text:
When do most students publish in a European PhD?
in US PhDs, it's typical to start publishing (first author or not) in their latter-half years. How does that work in the EU? Since EU PhDs are shorter than US programs, is it common for EU phd students to publish in their final year or so? Or do some people not even make that and wait till their post-doc or something?

Just one data point, but any way: I started publishing as an advanced undergrad. I will have 5 publications when I complete my master's.

in US PhDs, it's typical to start publishing (first author or not) in their latter-half years This is highly field dependent.  In many areas of math, I believe a majority of students don't publish before graduating.

And in the humanities, the first publication may be a book published a year or two after the Ph.D.

Related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/26354/41580

This is way too broad. There's massive variation between subjects and Europe is not nearly as homogeneous as you seem to be assuming.

Probably, you have an incorrect picture of European PhDs.
There are significant differences in the paths that lead to a PhD in the US and in Europe. Several of these differences have been already covered by other questions, but let me highlight those I think are the most important for what concerns your question.
First, however, the usual disclaimer: Europe is not a single entity, and there are large differences among European countries. What I'm going to say below applies to many countries around here, but not necessarily to all.

Most European PhD programmes require an MSc degree for the application. Therefore, the common European PhD student has already done the coursework (or  most of it) that a PhD student in the US has to do during their first years.
Students in the US usually fund themselves through teaching assistantship, which keep them away from research for many hours a week. Most European students, instead, are fully funded by their institution and can work on research full time. Some institutions allow them to work as teaching assistants too, but with a lower workload.
If I got it correctly, US students are allowed during their first years to "wander" a bit to decide what topic they like most. European students are usually not allowed to do so: they start working on a specific topic from week one of their PhD.
European PhDs are shorter than US ones, but not that shorter: though in many European countries the canonical duration of a PhD is 3 years, the real duration is frequently longer, 3.5-4 years.

Given the above differences, you should not be surprised to discover that many European PhD students start publishing from their first or second year.
For your last point:

Or do some people not even make that and wait till post-doc or
  something?

In some cases this would not be possible because some PhD programmes require students to publish at least one journal paper before the end of their PhD.

From what I have seen in Germany, the "wandering" described in your point 3 very much happens, but with the same result you describe: You do not wait to publish until you have settled on a topic; you start publishing right away while wandering. The actual focus of your research will then only be gradually determined a few years later by looking back and seeing which ones are the connecting aspects of your publications up to then.

With MSc 2 years and PhD 3-4 years, a European PhD is just as long as a US PhD of 5-6 years. There are a few PhD programs in Europe which don't require an MSc but the hand full of such programs that I know take 4-5 years instead of 3-4 and are basically MSc+PhD but skipping the MSc thesis.

@Sumyrda: Note that these durations in Europe may be quite field-dependent. Among my contacts, the usual PhD duration is 5, and sometimes up to 6 years. And those were programs that required having a MSc before.

3rd one point is one of biggest obstacle for me, that is why I decided to not study in Europe, many student that decided to continue their studies, found very difficult to deal with low possibility of changing topic and advisor, you either have to change program or have a good reason

@SSimon It's true that some personalities feel better with one system rather than the other, but, really, the most important thing, whatever the system, is to find a good advisor and a group with whom you get along well. As a student I was not really concerned about the possibility of changing topic: at the time of the Master's thesis I asked about two topics at the opposite side of the Galaxy, one on statistical mechanics, the other in metrology, and half an hour later I made my choice.

@MassimoOrtolano yes, but do you really think that most of prospective PhD students know that? Even if they knew they cant possibly guess what is working environment inside research teams?

I'd also note however that a MSc (and BSc) in Europe is not completely equivalent to a Msc (and BSc) in the US: while a BSc in the US is typically 4 years long and most people go straight into the industry after this, in many European countries (at least in Switzerland, and especially in STEM fields), a BSc is only 3 years and everybody does a MSc as well, it's simply a part of your education.

@lifesayko Even the starting point of a bachelor's degree varies. Some countries have an extra year of secondary education, which may or may not be comparable to the breadth requirements in many US bachelor's degrees. University admissions may also require a significant amount of independent study, comparable to an introductory course or two in other countries.

@Jouni, very true. What I wanted to highlight was not so much the difference in required years, but rather the "functional" difference: in the US a Bachelor is the norm for entering industry, whereas in many place in Europe, a Masters is the norm, making it functionally more similar to a US bachelors (though not quite the same).

Answers will depend on the specifics of the country and the field, and possibly there are some variations by institution, as well. My experience in computer science in Germany is as follows:
Doctoral candidates "start publishing" right upon starting their path to the doctoral degree. That is, they are gradually included in the publishing process:

The first one or two papers will most probably be heavily influenced by someone who mentors the candidate, possibly the candidate is only the secondary author in those and only prepares a single aspect of the work.
On the other hand, it is also quite a promising and somewhat common start to try and publish a part of one's Master (or equivalent) thesis as an actual paper, if there is anything appropriate to be found in that thesis - these are some results that are already there, so the candidate can concentrate on the specifics of how to properly write a research paper, how to convey the knowledge in English instead of the local language, and how the process of peer review and publication works in general.

Furthermore, it is well possible the first few publications are only workshop papers or posters, or maybe short conference papers, as opposed to the full-fledged full length conference papers following later on.
Whether a stapler thesis in the narrow sense is permissible depends on the preferences of the professor. However, in any case, parts of the doctoral thesis are generally expected to have been published, and I have even seen regulations stating a publication list as a required document to be submitted along with the final version of the doctoral thesis. As such, it is unlikely that "wait[ing] till post-doc" (or even just until the final, i.e. 5th or so year) is a viable procedure.

Yes, in the computer science department where I did my master thesis, it was quite common to try to publish the master thesis as a workshop paper or even conference paper. We even had some students successfully publish their bachelor thesis as workshop papers. In the years that I was there, only students that had already published something got an offer for a PhD position.

In many places in Europe you can't even start on a PhD without having done a MSc and a PhD is (supposed to be) 3 years. In Sweden a PhD is (supposed to be) 4 years full time work courses and research +1 year of institutional work (typically helping out in teaching BSc and MSc students). Sometimes working as a "research assistant" for some months or a year is done in between the MSc and the PhD.

In Sweden you are supposed to start publishing from the start, but expected to take most of the PhD course credits (like 2/3 of them) first half and therefore have more time for writing and publishing second half as it is expected it will take some time to learn and to get up to speed with publishing.
Typical number of publications for inclusion in a technical PhD could be 3-6, depending on if they are conference or journal publications. But it seems to vary a lot with which field you're in.

All that being said, it really is not very uncommon to find full-professors chairing their departments who took 7-10 years to finish their PhDs.

There is no single answer that applies to all (continental European) countries and all disciplines. Take Germany as an example. In the humanities, it is quite common not to have published a single article until some time after the PhD defense, which on average takes six to seven years.
The entire process from BA to PhD is not shorter than in the US, because a masters (or equivalent) degree is a precondition for being admitted as a PhD student.
The "classical" way to become a PhD is while being employed as a part-time research associate (wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter). In general, working on a part-time job while also working on the dissertation prolongs the whole process, but the details matter. Some superiors assign work that takes more than 20 hours; some, by contrast, regard working on the PhD thesis as part of the work contract. If the job involves mainly teaching or administrative duties, the first publication may not be ready before the end of the third year or even (much) later. However, if it involves only research duties and a supportive superior/supervisor, it may also lead to additional publications before the PhD defense.
More recently, U.S. style graduate schools have become more common in Germany. Typically, these run over three to four years and students are fully funded to enable them to focus on their PhD. This does not necessarily exclude other side-projects.
In the humanities and often in the social sciences, the doctoral dissertation is one monographic thesis. Only after the defense, the manuscript is eventually published as one single book (and possibly a few chapters turned into articles). For the publication, the thesis manuscript has to be edited, often thoroughly, which may take another year or longer.

"Typically, [U.S. style graduate schools] run over three years and students are fully funded to work exclusively on their PhD." - all instances of this that I have seen also meant that typically (?), no candidate was done with their thesis by the end of the graduate school duration (which I saw more commonly as four years), and either got some additional funding for another one or two years from other sources, or had to continue their research while starting to work outside of the university. Also, it is not uncommon for doctoral candidates in such graduate schools to also be employed ...

... part-time by the university institute of their supervisor, so they do not miss out on the opportunity to gather the teaching and collaborative research experience that is expected by the time they get a doctoral degree. Consequently, the assumption that they "work exclusively on their PhD" sounds rather theoretical to me. (That notwithstanding, publications during the first year can be the norm depending on the field.)

@O.R.Mapper Yes, that has also been my impression. I have edited my answer to take this into account.

As people said already, in many places in Europe you can't even start on a PhD without having done a MSc. BSc in many EU countries is not considered to be higher education. In my EU country BSc is a worthless paper.
I have done a PhD in UK. You are given 3  years to do the research, 4th year is for writing your thesis. That is the theory. However in many cases students are used as cheap workforce, hence they research until the last day. But they have to finish within 4 years or they leave with nothing.
Publications are an advantage, although are not required. At the viva external examiner has to write a report, where one of the questions he has to answer is: "Is the student's work publishable?" If the student has no publications, he would have to argue at the viva. If he has publications, the examiner has no choice but to tick the box.
Having said that, it is not easy to get a publication by the end of 4th year. It takes 2-3 years before you start having some interesting results from your research. In some highly regarded IEEE journals it takes more than a year from the moment you submit your paper to the moment it gets published. I intentionally went for a publication in IEEE journal that had less reputation, just to get it published before my viva. And I had more publications from my PhD research after I finished my PhD than during it.
My girlfriend doing a PhD in English studies had lots of publications in first year already. But it was just a different subject.
It can vary from uni to uni and even from department to department. A lot depends also on the subject of your research. Having a good supervisor helps. Mine was useless...


text:
How to present a paper via skype?
I'm doing a skype presentation of a paper that would be published soon. The presentation is for an improvement of a procedure that was not so accurate before (Computer Science related). Should I only keep the cam towards me or should I share the screen as well with the ppts? I've got 7 minutes for the presentation and 3 minutes for Q & A. It's my first skype presentation and I have no idea on how this would be done.

It is practically impossible to recommend you anything feasible without knowing: 1) your field; 2) nature of the paper (i.e., what kind of content it contains); 3) the goal of the presentation; 4) your audience; 5) whether Skype actually has this functionality (I am not aware of it and I use Skype for many years).

Clarification: I know that one can share screen in Skype, but IMHO it lacks other relevant features, such as using pointer of specific shape, etc.

My field is Computer science, the paper describes a new improvement in a data analytics method. The goal of my presentation would be to describe what I've done to improve the current method in my paper. Skype does provide the functionality. I should use the screen share to show them the slides as I explain it, right?

I see. Sure, Skype allows to share screen. You have read my clarification above, right? What I meant by "functionality" is something more than just that. For example, if you want to emphasize particular part of your screen/slide or point to some areas, it would be handy to have some visual aid for that (such as in many screencast tools). So, if you don't need this functionality, you're all set: https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA10215/how-do-i-share-my-screen-in-skype-for-windows-desktop. Of course, for emphasizing an area on your slides, you can use presentation SW's functionality. Good luck!

@AleksandrBlekh Thanks a lot. I understand the need to point out a particular part on the screen. I would not need it but I will look into it to make the presentation better.

You're very welcome! For presentations, especially in CS and similar fields, I highly recommend to use LaTeX with Beamer package (perhaps, you're using them already).

I don't think this question deserves the downvotes. It might help to add an opening sentence setting the scene for the main question: what is the presentation for, who are the audience, why does it have to be over skype, ...?

I have presented powerpoint slides by:

voice call while screen sharing the window with the presentation (works quite well)
video call with slides behind me, having emailed the slides to the audience beforehand (works well for smaller audiences as long as you remember to say "next slide" or similar when you change. Sounds like it would be annoying but everyone gets used to it very quickly).

I have also seen

record the presentation offline, replay as a video and have a skype q&a afterwards (this was odd, I wouldn't recommend it).

Final tips:

Do a practice run with your supervisor/colleague over Skype
Make sure you have reliable, fast internet (at my University that still means a wire) and a quiet room

Thanks a lot. That pretty much gives me every detail I need to work with.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can you cite articles if you only read the abstract?
Well the question is pretty much self contained :
Can you cite articles if you only read the abstract ?
In a more general case :
1) Do reviewers actually read (or read) articles you cite ?
2) If the abstract is well structured, and you flied through the article content, everything seems reliable, and you do not need to have a thorough understanding of the methods for example, is it ok to cite it ?
EDIT : following O.R Mapper insightful comment
3) What if you cannot access the paper in no way ?

Can you? Yes. Should you? No. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable citing work for which I haven't read all relevant parts, e.g. Abstract + Introduction + all relevant Methods + Conclusion.

@101010111100 I understand your high standards academic POV. But let's take an example. The article is about planting carrot in Birman. Im interested in how much carrots did they get and their size. Do I really need to know and read thoroughly about how did they plant them or how much water did they use for watering ?

For 1) it obviously varies, but I have at least had reviewers point out that they were unable to find a result I cited in the given paper (I had accidently given it the wrong number).

@Blue_Elephant Sort of? Using your example, I don't see why you wouldn't need to know how the authors managed to obtain their results. Plucking pieces of data like that from different sources, without understanding the context of that data, can be really dangerous. And I find it strange that you can't, at the very least, spend a few minutes to read through the conclusions and skim through the methods.

@101010111100: Without commenting on whether the abstract should be relied upon for results: In the age of paywalls, having no access and failure to find anyone among one's contacts from other institutions who does have access to the full text means that it "spend[ing] a few minutes" is not necessarily the problem.

@O. R: I didnt understand what you meant by "not necessarily the problem". What according to you is the problem? It would have helped if we could have a single membership that gave access through all paywalls.

@Nav: It sometimes occurs that none of your memberships gives access to a given paper that you would like to cite, and none of your contacts at other institutions can access the paper, either.

1) Do reviewers actually read (or read) articles you cite ?
Sometimes, but not always.  When I review a paper, I'll generally check a random subset of citations to make sure the right paper is linked.  (It's surprisingly common for references to get out of sync, so that citation [12] in the manuscript actually should be citing reference [13] in the bibliography.)  I'm often familiar enough with the literature to know if the authors are citing an appropriate paper for common points, so I'll skim over these to make sure everything I already know makes sense.  In both cases, I don't actually read the papers, just make sure they pass the sanity check.
If something looks odd (they cite an author supporting something that I didn't think she worked on, or a fact seems reversed, or there's some detail I didn't know about) I will often take a look at the referenced paper.  This averages to probably a couple of papers read per paper reviewed, but when I find one oddity I'll often find several, so it's more like some reviews I'll read 4-5 papers, more often I'll just glance at one.
So you shouldn't count on slipping something by reviewers.
As for looking at abstracts only, you can but probably shouldn't. The only time it's relatively safe is when the abstract explicitly states the single point you're using that paper to support ("We found that 72% of Bulgarian tractor repairmen are left-handed"), but even then you may be missing important qualifiers ("We limited our sample to red-haired tractor repairmen with pre-existing arthritis").  As I noted, reviewers may well be familiar enough with the literature to catch these.

"It's surprisingly common for references to get out of sync, so that citation [12] in the manuscript actually should be citing reference [13] in the bibliography." All hail automatic reference numbering.

What if I'm writing a review article? Would it be alright to read then cite the abstract? The field I am currently writing in is in systems biology; my formal training is in math. (1) I know next to nothing about the methodologies; should I even bother with methodologies? (2) I do read into the molecular interactions and their overall effects in the "discussion" section apart from the abstract. Would this ever suffice?

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

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


text:
Incompatibility between job and field of study
Finding jobs for Ph.D graduate in mathematics is the main concern. Available options are namely in general industry and academia. I see, for instance, some Ph.D in math (algebraic geometry)  working in Bank sector! This incompatibility
between field of study and job might back to the rank of math department of graduated person.
There maybe exists some other reasons. But I want to know about the upper bound of ranks of departments might be considered as top ranks? Additionally, which university ranking is most reliable in industry sector and in academia?

There's also government jobs. Mathematics is not a profession (like engineering or dentistry) but a field of learning. There are niches within mathematics like actuary and perhaps statistician though. I don't really follow your question beyond that though.

I'm having trouble understanding your question the way you've written it.  Are you concerned that if you took an unrelated job in industry, that that might lower the ranking of the program you graduated from?  Are you asking if the ranking of the program you graduated from will affect your employability?

@aparente001 It is my confusion if someone takes an unrelated job in industry? How does a pure mathematics postgraduated can start a job in Banking sector?

@user40491 - I think you just submit an application.  You might want to brush up on your English grammar basics and have someone check your cover letter and CV.

@aparente001 !!!!

@user40491 - Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to convey.

As a graduate PhD your options are staying in academia and moving to industry, as you correctly point out. If you stay in academia, be it as research staff or as postdoc, it is generally because there is a interest in your field of study. In industry however, especially with rather specialized studies, you are not hired for your research to this point. With a PhD you have proven you are capable of independently solving challenging problems. And math/physics PhDs are generally considered as being good at working with numbers and abstract concepts. This is why they end up in the banking sector or working for insurance companies. It doesn't matter if your PhD is from a high ranking university or not, once you move past a certain point of specialization there is simply no demand for the research you are working on, you are hired for the skills you developed during your PhD

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


text:
How to handle colors of photorealistic images in publications
A long time ago in a classroom far, far away, I was taught that printed media should be understandable also when in monochrome, e.g. when printed out in black and white (cf. the issue specifically for logo design). This could naturally be seen as also applying to academic publications (journals, books, conference proceedings, etc.), but judicious use of color can be effective when accounting for e.g. colorblindness and vision impairment. How, then, can I best include photorealistic images with many colors in a way which retains meaning both in cases where colors are available and where not available?
In my specific situation, I am illustrating sample items used as stimuli in an experiment which is strongly but indirectly related to color (i.e. models I've conditioned on the data include features which encode color). For this reason, it would be helpful for readers to get the best possible perception of what the stimuli look like in real life. Unfortunately, however, some of the colors are hard to discern from others even on an RGB monitor, let alone printed  in black and white (which is actually part of the reason for doing the experiment).
Currently, I've tried adjusting brightness and contrast measures for the images, which has helped to a small degree, but I'm afraid to try anything more radical out of fear of misrepresenting the sample items.

This question could be probably better handled by Graphic Design; you might think of flagging for migration. There, you will also find a number of questions related to this problem.

@MassimoOrtolano I had considered that, but I feel this is dependent slightly more on conventions in academic publications than strictly on "good graphic design". On the other hand, if you feel it's worth migrating, perhaps the mods could decide?

Put those pictures online as supplementary. How they come out in the journal, even in the pdf is a wild wager. Just make sure their structure is made clear in the paper.

One possibility is to use the colour image, but add text labels for the important elements so the user can understand the image even in black and white. For example, in a picture of a stoplight, I might label the red light as "stop indicator" (or even "red light"), the green light as "go indicator" (or "green light", and so on.
The user will know that the text labels must have been added after the picture was taken, so you will not be misrepresenting anything.


text:
Explaining an unusual undergraduate degree title
I've got an undergraduate MA, which has, interestingly enough, caused me a significant amount of trouble: Examples include being excluded from student accommodation and being denied funding (they were available only to students working on the "first" "Master's" degree, and they assumed I was working on a second). "Appealing" such decisions is not always possible, as e.g. I only got an official refusal for accommodation two years after applying (about a month before I handed in my thesis), or I got a generic refusal with no explanation or I simply didn't get a response to "appeal" at all.
How can I make the nature of this degree explicit and unambiguous in e.g. contexts of applications?-- Some people simply cannot accept the fact that I do not have a "Bachelor's degree". In fact, a description of the degree is written in English on the second page of my degree transcript, and I have even directed people to this page who then still demanded to see my "Bachelor's degree"; This degree has conferred me the power to actually break bureaucracy despite that I'm not exactly the first person to be awarded such a degree (additionally, undergraduate MAs likely aren't the only example of this). On my CV, I have now put directly before the "MA" title the term (Undergraduate), e.g.:

2004–2008: (Undergraduate) M. A. (honors) Testing Bureaucracy

Previously, I only had the 2004–2008 part, but actually this wasn't enough to make people understand that this is an undergraduate degree. I haven't had any experiences using the (Undergraduate) note, but there are still places where this is simply not possible to note in this way, such as when filling out pre-fabricated forms for e.g. admission or application of funding.

I don't know how popular this answer will be with others but ...
Call it a BA phase
whilst applying to graduate schools
In all honesty after having read as to what Scottish MA is, I would suggest that in applications (especially to the US or other parts of the world not particularly familiar with the degree type) that you merely enter it as a BA

2004-2008 BA (honors) Testing Bureaucracy

With this seems inaccurate, consider it a matter of translation rather than some sort of dishonesty with degree names, etc. As the University of Edinburgh states, these are "conventional undergraduate degrees."
Then when it's explaining time, explain that the degree is called a MA for historical reasons (by say printing the appropriate explanation page from your school or wikipedia) and providing that along with the degree certificate or transcript.
None of this is to deny that it looks like a very high quality undergraduate education.
My motive for this suggestion is that doing otherwise will confuse people at a time when their confusion costs you scholarships and other things.
Call it an MA Phase
Once you have some higher degree above it or when you no longer care about graduate school
Revert to calling it an MA on your CV and in applications as you are suggesting. At this point, the only people reading it will glance only briefly at this and not really care.

I had considered doing that, but my main fear with that method is that the opposite would happen: I'd apply and then, once they see my "actual" degree, they will reject me on the basis of my application being fraudulent, i.e. that I "lied" about not having an MA in order to get money meant for those who haven't already got one.

Unfortunately, I don't see any way around this approach. I also think the negative consequences of calling it a bachelor's degree (maybe you can avoid using the phrasing BA) are far less likely for a simple reason -- by the time they're looking at the actual degree, you're in and it's getting handled by people who now have a motive to make it work. Conversely, during the application phase, a big part of the reviewer's task is to reduce the number of things to think about and anything seemingly askew means trash bin.


text:
Single author papers against my advisor's will?
I am a third year PhD student in an area of theoretical CS that would like advice for a difficult situation with my advisor.
My advisor is not involved in my research projects at all. In particular, I have come up with all of my paper ideas, and have executed the papers alone. However, she always insists on adding her name as a co-author. This has started to increasingly bother me, as I work very hard on my research and believe I should get credit for that. Note that in theoretical CS, there is no PI is always last author just because of funding tendency, all authors are considered equal and are ordered alphabetically. This makes it particularly bad to just add her, because it is completely ambiguous how much each of us has done.
For my most recent paper, I brought up how I didn't believe she was meeting the IEEE or ACM guidelines for authorship, and told her that I believed I should be sole author on my paper. She agreed that she shouldn't be an author, although she was visibly angry. She said that I was a "weirdo" for doing this, and said that everybody already knows that advisors take credit for their student's work and that publishing with your advisor is the same as publishing alone (this is absolutely untrue). But most importantly, she told me that she would not approve my proposal/dissertation if I did not add her name to several more top-tier papers because then I "have no ties to the university" since I am not working with a professor, and therefore cannot receive my PhD. She also made a lot of other threats, but that was the most relevant to me.
Obviously, I need a new advisor. However, there is really no one in my department in my research area. Switching research areas or departments are not options. So the remaining options are the following:
(1) Add her name to several more papers. I do not like this idea because it is unethical, and there is no guarantee that anything is even gained in this option. She could simply refuse to recommend me in the end after I got her a bunch of papers.
(2) Ignore her threats, and continue working towards my PhD, assuming that she will have to let me graduate. The reasons I don't believe she can stop me from graduating is because (a) I already have a good publication record and my papers are only getting better (b) I have funding independent of her through a fellowship and (c) our dept makes is difficult to kick out graduate students for no real reason. The downside of this is that she won't give me a letter of recommendation, but she doesn't have many connections anyways so this might not be too bad. On the positive side, I will have a bunch of single author papers.
(3) Try to convince a professor in an unrelated research area in my dept to be my advisor, emphasizing that I am independent and can do my work alone. There are a few theory professors in my dept, although they are totally different areas. I have no idea the chance of this working out.
I am also planning on talking to the chair about my situation. But I just wanted to get more of an opinion, what do you think I should do?

I want to emphasize: Adding your advisor to your paper even if they haven't done anything is not the norm in my research area. It is not uncommon for students to do single author papers. I know this is more normalized in other areas.

If you go to war with your advisor they can probably just dump you and you will need a new advisor anyway. They don't need to actively "block" anything. So you are back to only two options in effect.

She said that I was a "weirdo" for doing this, and said that everybody already knows that advisors take credit for their student's work — OP already knows this is untrue, but for the record: It is not "weird" for theoretical computer science students to publish without their advisors, and advisors taking credit for student work is neither common nor accepted practice in theoretical computer science.  Quite the contrary: I require my PhD students to publish at least one paper without me before I let them graduate, because otherwise the community doesn't give them enough credit.

You describe behavior that is certainly unethical and should be grounds for dismissal. One doesn't threaten graduate students or try to bribe them (with graduation) for what is in CS, in the US, anyway, improper co-authorship.
That said, your options are limited. I think the best option is to start with the department chair and see where you stand. If the chair is willing to act ethically you may have a solution, but otherwise you may just need to try to do whatever is necessary to accelerate your graduation and move on.
One option that the chair might suggest is a mediated meeting with your advisor and either he chair or another faculty member. Your ideas about working independently and getting someone else to sign whatever is needed to graduate might be worth pursuing.
The problem will then be finding proper letters of recommendation to move you to your next position. That will be difficult unless you cultivate opportunities around you.
I'm going to also suggest that if the chair isn't supportive that you explore opportunities elsewhere. If other faculty aren't available, it might be worth looking at other institutions. It might actually be less disruptive to do that and someone with a publication record might be seen as a "catch" by another university.
But I'll guess that your option (2) is the worst.

Note to readers. Co-authorship by advisors is not the norm in CS and mathematics in many places. My advisor (math) never would have thought of it even though he had substantial contributions to the work, and I never would have considered it for my own students (CS). It would have felt "icky".

The problem will then be finding proper letters of recommendation to move you to your next position. — Students typically need multiple letters, only one of which comes from their advisor, so OP will need to cultivate external references anyway.  And in my experience, strong letters from researchers who are not from the applicant's home institution and who have not collaborated with them—but are written strictly on the basis of their published research—are taken more seriously in postdoc and faculty searches.  A missing advisor letter raises eyebrows, but it's not the kiss of death.

So in my opinion, option (1) is far worse than option (2).

I agree with @Buffy, this does sound like an unethical situation, but a very tricky one for you to handle carefully. As you mentioned, you are working independently and you probably will never work with her for your entire degree. So I think your best bet would be to seek another faculty in the department, even if they are not in your area of interest. As long as you are working on your own, that shouldn't matter. You can try convincing them that you just need to supervise you and sign formal documents.
I believe changing supervisor is better than patching things up with your supervisor, because your relationship has already been ruined, and their is no guarantee that it will be smooth in future either.  I would suggest talk to your chair about helping you find another advisor. Ultimately, you are going to need few letters of recommendation, which I am almost certain that you won't get from your current supervisor. If you get a new advisor, you can build rapport with them and maybe contribute a little bit in what they do.
Your option 1 is bad because it is just unethical and without guarantee that you will get letters in future.  Option 2 is no good either because even if you end with a bunch of single author papers, that is not the whole game. In job applications, papers have a certain weight, but they are certainly not the only thing that matters. Without a letter from your supervisor (or a bad one) your employer might perceive it as a sign of bad team player. Therefore, I believe you have a chance of option 3 working in your favor. If nothing works, then try to expand your reach and find somebody else at another institution. That might be easy/difficult depending on your funding/family/personal situations.
Good luck!

Sounds like you are in a bad situation.
Let me just expand on what previous posters have suggested. I strongly suggest that you find another adviser. If you have peer-reviewed publications, you should be able to find someone who will allow you to graduate even if they are not in your area. Moreover, I don't think it is a big loss, since it sounds like your current adviser may not give you a good recommendation even if you stay with her.
You should be able to find a postdoc position based on your publications even without a letter from your current adviser. Your postdoc adviser can then write you a letter. Other suggestions for getting a letter include:

The adviser you switch to can write you a letter -- even if they are not in your area, they can comment on working with you, on your communication skills, and the quality of your publications. They can also explain the situation (i.e., why you did not work with the person in your department in your area).
You can bring in an external expert for your thesis committee. This allows an expert in your area to get to know you and your work.
You can meet people at conferences who might be likely to read your paper anyway (because they are working on related things) who might then be willing you write you a letter.

Good luck!


text:
Balancing Lecture Time and Engagement with Financial Law Students: Seeking Advice
I'm currently facing a challenge in teaching financial law to apprentices. I have limited classroom time with my students and need to cover a substantial amount of material. To address this, I’ve prepared detailed scripts for my slides and lectures. However, rather than simply conveying all the content in a breadth as opposed to depth, my goal is to provide examples on specific laws that encourage students to critically engage with the laws that they are reading, hence building their motivation when they read the book indpendently rather than just cover every aspect in depth.
I know that some of you may suggest recording videos of my lectures for students to watch in their own time. However, there are two reasons why I’ve hesitated with this approach:

Reading is Crucial: For my students, reading the book is more valuable and versatile. I see my role as providing specific examples and clarifications, not necessarily going over every detail of the material. Going in a depth for each law is going to take way more time than the expected allocated time for teaching.
Limited Study Time: My students are apprentices who have only one day a week dedicated to study from their employer. I prefer that they spend this time reading rather than watching videos, as I believe this will be more beneficial in preparing them for their professional exams (specifically, the CISI exam). Also, based on a survey, it seems evident to me that students like to listen to me speaking and discussing particular concepts as opposed to spend all the time solving questions similar to the CISI. So, this to me implies that I need to do a balance.

That said, students have expressed a preference for a teaching structure where I spend the first hour lecturing and the second hour solving problems similar to those they will encounter in their exams. I’m now considering recording a lecture video to show during the first hour of class, allowing me to pause the video to address questions as they arise and provide deeper insights into specific points. This video could also be made available after class for further review.
My concern is whether students will find this approach engaging or if they might prefer a live lecture (all online remember) where I speak directly to them. Has anyone implemented something similar, or do you have advice or recommendations on how to best balance lecture time, student engagement, and exam preparation?

What do you expect of them when they aren't in the "classroom"? How much time? How much effort? (Classroom being virtual, of course.)

@Buffy Sorry, I did not fully understand your comment. I am expecting them to read the textbook when they aren't in classroom. Around 3-4 hours of reading time with some MCQs activities. Yes, the classroom is virtual, not in-person, and students tend to not show cameras or interact unless you put explicit questions addressing them personally. which I find annoying as I want them to be active.

Do they have assignments that are graded? The formal interaction time is X hours. Is that all the time they are expected to devote?

Hello @Buffy, yes they do, formal interaction is about 3 hours every week for 8 weeks. No, they have to devote at least 3 to 4 hours extra each week for 8 weeks. But, how is this relavant?


text:
Master's program advice
A little background on my question. I recently gradated with my BS in Computer Information Systems and am looking to pursue a Master's program. I am also married with 3 children. I am looking for advice on which path to take. The two paths I am looking into are to either take on the Master of Computer Science in Computer Science program at Colorado State University or the Master of Science in Computer Science program at Boise State University.
The reasons I am looking into CSU's program is because it able to be completed 100% online. With my recent departure from the military, starting a new career, and the fact that I have taken many online classes in the past push me toward this program.
I am torn by BSU's program because the CSU program does not have a thesis requirement while BSU's does. My plans are to continue on to a PhD program at some point so the benefits of completing a thesis seem rather large. I am also local to BSU and would be able to complete the program as a traditional student. However, that "traditional student" status is sort of my deterring factor. As a father of 3 children, it would be very difficult to be gone most nights at class.
A long story short, is completing a thesis worth the stress that it would put on my family to have to take night classes? Would I be just as competitive for a PhD program later by completing CSU's Master's program? To be clear, I am not asking for a comparison of the two different programs.

I think that it is partially depends on an institution that you plan to or, eventually, will be studying toward the Ph.D. degree. Note my emphasis on "partially", perhaps, I could have used "somewhat" or, even, "potentially". The implies that it might have some impact or it might not. If you don't plan to attend a Ph.D. program at a top university, then I would think that it will have a minimal effect in terms of admission. However, from a perspective of gaining experience in semi-dissertation-level-writing, the thesis option could be useful to you. However, at the end of the day, IMHO family should be a priority and, thus, I would suggest choosing the route that puts less strain on your family. It is possible to graduate in a Ph.D. program with a dissertation after previously graduating in a 100% online Master's program - I am speaking here from my own personal experience. It is somewhat more difficult, but doable. Again, family should be a priority in my book. Good luck!

I appreciate the response. It is good to here the possibilities from someone who has "been there and done that". Your response will aid me in my decision greatly. My main reason to looking into a program with a thesis requirement was for the future. However, if this is not a solid requirement then this sort of program is looking less attractive.

@MattRowland: My pleasure. Just don't base your decision on a single answer, even if it's mine :-). Hopefully, you'll get some more helpful opinions.

I wouldn't never base such a large decision on a single factor and I hope nobody else would either.


text:
How to provide attribution to a media source in a research paper?
I'm working on a project report which we plan to publish as a research paper later after some more work. In my report I have used some images from the Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. They all are either in the public domain or licensed under the Creative Commons license.
I would like to provide attribution to the media source in the report and the paper. I have googled it but could not find a source which explains it with an example.

Is there a standard way of providing attribution in a report/paper?
Can I provide attribution in the  bibliography along with the cited papers?
I'm using bibtex for references. Is it possible to handle the media attribution using bibtex?
Does anyone know of a published paper which provides attribution to the media sources so that I can have a look?

EDIT:
Does anyone know of a proper way to provide attribution in captions because I think attribution in captions will reduce readability.

Here is a paper that uses CC images: http://perso.crans.org/frenoy/matlab2012/seamcarving.pdf - Perhaps the same style of assigning attribution (in the acknowledgments) is suitable for you as well?

Using the acknowledgements works well (though the vague reference to CC in the example @DCTLib provides isn't perfect - it would be better if it named the specific license). Another good approach is to provide attribution in the image captions, and this may scale better if you have very many images. I don't have a good example to hand, though.

@Andrew I agree that it would be better if I'm able to name the specific license, I think providing attribution in the image captions will reduce their readability, especially if I'm writing something like this Wii Remote (By Greyson Orlando (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons) in the captions. Is there something else that can be done?

@LakshayGarg For a report with many images, I'd be tempted to include a short appendix listing sources of all images. For a journal article, I'd consult their style guide and/or query it with the editor. In either case, listing it in the main bibliography would probably be confusing & is best avoided.

Another option might be to move such attribution statements to footnotes.

Why don't you provide a list of media sources in the appendix similar to the obligatory literature list.
You number the images anyway inside the paper, so you can easily reference them in an appendix. Depending on your textprocessing tool you also can generate backlinks to the images for hypertext reading.
This could look like this:

Apendix C...
sources of media used in this paper
For detailed Information on Licences see [Link... creative commons, gnu, whatever...]

Figure 1 (p. 42) Apples, Takeaway (Own work) via Wikimedia, Licence CC-BY-SA 4.0
Figure 2 (p. 69) Oranges, Finsh, Ellen Levy (own work) via Wikimedia, Licence CC-BY-SA 3.0
Figure 2 (p. 104) Tree, Gimmel, Benjamin (own work) via Wikimedia, Licence CC-BY-SA 3.0

First, if you take public domain or CC-0 images you're not forced to provide attribution.
But to answer your question: you can trim most of the string that Wikimedia Commons suggests, it's just a concatenation of all the data we have to be safe. In particular:

"own work", "[Public domain]" and "via Wikimedia Commons" are always fine to remove;
there is no need to link the license if you refer to it with a unique code like "CC-BY-SA-3.0-US" (case law in USA);
you can usually trim the title or link for the file by using the permalink, for instance today's featured picture https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rhenium_single_crystal_bar_and_1cm3_cube.jpg becomes https://commons.wikimedia.org/?curid=11594094 .


text:
Can I become a research psychologist by studying maths and computer science?
I am currently studying maths and computer science in University of Barcelona, Spain, and I love research psychology. The question is: "is there a way to end up as a research psychologist following maths and CS studies? If not, what are the paths I could take without going far from maths?"
Thanks for your attention and apologies for my English!

You might be interested in cognitive science, and in particular, artificial intelligence.

What do you mean by "research psychology"?

Sure you can! There are some things you'll need to keep in mind, though, to make sure your current plans for undergraduate fit your longer-term desire to be involved with psychology research.
First, psychology research take many, many forms. There are many inter-disciplinary fields of psychology research that actually prefers at least some background in computing and strong quantitative skills, especially in areas like human factors (also called engineering psychology or ergonomics in Europe - in the US ergonomics usually means something a little different), Human-Computer Interaction, and some programs of "applied psychology" and industrial-organizational psychology. Cognitive psychology also has quite a lot of use of computing backgrounds, while some fields of psychology lean heavily upon advanced statistics, such as some experimental social psychology. On the other hand, some areas of research psychology - such as clinical/behavioral/counselling - typically do not make much use of computing or advanced math at all. If you wanted to go into clinical research I'd strongly question your plan to study math/computing instead of a more related field like psychology, sociology, etc.
The second issue is being perceived as needing to make a switch, and so having to try to convince people that you have sufficient background in psychology to be accepted into a psychology program. Most programs in the US I've seen request someone have the equivalent of about 5 classes in psychology if they don't have a degree in a psychology-related field. Will you be able to get any psychology classes with your current plant? If not, then wanting to go into any research field without actually studying that field first is a questionable plan, at best. It's a different matter if you want to switch after completing your studies - but if you are still studying, why not switch now?
The third issue, noted partially in the paragraph above, is your preparation to do original research and so be able to make the most of your time in a graduate program. If you are studying math, this may or not be actually helpful in research. Psychology research most commonly uses quantitative skills in the areas of data analysis and advanced statistics. While a math background can help prepare you to learn the stats, it may not actually teach you the stats at all, and it most likely has no course in research or experimental methods. Similarly, computer science only sometimes includes any courses in stats, and rarely stats you'll actually need to use (ANOVA, linear regressions of all varieties, non-parametric stats, factor analysis, etc.), and it very likely contains no course in research methods or experimental design.
My personal path was actually to start studying in computing and I considered a minor in applied math, and I became interested in the intersections of computing and psychology after I discovered fields like human factors and HCI existed. I used the research-based focus of the psychology field to give me the stats and experimental design training I needed, and used the computing background to enable my particular research interests in applied technology. This combination has worked very nicely for me so far, but it is particularly challenging at times and requires you to be very self-driven and willing to teach yourself things that aren't the focus of any of your classes and may be outside the area of expertise of any of your professors.
The fields of computing, math, and psychology are very large and varied, and so while there may be an area that might be just right for you that allows you to combine all your interests, you'll need to work hard to 1) begin to locate just what that area might be, 2) ensure you are getting the preparation you need to thrive in that environment, and 3) be willing to get creative, because most established pathways, advertisements, and listed opportunities are often tailored for more "traditional" students wanting to go from Undergraduate Program in A to Graduate Program in A.
Finally, you should be aware that inherently multi-disciplinary fields can be a bit..."different". The same basic area of research might be called a half-dozen different things, and the home of a department might vary by University. An example of this is human factors-related programs are sometimes hosted by a psychology department, sometimes by an engineering department, sometimes by a computer science department, and sometimes even by a business department, each with their own unique flavor and research focus - and you might be a great fit for one but a terrible fit for another. Meanwhile one program may be called one thing but seems to really do research in another. My first research project was considered primarily psychology research at my home institution, yet is being published in the top conference in the area of HCI; the topic of the project was actually the topic studied as "human factors" 10+ years ago, but is now considered primarily the domain of HCI. My next research project is in HCI, but a lot of related previous research was in the field of aerospace engineering, geospatial information systems, and remote sensing. If being in such weird situations terribly bothers you, you might want to consider a more "traditional path". I thrive on the complexity, but it really isn't for everyone!

Thank you, I keep coming back to reading your answer! Very useful and inspiring


text:
What to do with rejected papers in case of conflicting reviews everytime?
Recently, I got two times rejection for my paper from two different reputed journals of Mathematics fields. The first time, I received two review reports in which both reviewers gave detailed comments with decision of major revision. But the paper got rejected by the handling editor of the journal.
Before going for a second submission (new journal), I tried my best to implement the comments of the reviewers of my first submission. This time again I got two review reports in which the first one suggested me to go for minor revision, while I received negative comments from the second reviewer. The second review says that my methods do not offer very much of an advantage over some of the existing classical methods. Also, it argues that no comparison is done with them.
Now, I am worried whether to submit this paper in a reputed journal or an average ranking journal. I am totally appalled by addressing their comments. What am I supposed to do in such circumstances?

Do you have a coauthor which is more senior than you? Or any advisor? If not, anyone in your institution which is familiar with the field? I suppose their opinion will be more valuable/relevant.

@JohnMa Yes,  I have. In fact, one of the coauthor has published more than two hundred research papers having  total impact points more than 150.

Then IMO you can just count on that coauthor on choosing journal.

@JohnMa I want to know what others do in such a circumstances? What else I could do? What would be appropriate from general perspective? Thank you for your reply.

I think the general recommendation is to seek the advice of someone who both knows your paper and is familiar with your field and its publications. The first choice is a co-author with a good publication record - and you have one.

I am not sure I see the issue here. The reviewer points out important problems with the paper and the editor agreed and rejected the paper. So fix those problems and submit it a new place.

You seem confused by the fact that one of the reviewers only suggested minor edits whereas the other was quite against the whole thing. As an editor, I see this all the time -- and typically, it means that I chose the first reviewer poorly and that the second reviewer really knows the field, knows the other methods that are used today, and can compare what's proposed in the paper with what's being used today. The first one may have tangential knowledge of the field, but not enough overview to recognize that the method is not new.
In other words, to avoid a repeat, you do well to think about whether the second reviewer may be correct. If she is, you would do well to figure out what you think what is new about the paper, and whether that is sufficient to justify publication. An experienced co-author or colleague can certainly help you with this, and you should schedule some discussions about this topic before you think about where to re-submit the paper.

Good journals get much more submisions than they could possibly publish. In that case it is the reviewer's job to inspect each single submission in isolation to see if it is of suitable quality, and the editor's job to look at all suitable submissions and select the best. So it is perfectly possible for the reviewers to suggest a revise and resubmit and the editor decides to reject because there is so many better (in her/his view) submissions on her/his desk.
There is no general answer to what your next step should be other than talk to someone that knows your article and your field, as was already suggested in the comments.


text:
Letter of recommendation for postdoc position
I am now applying for postdoc (mathematics) and starting to search for jobs in mathjobs. In quite a lot of situation, the job description ask for three letter of recommendation. My question are:

When they ask for three letter, for example here, can I have 4 or 5 letters sent to that university? (I planned to have 3-4 letter for research and 1 for teaching).
If I can only send three letter, is it preferable to have 3 letters all focusing on research aspects, or 2 on research and 1 on teaching (assuming that that postdoc job requires one to teach)?

Thanks. But for that example, can I provide four research letters? My advisor told me that it is quite common... @user37208

When a job posting asks for X research letters plus Y teaching letters, mathjobs still allows you to submit more than X + Y letters.  (If mathjobs has an upper bound on the number of letters you can submit, I don't know it.  I have seen files with at least ten letters, even though we ask for 3 + 1.)
In general, I think it is almost certainly okay to submit either the number of letters asked for or one more than that.  For each additional letter that you want to submit, I would advise you to think about why you are doing it.  Here are some things to remember:

It is not guaranteed that the hiring committee will read your entire application.  If you submit, say, twice as many letters as asked for, there is a good chance that some of them will be read only very cursorily.  This may not be what you want, since:
Virtually all letters I have ever read are "positive," i.e., they say good things about the candidate.  But the impression created by sending Z letters is not the sum of the Z impressions created by sending each of the letters.  Rather, unless each letter writer has qualitatively different very strong things to say about you, the total impression is some kind of weighted average of the letters, with the worst letters getting a higher weight than the best letters.  Thus I think that for all but the most senior candidates it is probably a bad idea to submit more than four research letters: any more than that and it is very likely that the average impression would be raised by removing one of the letters.  (Of course you still have the task of figuring out which are your best letters.  But you should try to figure that out, not just admit defeat and submit way too many of them.)

In your case, it sounds like that they really are asking for 3+1 letters, and you want to send 4+1.  That should be fine...but now is not too soon to try to figure out which of those four letters are the strongest and which are the weakest.

"I would advise you to think about why you are doing it" is almost as good as general advice for questions on this site as "What does your advisor say?"

"But the impression created by sending Z letters is the sum" -- should there be a "not" somewhere in there?

It is very usual for mathjobs postings to ask for 3 letters, including one for teaching. It is very usual for math postdoc applicants to submit 3-4 research letters and 1 teaching letter, even for such postings. You will have no problem doing so through mathjobs.

You can send more than 3 letters, put you might strategically choose to put letters that are the most enthusiasts and that boasts you the best, because usually an employer keeps in mind and focuses on what he see's first of a candidate). I assume and I strongly suggest you to have letters focused on both points (research and teaching). This ensures to show all your qualifications (it is a lot more specific), so its is more objective as well as more faithful to your real portray.
2 of my relatives were in a similar situation to yours (a master and a post doc). I hope you will get the position you seek for. Good luck.


text:
Making technical reports available
I'm in the field of engineering, electrical engineering specifically. I find myself with several technical reports and notes I've written over the years, and some colleagues have asked me for these. I think these may be beneficial to others, too and I'd like to make these publicly available somehow.
I've refrained from using the word "publishing", because I don't ever intend to submit it to a conference or a journal - the type of material just isn't right. See here http://www.mers.byu.edu/docs/reports/MERS9401.pdf for an example (I'm not the author of this particular note). arXiv doesn't cover electrical engineering topics; also, I doubt my reports would qualify "preprints", because preprints, as I understand, is something the author intends to publish eventually.
I know some folks who post these on their websites, but the danger is that self-maintained websites may eventually disappear, and with the websites, the reports themselves. Is there a good solution we have about this today? Perhaps a public repository?

Might be overkill for what you're looking for, but consider checking out the Open Science Framework. I'm not sure it's a perfect fit -- maybe more so if you were posting experimental data to accompany the technical report -- but it might lead you down the path you're looking.

Alternatively, if you're associated with a university, try contacting your department/area librarian. The university itself might have a service you can use - similar to how theses and dissertations are often preserved online nowadays.

Related: Are there open-access, free, non-topical academic data and research archives?

arXiv does cover many topics in electrical engineering. (Communication networks, signal processing, control systems, etc.)

If you are affiliated with an academic institution, many have some sort of mechanism for publishing tech reports, e.g. via DSpace.  This is the ideal solution, since it is designed for exactly the sort of publication that you are looking for.
Failing that, I would suggest looking a little bit closer into arXiv.  Many of the topics are quite vague, and depending on the topic, your work might well fit into something like cs.IT (Information Theory) or cs.SY (Systems and Control), or a number of other areas.
Finally, a possible fallback is to simply publish via a fairly stable repository like GitHub, which means it is at least not dependent on your own server, but an institution that is intended to be maintained over many years.

I would suggest GitHub. It gives us option of version control as well.

To start with, a good news: engrXiv is a novel eprint server for engineering.
Then, congratulations for willing to share your notes. Many interesting insights dwell in so-called personal communications or grey literature, and it is a pity of the cumulative advancement of science and technology. You should not refrain from using the word "publishing", because you what to make it public, which is the original meaning.
So, in order:

do not hesitate to put your notes in a usable form (author, institution, date, version especially in case you make updates), with a long lasting format (maybe not word, and postscript is a bit outdated...)
check with your institution first (for the rights) and if they have repositories
as institutions change, architecture varies, the link to your notes can get broken, so do not hesitate to duplicate:

open archives are nice as say in other answers: arXiv of course, and the offsprings: engrXiv, SocArXiv (social science) bioRXiv (biology), etc. but also CiteSeerX, github (some proposed by other answers)
on a personal website, greedy search engines will swallow it to keep it "forever"
other for-now free services (Academia, ResearchGate)

Apart from the document itself, it is quite important to be able to know that it exists, so a good abstract and keywords shall not be forgotten.

An easy and reliable solution is to post your reports on Figshare.  While Figshare is primarily aimed at archiving data and figures, it happily accepts a wide variety of inputs, including written reports.  I have used Figshare as a place to put things that may be useful to others but are not appropriate for arXiv.org, such as User manuals for software packages, grant proposals, and supercomputer time proposals.  Lots of other people are doing this; just take a look at the 'proposal' tag on Figshare.
I think Figshare is also a more reliable place than, e.g. Github in terms of long-term persistent availability of your work.  See this explanation, which includes the following:

Items will be retained for the lifetime of the repository. figshare has been working hard to establish a business model that supports sustainability of the research outputs hosted on figshare. Our publisher model requires an SLA statement guaranteeing 10 years of persistent availability.

Zenodo seems like an excellent option. Salient points from their brief self-description on their front page:

All research outputs from across all fields of research are welcome!
Uploads gets a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) to make them easily and uniquely citeable.
Flexible licensing — because not everything is under Creative Commons.
Your research output is stored safely for the future in the same cloud infrastructure as CERN's own LHC research data.

As far as I can tell, there is no fee for authors. Furthermore, they support DOI versioning, so you can upload updated versions of your reports without overwriting the original. The combination of DOI support and CERN backing mean that it should be a reliable choice for long-term archiving.


text:
What should I do when a professor changes the interview time and doesn't write me back?
I am applying to US universities for Ph.D. so I wrote to some professors from X university. Actually, I wrote them at the beginning of this year but I was late for admission so I did not get any positive reply. But wrote them again last month and one of them replied asking if I have time (that week) to discuss my further goals with her. I replied saying I got time. After that, she did not reply. So after 3 weeks, I sent her a reminder email. She did not reply.
At the beginning of this month, she again replied and asked if I have time for an interview. Again I said yes and we fixed a time. On that day, she wrote me she got some work to be done and again if I have time in the later week. I said yes.
Again she didn't reply back.
What should I do now?
If I can manage a PI before I apply to this university, I will have a good chance of admission and they will waive my application fee.

Perhaps this isn't the best PI for you as they are likely very busy - perhaps too busy. But, in most fields in the US it isn't necessary to contact a professor before you apply for admission. And in most fields the professor you contact is not going to be able to have any influence over your admission as it is handled by a committee. There are a few exceptions. But perhaps the reason that they don't reply is that they don't have any say in admissions, not being on such a committee.
But most students arrive in a doctoral program without any PI in mind and have a chance, while taking advanced coursework to get a better sense of who would be best to work with. It also permits a more personal level of contact.
Likewise, in most fields, the first task of a new doctoral student is to prepare for comprehensive exams. Again, there are a few exceptions, but that is the reason for the advanced coursework when it is required.
It can be a bit different, and possibly compressed, for those with a masters. And it can be a bit different if a PI is required for (grant) funding.
And, while it may be frustrating, if deadlines aren't rapidly approaching, the person will likely be prioritizing other things. So, you may just need to keep trying.

And see the answer for the US to this question about how graduate admissions in the US works

They might have been busy. These days more than research they are busy with administrative works — which are unavailable. So ideally you could follow up after two or three weeks from first email.
With my experience I would suggest contact them as you contact other professionals and follow up to have an update. You have to wait until they reply. Meantime if you have friends or any known administrative at their office— you may follow up if professor is occupied.
However don’t put all the eggs in one basket. Meantime apply for all the potential opportunities.
Good luck with your application.

If you need to know and they have a phone number, I recommend calling people. Email overwhelms most professors inboxes, but these days many people never think to give someone a call. I have had much better luck with getting what I need sorted out on the phone.
Skype or google phone credit is a cheap enough way to manage this internationally.

l strongly recommend against this. A busy person won't be pleased to be interrupted.

I have several colleagues who are busy professors in the US who have told me to call if they are not replying and I need an answer. I am also in the position of mentoring two research students, both of whom I encourage to call me. My current UK head of lab has a weekly phone call with me to avoid email tag.
Most academics I know are weighed down the burden of filtering through email and are happy to take a call and sort it out on the spot. If this was after only a day or so maybe it would be seen as impatient, but they have failed to reply with plenty of time. I would call them.

Calls from colleagues and others with an established relationship are fine. But until that relationship is established, interruptions will not be welcome. Emails can be handled whenever and ignored as well. Not phone calls. Again, I strongly recommend against assuming a call would be acceptable in this situation.

This isn't a cold call; they made an appointment with them already previously and haven't replied to email. It is interesting to me you seem to think calls can't be ignored. They can and ought to be if you are in a meeting etc. turn your phone off.
I disagree with the primacy or politeness of email. I think more and more people are drowning in it and would rather a call if they are failing to keep up with their inbox.
Clearly, Buffy's opinion shows some of us differ, but calling someone never used to be rude, and I many of us do not consider it rude now.


text:
How to nail a Ph.D. interview when the professors work is not a good fit with your background?
I saw an offer for Ph.D. positions (USA) where 4 professors were on the list. I chose one (Prof X) and wrote my SOP according to his research and applied.
Now another professor (Prof Y) from the list asked me for a skype interview. Now I am wondering how to nail this interview as I really want to get a position.
Prof Y's work doesn't fit well with my background and my publications (so I was wondering if he just takes the interviews and selects students?)
If he asks me if I have any questions regarding his research, I am afraid I can't ask a smart question.
The email was kind of super positive where he wrote he is very impressed with my CV. I don't want to miss this chance at any cost. Is it ok if I tell him that I have a little knowledge about his work during the interview?

Are you sure you want to nail this interview? Possibly you would be happier and more productive if you pushed for Prof X?

@puppetsock- Yes. Actually I wrote Prof X earlier, before applying with my CV and he strongly suggested me to apply. Is it possible that Prof Y is responsible for all the interviews? (As he is kind of junior scientist than Prof X).

In my experience (UK), PhD interviews are normally conducted by a panel that interviews every student, rather than each professor interviewing the students they're interested in. This helps consistency in decisions and prevents students from possibly interviewing more than once in the same department.

In the US this probably matters less than you think, though I don't know your field. In most cases, however, a research advisor isn't chosen at the time of acceptance, but later, maybe a lot later. First, you need to pass qualifying exams and before that, take whatever courses are necessary to enable it. If you are already prepared for those exams, then it is shortened, but still an essential step.
So, you are normally joining a "department", not a specific PI's lab. It may well be that Prof Y is just handling lots of the interviews for the group of four and they are collectively looking for a group of good students to join.
While it might be otherwise, the above is the normal thing in most fields in US.
So, the fact that your research focus isn't the same as that of Y may matter little as long as you show you are prepared generally, that you are interested, and, perhaps, that you are flexible. The last can save you and get you in the door, after which you may have more options.
It should be fine to say that you have more experience and even more interest with topic M than topic N if you are asked specifics. But it might be a mistake to say that you would never consider N.
In other countries the situation is quite different and application is more commonly made to an individual professor than a department.
But I was several years into doctoral study in math before I linked up with my research advisor. Though I entered with only a BA.
In chemistry it might be a bit different, but only if the four professors ran separate labs, separately funded. But the fact that they advertise as a group, suggests not.


text:
How to nail PhD qualifying written exam?
I am a Ph.D. student at a US university. I started last fall. As a university requirement for Ph.D. candidacy, I have to take 3 written exams each lasting for 6 hours. Now, the rule is that the student will choose three professors who will send the reading material for the exam, which consists of a bunch of scientific articles.
The exam is in two weeks and I do not have enough time to go through those articles. I have my coursework and TA responsibilities, moreover, I work in my lab 9-5 every day which is what my advisor wants. Additionally, I am already working on several projects.
I am really scared whether I can manage to pass the written exam or not. Moreover, my professor does not seem to bother about my exams, he only cares about me being in the lab. What can I do in this case? I am trying to read the articles but I have other stuff to do as well, as I mentioned above. I do not want to leave the program as I have worked very hard to be here.
I thought about talking with the program coordinator but it might not be wise as things might get worse at the end.

How long have you had the materials to prepare? Is the timing of the exam fixed or did you choose to do it now?

Two of them send me on March and the last one in April. Its mandatory to take the exam now unless you have any unavoidable cause. Funny thing is my professor wants me to finish these stuffs as soon as possible (like taking more credits so that they are done early but not willing to give me time to prepare for them). He just says- do not focus on course work, you do not need good grade; its how good you are in benchwork- that matters now!

I'm not sure what the question is; we don't know what will be on your qualifying exam and cannot tell you how to study for it. Are you asking for strategies to ask your professor for time to study?

Well, you know you need to pass this exam to continue, so, it seems like you may need to reevaluate your priorities if right now you're considering it a lower priority. Echoing cag51, not sure what else to tell you besides that. Your advisor is probably right - coursework doesn't matter, and your research will be most important going forward, but you don't get to continue the research part if you don't pass these exams. If your advisor isn't aware of that, you might need to explain it to them, they didn't necessarily have the same structure when they were a graduate student.

@Bryan Krause: they didn't necessarily have the same structure when they were a graduate student -- The OP's situation sounds very strange to me and, until I saw your comment, I was at a loss for coming up with any explanation for the advisor's behavior. I've been a student in a graduate program at 2 different universities in which first-year students had their entire summer (between their 1st and 2nd years) free from all obligations (teaching, course work, etc.) while still receiving T.A. money, solely in order for them to fully focus on studying for their Aug Ph.D. qualifying exams.

You tell your mentor that unless you can free up some time for exam prep, you may not pass the exam and thus won't be in their lab much longer

This is just a shot in the dark, but I wonder if there is some miscommunication going on here that is analogous to the mismatch between the title and the body of the question. In the title you talk about nailing the exam (i.e. doing extremely well on it), but in the body of your question you talk about being worried about passing it. These are very different things! For example, in your comment you mention that your advisor said that "you do not need a good grade" (which you probably don't). But this is very different from saying that it's not important for you to pass the exam!

You should look at the comments, because they give good answers.
You already let yourself be put into a deep pit. Your advisor is not taking your fears seriously. This might be for all sorts of reasons:

It is not unknown in Academia that a powerful advisor can tell a qualifying board what to find, along the lines of: "This kid can do research. I want him/her in my group".

Your advisor was brilliant and never had to worry about passing exams. No way to empathize.

Your advisor is a good researcher, but in practical life a moron, who cannot accept that some things cannot be controlled.

Your advisor is ethically challenged, (but maybe still a good person to work with). Your advisor is fine letting you pull of the impossible.

Without knowing the situation better, I at least cannot give you good advice. The standard advice is to go and see your advisor and have a heart to heart talk, starting out with you declaring that you are really scared.

"Your advisor is a good researcher, but in practical life a moron" There are a fair number of those.

The only thing I have to add here is a response to your last sentence:

I thought about talking with the program coordinator but it might not be wise as things might get worse at the end.

Speaking as a program coordinator, I wish students would come talk to me at the earliest point when they think things might be going off the rails. It doesn't always help, but there are many instances when I could have done something (given useful advice, made an exception, delayed an exam ...) if I had known in time but instead I'm left with cleaning up a mess. You should be able to speak to the program coordinator in confidence (i.e., without your advisor knowing), if that's a concern. They (the program coordinator) know more about the situation (the formal rules and unofficial norms of your program, something about your advisor's personality and track record, etc.) than anyone here does.

You know you need to pass this exam to continue, so, it seems like you may need to reevaluate your priorities if right now you're considering it a lower priority. Echoing cag51's comment, it's not clear what else you need to succeed besides that. Hopefully you know how to read and understand papers in your field at a level appropriate to your career stage.
Your advisor is probably right in the broader sense of things - coursework during a PhD doesn't matter much for future positions in academia (post docs, professorships), instead your research record will be most important going forward.
However, you don't get to continue the research part if you don't pass these exams.
If your advisor isn't aware of that, you might need to explain it to them, they didn't necessarily have the same structure when they were a graduate student. For example, for me the preliminary examination consisted of a paper written on a topic outside the research area plus a thesis proposal; the program tried to encourage timely completion, but in reality many students didn't complete the process until they were several years in the program and nearing graduation. There was very little urgency. In other programs, there may be an exam based off the required coursework where really no extra studying is needed: as long as you've done reasonably well in the courses, which may not be very difficult for most students in the program, the exam is mostly a formality. Dave Renfro mentioned in a comment that some programs have specific time set aside for qualifying exam prep, free of other coursework and teaching responsibilities. Your advisor may be more familiar with any of these other systems than they are with the system at the institution they work at now. It's even likely that the system is different for different students at the same institution who are part of other programs - maybe your advisor has mentored these students and doesn't have a full picture of the requirements you face.
Now, if you had been given these preparation materials many months ago, and only now began to address the lack of preparation with 2 weeks to go, I'd say you're in quite a bit of trouble and this situation may not be recoverable. However, if the most recent materials came to you just last month, it seems like you can still be ready in time, but you will need to focus on this extensively.
I would also look at what resources your graduate program provides regarding these exams: look at your graduate handbook or similar documentation, consult with staff in the program if relevant to see what expectations are, talk to senior students in your program who have completed this step.
More generally, it's important to recognize that the PhD is a time of growing independence. You're expected to be responsible for your own education at the PhD stage, more than previous educational steps. Yes, your advisor is there to help mentor you on the things you're new to: the conduct of research, the process of academic publishing, obtaining grant funding. You're likely expected to complete other tasks on your own, though, including managing your own time. You should not expect your advisor to say "I'd like to spend X hours on Task A today, Y hours on Task B, etc".


text:
Admission for a PhD position in a Sweden university
I am a first year BSc student in pure mathematics. I like to continue my PhD studies in Sweden, directly after BSc or otherwise after having MSc. Unfortunately, not only free education for international MSc students has been stopped several years ago but also the living cost in Sweden is very very high. Only leaves PhD studies as a final choice as they pay for tuition fees and living expenditures.
I have heard that the only way to get a PhD admission (with scholarship) in a some university in Sweden is to do MSc in some Sweden university so that the professors will 'know' you; in other words, contrary to US or Canada, they prefer to know students in their classes than reading about them from the recommendation letters sent from other countries.
A friend of mine, planted this wishful idea in my mind that if I accomplish (much?) more in my BSc time that PhD students do required for their graduation (i.e. good published papers), along with other things [recommendation letters, GPA, etc] so it may make me more appealing candidate than a person whose professor knows him/her personally. [Q.1] Is this true? And if so, [Q.2] how much 'better' than minimum-required-papers-to-be-published-for-a-PhD-to-be-graduated I need to do? Is there any measure for 'better' papers at all and what are they?
PS I am sure a person who solves Riemann H, attaining an academic position let alone PhD is trivial; so obviously sky is the limit. I am wondering about the minimum of "impressive results" in research (capability to be a productive researcher) one needs to do for a guaranteed PhD position which should be achievable during 3-4 years time that I have.

Two additions to the existing discussion:

Not sure what you mean by international, but for EU/EEA citizens all higher education in Sweden is still free. https://www.universityadmissions.se/en/All-you-need-to-know1/Applying-for-studies/Fees-and-scholarships/EUEEA-citizens-exempt-from-fees/
Skipping MSc is not a standard option in the Swedish education system. I'm not sure if they might count part of your BSc as equivalent to MSc, but the formal requirements for starting a PhD are:

has been awarded a second-cycle qualification,
has satisfied the requirements for courses comprising at least 240 credits, of which at least 60 credits were awarded in the
  second-cycle, or
has acquired substantially equivalent knowledge in som other way in Sweden or abroad.

Finally, while any publications and research experience certainly make you a valuable candidate, there is no guarantee to get any particular position. There could always be that one candidate who has some more relevant experience; it could even happen that a PhD position is opened with one particular applicant in mind (e.g. a Master's student that decided to continue in the same group).

@Edi this is just the total amount of credits collected across all studies in your lifetime - it's roughly equivalent to saying "studied for 4 years", and means you are generally eligible for a PhD. Subject-specific requirements, such as course prerequisites or number of credits in the relevant field, are defined separately by each university.

You heard wrong. You 1) don't need to know Swedish professors personally to be admitted (although it helps of course), and 2) you don't need to have achieved more than what PhD students need to graduate. About #1, it's the same as elsewhere. If you know the professor personally - and there are ways to do this other than studying in Sweden, you can for example email them or speak to them at conferences - then that's good because they have firsthand knowledge of you. For the same reason if your recommendation letters are written by people who the professor knows personally, that's also helpful. But you don't have to have these personal contacts, and having them doesn't guarantee admission; they're only helpful. As for #2, if it is ever true, you'd be an exceptionally qualified applicant.
Finally about the PS: applicants with a BS degree typically have taken a lot of courses, and have some research experience. That could for example include a final-year project (also known as an Honours project in some places), summer research programs, or various internships. If these leads to published papers then so much the better, although it often does not. What really matters out of these projects is that you've worked directly with a more senior academic who'll become one of your recommendation letter writers. Impress her, and you'll have a much stronger application.

Sorry I couldn't understand "if it is ever true, you'd be an exceptionally qualified applicant". Does it mean publishing more than a PhD by a BSc is not usual, so it's exceptional, so not required for admission even to impress?

(about the question in the comment: English is not my first language so ...)  - Thank you for your answer, btw :)

@Emma yes, publishing more than a PhD by a BSc is not usual (in fact it is very very unusual). Do well in your courses, take on undergraduate research projects if you can, and you should be fine.


text:
Stay in Institution or Move to a new institution
Last time I reported that I had failed my qualifier and now have been asked to leave.  In that time, I have done the prep work to exit out of with my masters with a presentation for my Masters work and the writing all but finished.  My advisor seems to have abandoned me because, mostly, of how the qualifier went and well as not being impressed by my presentation (he's more of a hands-off approach).
A few months later I have been accepted into a Ph.D. program (of a different major).  However, something is still possessing me to fight to stay in my original program and continue either with my advisor or move on to a new one.
Is it worth my time trying to contest my qualifier and stay in the program or should I just move on?  Keep in mind that I do like the work that I have done with my advisor but am still flexible to move on to another professor.

Do you have someone willing to fight for you and advise you in your current university that you want to be advised by? If the answer is no, I can't imagine a reason to stay for very long.

So you have been told to leave (a decision not usually taken lightly, but is department dependent), have an exit strategy in hand, and are asking if it is worth your time to tilt at windmills to stay somewhere that you are not welcome anymore? What good, exactly, will contesting anything do you?

@PVAL I might, but I am seeing if this advisor is serious about the commitment.

@JonCuster I keep at the department, fight for my research and ultimately come out with a Ph.D is the best case.  Worst case, I actually tried, gave it my all and leave without any regrets and start over new.

@user1449249 - Fair enough answer. My reply would be that you are trapped in a fallacy of sunk cost. From your description, there is no logical reason to believe you will win and triumph. Get out now and use your energies to move forward.

@JonCuster Althought I can't upvote you, you make a great response and I agree.

If you have failed your qualifying exam, it is entirely possible that you may not have the option of "fighting" at your current institution. Your degree candidacy may have been ended, and leaving with a master's is the best available outcome.
You should check with the chair of graduate studies for your department to see what options you have available.
However, in general, your path of least resistance would be to start over elsewhere. Overcoming a failed qualifier is difficult at best, even when it is possible.

This as well as JonCuster's response are probably the best response that I've had.  Thank you.