International standards relating to a professor publishing a student's thesis work without the student as co-author I am looking for international standards that speak specifically of a professor taking the thesis work of an ex-student that they had supervised and publishing a journal paper on that work (and just that work) without the student's name.

This relates to a specific case that I am aware of where the official university finding essentially admits that the aforementioned incident did indeed take place (it is largely undeniable), and quotes some generic definitions and policies regarding plagiarism, but finds that the aforementioned incident does not imply plagiarism and/or academic misconduct (due mainly to a supposition that the student did nothing more than grunt work, which I don't believe to be true at all, which contradicts the university's own expectations for the academic title obtained by the student, etc.).

The finding is an obvious attempt to sweep the case under the carpet.

However, the fact that this is clearly a case of plagiarism is sort of "folklore" to me and I cannot find something authoritative to back it up (lots of blog posts, etc., but no statement that speaks specifically to this sort of case written by an authority that an official from a well-respected university would be reluctant to explicitly discount or contradict).

Aside from my gut, my question then is: does this sort of scenario constitute plagiarism and/or academic misconduct with respect to some specific international standard?

(I would very much appreciate answers with pointers to a statement from a well-known professional organisation, reputable university, high-profile journal, etc. The specific area is Computer Science, just in case.)

There is no international standard because authorship practices vary.

COPE is the closest thing to a standards organization, but they do not publish authorship standards, or any other kind of standard.

References:

https://publicationethics.org/files/Recognise_Potential_Authorship_Problems.pdf

https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/best_practice_for_issues_around_theses_publishing%20(1).pdf

Academia varies more than you think it does – The Movie (why there are no standards)

Publishing a student's thesis without their name is certainly unethical.


Choosing a PI for my MS/PhD degree in EE based on the h-index? I am an EE undergraduate senior who is about to become a graduate student next semester.

I applied for integrated MS/PhD and there are two PIs I can choose. However, the problem is that I do not know choosing which PI will benefit myself in long term perspective.

Their research fields are 90% the same. Furthermore, they are currently assistant professors who came to this school this year which means that they have no alumni yet. The only apparent difference is the h-index based on Google Scholar where that of one PI is almost twice that of the other.

Is this case, is it obvious to choose the one with the higher h-index? First, I thought choosing the PI with the higher h-index would be a wise choice because they are almost the same age, studying the same research field with same alumni status which is 0 since they are both new. If all conditions are the same, considering the h-index difference would be a relevant comparison.

However, thinking another way, the department committee are not idiots; they would have hired the PI with the lower h-index for some reason that cannot be explained by the lower h-index. So, maybe, choosing the one with the lower h-index will be a harmless choice or even might be a good choice for me.

I heard hundreds of pieces of advice that comparing PIs in terms of h-index is not relevant due to different research fields, ages, alumni status, etc. However, in my case, the fact that they are so alike in everything except the h-index makes me confused. What will be a good choice for me? Or at least, even if you don't have a definite answer, please give me advice.

The only apparent difference between the two being h-index means you don't know enough about these two PIs. Work habits, advising styles, perspectives on the roles of their students...all of these matter.

With that out of the way, lets pretend they are, actually, identical.

The h-index is still a bad choice. There are a few reasons why:

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
The h-index is something that can be, and is, gamed. But just being "good" at said game does not actually ensure that you are good as an academic, or as an advisor.
The h-index has no context. Are the highly cited articles commentaries with no students on them? If so, they will be of no value to you.

You need to do more investigation. At the very least you need to engage with their body of work in a way much deeper than a single citation metric.


Am I likely to struggle in a high-ranked PhD program, if I struggled to get GPA of 3.5 in my master's? I want to be realistic whether I am a material who can complete PhD at top universities such as Stanford, Princeton, Berkeley or Caltech. Grad school courses were hard. I scored 3.5 GPA in my specialization for MS with thesis. My overall GPA was 3.42.

Whether I will get in these universities or not, that is different question. My concern is: If I get into one of these universities, say because of other achievements like research, LOR, SOP etc., it will be harder to maintain this GPA at these universities. Given the fact that U of Michigan has its Electrical Engineering Grad program is ranked 6th in US.

Any suggestions? Reason I want to apply to these universities is because of my area of research.

Course directly related to my research: I have A-, A.
Closely related to area of research, but in my specialization: I have B+, A-, B+, B.

I do not want to talk lot about my MS thesis, because I want to focus more on rigor of the course and qualifying exam at these universities.

Michigan's EECS department is basically in the same tier as the others you cited.  If you struggled but succeeded at Michigan, you should probably expect a similar experience at any of those other schools.


Is it okay to keep on updating a published paper online? Suppose someone publishes a survey paper in some journal on a topic where a lot of work is still going on. A lot of new interesting works are expected to be published every year on this topic. Is it a good idea to upload a version of the survey on Arxiv and keep on updating it? In that case, should the Arxiv version contain a note that an earlier version was published in so-and-so journal?

Is it a good idea to upload a version of the survey on Arxiv and keep on updating it?

It's worth doing if you have the time and energy, but it's unconventional.  There are some continuously updated survey papers (such as the dynamic surveys in the Electronic Journal of Combinatorics), but the usual expectation is that a survey represents a snapshot in time.  As a career matter, writing a second survey on recent results a few years later may get you more attention and credit than updating your original survey.  Continuous updates can be especially useful if they are timely and the field is particularly hot, but they have their own limitations in a rapidly developing field (the original organization may weigh you down if you stick too closely to it).

From my perspective, the trickiest aspect is what to tell people.  If you silently update the paper, it won't attract as many readers as announcing that everyone should check back for periodic updates.  (And the whole purpose is to inform the community, so getting readers is important.)  On the other hand, it's difficult to commit to regular updates, and it's nice to avoid issues such as whether other authors should be unhappy that their latest results haven't made it into the survey yet.

  In that case, should the Arxiv version contain a note that an earlier version was published in so-and-so journal?

If you update the arXiv version of a paper after publication, it's critically important to be clear about how it relates with the published version.  Otherwise you risk confusing and upsetting your readers.

I would recommend against removing anything from the survey over time.  It would still be accessible via past versions on the arXiv for those who know to look there, but it's annoying to send a student to learn about X in Arani's survey and have them report back that it's not covered.


Should a thesis advisor be an onlooker or somebody who struggles with the problem? I am asking about research in a Math department, although I believe the question generalises to other departments.

I would like to know what a potential thesis advisor should be like. Should the advisor be somebody who is experienced, is quite famous but nowadays usually supervises the works of his students as an onlooker and does not really work on the same problem? Note, he still studies his area but does not publish anything by himself recently. Or should he be somebody who fights along with the PhD student on a problem, and they share ideas and attempts, and both are active in this?

In the first case, I have heard that the experience of the professor matters and his fame will help in getting a placement much more easily. Also he would want me to learn, and trying the same problem with me would tilt the scales towards him since he would come up with ideas more quickly than me due to his experience. As a result, there is a chance the work would become primarily his. But isn't this the thing to look out for? Why would I have somebody as my advisor who doesn't work on my problems, (but who has worked on these previously) and merely tells me references and guides me to papers or books when I get stuck? How exactly am I learning from him, then?

Personally, I would prefer somebody who may be young, but who is motivated enough and willing to spend hours with me discussing things and working together on a problem, rather than somebody whose aim is to "help" me do things by giving suggestions, most of which he hasn't read completely (which usually happens). He should be my friend and together we should explore the frontiers of human knowledge. But that's my opinion. If I manage to get my degrees, maybe I would try to be that kind of an advisor to my students, and if I cannot, I would tell them straight away.

I am not sure which type of advisor is better. It probably depends on the individul or is a combination of both extremes. However, I think that, in the absence of finding all good qualities in one individual, a PhD student can build a team of mentors and coauthors.

Your advisor is one type of mentor in your team, but you should add others. Perhaps you can also do work with a postdoc or coauthor who would provide the togetherness/teamwork you are looking for. You might also want to add a junior person with a different research specialty but a great personal connection to you who can provide some career-focused advice rather than research-focused advice. And others as needed.

Personally, my advisor was like yours. I cultivated other relationships with more junior people to supplement his more 10,000-foot approach. It was good training for being an independent researcher.


Approaching a company unsolicited for internship opportunities as an academic It's already been discussed on here how to find internships/temporary research opportunities at universities and also when exactly to do an an internship at a company during one's PhD, but there doesn't seem to be much information on how someone goes about finding internship/temporary research opportunities at companies.

There are a few companies which do stuff which is very similar to what I'm researching, and a couple of those are even posting full-time jobs for work nearly identical to my own albeit looking for people who are more experienced in the field than I currently am. How can I approach said companies which are actively working on my own research topic (more or less) with a proposal to spend a period of time working with them?

I think it makes a difference whether you want to ask about a paid versus unpaid internship - companies may be more likely to agree to an unpaid internship. However, you could reach out to someone who would be in an authority position related to the job announcement you already found and ask if there are any opportunities to gain experience through an internship. The worst they can say is no.


Location, life and applying for faculty positions I am 5 years into my postdoc, which has been up and down but I now have a decent publication record. I like what I am doing, am ready to manage people and can't wait to get out of the lab and no longer be a postdoc. I have many ideas and not enough hands. But, it is becoming clear that to be "successful" one has to be willing to look absolutely everywhere for a faculty position. I am in New York City, I moved here for my postdoc from London, UK, and love it here. I have friends and a support system, a husband, a great apartment. Aside from that it is relatively convenient for flying to the UK to see my family - who have a lot of problems, which I am struggling to deal with. Although I think I might want to have a faculty position, I want to be here more - and I think I need this to feel happy. My family problems has taught me that life is too short to be miserable and do things that will make you unhappy.
My boss is going all out promoting me to her PI friends and telling them how great I am, asking around for positions and introducing me to people - which is incredibly supportive. But she keeps suggesting places I just can't see myself living in, and says I need to be open minded. The fact is that I simply do not want to.  What would you do? If I tell my boss this, I feel like I'll lose her support and need her on my side for the next step (which also I wouldn't mind being in industry). I am really confused and don't know how to have this conversation with my boss or if I should at all. Any ideas?

Best wishes to you. This is definitely a hard decision. I chose career over my personal life and I've spent the last five years in a small city which, to be honest, I don't find all that appealing. I believe it was the right decision (I love my work), but I'd be lying if I said I was completely sure.

I certainly know of academics who made the opposite decision, and I think they feel analogously: they may have some regrets, but suspect that they made the right call.

Ultimately, no one can make this decision for you. You might also keep in mind that there is middle ground between only New York and "absolutely everywhere". There are at least a dozen American cities with direct flights to London, most of which are quite big and cosmopolitan, all of which have research universities, and several of which are not far from New York. So you might consider compromising somewhat while still ruling out places where you definitely don't want to live.

Then again, you might not. Good luck to you in any case.


How familiar should I be with research topics of a potential PhD supervisor? I'm about to finish my master's degree in physics (theoretical physics). I'm applying for several professors in Europe. I want to do my PhD in another field than my master's thesis, but both fields are theoretical and to some extend related. But, I didn't take some relevant courses on this topic in my undergraduate studies, instead I took courses which were related to my master's thesis. My question is the following:

How much details should I know about the research field of the potential professor?

I don't understand his papers quite well, although I'm passionate about the topic and have many ideas or maybe fantasy.

You should at a minimum make an attempt to understand some of the papers written by a professor you want to work with, but the professor shouldn't expect you to understand every aspect of their work. It's also fine to go into your meetings with some questions about a paper, but do make sure you've made some effort to understand by reading other related papers, etc.


Should we put the references in slides/poster when we already have them in paper? After reading this question about slides making and asking myself two questions about poster making and TED talking, I realize that these activities are for showing what you found, make the audience be attracted. If they need further explanation, they should read your paper, which has successfully defensed and proved that your work is validated. One important thing when you attempt to attract people is concentrate on the important, which means unnecessary things need to be trimmed. I think the reference is one of those. So, should we put the references in slides/poster when we already have them in paper?

My rule for presentations is:

  Don't say anything that an interested member of the audience will not be able to remember.

This includes tables, but also bibliographic references to things that are not absolutely central to the presentation. There is a caveat: if the conference is recorded or the slides are available offline, you could write them in a non intrusive way (but not mention them during the talk).

Posters are different, as an interested reader may spend a longer time reading it. But then, the rule becomes:

  Don't include anything that an interested reader will not be able to remember, or won't bother to write down.

This trims away "previous work" (except, perhaps, a single very good review) or citations for the exact value of a certain constant you used; but you should include things that are indeed central.

And of course, by all means, you should include the reference to your own paper, so it is easy to find.


Going back to university after suspension, how do I move past the shame? I was suspended for 1 year from my university for copying an assignment from an online source. There were several extenuating circumstances but I won't go into them as they are irrelevant, I did cheat and I do deserve the punishment I was given - that is not the question.

After I found out my sentence, I found it very hard to attend classes relating to that department, or to look professors or my deans and advisors in the face and carry out conversations with them. The professor who's class I cheated in is one I was hoping to talk to as she is in the same area that I hope to go into one day and I really enjoyed her class, teaching methods, and enthusiasm for the subject. I also am extremely saddened by the fact that since I'm a fourth year, this means all my peers will be graduating and will have left by the time I come back and I'm finding it hard to cope with the thought of being without them for the rest of my undergraduate career.

My question is how do I cope with the stress and shame I am feeling and how do I get over that so that I can return to the academic environment in 1 year? Can I ever approach that professor again, or should I avoid her? I'm asking this here because I'd like the opinions of those who are on the other side of this.

The university suspended you, which is a signal that it is still willing to have you as a student after serving your suspension.  (If it wasn't, you'd have been expelled.)  Therefore, upon your return, this professor (and every other professor) has the same professional obligations towards you that she would to any other student: to accept you in her classes, to treat you with courtesy and respect, to help you learn the material, to grade you fairly based on your work and the standards of the course.  It is possible that your assignments may face extra scrutiny for plagiarism, but hopefully that is irrelevant as you're not going to do it again.

It's possible that relations may be strained between you, but I think this may be more on your side than hers.  Speaking for myself, I certainly find it disappointing when a student cheats, but it's not as if I'm going to declare a personal vendetta against them and seethe with fury every time I pass them in the hall.  That would be unprofessional, and not worth the emotional energy anyway.  We go through the disciplinary process, I hope that they learn their lesson, and it's back to business as usual.  If they are able to turn things around and show genuine interest in and dedication to their studies, for me that's ultimately uplifting.

So if you want to take her class at a later date, by all means do so.  You might find it helpful to talk with her first: express your regret over the incident, as well as your continued interest in your subject and in completing your degree.  I think it's very likely this will help clear the air for both of you.  It would be wise for you to be extra diligent about quotations, citing sources, etc, and to consult your professor if you have the slightest question about any such issues.

Maybe she won't invite you to dinner, and she probably won't be the best person to write you a letter of recommendation.  (Even if you get to be on better terms, which I hope you will, she might still feel it's her duty to mention the cheating incident in any letter she writes, which is probably not good for you.)  But I don't see any reason you can't have the same basic educational experience as any other student.


Is it possible to get admission to masters for theoretical physics with a bachelors in electronics engineering? Can I get into masters for theoretical physics without having a bachelors in physics or maths? I have a bachelors in electronics engineering, and I can get a recommendation from the physics department for the admission.

Absolutely. On a Masters course you will meet people from a wide range of backgrounds. In fact, one of my physics students has just been accepted onto a Masters course in computer science.

Having said that, you may struggle to get onto a good course if your grades are not strong. Since you will have a lot of catching up to do, those running the Masters programme will need to be persuaded that you're hard working with good potential. You will also probably need to demonstrate that you've already made an effort to study theoretical physics (e.g. discussing in some detail the topics that interest you in your application).


Making figure legends for papers in the biological sciences I'm in the process of writing figure legends but realized I don't actually know what to include or what to exclude. I wrote them based on intuition and tried to copy what I've already seen but I was wondering if anyone had good suggestions or references for making figure legends for papers and reports in the biological sciences.

In general, the figure should contain a title which concisely captures what it's showing: 'Effect of manipulation A on measure B', or 'Level of A influences property of B', or 'B vanishes when A is larger than X', or some such.

After that you would go on describe what the figure shows, as precisely as possible - go panel by panel and say what's on the axes (and in which units), what denotes statistical significance in the image (e.g. gray shaded areas), what the colors mean, that sort of thing. You can also write what the main statistical finding is, using just words (i.e. no p-values or similar).

Those are the basics. However, take into account that some journals allow unsubscribed readers to see the title, abstract and figures of their papers. If this is the case, try to imagine what it's like to be able to read just the abstract and see the figure with legends, and build from there. See if an experienced reader can infer what your specific contribution is from this information only (in fact, many people will anyway just skim over the figures before deciding whether to read the paper). This often means that the figure legend should also include a mini-recap of the experimental setup or specific manipulations next to the finding it depicts, but the exact contents will vary depending on what you're showing.


What does "Reviews Completed" mean one week post-submission? I sent a paper to a Springer journal. After two days the editor was assigned and after 5 days the status changed to "Reviews Completed".

Is this bad news?

Yes, it's a bad sign. If a review is completed that quickly the odds are the reviewer recommended a quick rejection. There's also a small chance the reviewer said something like "I can't understand this paper's English" in which case you might still receive a revise decision. However it's also possible that the editor invited multiple reviewers of which only the first has submitted, so it might be a while longer to a decision. If the other reviews are more positive, you might also get a revise decision.

Human error here is unlikely. The editorial management systems I've seen automatically update the status only when reviews are submitted. If the editor's making a decision without reviewers, the status never shows 'reviews complete'; it goes straight to 'decision in progress'.


How can I answer the question: "What do you hope to achieve during your studies at University X?" Currently I am writing (Statement of Purpose) for Phd applying. and they asked me this question:
 What you hope to achieve during your studies at the XX university?
How I can answer this question, I need some ideas.

At this point, you can't really say what you will achieve or accomplish, exactly.  I mean, if you knew all that already, you kind of wouldn't need to go there to study, would you?

What I did was I described my fantasies, of what I wanted to study, which I hoped I would find there.  At the time, I was working as a COBOL programmer.  It was tedious.  Once in a while there was a fun logical challenge, but mostly I was pulling data from the student database at a community college, and writing tedious code to format the results in a nice report for a college administrator.

One fantasy was that I would write a program that would generate the tedious COBOL code.

That's not what I ended up doing once I was in the grad program.

But that was okay.

I don't remember what my other fantasy was, but I think it was something that I imagined as a result of programming a spline fit for a numerical methods class I took as an undergrad.  That was a really fun project and I wanted to do more of that kind of programming.

Just write about what sorts of things you'd like to learn more about when you are in a grad program.


Grants.gov v NIH ASSIST for grant submission I am writing a training grant--what is the difference between Grants.gov and NIH ASSIST for submission? Is one preferable to another?

Functionally, you can use whichever system you prefer; there is no inherent advantage in submitting via either system, since both are approved methods for submitting proposals.

The decision on which system to use basically boils down to which system you feel is easier, and which one your university's grants and contracts administrators are more comfortable using. (The easier it is for them to use the system, the easier it will be for you to submit your proposals according to the rules and deadlines!)


How to refer to an Academic, NGO and private partnership organization? What would you call an umbrella organization that unites a university faculty, an extra-academic non-profit research center, and a NGO?

These organizations plan to pool resources to facilitate scientific research, apply for grants, and co-publish. As there are advantages to developing a single entity to those ends, we plan to form an umbrella organization. But how to call it: a hub, a research centre, a working group… it seems there are no standard terms.

Do you guys have any experience with such entities and how they are called?

In my experience, an organization that organizes activities across multiple organizations would be called a coalition.


Publishing: quality vs. quantity I am nearing the end of my Ph.D. I need to publish a bit more, but am unsure what to do. So far I have published two rather large articles with my supervisor, where we develop new methods. I have also published a smaller article along with an external collaborator, where some of the new methods are used. My supervisor thinks we should publish another large article together, while I lean more towards two small ones alone. I am not guaranteed a post doc anywhere yet, and will most likely have to write my own grant application. What would be the best thinking in terms of securing external funding afterwards?

A direct answer for your question would be that quality would be better than quantity in this case.

By a larger paper would not always be of a better quality than a smaller one. But if you mean a paper with more extensive research and collation of results obtained from rigorous time consuming experimentation, then yes. Such a paper would carry more positive impact than multiple smaller ones that you could use just for the count. This is from the viewpoint of your advisor.

Some may prefer increasing the number of publications, but it would only matter if they are published in reputable journals, in other words, if they all hold quality (at least in most cases).

So if you intend to sacrifice quality for quantity, my honest opinion would be the same as your advisor's.


When can I ignore related work in my paper? In many fields it is conventional to discuss related work in your paper.
This lets you show where this new contribution sits in the literature, as to what novelties it adds over existing works; and to introduce works that you will later show how their techniques were adapted for the new work.
One can certainly have papers rejected because the related work section is not up to scratch.

My question is can one draw a line as to what works are worth discussing based on the quality of the work in question?

Obviously, if a work is not closely enough related, one does not need to discuss it.
If one is contributing to a well established area, then there is no space to discuss every work, so many can be skipped.
But what if there is only a small number of works, that are related?

To use as an example what is prompting me to this question,
the current work I am on is fairly new.
There are only 5 related papers that I am considering discussing.

2 on the inverse problem, 1 on a more general related problem, and 2 that are closely related.
Of these all baring 1 are published in top-venues
The remaining one, looks like it was an assignment.

I found it, via google scholar, at the URL: http:://www.<famous-university>.edu/<unitcode>/reports/<title>.pdf
It is formatted like a paper, which tends to make google scholar index it.
It may have been in preparation for a smaller workshop.
It was fairly well written; but lacked any kind of quantitative results, or even many qualitative results

However, this remaining one is one (of the two) closest related works.
I feel like I could include it, but if I did I would have to be quiet cutting as to its limitations.

I am in Computer Science

Did the paper you're asking about contribute to your knowledge of your topic, or to the analysis or contextualisation of your results?

If yes, you should include it, wherever you found it and whatever it was originally. You might have to qualify your use of a non-conventionally or accidentally published source (if Google Scholar scooped it up from a random webpage the author might not know it's out in the wild). But attribution of sources is non-negotiable.

If no... well it might be up to your judgement. mts's comment about calling it a "related discussion" might be worth considering. If the typical practice in your broader field is to mention significant literature by way of contextualising your own work, I would probably leave this one out (due to the aforementioned questionable provenance). That particular document is unlikely to be a widely significant piece of literature. If the typical practice in your broader field is to mention as much as possible, you might be inclined to include it. A lot depends on how your field typically does things.

Which makes me think: have you been as thorough as possible in checking the author's body of published work, to make sure the same material can't be found somewhere more reputable? If it can, use that instead.


In Germany, is it possible to get a professorship in the same university where you earned a PhD? I did my PhD in a German university. I heard that it is not legally allowed to be professor in the same university. However, I see also some counterexamples in our field. Is this true? If so, why some people could still stay in the same university?

In Germany you cannot get your tenure in the same university where you already working. So to speak, you cannot promote to tenure in a university while working on this university. I explain myself, if you are a post-doc in Uni A you cannot get the professorship in this uni, no matter if you did or didn't your PhD there. You'll have to apply for better positions in other universities and, eventually, get hired in uni B.
What I've seen is someone working in a post-doc position in Uni A, accepting a professorship in uni B, working there for a semester and coming back to Uni A as a professor. He was not promoted to professor in uni A, so it is not illegal.


When shall one write a mathematical expression as a separate line in a paper/Ph.D. thesis? When do we write a mathematical expression on a separate line, and when do we write it inline with the text?

I believe that the answer is the same for researching papers and Ph.D. theses, or maybe even textbooks; but please correct me if I am wrong.

Here I am referring to a paper/thesis on mathematics. When one writes a mathematical paper, sometimes one writes a mathematical expression in a separate line such as in the following example:

  We know that the identity
  a2+b2=c2
  holds true if ....

While sometimes one writes the mathematical expression inline with the text, such as in the following example:

  Let f:X->Y be a one-to-one map, ...

My impression is the longer the expression is, the more likely it is written in a separate line. But is there any (possibly unwritten) rule for it?

In the areas in which I work, there are no formal rules and it is left up to the author when to separate an equation and when to embed it in the text.  When I am writing, I find that there are three fairly straightforward principles that work well for me in determining whether an equation (or other mathematical statement) deserves its own line or can be inline with the text:

Will I need to refer to the equation elsewhere?  If so, it needs its own line, and equation numbering as well.
Is it more than ~1/3 of a line long?  Anything so long that it is likely to get broken across lines and otherwise be a typographical mess should be pulled out onto its own line.  Numbering is not required.
Do I want the reader to "pause" and contemplate the equation, or do I want it to "flow" as part of the sentence encompassing it?

This last needs a little bit more explanation... let's elaborate on one of the examples from the original question.  If I write the sentence this way:

  We know that the identity a^2+b^2=c^2 holds true if the system is in condition X.

then the equation should be inline, because the sentence is really about condition X, rather than about the equation.  If, on the other hand, the reader's attention should be directed to the equation, then it is better to use something like the following form, with the equation on its own line:

  We know that if the system is in condition X, then the following identity holds:

    a^2+b^2=c^2

Note: these principles reduce to a similar effect as the style guide given by @silvado


How can I make my papers available on Sci-Hub? An essential assumption of this question is that I own, without restriction, the copyright of my papers.  I am a novice Sci-Hub user.  How do I make my papers available to other Sci-Hub users?
Edit:  If your answer is to post the paper somewhere other than Sci-Hub, please explain how that leads to the paper being available in Sci-Hub.  I want to target people who only look at Sci-Hub for papers.

"Sci-Hub is a shadow library website that provides free access to millions of research papers and books, without regard to copyright, by bypassing publishers' paywalls," source: Wikipedia. "Sci-Hub obtains paywalled articles using leaked credentials."  So, it seems, Sci-Hub focuses on papers owned by corporations, rather than individuals.
There's surely less interest in providing access to papers owned by individuals, since those individuals can simply make their papers publicly available. Nonetheless, let us suppose that Sci-Hub takes an interest in making more works available. Then you just need to make papers available where Sci-Hub looks.
Even technical report repositories such as arxiv may forbid Sci-Hub from redistributing papers. So, there isn't much of an incentive for Sci-Hub to move into this space: They create trouble for little reward.
Sci-Hub could start looking at personal websites, but, what's the reward? The material is already accessible. Sci-Hub could also start allowing authors to upload content, but, again, what's the reward?
I don't really see why Sci-Hub would invest in making papers owned by individuals more accessible.  Their niche is elsewhere.


Industry and academia collaboration I'm currently a PhD candidate on leave, working in industry (full-time) tangentially related to research topics (deep learning) I had been working on. I'm planning on submitting a somewhat theoretical result to an academic conference once we're done with the project. There's a statement that I am close to proving, but my coworkers don't have the mathematical prerequisites to understand neither the statement nor the proof, and I would like to collaborate with someone I am certain can provide advice, for example my PhD advisor. There's 2 questions I'd like to know an answer to before asking both sides including my workplace.

If I ask my advisor for collaboration, would I have to secure some funding?
Assuming the first question is resolved and we agree to collaborate, is there any reason against doing so?

Not necessarily. Sometimes researchers take on new projects without additional funds, simply out of intellectual joy (or the prospect of another publication may already be enough of a benefit to them). But if funding is needed, then perhaps your advisor could likewise offer him- or herself to apply for a grant. The allocation of tasks (including the application for funding) is variable, and you need to coordinate it with your advisor first.

No, I do not see anything that speaks against such a collaboration. On the contrary, as another post says: 'Prominent world university rankings give bonus points to "university-industry collaborations", which is generally deemed to be highly valuable for fostering innovation (e.g. see this document from the Times Higher Education, some further evidence here, or this OECD report).'


What does "qualify for a more competitive rate" mean when booking flights for academic travel? I know this question may be off-topic on academia SE, but really am not sure where to ask. I was admitted to a great PhD program recently, and was also invited to participate in their Open House in March. I was informed that I would be reimbursed for travel expenses. However the email says to book flights as early as possible to "qualify for a more competitive rate". Does this "rate" refer to the ticket price or the rate at which I am reimbursed? I'm afraid to ask the secretary since I don't want to make a bad impression.

By "qualify for a more competitive rate," it seems pretty likely that they simply want you book early to get a cheaper flight.


Is it plagiarism if peer reviewers use sentences from submitted manuscripts? I have a question about plagiarism.

If a peer reviewer writes a negative review of a paper and rejects it, so that he or she can use the idea of the paper in their own work is that considered plagiarism?

Similarly, if a peer reviewer lifts sentences from a submitted, but rejected manuscript into their own paper is that considered plagiarism?

And if you have a strong suspicion either of those two have happened (e.g. you see a publication appear after a while with exactly the same phrasing as your submitted manuscript), is there anything you can do about it?

The answer to your first two questions are easy: Yes! It is considered plagiarism to take other people's ideas and represent them as your own, without giving proper credit. The same holds for sentences in a paper, no matter if it has already been published.

Your last question is more difficult to answer, as the burden of proof essentially lies with the person being plagiarized. Since the paper have already been submitted (though rejected), there should be a date stamped version of it somewhere in the journal repository. This is, however, not the best way to go, as the supposed culprit(s) can claim that they have never seen this paper - it is, after all, not in the public domain. For this (and other) reason I would always recommend authors to submit preprints to a service like arXiv, to have a valid, time-stamped proof in the public domain.

In the concrete case I would recommend contacting the editor of the journal where the new paper has been published, if adequate proof can be gathered.


How should I structure exams when individual problems could use up the entire class time? I am currently preparing for a new class in an area in which the individual problems can be very long. (My writeups for individual homework problems were often three or four pages long when I took the same course as a student!)

Solving a typical problem involves:

Identifying the correct differential equations and boundary conditions to solve.
Making the correct assumptions and simplifications.
Identifying the correct solution strategy.
Implementing the strategy and solving the problem.

All of the above steps are of critical importance, as we introduce new methods and approaches for each.

Given that, an in-class exam would only have enough time for one problem—so there would be no easy way to evaluate mastery of the breadth of the material. So I’ve been thinking of doing an out-of-class exam. The time would be long enough that the students would have time to think through things, but not long enough that they could spend a lot of time trying to look things up on the internet. The class is also small enough that it would be fairly easy to detect plagiarized work or students copying off of one another. (I suspect four to six hours is sufficient.)

Are there more viable or effective strategies for testing in such circumstances?

The most time-consuming and least information-bearing step (at least for the purpose of evaluating understanding of the material) is 4. In this situation I've often just given questions asking the students to do 1-3 and explicitly told them to not go through the calculation. It's better if you prep them for this by giving such a question on a quiz first since many students tend to go on autopilot after a couple of decades of being trained to come up with an answer.


How does a low quantitative score on GRE general exam affect admissions to mathematics PhD programs? I am applying to pure math grad school for Ph.D. this fall (usually top 20-25).

I just took my GRE test and found out that my Quantitative score for General GRE is 156. I am not sure about the percentile yet for this particular exam, but this is typically around 64th percentile among GRE test-takers.

Thus, if I want to present strong applications to math grad schools like UT Austin, UCLA, Columbia, Ohio State is the quantitative score enough?

The rest of my application is decent with about (3.7 gpa), research and publication. However I scored in the lower end of 600 for math gre. As you can tell I have high anxiety before such tests but I would like to avoid bringing up this point in my application as I am sure that the admission committee sees reason like this on its applications a lot.

Unsurprisingly, mathematics PhD applicants are rumored to have very high GRE general test quantitative scores.

I found a few links by web search where PhD programs list the average GRE scores for their students. (Everyone, please feel free to edit this to add more.)

Penn State: https://www.math.psu.edu/grad/phd/faq.php
Duke: http://gradschool.duke.edu/about/statistics/mathematics-phd-admissions-and-enrollment-statistics
U Penn: http://www.math.upenn.edu/grad/graddata.html
U Maryland Applied Math and Statistics: http://www.amsc.umd.edu/join_us/faq.html#Tests3
Georgia Tech: http://www.math.gatech.edu/academics/graduate/faqs-graduate-admissions#MINGRE

These sites all show average quantitative GRE score is in the high 160s, which corresponds to about the 90th percentile (which was around 795 out of 800 on the old scale). So, if these statistics are accurate, the rumors are true.

Now, for the more personal side of the question. You asked if the scores are "enough". Most schools have no firm minimum score. If you have sufficiently good credentials, you can overcome the low GRE score. What you will need, certainly, are very good letters of recommendation.

I would include a statement about anxiety in your personal statement, because even if the committee has heard it before, they haven't heard it from you.

You may also want to make sure you have diversified your applications: don't just apply to top-25 departments. There are a lot of perfectly fine schools lower in the rankings, which may not be as broadly strong but which may be strong in particular areas of interest to you.


Why are most of the top universities American? In any ranking system, at least 50% of top universities (top 100, for example) are American. What is special about American higher education?

It started in the 1930s, when Nazi Germany started to fire Jewish professors and other people who opposed the regime. Many others left voluntarily as well. Germany had the best universities before this period. The United States ended out getting more of the refugees than any other country (e.g. Einstein) and this started the ascendancy of American universities.

Then World War II happened. Germany ended out with their universities basically obliterated, through the actions of the Nazis and also from the war itself. Japan's universities were also very damaged. The US on the other hand, not only benefited from the refugees but also from the war effort. A lot of money and effort was put into the Manhattan Project and so on, and this infrastructure was used after the war. Other European countries did not really gain as much... some suffered extensive war damage and others like France were at least occupied. Britain's academic institutions were (basically) intact but they were losing ground to the Americans.

After WWII the Cold War happened, and universities were highly supported by the US government during this period, building on the earlier growth. The US had a lot of financial resources and were willing to use them to help universities. Also, American universities in recent decades have been quite welcoming to foreigners, and the increasing prominence of US universities in turn attracts immigrants. So this has become a self-perpetuating phenomenon.


Do schools/departments ever evaluate their own admissions process? I'm curious as to whether or not any departments ever attempt to evaluate their own admissions decisions. It seems quite plausible to do for any college or graduate program, but I've never heard of it done. I have in mind some kind of data analysis comparing student success in the program or beyond with variables from the application.

I understand some might not like the idea, but as noisy as admissions are, I was wondering if schools ever reflect on their own decisions and attempt to identify strengths and weaknesses?

This practice is not frequent, and it is rarely systematic and rigorous.  However, from a decision-making perspective, this has been given attention by Robyn Dawes, who was a very well-known psychologist at Carnegia Mellon.  Here is one of his papers on the topic, which has been cited about 500 times (per Google Scholar). Some recent evaluations have been published, but relative to the total number of admissions committees that exist across all graduate schools, I can confidently say it is not many.

Dawes, R. M. (1971). A case study of graduate admissions: Application of three principles of human decision making. American Psychologist, 26(2), 180.


How to become a professional design researcher? I graduated from BA art design (mostly practical) and MA communication design (where I fell in love with research).

Now I have been working as a interactive designer (mostly visual) for a digital magazine company for half a year, they don't do any research before launching any new project. But I know design is not what I would do forever, I would like to become a design researcher.

The problem with finding this kind of post is that most design companies only hire either intern or senior. There seems to be no place for entry level researcher like me, whose research background is just a master's degree.

Now the question is, how to get on to the right path if I want to apply for a "senior design researcher" job in the future? And how should I lead my own research projects while there is no real projects in hand?

I think that a Ph.D. program in human-computer interaction (HCI), such as this one, or a Ph.D. program in information systems with HCI specialization would be among the right routes toward your goal. Potentially, depending on what areas you're interested in, a degree, certification, postgraduate program or, even, a set of MOOCs in information architecture or information science might be a feasible option. An important point: unless you want to teach HCI at a university level, you can also IMHO consider trying to get your foot in the door without earning a Ph.D. degree - with enough knowledge and right skills, obtaining which should be doable, if you can self-study well.

In regard to performing research temporarily on your own, you can get a lot of ideas by searching for and analyzing information on past and current research projects, small and big, by individual researchers or small groups (review existing literature - peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings, etc.; consider joining special interest groups (SIGs); visit relevant websites and blogs; consider professional networking by interest) as well as large and well-known research labs and divisions, such as MIT Media Lab and Human -Computer Interaction Institute at CMU. Good luck!


Citing (or not) a flawed or incomprehensible paper or preprint Is there a good practice of citing (or not) a paper or preprint that you consider flawed (or at best - totally incomprehensible)?

Once I had a problem of that sort. I wrote a paper on a topic, which was not very popular. Even if I was not using other's results directly, I wanted to cite a few papers solving very similar issues.

Then I had a dilemma if to cite a preprint tackling the same problem, using methods I don't understand (with a feeling that it is incomplete, flawed or just extremely badly written).

Ii that case it is better to:

simply drop it,
cite but make it explicit that you are just mentioning it, not using their results,
or cite making it explicit that you have serious doubts on its content?

EDIT:

By a preprint I understand sth which is archived on arXiv or sth similar.

in what follows, I'm assuming you're correct in your assessment of the flaw.

The first step is to communicate with the authors. If you mutually resolve the flaw (they accept the mistake, and/or redo the proof), then you either cite the corrected version or mention when citing the paper that it has a flaw and cite your discussion with them as a personal communication.

If the conversation with the authors stall (they're nonresponsive or shift the goalposts), then you can cite the paper and briefly outline the flaw in an appendix (or if you're space constrained, post a brief link to a document available elsewhere). I'm not entirely happy with this last idea, but I can't think of anything better in a space-constrained scenario.

I don't think that incomprehensibility is a good reason for not citing, or citing negatively. You'd have to narrow down the incomprehensibility to something in particular that the authors are not clear on (a definition, a set of cases, or something like that). Again, this should be a last resort if the authors are not responsive to contact - ideally, matters of lack of understanding should be resolved between the authors without it making it into the paper.

post-caveat: my answer deals mostly with theoretical papers. In more applied works, it might be trickier to determine whether something is "known to be incorrect" or "not known to be correct".


What is a reliable accreditation to look for in British business schools? When selecting an American business school, we look for certain accreditations specific to business schools, like ACBSP, AACSB, CHEA, , etc.

For European universities, we look for Equis, AMBA, etc.

What about British universities? (For pursuing a PhD in a UK business school.)

I am not sure how valuable accreditations are. I would suggest going by reputation rather than a binary is/isn't accredited. I think it would be rare for a school to have a "good" reputation, but lack critical accreditations. There likely is variability in the accreditations that schools with questionable reputations have. I would still base my decision on reputation and then only when deciding between a few schools with very similar reputations give any weight to accreditation. As for finding out about reputation word of mouth, league tables (e.g., the Guradian tables), and the RAE are reasonable starting points.


What is the difference between PhDs in the US and Europe (in terms of employment)? It is frequently mentioned that PhD students are employed in Europe (e.g. the Netherlands, Scandinavia, etc). I still don't understand how this affects a PhD program.

What is the difference when one enrols as a PhD student in the US or has a work contract in the Netherlands? Is there any specific difference in responsibilities, expectations, freedom, etc?

Please make a tangible comparison rather than listing various possibilities. If a student enrols in a PhD program in the US or in the Netherlands, how will their work and life be different?

Geographically, the UK is between the Netherlands and the US. In many aspects, the system is something in-between. There has been a long debate in the UK for giving the status of full employment to PhD students or not. This is a brief list of pros and cons argued by both sides of the debate.

Note that these are not my opinion, and I am simply narrating what I recall. A quick search in the UK academic websites can provide sufficient resources.

Pros

An employed PhD has better work conditions and rights.
They have better reception in the society. For instance, when it
comes to renting a house, PhD students are considered students, and
most houses are not available to student tenants.

Cons

PhD stipend is tax-free, but upon employment, the salary is taxable.
The salary is lower than £32,000 (typical for postdocs), and
international students should pay around £15,000 tuition fee.
non-EEA students cannot get Tier 4 student visa and should apply for
a work visa.

In conclusion, there is not much difference in terms of academic experience.


To work in statistics for industry and research centers, is a masters sufficient or is there a major advantage to having a PhD? So I am inquiring general tips from experienced individuals of academia and industry.  I am a recent graduate from a top university with B.S. in math.  I had goals of doing PhD in stats, but recently changed mind.  I have a bit of family pressure to get a job and work to build income.  I am from lower middle class, and am 30 years old.  I've worked at a leading hospital and my boss encourages me to do a PhD.

However, it seems better to work full time at a company which will pay for the masters or some of it. My strategy is that at 33-35 years old, I would be working full time and working on a masters instead. Thus at this age I could have work experience, income, and a graduate degree.

It seems like an unwise choice to pursue a PhD and graduate at age 35-36 without work experience and having to start earning income.

My interests are to work in industry, and research centers. I do not believe PhDs would guarantee job security, higher wages, or happier careers.  A masters would suffice.  I argue that a PhD is not necessary.

Is my logic sensible?  On a personal note, I am quite disenchanted/burned out with higher education.

Background: I have a math Ph.D. and am working as a statistician in industry.

I'll try to address both the general question you ask and your specific situation.

M.Sc. vs. Ph.D. in stats in general

This quote of yours is key:

  I do not believe PhDs would guarantee job security, higher wages, or happier careers.

And you are right about this. A Ph.D. won't guarantee any of these.

If you do a Ph.D., you will end up with a different qualification than with "only" an M.Sc. In doing a Ph.D., you will be spending multiple years thinking up new methods or algorithms. You will become an expert on an (admittedly small) topic, which you will know more about than your advisor. In contrast, in doing an M.Sc., you will learn a lot of different techniques and apply them, but you won't develop new ones. (Some M.Sc. students do just that - exceptions exist.)

What does that mean for your job prospects? If you are looking for a job as a "consulting statistician", "data analyst" or similar, an M.Sc. will usually be enough. Employers may balk at hiring a Ph.D. for such positions for multiple reasons:

Ph.D.s usually ask for higher salaries
Ph.D.s are older, possibly less flexible (families) than entry-level M.Sc.s
Ph.D.s may feel underchallenged and try to leave for more interesting work elsewhere
Ph.D.s may be specialized in one field - but an M.Sc.'s knowledge of multiple methods is more recent

So with a Ph.D., you would be applying for more "conceptual" positions, where you don't only apply your knowledge, but actively create new statistical methods to solve problems.

There are more jobs out there that require applying known methods than creating new ones.

You may be lucky and find a job opening that requires a Ph.D., or (even better) one that matches your Ph.D. research interest. (I wouldn't count on this last possibility - research is so specialized these days that it is rare to find a position in industry that closely matches what you did in your Ph.D. career.) If so, your Ph.D. pays off. If not, you may be in for a long search, or you may need to work for lower wages, and still need to convince an employers that he is better off hiring you than a new M.Sc. graduate - at the same wage. If this happens to you, you will definitely feel like the Ph.D. was a waste of time.

Overall, I would only recommend doing a Ph.D. if you are passionate about it, if you genuinely want to devote three to five years of your life to research. Don't do a Ph.D. for the career value if you plan on leaving academia. It likely will be a step backwards in terms of lifetime earnings or your career progression. (Around me, I see no correlation between having a Ph.D. and job security or higher wages - I can't judge the happiness of my colleagues' careers.)

Your specific situation

  I have a bit of family pressure to get a job and work to build income.
  ...

  It seems like an unwise choice to pursue a PhD and graduate at age
  35-36 without work experience and having to start earning income.

  ...

  ... On a personal note, I am quite disenchanted/burned out with higher
  education.

I see a lot of skepticism about doing a Ph.D., and much focus on your alternatives. I don't see anything indicating you would love to do research for research's sake. (Please don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying you are lazy. I am pointing out what your priorities seem to be, based on your question.) Compare this to my recommendation above.

It does not seem to me that doing a Ph.D. would be a wise move for you.

Nevertheless, we can't usefully help you a lot with your decision. I'd recommend you talk to people who know you and your specific situation.

This and this earlier answer of mine my be helpful.


Are there formal or informal hiring bans in some academic settings based on gender and/or nationality? In early March 2015, an eMail by a female German professor apparently rejecting a male Indian applicant due to the 'rape problem' in India made news. (The issue is a bit more complex. There is some discussion whether the eMails were selectively quoted and the professor has since apologized.)

What bugs me however is the following paragraph (which may or may not be what the professor has written, and which seems to be ignored by the news media):

  "Many female professors in Germany decided to no longer accept male
  Indian students for these reasons, and currently other European female
  association are joining."

Is this a thing in Academia? Has anyone heard about hiring bans, either formal or informal ones, based on sex/gender and/or nationality?

You are unlikely to get examples about formal hiring bans, in particular in western societies. It would not only be frowned upon, as in this case; it would also be against university policies, if not downright illegal. The only formal hiring bans I could think of are those implied by more general rules. The most obvious case coming to mind is that about 20 countries don't allow people with Israeli passport to enter, which means they cannot study or teach there either (about half a dozen or so countries extend this to people with other passports but evidence of a travel to Israel).

Unfortunately, it is possible that the professor was speaking a truth about what some consider in their hiring decisions...where usually they would only have the common sense to not explicitly admit the true reasons for their decisions. They would start where this professor is now: claiming that their labs are full. This is human nature, and academics are no better or worse than their fellow humans dealing with their fear and prejudice in regrettable ways.


How to cite a game and props invented by the researcher? I am editing a paper to comply with APA 6th edition standards for credits, citations, and references. But the situation described next is new to me, and I could not find a satisfactory answer in the manual.

The researcher invented a game specifically for the study. The game involves props that the researcher also invented (i.e.,as part of the game invented for the study).

The author did disclose that the game was invented for the study. However, because this game could be used for commercial or charitable purposes, it "feels like" it has an intellectual property aspect to it where the author should be credited at one or more places within the manuscript and not just on the title page.

For example, the paper has a picture of the props, but no credit. Should there be a credit, and what does it look like?

Similarly, should there be a citation (where?) and a reference for the game (what does it look like)? Currently there is no citation.

Similarly, should there be a citation (where?) and a reference for the game (what does it look like)?

No, it is not necessary or expected.  Imagine if you replaced the game with an experiment.  Then the paper would describe the experiment/game, but not cite it.

If the game has a published manual, you could cite that as if it were a book or report.  If there are other publications about the game, you might cite them.  This does not appear to be the case.

The fact that the game is someone's intellectual property does not imply that you need a formal citation.  You cite sources of information.  There are many examples of intellectual property which are not sources.

You might mention who invented the game.

  For example, the paper has a picture of the props, but no credit. Should there be a credit, and what does it look like?

You should credit the photographer.


Abbreviation usage in PhD Thesis What is the best way of using abbreviations? Can I use them frequently or rarely?

For example, I use "Expectation Maximization" 4 times in first 3 sections, but I have to use it 10 times in section 5 and I have limited space. So can I start using EM (Expectation Maximization) starting from section 5? Or if I am going to use an abbreviation does it have to be in the entire thesis starting from the first usage of the abbreviated word pair?

It's perfectly fine to define an abbreviation the first or second time you use a word and then continue to use it. You don't have to continually use the abbreviation after that, but there are not many reasons to switch back to using the full version.

Using your example:

  We examine the Expectation Maximization (EM) of underwater basket weaving techniques in tropical locations. We found that the EM is normally ...


Is independent research a good long term goal for a bachelor's degree holder with experience and interest? Bear with me while I put some biographical information here.

I'm a bachelor of engineering graduate from India with approximately a decade of work experience in design, engineering and project management. I've got a real fascination for the following subjects:

Optimization methods
Chaotic and dynamical systems
Data analysis and statistics (a field in which I work - as a quality management professional)

I have presented a couple of papers in international conferences in the first subject - based on work I did by teaching myself optimization methods. Learnt the ropes on researching papers/work, contacting researchers, running my own studies, writing concise papers, over many attempts in unpublished papers. I have only read books and papers on the remaining two subjects (#2 and #3) for over seven years but haven't really contributed anything significant or original.

Since I never was in the right financial state to pursue a masters or a PhD, I never earned one. I turned down an MS admit at Duke in 2010 for financial reasons too (didn't manage to secure funding). I considered and visited Indian universities including the IITs but find the entry barrier high for any univs worth going to, because I have a 7.0/10.0 GPA on my Bachelor's degree. Moreover, I hate going back and asking for recommendations from professors that I share no common interest with or who had no bearing or influence on my technical interests whatsoever. My mentors have all been in the industry, and all MS/PhD applications seem to want only academic recommendations, which I thought was stupid.

Having read a number of reports and accounts from researchers on the troubles PhD scholars face and the standard of life, I'm inclined to think that I wouldn't be happy giving up my job and my lifestyle (and compromising my wife's lifestyle) for a decade of research which may or may not lead to a PhD. I love the subjects but I'm looking for a way to learn and discover things in them without subjecting myself to the financial commitment that comes with a huge loan.

Is a life of independent research (something that is exciting for me personally) a viable way to move forward, or should I consider getting a formal research postgraduate degree? I'm eager to hear thoughts, advice, comments. Thanks for taking time out to read this.

It seems you have two options to weigh against each other:

Do research independently, viewing it more as a hobby than as your profession, or
become a professional researcher, which would require getting the appropriate formal education.

If you want to make research the most important aspect of your life, then option 2 would be the way to go. However, from your current biography, it seems that this may require more effort and changes to your life than you may be willing to invest. Getting a PhD is a definite requirement along this path.

If you go for option 1, it will still be possible to make research an important aspect of your life. It will be more difficult though to maintain sufficient investment of time in view of work and family commitments to keep things running.

Personally, I think that being a hobby researcher can be viable and satisfying in research fields where you don't need expensive equipment. While the examples I know mostly do something like locally focussed historical research or botanical/zoological research in their environment, it seems that mathematical or theoretical engineering topics will also be feasible for this. If you want to go that way, the internet certainly provides much more advice on being a hobby researcher than I can hope to give here. A link to start with may be this question on cstheory.stackexchange.com.


Do teaching evaluations lead to lower standards in class? In the somehow recent past, teaching evaluations have become obligatory in many universities/departments in Germany. I've also heard that sometimes these evaluations are used in formal ways to decide about salary raises or even hiring. For me it is pretty clear that a purely formal use of teaching evaluations is not a good idea, but my questions goes in a different direction. From time to time I read in newspapers and other kind of media that a side effect of these teaching evaluations is that

  "the solicitous professor who aims at good teaching evaluations usually lowers the level in class and gives good grades in general."

Myself I never did it like that and I have the feeling that giving an "easy" course where everyone is able to score good grades but does not learn very much will not be appreciated by the students.

My questions is:

  Do you know of any evidence for the claim that teaching evaluations encourage professors to lower standards and give better grades?

Note that I am not trying to deduce that the use of teaching evaluations in a formal way to decide about hiring or salary is a good thing; I am just not sure that "lowering standards and pampering students" is a major side effect of teaching evaluations.

Jacob and Levitt have an article in the quarterly journal of economics that looks at teachers cheating in public schools due to compensation based on their class performance. They find that teachers will do things to help their students get higher grades if it effects their compensation.

Rotten Apples: An Investigation of the Prevalence and Predictors of Teacher Cheating. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2003

An article by Nelson and Lynch look at the relationship between grade inflation and teaching evaluations suggesting professors buy better teacher evaluations with grades.

Grade Inflation, Real Income, Simultaneity, and Teaching Evaluations. The Journal of Economic Education. 1984.


Mentioning placement offer in a curriculum vitae? I have been offered an engineering position from a reputed multinational corporation working broadly in Communications and Microprocessors. Meanwhile I am applying for a MS/PhD position in a different specialization but can still be broadly classified as Electrical Engineering.

Is it advisable to mention a Placement Offer in a curriculum vitae? If so, will it be relevant in the above case?

If you are working at the company while you are applying to schools, then it should definitely be mentioned. However, if you are choosing between the placement offer and graduate school (in other words, accepting the offer instead of graduate school), then I would leave it out. This is because this may give the appearance that you're not really serious about applying to graduate schools, which may lessen your odds of getting an interview or an offer.

If you feel it's absolutely essential to mention it, you should do so in your cover letter; however, for the most part, I would do so only if it became important for you to do so (because there's a deadline for accepting the offer, for instance).


What relevance do law school grades have on admission to a Master's degree in economics? I am currently a rising 2L law student who passed up an opportunity to do a joint JD/MS in Economics. I didn't think I was adequately prepared to take on the Economics degree, though. (Not enough math background.) I am considering pursuing a master's degree part time after finishing law school, though, because it seems to be more interesting and more valuable in the job market than law.

What bearing will my law school grades have on admission to a master's program, and would that calculus change if I took the requisite math courses (Calculus I, II, and potentially III,), as well as a remedial stats course?

The effect of your law grades probably depends a lot on the program you are applying to. I guess (really just a guess here) the overall GPA might in most cases serve as a signal for being a good/bad student, so they probably matter.

I think it doesn't really matter what the courses are. Most law courses have nothing in common with economics courses even if they cover the same topics. And to be honest, people are lazy and probably are not try to figure out which of your courses are useful for an econ degree. That is of course different for a law/econ master or a specialized econ master.

However, most master programs require you to have a sufficient knowledge in math.

But, as I already said that depends on the university/department/program.
So, my advice would be: ask the top 1-3 universities on your list what the necessary conditions are.

A minor remark: I can't think of my econ MS being useful in a real job (i.e. not governmental or in academia) but maybe that is just me. Maybe don't pick a research master's degree.


Do academicians routinely face discrimination in industry job searches? I spent sometime recently at a HR department of a government company (in the utilities) in the US.

I accidentally found a file that listed out interview outcomes for new applications for a technical position (spreadsheet jockey - nothing fancy)

Out of the 10 applications, 2 of which had a PhD, 1 with a masters degree and the others unknown.

One of the PhD (call him PhD A) had spent considerable time doing research at a university, the other (call him PhD B) just recently finished his PhD program.

The comments to the interview outcomes as follows:

PhD A:

spent considerable time in university, have academic (not real world) experience
might have difficulty adjusting to a new environment
may contribute to discussions
not likely to be followed up

PhD B:

fresh out of university, have less experience than PhD A
research is too narrow

What I found funny is that very few people who actually works at the organization have PhDs (or masters for the junior staff), you'd think they would get a staff rotation just to improve upon their overall knowledge level.

Do you also feel that people with higher degrees are not welcomed with open arm in the job market? Why do you think that is the case? Have you personally faced discrimination or prejudice when applying for a job that is not too academic in nature?

I think of a PhD as "vocational education for researchers", not as the "highest level of education". So if a company is looking for a researcher then a PhD should be an advantage, but if a company is looking for a "spreadsheet jockey" as in your example then there is a mismatch between the education and the job and a company should take that into account.

On top of that there are large cultural differences between companies and universities. Such differences can lead to frictions, and if you can hire someone without such frictions then that will be an argument.


Do citations of the arXiv version of an article transfer to its journal version after publication? The arXiv version of my article has two citations. Now that my paper is published in a journal, I want to know if these citations will be transferred to the journal version? Should I withdraw my article from arXiv?

No, the citations will not change just because the paper is published in a journal (however, if the citations are themselves in preprints, then contacting the authors to make them aware of the publication would make sense, and would probably make them either update the citations in the preprint or at least change them for the final publication).

However, what you can do is update the arXiv paper to add a mention of where the paper has been published.


Citing directly in research document is it possible to reference a citation directly?

Example:

"the expected values considering the gain and the cost of each behavior as in [9]"

or should one instead explicitly mention the authors?

Example:

"the expected values considering the gain and the cost of each behavior as detailed by Gürcan et al.[9]"

As the comments have noted, it depends on the field and the referencing style. A journal will have a "style guide for authors" which will refer the appropriate referencing style as well as any idiosyncracies particular to that journal.

You will see such variety as authors being cited as cost of each behavior as detailed by Gürcan et al.[9] or cost of each behavior as detailed by Gürcan et al. (2009) or cost of each behavior[9].

If the document is not for submission to a journal then you could check previous or example submissions/documents, and in the absence of any of that you could adopt the referencing style "normally" used in your field. Or ask a colleague/collaborator/supervisor for advice if you are still unsure.


If I drop out, can I restart my Master's degree in the future? I was enrolled in a prestigious school in central Europe, studying an MSc in computer science.

I have decided to drop out because it seriously felt like my bachelor background was weak, and I had to cover too much ground. Also, my study technique was poor.

Will it be possible to go back to graduate school if I want to again in future?

Possibly

but it sounds like you haven't officially "dropped out" yet, so there is another better option if you'd like to return

Take A Leave Of Absence

Most universities offer students the ability to take a semester to a year off and return without reapplying.  It's usually referred to as a Leave of Absence.  You'll have to talk with someone in the administrative office of your university, and possibly someone in your department.

It's more common than you think.  Some students do it to deal with medical issues, but many do it for the reason you're considering dropping out.  Getting a degree can be overwhelming sometimes, and if you're struggling early on, sometimes a break can help you re-group and catch up.

Universities understand that sometimes a student can get overwhelmed, before dropping out, see what other options there may be to give you time to catch up and improve your study skills.


Why do academics write/publish book reviews for journals? At least in the humanities, it seems to be fairly common for journals to publish book reviews. To be honest, I don't think I fully understand why many academics write them and why many journals publish them. I don't read them very often because I usually don't find them very enlightening. If I want to find out whether a book is worth looking at, it is usually easier to take a look at the table of contents or else to get it from a library and take a look rather than reading the review.

However, I could imagine the following incentives:

The reviewer thinks the book is particularly interesting and should be known to a greater audience, so they want to promote it.
Writing book reviews is considered a service to the community, and authors would also like to get their own books reviewed in a journal later on.
Reviewers influence the community with their evaluation of a book.
Reviewers accrue prestige by publishing book reviews.

Which of these reasons, if any, make academics write book reviews? If it does add to their prestige, how much? Is it, very roughly, possible to say that one research article equals x published book reviews in terms of added prestige (and increased prospects for promotion)?

In my experience, reviews are written at the request of journal editors and are typically not initiated by the person writing them.  My colleagues and I usually write several book reviews every year because our supervisor is on the editorial board of the journal and tells us to write them.  As reviewers, we do receive a free copy of the book, if you consider that an incentive. There is no prestige associated with writing one, and they don't count as publications in our annual performance reviews.


What did Universities use in lectures before they starting using PowerPoint? On my 'quest' to understand how universities have changed over the past decade(s), I'm curious as to how teaching in lectures was done before the days of PowerPoint (which as an undergraduate is seemingly the only thing I see all day, but I am sure it was not used anywhere near as extensively a decade or two ago).

Needless to say I've still seen plenty of chalk use when calculations need to be done, but there is still not a lecture without PowerPoint.

Thoughts:

Did they flip through the slides with a bit of narrative like they do today?
The 'you don't need to take notes, slides are on online' mentality of today must have been different.
I've gathered overhead projectors were the tool of the trade and handouts where more common.
Most old lectures on YouTube (being taught by well known professors) never seem to use any PowerPoint. However, they seem to in general cover topics that deal more with theory and calculation than real examples and practical uses.
Would the professor during a e.g. an engineering materials course (i.e. mostly content stuff) just go through slides on the overhead? The quality of what you can share seems pretty limited as opposed to full color images, or would they actually have more tools at their disposal?

I can go back to 1989, when I enrolled at the university (engineering). The first two years were mostly devoted to mathematics, physics, chemistry and circuit theory. No overheads were employed in those courses, just plain old blackboard. There was just a course on Fortran and Pascal where the professor probably employed overheads, but I skipped all the lectures so, well, I'm not sure about that.

Overheads really started to appear from the third year on, mainly for engineering courses about algorithms, digital circuits or solid state physics (alas, these were abysmal). Lecturers would deposit a printed copy of the handouts at a local photocopy shop, so that everyone could buy a copy. Certain courses had packs of around 1000 handouts, and frequently the handouts were not available till the end of the course. Luckily, most of the courses about analogue circuits, advanced electromagnetics and quantum physics were still delivered through the blackboard.

It is worth recalling that at the time "overhead transitions" were implemented by means of patches and adhesive tapes. When printed, these "effects" would leave black marks of various shapes on the handouts.

Overheads were typically in full colours when handwritten, but the handouts were of course black and white, and writings in lighter colours were barely readable. Program listings were instead printed with black and white printers: no syntax colouring at the time.

Edit: I've just found under a pile of papers one of those packs of handouts. Here is how one of the pages looked like (two overheads per page; the pack is dated 1987):

The first overhead, on the left, is the text of an exercise ("Design a circuit with three inputs x,y,z [...]"), the overhead on the right is part of the solution. You might notice that on the upper right corner of the left overhead there are two page numbers: probably the overheads had been renumbered along the years.


Misrepresented PhD program I began a PhD program last year and found the program to have been  misrepresented, whether intentionally or not. I am a behavioral student, and my department has two tracks they admit students to: behavioral and non-behavioral (I'm trying to keep details vague), where the non-behavioral track draws from completely different fields and research questions than the behavioral track and are therefore different fields "umbrella-ed" under a single department. Before joining this program, I reviewed the curriculum for my track that is posted on the website, asked a lot of questions about expectations, courses, etc., and felt it was a good fit. However, during my first year the program changed a bit (I was not told this would happen) and there are no more behavioral courses being offered because of politics in the department and the departure of two behavioral faculty members.

I have thus been receiving training in the non-behavioral track. Needless to say, I feel like I've been duped; I am not getting the coursework/foundational training or research experience necessary to succeed and publish in my desired field. The department head is aware of the issues and unwilling to discuss. Her attitude is, "that's just how it is, deal with it."

How would you handle a situation such as this? I cannot simply leave and go to another program. I don't have the funds to relocate again unless I work for a few more years to save up more money. I'm not so young, so I don't want to push off a PhD much longer. I'm also not sure I should stay either, because I've essentially been forced to get my PhD in a different field and I'm not sure if I will be able to cross back over after getting my degree. Am I missing other potential options for handling this situation, aside from leaving and just not getting my PhD?

Sounds like there was a conflict between the two behavioral researchers that left and the rest of the department about the direction of the department. The behavioral researchers lost. Such conflicts can be very nasty. The fact that the conflict was "resolved" by the departure of two faculty, points in that direction. In that case all remaining faculty will be very relieved that that is over, and the department is not going to start that all over again to accommodate a PhD student. In that case, you can either become a non behavioral researcher or switch to another department/university. It is unfair, but if my description of the situation is correct then those are the only realistic options.

You can ask the researchers that left if they know a department that fits your interests. Switching departments for this reason is perfectly acceptable, this is not your fault.


Career progression paths for a Postdoc I'm preparing for a PhD interview and there is one question that I'm not too confident to answer, which is if they asked where do I see myself in 5-10 years or what I plan to do after my PhD.

I know I want to remain in science and do research in molecular biology, so I would do a Post Doc but I'm curious about it because I have heard that there are many levels of it but I'm not too sure what these are. Is there a list of them I could go through and see which suits me most? I'm sorry if this is confusing but I'm a bit clueless about it too.

Also during one of my interviews I was asked about becoming a lab leader. To be honest, right now, I feel that I won't ever be ready for that and I would prefer not becoming a lab leader although it seems like the very final step in the research career. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong but I have seen most lab leaders to be stuck with paperworks, applying for grants etc and they rarely ever work in the lab. My desire is to enjoy doing experiments and I feel that being a lab leader is such a huge responsibility. I kind of wish I could be a Post Doc... forever? Or maybe one day I might feel the need to have my own lab, but how to answer such question without putting yourself at disadvantage?

Many thanks for your help! I know I sounds like a naïve student with all these ideas (which might not be realistic), but because that's exactly what I feel like I am at the moment that I need to know anything relevant about further studies and Post Doc is still such a grey area for me. I know at some point it's all going to be a battle for money...

Get ready for the part where you stop doing most of the research and start fighting for the money to fund the people who do if you want to work as a professor. Other options are to find a pure research track and not teach (like I do). These positions are often follow a progression like Research Associate, Research Scientist, and Senior Research Scientist. Though, there's a fair amount of grant chasing and personnel management on this track, too, and no tenure so job security is based on winning grants regularly.


Is it okay to add mention of a grant in the acknowledgements at the proof-stage when the grant started after the paper was submitted for publication? Some time ago, I have send a paper for publication at a respected journal. The peer review took some time, and eventually the paper is in the production stage. The paper was submitted when we were working at a grant proposal. Some months ago,  the grant proposal was accepted and currently we receive funding from the grant. Since the paper was submitted before the grant was active, the question would be if it is fine if we add acknowledgements at the proof stage for the current grant.  I add that for dealing with the referees remarks, we have also worked at the paper, work that correspond to a time when the grant was active.

I think you need to look deep within yourself and do some introspection about the reason why you are thinking of adding an acknowledgement.

If the reason is that you genuinely believe the work you did on the corrections to the paper was substantial enough that the grant agency truly deserves to be acknowledged for its support in making the paper come to a successful fruition -- sure, go ahead and add the acknowledgement. No need to overthink the issue.

But if on the other hand the reason is that you are essentially looking for an excuse to add an acknowledgement so that you can later list the paper in your final or periodical report to the funding agency -- perhaps due to a feeling of insecurity about your ability to produce more substantial work later on in the life of the grant for which you can add a more sincere acknowledgment -- in that case, no, sorry to disappoint but I think such an action would be borderline unethical (and in my personal opinion falling on the wrong side of the border, though not by much), and would also look quite ridiculous should anyone (e.g. the program director at the funding agency, or a panel reviewing a future grant application) later scrutinize your report about what you did for the grant.


Uploading acepted ACL paper to arXiv I have written an accepted paper for the 2020 Annual Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). While uploading the final version, I agreed to this copyright statement:

  Copyright to the above work (including, without limitation, the right
  to publish the work in whole or in part in any and all forms and
  media, now or hereafter known) is hereby transferred to the
  Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), effective as of the
  date of this agreement, on the understanding that the work has been
  accepted for presentation at a meeting sponsored by the ACL and for
  publication in the proceedings of that meeting. However, each of the
  authors and the employers for whom the work was performed reserve all
  other rights, specifically including the following: (1) All
  proprietary rights other than copyright and publication rights
  transferred to ACL; (2) The right to publish in a journal or
  collection or to be used in future works of the author's own (such as
  articles or books) all or part of this work, provided that
  acknowledgment is given to the ACL and a full citation to its
  publication in the particular proceedings is included; (3) The right
  to make oral presentation of the material in any forum; (4) The right
  to make copies of the work for internal distribution within the
  author's organization and for external distribution as a preprint,
  reprint, technical report, or related class of document.

I would like to upload the same final paper to arXiv. Am I allowed to do so?

Specifically, I think exception (4) might be relevant here, as the proceedings aren't published yet, so I guess it would be a pre-print? However, it is the same final paper, not some intermediate result.

I am aware that uploading the accepted papers to arXiv is common practice. Many authors advertise this eg. on Twitter, so ACL must be aware of it. But do they just ignore it, or is it actually legal?

While only they can say for sure, it is probably fine to do so, but you also probably need to include their copyright notice with the uploaded version.

But to be certain, ask them specifically for guidance.

It isn't a "preprint" as you note, but it is a "reprint" and probably falls under the "related" class of documents.


What to do about students who miss my lectures and then want me to repeat entire material? I teach at a top undergraduate college of a highly ranked university in India. We have a centralized system where the syllabus is designed at the Central level (with some input from teachers) and exams are set and evaluated centrally as well. We have an attendance policy, wherein students are required to attend at least two-thirds of the classes to sit for the exam (for all courses).

Some students are engaged in extra-curricular activities and miss a lot of lectures. While a lot of students don't bother, some want me to "teach" the portion they missed, by meeting them separately. Is it reasonable for them to ask me to teach everything from scratch because they couldn't attend the class? I teach a rigorous microeconomics course.

Edited:
I forgot to explicitly mention: since it is a centralized system, teachers can't specify their own attendance policies for a course. Moreover, I teach a compulsory course, and it can't be dropped/taken in any other semester. Further, students go for competitions scheduled outside college during lecture hours, and I have no control over that. We are not a residential University, so extra-curricular activities can't be held after class hours.

Is it reasonable for them to ask me to teach everything from scratch because they couldn't attend the class?

No, it's not.

If a student wants to engage in extra-curricular activities during lecture hours, they had better be able to keep up with the course material independently.


Would a LaTeX glossary contain program function/method purposes/definitions? I'm writing my dissertation/thesis and it revolves around a program I have made. The program is a Rubik's cube solver that uses pre-existing solving methods, so nothing that exciting. I'm writing out my methodology section which I am assuming needs to contain explanations of the methods I used to produce the solving methods.
When referencing functions I have used in my program, would it be more conventional to write out a description of what that function does or would I make an internal hyperlink to the glossary with a description of what that function does.
Cheers!

A glossary is

a list of terms in a special subject, field, or area of usage, with
accompanying definitions.
such a list at the back of a book, explaining or defining difficult
or unusual words and expressions used in the text.

so the wrong place for extended descriptions of what your functions do.
Whether those descriptions belong in the text where the function is used or in a separate section with links from the text depends on more context than you can provide here. Imagine  the readers of your thesis, knowing what they know (but not what you know) and think about what would best help them follow your argument.
LaTeX can easily manage the cross referencing with a custom \newtheorem command.
Ask your advisor for advice.


I switched PhD programs after a month, do I mention this on my CV? More detail: After a failure of communication, I turned down other funded offers to accept an unfunded PhD. I had some money saved and tried it out anyway, but after one month quit and went with a previous offer (after telling them I'd made a bad decision)!

I worked for 3 months specifying my skills for the defaulted PhD, do I mention the experience on my CV? On one hand I don't want the blip recorded as it leaves a little time gap between finishing MSc and entering PhD and records my bad decision making, on the other the institute name is a major buzzword for careless recruiters. Thoughts?

I think you should not bother mentioning the first (unfunded) PhD program.

From your post (emphasis added):

  After a failure of communication, I turned down other funded offers to accept an unfunded PhD. I had some money saved and tried it out anyway, but after one month quit and went with a previous offer (after telling them I'd made a bad decision)!

Since you only spent a month in this PhD program, I can't see how it is really relevant to your experience, nor will it result in a significant gap in your CV if you omit it. Moreover, you probably do not have many achievements from this month, so it is more likely to just result in unnecessary questions when people read your CV.

  I worked for 3 months specifying my skills for the defaulted PhD, do I mention the experience on my CV?

What do you mean by "specifying my skills"? This could be a good thing to mention if you were working on, e.g., online coursework, but you don't need to mention that it was for the PhD that you quit.

On the other hand, if it was just you working on skills on your own, then it won't help to mention it.

  On one hand I don't want the blip recorded, on another it leaves a little time gap between finishing MSc and entering PhD

How long is the gap of time? If it's just a few months, it will be ignored. If it is a full year, it may be something you will want to explain to someone if they ask, but I don't think it will be necessarily critical.

  and the institute name is a major buzzword for careless recruiters.

I am not sure I understand why it would be a "buzzword" -- is it a poorly regarded institute? Anyway, combining this concern together with all your other reservations, I think it would be fine to leave it off.