing, you've turned a single blank sheet into perhaps 8 or so pages with a rudimentary summary of what you're going to talk about. Filling out a single page or two is much less daunting than that previous 20-page paper we were fretting about before. This dividing and conquering of pages has turned 1 very large paper into 8 relatively easy to populate short papers.
Inflating the Balloons
After that, pick a section, any section, that you want to write. It doesn't have to be the introduction if you're drawing a blank. That's perfectly normal. I rewrote my introduction all the way to the end of my paper because the rest of the paper was evolving to include additional topics. Some sections needed more meat or could be expanded, others could be shortened or removed.
Now, type away at the keyboard on the section you've assigned to yourself until you fill it up or have run out of ideas. Wanted to write Chapter 5: Potatoes in Artwork? Go for it! Chapters 1 to 4 can wait until you're sufficiently inspired to do them, or have enough information from Chapter 5 to help give substance to the other chapters.
When you're done with the small subsection you're working on, you should evaluate whether you feel you can do more. Sometimes, after doing a relatively easy section, I enjoy tackling a somewhat harder piece and getting that out of the way. Other times, I'll need a break, and take one.
Basically, my strategy is that one shouldn't plan to, or even reasonably expect to, write the paper front to back.
Breaking the paper into parts, giving them sufficient weight so that you can see the progress as you go, and slowly but steadily inflate and become a full paper.

Author's Note: Yeah, for some reason now I write really long posts even when I don't mean to.


Double degree in mathematics and computer science for PhD admissions Long story short, I'm really interested in machine learning research and aim to get into a top CS PhD program. I recently got admitted to the best CS program (5 year bsc+msc) in my country but it is not exactly MIT. My main concerns are the lack of math and reputation. I am therefore considering starting another bachelor's in mathematical statistics in parallel.

Assuming I have the talent, ambition and drive to do it with good GPA and side projects, should I?

How beneficial would this be from a competence stand point for ML research?

How beneficial would this be for CS PhD admissions?

Math in CS program:

Single variable calculus

Multi variable calculus

Algebra and geometry (Linear algebra without proofs)

Discreet mathematics

Modelling and simulation

Numerical methods

Probability and statistics

Logic for computer scientists

Math in Bsc. Mathematical statistics:

Single variable calculus

Multi variable calculus

Linear algebra (with proofs)

Linear algebra advanced course

Discreet mathematics

Algebra and combinatorics

Analysis A

Analysis B

Foundations of analysis advanced course

Complex analysis

Abstract Algebra

Mathematical logic

Probability 1

Probability 2

Statistical analysis

Stochastic processes and simulation 1

Stochastic processes and simulation 2

Categorical data analysis

Linear statistical models

Theory of statistical inference

So what do you all think?

A PhD is a first and foremost a research degree. Having some research experience will be much better than a whole bunch more bachelor's level classes. Instead of doing a double bachelor's, spend that time doing research during your MS degree. Having a published journal or conference paper will probably go a lot further in an application than a double BS


lecturing one subject with other lecturer's material I have been appointed to teach one course in Artificial Intelligence in one university. The reason was that the main lecturer is involved in other duties and for that reason he could not teach one group (there are two groups actually). The thing is that this lecturer has given me all the material: slides, exercises, exams, practices, final project and so on; and he told me explicitly to follow that material.

I have been always a big fan of the freedom of teaching. I mean I believe that if two different lecturers teach course X; then it would be better if they can get two different approaches for the same topics. The Faculty academic coordinator has told me that I must follow the material exactly, because the examinations would be the same for both groups.

I wonder what to do in this situation? I am keen to take published material as a reference for a course, but not to follow all the material exactly from the other lecturer like if I were some sort of "academic monkey" (that only mimics what the other has made). I really feel frustrated about this situation and I do not know what to do.

Usually when I have gotten into this situation, in which I had to drop one group and that group has been assigned to another lecturer. I have given him/her full freedom, and only we gather around for making the practices and exams together. I really believe that is the correct way to do this things.

Any advice?

PD Some clarification points:

The other lecturer and myself be both have the same rank, I mean we both are lecturers, only difference is that the other lecturer has taught the course before and that is why he was appointed coordinator of only that course.
In academic ranks, I got more academic background in CS (two master's already done); in the other hand he is a die hard programmer programmer that has participated in programming contests, but that's it. He has only a bachelor in Information Systems.
The material handed to me is simple, but it gets to my nerves that I must stick completely to it. I mean if a student is well prepared and every teacher follows the syllabic contents; then at the end it does not matter who made the final examinations. The student should be prepare for everything (except that the course is about, for example a Java certification, and I do not teach Java, but C). The point is that is a CS related course, and for that it should relies more in the algorithmic part that on some tricky-twisty programming stuff that tough programmers know.

In Academia there is always a lot of egos involved. Do not take it personal and let your ego get in the way. As you admit, you are not the main lecturer. He is. He prepared the slides, exercises, exams, practices, final project and so on. Excellent. Less work / stress for you. It is not your time to shine. In any job (academia or not) you must learn how to play "second fiddle" if needed. And this is one of these times.

On the other hand, teaching is much more than the slides, exercises, final project or exams. It is the teacher's personality, how he is in sync with the classroom needs, how to make the students participate in the course and how to make the lesson an unforgettable experience. You can and must try to do all these, regardless of the slides you use. So you can still make all the students want to watch your lecture (instead of his) if that is what it takes to boost your ego. Although it clearly is not a competition. It is just a job. So, do it as best as you can with the tools you are given. It is really that simple.

Update.

From the comments I see, there is too much focus on "No-one should tell how to teach...". But this is not really the point. If professor B was supposed to teach both lectures and due to a newly assigned duty he cannot, would not that be impolite / inconsiderate for the new professor (Layla) not to give her (at least) the materials and slides he uses? If someone steps in for me, I would most certainly do all the necessary work for my coleague to have the most seamless transition by alleviating some of the stress /work for preparing lectures / slides, exercises. And if I was the subsitute I would appreciate this offer. Why must egos be involved in such a process and why should anyone not accept the offer given? If this situation continues for the next semester - year, Layla should have a saying on how the lecture should be done. But for this year I do not see the point in making too much fuss over it.


Updating sci-hub manuscript version The manuscripts version made online in journals are often updated. For example, from the "Accepted" to "Final" version.

Many times the version retrieved by sci-hub is outdated, is there any way to force sci-hub to get the last published version?

A reload button does not show up anymore.

Also, this problem is likely related to storage of pre-print versions in sci-hub databases. From what I know, sci-hub only uses credentials on the first request for a paper. At that moment, it also saves a copy of the pdf and that copy is what is given as a result on subsequent requests.

So, I guess a solution to this problem has to involve updates to sci-hub's database.


Should I submit a personal statement even if the program doesn't require one? One of the programs I'm applying to doesn't even mention a personal statement, but I have one written for other programs that do require it. Should I submit it anyway under the document upload section, or just leave it out?

You can certainly ask the program if they'd be OK with you sending a statement of purpose (or anything else they didn’t ask for) in addition to the rest of the application. If so, then go ahead. But in general, you shouldn't provide information that isn't requested for by the program in question. Information not asked might may not be considered, and may hurt your application.


What is the expected level of commitment for postdoc positions? Recently there have been a couple of questions generating discussion on the level of personal commitment required for PhD positions and what kind of personal sacrifices students should be willing to make if they want to do a PhD. I wanted to ask similar questions but as someone thinking about pursuing a postdoc.
I love doing research. I love the freedom to think about projects that I find interesting and chipping away at them piece by piece. I also love university/research environments and having the resources to constantly be learning. The thing is, more than a year ago, I had a period of burnout and poor mental/physical health that I am still recovering from (actively, with the help of therapists etc). Part of this recovery is that I can no longer work as hard and for as long as I previously could. I sometimes struggle with 8 hour work days. While I am now much better than I was, I don't know how long it will take before I can again function at my best. Possibly it will take at least several more years. Given this, I don't plan on ever applying for a professor position since I think I physically will be unable to handle the tenure track years. But I was hoping to stick around in academia for as long as I can doing postdocs (in my area, doing at least two postdocs is common prior to applying for tenure-track) to keep doing what I love. Luckily during this time, money is not likely to be much of an issue, and probably when people stop hiring me after I've done too many postdocs, I will look for a more boring job.
In terms of my research output, I have had remarkable luck in the projects I have been working on, and have been producing results despite reduced effort. I still have a few years before I'm due to finish my PhD, but currently, I may finish as a competitive candidate for a postdoc. The question I'm now mulling over is whether I should be applying for one when the time comes. Will it be unfair to the PI who hires me to insist on a work-life balance? Will it be dishonest to take up postdoc positions if I do not intend to go further in academia (and taking them away from candidates who might)? Is it even realistic to expect to be able to do a postdoc with (on average) ~8 hour days? I'm also considering the possibility of taking a few months to a year off between PhD and postdoc to more intensively work on my recovery, but I've heard that these breaks might make me look bad as a candidate -- just how bad would this be?
If it is ok to apply, would it be dishonest to not reveal to the PI that I do not intend to stay in academia? Also at what point in the hiring process ideally would a conversation about expectations take place?

Every position is different. Every PI is different. Every field is different. In math you can probably set your schedule to suit yourself. In some lab sciences with demanding PIs it isn't so easy. But a few points to consider:
First it is fair to explore your working conditions before you start, though it may be a bit risky. If you can manage a visit, you may be able to get a sense of it from other post docs at the institution. But you can also just ask for expectations. You aren't required to damage your health, but some PIs don't know where to draw the line.
Next, you may find that the burnout you experienced and your need for a reduced schedule doesn't continue into the future and it might just go away. Lots of people have such a period, some in the middle of their studies and some shortly after. But a change of scenery, literally, might have a positive effect.
Don't worry about the future too much. Your situation, health, and attitudes may change. But a positive post doc experience could go a long way to helping. Many professors work long hours, but it is because they truly love to do the work. It ceases to be a job and becomes an avocation. What could be better than to be paid to think?
If you take time off, make sure you can explain it as something other than recovery. Have a flexible plan for your return if you decide to do that, and find something to do that keeps you from getting rusty. If you come back, you want to seem enthusiastic about it to anyone who reviews your CV and SoP.


A tenured position with less pay and less responsibilities than a professorship At the moment I am a (soon to be graduating) PhD student. The reason I went to graduate school is that I love doing research. In graduate school I discovered that I absolutely hate teaching but I had to do some of it to avoid starving to death (though I tried to do a reasonably good job since I recognize it is not the students' fault that I hate teaching).

I know there are some teaching-free postdocs at R1 institutions. They can be rather difficult to get but my discussions with some senior people seem to indicate that my publication record could get me such a postdoc. However, teaching-free permanent academic positions seem to be much less common (in my field, there are places like IAS, IHES and some smaller institutions, it seems almost exclusively in Europe).

The question is is it possible to "downgrade" a normal professorship at an R1 institution (in US) in the following way: I don't have to participate in any administrative or teaching activities, I have tenure and I get paid less (say, 65% less)? I think I still could survive on such a salary. I am afraid to ask senior people I know about this since this kind a question conceivably might worsen their opinion of me.

I’m sorry to disappoint you, but at US R1 universities, a position like the one you imagine doesn’t exist. To have a job with tenure at any salary, you have to teach and do some administrative duties.

If you win a Nobel prize or move to France on the other hand, the possibility of you getting a tenured research-only position may become more realistic. See this question for more details.


Is it OK to select an editor if I solved his conjecture? I am about to submit a paper to a respected math journal. In this paper I solved a conjecture that was raised by a member of the editorial board (and this is one of the main reasons I chose this journal).

When submitting, I need to choose a member of the editorial board to handle my submission. Given his relation to this paper, is it OK if I list this person as the requested handling editor? Or does this cause some problem?

In fact, I think that is the best choice!  That guy is likely to know more about the subject, and be aware of previous attempted solutions.


My adviser is leaving. Can I ask him to support my application for an other PhD position? A little background:

I started my PhD in August 2019 at university X. I wanted to work on project A, but after I joined PhD, my adviser asked me to work on project B. He said that if I start working on project A, he won't be able to help me in any matter. He's a very nice guy, he said that I can work on whatever the project I want. I decided to start working on project B because I don't want to get lost and have nobody to help me out. (I had a horrible experience in my MS where I worked on a project about which my MS adviser didn't have any knowledge).

For the last 4 months, I have been working on project B. It's okay, but I don't feel happy about it. It doesn't motivate me. It doesn't give those internal joy-feelings.

Current situation:

My adviser is leaving this university and moving to university Y. He has offered me three options:

Change research group and stay in university X
I stay at university X and he will supervise me from university Y (he becomes an adjoint faculty, if department chair allows)
Move out with him to university Y and start working on a new project (which is also not of my interests)

I don't want to choose option#2, for sure. Option#1 is also not quite suitable for me because no professor here is working on something that interests me (quantum machine learning). The salary that I am getting from university X is much more than the salary that I will receive from university Y. I might choose Option#3, because at least I know that this professor is a very open-minded, nice and genius guy. I have to make a decision before June 2020.

Question:

I want to apply for an other PhD position, the one which really interests me. Is it okay if I ask my current adviser to give me a recommendation letter and support my application? What reaction of him should I expect?

Your advisor has offered three options. You have a fourth. My best guess is that the advisor just forgot that fourth option rather than considered and rejected it.

I strongly suggest that you ask him for your support in starting over at a different university. Any ethical advisor should support you. If you've been doing good work, they should support you strongly.

In your request, though, I'd do two things. The first is to talk about the research trajectory that you would like to get on and suggest a few places (and even professors) where it would be possible. The second is to ask, also, for his suggestions about places to pursue your goals. He may well have contacts that can be useful to you in changing. Try to make your change a cooperative endeavor with the professor, not a break. The future may hold collaborative opportunities if you work it right.


How to Quote an ICD 10 Chapter in Vancouver style? I want to quote a chapter from ICD10 in vancouver format. I have searched whole web for some references on this. But I could not find anything. I am a newbie here. Can some one please help.

This is the chapter title "Chapter XVI Certain conditions originating in the perinatal period (P00-P96)"

ICD-10 Classifications of Mental and Behavioural Disorder: Clinical Descriptions and Disgnostic Guidelines. Geneva. World Health Organisation. 1992.

This is my reference:
http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/ReferenceListEnsBal.pdf


arXiv is running out of IDs -- is their solution known? I just noticed that arXiv.org is basically running out of monthly IDs, as can be seen in this graph (source [13-12-09]):

They have gone over 8000 monthly submissions 3 times in last 1.5 years. With the steady increase in the number of submissions, it can be expected that it gets over 10000 in cca 2 years. However, the current ID format is restricted to 4 digits, i.e., 10000 submissions.

I haven't found any information regarding this on the webpage. So: How will the submission IDs look like if they don't fit into the scheme? It interests me because in some helper applications, I tend to rely on the yyyy.xxxx format of the IDs.

The format presumed in the question is incorrect. The format is YYMM.NNNN, rather than YYYY.NNNN. Shortening the year to YY and including the month as MM gives a factor of 12 increase in the number of available IDs. Version numbers are appended to the ID, as v1, v2, and so on. That said, it is still a problem, but arxiv have thought about it.

  NNNN is a zero-padded sequence number starting at 0001 and permitting up to 9999 submissions per month. If current growth rates
  continue, we expect to change the sequence number to 5-digits NNNNN in
  10 to 15 years. We will do this in a uniform fashion so that, likely
  starting on some year boundary, all subsequent identifiers are
  zero-padded to 5-digits. We cannot currently anticipate extension
  beyond that although extension to 6-digits would be possible.

This was posted in 2007 so we are 6 or so years into their 10-15 year window. Submissions of multiple versions might grant some extra headroom, however it does appear that we could run into problems in about two years. It looks like they underestimated their growth a little bit!

Status change in 2015. arXiv.org switched to 5-digit IDs in January 2015. The format is now YYMM.NNNNN or YYMM.NNNNNvV.


Advisors and publishing - new field for postdoc To what extent does ones ability to publish depend on their postdoc advisor, especially in a new field? I switched fields from my PhD to postdoc and it's taken my entire first year to build up the knowledge and understanding I need to make contributions to the new field. However, my postdoc advisor is overstretched and barely has any time for me, and I would've thought they'd give me MORE of their attention seeing as the field is new to me.  Should I consider leaving and finding a more hands-on postdoc advisor or try to hope this second year will be more productive? Or should I not focus on publications if my goal is an industry position (so I only plan 2 years maximum as a postdoc)? Already a year has gone by and I am worried I will spend 2 years with nothing to show.

(Note: I am not a bench scientist.)

Your problem is not uncommon, especially in post-doc programmes. The level at which an advisor would dedicate his time to a post-doc fellow would vary widely among universities and countries.

From the possible viewpoint of your advisor: as a qualified PhD, you are considered to have sufficient skills to do progressive research (even on a relatively new field) and frame a paper by yourself. Certain advisors merely proof check your work for their part. Some may do more than that and some even less.

This is not always negative. Some may recall this a luxury. It gives one freedom to explore. Hence the way you look at this is subjective.

Note that not all advisors come into the above category. There are dedicated advisors who provide substantial support for their postdoctoral fellows. It would be generally better to network students from prospective advisors to get a better idea of the support they provide before you enter another post-doc programme. Although it may not always ascertain that your situation may change.

If you believe you do require assistance for your new topic, the advisor is not your only hope; you could try to find a mentor who could provide you the domain support you need. If you could find another advisor to switch to who would suit your preferences (backed up by the networking as described), then you may make the move. The final choice is ultimately up to you.


My accepted paper now appears as "under review" - could it still be rejected? I have a paper that was accepted at a conference and in publication of conference special issues of a journal. The acceptance email stated that we will be contacted by the journal editorial office for further actions regarding the publication.

At the time of acceptance the status was “editorial assessment”
But this changed to “under review” again about a week after.
Now the status changed to “reviews received”.
Why could this happen? It was already peer reviewed before. I am confused and anxious and it will get rejected. Any thoughts?

It seems to me that the conference committee accepted your paper to be presented.
The related proceeding is then  subjected to its own revision according to the journal standards.

This is what I get from your Q - in which is not that clear who has accepted what - and it is a common work-flow for many conferences when the proceedings are to appear in a journal, albeit in a special issue of it.

Alternatively, the editor at the journal could have decided to consult one more referee. This can happen, of course.
But in this situation you shouldn't have received any acceptance letter from the journal, yet, but only that coming from the conference organisers and regarding your actual presentation at the conference only. Hope it helps and good luck.


How do you cite a paper that you found online? I found this paper online and would like to cite it. I've looked up the rules for citing conference papers, but this is not a conference paper. It's also not a book and not a website and not an essay. It looks like this image may have the correct format, but I can't tell exactly what information is what.

How do I cite any paper? (MLA is preferred, but multiple citation styles would be ideal.)

The first step is figuring out if it has been published in some form elsewhere. Recognize that people often put some draft version on their personal website to make the full text available, especially if they're not allowed to host the published version.

In this case inspecting the URL gives some hints*. Consider omitting the "joerg.pdf" part, and go to John Harrison's Complete publications list, which further links to this page. Both these pages can tell you that this document is a chapter in a handbook:

  History of Interactive Theorem Proving

  John Harrison, Josef Urban and Freek Wiedijk.

  In Jörg Siekmann (ed), Handbook of the History of Logic, vol. 9: Computational Logic, Elsevier, pp. 135-214 (2014).

(The last link even provides a citation in bibtex form, but it uses the InProceedings form. I would probably use the InCollection style instead. Elsevier seem to agree.)

In MLA, book chapter references can be written

  Last, First M. "Section Title." Book/Anthology. Ed. First M. Last. City: Publisher, Year Published. Page(s).

For this document, you'd have something like

  Harrison, J., Urban, J., and Wiedijk, F. "History of Interactive Theorem Proving." Handbook of the History of Logic, vol. 9: Computational Logic, edited by Siekmann, J. Elsevier, 2014, 135--214.

*In cases when the URL doesn't reveal anything, consider searching for the title and authors in a search engine. This can often lead you to a more official version.


Why is it forbidden by the IEEE to post 'author-submitted' papers on ArXiv? I am reading IEEE's policy on uploading a conference paper to other venues such as arxiv. Here is the current policy: https://conferences.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/get-published/post-your-paper/.
What is confusing me is that IEEE differentiates between preprint and author-submitted paper, where it is okay to put a pre-print on ArXiv, but not okay to put the author-submitted version.

Is the following understanding of the rules correct? One is allowed to upload any version of the paper to ArXiv except for (1) the version submitted for peer-review, prior to any changes being made to the paper, i.e., before addressing the reviewers comments, and (2) the final version of the paper, which is different from the accepted version, as it undergoes final styling and copy-editing.

Also, on a meta level, what is the logic between allowing preprints, but not author-submitted papers, and how much difference does there have to be between the two versions to not count as the same?

what is the logic between allowing preprints, but not author-submitted papers?

There is no logic behind this. It is part of the culture of publishers who want to restrict access as much as possible, so they can profit from selling closed-access research.

If it were just up to publishers, I don't think IEEE would allow preprints, either. But they make an exception for arXiv because the culture has changed such that people want to make their papers available there. Additionally, note that it is valid to post any version of your paper other than the final copy-edited version online on your website.

(Note: if you ask IEEE, they might come up with some reason for it. Perhaps they treat submitting to arXiv as a competing submission, and since you can't submit elsewhere while a paper is under review, you shouldn't be able to submit to arXiv either. But I don't think this objection holds water, because arXiv and posting to a personal website have similar effects. Also, I don't think it is the real reason, which is that their business model relies on limiting paper access to some extent or another.)

  What is confusing me is that IEEE differentiates between preprint and author-submitted paper, where it is okay to put a pre-print on arXiv, but not okay to put the author-submitted version.

It's worth pointing out that many researchers do wait to publish online until a paper is accepted. The idea is that papers go through lots of revisions, and the title, narrative, and main results of a paper could change after it goes through the publication process (possibly being rejected a few times). So, you may not want people to read the draft version and get a bad idea (or wrong idea) about where your work fits, and you prefer to make only the most impressive and clarified version available.

  how much difference does there have to be between the two versions to not count as the same?

There is no rule here, as far as I know. It could even be the same version, but that probably means you ignored the reviews, which is a bad thing. Often for my papers, there is also zero difference between the preprint and the "final" version, other than it having a new template and formatting to look pretty, which doesn't really matter. (And I prefer to treat the preprint as the real "final" version.)


Are search committees often interested in someone who will add to their department's expertise? One rejection letter I received had the following words:

  Careful consideration was given ... to the relationship of each applicant’s qualifications to the existing capabilities and needs in our program.

I take this to mean that the department was looking for someone whose areas of expertise were not already covered by other faculty members in the department.

Is it often the case that search committees are most interested in someone who can add to their department's research and teaching strong areas? Do I have a better chance of getting a position in a department whose strengths overlap only a little with mine?

Not at all. I'd wager that a majority of hires are replacements to, or additions to, existing interest-groups.

In mathematics, anyway, there is a substantial scientific conservatism, in the sense of caution about change, as well as extreme uneasiness about "new things one is unable to expertly appraise". I guess the good side is that people are wary of being bamboozled, wary of semi-cranks, wary of flash-in-the-pan fads, ... but, also, it creates difficulties in hiring outside already-established expertise.

Another point would be that a hire outside existing areas would not add to any existing area's "turf", so only the altruistic entities would be in favor of it, barring some deal-sweetening arrangement. A similar mild negative would be that it would effectively reduce the weight of pre-existing turf-areas' "vote" in policy and other matters. Who would vote away the strength of their own vote? :)

And it is my observation that this sort of realpolitick would outweigh impulses to "get on the bandwagon", although perhaps not so hugely but that it could still happen.

But, then, if the "new" field is not a "hot new thing", and the given department has no one in that area, I'd bet that there's essentially zero motivation for them to make a hire in that direction. "Can't do everything." ???

So, probably the answer to the question is "no", in most operational situations.


Would it be alright to break down the Acknowledgements into sections? Would it be alright to break down the acknowledgements of a thesis into a few small sections with individual section headings?
For example:

Academic and Professional Acknowledgements
Personal Acknowledgements
Funding Acknowledgements

This is because I have seen some long acknowledgements and I was wondering whether breaking down the acknowledgements in this manner would help organize the components better?
In the event that someone plans to read my thesis (such as for a potential post-doc position), I assume that they might at least skim through the acknowledgements to see the academics/researchers I have worked with and also the funding received. Therefore breaking down the acknowledgements into smaller sections might make it easier. However I have not seen this done so I was wondering whether it would be an acceptable thing to do or whether it might be frowned upon?

Provided that you don't get pushback from your advisor or committee, I think it should be fine. Those are the main concerns about style for a dissertation. If you send it out for publication, the editor may accept it or not.
But write it they way you think it should be and consider any advice you get from folks that have influence over you.


Thanking people in a journal article I am soon submitting my first paper to a journal (in the humanities) and am unsure of the proper etiquette/practices of doing this. Some questions I have are:

Do I include the acknowledgements in the initial manuscript I submit, or should these be added after review and acceptance?
Is it appropriate to thank professors who have given general good writing and research advice (during office hours and emails instigated by me) when they did not specifically relate to the content of my paper (but have been helpful in the writing and research of it)?
Do I need to notify people I am planning to thank in advance? For example, if I received constructive feedback from a noteworthy person in my field, could it be potentially damaging to their high reputation if someone (new) like me thanks them?
Do I need to thank my home university when most of the research has been conducted during time off between BA graduation and MA program acceptance?

You should probably include the acknowledgements in the original article so as to get a little feedback on that from the journal in case you overdo it.

The most important thing is to thank anyone or any organization that contributed directly to your work. That might include your university. I wouldn't, personally, have any objection to general thanks to your professors, but a journal might.

It isn't really necessary to inform people that you will ack them but you might want to send a copy of your submission (or the final version) to them with your personal thanks. I think that specifically thanking a superstar is a good thing, actually, and may someday come back to your benefit. It can strengthen your circle of contacts in any case. So, not necessary, but fine to do.


Should I use hypophora in my SOP? Hypophora is the question similar to question tag:

I want to shift the discipline from physics to biology. Why? Because, ...

Should I ask this kind of question in my SOP?

Function of Hypophora
The major purpose of using hypophora is to create curiosity among the
readers, while a well-timed silence produces heightened effects and
creates interest. It helps to capture the attention of the audience.
However, hypophora can also be employed to introduce new discussions
or topics of importance about which the readers might not have
information. Also, it can be used as a directional device to change
the topic. It can raise that type of questions which readers might
already have on their minds and would like to get answers to. In
addition, it is frequently used in political speeches as well as
literary works.

I don't think it will make any harm, but I'm not sure. Why? Because this comment makes me have to rethink of any, erm, nonstandard things.

I can't speak for all disciplines but in biomedical science this is generally considered an inefficient way of writing because the same sentence can be simplified to

  My reason(s) of shifting to biology from physics is(are)...

It's also considered tacky but I probably have to attribute that to overuse and misuse. I will only use hypophora if the statement is highly unusual or seemingly illogical. This is a bad use because the statement is not dramatic:

  To make tea I first need to bring the water to boiling. Why? Because...

Contrasting to:

  To make tea I first need to bring the water to boiling with a silver spoon in the kettle. Why? Because...

is probably synchronizing better with the readers' mental rhythm: "Huh? Why the heck would you put a silver spoon in it?" Then the following "Why?" would serve a better role: to resonate with the readers.

Surely enough in my own field nothing is dramatic enough for me to deploy this expression. Is "shifting from physics to biology" unusual enough to raise eyebrows? I am not sure without too much context. My gut sense is perhaps not because I'd categorize them both under the school of science and they do go together quite well. I'd think "shifting to biology after spending 10 years studying physics" or "shifting to biology from classical string performance study" may probably deserve a "Why?" Although, this is purely opinion.

The part after the "Because..." deserves attention as well. Make sure it's followed by a very compelling reason, or your "Why?" may be tainted with a taste of self-doubting or still-on-a-soul-searching instead of persuasion.

In any case, expressions like such are unlikely very harmful if used sparingly. They also serve to inject some liveliness into the statement. I'd consider using no more than once in a statement acceptable.


Asked again to review a paper, when the authors don't wish to modify it I have received a manuscript to review for a journal. The interesting thing is, I had already reviewed this article (exact same title, abstract and author list, almost exact same content) for another journal a few weeks ago where I recommended that it be published, but only after major revisions of both form and content. When I first reviewed it, I wrote a two-page review, listing some questions and several “actionable” comments, ranging from some concerns about exactness of the text (some conclusions didn't seem fully backed by the results) all the way down to trivial stuff (grammar, a few typos, graphic issues with the figures, etc.).

Now, the manuscript has come to me for review again, but it is almost unchanged from the first version. None of the serious stuff has been addressed, and even most of the trivial stuff was not fixed (there's at least one remaining typo, and the figures still aren't fully legible). However, I think this behavior from the authors is clearly a bad signal, which should be somehow conveyed to the editor: they're not willing to amend their work, and would rather do some journal-shopping.

What would you suggest me to do? Should I just re-send my earlier review? Add a note to the editor about my knowledge of the “history” of the paper? Or maybe even include it in my review, so the authors are aware that people know of their behavior, and maybe feel bad enough to change their ways?

PS: I wrote it in the present tense, but it's actually a story from my past. I'm not sure I did the right thing at the time, and I think it's better to actually formulate it as an open question…

Personally, I would inform the editors of both journals. For the new editor, I would attach your earlier review, and recommend rejection.

Then it's up to the new editor to decide what to do in this situation. This falls in the category of ethical problems, and I think most journals recommend that reviewers contact the editor immediately in such a situation. Perhaps the journal has a policy for this, or the editor may discuss the matter with other editors or the chief editor.

Let me add why I find it unethical. Peer review relies upon the volunteer labour of anonymous reviewers. Reviewers may invest significant time, and do not really get anything in return. If authors of a manuscript completely ignore reviews, and instead submit an unchanged manuscript somewhere else, I would, as a reviewer, be quite annoyed. At the very least they could reply to the reviews, state point-by-point that they disagree, refuse to change anything and then submit it somewhere else; but completely ignoring is wasting peoples time.


Trying to volunteer as a research assistant post-Master's and not having any success so far I'm an MS in CompSci grad who wants to do a PhD someday. The one thing I don't have from my time in undergrad and MS is significant research experience. Of course, I did undergrad research but was never published in any papers. I make a lot as a professional and want to volunteer(read, free) part-time doing research for a professor or lab post-graduation, but I have no idea how to approach this or even find interest amongst professors or labs. Any ideas?

Edit: Undiagnosed disability crippled my undergraduate performance. I was unmedicated, untreated, and had no idea on how to cope. I really managed to redeem myself through my graduate performance and am basically looking for a second chance. If anyone has disability-specific resources as well, that would be great.

It's probably going to be a bit difficult to get a professor to agree to take you on as a "volunteer," because they see it (in my personal experience) as a time-sink from what they're really trying to accomplish, which is train students, teach, get grants, and publish. This is especially the case for a potential "part-time" student, since research generally requires full-time focus to make good progress.

If you really wanted to pursue that path, I would recommend using your network. Do you have someone from your MS program who might be willing to write a rec letter to a colleague they know reasonably well? With a good introduction to pave the way, you are more likely to at least get a first conversation. Another avenue would be to get involved in your local chapter of your relevant academic society like IEEE. That might take some time, but would eventually be likely to lead somewhere in terms of opening doors to local researchers.

Finally, even if you don't get accepted on your first try, it's not a waste of time to at least try applying to your program of interest. Can't you consider some of your current work experience as "research experience"? Surely your work as a MS-grad isn't purely rote data entry or something. Maybe you have some patents or other quantifiable work products that could stand in for publications? If not, would you be willing to accept an MS position at the same institution that might get your foot in the door for a later transition to PhD?


Springer’s book-chapter sharing policies Last year I submitted an article to a peer-reviewed book to be added as a chapter. Finally, my article got accepted and it is ready for publication. The publisher is going to be Springer.

I would like to share a copy of my article on my website and with my colleagues through the university repository. My concern is that I am not sure whether I can do it or not.

Springer has some sharing policies for journal articles. You can share a preprint version with a link to the published one (via DOI). However, it is not clear whether I can do that with a book chapter.

Can someone with similar experience clarify this?

This is the answer I got from Springer for a smiliar question:

"Thank you for getting in touch. Springer doesn’t have a green OA policy at this time. Chapter authors would need to choose the gold OA route. We are able to offer gold OA for chapters already published (retrospective OA) in cases where the authors need to fulfill a funder OA mandate.

Our policies regarding OA books can be found here: https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/policies/book-policies

Please feel free to be in touch if you have further questions—I’m happy to help."


As a PhD student, should I attend group meetings when they just make me feel bad? Should I attend group meetings? In our group meetings, scientific issues (experiment or results) are not discussed, participants only tell their situations (I will have a paper) or material, economic issues are discussed.
I am currently a PhD student and I will complete my second year in next September. I do not want to attend group meetings in any way. There are only two PhD students.
Since the first group meeting I have felt very bad because all I could say was that I was reading articles, I had not started my experiments. Then I started my experiments, and our group leader asked me 'are you still in the lab?' It was like pinning. I don't know, maybe that's his style. But attending group meetings makes me feel bad because I am the most inexperienced member in the group.
I have no problem with my advisor, I also had good results with my work which will be published.
In one of these meetings, the group leader said that to me 'She needs tutoring', but we have never met him except for dinner. I don't think it's fair. I am doing my doctorate in Germany and as someone from Bosnia, I don't know their culture.
I cannot decide whether to attend the meetings or not.
11 people, others are professors or doctors.

Most commonly, PhD students are required to attend group meetings.  Often, the supervisor can make whatever rules about group meetings the supervisor wants to make.  Ask them.
The group meetings ought to help you become less inexperienced.  If it's not working well for you, tell your supervisor about it.  If that does not help, discuss it with another faculty member who is familiar with local practices.  You might also get help from a counseling office or office for international students.


Deferring admission to a computer science graduate program Background: I have the opportunity to pursue a Computer Science graduate degree at a well respected program (around top 20). I spoke with the professors at the university and I feel like I am a good fit with their research program. My ultimate pursuits are to complete a PhD in CS. I've done research as an undergraduate and it has only confirmed my notion that I want to pursue a research track career.

More background: I applied to jobs (in case I was rejected to all the programs I applied for) prior to hearing back from my respective graduate programs. I accepted a position for an industry job (this was to secure I wouldn't be both unemployed & not in school).

Dilemma: Turns out my top graduate school is very interested in me, and I'm very interested in them. I would rather go to graduate school than work in industry forever. The industry job pays very well. I am split between A) working for a maximum of 1 year(It would only be 1 year, seriously I do not care about the money enough to work past a year) and B) going straight to graduate school.

My concerns are as follows, if I choose A):

Could I potentially defer my admissions?
If I am not allowed to defer my admissions, would I have a good chance of re-applying and being accepted a year later?
Would my potential advisers look down on me for deciding to work a year?

I already made my mind up it would be a 1 year gig if I decide A). I know some people say once you make money, you may not be able to readjust to the graduate salary pay. But I don't think that will apply to because I'm going to live very frugally with or without industry pay.

I'm afraid I have contradictory advice.

If you've been offered a funded place, there is no guarantee the funding will still be there in a year.  What you know is that you are good enough to get into a grad school, but there is a luck component too.  The school I went to told us that 1 in 10 applicants was good enough to get in, but less than 1 of 3 of those "good enough" could have places any particular year.  This is both because of funding constraints & because supervisors can only supervise so many people well at one time.  So you are very likely really deciding whether to work before going through the application process again.
Nevertheless, I agree with Sylvain that it is not a good idea to do a PhD always wondering whether you would have liked industry better.  I worked for 5 years before doing my PhD, and now I'm an associate professor.  Two things make this route hard though: 1) getting used to making money (I addressed this by putting most of my salary in savings) and 2) getting used to being treated as an adult.  But there is a big win when you hit the hard parts of your PhD & think "would I be happier in industry?  Nah, that was boring."  Friends that were academically stronger than but lacked that certainty had a tougher time during the troughs than I did.


When submitting a paper, should I match the keywords to MeSH terms? I understand the importance MeSH  had in the past when google scholar (and similar tools) did not exist.

However, with all the websites that enhance your searches, like Mendeley, Academia.edu, and Google is there any reason to stick to MeSH terms? Or should I use keywords at my will?

For example, suppose I want to submit a paper that discusses some theoretical elements of structural equation model (a group of statistical methods), however there is no MeSH term that quite represents that. The closest one, would be "linear models". In this case, should I use a created keyword like "structural equation model", or sould I stick to "linear models" wich is more general, but is listed by pubmed.com?

Keywords were supposed to be, considerably, fixed based on Medical System Headings (MeSH), when the aforementioned web-based searching systems were not still at the service.

Nowadays, the researchers often try to take scrutinized search into account to acquire their target papers and resources, as close as possible to their contextual subject. If you are doing a specific regime of research, do consider the to-the-aim keywords, specialized for your work. Because they will be traced by the search engines, efficiently.


What is the difference between DBLP and Microsoft Academic Search Graph Dataset? Recently Microsoft has released a dataset, Microsoft Academic Graph. I have used DBLP dataset before. I want to know what is the difference between these two datasets.

I am not very familiar with both data sets. But it is pretty clear to me that the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) data set is much more comprehensive than the DBLP one in at least one aspect: field of study. As far as I know, DBLP data set covers only computer science subject domain, whereas MAG's coverage goes far beyond that. For more details, see this relevant MSR paper.


For German undergraduate and graduate math classes, does the professor or assistant write the exercise sheets? For German undergraduate and graduate math classes, does the professor or assistant write the exercise sheets?

In the United States it is typical for the professor to write them. I am curious what the situation is like in Germany.

At my university in every class I had and heard of the assistant wrote the exercise sheets(and often the exam too). Many times the professor did not even fully know which tasks are on the current sheet. Of course this varies a bit, in later more advanced classes the professor is typically more involved in the exercises.


Authorship of an article based on semester project I was teaching a graduate course in previous semester. One of my student implemented an idea I discussed with him during semester project. The results are astonishing and we decided to publish our findings in a prestigious journal.
I included his supervisor as co-author, and before submission I sent the manuscript to him for his feedback. But in response he said, he should be second and corresponding author. He has zero contribution in idea, write up and experiments etc. The student told me his professor is angry to him that why he is publishing article with other professor; although, it was outcome of semester project based on my idea.  Being a young faculty member how to handle this situation (Professor is very senior person in his 60s)? especially without hurting the relationship between student and his supervisor.

What is considered normal, hence ethical, varies by field. In mathematics, this would be a highly unusual situation. But in some lab sciences, the PI is normally included on all publications since the lab itself exists only by their efforts.

I suspect you are in some such field and would then suggest that the senior professor should probably get his way. It may even be advantageous to have him as "corresponding" author as it may ease publication. In such fields readers understand these things and know who does the actual work. Thus it isn't considered to be a problem in those fields.

If you are a co-author it is probably as much as you can expect here. And maybe even that is impossible. But work to get an acknowledgement in the work, at least - especially if it says that the original idea came from you. You actually say that the student did the work of developing the idea, of course. If the student is "first author" it is a good outcome. The rest is just a bit of an arcane dance.

I think that if you don't press to hard for what might be considered in the field to be an unusual outcome that the relationship between the student and the senior professor will settle down sufficiently.


How to deal with presentation time running out in a scientific conference? I understand that it is not a good idea to speak more after your time is out during a conference presentation. So we generally distribute our total times among each slide depending the contents and priority during the preparation. But sometimes what happens one/two particular slides take little more time. As a results your time goes out before summarizing your presentation.

So I sometimes skip my summary and acknowledgement slides to avoid the loss of discussion time. I am wondering whether this is a good idea, or whether I should finish my talk with more 30–40 seconds?

First, some conferences have really strict timing and you will be given no extra time.
Second, if there is important slide or two, just do it. But make sure that you only slightly extend your time (e.g. 10%). If you are going to extend it by 50%, or 200% (I saw that, and I was pissed at both the speaker and even more - the chair for allowing that) - please, don't.
Side note: as a chair I am an ass. And while I give something like 1 min grace time (for 15 min talks), then after that:

speaker: "But there is an important slide afterwards!"
me: "But not as important as other participants' time."

EDIT: By all means I recommend rehearsing and finishing on, or before, time. I only answer the question - whether to use extra 40 sec for 2 unfinished slides or not. "You should prepare to avoid such situation" is as on-topic as "you should go fishing instead of attending a conference".
(If the question is "Given X, should I do A or B?" all legitimate answers should assume "X", even if it is a suboptimal/nasty/unprofessional/embarrassing situation.)


Nonacademic Letter of Recommendation for Masters I've been working as a TA for an on campus program for the last year and a half. The director really likes me; she has a Masters in Mathematics and runs the learning services program for the STEM programs but she doesn't teach or do research.

I'm planning on applying to Master's in Computer Science programs and want to eventually do work in mass education programs (like Khan Academy or Coursera). Would it be acceptable to ask for a letter of recommendation from her?

I figured it would be "different" in a good way; also, any other letters would be "average" at best. I was a good student but not much more in my classes.

it depends on the university, for instance on my university the hierarchy of letter of recommendations goes like this:

Top priority: Faculty (same/different institution)
Mid: Staff (on same institution)
Low: High-school Instructors

Of course having faculty give you letters of recommendation is better.
Just remember that "usually" you need 2-3 letters of recommendation.

I would suggest to use the letter of recommendation from this director that you mention, If and only if you cant get letters of recommendations from faculty.


How to increase your academic network through email I'm wanting to increase my academic network, particularly people who know me and my research. This is probably the goal of all researchers. Specifically I'm looking for ideas to do so through email.

I realize that face-to-face interactions are probably the best way to meet and network with other researchers. But conferences and symposiums are few and far between. I also realize that there are other ways, such as twitter, blogs, etc., but I've found for my field the academics tend to be on the conservative side on technology and email is the norm for communication.

A common technique is to email others when you publish, but I've found that receiving cold emails or emails on research not directly to my own to be like receiving academic spam. There must be simple ways to make introductions through email and connect on the research front without being intrusive.

Ideas?

First, I would suggest recognizing that a network is not a goal, but instead both

a means to achieving your scientific goals and
hopefully including a subset who you just plain enjoy interacting with

The second part can only really emerge organically, so let's focus on the first part, which is where the sort of "cold call" emails you are talking about come in.  I think that you have correctly identified that "cold calls" are pretty much always ineffectual, because most people worth talking to already have an input buffer overflowing with worthless and impersonal cold calls.

If you approach the interaction from the point of view of "how can I get this person to notice me" then you're pretty much consigning yourself to the same bin.  Instead, you need to have some context in which you have a legitimate reason for contacting the person that is not to be noticed.  The networking and knowledge is then a natural and beneficial side effect, rather than the purpose of the interaction.

Some examples of non-in-person contexts in which such interactions commonly occur:

Volunteering in the organization of a workshop, conference, or other academic or educational event.  Even for students, there are useful roles to play, which will also end up with you encountering a bunch of researchers.
Hosting an invited speaker: "If the mountain won't come to Muhammad then Muhammad must go to the mountain."
Actually doing research that interacts with the other researcher's work, and either asking for their advice, or contacting them to let them know you've built off their work in a way you think they may find interesting.

I'm sure I've just scratched the surface, and there are lots of other things that can help build your network.

Finally, any of these can further be mixed with getting an introduction from a mutual acquaintance, which can help get you past the "crap-filter."  If you do this, however, be aware that you are putting not just your own reputation but that of your acquaintance on the line as well.


Why do some conference have an "abstract submission" before the "paper submission"? I noticed that some conference have different deadline for paper submission: an "abstract" submission deadline, before the usual "paper" submission deadline.

For example, on the International Semantic Web Conference 2013 webpage you can read:

  Submission dates
  Abstracts: May 1, 2013
  Full Paper Submission: May 10, 2013

Why do they need the abstract before the paper?
To estimate how many papers they'll get?

From what I have observed, having a specific deadline for abstracts is used for two main reasons: having a rough idea of the number of submissions and organise a bidding for the reviewers.

Having the number of submissions can help deciding of a possible deadline extension and possible to "recruit" more PC members or reviewers if the number largely exceeds the expectation.

Organising a bidding based on the abstract allow the PC members to indicate their preference for each paper (e.g., I want to review this paper, I could review this paper, I couldn't review this paper), so that when the actual papers arrive, the distribution is already organised.


How much to say about a conditionally accepted paper on a resume? I am an undergraduate student who does research with a professor at my University. Recently we submitted a paper (which I am second author of) to a conference, and it was accepted with shepherding.

I'm obviously proud of my work, and would mention it even if there was no formal paper associated with it. But I also think mentioning that I helped write this paper would strengthen my resumé.

How can I responsibly present this on my resume? Can I say the title of the paper? (I feel like that's reasonable) It's submission status? (I feel like this is a no-no) I'm unfamiliar with the academic guidelines here.

Edit: I'm looking for an industry internship, if that's relevant to the question

I usually have three categories for papers on my CV:

Peer-reviewed accepted papers (if published they have the bibliographic info, otherwise they just say "Accepted by journal name")
Submitted preprints (with the month and journal of submission and a link to the readable preprint)
In preparation (means there's a file started but not finished)

You shouldn't move things from 2 to 1 until they're really officially accepted though.  Be honest and accurate, but list it.