text:
How can a PhD holder safely negotiate the salary level for a TVL E13 position?
Unlike the question Safely negotiate a salary for a PhD offer - Germany where the goal was to negotiate the % of the salary of a PhD position, my post instead focuses on the specific level (Stufe) of a 100% TVL E13 position offered to a PhD holder.
Additional details:

The field is CS. So, AFAIK first-year PhD students usually start at Stufe 1 of a 100% TVL E13. So, it seems unfair to let a postdoc start at that level too.
My PhD has not been obtained in Germany, but I spent slightly more than three years working on very similar topics/responsibilities as the ones envisioned in the new position.
I have no competing offers with a higher level.

How can I safely negotiate a higher level/Stufe if the human resources put me on the first level? Do I need support from the new professor? Or the PhD advisor (though not in Germany)?
I have read here that this is likely to depend on HR, but if some of you have some tips, they would be more than welcome.
PS: I have also checked this, this and this. But they do not answer the question of how to negotiate, especially if one's PhD is not from Germany.

Alternatively, you can of course also try to get E14.

I think it's fixed as E13. Additionally, from what I've seen in one of the linked posts, it seems that E14 is when the position includes responsibilities such as project leadership and supervision, which are not part of the current job offer. I'd say it would be difficult to redefine the responsibilities to match the E14 level.

That's what is typically claimed, but that's not what the official rules of the TV-L state - just checked: It is talking of difficult task pursued independently and responsibly.  To talking of leadership and supervision at all.  Of course, it could very well be that this is the university-internal rule.  All I am saying that E14 is not ruled out for postdocs.  Whether it is easier or harder to get than E13/2 or E13/3, I have no idea.  Just the process to decide will be a different one, so if one does not work, one could try the latter.

I see, thanks for the clarification! Care to share a link to the source where you checked this?

"Entgeltordnung zum TV-L" https://www.tdl-online.de/fileadmin/downloads/rechte_Navigation/A.TV-L__2011/01_Tarifvertrag/Anlage_A_i.d.F._des_ÄTV_Nr._11_2019_2020_2021_01.pdf, pg 40 (part II.6).

Regarding "AFAIK first-year PhD students usually start at Stufe 1 of a 100% TVL E13" - I don't think this is true. I can't say anything certain about CS specifically, but PhD positions are often 60% TVL E13 nowadays in fields like biology, and something like 75% in computational fields.

First, talk to your future supervisor. If they do not support it, chances are slim. Or, if they say it is impossible, equally so.
If they support it: Find out what the rules are - well, probably your supervisor knows.
Generally, there are two options, depending on the place: Either, the administration decides on their own.  Still, they might not proactively put you  in a higher level, but wait for you to ask for it and supply documents proving that you have previous experience.  In that case, the support of your supervisor will certainly help the process. And it is not unlikely that the administration would ask them if they judge the qualification equivalent.
Second, it could be that your supervisor has to write a justification why you should get a higher level, and then the administration decides.  Certainly, in that case the support of your supervisor is essential.
Finally, it could be that the administration has very rigid rules on this, and the supervisor has no influence on that. In particular, they could have the rigid rule that they don't recognize anything which was not in German public service (that would be the most conservative option, since they don't have to vouch for anything).
Good luck!
(In any case, I would say that level 2 is realistic, since, it only requires >1 year of experience. Level 3 is more ambitious, since it requires >3 years of experience.  In any case, also check the salaries for the different levels - the steps are not uniform.)

I would add option three: the supervisor de facto makes the decision and the administration merely signs it off. The gist of your answer still applies: talk to the supervisor and convince them.

I'd say that pretty much is the second option.

It might also be worth a try to contact the Personalrat to see if they can influence the decision.

@beetroot There's very likely a default policy.  I mean, it is not that the OP will be the first postdoc with a PhD from abroad or on a grant.  But it can make sense to contact them to learn what the default policy is.

@user151413 at my institution (German research institute, öffentlicher Dienst) new employees can ask for the Personalrat to be involved in the hiring process (by ticking the respective check box on the form), which can be an advantage, because the Personalrat will argue for the new employee in terms of their Einstufung, while the administration is probably less interested in doing anything but selecting Stufe 1.

@beetroot I'd assume the Personalrat/Betriebsrat has to approve hirings in any case? In which case they will probably try to make sure people are treated as equal as possible.

The argument you should focus on is that your professional experience counts as "einschlägige Berufserfahrung" (relevant professional experience). That's the official reasoning you need to meet to justify starting at a higher level. So I'd focus on explaining how exactly your experience is directly relevant to the work you'll be doing in that position.
As already mentioned, you need the support of your supervisor on this or it's not going to happen. The other person that is very important in my experience here is the person doing the actual administrative part of the process, e.g the secretary of the professor. They have likely been through this process several times already, and have a working relationship with the people inside the university that need to sign off on this.
There are a lot of factors outside your control here, and it depends entirely on the dynamics inside the university on whether you can succeed with this or not.

Yes, never underestimate having credit with the secretary.

Indeed, professional experience is the only thing which matters. Still, a central question is how this is handled by the administration. They can take the standpoint that no experience outside german public service will be recognized. This is certainly a very safe way to ensure consistent decisions.  If they allow for this, getting times as a PhD in a related topic recognized should always be possible with support from the advisor.

@Roland an "Arbeitszeugnis" would not be relevant in my case, as my work while doing a PhD wasn't done in Germany. I don't know to what extent an "equivalent document proving your experience" would be accepted, especially if it's provided by a university outside of Germany.

@Roland An "Arbeitszeugnis" is not necessarily required - again, this might depend on local habits. But there are places where it is sufficient if the new supervisor writes a justification why the prior experience is equivalent.


text:
Listing preprints on CV (undergrad)
I'm now a second year math student at a top uni, and in the summer of my first year, I was a part of a small research team where we proved various new results related to Random Matrix Theory and wrote 2 papers on them. Now those papers are up on arXiv, but it hasn't been accepted to a peer-reviewed journal yet. My question is that when I'm applying for summer research programs etc should I list these as "preprints" on my CV even if they haven't been accepted to a journal yet?

What do you mean by "even"?  Preprint = not accepted publication.

(in case it isn't clear from the duplicate, which explains how different "levels" of work are considered, yes you should list preprints on your CV, assuming they are of high-quality and representative of your academic abilities)

Related: arXiv Papers vs. Peer Reviewed Papers; How Does Admission Committee Evaluate?

If a publication is either published or accepted at a journal, list it under your "normal" publications - if you want, you can choose the caption "Peer-reviewed publications".  If it is not published yet, write "accepted at $JOURNAL", or similar.
If the paper is still under review, or otherwise not published at a peer-reviewed journal, but available as a preprint, list it under "Preprints".

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it fine to ask my advisor if I can appear as first author in our paper?
My situation is the following: I am a prospective graduate student and recently worked with a professor and a high school student on writing a physics paper. This will be my first paper, and since I intend to apply to graduate school, I would like to appear as first author.
I know from other students who have worked with this professor that he gives them the opportunity to be first authors. However, this time I am not the only student collaborating with him.
Therefore, I was wondering if it would be appropriate to ask my advisor if I can appear as first author. After all, I was the one who contributed the most to the project (although the high school student also made some contributions).

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/158359/should-i-ask-to-be-moved-up-in-the-authorship-list

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/130707/asking-to-present-paper-as-first-author-when-the-second-authors-travel-has-alr

Most likely s/he will do.

Yes, of course you can ask, and give the reason. But it may be moot depending on your field. In some fields, alphabetical listing is the norm. In others it is vitally important and fought over.
If you are in a field in which it is important, then I hope your advisor is a bit generous in this since you are starting out. But if you aren't the main driver of the ideas in the paper then you should be prepared to yield graciously. Other papers will come. Your first paper isn't, hopefully, the best work you ever do. There will be future opportunities but they depend, somewhat, on cooperation with others. You can also be generous. Especially if you are willing to take a long view.

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


text:
How to put remote internship on CV
Due to the current pandemic I started working remotely on a research project several months ago under the supervision of a physics professor. Just a few days ago we finished and submitted a paper to a peer-reviewed journal. Since I plan to apply to graduate school I would like to mention in my CV that I carried out a research project with professor A from university B. However, since all the work was done remotely I am not sure how it would be convenient to put this on my CV.

Should I put it under the "professional experience" section? If the answer is yes, how should I include it?
Or should I wait until the paper is published and add it under a new section called "Publications"? I guess doing it this way would imply that I did research and it would not be necessary to add it to "professional experience".

What makes you think you should list it differently than an in-person research project?

@AzorAhai-him- I thought I had to point out that I worked remotely, but given that most people are now working remotely I think there's no need to mention that.

Most undergrad projects (i.e. analyzing data) aren't that different remotely.

The fact that the internship was remote is irrelevant.

I would list your internship as part of your experience and, if you think it's relevant (I'm not sure it is), mention that it was remote.  List your paper as submitted for publication.  If it's ultimately rejected, you should probably remove it.  But for now, let's be optimistic.


text:
What is the minimum expected from a math PhD
I had a hard time deciding whether this question is more suitable for here or mathoverflow. I'm posting here if you think it is better to be on mathoverflow please let me know.
I'm a PhD student in mathematics getting close to end of my program and I have to wrap up my PhD thesis. My PhD has been pretty much a failure. Some of that can be attributed to my own personal characteristics and some for lacking a proper PhD advisor (I do have an official PhD advisor but never received any advising and was on my own for most of the time). What I decided to do during my PhD was to choose a group of well known conjectures in my specific sub-field and try to solve them. As you can already guess I didn't end up solving them and spent my PhD time on them (Partially because I couldn't give up and partially because my advisor didn't have problems for me). Now I have few months left. So far I have no publications (excluding the undergraduate era).
If I start writing my thesis right now what I could write up are a bunch of hypothetical methods that could end up solving one of those conjectures. But along the solutions I have made even more conjectures. I can  give some evidence that why these new conjectures are probably true and if true why they imply the well-known conjecture. Do you think something like this is acceptable as a PhD thesis in math? (The bottom line is that I haven't solved the problem, haven't solved a known problem with a different method or built any theory)
Well of course I should ask my advisor's opinion at the end, but before that I just wanted to know your opinions on this. (My advisor as of right now is pretty much unaware of what I've done so far)

Generally in a PhD you want to have proven at least something.....

I think you should definitely ask your advisor as soon as possible. Most likely, they alone decide or at least heavily influence the outcome. People here probably have different standards than the advisor. There are people obtaining a PhD just for political reasons without (much) to show. There maybe is a theoretical minimum for a phd (having addes human knowledge), in practise this is often not the case.

I would say, much depends also on the quality of the conjectures. If the mathematical structures permit, you may want to run computer experiments to get evidence that they do not fail outright with simple counterexamples.

The conjectures are well known, so presumably there are no simple counterexamples (though it never hurts to double check).

The answer to this question is defined by your committee and your university.  There is no general answer.  Having us make guesses based on your description of what you've done is almost totally useless.

I would say it depends on how independently interesting your new conjectures are, and if you can prove the small special cases of them.


text:
Applying to faculty jobs: how close to research area should I be?
I am applying to faculty jobs in computer science. Let's say I am in field A.
I found a job ad for an assistant professor position. The ad says something along the lines of "the department is seeking applicants whose expertise is in the area of Field B" and "A focus in (subfield of B) is preferred." The ad also reads "the applicant should have interests that complement existing departmental strengths," which I interpreted to mean that you could apply if you do similar research to existing faculty.
Field B is essentially disparate from Field A, but there are fewer people in general studying in Field A than in Field B. (Speaking statistically of data sets like the Taulbee report.)
Would it be appropriate for me to submit an application for this job, even though I don't work in Field B? Or would the department hiring committee get mad that I submitted an application, effectively wasting their time?

How do you read "complement" as "similar"?

@user151413 I was going to make a similar comment.  On reflection, it is very likely the people writing the ad used the wrong word.  Academics can be really terrible writers.

@Terry I don't think so. I think "complement" means "complement".  "Similar research" is the OPs interpretation.

@user151413 I interpreted "complement" to mean "accompany" or "complete", which are valid uses of the word. If the ad writers meant "set complement" I would be rather surprised.

@user129798 I think that if the ad leaves room for interpretation, it is up to you to fill it up in your cover letter. Explain why you would naturally complement the research profile of the department, strengthening and complementing their expertise.

@user151413 Your comment is the correct answer.  Perhaps flesh it out a bit and make it an answer which I can vote for.

There's not enough time for a search committee to get mad at the hundreds of applicants that aren't well suited for the position but applied anyway...

You want a job? So apply. That’s all there is to it.
The academic job market is not some kind of neighborhood bonding event or support group where people try to be as nice as possible to each other and avoid hurting each other’s feelings. No one will be mad at you — in fact, the very notion that someone getting mad at you is a consideration you should take into account when deciding whether to apply for a job is, from my point of view as someone who in a typical year looks at anywhere between a couple of dozen and a couple of hundred job applications, completely absurd.
You might not get the job, but there’s nothing inappropriate about applying, unless there are formal requirements listed in the job application that you don’t satisfy.
Good luck with the job search!

There is nothing wrong with applying, as long as you are honest about your field and your interests. Of course, they are more likely to choose someone in their preferred field, provided they get some good candidates there. But sometimes they will change their minds for an outstanding candidate who they judge might also fit in to fill a need.
No, they won't be "mad", as long as you are honest. Make your best case that you will be an outstanding faculty member, regardless of field. But, they do have a current preference elsewhere. Be aware.
And, I don't think you should "apologize" for applying though you are in a different field. Just state your qualifications.
Had they said that qualifications in a particular field are required then it would be different, of course.


text:
Conversion of GPA from scale of 10 to 4 (India)
I am an undergraduate student from India, interested in applying for Ph.D. programs in Astronomy in US institutes. My institute evaluates the CGPA from a scale of 10.
Since the cutoff for Astronomy is 3.0 on a scale of 4 for most US Institutes, my question is what would be the minimum on a scale of 10 in India, assuming I dont go by the conversion (3/4)*10=7.5

A 3.0 is a B. Do you have letter grade conversions?

yes, thanks for letting me know.

Just provide the official evidence of your results, and perhaps the topics covered in the subjects (such as the syllabi).
Then the university will make their own evaluations based on their knowledge of their own courses and experience.


text:
GPA weightage for changing fields in higher studies
Currently pursuing my 3rd year of  BTech in electronics and communication engineering, I plan on pursuing an Integrated PhD / PhD in Astronomy and Astrophysics due to my deep interest and passion for th field.
I have relevant research experience in the same, good GRE scores and LORs.
My question is that due to the change in my study field, how much weightage will my engineering GPA have on my application? If it is average, will it be a drawback?
Thanks for your help.

I suspect that your change in direction will matter very little to the admissions committee as long as you can provide evidence of your passion for the new one. I don't think many admissions committees use formal weights for GPA, GRE, LOR.

A good GPA, etc, will give evidence that you work hard. That won't be an issue in the new field. But the admissions process/committee will need some assurance that you have the necessary prerequisite courses and knowledge in that new field or can quickly pick that up. That will weigh more heavily, perhaps. So, other things, such as the indicated research, and letters will be helpful.


text:
Funding for Phd positions in Australia
Are PhD positions in Australia fully funded for international students like in the US and Europe? I shall be applying for PhD programs in Astronomy and Astrophysics. Also, are scholarships given for masters program in the same field?

I am assuming you are an international students.  Each year, every university has N number of scholarships that it  offers to international students.  These are highly competitive.  Some academic staff may have grants that have some scholarships. These scholarships are given out by the owner of the grants.  Also, government research arm such as CSIRO may have some scholarships, and given out in partnership with a university.  Usually, universities prefer to award scholarships to PhD students.


text:
Switching Academic Fields for Grad Admission - Europe and Australia
I am a pre-final year Electronics and Communication Engineering Undergraduate. I am very much interested in pursuing higher studies in Radio Astronomy and am working on multiple projects in a specific area with a collaboration. I had a brief chat with my project supervisor on applying for higher studies in the same area due to my interest development and he strongly recommended a few Institutions in Europe (UK, Netherlands, Germany) and Australia.
My question is: I have heard it is very difficult switching academic fields (in my case, from engineering to physics) while applying for graduate admissions in these countries and acceptance rate in such a case is very less inspite of having relevant research experience and publications. Please let me know if this is true, and if so, what can be done to mitigate this.
Would really appreciate any help :)

a good letter of recommendation helps, and you seem to have someone supporting you who could write such a letter.


text:
Using equipment from research grant funding for both resaerch and personal use
I recently received a grant (JSPS Kakenhi) to support research funds. For personal equipment, I will be listing a computer and camera. The computer is for computational parts of my research and the camera is to document fieldwork for professional-level photos that can be used in press releases, presentations, and publications.
I plan to ask the funding source (JSPS Kakenhi) directly. However, I am curious to know, in general, how funding agencies view individuals using equipment for personal projects (in addition to their intended research uses).
Is it in general appropriate or inappropriate (ethical or unethical) to use the camera as well for personal use in a manner that would not render it less useful for its research use? What should become of the camera after the two-year research support concludes? Is it only appropriate/ethical to use the camera for personal uses after the research funding end date?
Thank you for sharing your experience and knowledge.

The intended research project would use the photos in conferences, presentations, and papers and acknowledge the funding source. However, the "personal project" would not result in work that would acknowledge the funding source.

Generally, the rules will say that the equipment is only to be used for research purposes. In practice, no one is going to mind if you watch a bit of netflix, or send some personal emails on your work laptop. No one will even check. I routinely use my work laptop (purchased on a grant) to edit holiday photos, and even have a couple of games installed. Similarly, no one is going to mind if you use your research camera for a few snaps of the research group's social lunch, but I wouldn't use if for your weekend side hussle of paid wedding photography. Its about being reasonable.
One important consideration is that these piece of equipment are often portable. This means that they can be lost/stolen, and no one is going to be very happy if your research camera is stolen while you are on a bar trip.
In both the last two places I have worked there have been schemes to purchase personal items of equipment like this when you leave the university. The  price is often only nominal because the university writes off the value of small consumer electronics after 3 years.

Indeed, I have always seen the "in Academia, no one looks too closely if it is private or personal use, as long as it is not used excessively" as a perk of Academia (or maybe as a compensation for people far away from home who can not carry all private things with them). No postdoc I have ever seen who is only here for one year buys a new printer, they just print out the 20 pages of contracts/emergency whatever etc. at the university printer. No one cares.

Would avoid porn, tho

Is it in general appropriate to use the camera for personal use in a manner that would not render it less useful for its research use?

It is inappropriate because it creates the false impression that the funds were spent for personal purposes instead of research purposes.  Do not do it.  However,
it is not unethical if the funds were really spent for research purposes.

What should become of the camera after the two-year research support concludes?

The owner (usually the university) should continue to use the camera for research purposes until it is disposed of as worthless.  There may be a process for the university to sell the equipment, but usually this process is deemed more effort than it is worth.

Is it only appropriate/ethical to use the camera for personal uses after the research funding end date?

The funding end date does not matter.

The owner is often not the university for personal fellowships - these often state that if the fellow moves to a new institution, even after the fellowship has ended, equipment bought on the fellowship must move with them.


text:
Backing out of a verbal postdoctoral job agreement with my PhD advisor
I recently finished my Ph.D. and had a strong interest in working with a particular professor as a postdoctoral fellow upon finishing. This professor happened to be the examiner of my thesis, so I could not contact him until I completed the thesis defence.
Before the thesis defence, my Ph.D. advisor offered me to stay as a postdoc for 2 years. I agreed since it was the best opportunity available at the time. The agreement is verbal, and I am now awaiting the official written job offer.
Upon finishing my defence, the examiner contacted me and showed a strong interest in hiring me (as soon as possible). It seems that we both think that we are an excellent match. He is also an excellent professor that I think will help me getting ahead in my career. It seems to be a much better opportunity than what I have now.
The only problem is the promise I made to my Ph.D. advisor, who strongly wants me to stay with him. I have a few questions about this situation:
1- What would be the best approach to handle this?
2- How bad will I look of I back out on the verbal agreement?
3- Could this cause damage to my career or burn bridges with my Ph.D. advisor?
4- Considering that I will need recommendation letters from my Ph.D. advisor in the future, how likely will this affect my ability to obtain these letters?
5- A solution I am considering is staying temporarily (6 months) with my Ph.D. advisor so that I am not fully backing out on my word. What do you think?

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/154628/how-is-a-phd-student-staying-in-their-institution-as-a-postdoc-perceived-by-futu may be useful. But only you know your advisor and how they might react. Was the offer made to be sure you had continuing employment while job hunting?

Thank you. I read that post and I am in favour of leaving my current research team. Not really, I was asked to stay to actually lead an ongoing research project.

TLDR: Many of your questions depend on details of the field and your personal relationship with both professors involved. The best you can do is handle this like any other professional opportunity by putting yourself in your advisor's position and thinking of ways to turn things positive for all parties. Assuming reasonable people on both sides, clear and honest communication on your end has a good chance of producing a satisfactory outcome. Your idea in questions 5 should imho only be done when the 6 months are clearly communicated as transition period to train your successor.
The answers to your questions depend strongly on details of your involvement in the lab in which you did your PhD and the relationship between your advisor and the other professor. A few (but by no means all) things to consider are:

Do ongoing projects depend on you (e.g. because you're the only one
who knows how to handle lab equipment, simulation code you wrote or
similar)?
Are you currently supervising undergrads in their research?
Does funding for the lab depend on you personally working there (e.g. if you acquired grants that go whereever you go)?
Do your advisor and the other professor get along professionally or would you be 'switching allegiances'? The fact that they both served on your defence committe suggests to me that they would get along, but this may depend strongly on field and country / academic culture. If they get along, maybe they can cooperate via you and publish a few papers together.
How much trouble did your advisor go to in order to secure funding for you?

Answering these and similar questions are a means of determining, how badly your walking back on your promise would set your advisor back. Once you have established this, you have a much better perspective of the gravity of the situation and may find means of making it less hard on your advisor (or realize that it is not that big a deal after all - in many cases, I've been very cautions and even nervous about situations like this just to get responses like "That offer sounds great, how about a 6 month transition period to hand over ongoing projects, then go for it!").
There are also several upsides for your advisor: Switching positions after your PhD might be generally expected (depending on field), and is generally benefitial to your careers as you will be exposed to different ideas and a whole new network of possible collaborators. Having students that rank high in academia is always good for the advisor. Also a more in-depth cooperation with the other professor might benefit all parties.
For the moral perspective: What's being done to postdocs contract-wise in academia would be unthinkable for most other employees almost everywhere. Strings of 1 year contract, having to acquire own funding, you're expected to be mobile on a global scale, relatively little money given the value of your work force in the industry etc. That it would in my opinion be unreasonable to condemn your for having accepted the only job offer you had on hand at that time. However, I cannot tell whether your advisor is aware of this. Many are not or deem it beneath them to think in such frivolous terms as quality of life of worker's rights, because "we're scientists", and they're part right. Since a career in science is always somewhat of a gamble (unless you get a Nobel prize out of your PhD), it takes a lot of idealism to stick with it in the long term.
As for your suggestion to stay 6 months and then move on: I would only recommend that if these 6 months are clearly communicated as a transition period (to hand over ongoing projects, train the next person on equipment and code etc). If you do not tell your advisor that you will move on after 6 months, you've technically held your promise to sign the postdoc contract but violated the spirit of your promise anyways, which may just create more harsh feelings.
At any rate, feel good about your job perspectives (since at least two independent parties are trying to secure your services) and congratulations on your newly acquired title.


text:
Is it appropriate to invite one's PhD advisor to life cycle events?
I have a good relationship with my PhD advisor that extends a little beyond the strictly academic (nothing inappropriate - for example I have met members of her family and she has let me borrow her car on occasion). Would it be appropriate for me to invite her to my life cycle events? (e.g. a wedding or a ceremony for the birth of a child)

Given that you already have a relationship, I think it is fine. There doesn't seem to be any hint of impropriety here.
I wouldn't have done it, but my advisor was very aloof (er... distinguished). But There were several other members of the faculty, some on my committee, that I was happy to interact with in many ways outside the academic setting.
I'd guess they would appreciate an invitation and it builds a kind of trust that can lead to collaboration throughout your career.


text:
Which access-date should be used for cited websites
As the title says I am wondering which access date I should use for citing a website.
Let's say the assignment is due in one week and I have cited and accessed the website one month ago. Now I am revisiting the website to look for changes/new information only to find that nothing changed since my last visit. Which date should I choose as access date?
I think it would be nice to use the most recent date to show that the information is recent/still valid, however I think more recent dates could be frowned upon as it looks like I just recently started working on the assignment altogether.
If it matters: The field is Computer Science

Why would anyone conclude that the date was when you started, as opposed to last-minute due diligence?  And why would anyone care whether you started late, as long as you submit a good report on time?

There is very little that could have changed between your first access and your most recent one. Access dates are used for material that is likely to have changed rapidly. In this case I would use your first access date, i.e. the oldest one, unless you are using material that you know wasn't there on the older date. If you do that, use the date you found that material.

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


text:
Google Scholar not recognizing replaced ArXiv article
I submitted a paper to arXiv last year and recently (within two weeks) I submitted a replacement to my article (I changed the title to match the content better and some other minor changes like citing some more papers) however Google scholar still has the older title and the citation is not updated(when I click on the title it goes to ArXiv page, where shows all the versions of the article).
I am wondering as to how long would it take for Google scholar to be updated?
I can manually change the title in Google scholar however what about the citation.
I have seen other similar posts here like
Google scholar citation and title issues
Updated title of arxiv not recognised by Google Scholar?
However, none of them are talking about the citations. What would happen if people cite the second version but the title is not present in Google scholar.

How long has it been since you uploaded the updated version?

Are you sure changing the title does not update the citation as well?

@cheersmate, almost 10 days

@GoodDeeds, the problem is when I go to the ArXiv page and click on version 2 and then click on Google Scholar, it says the article does not exist. The second version is a better representative however it will never be shown in Google search and hence people cannot see it (Therefore they cannot even cite it). I am not sure changing the title updates the citation but there are different ways to cite an arXiv article, they can cite  a specific version or the original version then I can merge the citations later on but for this to work both versions should exist in Google Scholar.

The three questions are actually the same.  The real answer is you cannot actually make Google Scholar do anything.

@AnonymousPhysicist, No the question is what exactly we need to do since the paper is not even recognized by Google scholar. When you go to arXiv and then choose google scholar, then it says paper cannot be found.


text:
Why is the IEEE Computer Society associated to two IEEE Divisions?
The IEEE "Technical Activities Board" (TAB) defines the "IEEE Societies" and the "IEEE Divisions" in its "Technical Activities Board Operations Manual"
A Society...

provides a forum and community for the exchange of technical information among members in the respective discipline and industries of electrical and
  electronics engineering and related arts and sciences. Societies may represent either an identifiable segment of the electrical and electronics industries, or a discipline having applicability in different industries and functions. A Society's scope or mission shall be approved by TAB.

(page 89, section 4.2 of the TAB).
As for Divisions...

There shall be ten Divisions. A Division is typically composed of one or more Societies, and may contain one or more Technical Councils. The Technical Activities Board shall determine the specific composition of each
  Division. The composition of the Divisions shall be specified in the TAB Operations Manual. If a Society warrants representation by more than one Division, the voting members of that Society shall be voting members of all those Divisions

(page 86, chapter 4.0 of the TAB).
The above is followed by the listing of the ten Divisions.
Most Divisions have several associated Societies. The IEEE Computer Society is unique in that it is associated to both "Division V" and "Division VIII" and this exclusively (i.e. there is no other Society associated to either Division V or Division VIII).
Why is that? Is it only because of the size of the IEEE Computer Society?
As an aside, note that elections of the Division Delegates (who are also Directors on the IEEE Board) take place each year but alternate between odd and even-numbered Divisions. Thus, this year the Delegates for Division V are being elected, whereas last year the Delegates for Division VIII were elected.

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


text:
Ethics: donation link on github repository for an academic side project
I'm a grad student in the United States with a strong programming background in a field where most people have very little programming experience. A while ago a faculty member I know requested my help; they were working on a manuscript for an analytical framework with major applications, but needed someone to implement it in software because it addresses very computationally difficult problems. By creating a somewhat performant proof-of-concept to go with the manuscript, and contributing to the manuscript in other ways, I got to be a coauthor, and it was published in a very high-tier journal. I then developed a complete software package that has been published under my account on Github, and then we published it as a software note with me as the first author in another pretty decent journal.
Currently, I'm the sole developer of the software. It's fairly complex and unlikely I'll be able to find someone that could pick it up. I still like to maintain it and add features to it because it has cool applications and I want to see it be used and be successful. The problem is, writing and maintaining good software (which my field desperately needs, and is what I would like to do career-wise) is very time consuming, and it's harder to justify taking time away from other things to keep it going now that the manuscripts (e.g., more tangible rewards) have been attained. I was thinking of adding a donation link to the bottom of the main page on github for the project as a way for people to show their support for the project. As a grad student, even a little bit of extra income (and I know enough about funding in the open-source community to not set my expectations high) would be a huge help, and would make it easier for me to justify spending my personal time on it.
The question is, are there any ethical concerns with doing so? I mainly did it as a favor and a way to get my name on some good publications, so it is an academic project in that sense. With that said, it was done in my personal time without university resources.

Were you paid for the work at all? You might need to figure out if the university has any claim to the software.

@mkennedy - That's not really relevant to the question of the donation link.  But it sounds like the answer is No.

Personally I'd say no problem. Just my opinion if that helps.

It is ethically acceptable to ask people to give you money when they are receiving nothing in return.  The fact that the request is on a Github repository, or that it is attached to software, or that it is attached to a university project, are not particularly relevant.
You should not use university resources to ask people to give you personally money.  A personal Github account is not a university resource.
Asking for money is unlikely to lead to receiving money.
Before selling anything (like software licenses) you need to check your university policies and see if the university has a legal right to your work.


text:
Should I add the names or skip them altogether?
I am making a presentation on the topic Coral Reefs and their Conservation. I have included much of the information with reference to National Geographic channel's blog reports and United Foundations' reports. I have referred four websites, all of which were inter-related in some way (apart from the topic, of  course). They included the research work of a certain someone named Dr. Emma Camp and Associate Professor  David Sugget. These two were the leaders/mentors of the program which included many other PhD students and a few MSc students as well.
I have mentioned about two recent significant programs carried out for the recovery of coral reefs, Coral Nurture Program and Future Reefs Program. Both of the two programs have these two people in common along with a few others. So I was thinking of including a brief summary of both of them. But then I thought that wouldn't be just, because there were many other students and researchers as well.
Hence my question, should I include their summaries in my presentations or should I mention everyone's name as per this site or should I avoid this notion altogether?

It is also relevant for who /  where the presentation is meant. In a close group meeting you have several ways to refer to the material you have used. That is not possible more if the presentation is formal and for extended audiences.

@Alchimista It is to be presented in front of the class (via video conferencing platforms).

So credit are always important but this looks like homework presented to peers. Give reference to the source and forget formalities.

For many different reasons, you should always give credit/citation to those who have earned it. One type of reason is that your work depends on their work. Another type of reason is to recognize their prior work, even if your work does not necessarily depend on it. Another reason is to give indications to your audience about sources for further information...
EDIT: for situations where some people are doing critical work (such as diving...) but maybe not literally writing, although traditional "citation" does not quite work, I'd still want to make a point of saying something like "the work of <divers, by name> was critical to this study".

I have included links in the reference section to all five websites ( four + one where I had taken some pictures from). However, citation would mean referring or giving credit to the work of some author or writer. I can include the name of the person who wrote the blog post, but that doesn't necessarily appraise the work of those researchers who are working underwater. What should I do in such case?


text:
Should someone continue with their PhD if they fail the core courses in master's?
A friend of mine had failed core courses during his master's program. He had to retake the exams and passed them with minimum grade. However, his research output was good and he was able to publish a journal paper (first author, IF~4).
Now he has been accepted for a PhD in Canada on the same topic as his master's. He will be working with application of the courses he had failed in.
Should he continue with his PhD journey? At the university he will be carrying out his research, they don't have to take any coursework. So, he would have to continue with his research without having to take any courses.
Is he suitable for PhD? As far I know, PhD students are supposed to be proficient in the coursework.

If he wants to and if the university is happy, what is the issue? In particular, what is your interest?

"to fail a course" can have many reasons, including that the exam was not suitable. Does he feel to have the skills one should have in this area? Also, why isn't he himself asking here?

I'm going to answer here as if you are the "friend."
If the university accepts you into a doctoral program they have fairly high confidence that you will be successful. Otherwise they are just wasting scarce resources, including money, space, and faculty time.
It may be that you have some deficiencies and I hope that the educational system in place gives you the time and opportunity to fill any gaps, but you probably also have some compensating points in your favor.
It is good, of course, to try to figure out why you had issues in the past and to correct what can be changed.
But doctoral work is different from coursework and the skills required are not the same. Trust the people who admitted you to the program that you can do it.

I'm not a major believer in the performance in a single or even several courses as an indicator of research potential.
People come in with different skill sets, different studying skills, even different life starting points. How many grad students struggle with depression or other mental illness? How many are from disadvantaged backgrounds? How many are the first in their family to attend higher education?
It is cruel to use course grade to fully determine a person's potential.
If the person is doing research despite failing courses then there are other things going for him or her. Perhaps they are good are organizing information and giving presentations. Or perhaps they are a different type of thinker/person than what those courses demanded, e.g., a hands-on person vs a theory type.


text:
How to publish an [La]TeXified version of an old typewritten book in mathematics?
I am considering to [La]TeXify an old typewritten book in mathematics. The book contains a lot of mathematical formulae and figures, but it was typed just before the [La]TeX age: its content is very interesting but it is very painful to read, very unfortunately.
Grossly I am thinking of hacking an OCR output to get a LaTeX version of the book: it would be a kind of update of the typing and/or a repackaging of the content. I am wondering whether there is any Journal or something where such work can be accepted.
Any hint is welcome.

I do not hold the Copyright. In fact I spent some time to find the Publisher web site or something: I could not find any. So, I am afraid that it did not survived the numerical age. On the other hand, I guess that its Copyrights were sold to some other publisher, so far I could not figured out which one.

If it's old enough that the copyright has actually expired, there should be no legal boundary to stop you from publishing a LaTeX version (with the usual caveat: this is not qualified legal advice!).

Although this question is about OCR +  LaTeX  for handwritten maths, the answers discuss a printed maths textbook, and may be of interest.

Also see the answers to this question

Have you tried to contact the author? If the publisher really went under (and is not just off the web -- not finding them on Google is a poor excuse), the copyright usually reverts to them (or their estate), so it's up to them to give permission. Even ignoring the legal side (which you shouldn't), their wishes should be respected. It's arguably an extreme case, but Grothendieck is reported to have expressly forbidden a similar effort for his Éléments and Séminaire de géométrie algébrique.

Closely related: This question about re-typesetting a paper  (rather than a book) http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/15783/8513

It's also worth asking a librarian for help in tracking down the publisher.  Typewritten mathematics books were most common from the 1950's through 70's, and I think there are few (if any) mainstream mathematics publishers from that period who have gone out of business completely.  The most likely scenario is that they were bought by a company with a different name (possibly several times in succession).

This material is almost certainly under copyright, so the appropriate thing to do is to get in touch with the publisher and propose this project.  They may, in fact, be receptive and willing to work with you to make this an official new edition.  If they are not interested, then they may at least be willing to give you an official permission for your "remake."
If, on the other hand, the publisher is non-responsive or for some other reason cannot be contacted, then it would be reasonable to assume it's OK to go ahead with the remake and post it informally, e.g., on your personal website.  Because of the copyright issue, no third party is likely to want to publish it, and if the copyright holder eventually decides to take notice and that they don't like what you have done, you may have to take it down (there is, of course, a chance that they may sue instead, but that is relatively unlikely for such a document).  In the meantime, though, it would be a reasonable public service to provide for an apparently abandoned property.

if the copyright holder eventually decides to take notice and that they don't like what you have done, you may have to take it down – Or they may sue you. There is something like an “abandoned property” in copyright law, namely orphan wroks but they have to fulfill stronger requirements. As long as the publisher or author are alive or either of them has a legal successor that is findable with reasonable means, the work is very likely not orphaned. Whether these want to communicate with you, should be irrelevant to their legal claims.

@Wrzlprmft That is certainly true, but also a risk that many academics (including myself) would be willing to take.

That may very well be, but please do not misinform them and let them make that decision on their own, i.e., let them take the risk knowingly.

@Wrzlprmft I've added clarification to that effect.

Something you often see when old photos are reprinted is a (prominent!) notice such as "Despite intensive effort, the copyright holders could not be located. They are asked to please contact the publisher where applicable." How much legal weight this carries is open for debate ("none" is always a safe bet), but it does indicate good faith and shifts (part of) the burden of proof onto the suing party. Of course, said effort must have been made (and documented).

I finally reached the copyright holder. Very unfortunately [s]he has been very uncooperative: I guess [s]he want to jealously keep the copyright even if it was not my point. Whatever. I was very surprised  by the number of answers and the interest brought to the question: I have been hesitating a lot before posting it. So after all it does not look as a crazy idea. Now I am looking for an other old book, a very old one that is in the public domain. Lesson learned.

@SphericalTriangle Pity, but it sounds like you did the right thing.  Not all copyright holders act thus, however.


text:
Linking stackexchange account with answers that have cited papers without access while applying for research opportunities
I am a sophomore currently and was active pre-university on one of the daughter sites. While answering questions, I would reach upon specific research papers, paywalled. I broke through them
using means that are not so legal.
My answers reflect the primary reasons and interests as to why I want to research in that specific field are on that account.
Is it advisable to refer to my StackExchange account in my cover letter?
I have cited all articles properly; however, screenshots have been posted in many answers.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7552/stack-overflow-reputation-in-cv

I do not think the linked question is a duplicate. The linked question asks whether Stack Exchange reputation can be showcased as an achievement in the CV, for an application unrelated to their online activity. The OP here wants to use their posts to motivate their research interests, and the focus of the question is on the fact that they accessed their references through illegal means. Even if the answer is "don't talk about your posts at all", the reasoning for advising this will have to be different from that used in the proposed duplicate.

Regarding the "illegal" papers, you can possibly find some answers in here: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/125570/citing-paywalled-articles-accessed-via-illegal-web-sharing and here: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/156331/i-downoaded-articles-from-libgen-didnt-know-was-illegal-and-it-seems-that-adv

I'm confused. How would anyone know whether your access to articles pre-university was by "not so legal" means? For all that anyone knows, you may have taken classes at a nearby university while in high school (something I did, but this was pre-internet) and this gave you legal access to the articles. Or you may have (legally) made photocopies of the articles at a nearby university library, something I've done quite a lot over the years. Is your concern that the screenshots you posted indicate "not so legal" means?

Yes @DaveLRenfro "Is your concern that the screenshots you posted indicate "not so legal" means?" this is exactly what I wanted to ask about. On a side note is it advisable not to link your SE account? I do not want to show off my reputation or anything of that sort simply show that I have been interested in xyz topic for a long time.


text:
Should I ask for a recommendation from a professor in a different field?
I'm an undergraduate senior and will soon be applying for competitive PhD programs in computer science in the US/Canada. I already have three CS professors whom I have good relationships with (as a student, TA, and RA) as my recommenders. However, I also have a music professor whom I worked closely with on a purely music research in my first two years in college. The paper from that research has been accepted to a journal but not published yet.
Some universities allow up to five recommendation letters. So, should I ask my music professor to be my fourth recommender? If so, what should I ask them to highlight in the letter?

Will the music professor be able to highlight any of your particular strengths that your CS profs can't? E.g. independent research skills, while the other profs don't know you very well as a researcher, but will highligh class performance, TA performance, etc.?

Two of my three CS recommenders also advised me on independent research. So l'm frankly not sure if my music prof have much to add, but I'm personally closest to them and whatever they say, I believe, will be very positive. Would, let's say, a positive letter focusing on work ethics and academic writing help my app?

I think this is fine as an extra letter. It might not be if you were limited to just three and used this one. See https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/156001/who-to-ask-for-letters-of-recommendations/156003#156003


text:
Tension between "publishable" and "motivating" research topics
I am half way thorough my second year as a posdoc and I have a reasonable production (4 published papers in good journals and two other under review). I also have several ongoing/potential research projects and I am finding it hard to figure out how to manage my time and energy regarding them.
Here is the problem: among these projects, there are some that are fairly secure in terms of publication, meaning that I feel confident that within reasonable time and with reasonable effort those projects will lead to papers published in good journals (let us simplify assuming that "good" means Q1). However, these are not particularly motivating problems/proposals (for me). The main issue is their lack of motivation, mathematically in particular and scientifically in general. It is not that they are not good problems at all, or uninteresting in their entirety, they just don't seem to have an underlying mathematical or scientific question to them.
On the other hand, there is a handful of potential projects that I find motivating, some of them proposed to me by other mathematicians (tenured professors with solid careers) and some of them my own, but whose perspective of success is much less clear. These are interesting questions and/or research directions but there is no certainty that I will be able to get something out of them. And on top of that, they require an important time investment.
I am tempted to follow a strategy based on working on the "publishable" projects just the amount of time required to move forward with them and dedicate the rest of the time to the other projects, but I would appreciate points of view, comments or suggestions on the matter.
I could not find a question to which I would say that this is a duplicate, although I do think that these issues ought to be common for people at my stage of the career.

I don't understand how a problem that "doesn't seem to have an underlying mathematical or scientific question to it" might still be good or (from the perspective of science) interesting. Can you clarify?

I didn't write "interesting", I wrote that they are "fairly secure in terms of publication".

And it happens "at every scale": I was once chatting with a collogue, he was tenure track at a top notch university in the US where another professor (one the rock stars) was also working. I asked him if they ever collaborated and he replied that this guy was working on problems that were too hard and with no clear time frame for success, and he couldn't risk to get into that: he had to publish. And we're talking about a guy that has really nice papers, very relevant and in a wide range of topics, but he couldn't spend time in the "really interesting (really hard? really prestigious?) stuff".

I was referring to this specific sentence: "It is not that they are not good problems at all, or uninteresting in their entirety, they just don't seem to have an underlying mathematical or scientific question to them." That doesn't add up for me.

Maybe the word "hard" is missing in this sentence, as in "a hard underlying mathematical/scientific question". Then it would make sense. Easier stuff is easier to get done and thus easier to get published.

Well, I don't think that something is either interesting or it isn't. A paper may have nice application or an interesting approach, fill up a gap in the theory and many other features that make it somehow interesting without having a deeper scientific or mathematical aim to it. As for your second comment, I believe that hardness and interest are not correlated, at least not reciprocally: although really deep, really interesting questions are often hard to answer, there are plenty of difficult but uninteresting problems floating around in math.

I guess my advice would be, first, to get a permanent position, say on the tenure path and then get tenure. Do what you need to do to set a baseline.
Second, there is no reason why you need to make a final decision now and never review it. In the short term you could (probably should) work on stuff that gets you to tenure primarily, filling in with ideas on more interesting topics. Then, as the world becomes more secure you can morph into a situation that seems more satisfying.
Just keep notebooks of ideas as you go along, so that when you think of something "interesting" that might be pursued, you don't lose track of it later.
Stay flexible. Establish a base. Then move on.

Quoting for wikipedia on Brower <<"After completing his dissertation, Brouwer made a conscious decision to temporarily keep his contentious ideas under wraps and to concentrate on demonstrating his mathematical prowess" (Davis (2000), p. 95); by 1910 he had published a number of important papers, in particular the Fixed Point Theorem. Hilbert (...) helped him receive a regular academic appointment (1912) at the University of Amsterdam (Davis, p. 96). It was then that "Brouwer felt free to return to his revolutionary project which he was now calling intuitionism " (ibid). >>

@AlecosPapadopoulos, this is a wonderful quotation/point. Would you please make it an "answer", rather than a "comment", so that it will persist more robustly? Thanks, best wishes, ...

“Stay flexible. Establish a base. Then move on.” This seems like an excellent synthesis of the advice, and it’s much appreciated! I probably have to learn to take the anxiety down a notch and realize that there’s time to do all sort of things in the way of a career.

Completely agree with you. But equally depressed about the realistic necessity to do so.

At the suggestion of @paulgarrett, what Wikipedia narrates for Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer provides a historical aura (to say the least...) to the sensible advise of user @Buffy:
<<...Brouwer then "embarked on a self-righteous campaign to reconstruct mathematical practice from the ground up so as to satisfy his philosophical convictions"; indeed his thesis advisor refused to accept his Chapter II "as it stands, ... all interwoven with some kind of pessimism and mystical attitude to life which is not mathematics, nor has anything to do with the foundations of mathematics" (Davis, p. 94 quoting van Stigt, p. 41). Nevertheless, in 1908:

"... Brouwer, in a paper entitled 'The untrustworthiness of the
principles of logic', challenged the belief that the rules of the
classical logic, which have come down to us essentially from Aristotle
(384--322 B.C.) have an absolute validity, independent of the subject
matter to which they are applied" (Kleene (1952), p. 46).

"After completing his dissertation, Brouwer made a conscious decision to temporarily keep his contentious ideas under wraps and to concentrate on demonstrating his mathematical prowess" (Davis (2000), p. 95); by 1910 he had published a number of important papers, in particular the Fixed Point Theorem. Hilbert—the formalist with whom the intuitionist Brouwer would ultimately spend years in conflict—admired the young man and helped him receive a regular academic appointment (1912) at the University of Amsterdam (Davis, p. 96). It was then that "Brouwer felt free to return to his revolutionary project which he was now calling intuitionism " (ibid). >>

Personally I have always gone for what I was motivated to do, and in that way I think I built up a rather unique view and understanding of things that later served me well achieving some top publications. I was wondering for quite some time whether my publication record is good enough, but now I know my publication record is quite strong (although it wasn't for some time), so it paid off. I should say that it was clear to me from pretty early that although many researchers are stronger than me in many respects, I am original, and I was always motivated to follow my own agenda. The good thing about this regarding publications is that I never had any worry (and rightly so, although of course I didn't have any guarantee) that somebody else will achieve the same thing and get it published before me, because even if somebody else would approach the same problem, chances are my take would be different enough (actually once I and a "competing" group came out with major work on the same problem at the same time but our solutions were so different without being directly contradicting that we could co-exist peacefully). Not sure whether this could be a problem with your "secure publications"; I know some worry about this, and good ideas of some were in fact published by somebody else shortly before they could finish.
That said, I'm not sure whether I should recommend this approach to others. One reason is that I grew up in a "slow" environment without much pressure, and was given enough time (6 years plus 2 abroad) to build something up before actually having to compete for a permanent position. In a different system my approach may not have worked. Another reason is that I had some confidence in my originality as well as exit strategies in place in case this wouldn't have worked out. I was basically prepared to leave rather than adapting in case I couldn't do my work how I wanted to do it. I have always tried to be realistic. I wouldn't just blindly trust that it works, I would have some ideas in case it wouldn't. And to be honest, maybe I was a bit lucky with the people I met and the positions I got, and it could've gone wrong.

Interesting. Thanks for that.

Thanks for your reply. I guess our contexts are rather different, but I do feel inspired by your confidence in your own work, methods and ideas; it’s important not to follow the trends just because they are... trendy. Sometimes scientists can be curiously conservative in regards to what paths of research should be followed and having an agenda of one’s own (and being confident about it) is a great asset

I think the major issue here is that many people focus too much on career and what they are "expected to do" to the extent that they don't realise that another approach can also work. Whenever somebody told me "this-or-that is required for the career", I always asked myself, do I really believe this, and can it be done differently? But then it's true that doing whatever we want will not normally secure a career, so I had to keep my eyes open and do at least some things that are seen as "required" - I picked those that were most fun and fit best into my "personal agenda".

Hedge your bets. See the topics you work on as an investment portfolio. You certainly don't want to put everything into something risky, but to have a shot at making it big, you might want to take one or two more speculative investments with your time. So dedicate some time to the grander, motivating topics.
Think also about the time-scales: you'll probably want to have a mixture of short- and long-term investments. For example, some papers I make I know won't be overnight successes. There just aren't enough other people working directly on those topics for me to see that much activity related to my work that soon. But I'm confident that over time they'll be read and cited.

Thanks for the reply; it sort of combines nicely with the one from @Buffy.


text:
Is it okay to ask a supervisor for the email addresses of their current students?
I am doing an integrated Masters course as part of my undergraduate degree, and we have been asked to select the top 6 projects from a list of ~40 projects. We will then be allocated projects (and supervisors) based on these 6, and our previous academic performance.
Is it appropriate to ask project supervisors for the email-addresses of some of their current students? I would then contact their current students and ask what their supervisor is like to work with.
Would most supervisors take this poorly? Would I jeopardise my relationship with them before even starting my Project?

Did you check if the students' email addresses are already present on the supervisor's lab web page?

@GoodDeeds This wasn't something that I had considered, but I have since been able to find a handful of contacts this way. Thanks!

If you are in USA, I guess, this is something related to FERPA.

I seriously doubt FERPA would come into this. FERPA only protects educational records, whereas this would be considered "directory information" (see here).

Please can you indicate which country you are taking your degree in.  These kinds of things are as much inter-personal as they are achedemic.  You will have to consider the backgroud of the specific advisor too but in general you can find out what the cultural norm is for instituations in a given region.

I think its unclear what you mean when you say you are want current students email addresses. By "current students", do you mean others taking the class that you take? As point out above the list of students take a specific class is probably protected information. However, the list of graduate students that work in the research group of a prof. is almost certainly not. As @cag51 points out, this probably just counts as "directory information". Indeed at my university the names of graduate students in each research group is publicly listed, and with a name, you can find an email in the system.

In many places it would likely be viewed as improper. I suggest that you don't do that. Instead, ask the supervisors to pass on a note from yourself to their advisees/students/whoever in which you describe what you want to do and providing contact information for yourself. Make a plea for participation, if you like.
But giving your contact information indirectly to others is vastly different from "harvesting" contact information indirectly.
I would treat your request as stated as improper and wouldn't comply. But I'd be happy to let people know of your project.

I downvoted. Maybe this is a cultural thing, but think OP's request is completely reasonable. I'd ask my students if they were ok with it before passing on their email addresses, though.

@astronat, but the one asking the supervisors has no control over whether the students will be asked first. It could set up a problem that should be avoided.

Upvoted. If for nothing else than compensating the downvote. Maybe in some locations it is reasonable, but Buffy is completely right that "in many places it would be viewed as improper". This is not a question for a general discussion or contact, or visit. This is "shopping question" to use SE parlance. I would find it intrusive if I had not invited that person to visit my group myself.

It's totally unreasonable, and in many countries giving you these email addresses would be illegal.

This is the best way, in my opinion. Despite my email being publicly available on the institute's website, I still wouldn't be amused if my supervisor were to "sign me up for a survey" without asking me.

I think there is a big difference between students (UG/masters) taking a class, and students (PhD) working as researchers in a research group.

@astronat it is definitely a location-dependent thing. In particular, in most European countries this would be illegal due to GDPR.

@wimi it's illegal to pass on an email address even if the owner of said email address gives their consent??

@astronat no, with consent it is not illegal. I was responding to the "the request is completely reasonable" part of your comment. As stated often, I agree that asking the students for consent is the best way to go.

In part to make a counter-point to the (good from a different angle)  accepted answer,  I would argue it is not only desirable, but in fact smart from the point of view of the OP. Emails might not be the ideal communication tool (e.g. legally), but finding out how a given teacher performs from their former students is a very good idea. I have personally strongly advised potential PhD candidates to speak to former students, and it has been very profitable IMHO, at the very least to me (in as much as it has convinced applicants to carry out a PhD under my supervision), but hopefully to them as well! Choosing a prospective PhD supervisor is the most important and (more often than not) random decision that a student takes, so any access to prior information  is useful.
Indeed, you should get from a former student information which
might not be accessible elsewhere, such as "is their style  supervision
appropriate for me?"
I am aware it is not exactly the context of the OPs' question, but believe it could still apply at the level of a  M2 course?

So in short I would personally regard a request for such information as
positive, I would ask my former students if they are happy to speak to the applicant, and proceed accordingly.

PS: Since others have mentioned variability with countries, my experience is European.

A better strategy is to search through the professor's websites, publications, department website, and thesis databases (such as Proquest Disstertations) and look up past students' contact information yourself.  Then email the former students directly.  Former students are likely to be more informed that current students.  There's also no need to ask the professor's help if the information is already online.
I strongly disagree with Buffy's suggestion that it is improper to ask a professor for students' contact information.  It may be improper for a supervisor to give out contact information without permission, but it is not improper to ask for it.

Again, this is location dependent. If I (in Europe) receive such a request, I would automatically think I am being asked to do something illegal (violating GDPR), so yes, I would see it as an improper request. I would still try to help without breaking the law, e.g., by forwarding OP's email to my students and telling them that they can contact OP if they wish to do so.

@wimi Would you expect students to know about GDPR?  This certainly is not a europe-specific answer.

Well, the introduction of GDPR was a big deal in the news, and when it happened, virtually every service had to update their privacy policy and explicitly ask for consent to keep using the data they had from us. We all got a rain of emails... In any case, I am just saying that the request would be "improper", not that this improperness would lead me to think less of the student or treat them differently from other students. When I see all these "is it appropriate...?" questions, I always wonder "and what does the asker expect to happen if it's not?"


text:
As a full-time paid RA, should I get co-authorship on a paper that I have written?
I am working as a full-time research assistant at a university. I recently wrote a paper almost entirely independently. The contribution of the professor I work under was limited to telling me the topic that the paper is to be written on, and providing minimal inputs on the drafts (things like changes in grammar, or the inclusion of another aspect of the topic).
Now he is presenting the paper at a conference, and is listed as the sole author of the paper. As far as I know, I am not even noted in the acknowledgements. Am I incorrect in thinking that I should be listed as at least a co-author on the paper?
The only reason I am confused is because I am paid for my work at the university. However the work that I have done on the paper goes far beyond my professional responsibilities. Furthermore, I was hired to work on a completely different project altogether, but am helping the professor with most of his research.

First you said I recently wrote a paper almost entirely independently, then you said am helping the professor with most of his research.. Was the topic of the paper part of his research or not?

@scaaahu I apologise for the lack of clarity. I'm not sure I understand what you mean? I have been hired to work on a particular project. The paper I have referred to in the question is however totally unrelated to that project. The professor is simultaneously working on various things. Maybe I should have written "helping the professor with most of his other research"?

Note that "presenting the paper at a conference" can mean various things.  If the paper is going to be published in proceedings, you should certainly be an author.  However, if the professor is merely giving a talk about the project, some conferences just list the name of the person making the presentation, regardless of who else was involved.  In that case the professor should acknowledge other contributors as part of the talk.

@NateEldredge  Thank you. I had not considered that. Although this particular conference does list the name of all the authors. I am mostly worried that his behaviour will continue if I don't bring up the issue right away. I have worked on several papers here, and think that I will not be credited for my work at all if I don't speak up.

At AMS (math) conferences, you can also list the names of all the "authors," but I think this is stupid (because in math, you don't present papers, you just give talks), and I'm lazy, so I never do this.  However, I will say in the abstract "joint with kiki."

If you have written the paper, you certainly have the right to be at least a co-author. In fact, from what you said, it seems to me highly dubious that your professor should a an author at all.
Being paid as a RA does not waive your right of getting credits for publications you wrote. Your professor is also paid by the university.
EDIT:
If you would like to talk to your professor about this, I'd suggest that you talk politely. To be honest, I don't know how to do this, but I am sure this is important (and possible).
Thanks to Captain Emacs for their very valuable advice in the comment.

First: find out whether you have other options of people to work for; if not, prepare them. Once that's done, go to the prof and say (very politely) that you believe that your contribution warrants - at least - co-authorship (the "at least" because it may have been that the prof put you on the right track, or gave pointers to what he wanted done, don't underestimate that). If he refuses, you then have already prepared your exit option - which you then might consider to act on, smiling and remorseless...

I was wondering if I was looking at the situation objectively or overstating my contribution, and was admittedly a bit rattled when I posted the question. I think the advice provided by both of you is fair. I will approach the professor, albeit politely. I am already leaving the job soon, so at least I don't have to worry about that aspect. Thanks!

You definitely deserve to be at least a co-author. In fact, if I have understood the situation correctly, you deserve to be the lead author with the professor as the co-author. It does not matter that you are paid by university. That does not in any way go against your right to receive credit for the work you have done. Instances of senior researchers using their position of power to take undue advantage of their juniors are not new in academia. For junior researchers, it is very difficult to take any action against their seniors, more so because academia runs on a strongly hierarchical system.
However, you should definitely try to at least talk to the professor. Politely explain that you feel that you deserve co-authorship. You can refer to the ICMJE authorship criteria and specifically point out the areas where you have contributed.
I have recently written an article about such kinds of unethical behavior that is rampant in academia. You can read it here.

I had a part time research position that resulted in a research paper going to the IPENZ conference. I gave my supervisor my wads of summarised rough notes. He wrote it up nicely; he is dead now but he is a much better writer than me. Our names went on the paper along with the technicians that helped make it possible. My supervisor presented the paper and I took the questions. This was all very fair and I would have thought very normal. I think that somebody is not being fair to you.

You deserve to be co-author.  However, because the professor is senior to you and because I assume you want to remain on good terms and perhaps ask him for a letter of recommendation in the future, make sure to go about this conversation politely and respectfully.  I am sure it is very stressful, but think of it as similar to asking your boss for a well-deserved promotion.  You worked hard, you deserve it, but it is still up to you to respectfully but assertively make the case for you to get the recognition.


text:
Submitting under review paper in the admission process, Is it ok?
The university I am applying to has an option in which I can upload my under review/accepted papers. Is it okay to do it considering the fact that the paper is not published yet?
My under review paper has the same topic as one of the research topics in a lab in that university.

If the university says it is fine, then it is fine. Label them correctly, of course. But even if they don't specifically ask for them then a person can submit them as "under review" and it will be properly understood. One might even list work that is well along, but not yet submitted as "work in progress".
Just be honest in labelling. And for those under review, say which journals/conferences are currently reviewing them.

Hmm yeah, but do I have to get permission from my master's advisors (the co-authors)?

@sandra just ask them, they're unlikely to say no.

Probably good to ask, but I don't think technically necessary. You aren't "publishing" them by sharing with an admissions committee.

@astronat actually one of them might disagree. He even made me cc him in the email in which I sent the paper to a distinguished well known professor.

Actually, I think a cc is just courtesy. But as @astronat suggests, ask. If you get pushback then maybe another of the authors, if they have authority, can intervene.

Full agree to the first paragraph. The second is controversial: quite a few people dislike naming the target journal of under-revew papers. That's because it can be read to suggest that just submitting to a particular journal is an accomplishment (which it isn't) and creates an association to that journal (which does not exist yet).


text:
Prospective PhD advisor wrote that he would get back to me, but did not. What should I do?
Prospective PhD advisor wrote that he would get back to me in "two weeks or so", and it has been 3 weeks now. Should I email him? What should I write in the email?

If the advisor is in the US, note that this is the week of Thanksgiving...

@JonCuster Oh you're right. I totally forgot. But do people celebrate the whole week there?

Well, students are leaving (my kids are back home), which means dealing with lots of last-second requests, then many folks travel (even in a pandemic - sigh) anytime from last weekend through Thursday morning, then back again on Sat/Sun. Lots of time off to bake pies. Generally a mess... Drop a follow up email on, say, Tuesday next week.

@JonCuster I do not want the professor to think that I am not interested or something. If I were to email after a month, wouldn't it look like that I am not excited about joining his research team?

@JonCuster And also, What should I write in the email? English is my third language, and sometimes writing emails in english, I feel like what I am writing might come off as rude.

Wait one more week.

@Alchimista What do you recommend that I write in the email that wouldn't seem rude?

I would continue as in the previous contact. An email isn't rude. After you can even call. A friend of mine was complaining of no answer then, when I have convinced her to insist and finally call, got a post doc position in matter of days. Spam box was the case.... There is nothing wrong on "insisting". He said 2 week or so, so after 25 days you should show up again (in person, by mail, by phone depending on the situation).


text:
Recruiting coauthors for sake of the Introduction section
I'm a student. A professor recently gave me an open question to think about, and after three months of working on it as a hobby, I think I have something good.
It is not an exact mathematical theorem or anything, but I have the code and some proofs in special cases.
So, I'm writing a paper and thinking about publishing it.
Now, the professor isn't active in the research area that this paper would naturally fit in. They did help with the technical details, but have no time to become an expert in this area.
But, all papers in this area have an "Introduction" section of almost a page, citing 30+ papers from the past two years. I have read a grand total of four relevant papers.
How to proceed? I don't think I am capable of doing this in a reasonable amount of time, as I don't really follow what's going on in this research area. And I have other pressing things to do.
I am thinking about writing to some PhD students in my institution which publish in this area, to recruit them as coauthors. Maybe they could even improve the paper.
But how to contact them?
Is it dumb to say: "hi, nice to meet you, here is my current draft of the paper, do you want in? By the way, you are going to write first section"?

Did you also check with your professor? Even if they are not familiar with the technical details, they could help you figure out how to proceed (e.g. they may know someone who could help). Also, if you don't follow what's going on in the research area, it is probably quite important to check with someone familiar with it to confirm that your work is worthy of publication.

Well, I can ask the professor for advice, but they said they can't help with the writing personally. This is usual for papers in this area, as ordering of authors is significant.

As for "worthy of publication", as far as what I have read of the literature, this work would surely have been published two years ago, because it strictly improves one published work. The citation tree doesn't contain anything newer that makes my work irrelevant. As for the appropriateness of the venue, I suppose the reviewers will decide.

Ask your faculty advisor to recommend a PhD student coauthor. Email the PhD student saying “advisor recommending I contact you.” Also ask your advisor for tips on how to quickly read papers for relevance and for purposes of writing a literature review. I train my students to understand the basics of a paper in 15-30 minutes and only go in depth (read fully) 5-10 most relevant papers.

This is very field dependent. In mathematics, the best solution would probably be to:
(a) find someone in the field who is both interested in the topic and known to be a decent/generous person
(b) ask them for advice on the context of the problem.
With luck, you will get guidance towards a minimal introduction for publication. Alternatively, you might gain a coauthor, especially if your work introduces a theoretical advance that can be extended using known tools in the area you may be unfamiliar with.

I suggest that rather than trying to enlist someone else as a co-author, you just do the best job you can with what you know and can learn in a reasonable amount of time. If you only have a few references, rather then 30, then so be it. If it is enough to explain what you are doing then it is probably enough.
Use your professor for feedback on what you write. They will probably have some ideas about things you should include. And get advice from them on where and how to submit it for publication. Perhaps a student-oriented publication is best, but you need advice on that.
But if another person hasn't contributed to the intellectual advances you have made, then it isn't really proper to include them as authors.
If you submit it to a reviewed publication then you will probably get feedback from reviewers if it has any merit at all. The feedback will help you improve it even if they don't end up publishing it.
I think that it is unlikely that you have missed anything so important that it would invalidate what you have done. Your professor would probably have caught that already. But a reviewer certainly will.
But, write the paper as best you can including what you think is necessary to explain things to a reader. The practice will be good.

Introductions are challenging to write. We have knowledge, but we don't also remember where we learned everything. Indeed, stare at a problem long enough, and the reasoning for solving it seems plain. But reviewers and readers want the whole background. And if you are publishing a paper, you practically by definition need to be competent to write the introduction.

How to proceed? I don't think I am capable of doing this in a reasonable amount of time, as I don't really follow what's going on in this research area.

Well, not a lot really proceeds in a reasonable amount of time in academia ... you are not guaranteed to publish your paper rapidly. So if it takes you a few months to work on the introduction, so be it.

I am thinking about writing to some PhD students in my institution which publish in this area, to recruit them as coauthors.

The idea of someone contacting me to write an introduction is, quite frankly, humorous. It's appropriate to contact someone to help develop your paper, but if I was contacted by an undergrad (?) to help with their paper, I would expect that to mean intellectually and editing their text. Perhaps helping with a tricky paragraph or two. But finding 30 papers for them? No.

+1. I'd add to this that it really seems like either A) The paper is worth the effort of OP learning the background, and they should put in this effort, or B) It is not, and it's not worth publishing. I have a very hard time believing there is much useful research that requires no background in an area to complete. Maybe it requires fewer references than some magic number "30+".

@Bryan Krause: I agree, and in fact I find it difficult to believe the OP cannot find many background/related publications, as to me this raises a red flag that the topic is so specialized as to likely be of very little interest to anyone.

@DaveLRenfro It doesn't sound to me like they can't find anything - they just feel overwhelmed by the idea (something I can readily sympathize with) and are frustrated because they have their results; but now need to back-fill an introduction that seems minor.

Don’t look for a co-author; look for a mentor!
Other answers, such as Buffy’s, explain well why it’s generally not appropriate to recruit a co-author for this kind of thing. But I’d like to emphasise a good alternative: try to find someone experienced in the general area who can help advise you on writing the introduction.
Usually, I would expect the original professor who suggested this question should be qualified to help you write it. Even if they’re not an expert in the specific topic, they should be able to judge what’s an appropriate amount of background to give, and help you find more background reading if necessary. If they’re really not qualified for this (which would surprise me) then I suggest approaching some other experienced academic in your institution to ask for their guidance on this, ideally someone who already knows you a bit, eg from a course. To be clear, you’re asking for a favour which  will take time they probably won’t get remunerated for — so make sure to ask politely, and don’t take it personally if they say no. But it’s a favour that many academics, when they can spare the time, would be very happy to give.

I think this is a great response. Hopefully your advisor knows people in the area and can point you to someone who will be both interested in the result and generous with their time.


text:
Career change at 37: Should I start an Electronic Engineering MSc?
I have a BS in Electrical Engineering (2010) and a MSc in Computer Science. I completed the MSc with distinction at a British university in 2011 and have worked here in various IT roles since.
Now, at the age of 36, I would like to change careers and would like to work as an electronic engineer. I'm confident I can excel in the new career. Would a good 1 year MSc in Electronic Engineering here at a good UK university help me find a job? If I start the master's it would have to be in Autumn 2021 and by then, I will already be 37.

Ignore the age issue. Life is short. Make it sweet.

Are you interested in a career in academia? If not, then this question is probably better suited to workplace SE.

Disclaimer: I don't know the UK job market, I'm from Germany.
I'd just apply for jobs that seem interesting to you, using your current degrees.
You got a solid background in EE from your BS, and your MSc shows that you have a broader knowledge and a somewhat interdisciplinary, scientific thinking, documented by the ability to switch from EE to CS. That should count as an asset.
What you don't have, is experience in electronics engineering, at least as far as we can tell from your question. But a year at university also doesn't give you that. So, you should find a way to convince the companies that you're capable of doing electronics designs at professional level.
My impression from the German job market is that companies desperately seek employees for hardware development, so they'll happily give people a try who are willing to do it.
Spending a year (or more) at university might be a fun time for you, but I don't think that necessary for applying to an engineering job. It might even be considered a weird decision by potential employers.
P.S. I myself have an EE diploma and a PhD in engineering and have always been working in IT, often in projects where EE knowledge was very welcome. A similar thing might work for you, just the other way round.

Thanks for your answer. Really appreciate it.


text:
Applying for MSc in Applied Mathematics at a top tier UK university at 38
I am 37 and thinking about applying for admission to Applied Mathematics MSc programmes at Russell Group universities next year.
My previous degrees are in Electrical Engineering - a BSc completed at a foreign university with a CGPA of 2.9/4 -  and an MSc in Computer Science, that I completed at a non-Russell group university in the UK, in 2011, albeit with an overall distinction as well as an A grade (84%) in dissertation.
I am presently working as a software engineer but would like to work in the finance sector in a role, where a strong background in Mathematics is a mandatory requirement in addition to a strong computer science background. I wish I could consider this career change sooner, but my circumstances at the time left me with very limited options.
Most universities here start accepting applications in May, so I have about 8 months to prepare my application. Considering that I don't have a maths background and my undergraduate record wasn't stellar either - owing mainly to some very difficult life circumstances in a different country. So what can I do to enhance my chances of getting accepted at a top-tier university such as Imperial College or UCL?
At 38 I am late to even contemplate a career change. But I think once I cross 40 it would become almost impossible.

A successful application will demonstrate a person's ability to successfully complete the course so familiarize yourself with the course material and requirements. You want to have at least the mathematical skills that the MSc course would expect an applied mathematics graduate to have. Find an undergraduate course that would naturally lead into this MSc and learn the subjects covered there.
In an application or cover letter play to your strengths as someone with experience working in a professional capacity for years. Highlight completed projects, challenges overcome, technical knowledge gained and effort put in. Focus on what's relevant to the course you are applying for. The previous MSc dissertation is a real strength. It demonstrates capability in academic work and familiarity with research.
Do not view older degrees as negative recommendations which follow you around forever. Don't feel the need to explain or excuse them. There is no need to bring up past difficulties unless it's relevant today or you are explicitly asked. If you have enough useful experience and success between an old degree and a new application, it's the recent stuff that matters.
Also, make no excuses for your age. You know whether your mind is still active and if you are capable of learning new things. Forty is not a barrier. There is no requirement to stick to what you picked at eighteen years old nor any defeat in leaving a field. Anecdotally, I have come across several mature students and their institutes, colleagues and families were always supportive and enthusiastic.
Good luck!

Advice seconded. I supervised several so-called "mature" students (awful term, I know), and both them and I enjoyed it a lot. Your past will bring experience, professionality and discipline to the table; if you add enthusiasm, you'll be fine, possibly even far better than your fellow inexperienced students. Good luck!

Thanks a lot for your answer.
I am absolutely determined to start this 1 year MSc course next year. Until then I will study the relevant courses in a disciplined, systematic manner using open courseware made available by top universities, including the MIT. Even though a GRE score isn't required by universities here in the UK, I will probably take the Mathematics subject GRE.


text:
Can we reference teaser images in our papers?
The conference I'm submitting my paper allows for teaser images. I want to reference the teaser image in the text. Is this usually allowed? If it is, what is the standard way of referencing it? I mean, in regular figures we use \cref that results in something like Fig. 1. Should one just write "as we can see in the teaser image..."?

In the text of the main paper, it would be better not to refer to the teaser image. The paper should be self-contained and free of gimmicks.

Is there a reason you can't put the teaser image in the main paper? Or a figure with whatever you wanted to reference in the teaser?

What is a "teaser image"? Like a screenshot from a movie?

The paper is in Data Visualization. The conference suggests (recommends) the use of a teaser image. It is just an image right below the title, and in the first page.


text:
Removing a grant number from a published paper
How can I remove a grant number from the acknowledgment of a published paper? since my institution refused to pay the reward for publishing this paper.

How refused? did they told you at the beginning that they will pay and then decided to not pay? or you just assumed they will pay the fees??

If you were supported by the grant the acknowledgment should stay, even if you think the institution has reneged on some promised "reward".