text:
Are there many countries in which universities pay PhD students a wage comparable to a basic job in industry?
I should soon complete my masters degree in engineering and have decided to apply for a PhD after I finish.
An issue I face is that I cannot afford to not receive a wage that I could for example get by going into industry. So far I have been very fortunate to study for free in Scotland and Switzerland - and during my time in Switzerland it became apparent that the PhD students not only didn't have to pay fees but in fact were employed as staff of the University and received a good wage. As a comparison in Scotland you would normally have your doctorate fees covered by the project funding but would only receive a modest stipend on which it would be a real struggle to get by upon fully depending on circumstance. Further, in other countries, I know it is normal to pay your fees for doing the PhD and receive no stipend whatsoever.
My question is: are there many other countries in which, as you do in Switzerland, you receive a staff wage comparable to a wage you would receive from going straight into a job in industry? The only other countries I'm aware of in which this is the culture are Denmark and Sweden.

Australia, in many cases. I do not pay tuition and also get a fortnightly stipend/wage/salary/whatever. Doesn't make me rich though.

If you are concerned that a Ph.D. stipend won't pay as much as a Masters in Engineering will get you in industry, then a Ph.D. is probably not the right career choice for you...

I suggest a change of title: "doctoral wage" sounds like you are asking specifically for places where PhD candidates get the wage of a doctoral degree holder (postdoc), instead of where they get a wage at all.

What discipline are we talking about? Reality is salaries in academia – especially pre-professoral – depend a lot on the field, even though in theory they shouldn't. So always state the discipline if asking about PhD and postdoc positions.

I tweaked title to try to match question in body. "i.e., the wage is equivalent to a basic job in industry"... Of course, I think an important point is exactly how you define a basic job in industry. I.e., you could define it as minimum wage. Or you could define it as something more general, but presumably it would depend on your industry.

As an aside, the term "wage" is perhaps a little loaded. Ultimately, its about how much money you get whether it is called  a "stipend", "scholarship", or "wage".

The question was formulated as a "make a big list" or "shopping" question, which are off-topic on this site.  I have adjusted it to instead be answerable in terms of how common or rare the practice is.

The big problem with that question is that there is no "wage you would receive from going straight into a job in industry". For instance in Austria, depending on your previous experience, negotiation skills, connections, luck, marketable skills, and a million other factors, your salary may be comparable to a PhD student salary or close to twice as high. Depending on who you talk to, PhD students are either hideously underpaid or reasonably well-off.

@HaoYe I wonder why every salary-related question on academia.SE always receives comments how an academic (and especially a PhD student) should not care about money. I think this is a seriously stifling and unhealthy way to approach this topic.

Isn't this question too broad? I mean, it will potentially attract as many different answers as there are countries with PhD programs, and none of them can really be "right" or "wrong".

PhD students in Switzerland do pay a fee, although a very modest one. The PhD salaries are significantly lower than the median salary for the country and significantly lower than any industry position, providing your field makes you employable (engineering, maths, etc.).

@xLeitix - there is a good reason from the US perspective.  In the US, the average professor makes substantially less than the average person in industry with a corresponding amount of experience.  Furthermore, doing a PhD has little if any worth in industry.  Hence from a purely economic perspective, doing a PhD is a bad economic choice.  As an Asst Professor, I have (within $2000/year) the same salary I had (in my 2nd year in industry) before entering grad school, and that's without accounting for more than 15 years of inflation.  I hated working in industry, so it was a reasonable choice.

@AlexanderWoo I would speculate that there is a relationship between the indoctrination that academics are not supposed to care about money and the fact that academics are (as you say) underpaid. In Central Europe, where this seems much less common, a reputed full professor is certainly not badly paid in comparison to industry.

@xLeitix - I never said that an academic of a PhD student should not care about money. I do think, however, that it's unrealistic to expect to receive a PhD stipend equivalent to going into industry (which OP suggests is a dealbreaker: "I cannot afford to not receive a wage that I could for example get by going into industry.") If that were the case, there would be a lot more people doing PhDs, since there would be very little opportunity cost. Especially for engineering disciplines.

@HaoYe It is not unrealistic at all in some countries. This question seeks to identify those countries.

Remember that spending time doing a PHD will reduce how much industry will pay compared to someone that has spend the time getting "real life" experience.   Unless you can find a job that NEEDs what you learned while doing the PHd.

Why do people expect to get paid to spend time learning how to do research?    Would not any money spend on PHd students not get a better return on investment by having more post docs instead?

@Ian "Why do people expect to get paid as a junior [something]?" Because you are still delivering value to your company (the university, in that case), and should expect to be paid fairly for that. As for why you won't be having more postdocs instead - because a postdoc costs more and has a rather different job profile.

@HaoYe The "opportunity costs" of doing a PhD in my experience is that most people are simply happy to be done with studying after their undergrad :) that being said, in countries like Germany we indeed do see a lot more PhD students, many (or most?) of whom never intended to stay in academia. Many research groups get quite big around here.

@xLeitix it is not a question of indoctrination that makes academics accept a lower wage than industry, but rather simple supply and demand.  Academia produces too many qualified candidates for these positions and as a result there is significant downward wage pressure.  If you could not fill those positions you would see the wages rise.

I'm not sure how much Scotland is different from the rest of the UK, but from my experience of UK PhD funding, I'm not sure why you're worried.
A standard PhD stipend is a little over £14,000 per year, paid quarterly. Fees are covered, and additional money can often be earned by taking on teaching or marking duties, up to about £1500 per year. Taking into account that students do not pay tax this is approximately equivalent to a salary of £17 or £18 thousand per year.
While I appreciate that circumstances may vary for different people, I wouldn't really call that

a real struggle to get by upon

Outside of London, that is enough to rent a decent sized one bedroom flat or share a nice house, pay your bills, take a nice holiday and still have the weekly cash to go out for dinner or drinks. In London, the stipend is increased but I don't have personal experience of the living expenses there, so it may be different.
As I said, circumstances may be difficult for some people, but most universities will have support for childcare or special needs, so unless you are trying to support a family as the sole earner, I don't think it's really a worry.

You're slightly optimsitic on what it would get you, I suggest (other major cities can be quite expensive too).  But the fact that it's tax free makes a huge difference.

Not really, I'm speaking from personal experience here, and I live in a major city. I'm not saying you can take loads of expensive holidays and buy whatever you want, but you don't have to live on a shoestring. For a single person, or someone sharing with other employed people, money isn't really a worry.

@FJC I can further extend. I also live in a major U.K. city and also have two children and a partner who's also a student. I can't say I've had any worries during my PhD, we've been able to live quite comfortably with me doing a bit of teaching.

Just for full disclosure, are you a UK, EU, or overseas student? Non-EU students often have a radically different experience to obtaining PhD studentships. This varies by field, I imagine (so you should state your area), but in the physical sciences most of the main funding channels are EU-only at best (though of course that is subject to change in the next couple of years). As an overseas student, a PhD is often an exercise in raising £20k+ per year, plus living expenses, with no UK channel willing or able to shell out.

@FJC The OP was not asking about surviving with PhD salary, he was asking about the PhD salary that was "comparable to a basic job in industry". 15K - 18K a year is not in any way comparable to a basic job in industry. And do you know that in order to become permanent resident, your (Tier 2 visa) salary needs to be at least 35k. In London, where I did my PhD, the basic job in industry in my field (Junior Software Engineer) starts with 45k for fresh graduate. Of course, folks at Google, Facebook etc get much more.

@E.P. Yes I am a UK student, but I was assuming that the issue is not about getting the studentship, but living on it when you've got it. It's fairly obvious that if you can't get the funding then you're not going to have any money. My experience is in Physical Sciences, and yes the number of studentships available depends on your citizenship, but I don't think value of the stipend varies much between funding bodies. All UK, EU or non-EU students I know get about £14000 per year.

@v107 I'm not aware what the OP's idea of a basic salary in industry would actually be, but when I was applying for graduate jobs a few years ago £17k wasn't out of the ball park. I agree that there are some areas where graduate starting salaries are higher, but I don't think £45k is the standard. Maybe we should ask the OP to give a figure for the salary they would expect in their area?
On your point about visas, I think PhD students don't get permanent resident visas, just a temporary one for the duration of studies, so that wouldn't be relevant here.

Just to add on his: I am an UK PhD student and I did save enough with this money to go to a trip to Japan for 3 weeks. This salary won't be good for having a family, but its OK for 1 person

The OP hasn't specified why they cannot afford a low income. People here are making assumptions that they want a lavish lifestyle (or that they have overestimated the cost of living), but consider that they might (for example) be supporting a family.

In Germany PhD students are also usually employees. Most professors have one or a few PhD positions to fill and also third party funding often comes for PhD positions (e.g. from the DFG or from the BMBF). This means they have a regular job and all social security. The pay is good but first it is far from what one could get in the industry (of course, depending on the field...), second you are often employed half time, three quarters or something different, and third you'll have teaching duties to fulfill. Either way you can make a living as a PhD student (even part time) but you  can  probably not afford a fancy lifestyle with a big house or a new car.
Also note, that you can also do your PhD on some kind of scholarship which come without social security (e.g. from some foundations but also some departments have a system for PhD scholarships).

be careful, not all PhD Students are emplyees in germany. And, quite a lot of Professors don't give their phd "jobs" to foreign students (this includes all students from other universities than theirs) if they don't know them. They wait for students with stipends. And Stpendiates don't have all the social securty. Also, some groups, due to lack of funding or greed only pay their phds a minimum wage like a "Studentenjob" which is around 800 €

To complete what @Julian wrote: The other end of the spectrum is fields where PhD students with anything other than a 100% employment in their institute are basically unheard of. So, there is indeed a lot of variation across places and fields.

@O.R.Mapper Thank you. I forgot to meantion, that my experience is mostly limited to Chemistry, Physics and Biology an some uniersities.

@Julian: Since the asker is in Engineering, my experience is that he'd be closer to the 100% employment end of the scale.

@Julian Off-topic, but you can avoid the code formatting if you use the apostrophe ' instead of the grave accent `.

@Julian you can also use a backslash to escape the ` using \` to avoid getting code formatting

I have done a PhD in physics, in Germany, and I can ensure that it actually the opposite. Most PhD students get department scholarships and not government contracts, unless specified otherwise in some special cases. The former usually amount to 1/3 of an industry salary and contain no health and medical insurance, that has to be covered additionally.

@GennaroTedesco Sure, there are PhD students on scholarships (and I'll add that to my answer). But this is far from the norm in all the fields I know (and also in Physics). I do not doubt that you experienced that "most PhD students get department scholarships", but this has to be some special environment.

@Julian In Computer Science it's quite common to have 100% employment. Which is rather necessary because that's in my experience still the lowest possible end of the scale - if you're good, you can easily get double or more in the industry (and that's ignoring bonuses..). Really, nobody gets into academics to get rich.

Some data about computer science in Germany - you'll usually get 100% TVL-E13 which is ~44.000€/year gross and at least 27.000€/year net (social security, pension, health care already deducted). This is comparable with the median starting salary in industry, but if you've been offered a PhD position, you can expect to get more in industry. Of course the industry starting salary for PhDs is also higher. Financially, it doesn't make much difference whether you do a PhD if you plan to go into industry anyway, because 3 years experience will be worth about the same as a PhD in my experience.

Is it really common for those half or two thirds time students to actually do half time or two thirds time work? From what I've seen, there are people who work more something like 120% of a normal working day regardless of payment. I'm not sure if this is an isolated culture only in my area or if it's sort of expected.

@AndrejaKo That's another question...

@AndrejaKo: They work 60%, the other 60% is "studying&learning". Also they get only 20 days off per year, other employees in the TVL scales usually 30.

In Norway, the standard PhD salary is around NOK 420.000 which is about USD 52.500 per year. This will give you around NOK 24.500 or USD 3.000 per month after tax. In addition you will get about NOK 70.000 to cover travel expences etc.

In my university in Norway it used to be NOK 30.000 for travel expenses etc. per year, otherwise the numbers agree. Note that USD/NOK rate fluctuates considerably: it was 5.50-6.00 four years ago but is 7.50-8.85 this year. So it used to be more like USD 4,500 per month after tax, which was a really nice deal if you compare globally. Of course, the prices in Norway were high back then, too, as measured in USD.

But, you also spend Norwegian quantities of moneey on groceries, travel, leisure, etc. (but it's still a very good deal).

I can attest to the Netherlands and Belgium being on this list. PhD students are (normally!) considered employees of the university and are paid salary. As far as I know this is the case when the project has secured funding.
The questions surrounding the project funding are generally more difficult - i.e. in some cases the student needs to find an own source of funding - either another institution providing funding (scholarships etc) or a company.

The Netherlands is slowly moving away from this model, and replacing a wage with a stipend. Supposedly the same monthly income, but without the full legal protection of an employee contract.

@MSalters: not only without the legal protection. Also without the wage increases, no pension, no social insurances and without a bench free (if you're in a lab you have to hope your colleagues have some money to spare so you can buy stuff).

In Switzerland, PhD students in areas where there is a high demand and relatively easy to find a job (physics, computer science) are paid a salary less but still comparable to that a company can offer for the new master without any previous employment. Master degree is required for PhD.
For areas where it is more difficult to find a job, it is formally half time employment (so 50 %) but realistically a PhD student still stays a complete working day in laboratory. It may change over time and be laboratory dependent on which of these two rules applies.

I would add Mexico to the list.
In STEM, a PhD grant from the national council for sciences and technology (conacyt) is 6 times the minimum salary, which is equivalent to the starting salary of a freshly graduated engineer. Today, this amount is equivalent to around USD $700 a month, tax free, and enough to live correctly in Mexico City.
Some universities could give other grants. For instance, the UNAM has a grant program for students not in areas covered by conacyt. The amount of the grant is equivalent (See the UNAM website).
I would add that in public universities tuition is basically free.

In Hungary, when applying for PhD, you can decide whether to apply for a stipend (paid by the government) or pay yourself. Some universities have limitations, like they don't allow you to have a stipend when working full-time, but this is not universal. If you apply for it and your results are good enough, you will get paid for 2+2 years in the current system (I think if you don't finish your dissertation by the end of that, you have to pay back some of it).
As of today, this means 140 000 HUF for the first 2 years and 180 000 after. The minimum wage is about 74 000 HUF after taxes. Also, engineering students frequently participate in projects at the university or industrial partners, which can add a lot.

To translate that: 140,000 HUF are about 450 euros. Living in Hungary is a bit more affordable, but not that much.

In Sweden, most PhD students are employees with standard benefits: five weeks vacation, paid family leave, sick leave, social security, etc. There are considerable variations in salary depending on your field, university, and how long you've been employed. The salary range is roughly around 20k SEK/mo (~2100€, just starting out in the humanities) to around 34k SEK/mo (~3550€, close to dissertation at top paying STEM universities) before taxes. Incomes in this bracket are taxed at roughly 25%.
For comparison, the median salary in Sweden is somewhere around 28 000 SEK/mo.
There are no additional fees for being a PhD student, but you will usually be expected to spend part of your time teaching or doing other departmental duties.

It is about 1700-1800 Euro per month in Austria after taxes for
Computer Science or Electrical Engineering. (14x a year)
 This is about the median income in Austria, but still a little less, than industry pays.

In Italy, PhD students are paid a net amount of at least 1000 Euros per month (the sum is dictated by government), in case their admission would be with a scholorship. In some cases, research groups might add some additional money to the 1000 Euros to further support their PhD student. It can get up to 1500. In industry, a newly graduated engineer makes roughly about 1500 euros per month after taxation during first 3 years of employment.

Right. Also the university itself can additional money bringing sometimes the PhD scholarship around 1300 €/month.

It depends even on the field of study and the deaprtment heads.
In Czech republic, PhD students are paid a stipend and can be paid from the project they are part of.
In one department the students are paid the "state" stipend only, and it is not comparable even with minimum wage. In another department, with strong research background, the students are paid comparable to average wage. Both are part of same university.

In Belgium, you get a decent salary during your Ph.D., but you will not pay taxes on it, so you will not be able to profit from tax advantages. (e.g. if you have a loan, you will not receive tax refunds).

In Argentina you can apply for a full scholarship from mainly two government agencies: CONICET and AGENCIA. Beware that everyone can apply but not everyone gets it, although the number of scholarships given is rather generous.
I think there is an age limit also (<30 years? Something like that).
The current scholarship is a little less than U$S1000 monthly, which is semi-decent given the cost of living in this country.

Presumably, there are many places where PhD fees are waved and where many students receive some form of scholarship/stipend/wage. Thus, it seems that there are several issues:

Are fees waved, deferred, or paid?
Do you get given money to do the PhD and if so how much?
Are you considered an employee and therefore get additional benefits?
How much additional work (e.g., teaching, research assistant, etc.) is allowed or advised while doing PhD and how much money does that generate?
What are you defining as the income you could earn in industry and how close do you have to get to that income for the PhD to be considered equivalent?

I'll use the case of a PhD in Australia as an example:

Most local students will have their fees waved
Perhaps half of all PhD students are on a scholarship
The median wage of a full-time worker is about AUD$60,000, which at a guess is roughly $48,000 after tax.
A PhD scholarship would be about AUD$26,000 tax free.
If you did some tutoring work up to the generally allowed level (perhaps 6-8 hours per week averaged throughout the year) you might earn another AUD$10,000 which wouldn't be taxed because you're below the tax free threshold.

So, in summary, you are earning $36,000 after tax compared to median  wage of about $48,000 after tax. You're not getting retirement benefits and many of the other employment benefits you would get with a full-time wage.
Alternatively, you might be able to work part-time and do the PhD part-time. Many scholarships require full-time completion. But if you are able to get scholarship and work part-time. Then you might be able to put together something approaching median wage. That said, the whole process would take longer, and you wont necessarily be in a better financial position at the end, had you gone full-time, and started your post-PhD career sooner.
So in summary, I guess it depends on exactly where you set the frame of reference and how you combine scholarship, other income, and the potential post-PhD income.

In USA, if you are lucky (good) enough to get full funding, it'll cover your living costs if you are single and you probably earn more than the national median. But that's an order of magnitude off from what you can potentially earn. As someone who is thinking of going for a PhD you probably qualify for high earning jobs. This totally depends on your degree.
Say in Computer Science, where I come from, doing a PhD makes no financial sense in 99.999999% of the cases. Take this from someone who went through a long PhD program.

I am limiting my answer to the scope of engineering PhD programs. In the USA, the stipend number varies greatly by geographical area, university prestige, private or government funding, and program of studies. I know of universities that pay annual PhD stipends from USD $10k up to USD $55k. These are normally dictated by the amount the university determines as "cost of attendance."
This amount generally caps the available financial aid (in the form of scholarships, fellowships, grants, etc.) that the university can provide to a student. Of course, there are external sources but that wasn't part of the OP question.
In my impression, the (roughly) top 50 engineering programs will pay a decent enough stipend for a single person to live comfortably (rent a private studio/apartment, eat out regularly, make car payment, etc.) without splurging.

I did an MS in a respected (but not famous) STEM program in the western USA - Master's and PhD students who obtained a stipend from their projects (most did not) received somewhere from $10-20K annually, and also had their tuition covered. This was enough to cover housing and food in the area, and a few luxuries, but not much else after taxes. Those who went directly into industry in the same state were paid anywhere from $40-70K starting salary depending on their exact field.

In France PhD has salary of about 1300 or 1500 euro net per month, but then student has to pay annual tax:

If he/she earns 1300 euro/month, tax is about 200 euro
If the net salary is > 1500 euro/month, tax is > 1200 euro

Also every PhD student pays fees to university, which is about 400 euro/year.
France is a very socialistic country, as you see from taxes above, but PhD students are not eligible for any social help.
And consider, please, that apartment rent in Paris region (Ile-de-France) is expensive, a decent studio not very far from university costs more than 500 euro/month.

Social help, and taxes, vary greatly with your personal situation: my wife, my newborn son & I could decently live in Paris during my PhD, having only my salary. Our rent was expensive (~800€) but we had a couple of social help, and paid close to no taxes.


text:
Informal enquiries for faculty position
I am a postdoc in the physical sciences. I have recently decided to start applying for some faculty positions. One open position in particular was recently brought to my attention, and I want to apply for it.
If I compare myself to other people I know in my field who are getting offered faculty positions, I'm a little bit on the young/inexperienced side but I do have a comparable publication record, so I would estimate my chances of landing this job are very low, but nonzero.
I discussed this with my former PhD supervisor when asking him for a reference, and he encouraged me to apply and advised me to send an informal enquiry to the head of department before preparing my application. I have seen similar advice elsewhere. My problem is that I don't really understand what kind of thing I should write in such an informal enquiry. Should I directly ask "would you like to me apply for this job"? Is it like a cover letter?
What is the style and content of a "good" informal enquiry for a faculty position?

If you’re going to send such an email, I suggest you make it short and direct it to either someone you know or someone in your research area. (Hence this advice is mainly for research universities.)
You can introduce yourself, say you’re applying, and mention that you’re excited about this job.  Taking the extra effort might show that you’re serious, but I honestly find that it rarely helps and can even hurt in the case of a lengthy letter to a busy department chair.
I think if you know someone in the department, that’s when it’s probably most effective; e.g. an email can alert them to your application so they can mention you to the hiring committee, even if they’re not on it this year.

This is an old question but I'll add something because I've had some good advice on this recently, so it might help others who come across this post.
One reason to write an enquiry is that you might get a tip for framing your application. If you state in a few words what you're working on, and ask whether the person thinks you're a good fit, they might tell you (for example) that there aren't any experts in that particular sub-field in the department / committee, so this suggests you should be extra careful that you application is understandable by non-specialists. You might also be able to gauge the relative importance of teaching vs. research, or find out whether an extra item that was not specifically called for (e.g. a teaching dossier), might help or hurt your application. Once I asked about the teaching dossier and they said it would "enhance the application", and once I asked about the research plan/statement, and in this case they then told me that this would be required for the interview phase.
The bonus from all this is that even though you can't count on really helpful tips, you're at least signaling your motivation, and I think this is always a good thing.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Choosing one's best papers for job applications
I'm a postdoc in the physical sciences, currently writing some job applications.
I have noticed that sometimes, particularly for research oriented faculty positions but also some postdoc positions, you may be asked to list your three best/most significant papers. Presumably the goal here is to enable a meaningful evaluation of your research, without the need to read all of your papers.
My question is: what is the optimal strategy for choosing which papers to put forward as your best three?
Should one simply choose the ones which are in the highest impact journals?
I imagine that long papers might be off-putting to busy people with lots of applications to evaluate, so is it best to only choose short papers? On the other hand maybe throwing one long paper into the mix can, if it's good, demonstrate a capacity for deep scholarly research?
How heavily does first authorship weigh? Does it look bad if one of your best three papers is one where you aren't the first author?
In my specific case, I'm submitting a faculty application where I have to choose three papers and I'm fairly sure of two of my choices. For the third, it comes down to a choice between a well-cited paper in a fairly high impact journal, but where I am second author versus a paper where I am first author, and which I think is a good paper, but it's in a less high profile journal and hasn't attracted very much attention in the field. Are there some general principles for deciding which is a better choice?

I wouldn't choose a paper in which you are second author unless it is clear exactly what you did - e.g. it's an experiment/theory collaboration, and you're a theorist.

Bearing in mind some fields (including some in physics) use alphabetical order for authors, so 1st vs 2nd author might not be a universally good measurement.

If your first two choices are sufficiently strong (as they appear to be), then for sure go for the third with the paper where you are a lead author. As a general principle, lead authorship is considered to be more relevant than co-authorship (unless it is associated with a stellar journal of the highest IF in the field.)

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


text:
Should I tell the university supporting my fellowship application if I apply for other jobs?
I am a postdoc currently looking for a faculty level position. I have recently started preparing an application for a grant scheme in the UK. If the application were successful, the grant would pay my salary for 5 years and give me some money to start up a research group. I have contacted a University (let's call them University A), to ask if they would be willing to be the "host institution" for my application. They have agreed, and have been very supportive of my application in terms of giving me help and feedback in preparing the proposal.
Yesterday, I noticed a job advert for another UK University (University B), who are advertising for a lecturer position, specifically seeking someone in my field. I am considering applying for this position.
If I do apply to University B, should I tell University A that I am doing so? In particular, if I were to get the job at B and therefore have to back out of the grant application, having not told A about my application beforehand, will I be seen to have acted in bad faith?
I am in two minds about this. One the one hand, if I was straightforwardly applying for an open position at both A and B, I certainly wouldn't bother informing each of my application to the other. On the other hand, A is investing some non-trivial effort in helping me prepare the grant proposal  so perhaps I owe them more consideration.
A subsidiary question: if I do tell A that I am applying to B, is this likely to dampen their enthusiasm for supporting my grant application?

No.  You are a postdoc.  Everybody knows postdocs need to apply for multiple jobs because the success rate is low.  There is no need to say what other jobs you are seeking.  Treat your fellowship application like a job application.

Indeed. The job of a post doc is to get a job...


text:
The validity of a university degree from Iran
How can I find out how valid my degree from the Iranian University of Applied Sciences is in America?

What degree? Do you mean you have a doctorate from there? Valid for what purpose? Graduate admissions? Academic jobs?

The US does not have a centralized system for recognition of degrees.  Each institution will decide for itself.

The university I'm studying at has a global ranking of #783I wanted to apply for graduate studies, but I don't know if a university like Stanford will accept me? Yes, I know there are people from Iran who can get admission, but they studied in very good Iranian universities. Do I stand a chance of admission with a degree from a regular university? Is the university where I got my bachelor's degree important, or is it important to have a resume and an essay for admission to graduate school?

It'll be great if you specify what valid means in your case. If you mean valid for applying for Ph.D. degrees in the US, then yes. I had many peers during my studies who held undergraduate degrees from Iranian Universities. Especially in STEM fields. I also knew of Iranians who worked in the IT industry, holding undergraduate degrees from Iran.

The university I'm studying at has a global ranking of #783... I wanted to apply for graduate studies, but I don't know if a university like Stanford will accept me? Yes, I know there are people from Iran who can get admission, but they studied in very good Iranian universities. Do I stand a chance of admission with a degree from a regular university? Is the university where I got my bachelor's degree important, or is it important to have a resume and an essay for admission to graduate school?

Hi! Back when I was applying for graduate school (I studied at a University in Europe that is considered the best in the country but not so famous worldwide), what mattered most for admission were the GRE scores (subject and general), the interest you had in the program, and any research experience. Please don't apply to Stanford bc it's Stanford, apply to schools that interest you in terms of their research programs. Also please apply to many schools and include some safety schools in your application!

Thank you for your good guide and help

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


text:
Advisor does not return paper
Two years ago I sent to my advisor and + 3 collaborators the paper that resulted from my dissertation. Two of them returned it within the deadline I set (30 days). An important collaborator who helped conceptualize the research and has a lot of experience in the field asked for more time to review it because he was working on a project that would take longer.
My advisor got back to me 4 months later, asking for basic information, such as data and script of analysis, which he revised and edited over the following 4 months and sent back to everyone.
Everyone gave input (except the important collaborator). The important collaborator was contacted by my supervisor without my knowledge. They discussed it in a meeting and the collaborator suggested changing in the analysis. I found out about all this later in the following way:
A few weeks after my advisor had sent the email, I asked him about any news regarding feedback and the submission process. After many attempts were ignored, he told me what I said in the last paragraph and said he would work on the suggestions he had received from the important collaborator. I offered to redo whatever was necessary, as I had the time (and I believe it's an important learning stage), but again I was ignored.
I insisted in various ways and was still ignored.
Several thoughts went through my head: Why wasn't I involved in the meetings? Why couldn't I work on my own manuscript? Did I do something wrong? Why wasn't I told? Was the paper fit to be published? Was it going to be submitted or had they given up? For what reason?
I recently asked my advisor the last question above and he told me that it would be submitted, but so far there has been no news.
Is that normal? A supervisor taking over the manuscript and excluding the student from a stage? Does that mean anything?
More importantly, is there anything I can do? Can I contact this important collaborator to ask him about his suggestions and do the work myself?
Do you have any suggestions, words or advice for me?

Do I understand correctly that this is about a research paper that eventually will have five authors, you, your supervisor, and the three collaborators? Without wanting to say that their behaviour is "normal" or "OK", my question is: Assuming that your advisor and the "important collaborator" change the paper, the resulting paper is of good quality, and it is finally published with all five authors as planned, how much of a problem would that be for you and why?

There will be five authors and I wouldn't bother with that assumption. In fact, what's bothering me most is the fact that:

I didn't receive feedback from the IC together with my advisor at the meeting;
I wasn't informed about the suggestions and future changes to the paper;
I couldn't have re-analyzed the input from my advisor and the IC and reworked the manuscript; and
The delay in submitting the article. I sent the article almost two years ago. My advisor's meeting with the IC was a year ago. I know they're busy, and I think that's why I could have been working on the paper.

There are a number of aspects to be separated here:

the quality of the resulting paper,
formal aspects of the publication, i.e., choice of journal where this is submitted, listed authors, order of authors, declaration of who did what and maybe percentage contributions in case it applies here,
how your advisor treated you and how the communication went between you,
how things such as contracts, payments, supervisor-student relationship are formally organised in your specific place; it may not be the same everywhere, and I won't comment on this, but it may play a role.

I'm assuming that this is about a paper to be submitted with five authors, you, your advisor, and the three collaborators. In that case it wouldn't be "your manuscript" in the sense of personal ownership. Ultimately all authors should agree on the content, and if you advisor and the "important collaborator" (IC) think that something should be changed, you don't have an automatic right to do the required changes yourself.
Regarding the quality of the resulting paper, of course we can't know about what quality your contribution had and whether the changes done by advisor and IC will improve on that. But from the point of view of science in general, it should be in everyone's interest that the resulting paper is as good as it can be. It is at least conceivable that IC and advisor not only have a good idea on how to improve the paper, but that they also believe it will be better that they do analyses and write it down themselves rather than letting you doing it.
In fact, if I were in a situation like this as the person having a strong idea how the paper should be improved, it could well happen that I insist that I do it myself, because normally I'm the best person to present my idea. Also it may have to do with the perception of them what you can do well and what maybe you are not so good at what they could do better, but of course here we have no basis for commenting on this. It is however not so unlikely, given that you are (apparently) young and have less experience, that they think they can do it better, and they may well be right about this. That'd be pretty "normal" in my view, and you should surely give yourself the chance to be convinced that what they do actually improves the overall paper, and if this is so, it is a good thing that it happens.
The formal aspects of the publication such as author order need to be negotiated then. You don't write about this, so I can't say much, but it is well conceivable that (a) originally the plan was that you are first author, and you can ultimately still be first author (no problem there) or (b) that originally the plan was that you are first author, but because of the changes now they think you shouldn't be, which of course is not so nice. (And (c) other possibilities that I don't comment on here.)
Keep in mind that ultimately all authors of a paper submitted for publication need to consent to publication, so ultimately there needs to be agreement, and you can have a different opinion on author order, in which case you need to negotiate. It is possible for you, in principle, to withdraw consent, i.e., to say that you do not agree to submit the paper as it is with the author order as suggested by, say, your advisor, but of course it may be hard or impossible to convince them otherwise, and you may think at the end of the day that blocking your paper is not in your best interest even if you are not fully happy with it (be it the content, the author order, or any other aspect). Depending on what kind of people they are, this may have consequences such as them discarding your contribution completely and publishing without your name altogether (which is well within their rights as long as they manage to kick your contribution out of the paper well enough that there is nothing in there left that would justify your claim of authorship - I'm not sure whether that's possible in this case of course). So you have a right to be heard and a right to withdraw consent, but for various reasons, power relations etc., it may be very hard to impose changes that advisor and IC (at least initially) don't want.
The third aspect is communication, and here I'd say (probably in agreement with you) that this doesn't look so good or "normal". It would look better if they kept you "in the loop" and informed about what is going on, and for sure they should make a good attempt to explain the reasons for the changes to you and try to convince you why what they want to do will improve the paper, and is therefore in your own interest, as a better paper can be published at a higher level and will look better in your CV (if they want to relegate you in the author order it's a more complicated matter, see above).
Sadly it won't help you that much if we here just say "they should communicate better with you", because we can't make them do that.
Also there may be some reasons why they don't involve you more. They may be very busy, and organising meetings with more people is more difficult than just with two of them. Also if somebody like the IC has strong ideas how to change analyses and writing, it may (rightly or wrongly) seem inefficient and tedious to talk details over with you or even delegate work to you if they could just do it themselves in the way they want to do it. Maybe your advisor at some point even simply forgot to tell you something even though he may have had the intention to do so.
This doesn't justify their behaviour, but can explain it to some extent.
As advice for you I'd say:

Try your best to understand the changes and why they want to do them; give yourself a chance to accept that what they do actually improves the paper (or doesn't do harm to it - note that I don't say that this actually is the case; of course I can't know).
Don't "insist" that you redo things yourself. It's not "your" manuscript in the sense that you have the right to do yourself everything that needs to be done.
In the communication with your advisor, maybe focus on the aspect that you'd like to understand what they want to do and why, and that you'd like to convince yourself that this improves the paper. This puts a more positive spin on the communication from your side rather than insisting or demanding something. (Although it is certainly sensible to ask to be properly informed of what is going on.)
Keep in mind that as key contributor you should agree to the final version to be submitted, and to aspects such as author order. These are, so to say, your rights. Be constructive and positive executing these rights, i.e., try your best to understand and accept what they ultimately come up with, however discuss scientific aspects with which you are not happy, be clear that if your name is on this you want to be properly convinced that this is good, and in case they change aspects such as author order to your disadvantage, ask yourself whether and why this may be justified, but fight for your right if it isn't (which could mean that if negotiations really don't go well, you could threaten to withdraw consent, but this is not without its risks and may make communication even worse).
Think about other people whose thoughts may help, for example experts in the field who you know regarding understanding the changes, or maybe a co-supervisor or a departmental PhD tutor regarding the communication aspect.


text:
Would I get a PhD offer without reference letter?
I am putting this question because I have not seen a question that addresses if a candidate can get admission into Ph.D. without a reference letter.
I am considering looking for PhD positions but I know for sure that I do not have a recommendation letter for my application. If that is the case, would I ever land a PhD?
It is my dream to have an academic career to be able to produce more researchers who wish to have an academic career as me.

"my recommendation letter has stated false/fake things about me" How did you know that ?

My supervisor upon his experience with me, has come to this conclusion.

Lots of similar questions here, such as Changing PhD programs: should I submit a recommendation letter from my old advisor if it's not purely positive? and How to handle not having my PhD advisor as a reference?

Thank you so much.

As you are in the UK you should probably have various elements such as a transfer that doesn't depend on your supervisor only. There should also be other staff you can approach for advice.
Having said that, it may be that you are either struggling to adapt to the difference between a PhD and a masters, or you are struggling overall. A PhD is not like a taught degree and there are no set steps to completion. The way people "fail" a PhD is by failing to complete, not by having their thesis rejected.

Thank you for your suggestion.
I am in Europe and the only way to get a transfer is to qualify in my first year. Now that I know that I wouldn't be qualified (my supervisor has decided to give me a negative evaluation), I do not think I can take up transfers.


text:
What happens if a letter of recommendation contains incorrect info about me?
I'm specifically talking about Ph.D. programs. One of my letter writers is a well-known professor in the field. I did a 5-month research project with him last year through a fellowship from my university, and he knows my research output well, but is a bit scatterbrained. The project in question was considered "graduate level," and took place in Europe. This professor also traveled a lot that year since he was was nominated for an lecture series that had him traveling around the world to give talks at universities and labs. This unfortunately meant that our meetings were less often than we'd have liked, and were usually strictly research focused.
Last year, he wrote a reference letter for me for another fellowship, and he sent me an outline of things he would write about in the letter, asking me to look it over. He incorrectly wrote that I was a masters student (I was an undergrad at the time, to date only have a bachelors degree) and that I spent those 5 months doing work on my masters thesis (it was just an independent research project funded by my home university). I corrected him right away on that, but as I said...he's quite scatterbrained outside of research matters.
I think this professor's letter would carry a lot of weight in the programs I'm applying to since I know he has good things to say about my research skills and work ethic, and his name is well-known. But hypothetically, what happens if a letter of recommendation contains factual errors like that? From my transcripts and CV, it's quite obvious I've never been a masters student. Would that inaccuracy hurt me? Would the rest of his letter carry less weight? I'm probably being paranoid, but I'm curious about what happens if a situation like this occurs.
For those of you who have been on an admissions committee before, how would this impact my application?
Edit: (additional info garnered from comment)
The letter was originally written for my fellowship over a year ago now, and after I corrected the professor on the masters vs bachelors issue, I was told the corrections were made. If he uses that letter as a starting point [for a new letter], I should be ok. He was just keynote speaker for a conference this week so hopefully he's less busy after and more responsive (usually is). He is a European prof and I'm in the US.
(Also adding: the reason I'm slightly concerned and asked this question is because when he wrote the first letter, he had my CV and made that mistake. He's known for being scatterbrained among the entire lab outside of research. He somehow can remember obscure details about my project without needing reminders, though...)

I want to know what "scatterbrained" means !

@Mathematics - adjective: scatterbrained, scatter-brained. (of a person) disorganized and lacking in concentration. synonyms: absentminded, forgetful, disorganized

Alternative definition: "scatterbrained: resembling the caricature of a typical professor."

You are in charge of your application, including (at least some of the contents of) the recommendation letter.
You can, and should, make the professor's job easier by providing all the information about yourself in a single file. Include basic information (such as the fact that you are an undergraduate student), gently remind him of the project that you did with him by including a copy of your project, provide your statement of purpose, CV, transcript... everything that you can think of. In addition, provide a short summary (format this so that it is easy to read!)
Insist on getting an email from him when he has submitted, and when you do get such an email, immediately follow up (preferably in person) by checking that the basic information is correct, while the letter is fresh in his brain.
If all of these precautionary steps do not put your mind at ease, then perhaps getting a letter from this professor is not worth the trouble, since this will show that he does not care about your career -- if he thought that you were the next superstar, he would not be this forgetful. Getting a letter from such a person cannot possibly carry that much weight.

Thanks, I sent him a follow-up email today reiterating my basic info. He already has a copy of full research report, and CV. Perhaps I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, since this letter he wrote for my fellowship was over a year ago now, and after I corrected him on the masters vs bachelors issue, I was told the corrections were made. If he uses that letter as a starting point, I should be ok. He was just keynote speaker for a conference this week so hopefully he's less busy after and more responsive (usually is). He is a European prof and I'm in the US, so in person is not possible

I agree with the rest that if the selection committee sees these factual errors, it will put the whole application under thorough check (if not discarded right away).
What I would do in your place is correct the recommendation letter that he sent you and send it back to him. That will allow him to take a quick look you haven't changed anything critical from his perspective (e.g. didn't add "he's the best student I ever had"...), sign it and send it back to you. That's in general easier for professors that have a lot in their mind or they are too busy to check this kind of "details".

If I have understood correctly, you are concerned that if the professor inaccurately describes you in his letter as a master's student, instead of an undergraduate, in contradiction with your transcript and other application materials, this factual error might make discredit the reference, render it unusable, and call your whole application into question.  (Correct me if I did not get that right!)
People make mistakes.  If the letter has a red flag that suggests it might be a bad copy-and-paste job, and the text is found to be verbatim identical to something published on the internet, that is one thing.  If it has some factual inaccuracies about some chronology of your educational career, that's another thing.
Keep in mind that the people reading the letter are smart people.  A careful reader will be able to distinguish between the two scenarios I described.
For the new letter, yes, you may follow up and double-check with the professor
I can understand if this professor's absent-mindedness leaves you a little doubtful that the correction was actually made, even if he provides an assurance that it was.
However, keep in mind that if the committee is in any doubt about the reliability of the reference, they can always contact the professor for clarification and additional information.

If your relationship with him, and his personality allow it, you could politely mention (remind him of?) the factual errors, and provide him with a corrected complete copy of his original letter that he only needs to sign. Present this as "his time is valuable, and you want to take up as little of it as possible", avoiding any suggestion of "you got this wrong and I need to do it to make certain it's correct". Make it as little effort for him as possible - self addressed, stamped envelope, etc.

"provide him with a corrected complete copy of his original letter that he only needs to sign" Yes! - people are busy - make their job as easy as possible. It's totally fine to edit it for factual content as long as you send it back to the person for their signature. However, it's not ok to make changes w/o their permission and pass along as if it's the original.

I will say that if the professor in question is as well-known as you suggest, a lot of people will understand that someone in his position could easily make a mistake like that in a letter of recommendation for an undergraduate student.
If you were pressed for time (e.g., impending application deadline), I would submit the letter anyways along with a note that you
i) recognize some (small portion) of the recommendation letter contains minor factual errors, and ii) have asked the professor to provide a new letter.
If it gets down to brass tacks, they can always check with the professor himself.
Of course, the ideal is to have the professor provide you with a corrected letter, but as he is important (in his field), busy and scatter-brained, it's very possible you will never get that correction.


text:
How should I use a five-minute presentation at the beginning of an academic job interview?
I have been invited for an interview for a tenure track assistant professor position. The interview will be conducted virtually. At the beginning of the interview I am supposed to give a five minute presentation by way of introduction. Very little was provided by way of instructions for this presentation, apart from the time limit.
I don't really know how best to use this time. They have already seen my application materials (research plans, teaching philosophy etc), and will presumably have them to hand, but should I give a summary of what I consider the most important points of those? Or should I give a summary of my career so far emphasising the most relevant experiences? Or should I be trying to introduce some new information that they won't have seen in my application?

@manassehkatz-Moving2Codidact, that should probably be an answer.

Take into account the type of institution, and type of job. A bit different for an undergraduate teaching college than for a research university.

Related: What is expected in a 5 minute postdoc interview presentation?

Can you reach out to the chair of the search committee and ask him/her about how the department views this introductory presentation?

@Buffy The institution has both undergraduate and graduate programs, and the faculty all seem to have a substantial research output, so they're definitely interested in both research and teaching ability

@Yasha I could, but I feel like bothering the search committee chair over something they're probably expecting me to be know how to do has significant potential downside

Five minutes is pretty long, so I would at least ask your interviewers if they expect you to cover completely new ground.  I don't know if academia is much different to the real world, but in the real world quite often the interviewers haven't done their homework and going back over previous ground is not unusual.  Not only that they may have reviewed so many people that they think you are someone else.  Often they think they have the star candidate in front of them and the worst thing you can do is let them know otherwise

Hmmm. Five minutes seems very short to me.

@Buffy I had 12 minutes to be hired. Project included. It seems that OP should use the 5 minutes to introduce her/himself. Short biography and past experience.

Welcome to Toastmasters
(I am not an officer (except at the volunteer/anyone can do it Club level), employee or stockholder of Toastmasters. Just a very satisfied member since 2014. I get absolutely nothing out of anyone joining.)
This is a Toastmasters Ice Breaker speech. 4-6 minutes about yourself. (Which is shorter than most other Toastmasters speeches.) I've given 3. First speech for every Toastmaster. Consider visiting a club. Almost all enjoy having guests, and all are virtual now (a year ago, that was against the rules, now it is required!), and since they're worldwide you can certainly find one to fit your schedule. One of the best things I've done in a long time was join. Worthwhile even if you don't have to actually give speeches often.
Most Toastmasters speeches are designed to work on specific skills - vocal variety, gestures, presentation software, humor, research, etc. There are a set of different "Pathways Paths" that have different types of speeches. But every Path, and also the former Competent Communicator program, starts with an Ice Breaker speech. A speech about yourself. There are many different ways of giving this speech, and since the first Ice Breaker is your first ever Toastmasters speech, pretty much anything goes! There are a bunch of different styles:

Personal History/Timeline
Focus on one specific aspect of your life - career or a particular hobby or interest
Why I decided to go Toastmasters - a bit of a cliche, but sometimes actually interesting
Family History

etc.
Obviously this speech, like any other, might be tailored a bit to particular situations. Your family history probably won't be a good choice for your current situation. But maybe the story of how/why you got interested in your academic field. Or perhaps a story about how some previous teachers influenced your life and motivated you to go into academia. They may well have left it open-ended specifically to see what different people can come up with - if they wanted to know specific facts they would just give you another questionnaire.
Try Toastmasters. Even if you only go for a little while, you may get some inspiration and/or useful advice. If you do stick around and join, you may find the benefits in learning how to be a better speaker really pay off in the long run, whether as a teacher or as a researcher.


text:
Forgot to email a professor back about a research opportunity. What to expect?
First off, I messed up big time here. I'm applying for a Fulbright academic fellowship after having finished my undergrad last year.
This spring, I figured I would email some potential advisors and get a head start on my application. I found one that was a good match with my previous work, and she agreed that she could host me as long as I got the scholarship in the end. (edit to be clear: the start date was clearly stated in our initial correspondence, contingent on me getting the scholarship)
But this coincided with a move to Europe (I was there for 6 months on a research scholarship) - I know this is no excuse, but just to explain the circumstances better - and I forgot to reply to her.
I sent her an email now apologizing profusely, expressing my understanding that she might not want to host me any longer, and explaining the circumstances to her (i.e. if she was still willing to discuss this further). I wanted to let her know that I wasn't shopping around for other opportunities, and am only emailing her back after so long because I couldn't find anything; on the contrary, our research interests align well (it's not a huge country and this is just about the only research group that works in my field anyway).
I'm operating under the assumption that she's going to say no, but lesson learned for next time. I'm just wondering how big of an offense I committed here?

I suspect there is no general answer here. How big of an offense this is probably depends more on the professor's personality and the specifics of the arrangements she had in mind for you than anything else.

If she had been in any doubt, I'm sure she would have emailed you.  She is probably planning to see how things go, and see whether you do anything else flaky.  So just make sure you don't, and you should be fine.

I have a friend who did something similar. She didn't realize she had a job offer on her voice mail for several months. In this case, the job opening still existed and she still qualified, so they hired her anyways. I don't think there's any reason why this has to be any different.
On the other hand, she could quite possibly have moved on to other things or hosted someone else in your absence, in which case it might just be unfeasible for her to pick you up after all this time.
And there are many people who would refuse you just on the principal that you made a mistake. I've certainly met plenty of them.
At the end of the day, you've probably done all you can to rectify the situation. If she denies you, just move on with life. If she doesn't, buy her some cookies and be happy. :)

+1 Some are generally tolerant of human error, others aren't (either because they do not trust, or because they are super-reliable themselves). Hope and see. No regrets - you did what you could.


text:
How to find relevant and new open research topics?
How can one find relevant and new open research topics?
When working on my PhD thesis, I find it hard to find open questions in my very specific research area. Which approach do you take to find new and relevant topics?

Ask your advisor.

On top of the comments above, I find that goes through the most recent proceedings of conferences in your subfield is helpful for finding open problems. If you're from a non-CS field, then replace conference proceedings with recent issues of relevant journals. Find the limitations of current work and build on that.

Try to find papers giving a state of the art review on your field. They'll be easy to find, they generally have a lot of citations and written by the experts in the field. Some of those review papers (ones I've read at least) provide suggestions to researchers as to what needs improvement in the field. Good luck.

I would say really difficult without supervision. You'd walk into a trap only to find it half a year later...

Here is a good article on choosing the research topic aimed specifically at the grad students:
http://chronicle.com/article/Choosing-a-Research-Topic/45641
Some further advice of more general nature (and partly applicable only post Ph.D.) is gathered here:
http://aclinks.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/how-to-choose-a-research-topic/


text:
Is it legitimate to present self-developed, but commercial, software within my dissertation?
The situation goes like this: Within my dissertation (doctoral degree) I present a software library which I wrote by myself for a company I work for. Thus, the software is commercial and the rights are owned by the company. The company is fine that I present the software in the dissertation. The software is presented in the dissertation by an own chapter and used for experimental evaluations. However, is it legitimate to present such a software as part of the dissertation from an academia point of view?

Ask your advisor. In some countries and for some kind of doctoral funding (e.g. "thèse CIFRE" in France) it is very common.

What kind of dissertation, Master's or Doctoral? Standards are different between the two.

@BasileStarynkevitch My advisor is completely fine with it. However, I had some worries that it my not be legitimate in the sense of scientific work due to the tight relationship to a commercial company.

@user71659 it is a Doctoral thesis.

You could also ask (for scientific purposes) your company the written permission to publish that code as binary freeware or as free software. YMMV

It depends on your actual area. In general, I believe that it is acceptable (I'm in Electrical engineering). However, you need to justify your scientific contribution. How is the work you did in this software a contribution to your thesis?
Also, as a thesis examiner, I would expect a detailed description of the algorithms / methods developed for this software to be able to assess your contributions. Are you willing to do so? Does the company you work for allow you to disclose this information?

I appreciate your answer, thank you. Yes, I describe all algorithms and implementation details of the software in the thesis to make a scientific contribution. The scientific contribution is clearly there. The company is fine with describing all details in the thesis. However, I had some worries that it my not be legitimate in the sense of scientific work due to the tight relationship to a commercial company. Thus, it may seem the research is  done in a biased/prejudiced way.

@JohnThreepwood on the contrary, being connected to industry gives more validity to your work. At least, that is the case in my area. No matter what though, you get assessed on the innovation part; and that must be clear.

Your statement 'on the contrary, being connected to industry gives more validity to your work.' is a fair point. I know of researcher who would disagree with that, but being connected to the industry actually shows that the research done is relevant for real application purposes (not only in principle). Thank you. I'll let you know how the, soon to come, defense worked out.


text:
Including many pages of serialization code and generated source code in Master's thesis?
I'm working on my Master's thesis in Computer Science. Shortly, I am "drawing" a diagram, which is then serialized and from the serialization I generate some source code. So, my question is not about the code of my application, but about the code generated by it. I think we can call it the result of my app.
I want to include an example of what output (source code, although I will also include the intermediary serialization) has my app for a certain input (a diagram). I mention that this would mean many pages, maybe a total of 7-10. Should I include this in the part related to the results or maybe in an appendix? Or is there a more suitable place? Or should I not include anything at all?

Short answer: put your code in public repo, and cite the repo in your paper.
Long answer: Any academic document you produce is supposed to be readable and useful to your readers. Try to put yourself in a reader's shoes and imagine how you feel reading through a 7-page long autogenerated code? Is is a pleasant or useful experience that you would like to repeat one day?
The modern technology allows us to use much more than just a text on the paper to present our research outputs. Although a short pieces of code may be extremely useful and appropriate in textbooks or some articles, the long code and auto-generated code really does not belong to the paper. It should be kept in a public repository, where it really belong, and used as a working example, which people can download, modify and execute, not just enjoy it aesthetically in a pdf file.

this sounds like a good idea... hmmm

my supervisor said I could add this to the appendix, but I like your idea, so I will mark it as my accepted answer

This is good advice. If someone comes across your thesis and wants to implement the code you've provided, they're likely to retype all of it by hand (either because they have a hard copy of your thesis or because copying the text from the PDF results in formatting errors, etc.) Posting the code in a public repository will make your code more easily usable to others.

I assume you are publishing the code that you wrote by hand. Then, the interested reader can just run it and get the output.
Generated code is usually unreadable, so there is little point in going through tens of papers of near-garbage. What could be a good idea is to show some excerpts, no more than a paragraph. One option is perhaps some particularly clever parts, like the handling of a particular corner case; another would be a fairly general simple case, to see how readable it would be.


text:
Should I add Guest Lecturer experience in my CV?
As a PhD student I have been invited to give a guest lecture in an MSc in my university in another department.
Should I add this to my CV if I intend to apply for academic jobs? If so, what should this look like in my CV? In which section would it go?

Here's a note on English grammar: One says "How should this look?" or "What should this look like?".  "How" is an adverb and "what" is a pronoun that is the object of the preposition "like".  Sometimes "How does this look?" has a connotation of "How good do this look?", and "What does this look like?" avoids the ambiguity.

@MichaelHardy The more you know! Thanks! (but doesn't everything look good on a CV?(joke))

Yes you should.It means that someone wanted you

I've seen a lot of CVs include guest lecturer. You would include it in the Teaching section of your CV.  A quick google for "guest lecturer cv" will show you some examples.
Do note, this is generally different than an invited speaker though. A Guest Lecturer comes and teaches a class where as an Invited Speaker comes to give a talk or seminar or colloquium. If this is an invited talk then you'd still list it on your CV, but in the Invited Talks section.

How would you differentiate between them? Invited speaker vs guest lecturer

@AnderBiguri Updated with a distinction.


text:
Did scopus choose not to add my paper (from an accepted journal) or did something go wrong?
I have practically the same question as in here.
My most read/reference article is published in a Scopus indexed journal. The article is from 2016, and its indexed by Google Scholar.
However, when browsing the papers by that journal in Scopus, my article is just not there. Why would this happen? Is this a mistake, or genuinely someone/something in the system decided that my article does not meet some criteria?
If its a mistake, can I do something to fox it?
If its because my article does not pass some criteria, which criteria?

Please also look here, especially "a few papers are still being added up to three years after publication": https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/63599/is-there-documentation-on-how-long-it-takes-before-publications-are-indexed-by-s Although this doesn't resolve your question, it gives you an idea of the patience required.

@henning huh interesting.... Weirdly my article is their most referenced/accessed one (its a small journal), I would have expected that if there is an algorithm that samples from the journals, I'd start with the most accessed/read papers.

No, Scopus did not choose not to index your specific paper. Such decisions would undermine the purpose of an index.
There are three reasons a paper may not be indexed in Scopus (or Web of Science or SciFinder etc.):

The paper falls outside the index scope (journal is not indexed (or was not indexed at the time of publication), paper type is not indexed).
The paper will be indexed; however, the process is not instant, and it has not happened yet.
For some reason, the paper has been missed. (I had a paper published once where the entire journal issue got missed by Scopus and WoS, somehow.)

To check whether your paper should be indexed, perform the following steps:

Check that the journal was indexed at the time of publication. (Instructions for checking Scopus coverage here ; instructions for WoS here.)
Check that sufficient time has elapsed for the paper to be indexed. The best way to do this is to look for newer content from the same journal. Once that appears, you can be certain your paper has been missed somehow.

Once you're sure your paper's been missed, you can complete the appropriate form to have missing information added to the index. Scopus, here; WoS, here.
A similar procedure can be followed for all curated indices/databases, but not for black-magic voodoo databases like Google Scholar.

Something probably went wrong. It shouldn't take this long to index.
I would contact the journal / publisher and ask. It's possible your article "did not pass" some criteria, but those aren't fixable by you - the criteria is probably something like "we need your files in this format and the publisher did not provide it".

I got a reply from the Journal. I apparently articles are manually added and while the article is older, the journal has recently been added to Scopus.
To answer the question: email the journal about this issue.


text:
Someone misrepresented my work in a published paper
Its a conference paper that broadly says:
"There is X, Y, Z, Biguri et al, articles out there, but here is a table with each of the works and their limitations, and why ours is better"
And then lists a bunch of things on my published article (about a software tool) claiming it does not contain several features. The problem is, the tool has and always had most of the features they say it hasn't. They are published and clearly demoed and showcased in the webpage.
Their paper has some credit, it is still good work and its not invalid because of their mistakes. But it is seriously misrepresenting my work.
What should one do in this case?
I was thinking on politely emailing them to let them know about their mistakes, I assume its not a malicious mistake, but more the fact that they did not take the time to properly do research. Is there anything else I can/should do?

Has the conference already happened or is it upcoming? If it is past, how long in the past?

Conference happened few days ago, I found the paper because it has referenced my paper in the online proceedings. I did not attend the conference.

Related: What should I do if a paper makes false claims about my work?, How to react to your work being cited incorrectly or in a misleading way?, Should I do anything if I am cited for something that wasn't in my paper?.

We had a mistake concerning the paper in which a certain technique was first developed. The mistake was in a preprint. After being informed of this, we fixed the mistake (so it did not appear in the publised paper) and later updated the preprint, too.
Of course, if the paper is already publised, this is less likely. If the mistake was unintentional, then the authors are unlikely to repeat it, once you let them know of it.
If the mistake was malicious, well, I doubt the situation will worsen, as long as you keep the email polite. But who knows.
Hence, it seems that at least a polite email to the authors is a reasonable course of action.

Fair, I do not presume at all that the intent is bad, it just seems that they did not do their research properly.

What do you expect if the paper is already published - as is the case in the OP's situation?

@SolarMike See the second paragraph in my answer. The mistake is unlikely to be repeated.

What should one do in this case?

I think you are right to:

politely emailing them to let them know about their mistakes

Ideally, they will correct their mistakes in future works (e.g., in a journal version of the conference paper) and update any technical reports that they have control over. (The published manuscript cannot be changed.)

Is there anything else I can/should do?

You could contact the publisher, perhaps they will publish a letter or an erratum. (The latter will probably require agreement from the authors.)

While nothing much may come of it, I think you should write them pointing out that they have missed some things about your work. Ask them for a correction, though don't expect one to occur. If you want to smooth the waters, congratulate them, also, for the good things they have done in their own work.
But letting it lie without comment serves no one well and might lead to a repeat in the future.
If you want to be a bit more aggressive, copy the conference chair on your email, but think hard about the consequences of that.
I'll assume that the errors were unintentional, in which case you should expect a good result.

Indeed. I also assume the errors are unintentional. But fair point, I should email them.

What should one do in this case?

Nothing.

Is there anything else I can/should do?

Some journals will publish comments.  You could submit a comment pointing out the error.  If the paper was published by a conference, this might not be an option.  In any case, it is not a good option unless the error is somehow interesting.  This sounds like a boring error or misrepresentation.

Not even a polite email to the authors?

@TommiBrander I don't see how that would be helpful.  It is already published.

Supposing the authors continue working on the same subject, or give talks about it, etc., they might avoid repeating the mistake.

I see your point, but I am leaning more into the "polite email" case. Just in case they repeat their mistake


text:
I can no longer trust my PI after his handling of authorship. What are my options?
I am experiencing a very difficult time in the lab where I'm doing my postdoc (biomedical sciences).
This is a lab with lots of funding and a good scientific reputation. I joined 3 years ago and have been working on a technically  challenging project. Finally, after 3 years of solving technical sides of things, I started getting some interesting data and was planning to expand my findings to publish a full story out of it. Meanwhile, another postdoc in the lab was preparing a ms on an interrelated topic that could significantly benefit from this data.
My PI told me that I have the option of a) going ahead with my own experiments and story, but bearing in mind that I can be partially scooped by that other paper from our own lab(!), or b) contributing my work to this other manuscript, which could then be sent to a top journal and could be good for the lab. He also explicitly said that he doesn't care if I will be scooped because he has to think about the lab and not individuals who sometimes will have to suffer for the collective good. I argued that this meant I will lose major part of my project and will have to start from scratch, to which he responded that I will still have time to do something else.
My contract ends in less than 2 years. It's possible it'll be extended but there's no official guarantee. I also don't want to be postdoc for ever and prefer to at least get my own fellowship. After I insisted that this could only make sense (and yet reluctantly and as a compromise) if I will be a co-first author on that paper, he said that it's only him who will decide on authorship and that he hasn't made up his mind yet. He also questioned me, in a condescending tone, whether I think this paper will give me a job and said that he knows the answer is "No".
A week after this unpleasant conversation he called me on my phone to say that he has decided my data should go in that paper and that I can be co-first author. This was far from ideal but not the worst scenario, so I prepared the results and the figure. When I asked to see the manuscript, he responded that he'll send it to me only after I finish my part of the method section and the figure legend, because he doesn't want people getting "distracted" correcting other bits yet. I finally received the ms 3 days ago to write my part of results section, only to find out for the first time that there will be 4 co-first authors on the paper and that I'm number 3. His argument was that the first-listed has put more work, so he has  alphabetically listed the other 3 of us!
I find this the most illogical explanation and utterly disrespectful. I voiced my disappointment, particularly at the fact that he hadn't been open about this decision.
I face a difficult situation now, where i don't know:

If I should just let this go for now and wait to see what happens with the review process (I fear I may have to do more work).
If I should already look for other labs given what my PI has said to my face and the way he has treated the authorship issue. There is another lab I'd be very much interested in but I don't have my own publication yet and the lab head is also in the same institute. I don't know if I can trust him disclosing the issue without being seen as unprofessional.
If, assuming the paper is accepted, I will still be credited as a first author for funding/hiring bodies given that we are 4 listed as "first" and I'm number 3 without any clear random listing.

thanks for your comments/suggestions in advance

Wow, I hate this kind of PI, and what's even more annoying is that they end up being successful because the lab publishes well - even though individual lab members get screwed. BTW this question is somewhat relevant: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/29572/my-first-authorship-is-being-turned-into-co-first-authorship-what-can-i-do/

We are 8 authors on the paper. Although another name is also missing from the middle author list, so we may be 9 at the end. Some journals accept more than 2 co-first authors and we are submitting to one of those. My  major problem is that I wouldn't have agreed to contribute if I knew we will be 4 listed as first. This was kept a secret. This secrecy is a common practice by my PI and has also created an environment of mistrust and competition between postdocs.

I agree Roland, but I've invested quite some time on this topic of research and one of the best experts in this field is in the same institute. There are also a few others  in the same university (other departments). I can't move city or country though.

Your Situation
The restrictions placed by your lab are part of the working conditions under which you operate.  This includes the personality and working culture of your colleagues and superiors.  This is difficult and slow to change, and will impact you regardless of your own actions.  Trying to avoid conflict with this culture will let you get on with your own work, until such a time that you see a better option to follow.  If you can't tolerate this, then consider one of the following options:
Your Options

Call another meeting with your PI.  State the matter of record, that he
already called you to offer you first authorship.  Request that your PI honour this offer.  He then has the opportunity to agree with you and give you recognition, or to contradict both your wishes and his agreement.  If his actions result in a negative outcome for you, then you can record this for possible further use such as a complaint.  Ensure that your actions at all times reflect your professional integrity.  This option may help to establish the boundaries around which you are prepared to operate within the lab.
Conduct an appeal for help with an agency outside of your lab.  Is there an ethical or professional support group that you can contact?  Provide the details of your case, and request assistance in investigation and documentation of the issue.  This is an avenue which could lead to cultural change within your lab, but potentially at a personal and professional cost to you.  It could possibly lead to you needing to leave the university.
Begin discussions with other experts at your university to identify
opportunities for your career within the same university.  Ensure that there is no further escalation of conflict with your PI.  Try to smooth over the differences within your lab.  its important that this issue does not have a negative impact on your transition to a new group.

General Advice
I suggest that you consider taking professional advice from a senior researcher who is prepared to act as a mentor for you.  This would allow you to discuss issues, and to increase awareness of your career opportunities and research strategies that you will need throughout your career.


text:
Credibility of non-journal online publications
When publishing in some popular scientific journals, it is easy to understand that it is worth referring to in your CV, job applications, or elsewhere when it is appropriate to talk about your publications.
But what if your publication is not in some scientific journal known worldwide with 50 years history, but on some online web-site, that is definitely not considered to be very scientific and professional among universities, but at the same time it is quite popular among researchers. I mean it has quite big number of people (tens of thousands daily) using it daily, contains many articles on some kinds of research written by researchers themselves, posting comments pointing out the mistakes, etc.
Is it worth mentioning or would it be considered not respectful enough place to be published?
And moreover, what if you "publish" some research on your own blog? Suppose it is popular enough to be considered published paper (i.e., few hundreds or thousands of people have actually read it).
Of course you could ask, "Why not then publish it in the respectable journal?" I would answer that publications I am talking about are not some breaking news or anything, rather just some experiments, that yielded some results, explained couple of things, but not new in any sense, i.e., it is more of educational publications saying "Hey, you can do this and this is how, check it out", probably repeating some experiment done by others, but with more explanations, research, etc. Such publications are not suitable for many journals and I would suspect many journals would not even consider printing it, so it basically can't go further than internet article, though it can get pretty scientific.

Maybe you should look into self-publishing sites, such as arxiv.org?

@svavil, I thought it is not the place for educational materials, isn't it? I mean If I write about something that pretty much ever experienced researcher knows, but I write it for more young students to help them understand some principles, explaining them better than in textbooks. I thought arxiv.org is not a good place for such articles, am I wrong? Not using it almost to be honest, so don't know much about it.

arXiv definitely has physics.ed-ph, take a look at what papers are published there. Not really experienced with it as well.

"Is it worth mentioning?" In what context? Applying to grad school? Applying for faculty positions? Applying to industry jobs? Idle chat with other researchers?

@xLeitix, basically anything that requires CV - application for PhD, application for research position at university, application for R&D job in a company, i.e. to anyone who is interested what have you done before going to them. I am basically asking if those publication have some real value or the value for them is zero.

@ScienceSamovar In any formal setting, I would approximate the value of a Web-based publication as 0.

It depends. The value of online expository writing can be more than 0 (but certainly not much more, in any academic context above admission to a PhD program), precisely 0, or in many cases less than 0 (and in this direction there is no lower bound...). The only case I can think of where it may have a bit of serious value is if you are pursuing a purely teaching-based career or a career in science writing or blogging, and only if your writing is good enough that it can be appreciated as being of very high quality by anyone taking a casual look at it.

I would say there are two significant things to consider:

Some journals will consider replication studies, and some explicitly support it (e.g., Perspectives on Psychological Science).  Depending on your field, you may wish to investigate this.  Replication studies, however, typically aim for a degree of rigor which you may or may not be aiming at.
If the effort is more explanatory and educational in nature, then is still belongs in your CV and similar documents, but as "Professional Service" or "Teaching" rather than publication.  These count less in many contexts, but are still legitimate and may be important if you are applying to a position that is interested in these types of outreach and education activities.

One problem with the blog and the website is the quality assurance. A peer-reviewed article guarantees that your research at least meet the quality of that specific journal. Of course some issues exist with the peer-review system but at the moment it is the common way. Everyone can open a blog and popularity does not imply good research. I would suggest submitting the work to a regular journal, and write a shorter blog entry for communication and discussion.

It may be worth having a section for "Non-peer-reviewed publications". You say you've written tutorial material but other possibilities are that you've written articles for popular science outlets, or the trade press, or even been interviewed about your research in the major news media.
The difficult bit is probably the name for the section (which should go after you "real" publications section.  Rather than claiming these as scientific publications (and if they're not really citable/cited, no-one will treat them as real scientific articles) but to provide evidence that you can write for a diverse audience.
Of course, like anything else that could go on your CV, it's about tailoring the CV to the job -- this could be good for jobs with a significant teaching/outreach/science policy component, but might be less useful elsewhere.  A selection of these publications might even belong in a section for other interests, depending on the specific nature of the projects and the job you were doing at the time.
There are also (peer-reviewed) journals dedicated to science education at various levels, and studies such as replicating classic experiments with student-grade equipment might find a home there.


text:
I am 58 years old, can I pursue a PhD?
I am interested in doing a PhD in Industrial Engineering and Operations Research at any of the premier American Universities. I have a postgraduate degree in Industrial Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India, which I completed in 1983. I have about 30 years of working experience in India as an Industrial Engineer.

I am presently working as Asst. Prof at Muffakham Jah college of Engineering and Technology at Hyderabad for the past four years.

I started my PhD at age 52, also with 30 years industry experience. I don't think the few extra years should make much difference, but the most reliable way to find out is to apply.

During my PhD study, one of my friends was 50 years old. He successfully completed and defended his PhD thesis in Mechanical Engineering department from Indian Institute of Technology, India this year. However, in India, there may be an issue with age. I suggest you to apply with sponsored candidate by industry or your present employer. I am not sure about other countries.

Well, I was 58 when I applied for the Ph.D. program from which I received my doctorate, so the answer is yes.

Certainly. It is not your age that matters, but the will to excel. Although rare, there are some who do pursue PhD past 50. I don't see why shouldn't you apply. If you are passionate about your aim, by all means go for it.


text:
Should I restate acronyms in each section?
I'm writing my masters thesis and have the following formatting problem: should I restate acronyms once for each new large section?
When I for example introduce the term "evolutionary psychology" (which has the acronym EP) in the introduction, I state the acronym so the sentence reads like:

...has roused significant interest in the emerging field of evolutionary psychology (EP).

In the following sections, should the EP acronym also be stated in the same manner upon first mention, or can I rely on the reader to have read the introduction and know that it means evolutionary psychology?

My approach to the issue of acronyms is to restate them only after a significant gap in their use.  How long I consider to be "significant" depends on how salient the acronym is in its usage.  Some extremes of how I would tend to approach it:

If the paper is about EP, and you're talking about EP and using the acronym quite frequently, then even if you have a page or two where it happens to not appear, I would not bother to redefine.
If EP only appears a couple of times as a side point, then even after only a few paragraphs break I might redefine the acronym.

One exception: when I define an acronym in the abstract, I also define it in the introduction, no matter how close it is, since the abstract somewhat stands apart from the remainder of the paper.

This is a great answer, thank you very much (I'll refrain from accepting it firsthand to motivate others to offer their approach). Can you tell me, by the same logic that the abstract stands apart from the main text, does the introduction not also stand apart from its following chapters?

@UlfAslak I do not believe the introduction stands apart from the following chapters in the same way, as the introduction does not stand alone as a complete narrative.  A well-written abstract, however, is a complete document, just extremely short and lacking in detail.

It's quite possible that the asbtract will be made available so as to let a reader make the decision as to whether to obtain a copy of the thesis.  Having made that decision and waited for the thesis to arrive (yes this could be on paper) they shouldn't need to read the abstract again just to understand the acronyms.  But acronyms aren't all that common in abstracts anyway - you could use the full form up to about 3 times unless it's very long or the abbreviated form is more common

No.
A separate list somewhere at the front or the back would be helpful and may even be mandatory at your institution.
However. Whenever you think to yourself, hmm, I haven't used this one for a while and it is non-standard, so the reader may have forgotten, just use a formulation that gently reminds them, e.g. remark that EP must integrate ideas and approaches from both evolutionary science and psychology, or you know, whatever turn of phrase feels natural in context.
By the way: has roused significant interest in the emerging field of evolutionary psychology is just the sort of thing students are very fond of writing, but I never quite know exactly what it is supposed to mean that lots of people have been talking about something recently.