text:
Optimal reference letter writers for permanent positions: Senior experts or younger, more active researchers?
I work in pure mathematics. I have wondered for a while which kind of letter writers might be best when I apply for permanent jobs in US and UK: Roughly speaking, I am weighing up two options:

Try to get letters from the "big names" in the field. They are senior professors who made influential contributions themselves that helped shape the field. Main pro: Name and opinion carries a lot of weight. Cons: Can perhaps only endorse my work in a broad sense and you worry that their recommendation will not be really emphatic; not super active researches still today.
Try to get letters for younger more hot-shot researchers. Main pros: They are more active at the moment, my work is much closer to what they do and they might well have a high opinion of my work. Cons: Their name doesn't necessarily have the cut through that a big name does

Does anyone from their work on hiring panels have good advice/insight on this?

There's really nothing objective that we can authoritatively say about how the readers of these letters will react.  Some readers might prefer the first kind of letters while others might prefer the second.

Do you mean tenure-track positions in the US?

Which one can write a recommendation that is specific about your qualifications and abilities?
A brief anecdote: I was on a search committee where someone had a recommendation from a big-name person in their field, someone widely known outside of their field. At first glance, the candidate's personal connection to this person was impressive. However, the letter body was a single paragraph and light on detail. OK. We had to read the other letters to get the detail we wanted.
A big-name recommendation may get the attention of the hiring committee reading your applications. However, because they're ultimately evaluating you, the level of detail in that letter will matter more to many evaluators than the name at the bottom. Someone still up-and-coming may not initially grab the attention, but if they write a more specific letter, that may ultimately be to your benefit. So if you have two open slots for recommenders, include both! If you're choosing between one or the other, it comes down to weighing relative risk, since not every hiring committee will respond in the same way to your set of recommenders.
To give an idea of a typical balance of letters, I defer to Karen Kelsky, who runs the advice site The Professor Is In. To someone who asks about the mix of recommenders three years post-graduation, she says:

In the end, a balanced roster of letters at three years out will include your advisor, a well-known person who knows you as a colleague or collaborator, a senior colleague from your department who will provide a detailed teaching reference, and—assuming you have space for four letters—one of your other Ph.D. committee members who has also stayed up-to-date on your post-grad-school life.

Note the mix. "A well-known person" may well be one of your "big names," but could also be someone up-and-coming. A "senior colleague" may be a "younger, more hot-shot researcher" in your department, or a "big name" approaching retirement. As long as these people are a mix of people familiar with your work, debating the relative stature of the "well-known person" or the "senior colleague" is small change.


text:
Is it mandatory to get professional recommendation letters from my current employer?
I wish to apply for a masters in computer science in the United States as an international student. I have around 3 years of work experience in 2 companies. It is difficult for me to get any recommendation letters from my current employer. Would it reduce the strength of my application if I take it from a manager in my previous company and not the current company?

With a good recommendation from one employer and a good academic record you should be admitted to many masters degrees in computer science. The industrial experience is definitely a plus.
If you need funding you may have a problem. Many masters degrees aren't fully funded, even for strong applicants.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
ArXiv license to choose for a paper to be published in IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems?
I´ve seen similar questions to mine (as Which license should be chosen in arXiv for a paper to be published in IEEE TPDS? or IEEE Access License on Arxiv
) but answers did not completely solve my doubts.
I will upload a paper for reviewing at IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems and I would also like to upload the pre-print to arXiv.
I don't know which license of the ones arXiv offers (https://arxiv.org/help/license) should be selected. It looks like, in the past, arXiv allowed to select than none of those licenses is the right one, so IEEE recommended that. Anyway, that is not possible nowadays and one type of license of the previous link must be selected (it should be explained here, but I'm afraid it is not).
Can someone help me to avoid any troubles selecting an incorrect license? (I contacted the journal two weeks ago but they've not answered at this moment).
Thank you for your help!

As mentioned in the accepted answer to Which license should be chosen in arXiv for a paper to be published in IEEE TPDS?, you need to go for the arXiv.org license. IEEE also has some other rules (like placing copyright notices) about posting your preprint and the accepted article to arXiv, which you can find on the page titled Post-Publication Policies.

@TheAmplitwist Thanks! Regarding notices, IEEE general site for publication policies(https://journals.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/become-an-ieee-journal-author/publishing-ethics/guidelines-and-policies/post-publication-policies/) says that pre-print must carry the message: “This work has been submitted to the IEEE for possible ....”. Nevertheless, the specific journal (https://pspb.ieee.org/images/files/files/opsmanual.pdf, page 88) states a different message ("© 20xx IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission..."), which one should I go with?

Go with the first message for your preprint. The second message should be used after your article has been accepted for publication. These details are present in the Post-Publication Policies page, but you understandably might have missed them. Would you prefer I turn my comments into an answer?

@TheAmplitwist Thanks again. I'm probably getting fussy: I plan to submit the paper first to IEEE and then to arXiv, so I guess the following applies (from previous pdf): "In any preprint version archived by the author after submission, IEEE requires that IEEE will be credited as copyright holder...", so I suppose that I should go with the message “© 20xx IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media...”, which directly given them the copyright (I am probably wrecking my head more than it's necessary).

No problem! Better to be safe than sorry. :) My understanding is that you need to place that message only after copyright has been transferred to IEEE. If I'm not mistaken, you sign the copyright transfer agreement only after the acceptance of the article, and not before. So, the message "© 20xx IEEE. Personal use of this material..." doesn't seem to be applicable when you've not yet transferred copyright.

To corroborate, the PDF you linked says, "...the
following copyright notice must be displayed on the initial screen
displaying IEEE-copyrighted material", so it doesn't need to be displayed until you've transferred copyright to IEEE.

(I'll have to turn in for the day, so I'll be unable to check up on any replies for several hours. All the best, in any case!)

@TheAmplitwist Thank you again. I find it conflicting, I still think that the message “© 20xx IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted...” is the better one cause in the pdf they say that once the work've submitted to IEEE, they already have the copyright: "In any preprint version archived by the author after submission, IEEE requires that IEEE will be credited as copyright holder. Upon publication of the work, authors are asked to include the article’s Digital Object Identifier (DOI)."

In Post-Publication Policies, they state that "The preprint is the article in the form prior to submission to IEEE", so I assume that's why they go with the other message. In any case, I guess that I will have no problems with any of them. Again, thank you!

Use the default license (the arxiv.org license). It's the most restrictive one they offer.
The ieee page you link is exceedingly clear that posting on arxiv is allowed, with the only restriction that you have to update the arxiv with the DOI once published.

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


text:
Citing paper "Pending submission"
There's an unpublished paper I'd like to include in my CV list that I haven't yet submitted for publication (because I'm waiting for a conference that will open submissions later this year).
Is there an appropriate phrase intermediary to "Draft in Progress" and "Under Review" that I can use in the bibliographic entry? I'm not sure "Draft in Progress" is itself appropriate, because technically the draft is complete.

At least I'm not aware of any typical phrase, but the situation calls for a distinct one indeed. You could write scheduled for submission to signify that you have a concrete plan.

Your paper is a preprint.
What you plan to do with it in the future is not relevant, or appropriate to include in your CV, in my humble opinion. It is generally assumed that authors of preprints are planning to submit their papers for publication, so listing your paper as “scheduled for submission”, or similar, will add nothing and make you seem clueless or insecure. The rule for (academic) CVs is you brag about things you have accomplished in the past, not things you plan to accomplish in the future.
What’s much more important than your plans for submitting the paper is what it contains. So if the norms of your field allow you to include a link to a downloadable copy of the paper, I’d recommend doing that.

so mentioning it will add nothing and make you seem clueless or insecure. - I think this is written in a confusing way---you're not saying just listing it as preprint on your CV will make you seem insecure, I presume (which is how it first parsed to me).

@Kimball good point, edited to clarify.

I agree that there is no need for adding any additional information when a preprint is included in a CV; as you say, the assumption is that a preprint is or will be submitted for peer review at some point, and it would look silly to mention this separately. However, I wouldn't necessarily discourage early career students (especially undergraduates) from including papers on their CV that are "in preparation" or "submitted", especially if preprints aren't yet the norm in their field.

@BryanKrause I’m not discouraging OP from listing the preprint. By all means, list it! To be clear, I’m merely discouraging them from including irrelevant information that comes across as resumé-padding. As for “in preparation”, I don’t have a strong opinion on whether to include such things or not, but when I personally look at people’s CV, the effect that “in preparation” items have on me ranges from zero (in the most common case) to slightly negative (in the more uncommon situation where the person has a bit too many such items, and too few other things, to sound credible).

@DanRomik Got it, agree with all that.

As a counterpoint, I interpret "in preparation" as signaling that, if you meet them, this person should be able to talk, knowledgeably and at length, about that particular topic. This is especially handy when there aren't any other "artifacts" (papers, talks, preprints, etc) that might give that impression: ECRs, but also folks changing research direction.

Agree it's a bit much if you already have a dozen papers on the same topic, and "in preparation for [high-profile venue]" is downright silly, given the odds, and maybe indicates more hubris than acumen.

I think it's fine to include projects on a CV that haven't been peer reviewed with a parenthetical that they are "submitted" or "in progress", especially for early-career researchers like undergraduate students. It's a bit weird when professors with a longer CV include these projects, but I doubt many people really count it against them (and some funding agencies will consider them progress), they just will know and understand not to consider those finished published projects, because, well, they aren't.
You, however, have a preprint available for others to read, so you don't need to make any note about it being under review or anything: just include it as a preprint with all the citation information pointing to the preprint archive version of the paper. I've seen CVs that split these out into a separate section and those that mix them with other papers. If you want to be completely transparent I think a separate section is good.

"Work in Progress" is pretty common and generally acceptable. You could make it a bit more specific if you like if you have an immediate need to send out a CV.
"Work in Progress" is actually a good section to include in a CV since it implies that you are currently active. Such a section with a firm title for a paper will probably give readers the correct impression about where you are.

I think "work in progress" indicates the preprint is not complete, which is not the case here.

@Kimball, Giving the full title gives a different impression. And, of course, you can also tag it as "under review". But TBH, I'd rather be seen as someone who had "work in progress" than someone who did not. And, of course, it technically is "in progress" until accepted.

@Kimball I'd argue that it's not complete until it has passed review, which might involve some changes, and a final "camera ready" version has been submitted for publishing. It may be almost finished, but it's still a work in progress until it's actually finished.

@Peteris I am just saying, at least in pure math, if I look at someone's CV and I seek "work in progress" I interpret that to mean that there is no complete preprint ready for submission, and quite possibly no results.  Which is why saying something like "preprint" (with a link if possible) is much stronger.


text:
Evasive and non-communicative co-authors on a scientific paper
Apologies for the length, but all this context might matter. In 2019, I collaborated with an MD at a local hospital to write my thesis for a postgraduate degree. In my field, there is an expectation to publish the thesis as a paper after graduating, which I was keen on doing.
I collected data alongside another student, with each of us reviewing around 150 medical records each. The clinician and one of her colleagues would match patients to specific clinical criteria we were looking for. I would then write the paper and run the statistical tests.
Despite moving to another city and getting a job at a private company quickly after my degree, I reached out to my co-authors by e-mail to express interest in publishing the work as a journal article. The MDs agreed, though the other student dropped out. I shared my dataset, produced several different stats analyses, and wrote up a draft over the first few months of 2020.
After a couple of Zoom meetings, my co-authors expressed concern about the quality of the dataset which hadn't come up previously, citing missing data. I no longer had access to the medical records, but assured them I collected the data as thoroughly as possible. Some data they assumed were there simply weren't present in the systems I had access to.
They said they would check over records to verify these datapoints, but I am doubtful they really did so. Then, in the following months, we got into a cycle of their reviewing a draft, sending over comments, and me amending the paper accordingly. I created several redundant tables and figures which were later removed. By summer of 2020, I thought that we were unnecessarily repeating work and felt that I was being used as a workhorse. I wrote to them that I considered the paper about as "complete" as it possibly could be, and that we needed to edit it down to meet journal requirements to submit it.
One co-author then unexpectedly said she wanted to redo the analysis with a statistician she personally knew. I said I was fine with this, since my analyses were fairly straight-forward and I wanted my findings verified. After a period of no communication at all, excuses were made throughout all of 2021 (e.g. the statistician is currently overworked). My own job was also extremely busy now, and I suspected they had actually just lost interest.
Finally, I moved into a more relaxed role in 2022 and wrote to them to ask whether they wanted me to hire a statistical consultant, and that I had worked with a good one on a previous study. E-mails and voicemails went unanswered.
In 2023, I simply went ahead and hired someone who helped assuage all my own concerns about the analyses, and produced very clear methods and figures which turned out to verify my original findings. I wrote my co-authors a message as a heads-up that I intended to submit it to the journal we had discussed previously.
All of a sudden they sprang to life again and urged me not to before they could review.  By this stage, I was really confused about their motivations; what issues could they have with the paper? What work would they do now that they hadn't done in the previous three years?
Still, I at least had a response from them and said that I would happily continue to work on the paper on the condition that we set a deadline by e-mail to submit the paper. One of my co-authors suggested week 6, 2024. I agreed, but did not want to discuss over Zoom and said I had no time for further calls. This was partially so they would be forced to address specific issues, but also because I wanted everything in writing.
They rose around eight points, one of which was a suggestion for tables and references that took us over the limit of the target journal, several of which were based on their misunderstanding of the paper, and a minor error in one of the tables. I addressed them all anyway.
In the meantime, I had entered an academic role and ran the paper by a couple of colleagues, both recognised global experts on the topic. Both told me that the paper was crystal clear, could not understand my co-authors concerns, and thought something else was going on.
On week 6, I sent a courtesy e-mail about submitting the paper, edited down to journal requirements, and sent it in. To my surprise, I received e-mails from both shortly after expressing their disappointment, how important it is for co-authors to agree (especially my co-author as "primary scientist"), that this conduct was highly unprofessional and urged me to discuss with them over Zoom. At no point do they say what they need to discuss, what their concerns are, or why they did not raise them in the timeline that they set.
I have considered writing back, but I have already decided I don't intend to work with either of them again. With all that, I write to you with three questions:

This journal allows co-authors to retract their co-authorship if they so choose, but do they have any other recourse to prevent me from publishing the paper?
What could they have possibly been so coy about? Primary authorship? Data quality?
Have I been subject to an elaborate five-year-long practical joke?

This is far too long.

Your posting is so long that the questions get completely lost in the detail. I think you're essentially saying that you collaborated with another person in producing a paper/research, and now you find that that person is unresponsive to requests to agree to submit a paper. ... but, that summary might be wrong. On the other hand, if it's right, you might consider trimming your question down to < 100 words.

One part of the issue is simple:
You musn't submit an article for publication without the consent of all coauthors. The charge that you acted highly unprofessionally is valid. If your coauthors inform the journal that you submitted the paper without their consent, I would expect the journal to immediately withdraw the submission.
Now for the other part of the issue, I am no better mindreader than you. It makes little sense to me that this would be an authorship order dispute, if no-one ever mentioned that. It could be a personal vendetta if they really hate you. But the most plausible explanation to me is that they have some concerns about the scientific validity of the paper, and never prioritizes it enough to either dispell these or identify concrete issues.

At each stage I have been receptive to the issues they wanted to raise and made all corrections they requested. They have gone through periods of silence long enough for me to think the paper might not be submitted at all. They could have raised issues of scientific validity at any point, but did not. I also worked to the dates which they themselves set. All my communication with them has been polite and transparent. I'm not sure what more I could do for the paper -- but even then, professionalism isn't the issue as much as potentially abandoning a paper for non-specific issues.

Another thing to consider is that they themselves suggested the submission date, which I followed. They are now telling me that this is unprofessional, retrospectively.

@jserv Nothing you write in your first comment has any bearing on my answer. The second comment would be relevant if and only if you had a clear agreement that you'd submit the paper by the deadline unless you hear from them otherwise. What you've written so far didn't sound like it.

"One of my co-authors suggested week 6, 2024. I agreed" is in my question. It has been extremely difficult to pin down any kind of timeline with them for the entire five years, which is why I made a point to have an agreed date recorded in e-mail.

@jserv Your frustration is completely understandable and your co-authors have also behaved unprofessionally, but unfortunately for you Arno's point still stands. What you wrote does not at all imply that all the co-authors agreed that you are entitled to submit the paper on week 6 of 2024 without notifying them beforehand. Unless they explicitly said "yes, jserv, you can unilaterally submit the paper on week 6 on 2024 unless you hear back from us by then". Which I bet they didn't.


text:
Is there any browser extension/application which converts arxiv footnote references to URLs in PDFs?
I'm reading ML papers where nearly every reference is on arxiv. It would be really nice if clicking on a footnote directly opened the paper, rather then sending me to the bottom of the PDF. I haven't been able to find anything using Google, but would be really surprised if nothing of the sort existed...

Perhaps not exactly the functionality you want, but the arXiv Bibliographic Explorer from arXivLabs may be useful. It is a browser extension that allows you to view the references and citations for a paper on the arXiv without having to e.g. search for the title of the paper on Google. If you have the PDF opened in one tab and the arXiv page in another, then you can quickly find hyperlinks to relevant papers through the search functionality.
I'm not aware of any software that can modify the target of a PDF hyperlink after the PDF has been compiled. At least in my field, the formatting and style of references is not standardized on the arXiv so I think it may be difficult to find a tool that can parse the necessary data in the general case

Not what I was looking for indeed but this is still super cool, thanks!

As an alternative I ended up finding: https://www.arxiv-vanity.com/ which renders arxiv links in HTML. It does show a direct link for every reference on hover! Unfortunately the rendering is quite bad sometimes, hopefully it keeps improving.


text:
How to continue doing research
At present I write my bachelor's thesis in the field of computer science and I really enjoy it. I would like to continue doing research after I'll have finished my thesis. Is there any way to do that in parallel to my master programme? I think there are two ways in general and would like to hear what your opinion is.
Ask a professor
Are professors interested in supervising a student having only a bachelor's degree? Of course I would work free of charge because I would profit from a better CV and maybe good chances of a career at that chair. I should also mention that the chair I'm writing at is very practically oriented and my professor is a really student-friendly person. They work on real projects and implement algorithms rather than design them. I think that they could benefit from me beacuse I'm a very talented guy with years of experience.
Do research on my own
I could also try to publish papers on my own. But this way is somewhat to hard I think because I would have no reviewers nor topics to write about.
I can also imagine to write scientific blog posts; probably nobody will read them but that would be okay since I could reference them in my future applications.
So do you guys have any tipps for me how to accomplish it?

I'm confused - if you are enrolled in a masters degree, why not do research as part of your masters (e.g. a masters thesis)?

Unfortunately, a master thesis is only possible at the end of your studies.

Then talk to the faculty in your masters program, and ask them whether (and how) you can do research.  Their advice is probably better for your situation than our generic advice.

Look for research opportunities.  My university for example have summer scholarships that are only opened for undergraduate students.  Students then continue their summer project as part of their final year thesis.  If they are keen, maybe a PhD.

Talk to your current professor. If he likes the idea, he might give you the opportunity to use his resources and provide guidance. This could be a preparation to your future master thesis.
If you have less of an idea what you want to do exactly, look out for research assistant/student assistant positions (or ask around if someone needs help), where you could be part of a research project by helping out with simpler (but no less important) tasks. Though I'm not sure this is a thing in computer science.

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


text:
When my work is presented by colleague at conference I don't attend, do I include on my CV?
My colleague has been presenting our work overseas. I'm primary investigator and first author on the work/papers. Should I or can I be including these presentations on my CV?
My context is that I'm a doctoral student in healthcare discipline and using the CV for grant applications.
Thank you!

Did your colleagues include you as a co-author on the presentation?

Are you presenter for any of your work? Is your colleague quite senior compared to you?  In any case, it is usually better to give the impression that you know the difference between what counts more and what counts less (whether the assessment is fair or not). As someone quite junior in your career, you might list the presentation that your colleague is giving on your project since it indicates that the project is active and productive, but distinguish between those that you gave and those that your other colleagues present. (If you were more senior, you'd only give those of your own).

I would say that for fields in which conference presentations/proceedings are counted as publications the answer would be yes, otherwise no.

Thank you for your reply. Yes, we always include each other as co-authors. He is quite senior and much more established in his career.

@Bitwise But even if the conference has proceedings, OP should list the paper in their CV, because they're a coauthor, but not the presentation of that paper, because they didn't present it.

Credit for a presentation doesn't go only to the person who gives a talk or presents a poster. Everyone involved in the work should be acknowledged.
The standard practice I've used is credit everybody involved in the research on the poster. So if I give a poster presentation, I include any students, postdocs, or colleagues who collaborated on the research. I also indicate who the presenter was if it wasn't me.

I'm a little confused by your answer---all but the last sentence seem to be about the crediting non-presenters in the presentation, and then the last sentence seems to be a non-sequitur.  (In my field, the answer to the question would be no.)

I'm similarly confused with Kimball, since I read the initial parts of this answer as what speaker/presenter must do  during the talk/poster. But I wouldn't expect my co-authors to list the presentation on their CV as their own talk, etc. It perhaps is a confusion between fields where the talk/poster presentation must become a publication and those where talks are considered relatively ephemeral and equivalent to a published paper.

"Credit for a presentation doesn't go only to the person who gives a talk or presents a poster. Everyone involved in the work should be acknowledged." This is a very helpful reminder, thank you.

When research that will be published with multiple names on it is presented by someone, I think the most appropriate thing to do is list all of the names of the people who did the research and mark whoever the person/people who presented it with "(presenter)." For example:

Alpha, Beta (presenter), and Gamma. On the Naming Family "-yan", Oral Presentation at the North American Conference for Naming Conventions.

I would do this both on listings where you presented and on listings where you didn't. The motivation here is that the act of giving the presentation is rarely what you're getting credit for. What you're getting credit for is the research and potentially the fact that you were invited to present the research at the conference. This is true of you even if you weren't the person who went.

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


text:
Sampling question for telephone survey.
Health sciences researcher out of my area of expertise. I have an assistant calling businesses at random, using a publicly available registry, to ask about their automated external defibrillator (AED). We are sampling without replacement.
My question is, what happens methodologically if we call one of the registered AEDs (selected by random) and the person/informant can give us info on multiple AEDs on the registry that have not been selected as part of our random sample? We're in this position with a large business who has 10+ AEDs, all of which are registered, but our randomization only selected one of the 10+ devices. It seems crazy not to get info on all the devices to me.
Can/should we include these devices that were not randomly selected? I'm having trouble understanding the implications of sampling these and including them in our analysis. Including these other devices seems like snowball sampling instead of just simple randomized sampling.
Any help would be extremely appreciated. Thank you!!!

This isn't my field, but statistically speaking, you will possibly invalidate your study if you change the parameters mid stream.
However, you can gather the extraneous data, since it is cheap to do so. But isolate it and use it only as a guide to future work and, perhaps, to give yourself confidence (not statistical confidence) in the outcomes.
If this is dissertation work, then knowing what you could have done differently is worth exploring and maybe including. But let the experiment you designed be carried out faithfully. Otherwise, at best, you will just confuse yourself with the results.

I agree with @Buffy that the best option is to remain faithful to the sampling plan you made initially.  For your own benefit, you can record that data and see how it might change the analysis, but it probably should not be part of the formal results.
The reason this is not snowball sampling is that it sounds like one of the companies volunteered information you weren't expecting.  Something like snowball sampling requires you to attempt to get that extra information out of every company you call.  Even if you were executing pre-planned snowball sampling, there can be serious bias in the data which you would avoid by using the simple random sampling.
Edit: The above answer is based on the assumption that these extra devices belonged to other companies that you could have contacted using other phone numbers on your list (i.e. you called company A and they offered information about company B).  If the issue is that one company had many different devices (i.e. there are not other phone numbers on the list which correspond to those devices), then @nabla is correct to aggregate the devices for each phone number/company.

You can keep the data, you just need to change your analysis a bit. I imagine you have something like a large spreadsheet, where you enter your results per device. But I assume that the results you want out could be something "per location", that is, how much is the device used in different types of places, wear and tear etc. If you now include additional devices form one location, the randomness in your selection goes out the window, as you, in your survey, have a larger representation of locations with many devices.
But you would be crazy not to use the extra data now that it is there. Therefore, change your spreadsheet to be per location, and count everything as an average with an associated error instead of just a number. When you then do fitting etc. you just use the error as an associated weight.

Good news. The approach you are describing is a named sampling technique:  cluster sampling (technically, cluster sampling with probability proportional to size).  The bad (?) news is you will likely need to consult with a statistician to see if your study exactly conforms to cluster sampling.

Snowball sampling involves the potential for arbitrarily long reference chains (I contact Alice, who gets me in touch with Bob, who gets me in touch with Chris...) so this isn't that.
If you've already started sampling, changing methodology mid-sample is probably a bad idea. File this under things to think about next time you design a sample, and please remember to talk to a statistician before running a sample.
If you haven't started sampling, then yes, you absolutely should collect this extra info, but you need to factor selection probabilities into how you analyse the data. Full discussion is beyond what can reasonably fit in a SE post, but the basic idea is that you need to know the selection probability for each unit (e.g. AED) and then weight accordingly to these selection probabilities.
For example, let's say my sampling frame encompasses 1000 small businesses which each own one AED, and 100 large businesses which each own 10 AEDs. (Total: 2000 AEDs, 1000 owned by small businesses and 1000 by large businesses.)
Let's assume that you're trying to estimate what proportion of AEDs have been used in the last year, and let's suppose that there's a systematic difference between small and large businesses: all of the large-business AEDs are used every year, and none of the small-business ones.
(Obviously this is unrealistic, but an exaggerated example makes the issues easier to see.)
Now suppose I run my survey by randomly selecting an AED from my list of 2000, ringing up the business that owns it, and asking about all their AEDs. Since 50% of the AEDs are owned by small businesses and 50% by large businesses, every random selection has a 50% chance of getting me info about one small-business AED, and a 50% chance of getting me info about ten large-business AEDs.
If I do this 100 times, I can expect to end up getting data on about 50 small-business AEDs and 500 large-business AEDs. Even though only 50% of the AEDs out there have been used in the last year, 500/550 in my sample have been used, so a naïve analysis will grossly overestimate usage of AEDs.
The solution to this is to weight by selection probability. In this case, each small-business AED has a 1/2000 chance of showing up on each 'draw', and each large-business AED has a 1/200 chance of showing up. Hence, when I'm analysing my data, I should weight the small-business AEDs 10x as heavily as the large-business AEDs.
If you're trying to estimate things like standard errors from your data, then it gets a bit more complex, and you really ought to talk to your friendly neighbourhood statistician.


text:
Reference formatting without impacting its discoverability by services like Google Scholar
When citing some paper in a manuscript what fields of the BIBTEX we can change/remove without impacting the citation count done by services like Google Scholar?
In other words what are the fields in citations which Google Scholar like services count?
Please let me know if you need more details.

Don't expect too much of an answer. Google Scholar is notoriously intransparent, so its inner workings remain a complete mistery.

The doi number seems to help. So does putting a version on Researchgate or Academia. But nobody really knows.

I know a few papers that cited my work but was not discovered by google scholar and not credited in my google scholar profile. Often adding DOI helps.


text:
I have wasted 1.5 years of postdoc on self-doubts and depression. Is my research career doomed?
I continued with a postdoc with my PhD advisor on a tangential topic as my PhD work.
I spent the first 6 months in getting my PhD papers out. I have 4 papers from my 5.5 years PhD and 1 first authored paper with a collaborator. In total, 3 of my papers came out last year. I have also written 1 more paper that I will be submitting this month.
I am writing another paper which I am hoping to submit by August end.
However, I have not worked hard or gained any significant knowledge from the postdoc. Not because I am working with my PhD advisor, but due to constant self-doubts and negative thoughts. I have just worked 30 or less hours a week for the past year.
My friends in academia are getting tenure track positions and jobs in industry, while I have got rejections. I have lost drive and ambition to succeed and survive. I have made a mistake getting a PhD.
I have wasted my precious 1.5 years. Is my career salvageable?

Covid has been hard on everyone. Take good care of yourself.

Personal counseling can help. And with that in hand, assess your situation honestly. Things—needs, interests, expectations, priorities, awareness—change. The You of a few years ago might be quite different from the You of today, not always easy to recognize or to reconcile.

https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4700/how-can-we-better-react-to-askers-who-are-having-a-mental-health-crisis

Such "paper production" is not bad. At all! The doubts about career: don't be oppressed. When you say "I worked 30 hours/week", I guess you mean productive for 30 hours/week. If not, I suggest you to formalize the working hours, with a 80% part-time contract, if possible: it will help you focus, while at the same time not feeling guilty because you are less than 100% productive.

Yes to salvageable (no to doomed), in fact, in many fields this would seem like a good record. It isn't unusual to follow dead ends as a researcher. If everything were assured then it wouldn't really be research.
But, you need to find a way to get your mental sense more positive. For many this means talking to a professional. For some, a break is all it takes - South of Spain or France, perhaps, or the Norway fjords. But you should deal with that explicitly as a high priority for a while.
I'll predict that your record looks better to others than it does to yourself.

Note that many universities have a counseling center that is adept at discussing such things as burnout, self doubt, imposter syndrome, self-defeating behavior, etc. See if yours does.

Most new postdocs cannot afford an international holiday.  Many have student debt.

@AnonymousPhysicist, yes, obvious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

First, just because you haven't gotten any faculty offers yet doesn't mean you never will. I recently attended a panel with 6 new faculty hires for fall 2021, and of those 6, 4 of them were in their 3rd year of a Postdoc (I believe the other 2 had a 2 year postdoc). So it's definitely not unusual to be in your position; actually it seems more like average to me. So it's not realistic to say your career is a 'mistake' just because the job offer hasn't come yet.
Also, working 30 hours a week doesn't make you 'lazy', even if toxic culture suggests otherwise.
Take care of your health, mental and physical. Keep making progress on your research. Be ready for the fall 2022 hiring cycle. I might also offer the idea of joining a different lab, since based on your previous question you've been with the same lab for over 7 years at this point.


text:
Is it okay to submit another paper to the same journal while the first one is still under review (within a short span such as of 3 months)?
About 3 months ago, I submitted a paper to a journal, say journal X. There hasn't been any news on that from the journal, i.e. that paper is currently under review. Now for my current work, which I have just finished writing, I find that journal X will again be the most well-suited choice. So while one of my papers is still under review, is it okay to submit another paper to the same journal (within a short span such as of 3 months) or should I consider some other journal?

Is there a reason you think this might not be okay?

@Aruralreader I was told by my seniors that such a thing apparently is not perceived well!

I did this by writing up my masters work and then the first part of my PhD. In the end, both papers were accepted and ended up coming out in the same issue of the journal! :-)

Yes, it is fine. There are no conventions about this. Depending on the journal's workload in a particular area and the available reviewers, it might take a bit longer than otherwise, but the editors will be able to deal with it.
And, while you should also consider other journals, the best one in your judgement should be where you submit to.
One aspect, though, is whether the new paper would be considered an advance sufficient to make the earlier one less "novel" assuming they overlap in key ideas. In that case, it might be better to wait or submit elsewhere.

Actually the two papers are of two different areas.

This is uncommon enough that it might raise eyebrows if it's noticed, but there's nothing organically wrong with it.
Perhaps the biggest practical difference with "normal" peer review is that there's a higher chance that the same editor will handle both your papers, but from the perspective of the author, there's still nothing you need to do different.


text:
Grades for PhD admission, what grades (B.Sc or M.Sc) are of most importance in Europe (STEM)?
My B.Sc GPA currently stands at 4.33/5.00 and my M.Sc is projected at 4.90/5.00.
I am kind of freaking out, because of my low B.Sc GPA. I have ran through walls to compensate for it with my M.Sc GPA but I am very unsure whether or not I will make the cut. I even have serious doubts if I am of right material to pursue a PhD because of my Bachelor's performance.
Does anyone have a good insight of where I stand competition-wise? I am pursuing a degree in engineering (physics) in Denmark.
I have the opportunity to re-take some of the exams in my B.Sc to obtain higher grades, but I don't think I will be able to rise it more than 4.50 tops (due to time-shortage and not risking to much of mental/physiological health). Should I do it, or focus on something else?

From my experience, grades - and especially B. Sc. grades - are of very low importance in PhD admissions. Unless they're really bad, I do not think they will be the deciding factor of whether you get in or not. Cannot say much for Danish institutions, though. Regardless, try to make a very good thesis on a trendy topic, and maybe get a scientific publication out of it in the process.

Just a note: if there is a good reason for the low GPA you could mention it in your motivation letter (e.g., if you were a working student, ill, changed major, ...) or skip mentioning the GPA if allowed. But I agree with @P.Shark that your MSc is far more important for your application.

Don't doubt your ability to do a PhD based on your BSc performance! The skills needed to succeed in the two are totally different.

Thank you for your inputs. I will put my effort in my thesis and remaining courses and not better my B.Sc grades.


text:
Requesting suggestion regarding Deferring a PhD offer
I am an international student (from the Non-EU region) and I have a Ph.D. Offer in the area of Information Systems from the University of Maryland, Baltimore, USA.
The program was supposed to commence in Fall 2020.
But, having received no funding for the Ph.D. Program, I am compelled to defer the offer to next year.
And, I am allowed to defer the offer only for one year.
So, my question is, to which session - Spring 2021 or Fall 2021 - should I defer the Ph.D. offer, so that the Ph.D. funding competition  (in the form of TA (Teaching Assistantships)/RA (Research Assistantships)/GA (Graduate Assistantships)) is relatively less competitive?
Or, are the chances of receiving Ph.D. funding independent of the session in which the program is supposed to commence?

Generally the Spring semester intake is more competitive, your profile needs to be really good to be considered. While there more applicants in Fall, there will be much more funding available as well. However you will have to check with your university and department for concrete details.

I think the pandemic has thrown up a block to prediction for this.


text:
Is it possible to request a scientific experiment from a laboratory?
I have a scientific experiment that I need done to prove a theory of mine. Unfortunately I don't have the resources to perform said experiment like a fully functional laboratory such as Los Alamos National Laboratory would. Is it possible to request an experiment be done by a laboratory like LANL? Would this cost money?

That depends on (1) how well you know people at the lab, (2) how well your experiment aligns with work they are funded for, and (3) time available on equipment. In general, it will cost money. There are also some opportunities for access through external proposals, e.g. the Office of Science Nanoscience Centers, but that depends on your particular experimental needs and getting through the proposal process.

Have you thought about collaborating with an experimental lab? If your ideas are important, you might convince them to do an experiment, so you can publish a paper together.

My theory is aligned with superfluid vacuum theory or SVT. I need to test if a superfluid, such as superfluid helium, has a greater gravitational field than expected when compared with its non superfluid state.


text:
How to give advice when asked "Should I do a PhD program?"
There are many posts here with situation specific asks for advice on should one obtain a PhD, try a different PhD program, etc.
As someone who recently finished a PhD, I have been asked by students, friends, younger folks, this very question:

"Should I get a PhD? What do you think?"

What are the key questions/points that guide you through this conversation and process of giving advice?
I acknowledge advice and guidance might vary between countries and programs, and I have some beginning thoughts to answer this question.

Help them determine their goals
Would a PhD help them achieve their goals?
Don't assume your experience will be their experience

What else can help guide this conversation?

I think the dialog about their career and life goals are spot on, like you talk about in your questions.
I always start with Why do you want a PhD?
Specifically, I ask people what are your career and life goals?
Depending upon their goals I try to cover the following points:

Academic job market: Personally, I try to either steer people away from academic jobs or at least tell them they are statistically unlikely to land an academic job and should have a fall back plan.
Do they need a PhD for their job? For some fields, a master's degree might get them their dream job and a PhD overqualify them, especially for applied fields.
Where do you want to work? Do they want a research job in either industry or government? Often these jobs are easier to get than academic jobs.
Money: Science fields usually pay for a PhD and are money neutral. Although a loss of productive years, at least you are not getting more student debt to obtain a degree. Also, for many fields a MS degree is the optimal choice for maximizing one's lifetime income.
Location: Where do you want to live?
Sub-field: You can study the same topic in different fields. For example, you might look at soil microbiomes in a soil science department, an agronomy department, a biology department, a theoretical ecology department, or a forestry department. You might even get the same papers from your dissertation, but have very different career options and experiences depending upon your advisor and field.
Advisor: Most undergrads I talk with do not realize the importance of choosing a good advisor.
Other nuances of my subfield: For example, do you need a MS to get into a PhD program? What are funding options for a PhD? How long does grad school typically take? What are qual and/or comp exams like?

Maybe this is too personal for an answer, but I think that if a person asks that question, then the obvious answer is no. If you aren't absolutely driven to do it, then it probably isn't what you really want. If you are just "looking for a nice career" then you aren't driven enough.
But if you are absolutely driven by the need to understand "stuff" at a deep level, then maybe it is for you. This implies that you are willing to sacrifice other things (hopefully not other people, though) in the need to achieve that understanding - even of things not yet known. The particular "stuff" isn't nearly as important as the burning need to dig into it.
Another deep driver might be a massive unrequited desire to teach at some level above secondary. Even undergraduate faculty basically require a doctorate, even when serious research is but a small part of the requirements.
Academics and other researchers can achieve a comfortable life style. But the rewards of a doctorate are mostly internal. If the drivers in your life aren't like that, then it will be hard to make it work.
So, for the question itself, ask them what their drivers are. What do they want to achieve? What would make them happy in ten years about both the future and the previous ten years?
If they ask you "Should I..." then maybe not. But if they ask "How can I...", then you have something to work with.
I was driven. I stumbled once, which brought the future into doubt. The intense desire was enough to push me through, even though my family might have wished me to change direction. It wasn't an option. Luckily I found some allies and supporters who helped me get going again.

I think this is generally accurate, but/and this is complicated by the palpable fact that different people (and in different backgrounds) do have different senses about all the criteria you mention. "If you are driven to it" is manifest differently depending on lots of other feedback, of course, like the classic nearly-uniform discouragement of women in STEM in the U.S. and elsewhere. But, again, yes, it's not really "a career choice", in any case.

I wouldn't necessarily say "the answer should or would be no", but as I mentioned in my answer below, that person would need more time and experiences before they can answer the question of "is a PhD right for me?"  It would definitely be foolish to jump in a PhD without knowing anything about what research entails, but once you have that experience, then you can make a more informed decision.

@Buffy - When my wife and I attended a parents session at a college where my son intended to pursue a BFA in musical theatre, a parent asked if her child should also study something "to fall back on" in case a theatre career didn't work out. The faculty member running the session (who later became our son's mentor) said that if the child is not fully committed to theatre, they should probably pursue a different career. A  different field, and a different level, but definitely in line with your point.

One thing you haven't noted is that a PhD is mainly, if not all about, research.  The way PhD admissions has focused more on research experience, as opposed to grades, I would say get multiple experiences beforehand that will help one determine if a PhD is right for them.  This includes (mainly elaborating on OP's first two bullet points):

Getting as much research experience (preferably related to what you may want to focus on, but also even if not necessarily related) to help one figure out what they specifically want to focus on if they were to do a PhD or help them figure out if research is for them.  This includes opportunities at their undergraduate/MS institution, or, if there aren't as many opportunities in the field of interest, programs like NSF REU's at other schools to help people get such research opportunities/experience.
Maybe working in industry or some non-academic job that would help them see what life is like as part of a corporate job, etc. and if they want this long-term as opposed to an academic or any MS/PhD-related career.  During my REU, we had these weekly chat sessions with PhD students, a few of them who had worked before starting their PhD; in addition to one of the professors organizing the REU who had done the same, most, if not all, of them said it helped confirm that PhD/academics is what they wanted to do.

Another bullet point I'd like to add, is can you be frugal with money during the 5-8 years you are getting your PhD?  Assuming you take a fully-funded offer (like you should, otherwise treat it as a soft reject) and get a living stipend, you should be aware that that stipend is much much less than if you took even a very entry-level IT job.  Learning how to be frugal (including saving up money beforehand) will definitely help a lot financially for one before and during the PhD process.
(responding to a comment below: if all you care about is earning a six-figure salary fast, then PhD is not what you want because at the least you are delaying this for a full five years)

Hmmm, maybe "Can you be frugal forever?". If money is your driver, then drive elsewhere, I think.

I ... can't disagree with this.

"you are delaying this for a full five years" Or by three years, if you're doing a PhD that requires a Master's Degree, rather than including one.


text:
Can I upload an article to arxiv AFTER it was accepted to IEEE?
I found that pre-prints are somehow allowed to publish on arxiv, before they are reviewed by IEEE.
What about after the paper is published in a conference?
Can I upload it to arxiv?
And if so, in what terms?

Ask the editor.


text:
Even if I already have a master's in clinical psychology, can I apply for another master's in another field of psychology in a different country?
I have received my education in a back to back format, school then bachelor's and immediately after that, master's in clinical psychology. Currently I'm working as a school counselor. It sounds lame to say this but my mother sort of has this obsession with the 'Dr.' that comes before your name after completing Ph.D. and for a while I was on board with  that but then the pandemic happened and it gave me time to think and realize that I was not ready for a Ph.D. at all. I haven't the slightest idea what I want to research on - I thought since I was currently working with kids maybe something related to them but whenever I think about it I feel little to no interest. I've always wanted to go 'study abroad'. The education system in my country has always disappointed me and I've never felt fulfilled by it. But directly going for a Ph.D. in a foreign country seems very daunting and I know that I'm not at all prepared for it. So I figured maybe I could do a master's in another field of psychology, say maybe forensic or criminal or any other area. But I'm not sure if its possible. I am not even sure which country I should focus on although the stats show that it's the U.S. that I should apply to but I want to keep my options open. So please help.

In some countries yes, in others no. You need to explore the actual regulations. In US, you could probably do so even if your first was there. But that would be up to the individual university as there are no general regulations.

Sounds like several issues you personally need to work through and, ideally, reconcile. Your title asks about a second masters degree, your text about a PhD. You feel compelled by your mother to get a PhD. You think an educational system could be fulfilling, but isn’t. Seems an appropriate time for you to assess your personal situation, your priorities, your talents and assets, your experiences. For the latter, you’ve been working with children. Maybe start there?

@Aruralreader Right you can see  how confused I am just from how all over the place my question was. And yes, I'm working with children and for the most part, I enjoy it but it's not mentally stimulating and it does not inspire any sort of, I guess you could say, deep thinking out of me. It just seems like a job. but thank you for your comment. Originally I had felt a little called out and defensive but honestly, you're right. I got to figure my stuff out.

@Buffy Thank you. Would you by any chance have an idea, even if its just one university, where this is very likely to be accepted. Just so that I could find a starting point for researching.

No idea, really, but in the US, I'd guess it isn't too hard to find one. Clinical and theoretical are quite different. Specialties such as criminal are also worth exploring. And acceptance depends on the big picture.

First: good for you for stepping back and thinking about what you really want to do.
To answer your actual question, you can apply anywhere for any program that seems interesting. Whether you're admitted depends on many factors. Some programs might find your background a reason for acceptance, some the opposite. Whether you need financial assistance will probably matter.
I would advise you to cast a broad net. Look at (even apply to) many programs in many places. Then explore the ones that accept you. Please yourself first, hope that your choice pleases your mother.
Good luck. Come back here from time to time to tell us what you are doing.

Just the fact that there are people out there that are saying that it isn't written anywhere that it technically is NOT possible is a relief in its own. Thank you and I will surely come back and update, if I end up applying and, fingers crossed, get accepted.

Hmmm, acceptance with no upvotes seems odd to me. But, hey, I can fix that. ;-)


text:
High-achieving self-written LoR vs LoR from recent collaborator
I'm applying to Ph.D. admissions in the US for Fall 2022 and need to obtain the third LoR. I have two choices:

My undergraduate college professor, with whom I've collaborated extensively for about a year. The professor was also the supervisor of my bachelor's thesis. The professor wants me to draft the LoR, and will sign and send the same. I tried to convince the writer to write based on points provided by me but was refused - either I write it myself or don't get it. However, my achievements in collaboration with this writer are significant, including a first-author paper and a national honor.

A researcher, with whom I've only collaborated for about two months. The project is ongoing, and no papers have been written yet. However, the writer will be drafting the letter, though it will probably be weaker.

Which would be the better choice, if I'm applying to some of the top universities in my field?

It is a bit odd, though not unheard of to be asked to draft a letter. Under the circumstances you list, I'd suggest the first option.
It is a difficult task, of course. You want it to be honest and it is easy to stray into being either too positive, hence not believable, or too negative.
Focus on the facts if you write it.
I'd suggest that you first write a draft and then try to discuss it with the advisor asking for hints about the final version. "What have I missed? Are you comfortable with this?..."


text:
Appropriate time gap for contacting a professor after an interview
I had an interview for a research-based master's program in Canada over a month ago. Since the interview, I have not received any updates from the professor. What would be an appropriate time to wait before reaching out?
Is it possible that only accepted students are contacted, and others are not?

A month is long enough. Contact them and ask for any status update. It is possible, though a bit unlikely that only accepted people are contacted. Most institutions are polite enough to let people know one way or another. It is actually more efficient for them to send out non-acceptance notices so that they don't have to deal with individual queries.
But it is also possible that something was missed and an error was made. Contacting them can clear it up.
Your mail can also ask if there is any additional steps you should take or any additional materials they require from you.


text:
Is it ok to email my professor something I found related to class?
I just stumbled across an article directly related to what we just discussed in class. Is it appropriate to email it to my professor? For some reason it feels improper and I don't want to look like a teacher's pet.

Scientific/scholarly discussions are always ok. It's a pity that more students do not actively engage in this way, thereby losing the possible benefit of the scholarship of (presumably) experts in the field.

I would be glad if my students were interested and engaging in such maner. One word of caution though: some students can be very offhand in emails, mostly because of lack of experience in writing, so try to not teach the teacher.

I would not mind emailing and contacting my teacher. I would definitely not think about what others or the same prof would think of me afterwards.

I would encourage you to take the advice in Massimo Ortolano's answer to heart and really ask yourself why you want to send that email. At the very least, having a clear (to yourself!) motivation and a clear idea of what you want to achieve by that communication makes it more likely that you'll actually achieve that goal.

Yes, it's appropriate.  No halfway reasonable instructor would hold this against you.
On the other hand, please don't be disappointed if your instructor doesn't respond contentfully to your email.  Faculty are extremely busy and many get dozens of emails a day, so they have to prioritize which they can respond to.  If you want to have further engagement on this topic, that's what office hours are for.

Yes, it's appropriate, but whether it's also useful depends on the context. Let me make an example.
In one of my undergraduate classes, I teach a part about phase noise and frequency stability of oscillators and frequency standards. It's a topic about which you can find thousands of papers, and it would not be improbable for a student to stumble across one of them. A few possibilities:

The student reads the paper because they find it interesting, but can't understand a few points. The student then decides to email me the paper asking for help to clarify those points. This is a useful interaction: the student found interest in a topic I taught and I would be happy to help clarifying those points, through email or by giving an appointment.
The student reads the paper and send it to me because it's a recent paper proposing a new method for the characterization of phase noise or because it discusses at length a tricky point I touched upon during the lectures. I'd find this useful, even though I may already know the paper.
The student just found one of the many papers about the topic, maybe one which is not particularly relevant, and decides to send it to me for information. I'd thank the student for this, but I wouldn't consider such an interaction particularly useful.

In all three cases above, there's no harm in sending the paper, and I'd thank them anyway, but I'd consider it a useful action only in the first two cases.

To summarize this answer: yes it's appropriate, but the email's content should be interesting enough to the professor

I love it when my students do this. It shows they are engaged in the course and interested in the material.
One other suggestion: I imagine your school uses a learning management system (such as Moodle, Sakai, Canvas, D2L, or Blackboard). Assuming that’s the case, I don’t know how much your instructor uses it.
My classes uses the discussion board feature, and I usually set aside a thread for questions, comments, and suggestions. When one of my students asks if I might be interested in some article they found, I generally ask them to post it to that discussion board. That way, all the students can benefit from reading it.
You could just approach the professor after class and tell him what you found, and ask if he would like you to send it his way.
Incidentally, I’ve never thought any of my students were trying to be a “pet” for sharing a good resource that they’ve found.

Yes, unless it's a really large class (I wish more students engaged in their subject in this fashion). [You should use some judgement, though  -  some professors are happier about this than others, but it's not out of order.]
If there's some class forum that your professor has access to it might be better to post it there, unless you're reasonably confident that it's something the professor would want to use in classes.


text:
I'm thinking of delaying my graduate school application, but how to tell my recommenders
So I've spent the past two months working on my graduate school application essays, and I've recently started to study for the GRE, which I'll be taking on November 6th. In recent weeks I've been feeling as though my application is not a very strong one, especially when it comes to my resume. Because of this I've been thinking of delaying my application for a year so that I can boost my resume through another job or a study abroad type experience. Doing this would also give me ample time to study for the GRE. So instead of applying for the 2018-2019 cycle, I'm looking at 2019 to submit my application. Those are the bare details of it, but my problem is how I should let my recommenders know. I feel that it's wrong to ask them to wait a year, but then again they might appreciate having more time to write (I'm applying to two programs with deadlines in December and January). This isn't something that I've decided to do for sure; it's just something that I'm considering. I'd just rather let my recommenders know in the best way possible and without losing them somehow should I decide to do it.
I appreciate any advice.

Depending on your field, it's quite possible that delaying your application a year would significantly HARM your chances, not boost it as you seem to think. Rather than trying to guess whether your chances are good now, why not apply and see what happens? If you aren't offered any positions, you can always apply again next year, or decide that you prefer another career path.

In the US students overwhelmingly apply in the fall of their last year of university. A student who graduates and applies the next year would arrive at the PhD after a full year out of school; they would therefore (in my field) need to demonstrate that their understanding and knowledge would not have atrophied during this time. (And this can be harder than students think, since only a few months of that year-long gap have passed when they submit their application -- so how to convincingly justify claims about the future?)

Really depends what he does in the meantime... Gap year partying or working a solid job in the field?! Check also the admission rules, some Universities want reccomendation letters to be fresh!


text:
How to cite a paper that has compiled many others
I want to reference a fact from a piece of literature. This fact has came from a literature search by the author and has used information from 150+ other sources and compiled this into a table. Now I know for most things I am to read the original paper but this literature search was part of the beginning of their research and is what they used to get all of their results from. Am I okay just to reference the main paper? Thanks.

I have this question often when writing math articles. A lot of time I do end up reading through a lot of references of references (of references) either if I don't understand the summary or want to appreciate the context, etc. Then it's hard to decide when it matters enough to cite more source stuff where I could cite someone else's summary.

What you're describing is a meta-review, since the review is critiquing and analyzing a collection of existing papers. Because the results are newly derived based on the authors' original work, you do not need to cite all of the 150+ other articles the authors of the meta-review cited, but only the meta-review itself, as well as any of the 150+ papers you directly use elsewhere in your paper.


text:
Transfer of manuscript+reviews from one journal to another: why was it offered in these seemingly unsuitable cases?
Many philosophy journals have begun to use an alternative to accepting or rejecting a manuscript: offering the author the option of transferring the manuscript together with the reviewer reports to another journal. This seems like an excellent idea when the only problem with a manuscript is a bad fit with the specific journal. However, in the past few months I have received this offer twice when the situation was very different. In the first case, the (only) reviewer’s conclusion can be summarized as “excellent ideas, but not ready for publication.” In the second (concerning a different paper), one reviewer recommended acceptance without any changes, while another reviewer claimed that there was a fatal, irreparable flaw in the paper. In neither of those cases could a different journal be expected to accept the paper based on the same reviewer reports.
So my question is: why do journals do that? Are they just being too lazy to give proper thought to whether a transfer makes sense? Or is there some reason for this that I just can’t figure out.
I should add that I get the impression that it is the paper as is that would be transferred, but I am not entirely sure about that.

It's possible, even likely, that your experience is an outlier, and that the general reasoning behind "transferring" submissions is just as you describe.

Usually transfer of manuscript does not mean that the authors can ignore comments of the reviewers. Instead, it is supposed that the authors will revise the manuscript and resubmit it to another journal, so the transfer option just saves a bit of time spent on paper submission.

how reputable were the journals being transferred from and to?

@BenBarden: They are both very good journals

@BenBarden: And to answer the second half of your question: They are a significant step down the prestige ladder, but reputable. They would not, for instance, accept the second paper if they believed the reviewer who claims there is a flaw.

The practice of asking an author to “transfer” a manuscript to another journal for consideration for publication has been used in the medical field for quite some time.  It can occur (fairly) often when there exists a “cluster” of journals managed owned by the same group.  An example is the American Medical Association, which publishes the Journal of the Medical Association (JAMA) and 11 other more specialized journals under the JAMA “umbrella” (e.g., JAMA Cardiology; JAMA Dermatology; JAMA Neurology).  The JAMA editor assigned to a manuscript submitted to JAMA might ask the author if the manuscript (and reviews) can be transferred for consideration by, for example, JAMA Pediatrics if the JAMA editor believes that the manuscript might be of interest to the editor(s) of that journal.  The referring editor makes no promise of acceptance by the journal to which the transferred paper is sent.
As indicated in a comment, there is an implicit presumption that the manuscript will be revised to address the comments of the (transferred) reviews.  Sometimes the referring editor states this explicitly when asking about the transfer.
The “family of journals” with the prefix BMC, which is part of Springer Nature, publishes an:

“evolving portfolio of some 300 peer-reviewed journals, sharing
discoveries from research communities in science, technology,
engineering and medicine.”

The BMC family of journals has been quite aggressive in its attempt to modify the system of peer review.  These are described at their website:
https://www.biomedcentral.com/about/advancing-peer-review
The things they are doing with regard to innovations in peer review include:

•  Patient peer review   •  Registered Reports   •  Results-free
review  •  Automated peer review   •  Re-review opt out  •  Portable
peer review within and between publishers   •  Expedited peer review

The journal that asked about transferring your paper to another journal appears to be using “portable peer review.”
For the medical journal BMC Medicine, portable peer review is described as follows:

“Portable peer-review To reduce time spent on serial submissions and
iterative reviewing, BMC Medicine offers to consider manuscripts on
the basis of reviews received at other journals. We also support
transfers of reviews obtained at BMC Medicine to other journals,
including those outside of BMC and Springer Nature. Learn more from
our portable reviews page.”

https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/about
The advantage to an author in permitting the transfer is a possibly shorter time to publication.  The author also has a good idea of what they will need to do to get the manuscript accepted.  It is quite common to revise a manuscript based on the comments of the reviewers chosen by journal 1 (this is a good practice) only to have a whole different set of comments that need to be addressed when the manuscript is submitted to a journal 2.
The advantage to a journal (or set of journals) is a reduction in the burden the journals put collectively on peer reviewers.  The advantage to a journal (or family of journals) is that it helps assure a “stream” of potentially publishable manuscripts at the second (referred to) journal.
If the journal that is being suggested as a referral journal is not one that you would be proud to publish your work, say no.
If it is not possible (or desirable) to address the comments of the original reviewers, say no (because the paper is unlikely to be accepted unless these comments are addressed).
If the journal that is being suggested as a referral journal is a journal that will charge a lot of money to publish your paper, say no.
Finally, in medicine (and other fields), there has been a proliferation of “predatory journals.”  The definition of a predatory journal is controversial, it is not easy to identify "predatory journals" reliably, and what is predatory to one person is not predatory to everyone.  Nonetheless, it would be wise to do some digging to determine whether the referral journal might be predatory.
This publication from the medical field is an empiric study that attempted to define the criteria for a predatory journal formally.  These criteria might not map easily to philosophy journals.
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9

@Ben Barden Changed to "not possible (or desirable).....

The main reason journals (actually publishers) do this is purely selfish - they simply want to keep your paper within one of "their" journals. I am almost certain for example that the two journals you mention are published by the same publisher. Papers are sort of currency in publishing since the number of papers published per year is a key metric of the journal's/publisher's health; therefore it is desirable to keep your paper within the publisher.
What the transfer does is turnover all metric data for your paper (e.g. date submitted, date revisions performed, etc.) to the other journal. What the other journal does with the data is not certain, since it's usually possible they come to a different decision even though they're looking at the same reviewer reports. It certainly isn't a guarantee that the other journal will accept your paper either (something I would suspect is mentioned in the transfer email). In your case, the reviewer reports you've received simply mean that the other journal is odds-on to reach a revise decision if they haven't already.
All this said, there is also some benefit to you as the author - submitting a revision is usually much simpler than submitting a fresh paper. Also, I don't know about other editors, but I tend to prioritize the oldest papers in the system, and your paper would show up as relatively old (although it is possible that the system shows the date the paper transferred instead).


text:
Giving profile updates to a potential supervisor
I had been interviewed for a research-based master's position two weeks ago. Since then, I have submitted two papers to top-tier venues in my field.
Additionally, a few days before the interview, I had taken up an industrial role. However, this never came up in the interview. As far as I know, the advisor isn't aware of these updates.
My question is, should I send a mail to the potential supervisor with these updates, given that I will almost certainly be attending if accepted (almost, since I am waiting to hear back from a few other programs)? Or should I wait for the decision without further communication?

No, the papers were not discussed at all. The projects were just mentioned on my SoP as "in progress". That was about three months ago.

I have two worries. The first is that "submission" isn't really an accomplishment, though finishing up on the work might be.
The second, a bit more serious, is that having accepted another position, you might seem to be less interested in the program you interviewed for.
I'd definitely let the second slide and only mention the first if you get some positive feedback on the submissions.
However, a note that you are making progress on some current work and nearing the end is a positive thing that you might mention if another opportunity to communicate arises.

Thank you, this is very helpful advice!

If somehow you inform your potential supervisor about these updates and also your industrial role, it might be helpful. It is better than feeling sorry later on.
My son applied for Masters (which later on led to Ph.D) but he got a rejection email. He sent an email to the graduate school about his training and industrial work. He was interviewed again and got acceptance.


text:
Recent vs overall GPA in graduate school admissions
This is an extension of my previous question. I'm applying to CS Ph.D. programs in the US. From my perspective, I have a strong profile (compared to my previous post, 1 more first-author paper and multiple non-first papers under review in top-tier venues), with the main low point being my CGPA (7.51/10.0). Evaluations by WES and other tools place this in a range of 3.2 to 3.5 out of 4.0. I wanted to know how this is viewed in comparison to my CGPA in my final two semesters, which are 8.0 and 9.25. Will these scores offset my overall lower GPA?

In general, yes, people will be more likely to consider recent grades as more indicative of what you are capable of. But in the individual case it is impossible to say. Another factor, of course, is which courses you have taken recently. If they are advanced courses in your major field and you do well it is likely to be a boost. But, again, the individual case trumps the general case.
The only way to absolutely measure your likelihood of success is to actually apply and see what results you get. And let  me say again as I did for the earlier question, cast a broad net, not a narrow one. And, again, admission in the US (which you indicated earlier) is broad based, with much more than GPA taken in to account. In particular, letters of recommendation are relatively important here.

Thank you, this was very helpful! I'll be applying to a broad range of colleges with groups working in my area of interest.


text:
How much does pre-PhD work affect chances in seeking academic jobs?
I have completed the third year of my PhD studies in Electrical Engineering. So far, I have published a few conference papers during my PhD. However, I had several good journal and conference publications before my PhD studies, but they are not related to my current research topic. As I consider applying for academic positions, I am curious about how these earlier publications might affect my chances of securing a position. Will my pre-PhD publications be considered? Thank you in advance for your response.

If they are within your field, they would have some weight. It isn't just your dissertation topic that is relevant in academic hiring. Professors take on lots of roles in academia and aren't expected to stay on one topic throughout a career.
For some jobs, say in teaching institutions, broader interests and experience might be a plus initially. And, almost everyone does some undergraduate teaching in any case, even in research oriented places.
But a lot more than this will be determinative of your success. Don't focus a lot on any single thing.


text:
When is the right time to start publishing as a single author?
Background: Consider a postdoc P in the field of natural sciences. P has completed her PhD rather recently and is lucky enough to be in a group where she has a lot of independence. P gets to decide what projects she can work on. P has also been told my the group leader that she can go ahead with single-author papers at some point. There is no strong expectation that the leader has to be on every single paper.
Situation:

P has never written a paper with less than 3-4 other authors, although she was always the lead author and did most of the work.

P is unsure if she is mature enough to write her own paper without making 'mistakes'.

P has learnt a lot from the past papers but has never written a paper where significant corrections were not required.

Question:
Should P wait to be more 'mature' or barge ahead with a single-author paper right away?

What is the nature of the mistakes / significant corrections that were done in the past?

Better interpretation of the results; doing new simulations to fill in gaps; storyline of the main result.

Please tag a field. I will likely never publish a single-author paper, until I'm some 70-year-old emeritus professor publishing some overview of the field (if the water wars don't take me).

Even if you are a single author, you are always free to ask people in your research group to proofread your paper for mistakes, and pay them back by doing the same. This can be mentioned in the Acknowledgements section.

@quantacad "doing new simulations to fill in gaps" etc. - If this is what reviewers wrote about earlier publications, this one (and maybe to some extent the others) doesn't necessarily mean you made a mistake. In my field (statistics), regarding methodological papers with simulations,  this request comes almost surely, pretty much regardless of the quality of the paper, as you can never simulate everything, and many reviewers feel they need to request something. Keep in mind in many fields requesting revisions is a standard. They (almost) always find something.

To me the "when is the right time" framing of the question doesn't make sense. I think of this from the angle of research and results rather than when is the right time. In some fields and cultures people publish on their own very early, in some others research is essentially always collaborative and many people do single author papers very rarely if at all.
For me it boils down to the question whether P has results on her own that deserve to be published. If there is good material for which she deserves to be sole author, I think she should go for it. (This doesn't rule out asking a colleague for an opinion about certain details or writing issues.)
On the other hand, if the project/results need substantial input of competence from somebody else, this person should be co-author.
In practice, the social system of P could play a role - it may be a little help is needed and people who help may or may not expect to be co-authors. For the sake of building experience, in case that there is no help available without demanding co-authorship, one option is to submit a first version alone, and if this doesn't work out to involve a co-author when resubmitting.

If the work is yours, you should present it as yours and submit it for publication as yours. If it is group work, or others make substantial intellectual contributions to it, then it is joint work.
If your field highly values sole authorship, then the earlier you start on the process the better. If the field more highly values collaboration and joint authorship, then it is much less important.
And, in many fields in which tradition favored sole authorship, the modern world (electronic communication...) is pushing toward easier, hence more frequent, collaboration.
However, in any sole publication that you have in preparation, it is still useful, when possible, to get feedback from colleagues, and especially the PI.

I think that a better question is to ask "When is the right time to  try publishing as a single author"! The reason I say this is that if, for example, you were to try writing a paper on your own (and then succeeded), and tried to submit the paper on your own to a journal (and succeeded) ... up to the point of having your paper published, then you would know that right now is a very good time to start publishing on your own. And if you don't succeed at any step despite trying, then you can always enlist help. And the help doesn't have to be the whole cart-load of four co-authors; you might just invite one colleague to work with you on a paper.

On the contrary, Erdős had over 400 single-author papers (which is over 25% of his papers).

You publish solo when it is time. I'm not saying collaboration is bad, but at some point, you must flee the proverbial nest and be confident enough to publish by yourself in journals that you can get in. If you're a postdoc, then surely you're ready to publish by yourself. Whether you're confident enough is another matter, but any PhD program worth its salt should make you prepared enough to publish by yourself. It is part of the life of academia, so practice and experience with it is always helpful.


text:
Can an H-1B holder work for a foreign institute? Does this affect the future application for permanent residency?
I am an H1-B holder working at a university. I was recently invited to join a research project in Europe as an external investigator (I will receive a small amount of salary). I consulted with the immigration office in my university, the staff told me that this is a grey area, and this could affect my future application for permanent residency.
I wonder if anyone in this community had similar experiences? Any advice will be greatly suggested.

Your situation is odd enough that you should pay for a consultation  with an immigration attorney.

This being not academia specific, I think you'll get better answers at Expats.SE

Experience 1
I paid for a consultation with an attorney once over an immigration issue (seeking to obtain permanent residency).  The immigration official handling the case had basically said that if the proper documents were not all submitted exactly as prescribed that the whole process could be aborted and would have to be started again from zero.  The woman did not even detail what exactly she was expecting, leaving questions about why the documents submitted had not been adequate.  That's when I went to the attorney.
The attorney gave excellent advice, but it was of a more pragmatic/social nature than a legal nature.  He basically said two things:

The official was out of place and not following standard procedures to make such threats and provide no documentation to support what was being required; and

It would do no good to address the official's errors, but that, instead, one should approach the officials with a humble, asking-for-help, attitude, and let them decide how best they could help.  (He also warned against informing the official of having gone to an attorney.)

It boils down to this: officials are human; and many humans like the sense of power they derive by their position.  It is best to meekly submit, and not to challenge this.
Experience 2
On another occasion I called multiple officials trying to ascertain the validity of an advance parole document to return to the home country.  I ended up calling all the way to Washington, D.C. (headquarters) to learn that once in hand, the document could be used regardless of the reason--even though, technically, it is not supposed to be issued during the initial residence period (prior to permanent residency) for returning to one's native country.
This experience taught me that the officials themselves can sometimes seem at odds with each other in the interpretation of the legal codes.
Conclusion
Putting these two pieces of wisdom together, I advise you to seek your answers from more than one authority/official, if possible, and always in the attitude of a humble petitioner, letting them help you.


text:
asking professor for letter of reccomendation and then not using it
I just realized I'd like to apply for graduate school. This gives me about 1.5 weeks to get everything together. I think I have most things in order, but I need to ask professors for letters of recommendation. Would it be appropriate to ask more than 3 professors for letters of recommendation and then decline to use them or use them at a throwaway application if more than 3 professors say yes?

Without prior warning, 1.5 weeks is a very short time to write a reference letter...

Doesn't your field have schools with due dates in mid-December or later? I realize some of your preferred programs may be due in 1.5 weeks, but we should be clear that you have chosen to make an unreasonable demand of your recommenders rather than choosing to restrict yourself to programs with later due dates.

It's not clear where the sudden urgency comes from, but in addition to possibly irritating letter writers, there are some reasons to think about whether you really want to apply to a grad school program in 1.5 weeks. (a) Your materials, and the letters, will all be rushed, and so not as good as they can be. (b) You only get one chance to make a first impression. (c) There's no reason you can't apply again next year with more time to prepare; many people take time off school before grad school. (d) Going to grad school is a major decision and you don't want to decide to do it under pressure.

Not really, no. You are asking people (with very short notice even) to write a LoR for you, which in itself is already not ideal. Then you'll just throw out that work.
Ask yourself if you'd want to spend a few hours, either taking up your free time or deprioritizing some other task, to write a letter which is not going to be used. I think you know the answer.

then what do I do if too many people say yes?

@afsum You could ask 3 to start, thank them for considering your late request, and politely say that given the tight timeline you would appreciate if they could tell you if they can do the letter or not right away so you can ask additional letter writers. It's a bit pushy but it's better than than having someone write you a letter at the last minute and not using it. You're in a situation where you can't avoid coming across as being at least little inconsiderate, but being open and honest is always better. It's not great but it happens. You have to do what's best for you. Next time be better.


text:
Dealing with a Very Low Math Subject GRE Score
I am a senior studying math at a private research university. It isn't an Ivy League school by any means, but it is a good school with, as far as I have experienced, a good undergraduate mathematics department. I'm applying for a PhD at several top math programs, such as Berkeley, UCLA, and Michigan, along with some master's programs at top 25-40 schools. I have a pretty strong application - I have taken 12 graduate math classes in various topics, algebraic and differential geometry, algebraic and differential topology, algebra, measure theory, PDE, probability, and more, and done very well in all of them, with a 3.99 subject GPA and a 3.95 overall GPA. I have what I think will be two excellent letters of recommendation, and one good letter. I have three years of research experience, and while nothing has been published yet, my group thinks we might get something out by the end of the academic year.
Here's the problem. I took the math subject GRE in October, and just got back my score. I wasn't expecting to do great, as I didn't get much time to study, it has been a long time since I had used much of the content on the exam, especially the calculus, and I had to wake up at 5 in the morning and drive three hours to get to the test center. But when I got my score back, 600 (36th percentile), I was still a shocked. I didn't think it would be that low, and I know that with proper preparation, I would do far better. Is there anything I can do to "salvage" my applications in which I sent in that score? I already looked on the GRE website, and I cannot cancel the scores being sent. The next math subject test is available in April, long after applications are due. A 36th percentile score seems like the kind of thing that will get my applications immediately filtered out of consideration.
Is there anything I should do? I had the score sent to Berkeley, UCLA, and Michigan, as the other schools I applied to do not accept the subject test this year. I already turned in the Berkeley application, so I assume that it is probably a lost cause as I can't change anything with that now. For the other two, how do I go about addressing this low score? Should I mention it in the statement of purpose, or somewhere else? Is there something else I should do? I apologize for the rambling question, but I was stressed enough without this, and now I am in full panic mode. Thank you for any advice or suggestions.

First, I'd guess that you will do fine, but your choice of only top schools is self limiting. I'd suggest a broader search so that you have a backup. Most, if not all of the R1 universities in the US have fine math programs. And most, if not all, will have a suitable top-level advisor or you in many subfields. The same is true of many, if not most, of the R2 schools.
You can, of course, take the subject test again. You can, of course, only submit it when necessary.
But, it is unlikely that, today, the GRE advanced test alone would be the deciding factor in acceptance or rejection of any candidate. It gives only a bit of information about a candidate, mostly, I suspect, about the breadth of their education. When I took it (eons ago, but after the invention of the wheel) I was surprised at how many questions were completely foreign to me. I left the test center very depressed, but wound up doing fine.
Admissions in US is usually very broad based. Your GPA is helpful. Your letters can be very helpful. What you write in your SoP can be very helpful, though don't use it to explain deficits like that you perceive in the GRE.

Thank you very much for the response, my nerves have been calmed to a certain extent. I am applying to those master's programs as a backup (that I very well may need to use), but I would prefer to go straight to PhD. I think my statements of purpose are relatively good, so thanks for the advice there. Would you recommend not mentioning/trying to excuse the GRE score at all? Or is there a specific place to take about that.

I would ignore the GRE unless asked. It is what it is. Make sure the rest is positive as much as you can. But a doctorate from a lower ranked school may be preferable to a Masters. There are lots of good schools that aren't 'top 10'.

Okay, thanks. I appreciate it.