text:
Is promotion from staff scientist to professor possible? (Considering job offer in US)
I am a researcher making its way (very slowly) to professor in Europe. After several years of effort and relocations, I have now my own research program and have earned a promotion to supervise PhD students and postdocs. In around three years, I will be applying for full professor positions, hopefully.
Now, I have recently received an offer from a very famous professor in the US who wants to move in the direction of my research field. It is a permanent position as staff scientist (director) in their group with a close to decent salary. It is clear that with them things will move faster and the impact will be high.
I am ambitious and still want to lead my own group and succeed as a PI in the future (even if I have certain age now). If I accept this position in the US, will I be still be considered for promotions as professor in the American system? Thank you in advance!

Your question boils down to asking for career advice under fairly special circumstances. I think it will be hard to impossible to give objective answers.

Probably you will not be considered for promotion to professor.  But you could still apply for position of professor, either there or at other institutions.  (It may be considered bad form to start applying for other positions right away; wait a few years.  And by then your "famous professor" may be willing to write a letter of recommendation for you.)

The flip side is that being in a non-teaching position for several years may harm your chances for a faculty position, compared to other candidates who can show recent evidence of successful teaching.

Thanks for the advice! I think I will inform them of my future goals to be PI and ask for opportunities to support teaching. Would that work for future applications? Thanks again

This might be possible, but only if you arrange it at the very beginning.
But first, note that "Full Professor" in Europe and "Professor" in the US mean very different things. "Full Professor" is about the same in both places except that, I think, in Europe a department will have only one Full Professor and in the US there may be many. Here (US), Full professor means teaching, research, and service (with different balance different places) but no assumption of administration duties. The term Professor can apply to an Assistant Professor with a seven year probationary period leading to tenure and an Associate Professor title. Several years later, if the person has done well according to the judgement of the faculty, they may be promoted to Full Professor.
But the above is the normal path for people starting out. When a university hires a person from another institution, they are inserted somewhere in the cycle, but almost everyone undergoes a probationary period. (Einsteins excepted, of course.)
And, almost everywhere, moving from Staff Scientist to Professor would be unusual. Not impossible, but don't assume that it is a normal or common path that would obviously be open to you.
My advice would be to negotiate the terms at the very start. I would suggest something like asking to be made an Associate Professor on hire with a, say, two year probationary period. If you are a world renowned researcher (Einstein, again), then ask for more, but probably not less.
The problematic part, I think, would be that you don't say you have any teaching experience. Almost all Professors here (all ranks) do some teaching. For those doing high level research in a place in which that is the most important item, it will be less, in most cases, but usually there will be some, even if it is only advanced graduate courses. And, supervising graduate students is also an important element of the job.
If they will start you out as Assistant Professor with a long probationary period, make sure you understand the terms. How much will teaching count in a tenure decision? Research? Other? Can it be done by somebody stressing one of these more than expected, but leaving the others to wither?
But, if you don't negotiate it at the start, I fear you would get stuck with no path forward. And maybe not a path out, either.
I assume the professor you are talking to has some clout. Perhaps enough to get the university to go along with your requests. In most cases, the path I suggest (Associate Prof, short probationary period) would be palatable to some, but not all, R1 universities, which are the ones stressing research above all. After a few years, if you do well, promotion to Full Professor will open for you.
Don't be shy. Don't make assumptions.

I suppose one can ask about converting the position, but I really doubt that it will be that simple,  The hiring process for staff scientists versus tenure(track) faculty is usually completely different.  Prof. Famous might be able to hire a staff scientist basically on their own authority (paid from their own grant), but hiring tenure(track) faculty is a much higher-level decision, and almost always has to involve an (inter)national competitive search.

It seems a little like having someone offer to give you a bicycle, and you ask them if they can give you a car instead.

I agree with both Nate and Buffy here... This is both A) Unlikely, and also B) Almost certainly the best way to get on the professor track through this path. That said, in my field at least, it is pretty common in some of the 'big famous' labs for a lieutenant-like tenure-track professorship under the umbrella of the 'big famous' lab, and these professors tend to take a more active role in the mentorship of the students and day to day operations of the lab. That said, these professors are hired as assistant professors, not promoted from a staff scientist role.

...cont... I wouldn't suggest applying for this position and then negotiating up, though. I would start a separate communication with the professor indicating that you are interested in assistant professor jobs in the US and think it could be a good fit to work closely with their lab. Odds are not great, but it could develop into something beneficial for you anyways.

Thank you all for your answers! So, in principle I should first negotiate that I have some teaching as part of the position? As mentioned before I am not an Einstein so I cannot push too much... so I should keep the bike ;)
I do have previous teaching experience (Bachelor and Master) but most of my curriculum is based on research.

I think the minimum is that you get an idea at the start what your future options are there. Will you have a shot at converting to a faculty position? How much can the professor support you and ease your way. It isn't so much that you are allowed to teach, but that you have a realistic view of your possible future there. That, along with some advice on how to maximize it - at that institution. Try to work with the professor.

@Buffy Yes, that is a great idea in my opinion. I think I will propose that path and cross fingers that I can succeed :). Thanks a lot!

RE: "The title 'Professor' implies some teaching in the US"  There are some rare exceptions, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Advanced_Study

I think it depends on your age, and also the country you're currently in. There is definitely a bit of ageism in academia, so I wouldn't recommend it if you're in your late 40s or early 50s, but if you're still below or in your thirties, then joining a big group with the prospect of some high impact papers would be no harm to your career.
The UK or Australian systems seem much better for mid career researchers than the US one, so you're in one of those systems and want stability, you should stay.

I think this answer is just plain wrong. US perspective.

@Buffy can you elaborate please?

@Mariah, age has nothing whatever to do with it. The current country has nothing to do with it.


text:
What typically happens when two or more professors from the same department want the same prospective PhD student?
If a talented PhD applicant names (in their statement of purpose) two or three professors at a department that they'd like to work with, and this student is accepted by the department, with all of the named professors equally desiring to hire this student into their respective research groups, then what lands up happening, typically?
A coin toss?
Give the student to an academically younger prof.?

What about "student chooses"?

Or they go into the courtyard and sort it out like in the good old times - whoever integrates faster, gets the student... ;-)

Barter Town has the answer. "Two profs enter! One prof leaves!"

This is not usual, but in one economics department I know, the professors make closed bids for the right to choose a grad student first. So basically the one with the largest willingness (which is of course related to ability) to pay gets the student. But actually the student can work with both on the dissertation.

I think that you would ultimately have the final choice in the matter. The supervisor is somebody that you have to work with for 4+ years, so you better make sure you choose the one you think you can handle for that period of time.

But how will you decide that you can handle someone who you don't know for that duration? Most of the times, things are superficial and poorly perceived.

In our system, its like getting a job. If two profs have jobs to offer, then the student decides which offer to take.

@Coder Heh heh. You go on dates with the profs, like "The Bachelor."

@Coder You should reach out to former students of each supervisor, that is one of the best ways you can find out what type of professor you would be dealing with. Profs usually have a section of their CV in which they list past PhD students, a quick Google search will let you figure out if you have the right person, then you establish the communication.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the difference in the structure of a conference paper and journal paper?
Is there a general difference in the structure of conference papers vs journal papers? Take the following examples:
(1) The following is the structure/outline of a published conference paper (source):

(2) And a different conference paper (source):

Notice they have the same general form (intro, background, method, results, conclusion).
(3) Now - the following is the structure of a published journal paper (source):

(4) And finally, one more example of the structure of a published journal paper (source):

I have 2 questions:

Question 1: should the 'related work' section come before or after the 'results' section?
Question 2: is there a general difference in the structure of conference papers vs journal papers?

You are on the right track: looking at published articles and conference papers will give you the answer. You will probably find that there is some consensus, but no "formal" prescribed structure. Of course, some conferences or journals have requirements that you need to fulfil to publish there.

Expectations regarding paper structure differ significantly between fields. The following answers apply to computer science (which, based on your examples, might be relevant for you):

Question 1: should the 'related work' section come before or after the 'results' section?

The two valid and common options are "after introduction/background" and "before conclusion". The preferred option depends on the details on your paper. Some considerations are:

How much detail do you need for explaining the difference between your work and the RW? If you need specific details that are introduced in other sections, it makes sense to have the other sections first.
How long is the RW section? For a reader who reads the paper from beginning to end, a long RW section might get between the reader and your idea. If your background and RW are tightly coupled and not too long, it makes sense to have them as subsequent (sub)sections.

Question 2: is there a general difference in the structure of conference papers vs journal papers?

Journal papers on average have more sections because journals, unlike conferences, usually do not have a page limit, and journal papers are often extended versions of conference papers. Having more material requires more structure to still have each section as a readable chunk.

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


text:
How to find published article from arxiv preprint
I just came from here and have a related but different question. My question is, is there an online tool that will allow me to definitively check if a published version of a preprint exists and locate the published version?
Take, for example, this paper. Perhaps it was never published in a journal. But is there a way to definitively know?

Why would you like to know this?

No, this is impossible to determine definitively because there is no complete list of publications.
The correct solution is for the author to update their ArXiv submission with a citation.
The practical solution is to use Google Scholar to search for an article with the same text.
You can also ask the author, who will know if there is an authorized publication.


text:
Do all PhD programs have publishing requirements?
At the bottom of this webpage are publication requirements for PhD students at Skolkovo Institute of Technology. Is it common for PhD programs to have specific publication requirements like this?

Even among those programs that don't have formal publication requirements, there can be requirements on the level of the supervisor. The point is that a PhD thesis is a huge piece of work, and completing it becomes more manageable by splitting it into milestones/parts (which correspond to publications).

In many humanities (English Literature, e.g.), the expectation is for the finished thesis to be turned into a book after graduation. But if it isn’t, you likely won’t get tenure anywhere.

I think it's not common to have specific requirements like that on the website, but it is pretty common that something like this exists at least as a guideline in the heads of supervisors and examiners. In every school I have studied / taught at so far in CS, rough numbers of what a minimum PhD thesis looks like were at least floating through the room (and they were not so far off from what is listed explicitly on this website - at least two somewhat beefy papers, usually plus some assorted materials). This isn't yet a good thesis, but it's one that most people would be ok signing off on.
To be honest, it's probably a good idea to write it on the website as this program does - a little bit of transparency often goes a long way.

I think the answer is no, not all do. But if you rephrase it slightly you get a different result. If we define PhD strictly as a research doctorate (though some schools might be weak on that), then a dissertation of some sort is required. In all fields, and for all advisors, I think that the attitude, if not the specific rule, is that the dissertation be of publishable quality. The exceptions, where the committee doesn't have such an attitude, seems to me to be a vanishingly small set.
That is a judgement made by the advisor and committee in many fields. In some fields, and apparently at some universities, prior publication is required. But that is just a way of having an independent judgement about publishable quality; by the journal/conference reviewers. The decision is, then, somewhat distributed.
Some dissertations never get published other than informally (university libraries, University Microfilms, etc). Some result, after the fact, in one or more publications. In my own case (though long long ago) there was no formal requirement other than a submission to what was then University Microfilms. But a shorter version of the dissertation was published a few years later.

As far as I'm aware specific publication requirements are common in Europe, but not in the UK or US.

My US institution does not require a publication prior to graduation.  But, I am finding myself significantly hindered in my -academic- job search by not having any sort of publications prior to graduation.  So for others who are reading this answer:  while publishing might not always be necessary to get a degree you might want to keep in mind what you want to do after you graduate.

The requirement, like that of Skoltech, will vary from region to region, from country to country, and from institution to institution.
However, to redirect your 'question', it might be best to look at the concept of doctorate within the context of higher degrees.
Essentially the requirement, as stipulated at the bottom of the link, is basically a PhD by Publication - Prospective Route.
This is common in parts of Europe like the Scandinavian Countries and in Australia. In the UK, it would often be referred to 'Alternate Thesis Format' to distinguish it from the PhD by Publication - Retrospective Route (typically referred to as PhD by Published Work, or PhD by Prior Publication).
The requirement for sole-author or first author is to gauge the degree of individual effort as required for doctorate; the independent contribution to knowledge.
PS: I'm busy with a manuscript on this. I should share a preprint later. You can also read academic papers and blogs on PhD by Publication.

[Skoltech]
Publication requirements and Conference participation for PhD students
PhD students are expected to produce an original PhD thesis (check previous PhD Thesis Defenses), publish the results of their independent research in peer-reviewed academic journals, and present them at reputable international conferences.
Publication requirements:
Three peer-reviewed publications, of which two appear in WoS/Scopus indexed journals/conference proceedings.
At least two publications in:

(i) Q1/Q2 journals in the corresponding fields or journals with impact factor (IF) > 2,
or
(ii) conference proceedings having a CORE rating of A/A*;

One (out of two) first/shared first/corresponding author publication.

To answer your question title: I'm sure if someone was interested they could find one that doesn't, however...
The purpose of a PhD (in an optimistic sense) is to help further your chosen field. It doesn't matter how smart you are if you don't further anything, and the primary mode of this is a research paper.
Skolkovo seems to be especially strict about this, since most programs I see require only one: your dissertation. This is technically a published research paper, even if it is given a big, final boss-sounding name. Oftentimes, one will be part of multiple research papers anyways due to other requirements such as being a research assistant or just being in a research group, however there it isn't the publication itself that is important.

@BenCrowell OP was asking if publication requirements are common. I'm saying they all have at least one required publication inherently, but not like Skolkovo

The requirements listed on that website are very soft. 2 can be conference proceedings and the remaining one must be peer reviewed but not necessarily first author. If you hang around a lab long enough you can accomplish that.
Institutions differ in specific requirements but nearly all, at least in the US, require some type of publication. But, that publication can be in-house, I.e., your dissertation is probably indexed by Scopus.
These are actually not difficult requirements as stated. In comparison, my last university required grad students have 3 peer reviewed articles to even be considered for PhD candidacy. That’s a high bar.


text:
What is an EngD degree?
What is the purpose of an EngD degree (for example of Data Engineering) and what are its advantages over a PhD?

There is probably little advantage over a PhD. And maybe some disadvantages depending on the actual nature of the degree. In the US there are some "doctorates" not considered "research doctorates" and these have disadvantages. I can't comment about UK usage.

Based on the information provided on Manchester's website the primary difference between PhD and EngD would appear to be that the EngD contains a formal taught component. I suggest you contact the university for more details about exactly what is involved in each case.
Whether or not you see the EngD as advantageous seems likely to depend entirely on your personal circumstances. From a future employer's perspective, I doubt the choice of EngD or PhD matters: they are likely to be far more interested in what you did than which program you enrolled in. The University of Manchester has an excellent reputation, so any degree from them is likely to be taken seriously.


text:
No response to after PhD interview, Germany
I had a face-to-face interview in a research institute for a PhD in BW, Germany (Don't want to mention city and institute for confidentiality) on the 16th of September 2019. The interview itself went quiet well, but I told them I could start from December onwards. I wrote to the Professor in November that I am available and the Prof. just responded "thanks for your patience". I wrote them (the Prof. and their secretariat) again a couple of weeks ago for an update on the application status and whether if I am still a candidate for the position (P.S. In very smart and polite way). I haven't received any response yet. Should I consider this a rejection? It has been almost 3 months since the interview and almost one year since my MSc graduation.

You need to explore other options and not rely on this.

If this was a position that was advertised by the university, you might try calling (not emailing) the relevant HR department. They may be willing to update you on the status of the post.

This is most likely not due to German bureaucracy, there must be another reason. Otherwise they would tell you that you are the one, but making the contract takes some time, or something similar. Do you know if they actually have an open position? Please clarify this in your question.

This is German bureaucracy! Hiring someone is a very long drawn-out process, as there are many (at times conflicting) rules to follow and many people who must sign off on the process.
They are generally not allowed to correspond with you by email or snail mail during the selection process (as that could be used in court by someone not getting the job and starting a Konkurrentenklage. So the advice to give them a telephone call is excellent (although I think all German universites are now closed until Jan. 6 or 7).
Do explore other options, as competition for PhD positions (especially in "rich" states like Bavaria or Baden-Württemberg) is high. If you goal is a PhD at all costs, try some of the less popular universities.

I disagree. Hiring is not difficult at all if you have an open position.

This is not true. The university needs a long time to make a contract, but the offer itself comes fast. No one would expect a great candidate to wait for two months in uncertainty. In companies, both offers and contracts come fast.

I am certain contact is allowed and even asked for.

@wimi in companies, yes. I am only speaking about German public service. I've just had to spend 4 weeks just getting an ad out, just before Christmas, wonderful.

@Rachel The answer mentions phone calls as an allowed means for contact. That's in line my own experience from a hiring process in Germany, where I applied for a post-doc: After the interview, the PI asked me per mail to have a phone call, in which he then informed me about their decision that they want to hire me.


text:
CV for Physics Summer Schools
I am applying to summer schools for undergraduates in the US and all of them ask for a CV(in addition to other documents like a cover letter).
While I understand that a CV should be more descriptive than a resume, is it generally acceptable if a CV is 2 pages long for a 3rd year undergraduate in Physics, or I should make sure that my CV is limited to only one page even if that means I will have to leave out some information that I believe is relevant?

Please give your country; these things can vary dramatically. From the fact that resumes are a thing for you, and the fact that you didn't think to state where you are, it's likely that it's US - but I don't like to assume :-)

"a CV should be more descriptive than a resume" No, I would say it is the other way around.   Ask one of your professors to critique your application.

I think two pages are fine unless otherwise specified. However, I would order its content so that more distinctive traits are more visable (at least on the first page). These would be publications, projects, awards and honors.

I disagree with other commenters. I would absolutely recommend limiting the CV to one page. I don't want to speculate, but as a 3rd year student, you probably do not have much experience to mention anyway... Therefore, I think your CV is quite loose and not really compact.
You need to tidy your CV and compactify it. For your case, your CV must have the following properties in my opinion:

Contain every experience you have
Be easy to read and skim; i.e one page
Nice and simple layout
Content must be short, descriptive and on point. CVs are not essays, but they are not lists of key words either.

Don't leave large margins, and don't leave much space between content. At the same time, the CV must be readable and organized, and when printed, the font must be easy to read.
If you did all that and you still end up with more than one page I would be surprised! Nonetheless, at this point you might want to consider more than one page CV.

I had a 2 page CV as a 2nd year math student. It didn't have large margins. No details were given except hyperlinks to relevant information. It did not repeat the transcript. It also was recived by a faculty before submission and even got me into a highly selective summer research. And I didn't go out of my way to enlarge my CV. I just did what made academic sense at every step of the way. In short, one can easily have a 2 page CV, if one is willing to do extracirriculars in one's field.

@BoatyMcboatface Do not get me wrong. I am not saying it is impossible, I just think that it is unlikely. In an A4 paper you can fit an insane amount of information if you are willing to, which I think should be the priority. A tidy one page CV is a better than a loose two page CV. I am here not judging the OP, I am just giving him what I think is optimal. If he think that a one page CV would be too cramped, then he should  not do it.

Do NOT remove or leave out relevant information.  Somewhat counterintuitively, long CVs are perfectly acceptable in academia.


text:
Use of a book for a continuing education course
Can I lecture on a subject that references (as required reading) a book that all were required to read? I am not reproducing any portions of the text, and assume they all legally procured the work.

Yes, you can require your students to read a book for a class. Where the students get the book is then their problem, and as long as you don't provide them with pirated copies, the origin of their copies needs not be your concern.
The only concern many of us have these days is that many books are expensive. This may not be true for a softcover copy of some classical literature, if that happens to be your area of teaching, but it is an issue if your area is some advanced topic in the sciences where many textbooks can run at $100 or over. I have generally avoided requiring my students to have a particular textbook for these reasons -- going to college is expensive enough these days.

Some libraries have copies of the books. Some of them will prevent checkout if you tell them, requiring in-library study, but better sharing of limited resources.

Copyright is about copying. You aren't doing that. In fact most university courses have required text books, but instructors don't check to see that the students have receipts for purchase. You are fine, actually. The assumption you make is entirely typical.
If students pirate books in some way, that is on them, as long as you don't suggest or encourage it.
But lectures based on the material of others is fine. Universal, actually.


text:
Is it possible to work on my thesis on my home country?
I was wondering if it's possible (and how frequent it is) to work my (math) PhD thesis in my home country if I am an international student?

I think, it depends at least on the country where you are PhD student.

Watch out for residency requirements: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/60204/what-is-a-residency-requirement-in-the-context-of-canadian-and-us-phd-programs

That is probably possible, provided that your advisor approves. You will need to set up a communication channel with the advisor, of course. You will also need to make sure the all fees are paid for your degree. But many advisors will permit this. And, I hope, most universities.
I know of at least one such case, but here, the candidate had to make several trips between the US and UK to make it happen. The degree was awarded in UK. The student and advisor were also able to meet at international conferences in this case.
But communication is normally needed, so don't neglect that.
Most likely you would need to start in the country of the university and would almost certainly be required to return for the thesis defense. But the work itself can probably be carried out anywhere. A good local library might be a requirement, which would give you access to needed background papers.


text:
Resarch Paper on Conceptual Design of a Physical System
Is a paper acceptable if it is based on a concept design of a physical system backed by some mathematical models and simulations? No practical development and experimentation is present.
In other words, "Is an argument based on just mathematical models and matlab simulations acceptable as a research article?"
If YES, then would it be worthy of an impact factor journal or just a low level conference?

What does your advisor think?

He thinks it might be passable but he's not really sure. I just want an opinion from someone who might have an experience with something similar (maybe someone who has reviewed a lot of papers of different statures eg.)

I do not think there is a yes/no answer to your question, at least not without someone from your field to review your contribution. After some time in academia, you will begin to get a sense of what is publishable and what is not. As a new student (I assumed you are), this is the role of your supervisor.
While it is not the same question, the following question shares almost the same concern as yours. You might find it helpful.
How can I efficiently check the originality of my work?


text:
What to do when reviewers want you to expand on introduction and discussion but you have space limitation?
I have just received a revise and resubmit for a manuscript. A couple of the reviewers want me to expand the intro and discussion sections but my manuscript is already at the word max. Should I ask the editor if the will approve a longer paper? Should I assume that if the editor didn't say anything that it's ok for me to lengthen the paper? How else can I handle this situation?

How specific the reviews about what you should include?  You may want to ask directly this question from the editor, I wouldn't expect his approval, but it never hurts asking.

First and foremost, ask the editor.  Sometimes space limits are hard, and sometimes they are soft, and you often can't tell the real story just by reading the journal's stated guidelines.

If the limits are soft, you don't really have a problem.  Nevertheless, don't get verbose: the reviewer probable didn't just say "Give more introductory material," they probably pointed at specific types of shortcomings in your current material.  Focused improvement of material may not actually take much length at all.
If the limits are hard, then begin by writing as though the limits were soft.  I always find it best to start by writing the paper they way you want to write it, and then figuring out how best to reduce.  If you start by worrying too much about length, then you are likely to cut the wrong parts, because you can't see the structure of the whole while you are writing.  Once you've got a paper that's too long, then this question has some good advice about how to shrink it.

"Expand" doesn't necessarily mean add words. You can add material to your intro yet still condense the manuscript by making other edits somewhere else.
Sentences can often be restructured to save on word counts. I've managed to cut hundreds of words from papers simply by revising and editing. Sometimes you can eliminate words or phrases by using langauge that is more direct and concise. Do this right, and you can reduce your word count while still making your paper more forceful and substantive at the same time.
It might take some time and effort, but have the right mindset. Don't assume your paper is currently as concise and polished as it can be – assume there is room for improvement.

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


text:
Spent time between two campuses, one isn't degree granting. How do I list this on my CV/Application?
First of all, I'm sorry if this is off topic, I wasn't sure if I should post or not and couldn't decide based on the guidelines.
My situation is a bit unique. I go to a large state university (X) that is relatively well known in my field. It has its main campus in city A in the U.S., and a small branch campus abroad in country B. I spent 5 semesters in branch B, and have been at main campus (A) for a semester, a summer term, as well as this ongoing semester. I am currently applying to PhD programs in the U.S.
Here are the facts:

My degree doesn't specify campus. Branch B is not degree granting, and my degree just says X university.
I have only one transcript and one GPA. My transcript looks like this:

Fall 2013 - Campus A
Fall 2016 - Campus B

My last 3 journal publications since I came to the U.S. bear a double affiliation with both campuses.
2/3 of my letter writers are from main campus in the U.S.
Most importantly, I have no idea where I will spend my next (and last) semester. I might stay at A in the U.S., or I might have to go back to B abroad. Either way, it doesn't change my degree or anything else, just where I'll physically attend classes.

I'm quite concerned and confused about how to treat this situation on my PhD applications. Naturally, I'd enter both and upload same transcript twice:
a. X University (Campus B): Fall 2013 - Fall 2015
b. X University: Spring 2016 - Present
However, I do not know how to approach this since I'm technically and officially just a student of X university with my degree from there. More importantly, I have no idea where I'll be next semester! I also technically still have affiliation with campus B since I haven't internally transferred to the U.S., they're just letting me stay as long as I need for research. For my CV, I did this:
X University .... City A, State
X University (Campus B) .... City, Country B
Degree, Thesis, GPA, etc.
I don't want to get admitted somewhere only for them to realize I spent my last semester at B and revoke my offer for fraud or something like that. Most of my professors here in the U.S. said I just list X University, but I guess that's just because they fully understand my situation and how the whole branch campus thing works.
How do I make sure that this information is transmitted honestly and clearly to the admissions committee?

Unless branch B has very bad reputation, I don't see why people would care which branch of University X you have been studying the most. What are your concerns?

Most people wouldn't know B exists, it's very small. People from some research area would know about it due to the faculty there, however.
I am just concerned with someone thinking I tricked them or something in case I go back to B next semester. For example, a university calls me for a campus visit and I'm like "oh, sorry, I'm out of the U.S. for the whole semester." That's my concern.

Being out of the country for a semester is not that unusual. My university heavily advertised their study abroad programs -- you went to another university for the semester, but were still officially enrolled at the home university.

As your professors suggested you can just list X University. This is the university that grants you your degree, it does not matter at which campus you studied. Since X University is willing to associate with the branch campus so strongly I would assume the campus has a similar reputation and as such I don't see how anyone would be deceived there.
At the same time I don't think it would hurt your application to mention that you studied in two countries and experienced two cultures. Having experience dealing with different customs may smooth your interaction with researchers from other cultures. You can for example make a brief mention (one or two sentences) in a motivation letter. Of course you should consider carefully whether there are more important things you could mention in those sentences.
If you insist on including this in your CV make it clear that it is a single degree. My personal preference would be to have this in a single line, for example:
X University .... City A, State and Campus B .... City, Country B
Regarding your transcript: Don't submit the same transcript twice. It will only lead to confusion and likely the assumption that you submitted the wrong transcript for one of them.
Regarding your publications: Don't worry about what affiliations are on there. It is not unusual to have affiliations to different departments of the same university on research work. Affiliations on your publications carry no weight in who granted you your degree.

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


text:
Ethically correct way to involve student in research and publication
My collaborator has a PhD student (just starting their 2nd year) who as part of their project runs computer simulations, as directed by their supervisor. These brought up a result that is (1) tangential to their project and (2) unexpected and so far they have not understood. My collaborator and I think that we understand the result, which implies that some prevailing theory is wrong/incomplete. Obviously, we are keen to explore this further and publish about it.
What we are unsure about, however, is how we involve the student in all this.

You don't say who developed the "result". And, who is the "they" in the second point?

Just to clarify: 'they' refers to the student, 'we' to my collaborator & me. The 'result' was produced by the student from the simulation after prompting by the supervisor.
The question was not whether the student should be co-author (that's obvious), but whether we should let them lead the research or whether we just take over, or something in between. The simulations are not difficult to reproduce at all (I did them in 10min), but interpreting/understanding them seems more challenging.

I'm flying a bit blind here, but if I can assume that the student "stumbled" upon something that was important, but they didn't have the expertise to exploit it themselves, then, they are, in any ethical world, co-author with the rest of you who do have that experience and knowledge. Otherwise, I think you would be committing malpractice.
Lots of things take a long time to work themselves out. The implications of a discovery may not be obvious to the one who discovers them, even when that person is experienced and prominent in the field. I can't give examples, but there are important things in math named for discoverers who didn't fully comprehend the import of the discovery.
The fact that this is tangential to their own work is immaterial. The fact that it calls accepted theory into question is important.
You honor the profession as well as the student to include them as author in any publication resulting from this work.

Edited to add. They may not have the experience to lead, and it might be a good learning experience for them if "you" do. And it might not be enough for a degree even if followed up. It might not be enough to have them redirect their research in this direction. You are a better judge of that than someone from a distance. But, yes, include them in important discussions and treat them (to some extent) as a colleague.

Please see my comment to the question.

So if I understand this correctly, a PhD student working with your collaborator discovered some new result accidently. They don't quite understand the implications but you think that the results are substantial.
What exactly is the problem? Just include them in the work going forward. Perhaps explain why you think the results may be important. Then task the student with chasing it down a bit. Obviously if this is your colleague's student you don't really need to do much of this yourself - just be available and don't stand in the way of the students participation.
But it sounds like you want to cut them out. I wouldn't do this unless you have a really good reason.

The issue is that the student may not be expert enough to (1) recognize the implication of their simulation result and (2) bring the research and publication forward. So, we (collaborator & me) may want to lead the way, when the student will be co-author but not lead author of any publication. I don't want to cut them out, anything I do will be in collaboration with my collaborator friend.

I think that makes perfect sense if you're worried that they aren't yet able to push the project through. I would consider giving them the opportunity to try, but what you're saying is reasonable.


text:
Should I review for a journal that charges authors excessively?
This is a follow-up/correction of this previous question (which I cannot alter since it has been answered, but was advised to ask a new question instead).
Of course, journal publication has its costs, but some journals/publishers charge excessively from their authors at a rate much higher than necessary to cover the costs, say in excess of 2000$/£/€ per paper.
In times past, the purpose of journals was the dissemination of research results, but now this can be done online (e.g. via the arXiv), so the only remaining purpose of journals is the peer review process. In other words, peer review is the only remaining important part of article processing.
If this is so, shouldn't the reviews get appreciated in a way that reflects their benefit to the publisher? (For example via vouchers that can be used in lieu of (part of) a publication charge.)
Should one keep reviewing for such journals (that charge authors excessively) if they fail to offer appropriate appreciation?

This seems to be an opinion based question, and hence, off-topic. My opinion, I suspect, is different from yours. Review is a service to the profession. It offers benefits to early career academics especially.

Clearly there is a business opportunity to build a high quality, well cited journal that charges less than the $2000 you have picked. But you should run the numbers. People cost a lot (and they cost more than what their paycheck says). As does all the infrastructure supporting them.

@JonCuster And the more selective a journal is (i.e. the more papers they reject vs accept), the more money they papers they accept need to "earn" in order to cover the costs of handling the rejected papers (even a desk rejection takes somebody's time and effort, not to mention papers which go through peer review and are rejected on the advice of the reviewers).  I would imagine that high-quality journals (with high rejection rates) would need to charge more (which is disjoint from scammy journals charging a lot, but still relevant...?).

@XanderHenderson - absolutely correct. Good people and good service are not cheap.

As a rule of thumb, I review for journals that I publish in.
I know these journals the best, and, agree with their publishing standards.
This would also cover your situation.


text:
Where Self-plagiarism Begins and Where it Ends
Academics sometimes publish popular books based on their own research, but not always cite properly themselves, even when book references other authors properly. Moreover, sometimes I can see that one author publishes very similar (but not same) papers on the same topic, without self-referencing, even though it can be seen that the author recycles some of hers/his ideas. Even respectable people in the profession do it.
Given this where is the line beyond which we are talking about self-plagiarism?
On one hand it feels bit wrong to do this even in a small amount. On the other hand I can imagine that it can be impractical, and cumbersome to piously self-reference yourself, and I also worry that that might seem egocentric to the reader.
It is no brainier that copying part of your old article, and submitting it as new is clearly wrong. On the other hand it does not seems to be wrong using the main ideas, quotes (or chapter titles), or paraphrasing minor ideas of your earlier papers to publish a book without using the same referencing standards for yourself as you use for other authors.
Any opinion on this? Should I always reference myself as well as I do others, or is it ok to be more lenient on yourself as long as it is not more excessive then it is usual in the field? Do you think that this depends mostly on the context?

I cannot understand your question. A new paper has to have enough contribution to get published, even if it builds on previous work of yours. A book on the other hand, might survey the most important papers about a subject, and thus, it does not necessarily need to have totally new content. For which case, are you interested in?

One problem/confusion in this issue is that "publication" seems to implicitly include "to score status points", rather than simply "making things public". For scoring points, sure, double publication (as in @EbeIsaac's answer) is cheating. For essays that are publicly available, e.g., on one's home page at a dot-edu site, what could possibly be wrong with re-using bits of one's prior writing (assuming one has not foolishly given up copyright). But, yes, the conflation of these two creates confusion, of course!

Also, as the OP stated, in my field many of the top authors do this all the time! They "self-plagarize" in published journals, often without citing their prior sources. Usually, they provide some incremental result tacked on at the end, but the new part is typically only 5-15% of the paper. When all of the tenured and tenure track people are doing it, the calls to avoid it fall on deaf ears, since I have to do what they do in order to proceed in academia.

I am not too deep into publishing yet, but even with minor presentations I sometimes have the feeling that there are those key concepts of my own work that I talk about all the time. Those are so basic and intrinsic for me that it would never occur to me to figure out where I mentioned that first and then consistently cite that over and over. In fact, with real publications, that would feel like cheating, as I would artificially increase citations on my own old publications with each new one. (Not that you should never cite yourself, but in moderation.)

Let us set aside debate about whether the word "self-plagiarism" makes logical sense. The concept is fairly generally acknowledged, and rests on a simple ethical principle: it is wrong to give the impression that a work is novel when it is not.
We can further distinguish two distinct forms of self-plagiarism:

Literal self-plagiarism, in which words are directly reused.
Conceptual self-plagiarism, in which the words are different but the content is (largely) the same.

From this definition, we can elaborate several key points of evaluating whether a reuse counts as self-plagiarism:

Is there an expectation of novelty (e.g., a journal article, conference paper, or book)?  In some cases, such as one-paragraph conference abstracts in some fields, there may not be an expectation of novelty, in which case there is no "impression of novelty" to be considered and self-plagiarism is not at issue (the reviewers may still decide they are uninterested if the work is insufficiently novel).
Is more than a trivial amount of material being directly reused?  If so, then they must either be in a quotation, or else the publication must be clear that portions have previously been published, and a citation to the prior publication must be included.  Otherwise, it is self-plagiarism. (Note that this may not apply to "non-creative" words, such as a tersely written methods section).
If concepts are shared with prior publication, then there must be clear attribution of the significant antecedents.  There is a lot of flexibility that enters with "significant," and different communities interpret this in different ways, so you need to know your community expectations.  Here, one basically treats one's own results just like those of any other scientist, with the exception that one cannot claim ignorance of one's own prior publications.

I am mostly interested in demarcation line around the conceptual self-plagiarism. I understand that the literal one is unethical, but what is puzzling me is the conceptual one.
Precisely, as you said different communities have different standards, but still there must be some way how to think about this more analytically. Could you maybe recommend some good sources (accessible for someone who had just basic philosophy of science course)?
I personally would like to know more about this topic, because I would like to become good scholar. But there seems to be efficiency-ethics trade-off.

In reality, there is no such thing as self plagiarism. I would recall them as replication or double publication. Plagiarism means to copy the written piece of work of another author without proper citation. It compared to stealing. You cannot steal your own work.
Coming back to your question, any work that succeeds your previously published work deserves to be published (and cited). It would be better to cite the previous work so that the readers would know the previous work was enhanced. This is ethical as long as most of the new article is not a replication of the predecessor.

You can copy your work without proper citation, and that is precisely the definition of self-plagiarism that academia agrees on. As for equating copying and stealing, that is a well-known fallacy.

Actually, there is quite a bit of debate on "self-plagiarism".  One reason is that it is actually quite common for the faculty to do that for multiple publications.

@FedericoPoloni I'm not sure there is a consensus on self-plagiarism yet and even if there were it is in a different category from plagiarizing another. In normal plagiarism you are claiming credit that is not due at all, and possibly diminishing someone else's work in the process. In self-plagiarism you are asserting something is novel that is not. While still unacceptable, it is a very different category.

The only real ethical problem that falls under the term self-plagiarism is when a person submits the same work twice or anything of that form. Anything else is not a real problem.

Personally, I would still consider it a problem, if there are no citations. In my experience, it is commonly accepted to reuse article material for a book, but the articles should be explicitly referenced.


text:
How to deal with large figures in draft of a paper
I am working on a draft of a paper and I have large figure that does not fit into 1 page. I can split the figure into two, but I wonder what is the appropriate way of doing it.
Two ways that I consider:

Split the figure but pretend it is one large figure. That is page 1 would have headings first half of the figure and page 2 would not have headings but caption underneath.

Have the figure posted as two separate figures with both having separate headings and caption (would this make sense given I would essentially repeat the headings and captions?).

Is one of the two methods above more appropriate? Or is there a different way? Also, are there any good examples of published paper dealing with this problem?

It's more of a technical issue during the typesetting. The journal might have rules for this or the typesetter may handle this issue differently. In a similar situation, I did "Fig. 9: Evaluation, part 1" and "Fig. 10: Evaluation, part 2".

I've seen Supp. Fig. X, part 1 ... up to part 4 or so, so one figure stretching multiple pages. But this is not very nice and I only saw it once in a supplement. In the main text, you should really think about a) do I need to show all of this and b) do I need to show it this way.


text:
Writing a letter of recommendation for a promising but very new student
As part of my PhD I am required to teach some bachelor level micro and macro economics classes. One of my new students (we only had 3 classes together) approached me with a request for a letter of recommendation for summer research internship.
The student looks like good student, they are active in class and pay attention and asked few good questions. However, I only talked to the student 3 times in my life during the online classes.
This creates a conundrum for me because the student so far made a good impression on me but I know nothing about the students and first impressions can be deceiving. In addition, one should of course never lie on the letter of recommendation so the best I can say about the student is that I recommend them because they are active in the class and ask good questions.
Also, the student said that they need to submit application by end of next week so I will see the student only once more in class and by that time the students won't even submit their first assignment for the class. So waiting here and seeing how the student will do is not an option.
Consequently, my questions are:

Would there be any possible repercussions for me if I write truthful letter of recommendation, but the student turns out to be very bad at their internship? In another words would that cost me my creditability, are recommendations for candidates in academia taken very seriously?
Would writing such recommendation help the student at all or would it actually potentially hurt student's chances?

I know this is a topic that was already discussed at academia, for example here but that does not answer my question because the question is about mediocre student whereas this student looks promising.

You write what you know. If you had a good impression because x, y, z, say x, y, z and that this gave you a good impression for the short period you know them; explain that this is the extent to which you know them. Everybody can make up their mind how strong they wish to consider this reference, they have full disclosure. If other recommendations are positive, it adds, if not, they know that this student is someone who impresses, but no more.

I recommend that you ask the student if they can get a letter from someone who knows them better. If you haven't evaluated any of their work yet, then you have too little to go on.

@academic I think you are right, thanks for the suggestion

Well it for a summer internship. I would write that s/he seems good, interested, active and that is.

As suggested by @academic in a comment, I think this is a case where you should decline to write the recommendation (and do so as quickly as possible so that they can find someone else) and suggest they ask someone with whom they've had more interaction.
I think it may end up normal for students during the pandemic to rely on recommendations from instructors they have had less interaction with due to the obstacles of online learning, but here you're talking about someone for whom you can't even refer to their performance on a single assignment.
If you wrote a letter that was honest, really the best you can do is to write what you've said here: this student meets expectations for an attentive student in the limited interactions before the first course assignment is due. I can't imagine that letter filling any positive role besides checking a box towards "x/N letters submitted". If acceptance for the internship is competitive then the letters written for this student will be compared to letters written for other students, and a non-robust letter like yours will probably compare unfavorably.
Additionally, as a PhD student you might also suggest to the person asking you for a recommendation that they get letters from professors rather than graduate students. It's possible that the distinction isn't as important for this internship, but generally references from professors are preferred. When I was a graduate TA I would occasionally co-write a letter with a professor in charge of the course I was teaching: the letter would come from the professor, but I'd add my own paragraph that the professor would incorporate into their letter. I don't suggest you use that for this situation (and it doesn't make sense if you are the instructor of record rather than a TA), but something to keep in mind for future requests.

This is all great advice.

thanks for the great advice

One way to help get over the discomfort of saying "no" is to explain to the student is that the situation doesn't allow you to write a helpful letter; you simply don't have enough background with them to say what a good letter of recommendation should say.


text:
Received no confirmation from editor of article receipt
I submitted an article to an academic journal about a week ago (not through a website but directly to an editor's email) but received no confirmation of receipt.  What is proper protocol -- time wise etc. -- for sending a followup email asking for confirmation of receipt?

Is submission via email the required way to submit a paper to this journal?

dwoz, Thank you; this is very helpful. Matthias, Yes, the journal requests submissions be sent directly by email w/attachment. Any further input/advice on the matter would be greatly appreciated. P.S. - I'm the original poster (John); once I registered the site began showing me as user41530.

How did you find out about the editor's email address? From their web site?

10 days if you're losing sleep over it, two weeks, otherwise.

It's the beginning of a semester just now...lots of folks will be navigating very tight schedules.
The answer to your question however depends a lot on the size and publication frequency of your journal, and the nature of your submission.  Put simply, the larger the publication and/or paper, the longer you should give the editor to reply.  Also if it's an infrequent publication schedule, likely the editor doesn't wade through the pile of submissions on a "crisp" pace.
If it's a well-regarded journal, there may simply be too many submissions for an editor to individually acknowledge them all.


text:
Colleague indirectly accusing me of plagiarism? Help?
I recently got my PhD degree.
2 years of my PhD were done under supervision of X under their department. The rest was done under supervision of Y in another department. When we separated and I moved to Y, there was an agreement about which artefacts I was allowed to keep to continue my studies *.
Some time ago my boss sent me an email telling me one X's employees has made allegations I have plagiarized their work. There was an email stating 5 separate "cases" where they believed I had done this. The majority included re-creating a figure representing an experimental set-up, and using software developed by X's department, and usage of artefacts I was previously allowed to use (see * above) which I had cited.
I have prepared a response document addressing every point and elaborating how I have not plagiarised any work, nor have taken credit for the work of others (the exception to this MAY be the figure I mentioned earlier, but this was unintentional and I have already contacted the publisher with the intention to amend the acknowledgment section of the paper, if possible). I have developed my own software and have derived my own results.
However, these false accusations were delivered to third parties first. I learned of this case from my boss. Why did X not speak to ME or Y (coauthor)? How do I protect myself in a case where third parties are being told I have plagiarised material when this is not the case?

It sounds like most allegations are easily rebutted. But it also sounds they may have had a serious point about your published figure. That alone is enough to get you in serious trouble. So you may have to explain that in more detail here for us to give you advice.

@user2705196 The figure includes a description of how we collect data from the case study. Various systems are connected with rectangles pointing to a database. This set-up was developed by many people through many years and it is not published in any literature. My figure is similar, describing the data collection set-up. The rectangles are similarly arranged.

I worry that you have a misunderstanding about plagiarism and what it means that you had an agreement about things you could use. Normally, plagiarism is pretty obvious on its face. The exception is when there is parallel work by people unknown to each other.
Even the latter can be complicated in situations where it is fairly clear that the writer should have known about the other work and ignored good research practice.
But having been given permission to use things doesn't give you permission to use them without citation. You still need to cite the source of anything you use that you didn't develop yourself.
So, if you did some work with others, and they think they have some claim to originality, so that you obviously know of their work, and they then find a paper of yours that has the work but no citation, it is pretty clearly plagiarism. Doing so accidentally or not understanding the rules is not a defense. You should know the rules and should adhere to them rigorously.
I don't claim this is what happened here, but it seems that others think it is. Your defense would be to show the citations or to make a claim of parallel, independent, work.
And they don't owe it to you to tell you before they make a claim. They need to be careful of false claims, of course.

I have cited when citation has been due and I did develop new software so there is nothing to credit them for in this one. They are making an allegation upon massive assumptions that are ungrounded and untrue. How can it be possible to not speak with me first when making such allegations is basically damaging my credibility falsely?

You probably need to work it out with them and try to get them to withdraw any accusation. Failing that, present the evidence to people who will listen, especially your boss. False claims are also serious.

I have presented all evidence to my boss who has since taken my side entirely. I have both cited and can demonstrate independent work. My worry here is more the fact that they openly slander me in front of others instead of speaking with me about their concerns.

You can't control, other than through lawsuit, what others say. I don't recommend a suit. But you might also want to present the evidence to the editor(s) of your work so that they are reassured. But, just as on the internet, feeding the trolls just makes them grow.

What repercussions are there for false claims? How do I protect myself from this?


text:
Funding as a newly graduated PhD
So at last I have graduated. I experienced my ex advisor 'dropping me' more or less, and focusing on his own tasks. He no longer communicates with me about anything relevant, and it seems my employment with the university as a research position will come to an end unless I seek funding alone.
Applying for industrial postdocs to get funding this way seems a little counter-intuitive considering I could spend all that time looking for an industry job. Alternatively, I've looked at grants but most things seem to be PhD age 2+. I spoke with a career counselor who confirmed this.
How does one continue working in the same environment if there's no support from their side regarding funding and I'm meant to find it alone? Is this a clear sign I should move on?

This probably depends on the country you are in. Also, your field.

I'd rather not disclose that, but the career counselor is research support and is well versed in the options in this country.

Very difficult to give an answer then. A tenure track STEM person in the US would be totally different from, well, lots of other things.

It's somewhere in Europe. And I don't have a tenure track position.

In my field (mathematics), the usual step for people finishing their Ph.D.'s is to apply for postdoctoral positions at other universities.

My field is computer science. My boss tells me he'd like to keep me but I have to apply for my own funding.

To clarify: are you trying to do a postdoc, with your PhD advisor who no longer wants to actually work with you, and asks you to get your own funding?

My ex advisor has stated he'd like to continue working with me, but his conduct suggests otherwise. So I'm stuck in a limbo.

Firstly, congratulations on finishing! It's a big achievement.
If I were you I would be applying for post-doc positions and/or industry positions ASAP. It depends on whether you want to stay in academia or work in industry.
Think about what you want to do and don't get misled by your ex-advisors mixed messages - if he really wanted to continue working with you, he would help you find funding instead of leaving it all up to you. If you really are interested in staying with him then ask him if he could give you advice on what funding you can apply for as newly graduated PhD.

"if he really wanted to continue working with you, he would help you find funding instead of leaving it all up to you" - Yeah, that's what I needed to hear. :) Thanks.


text:
Citing "In press" article
I had a conference last week on which I presented paper 1.
There's paper 2 that has been accepted with the CR deadline within a week. I'd like to cite paper 1 in paper 2. I could make the reference state "In press" but my worry is, when paper 2 gets published, is the "In press" part going to remain there after the publication (forever)?
Is there a way to avoid this or solve this?

Many published articles cite "In press" articles forever and it's not an issue.
You could, however, publish a preprint (on arXiv, on PeerJ, on ResearchGate, etc). This will allow you to have a DOI for the unpublished article. You need to be very careful: not all journals allow preprints (I do not know about conferences), so it could jeopardize the publication of paper 1. You have to verify your signed agreement (if you have one) or ask.


text:
My supervisor and head of center is doing unethical things and I am in the middle
Slowly but surely my supervisor's behaviour has escalated. It started from unreasonable, to downright unethical.
My university complies to the Vancouver autrhorship protocol, yet my supervisor/HoC has made his own guidebook regarding who is author and when. Something along the lines of "Student, Actual Contributor, Cosupervisor, Supervisor, Head of Center". Which implies that he is on every single paper. In my papers and in my work in general, though I always inform him and invite his contribution, he never really does anything more than "give comments" which are surprisingly all clustering in introduction and conclusion. When I am finished with my PhD, I need to submit a form for every paper I've published and state which of the coauthors have contributed in which way. This is a direct clash with the University rules.
He also overrules the PhD school, even when he simply cannot. My Mid-PhD evaluation report is now 3 months late, but "who cares, they are super rigid anyway".
There are many examples of how his way of doing things does not comply to actual rules of the institution, and it is putting me in very bad situations both with other authors but more importantly it is impending my progress in my PhD project.
How do I raise these issues with him without being the black sheep that has a problem with the way he does things? It's my impression that the university's rules were put in place for some reason. I've informed the vice-dean of these things and it is being looked into, but in the mean time there are deadlines that I cannot afford to miss - a PhD is a time-constraining thing. Is there any way possible to bring to the table my honest concerns without implying that what he's doing is immoral and incorrect?
After all, I'm a lowly PhD student whose credibility is worth nothing compared to the HoC. I don't want to become a target.

Where is this "guidebook" located? If it is available in any way to outsiders, then that seems like a good thing to bring to the attention of the administration of the university.

I have sent it to them and they are looking into it. In the meantime, however, I cannot publish papers with such behaviour while it's being taken care of.

Have you talked to other students and academics about this and how do they feel about this situation? You need to be very careful when dealing with this type of academics. I don't recommend being direct with them, as you are in a very vulnerable position.

Nobody is really happy with him which is why upper management have hired external consultants to speak with each employee to assess our well-being. His other PhD students seem to be a lot more docile for some reason. They don't even seem interested  in research. One of them has confessed she only took this job because she had no other option. And when they publish papers it's  never on their initiative but always his. I'm breaking his system by proposing papers and collaborators.

Just to be clear: giving comments actually can warrant authorship. Actually useful comments significantly contributing to conclusions or experimental design is much more valuable then doing eg experiments themselves, when it is about authorship

It started from unreasonable, to downright unethical. — Why are you still there?

@JeffE, I'm not. I switched advisors. :)

Sorry for making an answer, but still without enough reputation to comment.
That is a very tricky situation, I can imagine, even more because you have colleagues that simply don't care. I see that the question is already one month old, but I just wanted to point out, in addition to the other comments, that sometimes universities or departments have some sort of complaint and review procedures, rather than just send an email to the dean.
I would just like to also add that I hope you don't give up on trying to make academia a "better place". Academia is full of people that are "untouchable", and if no one complains, it will stay like that forever. I wish you good luck and if you found some procedure or detail that might be useful to others in the same situation, it would be great if you can write them down here.

It's one month old, I'm still going through hell, but he's no longer my advisor and no longer my boss. The university has indeed ways to remedy this, and an external consultant has been hired to review the entire situation. He is powerful, but not untouchable. And as a researcher in training, I'm using this experience to learn what kind of researcher I want to be - Open, ethical, transparent, and empowering.


text:
Biographical record...? What is it
"give a solid overall biographical record of your subject based on the book you have read.  Be sure to include a brief synopsis of all of the high and low points and successes and failures of your subject."
This my assignment, fro writing about a person of my choice. I've realized I don't exactly what a biographical record is. Google wasn't much help for a solid answer either. Can some one explain?

Did the biography assignment really recall humans as subjects?

Uh yea, I guess so. Is a bit odd.

I’m voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about the terminology of an academic (or non-academic) discipline and not about academia itself. It may be on-topic on [ell.se], [english.se] or [writers.se], but very likely the only person who can satisfyingly answer this is whoever made the assignment.

Generally, a biography describes a course of a person's life. By a solid overall biographical record, I suppose you are instructed to include all phases of concerned person's history -- from childhood to current time or death (whichever is earlier) in detail.


text:
Student research proposal for project continued from past year
I'm an undergraduate doing a research colloquium project which is a continuation of one from the last school year. For the first proposal I had an introduction, which told about the disease of interest, and gave a brief summary of the project's goals. That was followed by a section detailing the procedures that were to be done in the upcoming research.
So I was wondering, for this year's proposal, since it's a continuation should I go into the same detail about the disease again, then talk about what I did last year and then what I'll do this year? Or shorten up that background [on the disease part] and just focus on what was done last year and what I will be doing? Do you think it would it be more appropriate to shorted up that beginning part or keep it?

Consider your audience, they will need reminding what this is all about. As this is a continuation of last year's work, most of the initial description (placing the problem in context) is still relevant. The goals and results of the previous work should be summarized, after that you have to state this year's goals.
Yes, the document will probably somewhat longer than the first one. But that is to be expected, you know the problem better, and are not only describing the problem to be solved but also showing earlier results (thus reinforcing your ability to see the project through).


text:
How narrow or broad should I look for undergraduate research?
I'm currently an American sophomore undergrad and I'm looking into research opportunities at the moment. My problem is that the area of mathematics that interests me the most is mathematical logic and set theory, and even more specifically inconsistent mathematics, but there appear to be no opportunities for undergraduate research in this field. I'm unsure what to do or what would be the most helpful choices for me at this point. I know my college recommends cold-emailing professors if I have trouble finding something, but I'm also worried that I'm narrowing my search down too much. So should broaden my search first, just go ahead and start writing emails, or do both at the same time?

I would advise you to stay out of set theory in general - on average less than one set theorist gets hired as a professor per year in all of the US.  It's not so much that you are narrowing too much, as that you're narrowing in on a topic that is both fairly rare and that tends to take a lot of time and expertise to achieve any research results.

@AlexanderWoo thanks for the heads up on that. Is there a source I can use to find data like that so that when looking into potential fields I can keep employability in mind?

What is your long-term goal? "Employability" may not be the most important criterion unless you want to join the workforce rather than academia.

@Buffy Given the rarity of lifelong academic jobs, it seems prudent to at least consider employability or at least the suitability of a backup plan entirely outside the area of focus.

@BryanKrause, I think you are dangerously close to suggesting that a 20 year old should give up dreams and optimize for something they would find boring. You and I struggled, I suspect. I got over the hurdles. I don't know if you are in academia, but suspect your story isn't terribly different. If you don't dream at that age why are you bothering to go on? But I just asked about goals to be able to think of a more tailored answer. Goals are good. If you aren't willing to dive for the goal, stay on the bench.

@Buffy I'm in a non-professor track in academia. That said, it's problematic to take advice from professors, professional athletes, and famous actors to follow their dreams, etc - too much selection bias in those categories. I don't disagree with you, though, that someone at a young age has plenty of time to flounder in some area yet still have a successful career. I just read your comment as potentially implying "if your goal is academia you can study in any field you want" which isn't entirely true.

I suggest you greatly broaden your search.  There are common features to all research.  Perhaps even look at research projects and programs in adjacent areas, like combinatorial research in computer science.
Since you could easily wait until the following summer to get involved in a research project, you can write programs and professors (in the area, or where you might want to visit) and ask about what you might do to prepare for the projects that exists.  If you do not know computer programming, perhaps that is a gap needing a fill.
It would be good to be exposed to many areas of mathematics before you decide on what you focus upon in graduate school.  I was convinced I wanted to to algebra when I was an undergraduate, but then topology started to be appealing.  In graduate school I switched to analysis.  Now I mostly do applied math research related to physics.

I'm currently an American sophomore

Not to sound dismissive, but I wouldn't be too focused on one area of math at this stage in your career (note: not a mathematician). Many (most?) sophomores haven't declared a major yet, much less settled on an area for graduate studies. That is to say, don't dismiss opportunities in other areas - you might find that you enjoy research more in those areas, even if you didn't like the classes.

So should broaden my search first, just go ahead and start writing emails, or do both at the same time?

I think most people would agree cold emails are the least successful way of obtaining anything, especially during COVID when professors are even more overworked than they were a year ago. My point is, is if they haven't posted looking for an undergrad, they aren't very likely to have the bandwidth to add one.
So I would strongly recommend finding an open position that at least somewhat interests you, doing good at it, and using that professor to help you find a position closer to your interests (perhaps supervising a bachelor's thesis?). When that set theory position opens; you're going to be more competitive with a year of work behind you than without.

You seem to be claiming that the asker should not study their area of interest because they might change their mind about their interests.  I disagree.  The asker should study their area of interest to help them change their mind, if they are going to change it.

Advertised positions might not exist.

@AnonymousPhysicist I don't think this answer says "don't study other areas of interest", it says "don't close your mind to other areas of interest". In particular, it's not a choice between "study (specific area)" and "study nothing", especially at this stage.

@Anon No, not at all. I am saying it could be more productive to apply for a similar position that to cold email profs looking for set theory and only set theory (but I really have no idea how broad that is).

Well, your comment is clearer than your answer.

You should do a narrow search first and then a broad search.  Treat it as an experiment to see which method works better.  You will likely need to try more than once, quite probably over multiple years.


text:
Can I re-submit at editorial manager?
For the journal I am submitting to, I need to use both platforms cmt3.research.microsoft.com and editorialmanager.com.
I am familiar with the first, but not the latter.
In the first, I am able to delete my PDF manuscript and reupload it before the deadline.
Thus, I can work on it until the last version, but are sure that I've got a working copy online in case something unforeseen happens (e.g. I get sick).
Can I do the same (deleting and re-uploading before the deadline) with the editorialmanager.com?
Note, that I am not talking about the process after the reviewers received my manuscript the first time, but before the very first submission deadline.

Now, I am the wiser:
When in the main menu

one presses on "Submit New Manuscript".
Then one lead through a series of forms one has to fill out and can press "Save & Submit Later". After than one can still change things, the contents is just saved to work on it the next day:

Alternatively one can press "Build PDF for Approval".
This builds a PDF that combines the documents from "Attach Files".
After that one still is able to modify the submission.
However, one still has not submitted!
After pressing "Build PDF for Approval", you get to a page where you have some "Action Links" left to your submission:

When you press "Action Links" you can edit the submission or "approve as an author" (or something along those lines).
Only after you have approved the submission as an author your submission is complete and goes to the reviewers; however, now you cannot edit the submission anymore.
You could only delete the submission and submit again - but from what I've read online, this should only been done if really necessary.


text:
How to transition from lectures/exams to research/thesis?
So far, University was mostly lectures, seminars and exams.
The scope of problems to solve was usually very narrow and the necessary knowledge was taught in the lecture or seminar.
Solving a given problem in a seminar or exam was done by picking the right tool from the toolbox that one gathered over the year. There was often one specific workflow/formula/strategy/etc. to solve a particular problem. Sure, some of them allowed for some tweaks to get the job done faster, but for the most part the goal was the solution that the problem was asking for. There was never a need nor time to explain the reason to choose a certain method.
Now doing research for thesis, things appear to be different. There's one bigger problem to be solved. There's also some paper to be filled with text about the solution I came up with. I could just solve the problem and document what I've done. However, I got the feedback on previous smaller "publications" that such a document should not just be a manual to understand the solution, but to show the research that was done.
Research seems to have the inherent property to be open ended and unpredictable. Whenever I make a decision, I have the nagging doubt that I should explore more/all the choices and compare them, so that nobody asks me at the end why I haven't tried that other option, too. Previously, the reason to solve a problem in a certain way was because I was taught to solve it that way and arriving at the solution was good enough.
For research, that seems to be different. As the existence of a solution is never guaranteed, it's not so important to actually arrive at a solution, but how to get there. An attempt at solving the problem (or any sub-problem) or really doing anything at all might fail or not, which begs the question why if failed or not. How do I make an educated decision about when to dig deeper and when not to? How do I choose the right level to explore variations? (for example, when to just modify some parameters of a program, use a different mode of the program, choose a different program altogether, use a different computer[, set everything on fire, throw it out of the window and start from scratch])
It's not possible to try everything and making the right decision on what to try and what not to try seems to be a matter of (a lot of) experience, which I do not have at all. How do I make those decisions? Should I just follow my gut feeling and try things, because even if they fail: that's a result? But what if it turns out that even trying those things wasn't a reasonable thing to do in the first place? That would be bad then, wouldn't it? How to get out of this dilemma?

Firstly, don't worry. This anxiety that you describe is extremely common and completely normal. You're right that it stems from the transition from very tightly-constrained styles of work to something that is much more open-ended. You are half-way there - you have recognised that you have many different possible paths to follow. But I get the impression that you are still thinking in terms of pass and fail. You talk about finding the "right decision", and that a given approach "might fail or not", but research is not so black-and-white.
Of the many different paths that you are considering, it's not that some of them contain death-traps where you will be forever doomed, whereas some are shining paths to glory. It is likely that you can make a success of any of them (just so long as you don't stay rooted to one spot for too long...). Even a "failure" to find a solution is useful. In the words of Thomas Edison:

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."

You might find inspiration for something else, or you might just be able to rule out one method - that is still progress.
You also talk about whether to pursue a single issue in depth, or take a radical change of direction. Both those approaches are valid, and it's up to you which style you prefer. Eventually, with experience, you will start to get a bit of a nose for what sorts of approach work best for you, and maybe be able to head in a slightly straighter line through your research. But even professors are not perfect in that regard. Until then, as @user37208 suggests in the comments, your advisor should be a great source of advice here and can help you to break down the problem into more manageable chunks, and give you a bit of direction when you feel you are wandering around without success.
You may be thinking "that's all very well, but at the end of the day, my thesis will pass or fail." While that's true, this will depend far more on how well you can explain what you have done, and whether you can demonstrate that you have made reasonable efforts to tackle one or more problems, than on whether you have actually found "an answer" or not.


text:
How to include unfruitful attempts to use software that were not explored much?
I wasted spent like a month or so trying to get two software libraries to work.
They partly worked, but at some point produced only unplausible results.
That might have very well been my fault.
The third one worked right out of the box and it's the one I should have chosen to begin with. The lack of problems with this library suggests that there was either something wrong with the other two, the setup, the system or whatever.
Either way, the conclusion is that I would not suggest to try the first two libraries and go with the third one, no matter how tempting it is to try the two.
I would like to include this in my thesis, because it appears to be valuable information. On the other hand, I'm not a software expert and I might simply have done things totally wrong, which is why those libraries didn't work for me. But despite some effort, I could not find documentation on what could be the problem.
Basically, what I have to say is this:

Tried X and Y. Didn't work. Don't know why. Not recommended. Use Z instead. Works perfectly.

Is it a good idea to include such information? It's not backed up by any reference and I cannot include all the related information about the details to reproduce the problem. Partly because I don't know them and partly because that's not what my work is about. I'm also afraid that including this information will make me look incompetent.
How should I include this information? I think the best thing to do is to state that under the overall time constraints getting either of the two libraries to work was not explored any further, which is what actually happened. But then this might look like I didn't spent my time efficiently.
Maybe I'm just too much concerned that there will be only glass-half-empty people reading this, trying to see the problem in it.

X and Y are independent substitutes for Z. Either one of the two working would be sufficient. They are written in a specific programming language (different from Z) which would make them a good choice for the project. X and Y are poorly written and/or documented, but then I do not have the know-how to make that judgement call and it looks like I'm looking for cheap excuses.

Report what did work.  Forget the rest.  Anyone looking to reproduce or expand on your results needs to know the software you did use.
Edit: I note with some chagrin that I answered other than what OP asked, namely how to include unfruitful attempts to use software X and Y.
At the point where you describe your use of package Z, include a footnote that you first attempted to use X and Y, but received implausible results. One sentence is enough. That's enough to warn anyone who cares that you had difficulty, but does not belabor problems that you cannot explain.  It might even prompt someone to ask you for more information some day.

In the course of expanding on the results, they might try to replace Z with another (potentially better) library, thereby replicating the initial fruitless efforts. I would report these efforts.

Since OP isn't clear why his efforts were fruitless, someone who does that might very well succeed and learn something new.  Reporting specific errors: Good.  Reporting general and unexplained difficulty: Bad.

But then it's unclear why it took me so long to do this. Also, "someone who does that might very well succeed and learn something new." but what prevents them from doing that if I mention that it didn't work for me? Isn't the opposite true: if somebody mentions failure and couldn't investigate fully, this is a possible target for future research? By ignoring those results entirely, the obvious question that it will cause is: Why were X or Y not tried? I doubt that not mentioning it at all is a good idea.

It would really (at least in computer science and related fields) help a lot of people if everyone finally would start to acknowledge and publish what did NOT work. If you really have to omit this from your main body of work, please include it as a supplementary or appendix. Many PhD students and other people following after you will appreciate and potentially even cite this if asked why they did not try method/package X, but instantly used Z.

Keeping it minimal like in a footnote sounds like a good idea. +1

As Bob Brown said earlier, report in the thesis what did work (Z), and omit everything else (X and Y).  Church spent 1 year until he found a 1-liner for subtraction. We know little about his failed attempts.  Certain excellent dissertations are 10 pages long proving a theorem. We know nothing about failed proofs.
In some sense, doing research means getting dirty. Very dirty.  And after you made the point, you clean off all the dirt, and the main result remains.
However, you were probably financed by someone during thesis writing or received some other kind of help.  (John Donne: "No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main".) So do report about the failures, bad experiences, and good experiences to your stakeholders.  This is a different kind of report and there, you should mention X, Y, and Z by all means. How you do it (in a weekly meeting / as a technical report / in a research report / as a phone call / during dinner / in bed before going to bed with your spouse ;-) / ...) is very, very project-specific and stakeholder-specific.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I am likely to encourage you to say that X and Y (in versions xxx and yyy) are poorly written/documented publicly if it is the case. You have a chance of making enemies this way, but, in general, the research community would benefit from it. Boldy (but, unfortunately, truthfully) stated, we would benefit from it at your cost if you do that.

"you were probably financed" no I wasn't. I just got a task for my thesis and that's what I'm doing. I find it odd that the people with the money should be informed but the research community should not.

I obviously told my supervisor that it didn't work. But I doubt that just telling somebody orally at one point in time is a proper way to document results. And no, there is no such thing as a "separate report". Why would I want to split this information off from the thesis anyway? What's the motivation behind this idea?

"you'd make some enemies" how so? Why would I make enemies? I'm new to all this and am not aware that I can make enemies by including information. Can you elaborate? Also, have an upvote for your explanations so far.

The authors of libraries X and Y would not be happy to see this published.

@user7019377 huh? Are results taken that personally?  If it didn't work, it didn't work. It's not an attack or something.

Especially since you admitted you don't totally understand what does not work and why, they can easily claim you used it wrong.
(Most likely, they wouldn't see it or ignore it though)

@Leon Meier I'm not sitting in that kind of ivory tower ;) This is a simple tiny real world thesis project. There's no business here.

I think in order to answer this, you have to find out why those other libraries didn't work.  Maybe talk to someone who knows them well.

If they didn't work because you didn't do them right, then you don't include them because it doesn't help anyone else.
If they didn't work because there's something wrong with them, then that's worth at least a footnote.  I would probably write a single sentence about what library you did use, then in the linked footnote mention that you tried these other two libraries but found they behaved wrong due to X.

If there's one thing I've learned as the rare social scientist with a wide range of programming skills, it's that nearly everyone thinks the software they know best, is the best.  If there's an actual problem with one of the packages, you need to mention that because those who prefer it will just assume it's right and then fail to replicate your results.  But I wouldn't pay more attention to it than a footnote.

You can give the information about technically failed attempts upon request, e.g. in talks or conference presentations. Someone may ask: "You said you used library Z. Why not X or Y?" If nobody asks, don't bother. They are obviously fine with Z working, so should you be.
However, the issue about "unplausible results" is in fact an issue for a closer look. A computational routine may never give flawed results that look correctly, i.e. without at least a warning like "error bounds not met". So if you have found a bug in the libraries, you should contact the developer or support or at least ask some colleagues to reproduce this bug. If you are not sure that it is a bug, you should be careful with badmouthing other people's work in your publications.

Again, I think this is valuable information. In a way worth a monthly salary. Why would I limit this kind of information to only be shared at talks or presentations. ? This audience is limited to maybe 5 people at max in my case. Is academia like an ancient culture where some information is only passed orally between a few people? And you only get the information you might find useful when you happen to be at that specific talk?

Updated because I didn't give enough attention to the issue of "unplausible results".

Just to be clear here: I'm not intending to badmouth anybody. And pointing out that it didn't work for me is not badmouthing either.


text:
Can I name my algorithm after myself?
I am about to submit a paper in which I present a new algorithm. There are many algorithms that are named after the author in my field, but I am not sure whether the authors themselves named those after themselves, or whether others named those algorithms after the authors post-pbulication (so in other papers). Is it appropriate to name the algorithm after myself?

Also, you can call anything everything, but what matter is whether the world adopts your naming suggestion. See Stigler's law of eponymy: "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer."

Most algorithms I can think of that are named after someone were named after them by others by convenience, not by the original author. You publish it, refer to it as equation (3) in a paper where the first author is A. Make. People start referring to "equation (3) in Make 2018" and later as the rest of the paper fades into obscurity "Make 2018's approach" and finally "Make's algorithm" etc etc

@BryanKrause: That was helpful, thanks! However, I do need a name within the same paper, because I need to refer to it in graphics in the experiments section. Since it is not an equation, but described by a whole section and I don't have space in a small legend for something lengthy as "the new algorithm described in section 4.3", I need a name.

@Make42 I'm assuming you are in CS or something similar? I'm more familiar with other literature, so I don't know the norms there. But to give an example off the top of my head, Victor and Purpura 1996 refer to "the 'spike count' metric D(Count)" rather than an equation #: now it's common to see papers refer to "Victor-Purpura distance." I would suggest giving your algorithm either a number/letter designation or simply be descriptive, perhaps even limiting the name to what distinguishes it from an algorithm you are contrasting to: call one the "counting method" and one the "sorting method."

Its not illegal, but not in good taste either. Not talking specifically about algorithms, but even equations, constants, methods - these are usually named by others, post-publication.
Having said that, I know of atleast one instance where the authors named something after themselves, but I don't see subsequent work using that name. Can be an embarassment if that happens.