text:
when a PhD position is re-posted after I had an interview
I had a PhD interview and they said this decision will be made by the end of this week.
I haven't received any email from them yet.
However, I saw a new advertisement about the same position as I applied a few days ago.
Does this mean I am rejected?
Should I send an email to an administers to ask if I had failed?

No, don't send email. Just live your life as if you were rejected (eg apply for other jobs as if you didn't get this one). Maybe you get a positive answer from them.

Are you sure it's indeed the same position? Possibly they offer multiple positions from the same funding source. Also, are you sure it's a new ad (changed submission deadline etc.)? Possibly the ad was posted late on some particular distribution channel.

It is not the end of the werk yet so they can still advertise and you wait for their response.

@lighthousekeeper: I think closely inspecting the details of the new position only makes one nervous and opens the mind for furthee negative theories, thus I wouldn't recommend it. Even if it is hard, try to stay calm and not to think about it right now.

@user111388 Might be a personality thing. Not knowing would make me more nervous than knowing and having clarity.

It could have a lot of reason why a position is reposted. Computer mistake, additional position, confusion with another position, people not talking properly to each other, fraud, rejection, ...
Don't do anything at least until the end of this week (which is near)! Do not look at their homepages if this makes you nervous.
In the meantime, live your life as if you did not get this position. Apply for other jobs etc.
If you really want to get a definite answer from them and they do not call you, I would give it two more weeks (could vary by locale) until you call them. Do ask for feedback and do not call your rejection a "failure". In most interviews, people do not fail (except there is a special test) but it comes out that they don't fit the position well enough because of other interests.


text:
Not citing a secondary source for a reason
I have already read the relevant questions, but mine is really different;
I found useful information in a paper, it (basically) says for a specific case that "they use up to %60 more torque" but when I go to original source I saw that, in the original paper one of the values was "%63 torque", so I wrote, "they expend about %60 extra torque" and I couldn't give reference to a secondary source, because it was wrong, and my sentence became different.
Similarly, a paper said that (just a part of it) "during walking on a flat surface". However, when I open the original source, I saw that the original source says "for unrestrained walking" which means "during normal walking", so I couldn't give citation to secondary sources for that sentence because I corrected a part of the information.
Similarly, again, another paper (briefly) said that "in that country 159.000 amputation occurs per year" but when I open the original source, I saw that it was 143.000 so; I write "in that country each year more than 140.000 limb loss occurs." so, I couldn't write reference to a secondary source, because information became different. But sentence structures are similar I do not know if it is plagiarism?
Note1: Please, do not choose "duplicate" because my question is different, I'm correcting some missing or falsified information and I need a help about it. Is it correct to citing just original source, because secondary source reflects the information in a different way/and I can not find that information in original source, so, I modify the information, and I just cite the original source? Because at secondary source, information is a bit or more different (falsified or reflected secondary author's interpretation)? (as I explained above)
Note2: For some of them, I use a summary of secondary sources but I do correction for wrong parts or falsified numbers/interpretations. So I think it becomes my summary? I do not know where to draw the line.

I'm afraid that I'm having a hard time understanding what you are asking. Can you please try to organize your question a bit more?

Please ask only one question at a time. The part about plagiarism is different.

@AzorAhai while you and I see the distinction, the fact that the OP does not, I think makes it an interesting question.

Possible duplicate of Citing, Secondary Source

You are mixing up to different things. It sounds like you are copying the sentence structure of the secondary source. If this is the case, that is plagiarism. It doesn't matter if you cite the secondary source or not, as no one will know that the citation is referring to the sentence structure. The second issue is the facts. For these, you should be citing the primary source. You do not need to cite every source that has cited the primary source. It is generally much better to cite primary sources than secondary sources, because as you have discovered, things can get messy the further away from the primary source you go.

@Askingquestion if you started with the original sentence and moved words around and replaced some words with other words, that sounds like bad practice and will eventually get you in trouble. If you read the first sentence, found the correct facts, and wrote the second sentence on your own, then that is perfect.

When you ask whether a particular sentence is "far enough" from the original, this is the wrong question to ask in context of plagiarism. Essentially, if you would tell your friends this fact, how would you phrase it? Write that down, in your natural language and formulation (even if your English is not perfect), and then fine-tune towards more academic style if necessary. Don't take the original and tinker with it. You avoid plagiarism by thinking about content (and, of course, referencing the source of your facts).

The general norm is to cite the original source even if you find about it in another paper. For example, if you find about "some method" in paper B where they cited the paper A for that method, it is your responsibility to cite A and B both. That being said, before citing paper A, it is expected from researchers to confirm that what was cited in B was correct, and not blindly cite paper B.
In your example, you found a paper that said it was 60% torque but the paper they cited for that had 63% torque, so in this case it depends what you want to mention. If you mention 63% then go with the original source, but you mention 60% then go with the secondary and original both because you found about it in the secondary paper. But again, you have to make sure that secondary paper inferred the results of original paper correctly. And same for the other examples.

Yes, you would cite the original source but you would need to paraphrase to write in your own words.  Do not copy paste.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can I say I'm undecided yet in my statement of purpose ? (PhD in math)
I just started my 2nd year of master and it's already time to apply for a PhD in math, deadlines are in ~1+ month.
In most samples, students had a clear idea of what they would like to study. They write that they have studied this and that, and that they would like to be under Prof. X's supervision because they worked on his papers.
As for me, I liked most math topics that I have studied, with very few exceptions. In short, I'm undecided, exactly when I buy an ice cream and  I'm facing 20 good flavours.
Most universities, on their application page, offer "undecided" among the options (algebra, number theory, ...). Although they may say "it's totally fine" (because everything is nowadays), what is the truth behind the appearances?
Stories from people who are on admissions committees or from [un]successful applicants who wrote that in their SOP are most welcome.
EDIT: I successfully got admitted to some really good US universities with "undecided" in my SOP

What country is this?

@ElizabethHenning USA

@cag51 thanks, I couldn't find it. However I would be happy to have more "stories"

Generally in the US you don't need to choose an advisor when you start Doctoral study. Therefore, having a firm idea about a concentration, research focus, is less important than in some other places. But giving the admissions people some idea will give the a better way to think about how you might fit in.
What I would do, in your case, is to say you are undecided, but currently focused on X and Y, where X and Y are a couple of things you know a lot about. It narrows the focus a bit without limiting you in any way. But, having an MS means that you will want to get started on research pretty soon after arrival and so will need to choose an advisor, unless you want to risk having one chosen for you (a bad idea, generally).
However, taking a deep dive into some narrow subfield of math doesn't limit your choices for ever. You will need to focus until you earn the degree, but then the view can open again for you if you want.
It is probably ok to be a bit undecided as long as you aren't chaotic random.

Note that this is a US specific answer. It wouldn't be the same in some other places.

I agree with this, but it's better to leave out the part about being undecided. No one is going to hold you to what you said in your SOP.

@user91300: in mathematics in the U.S.

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


text:
Publishing a Corrigendum?
I recently published a book chapter with my supervisor. I just realized that I messed up two dates in the chapter. For the first one, the original sentence is like "xx policy decisions were published in 2004", but the year should be 2015. Another one "xx policy will be abolished in 2013 ", but it should be 2023.
The chapter is now published online and in hardcopy.
I wonder whether it's necessary to submit a Corrigendum? The book chapter is about reviewing the current literature on a specific topic (not an empirical study). I worry this will affect my reputation.

Many publications have small errors. The question you ought to ask is whether these mistakes fundamentally alter the message a reader would get. Are the mistakes in crucial sentences of the paper, or in side comments that only provide context?

Thank you for your response. The two dates are related to changes in a public policy in a country. The overall message is that there are changes and future research should consider these changes. Readers could find the correct dates online. I don't think it's a crucial sentence, but I worry that others may perceive me as a careless researcher who makes such a foolish mistake.

No, these things happen. As I say, the question is whether this changes how a reader would read your article. For example, if the article is about the fact that the European Union had passed such regulations earlier than the US, then the dates matter. If the article is about the fact that the European Union has passed such regulations whereas the US has not, then maybe the exact dates don't matter.

For minor corrigenda (such as this), some scholars merely put it on their web site.  Likely many of your future papers will also have errors, so keeping a list of all of them in one place may be the best choice.

Thank you very much! I wonder what do you mean by keeping a list of all of them in one place? Do you mean I should not report it to the editor but be aware of it?

Leaving it unfixed will affect your reputation. Fixing it is much less likely to.
If you have a publisher, contact them with the correction. If self-published, you can just fix it and give a new printing (not publication) date.
Be careful, however, if you have given up copyright, and let the publisher handle the details.
If you have a web site related to your work, you can also publish a correction there.
Note that no one know why the error was made, nor who made it, so it really isn't a reputation issue unless left uncorrected. .

Thank you, Dr. Buffy for your response. Another concern I have is that no corrigendum has been published in the book series since it was first established. I am concerned that they won't accept publishing Corrigendum. The book series have an overall impact factor of 1.2

@Superarrow  Even if you have good reason to think your corrigendum won't be published, I suggest sending it to the editor anyway (in addition to putting it in other places like your web site). There's a chance some other chapter in the book will have more serious errors, making it necessary for the editor and publishers to publish a correction (even if they'd rather not). Then your corrigendum might as well be included along with the more serious one(s).


text:
fix non-significant errors in a manuscript that is not accepted and currently under review after 1st round of revision?
I'm in the field of Psychology. One of my manuscripts is now under review after the 1st round of revision. However, I found one of the variables was calculated in a wrong way, the results are better with the corrected variable because the significance levels were higher (i.e., p values were lower), but it didn't change the conclusions of my study, all the significant results still remain significant and non-significant results are still non-significant. I would like to know what would be the best option to deal with it.
option 1: ignore it.
option 2: correct it when I receive reviewers' feedbacks WITHOUT letting the reviewers and editor know.
option 3: correct it when I receive reviewers' feedbacks AND let the reviewers and editor know.
I'm worried that letting the editor and reviewers know would leave a bad impression on me and the quality of my work.
Thank you in advance!

I work in biomedical field so am not sure how vindictive psychology specialists are. The few I worked with are pretty nice, but n=3.
My opinion is definitely option 3. It's not just the p-value that matters, but also i) the statistics itself (e.g. the regression coefficient) could be different and ii) replicability could be threatened as well. If someone would like to follow your work they may be perplexed by your errors.
As for leaving a bad impression. I'd rather get rejected because I was being diligent than getting an acceptance with a flaw that I once convinced myself was trivial, but occasionally came up in the back of my mind. Just bad flavor.
I'd say no need to drum up what was corrected. Simply point out that in a final code review you spotted an error, and corrections to xxx variable was made. Overall associations/differences and conclusion remain unchanged. Give a short apology. And hope for the best.

You certainly want the correction in the published version. You will also probably have to do some revisions in any case.

Thank you Penguin_Knight for your suggestion. I kind of know it deep in my heart that I should go with option 3. However, because I fear that I may be perceived negatively by my supervisor and reviewers, I tend to persuade myself and justify that it's okay to ignore it or change with our letting others know. But I know I won't have a peace of mind if I do so.

I've heard stories in the past about how researchers, especially some established professors, don't actually care about how data was coded and results were analyzed by research assistants or graduate students; they probably won't bother to check their data as long as the results are consistent with the literature and their beliefs. I guess this is not a good practice...


text:
Does there exist Top 50 rankings of applied math phd programs?
For example, if one were to apply to Top 50 business schools for a full-time MBA program, one could get rankings from the NYTimes, the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, U.S. News and World Report, and the Economist, just to name a few sources - I bet there are plenty more.
I plan to apply to Top 50 applied math phd programs, however I cannot find any sort of rankings other than the one from the U.S. News and World Report, which only ranks up to Top 14 -- schools that I wouldn't realistically have a shot at getting into.  So, I am looking to aim a bit lower but am not sure where to even start.
How should I go about figuring out which applied math departments are generally regarded as  "Top 50 applied math departments"?
Why aren't there a ton of different sources where I can get rankings from -- like in the business school world (and probably law school world too)?

U.S. News and World Report, which only ranks up to Top 14 Is that true?  I seem to recall them ranking more, though the information may not be free online.

Ah, that's probably why.  I'll try to purchase the report online.  Thanks so much, Professor Martin.   Have a great night @Kimball.

I'm not sure if there are more, but in any case, I don't think it's so important: see my answer.

"Why aren't there a ton of different sources where I can get rankings from?" Because many people realized that rankings of departments is inherently bogus. (E.g. many rankings use weighted means of different scores and it turns out that in most cases a slight change of the weights (by a small fraction like 1-5%) may lead to rank changes of about 30 ranks and more. There are studies on this with real ranking data, but I can't find them right now.)

Why aren't there a ton of different sources where I can get rankings from -- like in the business school world (and probably law school world too)?

One issue is that I think you are comparing apples to oranges.  Applied math is generally considered a part of mathematics--it is often not a separate department: the AMS only lists 30 graduate applied math departments.  What you are asking seems to me more akin to "what are the top 50 schools in environmental law"?  (I don't know whether such lists exist or not.)
Second, what is considered "applied mathematics" varies from department to department, and perhaps from person to person.
Last, neither overall rankings nor specialized rankings should be regarded with too much seriousness.  There aren't meaningful, natural orderings on departments which measure "how good" a department is, largely because "good" is a nebulous concept.
As for how to choose schools, here are a couple suggestions:

Ask some of your professors in applied math for ideas.  Where I went to grad school was a place suggested by an undergrad professor.
Use general math rankings to get an idea of reputation (and thus selectiveness) of departments, and look at department websites to see which have active applied math groups.

Note: many students won't know going into math grad school won't know whether they want to do applied math, stats, probability, analysis, algebra etc etc, so in terms of selectivity, looking at the general reputation of the department may be more helpful anyway.

Ok, got it.  Thanks so much for your time, Professor Martin.

As Kimball notes, there are not 50 programs devoted exclusively to applied math in the US.
For a PhD, you should really be looking at potential advisors, not programs.  This is especially true in applied math, where most programs have a very small number of faculty.  Your options for thesis research in a given program will be essentially restricted to the specialties of the faculty in that program.  Also, the quality of your training (and your subsequent career opportunities) will often depend more on your advisor than on the program.

Ok, got it.  Thanks so much for your time, Professor Ketcheson.

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


text:
Will it hurt you to leave a tenure track position (for another) after one year?
I'm a new assistant professor in my first year of my first tenure track position.
For several reasons, I am seriously doubting whether my current position is a good fit and am considering applying to a couple open positions that may provide a better fit. I'm not sure whether the nature of my reasons is relevant but assume

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

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

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

Thanks for any perspectives on this.

Related: How long should a professor stay?

On the question of your current employer being upset: for my field in the US it would now be rather late to start thinking about new job adverts, at least for higher-ranked institutions, since offers will start going out pretty soon. How easily can they cover your teaching next year if you leave?

To your first question: no, people always want to get better positions.  To your second, they will probably be disappointed, but it really depends on them whether they will be upset or not.  In my experience, it's not super common to leave after 1 year, but it does happen.

@JessicaB, Only one of my classes for next year is indispensable (it's a required course for a graduate program) but I would imagine they could fill the void with temporary faculty (this year, they had another required course taught by a lecturer). To make the transition easier, I would also consider sharing my course materials (from this year), if necessary.

If your username on this site is your real name, it might be a good idea to change it to something anonymous, in case someone from your current department should read this. If you make it known that you want to leave, but don't find another position and end up staying, it could make things uncomfortable for you.

@Nate, Thank you for pointing this out but no, this is not my real name :-)

The potential problem with using real-sounding names is that the "real" Richard Lewises may find themselves having to explain... Silly, but possible! Genuine anonymity, if desired, is better achieved by clearly-nonsense names.

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

more related to

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

Regardless of which aspects of each of these items you consider problematic, it appears your fundamental assumption is that all these things will be different in the new job.  Until you actually do get the new job and let these four elements play out as they may, this will remain an assumption.
Even if you believe the situation will be different based on some 'inside knowledge' at the universities/departments you are applying to, these are merely perceptions and beliefs at this point. There is simply no way of knowing what the new situation will be like until after the fact.
In the world of tenure-track academe, these assumptions seem risky.
Based on what I hear from peers working in the academe, and occasional reading, your issues are not unique, but are endemic to the professional lives of junior faculty in the academe.
With this in mind, the problems you are facing may be reframed as truly excellent opportunities. As the likelihood of these issues resurfacing in your career is high, what better way to prepare for this reality than wrestle with it a bit during the first years on the job? I can hardly imagine a better means of gaining invaluable experience and proficiency in dealing with these problems!
See how you might address these issues now. Whether you succeed or not in changing some things to your liking, there will be valuable lessons learned regardless. The process of this learning might involve struggle and compromise, but the result is you will become a better-heeled junior faculty member, potentially capable of mentoring other peers on such matters or becoming (with time) a change agent after spending time in the trenches and earning credibility in these matters among your colleagues.
These are not simple or quick lessons, but they may be things are will pay of time and again over the course of your career in the long term. After all, your initial years on the job are not an end but a means toward something even more fulfilling later, correct?
As you see, I got stuck on your initial assumptions before even getting to the questions at hand. But I believe it is well worth to dwell some more on the reasons for leaving, prior to investigating the pros and cons of the actual decision to do so...
What if the same issues crop up in the new job? You will be left with a strange-looking one-year-long stint in a tenure track role, stuck forever on your CV.
The fact that neither salary nor personal conflicts with colleagues are causing any problems is also not to be taken for granted. Entering a new organization always carries risk of new "people issues" (conflicts related to personality aspects/working style/opinions/character/attitudes/integrity/whatever). I would count my blessings to be in a workplace where these are not major issues. Perhaps you don't even realize how lucky you are! For these reasons, I hope you might be willing to re-evaluate your current position prior to making the decision and evaluating it purely on the groups of career move timing.
Bottom line: Unless the issues you mentioned are absolutely killing you, and you just can't do it any more no matter what, then I guess there is little choice but leave. In which case the question you ask are a mute point. But if you can see some promise in that these experiences might pay off in the long term, then I would encourage you to stick it out a little longer.
After all, what does a year after which you leave a challenging job say about your ability to persevere, adapt, and succeed despite hurdles? Not too much. On the other hand, getting a few years under your belt in less-than-ideal conditions, and potentially being on the forefront of improving the situation for yourself and your colleagues, will say a whole lot about your professional character. That is worth the time served, in my book.
Good luck!

"From the perspective of the hiring committee, will this (even with an explanation in the cover letter) raise a red flag that will cripple my candidacy?"
Probably not. It might hurt your chances somewhat, but if they would have wanted you otherwise, then they will probably still want to interview you.
That said, remember that the job market can be a crapshoot so I wouldn't worry about this too much. Unless you are a superstar and/or a perfect match for what they are looking for, even without any "red flags" the most likely outcome of a small number of job applications is that you won't get any interviews. If you don't have connections at these institutions, then there are no bridges to be burned by a job application; and if you do, then an unsuccessful job application is very unlikely to burn them.
What you should worry about is your relationship to your current department -- especially if you only make a small number of applications and are therefore unlikely to be successful. (This is not to say you shouldn't apply for other jobs if you believe they'll be a better fit.)

If you have a compelling reason to want to move, you should explain it upfront in the cover letter.  How much effect it will have on your job prospects will depend a lot on the kind of institution you are applying to.  If you have a strong research record and are applying to another research university, the hiring committee will probably not judge you harshly for leaving a place where you decided that you did not fit.  It could still be more of an issue at a primarily teaching school, however.  Some people might interpret your leaving so early as a sign that you are difficult to please or difficult to get along with.
Leaving early is probably going to be a net negative for you in your job search, but having already been a tenure-track professor does have a few advantages.  You should also emphasize in your letter your experience having a full-time faculty position.  Even if you haven't had all the opportunities you wanted to at your current institution, play up what you have learned and accomplished in your limited time at your current job.

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


text:
Should I address all my research experience in my personal statment?
I'm an undergraduate applying for PhD in engineering, and I've been involved in 3 different research projects. The first project is rather unexciting for me, and I chose not to ask the professor for a letter of recommendation. But I still worked on it for about 8 months and did some solid work (no publication though). As I do not intend to work in the same area for my graduate study, I don't want to talk about that project (have to keep the statement concise!), but will it seem weird if there's a research experience in my resume that's not mentioned anywhere else in my other application documents?

A personal statement is not a narrative version of your CV - rather, it's a description of your research interests, and how what you have done before helped shape those interests, and how they leave you qualified to start graduate school to pursue those interests.
If some of your experience turned out to be a dead end, and it doesn't fit said narrative, there's no need to include it.

Truly speaking, your personal statement should not describe your diverse research experiences. But, It should describe your research interest that to fit your current application. In CV, it is OK to highlight your past research experience.
So if you are no more interested to work on that area, then don't mention elsewhere except CV. Because the selection committee always look into the experience of the applicant's proposed area of research.

Perhaps by "disinterest" you mean "diverse"?

yes, you are right @aparente001

Okay, I fixed it for you.


text:
Will the origin of anecdote in paper violate double-blind policy?
A paper I am writing utilizes a short story from Japan to make a point. In the paper, I have written the punch-line in Japanese, with a translation added.
I am not from Japan, but would such an inclusion be considered a violation of double-blind policy ? I am okay with removing the Japanese text, but the story itself needs to stay.

Why would it be considered a violation? It doesn't make you more identifiable. Given that you're not Japanese it may do the opposite.

I'm a little confused - the meaning of double-blind only refers to how the study is conducted, and has absolutely no connection to what happens after the study is over. As I'm not sure how the paper you are writing is an experiment, or will be used in an experiment, I can't figure out how double-blind comes into your scenario. Can you clarify what you are doing and why you think what you propose to do would be unacceptable?

@BrianDHall: I assume this refers to double-blind reviewing (where the author doesn't know who the reviewers are and the reviewers don't know who the author is).

why is this tagged with 'conference'? Is this a conference with a double-blind review process? I don't understand the concerns at all, please elaborate.

@AnonymousMathematician Ah, that would fit the peer-review tag, so that would be sensible. Though I don't see how a short-story would violate double-blind reviewing, that still makes a lot more sense than study design!

The question in the title and the question in the text do not seem to match.  What do you mean to ask?  As for the question in the text, is there a reason you think it would be a violation?  From what you've said there's no evidence this would be a give-away to your identity, though one could imagine situations where it could.

Double-blind reviewing is about trying to make you non-identifiable.  The only way I can see this violating a double-blind policy is if you are well known by your scientific community as the only one who would both write on your topic and know Japanese.  That seems like a stretch.


text:
What kind of assistance from graduate institution can I expect in transferring parole?
I am currently applying to graduate programs in physics across the US, though primarily in California. I am a New York State resident currently on parole for a violent crime committed in 2005. I have been on parole for over 3 years, and will be released in the Summer of 2016.
I am going to have to transfer my parole with only several months notice, which will be a hassle. My hope is that my academic accomplishments will result in my parole transfer being completed without resistance.
If anyone has any idea what I can expect from a graduate institution in terms of assistance in the process, please respond. I foresee the process being a rough transitions if the state to which I transfer is not welcoming.

I've never heard of the Prison University Project, but I will certainly contact them. Perhaps they will be able to point me in the right direction. Thanks for the info.

I don't think you should be asking your graduate institution anything or expecting any help in regards to this. At the most, I would inform them that it may be an issue. At the least you should deal with it yourself. Later it may become an issue where certain people don't want to work with you b/c of this when you did not have to let it be publicly known.

I have not focused on hiding my past from the institutions. The gap in my personal history is too long to not account for it. I have decided honesty is the best approach to take. It's all said and done now, applications have been submitted.

To answer my question based on my experience:
I did not find that any institution was particularly wary about my past. Of the many institution to which I was granted admission, only SUNY Stony Brook asked me to go through a review process. Most institutions found my past inspiring. I cannot say how the institutions that rejected my application felt about my history. However, my rejections came primarily from top 10 universities, so it is likely competitiveness of those programs led to my rejection.
I have accepted admission into a Ph.D. program at a University of California institution. In the process of transferring parole, the department of my studies has been very helpful. The chair of the department has provided a letter to parole, and the staff has assisted me in obtaining housing.
My experience was much less troublesome than I had feared.
Most helpful to me was:

Creating connections at my undergraduate institution. I have been an active student regarding campus activities. I volunteered often to help the department. I wanted to create a track record of assimilating into the campus community.
Being honest in my applications and statements of purpose. Many may believe that my history should not be highlighted, but I have found that having a unique story sets me apart from other students. Everyone seems to enjoy a good comeback story. (It has also helped me win scholarships.)
Letters of recommendations from professors with whom I have worked. These letters did not mention my history. They show that I am more than a good student with an interesting story; I have the ability to function as a productive student researcher.

Glad to hear that everything worked out for you. To be a generally more useful answer to others in similiar situations, it would be helpful if you included some of the academic specific steps that you needed to take and any groups that were helpful in the process. For example, did you contact the Prison University Project.

I did not contact the Prison University Project, because they are focused on education within the prison system. I did not rely on any groups for assistance in the process. I will edit this to detail what has been most useful to me in my journey.

I can't say I've had any practical experience with this, but my suspicion is that the university will probably not make extensive efforts to assist you in this matter, because it's not something they will have significant experience with, either.
I also suspect their willingness to provide assistance will in large part be dependent on the amount of help they have to provide. If you need letters confirming that you have been accepted to the program, and that they have supported your admission with knowledge of your prior record, that's probably reasonable. On the other hand, if you're expecting them to send a representative to a hearing, or something more intensive, that will likely be much more complicated.
However, your best advice in such a situation is contact a competent attorney who can provide more guidance.

I agree with this, especially about contacting a competent attorney. In this context, what I mean by "competent" is the attorney will know (at least) exactly what the parole officials will need (or want) to see in connection with your transfer request, so that you can ask your graduate institution for exactly the right documents to support your cause. (For example, do you need a letter from the department chair, or from the head of the department's admissions committee, or from a dean or from a provost? Are there "magic" words that should (or should not) be in the letter?)

Part of my issue with preparing is that I have no idea where I'll get accepted. I can't start a parole transfer until the location has been determined. I hadn't considered an attorney because the parole system in New York is often removed from the courts. Also, I am not sure if I have a "right" to transfer. I will look into finding an attorney and see what rights I do have in this matter.

One other resource to look into: most states publish their policies for parolees. You should look to see if you can find the document for NY, which may have quite a bit of help about procedures and deadlines.


text:
What was your eureka moment, and how can I create one for myself?
As a first-year graduate research student in science passing through several alternate "Peaks of Mount Stupid" and "valleys of despair", it would be great if some of you could share your experiences of how it actually feels like when you hit a "eureka moment". Does a point like that even exist? Sometimes it feels like we are so close to it, and then everything just breaks down like a castle of glass. What advice would you give to young researchers like me to avoid falling into these traps?

What is a eureka moment?
I will use the example of searching for water in a desert. What a eureka moment is not, is when you think you found water but it's a mirage. What a eureka moment is, is when you suddenly find water and it is actually water, no exceptions.

P.S: The purpose of asking this here is that it would be genuinely helpful and inspiring to hear what people who have been through this before have to say about it. I believe this is a general issue in all fields, it's a problem that is rooted in the very idea of doing research. The question in itself is quite subjective, but I think there may be similarities in the ways people have coped with this, some tried and tested methods if you will.

What do you mean by 'eureka moment'? How exactly do you get close to it  or what makes you feel that way?

Unfortunately Stack Exchange is very poorly suited for "sharing anecdotes" type of questions.

"Eureka moments" feature heavily in writing about science because, much like the lone and possibly slightly mad genius, they make for good stories. That does not actually mean that this is how science operates for the most part. Unless by "eureka moment" you mean "I now understand some partial aspect of the problem that I have been thinking about for weeks slightly better", in which case the answer to your question (in math at least) is basically just "think hard about the problem for a long time and read what other people have written about it".

@AdamPřenosil Want to turn your comment into an answer?

In all of my career so far, I don't think I've ever had a "eureka moment." Real science doesn't normally work that way.
In my experience, when working on a nasty problem one has lots of potential insights. The moment of insight is not the moment of discovery, however, it's the start of a grueling process of checking to see if the insight you think you've had is actually supported by your evidence. If it is, then eventually the data points begin to line up and the struggle to believe slowly fades into confidence and satisfaction.
The closest I've had to a eureka moment is when I look back at a line of research and suddenly realize that the actual important bits are not what we've been thinking they were, but something subtler and simpler: "We've worked really hard on all this stuff, and we should throw most of it away because only this bit over here was actually important." A great insight to have, and often quite valuable, but not one that lines up with the eureka sort of story.
I've also certainly had the opposite happen, however, in line with the quote attributed to Asimov:

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not “Eureka” but “That’s funny...”

Rather than exciting, however, I would call it terrifying, as for me that has often involved having pried up a metaphorical rock and discovered a horrible mess undermining many results that will take the field a decade or more to straighten out.
Bottom line: don't look for eureka moments. Look for gradually deepening knowledge and confidence in what you know.

Eureka moments can't be planned or created. They are pure serendipity. If you could plan for it you wouldn't need to have it.
Archimedes: "Now if I just get in this bath, I will suddenly and unexpectedly understand displacement."
On the other hand, a skilled teacher can create the conditions in which students might have such a moment of sudden insight. But that would be for things already well understood, not for the as-yet unknown.

Did you have ideas that you found later had already been carried through? Does that happen more-or-less regularly?

Did you have the One great idea that filled you with utter excitement? Whether executed to the end or not?

Did you have the moment of lucid insight where something that was  opaque to you until then suddenly became clear as a crisp winter morning?

Did you have a slow growth of understanding where things become clearer as you work through them, but not with a massive jump?

Are you a "methodical worker" (i.e. marathon runner) as opposed to a "burst worker" (sprinter)?

Do you have the patience working difficult problems through until success?

If the answer to any of questions 1-3 is "yes", you have experienced an "eureka" moment. Try to capture the sensation you had then and you will now recognize when it happens.
If your response to 4-6 is "yes", you are more likely to not experience insight at a flash, but in slow progress. Don't expect eureka moments. That does not mean that you are less successful.
In fact, even people who experience eureka moments typically precede them by slow methodical work. Insight is not magic. It is the coalescence of a major body of work. And it usually happens in a moment of relaxation, when, to use Freudspeak, the subconscious feels safe in telling the conscious brain its rambling thoughts.
There is no guaranteed way to get this. But it does help to work methodically on consolidating understanding, push at the edges of your knowledge to stretch your comfort zone, look beyond them to see what's out there, and finally give yourself space to relax.
Good luck!


text:
Are the conferences by Acavent legit or a scam? - subquestion to general question "How to detect if a conference is a scam"
I am thinking of registering at a conference organised at Said Business School by a company in Lithuania called Acavent.
The fee is 200 pounds which is a bit on the expensive side and the scientific committee a bit random. However overall this could be a well intended conference to give some 2nd hand researchers also a forum.
Some red lights are however there, such as emphasising souvenirs and tourism. The local faculty is completely unaware of the conference. A month in advance the conference schedule is still unannounced.
Not sure what to make of it.

This is indeed a subquestion of the "is a conference legit or a scam"

To me at least, this does indeed raise a lot of red flags. I googled the company out of curiosity, and found a similar thread to your's on ResearchGate. In that thread, a person who claimed to be working for that company responded to the question. To cite part of her response:

Hello, I am working at Acavent and if you have any question, please
write to me. We organise events in EU countries. We have a big team
who are working in organising an event for you. At the same time we
cooperate with journals and reviewers. Please respect our work and if
something is wrong or you want to comment - firstly come to us. We
always try to provide the best service - from reviewing papers to
publishing at the journals. Acavent organises conferences for years
and the only time any event was cancelled, it was during COVID19.
Instead of onsite conference, it was held online.

A lot of that sounds like pretty generic wish-wash ("we cooperate with journals and reviewers"), and neither the level of English proficiency nor the request to contact them privately about concerns instead of seeking an open forum does inspire great confidence. While there is no guarantee that an event organized by a private for-profit company is predatory, my personal recommendation would be to avoid it, and attend more established events organized directly by researchers or research organizations.

I merged this question onto another question, and provided the feedback/hindsight comment here. https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/194589/124170


text:
How to describe durations in text in APA style?
When referring to durations (such as 13 days and two hours), what are rules or correct ways to mention them in-text? Is there a common abbreviation such as 3d 2h or similar?

This information can be found in APA's Publication Manual, as well as their (7th Ed.) Abbreviations Quick Guide:

Use the time abbreviations shown in the table
when they appear with a numeral.

However, do not abbreviate the following larger
units of time, even with numerals:

Days
Weeks
Months
Years

Individual publication avenues or institutions may have their own variations.

thank you. So when taking the example above we can write "13 days 2 hrs"?

I believe they treat units of time similarly to other units of measurements, meaning you should not add an 's' to make the unit "plural". Hence, it would be "13 days 2 hr".

Okay, that makes sense!


text:
Enumerating multiple sources in one sentence in APA-style?
How are academic papers supposed to cite multiple sources in the same sentence when enumerating?
Which of the following examples does it right? (in APA)

Prevalent models within this context are model A, model B, and model C (source A, p. 12; source B, p. 202-203; source C, p. 1).

Prevalent models within this context are model A (source A, p. 12), model B (source B, p. 202-203), and model C (source C, p. 1).

Thanks!

Both might be technically correct, but the second is better for specific sources because sources are alphabetical within citations, meaning that #1's citation might become "(source B, p. 202-203; source A, p. 12; source C, p. 1)", depending on the author last names. #2 keeps the sources linked to the models.

Thanks! I could not find an official APA reference explaining it. Could you provide a source to verify that both are indeed correct? Would appreciate it!

@2stefan2000 - the APA style manual is from https://apastyle.apa.org/products/publication-manual-7th-edition

@2stefan2000 - $25 on Amazon, undoubtedly available at your university bookstore.

In this case, it is better to use the second option so that there is no confusion in the sources, and it is possible to quickly refer to it without reading the text as in the first option.


text:
Citing a source multiple times in one paragraph using in-text references in APA style?
What is the standardized approach to cite one source more than once within the same paragraph and without a second source?
I am aware of constructions such as "Smith (2010) developed X (p. 10). She concluded ..."
But is there an alternative approach when not using the "Author (year) ... (p.Z)" construction depicted above?
Can you alternatively write "The model X describes ... (Smith, 2010, p.10). Furthermore, something else (p.29)." in APA-style?

From this website

When citing the work of the same author multiple times in one paragraph, you do not need to reference the author at the end of each sentence. That would look clunky and make your writing stilted. Instead, introduce the author with a full in-text citation at the beginning of the paragraph and then, again, at the end. For the body of the paragraph, you can refer to the author by name or pronoun.
Example:
According to Spitzer's (2010) study the effects of radiation on humans
presents...Spitzer's study developed the guidelines needed to
test...The most important find in his study was that....Spitzer
concluded the benefit of radiation...The evidence that proves these
guidelines work (Spitzer, 2010).

The proposed sentence structure is exactly what I wanted to find an alternative for.
The "Author (year) claims ...." construction is what I want to avoid in my specific case.


text:
How to name organizations, companies, etc. in APA?
when naming an organization in APA, such as Apple, does the company website also have to be added somewhere (in parantheses or as a footnote)?
For example:
(1) In 2022, the largest manufacturer of smartphones is Apple.
(2) ... is Apple*     Footnote: * www.apple.com
(3) ... is Apple (www.apple.com)


text:
Are non-EU PhD scholarships for a non-eu student taxable in France?
I am a non-eu student. I have a PhD admission from a French university where the funding will come from an institution at my country (outside of the EU) who will pay me directly.
My question is the monthly stipend that I would receive will be taxable in France? If yes, how do I find out which bracket I am in?
This question is similar to Are PhD scholarships and assistantships taxable?, however it is specific to France’s case.

As far as I know, the source of funding and your nationality are irrelevant with respect to taxation. You will be a French resident because you will be living in France, I assume, and you will thus be taxed on your income. (There may be an exception if your stipend is taxed in your home country and France has signed a treaty with your country to prevent double taxation. This is a rather niche case.) This webpage has a lot of information about taxes when you are a student: https://www.etudiant.gouv.fr/fr/impot-sur-le-revenu-le-cas-des-etudiants-1837 In short, very few sources of income are tax exempt. A salary for working as PhD student is not part of it.
The tax brackets are available here: https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F1419 note that the tax rates shown are the marginal tax rates, not the total tax rates. There is also a simulator available there, in case you have other sources of income to declare and would like a comprehensive assessment: https://simulateur-ir-ifi.impots.gouv.fr/calcul_impot/2022/index.htm

Thank you for the detailed reply. I am sorry I don’t have enough reputation to upvote your answer.

@N.I. Hi, I have a similar question. If your total income was below the limit, do you still need to file a tax return?

@prada yes you do.


text:
How best to phrase recently being out of contract on CV
It turns out that I am between posts: my last (fixed term) contract ended this week and I have not yet taken up a new post (won't happen until at least February next year and is not yet certain).
In the meantime, how can I present the first information seen on my CV in the best light?
Normally I write "Current Post" and put my current details, but can no longer do this. Does the wording "Most recent post" sound ok or is there a better phrasing that can be used for the position that just finished that might soften the blow of applying for posts whilst not affiliated to a current institution?

I would not highlight it at all.
I would avoid using the CV structure that actually highlights the "Current Post" and go for a general "Work Experience" section (Teaching/Research/Work experience could be used together or as separate sections depending on the individual case).
Example of what is usually on the CV (when somebody is looking for a job while still being on a contract):

Work Experience
Sep 2018—current: Lecturer at The University of XXX
         brief description, responsibilities, projects, achievements, etc (whatever is applicable)
Sep 2011—July 2018: Teaching Assistant at The University of YYY
...

In your case, I suggest:

Work Experience
Sep 2018—Oct 2021: Lecturer at The University of XXX
         brief description, responsibilities, projects, achievements, etc (whatever is applicable)
Sep 2011—July 2018: Teaching Assistant at The University of YYY
...

(bold font on "current" and "Oct 2021" is to highlight the difference, not to be used in the CV)
Adopting this pattern would allow giving the correct information without necessarily highlighting the fact that you are in-between jobs right now (if that is your goal). I doubt this is really important information during the CV screening\review stage, but this question might come up during the interview, where you would be able to describe the situation in the best possible light.

Agreed, that's how I do mine (not in academia, though). Including the odd gap - never really been a problem apart from being asked occasionally for a short explanation during interview stage. In my country it's fairly customary to ask for "reason for leaving" at each job, to which I've simply put "end of contract" at a similar case (6 month contract - I could have added that I was offered a further 6 months, but declined - the offer was not too favourable - I thought that would be Too Much Info, and when asked simply reiterated that it was a limited-time contract, know from the start).

I'm not in Academia.  I have been laid off three times in the last 12 years.  I've migrated my CV away from months towards seasons (since the longest I was between jobs was about 65 days).  It's less precise, but still accurate.  The extra slop in the time blurs over any holes

A simple alternative, which is fairly standard on a CV, is just to title this section as "Employment", without using any descriptive adjective to specify the tense.  You then list the positions you have held along with the relevant dates, and these speak for themselves.  Admissions panels understand that productive people sometimes have gaps between employment (particularly when they work on contract) so there is no great need to "soften the blow".

Very nice suggestion - and thank you for the calming words

Between contracts you may call yourself a consultant. Details of your consultancy's clients/projects are, of course, confidential.

I understand that a CV is an advertising document and not a declaration under oath, but if you do this, expect at least one awkward question during the interview.

Yeah, you could tell them: - super super secret spy work, I'm not allowed to talk about. Not sure if it's gonna fly


text:
To break mental health condition to potential new advisor?
I will be meeting with a professor tomorrow who I previously asked to supervise me. I believe he has the right knowledge to assess the standing of my work in the interdisciplinary field I work in and help me moving forward.
He said yes and gave me some suggestions which I partly followed, but the last time we spoke was in May.
I am currently struggling with issues related to mental health (see this question here) and have been in the past months, although it took a while to realize the depth and take action. They are not diagnosed but they probably include a mixture of: low self-esteem, impostor syndrome, anxiety, and acts of self-sabotage. These are linked and the names I feel are not strictly important. I am currently seeing a psychoanalyst (to address the root causes) and the well being/mentoring program of the university (to get practical suggestions and coping strategies). Fighting on.
I seek two things from the professor:

Relevant advice and (within reason) some mentoring whenever my
cross-field preparation is weak.

An external commitment device that provides motivation for work and
help me overcome some of my issues.

I think I have 1. covered, but I am looking for suggestions on how to discuss 2, especially whether I should break the information about my mental health issues with him.
I see two possible ways to go:

I can simply set the pace by saying "I would like to meet every week to discuss my progress" and not mention my (alleged) conditions. This will be enough to set a weekly deadline for myself and would surely be helpful.

I could mention my issues to some extent. One of the reasons I didn't
ask him to meet before is an ongoing self-sabotage/perfectionism
which makes me unwilling to show my work until it has reached a
satisfactory level. I now realize that, essentially, this
satisfactory level is short of publication-grade material and
clearly impossible without expert feedback. I am afraid of course
that this could: sound like an excuse for my absence and lack of
advancement; mark me as a "bad apple"; monopolize the conversation
away from content; be plain awkward; as I write this answer I am also concerned about him having to disclose this information later on.

This is ill-timed, as the meeting is tomorrow (but I wanted to break the cycle of postponing this and I could always go with 1. right above and postpone breaking the mental health "coming out" to a more appropriate time), but any suggestions from you would be a great help.
EDIT
I ended up doing something midway between telling and not. I have hinted at the fact that I was somewhat stressed out and partially disclosed a concrete example (checking a computation for over three days out of a fear it might be wrong). He said he understands this kind of difficulties as well as my need to have someone to talk the fine details over. I believe he caught the implications and was overall very kind and sympathetic. Unfortunately, he will be entering a half-year sabbatical soon and might not guarantee his presence until the start of the next academic years, but said he would like to read what I am working on and pointed me to others who might be of help.

+1 for a question that I have also been struggling with lately. You are not alone.

I don't have first-hand experience with mental/psychological difficulties, but I did have a dear friend with such (but more severe) issues while we were both pursuing our doctorates. I'll tell you what I told him when he asked me the same question: no, don't tell your supervisor that. At least not at the very beginning.
First of all, there's no reason to do this in one sitting, if you really want to do it. You will have lots of meetings with your supervisor, and many chances to divulge little pieces of information about your state here and there. I can't really tell you how to do that gradually though. That's something that you'll need to figure out for yourself (assuming you want to).
Next, think about pros and cons. What is the best case scenario? How might telling your supervisor ultimately help you? I think you'll find that even if your supervisor is a very accommodating and understanding person, there isn't much to gain by telling him/her. What is likely to happen is that you'll get a free pass when things get tough. Do you want that? If, at some point, things do get extremely tough and you need a little space, talk to your supervisor then.
On the other hand, and without more information to go on, there's a bunch of things that might go awry. Things might get a little awkward between you, perhaps because the supervisor is a bit inept and without any experience of her/his own; (s)he might think that perhaps you are asking for a free pass, when in reality you are perfectly fine, etc.
I'm probably going to be one of the very few who advocate not telling your supervisor; if you want to take something from my answer, let it be this: don't do anything abrupt. Test the waters first. And weigh pros and cons. After all, you seem to be fully aware of your issues. Plus, you are seeking outside help.

First, congratulations on taking that first step towards recognizing yourself for who you are and seeking assistance to change yourself and get closer to becoming the person you would prefer to be. That is a huge step that many people are not willing to take, and I must applaud you for your courage.
Now, the issue at hand is whether you should reveal your current state of mind to your advisor. That's a delicate and deeply personal issue which can really only be left to your choice. That being said, if I were in your shoes, I would do so. In fact, I did exactly just that, both to my advisor during school and all my supervisors at work, and I benefited greatly from it. (Note that this is personal experience. If your advisor's personality is… less than accommodating, you may have a different experience.)
One of the most important roles of an advisor is to make sure that their students stay on track, both in terms of the scope of their research and their timelines. The last thing a professor wants is to be an inadequate advisor and as a result have a student take longer to graduate or turn out mediocre papers. Of course, this does depend on how busy the professor is, and they may ask other faculty for help or ask you to be mostly responsible for your own work (the last of which is relatively rare but not unheard of).
Psychological issues can cause many problems, including motivation. You can only benefit from having external motivation to keep you from deviating from your intended timeline, especially from someone you respect. At the same time, having that someone understand that you have difficulties will release you from the pressure of wanting to not disappoint that person, which ironically would have possibly caused you to stress out and as a result end up disappointing that person, then get stressed out from that outcome in a vicious cycle. Inform your advisor of your issues, and then together you can work out how to best manage your workflow. Perhaps you might need more frequent reminders, or require a little more detail with advice/instructions. Most advisors that I know love being helpful to their students, and hopefully your advisor will be the same.
Please note that you wouldn't be using your current state of mind as an excuse. You are already self-aware of your issues, which means that you will recognize when you attempt to avoid doing something and are capable of changing the course of that behavior when it occurs. Having that external motivator could be the extra push you need to help you turn away from avoidance and back to getting things done.
As for the issue of disclosing your psychological condition, it is not required unless it is directly relevant to the matter at hand. In fact, as mentioned in the answer to the question you linked, it can be considered unethical to unnecessarily disclose such information. If your adviser does find it necessary, let them know about your concern and work together to word it so that it minimizes any undue negative connotations.

No hurry in sharing everything in the first meeting.  Most advisors meet with their students weekly anyway -- certainly mine did -- and you can ask, "Shall I come see you once a week to discuss my progress?" with an eager expression.  (If he says no, don't give up -- you may be able to steer things that way later, and you may form a study group that meets at least once a week.)
That said, if some or all of your health vicissitudes happen to come up in conversation tomorrow, that's okay too.
It's exciting to hear about the two types of support you have.  In addition, you may want to ask your treating therapist, or a special evaluator, or your primary care provider, for the needed documentation to establish yourself formally with your university's office for students with disabilities.  This is a great way of carrying an umbrella in case of rain, and of doing self-care.  You never know when having this recognition may come in handy.


text:
Will it cause problems if I publish under a different version of my name than I use in my future medical practice?
I'm a medical student who is also interested in research and scientific publishing.
Although my legal name is Asian, I go by an English name with peers and supervisors (which is not on my degrees/official school records). In the future, I will have to use just my Asian first name when I practice medicine (but this won't matter because I will just be Dr.LastName anyways).
I'm just wondering what I should be publishing under - I found that a lot of people on pubmed/GScholar share my Asian name...and with my supervisors I am known by EnglishName-AsianName LastName.
Will publishing under this hyphenated name pose future problems if I practice just under AsianName?
I'm thinking problems such as not being recognized in research communities, hospital affiliations with research-based hospitals, etc.

Have you published any paper yet?

@scaaahu Moved discussion on applicability of [tag:asia] tag to chat to avoid an extended discussion here.

And also, are you in Asia currently?

Why not use a variation of.middle names: Wendy Weiwei KANG or Weiwei Wendy Lang.

@ff524 - I'm thinking problems such as not being recognized in research communities, hospital affiliations with research-based hospitals, etc.

I added that info to the post, thanks for clarifying!

@scaaahu - I'm currently in Canada

@ff524 - thank you for your help! It's my first time on this forum

Medical researchers are unfortunately underrepresented here (there's a poll, if you're inserted). We're very happy you're here, and I hope you stick around :)

I'd love to stick around - everyone here has been so helpful! Will vote as soon as I have enough reputation points!

I really doubt it will cause you any problems in future.
A lot of people would change their family name as a result of marriage and even that not too terrible.

Mh, I figure that as long as I compile all my papers on my CV/research profile website, it doesn't really matter if my publication has a different first name initial...as long as I don't publish with someone else with my last name haha

Um, if your last name is "Kim" or "Wang" (or "Brown") you have some competition.


text:
Should I breach peer-review confidentiality if I suspect misconduct and the editor is not willing to pursue it?
I was a peer reviewer for a paper that I did not find credible. The data were archived after the paper was published and show many curious or impossible (non-integer counts for example) patterns. I believe the data to be falsified and/or fabricated. I have been publishing my finding on my blog.
One figure, an ordination, is impossible to replicate. Most of the points are correctly located, but some, mostly outliers, are omitted or moved. Different points are omitted or moved in the two versions in the manuscripts I reviewed and the published version of this figure.
This apparent tampering make the relationships in the data appear much stronger than is justified.
I want to publish my findings, including the two manuscript versions of the figure as the inconsistencies between them and the published strengthens my suspicions of malpractice.
Does my duty to expose malpractice supersede my duty to maintain peer review confidentiality?
I have taken my concerns to the Editor, who is not interested.

As a moderator here I agreed to keep users' personal information (email addresses, IP addresses, real names) private and use it only for purposes of moderation. When I become aware of the real-life identity of someone who is trying to use Stack Exchange to e.g. cheat on a take-home exam on which they're not allowed to seek outside assistance (this has happened), as much as I am tempted, I am not allowed to notify the professor of the course they are trying to cheat in. I think your situation is similar in some respects...

@ff524: I agree in principle, but it is not clear how much of the argument can be made with publically available data (e.g. published version or publicly available datasets). One should not disclose any private information or communication obtained in the review process, but the author of this question might be able to make his point solely based on public data. This has the risk that he exposes himself as one of the reviewers (or at least the authors of the manuscript might get strong suspicions), but in my opinion this is not inherently unethical. ...

... One of the main reasons of anonymity of the reviewers is that they can give their honest opinion without fear of repercussions. If the reviewer chooses that this anonymity is not important to him/her, I don't see strong reasons against making the identity public. But in the end it is of course the reviewer who has to decide on this, after careful deliberation.

@Pieter the OP says he wants to publish a figure from the review version of the manuscript (that's different from the published version), because it makes the case stronger. (The question of "outing" yourself as a reviewer is already addressed in In single-blind peer-review, can you reveal your identity without the editor's consent?)

@ff524: sorry, yes you are right, I missed that. I would also strongly advise against that, and try to make the case based only on publicly available information.

This paper and its authors are identified on the poster's blog, but I don't see a clear accusation of misconduct there.  That makes this question really awkward: it is seemingly posted under a real name, it explicitly accuses the authors of misconduct, it identifies the poster as a reviewer for the manuscript, and it says he has retained manuscript versions of the figure and is thinking of making them public as evidence of misconduct.

At this point, the combination of the question here and the blog amount to a public accusation of misconduct.  I'd recommend either making such an accusation in a more clearly deliberate way (preferably without the manuscript figure, since debating the ethics of using it would be a distraction) or anonymizing/deleting this question.

It sounds like you have reasonable suspicion, but no real 'smoking gun'. Have you tried engaging the authors in a dialog? They may be able to explain. Since you have specific examples, it will be difficult for them to dodge.

@BenCrowell: my reading of the question is that the paper is already published, but that the OP wants to make an accusation using not only the published version of the figures, but also versions of figures from the original submission prior to revision. (See the second paragraph.)

That's a tricky question. I will try to give you my humble advice.
First, document every step and be sure that your statements are true. If you have some suspicion, you can also present that, but state that you only have such suspicion.
Second, write again to the editor telling him/her that in good faith you believe the study is fabricated, and it will undermine the journal credibility. If you do that after publication, the damage to the scholarly literature will be even larger.
Third, tell the editor your plan. For instance, you can tell him/her that if he does not act swiftly within 30 days, you will inform, without divulging too much details, of the situation, his/her insitution, as well as the authors' institutions and the publisher.
Fourth, if the above does not work (it should), then proceed and be ready to defend thoroughly your argument.


text:
How does LibGen/SciHub affect researchers' research and publishing process?
For those of you who don't know, LibGen is a database filled with scientific papers (and other documents) and many of them were downloaded from websites that require a paid-subscription. SciHub gives you access to these paid-subscription sites by using donated credentials.
How does this affect individual researchers' research & publishing process professionally?

Sorry, but "polling" questions are generally not appropriate on Stack Exchange sites.

@Nate Actually, I'm hoping people write their thoughts and how this actually affected their own publishing. I'm not looking for percentages or anything. And I believe Stack Exchange is made for questions in general.

I think this is no longer an opinion-based question. There are a finite number of ways that a researcher could be affected by SciHub. (There are not a finite number of opinions that one could have about it, which is one of the reasons why opinion-based questions are not allowed on this platform.)

Related: Ways to get free and legal access to research papers as a researcher and Literature searches in publications when you have limited access to journals

Arxiv is the legal option, but unfortunately the old papers are not available through arxiv.

But acording to this paper publised in Science, it seems that every country uses sci-hub due to the fact that they could easily use papers from home office, phone, etc. The best answer(we don't consider legal aspects here) is that Libgen increases productivity and the speed of research around the world.

Unfortunately, questions pertaining to LibGen/Sci-Hub tend to be closed, e.g.   Bulk download Sci-Hub papers

Let us call J. DOI  (for  "John DOI" or "Jane DOI", gender aware, see Jane Doe and John Doe) the anonymous researcher whose opinions follow. S(he) could be just  everyone, either from a rich or poor country, either with paywall capabilities or not. Being able to do this from home, researchers in universities with paywall access use it as well as others.
At the beginning, J. DOI used the LibGen/SciHub source scarcely. J. was not sure whether it was dangerous or not, or legal or not. J. DOI probably had a little more casual "hacking skills" than her/his colleagues. Earlier, J. DOI knew how to fetch documents that did not appear directly on the  first pages of  classical search engines. He/she knew about gopher, wais, ftp, and wget, to name a few.
When you find a novel gold mine, sometimes you don't say it loud, especially if you don't know how safe the atmosphere is, but you may share some gold you have dug. So J. DOI did not tell friends of the tricks, but he/she was very  keen on "helping colleagues" find a buried paper, because they  knew that J. DOI could. At first, J. DOI gained local fame as a web-search wizard.
This boosted J. DOI's confidence. And gluttony began. This affected J. DOI's health. Positively, because J. DOI could travel with less favorite scientific paper books, less printed papers. And this probably saved J. DOI's back, spine and joints. J. DOI could now use a much smaller and lighter bag, with travel essentials  only. But J. DOI would spend night hours grabbing electronic scientific works, often unrelated to his studies, only because "they were accessible", not knowing how long this will last. J. DOI remembers when  library.nu closed in 2012. J. DOI became physically healthier, but more tired.
Past the sheer amazement of the treasure, J. DOI became aware and overwhelmed. Aware of the legal and ethical  issues first and foremost. Some Johns and  Janes probably decided to refrain their greed, and to stick to official ways. The  other J. soon began to actually build a reference management policy with assorted software, because directories full of pdf, epub, djvu unnamed files are of no use. J. DOI created collections, used ontologies and keywords. J. DOI became organized.
But gathering papers and books is not science. J. DOI began to trace so-called "new  ideas" back in time, quoting the appropriate papers. J. was not stopped too early by paywalls, and was allowed generalizations. J. felt doing a more accurate and honest scientific job, standing on shoulders of more ancient or obscure but deserving giants. Science news does not invent everyday, especially in a time of publish or perish, paper avalanche and retraction.
J. DOI was now a little less interested in the most novel papers, and browsed journal table of contents less often. J. DOI was a FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) for the recent papers, and  became a FOMO of older stuff. Luckily, the number of published papers decreases when going back in time. J. DOI was more focused, and more curious as well.
Finally, J. DOI became more self-assured, meeting fellow researchers of the same kin. J. DOI could draw more connections between seemingly afar fields and ideas.
Now, J. DOI still dreams about (electric sheeps and) cumulative science and a global open access, for the rich and the  poor. J. DOI  knows that the present situation is not morally, ethically or even financially satisfactory, but (s)he hopes that it will slowly modify practices, toward better open science.

This topic is being reactivated in the context of paywalls, open access, archives. See for instance Why are most scientific articles locked behind a paywall?


text:
Can I include images licensed CC BY-NC 4.0 in a conference paper?
I'm writing an academic paper, which hopefully will be accepted and published in the conference proceeding.
In order to explain my idea, I'm also drawing a figure including a free image licensed by Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
The license states that I cannot use the material for commercial purpose.
I know that publishing activity performed by academic people for academic publishing is usually considered as non-commercial activity even though they receives salary from their university.
However, I have noticed that the conference committee will publish a set of papers including mine as the proceedings with price. Therefore, it might be considered as commercial activity. Also I'm worry that I will have to sign a contract to the publisher about the copyright transfer.
So, as a conclusion, is it OK for me to include images with CC BY-NC 4.0 license in my paper?

Summary: Is it ok for you to include the CC By-NC 4.0 image in your paper?  Yes.  Is it ok for the paper to go through a particular process at the conference? Maybe (see below).
The answer to this question is not clear-cut.  There is no general agreement as to what constitutes "commercial purpose" with CC licenses.  There has been much discussion on the CC pages which has resulted in guidelines, but they are still not black and white.
The best approach is to contact the person who owns the copyright for the image and ask them for permission.  That is the non-ambiguous approach.  If that is not possible, the next best approach would be to discuss the issue with the conference in question.  Depending on how aware they are about licensing issues, they may already have an option in place to address your situation.
A separate issue is the one of copyright transfer.  You are free to transfer your own copyrighted content to another body, such as the conference.  But you cannot assign another person's copyright to them.  Usually there is a line in the copyright transfer agreement that requires you to specify that you own all of the material being assigned to the new owner.  Regardless of the outcome above, you do not own the copyright on the image, even if you have permission to use it.  These are separate issues.  Once again, you should discuss this issue with the conference organizers.
My personal experience has been that many conferences request copyright transfer as a blanket process without realizing that it's often not necessary.  When I have contacted such conferences and told them that my work is published under a CC license and that I will NOT assign the copyright to them but WILL give them permission to use it as they see fit, they usually accept and have no problem with it.  Sometimes, however, the conferences get stuck on procedure and try to force a single process that doesn't fit modern publishing constraints such as the ones you describe.

It depends on the licensing arrangements of conference proceeding publications, surely?
Some require you to transfer over the entire copyright (which you cannot in this situation). Others may want the entire proceedings to be published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY) which is incompatible with CC BY-NC.
You should probably try and negotiate with the publisher of the conference proceedings well before you submit to get them to understand this licensing issue. They may well possibly allow you to include the image as long as its licence and attribution are clearly displayed.


text:
Citations to Mathematical Reviews?
I have written a few reviews for Mathematical Reviews. But how do I cite such reviews in a bibliography?
This seems to be an open problem as I in a database written by others encountered a reference to a review I wrote which "cheated", as it were, and simply indicated Mathematical Reviews, Year, No. 1, pages 1-2.

You can cite it as a @misc entry in your .bib file

This was useful. You may write it as an answer.

Sure, you can now accept it as your answer. :)

You can cite it as a @misc entry in your .bib file.


text:
How to approach potential supervisors who have already expressed an interest in supervising me after submitting my grad application?
I am interested in a grad program at a Canadian university and alike US grad schools, this department requires me to submit a formal application first to be reviewed by the Grad Committee, get accepted first by them AND also secure the supervisor before I could get an offer letter.
I have got a response from the Graduate Coordinator that they would like to admit into their program and have provided me with the names of two professors interested in supervising me. I would like to work with one whose work interests me, but how do I approach him? Do I simply say something that goes like, "thank you for showing an interest in supervising me, please share your current research projects" or something like, "I have read some papers from your lab group, and I have been impressed by Tom's (Consider him as a superstar graduate student in his lab) work and I consider myself an ideal fit for your lab." I am SUPER nervous & confused! Please input your thoughts about how would you handle it.
Also, should I reach out to another professor who is also interested in supervising me? If yes, how should I politely decline him?

I don't think the rules require that you decline the other professor formally. I probably wouldn't do that. Reaching out to both could get tricky as you will need to choose at some point anyway.
For the introductory letter to the one you prefer, introduce yourself and say something about your own interests and background (very short). You don't need to praise the professor. Saying that you have read a bit of their work and if some particular part of it is interesting to you then say which.
I assume that you will get an invitation to meet since he/she has already expressed an interest. You don't need to praise yourself either. The prof will have an idea that you fit the requirements. It isn't a selling job, but an introduction and statement of interest.
It is too early to make decisions. Wait until you meet to jointly figure out how you would fit in. But that would come after acceptance.

Thanks Buffy. I guess I have a better sense now. I couldn't meet him in person so I suppose the next probable step might be to offer a phone/video conversation.

@GradApplicant1705, you could offer that at his convenience, but I doubt it would happen now. Busy busy busy. You will have time to meet after you start.


text:
Postdoc: internal v. external candidates. Can I expect a fair process?
I have recently interviewed for a Postdoc position in a Scandinavian country, where the short-listed candidates have access to ranking and comments on how they were selected. I saw that the other person selected for the interview, already works there as a Researcher, probably on a temporary contract. Given the transparency of the process, I assume this would not matter much. However, it is human to be unconsciously biased and I have a fear that the professional intimacy shared by the candidate and members of the committee might not be in my favor.
The interview was really nice, a positive experience where I felt I connected with the committee, smiles were exchanged and my overall gut-feeling was that I could get the job. I can't help thinking, however, that I might lose over this detail.
Any thoughts and experiences?
EDIT: I do have another question, related to the selection process in Scandinavia: has anyone experienced a situation where 2 candidates are promising, and the PI or university opens another job or simply, they hire both? In my context, I know the PI has funding and could do this if they wanted. I wonder how common this is?

Even if someone had access to all the facts, how would they tell the difference between fair and unfair except in the most blatant cases of unfairness?

Are you asking if you will get the job, or if all candidates have the same chances pre-interview, or if interactions outside of the formal interview play a factor in decisions?  If the latter, the answer is definitely yes, extra familiarity can increase or decrease one's chances---the more you know about a person the better you can decide if they are who you really want for that role.

I know two PhD students have been hired when only one job was announced.

Nothing in life is certain, of course. Different places have different rules and different levels of actual adherence to the rules. Your concern that they may prefer a known quantity may well be balanced by their desire to bring in a fresh face. Different members of the search committee might have different preferences if they have any at all.
But it sounds from what you write that you are likely in a fair process even if that isn't a universal phenomenon.
But, in the end, they will choose the person who they feel is best for the position, based on whatever formal and informal criteria they have. You have no actual influence over that.
I'd suggest that you take a deep breath and also have a backup.

Was going to write an answer but this one said what I was planning. +1


text:
Why do citations in physics journals leave out the article title?
I'm not a physicist but I read the occasional physics paper. Coming from another discipline I find it odd that most article references in physics journals leave out the article title - this seems like a valuable piece of information to include for future researchers (not to mention their research assistants or library staff who may be asked to track the article down).
This reference style is recommended in the Physical Review Style and Notation Guide (PDF, p. 7) and the AIP Style Manual (PDF, p. 9) so I assume it's fairly widespread (although as a counterexample, the Reviews of Modern Physics Style Guide (PDF, p. 8) encourages an optional "long format" that does include the title).
Why does the physics community prefer this reference style, and what's the history behind its adoption?

Yet more evidence for physics having strange customs compared to other disciplines: citations are not ordered alphabetically.

For Optics Letters, you have to submit two reference lists, one with the title and one without.  The former is for reviewers, the latter is for publication.

@DanRomik Also in engineering citations are--luckily--not ordered alphabetically. Luckily, we usually report also the title.

The title is not strictly necessary to track down a paper, so it can be considered superfluous information. Leaving it out saves space, paper, and money in the printed version of the journal. It also saves on shipping. (The names of individual journals are abbreviated for the same reason. Same goes for the page range being replaced by the opening page number.) That's the historical reason, as I understand it. Speaking of history, this practice goes back a long way, and was commonplace already in the late 20s and 30s, in journals published on both sides of the Atlantic*.
One might expect this to have changed somewhat with the rise of digital distribution, and particularly the newer online-only APS journals. It sort of has. In 2015 the print journals decided to allow titles in the reference list. As for the online-only ones, I haven't had reason to check the style guide all of them. However, I know that at least one of them, Physical Review X, even requires the inclusion of titles.
While Reviews of Modern Physics is still printed (and thus should prefer leaving out titles for references according to the above logic), it's a unique case in many ways. One of these ways is that it mostly publishes few, but quite long papers. Hence, the relative savings of leaving out the titles would tend to be much smaller than in e.g. Physical Review Letters.
Even with digital distribution, many of us still prefer reading a printout, so the paper savings are still appreciated. Another reason for preferring this kind of concise referencing is that it kind of fits how some (a lot?) of us think about papers (although I admit there might be a chicken-and-egg situation here). It's Brady's PRB from 2015, not whatever the title of that paper might have had. Also, titles are quite often similar to those of related papers, and can blend together, so they don't add much IMO.
*No special meaning is assigned to these decades, I just happened to have a few Zeitschrift für Physik and Physical Review papers from this time period on hand.

Even at the turn of the century (20th that is), journals such as the Proceedings of the Royal Society and others did not have titles in references. The titles really are superfluous to the reference, I believe.

Actually, titles have become a lot more useful lately with the advent of google: You normally google the title, not the journal and pages (though https://scholar.google.com/ can be quite good at the latter). I suspect the old title-less style was optimized for looking the paper up in a (meatspace) library.

thank God for shortened abbreviations as grants applications are usually page-limited (although nowadays the page count excludes the bibliography).  For space saving reasons one also used ibid and all the additional Latin locutions.

I think it very much is a chicken-and-egg situation.  Most physicists like to identify papers by author/journal/year, but it seems to stem from the citation habit (which exists not only in papers, but often even in informal contexts like talks).  This is purely anecdotal, but I get the impression that younger physicists who grew up in the online age tend to slightly more often refer to papers by their titles.

As a complement to @Anyon's answer, I would add that citations are no longer there only for the reader's convenience: they have also been hijacked by bibliometrics and such "administrative" purposes. When you judge papers by the journals they appear in, you tend to find journal references more important than titles.

That's unfortunately true, but IMHO the habit of leaving out titles is older than bibliometrics (at least the computer kind). See @Anyon's post.

@darijgrinberg : Sure, bibliometrics did not make title disappear, but it may prevent them from reappearing.

For purposes of bibliometrics, the title, and even the author, the year and the journal would be superfluous; the DOI (digital object identifier) alone would suffice.

@anpami : I meant not only bibliometrics, but also crediting authors for the sake of their careers. For this you need authors' names and journal references.


text:
Why does an "external member" of a thesis defense committee come to your defense?
I am curious why would some professor from another university come to my university (in Turkey) merely for my defense.
What benefit does this professor have in it?
Do universities pay professors for being an "external member" of any student's thesis defense?

My external member just used Skype.

Some external professors are in the same field and others are not. They serve different purposes. They might be paid a small stipend, but it is usually (as far as I know) just an honorarium. The receiving institution probably also pays for travel and lodging if the person is from away.
For the professor it is just a part of service to the profession. Their own institution may provide some recognition for it or not. Often annual evaluations are on research, teaching, and service.
However, the purpose of an in-field visitor is, at least partly, to give some external validation to the program that is visited. I've been asked if I think the entire program is up to the standards I would expect. This help prevent academic incest where a department only speaks among its own members and loses connection to the larger goals. "Would you give a doctorate to this candidate based on the thesis and overall program?" Here the visitor is from a different university for this to make sense. Sometimes from a different country.
The purpose of an external member of an examination committee, however, is quite different and may even come from the same university. In mathematics, the visitor might come from philosophy or a language department. They are normally not expected to read the dissertation and couldn't be expected to understand it. But they are expected to ask a question or two of the candidate and the quality of the answer can be heavily weighted in the evaluation of the student. Sometimes it is just a request to explain to the visitor some terminology used in the defense talk. A layperson's explanation is expected, and the candidate normally is expected to do a good job with the answer. Advanced students who can't intelligently discuss elementary things in their field are at a handicap. I've heard of situations in which the examination was failed for this reason alone.

I've also served as an "External Examiner" for students at other universities (in the Netherlands, Canada, and New Zealand)  In those cases I was paid an honorarium and travel expenses in exchange not just for attending the defense but also for conducting a very thorough written review of the dissertation similar to the kind of peer review that would be done for journal publication for each of the chapters of the dissertation.  This kind of "External Examiner" arrangement is not common in the US in my experience.

My experience is similar to Brian's (France, Denmark, Israel, and the Netherlands).  I've also been an external member of a few US thesis committees, and (by department policy) all my PhD students have had one thesis committee member from another university, but none of these required a thorough, formal written review of the thesis.

I don't know what the system is in Turkey, but I can comment on the system in the UK. Here the external examiner of a PhD thesis is the primary examiner (they ask the hardest questions, and it is their judgement that weighs most heavily in the evaluation of the work), and they are expected to be an expert in the field that is the subject of the thesis.
Why do they do this? As others have said, they might enjoy the visit to another university, or another country. They might like the opportunity to give a talk at another institution, although from what I've seen in the UK that only happens some of the time. Of course, they might just be interested in the research itself! Primarily, however, I think this is something that people do for two reasons (depending on how one looks at it, there might only be one reason, as they bleed into one another somewhat).

Duty. Being the external examiner for a PhD is like being a referee for a journal. It doesn't pay (or at least not well—they might just cover your costs), but it's an important part of maintaining academic standards in one's field.
As part of a system of exchange. If I were to act as an external examiner for a PhD thesis, then the supervisor of that student (or perhaps the internal examiner, or the department more broadly) owes me a favour, that I might call in at a later date by asking them to examine one of my students. Alternatively, I might do it in the expectation that someone (preferably someone who is both good and influential in the field) will act as the external examiner for one of my students in the future, or to "pay it forward" because someone has done it for me in the past. In other words: this is one of those duties for which one doesn't necessarily expect to be compensated immediately, or even by those who one is doing the favour for. Rather, it's one of the things that makes the academic world go round, just like refereeing papers, assessing grant applications, or writing tenure letters.

In my department at least, external committee members are rarely there just for the defense. We usually take advantage of their presence to have them give a talk as a guest speaker. And as such, they're paid and given accommodations as guest speakers, even though their main purpose of travel would be to take part in the defense. In this sense, the professor gets the advantage of having been invited to speak at an external institution (great line on your CV) and potentially meet new and future colleagues in the field, and the institution gets the advantage of having this guest visit and disseminate their research. It's all a part of networking.