Why are contributions to the education of the broader public not valued much within academia? Scientists not only need to discover new knowledge but also have to share the knowledge to others. For the former, we have things like universities, collaborate groups and journals to take charge. For the latter, we have various forms from teaching, developing and maintaining softwares to writing or translating books, writing and editing in Wikipedia, answering (and asking) in SE, joining an academic club, working on a academic-related project, blogging, etc.

Besides the first two have significant weight in academia, the others seem to be light weight (some even say that they have zero weight) (example for Wikipedia, translating book). Although I understand the worry that I may spread myself too thin, I think the important thing is scheduling time wisely. I don't think they are deserved to be bad effective. In fact some scholarships (like this one) require me to describe "any examples of leadership and involvement in my university or home community". I have even seen some high rep users modestly proudly say that they are active users in SE in their websites. I see a conflict here. Can you explain why contribution to community is deprecated in academia?

A very interesting question from F'x: How can a researcher improve his contribution to society?

Scientists not only need to discover new knowledge but also have to share the knowledge to others. For the former, we have things like universities, collaborate groups and journals to take charge. For the latter, we have various forms from teaching, developing and maintaining softwares to writing or translating books, writing and editing in Wikipedia, answering (and asking) in SE, joining an academic club, working on a academic-related project, blogging, etc.

I think this is not correct. Discovering new knowledge is the actual research (valued on all levels), "sharing to others" is writing publications (valued so much that the common criticism is rather that publications count too much).

What you mean is a different type of knowledge dissemination, basically the education of the broader public. This is indeed currently not widely valued, but I am not convinced that this is a fault of the system. Essentially, when an university hires a researcher, they want a researcher. They are specifically looking for somebody that generates new knowledge, not somebody that is good at breaking down this new knowledge for the layman (this would be a science journalist, or somesuch), nor for somebody that mainly collects and summarizes the knowledge on Wikipedia or Stack Exchange.

Hence, the answer to your question:

  When will contribution to community be valued?

If you understand this as "when will my contributions to community be comparatively valuable for applying to a research position as research results", then the answer will likely be "never".


Should I accept an invitation to give a talk on dated work? I'm a recent math PhD, working in Subject X.  I had the good luck to give a counterexample to a conjecture in Subject Y, using ideas from X.  I don't know much about Y -- in fact I learned the conjecture in a "Y for dummies"-type paper and immediately saw the example.  The people I met in Y seemed to be pretty happy about this.

Now I've been invited to give a talk at a big conference about Y.  I would of course be delighted to do so, but by the time the conference happens my paper will be about 18 months post-arxiv.  I don't really have plans or competence to do further work in Y, and I'm concerned that my paper will be getting stale by the time the conference rolls around.  On the other hand, I could give a basic introduction to X and my example, which I think would be interesting to the audience.

Any suggestions as to how to proceed?  Should I accept and give a dated talk?

I'm a physics PhD student, so our culture is a little different, but I've seen people give talks that were primarily about work published multiple years ago. So if math culture is anything like physics culture (and what I've heard suggests that the time scales are even longer for you), I don't think it's a bad idea. Especially, considering the fact that you have been invited to give this talk, it seems they want you there despite knowing that your work will have been out for a long time by the time the conference happens.

If you want to inject something new into it, you could consult with some colleagues in subject Y and ask them what the relevance of your counterexample is. Then you could finish your talk with an overview of what they tell you.


How common is college graduation at an early age? I am interested in the statistics of early college graduation, or more generally, the statistics of extreme ages in academic settings (highschool, college, grad school, etc.). For instance, how many students who earn a college degree graduate one, two, three, or more years earlier than the typical age of 22 or so? I am willing for any statistics to qualified in any way (percentages in country W, at university X, in state Y, or from year Z). A quick Google search does not easily reveal this information.

I estimate that less than 5% of the population graduates college two years earlier than normal based on my acquaintances, but this is likely biased as I am a graduate student and it may be smaller.

EDIT: It occurs to me that my question does not ask for any opinions on whether early graduation is good, neutral, or bad. Perhaps it would be interesting to expand the question and have those who experienced graduating early give their stories or opinions.

At least in the USA, the number is probably much smaller than 5 percent.

The reason for this is that there are generally fixed lengths for education, and minimum enrollment ages at which the process can start (at least for publicly educated students, who are still the majority).

Finishing two or more years ahead of schedule means that you probably have had at least two events that belong to the following categories:

Started education a year earlier than "normal" (perhaps because of birthday-limited enrollments)
Skipped a grade during primary or secondary (high-school) education
"Accelerated" college studies by reducing the expected enrollment time by either a semester or a full year (through early accumulation of credits via work in high school, or taking college placement exams, credit overloading, and other methods)

The first is the most common, but still only applies to about one-third of the population. The others are much less frequent, with the second probably pertaining to only about 1 percent of students (if that many). The third also probably is not that common, but I don't have hard numbers (but again, probably less than 5 percent of college students finish in three years or less!).

Now remember that you have to have at least two such events, and you can start to see why the odds are stacked against a 5 percent rate.


Are infrequently-cited publications detrimental in academic hiring? A past Q&A discussed the importance of citation counts for academic hiring decisions, particularly for tenure decisions and fresh PhDs. However, the same citation count or h-index could in theory represent (1) a researcher with just a few highly-cited publications, or (2) a researcher with a few highly-cited publications plus numerous infrequently-cited publications.

Do hiring committees care about this distinction? Holding constant total citation count and h-index, does the presence of multiple infrequently-cited publications (say, papers making incremental "workmanlike" advances or peer-reviewed Letters to the Editor or response letters) reflect poorly on a candidate? Or does it not matter much, conditional on overall impact?

In my experience, those who like to evaluate by counting are happy to count citations and to count publications.  Thus, in their eyes you are generally better off with more publications, regardless of citation counts.

On the other hand (at least in my field of applied mathematics), when evaluation is done by actually looking at your body of work (and what others in your subfield say about it), papers that are rarely cited can still be very important if they are highly regarded.  For instance, perhaps you solved a major open problem so thoroughly as to leave little room for follow-up work -- such a paper is likely to be considered very important but not often cited except in reviews.


Which to cite: Review and Survey papers or Research papers? Review papers are long papers gathering the results of various researches and have many conclusions. When I want to address an issue or a conclusion about something should I repeatedly cite a Review paper and use points in that paper or I'd better find important papers on that topic and cite them?

I want to add to the other answers that, it happens sometimes that researchers read the review papers and not the original papers that are referred to in the review papers; but when they want to cite the content in their papers, they cite the original papers which they have never read.

The point is that, you should cite exactly the source you read. If you are reading that content from a review paper, you should cite that review paper. If you are reading the original paper, cite that original paper. Look at this example:

In case you only have read the review paper, not the original one:

  In the review paper  we read that the method x is perfectly applied to examine that [...][1]

In case that you read the review paper and then read the original paper:

  In the review paper  we read that the method x is perfectly applied to examine that [...][1]. It is clearly indicated in the original paper [2] that the method x only discusses parts of the instances of the experience including; instance a, instance b and instance c [2].

In my opinion, review papers are not always so precise and it happens that some content is misunderstood or wrongly copied in quotation and rephrasing in the review papers; so, if you find some content interesting, go to the references of the review paper and try to find and read the original papers as well.


Academic Affiliation - Paper will be Resubmitted during PhD but published as an AP in another institution I have a paper that needs to be resubmitted by the end of the week. It should be the last round, and I strongly expect the paper to be accepted for publication after that.

I am still employed as a Ph.D. student in institution A, but will move to institution B as an assistant professor at the beginning of May.

Thus, the paper will be published while I am working for institution B. Institution B provide financial incentives for such publication, and it would, therefore, be beneficial for me to put the affiliation "B" on the paper.

What is the proper affiliation to put? I would tend to list both A and B as my affiliations, with a short footnote explanation.

Affiliation is primarily so that people can contact you and so that names can be disambiguated. On the other hand, you probably need to honor the institution that enabled your work. List an email and and affiliation that will be useful to people after publication. But in the acknowledgements you can indicate the prior affiliation with appropriate thanks.

However, their are some scientific fields in which work is only possible in a lab funded by some entity that must be credited. In those fields, the PI is generally also listed as a co-author of the work, even if s/he does little of the actual research. In those fields it may be necessary, largely for political reasons, to use an affiliation under which the work was done. In such a case, it will be a bit of a dance to do something in the paper that helps readers find you if necessary. Or else you can arrange to have all attempted contacts forwarded to you in the future.


Do you have to have a PhD to be a "research scientist"? I'm graduating from my master's degree at MIT this summer and I have a chance to stay for another year as an employee in my current lab while I apply for PhD programs. I'd love to do that because I love the current grant I am working on, I love the topic, the people and the PI.

My only hesitation is that there seems to be very limited titles in academia for one who is not a graduate student and does not have a PhD. The truth is, I do not want to be a "lab tech." I want to start becoming autonomous in the field I did my master's and becoming a lab tech is the exact opposite of being an independent researcher (based on my understanding).

I feel like if I start my year-long employment with the agreement with my PI that I'll continue work on my current research but with the "lab tech" title, the post-doc who supervises my work will treat me like a lab tech!

Therefore, I'd like to be a "research scientist" for the next year, but do I have to have a PhD for that? Or, what other titles are there besides a lab tech for people who wants to do research without a PhD in academia?

Titles depend on institution. In industry, you can be a "research scientist" with no particular degree. In a university, a "research scientist" may be a catch-all term for scientific employees, or it may be a parallel track with similar prestige to a professorship (with similarly high standards). I do not know what MIT's system is.

Your job responsibilities will depend on your boss (advisor) far more than your title. If your advisor is on board with you continuing your current research, then great; this will be true regardless of your title. If they are doing you a favor allowing you to remain employed while you apply for PhD programs, then they may expect you to do "lab tech" type work.

It's certainly a good idea to discuss your title, responsibilities and goals with your advisor before accepting the position. But I wouldn't be too concerned about the title. If this were a permanent position for you, I might agree that "lab tech" would be an unfortunate title, and might have unfortunate implications about your ability to participate in original research (especially since you would have to consider your position if your supervisor moves on). But since this is just a temporary stop-gap until grad school, I would focus this conversation on your responsibilities and goals.


PhD thesis submission I am a sixth year female PhD student in the CS department of a renowned US university. I  have had a very difficult time with my adviser for the past two years due to personal and research conflicts. At that stage I was faced with the option to leave the department, or suck it up and stick with my adviser. After two years of me working alone without feedback, now I am finishing up my PhD, having completed my proposal successfully and am in the writing phase of my thesis. My adviser has asked me to complete a few more experiments for the thesis. However, she has dismissed my attempts to get feedback on sections of my thesis which is due in another three months.

What I find as particularly odd is that, she has been delaying on drafts for my main journal publication for sometime now. She , in a verbal conversation said that no one reads the thesis so I shouldn't bother too much about her feedback. Instead I should focus on more experiments. Last week she asked me to remove a part of my main proof from the thesis and said that people might scoop the idea. These seem like extremely odd to come from a PhD adviser. A couple of months back, she said that papers are not important in the industry and that I can be successful without too many journal papers to my name.

I have had a tough history with her but given the circumstances, I had no option but to trust her as the timing of the conflict was extremely unfortunate. Now I want to salvage whatever I can from this degree. I want to know how much authority does a PhD adviser have over your thesis. Can she ask me to remove important sections of my analysis that has been with her for over an year? I am asking this because of a strong suspicion that she might want to scoop my work once I leave school. In that case the only proof of authorship of my work is  the thesis document. If I have to press forward with my work, how should I diplomatically go about it?

The situation you described is quite problematic and (having heard only one side of the story) seems to involve misconduct by your advisor - as well as lack of perspective and/or complacency on your part as you've been faced with her behavior.

But let's start with what you explicitly asked and move on to more general suggestions/advice.

  I want to know how much authority does a PhD adviser have over your thesis.

Ethically, little. Your advisor should only verify that what you intend to submit is academically acceptable as a Ph.D. thesis: Sufficient contributions, adequate novelty, work which you did either yourself or as the primary involved researcher, no plagiarism, errors etc.

Technically, however, in some universities you require your advisor's explicit authorization to submit your thesis. You need to check whether this is the case in yours.

Even if that requirement is in place, however, it's not as much as a hurdle as many people worry it might be. if you have a PhD thesis written up, that you've gotten a bit of review on to correct any glaring problems, and that you've typeset and maybe even printed a copy you can wave at people - it would be quite problematic for an advisor to say "no, you can't submit" without a valid reason. If you contact your department/faculty's Professor in charge of graduate studies and wave your thesis at him, saying "My advisor won't let me submit", and with this being after 7 years - significant pressure is going to be put on her.

  Can she ask me to remove important sections of my analysis that has been with her for over an year?

You're putting emphasis on an invalid point. Nothing has "been with her", it's  in the draft of your thesis. It can theoretically be her opinion that you should remove something. In the case you describe, obviously this seems unjustified. The main issue is the justification.

Also, you are not at all required to oblige her and you can put whatever you like in your thesis (under the conditions I mentioned above).

  I am asking this because of a strong suspicion that she might want to scoop my work once I leave school.  In that case the only proof of authorship of my work is the thesis document.

Then publish that part of your work somehow before she has a chance to plagiarize it. As publication does not preclude work from being part of your thesis, it won't hurt you in that respect. Also, if proper, peer-reviewed publication of this part of your work time-consuming/difficult/prolonged/won't work out for some reason, go for a pre-publication - on a website like ArXiv, or on your personal website - as some sort of a technical report. That should be enough for her not to be able to plagiarize your work.

  If I have to press forward with my work, how should I diplomatically go about it?

Make sure that your friends and colleagues know about the situation you're in, sans your suspicions of your advisor. Specifically, make sure whomever of them who can understand your research knows exactly what you've done yourself (so as to be able to back up future claims of plagiarism). That last bit may also be pertinent to other senior academic staff members, so perhaps find the opportunity to bring it up, e.g. when sniffing potential future collaboration. Maybe schedule some colloquium talk about it.

Also, contact whoever is in charge of graduate studies in your department, and tell them you are having trouble with your advisor - without making accusations for now. Talk about your efforts to finish up and that it doesn't seem like your advisor is helping you get there; perhaps also talk about things that happened over the past several years before the thesis business came up. Be sure to mention at some point that part of your work that you're worried might be plagiarized - of course not this worry of yours, just try and make sure it's clear that you've had results doing whatever it is you did.

No less importantly: Talk to your graduate researcher's union. When I was vice-chairperson of our (half-recognized) union, a PhD candidate came to me with a similar situation: I promised him what your union should promise you, which is that if actual foul play begins on her part (like publishing your work under her name), we would go have a talk with her on your behalf. And if she refused to rectify things, there would be a massive scandal; her name and picture would be up on posters all over campus branding her a plagiarizer; we'd get the local media to report on it; we would file disciplinary charges (not that management would entertain them, but who cares); we organize protests in her classes - whatever it takes.

... but all this depends on actually having a functioning union. If you don't, try the same with whatever graduate student organization you do have, although then it's less likely you'd get the kind of backing you need.

As for your interaction with her, I don't think you've given us enough details for me to be able to make suggestions about that.

Finally, I think you've mishandled the situation so far. You see, your Ph.D. is your own project. Your advisor merely advises; you carry out research, you write it up, you publish, you submit. A Ph.D. is an exercise in being an (sort of) independent researcher. And feedback is something you can, and should, get from other people - in your department, your university, and elsewhere. You should go to conferences, especially if you're in the US where they're close, even when you haven't published there sometimes. You should have tried, at least, to form relationships with people in your field that are not mediated by your advisor. If you had done that, her lack of attention (or even abuse) would not have had that much of an effect.

Now, true, if we're talking about an experimental lab setting, then the head of the lab is more dominant in determining whether your research life sucks or not; and I know it's easier to give this advice than to act on it (and I'm struggling with the same challenge myself even now, as a post-doc) - but it sounds like you've been mostly depending on her support and feedback. I'm sorry you're having to change that under such unfortunate circumstances.


Should I (assistant professor) call undergraduates by first name or Mr/Ms There are lots of questions about how undergrads should address professors, but this is about the opposite. Context is North American research university.

My instinct and personal preference is to ask undergraduates to address me as Professor Lastname or Dr. Lastname until I let them know otherwise. And I have no problem with explicitly saying this in my syllabus for a class.

But then sometimes I think "actually why aren't I addressing students as Mr./Ms./Mx/(or some honorofic) Lastname".

Should I do so? Do you do so?

It is disrespectful to demand more respect from your (adult!) students than you give them. So you should either both go my first name or both by last name. At least this is true in by culture (Central Europe) - I would think it is the same in Northern America.
So, unless it is a cultural thing everyone does in your area to call younger people by their first name, by respectful and call them as you want to be called.


Papers in progress, but am leaving academia What should I do with my papers in progress? I have several with a few co-authors.  It's been known that things in my department have deteriorated considerably, and that many of the newer faculty are looking to leave.
Do my papers in progress get abandoned?

You can complete the papers and should if your co-authors would be disadvantaged by your quitting, assuming that it is possible.
But, a fair amount of work gets abandoned, or put on the back shelf for various reasons. If you really don't have the time to continue work on the paper(s) come to an agreement with your co-authors that permits them to continue without you. The agreement should include something about authorship, but definitely should include your permission to publish.
If you all agree to abandon the work, put it in a notebook that you might want to return to later after things settle down. You can't predict the future and should keep flexible and ready for changes.
Your statements in comments seem to imply that you are angry with the department. That is natural, but don't take actions that primarily disadvantage yourself or the colleagues you work with. "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face" is an old adage.


Peer-review in the year 2000 For a new paper about media archaeology in the context of scientific publication, I found an interesting topic which is not very well researched yet. As far as I know from research, in the year 2000 academic publication was done sometimes electronic and sometimes with printed material. Also, the Science Direct website was not invented yet.

But what is not given in the literature is, if in that time it was possible to do the peer-review process online or only with individual letters over postal mail service. Does anybody know the details of how the peer-review process was done in the year 2000?

I'm asking with a special question in mind. The idea is to describe the technical development of peer-review from the 1980s until the year 2010 with a focus on the work distribution among group of scientists. As far as I know, the idea behind peer review is that it can be done in parallel. But the scheduling must be coordinated, so my question is, if twenty years ago, this was done over e-mail, over postal letters or with the aforementioned Science Direct platform.

I can go back as far as 1995, when I started my master's thesis, but if you want to dig like an archaeologist, you should probably go back a bit more.

In fact, in 1995, when we submitted my first work to a conference, we already did it by email (we submitted a camera-ready abstract).

For journal papers, in those years, the peer-review system transitioned from using the ordinary mail to the electronic one, and at the time there was an intermediate solution (at least in my field): you would submit the papers by email and you would receive the reviewer's remarks by ordinary mail (if I recall correctly: you know, memory sometimes fail us dinosaurs!). The peer-review process was managed by the editors by email. Below, you can find a picture of a handwritten reviewer's form which I received, by ordinary mail, in 1998 during my PhD (sadly – at the time – a rejection!).

Manuscripts should have been typeset in a one-column double-spaced format, to allow the reviewers to write corrections between the lines. Note, in fact, point 13 from the form above which says: "I have marked the manuscript and am returning it with this review". Some journals still require this format (which I don't like) nowadays, even though no one sends back corrections in this way anymore.

A few years later (probably around 2000), the first websites for the electronic management of submissions started to appear. I recall that at the beginning these were very fragile systems, which frequently crashed near submission deadlines, when the number of connections increased dramatically.

I don't know what was like before those years, but I suspect that a mixture of phone and mail communications was common.

Notes

As an aside, it might be interesting to note that, at the time, we didn't have personal email addresses for all the group members: there was an email address for the PI and one email address for all the others (indeed, the common email address allowed the group members to know each other's private facts). It took a couple of years more to have a personal email address for each person at my university.
Before the advent of emails, if a researcher wanted to ask for a copy of a paper (while reviewing a paper or for any other reason), they would have sent a letter. Some institutes had preprinted postcards exactly for that purpose. Here is a picture of such a postcard that I found in the drawer of my desk, a relic from another era.


Should I wait for my professor to reply my request for recommendation letter? I am going to apply to graduate programs in the US, so I contacted my professor who advised my master's thesis. He is the most important referee because I did research with him, so I think he understands me well. Moreover, he is a well-known scientist in a very prestigious university in France (top 20 of the world in my field).

At the time, I left France to my home country, he told me that he would help me further my academic career. He actually gave me two recommendation letters afterwards for 2 PhD positions. Sadly, I failed both of them.

Ten days ago, I emailed him if he could give me recommendation letters. He didn't reply for one week, so I wrote a follow-up email. However, I haven't got any responses from him until now. I am so confused because the deadline is December 15th.

Does it mean that my professor has declined my request? Should I wait for him or ask other professors?

NEWS: I just got his acceptance. He was traveling this week so he didn't got my email. Thank you all for your advices.

Professors are really (really) busy. Most likely he simply did not have time yet to reply to your email. Or maybe he is at a conference and does not have access to the previous two letters on his office computer. He will probably reply to your message later.

To get his recommendation letter quickly the best thing you can do is make it as easy for him as possible. Because you already have two of his letters I suggest you write your own new recommendation letter based on these two, send it to him by email, and ask him to sign it. This is quite common, at least in the different labs in the UK and France where I have worked: many professors ask students to write their own letter, after which they may make a few changes and sign it. This saves them lots of time.

Also, make sure to let him know when your deadline is so he understands the urgency.


How to cite a company that gave the data and formulated a problem to be solved in a competition? So recently there was a data science competition and we learned and made a good algorithm which can be published as a case study. So how can I cite the Data source and the really good score metric that was also given by the company which organiszed the competition? Yes the data has been made public and free to use but the scoring metric that was given was in a document given during the competition has no public document is available for it. Yes the link for the competition also exist.
Thanks this is my first paper and im super confused.

You can include an Acknowledgements section in which you thank the company for the data and the contest as appropriate. You can include, there, a link to the data, etc.
It is probably unnecessary to even mention the scoring metric for purposes of citation. It is possible that the company wants it kept private if they haven't published it.


How to increase my collaboration "network" as a new faculty? I recently got a tenured (yes, permanent) faculty position in mathematics. During my PhD and postdoc, I collaborated with the same people on some projects, one big and one small, but most of my time was spent on my own, single-authored projects.

This clearly worked, however I now feel like I am missing out. I see all these people at conferences interacting, breaking ground on new knowledge together and having rewarding time working with other people. How do I get to that point?

Not to fall into stereotypes, but I am unfortunately a bit socially awkward, which does not help. I can go out and have fun with other young mathematicians, but walking up to someone and starting talking about a topic of collaboration seems to be out my reach. It never goes further than "I have a question", listening to the answer, and going back to talk with my friend-colleagues.

The best way to start I know of is to quietly pick some small problem somebody else is stuck with (requires no social skills whatsoever, just being reasonably open-minded, flexible, and being willing to listen more than to talk), solve it, and communicate the solution to that person. That will open him up immediately and more often than not a bigger collaborative project will ensue.

In general, keep in mind that most people are willing to talk about what interests them and are quite reluctant to think of what you are interested in, so learn to work on whatever comes your way rather than only on what you specialize in and let it be the other person who chooses the topic and the direction of the collaborative research. Just go with the flow and enjoy the ride. Note that every time you think of or collaborate on something you haven't tried before it is you, who benefits most by gaining new tools and ideas, and the entry cost is usually not very high: most of the time people are stuck on something that can be easily explained in "mathematical common" and requires just a fresh pair of eyes to figure out.

In summary, rotate the table: create the situation when other people will seek you to ask questions.


How to find new advisor after being let go I'm a PhD student in US. I've been tipped by my advisor that I would be let go if I do not get results by a deadline. I am working on my options:

Switch advisors: I have seen people switching advisors and finishing their program, but I'm not sure how that works. Why would someone take another faculty member's (seemingly red-flagged) student, who is in middle of the program? How to approach with a red flag like this?

Apply elsewhere: How can I apply for another PhD position without my (potentially masters) advisor's recommendation? I want to email faculty members at other universities (as a master student, which is the potential case), but if I state that I have research experience and have submitted abstracts, that would lead to wanting to know more from my advisor. How can I represent myself as a good prospective and raise minimum question?

The way to find a new advisor is to ask. Whether they say yes depends on many things, including the known behavior of your current advisor. Are they reasonable or not? Is it you or is it the advisor who is the problem here?
You should also look at why you are having difficulties. Is the problem you are working on just too hard. This can happen in mathematics, for example, and it may take years to get partial results. Or the problem may even be unsolvable at the current state of knowledge, or even unresolvable in theory. If your have an impossible problem then a new advisor with a new problem would possibly work.
When you apply make the best case that you can be a success and get the best letters available to you. Your current advisor might write a good letter or not, but that depends on circumstances. Are you being let go because you aren't up to it, or because the demands of the research program of the advisor demand faster results. That might be the case in some lab sciences.
But in the end, all you can do is ask and apply and make the best case you can. Stress successes you have had, not failures.
It may well be that working harder to meet the deadline is a possibility. That would probably be the shortest path to success if you can manage it.
But any other path will take time. Be prepared for that and examine and evaluate all of your options.


Is it ethical to use data you overheard in a conversation? I do research on particular elites of a particular society and rely heavily on interview data. In one fortuitous dinner, at the table behind me sat three people who are exactly the people I wanted to get access to.

Furthermore, they were discussing something that I am precisely investigating! I was attentive to their conversation (as they were, honestly, speaking very loudly) but by no means eavesdropping and their conversation - if viewed in the context of my work - can prove to be very valuable.

Can I use that data for my work? It does not seem ethical to me. But, if I do not use that data, I know I will be 'deliberately' weakening my research and not being true to what I do now know.

Thoughts? What would you do and what would you suggest I do?

Without understanding your research topic and methods, it is hard to say objectively if you can use the data. That said, the American Psychological Association (APA) classifies naturalistic observation as exempt from the informed consent process. This does not mean it does not require approval by an ethics board (i.e., an IRB). Naturalistic observation studies are valid in a wide range of fields including Medicine, Psychology, Zoology and Ethnography. That said, as with any research methods, it takes skills to conduct and interpret naturalistic observation studies properly and within the framework of their limitations. This seems like a nice starting point: http://peace.saumag.edu/faculty/kardas/Courses/RMPA/naturalisticobservation.html


Continuum from collaboration on homework to copying Some of the work I grade does not seem to be copied verbatim, but also seems close enough that one student or another is being a parrot and does not totally understood what they are saying. My students are working under a collaboration policy similar to the example on this page, which says "Peer collaboration is highly encouraged. It is a highly efficient and fun way to learn [statistics]. However, your homework must be entirely your own work and in your own words." If Alice and Bob discuss problem 3, shouldn't I expect Alice's words, mathematical notation, and problem-solving strategies to appear in Bob's writeup? Please advise me on how to reconcile "collaboration is great etc." with "homework must be entirely your own work."

I have browsed all the other questions tagged grading and a few besides; none seemed relevant.

That is why I have a rule that for each homework a group of students is selected "at random", and asked by the TA to explain what they turned in. The grade of the interrogation replaces the homework grade.

Rationale is that I really don't care (too much) if they copied from the Internet, got it in an obscure book somewhere, or worked it out in a group. I want them to understand, and this forces them to at least be somewhat familiar with the solution they hand in.


How to tell my adviser that I want to change our focus? I'm currently an undergraduate mathematics student in my final semester. I plan to start a master's program in mathematics at the same university with an adviser that I did research with last summer.

I meet regularly with the adviser. He has stated that his goal is to help me go to a great PhD program, and the best way he sees to do that is to pump out publications, presentations, etc.

However, it seems that we are pursuing publication opportunities at the expense of understanding. He is giving me projects to work on that are frankly above my head. I spend hours and hours trying to find a bug in code that I didn't write about a subject I haven't studied. The time I spend debugging could potentially be spent more productively learning the fundamentals of our field. My approach has always been to understand a topic from the ground up, but he wants me to be able to work with PhD level code because it's the best way to get a publication.

I know that publications are essential. I want to eventually publish something, but not before I have built my own essential knowledge foundation of our field. Learning the topics thoroughly is more important to me than making a publication, and it seems to me that if one strives to truly understand and advance their field, then publications will come much more easily.

I plan on communicating this to him as clearly as possible. I have also drawn up a one-page document detailing my goals for my final semester as an undergraduate, my vision for my master's degree, and what I am looking for in the advisee-adviser relationship. I plan on delivering this document to him and using it as a guide for our discussion. Yes, I am willing to compromise on some points.

Of course, I understand that I can't just have everything my way. But I haven't started grad school yet, and now is the best time to cement the type of experience that I will have. As far as I can see, the cards are in my hands. If my adviser is adamantly against my approach, he can drop me, and I will go to grad school somewhere else.

Well, I wish I had a better question to sum all this up. What are your thoughts?

Edit: I am studying applied mathematics, computation, high performance computing in the United States.

I'm a PhD student in pure mathematics, so I haven't been in your exact position, but perhaps something close to it.  Nonetheless, allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment.  (Feel free to take all of this with a grain of salt.)

  My approach has always been to understand a topic from the ground up...

I think this is a great attitude.  Being able to go from the foundations to the frontiers of research demonstrates a deep understanding of a subject.  However, I think this approach is also wildly impractical as a young researcher.  Ravi Vakil has written about a different strategy for learning, speaking of "tendrils of knowledge":

'Here's a phenomenon I was surprised to find: you'll go to talks, and hear various words, whose definitions you're not so sure about. At some point you'll be able to make a sentence using those words; you won't know what the words mean, but you'll know the sentence is correct. You'll also be able to ask a question using those words. You still won't know what the words mean, but you'll know the question is interesting, and you'll want to know the answer. Then later on, you'll learn what the words mean more precisely, and your sense of how they fit together will make that learning much easier. The reason for this phenomenon is that mathematics is so rich and infinite that it is impossible to learn it systematically, and if you wait to master one topic before moving on to the next, you'll never get anywhere. Instead, you'll have tendrils of knowledge extending far from your comfort zone. Then you can later backfill from these tendrils, and extend your comfort zone; this is much easier to do than learning "forwards".' (Emphasis mine.)

(You can find a similar message in cartoon form here.  Make sure to keep clicking on the images.)

Of course, there is a balance: if you really do not understand the basics of a subject, trying to dive into a research question will be fruitless.

  I know that publications are essential. I want to eventually publish something, but not before I have built my own essential knowledge foundation of our field. Learning the topics thoroughly is more important to me than making a publication, and it seems to me that if one strives to truly understand and advance their field, then publications will come much more easily.

Again, wanting to learn for learning's sake is admirable.  But remember this: You could spend your whole life (and probably more!) studying things that are already known without ever producing anything new.

All right, resigning my post as Lucifer's lawyer, I absolutely think you need to communicate your unhappiness with your advisor.  Just make sure that you aren't overly confrontational.  I think outlining your goals for your last semester and masters program is a great idea, but I'm not sure including a bullet-pointed "what I am looking for in the advisee-adviser relationship" is such a good idea.  Other than that, I am glad to hear that you're open to compromise.

Some advice/questions:

1) Have you ever previously mentioned to your advisor your discontent with your lack of background?  If you haven't said anything yet, for all they know, you're perfectly happy with everything, and this may blindside them a bit.

2) Ask your advisor if you can do a reading course on a topic related to your research.  This way, you will have time to ask questions about the more theoretical aspects of the subject while still moving forward on your research.

3) Does your professor have a research group, or other students working on similar topics?  If so, try turning to them for help when you have questions about fundamentals.  Your peers are sometimes your best resource, and discussing things with your colleagues is sometimes the most effective way to learn something.

4) At my university, students have both a primary and secondary advisor.  I think it's a great system: the secondary can provide another perspective, and can also mediate any potential advisor-advisee conflicts.  Does your university have anything similar?

5) If you're sick and tired of debugging others' code, why not write your own?  My own research is often very computational, and I honestly don't think I really understand an algorithm until I can implement it myself.  That said, there is value in accepting some "black boxes."


As an undergraduate student, should I put my temporary address and manuscript on my CV? I'm an undergrad applying to REUs. I've done an REU before and taken independent research classes, but I'm afraid that will only look bad since I don't have any publications in spite of my research experience. I have a manuscript we're planning to submit. I know you're generally not supposed to indicate manuscripts on your CV if they haven't even been submitted, but does that look as iffy for undergrads as it does for a grad student/beyond?

Most of the CV templates I've seen online for students include their addresses. Is that just for the purposes of receiving physical mail? I don't really have an address when school isn't in session, but one of my research advisors lets me use her address for mail. Would that be fine or do they need to know where I live for some reason?

For an undergrad, it is fine to list papers that are not yet submitted.  List them as "in preparation".  Also, if the REU requires letters of recommendation, ask your letter writers to comment on the status and quality of the project.

Yes, the address is just in case someone needs to send you physical mail.  Any place where mail will reach you is fine.  These days I'd say you could just leave it off, since it's unlikely anyone would actually need to do that.  If the program is limited based on place of residency, there would be a specific question on the application for that.


Conference management software (preferably open source) with custom fields I've been told to set up software to organize a workshop. Is there (preferably an open source) conference solution that allows for:

Abstract Submission
Event Planning
Arbitrary user data-fields

Apparently managing "dietary requirements" is a really big deal for the organizers.

According to the developer, the non-free version of easychair can support something like this:

  We have a similar functionality in the registration module (non-free).
  All your requirements are related to conference registration, not to
  paper submission.

However, the "registration module" is very difficult to find.


Pursuing a Masters, trying to figure out the potential effects of my undergraduate transcript on PhD admissions Long story short, my transcript is quite the spectacle: I started off getting really good grades, but due to a lot of personal issues ended up graduating with a respectable, but lackluster GPA.  Unfortunately, I have a downward trend.  While my final GPA is slightly below 3.5, I have failed quite a few courses.  I'm getting a MSE in computer science, coming from an applied math background.  My undergraduate computer science GPA is really high, but my GPA in everything else is pretty low.  I'm confident that I will do exceptionally well in the CS MSE, but I have a few questions:

Are undergraduate courses unrelated to one's discipline factored into the PhD admissions decision making process?
Despite doing poorly in some math classes in my undergrad, will taking graduate level math courses and doing well in them essentially negate the fact that I did poorly in some classes as an undergraduate (did well in most of them)?

For reference:
I'm currently conducting research and should have good to outstanding recommendations.

I understand that for PhD programs, a common order of applicant evaluation is:

Recommendations
Research
Transcript

and that I have valid reasons for my poor performance, nonetheless, I'm scared that they're going to look at my undergraduate transcript and just get scared off.  Any insight or advice would be greatly appreciated.

You're right to be concerned. Some places will be scared off—or more accurately, won't even see your application—because of your undergraduate record. But some won't. Some will see your strong record in computer science, in graduate classes, and in research, at the expense of other classes as a sign of passion/focus/geekery (which is a strong advantage in research) combined with immaturity (which most people grow out of).

PhD admission is a random process, a numbers game.  You have a high-variance record, so to be reasonably confident of admission, you should apply to a wider spectrum of places than someone with a more consistent record with the same average.

I strongly recommend discussing your concerns directly with your letter writers.  They have to make the case that the admissions committee should ignore the black marks in your record and focus on your considerable strengths—good performance in graduate classes, excellence in your chosen field, strong research ability, and so on.  (You can't really make that case yourself.) Your references may also be willing to contact colleagues directly, to convince them to pull strings on your behalf.

Also: PUBLISH!

Best of luck!


Should I get a letter of recommendation from my mother, who is a famous researcher in my field? My mother is a quite famous researcher (she has a PhD) on the field I want to do a PhD in. She works on the industry (not academia). I helped her on successful projects. She knows more about my work than my professors since we have worked much longer together.

Is it a good idea to ask for a recommendation letter from her? Since our personalities are very similar she can point out the high probability that I will be successful like her?

I would say no, this is a very very bad idea. Your mother going on about how likely you are to succeed will probably not carry much weight. What else would your mother say? If you were unlikely to be successful, would she say that? (even if she would, the perception of the people reading the letter will be that she would not)


In a conference, when will the decision of best paper (or other award) be made? I am just curious, do they make the decision before the conference?

Or do they watch the presentation of potential candidates first and then make the decision?

It depends.

Some conferences, such as ACM CHI, announce them before the conference even starts. This has the advantage/disadvantage of letting people know which talks they should see. And in my experience, these sessions are packed!

Other conferences announce them at the end of the conference. This has the advantage of keeping everyone at the conference until the very end (people might try to leave after their own presentation...) so they don't miss their own award!


Can I lie about my GRE score to get a better letter of recommendation? I have a situation. I have got GRE score of 324. My academics are pretty strong as well (5.1/6.0). I am applying for MS to US universities. In the process of gaining letters of recommendations, I do not have too many options. One of the professor at our department has pre-written letters, because he is busy most of the times. He makes rudimentary changes to it to make it suitable for each candidate, but the gist remains the same. From the experience of past students, he asks the GRE score and he somehow thinks that it is the only "good" metric of evaluation. So he has some 3-4 versions of these letters and based on a GRE score he selects a theme. I also came to know that if student is under 320, letter is excellent, that is, it is more balanced. And over 320, there is more of a high pitching.

I am not targeting many 1st class universities. I am more selective and I really do not want this bluffing. Obviously, I cannot reveal to him that I know his procedure of writing the letters and I need one for below 320. My question is, may I lie about my GRE score to him? When he gets emails from universities, can he see my GRE score? I definitely do not want him to know that I lied, at any point in time, even after admission. Are there any other options?

I am tempted to say: "Never ever lie on an issue like that." Actually, I say: Never ever lie on an issue like that. First of all, it's wrong, plain and simple. Second, from a more practical point of view, you never know how it's going to bite you back.

It can taint you forever, even if here you are downplaying your achievement. It will be difficult for people to believe that you actually did that, and they will start believing that you are untruthful in other aspects, too. Frankly, it will raise more than a few question marks if it should come out.

You'll have to live with the exaggerating letters, or else to find someone else to write you a sensible one.


Is it bad practice to cite MSc dissertations? While searching for references on a certain class of problems I came across a well-written master's dissertation. It did not contain much in terms of new results, but  it did a good job of explaining what happens in the important papers in the field (or so I believe). This was helpful - my interest in that class of problems is that it's adjecent to the problem I'm writting about, so it's important for me for context and historical reasons, but it's not a subject I want to research in much depth; having read the dissertation and a introductions to some of the relevant papers, I feel I know as much as I need to know. I should also mention that some of the relevant papers are in French, so I was very grateful that someone explained in English what their gist is. I also feel that what I read in the published papers is enough to reasonably write all that I need to write in the introduction, but having looked through the dissertaition certainly helped me orient myself.

Now, my dillema is: Should I cite the dissertation? It is not generally seen as a requirement to cite expository materials on a subject, so I don't think I have to. But I also feel that it would perhaps be nice to cite it: it acknowledges that I benefited from reading it, and it helps potential readers who might become interested in the subject. If it was a published survey article, I would definitely cite it. On the other hand, this is a piece of writting that didn't go through the usual peer review process, and that was almost by definiton written by a rather inexperienced mathematician. I'm worried including the citation could annoy some readers, and possibly the dissertaion's authour.

What is the best course of action in a case like this?

Cite it. It's a source you used, so you need to cite.

In addition, good explanations are also good for readers who are looking for an introduction.

  didn't go through the usual peer review process

Where I am, a Master thesis is reviewed (+ graded) by two professors, and that can include a list of required corrections/clarification for the final version. A paper is possibly reviewed by 2 PhD students who have barely published their first paper...

  was almost by definiton written by a rather inexperienced mathematician

so is everyones first paper. Including possibly reviews: I know PhD students who were put to the task of writing a review paper right with their literature study to familiarize them with their thesis subject.

There are things in my Diplom thesis that I wouldn't write or do like that any more (now, 15 years later: science and my personal knowledge have advanced, after all - which is as it should be), though the downright mistakes I've found are mostly typos or otherwise the correct expression is clear. So it's rather that I have different expressions/sentences/wording now that I think are more clear/better or explain things I could only observe back then.
But then, the same is true for some of my (peer-reviewed) papers.


Should I decline authorship over the quality of a paper? I've been collaborating on a project with a researcher in another field (I am being vague on purpose here in case they read this), which so far has pretty much gone nowhere.  I've done a few preliminary calculations, though, and they want to publish them - I suspect they are under pressure to up their publication count.

I don't think that what we've done so far is worth publishing; there is nothing actually wrong, but I don't think there is anything new or interesting.  I could imagine developing this into something useful, but it is not a high priority for me, and this collaboration does not seem to be working out, so I don't think pushing to hold off on publication would do more than draw things out.

The possible paper is in a field which I haven't worked in previously, but which I could see myself coming back to in the future (it is interesting to me, it is related to my main field, and I've picked up a fair amount about it by osmosis).  I'm worried that if I approach other people in that field in the future (and I would need collaborators to get started effectively) the one thing of mine that they will see will be this paper, which will reflect poorly on me (in a way I would like to think is not accurate).

Should I decline authorship of this paper?

So long as there's nothing wrong with the quality of the work, I'd let the person in the field make the decision about it's worthiness for publication.  Often, what's humdrum in one field is new and exciting in another.  I've seen people making livings moving routine info from one area to another.

When seeking collaborators in the future, my opinion is that having published a solid, if not exciting, piece of work in the field will be more advantageous than having published nothing.


Conference submission along with submitting to arXiv I am about to submit an article to an international conference (http://www.mldm.de/). I am thinking also to submit to arXiv as well. Is there any problem with this?

The way journals handle arXiv submissions depends entirely on the journal. Generally, it should be allowed since arXiv is a well established service. The only way to know for sure is to read the FAQ/Terms and Conditions or ask the publisher/editor.


Masters in mathematics after bachelors in mechanical engineering I am in a bit of dilemma regarding my career aspirations.
I am a mechanical engineering graduate from one of the top 5 IITs in India.
I have a average CGPA of 8.87/10 (top 20 in my class).
I have taken close to six mathematical courses like: Maths1(grade A), Maths2(grade B), Transform Calculus(Excellent grade), Partial Differential Equations( Excellent grade), Probability and statistics( grade A), Control systems( Excellent grade).
Currently I am working as a quantitative analyst for credit risk team at an investment bank, the job here has drawn me closer to the field of mathematics and statistics and through a lot of self-study, I have decided to pursue a masters course in statistics/applied mathematics and possibly use that masters degree for phd applications later.
I am in my mid-twenties currently.
I have self studied the entire statistical Inference book from Casella and Berger to supplement my knowledge/fill in the gaps.
However the problem lies in the application part for the masters program as they require an undergraduate degree from mathematics and letters of recommendation, while I can arrange for letters of recommendation from my manager here at workplace and a few professors whom I did my bachelors project with/took their courses, however I am not sure how relevant they will be.
I understand that because I don’t have a undergraduate in mathematics, even if I get admissions, they won’t be into any top coveted programs but I am willing to put in the extra effort/fill up the gaps using my experience in that college for graduate school admissions later on.
Does this sound like a plausible plan or am I working for a lost cause?
Do I stand a chance with my profile for admissions into decent masters courses in mathematics in US?
Can attending a decent mathematics masters program work as a stepping stone into some good graduate programs?
Any insights would be helpful.
Thanks in advance.

I think your plans for your future are quite reasonable, but my thoughts count for very little. Many engineers have a mathematical bent of mind and I believe many mathematics departments (especially in applied fields like statistics) will recognize that. An example of an engineer who became a mathematician is: Raoul Bott. In all probability, you are not going to be Raoul Bott (prove me wrong), but I think it's worth pursuing the career goals you want. Your job, is to make a convincing case for yourself and to find the right department for you. You can do this by talking with people who have achieved what you are trying to achieve, getting their feedback on their department and your application (especially statement of purpose).


Will I be penalized if i give someone who hasn't taken a test my test so he could study for his? I took this Mathematics class and this student asked me if I could ask the teacher to send my test so I could send to him so he can study for the test. It's not that I don't want to be a good person but thinking about doing it is eating me and  I feel if I do it so many things can go wrong for and ruin my future. What should I do?

You’re under no obligation to provide your friend with a copy of the test, particularly if it makes you feel uncomfortable. Just politely decline, and if pressed further, say that you don’t think it’s appropriate to ask the instructor to share the materials that way.

As for the possibility of a penalty, I would not share “active” materials like quizzes or exams that other classmates still have to take, because that could be viewed as an academic code violation. Sharing something that everyone has completed and received grades on may or may not be penalized, based on an instructor’s or program’s explicit rules.


I want to do research but I'm too old for a PHD I really love research. I started a research project in graduate school for my M.A. in English. My research topic is a very viable and interesting topic for a dissertation. I'll be 60 on my next birthday and I know that many Ph.D programs are traditionally geared toward younger students.I was wondering are there any programs that I can continue this research in without facing the issues of ageism in academia?

My father got his Ph.D. (from a highly respected department at a major university) in his late fifties. I brought my regalia to his graduation. There were also two grad students in their fifties in the same program I was in. One was puttering along at his own pace and on his own funds, but the other had a funded position and was working under the same time pressure as the rest of us.

Some departments may effectively limit funded positions to younger applicants, but there is no magic number after which people won't accept you.

If that is what you want to do, then do it.


What additional revisions can I make in a journal paper after review, beyond those suggested by reviewers? Suppose that I have submitted a paper to a journal, and I have a list of suggested changes from the referee.

Then, let's say I put the article in the appropriate format and make the suggested changes, but I still want to make some additional changes.

Perhaps I want to be a little more exact with my wording in certain places, or I need to condense/expand some sections, so that my figures are not forced into awkward positions.

Is this acceptable?

Short answer: ask the journal editor.

Longer answer.
I've had two different types of experiences that are contradictory. I've had what I took to be the "standard experience" where one should not make edits to the copy after submission unless specifically advised to do so. In this case, don't make edits other than those that meet the questions of the reviewers. The rationale is that you don't want to introduce new problems during the editing process.

My sense is that in this sort of case copyediting is usually done by devoted staff at the journal or publisher. Often there are ominous warnings no to go around editing things.

Alternately, I've had a couple of submissions (outside of my field of philosophy) where the editor had both told me the paper was accepted and then made me substantially rewrite the paper, commenting at one point that I should get someone to read the paper and critique it -- which I thought was kind of odd and non-standard since if the paper needs that much revision, you shouldn't say you've accepted it for publication but rather that it needs to be revised and resubmitted...

In this case, copyediting is done by the original author together with the editor in a back and forth manner.

Anyway all of that text to say, these practices are less standardized than you might think and you need to know that journal's practices.


How do I find the most cited authors given one or more MESH terms? I would like to be able to give some academic database (like pubmed) a list of MESH terms (MESH: Medical Subject Headings created by the National Library of Medicine), then select papers by authors who have received the most citations. Either in total (all work) or within the scope of the papers I pulled up using the given MESH terms.

Is this possible?

You could use Europe PMC database to search for publications by keyword of choice using (KW:"XXX") syntax. Then sort the results by times cited and look at the authors of the top publications.
Here is an example for most cited articles by keyword "myalgia": https://europepmc.org/search?query=%28KW:%22myalgia%22%29&page=1&sortby=Times%2BCited%2BDESC. In this case, keyword includes MESH terms and keywords supplied by publishers.

If you wanted to do that programmatically, for example to collate citation numbers for individual authors, you could do that via the Articles API. Here is the RESTful URL for the same query: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/search?query=KW:myalgia%20sort_cited:y.

Disclaimer: I work for Europe PMC.


How to cite spreadsheets or other documents for in-line citations? I've googled around and haven't found any information. I'm using data from a table in a spreadsheet, accessed from a website (The Statistics Bureau of Japan) and I don't know how I should cite it using Harvard style. At the moment, I've come up with this mess:

  Statistics Bureau of Japan, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (2015) Population by Age (5-Year Group and 3 Groups) and Sex (as of October 1 of Each Year) -Total population (from 1920 to 2000) [Microsoft Excel spreadsheet]. Tokyo: Statistics Bureau of Japan, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. Available from: http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/ListE.do?bid=000000090004&cycode=0 [accessed 27 November 2015]

Or to break this down:

  Organisation name (year of publication) Title of spreadsheet [Microsoft Excel spreadsheet]. Place of publication: publisher. Available from: URL [date accessed]

But then, I'm not sure how to cite it in-line. How should I reference it? By the lengthy spreadsheet title? By the equally lengthy "Statistics Bureau of Japan, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications"?

I'm not sure how strict are Harvard Publication Style guidelines, but I would use the following approach. Since the name of the organization in question is used twice in the reference, I would use the second mention to introduce its abbreviation and then use that abbreviation as the author keyword. This approach still retains the accuracy of the information, but, at the same time, solves the problem (inconvenience) of having to cite in-text a rather long phrase. Using your example:

[Reference]

  SBJ/MIAC (2015) Population by Age (5-Year Group and 3 Groups) and Sex
  (as of October 1 of Each Year) - Total population (from 1920 to 2000)
  [Microsoft Excel spreadsheet]. Tokyo: Statistics Bureau of Japan,
  Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (SBJ/MIAC). Available
  from:
  http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/ListE.do?bid=000000090004&cycode=0
  [Accessed: 27 November 2015]

[In-text citation]

  The above-mentioned trend is illustrated by the data, recently
  reported by Japan's national statistics agency (SBJ/MIAC,
  2015)...

Note: Relevant webpages and documents I've used for this answer: this document and this page (the ABS example there is IMHO incorrect - ABS is not defined, so I have fixed it in my answer).


Is an actual recommendation letter (vs. the name of a reference) standard at the UK Lecturer or US Assistant Professor level? I'm currently 2/3 of the way through my first postdoc, and starting to look around at, and apply for, my next job.  I've noticed that some places require three letters of recommendation, whereas other places simply require two or three references -- i.e. they will call or email the referee if they view that as appropriate or necessary.

Writing an actual recommendation letter -- which typically has to be uploaded by the recommender -- is much more of an "ask".

Is an actual recommendation letter standard at the UK Lecturer or US Assistant Professor level?  The pattern I seem to be seeing is that more prestigious places are more likely to require an actual letter; would others confirm that?

Having made more that 50 applications for Lecturer posts in the UK, I can share some of my statistics.

Only 3 Universities of 50 asked for LoRs to be communicated through the applicant.
The majority, 47 of 50, asked for a list of references, and contact them asking for LoRs only if a candidate is shortlisted.

In the U.S. the customs may differ.


Why are PhDs the most common doctoral degree? I have heard many people say they have a PhD in a certain area.  For nearly all of my life,  I thought a PhD was simply a doctorate,  and I didn't know that it had anything to do with philosophy.

There are many doctoral degrees, why are PhD's the most popular doctoral degrees by a long shot?

This answer suffered a Major Revision!

A Ph.D. is an academic doctoral degree and have nothing to do with philosophy nowadays.

From Wikipedia:

  In the context of the Doctor of Philosophy and other similarly titled degrees, the term "philosophy" does not refer to the field or academic discipline of philosophy, but is used in a broader sense in accordance with its original Greek meaning, which is "love of wisdom".

People often refers to an academic doctorate as a Ph.D., even when the official title in their university/country is different of Doctor of Philosophy. The reason beyond its popularity is because a Ph.D. is a title traditionally conceded in countries with anglo-saxonic language and since the common language in the academia is English we often "translate" our titles to the equivalent in English.

I have recently learned with @Pete L. Clark that there are different types of doctorates in the US that give the same legal statute as an academic doctorate, but with different structure and requisites from a doctorate in Science. The example that he used was the Doctor of Arts (D.A.), a title that gives equivalent rights as a Ph.D. in which concerns teaching and research in universities.

My previous misunderstanding was due to the structure of high level education that I am used to in Portugal and Brazil. In both countries Therapists, Physicians, Lawyers and others do not have a doctoral degree. In Portugal a physician have Master's degree in Health Science or a 6 years pre-bologna licenciatura degree (undergraduate degree). If a physician/lawyer/therapists wants to have a doctoral degree here they need to engage in a minimum 3 years doctoral course, publish articles and defend an original thesis.

For a historical insight and more complete overview, please read this article and this article.

I'm sorry for the previous wrong answer. I think the question is too wide and depends highly on which country we are talking about. I assumed things about the doctoral degrees on the US that are not true.

Edit: Of course that there are many different ways to refer to an academic doctorate depending on the country the title is emitted. The point is: they are all equivalent. A German Doktorgrad is equivalent to a Ph.D. in the UK and to a Doutoramento/Doutorado in Portugal/Brazil, etc. In the other way researchers would not be able to work across the borders.


Non-binary, more modern alternative to "Dear Sir/Madam" I'm emailing a graduate STEM admissions department in the UK, and don't know the modern preferred way to begin the email.
Many authors suggest "Dear Sir/Madam," but of course this implies a problematic gender binary. A common, gender-neutral option, "To whom it may concern" is often criticized as too formal or impersonal.
There is enough advice on this topic to suggest that the recipient will (for reasons that are beyond me) actually care about whether an inherently impersonal email has an opening line at all.
What's a modern, etiquette-conscious applicant to do?
(Feel free to answer for other countries besides the UK too.)

I would suggest something along the lines of:

  Dear Admissions Committee,

or

  Dear Department of (STEM),

etc. You can usually find what a particular department/program/etc is called from their website. Avoid addressing the "Department of Chemical Engineering" as the "Engineering Department"; it would be most polite to use their own phrasing because it shows you've paid some attention and aren't sending out a copy-pasted letter to everyone.

For another example, I just randomly looked at a particular department, the "Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology" at the University of Cambridge; for their "MBE"  program they have a "contact" page that says to "please send an email to the MBE Office": in that case I'd simply address the email:

  Dear MBE Office,

For any of the above, you can also omit the "Dear".

In a comment, @DanRomik suggests modifying the salutations to refer to particular groups of people (like "committee" does) rather than abstract departments: examples include: “Dear MBE program administrators”, “Dear MBE office team”. I think that's perfectly fine, too, if you find that more logical.


Status meaning: report on revised version promised by referee Status of my submitted paper has changed to:

28 November: Sent to referee 1
28 November: Sent to referee 2
28 November: Sent to referee 3
29 November: Report expected from referee 2
29 November: Report on revised version promised by referee 2

What's the meaning of last status? Considering that  I haven't submitted a revised version yet!

Flippant: It means Referee 2 has promised a report on the revised version.

I'd normally say that this probably means that Referee 2's review is overdue, they have been contacted by the editorial office, and they've said it's coming. However, given the short time frame, unless you have submitted to a journal with an extraordinarily fast turnaround, this isn't likely the case.

With your added information, and that only one referee has appeared in the status, that likely means they have accepted the review. The updated status may mean that the referee has given the journal a head's up that the report is coming, but that it's delayed in some way that they know in advance (hence the "promised") and the editor selected the wrong status. It may also mean that something went wrong in the initial dispatch of your manuscript and they had to fix something (hence "revised) - I have, for example, had a supplemental file go missing in a packet sent to me.

But all of this is idle speculation - no one here can really know what it means.

My advice? It's been one day since your paper was sent for review. Stop checking on its status.


postdoc position does not require letter of recommendation only contact details of referees. Should I still provide the letters? I'm applying for a postdoc position at ETH Zurich.
For the application, the following requirements are listed:

Letter of motivation
CV and list of publications
Electronic copies of university transcripts and certificates
Contact details of two referees

They do not list letters of recommendation in their requirements.

This leads me to the following question:
Would it be better to provide letters of recommendation, even though they are not required?

Additional information:

I know the professor and he knows me.
In fact, it would be possible to get four letters of recommendation from leading scientists.
I know that the professor knows and respects these scientists very much.
I'm sure that most of the other applicants would not have this strong support behind them. This would be a chance to separate me from those. However, I'm unsure if it is not counterproductive since they explicitly stated that they only need the contact information of two referees.

You do not need to provide any letters of reference.

If you do they may well be ignored as they ask for the contact details of 2 referees. This means that they will contact those referees directly and get the information required in their own format as they wish.


What to do on finding a major flaw in a conference paper? Most new findings in Computer Science are now published in conferences. While journals have some policy on reporting of errors in the papers that they have published, I have not seen any conferences having anything related to problems. I have found a major flaw in a paper published in a top conference. So what should I do in this situation?

First contact the authors of the paper, and discuss the issue with them.
When the flaw is small and does not affect their results too much, they might simply put an erratum on their website. When they are unwilling to do so, let it rest (it is a small flaw).
When the error is significant, you might co-publish together with the original authors a new conference article that addresses this (it might even be called 'Erratum on paper XYZ')


Is it unethical to send unofficial feedback to authors of a paper which I declined to review due to conflict of interest? I was asked to review a paper which was submitted to a conference. The author of the paper was one of my former professors* and of course I declined to review the submission due to conflict interest.

I was wondering however, would it be unethical to write an email to my professor give him a feedback on the paper and perhaps, provide him some kind of unofficial review?

Of course it would not change the fate of the paper but if the paper gets accepted, they can use my pseudo-review when doing their final editing. I was not sure if this is ethical and/or according to the etiquette of academia.

Edit: Perhaps I should clarify what do I mean by feedback. What I had in my mind wasn't a complete review but rather some suggestions. Something in the lines of:

  Very interesting stuff bla bla... however, I think it would be better
  if you had written sec. IV in this fashion and you add data-field foo
  to figure bar.

*I have a good relationship with professor but we never had any projects or publications together.

There might be an ethical problem with telling the professor that you were asked to review his paper, but I think it's a minor issue: the anonymity of the reviewers is mostly there to allow them to give their opinion freely. If you are eventually not reviewing the paper then I don't think you are required to preserve that anonymity (even if you do review the paper, it's not totally clear that you must stay quiet about it).

And if the paper is available online on some archive or on the authors' web pages, then it is definitely ok to give the authors your opinion based on the online version if there is a plausible way in which you could know about the paper had you not been asked about it.

I feel that you main concern is that the fact that the paper was sent to you in error would give the authors an unfair advantage by giving them the opportunity to hear your opinion about it. Well, it is unfair, as are many things in life, but not un-ethical. Ethics is there to keep science working well and making progress, and by letting the authors know your opinion you are doing exactly that. Fairness is only relevant when there is competition for competition's sake, and science should not be that.


Finding good statistics for computer science matriculation (drop-out) rate To satisfy my professional curiosity, I'm trying to find a reliable statistic as to the number of students that declare their major as computer science and graduate with a degree in 6 years.

I was wondering if any organization compiled data on a per-major basis.  I'd like the info partly to satisfy my own curiosity, and possibly use to motivate students (i.e. you made it through a tough class).

The National Center for Education Statistics in the United States surveys cohorts of first-time, beginning students at the end of their first year in post-secondary education, and then three and six years after first starting.

Per their official report, 59% of beginning bachelor's degree students in computer and information science in 2003-04 had either left post-secondary education without a degree (31%), or switched to a non-STEM field (28%) by 2009.

However, this number doesn't identify those who switch from computer science to a different STEM field as drop-outs. It also doesn't differentiate between

students who persisted in computer science and earned a bachelor's degree by 2009,
students who persisted in computer science but were still enrolled in 2009, or
students who persisted in computer science but earned an associate's degree or certificate by 2009.

Fortunately, the NCES also allows you to create custom tables from this dataset using the PowerStats tool on their website. (You have to create an account to use the tool.) This is a valuable tool if you're interested in exploring these statistics further.

Using PowerStats, I found out that among those who enrolled in a bachelor's degree program with a computer/information science major in 2003-04:

51.3% had earned a bachelor's degree by 2009
Of these students that earned a bachelor's degree by 2009, 67.6% said that their major when last enrolled was computer/information science.

So, 34.7% of beginning bachelor's degree students in computer and information science in 2003-04 earned a bachelor's degree in computer and information science by 2009 and 65.3% did not.

Here's part of the data table I generated for this answer:


What does define the quality of the master thesis? I have been doing projects nearly 1 year with my future supervisor. I think he knows me enough. We were talking about many topics for thesis. Among all the topics, he is in favor of one topic which is pure science ie. development of new material. There will be lots of repetition and testing. On the other hand, I am a mechanical engineer and wanted to do some mixture work of science and design task, we ofcourse have an idea about it.

After my masters I would like to do phd, and I have low/mediocre GPA Low GPA. So I think that my thesis should be very good to compansate it. My supervisor admitted that the topic he is in favor of would be hard, lots of pain and hardwork and has high rate of failure, on the other if I somehow find something or improve a little bit, it would has very huge impact. He added that failing with new devopled materials would be again success, since in future they will skip what is failed.

Other topics that I am in favor of are more on design and less science focused, ie. using new developed material(I will make it but there will be only one material) in newly designed systems, our aim is to make an end product with low weight and low cost, ie. increasing the fuel cell performance in the ragone plot.

My question for researchers and committee, can you define a good master thesis? What do you look for?

Any such definition is necessarily broad and somewhat vague. Here's my attempt at offering a categorisation:

An instance of an outstanding master's thesis is one that significantly advances state-of-the-art research, such results are rare.
An instance of an excellent master's thesis is one that contributes to state-of-the-art research, such results are infrequent.
An instance of a good master's thesis is one that satisfies the institution's criterion for the highest grade, such results are common amongst PhD students.

(This categorisation is highly subjective.)


How much time of unemployment after PhD in order to still be competitive in postdoc application So I uploaded my PhD thesis about a month ago. I am trying to switch academic fields at the moment, and I applied to about 20 postdocs. However I am considering the possibility I may not get in for this application cycle, which would mean roughly another year. I was wondering how long can you be unemployed without your CV becoming uncompetitive. I am just balancing whether after this cycle I should give up and go to industry or whether I should keep grinding.

I am applying to earth sciences actually. My original affiliation is physics.

As I'm from Europe, Horizon 2020, ERC grants and other recognize starting grants as for individuals up to 3 years after PhD to be eligible for postdoc. After that the postdoc experience in academia or industry is already expected.

For me it took personally 8 months to find appropriate job after I submitted PhD thesis - different field (computational biology). I submitted 25 CV, did 4-5 interviews and did also homework to explore different opportunities and laboratories. I had some small money to travel to conferences other sites and I had support from my previous supervisor. Thus I spoke with some heads of labs personally too.


when sharing source code to more than one party, should I notify them that others also were interested A few weeks after my work was published in a conference, I received an email from a research group from another university asking me to provide my source code. The email was very polite and explained the reasons for the request, i.e. the direction of their research. There was really no reason to deny them. However, yesterday (ca. 6 weeks after the first request), I received a similar request from another group asking for the same code to conduct research in the same field as the first group. (To clarify, I'm in CS, but both groups work in statistics) I see no reason to deny them either.

But should I explicitly state that the code was already asked for and provided to another research group? If so, should I also notify the first group?

I found myself in uncharted territory since I haven't expected anyone to be interested in that code, let alone to receive two requests. Also, this situation has potential to escalate into misunderstanding(s), if information is withheld or provided, but misinterpreted.

PS: I haven't talked yet to my adviser, as he is on vacation and I really don't intend to bother him with this matter.

One possible course of action could be to make the code publicly available on your website, or some public repository system, e.g. github. That gives you no control over the distribution, but provides other important things like public appreciation and (in case of github) widely recognised timestamp.

Since this is your code, you have the right to promote yourself by mentioning that it is widely used. However, it may be not a good idea to share the information about someone else's current research interests, without asking them first. Some areas can be very competitive, and it is better to be safe than sorry. You could ask your "users" if they agree to be mentioned as such.


As a student, how can I negotiate comfortable and appropriate sleeping arrangements with a stranger for a conference? I'm an undergraduate student that was offered a role researching for a grant. I was able to get authorship status on a paper and will be attending a conference for it later this year. The professor I am working for connected me with another student at a different university in order to share a hotel room. We will both be staying for the entire week and are responsible for booking our own reservations. Unfortunately, the centre the conference is located at is booked, with only a single-bed room available that we would be required to vacate on Wednesday then move back in.

This student was fine with booking the room and asked me if I was okay with it, but after I realized that it is a very small, dorm-like room with a small bed and no futon I counter-offered a reasonably-priced room at another hotel a half-mile away with two beds that we would not need to move out of midweek. I thought this would be well-received, however the student pushed back saying that the other room had a better price (of course, as it was intended for one person or a couple) and we would have better involvement with the conference (doubtful, as long as we show up on time).

Besides already being an incredibly poor sleeper, I'm otherwise just uncomfortable sharing a small bed with another student I don't know, and the room is small enough that I can't confidently say a hotel cot would fit. However, I also don't feel comfortable making this a bigger conflict than necessary, and I don't want to upset my professor by costing our grant more money than necessary by booking my own room at twice the cost. On the other hand, I do feel I have the right to request sleeping accommodations that I am comfortable with. How can I handle this appropriately without offending anyone?

You don't mention what country you're in and perhaps it might matter, that what's acceptable in one country might not be in another.  Here in the US, it's not uncommon to be asked to share a room at a conference or in other professional situations with another attendee of the same sex.  But it would never be considered appropriate to ask anyone to share a bed.  Never.  Period.  It would only happen if a supervisor, e.g., your department chair was unaware it was happening.

So, if you're here in the US, I would be firm.  Send an email to your professor, pointing out that sharing a room is okay, but sharing a bed is not and insist on your solution, the room with two beds at the other hotel.  I would not feel guilty even for one second about the extra cost.  You're entitled to your own bed.  If your professor insists you share a bed, I would report this to your department chair and request help.


Why is dental school a separate thing from medical school? I have always found it peculiar that terminal degrees in medicine (in the US, at least) are awarded in two forms. On the one hand, we have the MD (and the DO), a holder of which can go on to practice all sorts of medicine, ranging from pathology to radiology to oncology to family medicine and so on. On the other hand, we have the DMD and the DDS, holders of which can go on to practice oral medicine, and, as I understand it, little else.

Why is this so? What is it about oral medicine that has it being taught in different institutions than all the other branches of medicine?

(I don't know how this stuff works outside the US; answers contrasting the US system with other countries' systems of medical education could be very informative.)

the dentists professional society regulates entry into the dentistry profession for the protection of the public and the maintenance of member income.

the doctors professional society does the same.

neither one is interested in admitting the others students to their respective profession.


Most part of my result is as same as orginal version. Can I make a paper? I am a PhD student in mathematics. Recently, I could extend some old result to higher dimensional. I want to make a paper. But I doubt that is a good result or not, because most part of my proof is the same as the proof in the orginal version. In fact, what I did: I try to understand which part of the proof does not work for higher dimensional. So, I replace them by  higher dimentioanl theorems. Do I neglect my result and do not make a paper? Or I have to do it?

I checked that no one did it before me.

Normally extensions to existing work are valuable. I suggest that you take advice from your advisor if there is any to give.

But you can also write it up and submit it to a journal. Let the editors and reviewers decide whether it is worth publication. It would be a mistake to just assume that it isn't without feedback from other mathematicians - such as reviewers.

This is true since, as you say, the original proof doesn't work for higher dimensions and the original authors may not have contemplated the extension.


Choosing PhD advisor between Professor X and an Assistant professor Y who was a PhD student of the professor X I got accepted in two different US schools for CS PhD programs. My prospective advisor/supervisor for the two schools are Professor X and Professor Y respectively. Professor Y was a PhD student of Professor X. Professor X has a lot of successful PhD students coming out of his lab and he is a heavyweight in the field. Professor Y is a tenure-track assistant professor but has really good recent A* publications. How should I approach this issue of choosing one of them?

(Moving from comment to answer)
This may not be true everywhere, but when faced with a similar decision I was told that the more established professor is more familiar with the department politics and how to get students graduated. Graduation should be a top priority, and if Professor X has a good track record of graduating students, that may be the best choice. Professor X also may have heavily influenced Professor Y's work, so it is unclear how Professor Y will work without Professor X's supervision.


If a student is dismissed, is (or how is) that indicated on their transcript? As faculty, I've had to report academic misconduct (usually plagiarism) many times but that doesn't mean I know everything about how it works.  My understanding has always been that the only people who know about the report are the faculty who reported the incident, the student being reported and the conduct officer or honor committee (depending on the institution) investigating the report.  The student can certainly tell whoever they like but regardless of the outcome, everyone else is required to keep the information confidential.

But what happens if the result is dismissal (permanent separation from the university)?  Is there typically any indication of this on the student's transcript?  I've heard from colleagues that at some institutions, it will be indicated on the transcript but I'm not sure if that's correct.  If the dismissal is indicated and the misconduct was especially serious, e.g., rape, is that fact also reported?  What would it say?

Transcripts usually do show that students have withdrawn or have been expelled for policy or academic infractions. The specific grounds, however, are probably not stated on most transcripts, perhaps for privacy reasons.


How to respond, safely, to a student's 'risky' email? A student I had emailed me to ask about working in the industry-because I have years of experience in it-after they finish school and how their past may affect how an employer will react to them. To paraphrase the email:

"I'm afraid that even though my grades put my at the top of my class that a simple search online about me will have some risky results"

"I used to work in the adult pornography industry and when you look up my name on a google search this becomes VERY apparent."

"If this is an issue how can I talk to an employer about this without eliminating all chances of my gaining the job?"

I want to give them an honest response but I don't want to step over bounds and get in trouble myself.  What's the best way to approach this email?

If you want to be completely safe, I would answer something along the lines of: "This is outside my area of expertise. I recommend that you consult the career center on campus (insert contact information to career center)".

If, however, you want to actually give them advice, I would give it in a very neutral manner, where you could substitute every mention of "adult videos" by "video of student kicking a puppy" (or other potentially career damaging Google result). If you keep it on that very professional, neutral level, it shouldn't get you in trouble (note: I'm not a lawyer). Write your response, and then try the "puppy kicking test". If the email still makes sense, you're probably (again, I'm not a lawyer) safe.


Meaning of draft status? I would like to ask a question about the meaning of the status "Draft" of my submitted article in a Taylor and Francis journal?

Are you sure that you pressed the "submit" button? Usually it is a draft before submission.

Otherwise it might mean that some sort of manual approval of an admin person of the journal is needed before the submission is further processed (e.g. it is not "fully" sumitted until they have checked that you are within a certain wordcount/format/etc).