text:
Publishing referee reports I have written - Yes or No and How?
I remember reading somewhere about someone who started publishing referee reports they had written online, along with sending them to the journal (or after). Unfortunately I do not remember where I saw this and can't seem to find it now.
I see strong arguments for this practice.

A lot of time and effort is spent on report writing, so why not list them.
Transparency for its own sake.
Transparency for the sake of increasing quality.

Obviously there are issues:

Copy right or other legal issues with journals prohibiting the publication of reports [has to be taken up with the editor]
If the paper itself is not published, publishing the report might be harmful to the authors [one could wait until the final version of the paper is published]

My question: Is this already common practice somewhere and do repositories exist where one can upload reports? Are there other strong counterarguments I am missing?

You need to be careful before doing this. I remember reading (no time to look for source right now unfortunately) that some publishers explicitly prohibit reviewers from publishing their reviews. Also, in some fields at least, reviewers are expected to pretend they they're not reviewers after reviewing.

The ones I wrote. I hope my edits made the question clearer

It is often explicit (and even more often implicit) that the manuscript sent to you for review is "privileged information" which you are not allowed to disclose to the public.  I take that to include disclosing that such a manuscript exists.

Sure, but I am not talking about publishing the manuscript, only me review of it

@sheß Publishing a review derived from "privileged information" is also a problem. (Consider the reviewing process as taking place under an NDA, hence, you cannot reveal the manuscript nor what you derive from the manuscript.)

@Allure From a legal standpoint, the journals have no claim over reviews. I wrote them, I did not sign an NDA or a contract or anything, I am free to do what I want with them. Do not let the journals bully you out of more of your work than they already do.

@FedericoPoloni you sure? Because lots of journals have written policies on the responsibilities of the peer reviewer, and accepting the reviewer invitation can be interpreted as tacitly agreeing to those policies.

@Allure I am not a lawyer (and especially not one in every country of the world), but this seems equivalent to a browse-wrap license, which would be invalid because the license terms are not presented in a sufficiently conspicuous way to the reviewer.

@FedericoPoloni I can imagine why universities make their students take mandatory academic integrity courses, so students can't claim to be unaware of it. Imagine if one day a reviewer submits an intentionally fraudulent review, then claims that they weren't aware of the journal's policy that the reviewer give honest critical feedback. As a result journals start requiring all reviewers sign a form saying they agree to abide by the policy. Won't that be a tragedy ...

Yes, there are repositories. You could consider registering with Publons (see https://publons.com/home/). You simply forward the 'thank you for your review' email and upload the review and Publons keeps track of what journals you have reviewed for etc. Many of the major publishers are now automatically linking to Publons so you can simply press a button when you complete the review and you don't even need to do the upload.
In theory, Publons keeps track of whether the journal allows the review to be made public, but I have found that to be unreliable for one of the journals I regularly provide reviews to so you should take care. But Publons does other useful things like track whether a paper is eventually published, provide a summary of your review activity etc.

The question is about publishing the text of the peer review, which Publons does not, as far as I know.

@FedericoPoloni Yes it does. For example, see the FAQ at https://publons.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/12000012207-what-review-information-is-displayed-review-display-preferences- about how to control access to the uploaded reiew.

Take care with this. Since you write them, the words are yours unless the journal has required that you yield all rights to them or otherwise restricts your actions.
However, you should consider whether it is ethical to break the blind or double blind nature of review. There are reasons for that, though some are a bit esoteric.
If you need to say negative things about someone's paper and they take it personally, then you could find yourself in the middle of an academic war and those other people with an interest in an author's work might join the fray.
You also need to be sure that whatever you need to quote in a review is properly cited as in any other work. This makes publishing a double-blind review impossible, of course.
Some things might need to be confidential for various reasons, including patentable work. Some things need to be reserved until the paper is published, I think.
However, maybe the biggest issue is as follows. Often enough, by the time a paper is edited and re-edited, it no longer bears a lot of similarity to the version that you reviewed. In some fields this is a bigger problem than others, of course, but don't discount it. This will, potentially, reflect badly on yourself if you say things about a paper that aren't true about the published version.

Rather than publishing private reviews, wait until the submitted manuscript is published and then publish a critique. You can base your critique on your private review (albeit, this may compromise your anonymity), but you must update it to consider the published version, rather than the submitted manuscript.

+1. That makes sense. The critique need not even refer to the review or mention that it was done. Then anonymity isn't compromised. Anyone can critique an article.

@Buffy Those privy to the review can perhaps unveil the reviewer's identity.


text:
Assessing a potential supervisor who had a fallout with a previous PhD student
I am a PhD student and I have been thoroughly searching for future supervisors.
I have been speaking with current PhD students about a certain professor to get to know more about them, and they let me know their experiences as well as the experience of a previous student.
Apparently, it seems this previous student had some major problem with the supervisor and left in an ill manner (e.g., as soon as the PhD was finished, they left not teaching the new students after them how to use the equipment they built).
The PhD Student I had this conversation with is a respectable one, and I strongly believe they were having a serious conversation with me.
This professor under question so far is a great person, and I am incredibly happy to be working with them soon, and as far as I know and can see, they are attentive, supportive, encouraging and very willing to take suggestions from their team.
This conversation I had with the PhD student worries me slightly and due to the professor’s kindness, it makes me even more anxious to find out the professor’s side of the story, and what they thought about it.
However, I am too anxious/embarrassed to bring it up.
I have been thinking of having a one-to-one meeting with them and asking them a few questions I could frame as a “mini interview I like to take of future supervisors”:

Have you had any unpleasant experiences with PhD students in the past?

but I was wondering if the academic community on here would have better/more suggestions?

Did the student that you talked to actually go in any detail about the "major problem" the student had with the advisor? It might be worth asking them about it.

There are a lot of words answering this below but the answer is: don't go near it. There's no smoke without fire, no benefit in bringing it up and what you've described is a major red flag. Plenty more supervisors in the sea.

@croc7415 What makes you confident that the fire burns on the supervisor's side rather than the student's side?

@lighthouse keeper, a supervisor is very different to a student and if a supervisor allows a situation like this to happen it is much more likely due to a flaw on the supervisor's side. Part of good supervisorship is to professionally manage whatever issues might lead to this situation, e.g. student-supervisor mismatch. It is probably not possible to get to the bottom of it, and to be honest, who cares, just don't go where there is smoke because there are plenty of places where there is no smoke at all.

@croc7415 I would say the chances are 50:50. For a PhD student, the career drawback of an escalation like that is much greater, so they have an attractive interest in managing the situation to keep it from escalating. Regarding your other point, in the unlikely case that one has another, completely equivalently attractive offer, yes, that would make the decision easier. Otherwise, it might make sense to investigate.

@lighthouse keeper, I guess everyone would have to evaluate how much risk they want to take. I doubt it's possible (or appropriate) to 'investigate' and get to the truth. Also if the student has more incentive not to have an interpersonal conflict, doesn't that make it more likely there is a supervisor issue? In my career I've encountered many people where you just know that there won't be conflict and others where you think yep it'll happen. Of course people don't get along, but professional people work around it. The smoke is coming from the supervisor's house, the students are just visiting

Any updates to this question?

I have been thinking of having a one to one meeting with them and asking them a few questions I could frame as a “mini interview I like to take of future supervisors”: “Have you had any unpleasant experiences with PhD students in the past?” but I was wondering if the academic community on here would have better/more suggestions? Maybe even a view point of a professor?

Ok, don't. You don't like to be lied to your face, and probably your supervisor also doesn't like it. And maybe your supervisor is not stupid and may realize something’s up.
Let's just consider the possibilities (and to be clear, I have seen all of these):

Your supervisor is a psychopath who behave nice as long as it serves them and shit people in the face to get what they want if they can. These are very good liars. On the other hand, they don't care if you recognize them for what they are, they just will adapt the strategy.
Your supervisor is a person who doesn't plan his PhD supervision very well, and sometimes if results are not coming in puts all the blame on the student.
Your supervisor and the previous student just did not get along due to their personalities or their goals not aligning, and the previous student interprets this very much one way.
Your supervisor decided at some point to pressure the student with good intent e.g. to help them, and the student took it personally.
The student somehow messed up and put the blame to the supervisor.

What to do:

The most dangerous for your scientific career is 2. Here, check if you have the feeling that your supervisor really tries to generate a good context or if you are working alone and uncoordinated.
I would not necessarily care about 1; these are people whom you can bargain with if you have something in your hand, but check how valuable you and your result are and how much depends on you.
Number 3 you can address by discussing expectations and goals (35 h peer week, one conference publication vs. 60 h per week, two nature papers) early in the thesis.
Number 4 depends on the cultural context, but is maybe not that bad at all. (While my professor probably saved my thesis by pressuring me to finish the thesis, he probably messed up his working relationship with another PHD student by doing exactly the same thing so much that the student essentially dropped out.)
Number 5 is irrelevant to you.

I would not necessarily care about 1; these are people whom you can bargain with – I strongly disagree. While bargaining with a psychopath may work if you have direct pay-off, in a PhD the main pay-off is the degree at the end. You would have to rely on the psychopath honouring some agreement – which they tend not to do. Also, a PhD supervision comes with an inherent strong power asymmetry; you do not want to give a psychopath that kind of power over you. Finally, it takes a very strong personality not to let all the things they may throw at you get to you.

Well, you are right, but that is why i wrote "I would not necessarily care". I have seen people making a good career around psychopaths. Untimatly moving people into good positions and having a good working relationship with them serves the psychopath, so as long as they see a value for their personal goals they will push your career.

@Sascha this is a great overview thank you. I think using the term psychopath maybe a bit strong in this case, they really are a great person and all the other PhD students I’ve seen in the lab like them. No one has warned me or subtly discouraged me, and even in any case I would probably stay just because of the good support program amongst the junior and senior PhD students.

Furthermore, I think I can safely rule out 1. The supervisors only flaw is being too ambitious which is always talked about, so they always have very high expectations but they don’t mind if you don’t meet them, they like that you enjoy the work more (which I really like), I think 3/4/5 is highly likely, especially 3. In any case, I do agree that I can discuss something with the supervisor and let them know how I would probably like to approach the PhD at the beginning.

#1: I just left a narcissist supervisor who was super-kind in the beginning - but once his group was stable, dropped attention to his students and started abuse. I lost 2.5 years and restarting PhD studies now. You cannot trust them to behave nicely for 4-5 years even if they seem to be okay now. Your mental health not worth it! You should be also sure that the others really think that he is nice and good to work with, not just afraid to speak. Please, find people who has graduated (or not graduated but left the lab) and not under ths PI anymore!

Also, the thing with #1 is that you probably would have to watch them abuse others who are not that high value to them. In our group, there were people (elder PhD students and postdoc) who were silent while other were treated poorly to "keep peace" and avoid bringing the attention to themselves. If the supervisor is really a narcissits/psychopath, etc. you have to know whether you are willing to put up with abuse (either of you or others in front of you) to achieve your personal goals.

@Wrzlprmft is right.  Do not enable psychopaths.  It just makes their behavior more damaging.

@AnonymousPhysicist Can you elaborate? If one has confidence that one can work well with a particular psychopath PI, there seems to be less damage involved than if the PI hired a less prepared candidate who then triggered the PI's negative psychopath tendencies.

@lighthousekeeper if you do not take into account that a psychopath/narcissist would almost inevitably abuse someone in their group and in that case you have to remain silent not to expose yourself to their wrath... Then yes, you may work well with a psychopath. But please, do not enable the behaviour of these people toward others for your own personal advantage.

Apparently, it seems this previous student had some major problem with the supervisor and left in an ill manner

This should be taken as a red flag. It does not necessarily mean this advisor would be a bad fit for you, but it means you should proceed with caution. There are a number of possibilities, which Sascha has listed; these range from the student just didn't fit well with this professor to the professor is abusive and controlling. You need to find out which it is.
To find out, you can get at least a second and third opinion on this advisor from some of their other past students. Also, see if you can find if they have a history of students leaving their group early (note that such students may not always be listed on the professor's webpage, or if they are, they may be listed as Master's even though they entered as PhD students).

This professor under question so far is a great person, and I am incredibly happy to be working with them soon, and as far as I know and can see, they are attentive, supportive, encouraging and very willing to take suggestions from their team.

You may be right about your assessment, but keep in mind that many bad advisors behave this way to prospective students, but once you are in their group for a year or two, things change completely. Don't assume the worst, but do make sure you are right in your assessment. Signing up with a bad advisor and no "plan B" if things go badly is a sure way to have your PhD end in disaster.

I have been thinking of having a one to one meeting with them and asking them a few questions I could frame as a “mini interview I like to take of future supervisors”: “Have you had any unpleasant experiences with PhD students in the past?” but I was wondering if the academic community on here would have better/more suggestions?

This is probably not a good idea for two reasons:

First, the professor will see through it and find it rude;
And second, the professor would never be willing to admit if they were in the wrong. If the student left due to the advisor's poor behavior, the advisor would likely not see it that way and would believe that it was all the student's fault.

Instead, I would recommend you set up more meetings with the professor's past students, and talk to trusted individuals about the situation (such as a mentor at your undergraduate institution).

I agree, It would definitely be a good idea to look at a history of this. The other students seem to be happy enough, and they even go drinking with the supervisor occasionally. I don’t like the idea of being sneaky with my interview that is definitely not how I intended it, I just don’t feel comfortable enough addressing the issue upfront with them, I’m just not that familiar with them yet.

Good answer, except I disagree with "First, the professor will see through it and find it rude;"

Interview other PhD students instead of the supervisor.
Maybe this one dropout had a personality conflict with the supervisor, or some other axe to grind; it happens even to reasonable supervisors; ask the ones that are still with him, in private.
Don't interview the prospective supervisor in the manner suggested. Even a nice one will find that disrespectful - your prospective supervisor has passed many more tests/interviews than you at their stage in the career and will find this presumptuous. Whether or not they are individually qualified for supervising/managing PhD students, their institution and colleagues have found them so, it is not upon you to reexamine that, at least not directly. From your prospective supervisor's side, such a question from a student is a red flag and signals entitlement, even if you do not intend it.
It is perfectly legitimate to ask about their supervision style, though, e.g. hours, output expected, supervision intensity (i.e. hands-off, micromanagement or other) and similar.

I wholly agree with you on this. I think I will do just that. They seem happy but I am comfortable enough that I do not mind asking them further. I definitely do not intend to be disrespectful and due to many answers discouraging me from the mini interview I will not be doing this at all.

"Even a nice one will find that disrespectful" Wrong.

@AnonymousPhysicist Not only students, also professors can have had bad experiences. Especially if they are nice, they are likely to have been burnt several times, and they will be more guarded with a new one and with perceived entitlement. So, unless you give more explanation why you think it's wrong, it's not really a useful comment.

First of all, complex situations such as you describe are almost certainly not black and white.
Instead, it is safe to assume that mistakes were made on both sides.
At the very least the loss of relevant knowledge is almost certainly imperfect management on the professor’s side.
On the other hand, no professor is flawless, so you have to assess how bad things are.
In my opinion, if anything, bring up the isuse with the professor explicitly¹, stating your legitimate concerns as a reason for your inquiry.
The most likely outcomes are:

The professor freaks out about this.
The professor puts all the blame on the former student.
As elaborated above this is unlikely and even then any good supervisor will at least try to seek mistakes they made.
Therefore, in this case, you can assume that the supervisor is lying or not capable of seeing or admitting their own mistakes.
The professor admits that they made mistakes in that relationship, but they do not care.
The professor regrets their mistakes and says they learnt from them.
(Mind that that this does mean that they have to take the entire blame.)

Only in the last case, consider to continue working with them, and even then mind the details, whether you think they were honest, etc.
Some caveats:

When addressing this issue, you should make it very clear why you are doing this and that you do not want to dig into things more than necessary, in particular you do not want to invade the former student’s privacy.
Only do this when you can be sure that you are not leaving any trail to the PhD student who informed you.
This does not work at all in strongly hierarchical or indirect cultures where addressing such an issue already is an insult. Also, beware that I come from a notoriously direct culture and thus am biased towards directness.
The professor may not share any details about the situation out of respect for the former student’s privacy or not wanting to badmouth somebody behind their backs.
This is not a bad sign.
If things go awry, this may have repercussions beyond you having to seek another PhD advisor.
For example that professor may be part of your committee.
There is no perfect supervisor.
Consider how good your alternatives are.
For example, the professor may consider it a red flag against you that you address this issue at all.
While I don’t think they should, this may be their only flaw and they may still be the best possible choice as a supervisor.

¹ And not with a decoy question along the lines of: “What is your greatest weakness?”.

It would be the best to discuss things explicitly and directly, and if I was comfortable enough with the supervisor I would have done so long ago. I will be returning to the institution in the summer to begin another project and I have been considering this route when I have worked with them longer. However I will leave a trail as there is only one other student that works with me directly. I don’t believe there is any strong heir archical structure as far as I know. Yes there’s no perfect supervisor :)

However I will leave a trail as there is only one other student that works with me directly. – But you have talked to other members of the group and they would know about this, right?

"it is safe to assume that mistakes were made on both sides" - this is the "enabler's creed". It is often true, but certainly not always. In fact, this pseudo-truth is the excuse which creates the space to enable many toxic people to continue doing what they do. More often the person in the more powerful position, but also - though less often - the person in the less powerful position that knows how to hack the system. Don't be an enabler.

@CaptainEmacs: If anything, the enabler’s creed is: “It is safe to say that mistakes were made on both sides.” But I am only talking about assumptions. The asker has to make these here and that mistakes were made on both sides is as safe as assumptions go in this situation. That doesn’t mean that it cannot be wrong. It is possible that the supervisor is solely to blame. As already elaborated, I find it very unlikely though that all is the student’s fault.

@Wrzlprmft I have seen both. And do not underestimate the nastiness even of seemingly powerless people. I am not saying this is the case here, but a single testimony is not evidence, and for good reason many - even pre-modern - cultures consider it as not sufficient. OP should get more information. Asking this question to a supervisor today is an indicator of mistrust. Maybe in future generations this will be considered normal. Today, even a nice supervisor, confronted with such a question, will wonder what type of trouble they sign up for if they take this candidate.

I have been thinking of having a one to one meeting with them and
  asking them a few questions I could frame as a “mini interview I like
  to take of future supervisors”: “Have you had any unpleasant
  experiences with PhD students in the past?”

I like this approach. You are being proactive and also giving the professor a chance to be honest and tell their own side of the story. The difficulty is, you don't know whether they are actually being honest when they answer you. It would be good to ask other students in the department their opinion -- students who have not been supervised by or worked with that professor. They might be able to give you a more objective, outsider's viewpoint.
The other answers all say that a single student's complaint about a supervisor is a red flag against that professor, you should run away, etc. I don't think this is a helpful reaction and nor is it true. I have known a fair number of PhD students who complain about their supervisor at great length, and often those complaints have little or no foundation, or are really complaints about research or PhD life that every student has at one point or another, regardless of supervisor.
Furthermore, the actual issue, "as soon as the PhD was finished, they left, not teaching the new students after them how to use the equipment they built" doesn't seem like a big problem to me. Maybe the student had to start a new job straight after finishing? If the PhD is complete, they're not obligated to help the new students anymore. It would be polite and helpful yes, but not mandatory. I would not regard this behaviour as a red flag against the professor.
However, if you suspect the problems ran deeper, try and find out (discreetly, again by talking to other students) what the cause of the ill-feeling between student and professor was. It could be something like the professor was very hands-off and never had regular meetings with the student. You must weigh up this negative against the positives you list -- how important is it to you to have regular meetings?
Of course, it's perfectly possible the problem was caused by something much worse: academic dishonesty, plagiarism, harassment, bullying etc. These are true red flags. No matter how nice someone seems, steer clear if these problems are attached to their name.

"as soon as the PhD was finished, they left, not teaching the new students after them how to use the equipment they built" doesn't seem like a big problem to me – Well, at the very least it is bad management. There is no point in new students spending unnecessary time on reïnventing the wheel.

@Wrzlprmft exactly! I thought that was really unfair, a good year of the PhD was spent unnecessarily I think.

Yes a true academic dishonesty such as plagiarism or harassment is certainly a red flag, but this is also highly unlikely, this professor is very very well established with a large team, and many other professors and assistants, it would not be overlooked. The PhD students are certainly happy enough that it makes me think the student themselves had personal issues which made them disagreeable.

I suggest that you let it go. You have made your own assessment. Knowing the details of the older case as little real value other than as a story.
Some people don't get along. Some people don't get along with anyone. Some students have a hard time for various reasons and try to deflect blame away from themselves. Some professors, likewise, may react poorly with some student. It happens.
Some students have unrealistic expectations of advisors. Some advisors have unrealistic expectations of students. Either will cause friction.
But you aren't, and don't need to be a judge of either the other student or the professor. Raising the issue with the professor isn't likely to do you any good. And if they are truly bad, the last place you will learn that is in a conversation with them.
But if you had more than one such conversation with different previous students and most say the same thing, then it would be best to find someone else.

I like this approach and it probably makes me the most comfortable, but I feel as though I am being too carefree and naive especially when it comes to a big ‘career move’ for me. I have a lot of anxiety and it’s recommended that I let go of things, which I am doing a lot lately, but as I said, I can’t in this case without logically/rationally assessing the situation and then feeling comfortable with my decision.

If you have the opportunity to get another local opinion, do so. A current student would be good. Even if it is from someone with a different advisor. But the final paragraph of Captain Emacs answer is useful. But don't raise the issue of the (possibly) disgruntled student.

Could you not contact folks who have gotten their PHD from this prof? Google is amazing, after all.

I felt the other answers did not effectively address this part of the question:

have been thinking of having a one-to-one meeting with them and asking them a few questions I could frame as a “mini interview I like to take of future supervisors”:

Yes, you should do this.  You should interview several potential supervisors to find out what they are like.  Usually, the way this works is that supervisors interview prospective students.  When they are done, they give the student a chance to ask questions.
Anyone who thinks it is insulting for a prospective student (or any prospective employee) to interview a future supervisor is way out of touch.  All decent supervisors should be aware that there are bad supervisors out there, and any sensible prospective student or employee will want to try and detect them.  When the student questions the supervisor, it is also an opportunity for the student to demonstrate genuine interest in, and knowledge of, the research.
Your specific question could be better worded.  For example, "How do you handle interpersonal conflicts?"
I concur with the answers suggesting that you ask former students for guidance.

As I said in my response, it is perfectly ok to ask about the advisor's management style, allocation style of authorship etc. Asking "How do you handle interpersonal conflicts" sounds very patronising, though, coming from the candidate. Even as PhD candidate I would be also worried about the supervisor asking the student the same question. This relation is one of trust and since no 3rd person is - a priori - involved, this question raises some red flags. Maybe it will become standard in the future, like prenups, but, like prenups, it does not mean that this is a desirable development.

Choosing a supervisor is THE most important thing you will do during your PhD. If there are ANY questions / doubts whatsoever about the supervisor, you should look elsewhere. A fallout of this kind with a student is a MAJOR red flag. Choose someone else.

I agree with the first sentence, not with the second. People lie or bend the truth to make themselves look better. Perhaps a disgruntled student now deprives not just the prof of a great student, but OP of a great supervision? There is nothing wrong, though, with finding out more.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Will an error in one of my publication affect the outcome of my PhD defense?
I'm a PhD student in physics in a European country. I'm about to have my PhD defence in about 6 weeks. I have 3 published papers and one manuscript ready for submission. My thesis is also finished (more or less). About 6 months ago I found several errors in one of my published papers. I should have spotted these errors much earlier because they were pretty obvious, but it took around one year after the article was published until I spotted the errors. Luckily, I was able to fix these errors and we submitted a corrigendum to the article which has now been published. I also included the correct data in my thesis.
I'm very worried that this will affect the outcome of my defence. My committee and my opponent will read my thesis, but also my publications. They will probably spot all the errors in the original article and ask me why I didn't spot these mistakes earlier. Even though we have published a corrigendum, it still took a long time after publication before I found these errors. I'm very worried that they will not give me my degree because of this. That would be a nightmare for me. My supervisor said that it should be fine, but I'm still very worried.

No one can say but those who will be judging your work. But, I think that your advisor is giving good advice and will support you if there is any difficulty. People make mistakes. It is good that you corrected them yourself.

Welcome to Academia SE. Please have a look at these questions as to whether any answers your question. If not, please [edit] your question to briefly explain why and particularly share some details about your errors: 1) How severe were they? 2) Were they different incarnations of the same problem or completely distinct?

In your country, can publications influence the outcome of your defence? Sure, your committee and opponent might read them, but can they influence the outcome?

Yes, in my country you need to publish at least 3 articles. The articles will be appended at the end of the printed thesis. So the opponent and the committee will most definitely read them

I think you have overestimated how closely they will have read your work. Just have a “sound bite” response for if it happens to come up. Practice answering this question to a friend and see if your answer comes off as smart/thoughtful/genuine.

Speaking as a mathematician, I have come to realize that mistakes are inevitable in the published literature. In many cases, authors don't find them or do find them and don't issue an erratum/corrigendum. So, when I see an author put in the extra effort to do so, I respect them much more for that. It's not easy to admit publicly to making a mistake, but fixing mistakes really helps make the literature more trustworthy and user-friendly. If anything, I think this would demonstrate maturity to your committee (rather than trying to hide the mistake or hoping no one will notice), and would probably help you rather than hurt you. That is: if they are of the same opinion that mistakes are bound to happen from time to time, and that this is the right way to handle them when they do.

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


text:
How to avoid and address a lack of gender diversity in grant proposals?
I just got reviews back on a grant proposal.
On the whole the reviews were positive, but one reviewer criticised us because the five PIs are all male.
The proposed project arises naturally out of a couple of strands of work that we’ve been doing recently. The PIs are the people who’ve been involved in that work, plus the CTO of an industry partner. We’re in a niche area of applied math, and neither of the institutions involved have female staff eligible for the grant scheme working in the area of our proposal.
I support efforts to fix gender imbalances in academia, and I would have preferred a mixed-gender team. However, I’m not sure what I could have done for this project. The options seem to be:

Propose a fundamentally different piece of work with different participants. However, this would likely not be of interest to the industry partner, which is central to the viability of the proposal. Our original idea would then presumably not get developed.

Expand the proposal to bring in female colleague(s) at another institution. However, the funding scheme essentially only provides the salary for one postdoc, so the benefits for PIs at additional institutions are limited. The obvious candidates are all a long-haul flight away, so day-to-day engagement would be challenging. I’m uncomfortable asking people to do work on my proposal when I can’t offer them much in exchange.

Ask someone to put their name on the proposal “for show”. Clearly offensive and counterproductive.

Does anyone have any advice on how to best reconcile diversity considerations with practical realities in these circumstances?
My question is more about the general issue – and whether there is anything I should have done differently – than about how to respond to these particular reviews.

How did the reviewer know that the 5 PIs are all male? Was this explicitly stated or was this an assumption made from people's names?

What kind of organization is the funder? Governmental? Business? Nonprofit? A wealthy individual?

Moderator’s notice: Please only post comments in accordance to this FAQ. Do not share your opinion on this kind of criticism or policy; this is not the right place to debate this. Do not make any jokes. Comments and answers not adhering to this will be deleted without warning.

Does this problem actually need to be solved? Is it a criticism that need to be addressed,  aka that the project doesnt get funded if you dont solve it?

There was some discussion/complaint about the moderation notice above. I reviewed the deleted comments, reinstated one, and can confirm that the others were either answers-in-comments or obsolete. All the surviving comments seem like requests for information. Following this guidance, I then deleted the debate about moderation. Hopefully this satisfies all sides; if not, please take it to meta.

@owain It is plausible that the reviewer has met most/all of us.

@indigochild Government.

@lalala As stated in the question, I am more concerned about the general issue than about this specific application.

This is a hard and important problem.  There are a few things you can do to address it.
First, admit that there is a problem indicated by the demographics of your discipline.  Tell the funding agency that

neither of the institutions involved have female staff eligible for the grant scheme working in the area of our proposal.

Tell them briefly about your universities' plans for future diverse hiring.  Tell them that the grant applicants do not have control over the diversity of current staff (if this is true).
Explain how the project will contribute to gender inclusivity.  You said you plan to hire one postdoc.  How will you encourage gender minority scientists to apply for that postdoc?  How will your selection process prevent discrimination?  How will that postdoc receive professional development that will advance their career?
Will you be communicating about your project to the public, and will that be done in a way that reaches people of all genders?
It sounds like your project is applied.  Will the application benefit gender minorities?  Even if they get a minority of the benefit, it's still worth pointing out that your project does not exclusively benefit one gender.
Do not add a token applicant.  You are obligated to allocate the project funds efficiently.  Some people argue that tokenism has the opposite of the intended effect.

And, long term, think about how you organize things and how you invite participation.

A comment saying that there was no "problem" was deleted, but I'll try again: Saying that the, let's call it "demographic disparity" is a "problem" in this case would mean that the disparity is also a problem when it comes to beauticians or construction workers. Differences are not automatically a problem. As long as everybody has the same opportunities, there will be demographic differences. In order to eliminate these differences, you'd have to apply severe social and political pressure. That would be problem, because it would limit people's freedom to choose what they want to do.

"is also a problem when it comes to beauticians or construction workers"  I'd say there is a problem.  Many people take those jobs because they are excluded from better opportunities by discrimination.  I don't think anyone wants to eliminate all demographic differences; what people actually want is for the demographic differences to stop being a symptom of discrimination.

How often do math problems "benefit gender minorities"?

@YuvalFilmus For example, most things that have economic benefit will benefit gender minorities.  The question does say the answer is "applied."  It does not need to benefit a specific group exclusively.

@AnonymousPhysicist It's important to distinguish between 1. calling it a problem when there is discrimination against(!) certain people based on aspects that are not relevant for their competence in the respective field (like gender for mathematics), and 2. depicting mere demographic differences in a certain field as a "problem". The latter is is plainly wrong. Yes, you did not say this - you just vaguely talked about a ~"problem with demographics". As such, my comments here are urgent requests for clarification: Demographic differences are not a problem per se.

@Marco13 I think we basically agree, but you are splitting hairs.  I edited the answer.

This is not splitting hairs. These things are the opposite of each other: When a demographic difference is "the problem", then every attempt to eliminate it would plainly be incompatible with the idea of equal opportunities. If unjust discrimination is "the problem", then eliminating it would be tantamount to trying to give everybody equal opportunities. The difference matters, and it matters a lot.

Two words: disparate impact

@Marco13 I do not advocate for "equal opportunity."  "If unjust discrimination is "the problem", then eliminating it would be tantamount to trying to give everybody equal opportunities"  That is false.  History matters.  Past discrimination causes unequal and unjust results when there is currently equal opportunity.  To achieve just results in reasonable period of time, equal opportunity is insufficient.

The main purpose of the comment was to request a better wording (I still do not agree with the current one, but at some points, these may just be opinions). Beyond that, there are several things that could be discussed, but this cannot sensibly be done here in the comments. But it you think that it is fair to treat you unfairly because some people that ~"are like you" did something wrong many years ago, then there could be many issues to unfold (and of course, I don't agree to that).

@Marco13 "because some people that ~"are like you" did something wrong many years ago"  I do not advocate for retribution.  I support helping people who were wronged.  It's different.  Reality is not a zero sum game.

Again: There are faaar too many aspects directly or indirectly related to that topic to unfold here, so I'll abstain from further discussion (assuming that the last few comments here might be deleted soon anyhow). But when you talk about "helping people who were wronged", my first question would be: "How far (in time) do you want to go back with that?". It's difficult...

@Marco13 My answer would be that I don't care.

This can be answered with a pretty simple question:
Are the PIs the best people for the job?
If they are, then, quite frankly, there is nothing that needs "fixing" (at least in terms of this particular proposal, you may have wider problems in your field but they aren't your problem alone to solve and I digress).
If they aren't, then you should look at who is and have them on the project instead.
Whatever you do, don't add a female PI who isn't qualified or suitable for the position just to please the reviewer. It's not helpful and is actually rather patronizing and offensive. Also, dropping a PI just because they're a man and you need a woman is discrimination in and of itself.
Tokenism is just another form of sexism
In the long-term, it might be worth analysing the root causes of why the 5 best people all happen to be men.
However, that's not relevant for this proposal and isn't going to be a short-term fix. I'd suggest you write a letter to the reviewer indicating that you believe the 5 PIs are the best people for the position and leave it at that.

I think a response that does not address diversity at all is unlikely to help the applicant more than not responding.

I would suggest that a reply stating that the PIs are the best people for the job and that the researchers don't wish to engage in tokenism is addressing diversity.

Taken literally, your answer says not to say anything about tokenism.

Personally, I think saying the PIs are the best 5 people for the job implies that you don't want to engage in tokenism. However, you may disagree.

@AnonymousPhysicist : This does address diversity.  The "quite frankly" comment is one way.  Addressing tokenism, a diversity-handling strategy that may be at least somewhat likely to be considered, is another way.  Perhaps the poster addressed diversity in a way that doesn't seem favorable to you (addressed in the way you want), but in my opinion, it wasn't unaddressed.

@TOOGAM The answer above is "I'd suggest you write a letter to the reviewer indicating that you believe the 5 PIs are the best people for the position and leave it at that."  This does not address diversity.  The rest of the "answer" does not actually answer the question "Does anyone have any advice on how to best reconcile diversity considerations with practical realities in these circumstances?"

@AnonymousPhysicist aye it does... It points out that if you have the best people for the job in the position, then that's that. You've made your diversity considerations and that's perfectly practical. If you don't then you reassess and pick the best 5. How does that not answer the question?

I once submitted a math paper to a top 5 journal, and when the reports came back the referee said that it was more appropriate for the next tier because 1) It only constructs one object which was already predicted to exist and 2) It uses an extensive computer calculation.  These were undoubtedly true facts about the paper, and certainly it'd be a stronger paper if it constructed a family of objects or if it didn't require a computer.  Nonetheless, it was a very good paper, and there was nothing we could do to address either of these criticisms.  We'd thought a lot about whether we could make either of those improvements and we couldn't.  10 years later I still think about whether we can fit that object into a family and I still can't do it, 10 years later I still think about whether there's a less computational approach and there still isn't.  Nonetheless, despite there being nothing we could do to address the criticisms, they rejected the paper because top 5 journals have plenty of great papers and can afford to reject your excellent paper because of valid criticisms that you can't do anything about.
All of this is just to say that you should really seriously think about their criticism and see whether you can address it in a productive and substantive way, and if you conclude that you can't do so, then you need to accept that they might reject the proposal simply because they have other proposals that are just as good and which also broaden participation of women in your field.  Next time you have an idea for a proposal think about including women co-PIs earlier in the process and maybe you can find a different local maximum (somewhat different subject, different direction of collaboration, different mode of collaboration) which avoids the drawback identified in this proposal.  By all means follow Anonymous Physicists excellent suggestions and maybe they will fund the proposal, but in the end it comes down to their judgement and all you're really owed here is that they explain their judgement and that this judgement be based on accurate and valid reasons.  In this case they've identified a valid criticism and communicated it to you, and ultimately it's their judgement call.

There are correct answers, politically correct answers, and answers that get you funded expeditiously. The last one of those is: yes, add someone for token, and allocate minimal funds for her. A math project should focus on solving the math problems.

No no no. It will be obvious and it won't get you funded.

This is a terrible and unuseful answer, I don't understand why it has been upvoted

No no no. It’s unethical (but it’s not at all obvious to me that it won’t get you funded. Then again robbing a bank will also get you funded but that doesn’t mean it’s something you should do).

I'm not sure whether this would mean actually employing someone in the token place, but if yes, this is a terrible advice. Apart from everything, think of the personal point. You suggest employing someone with minimal funds (and salary) for a probably weightless/unnecessary position just to comply with gender equality. How would this newly hired person feel? I assume there was a reason for single-man hire. Maybe there's not enough funds for two. Maybe there's not enough work for two. Making the unnecessary woman hire cook coffees all day for the original hire would be terrible.

@Neinstein A token PI. No funding, no work, and a free dinner with every project meeting. Of course no sensible prof will give her name for that if there isn´t a very good explanation why she´s added to the team list. In which case she should likely have been on there before.

I suspect your sponsored projects office would be very interested in knowing why you have proposed adding a PI with no duties.

This answer explicitly prioritizes obtaining funding over professional ethics. Anyone with integrity should see it for what it is and ignore it.

I could not find in the answer what some of the comments suggest: Employing someone with minimal funds and salary, or adding a PI who will have no duties. The funds could be used to support a PhD student and post-doc who already has some other funding, either by offering them a slightly longer contract or, in countries where Math PhD students and post-docs usually don't get full-time positions, more work hours and a higher salary.

While this would be a morally bad thing to do, this is a good answer since this is how it often happens in reality.

Practically speaking, I think @user111388 is right. Actually, a female PI hired for token purpose may make significant contribution later. Who knows? I highly doubt  neither of the institutions involved have female staff eligible for the grant scheme working in the area of our proposal unless all the institutions are of small size. I have seen many (applied) mathematicians want to change fields. Some of them must be female and willing to adapt themselves for a different research area.

@user111388 That’s one hell of a non-sequitur: it’s good because that’s what happens in reality, despite being morally bad? You (and currently 26 others) have a very odd conception of what makes a good answer. Note that the question wasn’t “what do people do” but “what should I do?”

@KonradRudolph: I am sorry for the misunderstanding. It is morally bad and I wouldn't recommend it. I think it's "good" not in the sense of "one should follow the advice" but " "it happens in practice, so the answer should stand in this forum and be discussed". It would IMO be a shame if there was no hint of that happening. (I don't know what you mean by me and 26 others.)

If I see you have five PIs, all male, there are three possibilities: Pure chance, or you don’t want women on your team, or there are not enough female candidates (after all, they might have all gone to better teams).
In the first two cases you should know how to fix the problem. Although removing someone from the team for being male looks like illegal discrimination as well.
In the latter case, check which qualified women there are, and why they are not on your team. If you can reply “there are 7 qualified women. #1 works on X. #2 works on Y etc.” that should help. And obviously add that the number of qualified women is outside your control.

"after all, they might have all gone to better teams". is kind of an insult


text:
Am I allowed to submit to a journal, a paper that was accepted to a conference but not presented yet?
I am writing a paper in game theory. It is almost ready and I would like to submit it to an economics journal. Meanwhile, I would like to present a part of it in a computer science conference which is also interested in game theory. This will probably not be a problem from the journal's point of view, since the journal version contains much more results than the conference version. It is common to send to a journal, an extended version of a conference paper. But, I am not sure if it is allowed from the conference's point of view.   In the "multiple submission" policies of two conferences, I found a similar statement:

AAMAS:  "Authors may not submit any paper to AAMAS hat has already appeared in an archival forum. Authors must ensure that no submission to AAMAS s under review for another archival forum between the AAMAS submission and decision dates."
IJCAI:  "IJCAI will not accept any paper that, at the time of submission, is under review for or has already been published, or accepted for publication, in a journal or another venue with formally published proceedings... Authors are also required not to submit their papers to venues with formal publication during IJCAI-16 review period".

I understand that I am not allowed to submit to the journal BEFORE the submission deadline, and not allowed to submit BETWEEN the submission deadline and the acceptance/rejection decision. What I don't understand is: am I allowed to submit to a journal AFTER the decision (assuming it will be an "accept" decision) but BEFORE the conference itself?
The rules do not say explicitly that it is forbidden, but, I thought that it may be "obvious" that it is forbidden, since the conference organizers want to make sure that the paper is fresh and new when it is presented in the conference.

If I understand your question correctly, you're planning to submit the journal paper after receiving the decision from the conference. In that case, if the journal is ok with considering an extended version of a conference paper, the conference organizers are probably not in a position to say anything against that. However, you have to follow the standard referencing rules when finalizing the journal paper:

The material that already appeared in the conference is not "new" for the journal paper, but has been published previously in the conference paper. Accordingly, the relevant section in the journal paper should be formulated as a review of existing results.
You must cite the conference paper from that section.

So if I submit to a journal after the decision date, and it is published in the journal before the conference date, the conference organizers don't care that the presented paper has already been published?

@ErelSegal-Halevi Is this realistic to happen in your case? Usually journal publishing is much slower than conference publishing.

@ErelSegal-Halevi: Typically, at some point before the conference takes place, you will have to sign a copyright transfer agreement for the conference organizers. You will also have to sign a copyright transfer agreement for the journal at some point before the journal appears. This could put you into the inconvenient situation that in whichever of these you sign second, you agree to transfer exclusive rights to a publisher that you had already transferred to another publisher in the other agreement. The key here is making your journal version an extended version of the conference paper.

See also http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/54433/will-i-be-regarded-as-academic-dishonest-if-i-submit-one-paper-to-a-conference-a

@O.R.Mapper Yes, the journal version is an extended version of the conference paper. Does this mean that I can sign both copyright agreements with no problems?

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

authors: timi1tv天美传媒免费观看--高清播放

authors: timi天美传媒在线视频免费观看--高清播放

authors: 倏忽的意思解释_倏忽的意思解释免费在线完整版片

authors: 冠希门1400张高清免费-完整版免费播放


text:
Are control theorists considered mathematicians?
Are control theorists (electrical engineering) considered mathematicians?

If so, would they receive a Fields medal if they make a breakthrough in control theory?
If not, is there a prize similar to the Field medal for control theorists?

So far as I know, the Fields Medal has never been awarded to someone whose work was primarily in applied rather than pure mathematics.  On other hand, I looked up the wikipedia article on control theory, and at the bottom it lists Pierre-Louis Lions, a Fields Medalist.

Putting aside the sociological aspects of the question, in my mind there is no question that control theory is a branch (and a very elegant and interesting one) of mathematics. Everything else - where control theorists are employed, what awards they receive etc - is just noise.

Anyone who has doubts that control theory is of interest to pure mathematicians should read up on the life and work of Lev Pontryagin.

Incidentally, I think there are many areas of mathematics that aren't fashionable enough for breakthroughs in those areas to be considered worthy of a Fields Medal. But practitioners of those areas are still considered completely respectable and mainstream mathematicians.

@DanRomik: To be sure, I most certainly do not use the Fields Medal as a ltimus test for what is good mathematics.  I was just commenting in direct reply to the second question: probably someone would not win the Fields Medal for a breakthrough in control theory.  Of course, the vast majority of enormous breakthroughs in mathematics have not been heralded with a Fields Medal, and I don't know many mathematicians who take seriously the idea that the Fields Medal represents "the very best" of anything.

@PeteL.Clark agreed - we're totally on the same page about this.

The comment about Pontryagin reminds me of this old joke - Reporter: "Professor Dr. Einstein, could you please tell us..." "Ah, no, let's leave the formalities - just call me Albert." If you are that good, the prize needs you more than you need the prize...

Is Kalman considered a control theorist?

@galois Possibly. And Gabor got a Nobel prize, although his results are essentially of mathematical nature as far as I understand. Communities emerge by whoever talks to and understands whom, rather than necessarily objective separation criteria.

Are control theorists considered mathematicians by whom?

While it seems true (based on my own quite sketchy observations) that many if not most control theory researchers may be employed in engineering departments rather than mathematics departments, I find the suggestion that control theory is not a branch of mathematics, or that control theorists are not mathematicians, both laughable and offensive (although I'll concede that probably some control theory experts have more of an engineering background and care less about proving theorems, and may not care to define themselves as mathematicians). Some important points to keep in mind are:

Control theory has wide applications to many areas of engineering (mechanical, aeronautical, chemical etc), not just electrical engineering, so certainly OP's description "control theory (electrical engineering)" is inaccurate. In fact the field predates electrical engineering: the first detailed study of a control theory system was published by James Clerk Maxwell (of Maxwell equations fame) in connection with a purely mechanical control system used in steam engines.
One of the other godfathers of control theory is Lev Pontryagin, known for the so-called Pontryagin's maximum principle, a fundamental result in the theory. Pontryagin (who incidentally was blind for most of his life) is regarded as one of the great pure mathematicians of the twentieth century. I am sure he would have laughed at the suggestion that his work on control theory was of a different nature than his work on algebraic topology or harmonic analysis because it was "applied" or "not mathematics but engineering".
I know of at least one notable contemporary counterexample to the claim that control theorists are not "considered mathematicians". Arthur Krener, a leading expert in control theory, is a former professor and chair of my department -- a mathematics department -- and now a professor of mathematics at the Naval Postgraduate School. He is a Fellow of the American Mathematical Society. He has won many awards for his work in control theory, most recently the IEEE Control Systems Award in 2016. I would be offended on his behalf at any suggestion that he is not a first-rate mathematician.

I don't have references on the demographics but, traditionally, many and probably most control theorists are engineers by formation and it's in the field of engineering (electrical, mechanical, aerospace, etc.) that most of control theory applications reside.
However, control theory is really a broad interdisciplinary subject comprising engineering, mathematics and, to a lesser extent, physics. For mathematics, topics like algebra, graph theory, dynamical systems theory, optimization theory, and functional analysis are fundamental for the development of control theory, and mathematicians have provided outstanding contributions, as Dan Romik well explained.
My interpretation of your question, however, is whether a control theorists who is engineer by formation is considered a mathematician. I don't like barriers between disciplines, and exceptions always exist, but in my experience engineers are seldom considered pure mathematicians, and their contributions to mathematics are usually far from the mathematics of interest to win a Fields medal.
Thus, there's no Fields medal for control theorists, at least in your probably intended sense, but IEEE awards prizes (e.g., the IEEE Control Systems Award) for outstanding contributions in the field.
But you don't choose a field for the prizes, right?

Can you add references to support your claims?

@DanRomik As a side note, many parts of engineering can be of interests to pure mathematicians, whether they notice or care is another story.

Massimo: very true. But (and sorry for ranting, this is a pet peeve of mine) control theory I regard as the extreme point highlighting the absurdity of this situation. If a researcher in, say, VLSI design, does work that touches on some deep mathematics, I still think it's reasonable not to consider that researcher as a mathematician. But control theory is really "just" a branch of mathematics that happens to have a ton of technological and engineering applications, so it is a lot more unfair for good work in control theory not to be noticed or appreciated by mathematicians.

By the way, another somewhat similar example to which my pet peeve applies is game theory, which is mistaken by many people to be a subbranch of economics, but which I consider to be (to a good approximation) just a branch of mathematics that has many important applications to economics (as well as to other areas like evolutionary biology and political science).

@MassimoOrtolano I read that at first "I am a dentist now" - so I wanted to ask whether that has better chance of getting a Nobel - probably only if you need to use Dynamite ;-)

@CaptainEmacs If I were a dentist now, I could be used as notable and extreme example when someone asks here about chances of switching fields ;-)

@DanRomik I've modified my answer, I hope it now better reflects my thoughts and the reality: after all, I don't like war between fields, and I consider them pointless and fruitless.

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


text:
Phd advisor funding problem
I am in the third year of my PhD. My advisor is very nice and he has helped me out so far in terms of my research, and other things as well. He is very approachable and we really bond very well. He even understands me a lot.
The problem is that he does not have funding and never mentions much about it. Sometimes, I feel since he does not have money he tends to cut short the experiments or divert them. He mentioned about working on a molecule which I am not interested in but that is the only funding my co-PI has, and I have to work on it. He mentioned not to worry much about that as I will eventually get publications and graduate. I feel that my research is being hampered due to this and I am lacking behind in terms of data.
Should I leave the university and look somewhere else?
This is my third year and it feels late to get into all this. Am I making a big deal out of it and should I just be thinking about graduating?

What country are you in? I ask because in some places after three years you'd expect to be writing the thesis, but in others you might only be halfway through the degree.

This is actually in USA ..almost halfway through the degree

You should have a serious sit-down conversation with your advisor about your goals and interests, and talk about what the obstacles are that will need to be overcome. If you will not be able to work on something due to lack of funding, that is exactly something you need to be clear on if you aren't already.
If they don't have funding for the Project X you want, and only instead have funding for work on Project Y, you can A) ask what options they are aware of to get involved in work with something like Project X, B) ask for other potential alternatives beyond Project Y, and/or C) decide to try Project Y and maybe decide it works for your long-term goals (or not), even if it isn't what you had in mind originally.
As to the question, "should you just be thinking about graduating" - no, you should be thinking about what you are doing to do after you graduate, and how to use these years to contribute towards what you want to do beyond the immediate program. I don't know what you want long-term, and I don't know how Project X or Project Y fits in to that - but that's exactly what you need to find out for yourself.
Things don't always go as we plan, so you'll have to remain focused on the big picture and be willing to be creative to find way to make what is available work for you. This could conceivably mean a different program, but it seems awfully early in the process to conclude that because 1-2 people don't have funding for one project you were interested in that you now have to change institutions. There could be other people, other projects, other labs - but the time to do that is before it's too late, such as when they are announcing you passed your defense and it's time for you to get out and take your diploma with you.


text:
Mentioning a personal tragedy in an academic style paper. Is it allowed?
I am working as an editor for an edited book volume on covid-19.
I have come across a very peculiar chapter submitted by an author. In the chapter, the author discloses a personal incident where the author's father's friend passes away due to covid-19.
I am not sure what to do here i.e. whether to email the author as that paragraph seems very peculiar. Is describing such kind of incident, which I see as highly emotive and personal, allowed in academia for example book chapters or journal papers?

What field is this?  If this is in social sciences, then I think this type of writing is acceptable.  (But social sciences is not my primary field.)

Is this a qualitative paper with interviews of people about their personal experiences?

It also depends on the "cut" of the book. If it is supposed to be used for teaching or as a handbook probably you should remove it.

@JoelReyesNoche yes it is social science.

Book chapters and journal papers are very different ...

Since you are the editor of the volume, it is you who decides whether it is allowed. There isn’t any codified set of rules specifying whether any given content is allowed or not. That’s exactly one of the things editors are supposed to do - to edit.
Consider whether it makes sense to have such a paragraph in the volume given its topic and purpose. If you think it is appropriate, allow it. If not, don’t. If it is a borderline case, you can raise your concerns with the author and suggest that they change or remove the problematic paragraph, without requiring it outright.

Good answer. I would like to add it that above all, the editor should consider the readers of the book: would they be interested in reading the paragraph or not?

There are many fields in which this would not be out of place especially if it is framed as data and then clearly interpreted (qualitative social sciences, in general). Or framed with theory and arguments to draw conclusions (humanities). In the end, you as the editor can decide where the goal posts are - what kind of offering the book is making, where the contribution sits. Then dialogue with the author about the relevance of the paragraph to the chapter.


text:
Considerations When Serving on Thesis Committee
I am part of a masters student's thesis committee for the first time in my career, and am unsure what I should be doing be during the question session following the public presentation.  I have read the whole document and have made comments about edits and corrections I would like the student to make, and have prepared a list of questions I could ask the student.  However, I am unclear on a few things:

What criteria should I use to evaluate the student's work?  What is necessary to consider their work good enough to pass?
If there is a disagreement among committee members, how does that typically get resolved?
What should my goal be with the questions I ask?  I am already familiar with the theory and experimental design of the student's project, and could easily find myself digging into details or trying to test the student's overall knowledge of the field, but I'm not sure these would be useful ways to spend time. As the most junior person on the committee I expect I will be last, and unsure how much I'm expected to contribute to the examination.

For background, the student is at a different institution than I am, and my department does not have graduate students. We're both in the same city in the United States. I have talked to the student's advisor about the project itself, but I haven't gotten a clear sense of what I should be doing in the exam. The student's institution only lists administrative requirements for scheduling and submitting documents on their website, and doesn't seem to provide guidance for the contents of the thesis.

Do you know anyone else from their institution?

What country is this? The nature of a defense varies enormously between countries.

@user90948 I don't know anyone else from the institution, unfortunately.

@Thomas we're in the US, which I added to the question.

Can you ask the person who invited you? Or ask this person to bring you in contact with a senior committee member? From my very limited perspective, such examinations differ not only between countries, but also between institutes, and possibly departments.

@Mark that's a good point.  I'll try to talk to the advisor prior to the exam again to get more information about what their department standards are.

Internally within the committee, asking the committee chair is the best option. The chair should be able to fill you in with the procedure and what kind of angles the questions usually take. Be aware that the chair may still insist that you should decide what kind of questions to ask. And from my experience serving in committees, they did mean it.
Externally, since your institute is in the same city with the host, why not go attend a public defense there? That way you can also get the tone right. Do know that, however, tone/attitude can still vary greatly within an institute.
As for what to ask... first, I'd say don't ask any structural questions that would destroy the student's work. Those should be cleared up before the committee signed off the student to present. Second, unless it's for clarifying some question in the results or data, use open-ended questions. From my experience, I usually ask 1-2 clarifying question (e.g. on a limitation they suggested, etc.) and 1-2 "what if's" (e.g. what would you have changed if you can redo this work?) or "how should this work be carried forward", etc. That's just my style, I like to start by making it feel like the candidate is a student answering questions to end with treating the candidate as a new expert who can make recommendations and broad takeaway.

+1 for the notion that the thesis defense should not be held if there are significant technical issues.

Great answer. You may want to add something about open vs. closed question sessions, e.g. asking the chair whether there are both public and closed times for questions, and what kinds of questions might be appropriate in each.

I second the assertion that the session is still educational.  Making the successful candidate feel good and feel like he's grown up a bit is part of our duty.

I don't have a complete answer to your question, but I have a story that applies.  I had a friend who was asked to be the "external" panel member on a dissertation committee.  He read the dissertation and then took time off work, flew to the other city, and sat through the defense.  One of the "internal" panel members sucker punched the Ph.D. candidate.  She had correctly identified a serious flaw in the dissertation.  She waited until the formal defense and then pounced.  The candidate failed his defense (a year later he passed.)  It cost my friend a certain amount of time and money and trouble that could have been avoided, had the internal not been such a drama queen.
But everyone, absolutely everyone, thought the internal lady was way out of line, even though she was right.  She'd had copies of the dissertation throughout the previous months and at any time could have gone to either the student or the advisor with her issues.  But she waited until the juiciest moment so she could revel in the student's public humiliation and her own exaltation.   Everyone now knows her true character and she's paid the price for that.
So my advice is:  Treat your duties as, mostly, a formality.  If you have problems or objections, see if you can take care of them privately, like a sensible adult would.  And I say mostly a formality.  It's a formality in that the standards for work vary by school and the internal people will know best whether the student's work measures up.  Your job as external is to make sure things aren't insane.   I wouldn't speak up unless I thought the problem was way out of bounds.  I would ask some questions, maybe along the lines of "What would be different if...?" or "What comes next?"
If there are disagreements on the committee and you know the right side, chose that side.  If you don't know the right side, side with the advisor or abstain.
Let's see....Oh yeah.  Another story.  It's sadly the case that many committee members just sign off on whatever whenever meh.  The don't read the paper even once.  I know of a case where a young lady had submitted her thesis and the committee was ready to sign off.   A member of the department NOT on the committee read the paper, which rang a bell in his memory.  He was able to find the paper she had plagiarized.  He showed it to the advisor and that was it for her.
(When confronted, she broke down and confessed that she had always cheated.  She said she'd learned virtually no math, (yet had a B.S. and nearly, but for the above, had an M.S. in math.)  She was a skilled cheater who had methods for getting exams taken for her, etc.  Bizarre.)
Anyway, it would be your job to do a thorough plagiarism check, in my opinion.  If you find something, then, as I said above, don't wait until the day of the defense to spring it on the players.

Wow. This "internal lady" must have a truly awful character.

However, I wouldn't agree that you have to do a plagiarism check anymore than you would do when referring a journal paper. (Of course, if you find something by chance, do tell as soon as possible!)


text:
Is it a bad idea to send an article under review as a writing sample? (faculty job application)
I have a manuscript that is under review in a major journal which is a main result out of a few recent years of my research. When applying for faculty positions, I would like to send the draft as a part of my writing sample. But since the material is not yet published, I am not sure if it is a good idea.
What are the foreseeable disadvantages of sending an article in review to the faculty search committee?
My area is neuroscience / biomedical engineering.
Update: The paper got into a high-profile journal, and I got a job at a different place which did not require a writing sample.

First, From a legal point of view I do not think you will have any problems sending out a pre-review version of your manuscript since your have the intellectual rights to your own work. Usually most publishers' copyrights start when they have processed the material in some way but even then, if you are not using the material for any commercial purpose or for being reproduced publically, I cannot see any problem.
Then, I cannot really see any problems sending a pre-reveiw manuscript to a search committee unless it is of poor quality. Sending your work allows people to see what you are doing and a manuscript (in very good shape) will allow people to see your latest work in detail. Naturally a manuscript will not carry as much merit as a published paper since it has not been through peer review. But, if it is interesting, well written and in impeccable order you will be showing your skills in some way.
So it could provide a slight positive in a search situation if good but be very negative if bad and your judgement is what will be at stake.

Although your question is specifically for faculty job applications, I would like to generalize and add to Peter's answer.
For doctoral program admissions, I often sent out an article under review whenever asked for a writing sample. Not all programs ask for this ; for some its optional and for some its not but I sent them anyway. Usually, when I was interviewed for the position after having made it through some of the initial cut-offs, my writing sample was alluded to and often, questions were centered around it.
Therefore, I would like to say that sending it in anyway will not detract from your application but might even add to it.

To add to the existing answers, I'd note that in some fields, the review process can be very long.  If you stick only to papers that have been published, you'll be giving the committee a picture of your research that may be years out of date.  Committees will understand this; sometimes they explicitly ask for preprints.
If you're confident in the quality of the article, and have a reasonable expectation of eventually getting it published, send it along.  Conversely, if you don't feel the article represents your best work, don't send it, even if it has been published already!


text:
Will my age affect my chances of finding a funded PhD position?
I just finished my masters studies. My question is, will my age (29) affect my chances of getting a funded PhD position? I finished Bachelor of Engineering when I was 24 (took 6 years to graduate, normally my program was 5 years). I worked as a Lab course assistant (teaching the practical part of the course at a local university) for 2 years before I started my MSc a bit late due to financial reasons. I started working in industry a year ago (for same financial reasons) in a computer science field but irrelevant to the research area. I know that most of PhD scholarship positions officially require the applicant's age to be under 35, but do not they prefer someone who is 25 rather than 34?
I have two conference publications, one in IEEE, and about to send the third for journal publication. My field is computer engineering with a focus on the software side and I am trying to apply in Europe mainly.

"I know that most of PhD positions officially require the age under 35, but do not they prefer who is 25 that 34?"  Wow.  As Parrhesiastes's answer states, in the United States there are no official age requirements whatsoever; including them would (I presume; I am not an attorney) be legally actionable.  I am awfully surprised that European programs have this requirement: could you supply a citation?

@PeteL.Clark Sorry, I did not clarify that is one of the requirement for most of the scholarships not generally applied

hawk: I'm sorry, I couldn't quite parse your answer.  I see you added "scholarship", but that does not lessen my surprise. (In my field, getting a PhD admission without a scholarship is almost meaningless.)  Anyway, could you provide a link to some page which describes this requirement?

@PeteL.Clark Some examples (I just collected via google) Germany (DAAD),  Japanese, UK, China

For the sake of clarity, please adhere to the scope and context of your question. For instance, CSC scholarship is for Chinese nationals only. Similarly, Japanese scholarship enforces age only where the applicant has not completed "16 years of schooling."

And the German scholarship is not for PhD studies.

@PeteL.Clark: Europe is wildly different about age and family status in employment than the US.  In Germany there's a maximum age at which you can be hired as a full professor!  They can and will pay you more for having a spouse and/or kids.  Furthermore, most European jobs ask for a photo along with the application!  It's all very shocking as an American, but I'm sure there are things that we do that would be shocking to a European.

@Noah: wow again.  That's three things that would absolutely never happen in the US.  (Why do they ask for a photo??)  One of my main reasons for participating in this site is to learn what academia is like outside of mathematics and outside of the US, so I am very glad to learn this.

Poking around a bit, it looks like it's rare for a photo to be required, but it's considered a standard part of a CV in at least several countries (Spain and Germany are the ones that come up).  I have no idea what could possibly justify it.

@Parrhesiastes Links I included are just indicative. I agree with you that it is not an official condition. But don't you think that Supervisors will prefer who's 26 years old rather than taking 34? There is always chance to get a funded PhD, but the age will negatively affect these chances. What do you think? (another link from Cambridge: http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/programmes/research-programmes/phd/fees-financing/financing-your-phd/)

@hawk Again, the links you are producing are related to funding bodies, grants and scholarships which are not prerequisite of PhD admission. Getting into PhD is one thing, getting funding is another. An applicant's age has nothing to do with general conditions of admission into a PhD program and specifically, it doesn't influence supervisors. From my personal experience, I have seen many PhD candidates who are more than 50 years old, so I don't see it's a problem.

@Parrhesiastes I here quote from Pete L. Clark above "getting a PhD admission without a scholarship is almost meaningless". My question at the simple level is like that: the supervisor is setting on his chair and there are two applications in front of him one for 26 years old applicant and the other 34 years old applicant. Even though the older has some industry experience, both have same academic qualifications. Which applicant will he choose. I must emphasize that the chance of finding PhD is always there nonetheless. But is not narrower due to the age ?

@hawk As I said, general admission requirements are official, what is meaningful is personal. Your question leans toward getting personal opinions out rather than explanation of official requirements. The links that you're producing have nothing to do with a supervisor's selection since they are external to university. As far as a supervisor's selection criteria goes, I can say with some certainity that an A/A* journal publication is significant, age or gender has no value when it comes to research. To get more input, please update the original question as you stated in your last comment.

Age and Graduate school may help you.

The short answer is: no. Quite the contrary, many universities value the experience (preferably from industry) so it is beneficial. Also, your conference papers will be the most important factors in getting the PhD position and/or funding. I'd also emphasize that you should highlight the fact that you have a journal article (preferably A or A*) in progress.
I have not seen any such requirement which is restricting PhD or any academic degree to a specific age. In fact, doing so is illegal in most (read: all) European countries as it comes under age discrimination.
To narrow it down further, different funding bodies could impose their own restrictions per project, for instance DAAD's grant that you mentioned is "to promote and fund young artists" according to them, that is why it is restricted to a certain age group. A similar example could be feminist studies where it could be restricted to a single gender. Again, this has nothing to do with general conditions of admission.

I agree with you, but don't you think that professors (not officially) will prefer to choose younger researchers ?

@hawk As far as institutional requirements are concerned, what is official is not open for interpretation let alone personal opinion. As I said, it is illegal as per European laws and universities can be penalized severally if proven. For instance, the EU directive explicitly covers access to university education as stated here on page 28. If you are still uncertain, refer to the EU Age and Employment regulations here.

In light of the links provided in comments, which describe some scholarships that are definitely age restricted (in European countries), would you like to amend your statement?

The explanation already addresses the EU position i.e., DAAD. The rest of the links concern non-EU countries.

In general, the idea of age restrictions is not to punish non-traditional educational paths, but to target "younger" professionals who are just getting started in their careers, rather than "returning" students. Thus, in some cases (including the DAAD link provided), you'll notice that there's a two-pronged requirement: either be under a certain age or have procured the degree within the last X years. This allows programs some flexibility while not excluding candidates who have made their way in a manner other than the traditional route.