How do I handle plagiarism professionally and emotionally? So I have been trying to get an article accepted since 2016. It is an article dedicated to a machine learning based prediction of a biological dataset. It was rejected 4 times. Today, on searching, I found that another paper has been published in Bioinformatics journal (Oxford) on 2018 April. This articles aim is exactly the same as mine. The feature set used is a superset of mine, only the classifier used is different than my current work. My work was rejected several times, so I have changed many things for every new submission. I also noticed that the issues that my previous reviewers had with my work, those same issues are still there in the Bioinformatics manuscript. This work in Bioinformatics has been done by 12 people while I am doing this work alone, with my advisor. Had it been accepted, it would have been the first paper with that aim. Now I feel terrible and I do not know how to deal with this professionally as well as emotionally. I suspect plagiarism by one of these many reviewers that this paper went through. I have been toiling for the last 2 years to get that work accepted. My advisor does not want to go for challenging plagiarism. What should I do?

On reading the manuscript I have found several flaws in it. The major flaw is its execution time is way more than my work. Now even if I try to get my work published, would anybody accept it since their work is already in a good journal like Bioinformatics?

I have tried to explain to myself that I have more work to publish, but it seems that I cannot. I am going through a lot of emotional turmoil. I have been crying incessantly for the past 24 hours... I am unable to understand how to get my positive attitude back. Please help...

I'm going to suggest that it may not be plagiarism at all, but just parallel work. I don't have evidence one way or the other of course, but please consider the following points.

First, I hope that your advisor is satisfied with your work and that your advancement toward a degree is not at risk here.

Second, a charge of plagiarism is very serious. It is career ending in many cases and can be career ending for an accuser if it is judged to be a false charge.

Third, parallel work is very common - especially in popular research areas. If two researchers start out at the same time they have access to all of the same tools, datasets, publications, etc. In particular, if they are connected to the "grapevine" they have access to the general feeling in the community about what is important and which lines of inquiry are "ripe" for exploration. In fields that have seen a lot of activity over a long time (mathematics, say), this is less likely as the questions get increasingly esoteric and the field becomes a web of narrow concerns. But working in esoteric fields has its own difficulties, of course.

Fourth, your failure to publish could be due to a lot of things. It may just be that the reviewers of the other work had lower standards than those who reviewed yours. You can't control that, of course. But it may be flaws in your paper as, I hope, would be detailed in reviewer reports you received over time. It may just be that the reviewers found the other work more comprehensible. It may even be just timing. The paper landed at a time when some of the reviewers were actually looking for a paper like that.

You may never be able to publish this work as you suggest, but you can move beyond it and publish future work based on it and the knowledge and skill you developed in exploring it.

The only way that I can see it as potential plagiarism is if one of your early reviewers unethically took your idea and specifically set a student to exploit it while rejecting your work. I don't think that is impossible, but shouldn't be a concern with reputable journals. If it is, then the whole structure of review falls apart.

But two people having the same, even detailed, idea at the same time isn't plagiarism. It isn't even uncommon. Similarity of result isn't plagiarism. Ideas are free for everyone. Direction of approach to solving problems is commonly known within a larger research community.

You might be able to salvage some of your work for a new paper, even without extending it. Focus on what is different from and better than the now published paper. You indicate that there is some of that in your work. You can still make important contributions here, though not the ones you originally hoped for.

I suspect that your advisor understands all of this and so is reluctant to make a charge that, if proved wrong, will destroy your career.

For an exploration about how bad it can be see The Double Helix.

Bad things happen to good researchers. Sad. True. You had a bad experience. Don't let it damage your career.

Let me note in closing, that getting beaten to the punch if it is really just that, leaves you emotionally in about the same place. Mad, sad, devastated. All natural.


At what stage of research career one can write a 'review article'? At what stage of research career one can write a 'review article'?

Obviously a graduate student in the beginning stages cannot/may not write one. But how experienced does one need to be before attempting to write reviews? Does authoring a number of papers in the relevant field equips one for that?

Can a graduate student publish a review article? Do acceptance of review article (for publication) depends on the reputation of the author or co-authors?

EDIT:  As @JeffE has pointed out anyone can write a review article; the question is about getting this write-up published.

First, I'll remark that (at least in fields close to me: physics and chemistry), the process for submitting review articles is typically handled in a different way than other articles (which I'll call “research articles”). Review articles take a lot of effort to write, and that their publication may depend not only on intrinsic quality and scientific criteria, but also on editorial policy: if the journal has already hosted a review on a given topic, it is unlikely to publish another soon afterwards. So, the common practice is to come to an agreement with the editor before writing the full article. Either the editor contacts a scientist to offer him to write a review on a given topic, either an author sends an abstract to the editor asking if the journal would welcome such a review (with no guarantee as to the results of the peer-review process, of course).

This has an important consequence for your question: you can actually ask the editor of the journal of your dreams if a review by you and your co-authors would be welcome. Practices may differ between fields, journals and editors, but asking exactly the person who is going to make the decision is the right course.

Then, we come to what I would call the “customs”. It is indeed typical to gain some authority in your field before writing review articles. This usually means working for a few years in a given field, publishing some articles of your own, in short: getting noticed by your community. As such, it is not a typical thing to do for a graduate student. Maybe at the end of your PhD, jointly with your adviser. Most probably, later in your career: either as an experienced post-doc, or after having gained a faculty position.

With more than a few years of experience, my personal experience is that you perfectly write reviews (and the editors will accept if the work is good). However, it gets easier with seniority, as you will (i) more easily have your work accepted in more prestigious journals, and especially (ii) more easily get invitations to write reviews.


PhD or MSc without undergraduate degree? I am a first year Biochemist but I am sick and tired of being told to wait and that will be covered in Level 5 (2nd Year) or Level 6 (3rd Year).

I have a couple of areas of research that I would love to go into and feel that I would not be held back by a lack of education.

Is there anyway to get onto a PhD or MSc at all without the undergrad as I fell that by the time I am in my 3rd year I will have gave up with the whole of science.

No, it is not possible. Your feeling that you "would not be held back by a lack of education" is inaccurate, and graduate programs will know that. They have plenty of qualified applicants who have more experience and background than you do; they have no reason to admit you.


Rejected journal paper for submission as a book chapter My paper is not accepted in journal. I contacted other journals as well, but they considered it out of scope for their journal. I want to now submit it as a book chapter in springer or IEEE. Please tell if it is possible or not? Is publishing a paper as a book chapter equivalent to publishing in an impact factor journal? I want to acquire scholarship in Australian  university.

This won't work. Research papers aren't published in books.

When papers are published in books - so-called review volumes - they are usually by invitation only. The editor will contact the people who he/she thinks are able to contribute. They aren't research papers either; they're usually reviews.

You're probably best off talking to your supervisor about what to do next. It's unlikely that there are no other journals that will consider your paper; you just have to find them.


Going for PhD or MS in research right after under graduation? I have a bachelors degree in computer science and am going for PhD or research MS, but I do not have research experience.  Can I expect to successfully obtain a PhD?  What are the major problems faced by a student who has no prior research experience but has good technical knowledge in computer science (but perhaps less so in mathematics)?

In certain disciplines it's very common to enter a Ph.D/MS+thesis program straight out of an undergraduate degree. Computer science is one such discipline. Usually you spend the first year or two in the Ph.D program getting up to speed and doing research. For an MS+Thesis program, things are more compressed, but you also aren't expected to produce research of the same scope.

While it's always better to have some research experience as an undergraduate (and this helps your grad application) it's not a requirement for success at the graduate level.


Regarding Publication Authorship I worked with this teammate on a 4-people class group project. We did research, conceived ideas and prototyped the concept together. I just found out that he is publishing this research work with himself as the first author and another guy who was not in our group as the second author. He may write the entire paper, but the implementation of the research and the majority of the published results come from the team effort. He did not even notify us that he planned to publish it. It seemed like he consolidated the research work and did all the writing with the other author behind our back without notifying us. I am wondering what should I do with this situation?

We are all graduate students enrolled in a master's program. Both he and I are applying for the same Ph.D. program this year. He has a few publications before coming to this graduate program. I am totally new to the academic publication and just started collaborating with a professor this summer on a project which could lead to publication. I am not sure whether this situation perceived as "unethical conduct" or "reasonably tolerable" in the academic world, as the research efforts are hard to be quantified. How should I approach this?

It is very possible that it is unethical, but it would take a bit of analysis to clarify it. Your course professor is probably a good person to adjudicate it. I'd suggest that you take the problem to them, preferably in person.

Using other people's work without attribution is plagiarism.

Go see the prof.


What to do when you spend several months working on an idea that fails in a masters thesis? How shall a masters student deal with the complete failure to meet the expected results when working on a master's thesis?

For example, in the field of machine learning a masters student might spend 4-5 months  developing a method that turns out not be useful, not even being comparable to benchmark datasets.

Should the student quit it?
Should you at least take a break from academia to avoid harming your career ?
Or should you work on a different idea and risk another few months which is also not guaranteed? Given the fact that the advisor is simply asking you to try new things

Step 1: Don't panic

I was in a similar situation halfway through my MSc. I was in a panic, sure that my academic career was in ruins. My supervisor calmed me down, reminded that a negative result was still a result, and and told me that a for a master's degree, it was not strictly required that I make a scientific contribution or have a publication. In the worst case, in my thesis I would present my negative results, explain why this technique didn't work, and suggest what could be done differently by future researchers. (Once I was relaxed enough to think clearly, I came up with new things to try, and everything worked out grand.)

I suggest you discuss the "worst case scenario" with your supervisor; you'll probably find out it's not as bad as you think. Remember that this is research: positive results are not guaranteed.

Step 2: Think about why this technique isn't working.

I'm sure you've learned something about why your technique isn't working. That should give you some ideas for what to try next. If you're out of ideas, sit a friend down and explain everything to them. The friend doesn't need to know anything about machine learning; they're just a sounding board. The naive questions they ask may give you ideas. Maybe you need a week off to recharge your batteries.

Step 3: Try something new.

Take those new ideas you got in step 2, and apply them. But now that you're more experienced, think about how you could find out more quickly if the idea is feasible, so you can change tack again if needed.


Can someone interview their sibling? I just had a job interview (permanent lecturer position not connected to a grant) and, immediately afterwards, I found out that the person who is the group leader and responsible for recruiting is the sibling of one of the candidates.

I made sure that this is actually the case. It is not a suspicion; it is a fact.

Could this be justified under some circumstances? This seems ridiculous. Should I raise a complaint?

This in the UK.

Interviewing a family member is not permitted. Yes, you should raise a complaint. Do it politely, of course. But in the end, you have to ask yourself whether or not a work group that would even try to get away with this is one you want to get involved with.


How can one find a promising research project that doesn't just fall apart? I'm just starting my second year of a master's program and hoping to apply to PhD programs, but I still haven't even submitted a paper for publication. I've worked on 3 research projects over the past 3 years, all of which have fallen apart for different reasons. [EDIT: They fell apart not because they didn't validate my hypothesis or something, but in two cases, because of advisor drama and in one case because another student found a significant flaw.) How can I choose my next project in such a way that minimizes the chances that it'll also just fall apart?

My experience with these abandoned projects has, I believe, taught me three things:

Vet potential advisors more thoroughly,
Don't waste time on a project you don't think is all that promising right from the get-go, and
Get on a project with a team, not one that you'll work on individually.

However, my experience has also shown me that:

It's really impossible to know what an advisor is like until you've already crashed and burned with them.
Good projects are hard, if not impossible, to come by. At the time that I worked on the projects that fell apart, they were basically my best options.
Having to find a team to work with puts you at the mercy of whether people a) have something you're even able to do, b) are actually good to work with, and c) want to work with you (unless, I guess, you're just assigned to the team by your advisor). I've already been shot down by one potential research partner.

Meanwhile, I know of an undergrad who worked on a project for one quarter and now has a publication at a major conference. Do I just have to face the fact that I'm not cut out for this research stuff? I'm starting to get the impression that I'm just a "quitter," but I feel that every time I've quit, I've done so for completely valid reasons, not just because the "going got tough."

Is there something I'm not thinking of or doing in order to find a good project and take it all the way through to completion?

The fact that your projects failed should not be a bar to your continuing on to a Ph.D. program. The reality of research is that most research fails! Remember that Edison tried over a thousand combinations before finding one to work for his light bulb. Nobody is 100 percent successful in research and projects end up falling short of expectations or failing altogether a substantial percentage of the time. It's how you persevere through the failures that distinguishes a successful researcher from an unsuccessful one.

Moreover, projects working or not working can be a matter of luck, and sometimes it can take an extended period of time to make a breakthrough. During my Ph.D. project, I had basically nothing but failed approaches to show for two and a half years (!) before I had my "Eureka!" moment. I wrote six papers in the remaining three and a half years after that.

So I wouldn't worry about finding a "good" project: ideas that seem sound on first blush can fall through, and a "high-risk, high-reward" type project can lead to big breakthroughs in the long run. Focus on doing something that interests you, so that you can keep going when you run into rough patches (and they will come).


How to sort all the papers referenced by a given paper by citation count? Here is what I want to do:

Given a paper, find the set of all papers referenced by it
Sort this set of papers by some "importance metric,"  for example, the citation count.

I find some ad-hoc tools (for example, research gate) to do #1 and there are a few databases (Web of Science, Scopus) to do #2, but the two steps are disconnected and there seems no easy way to bridge them automatically. I have been doing this manually, but it is very tedious.
Are there any efficient ways to do this?
Thanks

Microsoft Academic provides an option to sort references of a paper by citation count. I am not aware how complete or accurate it is, but you could try it out. They also seem to provide an API for automated access.
Screenshot of an example for reference:

Note: I am not affiliated with this service.


Obvious authorship and “blind” peer peview Need to publish results of one my research in a journal. Springer’s manuscript guidelines prompt me to make a blinded manuscript containing no author information, but links in the References section (this one and to my images published with explicitly advertized authorship) quickly reveal who the author is.

Should the author
 formally obey the blindness rule and ignore its silliness in the conditions given,
 or replace such references (at least for the peer-review time) with some stuff included directly,
 or what?

Would it be acceptable to hold the paper/preprint accessible by URL (especially with links from third-party sites) during expected peer review?

I have reviewed papers, where some of the references are blinded as well. So that is one way of doing it, and that certainly happens. Sometimes the authors and the journal are more lax. There are pros and cons to blind reviewing, but if a journal chooses to use blind reviewing, then I would prefer it be done consistently. However, if, after carefully reading the materials for the authors, you are still unsure what to do, then you can always contact the editor about this.


Supervisor takes my results to type a manuscript. Is this normal? I am a PHD student, finishing my candidature in a year's time. The environment of my lab is slightly different. My prof (owner of the lab) does not supervise me at all and I received supervision mostly from a post-doc in the lab. Her role in the lab is more of a PI's role, giving instructions to the other lab members, but not really doing any experiments and data collection.  When I first joined the lab, I took over the one project everyone in my lab is working on (a very small lab), planning, doing and getting data from all of the experiments for the project (except for those that were done before I joined the lab, which is only like about 5% of the entire data obtained). While she initially guided me for the project's direction in my first year, for the past 2 years, I did not receive much guidance from her.

Now, she is writing a paper with the results I generated over the past few years, not giving me a chance at typing my own manuscript. Is this normal in the academic setting? She listed herself as the first author and me as co-first, and  I feel like I have been reduced to the likes of a research assistant, who generates data for her to use. I am worried this will affect my employment chances in the future when I graduate. This will probably be my only paper at the end of my PHD. Does the number of papers/ or amount of contribution listed in the papers matter to PIs who are employing potential post docs?

Supervisor takes my results to type a manuscript. Is this normal?

I don’t know about normal, but certainly not helpful in making you an independent researcher. Perhaps they want to make sure you see how it’s done right, perhaps they really need a paper fast, but I can see why you’re frustrated. I suggest you politely suggest that you help write things that you contributed with: like the data analysis, or the experimental setup. Ask her if she’d like a draft by a certain time.

  She listed herself as the first author and me as co-first

This is tentatively good though author order importance greatly varies by field. Contribution is a tricky thing to establish. You say you generated 95% of the data; even if this is true, maybe your PI and the rest of the lab managed most of the grunt work allowing you to generate so much. What do other lab members think of you getting first co-authorship?

  Does the number of papers/ or amount of contribution listed in the papers matter to PIs who are employing potential post docs?

Very much! When I hire postdocs I want to be sure that they’re “fully baked” and able to conduct research independently, so they can help drive the lab forward, and perhaps advise students (as you were advised).


How to mention a course that you haven't taken yet in an application I am preparing to apply for an internship that strongly favors people with CUDA-programming skills. There is a course in exactly this that I won't have taken by the time I apply for the internship, but that I will have taken before the internship starts. I don't have any experience with CUDA-programming at this point.

What are the best ways, if any, of bringing up courses that haven't yet been completed?

Note: There is a similar question on how detrimental this is, but I am seeking advice on how to handle this problem. Hope this constitutes a different question.

I understand your situation as I have been there many times. The answer really depends on the job I would say. Since you say that the job "strongly favors" but not "requires" CUDA, it can't hurt to mention that you plan to take it.

"But where do I do this?"

So depending on what is required from you as an applicant, there are a couple of places to mention your future course. If there is a cover letter then this is the ideal place to slip in the fact that you are an avid learner and plan to take and complete the course before the internship begins etc. etc. However, if it is a more informal application process that focuses mainly on a resume, then under your course work section (if you don't have one then I recommend putting one that lists all the relevant courses you have taken for the job) and next to it just list the semester you plan to take it, for example:

Intro to computing concepts, Data structures,
Operating Systems (In Progress), CUDA Programming (Fall 2015)

Feel free to put grades next to each one if they are impressive.


What should I do if my advisor won't give me input into my own projects? I am a third year PhD student, and since joining my advisor's lab, I feel like I have made very little intellectual contribution to any of my projects.  My advisor tells me exactly what to do, rarely asks for my ideas, and whenever I make a suggestion, he comes up with some reason why it's a bad idea and we should do it his way instead.  Generally I feel like I am just carrying out his orders and don't get to do original research on my own.  And if I don't get to do original research, why am I doing a PhD?

Sometimes my advisor gives me problems, and they are pretty interesting.  But they stop being interesting when he tells me exactly how to model the problem, exactly what experiments to conduct, and exactly what figures should go in the resulting paper.  Other people I've worked with just gave me problems and let me figure out how to solve them myself, and at the end of the week I'd send in results and they'd give advice (not orders) on what to do next.  I felt a lot more attached to those projects because I felt like they were mine, and not someone else's.

When we meet with our collaborators about my projects, they mostly talk to each other and I can't get a word in, even though I am the one writing all the code and generating all the figures.  Sometimes they are on the wrong track about something and a single sentence from me would clear up the confusion, but when I try to talk they frequently talk over me as if I weren't there, or didn't have anything valuable to contribute.  Also, if I disagree with my advisor about how to do something, he will just assume I'm being stupid, but if my collaborator disagrees he actually listens.

How can I stop this and be in charge of my own projects?

I don't say this lightly, but it's in your best interest to switch labs. I think you know that already but it's a soul-crushing reality to face. Let's face it now, before it's too late.

I had many friends throughout graduate school in similar situations, and the spectrum of outcomes is telling. The students that stayed in their labs despite functioning primarily as a technician were miserable, for years, and fundamentally deprived of their opportunity to grow as a scientist. None stayed in science or academia. The students that joined new labs had a better idea of what kind of mentor they wanted to work for, were happier, and universally wished they had left sooner.

You are likely thinking to yourself:

1) You've done so much work already! How could you possibly start over?

I know, it stinks! But your job as a graduate student is to become an independent thinker, not push through projects already defined for you. Plus, you're not really starting over. You're TAing, doing coursework, learning to program, and hopefully learning how to assess the literature. You'll continue to build on all those skills.

2) You're still a junior member of the lab! As a senior more experienced student you'll get more freedom!

Advisors that promote independence establish that environment for their students early on (like first thing!). Based on what you've said, I don't think there's much room for growth.

3) You just have to talk to your advisor about your frustrations and maybe he'll give you more latitude.

I wish it worked that way. What I think you'll get is some small concession, enough to keep you hooked and doing his work. My pessimistic sense is there are very very few, if any situations where an advisor will have a change of heart adequate enough to improve your lot in lab. What you describe is a clash of philosophy: advisor knows best vs. allowing students to grow, make mistakes, and even deviate from the original trajectory. It's not that your advisor is a bad scientist, or a bad person, it just may be that he or she is better off running a lab of technicians rather than graduate students.

4) Your brother's advice: you just have to work harder!

I have to respectively disagree with that. As above, I think this is fundamentally a philosophical difference between what you want out of your education and what your advisor wants out of a student. No amount of hard work will change that.

5) This material is really interesting! There's nothing else I'm as excited about.

If the material is awesome, it makes it harder to leave. Nevertheless, I think you'll derive much greater satisfaction with a mentor who treats you more as a colleague than as a peon.

Lastly, I think your situation portends even more dire consequences down the road. This sounds like the advisor who you might have authorship problems with, who decides you need to stay another year after publishing 4 papers, or who doesn't write you the best of letters (how can he/she if you never demonstrated your full potential?).


For an undergrad, how long should a short-term volunteer position in a lab be? I've been working as a research student at a biochemistry wet lab since my final years of high school (as a result of cold-emailing a professor). I'm entering the same university as that of this lab soon, and I plan to continue working here.

My direct supervisor (an incredibly hard-working graduate student and mentor) recommended me to try to work at several different labs throughout my undergrad. She said this would help diversify my skillset and expose me to potential environments I might enjoy working in even more.

However, my current plan is to spend most of my time continuing to work at this same lab as I'm more likely to have the opportunity to produce publishable results. I don't believe working at two labs concurrently would be a wise use of time (based on Working in two research lab at the same time – unethical?).

I do think it's feasible to take on short-term positions with different labs to gain insight into other fields and expand my skillset. I intend to be completely upfront about a short-term interest when applying, but I'm unsure how short this interest should be.

For an undergrad looking to volunteer in a short-term position at a lab, what would be an appropriate length of time to both learn some basic skills and truly bring some value to a PI's lab or a graduate student's project?

I would refer to the way university offers undergrad research courses.

For example, at my university, students can work in lab in summer (12-16 weeks, full time, 40-45hrs/week).

Often, assuming both parties like the work, the student continues as a research course student for the next school term. In this arrangement, nothing changes except the compensation - in summer the work is paid, during the school year it is for credit.

Now, from what I have done and seen, people don't stick in the same lab longer than that ESPECIALLY if you are looking at grad school or medical school. This is because you need 2-3 PIs giving you a glowing reference.

That been said, I have taken a summer research project which I didn't continue (I.e. the length was 12 weeks). And I've done one research project which is 2 years (and still on-going). My third project was summer + school term in length.

In short, you should diversify your research experience in different labs. You can work as long as 12 months, and as short as 3 months in the same lab.

Though I don't know much about other universities, I expect this to be same or very similar at other universities. The time to learn basic skills will vary but 3 months should be a good start, of course as you do something longer you will get even better. But doing work in different setting will definitely help person get better with basic skills because different labs operate differently.


My co-author is claiming to be the sole author. How should I handle it? When I was a graduate student in the 1980s, I translated a treatise written by an important artist into English. A person who at the time was an assistant professor approached me about it. Flattered by the professor's interest, I gave him/her a copy. Soon thereafter, I asked for my translation back, but the professor asked to keep it a while longer. Since I was a student, I was afraid to insist on its prompt return.

A few years later, the professor found a publisher for the translation. We signed contracts with the publisher in which we were both designated as co-authors.  The professor claimed to have "reworked" my translation and we are both credited on the title page as translators. The professor wrote an introduction and edited the translation so the professor's name is also on the title page as editor.

Recently, it has come to my attention that the professor, who is now an emeritus professor, is claiming to be the sole author. I recently attended a conference where the professor gave the keynote address. The professor was introduced as the sole author of this book. I decided not to say anything at the time since the introduction was spoken and I couldn't prove that my name wasn't mentioned. However, I recently came across the professor's written biography on the internet where the claim is made that "[the professor's] book presents an edition, translation and . . . commentary" of the treatise.

Should the professor mention my name in connection with the translation in such a circumstance? If so, how do I go about getting the professor to do this?

I should mention that the professor has done many collaborative projects and in every case other than our book, the other collaborators are mentioned in the biography. Also, there is a long history of my having to remind this professor to acknowledge my work. Before our book was published, the professor gave a conference paper on the treatise and didn't mention that I had translated it. When I call it to the professor's attention, the professor said it was an oversight. The next time it happened and I mentioned it to the professor, I was told that the project could have been done without me. Every time it has come up, there is a new excuse.

There is no question in my mind that the professor is intentionally leaving me out. My question is whether it is worth pursuing since my name is on the title page of the book itself as a co-translator and other scholars will see it there. It really bothers me that the professor is claiming credit for my work by omitting my name.

Let's take some of these points in turn.

  My co-author is claiming to be the sole author.

That's not right -- neither of you is the author.  By conflating the difference between author and translator, aren't you doing a disservice to the author roughly similar to what your professor is doing to you?

I should also say that in my academic field (mathematics), translating a text is viewed as service to the community rather than an intellectual or academic contribution per se.  I know it is different in the humanities.

  The professor claimed to have "reworked" my translation and we are both credited on the title page as translators.

Why "claimed" -- did he or didn't he?  You seem to be a bit breezy on your description of the work that the professor did on this project.  Again, it would be better to be clear.  If the professor didn't actually change your translation, then the translation should be attributed only to you, right?

  The professor wrote an introduction and edited the translation so the professor's name is also on the title page as editor.

So the professor edited the translation.  I wonder if there is some subtle distinction between "editing" and "reworking" that I am not appreciating: does the latter imply a larger intellectual contribution?  Again, how much of an intellectual contribution are you claiming the professor made?  That seems important.

From my standpoint in a STEM field, it seems like editing a translation is a contribution of about the same order of magnitude as writing the translation...but again, I tend to think of translations as being somewhat routine work for those who have language skills.  Maybe I am missing some nuances here.  But certainly writing an introduction and finding a publisher is a big part of, um, getting a work published.  So from what I understand it seems reasonable that you are both listed as translators on the title page.

  Recently, it has come to my attention that the professor, who is now an emeritus professor, is claiming to be the sole author.

That's a very strange claim to make when the book itself says otherwise.  In my experience, academics are highly attentive to bibliographic information like this.

  I recently attended a conference where the professor gave the keynote address.   I recently attended a conference where the professor gave the keynote address. The professor was introduced as the sole author of this book.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  First of all: really as the author of a translated work? Second of all: do you mean "Professor X's book Y, which is [hopefully something about a translation of someone else's work!]" or "Professor X is the sole author of book Y, which is..." The latter would be a really weird thing to say even if it were true, and the former, while not very nice to you, need not be construed as denying your role.

  However, I recently came across the professor's written biography on the internet where the claim is made that "[the professor's] book presents an edition, translation and . . . commentary" of the treatise.

Again, this does not strictly imply that you were not also an author.  Whether this is okay may depend upon how formal the document is.  If it is formal enough to give bibliographic citations, then your name should certainly be included in the bibliography.

  Should the professor mention my name in connection with the translation in such a circumstance? If so, how do I go about getting the professor to do this?

Is this biography written by the professor or by someone else?  If it's by someone else, you should just send them the bibliographic reference, perhaps accompanied by an electronic copy of the title page of the book.

  should mention that the professor has done many collaborative projects and in every case other than our book, the other collaborators are mentioned in the biography. Also, there is a long history of my having to remind this professor to acknowledge my work. Before our book was published, the professor gave a conference paper on the treatise and didn't mention that I had translated it. When I call it to the professor's attention, the professor said it was an oversight. The next time it happened and I mentioned it to the professor, I was told that the project could have been done without me. Every time it has come up, there is a new excuse.

That sounds horrible, and there is no doubt that the professor is behaving inappropriately.  "[T]he project could be have been done without [you]" is by no means a justification for not including a coauthor's name!  No reputable academic would accept that answer.

  My question is whether it is worth pursuing since my name is on the title page of the book itself as a co-translator and other scholars will see it there. It really bothers me that the professor is claiming credit for my work by omitting my name.

You raise a key point: you've described various venues in which your coauthorship was not mentioned, I believe inappropriately, but these are all rather informal.  As I mentioned above, academics are very formal when it comes to bibliographic issues.  When the work is cited in other academic works, both you and your professor's names appear, right?  (If the work is not cited in other academic works, after this many years it might be best to let it go.)  So I don't think there's a serious risk of loss of your academic reputation.  (Note that you don't say whether you are currently an academic, so the consequences of a loss of academic reputation to you are a little unclear.)

Honestly, I think you should do something else if and only if you are very upset with the professor.  If so, I would begin by writing to him along the lines of the current message: remind him of the facts of the situation, tell him that his behavior has been distressing to you for many years, and tell him that you want your name mentioned along with his.  Be prepared for that not to go very well, of course.  If it doesn't, well then you can fight webpages with webpages: you can make a webpage where you describe the situation in enough detail to firmly convince a reader that you are in the right.  I have occasionally seen such webpages by academics, and if they are done well they certainly have an effect on the community's views.  They also reveal to the entire world how upset the writer is with the situation, so definitely think several times before engaging in this.


Collaborative paper-writing with non-LaTeX-using colleagues Background: I work in a field where the use of LaTeX is common but still far from universal. So far I have been lucky in that all my coauthors in the past have been fellow LaTeX users, so collaboration boiled down to creating a shared Dropbox folder with the .tex and .bib files we were working on. Now I'm starting a collaboration with two colleagues who use Word, so they have proposed to collaborate with Google Docs. There are various reasons why this is a bad idea, the main one being that writing this paper is going to require doing things that are easy in LaTeX but difficult and time-consuming in Google Docs (or in a standard word processor, for that matter) ---e.g., Greek letters for variables, assorted math/logic symbols, trees (in the graph-theoretic sense), or frequent crossreferencing in the running text of numbered examples.

Conflict: One of my colleagues has already said he has no interest in learning LaTeX. On the other hand, I don't want to go hunting through the Google Docs character map every time I need to insert a non-Latin character.

Question: Is there any collaborative writing software that allows including LaTeX tags and environments in a Word-like document? For example, when I'm writing semi-informal things like lecture notes, I can get by with markdown and then generate a pdf with pandoc. I don't know of any online services with similar functionality.

Excluding LaTeX-focused online collaboration services, such as ShareLaTeX, due to your new collaborators' preferences, I think that you have pretty much two major options, as follows:

Overleaf (formerly WriteLaTeX)
Authorea

Both online academic collaboration services support simultaneous use of LaTeX and WYSIWYG rich text mode, Authorea also supports some other formats, such as Markdown and HTML. Both services (to various extent) offer other nice collaborative features, such as data sharing, version control, revision notes and much more. Due to multi-format support, I would prefer Authorea to Overleaf, however, the final decision should be made upon a comprehensive comparison of both services across all available features and your detailed requirements as well as some testing.

P.S. Just for completeness, I will mention two other options. The first is to use blog engines that support both WYSIWYG and LaTeX (most of the major ones do: from WordPress to Jekyll). It's a decent option, but I would prefer one of the above-mentioned dedicated services, for multiple reasons. The second option is to self-host RStudio Server (or maybe a custom Shiny application), which would allow academic collaborative writing, using RMarkdown, but IMHO this is the worst solution possible, as trying to implement various needed features and solve issues, such as version control integration, would bring you and your collaborators a lot of headaches.


Is a "big ego" necessary for a tenure-track faculty position? I have worked in a few high profile research institutes for my PhD and postdoc, and find myself a little intimidated by the "strong opinions" and arguments that seem to crop up at the principal investigator level.  My personality is somewhat more laid back or agreeable, and I find myself wondering if this would be seen as a "personality flaw" in the somewhat cutthroat funding and scientific world (or at least that part I am exposed to).  I'm sure it helps to have a strong opinion of one's own work, but I sometimes find it hard to do so, as I tend to be more self-critical and more concerned about stating something correctly and figuring out what is "right" than necessarily being self-promoting and overconfident in my own abilities, but I feel like that ends up manifesting as some sort of fundamental flaw in relation to others I see advancing into the faculty ranks.

I think a "big ego", or at least a healthy dose of self confidence, is necessary for survival as an academic. Our jobs are one of repeated failure. Success rates on grants, publications, experiments, and job applications are often less than 10%. In the face of such frequent failures an abundance of confidence is a require for maintaining ones sanity. Further, many departments verge on dysfunctional and there is generally someone looking to push you down to get ahead (I am not saying everyone is out to get you, but there is generally at least one person in every department looking to get ahead at your expense.) Being confident, outspoken and to an extent self prompting is useful for dealing with these people. The difficult part is not being too self confident and too outspoken and being able to admit when you are wrong.


My previous PI used my data in an article that was published in a high profile journal. My name is nowhere to be found in authors list Last year I worked in a research lab in the US. My PI was very abusive so I eventually left for another lab. This individual was always extremely vindictive but I didn't expect that he would use all my work (graphs, tables almost verbatim) without even mentioning my name in the authors list or acknowledgments. One month before I left the lab we had submitted this work in a conference, and I was listed as a SECOND author in the submitted article. I have multiple emails between me and the rest of the lab members where I regularly sent them my data for discussion, reviewing etc. Also I have an email from a former colleague in which she explicitly asks me for my data after I left the lab. I never sent the data to that person at that time because I didn't trust her and I was struggling with my health at that time. They could retrieve them however anyway from my abovementioned emails, common dropbox etc. A new researcher who came to the lab after me, just one month prior to the submission of the article to the journal, ( and had zero involvement in the project before) is listed in the authors list.
I am young and new to the whole word of research and academia. Also, I would like to mention that I worked for free in that lab. That professor had promised to help me with my career instead of paying me (I know, what a fool)and instead he used all my work without giving me credit.
I don't know how to go about it and if I actually have any chance of getting something out of it.
I would appreciate your advice.

Creating the graphs and tables for a paper does not necessarily entitle you to authorship (https://publicationethics.org/files/Authorship_DiscussionDocument.pdf).  But creating those graphs and tables nearly always requires some other activity that does entitle you to authorship.  Your work should be acknowledged at a minimum.
If you are entitled to authorship based on the standards of your field, you may:

Request that the professor ask the journal for a correction of the author list.
If that fails, request that the journal retract the paper for plagiarism.


Meaning of 'not under active consideration' in APS peer review process I have submitted a paper to Physical Review E some 15 months ago. The criticism of the two referees was deep and serious so they suggested a major revision. The editor agreed to publish the paper if I can correctly answer their questions and implement their suggestions. In order to do so, I had to perform calculations which turned out to be lengthy and elaborate, but I have finally finished them. Now I see that the status of the manuscript is 'not under active consideration'. Any idea about the meaning of that? Does it mean that the paper is finally rejected or can it be 'reactivated' by the editor? In the case of the former, can I move the manuscript to another publisher without further communication with the APS?

The APS system does not set a deadline for the authors to submit a revised manuscript.  However, after a certain length of time (I believe it is about one year), a paper is automatically moved from "with authors" to the "not under active consideration" category.  That is the same category used for papers that have been outright rejected, but categorical rejections from Physical Review journals are relatively rare.  The letter your received, inviting you to resubmit if you feel you can overcome the referees' criticisms, is boilerplate, sent out in the response to every letter that the reviewers offer mild rejection recommendations for.

So you can resubmit the paper, although processing will probably be a bit slower than it might be otherwise.  The editor will try to send the paper back the same referees, and they may not have have the clearest memories of your manuscript after all this time.  They may not want to review it again at all, which will delay the whole process.


Publishing my work without advisor Two months ago I submitted a manuscript to my advisor for reviewing and submitting to a journal. He didn’t reply to that and when I asked him about it, he said we should think about publishing after two months and we don’t need to rush. He didn’t even bother to look into my paper.

I feel very anxious and have written a second paper this time with no discussion or involvement from him. I have put his name in the acknowledgement section for allowing me to use his lab computer. Do I stand a chance in publishing it without his name? The idea was never discussed by us and his involvement in this paper is almost not existent.

I have only a year to graduate and am worried for job hunting without publications. (About the quality of paper: Last year, when I came up with an idea, he rejected it claiming it was not good enough; six months later I saw it published by someone else. This time I am confident of getting accepted in reputed journals.)

The straight forward answer is that you can publish the work as you see fit. A well-written sound manuscript submitted to an appropriate journal is always welcome.

That said, however, your actions is not likely to smooth out any existing "conflict", for lack of a better word, between you and your advisor. And, just because one can does not mean it is the best solution. I am not about to judge who is is right or wrong in your situation, only someone close to you plural) would know. But, one question that immediately pops if you really have tried to discuss the matter in detail or if you have the position that your adviser should solve the problem. Lacking your advisor's side, only you can make such an assessment.

If you are in the position that your adviser is one-sidedly not communicating with you, the situation  is difficult. I understand your eagerness to publish but will also mention a few things that can cause the actions to back-fire. First, you will most likely want letters of recommendation from your advisor so publishing work done in the advisor's lab without sanctioning from the adviser can become a negative aspect. You really need to objectively assess this proposed action. Second, if you are close to finishing, the timing is perhaps not optimal to ignite a conflict with your adviser. Again, you need to really assess your situation to know what ramafications can come from your actions. One partial solution, is of course to try to talk to other faculty for whom you have more confidence.

In the end, I can only see one solution: communicaton; and I can only advise to tread carefully over possibly mined territory so make sure you prepare your map carefully before running into solutions out of frustration or even anger.


Invitation to visit university for PhD Recently, I have been interviewed for swedish phd and I have gone through several skype interviews and  writing task. They have send me an email that I am a strong candidate. Now they are asking for visit the university for couple of days and see the laboratories.
Since I am a foriegn national, they will paid all my travel expenses and etc. I am wonder why they are doing this? Have they intrested in offering phd for me?

Anyone have same experience?

Yes they are interested otherwise you won’t be invited. The is fairly normal procedure; some institutes interview candidates in person. I believe the goal for such visit is to set your expectations clear, meet with advisor before official acceptance, and to see where you would live in the next couple of years.

The best thing is to ask them what they expect from you during the visit.


Should you list acceptance of an abstract to a prestigious conference on CV when unable to attend due to personal reasons? I've been just had an abstract accepted to one of the top conferences in my field, but I'm cancelling my participation for personal reasons (short story: my wife is going to give birth to our first child a couple of weeks before the conference, and at that point I'd rather stay at home than spend several days in a different continent; this happened because I neglected to check the actual conference dates when I submitted the abstract; let that be a lesson for all of us). When I informed the organizers, they suggested that I still should add the conference to my CV, with an indication that I didn't actually present, i.e., under "Peer-reviewed conferences", I would write something like:

"A genius solution to an insanely difficult problem". Conference Everybody Wants To Attend XXIV, May 2014, Prestigious American University (unable to present).

What are your thoughts about this? If the organizers hadn't said anything, I would have left it out of my CV; but then, the particular organizer I corresponded with is a big name in the field and way more senior than I am, and she didn't seem to have any problems with it.

As it is a peer-reviewed conference, I think it is OK to mention it the CV.

I am not sure about your particular conference, but in such conferences the biggest step is to get accepted (extended abstract/paper) and you did. So you did the job, they liked your idea and in normal situation you would present there.

It can happen that you are not able to present and you cannot find anyone to do it for you. However, you met all the requirements to be there, so it has its place in your CV.

If you want to be more correct you can mention the abstract as well because not everybody can know if the abstract or whole paper is required.

  "A genius solution to an insanely difficult problem". Conference
  Everybody Wants To Attend XXIV, May 2014, Prestigious American
  University (accepted abstract, unable to present)


how to include editorial work in list of publications Is there an acceptable way to include editorial work on journal articles in my list of publications?

Contributions such as editorial work must go under "Scientific and Academic Activities" in a CV and not under "Publications", because for it to be posted under "Publications" one must be an author on that publication (which editors are not).


Student taking a make-up exam sees exam she would've taken: Unethical? Suppose we have a Psychology class of 20 people. They have an exam scheduled on, say, Tuesday April 12 2016. One of them, Shion, is sick and so takes a make up exam on Tuesday April 19 2016.

Edit: The make-up exam is different from the original exam. It is also significantly more difficult.

Edit: Shion has an advantage of seeing the original exam which is nothing like a random sample of homework questions.

Is it cheating for Shion to see the exam taken on Tuesday April 12 2016?

I have a feeling the answer might depend on the university, department or professor (which seems weird: If professors can compel students to not see or discuss original exams why not extend this to exams since the beginning of time? Why is the most recent exam any different?).

If not, ignore what follows.

If so, another question:

How can the answer depend on the university, department or professor? One university could allow it while another can't? Can some universities really leave the decision up to the departments or professors? Can two professors in the same department have different decisions about this? I understand if people have their own opinions so two professors could have their own personal opinions, but I don't think their personal opinions should matter.

You are asking two related but distinct questions here. First:

  Is it cheating for Shion to see the exam taken on Tuesday April 12
  2016?

No, unless she promised that she would not see the exam (for example by signing a form to that effect as mentioned in The Fire Guy's answer). And it is not clear that there is any reasonable basis for the professor to ask her to make such a promise, unless the professor is giving her the make-up exam as a special favor that he/she is not required to do.

And second:

  Student taking a make-up exam sees exam she would've taken: Unethical?

Yes, this could very well be unethical, but it is the professor who may be behaving unethically, not the student. I see several issues here: first, the professor allowed all the students to keep their copy of the exam, which makes it easier for them to share that information with Shion. Second, the professor is planning to give Shion a make-up exam in which knowledge of which questions were on the original exam could give her an unfair advantage (at least I'm assuming that's the case, otherwise the question wouldn't really make sense). And third, the professor is planning to give Shion a make-up exam which is "significantly more difficult" (note that although this goes in the opposite direction from the first two items, it is still unfair and the three sources of unfairness do not necessarily cancel each other out).

All of those things point to the professor not really thinking through very carefully his or her approach to fairly assessing Shion's performance. At the very least it seems like sloppiness on the professor's part, and depending on the level of negligence involved could potentially rise to the level of unethical behavior.

Summary: It is the professor's responsibility to design a make-up exam that assesses Shion's performance and knowledge as fairly as possible compared to the other students. Different professors may take different approaches to doing so. Some would find a way to ensure that Shion cannot look at the original exam; others would write a make-up exam that is of the same level of difficulty as, but different enough from, the original exam. Creating a situation in which Shion can easily have access to the original exam and benefit from this information is a recipe for trouble and probably means the professor is not doing his/her job as well as he/she should be. In any case, Shion could only reasonably be accused of cheating if she made an explicit promise that she would not look at the original exam and then did so anyway.


I got rejected from MSc program, should I tell my supervisor about the decision? I was sure my application was going to get accepted but unfortunately, it wasnt.Should I email my research supervisor to explain to him that I will not be his future student? Is there a way that he could fight for me?

Added information in comment:

To be honest, my supervisor received an email from the committee asking him why they should accept me. I am 100% sure he forgot to send them the letter explaining why he wants me as a MSc student. Otherwise, they are unreasonable for rejecting because we already formulated the research proposal etc. How can I email my supervisor about this?

Yes, email him and explain and ask if there's anything he can do. The answer might be 'unfortunately not', but what if it isn't?

A very similar thing happened to a friend of mine (paraphrasing from an old email here). She was in touch with a supervisor she really wanted for a master's degree, and applied to the program. One of her reference-letter writers messed up the online submission form by uploading a letter but not clicking 'submit'. The application was incomplete, and Friend of Mine received a letter of rejection. She wrote to Prospective Supervisor and asked what could be done. Prospective Supervisor wrote back unaware that Friend of Mine had received a rejection letter and said she'd go talk to the committee about the incomplete application. She argued for putting Friend of Mine on the waitlist, and the committee agreed. A sufficient number of people turned down the program in question that Friend of Mine got in...and ended up doing both the master's and a Ph.D. program with Prospective Supervisor.

It's not going to happen like that everywhere. Each department, school, country is a bit different, and admissions committees vary widely in terms of how much input a separate faculty member can have. But you never know.


Taking into account courses from another university I think about starting studies towards Master Degree in Computer Science abroad, I finished my bachelor studies few years ago, but I didn't stop studying, during these years I finished few courses of master degree in the domestic university, as result I have transcripts for all of them in English.

The question is what is is the common practice is there any chance that abroad university will consider credit on the courses I already finished, the point is if it's possible I want to lower the pressure to get credit on courses and mostly investing my time in research.

I checked this issue with few another universities in  my country, all of them taking into account the credit I already have with promise to give exemption from studying theses courses if there are requirement of the master degree and to give a credit for all of them.

The best answer to this question is Chris Gregg's comment.

You need to check with each individual school or even each individual program.

The schools you already checked with will allow it. Chris's program allowed a maximum of two courses. My graduate program accepted transfer credits infrequently. Some programs may not accept any.


What methods can be used in online exams to genuinely test the students' knowledge and capabilities? There has been a lot of talk about online teaching in relation to covid-19 and campus shutdowns.

This question isn't about that though: my question is about what ways online examinations should be treated in counterpoint to written examinations.

I'm going to be transferring my course's written examination into an online environment. This examination involved 2 hours of students, with a pen and paper, answering questions both short and long in a typical examination environemnt.

An online exam however cannot be policed. Demanding it be anything other than open book is unrealistic. What methods can be deployed such that it is a genuine test of students' knowledge and capabilities?

First, a two hour time limit might be difficult to enforce or to guarantee, especially if it uses a real-time clock. At some level of scale you may start to find that some students didn't get the exam paper or were unable to return it by the deadline. So, I'd start by rethinking if a time limit of less than a day is really essential to your exam.

Second, you can pre-vet any questions you ask by doing searching yourself online for possible answers and responses. Reject questions that have too much online presence, or be prepared for getting that back as answers. Presumably the test isn't about effective online searches.

Third, give up the idea of asking students for facts. That is obvious, I'd think, as facts are cheap. But even facts requiring computation, such as in mathematics or statistics can be generated with tools such as MatLab or Mathematica.

The best sort of questions, I think, are those that require either or both of interpretation and insight. Questions about the why of things rather than the what and how are much better. However, these are the hardest to create, the hardest to answer, and are likely to have the widest variation in quality from students. To grade them might require quite a lot of interpretation: does this student show any insight at all into the subject? Pass-fail grading can be considered. Repeat attempts can be considered.

As an alternative to an exam, you can consider individual portfolio development by students. Students write or otherwise create some artifacts according to some criteria. Plagiarism concerns come in to play here, of course.

I'll note that honor codes can help to a certain extent, though provide no guarantees. And honor codes created in the moment are probably less effective than those of long standing.


Regarding hiding depression during application I had dropped out of a masters program because of depression in 2015. I free-lanced for a few years, co-founded a tech. startup and my depression diminished, but then I met with an accident in 2017 which gave me chronic back pain. Bed-ridden for months, I converted my full-time work to part-time, and also started working on my Masters thesis. I defended it successfully a few months back (i.e., in 2019). My back pain also has now decreased significantly. As an aside, my back pain was found to have a correlation with my mental health. It started alleviating after I stopped all medication and started living a normal life, with regular exercise routine.

Now, I wish to go back to academia and am applying for Masters/PhD programs. In my Statement-of-purpose, I would have to mention some reason for dropping out of my previous masters program, because it would be glaringly visible.

My question is: How ethical would it be to not mention my depression at all, and instead substitute it with my accident which caused the back pain? That is, if I mention that I met with the accident in 2015 instead of 2017, which caused me to drop out, would it be "right"?

I am thinking of this because as per this, this and this Academia.SE posts, sharing your depression (to your prospective supervisors) is usually not a good idea. And in my case, while the depression lingers beneath and raises its head once in a while, it is usually not present. So, if I am free of depression (but, definitely still "prone"), then should the history be mentioned?

You are under no obligation to share your medical history in an application, but you are under obligation to be truthful -- so no lying about the date of your accident.

It seems like you actually made the best out of your decision to drop out of the program back then. It's legitimate to say, in an application, that you felt at the time that the program was not the right fit for you, and that you wanted to pursue other opportunities -- which you could then describe by saying that you founded a start-up and worked on your MSc project on the side. If you phrase this right, it actually looks quite good, and it's not even a lie: You did leave to pursue other opportunities.


How to start doing "more theoretical" research? I guess, this question might be not only of my personal interest: I'm a first year PhD CS student, during my BSc and MSc, all research projects I did were purely practical - we hypothesize that certain way of computing or approximating something is "good" in some sense or another. Last year I was mostly doing deep learning that reduces to "if we wire network like this, those interesting properties might appear, here're some clues on possible reasons". But I used to (and still do) like doing math, learning new concepts and figuring out proofs, but:

a) I have no idea of how to come up with such a research project (closest thing to "theory research" I did was proving convergence bounds)

b) professor I am (have been for a while) working with now (and who partially funds my RA) is not very inspired by my intent to do research in theory (with no guarantees that anything would work out) instead of performing real-world publishable  experiments (that also rarely lead to successes, but are at least more "measurable").

More specifically, I have been doing machine learning last few years, and I know that there exist a bunch of cool areas to explore and I took (and I liked)  courses on statistical learning theory, optimization, Bayesian inference and other more rigorous things. But I just don't know how to start "doing research" there.

I believe that you are at the transition between BSc/MSc(where one is used to textbook level research) to PhD where one is requested to read and publish papers. The transition is not smooth, it has to be done in various stages. You can start, by examples by reading different papers in domains related to your knowledge(and also what you really like), and try to understand in detail the methodology. The effort has to be continuously, 2 3 hours everyday, and also not to get distracted and stop the research. Also, don't forget that some answers might come after months or even years of research. I would start by reading and finding papers that are approachable in the present context, and try to understand the detail in one of them. This would lead you to another papers to learn and understand, and after you gain some background(a few months), you can start to explore new ideas connected to what you have learned. In the end, if an approach seems that is leading you nowhere, try another approach. Also, related to the question context, working at one side on real-world publishable experiments and on the other side on theoretical approaches seems to be the best option. Good luck!


How to teach from a tutorial-style book? I will be teaching introductory computer science and am considering using a book [sample chapter] that is so well-written and self-contained that, at least for the first few chapters, it's not clear that the students need lectures.  Should I just spend a few minutes at the beginning of the class giving an overview, then set them to work lab-style, enlisting TAs to roam the room with me?  (I teach in a classroom with a computer for each student.) That seems lazy, but I'm not sure what value I can add (until the material gets more challenging around Chapter 4).  FWIW, I'm a tenured professor, so I don't have to worry about being judged by anyone (except myself).

UPDATE: It occurs to me that something else I can do during classtime is meet one-on-one with students to find out what they hope to get from the course and how it is going for them.

I'm concerned by your statement "That seems lazy" because it implies that you are focusing on yourself when really you should be focused on the student, specifically what the students are learning.

It is very easy for us to think from our own perspective but we must consider the perspective of student learning to be of primary importance.

If you believe the text is a good text (which you seem to) then it would seem the right path to take is to have students spending their class time working through the book (as a workshop) with you there to guide them if they get stuck or if they want some more advanced information.

In general, it's easy - that's good. Remember the old saying "Those who do, learn." So, you want the "students to do" rather than "you to do."


Can I talk to another professor about quitting my PhD before I talk to my PI? Summary of my situation:

I'm early in my 4th year as a PhD student (Cell Biology), and I think I want to quit.  My program is 5-7 years, so I have at least 2 years left or I can drop out and claim a Master's and say that I have an extra year of experience since I qualified a year ago.

I have an exciting project that I'm interested in, but do not feel like my advisor lets me finish experiments before expecting me to start the next set.  As a result, I have very little to show for a lot of work.  The paper will probably be big, but it's far off.

I don't think I'm getting what I wanted out of grad school. I see ways that I can achieve those original goals in the future, but it will be a while and I'm not sure its worth the wait.

The stress and workload leave me racked with guilt, initiate panic attacks, and have sent me into depression (maybe? I'm planning on talking to someone at my school's student mental health center).  I know it's work related because when I do manage to take a day off, I feel perfectly normal, like my old self, but as soon as I walk back into lab it starts again.

Question:

Can I talk to another professor (someone on my committee, someone I'm familiar with in my department, or someone familiar with my project but not on my committee) to get advice about my particular situation, the advantages/disadvantages of quitting, and how to talk to my PI about it? Or would that be seen as going behind my PI's back?

Talking to other people including mentors is always a good idea.

It sounds like you're having trouble handling the stress of a PhD and your desires to drop out are not related to any particular issues with your advisor. It's almost impossible to tell how your PI would take it. However, I doubt most reasonable people would consider you seeking advice from others as "going behind their back."


How should I tell a professor the answer to something he doesn't know? Last year, I asked my physics professor a question that he did not know the answer to. This year, while doing a research paper, I also figured out the answer to the question I asked him. I want to send an email to my professor explaining the answer I found simply because he's a curious guy.

Typically, if I asked something that the professor didn't know, I'd email them a few days later saying:

  Hi Dr. Professor, after some reading, I figured out the answer to why so-and-so happens. Here's what I learned.

But since it's been so long, he definitely doesn't remember what I asked him. So I'd like to remind him what my question was. However, writing:

  "Hi Dr. Professor, last year I asked you a question that you did not know the answer to, and this year, I figured it out. Here's what the question was, and here's what I learned"

sounds a bit insulting to me, because I'm writing that he didn't know the answer. What is a good way to share an answer with a professor without being "insulting"? Am I just overthinking this?

I think there is an easy way to phrase this to make it tactful, after all professors are often curious about learning new things too!

  "Hello Professor X,
  I hope you've been well! Last year I asked you a question and we couldn't figure it out at the time but I've since come across an interesting answer and just wanted to pass along the info just in case you're curious. We were discussing Y ... "


Impact on transferring and graduating early for graduate school admissions I'm an uprising sophomore, majoring in science.  I just transferred out of a public university, to another public university.  I'm just wondering, what's the impact of transferring between schools to graduate school admissions?  Taking into account that I don't have a great GPA from the previous school (like a low 3), even though I get a 4.0 GPA from my current school, how hard would the low GPA from my previous school affect my graduate school admissions?  Do graduate schools look into freshman year GPA that heavily?

Since I have an amount of AP credits, I can graduate in 3 years.  Is it really a good idea to do so, if I wanted to go to graduate school?  Since I don't have a really high GPA from my previous school, should I just do 4 years instead?

Also, as a add-on question: I'm not sure what field or career I should go into, how do you know that you want to go into academia? Or is it a little too early for me to decide?

Thanks for the advices and opinions in advanced!

Disclaimer: I am a PhD student with some outside knowledge (as an applicant) and some inside knowledge (admissions committee student member) on an average doctoral admissions process.

There are a number of factors which affect a candidates acceptance (or conversely, rejection) into a PhD program. They are standardized test scores, GPA, research experience, publications, letters of recommendation and the personal statement.

In my opinion, from what I have seen your numbers (GRE and GPA) don't do a good job of getting you in but can keep you out. What this means is that you have to clear whatever internal cut-offs there are. This can be subjective or objective depending upon the department, the field and the university. For instance, this could be 3.5 in one department in one field or could be 3.8 in another department in another field in another university. Standards can also be relaxed for candidates with exceptional research records and letters of recommendation written by trusted researchers.

The most important factors which matter are previous, relevant research experience, letters of recommendation, personal statement and publications. Some optimum combination of this must convince the admissions committee that you are worth admitting.

In fact, I would venture to say that there isn't much of an impact in graduating early or transferring to and from different programs. Focus on selecting whether a research career is right for you and what field you actually want to get into for graduate school.

The second part of your question is a little broad as I have noted in a comment. If you search this platform, you will find numerous relevant advice from folks much more knowledgeable than me. There are different approaches here. Some people just know what field they want to get into from the very outset. Others (like me) bounce around in different fields until one feels very right to them. Yet others get into a masters degree program to try out a discipline in terms of exploring research before committing to a full time PhD program.


How to tell someone, that someone else "can"not answer a question I asked multiple times? I work at a unversity in the physics department. Since quite some time, I have a very specific question regarding some equations and how they were rearranged into some result. I have asked my Professor regarding this several times, but I have never been able to get a clear answer and at this point I am "too afraid to ask once more". Of course, I am not really afraid but I have asked this so often that at some point it becomes somehow weird, especially since this is only some detail.
Now I have been assigned with supervising an undergraduate, who will write his Master's thesis about a topic which is very similar to the one I am working on. I can already see that he will come across the same question in the near future and there are several possible things I could do to answer the question if it arises.

I could simply tell him that I don't know the answer. This would of course be OK but does not actually solve the problem. Especially since for his work a better answer to the question I am trying to get an answer to might be required.
I could tell him that I asked this several times to the professor, but he either did not understand or was unable to provide an answer. This is the more factually correct answer but it sounds a bit accusatory and could put me in the position that the student tells the professor about this since I would be the first one whom he would ask and who should be able to provide an answer.
I could ask the co-authors. In this case, the question would be whether I inform my professor about this. If I do so, he will ask me why and I probably end up in a position where I will have to ask the same question all over again, not to mention that he did not answer the question in a way I understand.

This is somewhat of a frame challenge, but I suggest you try asking the question on Physics.SE (or Math.SE, or even MathOverflow, depending on where it fits best) so that you can become the person who can answer the question.


Admission into top engineering graduate programs with a GPA just below the cutoff I'm applying for a master's degree at top graduate schools for robotics, such as MIT. However, I've heard that the recommended minimum GPA for these schools is 3.5. My GPA is actually 3.45. I know the supposed "cutoff" isn't rigid, but I'm worried because I don't have any publications either, although I have several years of highly relevant experience working in a number of research labs. With a difference of 0.05 points, will it be rounded to a 3.5 in the admissions reviewers' minds, or is this the final stroke that would send my application straight to the trash bin?

From another answer I wrote

  I have seen people get into harvard within 3.20 range and I have seen people get rejected with perfect 4.00 from "lesser" schools. From what I have seen it is more about what a transcript / application tells rather than whatever the GPA is... I fear no one here would reliably be able to tell you your odds with this amount of information. Even if you disclose every information you have available to yourself, the recommendation letters written about you will have significant implications.

With that said, from what I read and heard, I begin to wonder if some schools are too trigger happy with student ellimination. They usually get a lot of applications and there is no real way to order them swiftly and reliably. I fear they might employ tactics like:

Elliminate everyone with an F
Elliminate everyone with GRE score < some percentile

It is hard to say if this is a general trend or not.


What happens if too many student withdraw from a course I am taking a four week online summer course in the U.S. and the professor just canceled it because all but me and one other student (out of 30+ students) withdrew from the class within the first week. I guess the minimum for the class is 20 students. Is this normal? I'm not sure yet but I think we get our money back for the course, I just am not sure if it is standard for this to happen. and if so what happens on my transcript?

Courses are sometimes cancelled due to low enrollment. Usually this happens during the first week to allow the students to transfer to a different course. Since this is before the "drop" deadline, the course does not appear on the student transcript and no tuition is charged.


Reviewing article and bad-faith citation I did my PhD topic in mechanical engineering. A decade later, I agreed to review an article on the exact same topic, that has a great number of similarities with mine. OK, that can happen.
The authors do cite my PhD manuscript (not the related peer-reviewed articles, by the way) but only once throughout the paper and in a short misleading sentence. Let's say my PhD was about counting from 1 to 20, an analogy would be to say something like "X managed to count up to 2 [ref]". OK, reading too fast can happen too.
The main thing I am uncomfortable with is that the submission is supervised by someone who was in the jury of my PhD defense ten years ago and knows my work well and acknowledged it is a strong text. I am certain that this conduct is intentional. I see several reasons why they would try to minimize my work:

Their article brings nothing new (the novelty claims have all been already addressed during my thesis);
I proved that the scope of the article should be achieved computing some certain quantities, and they never did that (because it is much more difficult). They have several possibilities. Manage to compute the quantities: they apparently do not want to. Disprove my claim: very unlikely. Ignore my work from the literature review: dangerous. Inappropriately cite my work: what they chose.

I am convinced that they purposely omitted nearly all of my PhD thesis to have a higher chance of having their article published. They have been citing my articles inappropriately every couple of years, but the consequences were minor (in terms of science).
What would you do?
Edit One comment and one answer indicate that whether this behaviour is intentional or not does not matter at all. That is precisely what is not clear to me. When someone submits wrong data supporting a claim in an article, if they just plotted the wrong curve it is a mistake. If it they made up data, it is fraud. That makes a difference to me...

If you are certain the article is not novel, you should recommend to the editor that the manuscript be rejected.  Give detailed references in your review.
It is impossible to know if the poor citations are deliberate or accidental.  It also does not matter at all.


What is a proper way to consider the supplementary materials as a reviewer? I was chosen as a reviewer for a conference in the field of computer science in which the authors can also submit some extra materials like proofs and additional implementations separately (until a week after the deadline), but their papers should be understandable and self-contained without considering these additional materials.

The paper I’m reviewing has a good scientific contribution and I like the way they tried to solve the problem, but some parts are not so understandable unless you read the additional submitted PDF file. For example, their pseudo-code for their algorithm has some mistakes, but they provide the correct algorithm in the additional material. Also, they provided more implementation results in the extra PDF file, which I think are important to support their claim. The proof and in-detail explanation of their method is also provided there.

The organizers have emphasized that the authors shouldn’t use the additional documents as way to submit a more complete version of the original paper.

So to be fair, if they add some of the parts from their supplementary document to the main paper, then the resulting paper would be perfect and I’d definitely accept it. However, I’m not sure whether it is better to accept it with feedback on the lacking parts, telling them to move these parts from the additional PDF to the main one to make it complete, or to only consider the main paper to be self-explanatory, in that case I’d more likely reject it!

Your job is to provide critique and suggestions by which the authors can improve the paper. The published paper should be self-contained; that does not mean that as a reviewer you should ignore the supplementary material.

It sounds to me like you already know how to advise the authors to improve their paper. I would definitely ask them to make improvements and submit a revision, rather than reject — especially if the paper would be "perfect" with your suggested changes.


How much percentage royalty do I get from Springer (as the paper's author) and how I can apply for royalty payment? I have submitted a paper to a Springer conference and it has been published. The publisher will charge 24.95$ to anyone who would eventually download my paper and 201 copies of my research sold by Springer official site.
How much percentage royalty do I get from Springer (as the paper's author) and how I can apply for royalty payment?

You get nothing: Welcome to academic publishing.


Filler submission to the American Mathematical Monthly I have found an interesting (and novel) result that I would like to submit to the American Mathematical Monthly. I am aware of the journal's prestige and I understand that my result likely would not warrant regular publication. I am looking to submit my finding and brief proof as "filler", however, their website does not elucidate much information other than a LaTex template for such submissions.

My question to anyone who is familiar with the filler submission process of the American Mathematical Monthly, what are the technical requirements of such a submission? I understand that they are shorter than typical papers but the tables of contents I see online do not seem to include any for length reference.

Thank you.

The Monthly's journal page has a section on submissions:

https://www.maa.org/press/periodicals/american-mathematical-monthly#Submission

There are no listed requirements for fillers, which probably means that there are no strict requirements, just an item the editors deem appropriate.  My first suggestion is to browse through recent issues and look at other fillers to see if yours will fit in.

Second, the above link says:

  Questions concerning submission of papers can be addressed to the editor [name + email]

So if you have specific, focused questions you can try asking.  Alternatively, you could just submit and wait for the review/editorial process for feedback.


How to ensure adequate dissemination and wording of an academic job offer when the teaching language will not be English? I work in an university where the teaching language is not English, but where research can be carried out in the language of choice of the director (which is generally English since most graduate students do not speak the official language of the university).
Although the university offers linguistic support for new employee who do not know the official language, it seems that this is seen as a severe hindrance by candidates and it severely limits the pool of available candidates (especially for tenure-track positions). My question is twofold. Are candidates generally discouraged from applying to a position for which they cannot speak the language? Are there ways to word the job offer to ensure that this is not seen so much as a hurdle since linguistic support is offered?

You cannot change the location of your university and the fact that the local language is not English. Moreover, the question focuses on tenure-track positions, so I will interpret that as positions where the goal is that the holder stays for a longer period of time (lets arbitrarily say 10 years), but correct me if I am wrong. Even if teaching in English was not a requirement, the holder would still need to learn the local language. You can survive in many places with only knowing English, but to make the best use of everything that is possible you often need to know the local language. So, in practice I find that the requirement to teach in the local language, with the accompanying support, actually helps foreign position holders adept to their new environment. So there is no need to be defensive about that.
Regarding your first question: I would say that there is continuum of candidates where on the one extreme are people who enjoy experiencing new places, and for whom learning the language is less of a chore and more part of the experience, and on the other extreme are other people for whom learning a new language is going to be too much. Your university will have trouble attracting people who are more on the "language-phobic" side of the spectrum, but that is not a bad thing as they would not be a good match for your university anyhow.
Regarding your second question: keep it short, to the point, and factual. Those who are not daunted by learning a new language, just want to know whether the requirements are reasonable for them. Is there a transition period, and if yes how long? What kind of support is there? In the advertisement, that needs to be very short, but you could include a link to a place that provides more information. Again, don't be defensive about it.


Email to potential advisor after submitting an application I applied to graduate school in US about two months ago and I am still waiting for my result. I was thinking may be it is a good idea to email my potential advisor again and asked them whether they have looked at my application or what is the status of my application?

Can you please tell me how to start this email? How should I politely ask about status of my application?

It is uncommon to ask a faculty member about the status of an application as most of the time it's the admission staff who handle this kind of inquiries. If the faculty has said that you can email him/her, then it may be fine. Otherwise, check with the admission staff.


Is it possible to complete a Master's degree while working full-time? Generally

There's a question which asks is it possible to get a PhD while working full time? The responses to this were essentially "yes but say goodbye to anything except school and work" or "only if you're a prodigy".

My first question then: can I complete a Master's degree while working without killing my social life? Browsing the course names gives me the impression that at least 10% will be review from my undergraduate degree.

Specifically

I'm interested in deepening my knowledge in my area (software/computer science) and am in NYC, where Columbia U would be a great option for this. I have completed an undergraduate degree and since a PhD seems like a stretch, I am considering a Master's degree.

My job has a 40 hour work-week but has flexibility with timing.

A lot of people in the US do this, actually. Some places have enough evening classes at the MS/MA level that it may not disrupt normal work hours. But it takes a lot out of the rest of your life, of course.

It is easier in a field in which you can complete the degree without research, say by coursework and/or creative writing.

But if you can afford to spend three hours a night in class for a couple of nights a week and also do the required other work then it can happen on a reasonable time scale. And NYC has a lot of options.


Postgraduate studies - public funds? I'm a final year undergraduate student and I'm considering studying further. The main issue is well, money. I wanted to ask about the existing public funds - silly questions but what are they exactly? I would like to continue study in the UK but I'm from Bulgaria - does it mean I need to check the public funds from both the UK and my home country?

I know that i.e. there are now loans for masters, but no (not yet) for PhD. I know there are scholarships given from charities and various organisations but already allocated - are they counted as public funds as well?

I found this certain scholarship that I may qualify but only if I'm not eligible for public funds so I want to check all of them before I fill the application.

I'm totally new to this so I really appreciate your help!

Short Answer: Instead of looking for scholarships yourself, try to find a funding through academics and/or university in the UK. There are always funding available for talented students; and if not you can apply for a scholarship through an academic.

Longer Answer

Ok, I did my fully funded PhD in the UK so I can help on this. Do the following:

Find a Supervisor: First and foremost you need a solid supervisor that can help you through research, at the topic you want to work on; and understand that money is an issue.
Funding Through Supervisor: Then see if the supervisor has some money, he/she might not have 100% of the funding but can afford less say 50%.
Funding Through Research Group/University: Then you need to look into any funding available through the research group or the university. This might cover the rest, or close to 100% of the funding.
Take Classes Through PhD Studies: Academics always help PhD students, if they need some extra cash, they let them to help them in laboratories and/or marking. This is not too much but at least you can get couple of meals out of it.

Note On Location: If you can't find a funding in London or surrounding cities, try the northern cities as well. They are also cheaper to live compare to London and southern cities.

Note On Courage: I had a hard time financially, and so many of my friends. So keep going and you shall find a funding one way or another.