text:
For US humanities TT faculty apps, should I use current faculty members' titles when referring to them?
When applying for a TT job in a cross-disciplinary humanities program, it seems important that I describe potential collaborations with current faculty members in the program.
Should I refer to potential collaborators as "Prof. Firstname Lastname" or just "Firstname Lastname?" For example, "There could be some kind of intersection between my work in X and Prof. Jane Smith's work in Y."
I worry that if I include titles, I cast myself as junior and therefore underqualified.
But if I exclude titles, I fear I'll appear disrespectful.

Just opinion, of course, but I'd suggest using the titles. Either academic titles or degree designations.
I doubt that anyone would consider you unqualified for such things. Peers can use titles in written communication, or communication with others. In fact, even speaking with "Jane", they might be "Doc", as I often did with peers. Or "Prof", especially with someone recently promoted.

The critical point is to be unambiguous. When you are a colleague you may use name-only for people you work with. When you are writing to people you don't know, about people you don't know, it's better to be clear about exactly which FirstName LastName you are talking about: the Professor, or some random with the same name.


text:
Balancing location with school/department for PhD study
I am due to start a PhD in January in a school that has a very good department for my chosen area, but unfortunately is close to my home (2 hours commute by train) and to my previous university (also 2 hours by train).
Unfortunately, I am starting to be incredibly exasperated with living in this country (UK incidentally) and in cities. It feels very incompatible with me (I like mountain climbing, forest hiking and forest wildlife, and skiing and feel I would like these to be a much bigger component of my life, rather than relegated to the occasional 2 week holiday). I also really would like to learn another language and experience different cultures.
I feel like it is taboo at this stage to say that these things are important to me, and I don't know whether I should 'suck it up' and stay with the position I have been offered, or look for PhDs where, outside of PhD work, I would get the kind of cultural and personal enrichment that is important to me.
So my question is: to what extent (and specifically at the PhD stage) should someone choose where they do their PhD based on factors like being able to experience new cultures, spend weekends hiking/in the mountains/forest/[insert your preferred environment here], learning a new language etc, rather than just look at the department and academic resources it offers.
While trying to decide what to do in my personal situation, I found myself with very conflicting messages. Some sources were advising that undergraduate is the stage at which you can go abroad for cultural enrichment, but at PhD level it shouldn't really be much of a consideration. Others suggesting that it is a high priority to go where you would feel happy, because a PhD is psychologically draining.
I guess I ask this because there are convincing arguments in either direction, and I no longer know what is valid justification (to me or anyone else) were I to choose to re-apply to different PhD programs.

This is really a matter of personal preferences and values. Personal fulfilment is certainly important: you will almost certainly do better as a happy PhD student in an average group than as a miserable student in a first-rate group. There is a significant chance that your career path will evolve in directions that don't care about where you did your PhD anyway. Maybe a starting point is to think about where you'd like to live, and then look into which universities/groups exist in those areas. Another option may be to stay in the UK but spend time as a visiting student elsewhere.

Are you sure you can’t do your outdoor activities during weekends? When I was a student in London I was able, for example, to hike a Welsh mountain.

I chose to do my Ph.D. in a major American city eight hours away by train from my rural hometown. My adviser is great. I have started to hate the city and pine for the wilderness every day. Yet I know a bad adviser elsewhere could make my life perhaps even more miserable, and might even make me hate my work. Somehow, you should try to balance your need for nature, learning other languages, etc. with the benefits of the institution and advising. I can't say there's any solution to this dilemma. Maybe just try to get through the five years and be sure to choose a better location after graduation.

Thank you for your answer! I have been trying to think the 'try to get through the 4 years' way, but it struck me as being pretty bad to be thinking that before my PhD has even begun. I think what I crave most is just something different, and it feels somewhat sufforcating that I will be 27/28 by the time I might have the opportunity to get that.

Also, isn't it quite difficult to direct where you do your postdoc? I might end up in even worse locations :/

I imagine it will be easier to choose where to do a postdoc. At that point, I think quality of advisor and maybe the school's reputation don't matter as much, just the quality of research you produce. Maybe not... I agree 27/28 is kind of late to get to enjoy one's life.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Too old for school?
I am almost 30 years old. I got my bachelor's many years ago, and I've been enjoying myself while in the industry. I am a practical person.
However, for some reasons, I felt my technical skills were regressing, so I decided to go back to school, to enhance and update my skills.
I chose a topic that is quite abstract, which is stressful to me. Also, I feel threatened by grades and such ... which sometimes make me regret having put myself in such a "delicate" situation.
Should I be patient (there will be better days) ? Or should I go back to the industry and discover things myself?

This may help: I want to do research but I'm too old for a PHD

I agree with @EnthusiasticStudent, and would go further: I think the answers there cover this question well.

I believe you should be patient because education is among the best investments you could ever make, in the sense that it is highly probable to pay off in the long run. Moreover, being (only!) 30 you are looking ahead at thirty years or so of a career, so some extra training will absolutely help in the long run; even though the picture may not be clear yet, education does open doors to new opportunities.

I believe there are some great answers at I want to do research but I'm too old for a PHD as stated in the comments.
That said I have followed somewhat a similar path to you. I went to college at 17 to do accounting and still work in the area. I returned to college when 29 to complete a BA part-time. This course was over four years and I think no amount of experience can prepare you for returning to the rigour of study. Grades can be an issue, but I always found professors to be very open to discussing ways to improve, and in fact many stated that they preferred teaching the part-time course as the class where a bit more mature. Since then I have started a masters and although it can be stressful doing research I have found there are more good days than bad ones. Again having good communication with those that supervise you is essential.
While I think only yourself can answer your question, I believe if you have a passion for your subject and use the supports that may be available at your institution (such as study support groups in your topic) it will may your decision easier. They best advise I can give is to talk to those in your course that may be able to assist and guide you.

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


text:
Copyright for creating a video that is a chapter-by-chapter Analysis of a Technical Book?
There is a technical book that I like a lot and is widely respected in my field.  It has about 80 "rules" in it with example code.
I would like to create a series of videos to further explain and review each of the "rules".  I will narrate the video in my own words.  My goal is for the video series to be like a tutor that is walking the viewer through the book.  I plan to fully credit the author and cite his work.  Some questions:

Can I use code samples from the book if I give proper citation (title, author, page #)?
Is creating a chapter-by-chapter review of a book and putting it on YouTube considered an ethical gray area?  To repeat: every video will fully credit the author of the book and it will be obvious that I am explaining ideas in my own words.

I am asking this question here because of all the stackexchange sites, people here seem to be the most well versed in copyright and fair use.
Thanks.

Disclaimer 1: I am not a lawyer, I know sh*t about law, it is not a legal advice and you should consult with a professional.
Disclaimer 2: ethics and law are two different question, this answer tries to give ideas about the law part (and you should not fully rely on it, as stated in D1)
If you using substantial amount of the book (its code, its ideas), especially blatantly copy its structure making it obvious what you copied, then you are way beyond fair use and you are in a gray or even red copyright area. Depending on publishers they generally put some short examples in their copyright session what constitute fair use, you can check those. What you describe here goes far beyond this. Also the whole purpose is to spread it to wide audience on youtube, so publisher can claim that they suffer significant loss of revenue, because the whole thing with all the details and secret sauce is on YouTube.
What you can do about it?
You can try to get a permission from the publisher (most probably the author himself cannot give this). It may help if you have a reasonable discussion with the author / publisher about your idea and tune down the "I will discuss every little details of your book and copy out all the codes" part. For example it helps if you have your own intellectual effort in this whole stuff, e.g. analysing problems not presented in the book and show how the books method can be used, and not just reading/summarizing the book on video.

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


text:
What is the right place to acknowledge another (simultaneous) paper with the same result?
I'm refereeing a paper for a math journal at the moment.  As happens fairly often, some other folks came up with basically the same result independently at the same time, I think the manuscripts showed up on Arxiv a few days apart.
The authors acknowledge this (and of course this is perfectly normal and won't affect my recommendation on whether or not to accept the paper), but they do it at the very end of a long-ish paper as part of the acknowledgements.  This is not unusual but it strikes me as ungracious and an unnecessary hangover from the pre-digital-publishing era when these coincidences were usually addressed by notes added in proof.  Should I ask them to move it up to, say, the end of the introduction, where it is more likely that readers who might be interested in the other paper will actually see it?

My primary concern with the placement in the acknowledgments is that that section is typically used to acknowledge other parties or works that had a positive influence on the work at hand. If the other paper was simultaneously developed without the knowledge of the authors of the paper at hand, obviously there cannot be any such influence. By mentioning the other paper in the Acknowledgments section, the authors confuse the distinction between what was simply there and what was actually used in their work.

@O.R.Mapper Please don't post answers as comments. Your  comment is a good answer and should be posted as one.

Τhe sections of Introduction and Related Work of a paper serve the purpose to inform the reader exactly about related results/attempts/techniques etc in order to put their result in the correct perspective. As such, the "other" result should be mentioned and cited there, preferably with a direct comparison of the possibly different techniques involved. Anything else, could be potentially misleading and/or suspicious and should be avoided.

Mathematics papers typically don't have an explicit "related work" section. However, I absolutely agree that this needs to be placed in the introduction and possibly in its own section of the introduction, which could suitably be titled "related work".

@DavidRicherby I agree that they do not necessarily have "Related Work" section. But, even if not, in this situation they should have a clearly marked paragraph of something like that to clearly indicate and compare the existing related work (and not just acknowledge it)

Why not in the Discussion section?

@abukaj Because Discussion section is most often (in fact always) put at the end of the document. Usually these results are discussed in the related work section. If such doesn't exists, there should be a clearly marked paragraph mentioning the related result.

@abukaj also because math papers have a discussions section even less often than they have a related work section.

I disagree, because I think this confuses the history of the results. This advice is especially dangerous if one paper's referee requires this, and the other's does not. It then looks like the paper with the rigorous referee is acknowledging the other paper as an influence on them - which is not true!

@AJK How it can confuse the history of the result? How mentioning related work (and not just acknowledging after 20 pages) can qualify as dangerous?

@AJK Acknowledging the existence of the other paper after 20 papers can actually qualify as suspicious and, as such, dangerous.

@PsySp - Because when you discuss other work extensively, especially in the introduction, it will look like you are building on previous work - because you have rewritten your paper in response to this other work. If this isn't done carefully, I think it can give the impression that one group is giving up any claim to priority.

@PsySp - the "note added in proof" approach is not as clear as it should be, but I think it's a well-understood convention that says, "We did this work independently, and want it to be judged separately."

@AJK If the results are clearly independent works, there can never be any danger in that. What you suggest is to hide the other result because of some fear of misunderstanding, but what you suggest is even more dangerous.

@AJK I strongly disagree with that. Any related result should be clearly mentioned especially if it's a timely one to avoid misunderstandings. What you propose does not solve, in my opinion, the real issue here.

@PsySp Like I said, I don't think the standard convention hides information, and I'm not advocating for not mentioning other results. I'm advocating for not editing the Introduction. My basis for worrying about this is experience where one group adds a "Note added" caveat, and the other doesn't. This is bad enough, but if one group changes their introduction, and the other doesn't?

@AJK this is problem of the group that doesn't change the introduction.

@AJK btw, I do not think there is "standard convention". In my personal experience, this happened twice and the other person cited and discussed my work in the beginning to make things clear enough that is a completely different approach. I was very glad (and did the same)

@PsySp - I agree that sensible discussion of other work is better, when it can be done in collaboration with the other team, and approaches are truly different. (I've also seen two papers merged into one when they were near-identical!). But for a referee to suggest this, as OP asks, seems like it is more likely to lead to asymmetric handling.

@AJK A referee makes a suggestion to improve the readability of the paper. If the OP believes that a potential reader would benefit more with the early mention and direct comparison of this related work (which I strongly advice) then the OP has every right to make this suggestion. The authors can respond if they don't like it for one reason or the other. But for the benefit of the future reader, it is highly advisable everything to be put into a clear perspective in the beginning.

I have seen papers that were in a slightly different situation than yours: on the cusp of going to print when a similar paper made its first appearance (on arXiv or in a journal if it didn't get put on arXiv first).  These papers often include a small paragraph at the end of the paper, immediately before the acknowledgments section, citing the paper, summarizing the results, and include a statement such as "this paper was published as we were going to print".

Agreed but this isn't the situation here so I don't see how you're answering the question.


text:
Can published papers outweigh average marks when applying to top institutions for MS?
I haven't been paying much attention to my marks during my undergrad (4 year undergrad), they haven't been terrible, but they are decidedly average. However, it looks like I could publish an economics paper this year and my supervisor wants to publish another one with me next year (I am currently in my third year).
So could these publications help with getting into top institution, assuming my marks improve from here on out?

Your marks must be sufficient to meet the minimum standard. (That is, if a top institution requires top grades, then you need to have them.) Once you've reached the minimum standard, papers may have influence. For an MS (I assume that is some form of master's), I suspect they will have far less weight than for a PhD, because a PhD supervisor will be interested in your ability to publish papers, whereas an MS admissions officer probably isn't so interested.

Thanks for the response! Yes, I used MS as an abbreviation for masters.


text:
Can I upload journal articles to a private git repo?
I have some journal articles that are obviously copyrighted in some form that I am not allowed to share with people who don't have a license.
I also have a private student git-repo. I want to know if it's okay to upload these articles to the repo, considering the repo is private?

Yes? Can you store them in your personal hard drive? Have them in your personal email? Download them to your computer temporary memory for visualizing them on the internet browser? In all cases only you have access to it, thus the same rules applies. However, you may just be using git wrongly, as its not a data storage platform, its a version control platform

No legal issues since it's private, but I can't imagine why you would store journal articles in a repo.

@user3765080 I can see it if you have for example lectures and example code for a class in a repo that you might also store readings there.

I store all important papers in a cloud, where I am the only one (beside the operating people) that has access. There are several such cloud solutions around, such as from DropBox, Microsoft and many others.
Unless there is an explicit statement that does not allow this, it is perfect (and until now, there has not been such a statement). The key is that you restrict access to yourself.
I would not use git for your case; it is intended for software development.

I would see some use-case to store some papers in a git repo, mostly for convienience. That said, the use of git-lfs(git-lfs repo) should be prefered for pdf and other large non changing binary files (images, sounds) .

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


text:
Is the conference a scam?
I have submitted a paper for a conference organized by the IRES. (details here: https://www.allconferencealert.com/event_detail.php?ev_id=80364) they accepted my paper within one day and instructed me to register. How will I know it is scam or not? Thanks in advance!

Yes, that's a scam. Ask a senior researcher at your group for advise where to submit your work.

looks very shady. the website collects all kinds of unrelated logos to make it seem legit. this includes the logo of the social science research centre berlin (which has nothing to do with engineering) and even the library of the town of hamburg. by the way, allconferencealert.com seems to be fraudulent all the way down.

The details include 188th International Conference on . . . As someone who's mostly used to major conferences being yearly (perhaps sometimes twice a year), "188th" certainly raises a red flag for me.

How many IRES conference papers have you cited?  How many IRES papers have the papers that you've cited cited?  How many IRES papers has your advisor cited?  If your answers to all three questions is "zero", it's not a good venue for your paper.

Usually conferences that are overly generic are a scam because anyone's work can fit in this category. Which field of engineering is this conference on? All engineering? This would hardly be an interesting conference to attend for engineers, because it would be very unlikely that someone else publishes in their specific field, on their topic or problem. There are conferences on sub-sub fields of engineering of more than a week in duration and this journal will cover any and all innovations in engineering in 2 days?
A good first start is to ask your supervisor or other professors in your field of study. Since your supervisor's name has to be on the paper alongside yours, they should guide you in this regard.
As a second filter, you should try and publish in a journal or conference that you cited often, or that published on work related to yours, as typically your own work would be a good fit there.
As a third filter, try and find papers that are published at this conference and see if they are any good, and if they all have the same style / formatting. I cant seem to find a template for this conference on their website, which is another red flag. Why would they allow everyone to just post in whatever format they choose?
Something odd, there is a gallery link to a generic gallery website (why would they have this unless it is a general catch all for a bunch of conferences), and none of the photos have any significant number of people in it. In the photos no one is smiling.
Finally, if your paper is accepted in 1 day or in a week, or in two weeks you know no academic or researcher looked at it. A good conference provides peer review feedback, typically of 3 reviewers, sometimes more. A response in a single day, guaranteed fake conference.
Random idea: Maybe we should have rubbish fake papers to submit to conferences before we submit our original work to test if it is a fake conference.


text:
What is the meaning of "honorable speaker"?
I have an email from the 2nd World Congress on Wind & Renewable Energy 2017 as an "Honorable Speaker" .... does that mean presenting a new paper and paying any fees?

Sounds like a scam to me.

I don't understand. Are they asking you to be an honorable speaker or is the email from an honorable speaker. You've written the former the question, as written, doesn't quite make sense then.


text:
PhD Dropout Applying to Unrelated Master's Program. How to explain it on SOP?
I dropped out of a PhD program four years ago after one semester in good standing and am now preparing an application for a master's program in an unrelated field.  Obviously, I have to submit my transcripts from all universities, and my quitting will raise some questions.  So, what can I say in my statement of purpose (or anywhere, I suppose) that will put my quitting in the best possible light?
Thanks in advance for all your help!

Well, yes, there were many reasons.  But mainly, here's what happened:  I stupidly accepted an unfunded offer, hoping to pick up a teaching position later to offset the costs.  But I soon concluded that the department had no intention of offering me a teaching position ever.  I was fighting an uphill battle.  So, I cut my losses and quit.  But blaming the department would reflect badly on me (even though it's true).  So, what should I do?

So it sounds like the root issue was financial because if you could have afforded it, you wouldn't have needed the teaching position.

That's right.  So, I guess the question becomes how to put dropping out for financial reasons in the best possible light.  How would you phrase it?

Financial considerations prevented me from continuing in the program; in the last x years, my interest has turned sharply toward (new field), which has turned out to be a better fit for me, so in a way I'm glad things turned out the way they did.

Tell the truth - whether that be it was too hard, you lost interest, you had a disagreement with the adviser, it was a financial hardship, you had personal or family issues come up, etc. etc. Whatever the reason, just tell the truth. The admissions committee have probably read enough personal statements to read between the lines. Sort of like how in a job interview if you said "I left because it wasn't a good fit", chances are you had a disagreement with your boss (or something like that).


text:
Can I apply for masters program on Polymer Science after having completed my masters of Pharmacy..
I completed my master in 2012 with a specialization in Pharmacognosy. After completing my graduation, I joined a company as a Pharmacist due to unavailability of job related to my area. Currently I am working as a asst prof in a reputed organization. Few months after joining i realized the narrow opportunities of Pharmacognosy. Later I started to search articles on natural polymers, that lead to go for a second masters program on polymer science.
Please suggest me am I in the right path. And how do I mention this on my application and statement of purpose/motivation letter.
Thank you in advance.

Look for other questions about switching fields -- you'll find some helpful general advice.


text:
When citing web sources, should I give the URL within the text itself?
When I am citing web sources, should I give the URL within the text itself?

Some URLs are insanely long and difficult to understand, especially if served by a database. Be careful that you don't insert essentially meaningless things that distract the reader.

Please add more details. A GitHub repo? absoutely. a nonsense url like buffs mentions, no

Usually, web sources have an author and a publication/creation date as well. These you can add in-text, and then put Author, Year, Title, website and retrieval date in the reference list.


text:
Is the university really important for picking a PhD?
I want to study for a PhD in robotics. The research laboratory is a renowned one but the associated university is not. In fact, the laboratory is part of a research institute.
Do you think that would be a desadvantage knowing that I intend to work in the industry after the Phd and not in academics?

This will likely depend on the country and company you will work for. One would hope that they would care only for your skills (which probably depend more on the laboratory than the university) but in reality it is not so easy...

What's more important is the supervisor, who will ensure you'll finish and end up with high quality publications.  Let's say you join a top university but never finish or someone does not have a good record.    Then you will have none of that.

Possible duplicate: University rank/stature - How much does it affect one's career post-Ph.D? and/or What's more important in choosing a PhD program, advisor or institution?

The university means something, but the reputation of the professor you will work with means much more. There are some top professors at "modest" universities. I assume that if the research lab is renowned it is for the faculty, not the overall institution of which it is a part.
And many people here seem to want to suggest, mistakenly, that some given university is not "renowned". Not every place is Oxbridge or MIT/Harvard, but plenty of great research comes out of those other "lesser" places. And even the "renowned" places may not excel in every field.


text:
Will publishing a first author paper in ICECE2020 conference help me when applying for a PhD admission in the USA?
I am in undergraduate. I wish to apply for scholarship to do PHD in the USA. Will publishing a paper in this conference (http://icece.buet.ac.bd/2020/) help me get funding?
It does not seem like a very reputable conference. However, I am not sure if my paper will be accepted in top tier conferences. So, is this conference 'better than nothing'? How much can a paper here help me?
thank you.

I don't know why you consider it not very reputable. I hope not just because it is held in Bangladesh. The university sponsoring it is over 100 years old.

@Buffy
actually i do consider it not reputable because it is held in a third world country. The university does produce many undergraduates who go on to top universities all over the world. Unfortunately, due to low budget the university faculty cannot do a lot of research.
I am still in undergrad, so don't know much about post grad stuff. But, I have heard from a few seniors that such conferences from our country don't mean much to the grad admissions committee.

I suggest that you take every opportunity open to you to do research and publish it. It will never hurt unless you publish in predatory venues.
The university sponsoring this conference is reputable (and has a long history). The conference is in their main line of interest. I don't think you should have any qualms about submitting to such a conference.
While it might be a bit "better" to publish via a conference in EU, say, or US, it is probably financially impossible. Take advantage of all opportunities as you start on what you hope is a long career. Small first steps can be positive steps.
People elsewhere will understand these things in evaluating your work.

Thank you. (I seem to not have enough points to up vote)
As a student from this country,  financial burden of publishing in foreign conferences really is troublesome.


text:
Meaning of "ADM: not assigned, Under Review" for IEEE Access
I submitted a paper to IEEE Access (at the website : https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ieee-access)
This is a re-submission revised according to reviews (all were accept with minor edits). On the journal’s home page I can see that EIC has been assigned but, the ADM has not been assigned. It also states: "Under Review".
Does this mean my manuscript has been sent to the reviewers OR, does nothing happen until the ADM has been assigned? In the official IEEE Access webpage for 'Stages of Peer Review', I can see nothing about the ADM.
Though there are similar questions, they seem to be for other specific journals.

Isn't ADM the admin person?  I believe the system has directly sent your article to the same reviewers for confirmation, and after that, the handling editor will be emailed to make a decision.  In general, you shouldn't be looking at every little change in your status.  The system works.  Just 'forget' about it for now, and if there are problems, they will email you!

@fac120  Same situation here. Any update from your submission?

@lenhhoxung My experience is only with IEEE Access and I can only speak from experience and by guessing. I am not sure if I am correct.
anyway, I think the review process did not begin before the ADM had been assigned. Because, on the day the ADM was assigned, we received an email like - "Dear ABC, We have started the review process for your article, but wanted to mention the '2021 IEEE Access Best Video Award Part 1'".
This makes me think the process was started after the ADM was assigned. We received decision around one month later.


text:
Do I need PhD to do research in Linguistics?
So I am finishing up a masters in Applied Linguistics in the UK. Do I need a PhD to do research in UK or U.S? I love research and want to do this for a living.
Thanks!

Check CVs of people who have the jobs you want.  I'm going to guess that most of them have PhDs, but be aware many people who have PhDs do not have research jobs.

Can you be more specific as to the kind of research you mean?

No, you don't actually need a doctorate to "do research" in most fields. What a doctorate does is give you some training and experience in it and, importantly, connects you with people who can help and the systems in which it is normally done.
But there are "independent researchers" in most fields - especially those that don't require expensive labs and such in order to work. It is a bit harder without a doctorate, especially at the beginning.
And it is also much harder to get hired as a researcher without the degree(s) that are considered normal in that field.


text:
How to deal with unbalanced collaborations?
As a postdoc in a theoretical STEM field, I have had many wonderful collaborations where all authors contribute non-trivially to the final product. However, there was also many "unbalanced" collaborations: where one author does 90% of the work for example. I am not talking about a situation in which a senior professor is automatically given authorship because of politics. For this question, let's say that we talk about collaborations between researchers of the same academic age/position (e.g. all postdocs).
These unbalanced collaborations are often not a problem per se but can be draining and time-consuming in the long run. To give an example, I have had collaborations where I was almost feeling like a PhD advisor to my collaborator, having to explain/redo everything. In contrast, the balanced collaborations that I experienced were always extremely enriching and efficient in comparison.
As a young and inexperienced researcher, my question is: what is the best approach to choose collaborators?
I see two extreme options:

Don't worry about it. Accept and nurture every collaboration as they come. If your collaborators are not useful, take the time to help them and make them grow, even at the expense of your own growth. At some point, you might also be the "useless" collaborator and you will be thankful to having been accepted in the collaboration.
Avoid unbalanced collaborations by seeking only collaborators you can benefit from. This is probably the best approach career-wise. However, I feel like it can lead to toxic behaviors which might do more harm than good in the long run.

Even though there is probably not a right answer to the question, this is something that has been bothering me lately, and I would benefit a lot from insights of more experienced researchers.
Many thanks!

Are you in a field where author order matters?

Related (but not an answer). https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/111859/i-independently-solved-a-fellow-students-research-problem-i-want-to-publish/111884#111884

In any collaboration, some degree of imbalance is inevitable. I've been on both sides of the matter, and the question I've always used to guide my collaboration decision is:
"Are all of the collaborating parties benefiting from the relationship?"
There are a lot of ways to evaluate this question, some very pragmatic and some very personal. Here are some factors one might consider: joy or lack thereof, how the relationship affects future job prospects, impact of the work, access to interesting future projects, opportunity cost for working on the project. It sounds from your description like your answer right now is no, so you should probably stop working with the person in question. Before doing so, ask yourself: "what would change this working relationship for me? Is there a way to make that change happen?" You might find some reasonable requests that encourage continuation, but more importantly this will help you wrap things up better. You do have an ethical obligation to bow out gracefully, though nothing is forcing you to and this may not be possible.

I am dealing with this exact problem right now. It's really annoying, especially in fields where authors are alphabetized.
I think in general you should avoid bad collaborations, both where toxic behavior runs rampant AND where collaborators are unhelpful. Sometimes there's a "fun" combination of both in which a collaborator is doing very little work very slowly, exploits your helpfulness, then takes credit for your work in meetings with senior collaborators. I suggest finishing the projects you have with people like this as quickly as possible (or bowing out/reprioritizing your time to more promising projects if you think it will be too draining) and then not working with them again in the future.
There are a ton of good collaborators out there, and as you grow your network you really shouldn't waste your time on toxic collaborations or bad collaborators. This doesn't have to be toxic in and of itself: if you find people you work well with and collaborations where everyone brings something useful to the table and pulls their weight, you'll generally have better experiences and produce better research. In a sense that's looking for people who will benefit your career, but hopefully the benefits are mutual and overall you have a good time doing science together.
I also think what goes around comes around, especially in author-alphabetized fields. Maybe people who do 10% of the work will get their name on a lot of papers as postdocs, but when it comes to faculty hiring, reputations are more established and faculty really pay attention to any comments about work distributions from your coauthors. People will take pity on a weak researcher and give them a postdoc sometimes if they have networking reasons to do so, but they are not going to extend the same charity when it comes to permanent positions.

wow I had no idea there were fields where authors were alphabetized that seems bad. Basically change your name to Aanthony Aardvaark..

@neuronet there's no point, being first on the list doesn't mean anything. People tend to refer to papers based on the most recognizable name (or name most associated with that line of work). Overall I like it, less grubbing over credit and more collaboration. Economics does it too, and there's an interesting study on implicit bias in that field about how women are severely under-credited bc people assume they didn't do first author level work.

Yes I guess I am used to the other way where it matters. But no matter how much people think it doesn't matter I guarantee it matters, even if it only because of the effects on people who are not in those subfields. (But not only b/c of that). You are right though it would save a lot of headache people are annoying when discussing these things I've had multiple arguments about 'Who's on first'

This is not a zero-sum game. Including someone as a co-author is almost always mutually beneficial, as long as the person contributes something. Who cares whether it's only a few paragraphs in the discussion and a few comments or a bit of software? They did improve the paper a little bit. In the end, the credit you receive for the paper isn't reduced by including someone else - maybe even on the contrary: intuitively, I value papers with many authors higher, because that means that more knowledgeable people put their thought into it. It will also be useful for future collaborations. So I find it's not helpful to be picky about co-authors, as long as they actually help.
Thus, I would argue that an imbalance regarding the amount of work put into a paper is not a problem at all. What is a problem of course is when someone does not actually contribute or, worse, is slowing down progress. In that case, you should be honest with yourself and the collaborators and quickly find a way to improve the working mode, or get rid of the collaboration (which can also mean simply not actively pursuing it anymore). Note that I'm all for helping collaborators grow! Find canvases for other people to paint on; make them look good. However, these people should also bring something to the table; otherwise, the collaboration is simply not a good fit for the two of you.
In my experience, the checklist for a successful collaboration goes something like this:

All collaborators have an intrinsic motivation to actively work on the project. This motivation must be significant enough to bring people to work on this instead of the 856 other interesting projects they have on their desk!
There is a clear and mutually agreed-upon assignment of work packages to collaborators. This should (roughly) be clear from the start. Ideally, the collaborators have complementary expertise, making the task distribution obvious.
Everybody gets along well with everybody else, and the working relationship is productive. There's no sense in collaborating with people who are stubborn, lazy, arrogant, or simply not fun to be around - even if they are highly respected experts. Interacting with your collaborators should not leave you with a bad feeling.

A caveat regarding "not a zero-sum game": I'm in a STEM/engineering field; this may differ in other fields.

If you're competing for jobs and someone does less work but gets the same credit, that definitely hurts you in the competition. Some people who play this game do it deliberately to get their names on more papers than they can support with their own work ethic, making them look artificially more productive than they are, giving them an unfair edge. It gets annoying at the postdoc level when job competition is fierce.

Consider a PhD student collaborating with his/her advisor, which is obviously imbalanced. Although the advisor must teach the student, and it takes the student more time to complete a task than it would the advisor, the advisor is often reducing his/her workload by teaching the student instead of performing the work on their own. For collaborating with your peers, you could think of it similarly - you may have to teach them some technical skills, but if it saves you time, that can still be a beneficial collaboration for you.
As an advisor, teaching a student can be a separate reward in addition to doing research. As you said, there can be other benefits in fostering collaborations besides completing papers quickly.
Ultimately, I think the choice is yours to make and depends on your goals and priorities. There's no obligation for you to perform 90% of the work in a collaboration. If your collaborator isn't pulling his/her weight, you could choose to do most of the work to obtain a publication, or instead focus on other research topics.

Consider a PhD student collaborating with his/her advisor, which is obviously imbalanced — Yes, but which way?

Unbalanced is the norm so they are best to be avoided.
Never write with anyone else unless you know for sure that they have something critical  you need to use.
If you do collaborate write a contract that spells out who will do  what and how much of the total effort.  If they come up short then they forfeit all rights to have their name on the paper.


text:
Can we be paid for research papers in any way?
I have written many papers and got them published but the problem is that publishing them takes a lot of money and resources and its not possible for me to continue writing if I am being charged for my own talent. To continue my talent I want some money for the articles that I have already published.

I suspect that this is an XY-problem type of question. Publishing research papers should not cost the author money, and if you do end up paying, you are probably doing something wrong.

@Arno: In a narrow sense, that is not necessarily true. In some fields where conferences are the primary method of publication, publishing something indeed requires paying the attendance fee for (and travel to) the conference - and independent researchers would have to pay that somehow. Whether there are possibilities to get someone else to pay for such expenses (e.g. by not being an independent researcher any more, but getting formally affiliated with some institution, or by securing some external funding) is indeed a question worth pursuing, though.

@O.R.Mapper But the question here seems to be about making  money from already published papers, which will usually simply be impossible.

@Amo Actually in many fields (I am most familiar with biomedical research) it is common for publishing to incur costs to the authors, whether a flat fee or by page, even in very reputable journals.

I'm a bit unclear on what you are looking for - the traditional methods of being paid to do research is 1) stipend as a grad student, or 2) job as an academic (professor, post doc, government lab, or industry lab). Are you looking for something outside of these options?

@Bryan Krause My understanding is that in those fields where publication charges are common, there are paid for by the institution or by a grant, not by personal funds from the researcher. If the former are not available, I would expect the fees to be waived.

"Doctor, it hurts when I do this." -- 'Then don't do it!" /// if publishing isn't of value to you, don't publish, but research papers are not in the business of being monetized. Maybe you can write for a popular (not academic) magazine instead?

I have some publications of my own, 4 to be precise. I don't think I will make any money out of them anytime in future. I don't really think, anyone can make money out of a research paper. If you are really into making money, I think you should go for publishing patents. If you patent something that others find useful(& worth spending money) you could probably get a licensing fee or may be come to some sort of monetary arrangement.


text:
contacting professors when looking for a job even if there are no advertised vacancies in their group
I am a fresh PhD graduate looking for a job. Is it a good idea to write directly to professors/group leaders, asking if there are any job openings in their group? If yes, how long/detailed such email should be?
I haven't published any papers during my PhD so I feel that my chances of getting a postdoc position are pretty slim. I would like to start somewhere as a research assistant to gain some experience, make connections with people, etc. I know that quite often RA positions are not advertised because professors just offer them to their own PhD students.

There is nothing wrong with unsolicited/ initiative applications in any context (not only academia). You just will need more frustration tolerance, because the chance to be successful is way slimmer than if applying for a posted job offer. Other than that, I would always say there is nothing to loose (and you don't need to gain a lot, just one position).

Your question is rather vague -- what does "is it a good idea" mean? If you're asking if you can write to professors? Sure; there's nothing to lose, and there may be people looking for lab technicians. (I've been in this situation of looking for someone to hire in the past.) Go for it! If you're asking if it's likely that you'll get a positive response: no, for all the reasons you state.
As for how long/detailed such an email should be: you should succinctly (in a paragraph or two) state your skills and goals and possibly point out abilities that are particularly useful for the group you're writing to. Attach a clear CV.
I should point out that the statement "I haven't published any papers during my PhD" is rather worrying, and it may be a good idea to explain this when writing. Good luck!

Better still: don't mention the lack of publications in the cover note (body of email).  Let's get them intrigued first.

This is a very vague question, but I had few friends with similar experience who used some tricks:
1- Do some deep research about the groups you wish to join, see if you can define a project which they have an interest in and you have some expertise in.
2- Try groups which seem to be rich. such groups have a higher interest in recruiting people who are defining new exciting projects.
3- Ask around and check if you can find someone who knows someone who knows someone...
Details of email depend on you. You could start by pointing out a seemingly challenging area(yet not too challenging) in their research field and mention how you project would yield probable developments in this area. Afterward, mention in one or two paragraphs your background and abilities and attach a detailed  CV and other documents which you find essential.

Some great ideas here!  Can you do some proofreading?

@aparente001 Sorry the academic language I usually work with is not english :) is the english I used too broken?

Well, for starters, let's look at the first phrase: "This ia a very vague questions" -- are you sure you can't find anything to fix there?!


text:
Mention a specific potential adviser in the PhD statement of purpose who strongly suggest to apply and use his name in the SOP
I am writing my statement of purpose for my Ph.D. and I want to work in a specific field with a specific professor in the department that I am going to apply for. I sent an email for that professor asking if he/she is accepting Ph.D. students and he/she strongly suggested me to apply and use his name in the SOP. If he already took the students he want. will I risk my admission to that school?

I am not sure I understand the question. You want to work in a specific field with a specific professor and the professor suggested you to use his name. Then you said "will I risk my admission to that school?".  What's the risk here?

If it turns out that the professor chose someone else and is no longer accepting students, would you still be interested in joining that department? If so, maybe you could explain that too in the SOP.


text:
Does it matter how many Nth authors there are on a literature review?
I am a student hoping to kick start my research career (biochemistry). I hope to start a PhD in the coming months and in the meantime have drafted a review which I hope to submit in the next few weeks.
I was wondering if it is important how many second/third/etc authors there are on the paper? At the moment I would have had 3 other people contribute/proof-read my review (including our PI), and potentially a 4th. When it comes to job hunting later on, or becoming a reputable researcher, would they check to see how many other authors worked on this review, or would it only matter that I am first author and the quality of the paper itself? In other words, is the lower the number of authors on a review the better, or does it not matter?

It might matter in some fields, and I'm not familiar with yours. However, proofreading isn't enough to earn authorship. Make sure people contribute intellectual content  if you want to make them authors.

It's unlikely a review paper at your career stage counts for much at all besides your own learning. Grad schools want students who will excel in research, and writing a review doesn't say much about that.

Whether a review has one, two or more authors does not really matter in biochemistry, but being first author is useful, and so is a good quality paper that gets cited. It will be very helpful for your career to build a network and show your skills, and a good way to do so is to collaborate on a review.
Buffy's comment is also correct: authors should contribute intellectually to a paper to earn authorship.
I don't mean to discourage you, but unless you are an exceptionally talented student and scientific writer, you probably need help from someone who has experience writing and publishing reviews to get your work accepted.
Most people would agree that there is a difference between a review written by 1-5 authors and one by 20 authors (if those exist - I do not remember reading one). And of course there are always the rare exceptions of readers who value single author papers more (you did everything yourself), or who may prefer multiple-author papers (you can collaborate).


text:
Should I contact a potential PhD supervisor who strongly encouraged me to apply after not having heard from my application?
I have applied to an interdisciplinary program in a very top US university. My undergrad is in one of the fields involved. Back in November, I contacted a potential PhD supervisor (sending him my CV). We had a chat over Zoom, and he told me that I "will get offers". He told me has spoken about me to a Prof at my current institution who knows me, and based on my background, we started discussion potential projects and co-supervisors. He encouraged me to chat with one of his current grad students, whose undergrad is on the same field as mine. When I chatted with the PhD student, he was really trying to "sell" me the university. He told me that it was very likely that I will get invited for an interview and get offers. It's now February and:

I haven't heard anything from the program
In gradcafe, at least 2 students mentioned that they were invited for interviews in December
I asked the PhD student if he knows anything, he said he doesn't.

Should I contact the potential supervisor, in case my application was overlooked and he can still do something? (He is not on the main committee of the program, though.) On the other hand, I am afraid of looking impatient or unpolite, and ruining my remaining chances of getting in.
(Note: I am an international student, studying outside the US. Is there any chance that international applications are processed later, or don't get interviews because of timezones?)

Do you have offers from other universities and are waiting to hear from this one before making a decision? It seems like you have nothing to lose by asking them. You can just send a short, polite email asking if there are any updates on your application.

Thank you for your answer. I am waiting to hear back from all of the other institutions too

In some cases, the department might consider your conversation with the faculty member your “interview” if there were no red flags with your application. In my program, there were generally a couple of applicants who were so strong they skipped the interview phase each year.

From my experiences in an engineering program at a public university, I've heard that domestic applicants are processed first. I don't think it would hurt to follow up with the potential supervisor. I agree with astronat above about sending a  polite email to follow up with the potential Ph.D. supervisor. You could also ask this professor when you can expect to hear back from the university.


text:
How much plagiarism would you consider too much in an academic book?
I appreciate the technical answer to this is "zero", but in reality, there is probably some room for pragmatism.
I have identified a senior academic, who in two published books has copied and pasted short sections (up to a paragraph) without citiation, or copied and pasted verbatim without using quotes, but citing the source, to make it look they have paraphrased the work.
I have identified so far around 50 examples. Would you consider this a serious case of plagiarism, or would it be assessed as minor?

Just a short comment: pragmatism != plagiarism.^^
Regarding your main question: There are no strict rules saying "10% is ok, everything more is bad" and I think this site is the wrong place for opinion based questions...

I suppose a fairer question then might be, how do I get some independent advice on how much is too much?

For such advice you might want to find an expert on the field, who knows both the book and the cited (or maybe mis-cited) papers.

I disagree with the close votes. There is certainly some margin of appreciation, but this doesn't make the question "opinion-based". The margin itself can be specified.

Why are you asking? What are you going to do if our answer is: too much? How are you related to the author and publisher of the book? How are your respective seniorities related?

I'm junior in seniority, and therefore I'm not sure what I'm going to do. I'm aware that in such a situation, junior staff don't do well in reporting these kinds of things

There is no clear quantitative cut-off point, if that's what you're looking for.
The severity of plagiarism has to be evaluated qualitatively and within the context of the work itself and of the discipline and its conventions (e.g. regarding citations and "public", unattributable knowledge). Qualitatively here means several things:

Has the author fraudulently claimed a major idea or a finding? Even with perfect paraphrasing, this -- it might be argued -- is the most severe form of plagiarism.
Has the author claimed an idea as original that is only tangential to the author's contribution (but doesn't bear much argumentative weight)?
Is the author merely sloppy with citations, i.e. can it be guessed from the context that the passage was meant as citation, that the attribution was (conveniently) forgotten; or is it merely incomplete or erroneous?
Are we talking about "self-plagiarism" (if that exits)?

Depending on the answers to these questions, 50 examples might be a scandal or not worth making a fuzz about.
Moreover, even if plagiarism could be evaluated only quantitatively, it is unclear what you would measure. The number of copied and unattributed passages? The length of each problematic passage? The ratio of changed words in a paraphrase?

Thanks, i know there's no magic figure (12.7% and it's a scandal). What I'm faced with are two books that sit somewhere between a textbook and an academic monograph. Much of the book reads like an extended literature review. The books aren't particularly orignal therefore. There are then around 50 paragraphs (at least) that are copied and pasted from other works. I would be interested in seeking independent advice on whether this is a scandal, or merely sloppy.

@user73276 Other works by the same author or by different authors? If by the same author, it might be self-plagiarism (depending on particular standards of the community), but almost certainly not significant in this case. If the material is take from different authors and not in a context where it could reasonably be sloppy quotations, then it sounds pretty scandalous to me.

It is the work of other authors

I agree with @jakebeal here. In the way you describe it, it sounds like quite severe plagiarism.

That should be a question to the publishers of the books. They are the copyright holders, I suppose.
if there is some misattribution of scientific results, the story is different - could be the case if one book was published with a coauthor, and a more prominent version was published without the same coauthor (that would be an authorship issue)


text:
Understanding the works of intellectuals
I'm a master's graduate in biology. I completed a thesis recently on 'Social science in the age of biology'. It discusses how social scientists and biologists approach and answer questions pertaining to human behaviour and organisation of society differently. I was able to complete this thesis because I was guided by a social scientist. I developed a keen interest in the social sciences.
I am now reading Foucault's ' Madness and Civilization' and Marx's ' Capital' and am finding it very difficult to decipher the text, even after understanding the individual words. Why is it that I'm finding it so difficult to make sense of the works of intellectuals in the social sciences? The amount of abstraction is also lesser as compared to the sciences, in which I have some training. My reading and comprehension skills are also reasonably good.
What can I do to bridge the gaps in my ability to comprehend the works of intellectuals in the social sciences?
Is doing coursework necessary?

Field apart, you would probably find equally hard to read hard sciences' works from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, especially if the original works were not written in English, with, e.g., long and convoluted sentences. Language changes with time and it's hard to read texts from a distant past, if one is not used to.

I've read mostly textbooks and current research papers in the hard sciences. So, if what you're saying is correct, the problem lies in the language belonging to a different time period?

The sentences are long. But I can make sense of quite long sentences. With these works though, I understand the individual words, but I fail to understand what point the author is trying to make.

It's not the only problem, but it's a major one, yes.

Could it possible that I haven't experienced the phenomenon that the author is referring to and hence, unable to relate to what they are conveying? Or am I unable to experience them vicariously either because the sentences though long, are pithy, in that they require much more examples and discussion for me to make sense of them and relate to them?

@MassimoOrtolano is sort of correct. Foucault purposefully employs complicated syntax, because that was the style of the time. (Just try reading Derrida, for example...)

Foucault is notoriously difficult even for people in the social sciences. I know PhDs in philosopy and sociology openly declaring that Foucault is one of the most difficult philosopher to understand, only topped by people like Jacques Derrida

You can't understand Foucault, and if you think you did, you can't prove it. He didn't express himself in a way that allows you to know whether you understood him. You can interpret him in one way or another and yell at people for not interpreting him the same way, though, if you're into that kind of thing. Note that by understanding I mean knowing for every word in every sentence what it contributes, not just getting the general gist of his text.

There is a Philosophy.SE where you might find more philosophy-specific advice.

These authors wrote for a particular audience and you, as a person living in 2017, are not who they had in mind. Part of comprehending text is being able to attach it to something that provides context to the text. You probably don't have this. Before reading books such as these try reading a modern summary that also provides context. This will give you a better chance at comprehension.
Additionally, the style of writing has evolved substantially since these books were written. Today authors (should) write for clarity. This wasn't always the case.

How could the target audience understand the texts in their time then, if they lacked context?

The target audience would have understood these books because they had the necessary experiences. The audience was of the time in which the books were written and the ideas presented in these books were not altogether new. It's likely that readers would have a back ground in these areas. Additionally, they would have had discussions related to the topics tackled in these books. Also, not everyone would have understood the point of the books. Just like today, people claim to have an understanding of a concept even if they don't.

That applies partially to Marx but not to Foucault, who published into the 1980s.

Foucault is French, and French academia is also exceptionally "foreign" to people outside that bubble.


text:
if an academic writer critiques your study using an approach you are not familiar with, should you bother responding?
I came across an article claiming that 82 percent of peer-reviewed publications in Humanities are not even cited once, let alone read by the general public. What's more interesting is that the increased specialization in contemporary Humanities further narrows down the target readers of academic publications to such an extent that these publications become inaccessible to most other professors.
This leads me to my question: if an academic writer critiques your study using an approach you are not familiar with or do not understand, should you bother responding to the criticism?
Say, for example, that philosophy professor A published an article explaining "right" and "wrong" using traditional conceptual analysis. Philosophy professor B, who specializes in mathematics, critiqued her paper by employing formal models. Assuming that philosopher A does not specialize in math, should she bother responding to the criticism?

Yes. Because, research is not specialized and concentrated to single narrow field.

This seems to be either to vague or too broad to be answerable in general. (at least in philosophy, there's no possible way one could address every potential critic of one's view and a philosophy of math professor may have strong opinions about ethics but unless the paper is deeply flawed, these should be rather old hat and reveal more about this professor's intuitions in ethics than represent a solid critique worthy of rebuttal)... but again are we referring to a critique in publication or just a verbal claim or e-mail that one's paper is subject to critique?

I agree with @virmaior.  Much depends on the venue of the criticism.

You are asking about cases where an idea you have put forward is criticised on the basis of a theory that you are not familiar with, which might require some investment of time to understand.  The example you give of two philosophy professors is a good one.
There is a time-cost involved in any attempt to learn a new discipline area, even to the level that would allow you to understand an argument directed against your work.  While the time cost might be too steep in some rare cases, as a general principle, if you are going to set out arguments and ideas on an academic subject, you should be willing to invest the required time to understand the arguments that bear on your subject matter.  This is a normal part of academic work; it requires you to read outside your own speciality on occasion to understand some outside idea.  This is also a useful way of expanding your knowledge and acquiring some interdisciplinary knowledge to allow some communication between different fields.
Although there is a time-cost to this kind of study, it is highly beneficial in giving a more rounded understanding of a subject area.  Having said this, there is generally a large difference between the amount of time required to learn a subject well enough to understand a criticism (a short time), and the amount of time required to learn a subject well enough to create new work in that area (a long time).  It is reasonable in cases like this to at least learn enough to understand and evaluate the argument made against your work, and be able to respond cogently to this argument.  If this piques further interest then it might lead to deeper study, but that is not a necessity.
Your example with the philosophy professors: In this example there is a time-cost to the first professor to learn enough about formal models of normative ethical operators (presumably some kind of modal logic) to work in that field.  However, he shouldn't need much time to learn enough to understand the particular argument made in that formalism that is deployed against his argument.  This is effectively just a translation of an argument in another language (mathematical formalism) into terms that he can understand.  It will require him to go through bit-by-bit and learn the specific aspects of the formalism that are deployed in that case, which is a lot smaller task than becoming an expert in modal logic.  Once he has done this, he should be able to understand and respond to the argument (in his own words - not necessarily in the formalism!).  If that argument is important or interesting it may pique his interest and lead to further study in modal logic ---e.g., he might decide he wishes to learn enough to couch his own ideas in the formalism, and thereby provide a contrary model in the formalism as a counter-argument.


text:
Deletion of author when submit the revised version of the submitted paper
I have a question about the general regulation of VLDB for deletion of author when submit the revised version of the submitted paper (but the paper was rejected finally).
I found a link https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/sample-correspondence-for-an-editorial-office/addition-or-deletion-of-author-before-publication/ about making author changes before paper publication but not for my case.
Suppose our team (3 members) submitted a paper to VLDB, we revised the paper after received the comments from the reviewers.
We didn't include the work from one of the members in the revised version of the submitted paper.
Is it possible for us to remove this author from the paper when submit the revised version of the submitted paper?
What are the procedures required for such change?
Thank you very much!
Best Regards,
Chris.

Did you also remove his/her contribution from the whole paper (i.e. even from the original submitted draft = the revised paper doesn't have any input from the deleted author)?

Original Submitted Draft (3 authors) & its Revised Version (2 authors). Did you mean we could apply for deletion of author for the original submitted draft to VLDB first and then submitted the revised version to VLDB?

I was trying to say that it wouldn't be fair to remove the 3rd aut. from the paper if some of his/her contribution is still present in the revised manuscript. Although the content of the revised manuscript doesn't have input from the 3rd aut. the paper's core idea/concept/flow etc. might have been because of some of his/her work. In general, being an author doesn't specifically mean that you need to "write" a section or few pages. Sometimes, a notable contribution that is worthy of being an author can be through other things. You need to decide and see to what extent is the 3rd aut. involved.

How did the editor answer this question?  (You did ask the editor this question, didn't you?)

By the way, what does "VLDB" stand for?

Yes, everything about the author proposed to be removed from the revised version of the submitted paper was completely removed.

No, I didn't. The case involved was related to VLDB 2014. Here, I just wanted to check if whether the "author changes" could be made to prevent any argument even this paper was rejected finally.

VLDB stands for Very Large Data Base.

Is this third author willing to give up authorship?  If so, the third author should contact the editor and explain that they want their name taken off of the revised paper and explain why.  In my experience, this is not a problem if the departing author has requested that their name be removed from the paper.


text:
In writing, do I need to define an abbreviation when it is already an industry standard term?
When writing academic and scientific literature, are there any good guidelines to when you can omit defining an industry standard abbreviation? Are there any guidelines to where you can draw the line? When looking the this up I found a few sources like this blogpost that suggested using dictionaries - if it is in the dictionary as a word, you don't need to explain it.
However, in my field (electrical engineering) there are many industry standard abbreviations that are not in any dictionaries. Examples would be terms like opamp (operational amplifier), ADC (analog-to-digital converter), CPU (central processing unit), MOSFET (Metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor). Applying their rule would mean I have to define every term, but this would seem somewhat excessive to me.
How do I deal with industry standard terms that are still abbreviations? The safe bet would be to always define them in their first use, but are there any general rules to use when dealing with these?

Your examples, MOSFET, CPU and ADC, can be all found in dictionaries.

Interesting. I must have a bad dictionary. I checked with the oxford dictionary, and indeed, these are all in there.

Make your best guess (after reading relevant instructions), and let the page editors worry about what you got right or wrong.  That's one of their jobs.

Ask yourself the question: If, in 50 years, someone that knows a bit on electrical engineering reads your article, would he understand it?

Let us assume that your publisher / journal / conference / style manual has no restrictive guideline regarding abbreviations (otherwise, follow that guideline obviously in first place).
You do have to define every abbreviation. (As an example, I was confused yesterday by finding out that CRT is not only a cathode ray tube, but also the Chinese Remainder Theorem). Consider, e.g., the huge list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADC . But you can do it in a clever, space-conserving way by

providing a list in an appendix,
defining them in footnotes on their first usage,
defining all of them in small size in a "preliminaries section" or in endnotes,
giving a reference to a standard Web site with the abbreviations you need,
giving a reference to your own Web page with the abbreviations you need,
citing some electrical-engineering dictionary which defines them unambiguously the way you need,
…

Of course, pay attention that your paper reads well in first place; there may be no general advice on which of the above list items applies best to your paper.

"You do have to define every abbreviation." Not true in general. For example, defining "HTTP" in a web-engineering conference would be weird.

I have nether heard of a cathode ray tube, but am very familiar with the Chinese Remainder Theorem, thus I like your example. :) Apart from that I agree with your proposal of a list in the appendix: In such a list, it doesn't matter if even HTTP is mentioned, it is thoroughly done, that's all. However, I would not include it on the first use, as this will hinder the reading. Put it in the end, mention it in the introduction and whoever doesn't know a term can look it up.


text:
How can I find a mentor (not a supervisor)?
I am a first-year PhD student. My lab is very small and quite disconnected in terms of research from other groups in my department (we're interdisciplinary, the other groups are not)
There are some postdocs from other institutions that I often email/Zoom for advice, but only if I have a fairly specific question. Other than that, I don't have a "mentor" (see this related question https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/132263/131374 ).
Of course, my PhD supervisor does provide advice, but I would like to have an academic mentor, beyond them. Perhaps outside of my subfield, I'm thinking some of the professors from my department whose classes I've taken. I think I'd find it useful to get impartial advice and it'd also allow me to be more honest.
Is there an etiquette for asking someone to mentor you? Can I just cold-email them? if so, what do I say? Should I stick with the postdocs and not bother the professors?
why do (busy) academics mentor younger researchers? Why should they mentor me, and not someone else? Of course, I've seen some people listing "mentor for X" in their CV, but I'd bet that's not the reason they do it.

Mentorship need not be formal. It doesn't actually need to be known to the mentor for many purposes. I had a number of mentors over my student career (and maybe later) without much thought given to it.
Find someone you admire for something important, such as their teaching, their research, their relationships,..., whatever. Observe what the do and try to emulate it.
Use what opportunities are open to you to talk to them and interact with them in informal settings, though even in class can be good in some instances. But visit them in the office if that is open to you. Ask questions about things that concern you, not just coursework. If the environment is informal, develop a first-name relationship, though that isn't essential. Early on that wouldn't have been possible for me, but later it was.
But, such things can lead to situations in which they become, not only mentors, but sponsors in some ways for your career, both in giving you advice and in supporting your career efforts.
Don't force it. Let it develop, like any lasting human relationship. Support them as well when any need arises.
In some cases, mentors can become collaborators, though that never happened to me. I've known it to happen however. I did become "fishing buddies" with one of my mentors, however. And had the opportunity to return later to thank him for his support at a critical time as well as his example as a professor.


text:
IEEE papers: reference of software used to design
In IEEE style, should I provide a citation to the 'product page' of general, commercial software used in design and simulations?
I've seen some papers do this:
"This antenna was designed with super-antenna-designer-5000 [3]" and then in the references you would see:
"[3] Super antenna designer 5000 product page. Online at superantennadesigner5000.com/about"
I've also seen papers just not give a reference to the software when they mention it. After looking around online for a while I couldn't find any clear guidelines on what I should do here. On the one hand, I always like to go with the mindset that it tends to be better to refer to something too often than to omit it, after all, the reader can ignore things they don't care about, but cannot add things they don't know. At the same time, I feel like I can spend those 3 lines of text in my maximum-3-page paper on something more important. After all, there is not much useful info to be gained with linking to an about-page, nor is this an example of using previous research work to build on top of.

Frankly, most people don't care about a strict implementation of the IEEE style. A space-saving solution is to give the URL as part of the text: "The antenna was designed with super-antenna-designer-5000 (superantennadesigner5000.com)".

@lighthousekeeper I know people tend to have a lose interpretation of the style and don't care, but I do. It feels a bit hypocritical to insist on proper style and referencing to my students, just to then not do it right myself in actual scientific publications.

You already point to the trade-off between a sane use of space and 100% style compliance. If you strive for the latter, your best bet would be the IEEE style guidelines.


text:
Proper way of marking dimensions of a drawing in a paper
In a paper I am writing, I will give a figure that shows the mechanical dimensions of a object. I was wondering what the right way to reference the dimensions was, since I have seen multiple ways of this being done.
One way I have seen it done often is with parameters in the drawing, and text describing the values (either in the full text of the figure caption). For example:

This way offers you the flexibility to talk about the same values in a equation (for example, "It was found that performance was optimal when R1 = D2/2")
An alternative is to have the dimensions directly in the image. This way the reader can just skim through the figures to have an idea about the dimensions, instead of having to read the paper to know them (which can be useful, as often we might want to quickly scan a paper to see if it is what we are looking for before reading it entirely).
This would look like this:

And finaly one could combine the two, and have it say for example "W1 = 7" in the figure. I don't like this that much as it starts to get very messy and crowded very quickly, and lowers the clarity of the figure.
Is there a ''correct'' way to do it?

I don’t think this is a question about academia.

In my opinion it depends on why the figure is part of the paper.  Say you wont to emphasize a particular set-up , for instance in experimental section or whatever section dealing with experimental details (size and shape ) because necessary for the discussion, then I would explicitly quote the numbers.
If you are to discuss relation which are general then use letters
If a wish a particular triangle I would cite three numbers. If I discuss Pytagorean theorem is fine and more useful to draw A, B e C.


text:
Presenting a paper at a conference: Should I use the same figures as in the paper for the presentation
I submitted a paper (together with my team) for a conference. The paper has been accepted and I have been asked as speaker to present this work.
In my presentation, should I try to use exact copies of the figures used in the paper, or should I adapt the figures?
Changing figures could make them a bit clearer in the context of a presentation (for example, the presentations are to be done with 16:9 slides, but the paper is written in two-column text, and as such has rather square graphs), but I don't know if this will make them harder to relate to the graphs in the paper.

Something that I saw at a conference recently and liked was figures being taken from papers but with much bigger axes labels to make it easy to read on a slide and arrows drawn on to highlight important points.

Prepare your figures for optimal use of the medium at hand.
The main goal for your presentation will be to present the content and impact of your research and to advertise your paper to the audience. In my experience, the format of a journal paper figure is usually not the best to convey the most information in a slide presentation, and you also seem to be aware of this.
Since you want to make the presentation as convincing as possible, I would suggest to prepare any figure for the best possible appearance in the presentation, just as you had prepared the original figures for their best possible appearance in a paper. If a paper figure would waste beamer screen space, rescale it for the presentation. If color would help explaning the figure but the journal only has grayscale, add color for the presentation. And so on..
You want to win readers for your paper, and I am sure that most of them will recognize the figures and their meaning later when reading the paper. Those modifications may change the style or layout of the figure, but even then, the content of the figure (e.g. the general appearance or tendency of a graph or diagram) will not change drastically. What will change is how interesting the figure appears to the audience, and you want to benefit from that.


text:
Including time-specific measures
When writing a thesis or a research paper in general, is it advisable to include "time-specific measures" like

[...] over the course of the last five years [...]

or

Two years ago, it was discovered [...]

?
After all, if it is a working paper which gets published in a journal a few years after completion, the reader might get a wrong idea about when certain events happened in the past.
I wonder whether it is acceptable to include them nonetheless.

Readers will tend to reference measures like this from the publication date, since that is typically the only information they have.  So if you write today, in 2017, that "five years ago, X happened" (i.e. in 2012), but then the article is not published until 2019 (which would be normal in some fields), then, as you say, the reader will mistakenly guess that X happened in 2014.
As such, I would avoid talking about specific numbers of years.  If the precise year is important, give the year ("in 2012, X happened").  If the year is not important, you can use less specific terms like "recently".
If you are writing for a conference, or another situation where you know for sure when the paper would be published, then such expressions would be more reasonable.  But it still means that a future reader may have to flip back to the article's title page to check the publication date, which can be a little distracting.

Thanks for your comprehensive answer, will keep that in mind!


text:
Inability to secure any research position after PhD and postdoc. I am stuck with my low prospects research field. How do I proceed with my career?
My PhD research was in computational modeling of shot peening process using finite element analysis. An example publication can be found here. I did my PhD and currently pursuing my postdoc in the same Canadian university.
My research was entirely computational. It was not a high impact research nor complex. Nor did I publish in any high impact journal. The highest impact factor journal I could publish in was 3.8.
I have published 8 publications till date (4 First author, 4 co-authored). I can publish many papers on my topic as there's countless parameters to play with and so much physics to learn.
However, all jobs in my field are experimental. I have been searching for jobs (industry and academia) for the past year. I can't find any job in computational modeling. All openings are in experimental work.
I made a mistake in not carrying out any experimental work in my research. I should have thought about future aspects 6 years ago before selecting this field.
Any advice on how to change a career path after PhD and Postdoc? I have to get experimental experience in my repertoire. Also, everyone wants machine learning experience from computational researchers now. I don't have time to gain knowledge in it.
Currently, I am a postdoc with my PhD advisor and I am actively searching for positions elsewhere. However, I am not getting response from any university/industry elsewhere. I seriously need some guidance.

@Libor I am applying to positions but I am not getting any response. I don't know what I am doing wrong.

You may wish to look at the workplace.SE; non-research careers are outside of our expertise. I suspect hiring a professional to review your resume and cover letter may be a good investment.

Never look for the job only in computational modelling. Start making a list of your skills:

Programming
Math
Mechanical engg
surface treatments

Take all the keywords from your paper. Or list common things that you can relate to industry. Search for these.
And it is not always necessary to always be in research after Postdoc. Even PhD in biology have found their way into programming.
Good luck.

Thank you for your advice. I am decent in programming, objectively bad in maths and fundamentals of mechanical engineering. I am good in modeling surface engineering related research. I don't really know what kind of jobs would be appropriate for me.

Please look at some professional help at brushing up CV. Start from scratch. Different jobs needs different types of cover letter. Never say 'bad' at math. Everyone has different sets of skills: Perhaps you can use this time to learn DevOps (like system admin). I am sure a lot of small-middle size companies may need some one with eye on partial programming (but maintaining engineering stuff). Look for persons that already have positions that you want (in linkedin or something equiv) and see their skills. Sometimes companies need people with a bit math, a bit modelling a bit .... something.


text:
Is it possible to have a career in academia and not be confident in their field of research?
I thought getting a PhD in my mechanical engineering field would lead in gaining confidence in the field. However, it became other way round. I am far less confident on my skills and knowledge than I was when I started my PhD.
I am well published in my research field, I have decent theoretical knowledge about my field. However, I am not confident. I often hesitate with my answer, even though I know I am right.
I get afraid before starting a new project and technique even though I am sure that I can acquire new skillsets easily.
Self doubts is a recurring theme during all research endeavors. When I feel low confidence, I also start to regret my decisions to be in academia and pursue masters and PhD.
Does anyone else get this feeling? How to cope up? Can I find a place in academia with this issue?

Lots of people feel hesitant or afraid in any profession.  If you feel that way and it is a problem for you, then you should discuss it with a mental health professional.

Everything is possible. There can be who has not clue at all.

are your PhD about theoretical research or experimental research?

@kate theoretical.

Confidence and competence are not the same thing. The former may be unrelated to the latter for some. In either direction, actually. I've met confident fools.

This is very possible. Many people in academia struggle with impostor syndrome and find themselves on the "I know how much I don't know" side of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
While this is common, that doesn't mean it's a good thing - it makes you miserable and so it's worth doing something about it. There are a number of things you can do:

Check if your university has counseling services. This is something they'll have experience with.

Having the occasional honest talk with your peers. It can take a big load off your shoulders to find out that other people at your level also aren't always confident. One of my professors noted that a lot of academics like being a "magician", able to conjure amazing results seemingly without effort. But most magician's tricks take lots of practice that you never see.

Teach or coach students at a lower level than your own, like Masters or beginning PhDs - you have a lot to share with them, and it can help ground your confidence to see just how much you do know.

Find colleagues you can trust to occasionally talk over your work with. They don't have to be exactly in your precise field, but close enough that they can ask critical questions. It can boost your confidence to know that you do have a backup that helps you avoid missing "the obvious".

To summarize: what you're experiencing is not unusual, it's a normal result of being smart enough to know what you don't know, but you don't have to suffer. Help is available.

Some very competent people continuously compare themselves with others who they judge are better than they are. This, alone, can lead to a lack of confidence.

It is also possible to have a career in academia where you primarily focus on teaching and public service.  Such positions would probably not be found at a top research university (unless your "public service" area is something they desperately want to get), but could be at a regional university, a 4-year college, or a community college.


text:
Continuing to list as second affiliation an institute where you've never had a paid position
This question is similar to other questions of affiliation, but I cannot find anything that quite addresses it. Perhaps this is closest: Adding affiliation due to a 1-month visit during a salary gap
I am the PI on a grant in mathematics. On the grant I have a collaborator and postdoc employed at 100% capacity (1 FTE). We are about to have a paper published. In addition to his current affiliation, University A, he wants to list University B at which he did his last postdoc, which I think is fine as much of the work on the paper was carried out there.
In addition, he wants to list a third affiliation, University C. He has never had a paid position at University C. It seems that someone at University C said it would be okay to use this affiliation during a period of time when he was unemployed but looking for another postdoc. None of the work of the current paper was done during this time of unemployment. Indeed, he plans to keep using this affiliation in the future. As far as I know, he has no collaborations with any researchers there, nor has he lived in the city where the university is located during this time of unemployment. I cannot find any online reference to his being at that university, other than those references he has created himself (eg. I find papers of his, or his CV or personal website, but nothing from the university itself).
Is using this affiliation ethical?
I understand that one should generally leave it up to their collaborators to decide their affiliations. However, in this case, he is employed on my grant at 100% capacity and I am worried the granting agency will not be happy that he is also apparently employed at the same time at another university in another country.
I have suggested he put University C in the acknowledgments section, but he is not willing to accept this compromise.

I would not consider this ethical. However, it sounds like the deeper questions are (1) as the PI and line manager of the postdoc, is it your responsibility to police his behaviour on this? Or possibly (2) what consequences could you face from the funders for his behaviour? Or even (3), how do you resolve this when it sounds like you've already tried explaining your concerns? "As far as I know, he has no collaborations with any researchers there" sounds like you may not have had a proper conversation to ask his reasoning, raise your concerns and talk about possible consequences.

Yes, I suppose (1), (2), and (3) are the more immediate issues I have to deal with.  I have tried to raise my concerns. I asked him why he was so keen to list them when he's never had a job there and he only said that "University C helped me a lot".  For me this suggests they belong in the acknowledgments only.

Is he happy with just acknowledgements? Can you ask for someone to contact at University C? Otherwise you can say you would refuse.

He refused to put it in the acknowledgments and said I had no business telling him what his affiliations should be.

It’s dishonest (and therefore unethical in almost all normal circumstances) to represent yourself as something you’re not. That’s what your grant employee wants to do by listing his affiliation as a place where he doesn’t hold an official title (and it’s irrelevant whether “someone said it’s okay” unless perhaps that someone is a dean or a similar high-ranking person who has the authority to give people official titles; it’s also not strictly speaking relevant whether he had a “paid position” or not - some official titles are unpaid).
As for what to do, I agree with your reasoning that this is your responsibility since he is paid with your grant funds. It’s perfectly appropriate for you to say that he cannot write this dishonest affiliation in any paper that is funded by your grant. If he does not accept this, you should check with your institution what enforcement or disciplinary measures can be taken in connection with this type of employee insubordination. It may also be worth trying to talk to him informally (perhaps in the presence of a “neutral” senior colleague) and see if you can understand the motive for this behavior; possibly it’s based on some misconception on the part of the employee, and you may be able to convince him that there’s nothing to be gained, and much to be lost, from this type of dishonest behavior.

I would suggest that only the current institution be listed as affiliation. If you want to have an acknowledgements section, then University B could be listed as prior affiliation. But I don't see any basis for listing C and I think they might object.
An "affiliation" really needs to be acknowledged by both the person and the institution. It ends when you leave their employ, unless it is specifically granted (as for a "professor emeritus").
But, he is no longer affiliated with B and seems never to have been with C. Keep it clean and simple.
I might enjoy listing an affiliation with MIT and Charles (Czech Republic), but it would be wrong. I have known people from both places, however.


text:
If I withdraw my published paper from an SCI journal (Elsevier publisher) due to some conflicting issues; will it appear online after the withdrawal?
My paper is appeared online 6 months ago, but due to some confidentiality of the data used in that paper, the company asked us to withdraw the paper. Their opinion is that, the authors didn't ask the permission to use their data, they just cited them.
Me and co-authors are OK with the withdrawal but we are confused that will it be there online after cancellation (with some notice in Red writing: CANCELLED due to this reason etc.) Or it will disappear online after cancellation?

This seems like a very good question to ask the publisher.

@TobiasKildetoft Exactly. Why you ask us and not directly the editor/publisher?

@ Tobias, PsySp and Roland: Thanks a lot for these valuable answers.

There is no reliable way to make information on the internet go away.

I think the most common practice is keeping your article online with a notice that it has been retracted. You can search for retracted articles to see examples for this situation or Retraction watch.


text:
In which kind of Journal should i publish my math applied based paper regarding a political problem?
I'm currently working on a voting analysis paper, most of the theory is about, "math", i'm talking about linear algebra, programming, big data, and that specific knowledge area, however the paper is all oriented into  a specific problem regarding politics as it's entirely related to voting analysis and stablishing political networks based on it, so to which kind of journal would be better to send it in order to get published, one of applied math, or one of political science. i've check and it meets requirements of both journals.
Which are the advantages of publishing on one instead of the other?

I think this answer is relevant: https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/42389/10529