What to do about a student whom I suspect of having plagiarized but who claims not to have? I caught a student plagiarizing on a programming assignment by copying someone else's code and replacing some variable/function names. I gave the student a zero, and shortly afterward he emailed me maintaining that he's innocent and I'm falsely accusing him of cheating.

What should I do?

Inform the student of the school's official procedure for appealing an accusation of plagiarism, and suggest he follow that procedure. (Also see: How can I prove that I didn't plagiarize.)

Policies and procedures are there exactly for situations like this one.

Generally if the student chooses to appeal, the procedures involve other parties (a dean, or a committee dedicated to such matters, for example) evaluating the student's side of things and your side of things (your reasons for believing that the student plagiarized) and then deciding on next steps according to school policies. (Here's an example.) So if you think the student is likely to appeal, you can start to prepare your side of things - the "evidence" - in the meantime.  (Personally, when in this situation I also like to let the department head know that this appeal might be coming.)

Note that you don't need to have caught the student on videotape, or anything like that. You'll tell the committee what you know, they'll make the decision as to whether it's enough evidence, and they'll make the decision as to whether the consequences you have imposed should stand. Deciding whether your evidence meets "standards of proof" for an appeal according to school policy is their job, not yours (they have much more experience than you in this matter.) Assuming you made your accusation in good faith, you don't need more evidence for an appeal than you did for the original accusation.


Unfair penalization of Bachelors thesis resulting in a "downgrade" of my degree I recently submitted my completed Bachelors Thesis. In the guidelines we were given for the thesis, it was stipulated that the thesis should not be more than a certain amount of pages long. My thesis due to the nature of the topic it deals with ended up being quite a bit longer than that.

I spoke to my supervisor about this issue and he said that it would not be a problem, and that the guidelines were there mainly to give an idea and that they shouldn't be restrictive based on length.  Upon submission of my thesis to our program coordinator, however, the program coordinator complained about the length of the thesis to me and phoned my supervisor.

The program coordinator informed my supervisor and myself that I was in a violation of the rules of my bachelor's thesis and I would be penalized as a result (in terms of the mark I would receive for my thesis).  I've since received my marks for the thesis and I've discussed the issue with my supervisor and a former head of department, they agree I was unfairly penalized and are writing to the program coordinator to help resolve this issue.

Furthermore my supervisor and former head of department made it known to me that those guidelines I quoted above were only internal (departmental) guidelines, they are not strict guidelines that our university enforces, and it doesn't stipulate anywhere in our official university handbook regarding these matters that our Bachelors theses need to be maximum of x pages. Also, it seems that the program coordinator has enforced the penalization without any external consultation.

As a result of this unfair penalization of my thesis, I will miss out on receiving summa cum laude with my degree which is the highest honors attainable. This may affect my future Masters applications.

Here is my take on the situation: Objectively I do think I was in a violation of the thesis guidelines rules, but it essentially feels like I am being punished for doing too much work.

What can I do (or what should I do) in this situation?

At the moment it seems that I cannot do much, especially regarding the issue that my applications to other universities will contain an unfairly lowered mark and degree status. I don't think I can mention to the universities I'm applying to of my situation in any case as I doubt anyone will care if one of the many applicants to these universities has had some problem like this, plus it may just seem downright odd.

Let me mention that I do not want to put my supervisor in an awkward position as I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to do my thesis on my chosen topic and he has been a great mentor to me and I do not want to sour our relationship by bickering over marks. The same goes for the former head of department, who is a former lecturer of mine and who has provided me with numerous opportunities, I do not wish to wish to sour my relationship with her over an issue such as this.

I think that your assessment that there is not much that you can do at the moment is correct. Your supervisor (and the other faculty member) should be the ones to address this issue at the faculty level. You should however check the University's regulations regarding the possibility of appealing grades and decisions about "summa cum laude" status. In particular, check if there are any deadlines for doing so. (If there is no tight deadline, you might want to give your supervisor some time to try to sort things out internally before filing any official appeals etc.)

As far as this issue affecting grad school applications. Again your assessment that you should not mention this in your application is probably accurate. Doing so may come off as "whiney" or you trying to avoid responsibility by blaming others. However, if your supervisor is providing a reference letter for your applications, it would be good if they could address the issue in their letter.


Is one year enough for a postdoc position to be a fruitful experience regarding my CV? I have to decide about a postdoc position for which the contract would be only one year long. The position is in computer science and as a collaboration with an industrial sector. In fact, I want to join the industry after finishing my postdoc period, and I believe that collaboration can be add a bit of value to my CV.

My concern is that I'm not sure if one year is enough for doing high-quality research and publishing in top venues (which is important in CS).

Also, I have imagined that I have to spend the last 3-4 months of my contract on the job hunt to join a company. So, it remains me only 8-9 months to invest on research.

If you want to join the industry, the shorter you spend on your postdoc the better. If you are familiar with the project, then 8-9 months might be enough to have something out of your post doc experience. Also, one year postdoc is a great chance to focus on the skills that are necessary for you to get into your industry job category.


Will it hurt you to leave a tenure track position (for another) after one year? I'm a new assistant professor in my first year of my first tenure track position.

For several reasons, I am seriously doubting whether my current position is a good fit and am considering applying to a couple open positions that may provide a better fit. I'm not sure whether the nature of my reasons is relevant but assume

My reasons do not involve salary or any personal conflicts (they are more related to the teaching load, the types of classes I'd be teaching, the background of the students I'd be teaching, and the possibility of advising PhD students)
I have no two-body problem or moving reasons for seeking a new job (the open positions are relatively nearby)

My question is: are there any serious problems with attempting to change tenure track positions this early?

From the perspective of the hiring committee, will this (even with an explanation in the cover letter) raise a red flag that will cripple my candidacy?
If I did apply, would my current employer be justified in being upset? Is it generally considered unacceptable to leave a tenure track position this early?

Thanks for any perspectives on this.

Before committing to leaving, it might also be beneficial to re-consider the current job situation. You mentioned the reasons for leaving are:

  more related to

    the teaching load,
    the types of classes I'd be teaching,
    the background of the students I'd be teaching,
    and the possibility of advising PhD students.

Regardless of which aspects of each of these items you consider problematic, it appears your fundamental assumption is that all these things will be different in the new job.  Until you actually do get the new job and let these four elements play out as they may, this will remain an assumption.

Even if you believe the situation will be different based on some 'inside knowledge' at the universities/departments you are applying to, these are merely perceptions and beliefs at this point. There is simply no way of knowing what the new situation will be like until after the fact.

In the world of tenure-track academe, these assumptions seem risky.

Based on what I hear from peers working in the academe, and occasional reading, your issues are not unique, but are endemic to the professional lives of junior faculty in the academe.

With this in mind, the problems you are facing may be reframed as truly excellent opportunities. As the likelihood of these issues resurfacing in your career is high, what better way to prepare for this reality than wrestle with it a bit during the first years on the job? I can hardly imagine a better means of gaining invaluable experience and proficiency in dealing with these problems!

See how you might address these issues now. Whether you succeed or not in changing some things to your liking, there will be valuable lessons learned regardless. The process of this learning might involve struggle and compromise, but the result is you will become a better-heeled junior faculty member, potentially capable of mentoring other peers on such matters or becoming (with time) a change agent after spending time in the trenches and earning credibility in these matters among your colleagues.

These are not simple or quick lessons, but they may be things are will pay of time and again over the course of your career in the long term. After all, your initial years on the job are not an end but a means toward something even more fulfilling later, correct?

As you see, I got stuck on your initial assumptions before even getting to the questions at hand. But I believe it is well worth to dwell some more on the reasons for leaving, prior to investigating the pros and cons of the actual decision to do so...

What if the same issues crop up in the new job? You will be left with a strange-looking one-year-long stint in a tenure track role, stuck forever on your CV.

The fact that neither salary nor personal conflicts with colleagues are causing any problems is also not to be taken for granted. Entering a new organization always carries risk of new "people issues" (conflicts related to personality aspects/working style/opinions/character/attitudes/integrity/whatever). I would count my blessings to be in a workplace where these are not major issues. Perhaps you don't even realize how lucky you are! For these reasons, I hope you might be willing to re-evaluate your current position prior to making the decision and evaluating it purely on the groups of career move timing.

Bottom line: Unless the issues you mentioned are absolutely killing you, and you just can't do it any more no matter what, then I guess there is little choice but leave. In which case the question you ask are a mute point. But if you can see some promise in that these experiences might pay off in the long term, then I would encourage you to stick it out a little longer.

After all, what does a year after which you leave a challenging job say about your ability to persevere, adapt, and succeed despite hurdles? Not too much. On the other hand, getting a few years under your belt in less-than-ideal conditions, and potentially being on the forefront of improving the situation for yourself and your colleagues, will say a whole lot about your professional character. That is worth the time served, in my book.

Good luck!


I shouldn't have got a PhD. I am not suitable for research in my field. How should I proceed? I shouldn't have got my PhD. I have published 5 papers in Q1 journals. But that has been possible because the topic is hot right now and much rigor is not required for publishing.
I can use an open source or commercial software without knowing how it works in detail and churn out papers. I am just pushing some buttons in a black box and getting results.
I can't teach the numerical method behind the software or the mathematics involved because I never understood it. Other students who work on this field take courses and have thorough understanding of the subject. They go on to teach the subject. While I am poor in mathematics, I am just dumb and lazy to self study it, solve examples.
I am publishing papers now at a decent rate, but I am lacking depth. I am not suitable for my field of research. I don't know if I can do anything about it now.
I recently got a PhD and searching for postdoc positions. I just don't fit anywhere. Everyone wants someone who is expert in the theory or have strong mathematics background. I have neither.
I shouldn't have got my PhD. I think, my advisor, committee and university just wanted to get rid of me.

This sounds like classic Imposter Syndrome combined with end of degree burnout.
What you are feeling is natural, but having a bunch of papers published seems to imply that this is emotional and not a substantial issue.
The job market in many fields is terrible at the moment. Some of the issues in finding a good position are external and will hopefully subside before too long.
I suggest that you talk to a counsellor about your feelings and also push hard in the job market using all available resources, such as your advisor, etc.
Both the feelings and the job issue will pass if you don't let them affect your sense of self-worth.
Depth will come. You have proven that you can learn. The end of your formal education isn't the end of your education.


What can I do if my English level is lower than the minimum requirements? I am applying for a Masters degree. An  IELTS with an overall Band score of at least 6.5 and a minimum of 6.0 for each section is required. I have taken the test and my overall score is 7 but in particular my score is:

Listening:  8.5
Reading:    7.5
Writing:    7.0
Speaking:   5.5

Would an application with the aforementioned results get rejected before it even reaches the academic evaluation stage?
Would an Enquiry on Results (apply for my speaking to be remarked) help?
Is retaking the test the best option?

The higher up the requirements are imposed, the less flexibility there is for circumventing the policy.

The reason for having such policies may be related to satisfying needs for teaching assistants and for being able to handle the communication needed for taking coursework.

Your best recourse is probably to retake the test, rather than trying to get an exception that could cause problems later on if a new set of policies are put into place.


What's the most efficient way to schedule a joint meeting with multiple faculties? I have the find a time slot that all faculties can attend. As everyone is very busy, I want to do it in a most efficient way, i.e. minimizing back and forth emails as much as possible.

One trick I can think of is to ask each of them "What time you CANNOT attend?" instead of the usual "What time you can attend?" That way, I'm more likely to get all the free slots and able to schedule after only 1 round of emails.

Is there any further tips?

A big remaining obstacle is that the faculties still have to look at their calendar and write back to me all the time slots that are not free. I wonder if there's any technology (e.g. sharing a Google calendar?) that makes this process less time consuming for the faculties.

Use a polling tool, like Doodle. You create it, they fill in which times they are (not) available, and based on the results you choose a meeting time.


How do I get LOR from a project mentor who's still pursuing PhD since she doesn't have an official email or access to the University letterhead? I plan to apply for Masters. I am currently working as a research intern at a reputed University in my currently. I was assigned a Ph.D. mentor on joining the project by the Professor. Ph.D. mentor guided me on a daily basis and has a better understanding of my work and abilities than the Professor. The professor has little knowledge about my capabilities and I'm afraid he'll give me a very weak LOR if at all he agrees to give. Is it advisable to get a LOR from my Ph.D. mentor considering she does not have an official University email address or the University letterhead?

Although it looks more professional to have a faculty email address on a letter of recommendation, it is not a must.

The person that you are asking might have left the university, and also they might not yet have started in another university. This would not prevent you from having the letter of recommendation.


Which one matters more - grades or qualifications - for admission to post-graduate study in Germany? I'm looking into applying to study abroad in Germany after my Bachelors (majoring in Statistics). My question is:
which of these hypothetical candidates would have a higher chance at receiving a scholarship and being accepted in a Masters program?
1- Someone studying in a top university with good qualifications required for the course, including German skills, English skills, knowledge about their field of study etc. but with a less than appealing GPA
or
2- Someone studying in a mediocre university with mediocre qualifications but a high GPA

Since you're specifically asking about the situation in Germany, here are a few remarks that might be interesting for you (although the main point of these remarks is that it is essentially impossible to answer the question at the given level of generality).

Admission rules at German universities depend on various things: for instance, the specific university/universities you're applying to, your intended field of study, and the specific programme(s) your applying to. Also, admissions for scholarships will strongly depend on the particular scholarship(s) you're applying for.

Things might also depend a lot on whether you are a citizen of a country within the European Union. Some (but certainly not all) Master programmes in Germany have quite loose and simple rules of admission for German citizens and thus, by EU regulations, also for EU citizens. For instance, for many Master programmes in mathematics, a Bachelor's degree in mathematics with a certain grade will suffice for admission.
(But one important issue here is, of course, how grades will be converted between different academic systems.)
On the other hand, things can be more complicated (and more expensive, by the way) for international students from outside the EU.

Concerning the "top university vs. mediocre university" stuff: Generally speaking, prestige of universities plays a much smaller role in the German academic system than, for instance, in the US (even if an applicant has done their undergraduate studies in a country where such prestige questions play a huge role, chances are that this won't be weighted as much in the decision process at a German university as the applicant might expect).
But then again, as pointed out above, things depend a lot on the particular circumstances, and there is at least a non-zero chance that such prestige questions might play a certain role in the admission process. For some programmes that are specifically designed for international students, it can even happen that private agencies are involved in the admission process and, for instance, make a recommendation on whether an applicant should be admitted or not. Whether such agencies take the purported prestige (or ranking) of universities into account will, again, depend on various circumstances.
As a corollary of the cultural aspect described above, I should probably add the following point: In case that the application process includes the submission of a cover letter or a statement of purpose or a personal interview (which might be more likely for applications to scholarships than for applications to study programmes - but again, it probably depends), my advice would be to be a bit careful in case that you're in situation 1) described in the question. If your application leaves the impression "My grades haven't been good so far, but my degree is from a top university, which certainly makes up for the bad grades", there's a considerable probability that this attitude will backfire.


University rank/stature - How much does it affect one's career post-Ph.D? What I'm trying to understand is, to what degree does the status/rank of the University (where one completes his/her Ph.D) matter while shaping his/her career after graduation? I would like to know the weight given to one's school in both the following cases:

While applying for post-docs/faculty positions in academia
While applying to industrial research labs

For instance, I've read on some forums (I can't locate the link now) that while considering prospective applications for tenure-track faculty positions, very few Universities accept a candidate who has completed his/her Ph.D from a lower ranked school having a lesser "brand" value, irrespective of the fact whether he/she has published equally original work as his/her counterpart from an Ivy league college. How much truth is in this statement? It would be really great if someone already in academia, either as a newly-accepted faculty or someone on the Faculty Hiring committee could share their experiences/statistics on this regard. I'm simply interested to know the answer, without commenting at all on whether such a practice is justifiable.

Similarly, what about recruitment to internationally acclaimed research labs (like IBM T.J.Watson lab or Microsoft research lab) - what importance do they place on the pedigree of a candidate's college, before taking into consideration what they published ?

I'm personally interested in answers related to the field of Computer Science (theory), but the question is applicable to any prospective grad student in any discipline in my opinion. Feel free to share your personal experiences post-Ph.D in detail, as that would give me (and future viewers of this question) about what its like to carve a career once you are out of school!

Let me answer as a theoretical computer scientist with former PhD students in tenure-track academic positions and many years of experience on faculty hiring committees.  (However, my understanding is that the selection process at industrial research labs like IBM T.J. Watson, Microsoft Research, Google Research, AT&T Research, etc., is really not that different from academic recruiting.)  As always, take my advice with a grain of salt; I'm as guilty of confirmation bias as any other human being.

Nobody in theoretical computer science cares where you got your degree.  Really.  We.  Do.  Not.  Care.  We only care about the quality and visibility of your results.  Publish strong papers and give brilliant talks at top conferences.  Convince well-known active researchers to write letters raving about your work.  Make a good product and get superstars to sell it for you.  Do all that, and we'll definitely want to hire you, no matter where you got your degree.  On the other hand, without a strong and visible research record, independent from your advisor, you are much less likely to get a good academic job, no matter where you got your degree.

(This is less true in more applied areas of CS, in my experience, mostly because it's significantly harder for PhD students in those areas to work independently from their advisors.)

But.  Faculty candidates are necessarily judged by people who are not experts in their field.  Without the expertise to judge whether your work is really good, those people must look at secondary data that correlate strongly with successful researchers.  One of those secondary characteristics is "pedigree".  Did you get your degree at MIT, Berkeley, Stanford, CMU, another top-10 department, or somewhere else?  (What's an "Ivy League"?)  How good/famous is your advisor?  If they're really paying attention: Where did your advisor's other PhD students get jobs, and how well are they doing now?

Fortunately, most good departments do make a serious effort to understand the quality and impact of applicants' results, instead of relying only on secondary data.  Also, secondary data matters considerably less once you actually have an interview.

And. In my experience, where you get your degree is strongly correlated with successful research.  I got my Master's degree at UC Irvine in 1992 and my PhD at UC Berkeley in 1996.  The biggest difference I saw between the two departments was the graduate-student research culture.  Every theory student at Berkeley regularly produced good results and published them at top conferences.  When the FOCS deadline rolled around each year, the question I heard in the hallways from other students was not "You know the deadline is coming up?" or "Are you submitting anything?" but "What are you submitting?", because "nothing" was the least likely answer.  Everyone simply assumed that if you were there, you were ready and able to do publishable research.  Publishing a paper wasn't exceptional, it was just what you did.  That cloud of free-floating confidence/arrogance had a huge impact on my own development as a researcher.  I've seen similar research cultures at a few other top CS departments, especially MIT, Stanford, and CMU.  (Caveat: This is an incomplete list, and there are many departments that I've never visited.)

tl;dr: Yes, getting a PhD from a top department definitely helps, but more by helping you become a better researcher than by making you look better on paper.


Information on Planetary Science PhD programs? APS has a catalog available with information on graduate school programs in physics. I was wondering if anything similar exists for planetary science?

So far I have been going through individual university websites and professor pages to find information which is time-consuming.

Catalogs of programs are a casualty of the internet age. Most schools would prefer to direct traffic to their individual sites, rather than have a short blurb in a larger publication—especially if it's something they have to pay extra to maintain.

As an example of this, the American Astronomical Association's Division of Planetary Sciences just has a compendium of links to school websites instead of a catalog. If a group like that maintains only a set of web links, I doubt there's a larger catalog out there.


On discrimination in retake exams I'm experiencing a practice at my university where the overall number of students who would pass the exam is adjusted based on how many students passed the first exam, so the retake exam contains questions which are beyond the lectures if previously the percentage of students who passed the exam is very high. Another question is that in first exam questions are repated from the previous years. The student might be absent in the first exam due to the illness, etc, so I consider it as discriminative practice and I need some ethics based formulations, codes, laws etc. that will help me to prove this discrimination. Thanks.

I'm afraid that quoting external regulations and grading guidelines here won't do you any good. The question is what are your university's internal grading policies. Do they have a recommended grade distribution? Are there rules governing repeat examinations for students who had to miss the first one? Are there policies on what is allowed to be covered on such examinations?

Whether good or bad (and it's a bit of both), grading standards differ between institutions, and even within different departments at the same school, and sometimes even course to course. That means you can't rely on what others do to help, and you can't really claim "discrimination" here, either. Such policies are clearly unfair and unethical—it's not right to force a fixed percentage of students to fail, regardless of their actual performance. However, unless your university's regulations specifically forbid such behavior, there's not much you can do to fix this.


Why do open access consortia affiliate themselves with questionable publishers The open access publishing world has a number of predatory publishers. Many know about Beall's list which identifies publishers and journals that engage in questionable practices. The existence of these questionable publishers and journals makes choosing a quality open access journal difficult. Consortia like the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association and the Directory of Open Access Journals seem to promise a level of scrutiny. For example, members of OASPA include the Royal Society and PLoS and while I cannot find a link confirming it, it seems like the AIP is also a member. To me these are above the board legitimate and well respected publishers. There are also members, like Frontiers, that I am not sure how I feel about. I like that Frontiers is trying to push an innovative model of publishing, but I am not sure that I want them to have a large say in defining "good" open access publishing practices. Finally, there are members like MDPI which Beall classifies as predatory and Hindawi which while it never made Beall's list, did make his "watch list".

I think I have two questions. First, why do these consortia affiliate themselves with questionable publishers? Second, how can the academic community pressure open access consortia to consider their members carefully?

Why do these consortia affiliate themselves with questionable
  publishers?

Hindawi is a founding member of the OASPA and MDPI, whichever opinion we might have about the quality of its journals, is a major player in the OA business. The OASPA apparently conducted an internal investigation about MDPI and seem to be happy about the results. The question might be more: is the OASPA questionable?

  how can the academic community pressure open access consortia to
  consider their members carefully?

I would recommend not to consider open access consortia as relevant. Then, not submitting papers, not serving on the editorial board, and refusing reviewing tasks for sketchy journals.

On a more general level, one thing we could do is reduce the demand for low-quality, pay-for-publish 'OA' journals by challenging the hiring policies based on publication volume in our local institutions.


Is use of multiple bibliographies, especially with annotations, in a thesis, accepted? As I am reviewing sources for my thesis, I am citing my sources in an (APA style) annotated bibliography (as required).  However, I am also finding some excellent points from other sources that are either not entirely on-topic or less-empirical (read: poorly referenced).  I have (of course) kept track of them.

What is the accepted practice for listing cited works in a thesis?  Is it acceptable to have an annotated bibliography, as well as a list of "additonal works cited?"  Or should they all be listed (with annotations) consistently in one section?

I have posed this question to my adviser, but I would also like to hear from others as well.

I think the answer to your question is very dependent on your subject and the culture of that research area.  In my area, math, I've never seen an annotated bibliography as part of the thesis.  I've probably only looked at 15 or 20 theses, but I've never seen one.  In other areas (humanities and social sciences?), I suspect such a bibliography is more par for the course.


What counts as a "prior version" in Springer's self-archiving policy? Springer's self-archiving policy ( https://www.springer.com/gp/open-access/authors-rights/self-archiving-policy/2124 ) says:

  By signing the Copyright Transfer Statement you still retain
  substantial rights, such as self-archiving: "Authors may self-archive
  the author’s accepted manuscript of their articles on their own
  websites. Authors may also deposit this version of the article in
  any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months
  after official publication or later. (...)

  Prior versions of the article published on non-commercial pre-print servers like arXiv.org can remain on these servers and/or can be
  updated with the author’s accepted version.

So if I'm understanding correctly, if you have not uploaded the paper to arXiv or other repositories beforehand, then a 12-month embargo applies before you are allowed to publish the accepted manuscript in any repository. However, if you have uploaded the paper to arXiv or some other repository, then you are allowed to post the accepted manuscript there with no embargo as an update of the previous version.

Not that I understand why such a policy can make sense, but my real question is: how should "prior" be interpreted there? Prior to paper acceptance or prior to the first submission?

That is, for example: is it OK to submit a paper to one of these journals, be asked for major revisions, then do the revisions and submit them to arXiv in addition to the journal, and finally update the arXiv entry when the paper is accepted?

I would interpret "prior version" here to mean any version prior to acceptance, which would include ones submitted for revisions.  Thus, I believe that you are correct in your conjecture: you can submit to arXiv and keep updating that at any time, as long as your first submission is before acceptance.

So, why does such a policy make sense? My take is this: if the manuscript is already out there on arXiv, then it's in the journal's interest to make sure it's the most accurate version.  From a business perspective, for-profit journals probably do not like having things appear on arXiv, but in those communities where preprint circulation and self-archiving are the rule, they don't really have the power to prevent it.


How to motivate students to complete low-point homework? I teach a course consisting of about 50 assignments. These include readings, many short writing assignments, and group projects. Additionally, students complete 2 large projects as the mid-term and final, entirely covering all of the material.

I noticed many students skipped lots of homework. Some skipped 6 weeks of work completely. I assumed the workload was too high, but I surveyed those who did the work and nobody reported spending more than 2-3 hours per week. Some students had determined that each assignment had such a low value, they did not bother to complete the work. These students all did very poorly on the final.

My supervisor will not be happy to find that I am failing 25% of the students. For future terms, how can I motivate students to complete everything?

Some students had determined that each assignment had such a low
  value, they did not bother to complete the work. These students all
  did very poorly on the final.

One important way to combat this attitude is to show the actual statistics from the course you just completed.

"Here is the distribution of homework completion across last semester's course.  And here is the distribution of final course grades.  Notice that every student who completed less than XXX% of the homework failed the course."

Repeat this exercise after every midterm, showing similar statistics for the current class.  "See, here is the distribution of homework completion so far, and here is the distribution of midterm grades.  Notice that every student who completed less than XXX% of the homework failed the midterm, which is completely consistent with last semester."

In other words: "I am not bluffing."

If you want to be even more direct, you can announce in your syllabus that anyone not completing XXX% of the homework automatically fails the course, regardless of their performance on the final exam.  Be sure to read this sentence out loud in class on the first day.

Of course, you also need some carrots to go with the stick.  The homework should not only be useful, but also interesting.  The students should have access to any resources they need to master the homework material, including rapid and useful feedback.  The homework should be realistically tuned to the skill and maturity levels of the students, and you should carefully discuss your expectations with instructors of any prerequisite courses.

  My supervisor will not be happy to find that I am failing 25% of the students.

I assume you mentioned the abysmal homework completion rate to your supervisor as soon as you noticed it, which was relatively early in the semester. Right?  So how did your supervisor respond?


Is it appropriate (as a current student) to ask professors questions not directly related (but related enough) to course material? I am an undergraduate mathematics major. During office hours I asked a question to a professor which was not a homework problem, but which was related to a homework problem (and I had made the connection clear). He answered my question fine enough, but at the end he said, "My office hours are for students to ask about [course he is teaching] only," and he said my question was not relevant to the course.

So, I asked (as politely as possible), who in the department should I ask if I have a question (as he was clearly implying not to ask him anymore)? He said, ask your teacher if the question relates to his class, but not otherwise.

Obviously I understand the importance of self-study, but am I expected to not ask anyone for advice on any questions that aren't word-for-word out of the textbook or problem set?

What is the typical attitude of professors toward students asking somewhat tangential but not totally off-topic questions? Is this normal behavior? I want to have realistic expectations for my professors in the future. I'm an underclassman and relatively new to the field of mathematics so maybe I just have wrong expectations right now. Hopefully some of you who are more experienced in academia can help me out here.

Edit: There was no one else in line after me to see the professor at office hours.

As a former mathematician and academic, the interaction you describe strikes me as unusual. Certainly not the norm, and not in general what you should expect! Most of us, I suspect, learned most of the math we know via self-study, with the benevolent guidance of mentors as we went along. And as pedagogues we generally like helping people explore their interests in math, even when only very loosely connected with the matter at hand.

That being said, it is worth noting that university professors' time is pulled many ways, and in many cases their formal incentives are not at all aligned with spending their time opening the minds of random students on random math topics. At research universities, their career success depends on research productivity, and they may have little time for teaching to begin with, and helping students learn outside of the curriculum may not be high on their priorities. At more teaching-focused colleges, one hopes the desire to help would be strong(er), but teaching and administrative loads may be higher and they may feel their time is limited. In either case, if others are waiting for office hours they may feel those whose questions are directly related to the curriculum take precedence; and if their office hours are poorly attended (perhaps for a reason....), they may start feeling entitled to be using that time for lecture prep or something else unless someone comes with a directly relevant question. In my opinion, they shouldn't, but they may.

The basic advice of "find someone else who is less of a grumpster" applies. Beyond that, whether with this individual or someone else you approach, there are certainly things you can try to increase the positive response you'll get for "extracurricural" questions:

Make an appointment / "ask whether you can ask" and indicate roughly what you want to talk about, and recognize you know it's past the curriculum itself. Be willing to come another day.
Demonstrate enthusiasm and curiosity, avoid projecting entitlement. Professors want to stimulate the former, but we're pretty jaded about people who come across as if they feel they have a right to answers to whatever level of detail they feel like, or get irritated that the question they asked has a more complicated answer than they were clearly hoping for.
Do some reading/research beforehand, and indicate you have done so. There is a shift from highschool, where you are taught, to university (undergraduate and graduate), where you are being helped to learn. Show you are making that shift!

All of the above may well be things you are/were doing, and you just have a grumpy professor. Sorry about that. But I'm summarizing them anyway, since any academic or ex-academic will have stories of students whose keenness was infectious, as well as those whose non-stop, entitled questions were a pain in the neck!


Do math PhDs - post-doctoral researchers have an advisor? Typically, well-prepared undergrad math students have summer REU advisors, masters and PhD students have thesis advisors.

What do new math PhDs - postdoctoral researchers have at the university they land at?  Do they also have a research advisor, or are they pretty much on their own, while they teach classes, publish papers and apply to tenure-track positions, before their post-doc contract expires?

This varies greatly, depending on the type of postdoctoral position.  Some postdocs are funded by a specific grant.  Then they have a supervisor, namely the PI on the grant.  How formal the supervision is can vary, but someone is at least nominally in charge of the postdoc, and there's an expectation that the postdoc will do something relevant to the grant.

Other postdocs are hired by the department or a mathematics institute, rather than a particular PI (this is especially common in pure mathematics).  Often the postdoc is assigned a mentor, but what's involved in the mentoring relationship can vary.  It could consist of collaborative research, serious professional guidance, or just chatting occasionally.


Removing a part of a paper during major revision I submitted a paper and got it back with a major revision recommendation. There were many revision comments, and to answer some of them, I added appendices. Now I got the paper back with a second major revision (with many other comments). When I look at the paper as a whole, I see that it has now grown very long. Moreover, some of the results I put in appendices are stand-alone results that can potentially be published separately. I would like to remove these appendices from the paper and make them stand-alone technical reports (e.g. put them on arXiv). This has several advantages: shortening the original paper, increasing the visibility of the side-results, and maybe allowing me to expand them and publish them as a separate paper.

My question is: is it common for an author to do such a thing during the revision process? I understand that I can ask for the editor's opinion, but I would like to know how common is it to ask for such a thing?

What is common is for the author to improve the paper as much as possible, hopefully making the reviewers happy. What you suggest makes sense, though so would factoring out the removed material into other formal publications sooner rather than later.

You could ask the editor, making your case, or you could just resubmit your best version according to your current understanding. I'd include a note as to what you have done along with your reasoning.

But there is no reason why you can't also prepare the long version in parallel, in case the editor would rather have that.


How to deal with anxiety and depression after being kicked out of PhD program? I was kicked out of a programming-oriented PhD program at the end of last summer because I failed one of two qualifying exams; the department is keeping me on assistantship for a semester while I finish a master's thesis (which I've done).

Now over the past few months, I have developed a strong depression and even feel suicidal. I feel that I've been given many great opportunities and squandered them.  Applying to jobs in my field didn’t work out either due to lack of interest from the prospective employer or the employer getting a negative impression from my interview.

I've had many jobs throughout my life, and without exception I have struggled and usually failed due to extreme anxiety.  Honestly, I don't even know if I would want a job even if I was offered one, because I feel that I would waste the employer's time and cause myself greater suffering, and ultimately fail.

How can I deal with these issues?

EDIT:  Thank you all for your kind advice and support; for any of those interested, I'm on a more even keel now than I was when I wrote this question, and I have taken steps toward mental recuperation.

I should also say that I won't be checking in on this question anymore, so any further comments are unlikely to reach me.

Thanks.

Seek clinical help! The fact that you are here means that you are someone who believes that you need the help of others and that is very respectable. The problem is that this community, with all the good people in it, is not a good place to provide the help that you can actually benefit from.

In your question, there are a few points that are important. Suicidal thoughts are always serious and must be considered seriously. Failure is not easy to bear and nobody can say that they can have a good time failing their goals but normally, people do not think of self-termination when they fail. If you are having this thought, please seek help.

Also, you mentioned that you have failed multiple times in your life before. If the number of these failures is a lot, maybe you are suffering from some underlying problem that is inflicting your performance. Conditions like anxiety (as you mentioned), depression, ADHD, ... can have a drastic negative impact on performance and the sad fact is that in many cases, people who suffer are not aware of it. If this is the case for you, look at the bright side of your situation which is the potential of finding the root cause, elimination of which can improve your life dramatically. Again this is something that can only be confirmed with the help of clinical professionals. Please seek help.

Remember that failure is hard but also remember that even Einstein failed to procure an academic position many times so it happens and it happens to everyone. As Churchill once said:

  Success is the ability to go from failure to failure without losing your enthusiasm.

Give it some time and move on. That is the most important part.

I repeat myself; please consider the fact that self-termination thoughts should be considered very seriously. Based on your country of residence, conditions may differ but nevertheless, accept the fact that, in any country, there exist people who are trained to provide the type of the help that you can benefit from. Please find them.


With what style should I write to a Board Of Examiners? I have to make an appeal to a Board of Examiners regarding a progress issue, and I'm stuck with which style to write in.

I wrote my appeal with a slightly personal tone, since it is a personal letter - I want to show my personal interest and commitment in the issue and solving it. Some reviewers gave me this feedback:

A Guidance counsellor thought it was alright in quick email feedback.
Other reviewer, who had been in a similar position, said they were very neutral, objective and as a result it was much too personal, and that I should have left out the majority of the adjectives.

So, I'm at a dilemma. As much as they do not want literary masterpieces (which understand and I am not trying to do), the latter suggestion leaves it cold and without a hint of interest, which is exactly what I would like to convey. I've tried to substantiate my claims and statements with facts as much as I can, but I still feel I can't leave out adjectives.

"This was a very frustrating delay" as opposed to "This was a frustrating delay"
"Despite my best attempts" as opposed to "Despite my attempts"
"This process took very long" as compared to "This process took long"
"I really attempted to avoid" as opposed to "I attempted to avoid"

Field is aerospace engineering.

There are a number of comments on here regarding your use of intensifiers in the example sentences. Overall, I would avoid these because, while this is an emotional issue for you, it is unlikely to be for the Board of Examiners. It is important to present a "face" that is perceived as rational and objective, not overly emotional or making excuses. I have personally found that becoming emotional while trying to assert my needs has generally ended up undermining my goal (whether or not this SHOULD be the case is another issue entirely, particularly in the case of physical or mental illness when one has not as many resources to advocate for oneself).

That said, wherever possible, try to replace "empty" sentences with examples. For instance, instead of "this process took very long," quantify how long it took. Instead of "despite my best attempts," describe in detail these attempts. Instead of "I really attempted to avoid," describe the measures that you took to avoid [whatever thing]. Perhaps this is the scientist in me talking, but I always feel factual details are the most convincing.


Is it ethical to accept small gifts from students? And how small is small? Is it ethical to accept small gifts from students? In past years I have one or two students have given me small gifts, generally a box of chocolates. I judge the size of gifts on my international beer scale, where things that cost less than 4 beers, (maybe 10 USD) are small token gifts. These have always fallen into the small token gift category. I have typically either left these in my office and shared with people or in bountiful years brought them into the lab or school office. This year I have received over a dozen boxes of chocolates from undergraduate students. Individually each box is still small, but in total the gifts are no longer small. All but two of the gifts were from graduating students. I realised I don't have a well defined personal policy about accepting gifts and I am not sure the university has a policy either.

What should you do when students offer you gifts?

In the general case, professors/lecturers/TAs should not accept gifts from students, as these things can lend themselves very easily to accusations of conflict of interest. This falls in the same general category as dating one of your students, or grading your kid's exam.

That said, I can think of three situation where gifts are acceptable.

(1) a graduating student gets you something nice after graduation (e.g., in the department where I did my PhD, it is normal for students and advisors to exchange gifts after a successful doctoral defense).

(2) a current student makes a "collective gift", e.g., a student brings a cake to class to celebrate his/her birthday and offers you a slice.

(3) you go through some major life event and students pitch in to get you something, e.g., when I came back to work after having to get major surgery, the grad students in my department got me a nice coffee machine to celebrate that I hadn't died.


What to do for a paper with a very long review process? I have a paper submitted in an Elsevier journal. The review process has been quite long. I submitted the paper on the 20th of December 2017. After 7 months, I have received first-round reviews. It was a major revision. Then, I submitted the revised version of the manuscript. The reviewers took 2 months to say that everything is more or less ok and they asked for some minor revisions. The editor changed the status of the paper: Accept, after minor revision.

I submitted very quickly the manuscript and it has been 5 months that I did not receive any news. I contacted the editor at the beginning of the third month, he said he reminded reviewers to send their reviews but any news. I am a bit concerned. Did they really forget the paper?

Some journals are just really slow and dozy in their processes, and the weeks can add up to months quite quickly.  For example, I recently had a paper accepted after three rounds of review that stretched over two whole years.

Consider for example, a process like this:

The paper comes to the editor and they take a week to assign reviewers.
The reviewers take a few weeks to respond, and then some say no (it can happen even in a second round) and the editor has to get more.
Once reviewers have accepted, the journal gives them 8 weeks to return reviews (on the longer side, but not uncommon).
A reviewer is late returning their review, and the editor doesn't bug them for a week or two.
Then reviewer says they've had a very busy time and can they have a couple more weeks to review, for which the editor says yes, since otherwise they'd have to start the clock all over with a new reviewer.
When the final reviews come in, the editor doesn't look at it for a week, then sends a recommendation to the editor-in-chief, who also sits on it for a week.

That's more than 20 weeks "in review" right there, and it can easily stretch to more if you mix in some holidays or lost emails. You got your reviews eventually the first time and you'll likely get them soon this time as well---it seems like it's just a slow journal, as some are.


Reading (& understanding) a lot of papers is hard. How to deal with it? I am a student doing my Masters (in Computer Science). I am much interested in Ph.D and I know to do Ph.D I really need to read and understand a lot of papers. (I also know that its not all about reading papers, but doing something new and useful) but I find difficult to understand papers, especially mathematical. There are lots of things (like bloom filters, k-means algorithms, and a lot lot much more terminologies) which we, normally, don't encounter (except if you are a Ph.D or doing one) but are really crucial to understand papers.

I am not very good at understanding such stuff (atleast quickly, if given time I can but it takes time). Are there people like me who have done/are doing a Ph.D and had the same problem? If yes, how do you overcome it?

The good news is that you have a good 4-6 years of time to learn how to process that sort of material, and you aren't expected to be able to do it immediately.  A professor once told me (about physics papers, but it translates into mathematical and CS papers fairly well) that eventually you start to read the math-heavy parts a bit like music -- you see familiar patterns, and you get the general idea without having to dig deep into the details.

Additionally, you'll find that the more classes you take, and the more reading you do really does prepare you for that next paper and that next step.  You'll find that as you start specializing on a particular topic, most of the papers in your topic will become easier to read, simply because you have the experience and have gained the knowledge about the particulars over time.  Furthermore, you'll start coming up with your own ideas in the subject, and this just happens to be the goal of graduate school!

  There are lots of things (like bloom filters, k-means algorithms, and a lot lot much more terminologies) which we, normally, don't encounter...but are really crucial to understand papers.

The beauty is that you will start encountering them more, and you'll start understanding them more and more as you continue your education.

To answer your particular question,

  Are there people like me who have done/are doing a Ph.D and had the same problem?

I still have difficulty getting through math-heavy papers (in CS), but I either re-read sections closely until I figure it out, or I ask someone to help, or I simply move on and hope that the rest of the paper fills in the details.  I don't expect to understand everything technical that I read, but it becomes easier over time to get what you need out of a particular paper even if you don't get each and every detail.


PhD (Dr.) student willing to finish thesis after several years of inactivity A few days ago one of my former PhD students (in fact Dr. since I'm in Germany) contaced me and asked me, if there is any chance to finish their PhD thesis. The work was done at a different institution where I was active years ago and I was one of the two advisors.

A rough outline of the facts:

At the time the work was done, it was quite innovative. The work was done in an interdisciplinary field and the person had to dig deep into "the other field" and did a good job. There was a tangible result and an evalutation was performed based on a small group of participants.
The tanglible result was novel at that time, the evaluation of the new system was in line with current findings at that time and confirmed the usefulness and practicability.
The work was not submitted since it was not completed when the contract of that person ended, and after working in the new job, it took a while (~1-2 years) to bring everything to paper.
When this was done (about 3 years ago), the person was in doubt whether "the results are enough" and "whether the validation was proper enough". My feeling was it was enough to at least obtain the grade, even though one could critisize a few things (e.g. size and quality of the study participants), but it was in line with many other theses in this field. The person told me that my remarks would be considered and that I would be contacted if any decision was made.
Now (about 8-9 years after the work was done) the person contacted me and asked, if I would see any chance to "bring this work to an end" - either with the "Dr." title (no matter which grade) or to finally dump it. The person is willing to add some extra work (e.g. doing another evaluation study), but the system developed is outdated from todays point of view and I would see little benefit in an additional study.
The "Dr." title is quite helpful in the field the person is working in.
The technical system itself is still quite unique in the field.

I don't want to bias your answers so I would prefer not to tell at the moment how I responded, but I would appreciate thoughts and experience based on the following questions:

Did you ever experience a PhD handing in the thesis many (>5) years after completition? If yes, was it accepted?
If it was accepted, has it been evaluated based on the state of the art when the thesis work was done, or based on the current state of the art?

Bonus question (but opinion based, therefore just as a bonus ;-) ): How would you proceed? (Keep in mind that the was not done in a structured PhD program but as an employee in a research project for a limited time. And we are in Germany.)

Did you ever experience a PhD handing in the thesis many (>5) years
  after completition? If yes, was it accepted?

Our department actually just went through this. Our process involved a justification of why the gap occurred, a defense of the student's standing both at the time the gap occurred and now, and a defense of the scientific merits of the research (and how it wasn't completely stale).

  If it was accepted, has it been evaluated based on the state of the
  art when the thesis work was done, or based on the current state of
  the art?

Current.


Uploading a preprint with wrong proofs Summary: A senior faculty member insisted on uploading a draft of our math paper with incomplete proofs and intermediate results that turned out to be wrong to the arXiv. This was completely deliberate and done in order to claim priority. How serious is this? Does this warrant approaching an ethics committee?

I'm a PhD student in math in my last year. Some time ago, I got involved in a project with a senior faculty member, apparently a top researcher in his field, who is not my advisor. Initially everything seemed going well and I was enthusiastic about the project. As time went on he increasingly started pushing me more and more to finish the paper as he was worried about competition on the same problem, and I got into some trouble with my other work. But it's what happened in the end that really bothered me.

The senior reseacher insisted on uploading a half-finished draft to arXiv in order to establish priority on the results. He specifically told me that it does not matter that some of the intermediate results aren't stated carefully, and most distressingly that we should try to make it look just good enough that nobody will notice that most of the proofs are actually just rough sketches. In practice, this meant leaving out many arguments from our working draft and replacing them with weasel words like "clearly", "obviously" and such, or with long calculations that look relevant but on a closer reading turn out not to be justified adequately. When I raised my concerns about this being unethical he said I'm too naive to get to the top.

Some weeks after uploading our preprint, another preprint proving essentially the same result appeared on the arXiv, so at least my senior collaborator was right about there being competition. As for us, after some months' hard work after uploading the paper, we got most of the arguments fixed. The main results didn't change, but some intermediate results "of independent interest" changed almost beyond recognition. Even though the competing paper looked careful and not at all rushed and our proper arguments were on the arXiv only after theirs, my senior collaborator keeps giving talks where he stresses that we were first.

The episode changed gave me serious concerns about becoming a research mathematician. At least my view of scientific ethics was grossly violated when we posted a preprint with false proofs and uncertain results in order to claim that we were first, and moreover I'm shocked that this seems to be business as usual for someone. Now, I know arXiv isn't a peer-reviewed journal, but I'm ashamed of my part in the process and of having a paper with such a history in my publication list

I'd like to clear my conscience. I'm wondering if I should bring this up with some other senior faculty or even a university ethics committee. Would these events be considered a serious violation of scientific ethics? Would there be some consequences for the professor if I approach an ethics committee? Am I also at risk, should I wait with voicing concerns until my graduation?

Your collaborator is a jerk.  Don't listen to his nonsense about you being naive; that sounds more like he's trying to justify his bad behavior to himself.  You are quite right that this is not appropriate professional behavior.

However, I don't think it rises to the sort of ethics violation that could threaten a career.  Now that you have a proof of the results and (presumably) have updated the arXiv preprint, the scientific record has been corrected, so I think you're back on firm ground.   Besides that, I'd recommend:

Don't do it again.
Don't work with that collaborator any more.
When you mention this result in your future work, always cite the other group together with your own.  Don't bring up the issue of who was "first" - even if you had been legitimately first, it just seems like bad manners to brag about it, as your collaborator seems to be doing.
If you see other authors citing your paper, contact them to suggest they cite the other group as well.

I don't think it is worth bringing up to an ethics committee or trying to "whistle-blow".  I'd just treat it as a learning experience: there are jerks in the world and you don't want to be like them.


Scientific publications and related software sourcecode I want to create a dataset (offline, only for my research purposes) based on scientific publications (research papers), which are somehow connected to software source code (for example given by a git-repository). The research domains of the publications are irrelevant, as long as they are talking about related software source code (for example by mentioning functions or variables).

In order to create the dataset, I need journals/websites where papers and their related code are listed. I already found the Journal of Open Research Software, which fits my requirements, but I am pretty sure there are more resources like this out there.

How can I find publication venues in which papers regularly include links to related source code?

You could try to extract this information from the Related identifiers of Zenodo software records (the related identifiers that are marked as Supplement to).

Here are two examples:

https://zenodo.org/record/345130
https://zenodo.org/record/570830

This is the search for all software records in the database:

Zenodo offers data following the crawling protocol OAI-PMH. So harvesting this information should be managable.


How long should I wait for graduate admission decisions before moving on? I really searched for advice on this issue but without any luck. So here goes.
Background: This concerns PhD admissions to Computer Science in the US. In the current cycle, I applied to ten programs with application deadlines ranging from early December to mid-January. As of today (March 5th '21) I have only heard from three schools and with two accepts and one reject. The schools that accepted me are in the middle and lower end of my preference, and the program that my application was rejected from is at the higher end.
The issue: That leaves seven schools I haven't heard back from (not even waitlist). People have told me that "it isn't over till it's over", but it seems far too late in the cycle for these schools to still be evaluating my application. While I want to be hopeful, I also have to send confirmation of attendance to the program where I have been accepted.
My questions:

To anyone who has been part of these committees, why do universities withhold decisions this late? Is this a special case, or is this typical for graduate admissions?

How long should I wait before sending a confirmation of attendance? In other words, is there still some hope that one of my better choices might offer admission?

I do have until April 15th to decide but there is also the anxiety of waiting.
Edit: An important additional detail is that I am an international student currently in the US on a student visa (Master's) and I have to plan my travel (home country and back) and make visa arrangements etc. which also takes a significant amount of time.

You should delay your confirmation until the deadline. There's no reason not to. (Assuming the offer is valid until the deadline.) You may get a better offer.


Is it ok to include references to a book in a report even if I have not quoted the book in the text? I am writing a report based on activities performed during my internship as a  webmaster. It is to be written in the format of a thesis in APA format. In the report I reference  examples that I found on the Internet. However, I have been asked to include references to books.

Is it okay to include references to books in my thesis-style report even if I have not quoted these books?

Felix, the short answer is no. Though you can reference a book from which you did not include a verbatim quote, but you must not ref a book you have not read and used.

Books have a legitimate role even in the life of a webmaster. I am sure the information you looked up on Stackoverflow is also covered in books like, for example Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux-7-System_Administrators_Guide, Modern PHP: New Features and Good Practices or Hacking: Beginner to Expert Guide to Computer Hacking. Have half a dozen of these substantial reference volumes at hand and use them. Your teachers aim to build a practice they you will follow later on, the practice of using several reliable sources for the information and knowledge you gather.


How to design an open book exam? I am a visiting faculty, professor in B-schools. How does one go about in designing or compiling an open book exam, ensuring that it's not tough and neither too easy. At the same time someone who has not read the book will not be able to answer the question. What at the pointers or measures that should be taken care? Isn't designing an open book exam difficult compared to traditional exam?

Open book exams are actually very easy to design (at least I think so, and I favor them in my own teaching): just design it the same way you would design regular exercises. The goal is to evaluate the students’ understanding and skills, i.e. how they analyze and solve problems, rather than the facts they have memorized. To do so, I usually design exams as problems rather than series of trivia questions.


How to refer to a source with "minor" typos in the title? This questions supplements the existing: how to refer to a source with typos in the title, where OP spotted grammar mistakes in the title of papers mentioned in the reference list and wondered whether or not they should correct them.

As a major con:

  The purpose of references is to help readers locate your sources as easily as possible. Correcting titles might give the impression that you are referring to another work.

But what about mistakes that have little to no influence on search engines or paper identity such as, for example, punctuation and missing accents?

In my specific case, an important keyword features an en-dash and the french circumflex accent. I find it written in four different ways in the titles of my bibliography.

Depending on where your sources have been published, the format/style guide you are using, and where you have found them, the definitive way of referring to a source is to cite it using the title as it is written in the source publication.

In some cases you will find character accents missing as it is not always a trivial matter to write accents - this depends on the character set you are using. I have seen that older papers and articles that were typeset for English publications simply did not have those characters available in the character set used at the time. Thus accents and special characters were "anglicised" - for example, château as chateau, leçon as lecon, etc.


Should a teacher be able to solve all the assignments they give their students themselves? A moment ago, I happened upon https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/99712/almost-impossible-sudoku-like-puzzle which explicitly mentioned that this student was given a puzzle in math class that his math teachers couldn't solve. And it got me thinking: To me, it feels like a teacher like that is unfit for teaching. After all, how could they impart knowledge they don't have onto their students?
Should a teacher be able to solve all the assignments they give their students themselves? Assuming the assignment is in fact solvable obviously.
Note: The question that prompted this was a math problem, but I'm looking for course-agnostic answers, if possible.

In general, yes, a teacher should know how to do any assignment and, in some cases, should have actually done it. In teaching programming, for example, it is usually a mistake to assign a problem that the instructor hasn't essentially done themselves.
The reason is that one of the tasks in making assignments is to estimate the effort and time required to do the task. If you can't solve the assignment yourself, you are giving an open ended task to students. In almost all situations students have a limited time to spend on any given assignment and that competes with their other tasks.
There is an exception to the above. If you tell the students at the beginning that you are assigning something you don't have an answer to, and will be grading their efforts rather than their results, then you can make this work. The assignment becomes an exploration. At lower levels of education this makes less sense than it does at higher (say, doctoral) where it is natural to explore the unknown.


Is it better to choose recommenders by discipline or by familiarity? I'm going to be applying for postdocs in the immediate future in either physics or pure mathematics (preferably the latter, though my focus won't change). Assume for the sake of argument the following two letters are strong: (1) my PhD advisor (a physicist by training) and (2) a lesser-known mathematician whom I've been collaborating with recently but haven't produced anything yet. Now, suppose I need a third letter.

My interests have often brought me into collaboration with people in a different disciplines. Do I choose the third letter based upon how well the third person knows me or based upon the discipline of the job I'm applying for?

Ideally you want someone who is well known to people on the hiring committee.

It sounds like you already have letters from two people who are very familiar with your work.  If you can get a STRONG letter from a "big shot" in the field (math?), you should go for it.  That person doesn't need to know you very well, but he/she should be able to put your work in context and explain why it is important/interesting.


Is Lambert Academic Publishing a reputable company? I was contacted by the Acquisition editor of Lambert Academic Publishing (LAP) to publish my bachelor's thesis as a printed book. Is LAP any good? I have no idea about it; I have just heard that it's a freelance publishing house.

No.

Publishing a thesis this way has no academic value whatsoever.  (I.e., it will lead to no prestige, respectability, credit, etc.  For academic purposes, it will not count as a published book, except for interfering with other forms of publication.)  LAP's business model seems to be collecting as many theses and other unpublished academic documents as they can and then selling printed copies.  I don't see much value to this, but it could be harmless if you do not plan to publish the thesis in any other form.  If you like the idea of seeing your thesis for sale on amazon.com, then you should investigate other options as well and choose whatever seems like the best deal.  However, it's unlikely that you'll make any money from this, and certainly no more than a small amount, so you'll be contributing more to the academic community if you make the thesis available for free online.

See also I Sold My Undergraduate Thesis to a Print Content Farm for a detailed account of LAP's business practices.


As an American considering a post-doc in Australia, how does superannuation affect me? I have been offered a temporary (3 years) post doc in Australia with a salary and superannuation.

As an American,

Can I access this money? Is there a penalty?
Can I transfer it to a tax-advantaged American account?
Is it held in an investment vehicle? Can I choose it?
If I do not retire in Australia, can I still let it sit in an Australian investment vehicle until I am retirement age and then withdraw from it?

The comment above about non-specificity to academia is mostly correct, but there are special considerations for academics.  Australian academics (including postdocs) typically receive their superannuation from Unisuper.

All Australian academics need to know that the rate of superannuation contributions varies and that there are defined benefit and defined contribution systems, depending on your contract you may not have the defined benefit option.  Most Australians do not have defined benefit.

If you are a nonresident you can (and are incentivised to) withdraw your superannuation when you leave Australia, but there is a big tax.  You may be able to obtain residency in order to avoid this tax, but it is very complicated.

If you are an American, you need to study up on Passive Foreign Investment Corporations.  In short, this is a tax the American government imposes on superannuation.  There is no way to calculate how much tax is owed.  The IRS says it will take you 40 hours/year to complete the forms.  Despite this idiocy, it is worthwhile to work in Australia.

I am not a lawyer.  Talk to someone who specializes in international taxation and/or investments.


When during the application process should a candidate mention that their spouse is also looking for a job When during the application process should a candidate say that their spouse is also looking for a job?

The issue of academic spouses who want to find employment close enough to live together is colloquially called the "two body problem", and it is a perpetual challenge for job applicants.

The italicized question came up in a recent comment thread on this site, and I realized there is no post on Academia.SE about it. So I am making one.

I have seen many answers to the question, which usually fall between two extremes:

Don't mention your spouse in any way until you have a job offer, then bring up the question of a job for your spouse. Sometimes the advice even recommends taking off wedding rings during interviews.
Mention the spouse immediately in your application cover letter.

Each has its advantages and disadvantages, certainly, depending on the specific circumstances of the applicant and school being applied to.

Because many people, like me, have a perspective limited by their own life experience and the schools they have worked at, I expect that there should be many different answers to the question, expressing different perspectives. I think that collection of answers would provide an extremely useful resource for job applicants.

In the thread I linked, another user left a comment:

  ... I'd particularly be interested in seeing answers supported by data, as there seem to be a wide range of opinions, each supported by apparently convincing logical reasons and/or anecdotes.

I don't want to limit answers here to ones based on data, but answers that do include broad data would be particularly welcome.

This kind of question has also been asked on MathOverflow.

I'd mention it during an on-campus interview.

In my department, we don't factor "the two-body problem" into an initial evaluation (i.e., do we bring someone for an on-campus interview). So it's up to you about mentioning it in a cover letter or not. I don't think I have ever read that in a cover letter in chemistry, though.

During an on-campus interview, sometimes it comes up, and sometimes it does not. Keep in mind that usually, the department cannot ask. We prefer if it comes up, so that we can work on solving the problem at the same time we make an offer.

When we decide about who gets an offer, the two-body problem doesn't factor into the decision at all.

Why? Well, for one, we want the best person we can get. For another, almost all of our candidates have a two-body problem of some sort. Sometimes, it's another academic job. In other cases, the spouse is a doctor, or a lawyer, or another scientist or ...

Suffice to say, once we make an offer, we're trying to do the best to get the candidate to come, and that includes making sure a significant other would be happy here.

I'll be honest. We're much happier if we know there's a two-body problem (of any type) before we make the offer (i.e. during the on-campus interview), so that we can start working on finding another position. As I said, we want you to come. Sometimes, we don't find out until after we extend the offer, but that just makes our job more difficult because we have much less time.


What are the conditions for using "Smith et al., unpublished data" in journal articles? From time to time, I see what I mention in the title. For example: "It has been suggested this figure may be in excess of 800 gazillion dollars (Smith et al. unpublished data)."

My question is why this is allowed in fields where statements usually have to be backed up by facts? Do reviewers get to see this unpublished data sometimes? Or, is it reserved for speculative statements and as long as you aren't indicating they are cold hard truths it is accepted?

I am just curious on the conventions for its use, since it seems quite contradictory to normal conventions for providing sources.

The fact that the data behind a claim is unpublished and unavailable obviously makes it hard to establish the veracity of the factual claim purportedly supported by that data.  However, it does not necessarily mean that you can't confirm that a factual claim was made, and in some cases that may be relevant information for your paper.  The example you give is:

"It has been suggested this figure may be in excess of 800 gazillion dollars..."

In some cases, the fact that a particular estimate of an unknown figure was made might be relevant information for a paper, even if only to give some context for the range of estimates people have come up with for an unknown figure.  That is a weaker claim than if you remove the middle-man and just say that:

"This figure may be in excess of 800 gazillion dollars..."

In the former case, the claim is just saying that someone else made an estimate of an unknown thing; in the latter case, the claim is the estimate of the unknown thing.  To confirm the first statement, you need only show that there is a work that makes this estimate; access to the data is not required.  However, to confirm the second statement the actual data backing the estimate becomes important.

Now, it is probably not good practice to make the second claim above and then cite unpublished data, because it will leave your reader skeptical of the estimate, and they will blame you if it turns out to be baloney.  However, if you just report to them that someone else has made an estimate, but the data purportedly supporting the estimate is not available, you are not weighing in on whether or not it is a good estimate.  The reader will still read the estimate about the 800 gazillion dollars with skepticism, but they will be able to confirm your claim that someone made this estimate.


Changing the title of a research paper before the submission of the camera-ready version My research paper has been accepted for the IEEE ICCSE conference. I am planning to change the title of the research paper before the submission of the camera-ready version. This would be a slight modification which will not affect the context of my research. Would it be possible to do so? Is it okay if I request to change the title of my paper?

Generally, you can do this, but you need to get an explicit permission from the programme chair(s). I would also suggest thoroughly explaining the change, as such a change request might indicate that you did a lousy job preparing the paper before the submission itself.


Should I cite an article that I can't find? I am facing a problem, the article seems a very important reference that everyone talking about the subjects is citing it. However, looking at these articles, they can't give a reference or link to the cited article. Even I use the volume number, article number to search on the net, I still can't find it.

For example, this article, only the second reference doesn't have a pdf link pointing to it. I think the author may be like me can't find the article, but sees others citing it in a very important position, so he also cites it. I can't exclude the possibility that the author reads a paper-based version.

When you search the citing article, many of them can't give a link to that paper, and I can't find it either. Should I cite it anyway? Because from the inspection, this paper seems an indispensable reference when talking about the subject. On the other hand, I can't find it (even on the official site) and I didn't read the abstract or even the title. I think this is not quite equal to the case where the article is behind the paywall, because behind the paywall you at least see the title and abstract.

I would definitely try contacting your librarian at your university library. University libraries collect physical copies of papers and they might have this one. Librarians are also a lot more versed in navigating the various search systems and they will probably be able to find this paper, if only as a hard copy. It is also possible that your university does not have the paper, but they could contact different universities to get it.

I would definitely recommend to no cite what you haven't read, especially if you don't even know the title of the paper.

Edit: As others have also noted, it might be good practice in your field to in fact cite the paper, but with the caveat that you cannot find it, as suggested by Thredolsen's answer. If this is common in your field please do this.


What should I do with requests to be my PhD student? Putting aside the issue of obviously automated inquiries, what should I do with personalized emails I receive from students asking to be my PhD student?  Assume that I know the student is not going to become my PhD student any time soon, possibly because there are no vacancies currently. In particular, I am interested in departments where PhD admissions are not centralized.

If your department or institution has an established centralized procedure for admitting graduate students, I would prepare a template that says:

  All interested students must apply through (insert method here). I do not respond to direct unsolicited requests for PhD positions.


Should I send email expressing my gratitude to professors who provided me with letters of recommendation? I have asked for LORs from two professors that I haven't cooperated in the past and they were happy to provide them. Now, I've been admitted in the MSc program I was interested in. Should I write an email to them, in order to express my gratitude because of their help in earning this admission?

I think a short, cordial email informing the letter writers of your admittance and thanking them for their help and contribution to such an outcome is absolutely appropriate.


What if I get B's in my first semester in graduate school (engineering program)? Why is getting A's so important?

What if I did not have the background to pursue graduate education but nonetheless I decided to enroll in a graduate program?

I am in graduate school. I got straight A's at my local university (undergrad studies) and was admitted to the graduate program in engineering by one of the Big Ten universities. I am working diligently and extremely hard, and I have come to realize that the preparation in math and engineering from my undergrad institution was not even close to the preparation that students at my current institution have received.

I neither come from a research background nor have a strong mathematical background, but I am responsible and can learn the material so I know I am smart. However, my previous engineering school could have done better at training us as engineers, I would say that our engineering classes did not developed our problem solving skills and/or analytical thinking which is something I tried to learn on my own. I did what I could to learn what I believe had to be taught to me, which is why I was accepted into my current institution.

But it is so frustrating to feel the difference in knowledge and problem solving skills that other students seem to have just because they were instructed better. Currently I am getting B's for my graduate classes, and it is my first semester. So I would like to know, do grades really matter? Should I drop out after all of this hard work? What about the ones like me who want to have a better future and pursue grad school but did not have all the opportunities and sufficient preparation but can still do good, maybe not getting straight A's right from the beginning but definitely later (which is what I am aiming for and I know I can do it). However it is a bit discouraging, when all I find on the internet is "B's are like C's in graduate school" that statement seems to be unfair for people like me who work hard on school and research.

Ultimately, your grades as a graduate student matter very little, except for:

A handful of employers who have GPA requirements for graduate programs;
Fellowship programs, which may require a GPA minimum;
The academic regulations, which may also specify a GPA minimum to continue in good standing.

However, it should also be noted that most graduate courses are based on the premise that a grade lower than B is a failing grade. Therefore, it's better to get A's than B's in graduate classes. But, at the end of the day, having B's is probably not going to impede your career much—especially once you enter the working world.


Acknowledgement Page As an artist and retired visual art professor, I'm updating my master thesis written in 1997 as a hand-crafted art book. Today I'm self-publishing a rewritten thesis as a paperback book to include more of my artwork since graduating in 1997 with my master's degree. Is it legally okay for me to use the same Acknowledgement Page in my current self-publishing book with the same title as my master's thesis, or drop it completely?

If you wrote the original Acknowledgement page, and you still feel the same way about the help you acknowledged, then I believe that it is perfectly appropriate to use the same text. You are re-expressing sentiments that you had in 1997, using your own words. It is perfectly ethical to use them.

Beyond that, though, this would be a great opportunity to update the acknowledgements. "When I first developed the work in this volume, I was indebted to the following people ... ¶ Since then I have further benefited from ..."

Your decision to publish now, was it informed by your professional experience? Has your initial vision evolved since then, thanks to a stimulating work environment? Did anyone encourage you particularly to publish the manuscript?


Will a MS with ~3.7GPA with good research experience and strong recommendations offset my horrible U-GPA to get into PhD? My u-GPA is about 2.8 and GRE is 330, from now on is a hypothetical scenario as I haven't done my masters yet so if you could treat it as an actual case and give me subjective answers that would be great. For the masters I have found this growing researcher who is doing amazing work and is eager for me to join his lab from the start of the program. Assuming that by the end of the MS, I get ~3.7GPA, a couple co-authored pub and 1 first authored pub in reputed journals along with going to conferences to present my work, altogether getting strong recommendations from the advisor and his colleagues. Will this in any way offset my u-GPA. Also apart from research in masters I have had about 2 years of research experience during undergrad (in and out of school) and have published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal.

I am looking to get into the biomedical engineering PhD programs at university of chicago, northwestern university, university of pittsburgh, john hopkins university, york university, and university of pennsylvania. Do you think that I am aiming too high? If so, what else should I look to do to improve my chances? Also if I start MS this Fall should I apply for PhD at Fall 2022 or Fall 2023?

Additional Info:

I did a decent undergrad thesis (not great, 8 months), soon after I did a 2 month internship a another research lab. During my undergrad I worked w/ a prof for 1.2 years (Got two papers out - one in a conf and another in a journal). Currently I am working in a top research lab, now remotely due to covid-19 outbreak.
Some people have mentioned other questions thinking that those had the same information that I wanted. But, they did not as the questions talked about how to get into "a/some" PhD Program after a low U-GPA and maybe decent masters. The schools that I have mentioned above are ranked pretty high and  would appreciate if you could tailor your answers to my specific question of getting into these schools.
I picked these school not to show of the "rank" or "prestige" which seems stupid honestly. I chose the because of the strength in the field (F1) that I'm looking to do research in. In one of my previous questions I had mentioned that I got a PhD offer from university of houston which does the research in F1 but it isn't very strong in other area such as: number of grants that they pull in to do amazing research on large patient populations, intellectual cohorts, and industrial connections and startup resources. I picked these schools as I believe them to be the best in F1 and NOT for the main purpose of prestige. So if you don't have anything to suggest I IMPLORE you to not ask me to look at other schools as I did not ask for alternatives but solutions or ideas

It is good to aim high. It is also good to have broad target. If you apply to only a few schools with very similar profiles then being rejected by one will probably have a similar outcome at the others. So, I recommend a range of schools if you really want a degree and not just bragging rights about a top 50 school.

But, about your GPA. It isn't a plus, of course, but most (not all) people who evaluate your application will weight the more recent work as more important than the earlier work. Therefore, if your recent work is good and you have letters that attest to the quality of your work and your dedication, then the older numbers will be discounted by most.

But, the competition is still very strong and the slots are few. If someone has to make a choice between two candidates, the choice has to be made and lower priority things may bear some weight.

However, the only way to know whether you have a problem is to actually make application to some places and then evaluate the feedback. There are some questions, like this one, that can only be answered by actually trying. But, you will be more likely to get accepted somewhere if you don't target too narrowly.


What should new faculty focus on when meeting with the university public relations representative? I am a new faculty member at a medium-sized liberal arts university that focuses on undergraduate education.  I have recently been contacted by the university public relations representative and he would like to set up a meeting to meet with me and talk about what I am doing.

I recognize that this is a good opportunity to get exposure for me and my lab so I want to make the most of it.

What should I prepare/present to the university public relations representative for this type of informal meeting.

NOTE: As background, I am brand new at the university so I have just begun developing my research and teaching here.

What you should focus on: think through what of your work might be of broader interest to the public.  Is your research interesting and on timely topics that the public cares about?  If so, be ready talk about that.  Are you innovating in teaching in a way that might be of interest to the public (maybe, teaching an unusually large class; teaching a MOOC; teaching a topic of broad interest; trying some innovative new experiment)?  If so, be ready to talk about that.

Do not plan on giving a talk.  Don't rattle on.  The PR rep will ask questions and ask for more details.  But be prepared to give a few highlights (a few sentences) on one or more areas like this, if they might be of broader interest.

If you don't have anything that might be of broad public interest, that's fine, too.  Go in to the meeting preparing to learn something from the PR rep, rather than the other way around.  Ask them to give you a brief tutorial on how to interact with the press.  If you're interested in it, ask whether they have a media relations training program.  Meet the person, and treat it as a networking opportunity to build a relationship you might use someday.

But overall: Don't overprepare.  It's not worth spending a lot of time preparing in advance for this one.  Go into the meeting, see how the PR rep can help you and how you can help your university, and move on to something else in your busy life as a professor.


Open-source the project code before or after publication? I recently completed a part of my project and communicated a paper to a conference. Let's call the paper's title as "project x: for this and that". Now, I wish to open-source project x to facilitate reproducible research and to have more (at least some) people use it (and cite it!).

Are there any specific drawbacks or risks involved in open-sourcing project x on, say, Github or Sourceforge? Do note here that I would still be improving on project x, and possibly sending the extended version to a journal (my area of work being Computer Science).

I understand that if a conference/journal requires double-blind review and my project is searchable on the Internet, I am revealing my identity to the reviewers. This is bad, right?

Are there any other cons I should be considering? And are there any pros of open-sourcing before a making it into a publication?

Double-blind reviews are usually more common in conferences. For example, I don't know of any journals using double-blind review in my field (machine learning). I'm going to assume revealing your identity is not an issue (if it is, circumstances differ).

Whenever relevant I provide an implementation along with a paper. This also helps reviewers, in case they want to fiddle with an algorithm under slightly different circumstances than those reported in the paper (which is a good thing!). When an implementation is provided, the option is there.

The pros are increased visibility, reproducibility and (in my opinion) credibility since you allow everyone to try for themselves instead of taking your word for it in the paper. On rare occasions, your software may become quite popular during the review period, which may positively impact the paper under review.

A potential con is that someone may discover a critical bug in your implementation. From the perspective of software engineering this is always helpful since you can then improve the software. For the associated paper this may be a good, bad or irrelevant thing, depending on the type of bug:

One that does not influence the results reported in your paper: no big deal. Simply fix and move on. Best case this improves the user experience of your software, worst case you lost a bit of time fixing something unimportant.
One that does influence the results: big deal. This will at least delay a potential publication. Ofcourse it is better to find such errors and fix them instead of publishing erroneous conclusions, but this may have an impact on credibility.