text:
What does it mean when it says on a grad school application to choose recommender "familiar with the candidate's scholarly abilities"?
I'm applying to graduate programs in Biomedical Engineering. The University of Pennsylvania application says the author of one letter of recommendation must be a faculty member who is familiar with the candidate's scholarly abilities. In layman's terms, does this mean they want a letter from a faculty member who has served as my research advisor?

We don't want your athletic coach, minister, or boss at your part-time job -- all of which we've seen.

It doesn't necessarily mean your research advisor. It could be a faculty member you've taken classes with, someone you've worked on a project with, etc.
What the admissions committee is looking for is evidence that you will succeed in graduate school - and that means evidence that you can think independently, tackle difficult problems, and so on. Choose faculty members who can speak to your abilities as a student and a (future) researcher.
When I asked for LoRs, I asked (1) a faculty member I had taken several classes with and with whom I was working as an undergraduate research, (2) another faculty member I had taken several classes with and had a good working relationship with, and (3) a faculty member who I was currently taking a class with (and who admittedly was an alumnus of my top school) :-)

It means, well...that it should be a faculty member familiar with your scholarly activities.
That can be your research advisor, and if you have one, they're likely a good faculty member to choose. But really what they're working for is someone who can speak to your scholarship as a whole, and is familiar with it past "He/she did well on some multiple choice exams...". So a faculty member who you've taken several essay heavy courses with might also be a worthwhile recommender.
What they don't want is someone who will just be providing a narration of your transcript.

Faculty in essay heavy courses may not necessarily be the best recommenders for grad programs in biomedical engineering.

@RoboKaren That very much depends on the course. I took a very writing intensive course in microbiology


text:
Should I tell my postdoc advisor I'm intending to leave?
I've decided to quit academia and am actively looking for other employment. Colleagues of mine have kept their postdoc advisors close as they've looked for work, but they also had close relationships with their advisors (maybe their advisors even helped out).
My advisor is only really interested in whether I'm producing a paper, so I don't see any real reason to give more than the standard 2-week/month notice once I've found a position. That is, unless there's some academic standard practice.
What's "good practice" in terms of notification?

Are you teaching at all, or have any other responsibilities besides research?

Unless the advisor is adversarial, try to be as professional and also as nice as you possibly can, without hurting yourself. That's what I would call "good practice". In life, you always meet twice.

There's nothing standard here. Give as much notice as you can, to be nice, and as much notice as you are legally required to if that's applicable in your jurisdiction. Don't burn a bridge if you don't have to. Even though you are leaving academia, you current boss may have connections to industry that they might be willing to use to help you find a non-academic job, so it might be worth talking to them now rather than when you find something.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Are translations valuable to Phd admission committees?
I am really interested in translating academic material to my mother tongue. However the other day, I was talking with a professor and he advised me cease translating and start writing research papers if I want to continue my studies and start a PhD, he pointed out translation is of no value to English academicians!
I know it is very important to show your research capabilities by actually doing so but I feel shocked and a bit disappointed if this is true about the attitude towards translating academic material.
Would you tell me what you think on this and whether you think by translating I am spending my time in a wrong area?
I need to add that I am going to start my PhD outside my home country and probably in an English-speaking country.

Valuable to them? Possibly, especially if they speak that language. Academic translation is not done nearly enough. But valuable to you? No. It won't help your academic career very much.

@RogerFan I am going to start my PhD outside my home country and probably in an English-speaking country. So my translations will not help me to get admitted?

Doing translations will help you be familiar with the material, and that may help you do better research. But, as aeismail says, it won't be of any direct impact.

Whether you continue these translations or not, be aware that if you publish them without permission of the copyright owner, you a violating their copyright in most countries.

Right now in most disciplines of science, there is a common global language - bad English. This means that there are two groups of scientists - those that don't need translations because they read papers in English all the time anyway, and those that have no impact on the discipline because if they're not publishing in English, then noone else reads them.

Unless you're in the humanities, where the ability to translate source materials may be a critical need, what you're doing would be considered an example of a "service activity." You can certainly list such an activity on your CV and applications, but its impact on an admissions committee decision will be minuscule. You're much better off, as your advisors suggested, producing original research results.
Moreover, if you're planning to study in an English-speaking country, you will want to spend time improving your written and oral communication skills, rather than translating materials into your native tongue.

The OP seems to be talking about translations to English, from his or her mother tongue.

@Relaxed The OP states in their post: "I am really interested in translating academic material to my mother tongue."

I have an IELTS certificate with a band score of 7.5 (My writing score: 7.5). Nevertheless, I am all with you I need to move towards expertise in writing and speaking Academic English.

For PhD admissions in the humanities and social sciences, yes I think there would be some value. One has to have a fairly good knowledge of the topic material in order to do an adequate translation. If your translated work was authorized, was of a substantial nature, was published by a notable press, and has received a warm reception in your home country then I think it'd be a net bonus to your application.
However, if you're just translating bits and pieces or translating to the web or other non-reviewed outlet, then it's not really a notable use of your time.
If you've already done the work, put it on your CV but if you have a choice, you'd be much better advised to put your energy into writing peer-reviewed research articles -- either in English, or in your home language and translating those to English.

Thx! Both my BA and MA was done in Tourism Management and I am going to start a PhD in the same field.

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


text:
Have you ever experienced that "accept but needs final editing"
I have submitted my article to springer journal. We re-arrenged the manuscript that was requested by reviewers. And we submitted again. 50 days later, the decision was "accept but needs final editing". Has any one experienced this status? Is still there any rejection risk? Thanks.

This status is very common. And, yes, it's still possible to get rejected at this point. For example, if the referees tell you to remove an ad hominem attack on another researcher, and you refuse, the manuscript will probably get rejected.

@PeterShor You should probably make your comment an answer.

You know that the status is "accept but needs final editing" but don't have any feedback yet ?

I submitted the edited version of my manuscript 3 days ago, and status changed as editor assigned again. I dont have feedback yet. I am so impatiant and worried for bad news.

This question was asked a long time ago and essentially answered in the comments, but remains on the unanswered queue. So I'll try to answer.
First, as Peter Shor said, this status is common and it's great news. For all intents and purposes the paper has been accepted, as long as you're willing to make the final changes that the journal requested. At the point when you get this status, there is almost no rejection risk, barring a last minute discovery of a technical error, or something terrible happening like the journal disintegrating.
Subsequently to Peter Shor's comment, the OP remarked that the manuscript switched back to "editor assigned" after the revisions. That makes sense, because they will want to check it over and see what changes you made. They want to see, first, that you addressed all the last minute changes that were proposed (fixing typos, etc.) and secondly that you did not add any new errors. Usually within a few days or a week or two they will come back and either accept your final changes, then get you to sign something giving them permission to publish and making the proofs according to the journal style, or they will come back to you requesting more small changes, e.g., if there is still a typo. Sometimes this takes more than a few days, unfortunately. I once waited six months at that stage, because the handling editor had left the journal and I had to get the main editor to take over and realize the paper was already accepted. When it comes to the publication process, patience is a virtue. Take it as an opportunity to practice deep breathing, or whatever else you do to calm down and accept the need to wait.

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


text:
Is going to graduate school the same place I went to undergrad okay?
Is it okay to get my bachelor's and master's degrees at the same school?  I intend to go into industry in computer science.
OK = will not substantially harm future prospects.
Getting a doctoral degree is not planned.
Edit: I might need to take out loans to go to a different school.

"ok" for what purpose?

Also see Which is preferable, to go to graduate school at same school as undergrad or to go to a lower-ranked school?

What future prospects are you referring to? Employment? What kind of job? (If you're asking about how non-academic, non-research employers perceive a masters+bachelors from the same university, it might be on topic at [workplace.se] but off topic here per the [help/on-topic].)

This is probably off-topic then (I have no interest in an academic career)

Yeah, then probably a bunch of academics are not the right people to answer this question :)

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it could better be answered on workplace.SE.

I did exactly this (except my BA was in math and MS was in CS, so I avoided Bob Brown's excellent point about repeating professors). Have yet to see a negative reaction from any potential employer.

For industry, you should go to what is considered the strongest school within your reach. Reputation of your school, and - maybe - your adviser there if known in their field, as well as your GPA, and possibly your class selection, are all that matters. No one gives a rodent's behind if you went to the same, or a different school.

Hiring managers in industry will care more about the reputation of your master's degree than about where you earned your bachelor's degree.
If your undergraduate degree is from a medium-to-small school, you will probably have the same professors if you take your master's there.  In other words, you will have learned much of what they have to teach you when you finish your undergraduate degree.  So, for maximum learning, consider a master's from a different school that has a good reputation in industry.

"In other words, you will have learned most of what they have to teach you when you finish your undergraduate degree": I hope you're kidding, or you had not very knowledgeable professors.

Not kidding.  My experience is that undergrad education is about breadth and grad school is about depth.  Different professors will give the student a different view in grad school.

A single professor can give breadth to an audience and depth to another: it's not that teaching to one group makes you unable to teach to the other.

Anyway, I concur that changing school is frequently a good thing for various reasons, but not for the one you highlighted.

I've edited my answer to change "most" to "much."


text:
What to do when a professor gives an undeserved D to a PhD Student?
If a professor gives a D for a student "just because", what can the student do?
In previous classes, this student was called ridiculous in the front of all the others, and this professor was always saying bad things about her.
Knowing that a D is a shameful, cut-off  (one can lose their funding) kind of grade, the professor just gave it to the student.
What should one do in this case? It is like someone has the power to crash one's career. It is wrong on every possible level.
Please, help.
Academia should have moral standards, and things like this should never occur.
It happened with my partner this morning. She is in shock. She is so brilliant and hardworking. She may have had her career ended today.
P.s: Sorry for the mistakes. I wrote it blindly.

What course? What level? What topic? Evidence that it is "just because" rather than justified (you would be surprised how often students overestimate themselves - not saying this is the case here, but you should have some stronger argument than that, e.g. for the student ombudsman etc.).

I understand. I do not think the bad grades are because of the professor's bad intentions in general cases, but this (one) professor offended her several times. Can you understand how it is not only an "oh my God, she can never be wrong". I am only in this forum because it must be a certain way to processed. And what reason can one give, if one cannot say the professor is wrong. What are the steps? This was my question. Should she talk with the adm of the faculty, etc.;

I would never come here with a "ego" problem. I know how this forum works, and I know it would delete any questions on "how one feels about academia". It is a serious thing, and it should concern all of us.

Has she consulted her advisor about this?

@mathlanguagetruth I did not say it's an ego problem. What I said is - what is your evidence, because this is what you can work from. Example: prof insists on something that is patently wrong (e.g. standard textbooks show it is wrong, and it is not a scientifically contentious issue), against the student's opinion. Insults and bullying are a more general issue, and, again - get evidence. Record what has happened over a period, and when; be accurate in description. With this, go to the ombudsperson/HR/student services/whoever is responsible for dealing with bullying.

Dear @patricia, she is very concerned about the outcome, as they might be very close (her adviser and this professor).
He did not even say why a D, just gave a D. She would have changed any wrong thing if he had asked her to. It was really biased strange unethical behavior.  So, we do not know what to do. How to prove that someone was unethical. It is really hard.

@mathlanguagetruth Captain Emacs has given you a path forward: Record the professor's behavior. Collect factual evidence. Present your evidence to people whose job it is to help you: ombudsperson, advisor, grievance committee, capricious grading committee, graduate program director, department head, dean, whoever.  And then listen.

Also: Has your friend asked the professor directly why he gave her a D?

With whomever you talk with, you'll also need to be more clear on what the grade is for (the class as a whole, or one particular assignment?), and on what the syllabus for the course says the grading scheme is. It's very unusual to have no set rubric for grade determination, no grades during the semester, and only a single final grade at the very end. This is so unusual that anyone you deal with will want to know these things first, so this information will need to be collected and understood to bring to whoever the first contact with.

"It's very unusual to have no set rubric for grade determination, no grades during the semester, and only a single final grade at the very end." Actually, in my experience as both a graduate student and a graduate instructor, this has been the most common situation.  On the other hand, I take the meaning of this to be "We have moved beyond caring so much about grades," with the effect that the grade given is usually an A.

I would advise her to discuss this with her advisor. Do not push the "unethical behavior" idea. Instead, focus on two points:

She does not understand the reasons for the D.
She is concerned about the consequences for her funding etc.

All the better if the advisor is close to the professor who gave the D. It makes the advisor a better potential advocate. No professor likes to have a PhD student fail - it makes them look bad.

Many institutions have a formal process for appealing a class grade.  Some university official, such as a department chair, would review the student's work and grade records to determine if the grade was assigned fairly in accordance with the class's grade policies.  If not, the official can assign a different grade.
Usually this sort of appeal only succeeds if there is something clearly and objectively wrong with the way the grade was assigned; they won't usually overrule the instructor on subjective matters (e.g. "did this paper show enough insight to be worth an A").  A common standard is that the grade will only be changed if the investigation concludes that the original grade was assigned in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner.  It sounds like you think that is what happened, but I would suggest first discussing the matter informally with the department chair or some trusted faculty member who is familiar with the process, to see if they agree that there is evidence to support your claim.

+1 The chair or the graduate student advisor / director of graduate studies.


text:
6 months is all I have, what would be your method to finish your dissertation?
I will ask this question trying to be simple, but hoping to be understood on the complexities of my problem. I have looked for questions alike and my answer is not in any of them or, combined, the answers cannot make up for what I need to know.
a) I am a PhD Student, no fund is available at my university right now, it is a very good university, but they will not make anything in my favor, as I could see last week from their attitude towards me. They will rather have me working for free and pay another one when they have more money. Two PhD students for the price of one.
b) I took this position because I wanted to study with professor X and he would care about my situation/he does, but the faculty now is cutting professors and professor X is going away to a much better, 1st-tier university.
c) I got this position and cannot just give up because it would be the very bad thing for my career. I come from a country where you need to study 7-8 years prior to PhD, so I am rather old compared to the European or American students, even though I have much more experience, it is not an advantage when it comes to finding a job and etc.
d) To go join the professor X is not possible right away, to stay in this program with no money is not possible. I can, however, sustain myself for more 6 months and it is all I really can do. I know is a ridiculous question, believe me, I know, but if you had 6 months and 3 months prior to research at the PhD program, it sums 9 months, how would you manage to finish your dissertation to get out of this problem? I have the first draft of my dissertation (80p.), more research needs to be done. It is not the result of 3 months research, but prior to accepting the offer I was doing my work anyways.
The question: How would you organize with the rest of the research and really finish it within 6 months? Have in mind that your supervisor would agree to that because he knows what you can do, and if you have a good dissertation, he would go with you to the defense committee.
Thank you all, sorry for the errors, I am writing with my phone on the train, I have not the time to write at home or in my office.
I really appreciate your time.

Edit: I study Philosophy (continental philosophy, but with much of analytic in it).
I started my PhD 3 months ago.
I have worked 1 year on my project before start the PhD.
I need to finish the argumentation on the basic work of others (some of the secondary literature). It is the lesser important, but without it, my work will show up as a weak, incomplete, an amateur attempt of an essay, it will not even be a dissertation.  (It takes time, but if I could find a strategy, I could do it working 10-12 hrs a day).
I have my idea almost complete or as complete as it can be, but it could always be better, simpler, more transparent. It needs to be better displayed.
I need to do it in 6 months or I need to give up on this career I have struggled for my entire life.
I think I can make it, but I would like to know what would be your strategy in your particular case, so I could learn something from you. I, unfortunately, have not the privilege of doing it in the mood of "maybe it will work". I have just one option, make it work.
Above all, there is always a bit of depression and despair that makes the work even more difficult.
Thank you all for your support.

We don't know anything about your research, so it's obviously impossible for us to give you specific advice on how to wrap it up, or even whether it's feasible (given your earlier pre-PhD work). What kind of answer are you actually hoping to get here?

I agree with @ff524.  Your situation is a tough one, but what kind of answer could we possibly give you based on what you've said other than "Work hard, work smart, and keep in close contact with Professor X"?  I am not aware of any universal maxims for finishing a PhD in 6-9 months.

Ok, you have 6 months. How long since you started your phd? That's rather unclear and makes a significant difference...

The answer depends on how much of your dissertation you have completed and the nature of the "additional work" required.  Without knowing too much about your field of study or topic of your dissertation, it's hard to give good advice.  I completed 6 chapters of my dissertation in about 4 months (health economics).  I spent the previous 2.5 years finding excuses for not finishing it ("my Methods Guy is ignoring my e-mails," "I don't know the Stata code for this", etc.), but then I ran out of excuses and funding, and the chapters start flowing.  I sent them out as I completed them and (cont.)

made revisions to those chapters as soon as I received feedback from my committee members.  I shared my timeline with the committee at the beginning of the semester so they knew to expect those chapters in close succession from me

I am confused by your edit. "I started my PhD 3 months ago". Is this correct or it is 3 years gao?

I can't see anyone else mentioning this, but I must point out that you must also talk with your department head and/or graduate program coordinator and examine the rules of your institution, because simply writing a thesis is not sufficient ground to grant a PhD in most institutions I'm aware of. There are generally a variety of residence requirements, possibly classwork or mandatory review sessions, etc. Each program is unique in this regard, but even if you could 'finish' your dissertation that doesn't mean you'd be granted a degree by your institution. So please, check first.


text:
Changing the thesis topic and supervisor
I am currently doing my Master's degree in Computer Science. So far, I am at the very beginning of my work, just started with the research. My supervisor is the same person who supervised me during my Bachelor's. I was very satisfied with collaboration with him. The idea for my Master's was to build on the grounds of the application that was build during my Bachelor's. That was planned from the start of our collaboration during my Bachelor's.
To be honest, I was not very satisfied with the application created for Bachelor's thesis, because I was working and doing double degrees at the same time and created it in a big hurry. Furthermore, I believe that I was able to defend my thesis on time hugely because of my promise to improve the application further during my Master's.
Here comes the problem - I am no longer interested in my Master's thesis topic that much. I came up with another idea, which would include changing the field of research, hence, changing my supervisor. The new idea makes me way more excited, because it is associated with my hobby. I believe that changing the topic would dramatically increase my motivation resulting with a better outcome. All of that makes the decision quite tough for me.
To sum up - is it okay to abandon my supervisor and the improvement of my application written for my Bachelor's despite the promise? Thank you very much in advance.

By all means you may go for your current research interest. Switching research area isn't uncommon. It will give you a refreshing start with new challenges (it did for me when I switched from data security to machine learning).
Interest and determination is the prime factor in research that's worth more than knowledge in the field. I've noticed quite a few grad students (both PhD and masters) who have put themselves in random fields without interest and regretted their experience dearly.
As for your promise, it is advisable to state your reasons as in your question to your previous supervisor. But the decision remains yours.

Thank you! So you think that I could change the field and supervisor, but not without explaining my reasoning to my previous supervisor?

@emcee: It's not about getting the supervisor's permission, rather letting him/her know for ethical reasons.


text:
Masters in computer science vs masters in cyber security
I recently graduated with a degree in computer science and really enjoyed it. However in my last semester I took a cyber security elective class and found it very interesting, especially with the things going on in the world in reference to cyber security. I'm currently working full time and am strongly considering going back to school in the fall (I'd only be out of school one semester between undergrad and grad school) I would continue to work because they have a great tuition reimbursement program.
My question is, I really enjoy and find cyber security interesting, but I feel it's somewhat limiting myself to the cyber security field if I get a master's in that. I know I could still work in other computing areas and use what I learn in those areas, but I would kind of feel like I wasted my time if I'm not using my knowledge on a regular basis.
On the other hand, the university I'd be applying to has a cyber security concentration in the computer science master's program, but it's only about 1/3rd as many classes as the cyber security program. This way I'd have a competency in cyber security, but the program would allow me to have other roles and jobs, and I'd feel like I was still using what I learned.
I'm not planning on going for a PhD (not any time in the next decade or two at least) and have no real experience in security except for the class I took my last semester.
Any thoughts or suggestions?

I've been working in the field of software security for over 4 years and had multiple interactions with security analysts working in cyber security labs. From their collective opinion, a computer science degree is just as effective as a more "specialist" cyber security degree. This is because they both have roughly the same CS foundation and the few extra security-oriented classes won't make a huge difference after 1-2 years of industry experience. In fact, I have encountered multiple CS graduates who are more successfull in the security industry than the cyber security graduates. This is of course, anecdotal.

Plus, if you do CS, you'll be certain of getting, and being able to demonstrate, a strong CS foundation. // There would not be anything to prevent you from taking extra courses in a particular area, such as cyber security.

@aparente001 I agree


text:
Why do academics tend to be reluctant to ask for help from other academics?
I've seen situations like the below happen quite a few times.

Alice writes a paper. It's well-received and receives a hundred citations. Bob also works in the area, and he engages a student Charlie to study the paper. Shortly after starting, Charlie tells Bob he couldn't get from equation 10 to equation 11, in fact he thinks the derivation is incorrect. Bob is incredulous (after all the paper is well-received and has a 100 citations) and tells Charlie to check it again. A few weeks later, Charlie tells Bob he still can't get equation 11, and in fact he's increasingly convinced the derivation is wrong because he's tried it in a few different ways and always gets the same result.
Bob starts looking at the paper himself and after another few weeks he also runs out of ideas. Finally they write to Alice asking for details. Alice responds quickly with, "you've made this mistake. After correcting it and making this transformation, equation 11 follows."

The specific details vary, but the core of what happens is the same: Bob and Charlie can't do what Alice has done, but instead of asking Alice for help, they insists on trying it themselves. After weeks of struggling and many tins of coffee, they finally give up and ask Alice, who proceeds to solve the problem very quickly.
The question: why would Bob and Charlie grind away for weeks when help is just an email away? If I managed a team of employees who refused to ask each other for help, especially when someone has already solved the problem, I'd be quite annoyed. After all, time is precious.
I find this especially surprising because virtually every professor I've seen teach encourages their students to ask questions. Instructors tell their students they're welcome to interrupt during class, to approach TAs, or to visit them during office hours. They discourage their students from working without progress for weeks before asking for help, and yet they're reluctant to ask for help themselves. Why?
The only reason I can think of is that Bob and Charlie want to be sure that the results are robust. If Alice made a mistake, then they would not be able to duplicate the results, but if they just ask Alice for help, then they're at risk of making the same mistake. But this doesn't seem like a strong reason: they can ask for help but then critically examine what Alice says.

I meant Alice, Bob, Charlie, A and B as five different people, although I could edit it if it's confusing. Edit: changed names.

I think it would make the question more understandable to continue to use Alice, Bob, and Charlie throughout.

You assume people do not ask for help, but in my experience many do. Also, possible problems: 1) colleagues do not have time to answer.2) they are direct competitors in the field, 3) teacher wants students to learn by figuring out themselves trivial details...

... also, many of us are in academia in part because we like to figure things out by ourselves, even if it takes a few weeks (or more) :)

@MBaz wouldn't you be more interested in what comes after though? In this example, deriving equation 11 is just the first step - it's what happens after understanding the paper that I find really exciting (since that's genuinely breaking new ground).

Two reasons: 1) working things out by ourselves is quite enjoyable and it gives us a sense of accomplishment, especially if it involves working out the thinking of some 'top' researcher(s), and hence, by extension, places us at the same level as the author(s), 2) we do not want others to decipher what we are up to before we get to publish it.

@Allure Sure, that's why I said "in part" :)  "What happens after" is exciting and it is the actual purpose of the exercise, but the process of getting there is enjoyable and even valuable too.

I have never been fully immune from this kind of behavior, though I've suffered less from it than others, a fact that most likely helped me land two really nice jobs. Let me survey a few reasons why I think it happens.
Note: I'm talking of mathematics, where "robustness" is not a thing, and talking to someone does not "contaminate" your thinking (unless you are really careless).

Bob and Charlie are too proud. They don't want to be seen asking possibly stupid questions in writing.
Charlie feels that he doesn't know enough to even pose a good question, and Bob doesn't care enough. (Students generally tend to have trouble gauging their level, and I have occasionally blundered into conversations I wasn't prepared for by asking a too-advanced question.)
Bob and Charlie have seen their questions ignored too often. (My personal experience is that the usefulness of emailing an author about a paper they wrote declines sharply with the age of the paper. If the paper is 15+ years old, they most likely don't remember anything and have the same perspective as any other reader.)
Bob and Charlie don't want anyone to know they are reading the paper, as they are worried of creating expectations. (This sometimes does happen -- in that an author takes a question as a stronger sign of interest than it was intended. Though it does not appear to be a big deal, but more of an awkward moment.)
Bob and Charlie are worried Alice will view their question as a personal attack or at least as a threat. (In my career of reporting errors, this has happened 1-2 times out of somewhere near 50. But this sort of risk aversion isn't exactly out of character for much of academia...)

+1 for "If the paper is 15+ years old, they most likely don't remember anything and have the same perspective as any other reader.)" :-)

Bob and Charlie are not only looking to know the result or to verify it; they are also interested in understanding and having insight into the result, possibly with the goal of extending it.
If Charlie understands the result the same way Alice understands it, then Charlie is unlikely to have any insights into extending the result other than the insights that Alice has.  Hence, Charlie's goal is to develop independent understanding of the result which is different from Alice's understanding.
If Charlie just asks Alice, then Charlie will now have the same understanding that Alice has (only to an inferior degree), and hence will have difficulty extending the result in directions Alice didn't think about.

This isn't a bad explanation, but I'm feeling like it's somewhat of a just-so story. I doubt this is the main motivation behind Bob's and Charlie's reluctance to contact Alice.

If everyone did it...
Imagine getting an email every time someone doesn't know how to proceed from A to B in one of your papers. Imagine answering each of those emails, every time.
Imagine learning exactly how to derive B from A every time you're stuck. Now you never actually have to put effort into understanding a paper anymore. Say you start out asking for help every time you don't understand it if you didn't get it in a day. Everyone is always happy to answer you, you ask every time you don't get it. What's very likely going to happen is that you start sending the email earlier and earlier...
Academics are good at what they're doing. They probably got there by being stubborn at trying.
Finally, I remember reading (but I forgot where) that one of the best predictors of mathematical skill is the amount of time you're willing to spend on a problem before you give up. Assuming that the average population of academia ranks decently high on mathematical skill, you'd expect them ot be more stubborn than the average person at solving problems.

If everyone decided to shower at the same time, problems would arise, but that's not a good argument for not showering yourself.

@TomášZato true, but also irrelevant to the point made here. If anything, ironically, Stackexchange is exactly the kind of place where one can see clearly how badly questions of the "please do my homework for me" variety can be received.

I'm going to have to assume that this is some field of mathematics that you are discussing. I can't really visualize it in other, unrelated, fields, even Physics, for example, unless it is highly theoretical physics that depends, like math, on deduction.
I think that Bob and Charley are acting completely rationally and normally and congratulate them for not giving up. But to see why depends on a deeper understanding of mathematics and mathematicians that the "non-anointed" don't share.
Bob and Charlie seem to believe that they have found a gap in an argument that Alice has left too wide for understanding or has made an error of deduction. Either could be the case.
If you aren't a mathematician you likely think that mathematics is about the results. About the theorems. The theorems need to be proven. There can be no gaps but trivial ones. But trivial to you and trivial to me can be quite different things, depending on our training and experience.
I'll note that many (many) papers have been published just like Alice's. Alice could be a world renowned mathematician and can make wider jumps of logic than you or I, but Alice can also make mistakes of logic. Some arguments are tremendously complicated and it is easy to get a bit twisted up. Reviewers might not catch what is happening, so papers get published.
But, in fact, and you may need more than a doctorate in mathematics to realize it, mathematics isn't about the results.
Mathematics is about insight. And insight is tremendously difficult to gain if you have studied mathematics in a traditional way. A professor presents a theorem on the board, then proceeds to prove it. You may think that is the essence. But somewhere, perhaps long ago, perhaps last week, someone had to wonder why that statement written on the board might be a theorem at all and not just a random positioning of neat ideas. This takes insight. What problems are worth pursuing? It isn't obvious. There isn't a clear path from A to B if A is known and B is a statement that might or might not follow.
Without insight, "mathematicians" would just be wandering around in the dark, finding the occasional interesting thing, but without any method to follow beyond random guessing. Theorems don't write themselves.
So, back to the story. Lets assume that Bob (the advisor) is a real mathematician, and wants Charlie to become one. He puts Charlie to the task of studying Alice's paper, not primarily to follow the argument there, but to gain insight into the problem(s) posed. Charlie doesn't yet have the insight to see why we can expect Alice's conclusions to be right or wrong, so needs to depend on the proofs/arguments. He can't make it happen. Bob, on the other hand may have enough insight to believe the conclusions, but again, can't follow the argument. But, since insight isn't infallible, they have a problem.
Bob's real problem is that either (a) Alice is wrong or (b) he lacks the proper insight into why she is right. This is galling. So he has an even stronger incentive to gain that insight than Charlie does, so he pounds and pounds, looking for the answer.
If he just asks Alice, Bob will short circuit his search for enlightenment. Having it explained represents failure. He will never be able to gain that insight if told the answer. So he resists. And resists. Only yielding when his own work is impeded by not knowing.

A corollary to this is that when professors in math and related fields are asked for help by students they should give minimal helps, to overcome misconceptions, say. Giving the answer denies for all time the possibility that the student can grow in understanding. It isn't about the facts. It is about the insights.

An anecdote. There is a certain kind of tricky program in CS that I know can be solved, since there are well known solutions. But I've never been able (over about 40 years) to come up with the solution on my own. I don't think of it very often anymore, but I reject any hints about how I might do it, since I want that "a ha" moment for myself.
I'll also note that I already had a doctorate in mathematics before I really knew the centrality of insight. Advisors need quite a lot of it so that they can help doctoral students find reasonable and important problems. Even better if they can impart some of that insight to the students, but it doesn't always happen.

I think I understand the point you are making, but, especially in your case of refusing to simply look up the solution or even just hints to the problem in CS for such a long time, I can‘t help but wonder if not knowing that answer and the associated key ideas (which I’d argue can be learnt by seeing the solution) might have kept some other, maybe only abstractly related, insights from you.

The story you describe has people behaving irrationally. If everyone behaved rationally, this would not happen. Asking why people "tend to" behave irrationally is not well defined.
Alice. It could be that Bob and Charlie are assuming that Alice is irrational, and want to avoid contacting her. This is belied somewhat by Alice's prompt, helpful response (though, one could argue that she should not have had something so difficult in her paper without explanation).
Charlie. It is reasonable that Charlie, as a student, would assume he is missing something obvious and does not want to waste Alice's time. Indeed, having Charlie spend a few days digging into this is probably a helpful exercise for him. But after he spends some days doing his due diligence, it is time for him to contact his advisor, which is exactly what he seems to have done.
Bob. It is reasonable that Bob will spend a few hours with Charlie to gauge his understanding of the problem and related work as a whole. Further, them trying to figure it out together is a useful pedagogical and (potentially) even mathematical discussion for both of them. But after a few hours of this, it is clear that Charlie is up to speed and Bob cannot get the answer after a reasonable amount of time. This is where they should have called Alice -- any time spent beyond this is irrational and difficult to justify (unless Alice is indeed so difficult to work with [irrational] that it's better to avoid her at all cost).

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


text:
Does having children jeopardize one's academic career progression?
As I understand academic career progression, the move to the "next level" (be it postdoc, senior lecturer, assistant professor, full professor, etc) is most dependent on two factors: research output and funding earned. However to get that research output and funding proposals, one obviously can't be on maternity leave. Does that mean that deciding to have children jeopardizes one's academic career progression?
Concrete example: European PhDs take shorter to complete (~3 years) than American ones (~5 years). Accordingly, American PhDs have an advantage applying for fellowships after graduation since they will have done more research and published more papers. However if a female American PhD student decides to have five pregnancies in those five years, she will have effectively only "worked" for 3 years and 9 months (since five pregnancies = 15 months of maternity leave). This means she's still at an advantage compared to her European counterparts, but is disadvantaged compared to her American peers. In other words, her decision to have children jeopardized her academic career.
Is this picture correct? If not, why not? The obvious guess is that this student will not be disadvantaged in the job market because she won't be able to graduate in 5 years, but if that's the case, then it still sounds like she's disadvantaged compared to her peers who didn't have children.
I'm tagging this question with "gender" because although in principle these issues can also affect men whose partners have children, the stress of having children is clearly different for fathers and mothers.
EDIT: Since the question is apparently unclear.

The question is whether having children jeopardizes one's academic career progression.
The argument for this being the case is that, if one has children, one's work comes to a complete halt. Research stops, papers don't get written, funding doesn't get acquired - and these are the things which is used to judge whether or not to promote an academic.
Comparatively, in industry, someone will continue the work while the worker is away on leave. This minimizes the damage. For example suppose Alice is an expert at underwater basket weaving. Even if she has five pregnancies in five years, the 3 years 9 months in which she is working is plenty of time to demonstrate that yes, she is an expert at underwater basket weaving, she is good & passionate at her job, she turns out more baskets than others in unit time, etc, and therefore when promotion time rolls around she is a natural candidate for promotion.
If the answer is "yes", then between two otherwise-equal women, the person who has fewer children climbs the academic ladder the fastest. She will graduate first, find a tenured position first, become a full professor first. This is clearly advantageous because with each promotion, the new position is better than the previous one. In this case, an answer drawing on sources that show that it is indeed advantageous not to have children will answer the question.
If the answer is "no", then it is not true that between two otherwise-equal women, the person who has fewer children climbs the academic ladder fastest. This implies there is some compensating factor that allows the person with more children to compete with her colleague with fewer children. For example, the fact that while one is on maternity leave the "clock stops" is such a factor. If Alice decides to have five pregnancies in five years, she will still be able to climb the academic ladder - she won't get fired because she's not turning out papers, for example.
However if the answer is "no", this "clock stopping" is not a complete explanation because it doesn't apply to real age, only to academic age. Alice is 3.75 years old academically, but in real life 5 years has passed. Compared to her colleague who didn't have children, she is still behind by 1.25 years. Therefore a "no" answer indicates there are some other factors still at play, in which case the question asks what those factors are.

If this doesn't clarify what the question is asking please leave a comment because I don't see how it is unclear.
Related:

How common is it for women to drop out of graduate school because they have children?
Having children while at graduate school

Are you asking specifically about women who have children? Your question implies it but do you also want to hear about men who have children and take paternity leave?

@AzorAhai I'm also interested in men who have children and take paternity leave - are their academic careers jeopardized for similar reasons?

"European PhDs take shorter to complete (~3 years) than American ones (~5 years). Accordingly, American PhDs have an advantage applying for fellowships after graduation since they will have done more research and published more papers": No, you have quite some misconceptions on the European PhDs.

Typically time spent on leave is not counted towards maximum or expected completion time for degree programs, and often it is counted by the academic term rather than by the month.  If a program is normally completed in, say, 5 years (10 semesters), then a person who spends 2 semesters on parental leave would be expected to take a total of 6 years (10 semesters enrolled and 2 semesters on leave), and might well have produced the same amount of work as a fellow student who spent 10 semesters enrolled with no leave.

As @MassimoOrtolano suggests, a typical 5-year American PhD doesn't involve 5 years of research; more like 2 or 3.  The first couple of years are often mostly coursework, roughly comparable to a European master's degree (American PhD programs usually do not require a master's).

The same applies at the faculty level too: going on parental leave will normally "stop the clock" on tenure or promotion.  There are certainly lots of ways in which having a child may affect a person's life and career, and it's reasonable to ask about them, but these days those effects are not so overt as you suggest.

@NateEldredge time spent on leave is not counted, but that still puts you at a disadvantage right? You take longer to graduate / get tenured / get promoted etc.

It does take you more calendar years to get to that goal, yes.  I'm unsure in what sense you consider this to "put you at a disadvantage".  For instance, all other things equal, a student who took 5 calendar years to graduate is not particularly going to be preferred over one who took 6, especially since people realize that leave is a possible explanation.

@NateEldredge you spend an extra year in a not-very-well-paid, not-permanent job. That's a clear disadvantage, no?

I know few competitive profession which easily allows someone to have 5 children in a rapid progression (esp when one is still practically a student). Yet (maybe it depends on the country) exactly the academia is where I have seen many examples of having children and being protected by regulations, being able to take some time for childcare and still progressing. In the EU, at least,

What can you possibly expect as an answer here? That researchers with children can offset the lost months by putting the kids to work in the lab? Person "A" splits their time between two priorities, person "B" devotes all their time to a single priority. Who has the advantage?

While the question itself is very interesting, the way it is framed is problematic. In particular the reasoning in the second paragraph is very questionable. Even ignoring the dubious assumptions, it's tempting to "count" things this way to make the point but I don't think it makes sense. The main way in which having children could affect somebody's career is not the clearly limited time of the pregnancy leave, it's everything related to taking care of the children after that. But it's much harder to calculate how the additional cognitive load affects one's research work!

@ASimpleAlgorithm in that case, the answer would be "yes"?

@Greg in other professions though, if one person goes on leave, the work still gets done because someone else can cover for him/her, and assessment for promotion isn't (usually) based on how much work has been completed. These things are different in academia: if one goes on leave, the research literally comes to a stop, papers don't get written, funding isn't acquired, etc., and promotion is (if I'm not mistaken) based on these.

I think this question would be improved if you fixed the middle paragraph. Vanishingly few (I would even say no) women in grad school are trying to have five kids in five years. You should focus on the more realistic scenario of having one or maybe two.

@AzorAhai it's just an example - an extreme example, but still an example. One could change the number to three and the essence of the question would still be there. The question also applies to academics who aren't graduate students. Still, if it irks you, feel free to edit the question.

If I knew what was unclear about the question, I might be able to fix it. Unfortunately, I have no idea.

Edited OP and voting to reopen.

I think what is confusing about this is the assumption that it is better to climb the career ladder faster. My goal isn’t to make it to full professor as fast as possible... my goal is to do good research and get promoted at appropriate times.

@Dawn why would it not be better to climb the career ladder faster? PhD students are poorly paid, postdocs are nomadic positions, assistant professors are at perpetual risk of getting tenure denied, etc. Even if we discount the material benefits that come with promotion, it sure feels like hitting the next level sooner rather than later is a good thing.

A good thing, perhaps, but not a significant marker of the “quality” of one’s academic career. Frankly I find people who have speed as a goal strange. I guess I am confident enough about getting tenure and the financial bump is modest enough at my institution that I really don’t care too much about speed at this point. I suppose it is some nice external validation, but I get that from my publications.

My impression of my field (sociology) in my countries (Netherlands + Germany) is that in older generations successful women tended to be childless. This would support your hypothesis that, at least in the past, having children was somehow (perceived to be) detrimental to a woman's career. However, in my cohort that does not seem to be the case anymore. My impression is that having (multiple) children has become the rule also, or even especially, among the really successful women.
This may be because policy is finally implemented and is becoming effective, or maybe modern couples no longer want to play the game of making trade-offs between private live and career (millennials), and maybe it is just that my network mainly consists of academics who are also parents.

However if a female American PhD student decides to have five
  pregnancies in those five years, she will have effectively only
  "worked" for 3 years and 9 months (since five pregnancies = 15 months
  of maternity leave).

Wow. If there were a female PhD student who had five pregnancies in five years, I've never met them. I'm (a woman) currently working on my PhD. While I've known students who have chosen to have one child during their PhD, they had children near the end of their degree (not while in coursework). It's hard to juggle PhD work with other responsibilities, such as the full-time job of raising a child.
I've decided to put off having a family until after my PhD. Personally, I wouldn't be able to work as much if I were sick all of the time during pregnancy, going through a variety of hormonal changes, and having to go in for regular check-ups with a doctor. I live far away from any family members or close friends who could take care of the baby while I need to be away for a conference, for instance. On top of that, PhD student/candidate salaries are barely enough for one person to live on, which adds another issue when deciding to have a child while in a PhD program.
I'm amazed by the people who can manage to raise children while working on their PhDs. I'm just not one of them.

I was amazed by just the "five pregnancies" part.

@Elizabeth Henning There’s plenty of religious groups that encourage couples to have lots of children, like the Quiverfull movement. I’m sure at least one or two of them might want to get a degree. Surely you wouldn’t discriminate, right? ;)

@nick012000 Who, besides you, said anything about discriminating?

@ElizabethHenning You said you were amazed by the "five pregnancies" part, implying that women who had lots of children wouldn't be welcome. My apologies if I misunderstood you.

Problem is, it does not get much better after the PhD: PostDocs and tenure tracks are often more stressful than the PhD phase.


text:
Why do some authors seem to ignore reviewer comments?
For example a review might say:

This paper is acceptable if the following comments are addressed:

In section two, change "this is a topy" into "this is a typo"
Instead of writing "Log" for the natural logarithm, write "Ln". This issue is present in sections two, three and four.
In section four, [do some serious work].

Then when the revision arrives, the authors make some attempt to address point 3 but completely do not address points 1 and 2, even though they're not controversial.
Why do some authors do this? I certainly do not want to Ctrl + F "Log" and list where all occurrences of it are when the authors can do that just as easily (besides, even if I do that, it often goes unfixed anyway). On the other hand, outright not fixing these issues when they've been pointed out seems pretty rude.
In my experience it seems that authors from India do this especially often, but I have no idea why this would be the case.

I would say: carelessness. They are confident that paper will be accepted even if point 1 and 2 are not taken care of due to being minor comments.

@AppliedAcademic does the edit help with the discriminatory aspect? If not, feel free to edit the question yourself.

@Coder hmm I'd expect some reviewers to be annoyed enough to recommend rejection because the authors aren't treating them with respect.

@Allure- Thanks, I think that's straight and unobjectionable! :)

Think about how often Absorbance is given in a.u. Besides that means astronomic units I guess, there is no way to get a.u. away from a mere Absorbance. I also wonder why people don't act to correct points like those in your examples. Some are totally wrong and in an examination scenario would cause the student fails. Ps I have been thinking to be on chemistry SE :))

You ask a question with no general answer. People do things. Different people do things for different reasons.

Personally I would do things the other way round fix 1 and 2, and not ignore 3 but maybe push back in what's asked.
Anyway back to the question, I expect it's a either an expectation that the journal will correct spelling/formatting issues (depends on the journal) or a gamble that you wouldn't reject a paper just because of a spelling mistake.

This does sound reasonable, but I wonder what would make someone take that gamble and risk rejection. Especially if the work needed is not much. I wonder if there is some perception that language/presentation is less important than the hard science itself.

You think those points are not controversial, but they maybe are (not speaking about typos, of course). Maybe it is a bad example, but there might be some country where the natural logarithm would be written as log and the authors would like to have it that way. [Exchange this example with anything you like.] If that was the case, it could be discussed like that in their reply, no doubt, and it would be better, but:
I also suspect that in many such cases people do not know better. It might be good practice to reply to every reviewer comment, but not everybody follows good practice. They might be inexperienced, never got good advice on this issue, or simply do it on purpose. [It reminds me a bit of quite a few PhD students' first attempts to prepare a reply for the reviewer comments to their first paper. They very often need good tutoring to end up with an acceptable response letter.]
But so what? You are not the author of the paper and are not responsible for it either. You do your share with your review, and in your example it would be only fair to let the editor know of the unwillingness of the authors to improve the standard of the manuscript. Then the editor can decide.
I would not call such behavior rude, it is just wrong/not helpful. Do not take it personally.


text:
How to disseminate a methodology proposal to those who may be interested?
I am currently doing research in the field of non-linear narrative design.
As it is still quite a small field, few sources and set jargon is currently available that hasn't bled in from paternal fields.
As such, I have written a proposal regarding the documentation of non-linear narrative structures.
The problem comes that not only is there no real viable place to publish this, but most tangential journals won't look at it twice as it is an unsourced inductive reasoning piece.
I feel like I'm effectively starting a subfield with this publication, so I want to do it right.

What would be the ideal way to get this paper out to those who it may interest the most?

I currently do not have an academic position, but am pursuing research on my own time.

Submit to the closest journal and cross your fingers. This is something that applies to researchers even in established fields. You've written up something and think it's great, but when you submit it to a journal that you think might like it, they send it back with a desk reject, saying it doesn't fit the scope of the journal. It happens.
Figure out which journals the people you think would be most interested in the paper normally read, and submit there.
Don't get upset if the editor sends the paper back with an "out of scope" reason. (Although if the editor makes any comments about the quality of the paper, take those very seriously.) Sometimes you have to shop a paper around until you find a journal or an editor which is receptive. Sometimes your paper has better luck in journals which are ultra-focused on a particular sub-field. Sometimes it helps to go to a journal with a broad focus, one which publishes across a wide variety of loosely related fields. With the advent of online publishing and loss of page number restrictions, there's a number of journals who are much less focused on "scope".
Don't, however, be tempted to publish in vanity or pay-to-play journals. There's a large number of predatory journals out there, which will publish any old nonsense, as long as the bank transfer clears. Publishing in these journals are really no better than tacking it to your mother's refrigerator. The point of publishing is to get others to read your paper, and no one with any sense reads these predatory journals. (Because the papers there are junk.)
Don't just propose something, do something. It sounds like your paper may be just a proposal, without any conclusions attached. These are notoriously hard to get published, even when in scope, especially if you're not a luminary in the field. The way around this is to actually use your proposal to do something concrete. Your proposal makes things better? Show an example of where it does.
This means that instead of having a paper which is "How to do Y" you can refocus the paper as "Getting X done by using Y". There might not be any journals interested in Y, but the latter paper might be interesting to a journal where X is in scope, even if they're not all that interested in Y. -- I can't help you much with specifics here, but think of situations where your paper might be useful to others. Is there notable literature with non-linear narrative? Can you apply your techniques to Ulysses, Finnegans Wake, or Don Quixote? Is there anything interesting that comes out of it? If so, you might be able to publish in a journal which is interested in those stories, even if they're not focused on non-linear narrative itself.
If you can't come up with an application that's of interest to others - if your new approach doesn't come up with any new results - then that might be an indication that your methodology just isn't worth much as it stands now. You might want to sit on it, and refine it further. Wait to publish until you have something that other people will be interested in reading.

I currently do not have an academic position, but am pursuing research
  on my own time.

This will make things harder for you. The problem is that there's a bunch of crackpots out there, who often come up with "new" and "innovate" ways of doing things. The problem is that, on the whole, they're 1) not actually new 2) not actually useful, and 3) have gaping holes in the implementation. The problem with "outsiders" is that they typically don't understand the field well enough to know where the current problems are, what solutions have already been tried and failed, and what the typical "gotchas" are.
That might not be the case with you (though no "crackpot" thinks they're a crackpot), but being an outsider means that the editor can't easily separate your submission from that of the many crackpots who are also sending them meaningless drivel.
You can certainly get around that by exuding competence and knowledge at every step of the submission process, but it may help to find an established collaborator to help ease your transition into publishing. (Note this can mesh well with the application suggestion. You can supply the methodology, and a collaborator can supply the example application.)

Some really great points there! As for the crackpot angle - I might be. I do hold a MA in the field of literature & theatre, but as mentioned I'm currently not active in the academic sphere to any professional degree.

Although most illuminating about your answer is that I definitely will need to polish my definitions. Non-linear narrative is something decidedly different from non-chronological narrative. It actually implies that the narrative itself is not bounded by linearity - a quality mostly reserved for interactive experiences. I'd go into detail, but that is certainly out of scope in this specific location!


text:
Should I include a paper with a low impact factor in my CV
I'm a Masters Student who has an old paper. I wrote a paper years ago with a research group in my old school. However, it's a really simple idea and was published in a not very reputed journal (Impact Factor 0.3). It was a long time ago, and honestly I would rather not be affiliated with it.
International Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering
Should this be included in my CV?
http://www.warse.org/pdfs/2013/icetcsesp%2010.pdf
It's relevant to what I'm doing now but just not very important and I consider it a not very good use of my time

That's not just a journal with a low impact factor; it's one published by a [tag:disreputable-publishers] (which is much more problematic). Also see What are "fake", "shady", and/or "predatory" journals?

The impact factor of the journal is also not valid. "Impact factor" usually refers to the one published by Thomson Reuters. The "Global Impact Factor" mentioned by the journal is likely fraudulent.

Also see I was published in a journal on Beall's list - how bad is my mistake?

Where did you get this 'impact factor', was it from researchgate?

Quick google search turned it up actually.

what search term did you use in google, 'scholar impact factor'?

An alternative perspective on this question could show that adding a 'low-quality' publication on your CV will show your progression as a researcher if your latest articles are high-quality and in reputable journals.

@J.Roibal The fake impact factor is on the journal's homepage: http://www.warse.org/ijatcse.htm

I suggest changing the question and title to focus on this being a predatory journal. Impact factor has nothing to do with it - some Nobel-winning work has been published in very low impact factor journals.

Possible duplicate of Is hiding publications in CV a good idea?

Yes, probably.
An academic CV should be a comprehensive record of your academic past.  It is not like a professional resume where you include precisely the (true!) information that you think will be to your advantage.  It is very likely that anyone reading your CV will assume that they are looking at the complete list of your publications.  So omitting a paper because you think it will make the reader think worse of you is something that, if discovered, would be regarded as inappropriate by many.  (And in many academic fields nowadays, such a discovery would be quite easy to make.)  If it is a standard convention in your field to include only "selected publications" in your CV, you could do that...but of course it could make the reader curious as to what was not selected.
Let me also say that not wanting to include a publication because of the low impact factor of the journal it was published in is at least one step further along on the path to impact factor insanity than I had heretofore heard of.  A paper is not good or bad because of some numerical measure of the journal it is published in.  Further, not all papers are our best papers and this is so obvious that there should be no shame in it.  However, if you really think that a paper is so weak that you might later regret publishing it: think harder, and if you're convinced then don't publish it.
Added: According to @ff524's comment, the impact factor may be the least of your worries.  But I think my answer applies even if you're published in a "predatory" journal.
Further Added: People may be interested to know that I have a publication in a journal whose publishing company, SCIRP, is on Beall's list.  I won't tell the full story of how I came to publish the paper there except to say that this is a journal in which one ostensibly has to pay to publish, I was curious what happens when one submits to this journal and is not willing to pay, and in the answer in my case is that they published the paper anyway.  (Yes, this "experiment" was not well thought out nor necessarily ethical behavior on my part.) Moreover, my opinion of the journal has declined in the intervening years since I published the paper.  Nevertheless I list the paper on my webpage and on my CV: on the one hand, I feel obligated to.  On the other hand, despite the fact that the paper was published in a journal some of whose practices look pretty shady, the paper itself is a real (though rather modest) research contribution.  In fact, from what I can tell (the subject of specialty of the journal lies outside of my core expertise) a good number of the papers published in this journal are solid.  (So the journal is in some ways predatory and some ways legitimate.  I find this very strange, wish I understood the situation better, and again, I wish I hadn't published there.)  I would much rather have a line on my CV that shows that I made a naive, questionable choice of where to submit a paper than have a CV which is not intellectually honest.
Yet Further Added: I will record here what I found on the web concerning the question of whether an academic CV should list all publications.
1) This link from UC Berkeley's Guide to CV's as part of an academic job search says "List all the papers and presentations you have delivered or will deliver."
2) Our trusted friends at Elsevier weigh in on the subject and seem to come to the opposite conclusion:

It is advisable to list your most reputed publications in ranking of type, such as books, book chapters, peer-reviewed journal articles, non-peer-reviewed articles, articles presented as prestigious conferences, forthcoming publications, reports, patents, and so forth. Consider making an exhaustive list of all publications in an appendix.

Please direct further questions on this article to its author, "Elsevier Biggerbrains."
3) Caroline Eisner at academic coaching and writing says

When you list your publications, begin with the most recently published, or those out for review (list these in italics), and move down your list to the one published first. If there are early publications (or conferences) you are no longer proud to list, or you no longer care to publicize, leave them off the list. If you delivered a paper long ago, and it is not relevant to your current academic self, don’t include it.

4) This University of Washington guide to academic CVs writes

List your published works in reverse chronological order according to publication
  date.  Use the reference style appropriate to your discipline.  If you have multiple publications,
  consider dividing them by type such as articles and book chapters, or
   refereed and invited
  papers.  If an article has been accepted for publication, indicate ‘in press’ or ‘forthcoming’ in
  lieu of the publication year.  Consider bolding your name on each publication.

It seems to give the impression that all publications should be listed.  (There is also the implication that there will not be so many.)
5) The University of Kent counsels structuring the CV so that the most relevant publications are highlighted, but the implication is that all should be included.

I disagree in this case. Mentioning a predatory/fraudulent journal in your CV most likely reduces the quality of your CV.

@mdiener: It's possible that the CV item reduces the quality of the CV compared to the hypothetical situation in which the OP decided not to publish the paper.  However, that's not the OP's current choice.  My argument is that omitting the paper from the CV is intellectually dishonest (according to my understanding of academic cultural norms, of course). Having an intellectually dishonest CV reduces the quality more, I think.

See also http://gecd.mit.edu/jobs-and-internships/resumes-cvs-cover-letters-and-linkedin/cvs, which nicely highlights some of the differences between CVs and resumes.  A senior academic's CV will probably be more than 10 pages.  If people did not have an expectation of completeness, this would not be done.  If the academic culture is different in other parts of the world, it would be very useful for someone to leave an answer documenting this.

I think I have seen CVs that only had "Selected Publications" on them, but not all. Unfortunately, if you only have one like the OP seems to have, it would be hard to do that and omitting the publication section completely does not sound helpful to me either.

@MaoWao: As I understand it, articles published in all but the laziest predatory journals look to the author like they have been peer-reviewed: i.e., the author does get something that looks like a referee report and may be asked to make superficial changes.  I would also say that if you feel strongly enough that you published in an illegitimate journal, you should seek to have the paper retracted or removed rather than trying to pretend the paper doesn't exist.  Finally, we are talking about academia, and not all academic publications are "scientific."

The issue whether a researcher does and publishes good work and whether they could fall for a predatory journal are not strongly related, and surely the fact that something appears in such a journal doesn't mean the work is bad. Everyone makes mistakes (actually I was tempted once to try out the same thing as the writer of this response), and paying such a journal and feeling bad afterwards in my view is enough of a punishment, so I certainly wouldn't downgrade a CV of someone because there is such a paper listed. I with the responder here.


text:
Would a retired researcher mentor a postdoc with his/her own external funding? What about one without external funding?
I'll be completing my Ph.D. soon, and am reaching out to people who I'd like to serve as my mentor. Two questions with regards to "academically" retired researchers:

If I have external funding, would emeritus faculty be interested in mentoring a postdoc?
If I don't have external funding (so would require my mentor to fund me), would a retired researcher from a research institution, or retired faculty, take on a postdoc, i.e., willing to spend time with and pay someone?

I have never seen this happen (though I haven't really looked into this), so I'd like to know if being a postdoc for someone retired is even possible. Both people I'm considering are still somewhat active in research (publishing papers, responding to emails).

Speaking on behalf of all retired researchers is not easy/possible, however I think it would go a little something like: "How did you get this number!? Just when I thought I was out..."

@J.J I believe the OP is asking about someone who is in academic retirement, not factual retirement.

I think it still applies that it depends on the specifics of the researcher, and when/why they retired, and that this question cannot possibly have a generic solution.

And there's a deeper question: will a retired researcher be a good mentor? Usually they are not that eager to publish, which can hurt your CV...

I'm sure you'll find people who are "retired" (from administrative duties, from chasing the next funding proposal) and still are hard at work, while others just want to stay at home and look at the lake in front of the window.
If one of them would take you on as mentoree (made up word, I know) is anybody's guess. Perhaps they retired in part to be free of having to deal with pesky students. Maybe you are so outstanding that you lure the hermit back into active work.

mentee - a person who is advised, trained, or counseled by a mentor.


text:
Having decided to become a researcher after long career in industry, should I work independently or start a PhD?
I'v been doing software development work for almost a decade. I really love doing research work but I am always doing programming work in companies. I could join a PhD program 15 years ago after my MS. degree in US. But I did not continue at that time for reasons (want more money, find a job for green card, etc.).
Recently I decided to follow my true heart on sciences, instead of being a "seasoned company guy" all the way to my retirement.  The machine learning/deep learning/big-data are thriving in these a few years. I cannot sit here just watching this big revolution in computer science.
Money is always an issue but will not be a big issue for me. I have accumulated quite a bit of money in the past 10 years hard working.  I can be mortgage free in a few years even in this most expensive city (Vancouver, Canada). My wife has a good job too. She “granted” me 2 years to do a starter’s non-profitable work on my own.
Hear is the plan: Doing part-time work to earn half salary to support the living cost and the remaining mortgage.  The rest of my band-wise will be dedicated to my research work. The question is, how to start?
Option 1: be an independent researcher and developer. Spend the next year to do online study including all the necessary math/statistics skills. Become an expert on certain field. And starting to publish papers, contribute to open sources or have some software inventions/products.
Option 2: apply a PhD program and spend the next 5+ years with professors to build up the foundation to become a truly powerful researcher. I am 42 now. Do I have that much time to spend?
Option 3 is to dedicate the first year to invent and develop a software product (iPhone App, Cloud service, etc.) and try to make money on it. And use the earning as the funding to support myself on the research work. In the mean while, try to get some investment and government funding.
None of the above will be an easy way. It is not a common career path, especially for a forty years old guy with a job/salary, wife and a kid...etc..  This will be a venture. I will spend years being dedicated /obsessed ( hopefully not half-crazy) in a house at the foothill of Canada north mountain, learning/reading/drawing/typing.....
Which way to go...?

I edited your post so the title would match the actual question described in the body. (The question of "How old is too old to become a researcher" is already addressed at length on this site - see the [tag:age] tag.)

This is a personal decision to make, but I have known several programmers who went to grad school without quitting their jobs. One of them got a PhD in the process and it took him about 5 years for the PhD but he was required to get another M.S. before he could start his PhD. I guess one thing that helped him was that he was allowed to work remotely most of the time which allowed him some flexibility. He finished when he was almost 40 so he was younger than you when he started.

As others have said, it's a personal decision. That said, 3 comments: 1, it's quite hard and takes extraordinary self-control to learn on your own as efficient as in a structured, good program, 2, a Ph.D. is likely the more of use to you the more you are strongly attracted to theoretical work as opposed to research-y practical work, and 3, don't let age dissuade you from either choice.

Getting a PhD sounds like the most straightforward option if you want to do more research. It is difficult (but not impossible) to become a researcher on your own. Note that a part-time PhD is possible in some places.

First, you should know that you can always publish and do research without any guidance and supervisor, take for example the case of Freeman Dyson who didn't gain any PhD, and has plenty of brilliant publications. In computer science, from what I have seen the researchers publish mainly in conference proceedings. The first step would be reading the papers in the field and settle upon a topic or direction you like or you find interesting and you feel it is reachable in the near future. Good luck whatever your decision!

FWIW: It seems that the primary (additional) difficulty in doing research independently is that academic research very much "chases fads", and it can be hard to know which sub-sub-sub-discipline is worth your while, without guidance from someone already engrained in the research community. If you can get a dedicated advisor without getting a Ph.D., this issue would be mitigated significantly. But this is not such an easy relationship to obtain: researchers are busy! (Often a university will give compensation to professors for graduating a Ph.D. student, so they find time for them.)

A PhD is training for research.  There's a whole lot of things that happen along the way, but the point of the process is that you gain skills in conducting research.  In addition, you gain the 'worldview of a researcher': how to think critically, assimilate information, analyse data, collaborate and come up with new ideas.
It is, of course, possible to do all these things without doing a PhD.  But the advantage of the PhD is it gives you opportunities that you might not otherwise have: access to resources, specific programmes (eg internships or field studies), people to collaborate with, exposure to new ideas.  Those opportunities can be open to PhD students in a way that they aren't to random members of the public.
A big part of research is interacting with other people, not just working on your own single path.  PhDs force much more interaction than you might do on your own (though it varies by subject).
The other side of 'training for research' is that, once you've come out of the process, you have simple proof that you have been trained.  That's what the letters 'PhD' are code for.  While the experience can be very different at different institutions, a PhD means the holder has untaken a major research effort and it has been validated by their peers, and learned some of the skills of research along the way.
That's the reason that many academic jobs expect you to have a PhD: they don't have time for a free-form assessment of your research skills - the PhD is proof that somebody else has already done that assessment.
By doing research without a PhD, you force people you interact with to do more work to assess your skills.  You can do that by building up a good body of peer reviewed research, which itself is unlikely to care whether you have a PhD (especially if the review is blind).  But in superficial contexts (eg screening for a job, a grant application or an invitation to some event) you're likely to find yourself at a disadvantage.
One advantage with working inside academia is you have more collaborators, but also as you become more senior you can build a research team: when students work for you, you (collectively) can achieve more.  That's difficult to do when you're working independently.
Finally, we can all come up with examples of brilliant people who started working on their subject without a PhD.  I suspect that's much less common than it was in the twentieth century, for two reasons:

Supply and demand: there were many fewer researchers, and the process was much more informal.  Now every tenure job gets hundreds of applicants. Why would you pick one missing critical training?
War and social upset: when you have to work on radar/antibiotics/aeronautics/nuclear physics/intelligence/cryptography at short notice for the war effort, all employment norms go out the window.  When those people came back to civilian life, they already had skills they could use in research.  Or, alternatively, they proved their worth in opportunities available because everyone who would normally take them was away fighting.

(Side note: I come from the UK where PhDs are 3 years on paper and often more like 4 in practice.  The North American process seems like a much more drawn out affair, and the time tradeoffs may be different)


text:
Is there a catalogue of fixed DOI patterns per journal?
Some journals use DOI prefixes/suffixes that remain the same for every work they publish.
For instance, every article in the journal British Politics carries a DOI based on the pattern 10.1057/bp.****.* with the year of publication and an article number occupying the asterisks.
Example: 10.1057/bp.2009.9 (paper nr 9 from 2009).
Is there a quick possibility to find out which journals carry which fixed DOI patterns (useful for automated analyses that loop through millions of DOIs)? Is there, perhaps, a catalogue of that sort?
(I only found this catalogue of publisher-specific DOI prefixes - - however, it's already 8 years old and pertains to publishers, not to journals.)

This seems to be a very technical answer: https://www.doi.org/doi_handbook/4_Data_Model.html

"The DOI system does not provide a central search capability across all DOI names,"  https://www.doi.org/faq.html

For transparency's sake, I work at Crossref on their support team.
The official position of The DOI Foundation and Crossref is that DOIs are opaque, and the only meaning that accords to a DOI comes from its metadata record, not from the DOI itself.  So, these suffix patterns are used by publishers, but not really condoned or formally acknowledged.
Both prefixes and suffix patterns can change mid-way through a journal's run, because journals are bought and sold from one publisher to another all the time. And sometimes they  just change suffix patterns on a whim. So, you may be able to find certain patterns that accord to certain journals, but they're unlikely to be consistent or all-encompassing.
Crossref encourages new publishers to use actually opaque suffixes - basically just random strings.  But, the identifiable suffix patterns are very entrenched in people's minds as what a DOI is supposed to look like, and they're very convenient to smaller publishers in terms of keeping track of which DOIs they've assigned to which content.  So, we (and the DOI Foundation) act as if they're opaque even if they look like they're not.
This doesn't actually answer your question.  But, I hope the context is helpful in understanding why such a thing isn't easy to make or find, if it exists at all.

Can I ask why "Crossref encourages new publishers to use actually opaque suffixes"? Is there a reason journals ought to prefer those over the identifiable suffix patterns? Just curious...

@TheAmplitwist When there's a visible pattern, someone at some point will rely on it. Which is not ideal if that pattern is not actually stable and might change at any time. Avoiding a pattern in the first place ensures nobody tries to rely on an unstable pattern.


text:
Sharing research-related codes and datasets: Split them, or share them together on a single platform?
I want to share both (1) programming codes and (2) datasets related to a research project.
While I know some suitable platforms superficially, I cannot gauge their pros and cons in too much depth because I lack experience. (In addition, many of their "About Us"-pages are not overly informative.) This is what I am aware of:
First, as regards codes, it seems that the best platform would be GitHub. They have a large audience of coders and they inhere a version control system to ensure transparent collaboration.
Second, as regards science-related datasets, it seems that Open Science Framework (OSF), Zenodo, Dryad, and Figshare are among the best options. They assign DOIs, automatically link your profile to ORCID, adhere to highly trusted Open Science principles (e.g. C0PE), and are non-profit community-driven platforms. (I would oppose them to, say, Mendeley Data which belongs to a large commercial publisher.)
Now I wonder the following:
If I want to publish a paper and share both its codes and datasets, what would be the best approach?
(a) Should I split them by sharing the code on GitHub and sharing the datasets on, say, OSF?
(b) Should I share both codes and datasets on one single platform? If so, which criteria could I use before choosing the right platform?

"Datasets" could be anything from a few-KB CSV to terabyte monstrosities; and affects the answer. What do you have?

Each platform has its uses, so it's best to use both GitHub for your code and a scientific data archival repository, such as Zenodo, for your code and data.
GitHub allows you to share your code in a manner that encourages collaboration through stars, issues, forks, pull requests, and notifications.  So definitely put a copy of your code there.  However, GitHub isn't designed to ensure the permanence of the hosted repositories. For example, one can always entirely remove a repository through GitHub's interface and also delete or modify old code with a Git force push.  In the longer term, we can't know that the company controlling GitHub (it used to be GitHub, now it's Microsoft) will continue to operate it in a way that serves science.  Consider how many corporate products and services have disappeared or changed tack over the past twenty years, even things coming out of large established companies, such as Google (check this list) or Sun Microsystems after it got acquired by Oracle (Java and Solaris licensing).
Consequently, for a better guarantee of your work's permanence and availability to future scientists you should also put your data and code on a scientific data repository, such as Zenodo.  This will associate a DOI with your deposited artifacts, which will permanently link to the corresponding version.  (Once you upload something to Zenodo, there's almost no possibility to undo the action.)  GitHub and Zenodo even offer you the ability to archive a specific GitHub version to Zenodo.
If the volume of the data is large or it is likely to be often used on its own, then split it from the code, and upload each on Zenodo as a separate dataset.  Zenodo allows you to link the two (and also the GitHub repository) with the "Related Identifiers" metadata.  You can use the Compiles and Compiled by identifiers for linking code with data, and the Supplement to identifier to link your GitHub repository.
For an example of a split associated with a large dataset consider this dataset regarding the lifetime of code lines (3.7GB), the associated software, and the software's GitHub repository. For example of a split associated with an independently usable dataset consider this list of repositories created by enterprises and the associated replication package.
If the volume of the data is modest, it's fine (or perhaps better) to combine the two in a single Zenodo upload, as is the case in this package regarding the completion of Wikipedia links.

+1 This is the correct answer. GitHub alone is not appropriate for archiving code because Git version history can be re-written. Additionally, as a commercial enterprise (owned by Microsoft), GitHub could disappear if it becomes bankrupt or fails to produce enough revenue that Microsoft decides to kill it. Since Zenodo is funded by CERN and the EU, these concerns do not apply.

As a user I'd definitely like to get both at the same place. But if there are clear linkages between the two sites, I will not give up just because I have to click a couple more times. So, on that front, not very different for me.
As a creator, I'd first determine if the codes are essential for people who will be using the data. For example, codes for data processing and import, variable management and labeling, missing imputation, and scale/index building should reasonably be with the data set. Other more peripheral codes, like that regression analysis done for the second manuscript, is probably better to stay with the publication. Inside the code it's easy to link back to where the data are hosted, so linkage should be preserved.
Another feature I'll pay attention is if the repository allows you to feature publications generated from the data. If they do, then it'd make sense to put the analysis code there. If they don't, then I'd keep them separate or that analysis would feel very out of context.
The sense of permanency may be a factor as well. For repository I'd probably only submit the data expecting nothing will be updated. If an analysis is still ongoing and codes will be actively updated and released, I'd consider something more dynamic like GitHub.
Also, check where your colleagues or people in your field would go. Those should be safe choices.

Code should always be on GitHub (or other version control platforms).  A lot of researchers don't put much effort into good programming practices, but learning to use version control properly is both best practice for developing your project, and best practice for sharing the code with others.  It also happens to be the best way to handle collaboration with co-authors.
For data that isn't "big", I would rank your options this way:

Good: Put your data in any sort of data repository, even if it's a
public Google Drive
Better: Synch your data with your code on GitHub
Best: Your code handles data retrieval as well as wrangling and analysis

The last option is the best because then you can host your data wherever you like, and just update the retrieval part of your code if you need to move it, and then you only need to distribute links to your code.  Synching your code to your GitHub repo works just fine if it's not a very large dataset; otherwise this becomes infeasible.
If your data is "big", you probably want to look at something like S3.


text:
Letter of recommendation from Head of Department vs Assistant professor?
I am applying for my post graduate studies.
From which person is it better to get letter of recommendation? From the person who taught me 2 sems and presently is Head of Department of my graduate field (who is also a phd) or from my math teacher who is an Assistant professor and has taught me for 4 sems?

Both. That's why you have 3 letters.

Is the post-graduate field of study mathematics?

While it seems that quite a few undergrads I have met seem to fall head over heels every time they see the department head walk into the room, you should know that the faculty who'll be reading your letters are not going to experience the same "love crush" reaction just because they are reading a letter from the cherished department head at your school.

I already have 2 LORs I just need to get one more, and assistant professor is my "brother-in-law", so I am pretty sure he would write some pretty good things about me.
Also my post-graduate field is IT.

From the person who can most positively, concretely, and convincingly describe your strong research potential.

Good question. Here are my thoughts.
If you can have both, then you should. If you can only have one or the other, then I would weight it up like this. If both are going to say good things about you, then pick the one higher in status. If one is going to say much better things about you than the other, then pick that person.
If you think that can get a somewhat better recommendation from the assistant professor than from the head of the department, then that is a bit of a quandary. As status of a student's referee and their level of supportiveness both affect acceptance decisions to uncertain degrees, you will probably just have to make a call based on your own intuition.

Thanks, and I had one more question, assistant professor is my brother-in-law but he has also taught me for 4 sems so would it put up a bad impression if I get LOR from my brother-in-law (who was also my math professor)?

Are they going to know that he is your brother-in-law? If there is no possibility that they will know this then it probably won't affect things. However if they are going to know, then I would probably advise against it. I would also check their submission guidelines - sometimes they specify that referees cannot be related to you, and relation through marriage might be included in those restrictions.