Good multiple choice question for education I'm new to academia SE and I'm not sure if this question fits here, but I think this is the best place I can ask. Please let me know if this question doesn't fit here and suggest me better place to ask.

Let's say that I'm a teacher and there is a student. We ASSUME that if a multiple choice question is given, then we can predict the probability for each choice that the student will choose. For example, if a question have 4 choices A, B, C, and D, then we can predict that the student will choose each answers with probabilities 40%, 30%, 20%, 10%. We will always assume that A is the correct answer. Then my claim is the following:

  For education, it is better to give a problem with probabilities 50%, 50%, 0%, 0%, than 25%, 25%, 25%, 25%.

The intuition behind this claim is the following: if we give a question with same probabilities for each choices as 25%, then the student might randomly guess, and she may learn less from solving the question. However, when a student faces a problem with probabilities 50%, 50%, 0%, 0%, then she may choose between A and B. Here 0% means that she (almost) surely knows that C, D can't be an answer. If she did wrong (choose B instead of A), then she may learn more from it because she only need to see difference between A and B.

I want to find a suitable reference that justifies my claim, with some real experiments. I tried to search hard but I failed to find it. If anyone knows such reference (papers or whatever), please introduce it to me. Thanks in advance.

You could probably ask this as well on MathEducators. To be clear, I haven't found any academic study about it, but even if there was one, you should know in advance what you are expecting to achieve.

I interpret your answer as in: "Should multiple questions allow options to be eliminated with partial effort?"

The answer of course, is that it depends a lot. Think carefully about:

  What kind of test are you preparing?
  Is this a regular exam for elementary school that accumulates points which eventually determine if students are approved for the next year?
  If so, and if questions are easy already, I'd go for the equal chance for each alternative.

Or are you preparing an admission exam?
In easy admission exams, every bit of knowledge should count, so that the guys who knows nearly nothing is ahead of the one who knows nothing.
In difficult/competitive admission exams, people who are to be admitted are limited in their score by their performance accuracy, not by their knowledge, and possibly by their speed. So these tests are designed to have very good students getting around 70% of the maximum score. I've known such tests to contain this kind of problem either to mitigate the effect of very difficult questions (you give an easy way for the student), or to give time to the ones who master the subject well enough to think how to approach the problem even if they know a standard (and time consuming) solution method.

  What average score should students get?

Again, If you are expecting bad students to get good grades, maybe you shouldn't bother to make it even easier, but if you expect good students to have bad grades, then why not?

  Are you evaluating effort or just results?

Maybe you are giving 3 absurd options and 1 reasonable 1. Maybe you are giving 4 reasonable options, but some of them can be eliminated with knowledge of the subject. The first case only rewards students for reading the answers, while the seconds can measure some level of knowledge on the subject. Makings options impossible to eliminate rewards the student for the effort of solving the question, this is well represented in calculation intensive questions. But if the question is simple and "you either know it or you don't" (think asking who painted the Mona Lisa), you can make eliminating options difficult.

So effortless question does not give much room for allowing options to be eliminated, but work intensive question do. IMHO.


Can I have a PhD in mathematics or physics after having a bachelor degree in medicine? Can I have a PhD in mathematics or physics after having a bachelor degree in medicine provided that I score high in GRE physics or math?

I have had zero coursework in math or physics but I am not sure if I could greatly increase my chances into grad school by taking GRE and scoring highly in the test.

I'm not trying to show that I'm smart or anything but I think that mathematics is my cup of tea for I'm very passionate about it and I have studied analysis and algebra and quantum mechanics other things from standard textbooks getting help from resources such as MIT OCW.

The hard answer is a straight no.

Doing research level Mathematics or Physics requires a broad set of knowledge and maturity that takes years to achieve. GRE exams are quite crappy, they just ask a lot of questions on basic knowledge and arithmetic; but you won't see an integration by parts (first year maths).

But not everything is lost. There are fields where medicine and maths overlap, and definitely your expertise on one field and interest in learning the other can definitely help. Look at Biomathematics, Bioinformatics, and perhaps, Biophysics. I myself am a Physicist working in Bioinformatics. I do pure analysis of the data, but in the group we also have a wet lab, where my colleagues are trying (among other things) to come up with new creative ways to gather data more suited for our purposes.


Graduate coursework not taken for a degree- still relevant for graduate admissions? I have recently graduated with a Bachelor's degree in the United States and have taken a job as a research assistant at a large private research institution. Part of my employer's package involves free tuition for full time employees for up to 6 hours per semester, including graduate courses. I was considering taking advantage of this opportunity, and my PI and I have agreed that 3 hours per semester (1 class) would be a good compromise between wanting to work and gaining knowledge as an investment in my abilities as a research assistant. This is an exciting opportunity because my undergraduate alma mater was a relatively small institution with no niche coursework. My cumulative training up to this point has included being lucky to catch course offerings and being the beneficiary of summer REUs..so the opportunity to take niche coursework is highly lucrative for me. My question is as follows:

If I take 3 graduate courses (summer included), when I apply to graduate school down the line in about a year or two, should I report these courses and do they make any difference? Secondly, how do I put these courses under the education tab in my CV/resume?

The coursework is helpful, especially if you do well in them. It will show that you have understand and have experience with these concepts. The work is not as important as your research, but will be of some benefit. That being said, whether you can transfer them as academic credit towards your graduate degree will really depend upon the school.

As to your CV, simply add a section under education mentioning that you took courses at your new institute. You can list the courses under that and submit a transcript for them when you apply to graduate school.


How do I deal with my mentor giving first authorship of my project to a graduate student? I’m a senior undergraduate student who has been working in the same lab for over three years now.  Approximately two years ago, my mentor sat me down in his office and described a project to me.  He asked if I would want to put forth the work to be first author on the project.  I said yes and adopted the project as my primary focus for the next one year and more.

This was never solely my project; there were a few graduate students who would provide guidance and some help with assays.  However, I unequivocally did the most work on the project.  I played a major role in the writing process and created six of the seven figures. I also presented a poster of this work (on which I was listed as first author) at an international conference.

Now, as we are getting close to submitting, I have found out that my mentor plans to put one of the graduate students on the project in the first author position.  He is unaware that I know this.  I feel that I can say rather objectively that this student by no means deserves first authorship.  In fact, he is well known for his laziness and probably doesn’t even deserve second authorship.  The reason this is happening is because he and my mentor are very good friends outside of the lab.  The student is frequently granted benefits and immunities because of this.

Please, I would appreciate any advice. I want to confront my boss but I feel this will only injure our relationship which I need intact.  My mentor is by far my strongest letter of recommendation for graduate school and I need his compliance to graduate with honors from my university.

From what you describe, confrontation might not necessarily net you what you want (first author position), given the relationship between your advisor and the graduate student. If you don't confront him, at the very worst you still have a co-authored paper and a strong letter of recommendation, which is not too shabby. I understand it is unfair but undergraduates generally have very little bargaining power to begin with.


I included some results in my thesis that some other PhD students included in theirs. Is this plagiarism? I would like to ask you a question about my PhD thesis, which has already been defended.

Part of my results were obtained in a university in another country. During my work, two of the PhD students there helped me and they have included these results in their theses. The problem is that I have also included these results in my PhD thesis, which was defended after theirs.

These results (included in my thesis, part of them in the thesis of one of the students and the other part in the thesis of the other student) are included in two publications. I am the first author of both of them, but I am given as equally contributed with one of the other PhD students in one of the paper and with the other PhD student in the other paper.

Do you think that I can be accused in plagiarism or be in authorship conflict?

You should cite the other publications, your authorship involvement and your noted contribution status.

You should also note that you are presenting the complete result set while the cited publications each contain a part thereof. You should informally notify the other authors of your intentions - this may not change your course of action but it would be useful to know that they don't intend to contest any of your work.


Returning to a different field in academia after industry After a PhD in Particle Physics with a decent publication count and citations,
I went into industry, where I've been for the last 3 years or so.

I had several motivations for not continuing in academia at the time: some PhD burnout, being unsure of the path I wanted to follow, curiosity about the world outside academia, and other personal reasons. However, after three years in industry I feel that the intellectual freedom and challenge offered by academia is something I miss deeply, and that's ultimately worth more than the money I can make in industry. In addition, I've become more and more interested in certain topics of Pure Mathematics that I'd like to devote more time delving into.

So at the moment I am considering several (not necessarily exclusive) alternatives:

Keep studying in my spare time, and spend a year doing a MSci or similar once (if) I can afford to take a year or two off. Then consider a PhD from there.
Apply for a PhD programme in Pure Math.
Find a researcher or group that would be sympathetic to the situation and start a collaboration with them with views to apply for a postdoc.
Apply for a postdoc in my desired areas directly.
Apply for a postdoc in an area that's not as removed from my previous field (say, Mathematical Physics), and take it from there.

How feasible would these options (or others I haven't considered) are? How could I maximise my chances of success in this situation?

One of the problems that I see is that you are going to struggle more to get subsequent postdoc positions, since some (many?) of them are limited by the number of years since you finished your -first- PhD.


Can I call an assistant professor "Professor"? My former teacher, who had done her PhD in a top-10 university in the UK in 2009, is an assistant professor in my former school.
On the day when I visited my former school, I saw her at the school canteen unexpectedly. I smiled and nodded to her before I said "Good afternoon, Professor Aiko." We were talking for a few minutes before she went back to her office. When I was sitting on a subway train on my way home, however, I was wondering
if it was impolite for me to call her that.
Can I call an assistant professor a professor, and say "Hello Prof. Nickname"?

Yes, you can call any kind of professor a professor, and you should.  Addressing someone as "assistant professor" or "associate professor" would be...well, it's simply not done, so I can't say if it would be rude or just weird.

It is similar to military protocol, actually: e.g. if someone is a rear or vice admiral, you call them admiral.  In contrast to the above example, I'm sure some knowledgeable party could be specific about what bad thing could happen to you if you screw that up!


Is it worth delaying a PhD thesis submission to gain more publications? I'm currently my fourth year into a PhD in computer science. The PhD hasn't gone nearly as smoothly as I would have liked. There was a lot of changing the scope, and trying to re-identify a good research contribution. There was also a substantial prototype project involved that inevitably had bugs that took far too many hours to solve. I started trying to submit papers for conference by the end of my second year... but I have not met much success. There are only two major conferences that I am aware of that my research is directly applicable to, as well as a couple more general conferences. Since you can't submit the same paper to more than one venue at a time, and because a lot of the submission dates overlap, each year I've been making 2 or 3 submissions.

Each rejection I try to take the criticism on the chin, and use their recommendations for improving the next submission but it's still pretty disheartening. The most recent submission had 2 accepts and 1 reject on the peer review, and the paper was ultimately rejected for publication.  As it stands I have a single paper from a PhD symposium giving some early results, and I have a conference publication from my Masters on a separate topic. Unfortunately, no one else in my department is working on the same material, and my supervisor has very little experience in the area, so I don't have any real opportunity to collaborate and bump up my publication count as a co-author.

I'm certain there is a real research contribution there and that if I keep revising and submitting the paper that it will eventually pass the reviewer-lottery and it will get published. I had wanted to become an academic, but with my lack of publication success I do wonder if that's still a viable career path.

So my question is- is getting published important enough that I should actually delay thesis submission until I finally get the main paper published?

I think you should consult with your sup regarding your situation to complete the Ph.D. and your future. Are the publications important for your graduation?

However, I think I have a more important question: Are you on scholarship or financial constraint? Can you live on your scholarship while waiting for the publication?

If this is not the case, I would suggest that you should submit your thesis, regardless of your publication status. After you submit the thesis, you can still be in the circle, such as doing casual teaching, marking, etc.

However, if your scholarship allows you to do that, then yes, you may wait. Nevertheless, publications while doing Ph.D. are not necessarily the only thing for you cross the bridge, but it is the experience. It is very difficult to get your paper accepted especially in a high-rank conference if you hardly get any proper supervision.  With a good team, you may find publishing easier than right now.


How do I plan for my PhD now that I have graduated with a Masters degree without thesis? A bit of background: I am an Indian citizen with an undergraduate degree in Electronics from India and a Masters degree in Electrical Engineering with a minor in Computer Science (Funny, it is called a minor, given that 60% of my credits are from Computer Science Dept.).

I am currently working as a software developer with a company in Boston, MA. I was involved in some research work during my grad school, but however, nothing materialized and I decided to graduate with a coursework only option (with many projects as a part of coursework). Needless to say, I burnt a lot of bridges along the way which eliminated even the minutest chance for a strong letter of recommendation.

I wish to, however, apply for a PhD in Machine Learning and/or Algorithms, at least 2 to 3 years from now. The job I am at currently is not a research oriented job. I am doing a bit of research by myself with the data sets available online.

Given that all of the PhD applications in the US, most in Europe need strong letters of recommendations, if not publications, how can I now set things straight in the coming years. What should be an ideal line of action and is a PhD with a good adviser, possible, at all?

Note: I am currently working on some Machine Learning related open problems on large data sets, but I am not sure how much can I get done, while working full time in a non academic environment.  Also, I do not have any reputable papers as yet.

Probably the most important thing what you can do to make some doors open is to write a peer-reviewed research paper.

If you have any chances, find someone in academia, try to structure your interest and do some bit of research which you can publish under the academic.

Form another point, I know there are some Universities, which value "business" contacts and experience. Don't give up and apply, apply, apply...


How to remind a professor about my previous mail that was sent two months ago? I sent an email to a professor in my university two months ago for a research position in the lab since her research was about my place and interests.She told she will contact me sometime in feb (since she was on a maternity leave till December and has joined again in January).How should I remind her gently about my email or should I wait till the end of the month?

Simple! Forward the same email to the professor, and let him/her know if he/she has any update on the position. Then the professor can catch up with the last email you sent by scrolling down to this forwarded email.


Grant award Dates (US) I've been in a conversation with a professor about hiring me as a potential postdoc. Recently he sent me an e-mail saying he would like to accept me to his team, but he can do this only if he can get a new grant.

As I understand the situation, his current grant is ending soon, and he hasn't been able to get new grants yet, but is still trying.

In general, when do US-based foundations announce their grant awards?  (I'd like to know so that I can ask him again on time whether he got a grant, so I don't lose the position that I kind of have right now.)

There's no fixed timeline. For example, the National Science Foundation has deadlines for proposal submission that are scattered around the year, and once a proposal has been submitted, it may take the NSF 3-9 months to decide. There are also numerous other funding agencies.

In other words, the only way for you to find out when that date may be is to communicate with the professor. He may have an idea when that may be, but the NSF doesn't set a fixed date when they will announce their grants -- that email may come on a random day and a random time.


Benefit of Putnam exam I am generally interested what are the benefits of Putnam (from both students and Professors' point of view), apart from the fact it is fun (for some) to solve difficult maths problem. I recently read a post on here that a good Putnam score would aid PhD application. If someone would elaborate on this a little, it'd be great.

The genuine benefits I think all fall in the category of "distinguishing oneself" ... from other applicants to grad school, for example... much as with the IMO (Int'l Math Olympiad).

That is, an otherwise merely-very-good record (out of 100s?!?) can distinguish itself from others by a pretty-darn-good Putnam score. What does it "really" mean? Well, maybe not so much about higher-level mathematics, but the "exclusivity" of "having pretty darn good Putnam score" is undeniable. It's a thing that can be capsulized and "explained" to the public in PR, whereas it's harder to popularly explain progress or work in genuine mathematics (without severe distortions...)

Even at beginning-undergrad levels, kids who do at-all-well on the Putnam get substantial recognition within their math dept, often are treated more forgivingly of other quirks or inconsistent performances in routine coursework. (Given the stodginess of much of the routine undergrad curriculum, this is a good thing, since it is completely reasonable to not quite be able to consistently comply with the apparent requirements...)

The flip side is that there's a hazard here, as in all contest-math, that the quick gratification (if one receives it...) may make long-term study and research look less rewarding in comparison. In happy cases, one can "warm" to more prolonged projects, and more-delayed gratification. But quick contest-things like Putnam can be encouraging, and are noticeable pluses on a CV or grad school application. Just should not be over-interpreted.


Last year of PhD: only one paper in peer review and other in arxiv. Problem with postdoc? I am starting to look for postdoc (I am at the end of my 3rd year of PhD, my PhD is a 3 year long and I will finish in october) and I currently only have 1 co-author publication (on a good journal), and 1 still on arxiv on which I am first author.
In the meantime we are writing 2 papers on which I am first author.
However I am worried that as "in practice" I only have one paper in a peer reviewed journal the post-doc advisor might not be super interested in my profile. Indeed it is "easy" to say "look there is another on arxiv and other in preparations". Because as long as it is not peer reviewed it could be something of poor quality in people mind.
My question is then: on my CV I wrote "in preparation" for those two other papers. But isn't it a bad thing to only have one co authored paper in a peer review at this stage? How usually post-doc recruiter (for a first post-doc) look at the publications? Are they putting weight in the "in prep" section of the curriculum? How to "defend" my profile?

You should work to improve your record, however you can, but it is what it is, so you have to deal with that. I think, however, that choosing a postdoc purely by counting papers would be pretty foolish. The question should be, and, I hope, usually is, how good a fit is this candidate for this position.
I can't guarantee that everyone is rational, of course, but the nature and significance of your work should weigh heavily. And, a rational system would look at more than what you have already finished. Work in progress is a good thing. A reasonable personality is a good thing. Compatible interests, a circle of contacts (especially collaborators)... All good things.
My suggestion is that in any application, that you don't apologize for how bad you are, as you seem to be doing here. Instead, indicate how your skills match the requirements of the position and your goals looking forward.
It is easy to get a lot of work done, and maybe publications, if you only work on the easier-to-resolve problems. If you work on hard problems (harder than average), then having fewer than average publications is natural. Some questions take a long time to answer. If you are confident in your work, then project that confidence, as well as your compatibility with any position you apply for.


How do you build a healthy and productive relationship with your supervisor? Some graduate students and post-docs have reported serious problems with their advisors and supervisors. Some of the problems are severe enough to be career ending. Not all problems can be avoided but it is possible that some can be if the student or post-doc takes some actions, especially in their first days of the new position. The goal is to build a solid and positive relationship with the advisor from the beginning so that small problems later don't escalate.

What can a student or post-doc do, starting in their first days and weeks, to help assure a strong and positive relationship with a supervisor?

There is no assumption here that it is all up to the student, but what can a person do in a new environment to maximize their chances of having a good and lasting relationship?

Students who have done this successfully and faculty members who can help students fit in are invited to give advice.

Note that I'm not looking to collect horror stories here in which things went terribly wrong. What can the student do so that the horror scenario is unlikely to ever become an issue.

I would say that one of the largest things that a student/post-doc can do to foster a relationship with their advisor/mentor is establishing expectations early. This can be in the form of goals, research statements, or mutually agreed upon research plans. One of my former universities had a research statement form that students and mentors were asked to fill out. It specified what the goals of the partnership would be, what types of funding would be provided, what publications (with authorship order) were foreseen, etc. The partnerships that actually took the time to fill out the form had a much lower "failure" rate in their relationship.

In my experience, many of the issues that arise between mentor and student center around differing expectations. Expectations about timeline, work load, authorship, copyright, publication rate, etc.

Now, of course, this is easier said than done. As a student, it can be hard to tell an advisor that you want to discuss "expectations." Some advisors would feel affronted by being asked to establish goals and plans. One thing that I have seen students do in this case is present their advisor with personal goals that the student wants to establish for themselves. This communicates several things to the mentor:

A willingness to be forward thinking and take responsibility for one's own work. It shows a "communication starts with me" approach to the relationship.
An actual structure for the mentor to build upon. It is much easier to advise a student that can build a basic framework for the metrics of the partnership.
A willingness to ask for feedback as a means of improving.

I will add an sort of post script to my answer: Some mentors are anything but. Vetting an advisor can be very important for ensuring that your relationship with you mentor is positive. Part of having a good relationship with your advisor is selecting a good advisor in the first place. (Which is much easier said than done). Not every mentor is in academia because they love students. That is a reality that does need to realized here. Some professors are in academia because they are too combative to survive in the "real" world. Attempting to foster open communication with a potential advisor can act as a litmus test in this regard.


Is it worth to split my book into articles and publish them individually? In continuation of this question:

I have written a book with a new mathematical theory. I am an amateur mathematician.

I want to publish my book as LaTeX source under a copyleft license.

Does it make sense to split my book into articles and publish articles individually in math journals (after my book is already available)?

If the content wins over form, this seems unreasonable: My book is already available, why to publish articles? Moreover: Won't availability of the book already containing the content of the articles an obstacle for publication of the articles?

Having said that, I have already published one article. My second article was accepted for publication, not published due a LaTeX error and now again in review in the same journal because I made some changes in the article.

In order for your articles to be published in a good mathematics journal, they will have to be peer reviewed. Peer review followed by acceptance is the only real mechanism that will lad to anyone taking notice of your work. Serializing a book this way may give you a good chance to get traction with the mathematics community and to validate your ideas. Just putting a book up on your website is unlikely to achieve any of your goals because the community has no reason to trust you. Peer review is a mechanism to weed out bad ideas and highlight good ones. It's not perfect, but it is frequently helpful in this regard and is the way the modern mathematics community works.

Publishing your work as a book on your website could be an obstacle to publishing it in a journal. You generally have to transfer copyright or give some sort of license to the publisher that guarantees them some way to make money off your work by selling offprints or downloads of your articles. Some journals don't like it if there's any preprint versions floating around out there that are too close to their version. Fortunately mathematics is a heavy user of the arXiv, and so certainly pre-review copies on there (or Github) are less likely to cause a problem with the journal. Read the author agreement and copyright transfer/license requirements of the journal you'd like to submit to before putting things out on the web. The arXiv is well known in the mathematics literature, so you'd probably have better luck, more visibility, and less problems posting your articles/book there instead of Github.

BTW, LaTeX errors don't usually lead to rejection, resubmission, and re-review, they are usually just fixed after review. Hopefully your article does get published in the end, but something seems fishy about the details of your story.


Why does arXiv have a multi-day lag between submission and publication? If you go on the recent pages (now, 8th December 2020, 19:24 Italian time), there is for example the article "Exploring the Usage of Online Food Delivery Data for Intra-Urban Job and Housing Mobility Detection and Characterization".
This article is under the heading "8 December".
But if you click on it, it was "Submitted on 4 Dec 2020".
Why there is a lag between submission time and the header under which it appears for recent publications?
I guess the arXiv staff have to approve the article before is being published .... is my guessing correct?

I guess the arXiv staff have to approve the article before is being published .... is my guessing correct?

Yes, arXiv moderates all submissions before posting them (there is some description of this here). This is not anywhere near as rigorous as peer review; rather, someone just flips through it to ensure that the submission is (1) not complete junk and (2) classified correctly. This approach is used by many pre-print platforms (SSRN, socarXiv, etc.).


Should I join a different group I am in my 4rth year and finished my candidacy recently. I am very interested in my research and it is going forward at a decent pace. However, my advisor is giving me some trouble.

He is usually absent at the weekly research meetings which along with me includes a post-doc, a graduate student in his 6th year, and an associate professor from a different university. Even in the meetings he attends he hardly gives any suggestions or talks about any new ideas. He even fails to respond to some emails that I send asking him questions or general help.

I previously thought all this might be because he is the head of the experiment that we are working on, so he has little time to spare. But, now that I finished my candidacy I expect him to get more involved in my research. It's been a month since my candidacy and that has not been the case.

I think it is not too late for me to change gears and join a different group in the same field. Is this a fair thing to do? What other things should I consider before I confirm to switch.

No one here can make the decision for you, of course, and we have only a little information on which to give any advice. So, you need to answer the top line question yourself with the knowledge you have and your other desires and constraints.

However, there are some things you should consider. I worry that you will have a set back if you change and it will probably add to your total time. You may consider that worthwhile or not.

But you aren't necessarily alone in your research even if your nominal advisor gives you little help. Some people can do the work with no advice at all and they wind up teaching their advisor in the research at hand. You may be such a student or not. What you need is final approval of your work from your advisor, but that may be enough, provided that you also get good letters of recommendation.

But the other members of your group are probably also available to give you advice if you need it. They are likely in the same position with this advisor/leader that you are and are having to struggle along. Make it a group struggle, perhaps.

But, if you make decisions independent of your advisor, with advice and help from your group, try to get your advisor to agree that you are making good decisions. If you can get at least that much, then you may be able to continue without any setback.

One way to get buy-in from the advisor on joint decisions of the other members is to send, say, weekly updates on decisions made and progress achieved. The advisor is kept in the loop and can redirect as needed. This is most useful if everyone in the group is working on the same task generally.

But the situation is complex. Only you know it best.


What should I do to figure out what has happened to my paper? Some months ago I wrote a paper with the help of a professor who sent the paper to a journal as the "corresponding author". I have since cut contact with the professor since he lied repeatedly to me on some unrelated matter. I am afraid that he may have removed the paper from the journal since I can't see its status.

Usually, after a manuscript is submitted to a journal, all the co-authors should receive an email from the editor office or from the editor in charge which will let you know your rights and ways to communicate with the journal. If the under review time is already very long since the paper has been submitted, you can try to reach the journal just by email. But yet for some journals, only the corresponding author can receive the notification, if that is the situation, you have to solve the problem between you and your professor. Alternatively, you can still try to reach the journal for the status of the paper. But eventually, the review comments will be sent to the corresponding author.


Is there a publication that critically reviews the effectiveness of academic accreditation bodies? It seems there is a general belief that when a university fails to meet some accreditation body's standards then the university is somehow less than genuine.

  Is there any objective proof that accreditation produces excellence in higher education ?

I ask this because I see my university always trying to game the system. Little effort is placed towards the real goal of being a better university. Rather, we merely try to jump through whatever hoop has been placed by the accrediting body. Rather than trusting faculty to have the best idea of how to structure the university (in which we build our careers, so, you'd think you might trust us) we instead restructure things merely on the whim of an external body which does not know nearly as much about what is best for the university!

It seems to me, at many universities the assessment process is largely financial with no real attention to excellence in education. Faculty pretend to engage in the assessment process, but, we don't really care or respect the process because it:

reduces the autonomy of professors
it has half-informed "experts" trumping the opinion professors who are actually already performing real assessment all the time.

It is by now obvious to me that assessment at my university is actually damaging to academics! Is this a quirk of my institution (which values the input of faculty at a tragically sad rate) or is this common?

My larger question, is there a publication in which a critical review of accreditation bodies and how they fail in their supposed mission ?

Is there any objective proof that accreditation produces excellence in higher education ?

This is a very broad question, and the answer may have varied over time and may presently vary from place to place. But at the present time, in the United States, there is considerable evidence that accrediting bodies are not just useless but harmful.

One case in point is the  Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), a regional accrediting body that came unmoored under president Barbara Beno. In 2013, ACCJC tried to shut down the City College of San Francisco. There was no evidence of any academic problem at CCSF. The problem was that they didn't check all the boxes on the forms as demanded by ACCJC.

Another good example is the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS), which helped for-profit colleges such as Corinthian Colleges and ITT to bilk the US federal government of vast amounts of financial aid money.

As far as I can tell, the basic problem with accreditation in the US is that the federal government wants to subsidize education as a public good, and in order to do that they want to have metrics of quality. But as soon as we designate a metric of quality, we guarantee that people will game the system in order to boost that metric. The result is a Darwinian struggle in which schools, whether good or bad, compete to feed at  the public trough.


Is it legal to ask an intern to write a peer-review report? I would like to ask you concerning a situation I was a few years back.
I was an unofficial intern at a research institution. The aim of the internship was to study and search for new methods from a field that was unfamiliar to me or my supervisor and to check how it could be used in my supervisor's field. During this internship, my supervisor asked to study an article that was put for submission, and to write some kind of peer review report on it. I was unfamiliar with the topic, and the supervisor was unfamiliar with one of the topics (it was an article that used a combination of two fields). I did it, but eventually realized that it didn't seem to be ethical, as you need an expert to conduct such work. I even wonder if it was legal.
The situation took place in EU.

The only ethical concern I see here is possibly one of deceit. If the supervisor or yourself misrepresented who the author of the review is.
But you didn't mention the destination of the review or where the original request came from.
But there are many situations in which such a thing would be perfectly fine. For example, a review used only internally. Or a situation in which the supervisor wanted the intern to learn enough to do a good job and get the experience of a review. This isn't especially rare in the case of advisors asking doctoral students to write reviews either as a form of practice or to provide a "first draft" of something.
But you can't expect that every reviewer on every paper is completely knowledgeable about what is in the paper. That would imply that science doesn't actually advance at all and that only "known" things appear in articles.
But, submitting your work under their own name would be a form of deceit. And, sadly, this happens in the case of doctoral students noted above.
Another form of deceit would be misrepresenting one's qualifications to do a review, though I don't see elements of that here. That would be an issue between the supervisor and the editor.


Business cards for a postdoc: what affiliation? My wife just started a postdoc at an R1 university and needs business cards for a conference and her future job hunt. She asked me to design them for her.

Normally, I'd put her current (postdoc) institution, but because the temporary nature of the postdoc position (1 year), and because she'll be presenting her dissertation work at the upcoming conference, it seems like the cards should perhaps brand her individually rather than as part of her institution.

If possible, I'd like to avoid creating some business cards now and then creating new ones again in a year or so. This would mean I would want a more general business card — one less tied to her current institution -- but I want even more for her business cards to be professional (following current best practices), and to not cause any confusion.

I see these options:

Include both her grad school and postdoc institutions.
Include only her postdoc institution.
Include no institution, but instead use the card to describe her and her research. Use these business cards for a longer while.

Is there a common practice for postdocs?

The cards should list the employee's current place of employment, just like business cards for any other job.  The only thing that should be different for a postdoc is that you should make sure the image file for the cards is easy to update when she gets a new job.


Publishing Same Research Paper on a National Conference as well as International IEEE conference I submitted my final year research paper for a national level conference as well as international level IEEE conference. I was notified that my research paper has been accepted for the national level conference before 2 weeks ago. And I submitted camera ready papers, registered and ready to present the paper next week on the national level conference.

But yesterday I received a mail from IEEE conference by mentioning my paper is accepted for the conference and asked for camera ready papers based on their template.

Is this situation normal? Can I publish my paper on national level conference as well as international level IEEE conference?

Please note that there will be proceedings for both conferences.

You cannot publish the same paper at these two conference. For an IEEE conference publication, you have to transfer copyright on the paper to the IEEE, which precludes publication in another proceedings.

You shouldn't have submitted the same paper to two places simultaneously. It's clearly against ethical standards in academics. It is not your fault, if there wasn't a clear indication on the conference submission site, and your advisor hasn't intervened (he should have). Still you have to deal with the consequences now.

And the consequences are that you have to withdraw your paper from one of these conferences. If you have the choice, it would probably be better to withdraw from the national conference. Call yourself lucky if you don't get into deeper trouble from this.


Switch from pure mathematics to machine learning as postdocs? I'm a first year postdoc in pure mathematics (geometry/topology with strong background in analysis) with undergraduate statistics and probability background (with also measure theoretic probability). I also have some programming knowledge in ForTran, C and Matlab, but I never used them in my pure mathematics career in my graduate school for the last 5 years.
In my next job, I'm considering doing a postdoc in machine learning (ML). The reason behind this switch is: I'm satisfied with my pure knowledge so far and have been wanting to see some real-life applications of mathematics, and also keep my options open in both industry and academia.
My questions are:

How hard is this switch going to be? I guess I've all the required mathematics background, but will it be hard to pick up the necessary computer science skills, even if I work in more theory-oriented problems?
What exactly are the programming knowledge I need to master to work in ML?

Is there a website/email-list where I can get notifications on jobs in machine learning? I'm looking for jobs in Europe mostly, but information on the US would also be welcome.

1) How hard is this switch going to be? I guess I've all the required
  mathematics background, but will it be hard to pick up the necessary
  computer science skills, even if I work in more theory-oriented
  problems?

Not a problem: picking up the math associated with ML. You've got the right background and you'll find it easy to understand the papers after an initial learning phase.

Potentially a problem: understanding why certain questions get asked and what's considered interesting. This is where mathematicians and computer scientists tend to diverge, and translating your intuition for questions might take some time. But a more mathematical mindset can also lead you to ask interesting questions that CS folks are NOT asking !

  What exactly are the programming knowledge I need to master to work in
  ML?

Depending on how theoretical the postdoc is, anywhere from none to R, python and matlab, and maybe even some distributed large-scale learning framework like GraphLab. But you should definitely get some familarity with the first three - ML is a good example of "no problem formulation surviving first contact with the data".

  2) Is there a website/email-list where I can get notifications on jobs
  in machine learning? I'm looking for jobs in Europe mostly, but
  information on the US would also be welcome.

One good mailing list is ml-worldwide. Another is the Google group ml-news.


Does posting my work on the Internet protect me if someone else tries to publish it with peer review under their own name? I'm in a very unique situation. I have ideas of something potentially valuable for science and I want to get it published but I haven't been able to go through the peer-review process, yet. That is why I'm thinking about simply putting all I have on the Internet and leaving it be there to see would any "real" scientist (with the equipment and the position) be interested in them. I don't work in anything related to science and although I have a degree I don't have PhD so it's like I'm nobody.

What is my "protection" if one of those experts (who obviously know much better how to publish) just takes it and puts his/hers name on it even if I manage to show files containing the same ideas loaded on the Internet for public access (so I have the site administration to verify my publication dates) much before his/her work was submitted to a journal?

Does such obviously public documents have any weight against peer-reviewed paper or is the fact that s/he managed to go through the process but I didn't make these ideas his/hers? Is any value in the fact that a document is publicly displayed before the submission date or does the fact that it's publication anyways make it "the real deal" while the other document, even if it can be shown to be earlier by outside source (like the administration of the web site)? If I just "publish" it on the Internet under the Creatice Commons license does it give it any authority in any way measurable to a peer-reviewed publication or anybody who has one can claim ownership over the ideas?

P.S. Can the entire issue be "dissolved" quickly if the one who got it published in a peer-review journal just mentions my work in the acknowledgements and says these ideas were mine and s/he just "used" them. Then is the authorship of the ideas automatically transferred to me and the issue is non-existent? But what if I ask him/her and s/he refuses. Then, can I claim authorship of the ideas or are they out of my reach now and I would just have to be satisfied with the fact that at least now they have gained some form of recognition (although I'm not their author in the eyes of the community)? (The issue is I just want scientists to view my work seriously, I don't do it for the money, the job or the fame. I just want to know am I right or wrong, so what if someone just uses and claims authorship-should I be satisfied only with the fact that I was right all along or should I try to pursue him/her for non-proper use of my ideas.)

There are sites like arxiv.org where you can publish something, which isn't peer-reviewed yet, but which becomes public and stakes a claim to the idea.

However, that's usually what some people (usually at universities, not companies) do when they have a full-fledged paper to release. In your case it sounds, if I read this correctly, like you have some general ideas you have not yet had a chance to pursue in depth.  You're considering putting them out and inviting others to run with them, but want some credit.  I would say that if you simply put out a general idea, that is worth an acknowledgment in a paper, not co-authorship.  Being an author means actually doing some of the work -- writing text, doing experiments, etc.  I don't think what you describe rises to that level.

One thing you might consider doing is putting out enough information to tease people into inquiring for more information, then trying to work with anyone who inquires to be more directly involved in the work as it proceeds.


Can I tell the PI who has offered me a postdoc job that I have not decided yet waiting for other results I have got a postdoc job offer from a reputed University in Applied Mathematics. Now, I have given several postdoc interviews and some interviews are scheduled in the coming days. In such situation can I tell the PI (wherefrom I got the offer) that I have not decided yet as I have some other interviews scheduled in the future. I have heard that accepting multiple offers is not a good thing.

I think you are right about not accepting multiple offers. But that isn't the same as not considering multiple offers.

Unless you have a special relationship with the PI you don't actually owe him or her an explanation of why you are waiting. It would, however, do you good if you could give a date, not too far in the future, by which you will let him/her know.

Of course, it is possible that the offer could be withdrawn, rules permitting, but if you wait to accept you can't control that.

I wouldn't probably say I was awaiting other offers, or give a false reason instead. It is enough to say that you aren't yet quite ready to make a decision on such a big step. Yes, that sort of thing is a bit of hedging, but probably called for, since you are actually hedging.

But don't put them off too long.


What is a committee looking for in a dissertation proposal? I've started narrowing down the scope of my dissertation, and I have one year before I need to defend my proposal.  I'm curious to know what is expected from a dissertation proposal.  What are the key elements that I should include / exclude?  What criteria typically used to judge whether the proposal defense is successful?  Are the committee's feedback of the proposal typically used as a criteria for the full fledged dissertation defense?

JeffE is correct; talk to your chair and get feedback. That being said, you'll want to include the following in your talk:

An overview of your research topic
A discussion of relevant literature (to demonstrate that you've researched the topic)
A discussion of your specific problem
Another literature discussion, much more focused on your specific problem
Any preliminary results of experiments you may have run, if any
What you plan on doing for the next few years
(Possibly most important) Any specific issues/problems that your advisors have raised about your research. You should specifically address these to show that you're paying attention to what they say and that you listen to their comments.

The best way to prepare is to talk with everyone in advance and find out what their objections/comments/issues/questions will be as much as possible, and then do your best to prepare for that and any related issues. If that sounds like a lot of work, it's because it is a lot of work.

Dan's comments are also spot on; you may have some very difficult committee members who will ask all sorts of questions, and you should make sure your advisor is on your side from the get-go.


Information to be included in brochure about new undergraduate programme for admissions committees I am a student from a new undergraduate programme with only one batch of graduates. The administration is planning to create and send an official brochure/document with information about the programme to admissions committees of graduate programmes (mainly in the United States) where students may apply.

What information would about the programme would be relevant to these committees to get a better idea about what our programme is and our standards? Would it be useful, for example, to include information on textbooks followed for various courses?

Look at how similar programs describe themselves publicly (web pages, ...), that should give a pretty clear idea. Perhaps ask around several of the interesting schools to see what they'd want to know about the program applicants went through.

If there is some suggestion of curriculum in your area (like e.g. the IEEE/ACM proposals for computer science and related fields), it would be useful to mention your program adheres to them, and perhaps highlight differences and rationale for them.

An overview of the faculty and their curricula, a general look at the school as a whole (what makes it stand out, is it research or teaching oriented, number of students, ...) is mandatory.


Should I accept authorship on large collaborations for which I have made little contribution? I have just started a post-doc. So far all of my papers have had small author lists (4-5 people). I have just been invited as a co-author on several papers with hundreds of authors. The papers are pitched as community-wide collaborations: some being white papers describing a future experiment that the community plans to engage in, others being the results from first data from such experiments. My contribution, and the contribution of 99% of the authors whose names are already there, have been negligible. What are the pros and cons of agreeing to be on such a paper?

What are the pros and cons of agreeing to be on such a paper?

Pros

Your contributions to the collaboration are formally acknowledged, both incentivizing you to continue working on it as well as putting the candle under your butt to get up to speed on anything you should be getting good at.
Leaders in the collaboration see you listed as a contributing member, allowing your candidacy for the next round of projects that need attention by working group members.  Generally, people reach out to include you going forward.
You will be put on mailings that automatically include all researchers on the paper, keeping you up to speed as developments happen in real time.
Your association with the project is beneficial to both your career (i.e., Look at this thing I worked on!) and the project itself (i.e., Look at this great contributor we have!).

Cons

None.  Literally none.

There is a related problem in academia called illegitimate co-authorship, or sometimes authorship inflation, but that is a problem to be tackled by policy.  If this problem bothers you, find ways to contribute to the policies and incentives that systematically reinforce this behavior.  Boycotting it personally will only serve to harm your career and be a drop in the bucket of the larger problem.


Conventions regarding listing grant applications/funded grants on a scientific CV I am a young academic in a scientific field and, in the process of updating my CV, I've realized I'm unsure exactly what is appropriate to list with regard to grant applications/funded grants. Specifically, a few types of ambiguities have arisen:

1) If you receive funding from a grant but were not part of the project until after the application was funded (say your role is "Consultant" or "Statistician"), can you list this on your CV?

2) If you are listing non-funded grants that you had at least some hand in writing (say, an NIH grant that received an impact score but was not funded), but you were not the PI (say you're a co-Investigator), can you list it? Is the answer different if you had a non-investigator role such as "Statistician"?

3) Closely related to #2-- if you help with a grant that ultimately does get funded but you are not the PI or a co-I (again, suppose you're a consultant or statistician), can this be listed on your CV? Does it depend on how great of a hand you had in writing the grant?

Thanks for any input.

My philosophy about such issues is that you can list everything on a CV, as long as you make clear what your actual role was, i.e., you may list any project or grant that officially recognizes you in some function, but of course you cannot imply that you were the PI in all of these projects if this was not the case.

Further, make sure that you list only "official" responsibilities on the CV - it may be true that you are doing all the work for a project, but that does not make you the official PI. Saying or implying otherwise is not good.

Finally, note that different roles in a project can be used to illustrate different things for you as a researcher. Personally, I have two different sections for projetcs on my CV:

Projects, which lists all funded projects I was ever involved with, plus my official role. This shows that I am experienced in working in different roles in different national and international research teams.
Successful grant proposals, which lists all successful project proposals that I was officially recognized as an author, i.e., either coordinator, PI, or co-investigator. This shows that I am able to get funding for my research.


Should I hold back some ideas for after my PhD? I guess this a question about 'career pacing'. I am currently a first-year grad student studying for a PhD in Aerospace Engineering at a research university in the US. Even though I have only been studying this field for about 5 months, I am already starting to get quite a few ideas about interesting potential avenues for research. For example, possible numerical simulations or experiments that could be done.
I am thinking about pursuing an academic career post-PhD, so my question is: would it make sense for me to keep some of these ideas 'in reserve' for a possible post-doc or tenure track position? If I have one or more really 'great' ideas, when is the best time to pull those out of the bag? Now, during the PhD, or save them for later?
What I'm thinking is: if I pull out my best ideas now, it might be less clear whether they were really my ideas or my PI's; however, if I wait, then someone else might have similar ideas and beat me to it (i.e. publish or perish).
To look at it in another way: when is the optimal time during an academic career to fire off your 'biggest impact' ideas (if there is such a thing)? If I have more 'promising' ideas than I think I can work on during the PhD, would it make sense then to keep some in reserve?

I don't see a point in holding back ideas on purpose, at least not for a longer time.
If you are doing well in research, you will generally have more interesting ideas than you have time to pursue.  And you will keep having new ideas all the time. So there won't be a time when you will have ample of time, but be in desperate need of a great project.
So you should work now on the best ideas you have now: First, people will judge you by your best work and best ideas. If you work on more exciting ideas now, you will be more likely to secure good postdoc positions later. And if you have a fair advisor, they will clearly credit you with those ideas (e.g. in recommendation letters).  So you win by working on your best ideas now.  Second, your best ideas now might be outdated in a few years time, or your interests might shift, or you might have even better and more timely ideas at that time, so there is not much point in saving those ideas.  Third, someone else might have the same idea and publish a result on it in the meantime, making your ideas not new any more.  And finally, even if you don't have the time to work out all ideas fully yourself, it can make sense to share them with colleagues: Maybe they get excited by the ideas and collaborate with you on them, increasing your scientific output.
Finally, what if you will not have good ideas any more in the future? Well, then very likely your chances to secure a permanent position in research are slim, and having kept your old ideas will not save you.


How to arrange sabbatical leave? Sabbatical leave is very common as it is nice to spend a year as a visiting professor in another university and experience a new environment.

It is very beneficial for the host university to have temporary faculty members free of charge (no salary is normally paid by the host university). (1) How do host universities attempt (if they do) to attract visiting professors? Of course, there are job advertisements for hiring visiting professors, but I think they are paid positions and different from normal sabbatical leave.

Visiting for research purposes should be arranged with the leader of the host research group. Thus, the arrangement is at a personal level (somewhat similar to hiring a postdoc researcher.

Visiting for education purposes should be arranged at the level of the department chair.

(2) How can a professor find a visiting professor? Is it chancy? to meet a colleague interested to host? Or s/he must contact many professors and department chairs to find a vacancy?

(1) & (2) Who should actually initiate this process? The guest professor or host university?

(possible 3) Is there a system to facilitate this process, as it is of mutual interest, or everything is left to chance? For example, European Union emphasizes the mobility of students/professors through different programmes. Is there such a system for sabbatical visits (in its classical form of completely working at the host university for a period of time, not guest lecturing as it is common in Europe).

I do not have direct experience with sabbaticals, however the professors I've known that have taken them have been explicitly sought out for the respective sabbatical at a particular institution (as a visiting professor), by colleagues that they personally know professionally (i.e., from being in the same field and interacting via conferences, collaborations, etc.).

In other words, it boils down to networking, and almost certainly doesn't come out of nowhere.  If a professor is planning a sabbatical, he or she will probably already have colleagues willing to host, or will start the process by calling up a colleague and pitching the idea.  I would gather that it isn't likely that there are too many successful cold-calls to departments that lead to sabbaticals.


Can I still try to publish my work if my algorithm's results are not as good as other algorithms'? I've written a classification algorithm that does a pretty good job at classifying some datasets.  However, I compared my algorithm to other classification methods, and their results exceed my results by a little.  For instance, when classifying a dataset from a repository, my algorithm is getting 95% correct while another algorithm usually gets 99% correct.

Should I continue to publish my results although 1) my algorithm is a little slower, and 2) my algorithm's results are not as good as the other results.

I'm a little torn.  I'm excited as my paper and results are a contribution to the classification field as the algorithm is novel.  Also, I'm of the stance that you can't beat EVERY algorithm.  If we only published algorithms that could (loosely) beat other algorithms either A.) we'd never have new innovations, or B.) eventually every dataset would be 100% classified each time, or C.) every algorithm could instantaneously classify a dataset (speed).

I hope that my algorithm will continue to grow and others will pick it up and extend it.  I hope that one day -- with tweaks -- my algorithm can reach 99% too.

I'm afraid of being rejected by the journal again.  Yes, my first submission was rejected.  One of the reasons for the rejection was that my dataset was small.  However, when the dataset was small I was beating the other algorithms.  Now, as the dataset has grown, the other algorithms are now beating me.  I'd like not to be rejected again.

If you want to get technical, in general no learning algorithm performs any better than any other.

The question then, is what can be learned from your algorithm.  In your question, you speak of it as a fond intellectual child that you wish to grow and nurture, and you speak of your personal concerns about acceptance and rejection.  Here is the thing, though: none of that matters for a publication.  What matters is this: what new knowledge or capability is brought into the world with your work on your algorithm, and how can this be objectively evaluated?

Here are some possibilities that I can see:

Your algorithm may perform better on an interesting and useful class of problems, and thus be of practical interest.
Your algorithm may perform worse, but have some other desirable property, such as executing very quickly or using very little memory, in which case the performance comparison just needs to show that it is sufficient, and you can show much better performance with regards to those other properties.
Your algorithm may perform worse, but do so in a way that is enlightening, e.g., taking a more human-like approach, or showing how something can be accomplished by a very unusual and unexpected route.  In this case, the performance comparison is simply showing that your algorithm does not perform too badly to be interesting, and the narrative should focus on the path taken to achieve your results and why that is interesting.
Your algorithm may only have taught you personally some interesting things about classification and scientific research, in which case you should mourn the passing of a fine research idea and move on with your life.

Only you and those who know your work well will be able to tell which category it truly fits into.


Shall I be listed as technical program committee member if I accepted an invitation and did three reviews? I receive often invitations to serve as TPC (Technical Program Committee) member. Some are from my colleagues but some are just from random people who I don't know.
If I agree to serve as TPC member then I get papers to review and this is the only task assigned to me.

Shall I be listed in on the conference TPC member list in this situation?
Is it ok, to ask the organizers to update the webpage?

In fact, I am only a reviewer, but I invest my time to read the papers and write the feedback. I treat it seriously and reviewing ~10 pages paper may take me up to 3-4 hours. It is pity that I don't get any mention on the official webpage although I have contributed my time and expertise.

Comment to the accepted answer (I don't have commenting privilege yet): I accept the interpretation A of your answer,  because the only duty of a TCP member for the conference that I got in my mind is to review (or delagte the reviews) for several papers.

I am not sure if I understand you correctly. Basically, there are two ways to interpret your question:

Interpretation a) you have been invited as a member of the programme committee, did the duties associated to the role in this conference (for instance, but not necessarily restricted to, reviewing papers). In this case the answer is unsurprisingly that yes, you should be listed as a member of the programme committee. It is completely acceptable to remind the organizers to add you to the website if your name is not listed if other PC members are (it is conceivable although unusual that a conference would just not list the PC on the website).
Interpretation b) you have specifically not been invited as a PC member, but as a reviewer (or in whatever other role), but you feel that you did the same work as a PC member. In this case, I am sorry to say that there is no obligation for the conference to somehow upgrade your status, and mailing them about it is unlikely to lead to anything else than you seeming somewhat needy. It is not uncommon or immoral for conferences to distinguish between different roles (e.g., reviewers without voting powers and PC members with voting rights in the PC meeting), even if most of the "work" (writing reviews to papers) is the same or similar. That reviewers don't get mentioned in your case is certainly unfortunate, and you have every right to just not agree to be a reviewer anymore for this conference, but it's not inherently immoral or oblige the organisers to upgrade your role to a more visible one. The underlying faulty assumption here (which I assume is an easy to make mistake given how many conferences at least in CS nowadays work), is that reviewing and being in the TPC is the same. While is is indeed true for many conferences, there are plenty of exceptions as well. In many, particularly very strong, conferences, there are multiple layers of reviewers, PC members, senior PC members, track chairs, and program chairs, with increasing impact on the actual selection.


Getting sealed transcripts from a German university I have a degree from a university in Germany, which I'm now trying to get evaluated by an institution in another country. This institution requires that the transcripts be sent directly from the university in a sealed envelope. Unfortunately, it seems this isn't something that German universities are wont to do (or at least not my former one): I have been told that presenting my original Urkunde (diploma) is enough, which is completely false in this case. Is it possible to get a sealed copy of my degree certificate and transcripts from a German university, and, if so, how/where do I do it?

Attempted solutions

I have been in contact with the Prüfungssekretariat (something like an "exam office"), and they told me two weeks after I first asked them upon me asking them again that they "currently don't have access to" these records and that I probably should have a copy of my records be "beglaubigt" ("notarized").
I then contacted someone at the university in charge of Beglaubigungen, who offered to do so if I send them a copy. However, they have not responded directly to my request to have them sent in a sealed envelope directly to the institution in question.
I called the Zentrale (central hotline) and asked what I should do in this situation. I was then told I should contact the Studierendensekretariat ("registrar").
I have literally spent the entire afternoon trying to call multiple different numbers for the Studierendensekretariat and they do not answer the phone. I have sent them an e-mail, but, based on my previous experiences with them, I do not expect them to answer timely or even at all. I am currently over 1,500km away from the German institution in question, so dealing with this in-person is not possible. While I was at the university, the only way things could actually get done is by going to the office you need during their opening hours (which are only a few hours and only on certain days) and then waiting for an extremely long time. Sometimes, the office would close before you get a chance to talk to anyone†.

† Yes, this is a lot of circumstantial information, but this is, according to my experiences, fairly normal for German bureaucracy. Hopefully, however, these details will at least be useful to show at least what I've tried which hasn't worked.

Have you tried contacting the International Office at the university? They probably have to deal with this sort of thing fairly frequently for visiting or international students, and may be able to help you sort through the bureaucracy. (They should at least be able to tell you who exactly you need to call to get the transcript issued!)


Addressing a poor student-advisor relationship in job interview I have a couple of interviews for research assistant vacancies in the next few days, but I didn't list the advisors of my undergraduate research project as my references, even though I added the project details and listed them as the advisors. I left them out of the references as the relationship I had with them wasn't that great. It was solely a case of a poor fit between a student and advisors; they had a particular way of providing feedback and comments that worked really well for some students but didn't work for a lot of students. I unfortunately fell into the latter camp.

I want to emphasize that they were not bad people, but simply because the fit, both professionally and personally, was probably quite poor to begin with. They've had students before that really blossomed under their supervision style, but it required a particular kind of student with solid coping mechanisms that I unfortunately did not cultivate at the time. They've also had much more personable relationships with other students as well, one which I did not have with them; we only talked about the thesis. Again, it wasn't their fault, and I can't emphasize that enough, but it was just a case of a really bad fit that I unfortunately did not see at the time.

With interviews for research assistant positions coming up, I'm not sure how to address this if it's asked. For example, 'Why weren't your advisors listed as reference?' or 'How was you're relationship with your advisors?'

Worse still, 'Would you be able to provide us with the contact details of your undergrad advisors?'

Has anyone else been in such a position before? Have you had a relationship that made you not want to list your advisors as a reference? Has it come up in interviews before, and if so, how did you address it?

If you're a PI for a lab, what would your initial thoughts be on this? Are all poor advisor-student relationships a red flag, or do you consider each circumstance on a case-by-case basis?

Try to focus on the positive in interviews (well, and life :-). Explain why you recommended whoever you did recommend. Say that you thought the people you recommended could give the best assessment of what you would be like on this particular job, and why you thought they would be good at that. Point out (if pressed) that your supervisors are listed on your CV and could of course be contacted, it just wouldn't be your own first choice.


How do I deal with diverse interests when applying for a PhD program? I have a master's degree in Computer Science. I have applied to PhD programs, and decisions are trickling in. I may soon have to choose between two or more PhD programs.

Unfortunately, I have diverse interests. I was advised that a successful PhD application is usually quite specific, so I made each of my applications very specific. I wrote to a professor working in decision making (AI), another working in computational learning theory, another working in computer music, another working in quantum & parallel computing, another working in logical foundations & philosophy of computation. With much enthusiasm, I informed each professor that I was interested in pursuing a PhD in his / her field. This is true. I am interested in each of these fields, and know something about each of them. When advised to apply, I did.

The problem is - being interested in each of these fields also means that I'm interested in all of them. (There are more areas of CS I'm interested in. What's worse - my interests are not even restricted to CS. For the purposes of this post, I'm restricting myself to only the mentioned areas.) So when I choose between PhD programs, I'm choosing between completely different areas - and that is surely going to be excruciating.

This is not a case of not knowing my 'true interest' now, only to discover it later. I have no 'true interest'. I have always pursued numerous unrelated things in parallel. I love all my interests equally. In fact, I love the feeling of 'being interested' more than the interests themselves. Whenever I've tried to restrict myself to one topic of study - even for a month - that feeling is lost, and I am quickly bored. As a result, my skill-set is a classic case of a jack of all trades - master of none. The worst part is - everybody knows that a PhD is about getting deep into one specific topic. It's not about breadth - it's about depth. Even if I were to choose one of the PhD programs (and I must choose one), I have a feeling that I might get bored quickly and be prone to constant topic-changing / transferring. Again, this is not about being fickle - it's about following my heart, and my heart takes me to different things at different times.

Do you think I'm likely to fail / never complete my PhD? Does anyone have any advice about dealing with diverse interests? Has anyone felt the same way and dealt with it? I'd love to hear from you.

(My experience with non-American PhD programs is limited, so some of what I say here may not be relevant or possible.)

First, I think you may have painted yourself into a corner.  More important than being specific, PhD applications should be honest.  Hopefully your applications described the breadth of your interests, perhaps with some extra emphasis and detail in one area, rather than implying falsely that you are only interested in one topic.  It's better to be rejected than to be accepted into a PhD program where you won't thrive.

I think you need to look for overlaps and connections between your various fields of interest.  Decision theory and machine learning are not that far apart.  Quantum computing and philosophy of computing are not that far apart.  Parallel computing and logic are not that far apart.  Decision theory and logic are not that far apart.  Machine learning and computer music are not that far apart.  Finding something at the intersection of five or six different areas is almost certainly impossible, but lots of interesting stuff happens at the interface between field X and field Y.

On the other hand, all the areas you describe are incredibly diverse within their own boundaries.  You may find enough different topics within (say) machine learning to keep your fickle heart satisfied.

One thing you should ask about (quickly!) is the possibility of having multiple (ie, two) advisors in different areas.  Some departments encourage inter-disciplinary co-advising; some don't.  Some advisors encourage collaboration with other faculty; others flatly forbid it.  (In many European PhD programs, students are attached to specific projects of specific faculty from day one, and moving between projects or fields is almost impossible.)

What worries me more than the diversity of your interests is this sentence: "Whenever I've tried to restrict myself to one topic of study - even for a month - that feeling is lost, and I am quickly bored".  You have to get over that.  Research requires long-term focused attention.  Early in your PhD program, you may be able to juggle a couple of different research projects at once, but eventually, you have to focus on a coherent thesis topic.  It can be an interdisciplinary topic, sure, but it has be coherent.  You will have to work on that one topic for years.  If that sounds awful to you, then maybe you don't want to be a PhD student after all.

My department head has changed fields several times in his career, so I think his advice on this topic is worth repeating.  Assuming good health and good luck, you have a 50-year research career ahead of you.  So if you're deeply interested in half a dozen different areas, you can afford to spend seven or eight years on each one.


How to deal with fear of exams, perfectionism, and feeling inadequate? I will get straight to the point without much details about my mental state. I am currently studying Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. I would say that it is a demanding program. My school is considered the "hardest" to get into in my country, and we have many different courses involving math, physics, introductory computer science, electronics etc.
I know I have to deal with many issues with my self-esteem, but I would really love to hear some advice on what to do when I feel like I am not sufficiently prepared to take an exam. This happens even in cases where I watched every (or almost every) class, did coursework etc. throughout the semester, but found that I struggled with past papers some days before the exam. This makes me feel like I do not "deserve" to get a good mark if I don't study everything properly. It's like I imagine every possible scenario of failure in my head and I reject to even take the exam even though my school offers me the chance to take it again.
I am afraid to ask my professor for advice on this issue because I do not want him to feel like I care only about my grades and not the actual course, because in most of my courses I really try to care and find a deeper meaning. But I have seen (comparing to my classmates) that this is not a good study approach for finals. I feel confused, weak, and embarrassed.
My therapist asked me why I am so afraid, and I think it's because I relate my grades to whether I am good enough to follow my academic goals. For example, if I really like the course, I feel like I am not eligible to further follow related courses if I did not excel. And if I do not like the course, I feel like I have to excel because it's mandatory in my field and it shows my ability to adapt. I also feel like succeeding properly involves studying everything even if it's not appealing, because otherwise I feel like I am cheating my self, my education, and my "profession".
How can I deal with this?

It's natural to worry about exam scores, especially when a semester class only has a small number of exams. Discussing with a therapist is a good idea, however I did not see mentioned whether your anxiety is justified: how does your knowledge compare to the professor's expectations and to the average student in the class?
Can you visit the instructor during office hours to discuss your progress? That time is set aside to help students. Please don't feel bad about appearing to care about your grades. Grades often provide both the incentive for and assessment of understanding. Most instructors are happy to help students who are putting effort in, whether it is for an 'A' or genuine interest. Perhaps the professor can help you obtain past exams to practice on, or practice problems in a textbook, to self-assess your understanding.
Can you study with other students in the class? You could identify how your understanding compares to the class overall, and if other students understand better, studying with them can help you learn.
Ideally, by informally assessing your knowledge, you will identify whether you understand the concepts adequately. If your understanding is sufficient, then your anxiety is not justified, and your therapist can help you move past it. Otherwise, you will have identified topics in the class that you can work on to become better prepared for the exam.


Citing an article that the journal serialized Reynolds, Keld J. "Principal Actions of the California Junta De Fomento 1825-1827." Calif Hist QJ Calif Hist Soc 24.4 (1945): 289-320.
Reynolds, Keld J. "Principal Actions of the California Junta De Fomento, 1825-1827 (Continued)." California Historical Society Quarterly 25.1 (1946): 57-78.
...
Reynolds, Keld J. "Principal Actions of the California Junta De Fomento, 1825-1827 (Concluded)." California Historical Society Quarterly 25.4 (1946): 347-367.

This monograph was serialized in five quarterly installments. It was tricky to collate the parts using JSTOR, especially because none of the page numbers are consecutive. The middle three even have the same title, (Continued).
Should citing several elements of this paper produce multiple bibliography entries? I would rather be able to refer to it as a unitary work, but that work is a weirdly paginated, hypothetical one. If the answer is down to a difference between style standards, please indicate which styles those are.

The general rule is to always, always cite material as it is published, even if that somehow looks weird to you. This monograph has, for reasons we all can only speculate about, been split into 5 papers, so you cite it as if it were 5 papers. You do not pretend like it was somehow a single virtual paper. Even if the papers have partially the same name, at least the volume or issue number should be different. Yes, this will look like you have a duplicate entry in your bibliography to the casual observer, but I am afraid this can't be helped.

Further, note that you probably only need to cite a subset of these 5 installments. Again, treat them as different papers, and only cite the subset that actually contains arguments that are relevant to the article you are currently working on.


Equal contribution noted in paper draft without prior discussion My thesis has been accepted as a paper. Now, with the camera-ready submission deadline close, a new footnote appeared in the final version of the paper stating that the first (me) and second author have equal contribution. This has not been discussed with me.

In the paper, I have used the second author's algorithm (implemented as part of different project) as a component in the presented pipeline. His algorithm is an implementation of a complex paper with small modifications. It does not hold contributions in the paper by itself but it is an important component. The novelty of the paper is using this component in the context of a different task by combining it with other methods in a certain way. All the parts of the pipeline apart from this component, also all the experiments and evaluations have been done by me as part of my thesis. Can equal authorship still be reasonable in this case? What are the conditions for  equal contribution authorship? He still spent a lot of time on this component, but it was as part of his own project.

The second author is a PhD student and maybe he can benefit from equal contribution authorship (although not sure exactly how it works). However: What is the impact of such equal authorship on me as a first author? I plan to use this paper in my CV, potentially for a PhD candidate position - can equal authorship make a noticeable influence when looking at the paper?

Thanks in advance.

TL;DR:
Primary Question:

How to handle an equal authorship appearing in the final paper draft which was not agreed upon in advance?

Subquestions:

What are the conditions fo equal contribution of authors?
What are the implications for the first author, if any?

How to handle an equal authorship appearing in the final paper draft which was not agreed upon in advance?

This can be tricky. I strongly suggest that you bring up your concerns with your advisor and figure this out together. The key point here is that you should be collegial, but if you believe the attribution is undeserving you should definitely be assertive and explain why. Your advisor should have consulted with you before making any changes to author contribution (this is something they should know how to handle), but given that they didn't, it's reasonable to bring up the topic.

I would not change things myself, I would not confront anyone aggressively. If you have other strong publications that showcase your independence then it may be better to let this go as the marginal effect on you is minimal. My experience is that these things rarely get turned back, but I may be mistaken.

  What are the conditions to equal contribution of authors?

Well, if the two authors have made roughly equal contributions. This is often hard to quantify. Here’s another perspective: the other person in your example, call her Alice, could say: “I implemented a complex algorithm that took effort and skill to do. All that ResearchNewbie did was run a few experiments using this algorithm. I could’ve gotten an undergraduate programmer to run them! Why should they be first authors?”

  What are the implications for the first author, if any?

It’s very important. You should show some degree of independence before you graduate. Graduates who have no lead authorships can be perceived as unready to be an independent scholar.


Claiming authorship for substantial work on a single-author-only paper I recently worked on a research project for a client of my organization who was chosen for a highly prestigious lecture in my field (delivered annually). As part of convention, the lecturer is also afforded the opportunity to publish, ahead of the lecture, a single-author-only invited paper in a high-profile journal. From what I understand, no other authors are "allowed" to appear, but having been the sole person responsible for producing literally all tables, models, and visualizations in the manuscript,  I still feel strange about this.
I wrote all code used to wrangle and analyze the data and am listed in the acknowledgments for "data and statistical support". Would it be acceptable (conventional, ethical, etc.) for me to list this publication alongside the others (for which I am listed as author) on my CV?
If so, what's the appropriate format? Can it be Only-Author, [Publication Title] or Only-Author et al., [Publication Title]?
This kind of scenario does happen somewhat frequently at my organization, so just thought I'd try to get some insight to avoid raising any eyebrows for grad program applications/future employers. Thanks in advance!

Would it be acceptable (conventional, ethical, etc.) for me to list this publication alongside the others (for which I am listed as author) on my CV?

No.  If you are not on the author list in the publication, never imply that you are on the author list in your CV.  It's dishonest, even if you deserved to be on the author list.


Can I upload a LIPIcs article to arXiv? Can I upload an article that appeared in a LIPIcs style conference proceedings to arXiv as is?

What changes are required other than removing the DOI data?

Assuming that the proceedings submission / permissions allow you to also submit your manuscript to arXiv, which presumably it will as there are other LIPIcs papers on arXiv, you can also provide the DOI and reference for the original publication in the arXiv record.

One such example is Periodic Pólya urns and an application to Young tableaux, which has the following publication information attached.

  Journal reference: Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), 29th International Conference on Probabilistic, Combinatorial and Asymptotic Methods for the Analysis of Algorithms (AofA 2018), pp.1-12

  DOI:   10.4230/LIPIcs.AofA.2018.11


Ph.D. adviser or Ph.D. advisor? I think I have seen it spelled both ways.

Is one spelling more common or formal than the other ? (e.g. in the U.S.)

According to the New Oxford American Dictionary (that I have by default on my Mac :)):

  The spellings adviser and advisor are both correct. Adviser is more common, but advisor is also widely used, especially in North America. Adviser may be seen as less formal, while advisor often suggests an official position.

Since it's an official position, I'd rather go for Ph.D. advisor


Is there a website where people around the world can discuss research during writing? Authors and readers can discuss about the writing of authors including ideas, experience design, hypothesis etc., like what people discuss at stackoverflow, rather than authors only get feedbacks until publishing the paper after all work done.

I am wondering if there is any website for researchers around the world to discuss about their research.  (Thanks for Buffy.)

I know researchgate but it seems not for the purpose.

Thank you.

In the 20th century newsgroups like, e.g.,

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/sci.physics

were perfect for this, they still exist and you can narrow down the scope and audience of such a group by creating one on your own. Nowadays probably more scientists in such a field post and read on bulletin boards like

https://www.physicsforums.com/

or

https://physics.stackexchange.com.

But, professional scientists don't have much time for long discussions. I think this is also the reason the Q&A format attracts much more then bulletin boards or formerly newsgroups. Academia is about asking the right questions, if you have the question, you have to work on it based on scientific rigor and methodology. There is not so much to discuss publicly before or during doing this work or writing papers and hypothesis. Science is about coming up with a way to solve or answer a question and comparing/commenting on that. The aftermath, discussions come afterwards, when work and answers have been published. So my experience is with disccusion formats you attract in best case undergraduates and early PhD students still learning. Professional scientists mostly have private or public discussions on conferences.

So the best option you might have to discuss with experts on your topics online are virtual conferences where maybe a chat or comment app is attached to each talk. I'm wondering myself how easy and cheap web-technology has become here as I'm now registered for a big conference in my field which will not be canceled with respect to corona virus due to organization cost but many presentations will be shown online after remote registration.

Researchgate I think also can work for this if you have enough followers reading your posted questions. Online, the question is always how do you advertise your post to readers and commenters you are looking for.


What are the essential points that should be covered in a dissertation abstract? I need to prepare a 2-page abstract of my dissertation as part of a funding application. What are the essential points that such an abstract should cover?

This opportunity (and my PhD) is in the social sciences, and I know the points regarding tailoring the abstract to the opportunity advertised. But still what is the sort of information that the recruiter would scan my abstract for? For instance, I have seen Profs run their finger down a 2 page list of publications in an application; only occasionally pausing at some journal names. What are the fingers of my evaluators going to pause at?

Any abstract should cover 4 elements: context, problem, solution, and validation, in this order. The main thing you want to highlight is the contributions of your dissertation. The context and problem descriptions are essential to try to make your contributions understandable, and to convince the reader that what you have done is important. Describing the validation is important so that you convince the reader that what you have done is correct/valid.


Paper for software tool - Medical Domain This is really related to this question (Creating paper on software tool).

But there was this comment there which asked for more details about the software's domain.

I created (still in beta stage) a software for Brain Tumor, but I would like to publish (if possible) about the software itself and not so much on the validation of it. (This would be eventually a later paper).

What's is the best approach for publishing about this software "proposal" for usage in medical clinics?

My concern is that while it's being tested. It wasn't tested enough for a full paper, but I still want to publish it.

If you want to publish software in a quality scientific journal it is usually required that it represents a significant advance over previously published software, which is usually demonstrated by direct comparison with available related software. There will be no way to get around this.

I would also recommend to put the code on github (http://github.com). Github is more and more recognized as THE resource for code hosting. It is a free service for public repositories, and it is widely accepted in the community, e.g. you can register your Github repos with Impactstory (http://impactstory.org).

"Source Code for Biology and Medicine" (http://www.scfbm.org) might be an appropriate journal for you.


Can an author decline to be on a biorxiv paper? Asking for a friend.

If an author is added to a biorxiv paper, but does not want to be part of it, is there any recourse for him/her?

In common with other publishing platforms, bioRxiv requires the submitting author to confirm that all authors have agreed.

  An article may be deposited in bioRxiv in draft or final form, provided that it concerns a relevant scientific field, the content is unpublished at the time of submission, and all its authors have consented to its deposition.

Your friend should contact bioRxiv to explain the situation. The contact email listed on the FAQ page is:

  biorxiv.feedback [at] cshl.edu

Submitting a manuscript for publication without the consent of all of its authors is serious misconduct. Depending on the specifics of the situation, your friend should complain about this to administration at the relevant institutions.


Google scholar "sort by date" returns articles from last year only? I am doing a pilot study for my research. When I search in google scholar, it gives me about 10 thousand results for the keywords that are anywhere in the article. I want to narrow my search down to abstract, title and keywords only but when I click on sort by date it only gives me articles from the last year only. Is there any option which I am missing so that I can refine my result to abstracts, keywords and titles from all previous years rather than only from the last year?

Any help would be appreciated.

First, you should realize that Google Scholar is not the same thing as a "free" equivalent of a commercial scholarly database (e.g. EBSCO or ProQuest). Although it's great for finding grey literature and relatively obscure topics (not to mention tracking citation counts), it has some serious limitations for general literature reviews. In particular, it does not permit you to do many of the focused searches that commercial scholarly databases. I suspect that this is for copyright reasons, rather than technical reasons--the journal publishers probably wouldn't permit Google to search their copyrighted articles in depth without paying for it.

What this means for your purposes is that, in general, you cannot do a title-abstract-keyword search on Google Scholar. The exception is that you can search for abstracts only, but only for articles added to Google Scholar in the last year. That's what you get when you click on "Sort by Date"--it's not obvious, but that means "Sort articles added in the last year by date". This is only useful to find what's new, but is useless for any general search on what exists in the literature.

The solution is to search in a commercial scholarly database (e.g. EBSCO or ProQuest). Your library pays them for the right to access them, they pay the journals, and so the journals authorize this kind of search.