text:
Which Masters is right for me?
I am an undergraduate student in Canada doing a double degree concurrently, a B.Sc (Bachelors of Science) and a B.Eng (Bacehlors of Engineering) over 5 years. (8 years down to three at the price of my sanity? Sure haha!).
My Major in Science is Physics, and my Discipline in Engineering is Electrical/Computer.
When it comes to picking my masters, I have three options:

M.Sc (Science, thesis based)
M.A.Sc (Applied Science, thesis based)*
M.Eng ( Engineering, project based)

From knowing nearly nothing about these, I think the M.A.Sc sounds right for me, sort of a "middle ground".
I want to go on study quantum computers, specifically to apply the principles of quantum field theory to microprocessors and develop quantum computing hardware and software.
(I work as a computer programmer alongside my studies, and I've been a professional polyglot programmer since I was 16, and a hobbyist since I was 11)
My question is, which masters would help me more on a path to a Ph.D, and eventually to a job in academia?
A fellow undergrad suggested I do a double-masters to compliment the double-degree, is this possible? Would it be useful to me at all?

When it comes to picking my masters, I have three options:
M.Sc (Science, thesis based)
  M.A.Sc (Applied Science, thesis based)*
  M.Eng ( Engineering, project based)

The letters in your masters degree do not matter. In other words, you'll never see an M.Sc. or an M.Eng. specifically asked for in an application call ... you'll only ever see "Masters". As such, your degree could be called an M.Xk.Cd. and nobody would really care. It's the topic and quality of your masters matters most!
If you want to work on quantum computing, then you should look for a good masters programme in either Computer Science, Electrical Engineering or a relevant field of Mathematics. These are typically M.Sc. or M.Eng. courses (again, not that the letters matter!).
A research masters is usually preferable, in that you may even get a publication or two which will help with PhD applications ... or you may continue in the masters programme and graduate into a PhD programme if you are happy with your supervisor.
On a side note, I would encourage you to be flexible in your interests. You quote "quantum computing" as an interest but it can often be unfeasible to get a PhD you like in a really specific area. I think at this stage it's important for you to decide what discipline you want to pursue (Comp. Sci., Maths, Physics, etc.). Having a sub-field in mind is great, but don't plan your future too rigidly around that.

A fellow undergrad suggested I do a double-masters to compliment the double-degree, is this possible? Would it be useful to me at all?

Of course it would be useful. :)
But as to whether it would be worth your time, I would say absolutely not. See (1).
(1) Masters + 0.5 × PhD ≫ 2 × Masters

I'd disagree just a little, in that a project based MsC is going to be a little harder to take on the path to a PhD, unless that project is also producing research.

@Matthew G., not sure I follow? I would have thought that thesis-based M.Sc.'s would generally be the most research-oriented?

Right-- I was just addressing the comment that the letters/degree wont matter. It might, if the content is sufficiently different. Probably could have left it though, as you sort of get to it in paragraphs II and III.

Okay, gotcha. Just did a minor edit I hope makes it clearer.

That clears it up.

I disagree that it is important to pick some existing box of a discipline. If the student wants to pursue quantum computing then there is a lot of opportunity and funding to do so in Canada, and it is best to be knowledge in several disciplines to do so. However, I agree that it doesn't matter what letters are after the M. on the degree.

Discipline in my university refers specifically to the engineering program. Consider it the equivalent of your "double major" in a science course. The first two years are the same for all engineers, and the final two are "discipline specific". So in short, you could interpret my degrees as "a double major in physics (B.Sc) and a double major in ECE" (ECE: electrical and computer eng.)

@NictraSavios I was commenting on 'discipline' in the context of badroit's answer where he means "broad area of study, usually associated with an academic department" as he listed Comp Sci, Math, Physics, etc. my comment is that (as I mentioned in my answer), this is a poor decision. If you are interested in quantum computing then you should study anything and everything you (with the guidance of mentors) think is relevant and interesting, and not pigeonhole yourself into a single department. You are already doing a good job of avoiding being confined to one area, so keep up the good work!

You have picked a nice area for having a wide background. Most theoretical quantum computing positions usually ask for experience in at least two of Physics, Computer Science, or Mathematics, so you are in good company. Don't pigeonhole yourself into one discipline if you are planning to be a theorist. More applied and experimental work usually requires a single background in the specific methodology used, and usually comes from Physics, Chemistry, or some type of Engineering. It is common for strong quantum programs to have professors of background in various fields, and in that case you will usually decided the letters after your M. based on the department/faculty of your preferred supervisor.
First, check if your undergraduate school offers a straight-to-Masters program, since that might be a viable option for you. I know that at McGill you can now get a Masters at the end of 5 years, instead of doing just a Bachelors, I am not sure how it is at Dalhousie. Ask your professors.
In Canada, your best bet for a Masters will be at the Institute for Quantum Computing in Waterloo. They have one of the strongest and largest quantum computing/information programs in the world (and definitely the strongest and largest in Canada). If you browse their website, you will see that you can get any of M.Sc, M.Math, or M.Eng as your degree with departments ranging from: Applied Mathematics (2 profs), Chemistry (2 profs), Combinatorics & Optimization (4 profs), Computer Science (2 profs), Electrical & Computer Engineering (3 profs), Physics & Astronomy (7 profs + 3 assistant profs). I think all of the programs are thesis based, and students are expected to produce original research. I would base you department choice based on potential supervisors (you will have to list who you prefer as supervisor during your application) and what sort of non-quantum courses you like (since you will be expected to take some non-quantum related courses in your department).
Keep in mind, that in the USA, it is not customary to sit for a separate Masters before your PhD, so consider applying straight to PhD with your choice of supervisor determining the department. The IQI at CalTech is a good choice, I know that John Preskill has an interest in the intersection of quantum field theory and quantum computing; note that most other work in quantum computing doesn't use QFT and concentrates on the non-relativistic limit. Make sure to do a little bit of work in quantum computing during your undergrad before you make your Masters/PhD decision, to make sure you have an idea for the lay of the land. A lot of people don't have a good grasp of what research in quantum computing will look like when they first say they are interested.


text:
Citing style for Animal Conservation
I am writing a commentary paper in Animal Conservation magazine. I have a hard time to find out a reference manager that will produce the right citing style
I read for their guidelines to authors:

Journal titles should be abbreviated in accordance with the Zoological Record Serial Sources, published annually by BIOSIS.

Is Zoological Record Serial Sources a citing style?
I am usually using Mendeley (and have little experience with citing style) but I can't find any citing style for animal conservation nor for Zoological Record Serial Sources.
Can you help me to find a way to automatically format my list of references to the correct citing style?
As an example. Can you cite this paper to the right citing style

I would think that the editorial office can help you with that. Also my experience, albeit in a completely different field, is that the journal's editing will fix most citing style errors, as long as you provide complete information.

It looks to me like ZRSS isn't a citation style, just a list of journals.  You can refer to that list to figure out how to abbreviate the name of a journal (e.g. Animal Conservation might be abbreviated as Anim. Conserv.) but it isn't supposed to show you how to format the rest of the citation.
If you keep reading right below there in the Guidelines for Authors, it contains more information about how to format citations, with several examples, and provides style files for EndNote and Reference Manager.  It is possible that someone else has written one for Mendeley, or you could do it.
If you need more detailed information than what is in the Guidelines, you will need to ask the editors.  If you look on the left side of the Guidelines page, there is a Contact link, which gives an email address for someone in the editorial office, who can be contacted with questions about "submitting a manuscript".

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Is there a non-scientific related activity for students in a conference?
The research group that I am associated with organizes a conference that will take place next month.
One of the students asked if there is something that he can volunteer and help in the organization of the conference. He has not any scientific work to present, but rather offers some logistic and technical help.
Can you think of any "volunteering position" and tasks that can be given to a young student? Is this of any benefit to him, or is that just a timeloss?

I would refer the student to a more senior person in your group who has experience organizing conferences and is familiar with the details involved.  That person will undoubtedly be able to think of work that the student could help with.  It may be fairly menial, but can be a nice way to bring the student into contact with researchers in the field.

Lifted shamelessly from this answer, here are volunteer tasks that the student can do during the conference:

Check attendees in at the registration desk
Take minutes in meetings (if there are any)
Mic shuttler (the person that carries the mic around to people who have questions during the Q&A after each talk)

These offer the following benefit to the student: exposure and opportunities to network with attendees at the conference in a normal way.
Here are some additional tasks that weren't in that other answer because they're often done by students at the host institution. They also may or may not be necessary, depending on available facilities and services at your conference location.
I've done these tasks for conferences hosted by my own group:

Design and proofread conference program (before conference, obviously)
Set up poster boards, hand out thumbtacks, and show presenters which board to go to for poster/demo session
Print, hang up, and rotate signs showing people where to go/which session is going on in a room at any given time
Give VIPs a VIP tour around the lab, if conference is held at your institution :)

The aftermath:
I just add here some notes about my feelings once the conference took place.
It is a great opportunity to even be remotely associated to such an environment. In such an environment exists the chance to meet people from the academy and the industry. If you have the rights networking skills you (as a student) can score some internship a possible future employment positions both in academia and industry. So in no way this opportunity is not considered a waste of time.
If you are a student volunteer these are some useful stuff one may need:
Typical Conference Questions and other stuff to consider:

Where is the toilet?
What is the WiFi pass?
Have different adapters and converters in hand

port – to- port video adapters
country – to – country power supply adapters

Extra batteries for the presenter
Arrange poster guys based on their order of presentation, put all the posters in a pdf file, on the same laptop (yours or someone else)
Ask demo presenters if they need monitor for their demos
Before the beginnings of the session, strongly recommend speakers to try if their laptop fit with the cables used for connection to the projector

I've been for a few conferences where they printed the wifi password on the badges, to avoid people asking that question.  (or printed them on slips of paper).  For those where they just post it at the registration desk, I've gotten in the habit of copying it down onto the back of my badge, so I have it when people ask.  (they always ask the person with a laptop open)

I've been to meetings where they had a student volunteer positioned in each room:

they swapped out the name cards where the speakers will sit
they replaced the water bottles at the speaker table with ones stashed behind the podium
they helped out with AV issues, or called for expert help.
they kept a count of how many people were attending each talk in the session.

This gave them a chance to attend talks, albiet with some minor distractions as they did so.
They were wearing brightly colored shirts labeling them as volunteers, so people also knew who could either answer their questions or point them in the right direction of someone who could.
At other conferences (eg, AGU with thousands of posters displayed per day), we'll often assign students as the session chair for posters:

Grab a supply of pins from the main desk, and the signs for when you'll be at your poster
Help people find their poster location (look it up online or from the printed program)
Help people hang their posters (or at least get the top two corners pinned)
Record any posters that were no-shows.

Depending on how competent the student is and how much you trust them, you can also task them with managing the abstract review process (i.e., if you are using something like EasyChair, you can make them a Session Chair, or even the SuperChair, if you think they can manage it). It's the kind of job that postdocs and faculty are reluctant to do, because it distracts from more urgent obligations and it has next to zero professional rewards at that level.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Is it OK to include a personal (non-science related) statement in the final slide of a presentation
Is it OK to include a personal note telling intention of hard-work on the topic,

e.g. I am looking forward to work on this problem

in the Conclusion slide of a presentation related to possible research topic in the future?
I believe the Conclusion slide is used to collect the scientific conclusions about the work in the end of the presentation as a takeaway message, how would such a statement stand in the end?

Who is the audience?  Why would this statement matter to them?

Why not just say it?

In Computer Science, that would be perfectly fine.

@AnonymousPhysicist not sure if it would matter to them. The audice is, among others, the supervisors etc.

@DaveClarke written statement has stronger impression

If it does not matter to the audience, leave it out.

Text on the slides should be used sparingly and wisely. This is certainly not one of the core ideas you want to convey. Leave it out.

I think that writing on the presentation that you'll be looking forward to doing something is somewhat out of place.
In addition, it appears that you may be confusing two separate definitions of conclusion.
The first is the scientific conclusion, which you have defined. This is, as you've described, the takeaway message from scientific research, i.e.

This research shows us that potatoes are actually tasty.

The second is a presentation's conclusion. This can be the scientific conclusion in a presentation about an actual study. However, you're referring to a proposal, which has no conclusion, or perhaps to a slide mentioning future possible research topics.
In this case, your conclusion should be a summary of what you've covered during your presentation, preferably onto one slide, i.e.

Conclusion
   - This research will establish whether or not potatoes are tasty
   - Important to humanity as it helps determine whether or not further investment into discovery of potato recipes are practical
   - Funding this project will be cheap as potatoes are grown a lot already

Then, when you present your situation, you can mention I look forward to performing this research with your support. and it flows cleanly.
If I've interpreted anything incorrectly regarding your situation, OP, let me know.

everything is straight to the point

While it's generally OK to add a personal thought, it's important to be careful with what sort message you add at the end of a talk.  What do you want the audience to get from this extra message, and will it conflict with the rest of the talk?
Some examples I've seen that worked:

A mention of how the science links to some sort of outreach or broader impact goals that personally motivate you.
A cute / funny vaguely related image that lets you end on a light note, e.g., the speaker's child interacting with a robot at the end of a robotics talk.

Some examples I've seen that didn't work:

A declaration that all of this work was in service of the higher glory of Christ (caused a rather awkward silence in the highly diverse and international audience)
Not actually stopping, but just rambling about unrelated things until the session chair actually physically shut off the projector.

Something bland like, "I'm looking forward to working on this project" is so normal and unexceptional that the audience may not even notice that you said it.


text:
What should I do in the yearly group event?
I am a first year PhD student. In our group there is this tradition of going to a small village town during an extended weekend and giving presentations.
Being a rookie in the group I have never participated in such an event. I have no idea what it is about. Is it about science, is it about fun, or else?
I asked other senior members of the group, they said it is a mix of both.
Obviously, I have to present something in this event and looking back at my work so far, I feel horrible when I compare it to the other PhD candidates. Yes they are seniors and have done more, but still...
Is it worth including these topics in my presentation:

the topic of my research (should I explain in detail what it is, and how it works?!?)
the project I work for
the students I supervise
misc...

Has anyone else participated in such an event? What is its purpose? How to appear good although I am the rookie in the group? What is the tone of the presentations in such an event?

Your question is very specific to your group.... other groups might get together from time to time, but the specific activities involved will be different... No way random internet dudes can actually help you more than the other senior members of your group. What we can do is to tell you to not overthink it! :)

I retracted my close vote after reading the question over several times. I don't think this question depends on the individual group/institute. IIRC, I was asked to do an informal presentation when I first joined a research group long time ago. I think this kind of event is common but in different places (mine was not in a small village town) and in different formats. Nevertheless, I had trouble with what to say when it was my turn to present. I don't know if there is a dup somewhere on this site. However, the question should help the new comers to a new research group.

Just talk to your colleagues, ask them to show you their previous presentations. It's perfectly fine to be afraid to make a mistake and ask "silly" questions.
Here's what I would do: tell about your previous research, if you are from different country/uni - maybe show some pictures. Then tell about your project - even if you don't have any results (and it's ok) you can talk about your research plan, experiments you plan to do. It's good to have feedback/suggestions from seniors at this stage.
Then, if you're new - you can introduce yourself to others, maybe have one slide with pictures that represent your hobbies, etc.

I think this answer is helpful.

Those groups are really a good way to improve your social networks, and maybe have some early reviewers for your publication/thesis. And new friends too !
Being new means a lot of people will ask you about what you're doing and so on... Don't miss this opportunity to be known :)


text:
How to nicely communicate to my professor that I prefer a different topic/project
Soon I will be assigned to a project with industry partner X which will start in couple of months and is very loosely related to my major research interests. The project might not be very challenging and time-consuming, but it has close to zero contribution to my actual research, that is why I am not so keen working on it. Also, there is very little potential to get any publications (although unrelated to my topic) from there.
On the other hand, a new industry partner Y is approaching our group. This partner is willing to offer funding for multiple topics, and they work in the field 100% related to my research.
I fail to understand why the principal investigator would assign me to a project with X, while we were anticipating the collaboration with Y, and knowing that the X project will not be mutually beneficial. But, I guess the decision was made just because X approach first.
How can I communicate clearly and nicely to my PI that I would fancy working in project with Y, and make the point that it will be beneficial in terms of tangibles (more research output in an area of interest to PI, me and company Y) and intangibles (more motivation for me)?
I am sure all this is obvious to the PI, but the PI is probably note concerned about anything but the money.

By "I will be assigned to a project", does your PI mean you will actually be the one working on it, or does the PI mean the financial logs of the institute will say you were the one funded from the project?

"I prefer a different project."

@O.R.Mapper both...

Directly and honestly. It's your job to champion your concerns, not your professor's. They might not have realized Y would be a better fit or have some thoughts about X you are not aware of.

Hey Prof. Awesome,
Do you have a few minutes to talk about the recent projects assignments? I'm much more interested in working with Y because of reasons. I also think it would be more beneficial to my research because reasons. Can I stop by sometime this week to discuss your thoughts on X and whether it would be possible for me to switch to Y?
Thanks,
Kristof Tak

Ok, here are my three main points on joining your desirable project and/or change your research area; during PhD and how to communicate with your supervisor about it:

Fantasy or Realistic Expectation: So first we start with your ability. At the end of the day, the supervisor would like you to finish your PhD. So, first examine yourself if you have the enough ability to join the project/group or even new research area. For example, a supervisor might have robotic research going on, however the PhD student, do not have the background on that matter. He/she sees that "wow this is the perfect project for me to join in" but the fact of the matter is, the PhD student does not fit the group; and supervisor does not want you to have too much stress and fail at the end.
Ask Students Involved and Then Supervisor: Supervisor guides. So first, I would suggest you to find any other PhD student that works in that area and see how things are holding up. If the student had a good progress, you can then approach the supervisor and let him know about changing your research.
Don't Forget Your Supervisor Abilities: I see supervisors get the PhD student and have no idea about the research, the students want to work on. For example, there might be a professor in Computer Science, but he/she didn't touch the software testing in years; then, if the PhD student want to work on this, the supervision become a tricky thing and the PhD student cannot get too much out of it; and the supervisor is not that up to date.

Bring it up, courteously.
Be prepared for a blank stare, and  being told that you are assigned to project X, or you can opt for the wide door.


text:
Is there a professional virtue in independent research and reviews?
Is there a tradition for independent researchers to conduct, ie. write, and review others research on their own? That is to say, is such work outside the institutional and established realms something researchers consider to be of professional value career-wise?
I have recently finished my master's thesis and am - like I imagine other students who also finished a research degree - considering whether to pursue a doctorate. To avoid a "decay" in writing technique and interest in my field of study, I am considering writing independently, but still in the scientific vein to maintain these to a high level. However, I am unsure of whether this would hold a professional value - as in worthwhile to include on a resume - when written outside of a professional setting.
What are your thoughts on independent scientific writing, and its applicability to later career choices?

What do you plan to do with your independent writings? If you publish them in a peer-reviewed journal, they will be just as valuable on a CV as the same publications written by a university researcher. And if they are not of publishable quality, they will have little to no value, regardless of whether they were written by a university or independent researcher. So, the bottom line is the work of independent researchers is measured by the same standards as the work of non-independent researchers. What matters is whether the work you produce is of good quality, not who you are.

But are independent research/reviews published in peer-reviewed journals? I have been under the impression that almost all writings submitted to journals were through departments at universities or colleges, or at least research-institutions.

Well, yes, it's probably true that "almost all writings submitted to journals were through departments [etc.]". That is because there aren't many independent researchers who are capable of producing (and sufficiently motivated to actually produce) publishable-quality work. However, my point is that the journals don't care who or where the work comes from. If it's good work, they will publish it. With that said, it's also true that as an independent researcher you will for sure have a harder time coming up with good quality work, since you are cut off from feedback and other useful resources.

So, the literal answer to your question is, yes, there is a tradition for independent researchers to make meaningful contributions, and yes, such work definitely has value. The more nuanced answer is, it is harder to do research as an independent researcher, so be prepared for an uphill struggle.

Thanks for the comments. It might be an uphill struggle, but it strikes me that it may be a very meaningful activity whilst figuring out a career and at the very least to do it without publishing will help maintain academic penmanship and analytical ability.

@DanRomik Can you please turn these comments into an answer so that I can vote for it?

@jakebeal I'm trying to rein in my academia.se addiction, so I'll take a pass, thanks. :-) Feel free to compile my comments into an answer though, if you feel that would be helpful to anyone.

@DanRomik: Many thanks to you on your addiction, and may you avoid finding the cure for as long as possible - your answers are always helpful IMO ;)

Thanks @tonysdg, that's very kind of you to say. Unfortunately such flattery is only making my withdrawal symptoms worse. ;-)

@jakebeal I wrote an answer loosely based on the comments. I'll leave the comments up since it's hard to disentangle them from the discussion.

I am expanding my comments into an answer as requested by jakebeal.
It is a basic tenet of academia that the identity, geographical location, or institutional affiliation (or lack thereof) of a researcher should not matter when it comes to publishing their results; all that matters is that the results are of good quality and of interest to the research community. According to this ideal, academic research is an enterprise open to anyone, anywhere. So, yes, your goal of performing independent research is a noble one and certainly has value, both to the community and to your own professional prospects. However, it is important to stress that this value will be created primarily if and when you are able to create research that's good enough to be publishable in a peer-reviewed journal, and not before. If you are serious about being an independent researcher (or any kind of researcher, really), publishing your results should therefore be your goal.
In the comments you point out your belief that journals rarely publish the writings of independent researchers. I agree that that is very probably true, but one should be careful not to draw the wrong conclusion here. It is not so much that journals are snobbish and elitist and simply refuse to seriously consider papers from an author with no institutional affiliation (although, to be sure, one cannot entirely discount a small and mostly unintended psychological bias making it marginally more difficult for an independent researcher to get their work accepted). Rather, the main reason is that independent researchers face multiple obstacles to creating good work in the first place. Those obstacles include:

Independent researchers don't have a lot of contact with other researchers from the community who can tell them about the state of their field and give them ideas for good research problems to work on.
Independent researchers usually don't have anyone to criticize their ideas and give them feedback. Such feedback can be quite crucial to making progress in one's research.
Due to their lack of contact with their discipline, independent researchers often don't have a chance to become well-versed in the terminology of their field and in the cultural norms of how research in their field is typically presented. They may develop good research ideas but do so in an insular fashion using their own private language, terminology and presentation style, which makes it much harder for them to communicate their ideas to others.
Importantly, independent researchers are not paid by anyone to do research, which usually means that they have to spend most of their time and creative energy working a "normal" job. This puts them at a significant competitive disadvantage compared to non-independent researchers.

Let me now get to your question. Even if you never publish your results, I still think there is value for you to try to work on some research problems in your spare time. Aside from the fact that research can be a lot of fun, it will certainly develop your intellect and probably help you develop professional skills that will come in handy at one point or another, whether you continue to pursue a doctorate or end up in an industry job. However, as far as things that you can put on your resume are concerned, I don't think private research writings that you wrote for your own amusement but are not of good enough quality to be published in a journal, or at least as a conference poster or on a reasonably good quality online blog, will be of much value on a resume.


text:
Advice for a math PhD student who is also interested in a part of EE/CS
I'm a pure math (geometry/topology-oriented) PhD student at a top-level American university. I recently got interested in machine learning and read the recent papers. Unfortunately, machine learning will never need the mathematics I'm currently studying. There are some branches of machine learning which require some sophisticated mathematics, but I'm interested only in the mainstream of ML (as well as the pure math topics I'm currently studying), which requires only the basic knowledge of mathematics. I'm interested in neither something like application of algebraic topology to ML, nor industry after graduation.
It seems that most pure math PhD students and professors aren't interested in such unrelated subjects. If I will do research on ML with EECS students or professors, I suppose I will be considered as unproductive.
I was wondering if you would give me an advice me, so that I can continue studying the both subjects without having to be worried?

On a related note: the stack exchange site for artificial intelligence is now in beta. Feel free to join them and participate.

Unfortunately, machine learning will never need the mathematics I'm currently studying. -- [citation needed]

@JeffE I'm pretty sure that LeCun will agree with me that D-module and perverse sheaves will not be necessary for ML or human-level AI.

Maybe so, but last I checked, Yann didn't own a time machine, so how would he know?

I admit the exaggeration used in my statement you quoted. The reason why I made the statement is to point out the fact that almost nobody finds a direct connection between ML and the mathematics I'm studying. Regardless of how the future will be like, I thought the lack of connection may matter to me while I'm a student or a postdoc. A solution to this sort of situation, as possibly implicitly suggested in the following answers, may be not to worry about that at all and be productive.

I agree with @JeffE's comment.  The quoted statement is so strong that I can't see how anyone without preternatural perception of the future could make it convincingly.  You don't seem to mean it either: you go on to say that you are not interested in certain branches of ML (not the same thing at all!) and then in comments you say "will not be necessary for ML" (not the same thing at all!).  If you mean that you don't want to pursue applications of D-modules and perverse sheaves to ML, please say that.

Bottom line: it sounds like you are interested in two things and are not interested in pursuing a synergistic, "more than the sum of its parts" relationship between the two.  So what that means is that your work on one of the two subjects has to be good enough on its own, and your work on the other will be tolerated / mildly appreciated as something extra you are doing.  Many academics (in particular, many mathematicians) function this way.

I don't want to pursue applications of D-modules and perverse sheaves to ML. I'm glad to know that there are many such mathematicians.

I think you are correct in your estimate that doing ML work that requires only basic knowledge of mathematics probably won't get you hired, promoted, or tenured in a mathematics department.
The best I can say is this: If you publish enough in your pure math area for hiring, promotion, or tenure, then doing additional ML work can be a plus.  Interdisciplinary work and public outreach could be emphasized at your future institution.
The other possibility would be getting a job in industry related to ML, and giving up on your pure math career.  A Ph.D. in math, even in an unrelated field, may be useful for getting hired at such a place.

Regarding the job opportunity in private institute like Google, I'm pretty optimistic. But if that will mean giving up on my pure math career, it's a tough choice. Thank you for your advice.

@Math.StackExchange: In your question, you wrote "I'm interested in neither something like application of algebraic topology to ML, nor industry after graduation." Above you mention your interest in working for Google.  I'm confused.

Google, Facebook and a few other big tech companies have exceptional research groups for ML such as that of DeepMind. As far as I know from their publication, their research activity is on the line of other major research groups in academia. It seems it is usual that some leading researchers in this field belong to such private research groups as well as those of universities. By "industry", I should've instead said "non-academic job". I apologize for that.

@Math.StackExchange: It sounds like what you really meant by "industry" was "non-research job".  Many industry jobs involve research, and not all academic jobs do.

It looks like you found a new hobby. Congratulations. Have fun exploring that field. Why care about how closely related it is to your current work? If you are interested in it, just do it.
I bet every professor of yours has some hobby that is not directly related to what they are teaching/researching. There's nothing wrong with that. Not every activity in life is supposed to earn you a degree or build your CV.

A hobby can be mentioned on your CV, which could make potential future employers (in industry or academia) aware that you are interested in other things besides pure math. This is more of a workplace related issue I guess, so I just leave it here as a comment.

I hope my engagement in ML will not exceed the realm of hobby; otherwise, the obsession will distract me from finishing PhD.


text:
Will going to an university in UK be profitable for me in the future?
I'm currently thinking in which country to spend my undergraduate period, UK or US. I'm going to apply for PhD program of Molecular Biology in US university after graduating from undergrad school. So, it seems better to stay in US during undergrad period to prepare for PhD program admission. But I prefer undergrad programs of UK, because of its specialized and accelerated curriculum. Is it a rational choice to go to UK just because of my preference of its curriculum?

This questions seems to me to fall under the "transitioning from undergraduate to graduate researcher" and should be considered on topic. It is asking a very relevant question about the extent to which a UK undergraduate program prepares students for a US graduate program.

@CharlesMorisset I brought this up in chat.

Personally, I think it is to early to think about graduate school if you haven't even started undergraduate. I would go with where you want to live, and where you think you will have the most research opportunities, and where you think you will get the best grades. Most of all, I would go where you think you will be happiest in life, and not academics. It is infinitely harder to do good work, no matter what field, when you are not happy.

"where you think you will get the best grades" - this is ambiguously worded, I strongly disagree with one of the interpretations. You should pick an institution that is a good match academically. That is, Cambridge might not be the best choice if you will struggle, and conversely a little-known, middling-ranked university is perhaps not the best choice for a brilliant student. However, you absolutely should not go somewhere just because they have a reputation of liberally handing out A grades.

You are absolutely correct, thanks for adding this correction.

As an int'l student from Asia attending in a high school in the U.S., I have already undergone a huge difference of environment. Since I couldn't really feel happy in both Asia and America, I don't think anything significant will occur to me after moving to the UK. Also, I got respectable grades in spite of my boring life. But studying about things of my interest, especially about biology, has always made me happy, so I suppose I have a different taste of happiness from you.

Never too early. By the time I graduated I'd heard of Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard, so I went to Cambridge and Oxford assuming I couldn't afford the US and wouldn't get a scholarship to Harvard. If I'd had more information, I'd have gone to Berkeley or UPenn or Cornell instead, which I had never heard of. You're assuming the OP knows as much as you do.

Academic success is only one component needed for acceptance into graduate programs; you also need to have advisors who can comment favorably on your capabilities as a researcher. That means you should focus not only on where you can do well academically, but on where you can also get the opportunities to do research.
However, one thing which you should be aware of is that in the US, admission to PhD programs generally occur directly after the bachelor's phase. This may or may not be the case in the UK. The consequence of this is that, depending on the requirements of the (US)  school, even if you have a master's you may need to repeat some coursework or take additional classes upon enrollment in the PhD program.

I'm planning not to get MS in the UK. It is my largest concern that a difference in system between these countries will probably cause such unpredictable problems. Not many people are familiar with the undergrad research opportunity in the both countries, so I'm not sure which is better. As you mentioned, I really need such an advisor but couldn't find yet.

You get those advisors after you get to the university, not before.


text:
Does taking courses of various subjects matter in PhD admission?
I'm going to apply for PhD programs of biology or biomedical science. I understand that I need certain semesters of biology, chemistry, biochemistry, and mathematics. Because I'm going to graduate in four years while double-majoring in math and biology, I can't afford to take courses of various subjects, as I can take, except for subjects belonging to math and science, only one semester of social study and humanities, two semesters of foreign language, and four semesters of PE. Since my college has quasi-open curriculum, there's no problem with the credit requirement of my school.
But should I take courses of various subjects for my PhD admission? Does variety of courses taken in undergrad matter in PhD admission?

If you are attending universities outside of the US, you normally wouldn't have much in the way of diversity—almost all of your courses are directed toward the general area of your major. So it's not that big a deal not to have too many outside courses.
In general, though, I also think that admissions committees do not place as much weight on courses outside the major as courses in the major. If you are a physics major, for instance, a C in a US History course is not going to be as problematic as a C in electricity and magnetism.

I'm actually attending an university in the U.S.
I knew that admission committees don't place much weight on courses outside the major, but I'm surprised to hear that the variety also doesn't matter so much. Thanks for your answer.

It is not about courses being in/out of the students major, but relevant to the PhD department. The C in US History is going to hurt the Physics major a lot if he/she applies for a PhD in History.


text:
Citing abstracts to cancelled conferences
Recently, many conferences have been cancelled, but in some cases (e.g. 50th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference) the abstracts accepted for the conference are avilable online, despite none of them having been presented. The abstracts contain useful information and I would like to cite some of them.
Are there any conventions for how to cite in this case? Do I need to make it clear that the citation only references the abstract? Beyond that, do I need to make it clear that I know that the abstract was never presented?

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How to effectively balance research, teaching and project work?
Starting from the upcoming semester besides my research for the PhD, I will also have to work on a loosely related project (w.r.t. my research), and do teaching as well.
I am overwhelmed from this. It seems that I will never have enough time for the actual research while the project work (50%) and teaching will eat up all my time.
Besides these duties there are also students to supervise, lab to maintain etc.
How do the more experienced ones in AcademiaSE deal / have dealt with such situations?

Also see Time management as a TA in mathematics (it's more general than it sounds from the title)


text:
What should be the theme of a presentation in a research visit?
I am having a one-week research visit in a far east country.
I was asked by the head of the hosting group to give a presentation. I have never done this before, hence I am quite confused about the content of this presentation.
To provide you some extra context: I am the first member of our group visiting this group, at the same time I am the most junior member in our group. As I am visiting this time, we expect in a reasonable amount of time to have a member of their group visiting us.
Some information that I could include in the presentation are:

information about our group (history, group members, research focus, ongoing projects, methodologies, tools...)
information about myself (personal info, academic experience, research focus, detailed explanation of most recent work, desire to learn from the visit...)
information about the city we are located at (to make the case that it is worth sending a student...)

I think the list is too extensive. What would be a goldilocks in terms of duration and content to include in the presentation?
I have to make the most out of this visit and presentation, to be able to build upon it later on. The hosting PI is top 5 in the world in his respective field.

Can you elaborate on what the purpose of the one week visit is? It seems a long time to send the most junior person out for a visit. Can you also elaborate what the most junior position is? This could be anywhere from a postdoc to an undergraduate RA, depending on the lab.

by most junior I meant, the latest that joined the group as a PhD... I am being sent to this visit because only my research interests are in line with the hosting group

Short answer: ask them to clarify; ask your PI.
To offer my own opinion, I would expect that for a research visit the appropriate contents of your presentation would be your latest research results. As you are visiting on behalf of your group, start with an overview of the group's main research areas and latest results (ask your colleagues to each make you a slide about their work). Then you could go into more detail about your own work later in the presentation. Perhaps pose some research questions that you think your two groups could work together on (take advice from your supervisor here).
If you get to set the time, a one hour slot with 45 mins + 15 for discussion will be plenty.

Given the added information "I am being sent to this visit because only my research interests are in line with the hosting group" it might be better to reduce the number of slides on the group's work in general, and increase the time for the OP's research.

The talk should focus on your research. If you run short on time (which may happen if you're very new to your PhD), you can mention what the work of the larger lab is. I don't think you should talk about the city you're coming from, or get into too much biographical information about yourself.
And, as pointed out by the other answer, you should talk to your PI. Presumably s/he has an interest in your visiting this other lab, you should find out what it is.

It should primarily be a research talk - and given you've said your research interests align closely with the visiting group's, and you're giving the talk (and as such will have to ask questions, socialize with people, etc.) I'd mostly talk about your work.
A decent structure might be to start out with the broad-strokes concept of what your lab works on, followed by illustrative examples of your own results that touch on those themes, and then some future directions you're going in to tie things back to the "Big Picture".

Of course ask your PI, maybe he has some specific things he would like you to mention, and if he would be very interested in getting some exchange students / further collaborations or not.
Most of the presentation should be focused on one or two research stories. You can then use these to elaborate a bit more about techniques and people, and the focus of the group should be clear from the project. Depending on how early in your PhD you actually are, these don't have to be your personal projects (ask your PI).
Don't talk too much about yourself, or at least not more than you would get when you would be introduced. You can leave that for the coffee breaks.
Usually the advertisements for the city / university are limited to the last slide, with some pictures and just shortly saying that it's awesome there and if anyone considers visiting they can ask you everything.


text:
What is the purpose of Personal References in a scholarship application form?
I am applying for an international scholarship in Switzerland. I have done similar applications in the past, where it is rather common for the awarding institution to request Academic references. However, in the current program that I am applying for, in the "References" section, besides the Academic References, I am asked (but not obliged) to provide personal references about whether "I already have contacts in the country or with citizens of the country" that I am applying for. I can select "No", and leave the form blank, or I can provide select "Yes" and name contacts.
I am trying to understand the purpose of such a questions, and what is the right way to answer it in a way that will help the application and not harm it. What is the right strategy here?
Could it be that they are asking such a question to see if the applicant would abuse the program for other means?

It could also be the opposite: if you have a functioning social net or at the very least a few contacts that can possibly help you get started, it might increase the chances of success for your studies. But then again, the Swiss tend to be kind of xenophobic, so you might be right.

“Personal references” oppose “academic references”: the latter should discuss your academic qualifications while presumably the former discuss non-academic aspects of your application.
Now obviously here the credibility of the source is important and for a non-academic reference it could be difficult to assess so this could be the reason they are asking if you know Swiss citizens as these would presumably be able to write something with proper context. I don’t see anything nefarious in this.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How to select the professor that would provide a Recommendation Letter for a Scholarship application?
What is the right strategy for selecting the professors that would provide a recommendation letter for a scholarship application.
I am applying for a Government scholarship, and I need to provide a few letters of recommendation. It is customary to request recommendation letter from professors that know you best and you have worked with closely. However, my former supervisor is currently on sabbatical and obtaining a recommendation letter from him is difficult. He offered to provide one but it looked a bit low effort. Another professor, who I have not directly worked with but has been associated in our group agreed to write a recommendation letter too. He was more thorough. Asked about the scholarship program, about the research proposal, and other details about the application.
The main dilemma here is choosing between which recommendation letter to submit with the application such that it improves the chances of the application to succeed. In the application form there is even a question which says: In what capacity do you know the applicant?. The two options are:

Option one: Direct supervisor, worked together for more than 5 years. Recommendation letter looks like a ChatGPT version of a previous Recommendation Letter, but still not a bad one. Sounds more generic, than tailored to the program and my overall application. This person has an h-index 60+, and is still active.
Option two: Not a direct supervisor, we do not have any publications together, was much more interested in helping with the recommendation letter, but I don't know the content of the recommendation letter. This person also has an h-index of 60+, and is retired.

What is the strategically smart decision to make in this case? What are the evaluators looking for?

Are you only allowed one?

@AzorAhai-him- Yes, unfortunately I am only allowed to pick one of the two.


text:
Asking a PhD interviewer about preparation
I am having a PhD interview at a university in the US. The application procedure didn't involve submitting a research proposal, so I am not very sure what kind of questions I should expect.
A professor contacted me to schedule an interview, I wanted to ask what kind of questions are expected, because I do not know the project they think I fit in, in fact, one of the purposes of this interview is to tell me about the project.
So is it okay to ask the interviewer what to prepare?

Have you already been offered admission, or is this part of the admissions process itself? (If the latter, it's kind of late in the game to be holding interviews for admissions decisions, isn't it?)

I haven't been offered admission yet. Seems to me that I passed the university acceptance criteria, and now in the departmental acceptance part. Why do you think it is late for admission decisions?

Firstly, I want to point out that my opinions are based on my own experiences. Having said that a few years ago I interviewed with professors form several "top" ranked computer science, information science and business programs for potential doctoral admissions. Second, I have an admissions season's worth of experience from the "other" side where I have interviewed potential PhD applicants as well.
You do not need a research proposal. In fact, treat this "interview" as a conversation between an academic and a potential future colleague. There is nothing to "prepare" per se. Basically, what's going to happen is that the professor is going to ask you about your research interests and experiences in greater detail than what can be evidenced from your CV or publications. You will have the chance to tell him all about yourself. Do not mis-represent yourself or veer off paths you have not trodden before. What's also going to happen is that this professor will tell you about his project or his lab if he a potential adviser or person whom you want to work with during your PhD.
tl;dr
There is nothing ask him about preparation. Just be ready to discuss your own works and have some questions ready to ask him. Just treat it as a discussion between two professionals and you will be fine.

This is exactly what happened. I'd just add that it would be good to check the work of that interviewer (if you know him prior to the interview), and relate it to your work, think how your experiences can benefit the projects he/she is working on. The interviewer will want to know if you're willing and interested in working on the project he has in mind.
Note: interviews in Europe are usually much different than that, you get to submit a research proposal to show them your research skills. The interview in this case would be only a discussion of your proposal, making it more technical.


text:
Is a German Hochschule able to offer a Ph.D.?
Can German Hochschule offer a Ph.D.? I know that some of them can't, but does this apply to any hochschule or does it differ from one to another?

I should warn that I am not an expert on this, but this is how I understand it. Basically, there are different types of "Hochshule". There is the Universität, which always has the right to offer Ph.D.'s. Then there are the Hochschule and Fachhochschule. The latter in general is more oriented to learning a trade (as an electrical engineer, for example) as opposed to more research focused. The Fachhocschule don't have the Promotionsrecht, that is, that cannot hand out Ph.D degrees. As for the Hochschule, there it depends. Some are on the same level as a Universität. In that case, they can hand out Ph.D. degrees, otherwise not. Presumably the deciding factor is whether there is any substantial research component at the Hochschule or not.
More information can be found here: http://www.hochschulkompass.de/en/higher-education-institutions.html. There you can also search if a specific Hochschule can grant PhD degrees or not.

Things are getting complicated by the fact that "Fachhochschulen" use the translation "University of Applied Sciences"... (still, without "Promotionsrecht").

"As for the Hochschule, there it depends." <- No, it doesn't, they are Fachhochschulen as well and they do not have the right to give out doctorates (there might exist some very rare exceptions where they have a cooperation with a Universität and thus allow it).

@superuser0 Apparently it does depend. At least the Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen offers a PhD. They also use  "university" as translation of "Hochschule". http://www.rwth-aachen.de/cms/root/Studium/Nach-dem-Studium/~ejw/Promotion/

One further note to clarify is that using "Ph.D." to denote doctoral degrees in Germany is somewhat nebulous, as many of the doctoral degree-granting institutions in Germany do not award Ph.D.'s. Instead, the range of doctoral degrees is somewhat broader. For instance, the institution where I work offers the Dr. rer. nat. and the Dr.-Ing., but not a Ph.D. In fact, we are not even allowed to use the term "Ph.D." in our advertising of our doctoral degree programs.
So, if you are asking "can German universities award doctoral degrees," Pieter's answer above is correct. However, if you mean literally "can German universities award Ph.D.'s," I'd have to say the answer is essentially "no."

... although there are German universities where you can get a Dr. phil. (which is literally the same as PhD), typically in the humanities.


text:
Recently published paper does not cite my very relevant work
Before I start my PhD I worked in a group that researched on the application of a particular area to a particular domain. No other research group published work in this area+domain. So I can safely say that my previous group is among the first if not the first to research in the application of that particular research area on that particular domain.
Now I find a paper published at an IEEE conference where a major part of its contribution is introducing a system that does something I did in a previously published paper, and it does it in the exact same way and even gives it the same name!
I know that some conferences could accept non-novel contributions. Also the paper talks about other aspects so I find it perfectly fine that this paper has been accepted and published. But what I find annoying is that they do not cite my relevant work which was published a year earlier and fairly visible online; A simple (unpersonalized) search on Google would show up at least three links to my work.
This is the second time I face this problem, but the first time this happened it was actually by the same group I worked with before; they published a related paper without citing the paper I co-authored with them.
I try to give the maximum possible exposure to my work by making it publicly available on my personal website, ResearchGate, making sure it appears on Google Scholar, etc..
I find it worrying that my work misses citations, I am keen on improving my h-index and citations count. So my questions are:

Is there anything I can do regarding that already-published paper?
Is there anything I can do to prevent this from happening in the future?

I was completely with you until you mentioned ResearchGate. See the questions on this site about that site; it may not be so useful to you.

@eykanal when you upload a pre-print on RG it's indexed by Google Scholar and can be directly downloaded. Some people argue that easier access leads to more exposure hence I think it's relevant for OP to mention it.

@CapeCode That's also true if you upload a preprint to your personal university web page.

Possible duplicate of https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/74848/64442

That happens. Maybe they didn't do a thorough literature study before they published, or they did but before your work was available. This is more frequent than we would like to think. Note that it's generally expected from authors to have done a reasonable effort in searching for previous work, but it's not unethical per se not to reference every previous publication that could be relevant (it's also practically very hard).

Is there anything I can do regarding that already-published paper?

No, missing a previous related work is not a valid motivation to complain to the authors or editors. Just forget about it and move on.

Is there anything I can do to prevent this from happening in the future?

Yes, become so influential in your field that reviewers will know your work enough to spot when someone else submit a related work without citing yours.
Side note:

I am keen on improving my h-index and citations count.

Without going into how this might not be what you should focus on (while very good researchers tend to have a high citation count, the inverse relation is not always true), the best way to do that is to produce high-quality research, preferably on a hot research topic.

This answer doesn't leave much scope for an alternative attempt at answering this question. (+1 implied). Nevertheless, I would've wanted to add, that since the paper in question is already published, there is no point in complaining now. But in many fields (like theoretical high-energy physics), it is customary to upload a preprint on arXiv either in parallel, or sometimes even before submitting to a journal. In such cases, writing to the authors, if they are missing something crucial, generally helps.

@TheDarkSide good point. Plus uploading pre-prints in fields where it's customary might reduce the risk of someone missing your work during the publication latency.

Cape, while i agree that the best thing for the OP to do is to produce high-quality research, unfortunately there are some schools/departments (and the OP might need a job at one of them) that do not know the difference between high and mediocre-quality work in the specific field that the OP is referring to and might rely on citation count.  it's really sad, but that's a consequence of the glut of PhDs out there.

But they also gave it the same name… can we really rule out plagiarism, in this case? Of course, it depends on how much complicated and non-obvious is that name.

@Lohoris I trust OP's judgment that it's not plagiarism. If they did their own computation/experiments and wrote original text and happened to reach the same conclusions, it's a replication not plagiarism.

Adding to the perfectly fine answers that already have been given:
The authors of the respective paper could honestly not be aware of your previous work. You could send them an email saying something like "I really appreciated your article about this and that. I myself have published in the same area, see attached paper".

It may not entirely apply to OP's question, but the study Dion et al.: "Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields" reveals that there may, indeed, be subtle biases in which papers get considered foundational or central, and therefore garner more citations.
As the other answers noted, self-promoting, getting involved in the review process, better networking, and emailing your work to authors when you see a relevant preprint on Arxiv, all might help. In the case of inequality, one could speculate that some authors engage in these activities more than others, or that innate biases mean that other people's prejudices affect the effectiveness of said activities.
I read a piece recently (can't seem to find it on Google now) that called for removing citation limits and encouraging more comprehensive referencing, to better acknowledge the contributions of young and minority investigators. The implication was that: when the number of references is limited, authors favor works by established (often white-male) colleagues, which might be considered more "canonical", simply due to network effects.
We might be able to improve this as peer-reviewers: whenever we get a manuscript to review, we should always perform a comprehensive literature search to ensure that the authors are not unintentionally ignoring some papers—especially works by young or minority researchers, which may be high quality but neglected due to bias and network effects.

The only thing that you can really do is become well known so that you or your students / postdocs are constantly sent these papers to review.  Then you can be the one adding "hey you didn't cite me" to your review.
If you think it's so severe that they are plagiarizing your work then you should write the editor, but good luck with that.

I don't want to be the debbie downer here, but it might be that your work is not that relevant or high-quality at all.
I suppose you publish in English, even if being German, since this is the most common case in your field. So, there is a high probability that the author came across your work during a keyword research of the literature.
Maybe they read it, but thought it was misleading, or even flawed, and not worth citing. If things don't work as you expect, then it's time to let someone review your work carefully.
And, as others pointed out, you can not do anything about what others cite in their papers.

"high probability that the author came across your work during a keyword research of the literature." In my field, the issue is that different sub-communities often use different terminology for the same concepts. So it's rather easy to overlook some crucially related work.

It happens all the time that some papers do not cite all the relevant work. And there is nothing to do about that" But if you really think that they have plagiarized your work, you could contact the editor about plagiarism. But if it is just for a missing citation, the editor will not do anything about it.  How to get cited in the future? As said previously, you can work on some hot topics and make yourself more visible by becoming more influential in your field, so people will be more aware of your work. It is also good to put you papers online. But it does not guarantee that other researchers will actually read them.


text:
My department is not concerned with publishing, is this a valid reason to move to a different one?
I received a scholarship from a funding organization to do my PhD. I chose a department within a reputable research center to do my PhD at, and I did start working there 2 months ago.
My career ambitions are to proceed in the academic career path, eventually becoming a professor in my field.
As far as I know, your experience as an academic (or as a researcher) is defined based on your h-index, citations count and publications count. The more strong papers I publish during and after my PhD, the better position I can get in the future. Please correct me if I am wrong about this.
Now in the place I started working at, turned out to be more of an engineering department. They are not concerned with publishing as much as they are concerned with applications to show off to the industry. Most of the PhD students working here intend to work in the industry (factories or companies). Absolutely no PhD student here is intending to work in Academia.
I am very concerned that I might be at the wrong place. I was hoping the place where I do my PhD at would encourage publishing, and involve me in their publications. I still need to learn how to do proper evaluations in our field, I thought that's how I learn it, by getting involved in papers they submit at top venues (not necessarily being a co-author, but just to learn by observing). They are not concerned with submitting papers to top venues because they think their work is more of applications than the research such venues would expect. Moreover, from their perspective it is not worth the effort, because it won't give them better chances in the industry.
Nevertheless, they understand my situation and they will support me financially and by providing resources if I decide to publish at top conferences. But I just feel now there's no hope I can learn to write a high quality paper given these conditions.
As I mentioned at the beginning, my funding comes from a third-party organization. Technically I can switch to a different department, and there is a department I have in mind that belongs to another branch of that same research center, located in a nearby city, they are more research-oriented and they work in the same field. It will not be easy to do that and I will have wasted a lot of time by the time I move out, but it is still doable.
So.. is it worth the hassle?
P.S. These events are taking place in Europe, where in most of the cases you spend your entire period as a PhD student working on your thesis, unlike the courses-then-thesis style in USA.

To support the answer of @Suresh: working in a group that has no culture of publishing in top venues is likely the death sentence of your research career. Get out or change your plan.

I would also be careful about any place that puts too much emphasis on publishing, encouraging you to inflate your paper count with weak papers. That said, you somehow ended up in the wrong place (industry-oriented rather than academia-oriented) and will have to deal with it, as others have discussed.

What do they do with the "applications to show off to the industry" if not publish?  How do they show them to industry?

@JoshuaTaylor By giving talks, inviting company representatives or being present in fairs and events.

Well, talks are something that you can list.  You could try for overlap by taking an approach of "for each technical talk, prepare a corresponding conference paper & talk".  You'd get support for that kind of publication, if indirectly.

your experience as an academic (or as a researcher) is defined based on your h-index, citations count and publications count. — False. Your reputation as an academic is strongly correlated with your CV bullets and h-index, perhaps, but the quality, visibility, and impact of your research matters more.  No, that's not the same thing.

I did start working there 2 months ago.

and

It will not be easy to do that and I will have wasted a lot of time by the time I move out

don't fit well together. If you're worried about the 2 months you've spent, I'd say that's insignificant. If you're worried that it might take (with application processing etc) upto a year, I'd say the same thing. Think of a 30-40 year long research career. A year (or 2 months) is not a long time.
It sounds like you've done your homework and have a plan for what you want to do, and you're just worried about taking the leap. Take it ! You only get one career, and taking action to further it is always "worth the hassle".

I agree with what you say, but do you think this would be the case even if it could result in only two and a half years for my PhD?
The funding program supports me for a maximum of 3.5 years.

I see. funding is a tricky matter, and I'm not as conversant with European-style funding rules. But it still sounds like 2.5 years in a place that encourages and guides you to publish actively is much better than 3.5 years in a place that doesn't.

@MohamedKhamis if you are doing well in your job then you can very likely find funding from some project. A project will require some time on applied research (applied for the project) but it can provide a valuable practical feedback, context (hence motivation) and data to evaluate your papers. Most of the PhDs that I know are working for some project (while still trying to publish at top venues). Potentially, funding could be indeterminately extended. I've even seen professors suggesting postdocs to start a new PhD to give them funding this way, even though that could be mobbing, I'm not sure

@MohamedKhamis if the two groups are related, you are not "wasting" one year, your work there could be refocused to research in the new place.

I just want to say that I did transfer, and I think that this is one of the best career decisions I've made in my life! It did take about 6 months to finally start at the new place, which means that I am short on 8 months of funding (the scholarship providers won't compensate the time I spent at the old place). However, I am progressing much faster here: I have learned a lot, published 9 papers (2 at top conferences in my area), and attended 5 conferences in my area. And I'll most likely still finish before the end of my scholarship.
Thanks for encouraging me to take the leap!  @Suresh

Not all choices are binary. This may be one of those situations where this applies.
Is there a way for you to "transition over" from one group to the other? If the group you're currently working with is supportive (and this seems to be the case), would they be OK with you starting a collaborative project with the new group while you complete the paperwork process? That way you can get started on research before everything is formalized, and perhaps your old group can find some new collaborators for future projects.

That's a good idea, such collaborations exist already between my group and the one I am currently considering. But I still plan to look for more institutions that can host me. Do you think that I should consider the feasibility of such arrangement as a major criteria in making the decision?

I can't really tell you what you should do here. As I said, given your desire to move into an academic research-oriented career, you need to be in an environment more like that of the new group. This is just an arrangement so that you don't lose too much time in the process.

Specially since your advisor is not paying you, a collaboration seems very easy for them to accept.


text:
What does it mean that a conference is sponsored by ACM or IEEE?
Some conferences are established by IEEE and ACM, others by only one of them.
I thought at first that such organizations somehow maintain a certain degree of high quality in the affiliated conferences. But I've seen beginner conferences saying they they are sponsored by IEEE, some say "technically sponsored", while they accept poor quality papers.
So what should "having the ACM or IEEE logo on a conference's website" mean to me?

In part it means that the conference organizers have access to the conference administration tools and resources that IEEE, ACM, or the like provide. Having been around some IEEE-sponsored conferences, that can mean things like payment processing and credit card handling; access to a journal special issue for proceedings; conference organization website for registration, submissions, and reviewing; and registration discounts for members of the society.
Access to these features doesn't come for free. The professional societies charge for their use and stand to make money on them. As such, while you have to propose the conference and get it approved, after that the oversight is less. The quality of a conference comes down to the Organizing Committee and it's technical/content/papers committee. If you've never heard of any of the members of these committees, or many of them appear to have low-quality papers, there's a good chance that the conference isn't all that great.

In practice, it means that they publish the conference proceedings and you may get a registration discount if you are a member. Nothing more than that.
"Sponsored by" statements do not reflect quality at all. Some quick Google search using keywords like "scam" or even better "random paper generator" will convince you.
N.B. That doesn't mean that all conferences of those organisations are bad, quite the opposite. The best conferences of many fields are endorsed by those orgs.

IEEE/ACM can sponsor a conference without publishing its proceedings, and vice versa.

Agree, I am referring to the usual case. Also, there are examples that conferences are sponsored by both IEEE and ACM.


text:
Is graduating early from college or transferring to another college fine if I took all the upper level courses?
I'm currently a sophomore at a small liberal arts college. I want to get into one of physics PhD programs with faculties renowned for quantum gravity. I'm majoring in math and physics, and since both departments in my college are small, I will have taken all the upper-level courses in math and physics until the next semester. My major GPA in physics is 4.0, and my GRE physics score is 990, but I will have no math or physics course to take after the next semester. There aren't much research opportunities here. The only research opportunity is available during summer (which is experimental physics, but I'm mainly interested in hep-th). All REUs are not available for international students. (However, there are a few programs available for int'l students, such as Caltech SURF.)
Which of the following choices would be the best?

Graduating early (3 yrs), going to physics PhD program, and saving $>60k. If I don't get into programs of my choice, I will either stay in the college, in the program until the end, or (hopefully) transferring to them after getting non-terminal Master's degree if I will have a compelling reason.
Transferring to a high ranked research university for advanced/grad-level physics courses and for more research opportunities
Staying for 4 yrs in the current institution

If you've got the credits to graduate, I can't think of any reason not to try and go straight for the PhD program.  I'm a grad student myself though - I'll defer to whatever the real PhDs have to say.

Why do you have to decide now? Apply to strong PhD programs and apply to transfer to strong research universities, and then see what opportunities are actually available.

OK. I will try that to see what will be available!

Why have you taken the physics GRE as a sophomore?

@JeffE the asker is considering transferring in 2016.  If the transfer happens, Aran would go to graduate school in 2018.  Otherwise, Aran would go to graduate school in 2017.

@AranKomatsuzaki I chose the second option and it worked well for me.

@AnonymousPhysicist I took it as a freshman, since I thought I was prepared for it. Your interpretation of my situation is totally accurate. I'm relieved to hear that transferring can be successful in this sort of situation!

Transferring is a terrible idea as you will have to retake a lot of coursework. Universities are very rigid creatures. Apply for PhD and maybe some undergrad institutions for a second bachelors. Do not transfer. The fact that you got a 990 on the Physics GRE is huge and I think you'd stand a good chance of getting in. Some physics departments have entrance exams to see what stream of PhD courses you should do. These schools might work best for you.

@CameronWilliams false.  Some universities will require repeat coursework, others will not.  Get it in writing before you transfer.

@AnonymousPhysicist: I don't think a university could maintain accreditation if it didn't require its students to take their version of the core courses, reviewed during the accreditation process.  That's not to say that repeat coursework would be required, one could certainly take advanced courses from a more well-known school and graduate based on the requirements fulfilled earlier, but the degree would come from the first university, where the required classes were taken, and it would be the advanced course credits that would be transferred.

Another option, partway between transferring and going to grad school, is to go to Cambridge and do Part III.

@AnonymousPhysicist I've never once heard of a university accepting more than maybe two years worth of credit hours for a transfer student. I would say a very large portion would not be receptive to it.

@CameronWilliams the question specifies less than two years of credit.

@BenVoigt transfer of core courses is permitted at nearly all American universities.  In some cases, it is mandated by the government.  Also, a few universities have no core requirements, such as Brown.

@AnonymousPhysicist: I think you're talking about university-wide requirements, sometimes called "general education" or the like.  I'm talking about courses which are central to a particular degree program, neither basic prerequisites, nor advanced electives.  It is not possible for a serious university to have no core course requirements, ABET will not accredit engineering degree programs that do not meet certain minimums for core topics, and I suspect that other fields have similar accreditation requirements.

@AnonymousPhysicist Somehow I missed that! In that case, I think transferring is the way to go.

@BenVoigt  core means general education.  I am not familiar with ABET, but what is the value of accreditation if courses from accredited institutions cannot transfer?  Transfer of credits can be governed by agreements between institutions, or it can be decided on a case-by-case basis.

@AnonymousPhysicist: I assure you, when I said "I don't think a university could maintain accreditation if it didn't require its students to take their version of the core courses, reviewed during the accreditation process." I did not mean general education courses, which are indeed much easier to transfer.  And the value of accreditation is that the degrees are known to be meaningful, because they demonstrate a certain quality of the graduate.

Only in exceptional situations should an undergraduate consider "getting out early" from their undergraduate education to pursue graduate study.  Your situation is rather exceptional and is one of the better cases for doing this that I have seen.
My honest assessment is that you sound like an outstanding student who didn't make the best choice of undergraduate institution.  Liberal arts colleges can be great for a wide range of clientele, but someone who maxed out the subject exam in their intended field of graduate study in their freshman year is probably not in that range.  If you know you want to go to graduate school in physics, you want to be taking physics courses over the next three years: independent study is okay, but it is probably not good enough.
I recommend that you apply both to PhD programs in physics and to undergraduate programs at top tier research universities.  For the latter, you are looking for more than just being able to transfer in: you want substantial scholarship opportunities (I would aim for a "full ride") and specific access to faculty and their research.
It is of course likely that you will get admitted to better undergraduate programs than PhD programs.  In my opinion if you get into an absolutely top undergraduate program with a substantial scholarship, then that's the way to go. Most of the students who are at the very top PhD programs started out their undergraduate career with a roughly similar trajectory to yours and then built on that substantially through four years of a superb undergraduate program.  I  would be a bit surprised if you got admitted to one of the top ten programs without an undergraduate degree.
If I may throw out one specific option: the college at the University of Chicago is a lovely opportunity to get a liberal arts education in the midst of an absolutely world class research university.  You can read Plato and Kant and Dostoevsky while taking graduate courses to your heart's content.  Moreover they have full ride scholarships available for exceptional students.  (I went to the University of Chicago on a full ride scholarship, read all of the above authors, took many graduate courses in my subject of interest -- mathematics -- and then got into all the graduate programs to which I applied, including the top three.  I am more satisfied with my education at the UofC and my decision to go there than almost anything else in my life.  Seriously.)

If I understand your comment correctly, applying to physics PhD without bachelor's degree is still possible now for some cases. I'm quite surprised to know that. I hope I will get some scholarship, and the amount of scholarship I will get will affect my decision greatly. Thanks for your recommendation, by the way.

@Aran: Yes, it's possible.  I won't make a stronger claim than that...

Disagree.  Completing your education early is fine as long as you do a good job of it.  Possibly superior since you can achieve more with the time gained.  Also, UChicago has excellent research but often poor teaching - including the mathematics department.  They are fairly transfer-friendly, though.

@Anonymous: I'm not sure I understand what you're disagreeing with.  I advised the OP to apply for PhD programs now.  About UofC:  that's a personal recommendation, not an objective claim.  For me personally, the education I received there was just shy of optimal, and I had many wonderful teachers.  If you want to share your own personal experience, please feel free.  I think though that it is more objective to say that UofC does better at placing students in quality graduate programs than almost any other undergraduate institution.

@PeteL.Clark True.

+1 for the UChicago shoutout. If there's one thing defining element of UChicago, I think it's how connected the undergrad and graduate programs are. The biggest thing I've noticed about how my undergrad experience was different from others that I've met is how much interaction I had with graduate students there, both from taking classes with them and the myriad of research opportunities.

Another option, which may not apply in this case, is that SLACs that are in major metro areas may have agreements with nearby universities which will allow their undergraduates to take graduate classes there.  For example, Swarthmore and Penn have such an agreement.

Unfortunately, it doesn't apply to my situation, since my school is located in middle of nowhere. The school doesn't have such agreement with the nearest university, and it takes one hour to get to the university by car, which I don't own. Thanks for your suggestion.

In support of your third option, staying at your LAC for four years:
There are plenty of interesting things to study at a liberal arts college that you might not have the time or opportunity to study once you’re in graduate school. Some of them might enrich your life and career as a physicist, like philosophy or computer science or chemistry or writing, and some of them might be fascinating and fulfilling on their own, like art history or a new foreign language.
You should also be able to study more mathematics and physics without transferring or graduating early. I’m sure your LAC offers independent study or special project courses for students who’ve exhausted the catalog curriculum. Ask your academic advisor or one of your favorite professors about that possibility.

While I am strongly in favor of a liberal arts education (in particular, I treasure mine), I am not in favor of it to the extent of spending an extra $60K for it.   As the parable goes, being a big fish in a small pond confers certain advantages, but I don't recall anything about the small pond being very, very expensive.  Sounds less fun.

Major universities have these opportunities in spades.  Your advisor might not be a fan of spending time on them, but if one is going to spend the equivalent of a couple years on breadth, much better to do it at the better school, and spread out over the entire graduate experience than making zero progress on the major subject in between meeting BS requirements and beginning graduate school.

Pete: Good point. At the best LACs, all financial aid may be need-based, but it might be worth asking about merit aid for an advanced student who would otherwise graduate early. Ben: R1 universities have many offerings, but IMHO, they can’t compete in many ways with LACs at the introductory level. (Large classes, TAs, nonmajors not able to get into classes...) This might vary widely, but when I was a grad student at an R1, had I wanted to study a new subject, for example, it would have likely been in a large class taught by a TA or instructor not committed to undergraduate education.

Transferring right after your sophomore year would be just fine.  People who start out in a community college do it all the time.  Large four-year institutions have the transfer process figured out.
I agree with others that if you transfer, you should try to get as much financial support as possible from the new institution (but without sacrificing quality).
One other factor that hasn't been mentioned is your general maturity level.  Just because you feel frustrated with the skimpy offerings at your school, doesn't necessarily mean you're ready to jump into a swimming pool full of people 2+ years older than you.  (I'm not saying you're not ready -- I don't know you; I'm only saying, please consider this aspect as well.)
I hope the above considerations help you with what is ultimately a very personal decision.

Yes. I will try my best to reduce the total cost of attendance to $30k, so that if I will transfer and stay at a new school for two years, it will not cost more than $60k. Regarding my maturity level, my adviser can decide whether I will be ready or not, so my decision is going to rely on his opinion. I appreciate your help.

With the academic successes you have achieved, you are in a good position to apply for merit scholarships.


text:
How to find a list of most influential or cited papers in a given branch of math?
INSPIRE has a list of the 100 most highly cited papers during 2015 in the math archive as well as the one for hep-th. The one for math is probably a bit skewed toward physics, since this "archive" probably means that of INSPIRE, which is known for physics rather than math. Either way, what I'm interested to see are similar lists for each mathematical branch (e.g. math-ag) rather than math as a whole. I've found an old list for math-ph only, but it seems that that's all from INSPIRE. I suppose this sort of data is useful for the situation of the following kind. Let's say my area of interest is far from probability, yet I'm interested in a list of the recent hot papers in probability for fun. Mathoverflow may be useful for learning about hot papers, but it's time-consuming for my purpose, since I want a rather extensive list for each of many branches of math. Elsevier's journal such as Advanes in Mathematics have most downloaded/cited lists, but this is just for each journal of Elsevier only, which is quite limited.

If you are after highly cited work, MathSciNet has such a functionality under the tab  Citations:

You can search highly cited work e.g. by subject or by year but note that citations come in slowly into MathSciNet, so data from a year ago may not say too much yet.


text:
Opportunities for physics PhD students to study/research pure math
My interest includes pure math, string theory, quantum field theory and some applied mathematical topics, so I'd like to be so-called a pure mathematician and a string theorist. Considering my performance so far, I think I will have decent chance for any physics PhD programs except for top ones, while I will not have much chance for the math PhD programs of my interest. Therefore, it seems to me that the best choice is to go to the physics PhD program with faculties influential on string theory. Fortunately, such a school tends to have a math department with decent faculties on the fields of my interest, so all of my demands seem to be satisfied by this choice.
However...
How much is it possible for a physics PhD student to interact with math grad students and professors through math courses, research and seminars? What limitation will I be likely to experience?

It's very possible depending on the school that you go to, but I would make a wise choice if you prefer math over physics. There's many a case of a string theory PhD going back and getting math PhDs afterwards due to the issue of wanting more rigor and a bad string theory job market.

Well, there is an entire broad field known as mathematical physics.
Your primary limitation will probably be time.  There are a few issues of "language barriers", curiously enough, as mathematicians and physicists don't always use the same terminology for the same concepts, but that is a minor issue to get around if it is important to you.
You already have to deal with the requirements of the physics department, leaving you less time to also deal with courses in mathematics.  Furthermore, the two departments don't always have synchronized schedules: you may find that their seminars conflict, or even that you have courses to attend during the other department's seminar times.  This is especially likely if you have some sort of teaching/lab responsibilities.  In my graduating university the physics department did their lectures mostly on Tuesday/Thursday, and labs were mostly on MWF.  However, the math department lectured mostly on MWF, with discussion sections set for Tuesday/Thursday.  Since the professors of both departments tended to prefer seminars and colloquia to occur on lecture days (since that's when the professors were most likely to be there, and graduate students are less likely to have conflicts), this meant that one department's graduate students were doing teaching duties during the other's seminars.  If you get an early enough time slot for these duties you may be available, but you are still going to have to measure if you need to spend your time doing other work more--grading, your own homework, preparing for qualifying exams, research, etc. all take time.
However, this is not to say that it's impossible.  I've seen physics and EE graduate students in graduate mathematics courses before (and vice versa, by virtue of my being an example).  And not simply in applied math courses.  I even know of one physics undergrad+master's student who, for the heck of it, took an undergraduate topology course, and was found so exceptionally gifted by the professor that he was given a full TA-ship in the mathematics department so he could spend more time doing mathematics for his last two years or so.  Ultimately said student went on to do his doctoral work in particle physics at a top university, has written at least one book in the (vague) area of "abstract mathematics for physicists", and many other things befitting his intellect and character.  As a curious aside, some other mathematics students and I had to actually convince him to at least leave with a Bachelor's degree.  We couldn't quite get him to go through the trouble of a Master's degree, but I can assure you he could have easily earned a doctorate in mathematics if he had so desired.
There are several physicists who have joint appointments in the mathematics department, and vice versa--though in my experience it tends to be rare when they have a significant presence in the other department, even if they are known and well-respected there--and legions of graduate students who are unsure of whether they should be considered a mathematician or a physicist.  At least one of which has made the hilariously inconvenient mistake of saying exactly this to US immigration officials.
So in the actual practice of your research, you can easily cross barriers or reside in grey zones between physics and mathematics, with researchers in either department taking note of your results, and working with you.  Your ability to be actively involved with both departments, either as a student or faculty, however, will be heavily limited by time constraints.

Thanks for your informative answer. I'm interested in mathematical physics PhD, but it doesn't exist in many schools of my interest. I'm relieved to know that these sorts of limitation exist before actually experiencing them. I will try to prepare myself for them, say, by devoting significant amount of time for studying pure mathematics before going to grad school.

Well, Ed Witten won a fields medal for his work on string theory, so if you want to work in that field you'll have as much maths as you can handle.
However, you do need to think about what you actually want to do. If you want to study mathematics, go for a mathematics PhD even if you won't get into such a good school. Theoretical physics and mathematics are different in philosophy as well as approach and goals.