Do case reports require ethical approvals? Do case reports involving people with medical ailments require ethical approvals? If they do not, then why?

I am located in Sweden, but am (almost) equally interested in conditions elsewhere.

From a legal point of view, in the United States, preparation of a case report for publication does not require review by the ethics board because case reports do not meet the legal definition of "research" (according to most interpretations):

  Case reports submitted for publication do not strictly meet the criteria of research. Although a case report (defined as a retrospective analysis of one (1), two (2), or three (3) clinical cases) may be illustrative, it does not meet the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects definition of Research, which requires an investigation that contributes to generalizable knowledge about a disease or condition. Instead, a case report is intended to develop information to be shared for medical or educational purposes.

(Source: Tufts)

Many institutions therefore do not require any kind of review for publishing case reports. For example:

  Q:  Do faculty who prepare a  case report as an article for submission to a journal require IRB approval prior to preparation?

  No.  A case report is a medical/educational activity that does not meet the DHHS definition of “research”, which is: "a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge."  Therefore, the activity does not have to be reviewed by a JHM IRB.

(Source: John Hopkins Medicine)

(Another example: University of Wisconsin - Madison)

(Another example: Columbia)

As pointed out by Fomite, some institutions have an IRB make the determination that a study is "not human subjects research" even for a case study. For example:

  A number of studies submitted to the UNC-Chapel Hill IRB are deemed “not human subjects” research which means, once reviewed and so designated, no further involvement with the IRB is needed unless a change in the study might alter that decision. This designation can be given to studies that involve human beings but are not considered to be research in the federal regulations (e.g., not systematic, as in single subject case studies and/or are not designed to contribute to generalizeable knowledge, as in program evaluation or quality improvement projects) or when information is collected from humans but is not about them (e.g, a survey of public health department directors about the content of programs offered).  When a student has a study that might qualify for a “not human subjects research” designation from the IRB, the online IRB application will be shortened considerably.  Once submitted, the IRB will review the application and let the student know if it agrees with the “not human subjects research” determination. If it does not agree, then a longer IRB application will be necessary.

(Source: UNC Nursing)


Should I ask my teacher before using speech-to-text software? Should I ask my teacher before using software of speech-to-text in classes ? The software in question does not record (the audio) at all, just "hear" the input and output text.

What about using it in conferences and lectures ? And is it OK to share this with other students ? I'm more worried about legal issues than anything else (European Union and U.S jurisdictions).

Yes.

It is always polite to ask anyone for permission before acting towards them in a way that clearly differs from what is generally taken as the norm.

I'm curious what you see as the argument against doing so, given you ask about etiquette.


Would you submit your paper that got rejected in a top-tier venue to a lower rank conference? My question is simple: If you have a paper that got rejected two or three times (border-line* rejects every time) from top-tier conferences, would you polish it and resubmit it again to similar or another high rank conference or would you try some lower rank venues ?

* Border-line reject: every time got 2 good reviews and 1 bad review.

P.S. Every time the paper got vague suggestions like: compare with this or that. And the first and second time we DID in fact address all concerns, but another concern showed up next time.

P.P.S. I am concerned with CS conferences.

Thank you.

I would not continue submitting the same paper to top-tier conferences after three rejections.  The Universe Has Spoken.  Move On.

Many of my colleagues do submit such papers to lower-tier conferences, but I usually just send my papers directly to journals after two conference rejections.


What is most gracious way to exit a doctorate program? I've made an internal decision to leave my doctorate program of 3.5 years. The reasons are many, but the major one is that I have realized that I don't need a doctorate to fulfill my career dreams, and that I am at a point in life where I prefer to start a family and build my marriage with my husband. I'm a more conservative girl in many ways, so some may not understand, but that's ok. I own my values 100%.
I got married to the love of my life who is also a PhD student about a month ago. He is defending in about a month from now and has a job offer in another state. I am younger than him in both age and my graduate progress. If I were to stay in my program, I probably would defend in about 1.5 to 2 years.
To me, at this point, it is simply not worth it to stay. I have learned so much from my program and the field I'm studying and am extremely grateful to be surrounded by a network of highly motivated talented scientists and engineers. However, there has also been tremendous toll taken on my mental health, and I dread the 60 - 80 hour work week that is required to be "successful" in my field.
So I have made my decision to leave with my masters after I wrap up the project I'm currently working on. But does anyone have advice on how to go about telling this my advisor without marring our professional relationship?
She doesn't see it coming, and I don't think she'll fully understand my reasons, but this is a necessary conversation to have.

Whether you can do this without marring the professional connection with your advisor depends more on who she is than on how you go about telling her (yes, the conversation is necessary). Do thank her for helping you learn all you have.
Your commitment to wrapping up your current project is important.
If she's the kind of advisor she should be, she will wish you well and tell you she hopes you resume your research some day and keep in touch, even if she does not fully understand your choice.
(I like your SE handle.)


How can Springer and Wiley put a 12 month embargo on posting post-review revisions to the arXiv and similar? This question was inspired by the recent question on posting to Academia.edu.

The general copyright policy for Springer, as listed on SHERPA/RoMEO, is that one can post a pre-review version to the arXiv but one must wait a year after publication before posting an post-review copy to any open repository (and one can never post the final publisher's copy):

This seems to precluding posting a post-review update to the arXiv until a year after the journal article is published. Wiley appears to have a similar policy.

To me this policy seems crazy, because it means that if you actually obey it, you cannot post a revised version to the arXiv for over a year -- and thus you are obliged to leave uncorrected any mistakes that are uncovered during the review process for a protracted period of time. That's bad scholarship at best. I don't see how anyone could comply with this policy in good faith.

It also raises a major issue for peer review. Why one should review for free for a journal that won't let the author share the results of your review with the community in as timely a fashion as possible?

Moreover, I don't see how this policy could possibly be enforceable, due to the timing of the copyright transfer agreement. The author does not transfer the copyright until after submitting the final revised version to the publisher. I am no lawyer, but it seems to me that the publisher has no copyright claim over the post-revision version of the manuscript until the author has actually returned the signed copyright transfer agreement. As best as I can tell, this leaves a generous time window during which the author can freely submit a post-review version of the manuscript to the arXiv without committing any kind of copyright violation whatsoever. The only option open to the publisher would be to refuse to publish the paper in retaliation -- which they are extremely unlikely to do.

So my question is simply this: Am I missing something here? Is there any way that such a policy could be legally enforceable if one posts the post-review version prior to signing the copyright transfer agreement?

The copyright agreement does not require that you leave your mistakes uncorrected, it simply requires you to make corrections in a particular way. The simplest method, if you discover mistakes in the published version, is to distribute some note of correction that specifically addresses your original error, which can be done without violating the copyright agreement. The copyright agreement may allow you to post post-review versions of the paper, since the agreement may contain a clause that "Prior versions of the Contribution published on non-commercial pre-print servers like ArXiv/CoRR and HAL can remain on these servers and/or can be updated with Author’s accepted version". There is always a clause where the author warranties that the work has not been previously published (which includes online distribution via ArXiv), and this is why they need to expressly say that you are also permitted to post the submitted version.

There are two notions of "enforceability" relevant to your agreement with the publisher. The stronger one involves litigation, where the publisher sues you for damages (when you breach a contract). You should hire a Swiss lawyer to get advice on whether Springer is likely to prevail in court. The other notion is "having negative consequences". A simple negative consequence would be that Springer refuses to publish any more of your work, if you flagrantly violate the terms of the agreement. Whether or not your breach involves copyright violation depends on whether or not you give them a license to publish, versus transfer copyright. (In interpreting the Lecture Notes in CS agreement, you would want to consult the Swiss attorney for a precise interpretation of granting and assigning the exclusive, sole right to copy).

Your comment about the review process is tangential, and suggests that you are unaware of review protocol, You ask "Why one should review for free for a journal that won't let the author share the results of your review with the community in as timely a fashion as possible". Reviews are not only anonymous, but also privileged communication between the reviewer and the editor (often -- though not always -- shared verbatim with the author). So you should not distribute reviewer comments, unless that is expressly permitted by the journal.


Switching fields after MA I am a Ph.D. student at a top 15 program in my current social science field, I'll call it field X. My research is interdisciplinary standing at the intersection of field X and another field Y.

I genuinely like graduate school and my work here, but as I've developed as a scholar, it has become apparent that my true passion (and resultant new research questions) lies clearly in field Y. How frowned upon would it be to master out of my program in field X and try to move to field Y? I've heard mastering out of a Ph.D. program is a huge red flag when reapplying, and I think I'd enjoy a future in field X more than any other job save for a future in field Y. I also feel very indebted to my current program and advisors as a result of the resources they've invested in me.

Would it be advisable to give up on a future in field Y and remain in field X? Or would moving not be so terrible since it's due to a genuine (slight) change in research interests rather than not liking graduate school, or clashing with advisors, or anything like that?

I doubt that you have any need to move and disrupt your trajectory. If your research is truly on the cusp, then you can probably move seamlessly into field Y even with a degree in field X. People change fields fairly regularly, especially if the change isn't radical. All of my education was mathematics, but lack of job opportunities when I finished pushed me to computer science where I had a long career.

The only problem, I think, would be in finding your first position. You need to have some contacts in field Y, perhaps professors, who will be happy to support your entry into the field, regardless of your doctorate.

And there is great value in interdisciplinary work in any case. So, building a circle of collaboration with people in both fields would probably be an advantage to you in the long run.

Once you are employed in some permanent position (tenured or similar) your choice of research is pretty much up to you. No one will care, anymore, that your degree is in a related field.

Having a degree in field X needn't lock you in to working only in that field.


Should I be looking at the market while under first year of two year contract? I have a two year contract as a visiting assistant professor. Is it normal to be keeping an eye on the market and perhaps selectively sending out applications now in my first year, or should I be holding off completely until next year?

I suppose the tricky thing is I'd ideally want a letter from my current chair, and I haven't discussed it with them. A postdoc who also started this year though asked if I'd be looking around, as it seems they will be, so there seemed to be some consensus perhaps that this was normal? Figured I'd throw out the question to see if anyone has had similar experiences.

Yes, absolutely be on the lookout for opportunities

Your employer has made it abundantly clear that they intend to kick you out after two years: It says so right on the contract. If you do not plan for that time, you will be unemployed and with no appointment/affiliation, both of which are more problematic than they should be.

So it is only natural you devote some time to your future options - regardless of it being in Academia even. As an academic in particular we know, that hiring processes tend to be very long; and you very often have to move far away / abroad so the logistics and legal aspects are more complex and again, take longer. So it's doubly important to plan well in advance for an academic.

Concrete suggestions:

Don't look for a letter from the chair of your department early into your contract - unless the subject somehow comes up. I'd feel comfortable asking for something like that after I've done something impressive and/or once I have one year or less remaining.
Tell prospective workplaces that you are mostly interested in starting out in 2 - X years (with X being the time into your current 2-year contract), but also say that this is flexible. Because it is: You could wait a while, on one hand; and you could also give notice and quite earlier than the full two years, on the other hand.
Give independent consideration to whom you want to share your active job-search with. Telling people about this can have both positive and negative effects.


How to demonstrate potential for securing external funding in faculty applications? Many faculty positions ask applicants to demonstrate potential for securing external funding. For a fresh PhD who has only co-written some grant proposals, how can we demonstrate this potential? I really appreciate any thought.

First, the bad news. The best predictor for the potential for securing funding is a history of having secured funding.

Second, strengthen and tailor your application. If you're a newly-minted PhD, make sure to include grants or awards relevant to your application. For example, you must include the summer research fellowship you won from the university, or the publication award you won from the professional association. Make sure that you provide enough information to assist the assessor. For example, you may wish to explain the point of the fellowship, how much it was worth, and what your outcomes were. I have encountered many examples of resumes of this sort:

Summer 1995 - Summer research fellowship to Jordan

With a little more information, you can make this pop:

Summer 1995 - Summer research fellowship ($15,000). Six-week visit to the field site of Dr James Gilman in Betthorus (Jordan) to assist in excavations and measurements of battlements. Output: one oral presentation and one publication (doi: ...).

The 33 extra words makes a difference, I think. Importantly, to an assessor, it shows that you can turn money into research output.

Third, understand that a demonstration takes many forms. If you've got limited history of grant success (or even if you don't), use this as a chance to show the assessor that you've got a practical plan to attract grant funding. You can lay this out clearly in your research statement. The assessor will be looking for such things as

a coherent research plan that is related to the research areas of the group (lab, department, etc). You can't demonstrate funding success if you can't articulate a meaningful and important research plan. Plus, no matter how great your plan, if it's outside the scope of the group, then you just look idiotic proposing it because it shows your lack of understanding of the group's goals.
your knowledge of the developments in the field, especially your capacity (or willingness) to collaborate with internal and external partners. Show how your work relates to the work of other members of the group. Show that you have networks outside the group that you might be able to tap.
your understanding of the scope and processes involved in the major granting bodies in your field. You need to give them confidence that you've got a submission plan involving when you intend to develop and submit your applications. Review the application forms and instructions of the major granting bodies. Try to complete them yourself to get the hang of it. If you have access to it, see if you can study the copies of successful grants from your supervisor or other members of the group. Learn how to construct budgets (which is something they barely teach you in a typical PhD).
your resilience in the face of knock-backs. Grant submission is better seen as a cycle, not a path. The latter has an end, implying that if you don't get the grant, you drop the idea and move on. It's more realistic to consider grant submission as a means of refining a research idea and that rejections come with valuable comments that allow you to improve for the next round.

Fourth, be aware of the start-up costs that you will need to fund your work. Unless you come with your own funding already secured (in which case this post is really irrelevant to you), you will need to do some work on your own while you submit applications. Many groups provide start-up funding, but this is capped and you need understand how this works.

Fifth, be careful of (over)confidence. Receiving external funding is hard. Don't give assessors the impression that your work is so obviously the next big thing that hiring you will result in money falling out of the sky. That might be the case, but more likely than not, you'll simply come off like an airhead.

I'm sure there are many other points, but these are the ones I can list before I head to an appointment with a dentist.

Good luck to you (and to me)!


I see many Indian researchers going to the USA as postdocs. But I see very few Indian faculty leaving India. Why? As you may agree that most departments of most US university will have a number of Indian postdocs. But why very few Indian professors leave India to join US universities. I wonder why?

I think the answer is likely to be much the same reason that you see many postdocs shifting between the US and Europe, but few faculty changing shifting between the US and Europe as well.  Postdocs are in a transient period of their career and will readily move to follow opportunity.  Faculty, especially once tenured, are likely to be settled and not particularly interested in moving, no matter where they started.

Now, India is still different than the US academically, but as India continues to develop and Indian academia continues to expand, the difference is decreasing and one should expect the flow of scientific talent to continue to become more balanced, as is happening already.


Applying to do a PhD after a(n unsuccessful) period of job hopping Disclaimer: Since this question is explicitly about applying to do a PhD, I figured that the Academia SE was a better fit than Workplace, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

How can I explicitly, concisely and effectively explain a period of frequent job-hopping in my employment record in my application package (e.g. in the cover letter, statement of interests, research proposal and/or in my CV itself) which was due to a period of "soul-searching", after which I realized that I definitely do want to do research? I assume that my problem is two-fold:

Being away from academia and the core material of the PhD for several years, meaning that my CV has very little in common with what I want to do despite having studied it years before (cf. "Getting into gradschool from a 'real job'")
Having proven myself to be a job hopper

Job hopping is potentially a problem in getting into a PhD program.  The fear of admissions, obviously, would be that your lack of commitment to one thing will show up again in your studies, and you will tire of this quickly, too.

However, it may be less of a problem here than in looking for new employment in industry.  Some reasons:

You are making a category shift, and as such all of your previous jobs may be seen as "one thing", and you are now switching to a completely different thing.
There is quite a bit of anti-industry bias in some parts of academia.  Therefore people considering your application might be more sympathetic to your work history.  They might think "of course this person couldn't make it in the soulless, evil corporate world, but they will flourish in the academy."  (Of course this is a bit of a caricature, but you get the idea).
You are more likely to have a chance to tell your story.  As discussed in the linked question, a "job hopper" may have their CV rejected well before they get to interview, having no chance to explain the circumstances.  But when applying for a PhD, it is quite likely you will get far enough to have some personal interaction and explain your circumstances.
They may be making less of a commitment to you than an employer would be.  Particularly if you are looking at unfunded PhDs, they may be more willing to take you on, even if they think you are a risk, since you are paying them (not the other way around).

What should you do about it?

Contact some professors at programs you are interested in. Share your story and interest in graduate study.  This personal connection may help your chances as an applicant, and you can also get advice from them that will help determine whether (and where) you have a chance of success.
Work hard on your personal statement.  It should demonstrate clearly why you want to do a PhD, how you arrived at this conclusion, and show some commitment to this as your direction in life.
If going directly into a PhD program doesn't seem feasible, consider alternative options.  A master's program would be a lot easier to get into, and you can often then transfer into a PhD once there.  Or, consider employment at an academic institution (such as work as a research assistant) where you can build up some recent academic experience while also making connections that will help you gain admission.


Looking for a good repository for academic drafts I'm currently submitting my CV for Ph.D positions and internships at research labs. I have one publication already, and I am currently in the process writing my Master's thesis. I would very much like to attach a hyperlink in my CV to directs to my thesis since it is more telling of the work I've been doing than say my publication. I'm wondering if there is exists a "version control" paper repository, similar to say the way Github works for software developers? What I mean by this is a place where I can upload improvements to my thesis without necessary making it publicly available (it can only be accessed via the hyperlink). My reason for doing this is fairly obvious. I can actively make improvements to my thesis after I have submitted the relevant documents, which the committee members viewing my dossier would later see. Does anyone know of such a resource?

If you are familiar with LaTex, use it with git.

Edit and mess around with paper on master branch, and push some good, meaningful and confirmed improvements on your work into release branch.

If you need a repository private until you decide to make it public, use Bitbucket or GitLab, instead of github. They provide free private repository. When you finished your paper, you can change repository settings to public.

I am not sure whether Diff-ing PDFs---your previous and current paper---is easy problem or not. But you can choose a solution among several: pdfdiff, DiffPDF, pdf-diff, diff-pdf and etc.


What are the most important things to include in your thesis defense presentation? If you are creating a simulator of the existing system then should you present the details about the system or your simulator? or both? How technical you should go in your defense presentation?  I have so much stuff in my report that I don't know what to put in my defense and what to leave out. I wanted to show my slides to my supervisor but he is very busy this week and I doubt he will have time for me.

I am doing a post-Masters degree known as a Doctorate of Engineering or professional doctorate and I will have 45 minutes for the presentation and 15 minutes for question. Then I will have one more hour for my defense.

Tailor the presentation to those who assess it. You say that will be your supervisors. If that means they are people closely familiar with your subject matter, you can devote more time to project details. That means 60-70% of your time. If they are non-experts (researchers from a different department/specialization), spend less time on technical details. When in doubt, always focus more on

-What's the big question/motivation for this study

-how does your contribution tie into big question

-Why was it a difficult project to tackle (important for non-experts)

-how did you overcome those difficulties

-how can the big question be addressed now that you made your contribution?

The last ties back into the beginning and may feel repetitive to you. But it is important for people listening to the talk.


Is it fair to offer students a chance to improve their grade on an assignment A large portion of students in a class I'm taking did very poorly on the first project that was assigned in the class. The professor has decided to allow students that did not get full points on the project to increase their grade on project 1 by a percentage of their project 2 grade.
However, the way the that increase is calculated does nothing for the people that did project 1 correctly and received full points. I feel that this is an unfair application of extra credit as it only rewards those that didn't do the first project correctly. Am I being reasonable when I see this as unfair?

You don't indicate where you are, but I'm going to assume the US or places with similar systems.

What is the meaning of the final grade in a course? You can generally look in your handbook or catalog for the definitions. You won't find "was better than classmates" in the definitions, I'm quite certain. (Which is why I detest curve based grade assignment.)

Instead, grades are supposed to indicate a level of performance or degree of learning. Say a course had only two exams. A midterm and a final. If someone gets an F on the midterm and an A on the final, how do we reconcile those grades? If the course is progressive in nature like mine, I may be inclined to assign a grade of A because that represents the final mastery: I don't care, actually, that someone couldn't do X at the midterm if at the final they demonstrate X and Y.

A different student who made an A on both might be mad, but why? In both cases, at the end of my course, they demonstrated X and Y which was ultimately the point of my class.

If a professor allows students to redo work, in effect they are saying "well, you didn't demonstrate proficiency, but for this course it is necessary for you to do so, so let's see if you can on a second chance".

At the end of the day, if you feel your performance was better than theirs, and make the same or higher grade than them, why should you be concerned?


How do I tackle the interview question "why join here and not your former college"? Background : I did both my bachelor's and master's degree from the same institute, let's call it institute X. I liked it there during my bachelor's and since very few institutes near by offered a master's degree in the subject I wanted I joined it. It is a decision I regret. The level of the course and syllabus was very poor and most lectures couldn't give us proper guidance on the books one should refer to for self study. I did manage to find out through a very helpful professor from a highly reputed institute how to go about things and managed to get in to a good institute for a PhD. Now I am on verge of finishing and plan on applying to institute Y for teaching position.

Question : I am bound to be asked by the interview panel of institute Y why I am choosing to apply for a teaching position there and not in my own institute. What is the best way to answer?

The real answer to the question is that standards in institute X are falling and the academic environment there is deteriorated. More importance is being given to looking good on paper than to teaching. For example, they show statistics of how you have such a great number of students doing exceedingly well in exams but having written those exams myself I know that they aren't all that challenging to begin with. There are similar exaggerated facts that make the institute look good on paper. I know that I won't be happy there unless there is a radical change.

I don't think I should be saying all this to an interview panel though (or should I?). I really want to give an honest answer but I certainly don't want to come off as some one who insults their Alma Mater even if what I say is true. So what is the best way to answer? Or is there a polite way to say that I don't like the atmosphere there?

EDIT - I would like to add that I am from Bangalore, India.

Thank you.

If they ask, be diplomatic. Slagging off your old institution doesn't send a good message. Something like:

  While I enjoyed my time there and feel they helped me to grow into an independent researcher, I'm now looking to gain experience of working in a different department in order to develop these skills further.

might work, if true (or at least true enough for a job interview).

Then expand on this by explaining why you chose to apply to this new institution, rather than elsewhere, by explaining what you see as their positives.


Why do I keep getting bad grades from the subjects that I'm very good at Okay, I'm an economics student at one of the highest ranking universities in my country. I have 3.9 gpa and I'm also double majoring with mathematics, just started double majoring this semester.

After double majoring with mathematics, everything has changed pretty much. I'm taking a real analysis course in mathematics, and I have one of the top scores in real analysis course. But I can't say the same for economics courses. So here is the thing:

Economics courses is made out of mathematics pretty much, it's just the application of mathematics to the real life. I don't like economics, I actually don't want to study it, I want a career in mathematics, but that doesn't mean I don't study to economics courses.

I study them to, and topics seem too easy to me. I pretty much enter every economics exam knowing everything, I never leave a blank or anything. I solve every single question and I'm 100% sure what I'm doing. But I take incredibly bad grades, just because of the calculation mistakes I do. It's not because I didn't solve the question or anything, it's just because of the calculation.

I still don't get it though. I can't change this, I wasn't doing this previous year, It started this year, and some people relate it to the hardcore analysis course I'm taking. Some people think that's why I fail at practical economics courses, because I've started to think more "mathematically"

By the way, by bad grades I mean like 30/100 in an exam which has an average 65/100, all mistakes made because of failed calculations.

I seriously don't know what to do? These failed economics grades will let my gpa down and will make it harder to get an acceptance to a good grad school. Plus, they also let me down motivation wise, hardly.

I don't know what to do and how to overcome these kind of mistakes I do. But I know that I don't want to study economics. + It's hard to change majors here

But I take incredibly bad grades, just because of the calculation mistakes I do. It's not because I didn't solve the question or anything, it's just because of the calculation.

Boy that word "just" is dangerous, isn't it?

The unfortunate truth is that you are not good at practical economics, precicely "because of the calculation mistakes that you do".  You don't think those mistakes are important (hence "just"), but you don't get to decide what is and isn't important in your classes/research/work. The people who evaluate you get to decide what's important.

There are many disciplines where the primary goal is to get the right answer, not to demonstrate your "understanding". It doesn't matter whether you grok the theory if you can't actually execute on the fine details. If you didn't get the right answer, you didn't solve the question.

This does not mean that practical economics is less worthwhile than hihg-level mathematics, which cares less about arithmetic skills.  It only means that practical economics is different.  Math emphasizes different details that  you're more comfortable with and that other people would find boring and/or baffling.

  I can't change this

Of course you can.  You can do exactly what everyone else does to become good at anything uncomfortable: Put on your grownup pants and practice, fail, listen, practice, practice, fail, listen, practice, practice, practice.


what is the best way to take missing courses before applying to MS? I am holding bachelor degree in applied math and physics, which I received in Moscow State University. I have rather normal grades (average 4.3 out of 5). My BS thesis ("Weight optimization of monospar composite wing of russian unmanned aircraft) was recommended for publishing in scientific journal.
Everything seems to be ok, unless I have a passion for programming. I have implemented several mobile applications which are available in the AppStore and which are my main income now. Once I started to get enough money, I started to think about my MS degree in computer science field. However, I do not have enough minimum background for graduate program, hence I decided to take the missing core courses. The way of applying to undergraduate program and spend 5 years again seems to me time-wasteful (i am 23 now), so I come up with decision to become special/visiting student and get the necessary transcripts and become more competitive while applying to MS program. However, some universities do not provide engineering courses, some of them are too expensive (~50k per semester, I am able to spend ~18k); in some universities to become special student I must be invited by faculty member.. In other words, it is not as easy as I expected to take undergraduate courses. I kindly ask you to give me some tips how to enter to computer science field.

I'm not sure that this applies to Russian Universities as my experience stems from the situation in Germany, but I'd recommend talking to the key people at your target University - academic counseling for CS, student representative, dean of students. See what you can find out about the admission process and whether they can give you any pointers.

I myself have a Bachelor in Applied Math and a Master in CS. Before applying for the MS, I visited the University I wanted to get into and met with the faculty member who was responsible for the academic counseling for CS students. I talked him through my undergrad courses and other experience from internships and he encouraged me to apply right away although I technically did not have enough undergrad CS courses according to the admission guidelines. He also gave me a few pointers on how to write the application in such a way that the admission committee would recognize my practical experience.

His advice: He gave me the list of mandatory undergrad courses and told me that I should match each course with something from my previous studies or my practical experience, to show that even if I had no formal education in some areas, I at least knew the gist of the subject.

I was admitted conditionally and had to complete the two undergrad CS courses in which my prior experience was lacking the most within the first year on top of my regular studies.

In my second year I became the student representative to the admission committee and had a few applicants approach me on the same subject. I gave the same advice, because I noticed early on that the committee would often just hold the list of requirements up to the applicants undergrad transcripts and tick of the boxes.
Even such stupid things as differently named courses could throw the committee off, so I made it my job to go through all the applications and check the matching with the requirements.

In one particular case, a student was very enthusiastic and even ran his own IT-startup business, but the gap between his undergrad studies in a different subject and a CS undergrad was just too big. We had to refuse him the first time he applied. For legal reasons, we couldn't do more than send the standard letter, but luckily he did the smart thing and approached us and between everybody in the admission committee and academic counseling we figured out a way to have him do undergrad courses for a semester and then delay the decision about his follow-up application until the exam results were out and we could make a case for him to be admitted on conditions, like I was.

Your second question, which classes to take, will only be answered when you know what classes they look for in an applicant from another subject.

The people in the application committee at my university really looked for theoretical background. Do we think this applicant knows what P vs NP is? Do we think he can analyze the runtime of an algorithm? Do we think he knows the difference between a proof and an experiment/example? Percieved knowledge gaps in other subjects like electrical engineering or computer networks or operation systems where often seen as less of a problem if the applicants motivation letter stated that he wanted to specialize in an area where he likely wouldn't need that knowledge.
When in doubt, the committee would often say that the funding depended in part on how successful the students were (i.e. it was better not to admit one than to admit him and have him fail) so they would discuss: Do we think that this applicant will complete his studies in a successful and timely manner?

So one more point of advice, which worked well during my time on the committee: Show in your cover letter that you have a clear idea of what you want to do in your masters, why you want to do it, and why you think you have the necessary background and motivation to be successful at it.


What is a "description of professional interests"? I am about to finish a PhD in computer science and am on the job market. I'm mostly interested in small liberal arts schools, and have been working on application materials directed towards SLACs for the last month or so.

Almost every search committee wants a teaching statement, a research statement, and a cover letter and I've found plenty of resources for writing and honing these documents.

However, one position wants a teaching statement, a cover letter, and a description of professional interest. What is a description of professional interest? I cannot find any information as to what this document should contain, how long it should be, etc. And I haven't seen any other positions that ask for it. Is it just my research statement? Or is it an expanded version of the cover letter?

It's legitimate to contact the school and ask how they define that term, you know. There's nothing wrong with admitting that you haven't run into this particular phrase before, or that you're concerned that their definition might not be exactly the one you're familiar with.

"Better to ask and have them suspect you're a fool, than to assume and remove all doubt."


Is it bad to not test the capability of the explainability of the student at the graduate level? Suppose I am the only instructor for a subject.

I need to conduct an exam. I am confused between the following two approaches for designing questions.

Approach I: Questions with single line answers such as boolean answers, multiple-choice questions, etc., note that the answers to these types of questions do not occupy more than one line.

Approach II: Questions that demands explanation, subjective/objective explanations, etc.,

The advantages of approach I is at least trifold

(I) Marking is objective

(II) less evaluation time

(III) No partial marking

But, recently, one of the elder professors of my campus, opined that approach I is a bad way to conduct exams and he told that approach II is needed because of the reason that studies of students should be research-oriented and hence explainability or presentability of the concept is very important for a student and hence approach II is preferred a lot over the approach I.

I am really concerned about the bolded part, I mean, is it really a bad way?

Assume that the subject I'm dealing with has the flexibility to support both types of questions.

It depends on what you want students to learn.  Use open ended questions for learning critical thinking.  Either approach is good if you want students to learn facts.

Nearly always, at the graduate level, you want students learn "critical thinking" from the analyze/evaluate/create parts of the Bloom Taxonomy of learning.  Frequently this is the case at the lower levels of education as well.

Open-ended questions are necessary to demonstrate the ability to create, and can make it easier to tell if students are analyzing and evaluating.

If your goal is for students to remember a list of facts, then multiple choice questions are an efficient (but not necessarily better) way to test that.

"Understand" or "Apply" are often best addressed with open-ended questions, but could be addressed either way.


Sharing a green Open Access manuscript I am considering trying to publish in an established Elsevier journal. I like the idea of having free available science.

As there is no fundings in my project for golden open Access, I researched a bit on the Elsevier page. The journal Remote Sensing of Environment has an Embargo period of 24 months. Yet Elseviers sharing section states different optoins for self distribtution.

I can share the preprint anywhere and any time. The preprint is the version which I submitted in the first round. No questions here.

The interesting part for me is the second: If I get accepted, I can share my accepted manuscript
Immediately on a non-commercial personal homepage. This manuscript contains all the improvements I included during the review. But not the publishers layout. I am just not sure what counts as a personal homepage. Does my ResearchGate profile also count as such? I work within an open source project. Does the software homepage count as such? It is non commercial due to the open source nature, but not private. Can this manuscript be uploaded on my EU project homepage? The third point is demanded by my project.

Coming also to another point. I am able to write in Latex and I found one time the Elsevier template on a Latex template page. I am pretty sure that with that template, I can produce from the Look And Feel a quite professional PDF. Yet the same page states, that the "accepted manuscript should not be added to or enhanced in any way to appear more like, or to substitute for, the published journal article." So I cannot produce something nice formatted, well designed? I would do so anyway, as I always preformat every journal submission. Of course there is also other nice templates which I could use. But then it is a substitute for the published article right?

Here's the guidance on the SHERPA/RoMEO website which is the best guide out there for issues like this.


How do I write about suggested reading by my professor I had a casual meeting with my professor and he recently learned about a topic and he asked me to look at that topic as well. This topic is not my research topic and it is just a further reading.
I prepared this email and a brief summary of what is that method is about. I want to show my interest and tell him that I respect here suggestion, but I am feeling somehow awkward. How can I write better?
PS. it is not to expand or redirect my research. only for my knowledge.

Dear Dr.X
Thanks for the suggestion regarding that I read and learn about ABC,
it sounds interesting and I wanted to follow up on our discussion.
and the rest my summary................
Best regards,  XY

Don't obsess over the wording. "Thanks for the suggestion...interesting... following up". Your summary might be valuable if the professor hasn't actually read the paper and asked for a summary.

But, don't get to deeply caught following "interesting" ideas that aren't related to your own research. If he is asking you to expand or redirect your research, then you need to have a discussion with him. That can be a serious matter.

But a certain amount of this is normal. Your professor wants you to learn, but he also wants to speed up his own learning. That can be good or bad for the student, depending on how much it helps build a relationship as well as an education.

You write better by practicing. To paraphrase another idea: Good writing comes from experience. Experience comes from bad writing.


Expectation of students in Graduate vs. Undergraduate STEM classes I'm not sure if this question is okay to post here (I am only an undergrad), so please feel free to close/migrate if necessary. I won't be offended.

I am an undergraduate taking an undergraduate CS class right now. I feel the class is being taught like a graduate-level course, but we are being tested like undergraduates. I say this because I have taken graduate-level STEM classes in the past, and I think my professor is teaching the material as if we were graduate students.

The homework in this class emphasizes theoretical understanding and proof writing. When the midterm was upon us, we were given no practice problems to prepare for the test. There were no practice midterms either. Going into the midterm, I figured, well, the professor will probably test us on our understanding of the material. However, the midterm tested for speed and accuracy. There were several short answer questions that had little to do with the kind of understanding of the material we developed from the homework. In fact, there were questions for which we haven't yet had homework. I think he tried to make the test "easy," which totally threw me off.

I did very poorly on my midterm, and now I am trying to figure out whether I can judge what to expect in a graduate-level class vs. an undergraduate-level class so I may avoid such poor exam performance in the future. I have come up with the following qualities to expect from a graduate-level STEM class vs. an undergraduate-level STEM class.

Graduate-level STEM Class

Emphasis on depth of understanding.
Abstract material can sometimes be presented ad hoc: Less emphasis on linear presentation of material.
Theoretical presentation of material. Typically, we look at axioms/rules whenever we are presented new notation. We then derive everything from these axioms/rules.
Often the material covered has so much depth that we are expected to have minimal breadth of understanding; We are expected to take what we've learned and focus on a particular are in great depth.
Exams, projects, and papers test understanding of the material, not the speed in which we can solve arbitrary problems.

Undergraduate-level STEM Class

Emphasis on breadth of knowledge.
Material is presented in a linear fashion, often starting with some concrete examples and building from there.
There is often so much ground to cover that we are taught through rote memorization. We solve problems excessively.
Exams test for speed and accuracy of exact solutions to several problems. One often succeeds in such a class by performing many practice problems.

My questions are as follows:

Is this accurate? If not, why, and what kinds of differences can I expect between graduate vs. undergraduate-level courses?
Are there other/better ways to find correlations between teaching and testing styles? How can I know I am prepared for an exam given a professor's teaching style (rote memorization vs. emphasis on derivations, etc.)?

There is some truth in the differences you observe, but the distinctions are not very sharp. It's more of a continuum - as witnessed, for example, by the many textbooks that describe themselves as suitable for advanced undergraduate and early graduate levels.

From the point of view of the instructor, the differences in teaching style are explained by two things:

Graduate students are more experienced. It's not only a question of them knowing more about the subject, but also of their (presumed) greater ability to be responsible for their own learning. Related to that, people who've opted for graduate study are assumed to be motivated to work independently. So the instructor can be a bit more free to skip over material that's routine, or doesn't present much of a conceptual challenge. In computer science, say, beginning courses will teach you a programming language; advanced ones will assume that if you haven't used the language before, you can pick it up without much explicit guidance.
The topic is less well understood. At a more advanced level, we have less to rely on in how to teach the subject. For early undergraduate courses, there's probably a choice of textbooks and related resources, and a body of expertise about how to present the material. A course that's closer to current research may not have been taught many times before; the instructor won't have much of a pool of local experts to consult; and there may not be any existing textbooks at all. So the teaching might have some rough edges, in the choice and order of topics to present, how much time is spent on them, and so on.

I think this is what lies behind your observations, at least regarding the teaching. For assessment, I'd say there are other factors which dominate. Assessment is very sensitive to the precise nature of the course, the instructor, and the institution. I'm sure you can imagine being examined on your understanding of some algorithm by any of: answering multiple choice questions about it, proving something about it, writing an explanatory essay about it, implementing it on a computer, or doing any of these for some variant of the algorithm  that you hadn't seen before. And any of these could happen in a course at any level.

It sounds like you're somewhat aggrieved that the questions on your midterm were in a different style from your homework, and were less conceptual than the material presented in lectures. Now, it may be that your professor was (as you suggest) skewing the teaching towards the graduate end of the scale, and assuming that you would independently put the work in to make sure you could apply the theory correctly. In that case, the issue isn't that the exam was in "undergraduate" style, but that "graduate" teaching puts more of a burden on the students.

However, there are other factors in play that govern the style of examination. For example:

I want to know if you understand the theory, and I decide that asking you to apply it is a good way to find out.
I would be ashamed if somebody got an A in my course, but couldn't actually solve these applied problems.
I decide that routine problems will be quicker or easier to grade.
The homework already tested the students' broad understanding, and I decide the midterm should test something different.

I'm not saying that any of these are what happened, or that they are necessarily "good" ideas. But there are reasons why the midterm could focus on less conceptual material, that don't relate to an undergraduate-vs-graduate distinction.

Your final question is about how to know what to expect from a particular examination before you've taken it. Having thought about it at some length, I can't come up with any better suggestion than ask your professor. There are so many possibilities, even for the same course taught by the same person, for what the exam might be like.


How to write an email to a professor to inquire about a visiting researcher position? I am currently a postdoc and plan to apply for a postdoctoral fellowship as the funding to be a visiting researcher in other institutes. However, to be eligible for applying the fellowship, I would need an invitation letter from the department or institute. I have written about 30 emails from 2 months ago but haven't received any reply. I know that generally postdoc researchers are not so prominent or influential in the academic world so that many professors would not easily accept such requests. And I also understand that it would be more difficult if I do not know the professors personally through conferences or other social networks. But there should be at least a reply of refuse due to any kinds of reasons.

I wonder if there is any serious problem with my email. I would be very appreciated if anyone could kindly find any problems in it.

  Dear Prof. XYZ,

  I am writing to inquire about the opportunity of serving as a visiting researcher in your lab next year (Jan, 2020−Dec, 2020). The funding will be totally covered by the XYZ.

  I am currently a postdoctoral fellow focusing on research associated with human health risk assessment of environmental contaminants at XYZ. My major is nanotoxicology and environmental risk assessment; my minor is physiologically-based pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling. I have enormous interests in your research after reading your articles regarding toxicities of TiO2 NPs.

  I have written a research proposal regarding pharmacokinetic and human health risk assessment of food-grade TiO2 NPs as attached in this email. It would be my great honor and appreciation if you could find time to read this proposal at your convenience and I hope my background in mathematical modeling and experimentation could help me to have a valuable contribution
  I have attached my CV and representative research to this email to provide more information about myself and my academic records. I have also provided the document of the fellowship for visiting researchers as the reference. There will be no expenses required during my visiting except for an invitation letter after your valuable permission to allow me to be a visiting researcher in your research team.

  If you require additional information, I would be pleased to provide it at any time. I am eagerly waiting for your kind reply and greatly appreciate your attention and valuable time to read this email.

  Yours respectfully,

  XYZ, Ph.

I think your email is fine! I'll speak from my experience doing several research internships (I haven't completed my PhD, therefore no postdoc). It obviously depends a lot on your field (ie, your field might be different than mine), but even though I had previous experience and publications, I sent about 100 emails before I got my first phone interview.

If you have the time to change your email, I might soften the tone a little. You do come off as very eager. For example, I might change the following to:

  "It would be my great honor and appreciation if you could find time to read this proposal at your convenience and I hope my background in mathematical modeling and experimentation could help me to have a valuable contribution."

To something more like:

  "My background in mathematical modeling and experimentation makes me a strong candidate to successfully [work in your lab/collaborate/publish papers/etc].

I suggest this because:

saying it would be a "great honor and appreciation" could be interpreted as brown-nosing/sucking up. In America, people are not usually this humble, nor do we usually speak this honorifically about others (but this could depend on your field/where you are applying).
In America, it is very acceptable to state why you are a strong candidate. Saying things like "I hope I will be successful at..." or "I believe I can..." can make potential bosses feel like you're not sure if you will be successful. Instead, I'd recommend saying "I can..." or "I will..." or "I am..."


What are the potential benefits and pitfalls of leaving tenth grade early to pursue an internship at a prominent research lab? I'm a tenth grader in high school and I'm passionate about my research in computational neuroscience. I'm in a unique situation, and I'm wondering whether I should leave tenth grade early this year to accept a research position for four months at a leading university.

I am a deep thinker and am profoundly miserable because my present educational environment isn't intellectually stimulating, growth oriented, and I'm worried I'm not accessing my potential. Because of this, I'm going to be leaving high school next year and hoping to attend the visiting students program at a nearby college. I don't think not being in traditional high school will be a hindrance to my college admissions; on the contrary I think what I do outside of school will boost my candidacy.

I've recently been offered a research-internship position at a lab at: Cornell, Princeton, Oxford, and Rockefeller. If I wanted to attend any one of them I'd need to leave high school early this year.

This is an extraordinary opportunity which will take me to new and incredible places and I don't want to let my schooling interfere with my education. I am positive leaving school is the right choice. Of course there are considerations but I've taken them into account; I'm not afraid of being unconventional.

Just to be clear, I'm wondering whether I should leave for the last two months of tenth grade. Secondly, I'm going to attend a visiting students program at an Ivy League University next year which is designed for high school students to attend in lieu of traditional HS.

Are there other benefits or possible pitfalls I should be taking into account?

Edit: Thank you all for your guidance which is helping me see the situation more clearly.

I'd like to offer a counterpoint to Anonymous Physicist. I started school early because I was on the border of the birthday cutoff date, and then skipped my senior year of high school. So I left for college at 15.

It was too early for me.

Not academically. I passed all of my classes, and found a number of them still a bit boring. But going to college isn't entirely about classes. For most people, it is their first time living life on their own terms. You make your own schedule, make your own food, wash your own clothes, make your own decisions with no immediate consequence.

In short, you're learning how to be an adult. And in that, I floundered a bit. It took time for me to build a work ethic. It took a bit of failure for me to figure out how to maintain my own motivation and discipline. Enough for me to lose my scholarships and eventually drop out.

And that was with a bunch of other early entry students to provide social support. If you're going to be unique in that environment, that will provide it's own challenges. And then there's the culture shock of going from being the best at your school to being just another person among the best in the world.

So I would caution this approach. The things that led to my failure were things I didn't even think to consider at the time. The grass isn't always greener on the other side of the fence.


Bombed an academic interview, should I do anything about it? I had an interview a few days back for a grant for graduate studies. The interview panel consisted of various judges including some of the most renowned and well known researchers/professors in my field(s) of interest. Some of them almost have a celebrity status given the kind of respect they command.

Now comes the bad part. My interview was going good for most of it, I was answering a question when I was told that none of what I said made sense. I was completely caught off-guard. To the best of my knowledge, my answers were correct, but the committee did not share my enthusiasm. I came across to them as an impostor who was simply winging things/saying random rubbish.

The interview went downhill from there. I was so flustered that even the questions which I could have answered in my sleep went wrong. I tried putting some things down on the whiteboard and tried explaining my answers but by then the committee had lost interest. The overall experience was very bitter with me almost coming across as undeserving to even has been shortlisted for the interview. Post the interview, I felt extremely guilty not for torpedoing my interview, but because I felt that I had wasted the time of such esteemed academicians.

My question is regarding, what if any action should I take at this point? I know for a fact that the grant will not be awarded to me, but that is not my concern. Some of the members on the committee are at the forefront of research and work in their field (which heavily aligns with mine). I do not intend to spoil my relation and any chance of a future collaboration with them because of this one interview. Some of the possible actions that came to my mind were:

Sending an email to one or more members of the committee, apologizing for the interview.
Sending an email to one or more members of the committee, asking for feedback.
Sending an email to one or more members of the committee, trying to explain my answers and why they were not completely wrong given the context.

Are any of these too far fetched? Any alternative action that you would recommend? Or should I just let it go?

PS. In case you find any details of my question to be fuzzy, please ask for clarification. Any sort of help/feedback will be appreciated.

First of all, you should cool down before you take any action. Clearly, the interview was an emotionally intense event for you, so don't do anything in the spur of the moment (and "a few days later" may still qualify as "in the spur of the moment" in this context). Let a few more days pass, and see how you feel later.

Second, seek the guidance of a trusted person or mentor who is aware of the details. Maybe your advisor can feel out to what extent you have really bombed the interview quite as badly as you perceive it? Note that especially for interviews on grad student level, the committee will be positively used to people giving bad presentations and not being quite able to argue their case. Unless you have made a really monumental blunder, the committee has probably already forgotten about the details of your interview by the time the next coffee break rolled around.

Which brings me to the third point: no matter what you do, don't write an email reminding people that you did poorly or excusing yourself for not doing better. Don't try to argue your points, either. This won't make your interview better, but now people may also think of you as somewhat unprofessional. If you feel you need to write an email, keep it professional, thank them for the opportunity, and ask for feedback.

  Any alternative action that you would recommend? Or should I just let it go?

Letting it go is generally the right course of action in these situations. I have personally done my fair share of bad presentations, bad interviews, and (in retrospect) crappy paper submissions. Learn from them and improve for the future. You are a student. Mistakes are to be expected. Life will go on.


Nontraditional summer employment for academics I'm a research mathematician, probably soon to be tenured, and I've been wondering what 'non-traditional' summer employment options are out there, involving either teaching or research. (I enjoy both!)

Programs like PROMYS would be fun and rewarding, but it appears that they are looking to hire students rather than faculty. Duke TIP seems to be one possibility.

In a different direction, I know that IDA hires mathematicians, although I am rather ambivalent about government surveillance and am not sure I would want to work in such a position.

What other opportunities are out there? I am especially interested in established programs that attract a relatively large community of other researchers and/or students, and am quite happy to travel. For the moment I don't think I would be effective in a leadership role, or in creating an opportunity from scratch.

Have you thought about NASA?

I personally know a fair number of faculty who have spent summers working at Langley and Kennedy, and I can pull up a quick application form for JPL's summer faculty research program. A lot of people, faculty and researchers included, put NASA on a very high pedestal, but it is definitely an attainable position. I am not very knowledgeable of the limitations placed upon you, but I do know fairly valuable work is done, perhaps even outside of your comfort zone -- I know of a fluid dynamicist who worked at skunkworks in Kennedy, for one.


How to get work done whilst feeling crippling shame? In academic work, when we are writing or have written a paper for example, there might be strong feelings of shame about the work done or to be done. These feelings can get in the way of finishing or revising the paper, or sending it to colleagues. These feelings may often lead to the writer feeling, quite strongly, suicidal. For example, when shame is the first thing they think of when they wake up. Not getting work done also leads to further feelings of inadequacy and panic over the future. Hence, these feelings make writing difficult, but overcoming these feelings requires finishing the work to a good standard.

As per the title:

How can a researcher write and research when they feel ashamed?

The shame is about the style of writing and the depth of the content/research. It is not about there being something wrong with the research. For example, I might read what I have written and feel too bad to fix it. Or, I might feel that the content (the research) is simply not deep enough, which makes going deeper difficult. Through perseverance, I finish writing papers. But, it takes a long time in an environment where both quantity and quality are important.

I have in the past seen and asked a university psychologist, but they didn't have any specific advice. The psychologist was also supporting too many other members of staff and students to really give enough time to this problem, so I am not sure that this is an option to take again.

I am looking for techniques, founded in psychology, and ideally with some supporting evidence. But more general advice is also welcome.

This sounds a lot like depression, first step is to go see a professional. The fact that you are sharing your experience and identifying what is going wrong is already a good step in the right direction. Share more, don't walk this journey alone. The best I can offer is general advice (things that worked for me). I believe too many people suffer without sharing, so thank you for sharing your story.
What helped me get through it was as follows:

Identify the next exciting thing that you would rather want to start with or do once this is out of the way (a new job, a vacation, a new task, a hobby).
Break down the work into the smallest possible chunks you can (e.g. write a paragraph on X, containing the following points, or improve on X by trying things 1 - 10, or code one six line function).
Then every day, just try to tick one of those off the list. Write one sentence, the next day try to get to two, the next day to three and so on.
The hardest part is to start. Just start. Think of one thing and just type that out, even if it is nonsense and you know it is. You can always come back later and improve on it.
Forget perfection, just get the stuff on the paper and tick off the tasks, see the progress.
Once everything is "done", critique the work, and write the things that suck about it as recommendations for future work.

Edit:

Forgive yourself every day! What you are going through is a completely valid experience, and you don't have to beat yourself up about it.

The upside of this experience is that you can now more easily identify the next time it pops up and act on it more quickly.
Best of luck. Its not easy but definitely doable even though it does not feel that way.


Does a glossary make sense in a computer science masters' thesis This question was first asked on writing, a user pointed me at this site.
I am currently writing my master thesis in computer science, more specifically on voice activity detection, a sub-area of automatic speech recognition using neural networks. I asked my supervisor if I needed a glossary and he told me that was up to me. I looked at other computer science works, some have a glossary, some don't. Now I'm unsure on what to do. Here are my thoughts:
On the one hand, a glossary is useful especially in printed documents to quickly find the best explanation for important terms. It provides a proper place for definitions. And to me it provides a feeling of "scientificity".
On the other hand, almost all readers will use my work in pdf form. Thus they can easily search for appearances and definitions on a given phrase. Given my work is only of use to computer scientists I'd consider them aware of these functionalities. Thus a glossary feels a bit anachronistic.
I hope this qualifies as a proper question and isn't too opinion based, I figured rules here might be a little less strict considering the "proper" way of writing something is often influenced by personal preference.

I'd encourage you to include a glossary.
I expect your work to use a mixed vocabulary from different fields of science, e.g. computer science, signal processing, or even linguistics. Your paper might be read by people who are not as familiar with all these fields as you are. And some of the terms might not have a common, generally-accepted definition. Or they might gain a different meaning over time (e.g. "AI" now has a rather different meaning today than it had in its early years).
So, defining and explaining the vocabulary that you use seems quite necessary to me, to make your paper accessible to an audience from slightly different fields of research, and understandable for a longer period in time.
As a (maybe old-fashioned?) reader, I'd prefer to have these definitions in one place, not forcing the reader to search through all occurrences of the word just to find its meaning.


A research question with subquestions, and all with hypotheses: Numbering schemes? I am editing a dissertation that has a single research question with multiple subquestions, and where every question has a null and alternative hypotheses. The current numbering and lettering scheme looks like this:

RQ  SQ1  SQ2  SQ3
Ho  H1o  H2o  H3o
Ha  H1a  H2a  H3a

An anonymous reviewer (name and role unknown) insists that the RQ must be numbered, even though there is only one RQ.

The reviewer offered no suggestions, and I was unable to find guidance in the APA manual, in the university's style guide, or by searching online such as at Purdue OWL on how to number for this specific situation.

Is it feasible to use RQ0, as in:

RQ0  SQ1  SQ2  SQ3
H0o  H1o  H2o  H3o
H0a  H1a  H2a  H3a

If it's not feasible, then we could abandon the subquestions, and bump all questions "up" to RQ, which (to me) seems an unnecessary and misleading contrivance.

     RQ1  RQ2  RQ3  RQ4
     H1o  H2o  H3o  H4o
     H1a  H2a  H3a  H4a

So what would be another feasible solution?

I can't tell whether this would work, but here's a possible way out:

Number all your research questions, as follows:

Question 1.1 (~RQ)

Question 2.1 (~SQ1)

Question 2.2 (~SQ2)

etc.

You can treat this as a hierarchical outline, for example, within 2.1 you could have (a), (b), etc.


Style guide for statement of purpose? I am worried that errors in the style of my Statement of Purpose (SOP) will count negatively toward me.  By "errors" I mean choosing the wrong font, font size etc. My question: are there general styling guides and possibly word templates for SOP?

You seem to overvalue "style" and undervalue "content". That's a rookie mistake because it's easy to see for a reader if you've spent too much time on the style and not enough on the content.

My recommendation would be to use some standard style that is neither exciting nor boring and use your time to focus on the content. Certainly expressions like "can easily devataste a good SOP" are entirely unwarranted.


Difference between HS & college math teaching I have been teaching math at HS level for some years, for this Fall I am applying for instructor job at local community colleges. Because of my background, I anticipate that the interviewer will ask me the difference between secondary and post-secondary math teaching.

In a non-interview setting, I would answer there really is no much
difference considering that vast majority of HS graduates are
deficient in math skill. I was even told that community college is
just an extension of high school. The upsides are that I do not have
to deal with the pesky parents, students are more matured and
motivated since college is not free. Are these assessments correct?
But in an interview setting, I think that this honest answer won't
be politically correct. Any suggestion on a politically correct
response?

Thank you for your time and help.

There are several pretty big differences. Perhaps not all of these would apply, and not all of them are appropriate to mention in an interview context, but here are a few:

You will likely be teaching students older than yourself (depending on your own age). This can be intimidating if a lot of your classroom presence and authority derives from age. You can't use lines like "because I said so" or "you'll find out when you're older" - not that you should in high school, either, but you're more likely to get away with it there.
Discipline might be different. You can't send adults to detention (and adults includes both mature students returning to study to reskill, and 18yo kids whose parents are insisting they get some kind of an education despite their protests).
Academically, you may be required to teach a higher level of maths. Not all classes offered by the college will be high school remedial level, and the college may want to know if your own mathematical knowledge is sufficient.
"College is not free" can lead to students expecting more of you than you believe is appropriate academically: "I'm paying a lot of money to be here, so you have to give me more notes/help/assistance/marks..."
Nobody has to be there (depending on attendance requirements at your college, but they can always just not take your class). Attendance may vary significantly more than in high school, with some weeks being almost empty and others (near due dates) crowded with students with a months' worth of questions each. Controlling this can be difficult.
You might need to hold office hours outside of class times, and depending on the needs of your students, possibly have classes or office hours outside of regular business hours (such as evening classes).
Students are much more likely to see you as being "on their level", and you may feel the same. It's nice to be friendly, but the boundaries between teacher and student are a lot more blurred and it might take more effort to avoid friendly or romantic relationships.


Reviewers and incorrect article references - Do they adjust them? Let's say that an academic paper has been submitted and that it contains some references which are not cited correctly by the authors, e.g. volume, pages, issue are wrong.

Do the peer reviewers adjust them or they get back to the authors saying that they are wrong and need to be checked?

Thanks

Peer reviewers never make changes to the paper they review. It is not their task to do so, and they do not have the means anyway.

If they do notice mistakes, they will ask the author(s) to fix them. For mistakes such as minor errors in references, I consider it unlikely that the reviewers will notice them at all. If I want to check out a reference, I will either go by doi or the provided link, or simply google author + title -- thus, I wouldn't notice a wrong volume number.

In some journals, the editing staff might check and adjust references. They would then just make a note of that in the page proofs, such that the author(s) can check that the changes are indeed correct.


Repeating technical terms using varied ones One of my supervisors told me that the language should not be varied, but instead we should use the same technical words (not synonyms) again and again. Is that really true?

PRE- & POST-EDITED SUBQUESTION (related to accepted answer):

How should paragraphs and sentences be formatted/structured in technical academic writing such as a master thesis (based on your personal experience/recommendations)?

I wrote an answer for the question pre-edit, addressing more than just the question of synonyms. Hopefully it can be of wider use, as it provides references to other resources, and an overall principle that helps answer many questions about writing. Here it goes.

I once took a course in technical communication, which was largely based on an excellent textbook by Paul V. Anderson called Technical Communication: A reader-centered approach. It is perhaps a bit more targeted to technical communication in the private sector than academia, but it has many helpful hints, examples, and rules of thumb. However, the main principle Anderson repeatedly states is reflected already in the title: focus on the audience. Before writing a document or preparing a talk, think through what audience you're targeting, and then adapt the order things are presented in, terminology, notation, depth of the introduction etc. based on that.

This also applies on the level of paragraphs. If sentences are put in a logical order, the text flows better and makes more sense. Similar considerations apply also on the microlevel - e.g. using various synonyms for technical terms is likely to confuse the reader more than it helps, so it should be avoided, especially if different synonyms can mean other things in adjacent fields. Also avoid phonetically confusing notation, such as using 'new' as a subscript. Very long sentences can make the text harder to understand, so the author should ideally try to rework them. Other times they are the clearest way of expressing a given idea you can come up with, which is also fine. Now, it is hard to find the perfect balance the first time around, which is where editing comes in. Edit both for correctness, and to iteratively make the text more readable. (If you know programming, this process is a bit like refactoring code.) If possible get feedback from others (maybe you don't know your audience as well as you think!), and edit accordingly.

Since you've been active on the physics stack, I would also like to point you towards David Mermin's writings on the art of writing. I first read them when I was writing my own masters thesis, and had several 'aha!' moments, including about how to think about equations grammatically. They are also quite enjoyable to read, so I do like sharing them.

What's Wrong with this Prose? (non-paywall version)
What's Wrong with these Equations? (non-paywall version)
Writing Physics

For mathematical writing you'll find further references in Good books/resource on mathematical writing. Also see How to improve technical writing and links therein.


PhD contribution by combining two or more methods It is known that the PhD would make an original contribution and/or advance knowledge in a given field. In my field ( Computer science), there are various PhD contribution that combine methods to solve a problem.

In short, my question is: What are the conditions to develop an original/novel method for a contribution of a PhD by combining two or more methods that had never been combined before. I mean the case where we combine method A and method B to solve a problem T where A and B has never been combined before to solve T.

Same as any kind of research. First have a state of the art of existing methods, which will describe and analyse what is currently done. You should point out the benefit and shortcomings of these methods, and highlight how these single methods do not fit the purpose of the problem. The search should be as exhaustive as possible within the bounds of he problem.

You can then proceed to explain your solution, and its result on the given problem. Analyse its value and shortcomings as you did previously.

When you will have done all this, you will basically have proved that:

No existing method currently provide the necessary solution for the problem at hand (the combination of methods aren't already tested anywhere either, and all single solutions fail the benchmark of the experiment).
The combination considered is solving the problem (or is not solving the problem either, with different outcomes), is correctly bench-marked and understood.

Possibly, you might have to justify that the combination of the two methods aren't an obvious combination that would be used by any non-expert in the field having some sensible basis in the problem being solved.


Getting LOR from mentor at an open source organisation I have been involved with a particular open source organisation that works in the area that I'm interested in pursuing my PhD. Almost all my works at this organisation could be demonstrated as research works since research & developlment is one of key focus areas at this organisation.

However, my mentor has never met me in person. It has always been communication through emails or on IRC.

How would the admission committee look at such a guidance?
How much importance would the admission committee give to my mentor who is from an open source organisation?

Full disclosure: I am not a faculty member.

To answer your first question - does it matter if you've never met your mentor in person? - the answer is: probably not, so long as you've worked together long enough or closely enough where they can still write a strong letter. It's unusual, perhaps, but so long as the letter itself is strong, I can't imagine there being an issue.

As for the second question - how much importance does the admission committee give to recommenders from open-source organization? - the answer is likely: no more than they'd give to any other recommender. Granted, if you're applying to a computer science program and have a recommendation from Richard Stallman, it probably looks better than a random developer on the internet.

But that gets to a much more important consideration: what qualifications does your mentor have? Admissions committees (to my knowledge) give more weight to recommendations from highly-qualified sources, such as another faculty member or an experienced professional. If your mentor is just a random developer on the internet working on an unknown project, there letter may not be considered as important as a letter from a faculty member who, while perhaps relatively unknown, at least has some publications.


Coursera and related readings to fill gaps when transitioning careers/studies/backgrounds I've always had an interest in applying tech skills to improve the educational landscape. To do this, I've been building a video game to teach foreign languages as a side project. I've had positive feedback, but feel that I need a deeper understanding of the way students think and learn to successfully lead the project. I'm applying to a Master's program in Cognitive Science in Education at Columbia's Teachers College to fill these gaps.
My undergrad studies, however, were in business, computer science, and Chinese, and my career has been in business and software engineering. I don't have any formal training in Cognitive Science, Psychology, or academic research, beyond the second language acquisition and game-based learning theories I've read from academic journals such as the Educational Psychologist. While I do have experience as a volunteer teacher, and while my game is education focused and relies on data-driven learning outcomes, I'm worried that my background just isn't relevant enough for the program.
To strengthen the relevance of my application, I've begun reading related texts from Pinker and Kahneman, and have been taking Coursera coursework in Cognitive Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience. Q: are these good steps to take towards strengthening my otherwise unrelated / interdisciplinary background? Is Coursera viewed kindly as a way to build elementary knowledge in the field? Any recommendations or advice?

I suspect that the admissions office will look at your experience and the steps you are taking to fill gaps in your background and want to have you in the program. You might consider trying to find someone at Columbia to talk to before you apply formally.


Using grants while on unpaid leave When a professor goes on unpaid leave from her university, can she normally continue to use her grants to fund graduate students and postdocs?  Or, do all grants "freeze" until the professor returns?

I don't see any reason that a professor wouldn't be able to continue to use grants while on leave.  In fact, I'm on unpaid leave from my home institution right now, and have been able to use my grants (for travel support for myself), so that's one data point.


Did mistake of doing PhD in a dead field. How to approach postdoc applications with hope of changing fields? I am a final year PhD in a STEM field. My PhD research field is fairly stagnant with less scope of future growth. I had chosen this topic because I was interested in the field during my masters and did not investigate seriously about the future prospects in the field.

Now I totally regret it. I managed to publish just 1 publication during my 5 years of PhD, and am planning to submit 2 more. There was no scope getting an internship in my research area and while searching for industrial positions, I have found that such positions are also nonexistent. Lot of red flags for a research topic.

I wish I could have been more serious while investigating for PhD positions. I could have done many things differently. I want to be in academia. And I am looking to switching to a different field during my postdoc to make my profile better. How should I approach a prospective professor if I have nothing to show competency in the new field? Is it even possible, if there's an overlap of just a simulation technique between my work during PhD and the field I want to work in?

To some extent, it's expected that you're not an expert in the field of the post-doc. One of the points of doing a post-doc in the first place is to broaden your research profile.

The thing you should be worried about is your track record - from the prospective advisor's side, one of the most important questions is whether you're able to effectively finish up a research project. If one finished publication is way beyond in the norm in your field, then you should indeed be worried; if it is the norm you may be fine.

The other aspect is to put up a convincing job letter that will explain why you are the right fit -- you may want to emphasize relevant skills and experiences and explain how they will help in the job you apply for.


What to do when your name appears second instead of first? As a Research Associate I wrote a paper which was published with my professor line manager as second author (even though he didn't work on the paper). I did the research, I wrote the paper, yet his name appears first and mine second in all online repositories such as Google scholar etc. Is this right? What should I do if it is not? Should I be even bothered about this? In the actual paper PDF which can be downloaded my name appears first. It was a good paper as it won an award. But in online repositories my name appears second.

If you're the legitimate first author of the paper, I wouldn't even bother to find out why the error happened in the first place. Instead, my answer focuses on your question of what to do now.

There are two good reasons why you should insist on a correct authorship record: (i) First authorship of a (good) paper is a valuable asset. (ii) So are citations of your paper. With inconsistent information in the repositories and the paper itself, citation counting tools like that of Google Scholar might not index all of its citations. Keeping that in mind,

the most important party to contact is the publisher of the paper, since these people maintain the official record. In particular, they distribute the meta-data of their publications to other repositories. I can't tell if they will actually distribute individual error-fixes as well, as would be the most convenient option in your case. Still, they can correct the faulty data in their own repository, which will strengthen your case when you contact other parties.
Some databases/repositories, like DBLP, allow you to submit error reports individually. You can google for "(name_of_database) error report" or just look on the respective database's website to find details.
With Google Scholar, the situation is a bit more tedious, since they do not provide a process to submit error reports. Information usually gets checked and updated automatically after some months; there is nothing you can do to trigger this process. The thing you can do is to create a new, corrected entry for the paper in your profile. Then you can "merge" it with the existing entry, so that citations of the paper with its current authorship information are counted.


Should I ask the Editor for a third Referee when the answer of first two Referees do not agree? I submitted a theoretical paper to Physical Review Letters, and the editor answered that it can be published in Physical Review but it seems not suitable for a Letter given the Referee responses.
Basically, one of the Referee recommends a Letter, while the other recommends a normal Physical Review.

I would like to answer the editor/referee, in order to try to get published as a Letter. What is the best things to do in this situation? Of course, in any case, we should answer all the comments and try to convince the Referee. But is it useful to ask the editor for a third Referee in this case? Is it really hopeless to try to convince the Referee? Will be the third Referee a kind of a lottery?

More details about the specific situation:

One of the Referee praises our work for the interesting results, and for the clarity and readability of the manuscript. Also they say that it would stimulate new experiments, and recommend the publication as a Letter, after some minor points are addressed.

The other Referee however has a different opinion. They say that it is difficult to understand, cumbersome, and even raises a fundamental problem about our main result, which in their opinion is in contrast with the existing literature. Also, they say that the measure proposed will not stimulate the experimental community, since that, in their opinion, the measure seems not easy and there is no qualitative advantage in this proposal, compared with other methods.

Now, I and the other coauthors have fixed the manuscript, and we are able to show that our results do not contradict existing literature, and that the measure is possible (a very similar measure has been already done). I should remark that the topic of our manuscript is a phenomenon which has been confirmed very recently in 2 papers using the same experimental technique. Our proposal refers to a different signature of the same phenomenon.

EDIT: I don't want to appeal, since I think that the Refereeing process has been fair, at least so far. Appealing should be reserved only in the case that one has the impression that the Refereeing was kind of unfair, biased, or fundamentally wrong.

The situation you are describing is not uncommon at all. Acceptance of an article in the prestigious Physical Review Letters is a big deal, and that is also the popular perception regarding it, primarily because of the high reviewing standards. Having personally attended a talk about this issue from one of the journal editors, I point out the technical correctness of work is not sufficient to guarantee publication in PRL - how much captivating is it for the Physics community is also a big factor. (Some part of this is hinted at, in the Acceptance Criteria of the journal.) Unless both the referees strongly recommend that the article qualifies to be a PRL on all eligibility counts, the decision is generally unfavorable. It is important to note that not all articles rejected by the journal are necessarily incorrect - some can rejected only because they were not deemed to be interesting enough!
In your situation, you can definitely appeal. This has been treated in the journal's Editorial Policies and Practices, under a separate tab of Appeals, from where I quote:

Authors may appeal a rejection of their paper by the editors. In the case of a formal appeal, the paper and all relevant information, including the identities of the referees, will be sent to a Divisional Associate Editor (DAE). The DAE may review the case on the existing record or may seek additional expert opinion. The DAE will present an advisory opinion to the editors, which will be sent to authors and/or referees with the DAE's name.
Authors may suggest those DAEs they feel are appropriate (or not appropriate) to conduct the review, but the editors are not bound by such suggestions. If there is no suitable DAE available, the editors may appoint an appropriate scientist to consider a paper under appeal as an ad hoc DAE.
The author of a paper that has been rejected subsequent to a DAE review may request that the case be reviewed by the Editor in Chief of the American Physical Society. This request should be addressed to the Editors, who will review the file and, if appropriate, forward the entire file to the Editor in Chief. Such appeals must be based on the fairness of the procedures followed, and must not be a request for another scientific review. The questions to be answered in this review are: Were our procedures followed appropriately and did the paper receive a fair hearing? A decision by the Editor in Chief is the final level of review.

Please note that the above form of appeal is more of a fairness measure from the point of view of the journal - just in case the authors feel they haven't got a fair review. You must note that the official statement here is "In the case of a formal appeal, the paper and all relevant information, including the identities of the referees, will be sent to a DAE". So, the report by the second referee (as well as info as to who this guy is) shall also be sent to the DAE. Thus, he can also uphold the second referee's verdict if he considers it appropriate, i.e. if the reasons appear genuine. But, of course, he may also rule otherwise.
Quite obviously, this appealing does not guarantee that the paper makes the cut in the journal, it is only like a half shot more at it. It may also happen that the DAE may not feel that it makes a very strong case for a letter, even though there may not be any fundamental flaw with the results. If that happens, and even otherwise, don't feel very bad about missing out on a PRL. It is much more important that the contents of the article are correct, and the Rapid Communications section of Physical Review A/B/C/D/E might be a safe bet too. And of course, you can always opt for other letter journals. But if you think it makes a strong case, PRL does offer you a procedure for appealing too. Avail it if you wish.


Do researchers make more mistakes as they continue to work in a discipline? I am a PhD student and try to work each and everything in detail. I am facing a problem right now as I am making lots of silly mistakes. In the first year, I made fewer mistakes. In the second year I made more silly mistakes and now in the middle of my PhD I am making lots of silly mistake during presentations and meetings with my supervisor. I think it is due to the fact that I am now reading and understanding things more deeply.

Question:  How can I better avoid silly and annoying mistakes in my PhD? I am actually surprised to see that in the first year I use to make very less mistake although I use to read more material. Actually right now I don't read very much material I focus on one or theorem, but it appears to me that I am making more mistakes. I don't as these mistake's will be reduced with time or not. One example of a mistake is many times I assume that it is easy to verify but when it comes to verification many times I fails and I have very much difficulty in proving trivial statements ( may not be trivial for others ).

I think it's not that you're making more mistakes (not that I know 100%, to be honest) but that you are becoming more aware of the subtleties of your field, and are therefore becoming more aware of the difference between, say, a well-studied, published researcher and yourself.  As you learn what is and isn't important, you start to recognize that you need to be more precise and rigorous.

The best advice I have for you is to take note any time you make such a mistake.  Why was it made?  Was it because you just wanted to write something down andget through it?  Was it a genuine misunderstanding?  Was it because you understood exactly what you meant, so you assumed that others did too?  etc.  Then, address the individual causes.

One of my biggest issues was the latter - I knew what I meant to say, so I didn't bother to be careful defining my terms or the context.  It was obvious to me, so I forgot that I had spent months figuring it out and therefore it wasn't obvious to anyone else.  I took a long time to remind myself that a proper setup  is extremely important in selling the relevance and impact of my work.  I still make that mistake sometimes, but I'm at least more aware of it.