text:
My paper was presented as part of a Keynote speech written by my advisor. What do I mention in my CV?
I have written a paper jointly with my supervisor. He will be presenting our research as a part of a keynote lecture on an international conference. The lecture is in his name, but a part of that lecture has to do with my research. In fact, he will mention my name on one of the slide as an acknowledgement of my contribution. I am in need of items on my CV for upcoming funding applications and I am wondering if I should include this lecture on my CV? If yes, how can I list this item on my CV?

I seemed to have posted this in someone else's name, I would appreciate if someone could merge this question under my account :)

Since we have, offhand, no way of ascertaining whether these two accounts are indeed the same, I have rejected this suggested edit for the reason that it deviates from the (original) OP's intent. Please feel free to request for account merger and then edit your post yourself if you are indeed the OP.

Because students usually don't list being mentioned in their advisor's talk on their CV, this would look like you are trying too hard to fill your CV and may do more damage than good. The fact that you did good work will be reflected in your publication of the work and the recommendation letter from your advisor.

@mich You need to follow these instructions to merge your accounts.

You wouldn't list other papers that referenced yours on your CV, right?  They're not your work, even if they incorporate it.  This is no different.

No, you shouldn't list it on your CV -- it's not your talk. Presumably, this work has or will be published, with you as an author. That, of course, should be on your CV.

I seemed to have been signed in with someone else's account, so disregard the different names. I did ask him whether I could list it in my CV, and he said yes. Additionally, the lecture uses simulations and graphics I made, as requested by him. Does that affect your opinion?

No, it still doesn't change my answer. No one ever lists talks that they've contributed material to, but not given, in their CV. Similarly, whenever one sees a talk listed in a CV, the assumption is that the person whose CV it is has given the talk, and it would seem misleading or dishonest if this were not the case.

Thank you for your answers. Do you think it would be appropriate to list his lecture in a footnote to the (pending) publication entry in my CV (specifically mentioning that it was not given by me, of course)? Or should I simply disregard its existence in its entirety?

@mich no. The paper is important and should be listed. The fact that someone else mentioned it in some conference is completely irrelevant, adds no value to your CV, and would just make people wonder why you're so desperate you would put it there in the first place.

@mich: No, don't add a footnote. It's still neither appropriate nor relevant.

Though definitely remind your advisor to mention this in any recommendation letters you ask him for!

I agree with Raghu's answer, but not with his comment. It is very common that co-authors of a talk don't actually present anything, or that they're even present at the conference. That doesn't preclude them from including it as a talk (or poster) in their CV.

@mich To elaborate on appropriateness and relevance: Such a footnote would basically mean "Look, someone was actually interested in this publication!" Think about what that would mean for other items in your CV...

Short answer
Assuming it was a keynote lecture on a conference that contained some of your data, alongside a whole bunch of other stuff that your professor is working on, it shouldn't go on your CV in any way. An acknowledgement is, unfortunately, not enough to include it on your CV.
Background
Journal papers should of course go on a CV when you co-authored. The same goes for Conference Proceedings. International conference abstracts including poster and oral presentations, can (and imho should) be mentioned on a CV when you co-authored, even if you weren't the presenter and even when you weren't even physically there on the conference. You're a co-author and therefore it can be included in your CV (under the header Conference abstracts, or Published Abstracts, depending on the conference). At least in the STEM disciplines this is commonplace.
If it concerns a keynote lecture at an international conference, and there was a formal abstract submitted including you as a co-author, you can definitely put it on your CV. However, if your professor was invited and did not submit an abstract, I would be very careful adding it as a conference abstract on your CV. If (s)he added you as a co-author on the opening slide, and you participated in the preparation actively, you could consider including it on your CV. If your supervisor wrote the keynote by her- or himself and included some of your data alongside a whole bunch of other stuff, I would not even consider adding it. Then the mention of your name is a sidelong acknowledgement. An acknowledgement is not enough to be mentioned on your CV.
Local, closed departmental, or university meetings generally don't go at your CV as they are considered part of a researcher's normal routines. Personally I even exclude national meetings (I'm based in the Netherlands - a small strip of land which I often refer to as the beach of Germany - explaining why national meetings don't mean much to me).
Down another level - lectures. I'm unsure what you mean with a 'keynote lecture'. When assuming it's a university or college lecture for undergrad students, and not a part of a conference, I wouldn't put it on my CV. The professor who gives the lecture is the one who may put it on her or his CV. A lecture has no authors and as such assistants do not take credits directly.
However, all of the above highly depends on your career status. As an undergrad, you may wish to mention as much as possible on your CV. For example, if you haven't got any publication yet on your CV (no poster abstracts, no journal papers etc.), you may wish to consider adding things like that 'keynote' lecture on there. In case you do, make a proper heading and summarize what your contribution was. E.g. something like this --

Scientific activities
Applicant assisted in the preparation of a keynote lecture on an international conference.

A CV is a dynamic abstract of your accomplishments. When those accomplishments are relatively few, you can, and likely should add stuff that more senior scientists will definitely not mention (anymore) on their CVs.

Thank you for the very insightful answer. The prof's lecture is at an international conference. It goes over his past papers (which I did not author), historically, and then dedicates about a third of it to our latest results, which significantly build on these papers. He will use (not too extensive) simulations that he asked me to write, demonstrating our results.
The reason I am a little "hungry" for CV items is that this is my first publication, and I'd like to apply for a scholarship later this year, so I am trying to see what I can include :-). This is a sticky area, so I am unsure.

@mich - makes a lot of sense. I've been in that position and probably most up-and-coming researchers have hovered in this area for a while. In my last lines I've proposed an approach you can safely follow. I would recommend not to put it under authored papers, but as a separate section like the highlighted text box in the end of my answer. My own CV has a 'teaching Activities' section that contains activities other more senior folks would not even bother to mention. I haven't done much teaching, hence I can't add full-blown courses there.

Even if you're a co-author on a talk or poster you will only include it on your CV if you're short of material.  If you're acknowledged in something you don't.
I wouldn't even keep a personal note of it (I wouldn't know if I wasn't there and hadn't provided figures), though I do record talk co-authorships etc. for my own use.
You mention a paper.  Assuming that's going to be published, it's much better than a section of a talk, and there's no doubt that should be on your CV.  If the paper comes up in interview, you can mention that it was an important part of a keynote then, but you might have other good things to say about it instead.


text:
Should I speak to my supervisor about changing my undergrad project topic?
I am going into my third year at university of my Math degree and have decided to undertake an independent project under the supervision of a lecturer who is, primarily, a number theorist. One of the main reasons I wanted to do this project (which includes producing a presentation and report) was for the experience.
At first discussion with my supervisor I had no clue what I wanted the project to be about so he threw out some possibilities. We ended up agreeing on the topic  "solving polynomials by radicals": charting the historical and logical development of formulae similar to the quadratic formula for cubic and quartic equations, and a why no such formula can exist for degree 5 and higher.
However, recently I came across a numberphile video with regards to the Collatz conjecture and it seemed quite interesting. I know that as a third year student I definitely do not possess the capabilities of making any sort of impact on the conjecture and that my project would have to focus on its origin and the work done on it so far but the little research I have done has piqued my curiosity.
Would it be worth it to speak to my supervisor about changing the topic? I dont want to irritate him unnecessarily.

I cannot see why a friendly conversation about this would "irritate" a supervisor.

By 'supervisor' does that mean the same as 'advisor'?

@MikeP: In my experience, in most (or all) academic contexts, the two terms are at least roughly synonymous.

I would have thought you would have regularly scheduled meetings.  If so, bring this up in your next meeting.  If not, perhaps it would be a good idea to suggest setting up a regular meeting time.

I know that as a third year student I definitely do not possess the capabilities of making any sort of impact on the conjecture — I think you misspelled "human being"!  This is the problem about which Paul Erdős famously said "Mathematics is not ready for such problems."

By the way, I am also a number theorist.
In my recent answer to another question I described the fickleness of undergraduates in a way which I hope comes across as largely sympathetic.  The point of being an undergraduate is to explore the academic terrain a bit, flitting from topic to topic.  If you're not a bit flighty you'll have trouble flitting properly, which is more dangerous: you don't want to spend years working on something and discover at the end that you don't like it at all (you want to spend much less time).
However, my answer concerned research, and your project doesn't sound like a research project.  It sounds rather like a reading project, or in other words a  (largely) independent learning experience.  (For those who don't know, "solving polynomials by radicals" is an important topic in mathematics which received a definitive solution in the first half of the 19th century.)  For a reading project, you do want to exert some care in choosing something that will be worth the reading.
So I think you should definitely talk to the lecturer right away.  He gave you a topic because you didn't have something in mind, now you have something in mind, so it's time to go back.  However you should not be surprised to receive an explanation of why solving polynomials by radicals makes a better reading project than the Collatz Conjecture.  In the former case, there is an absolutely central question in number theory and algebra, it has a great answer, and all the steps leading up to that answer are also highly central and important.  In the latter case there is a rather isolated, curious open problem.  It's elementary, innocuous and catchy, which combine to create the psychological impression that it can't be that hard...but it is that hard.  In particular I am struck by the statement

I know that as a third year student I definitely do not possess the capabilities of making any sort of impact on the conjecture[.]

To that I reply:

I know that as someone with a PhD from Harvard who has successfully solved some open problems in number theory that I probably do not possess the capabilities of making any sort of impact on the conjecture.

The point being that nobody does, so far as I know.  If you think you want to tilt at windmills, it's a good time to check in again on what the assignment was.  (This is not to say that you should stop thinking about the Collatz Problem altogether.  Rather, if you like it, think about it in your spare time.)
I will end with a story.  I taught an advanced undergraduate number theory course twice: see here.  Each time the course included a final project.  I gave a lot of suggestions for these final projects, and so far as I can remember most students did follow up on one of my suggestions.  Certainly that is true with the two best projects, which both led to other (novel!) work by those students later on.  The first time I taught the course, a student told me that he wanted to write about what ancient Greeks knew and believed about perfect numbers.  I told him honestly that I knew almost nothing about that and therefore couldn't be confident that there was much to say.  He replied enthusiastically that there were many things: did I know for instance that the Greeks thought that there were no odd perfect numbers, that there were infinitely many even perfect numbers, and that the final digits in this infinite sequence always alternated between 6 and 8?  Well, no, so I let him write on that topic.  When I read his paper, I found...well, I have already told you everything I remember on the subject, but it turned out that I had made the wrong decision.  Some topics are more fruitful than others.

@Drecate: Thanks.  There is a point to it, of course: the OP sounds like he thinks that more schooling would give him a better shot at solving the Collatz Conjecture.  Sadly, even the snazziest of schooling can only take you so far...

Short Answer:  Sure, go talk to them.
In my experience the faculty, especially your advisor or supervisor, are generally eager to speak with you, provide advice, and work with you.  Not only are they interested, it is their job.  They have the job because they like it.
Talk to them about your topic.  It is not unusual for people to change things all the time.  Go for it.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Will my submission be rejected if I accidentally submit the non-blind version to a conference with double blind review?
I recently submitted a paper for a conference, I'm pretty confident about the topic and contents of the paper, but I just realized I sent the copy where the authors' names are in it, i.e. not the "blind" version that the conference requires. And I realized this a few days from the notification due date, which is today. I cannot change my submission from EasyChair.
Do you think this will get me rejected? And what should I do now? Should I e-mail the organizer and send them the blind copy?

What's wrong with submitting a paper containing author names? Isn't that the standard way of submitting a paper?

@eykanal, not when double-blind review is required.

@jeff: I'm curious to know what was the result at the end? was it rejected due to the above issue?

You might get rejected without review. I would write the Program Chair now, explain your accidental submission of the wrong version of the manuscript, and ask for permission to resubmit the correct version.

Thanks, that's what I did now. So I guess I'm in the hands of the PC.

They told me that "it is not necessary for now", I'm not sure whether it means "it's too late now" or "it is OK" . Now I'm in the hands of the reviewers :) So, would you reject an article just because of this?

@halilpazarlama That sounds that it is OK and will be reviewed normally.

I would and have reported non-blinded submissions to the Program Chair or sub-chair for my area and let them deal with the issue. The goal of blind submission is to prevent bias, even unconscious bias, against under-represented groups which can be discovered through the names of the submitters. It's up to the PC how much they want to pursue this goal.

@BillBarth that makes sense, and relieves me a bit, also Vladimir's answer. Thanks !

@BillBarth: That is certainly not the main reason, or the original reason, that blind submission exists.

@TomChurch, my understanding is different from yours. Perhaps you can link to some references that give the original and current reasoning?

This is dependent on the conference.  I just reviewed papers for a conference last week in which the reviewers were instructed to notify chairs of any revealing information of the author.  When I opened the file I noticed the names, although I had not known who it was.  I contacted the chair and they worked with the author on resubmitting.  I did not know who they were, so I reviewed the paper anyway at the will of the chair.  From your comments, it seems something similar may have happened.  The best is to email as soon as you realize your mistake, but it is not always a strict reject.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава

all_licenses: 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/


text:
How important are pure math grades for applied math graduate schools?
I'm an applied math/econ major in the U.S. and am looking into pursuing a masters degree in applied math.  This term curiosity got the best of me and I decided to take abstract algebra and I am not doing well at all in the class.  Somehow my professor convinced me to stay and now I am heading closer to C territory after two atrocious midterms.  I am wondering:

How will applied math grad schools look at a C in this class?  I mean I've gotten 1 other B but the rest of my grades are all A's.  In fact I am doing better in Real Analysis than in this class! (shocking, i know.)  A few professors I talked to have said that since this is a pure class and it takes some people some time to understand these concepts so admissions might just shrug it off if everything else looks great.
If I do get a C how can I compensate for this grade?  I'm taking a grad class in quantum computing concurrently and doing really well.  if I take another grad course that uses abstract algebra (i.e. model theory) will it be enough to demonstrate to admissions that I am still worth considering as an applicant?
I have quite a bit of research experience, studied math abroad and did well and will continue to do more math next term.  But if I don't get into a grad school of my choice how can I repair this grade if it tanks in the future?

Please offer some suggestions as I am literally putting in every ounce of energy to resuscitate this grade...

Apply to an applied math department which is in a feud with the pure math department at the same university. Your C will be an mark in your favor :-). But seriously, I think how they view this really depends on the department.

When you mean "in a feud" do you mean that they are in two different departments i.e. Columbia's which has applied math in engineering and pure math in separate department, Northwestern's which has the same thing"?  If not can you clarify?  And why would a C be in my favor?

It was partly a joke; however, I do think applied math departments which are separate from pure math departments are less likely to care about grades in algebra. Also, one C on your record (no matter what class it's in) is probably not enough to get your application rejected if the rest of your grades are A's.


text:
Is it evident whether I am a masters student or a PhD student just by looking at my transcript?
After I finished the first year in a PhD program, considering that I took the same courses that masters students in the same school take, is there a way other institutions can tell if I am a masters student or a PhD student just by looking at my official transcript?

Why not get your own copy of your official transcript, and see what it says?

At least where I am getting a copy of the official transcript is quiet expensive. Unexpectedly expensive infact.

Typically, the name of the degree program that the student is enrolled in is listed on the transcripts. So generally speaking, yes, it is evident whether you are a masters student or a PhD student.


text:
How to detect cheating when students take online quizzes or exams from home?
I am currently teaching a basic R programming course with about 80 students.
Under normal circumstances,
a core course assessment component is a programming exam,
which is done in the computer lab using the lab computers.
I will arrange for the Internet to be cut off,
and we will have exam invigilators who are patrolling the exam venue
to detect or dissuade students from cheating.
At the end of the exam, the Internet is restored,
and students submit an R script (basically programming code)
using the course learning management system.
This semester, due to the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19),
the university where I work has replaced all on-campus teaching activities with online teaching for the entire semester!

With regards to teaching,
the faculty have been asked to teach our classes online using Zoom,
which gives students the freedom to take classes wherever they like.
With regards to exams,
the faculty have been asked to administer their course exams online,
with students completing the exams online from home. (What??!!)

I am very concerned about students taking exams online from home,
because I am worried that some or many of the students may use this as an opportunity to cheat on the exam —
whether it is collaborating with their classmates,
or even asking another student to take the exam in their place.
My questions:

Is there any way to detect if students are cheating (e.g., sharing answers),
when students are doing an online quiz or exam at home?
Is there a way to dissuade students from cheating?

Response to comments:

How much help do you have for these 80 students?
I do have one PhD student who is a grader.
She is supposed to spend about 6 hours a week to help with the course.

I would have one additional assessment via skype or equivalent and ask a couple of questions direct - you should be able to tell if they are waiting for someone else to help them, then use that grade as a factor for the other grades where they might have had help...

https://theory.stanford.edu/~aiken/moss/ this might be helpful

You include an unusual word in the question. Then, you post an incorrect answer online, including that unusual word. Students google the unusual word. Find the word. Find the answer. Copy the answer. Job done.

@Strawberry: I know people who cheated in a similar way. They would not just copy any solution without checking and understanding it.

I used to give open book, open note tests in my live classes and I found students spent all their time trying to find the answers and didn't finish the quiz/test. Once I switched to closed book their grades went up on the same tests. I'll be randomizing my online tests for each student (x random questions from pool of y, given in a random order), and beyond that I'm not worried.

@sntrenter I'll second that suggestion. I used that tool to great effect when grading programming projects.  Just keep in mind that it will only catch students who cheat by copying each other's work (or copy from the same online resource), and that it should not be considered foolproof; it just shows you which assignments you need to look at more closely, and where the suspicious sections are.

I also teach a data and programming course, though I mainly use Python.
Is it possible for you to shift grading away from an exam and toward something else?  A project, for example?  Before going back to academia I spent years working as a policy researcher, and exam conditions simply aren't a realistic test of real-life coding abilities.  For that matter, coding with the internet turned off is also not remotely what real work looks like either.
In my class I like to give a larger project and let them have a few weeks to work on it, but I could also imagine a more simple project that they only have a few days, or even hours, to do.  Real data work often comes with time constraints, but it does not come with a lack of internet access in exam-like conditions.  Just scale the scope of the project based on how long you want them to have to work on it.
There is still a huge advantage to knowing the material, rather than having to look it up.  You can also grade on the quality of code and correctness of results, and allow for creativity with open-ended questions like "summarize this data with two plots".  This way each student is not only tested their knowledge of R, they're tested on their actual ability to use R in a realistic environment.
If you, unfortunately, are required to give an exam, I know there is software available for proctoring online tests.  The sort of thing that utilizes their webcams to make sure they don't leave during the test, or consult other devices, or open other web pages.  I've not used them though, so I couldn't make a recommendation.  I imagine they all require university subscriptions.

I support the project idea. I think you probably need to abandon traditional exams unless the university makes a serious commitment to a technological solution. That is likely impossible in the time frame required. Some places with a long and strong commitment to honor codes seem to be able to mostly but not entirely control student dishonesty. Dartmouth College comes to mind.

I would prefer paired or small group projects myself. Collaboration is probably hard to prevent, so if you make it required you don't have a problem.

@Buffy In general, yes. But the OP said that because of the COVID-19 virus, the university is closed (presumably to prevent unnecessary contact between persons). So in this case forcing cooperation would not fit well...

@MaartenBuis, joint projects can, themselves, be carried out online.

Sure but the students need to be prepared for that. That is hard to achieve in the ad hoc situation that resulted from the closure of the university. I would not expect my students to be able to handle that in such a situation (admittedly they are sociologists).

This would be a fine idea if designed into the course from the outset, and announced in the syllabus.  Unfortunately in this case the course is already underway, and most likely the syllabus says that the grade will include an exam, not a project.  The syllabus is often treated as a "contract" with the student, and any significant deviations may result in well-justified student complaints.

@NateEldredge Considering the university just canceled all in-person classes, I think changes to the syllabus to accommodate that seem pretty reasonable at this point.

My university explicitly said we could make reasonable changes to the syllabus to accommodate the changes to online as long as we let the students know.

This is a nice answer. Could you add some details to address the question of how to detect cheating in this project setting? For example, how to detect if a student hands in a project that was created by someone else?

This is basically what I did on one of the programming modules I teach, except the students have one day to complete the assignment, where they had to complete a program (real problem based on old research project) by writing a class, finding and removing some bugs that were deliberately introduced into the code and then refactor the code in a specific way.  So it was hinting at what maintenance is like.  More time consuming to mark than an exam, but less than a multi-week project.  Students seemed to get on with it O.K. (1/2)

One of the good things about this is that it required the students to understand how the existing code works, which isn't really very google-able.  I don't mind students using stackexchange to find out about tricky library components (better if they can learn to try the API docs first), less happy at students using the WWW for the problem solving aspects - you can't build muscle by watching someone else lifting weights!

Make the question non-amenable to Googling
Many of colleagues used to do what you mentioned: Having exams in labs and cutting off internet/network access to isolate their terminals. All with good intentions of not cheating.
A different approach that I implemented was rethinking what I want to test them on and use that as the guiding source and create the problems from scratch. That way, even if they were to Google the question it’s unlikely to find any answer. However, if they are to search for something specific like “Breadth First Search in Java” that is probably okay IMHO. The idea is for them to understand/decipher the problem such that they can correctly infer to use that algorithm. If the implementation language is Java, then they’re free to look up certain implementation details (assuming they’ve had past assignments/practice in some form).
This takes away the focus from the act of “coding the algorithm” to “solving a problem using the algorithm”. The latter is more copy-proof IMHO. Even though they may “copy” the algorithm implementation, they’ll still have to adapt it to the problem at hand and that itself can be a lot of work.
For those open to this “overhead” that’s the choice they make. For those who’re comfortable implementing it from scratch, they won’t rely on this approach. It also takes away the pressure of memorizing/debugging in a very time critical environment and gets them to focus on the act of solving the problem with the intended algorithm.
I’ve had very good success with this approach. It’s more work to come up with these problems and you may run out of them. For that a good strategy is to ask the students to come up with some good problems for the next year and they can earn bonus credit for good submissions - also works like a charm ;)
There are online tools that check for “code similarity” to infer if two people collaborated/shared code. One is MOSS that we used. There are surely others that can help with detecting “cheating/sharing” with great success.
Example:

I have a city map with ‘travel time’ for each bus route between 2
  stops. Write a program that asks the user for starting and ending stop and returns the fastest way to get there:

Input/setup:
A -> B: 5
B -> C: 10
C -> D: 1
A -> C: 3

Example IO:
Start-stop?: A
End-stop?: D

Computing...

A -> C -> D: 4

Testing on the ability to find the shortest path - whether they use BFS or Dijkstra is up to them. This is not easy to Google for and even if they do, it’ll take a while to translate to the above problem.
You can timebox the implementation time if you’re using services like Code Signal or the like.

If one is given an algorithm to code in a specific language, many implementations will differ only in the identifiers.  Impossible to distinguish original work from a copy when the plagiarist has only renamed the variables.  I once saw an essay where the student had copied a Wikipedia article then modified each sentence enough to hide it from plagiarism-detecting software.  (Obviously a very resourceful person, but still plagiarism!)

@WGroleau - actually no. Tools like MOSS shield against that AFAIK. For the wikipedia articles my university used Turnitn - which was rather good at catching such minor sentence modifications too.

@BenCrowell - agreed. And this is where a timeboxed exam that’ll be held between fixed hours could help. Collaboration by itself isn’t bad IMHO - that’s how folks work in the real world. It’s the act of engineering the solution that should be independent. Tools like MOSS shield against “similar” code rather well IMHO

They weren’t minor modifications, but they were mostly sentence by sentence.  Anyway, he was in a high school that did not use any such tools.

@PhD my experience of turnitin is rather different. In marginal cases with light paraphrasing it flags sentence fragments that could easily be false positives generated independently (and often from different sources, so there's no block of one colour highlighting with a few white bits), but misses the big picture.  Inappropriate synonyms on marking are a better giveaway in that case.

@WGroleau Turnitin may miss this, but as someone who reads code for a living I can assure you it's easy to spot this kind of plagiarism.

I am retired from writing and reading code for a living, and I see no connection.  However, it was easy for me to spot it once I had the Wikipedia article there to compare to.

There are tons of open source software or scripts or libraries written in R.
Give your students a randomly chosen such project (not a too small one), with the task of explaining what that software does in written English (perhaps with some math formula in LaTeX or KaTeX), and to extend or customize or execute that software (or library) for a problem of their choice. In other words, ask them for a code review, and if additional time is available, to add one extra functionality or feature (described in written English) to that software.
Such tasks are currently hard to be entirely automated. They might use the Internet, but it won't help them that much....
You could expect cooperation, by giving to each small group of students one additional (but different for every group) feature to add. Notice that such team cooperation is close to industrial practice.
I did teach at University a few years ago. One of the tasks I gave students was to download sash and extend it to add one additional builtin (described in French) in two hours. Access to the internet does not help much in practice. The time was limited, of course.
Today, I am working (in my free time) on RefPerSys. By experience, it is difficult to make motivated persons (which I never met in real life) reviewing some of my git commit-s. I sent them the URL of many papers describing them (e.g. the ObjVLisp model). I am writing emails, submitting papers, draft reports, and slides quite often. We all are very motivated. Even with that, getting code reviews and code git commit-s is difficult. And today, such a task cannot be realistically automatized.

This was a good answer at the time, but ChatGPT kinda ruins the idea.

I come at this as a former student and as a TA who assisted with exams.
At my college there was one class I took that allowed for students to actively write and submit code via live submission for tests in person. They did not cut off the internet for us, but we were timed, and the requirements for the examination were strict enough that if you did not know the material well, searching for the answers would not get you very good results.
They did this by making sure that you were using a data set that was hand constructed for that test. It happened to have a test in R as well. This data set was unique, and as such, you could not find the answers anywhere online.
As a TA I also know, submissions were automatically compared to each other by the submission system in a way that it could be determined which ones were close matches, so that it would become obvious when 2 people shared answers. These would be flagged for the professor to review.
Altogether, I do not know how effective this system was, as it was fairly new at this point. I was in my senior year, and this was the first time they had tried it, having had paper programming tests only previously.
To summarize, what they tried was to develop an online submission system that uses Closest Strings Matching to determine percentage score matching between student submission, and to develop unique secret problems for each test that cannot be found online in order to have a digital system that can be used in person or online, as well as having a strict but fair time limit to take the test.
As for the success of that system, only time will tell. The school I graduated from is UCF.

Disallowing internet searches for a programming course seems a bit outdated these days.
I would change the exam so that it relies less on memory and more on technique.
I've had pre-interview technical tests which allowed internet searches, but were hard enough that if you had to constantly look up stuff, you'd never complete it.
Main problem with online exams is that a test taker could just have someone else do the exam for them, even with a webcam pointed at them from their laptop (just have the accomplice use a separate keyboard and monitor).

There's a difference between "a programming course" and "a computer science course." The latter involves algorithmic problem solving. I expect students to be able to come up with algorithms to solve problems. I don't count "type it into google" as an acceptable algorithm.

For exams such as AZ-300, Microsoft use a combination of a secured browser and chat using the webcam of the computer being used. The person taking the exam has to scan the webcam around the room to show no other machines are on, and is observed while taking the test. They have dedicated software to ensure that no other browser sessions are open, but most screen sharing software with recording could be used for an invigilator to check that, once the webcam has confirmed there's only the one screen.

This seems a very big privacy problem to me. People should never be forced to install proprietary software on their personal computers, unless they had agreed to that previously for that course (and even so, it'd be a very awful policy and the university risks liability if that 3rd party software ends up being compromised).

As this applies to the entire university, your case may actually be more amenable to a technological solution than a course where the majority of exam answers are in the lecture notes that the students might have right next to them on paper as they take the exam (so even a secured browser session wouldn't help).  The university is likely to be working on a way of handling grades under the circumstances, but it may be too little, too late for you to make adjustments yourself, or it may invalidate those adjustments.

Ask the center for teaching and learning (or whoever at the university is in change of arranging faculty workshops on teaching - all the places I have taught have one) what the options for online proctoring are. When I have taught similar courses, there is software which can be used to proctor online exams. It basically consists of a browser lockdown, recording the screen, and access to the webcam, which records if the student behaves suspiciously while sitting there. Yes, this is pretty intense scrutiny, but it seems to work for our faculty who give exams for online courses.

My oc doesn't come with a webcam, what now?

This is incredibly invasive. First, it almost certainly will require Windows or, at best, MacOS. Secondly, it requires me to allow a very invasive program onto my system. I'm quite shocked that anyone would accept this level of intrusion!

Reiterating @terdon: this seems a very big privacy problem to me. People should never be forced to install proprietary software on their personal computers, unless they had agreed to that previously for that course (and even so, it'd be a very awful policy and the university risks liability if that 3rd party software ends up being compromised).

The poster asked how other faculty handle things: this is quite common. Even in class exams use browser lockdowns. I would suggest deleting the software after completing the exam, although I suppose if you don’t trust the software you would not trust the deletion process.

Was this a measure just because of Corona or were the students aware when signing up for the university?

It has been used in online classes for a while (although very sporadically, typically at instructor discretion). In my experience, students are not well-informed customers, but if any student had wanted to find this information, it would have been on the Center for Teaching and Learning website.

@Dawn, what would happen if a student objected on privacy grounds (or on anxiety/mental health grounds - I can see how someone could be O.K. with being monitored as a member of a group in an exam hall, by invigilators who are also visible to the student, but not O.K. with the idea of an examiner that they can't see watching them individually).

I don't think it is fair to rely on the regulations being written down somewhere and I think we have a duty to draw attention to this sort of thing.

From a student's perspective: Don't do time crunched tests that don't really help anyone. Do a project or smaller quizzes. Especially in online classes, tests are the most agonizing task that create SO MUCH anxiety because there is so much that can go wrong that is out of our control. Most students also do better on a honor policy, to trust most students will honorably do their work without the need to spy on them. They will have much less pressure and will learn and retain more. You can design the course in such a way that they are forced to keep up with instruction and that they pay attention to instruction and practice but take the pressure off of them. A little mercy and grace and leniency will mean a lot more than an iron fist and I can say with 100% certainty, your students will retain much more this way.

In a test, what can go wrong that is out of the students control that would not be dealt with under extenuating circumstances provisions?  In my experience there is no "iron fist" in assessment.  The purpose is to assess the students capabilities/knowledge/understanding and the assessors want the students to be able to give a good account of themselves - leniency would devalue that.

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


text:
How to publish under a Creative Commons license?
I will defend my PhD thesis soon and I currently have a bunch of papers in a finalization phase. As first author of these papers, and as my work is funded with public money, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of giving my rights to a private editor, for ethical reasons. I would like to release my papers under a Creative Commons-like license or in the public domain (CC0?) but I want them to go through a peer-review process.
How can I do this? (And why do so few researchers seem to be concerned with these ethical problematics?)

If your goal is to have a good peer review and a valid impact, go for the reputable journals in your field (you or your advisor surely know which one they are), regardless of their business model. Publishing in a low quality open access journal is going to hurt your career and the one of your coauthors. Otherwise almost all OA journals use a CC license (or claim to do so).

What is your definition of "publishing"? Do you consider putting it on arXiv under a CC license?

Alternatively, of course, you could publish in a high quality open-access journal.

@DmitrySavostyanov OP says "but I want them to go through a peer-review process"; arXiv wouldn't do.

@Jigg I do not do science for my career...

@JeffE sure, providing there is such a thing in OP's field, and that he/she is willing to pay the hefty article processing charge.

Let me build upon excellent Wrzlprmft's answer, adding a few things:

there is a de facto open access standard license, and that is CC-BY. It is similar to public domain, and I'd strongly suggest not to use CC0, as you would waive also the attribution of your work. CC0 it is used for databases and data, where CC-BY licenses are trickier.
institutional or disciplinary archives as ArXiv are heavily used in some academic communities (eg. math, high energy physics) but they do not provide peer review. It is customary within those communities to archive pre-prints. You should try to understand the customs in your very own community: it's very important if you want to make the best choice (and if you want to foster open access publishing in your discipline).

As per your last question:
why do so few researchers seem to be concerned with these ethical problematics?
Because their priority is their academic career. Academia is built on personal, scientific reputation, and the current system (with Impact Factor and other scientometric indicators) is completely unbalanced towards old, authoritative closed-access publications that provide the "authority" a young researcher needs to gain reputation between its peers. You need to publish a lot, and in reputable journals. You will advance, get grant, get tenure on your publication (and citation) record.
Open access publishing (as a model) is relatively young, thus it is difficult for open access publications to gain the same reputation as those other journals; thus researchers don't want to publish there, thus the old, closed-access system survives.
Often, the rational, selfish choice of the researcher is enough for the ethical choice to be bypassed. Ignorance of alternative models (and ignorance of the intrinsic flaws of the current closed access system) do the rest.

I will address two aspects of Creative-Commons licences seperately:
Open Access and not giving somewhat exclusive rights to a journal
The reason why journals do not give everybody access to their articles and want some exclusive rights on the article is that they need to pay their expenses (typesetters, copy editors, printing, maintaining editorial managemetent system, …) and do so by selling articles and issues (mostly to university libraries and similar). You can change or circumvent this by:

Publishing in an open-access journal. In this case, it’s usually you and not the reader who pays for the journal’s expenses. Since there is no need for the journal to get exclusive rights, you can usually publish the article under a Creative-Commons licence. Note that some funding agencies give you money exclusively for publication costs, which you can spend on this. Be aware though that there are more black than white sheep in this field. Finally, the price of publication is debatable (but so is the price of pay-to-read journals).
Nowadays, many journals offer pay-to-publish open-access options, which are like the above, just that your article is published in a classical journal instead of a pure open-access journal.
Many journal allow the authors to disseminate preprints, e.g., via the ArXive. Though they still get some exclusive rights to the article and there may be some restrictions, there is de facto open access to your article. SHERPA maintains an extensive database on what kind of preprint publication is allowed by which journal.

As to why researchers do not care more about this: The old publication system is an established structure which takes time to change. Theoretically, we could do with one central, globally funded open-access publication system (in particular by avoiding printing costs). Also note that in technologically inclined fields, publishing preprints is very common, so there already is open access to most publications and thus less incentive to change the system.
Allowing others to build upon your work
This aspect of the Creative-Commons licence mainly makes sense for works of art or widely used texts (such as licences), which somebody would actually want to directly build a work upon.
Building your work directly on a research article would be a very unusual thing to do, as instead of modifying the original article, you would rather publish a comment or a new article citing this article. Do not forget that building upon the ideas of an article is allowed anyway (unless they are patented), it’s just building on the text or the figures, which would be changed by putting the article under a Creative-Commons licence. Finally, it would arguably be more harmful than useful, if anybody could publish an altered version of your paper, as this would lead to confusion for readers of work which cites your paper.
With a review article it makes more sense to allow others to edit your article, which is the idea behind Scholarpedia.

I think researchers care about this issue a lot. The obvious conflict of interest that the article processing charge induces between the journal and the authors is worrisome to a lot of them.


text:
Dealing with a rejection from a journal
I am a post-doc in economics. I know that rejections are quite usual but I feel very sad (I think more than necessary) because of rejections.
For a paper on which I worked for four years, I got two rejections since last year.
I already have two accepted papers but I am overwhelmed with a rejection that I received this morning and I am wondering whether academia is really a good choice to me. I know this is an unnecessary feeling. What to do in order to deal with these situations?

Have you discussed it with your PI?

Let your emotion simmer for a while.  Time heals, and it is important to realize life is much more about a rejection.    Do other things and forget about the paper for the time being.  Once you are ready, pick yourself up and continue onward.  After being in academia for so long, it still hurts but I know it will pass.  Nowadays, I can hardly remember any of the emotions I felt when my papers got rejected; sadly, same with acceptance :|

The fact that you feel something means you care enough about the work.  Imagine one day you could care less about whether a paper is accepted or rejected.  At that time, I think it's time to leave research and change course.

I'm pretty sure this has been asked before, but I can't find the question.

@henning I did not find either. This is why I asked the question...

@optimal control not what I thought I remembered, but related and perhaps helpful: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/73180/how-to-appeal-against-an-unfair-decision-conference-paper/73185?r=SearchResults#73185

I read recently in economics a single publication in a distinct top-tier journal earns you professorship. Hard to understand for me as a physicist, but if it is really like this and I know the ratio PhD students/professors in economics is much much smaller than in experimental sciences (at least in Germany), then you have to live with the fact that the acception/rejection is more difficult/sophisticated and more lottery-like than in other scientific branches. On the other hand, your chances to get tenure are likely also much higher than in those. I hope this solaces you a bit :-)
And if you got 2 papers published already, you know there is nothing wrong with the way you write your papers in general.

Any sort of rejection in life is hard to take.
But note that there are several reasons for a paper being rejected other than the quality of the paper, and, certainly, other than your own ability/worth as a researcher.
Poor fit for the journal, and poor timing come to mind. Some reviewers are just nearly impossible to get anything through, for a variety of reasons.
I'd suggest that you get some additional feedback on your paper as well as some advice on your career before you toss in the towel.
But the pain will still be there for a while. It's just a natural human reaction. Find joy elsewhere for a bit until it subsides.

Rejection is hard. But rejection happens, even to great writers, in and out of academia. My favorite rejection letter is this one:
"We're sorry, Mr. Kipling, but you don't know how to use the English language."
Did they give any reasons for rejection?
Was it an outright rejection or a "revise and resubmit"?
In addition to the reasons listed by Buffy, I will suggest that you might have aimed too high - perhaps the journal is so high prestige that they reject almost everything and perhaps a less established journal would be better.
I work as a statistical reviewer (not in economics, though) and, while I almost never reject, sometimes my problems with the methods are a reason that the editors reject.
Another thing to note is that you got two acceptance already (congratulations!)
In any case, I think that getting one paper rejected is not a good reason to change careers.  Perhaps there is someone you can talk to about dealing with rejection?

Do you happen to have a source for that Kipling quote?

I read it in The Experts Speak: An Encylopedic Compendium of Authoritative Misinformation.

Do you think the quote is real?

My first paper got rejected twice. I was feeling very low and doubtful about it. I made up my mind to ask my advisor about my performance and tell him that I had considered leaving my PhD. He told me to stick with the project and that he was happy with the job I did. The next two years I clung on to this. It was still difficult but I didn't leave the project and got my PhD. I however decided afterwards to leave academia because of the lack of appreciation/encouragement and the hard competition for a permanent job in academia.


text:
Paper submitted with repeated sentences in the introduction
I have submitted a research paper to a peer-reviewed journal two months ago. It is my first submission. I have noticed two unfortunate elements in my introduction:

I wrote the same sentence twice in my introduction.
In one of the sentences, I have repeated the same word twice consecutively.

I think these mistakes came up with copying and pasting when I was trying to adjust my paragraphs in the introduction. Otherwise, I have already made grammar and spell check for the rest of the paper. Also, I am sure that the introduction is clearly written.
My question is that: can this kind of mistake (I think it is a minor mistake) cause a rejection by referees ? (The paper did not get a desk rejection, it is under review.) I will be really happy if you can share your experience regarding this kind of mistakes during the review process.

I think this question would receive more attention if it were phrased more broadly, e.g. what to do if I discovered a typo in a paper that I submitted for review?

You will be happy if those will be the only remarks. A serious referees will ask you to correct WHILE specifying to the editors that the paper is basically accepted AS IT IS, independent of the multiple choice grid that journala  propose in their online reviewing pages.

Regarding the repeated words, most people would not notice the the repetition at all. Regarding the sentence, they might be confused for a second, check back, see it's written twice, and continue as if nothing had happened.
Most will add a short note to the review, among those of other typos, that the sentence "..." appears twice. Nothing to be worried about, this alone will never cause a rejection of even major revision.

I noted "the the repetition". ;)

caught me though :)

He got me :( Great reply!

I would not worry too much in your place. Reviewers do not like non-proofed papers and it indeed can irritate them. To some extent, this might be because for English-native reader the non-proofed text might be not clear enough. But this is not your case. A repeated word there are high chances that no one will notice. The repeated sentence will be likely noticed, but it is clear that this was a silly technical one-time error.  Had it happened several times in the paper, it could be considered as an author reckless. But this is not your case. I think you will get a minor point in revision for this. Obviously, no need to write the editor - the paper is already went to review. What you expect from the editor to do? In best case, the editor will understand the error is just sort of a typo, and will politely answer that this is OK this way. In worse case, he/she will cancel the review thinking that the matter is really serious, but you will likely not go to review the second time.   So, just wait and hope for good.
Good Luck!

As a reviewer, I would not reject a paper for these two errors alone. But the errors certainly make a bad impression, and I might reject if the paper was otherwise border-line acceptable.
To me, mistakes like this indicate that the author(s) were too lazy to proof-read their paper properly. I don’t see why I should do their proof-reading for them.
I especially have little patience with mistakes that can be identified with commonly-available spelling/grammar checkers. Again, these alone might not be a reason for rejection, but they certainly put me in a bad mood.
I suggest that the OP does nothing, and waits for reviewer feedback. But learn something from this experience, and be more careful in the future. Impatient bad-tempered curmudgeons like me are common in the reviewer community, and it’s not a good idea to do things that annoy us.


text:
Web of Science; any way to get the "Published Items in Each Year" numeric data?
If you perform a search in Web of Science there is an option to create a "citation report";

This provides charts of citations each year, and the number of papers published each year;

Is there any way I can get the numbers used to draw the "Published Items in Each Year" graph?

I don't think this is possible in WoS without pulling each paper's citation data and assembling it manually, and I don't think you want to do that!
It is possible to do this with Scopus, however:

select all search results
"view cited by"
filter by year

Note, however, that citation numbers in Web of Science and Scopus are not directly comparable, as Scopus indexes many more items. So if you were to use this, you'd want to make sure all your data came from the same source.

After poking WoS for some time I'm inclined to agree with you on it not being possible.

Followed your advice, Scopus will give lots more numeric data. Thanks


text:
Using the same application interface figures in both journal and conference papers?
I am about to submit a conference paper before a journal paper about the same work, which involves the creation of a web interface.
Is it OK to put the same screenshots of the application interface in both the conference and later into the journal paper? Or it will be considered the same work and hence rejected by the journal?

It will probably be fine, but you should take some precautions. If the publishers of both are the same, it will be easier.
In the journal paper, since it comes later, cite the conference paper and note that the images are taken from it. This avoids any hint of self plagiarism.
If the conference takes over copyright of your work, then you also have to contend with that. Typically an author would get permission (a license) for such a use, even after giving up copyright. If it isn't obvious, then make a specific request of the conference publisher for the use you intend.

At least in the US I think that a screenshot is unlikely to be creative enough to actually be copyright protected. (Though it may reproduce copyrightable elements of the interface itself.) Of course, getting permission to reproduce a figure tends to be easy enough and would remove all doubts.


text:
What are some green flags that tell a post doc supervisor is good?
I want to know whether I am in a good position or not: that is if my supervisor is good. Aside from their h-index and their "friends", practically speaking when doing some work with a postdoc, how to tell if the PI is a competent and a good people manager?
Is there some behavioral styles that could tell this?

Ask his current and previous students and postdocs. But preferred behavioral styles vary from person to person.

I'm somewhat surprised I've been unable to find a similar question asked before. However, We have a corresponding question about Ph.D. advisors, and I think there are many parallels in the answers if adapted to the postdoc stage (e.g., replacing "learning style" by "working style", and points about graduation by ones about placement in jobs of interest to you).

To those who are casting close votes: That's fair, but I don't see how we can close this question while simultaneously leaving the question @Anyon has linked open consistently. I'm of the mind that these are valuable and we ought to give at least a chance for answers to be curated effectively before jumping to close it.

I don't understand the reason for the close-votes at all, and it would be a courtesy to the original poster to suggest ways to improve it.

This seems to be asking for an unbounded list of "it depends" that aren’t even exclusive to academia - whether there are "behavioral styles that could tell" "if the PI is a competent and a good people manager" is as much personal preference as generic.

Voting to keep open, for the reasons given in this answer: https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5395/8394
It was discussed on Meta years ago that "opinion-based" is (and should be) somewhat softer on academia.se than on many sites, because good questions on this site often do not have clear right or wrong answers.

I think it would be best if the question is edited to focus more on the academic aspects of a "good" supervisor, not "behavioral styles," whatever that is.

Ask them about their management style! When I met the PI who was interested in hiring me for a research assistant position, I asked him about how often he likes to meet, if he wants his employees to work set hours, and what his goals for the project were. We were aligned on how often we liked to have check-in meetings and the amount of flexibility there was in working hours, and he had clear goals for the project he was hiring me for. I also spoke to a colleague who had worked with him and said he was a good guy to work with.
If I was interviewing for a longer term position (this was only 4 months), I'd also ask about career development. Will there be time to work on fellowship applications? Do postdocs in his lab have opportunities to present their work at conferences? "My long term goal is X, will there be opportunities to work towards that in this position?"

The best indicator is success of former postdocs. Did they get jobs? Where? This is far from the only indicator but it is in my opinion, the best one.
Of course postdocs can do well in spite of a bad mentor or vice versa. Or they can do well but have a miserable experience etc. But a postdoc mentor with a track record of successful postdocs is a very good sign and a track record of unsuccessful postdocs is a very bad sign.

I don’t understand why you claim this is a very good sign after citing two strong reasons why this isn’t necessarily a good sign. This stack is riddled with questions lamenting a horrible experience with successful-people-producing professor X.

This is not true to much extent. I know a lot of colleagues to know that there is no such relation between the quality of postdoc mentor and where the postdocs land in their life.


text:
What to do if you do not understand a lot coming up with a research interest? PhD admission
I know it is strongly advisable to read up on your prospective PhD supervisors' work. However, I find that most of the things are too esoteric and I would need a substantial period to absorb them. I do understand perfectly the overview of the area that they are working. I have some questions:

In writing my research interest/statement for getting into a PhD, how detailed should it be?
Is it okay to mention that you would like to work on a general field (e.g. CFD in multiphase) and not propose an specific direction?

This might depend a lot on where you will be studying and the educational system there. It might also depend on the level you are starting at (which degrees you hold already).

I have a MSc (mechaniccal engineering) but still there are things that are very deep and only dealt with in the research community.

At least in the US, I don’t think most research advisors would expect undergraduate students to have the ability to understand everything in their published work. The idea is to be familiar with the general ideas, methods, and “top-level” results. If someone comes in with more than that, it’s a bonus.
In other countries, where the PhD program follows after a master’s degree, the expectations are naturally a bit higher.


text:
Publishing to arxiv after submitting to conference while paper is under review
The conference policy states that they accept submissions that have previously been posted on arXiv. However, there are no clear rules specified if the paper can be submitted to arxiv after the submission to the conference has been made. Can the paper be submitted to arxiv while it is under review at the conference?
The rule is stated as below:

Submission is permitted for papers that are available as a technical report (or similar, e.g., in arXiv). In this case we suggest the authors not cite the report, so as to preserve anonymity.

Generally yes, but you need to check with the conference to get an authoritative answer.

Please provide the text you refer to.

"The conference policy states the acceptance of arxiv" -- does this mean the conference says its OK? If so, what's the question? In general, submitting to arXiv is fine; it's a pre-print server, not a publication venue, but you have to follow your conference/journal's policy

@cag51 yeah its says its ok if it has been submitted to arxiv already but to keep the anonymity we don't specify about it. However, I am not sure if it's ok to submit to arxiv after I have made the submission, while its under review. Should it be fine as well ?

@scaaahu sorry I will rectify it but I only mean to ask if prior to submission is allowed then will post submission be fine as well ?

@scaaahu thanks for pointing out. I have added it as well.

Voted to reopen. Good luck!


text:
Is it worth publishing technical report as a journal paper also?
I'm currently working on a technical report which will be published by the sponsor organization - and also given significant publicity by them for campaigning purposes.
I'm wondering if it's worth also submitting this for publication in a journal (obviously taking care to fulfil journal requirements for novelty - I expect there are sufficient technical details we can expand on so that won't be an issue).
The question is whether a Q2/Q3 journal publication is viewed as having any more prestige than a tech report with an external sponsor and promoter? The field is computer science.
Addressing DCTLib's question

In this case I don't think the peer reviewed QA stamp will add much to the research, as it will lag behind the necessary time scale for impact (also if we're lucky our report will encourage a government body to replicate the research, thereby adding their own QA). Not saying it's not worth having, but any time I spend on this is time taken from other work I'm trying to publish also.
The likely view of hiring/promotion committees is relevant, yes

Can your question perhaps be concretized? "I guess" is not good to have in a question. So what are you after? "Prestige" is probably not the main reason for publishing in a journal, but rather to add the "peer reviewed" basic quality assurance stamp that other researchers will be looking for, not mentioning hiring committees for academic positions.

If you bring a technical report to a paper format, you usually compress&remove technical details, not the contrary.

You probably need permission of the sponsor for anything you publish. Your contract may specify what is possible.

@Buffy good point. We do have provision in our contract to publish separately

@DCTLib see edits, thank you

It is hard to judge an individual case but I can give a few thoughts. If the sponsor "publishes" the technical report, then you may have copyright issues to deal with, so consider that. If they hold copyright (rather than a publisher) you can probably get a license from them.
However, another publisher, such as a journal, may not be interested in publishing something already published, depending on the original venue. If it "seems like" something similar to a preprint then you may be ok.
Furthermore, while there is a delay, the feedback you get from a review process will probably be valuable, assuming you produce something the journal will consider. So far, I'd guess the only review has been internal with only interested parties involved. The independence of a journal review has (some) value.
An alternative, however, that might be preferable, and which you seem to suggest, is that you could write a follow on paper - and extension - that extends the tech report with new (novel?) information and conclusions. That would resolve all of the above issues should they be a concern.
Finally, however you do it, journal publishing will probably give additional visibility to your work, never mind prestige, that can be valuable in itself.


text:
Scholarship award not being honored
I was announced as a recipient of a scholarship from an organization outside of the university, and the organization doesn't seem to be honoring the scholarship.
The announcement was made months ago (October, when the scholarship was supposed to be awarded for the fall semester in the first place), and the recipients have still not been issued checks or university account credits.
Without being thankless, what are a recipients options in this situation? I am not sure if there is an implied legal contract by award of scholarship funds or not, but given that it is coming time to pay tuition for the Spring semester and that the scholarship is significant in relation to tuition charges, what are a student's options?

Are they refusing or are they just slow in getting you the check? Who have you talked to at the university and what did they say?

Nobody at the university can get a straight answer out of them as to where in the process they are. (Checks en route, checks written, etc). I've spoken to the professor who made the connection with the external organization and the bursars office.

So you yourself have not yet spoken directly to anyone at the organization? I think it is time to do that.

Since this is an organization outside of your university, maybe talk to the organization first and find out what's what?
You should have been given some sort of contact when they first awarded you the scholarship, so I would go back to that person via email (to give them a chance to respond) or phone them directly if the timing is more urgent.
If you know any of the other recipients, I would recommend combining your efforts together or seeing if they've already taken some steps to find out what's going on.

I would speak directly to the organization. Since this is outside of your university, it is unlikely anyone at your university can be of any help. Be sure to be polite and not sound accusatory.
Do you know the organization has given a scholarship in the past?
Something similar happened to me a few years ago. I won a very large scholarship in May and was expecting the payout to hit by fall semester, but I didn't hear back from them.
I sent them a polite email and they responded saying that it was the first time they had run a scholarship contest and were having trouble organizing the payment to my 529 account. It took a few weeks (and it was past fall), but they did pay out. The following year I won the scholarship again and they paid out just before fall semester, so it did seem they had hiccups the first time 'round.

You can speak with a lawyer since this organization could be falling into the area of "false advertising". I assume you have a paper trail of your interactions with this organization, as well as how/why you qualify for this particular scholarship. Documentation could help you if you decide to sue this organization.

Maybe this is an option at some point, but I think legal action sounds very premature at this point.  Anyway, one likely reason for the organization to delay payment is that it's facing financial troubles and doesn't actually have the money, in which case suing them would be useless.

@NateEldredge I completely agree that taking legal action is premature. But OP asked about options and that was the only I can think of.


text:
Familiarizing oneself with state-of-the-art at the beginning of a PhD
From my research internship experiences (my previous University didn't really focus on research much) and what my current advisers told me, a general flow of a PhD is like any other long(er)-time project:

familiarize oneself with state-of-the-art on the subject

generate your own ideas (by trial-and-error) and integrate with current approaches
(with this phase becoming a lot fuzzier the more advanced your "project" is)

write it up for the world to know.

As a fresh PhD student, I'm currently in the middle of familiarizing myself with the state of the art, following the advice of many older students ("be a brave soldier in the beginning and do and read everything your advisers throw/send/e-mail your way"). And I do understand the importance of it (in fact, more often than not, I love it). But, it does give one an impression of self-uselessness sometimes (I have a talk with myself every few weeks or so to remind myself of my motivation and resolve the "uselessness" issue).
So, my question is: Typically, how much time would a fresh PhD student spend on going through state-of-the-art at the beginning of his/her PhD?
And some sub-questions:

is it expected/typical to produce some kind of output (articles?) during this period?
what kind of output is expected at the end of this period?
what would be some indicators that this period is ending which a student himself can notice

In the end, just to provide some context: I'm doing a PhD in Europe, and we have a limit of 3 years for a PhD (sometimes extended for up to 6 months) and I'm studying Computer Science.

Europe is big, and last I checked, Sweden works differently from UK works differently from Germany works differently from France…

@MikaelVejdemo-Johansson I don't doubt it does, but I'm not looking for country-specific response. The part of the context I think is relevant is a limit of 3-3.5 years to finish the PhD, not 4 and not 5+. If there's any other information you think is relevant I'll gladly provide it. If you think the country is relevant here - pleas tell me why, I can edit it in.

A relevant question to this: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5073/how-do-we-know-if-something-relevant-is-already-published
It details as to how you should go through the process of reading papers and how to read those papers.

@Naresh thank you for the link. But essentially, I'm not looking for advice in how to read papers. I think by now I discovered what the "output" should be, and which process I should apply to the "input" in order to be most efficient while reading. I'm just looking for the fairly course stopping criterion, so that it's easier for me to realize if I have fallen in to the trap of too much reading and not enough doing, and reexamine my direction for proceeding.

@penelope, re "talk with myself" do you happen to have adhd?

Your question likely indicates that you need to work on your communication with your advisor. Hasn't he told you what is expect and how you are progressing?
I will try and keep this answer focused on the question, but I apologize if it strays.
Some indicators that your are becoming familiar with the field:

When you talk to your supervisor you are familiar with some of the
references mention and names start to mean something to you. Better
familiarity is when this holds when you talk to colleagues and go to
talks and seminars
When you have read/glanced at most of the references in articles that
you read. Better is when the most exciting thing about reading new
literature is finding a reference to something you didn't know about

As far as output, ideally during the course of your dissertation you should become familiar enough with the relevant literature to write a literature review article. You should feel like you could write a review at the end of the familiarization stage. Actually writing a full review is probably a bit premature, since you want the review to tie in with your eventual dissertation. I would suggest that a useful output is a dissertation proposal with a strong literature review based motivation. This is not a publishable output, but it is tangible.

Finally somebody who's answering what I asked, not trying to imbue the importance of the beginning research and reading phase on me! Thank you :) As for my adviser, I'm still trying to find a relationship dynamic that works for both of us. If it doesn't succeed, than that's most probably my next question I'll be posting in a month or so ;)

I don't think there is a clear transition between “familiarizing oneself with the subject” and “being an expert in this topic, and generate new ideas and approaches”. The transition is gradual, and it's called “the PhD”.
However, there are ways to quantify this evolution. For example, ask yourself: in a discussion with your advisor and a few other experts on a topic related to your PhD, how able are you to make useful comments and suggestions? How often do you come to your advisor saying “I have tried to do X because I read about it and I think it can apply to my issue”?
Regarding the written “output” of the beginning of a PhD, it pretty much depends on you and your advisor. Mostly, the output is knowledge in your mind, but it can also be useful to make notes (both for yourself and your advisor) on each subtopic you discover. For myself, as an advisor, I ask students to contribute bibliographic notes (written or orally) every now and then, for me and other students of the group who work on related topics.

Thank you for your answer. I do understand that the transition is gradual, as well as the fact that I will (should) never stop keeping my knowledge up-to-date. But, the pure beginning, when I am not expected to work on anything new (I'm supposed to read and decide on a best approach(es) among the bunch to try out later) can be a bit scary: am I reading too broad? Focusing on something too much? Going into too much details...? There is always something new to learn, but I was interested in at least a ballpark estimate of how long this period usually lasts.

@penelope It depends very much. In the cases I know, it doesn't last longer than a month. It is part of the advisor to give some guidance at the beginning, to help the student start working, rather than just reading endlessly. Some things you don't learn/realize just by reading!

I'm hesitant to make broad generalizations across disciplines, but I've seen this pattern a few times in a number of fields, so for what it's worth:

You can expend to spend the better part of a year (or more) familiarizing yourself with the field itself.
You can expect to spend another better part of a year (or more) familiarizing yourself with the state-of-the-art in that field.
You can expect to spend the rest of your life staying up to date on what's being done.
While you're doing all this, you will also be implementing some of the research you're reading about, doing coursework, teaching, grading, writing grants, and doing actual research. This will take time away from simply reading up on stuff.

Initially, you should really just seek to understand.  Thousands (or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands) of brilliant people have been working on problems for many years.  If you're going to contribute, hadn't you better understand what some of them did, and why?  So read, think, ask questions.  Your initial goal is not to produce anything except familiarity with the core concepts and techniques.  Or, to put it another way, you should be producing ideas and questions, hopefully to talk about with another lab member or your mentor.  If you skip this phase, you'll either be slavishly following your mentor's directions without understanding why; duplicating work that's already well-established, probably (though not necessarily!) in an inferior way; or working on something that is fun for you perhaps, but not particularly relevant for anything.  (Many Ph.D. students, in my experience, do end up falling afoul of one or more of these.)
Now, you ought not expect at the end of this period that you'll have as keen a grasp of the field and directions as your mentor; the point is to start getting the perspective you need to understand why, for instance, your mentor suggests using a bayesian analysis of job-completion times to help with load balancing.
At this point--unless your mentor is highly concerned about this--I wouldn't fret too much about producing papers.  Get yourself in a position where you can produce good papers.  Once you're there, then work out the next part of the plan (you'll very likely find that it depends heavily on what you're planning to do, which you won't know until you understand the literature and appropriate techniques).

Thank you for your answer. There's a lot of good advice, but not exactly what I was aiming for. I know the importance of this phase, people repeated it to me over and over again, and I see the importance for myself. But, people have also repeatedly warned me not to get to wrapped up in the reading. That's why I wanted some kind of an upper limit for the length of this phase, so that if I find my self still only reading after X months, I can stop and re-examine if there's something I am maybe doing wrong, getting to wrapped up in all of it.

@penelope - With all due respect, I think those people are wrong, or at least are telling you what to do instead of how to do it.  If you stop reading before you understand your field, you're going to be in trouble, and if you have trouble judging whether your mastery is adequate yourself, you should rely not upon time limits but your advisor and/or other more experienced group members.  That said, as soon as you feel like you can attempt something fairly useful you should start spending some of your time on it.  It really helps focus your attention on the right part of the literature.

I don't think they're wrong -- it happened to me on a 3 months project I once had. Adviser wasn't advising much, and by the time I was finished with my reading, I realized there was no chance in hell to actually do the things I had to. And about how to do it, and how to know and estimate when this phase is coming to an end, well, yes, I am a bit confused about that part. Which is exactly why I asked the question in the first place :)

@penelope - I'm not sure there is a good solution to an advisor who is not advising you when you need it, other than to find other people with the requisite experience.  They'll know things like how long it takes to get a paper published in that particular sub-discipline, whether your mentor lets papers sit around on their desk for months at a time or gets them out quickly, etc., all of which we can't help with and are critical pieces of information for planning timing.

That was, fortunately, one of my previous internships. Taught me the importance of a good adviser, as well as the fact that you can spend to much time in reading if you don't stop yourself.

@penelope - You certainly can, but I'm not sure that's any worse than doing a lousy job because you're not well-enough informed!  This is why I'm trying to stress what-you-know metrics rather than how-much-time.

No, it's not any worse, I'd say it's equally bad. The problem with what-you-know metrics is that it's often confused with what-you-don't-know metrics, and the latter one always returns inf, or close to inf, and never lets you finish. I was looking for an external factor to use along the what-I-think-I-know metrics: hence, I didn't ask "how much time should I spend reading in the beginning of PhD" but rather "how much time is typically spent on this activity in the beginning of PhD"

My advice: don't read everything otherwise you will never finish! Finishing your PhD should be your goal.
Become familiar with the dominant themes in your field and continually think how your PhD fits in the scheme of knowledge.
Focus on what is relevant to your research.

Thank you for your answer! My goal was doing research and science I love, and having fun while I'm at it. A position as a PhD student was just the means to achieve that. I know I can't read everything, I know that I have to keep my reading focused and related to what I'm doing. I know I have to contain myself to not digress. Thank you for saying it, I know it's good advice but it's nothing new to me. I was just hoping to get an estimate of how long this phase should be / has been for people.

I think I totally disagree with the idea that the goal should be to finish your dissertation. While it may not seem like it at the time, being a PhD student is the sweet life.

@DanielE.Shub - Some Ph.D. programs (e.g. in much of Europe) have a very rigid time schedule.  You either finish or you are kicked out, in approximately the same amount of time.

@both-of-you As I said, goal is not really finishing the dissertation. I'm hoping the thesis will just be the consequence of me having phun for 3 years (science phun, of course) -- if it's not (either working phun, or thesis a consequence), I guess I'll be deserving the kicking-out.

The problem with the general outline you describe is that it's top down, and doesn't reflect the bottom up nature of doing research. In other words, while it's useful to familiar with the state of the art, you shouldn't necessarily start by assimilating the state of the art in the field. That's too overwhelming !
The best approach early on is to start small, and work on something concrete. Doing a Ph.D is really like doing an apprenticeship to hone the craft of doing research. Starting with assimilating the state of the art is akin to reading lots of books on music theory before touching a piano.
So start with a small problem. Try different approaches. Talk to lots of people. Read papers that might have ideas to help you with the problem. Talk to lots of people again. Try more ideas. Solve a piece of the problem. Discover it's been solved before ! Realize that you've been able to recreate someone else's original research. Realize that this is a good thing.
There will come a time when you suddenly realize that you're familiar with most of the state of the art. And that you've been adding to it.
And then it's time to graduate :).

Thank you for your answer. Unfortunately, since the first thing my current adviser told me was: "familiarize yourself with all these (state-of-the-art) data structures so that you can make an informed decision about which one you want to use", so I do have to start with the state-of-the-art. And, when learning how to play the piano as a kid, I do recall doing some theory before ever touching a key ;) But, you did make a lot of interesting points in your answer, thank you


text:
Why would my former colleagues acknowledge me for a nonexistent contribution?
I spent a postdoctoral period in China, where I faced number of issues with the administration and supervisor. In short, I felt exploited in many ways, from payment and funding restrictions to being constantly asked to provide unfair “favours” and contributions.
During my stay, I was constantly asked to revise manuscripts for language and suggestions. I am a critical person, and the local culture is refractory to open criticism. Still, whilst my suggestions seemed to be typically ignored and made others uneasy, my lab mates would continuously ask for my opinion on manuscripts under preparation. They usually acknowledged my contributions in the acknowledgments section. Exactly why they would ask me for suggestions when they didn’t seem to appreciate them had always puzzled me.
However, since my departure they have published three papers I have never seen whilst acknowledging me for suggestions. For example, this is the latest of these papers they wrote:

We thank Dr. [other researcher], United States; and Dr. [Scientist], ZZZ, China, for critical reviews of this manuscript.

Awkwardly enough, these are papers directly within my area of expertise, which were surely under preparation during my presence, and first-authored by close colleagues. (Meaning they certainly refrained from mentioning these projects around me, at least in English).
Why would someone acknowledge a nonexistent contribution from a close colleague? Especially on a project that was apparently kept secret? It feels very awkward.

So when are you going to ask the author/friend this question?

@Jim I am planning on doing that within a few months. There are other pending matters where I depend on their good will which I am trying to settle.

I see two possible reasons for their behaviour. Others options are possible.

They are using your name to reduce the chances of desk-rejection. I have heard that a well-known expert in the acknowledgements can be seen as a positive point for some editors.
They copy-paste the acknowledgements of a previous manuscript and forgot to delete you.

Sounds reasonable. I will check on 2 when I get some time and will comment here whether the text remained the same. I have some other suspicion but I am will mention once I see more independent views. Thanks

It was a pleasure. Personally, if option 1 is the good one, I would say something. Just as 'like' or 'retweets' can be seen as endorsement, a presence in the acknowledgement can be interpreted as approbation.

Hi, I have added the latest Acks text to my question. It is not similar to any of the other manuscripts where they have thanked me for suggestions. This enforces your point 1 ... and my suspicion that they might be avoiding getting me as a reviewer.

I did not think about that, but yes, putting you in the acknowledgement is a good way not to have you as a reviewer. Although because you collaborate with them, you should be excluded as a reviewer automatically.

They told me of details around a lot of peer review manipulation going on there. In short their manuscripts end up being reviewed by themselves, via friendly (compatriot) editors and peers. I told them I am one nasty reviewer, thus I think they are finding ways around me then.

I wonder what the authors would say or do if the OP asked them specifically and explicitly to remove the OP from the acknowledgments.

option 2 was what came to my mind instantly...

@FixedPoint I believe they will say it is some innocent confusion "don't worry". (Like for anything else, like not paying my salary or working on my data/ideas behind my back.) I don't think they would remove, and they probably believe it can't be done.

Isn't there also the chance that the OP simply isn't aware that they contributed? Maybe the knowledge the author gained from the OP in casual conversation or in previous collaboration contributed substantially enough that the author thought it worth acknowledgement?

@Scientist asking them about mentioning you in the acknowledgements of a paper you had no part in, creates at least a paper-trail (dead electron trail in case of emails). Thus, if you are ever asked about a paper you "contributed to", you can show the correspondence you had with the authors. This could serve you, if you ever get into a position when you have to distance yourself from one of their papers.

A possibility which have not been mentioned: If you are in the acknowledgements section, you will not be asked to review a paper. Especially within narrow sub-fields, this can actually mean something.

This is exactly my suspicion from beginning  as they kept asking me to review.

You can ask to be removed from the acknowledgements. I have done so once, in a case where I suspected exactly this.

This is very interesting. I had never heard of this peer-review manipulation stunt. I will probably not ask to have it removed but expose it openly (e.g. PubPeer) once I am done with other issues with these people.

It's worth noting that I've heard many times of companies and schools in China lying and pretending to employ or work with western professionals to make their group look good during tours and advertisements.
Perhaps the motivation was for appearances.
If you add

Dr. XXX, YYY,United States

to the end of the manuscript then I suspect it makes it look more professional/important to other people in China.

I was there for two years. I can attest that this what you heard is a typical behaviour. It is called "face culture". Though XXX here is a Chinese name, in fact showing some US affiliation is widely praised in China. My last name looks kinda "cool" as many of them remarked, so perhaps they are partially just adding face to papers.

There was a paper submitted to a conference with my name as lead author.  My only contribution to the paper was that I asked that my name be removed from the paper - which was obviously ignored.  The paper was pure garbage.  I am not a particularly famous researcher.  I think it is 100% face.

@emory Did this take place in China as well? The same PI also submitted a conference presentation with my name (3rd author) on it without letting me know. However it was a project I'd contributed on, but withdrew from later (before the conference) when I was sure of fowl play around the data.

yes, in china.  I won't complain about it b/c I was compensated for my (non) contribution.

Yes, that's how it works there. I have usually refused their compensations

oh so this counts as an answer? cool, thought the first answer was pretty bang on

@HelloWorld I think it is also pretty spot-on.

@Scientist It is up to you.  I can not think of any good reason to refuse compensation.  It is not like they were going to remove my name if I turned down the money.  Nor am I ashamed of it.  I can't imagine there exists anyone whose opinion matters to me that would read or even become aware of those conference proceedings.  I will just assume that my (and your name) are on a bunch of other publications that we will never be aware of.  It is possible we are co-authors :)

I regularly watch this youtube channel of this South African guy who has lived in China for the past 10 years (SerpentZa). One of the phenomenon he has exhibited is Chinese companies and schools like to enhance the prestige of their organization by having Western people pretend to be American experts who have graciously accepted and invitation to speak at a function. I think they are namedropping you for similar reasons.

A "White Monkey Job", this is locally called. I am a big fan of his channel as well, and his videos have helped me a lot understand the local culture. I sought him for a chat while I was at the peak of my issues there but unfortunately he never replied. I am not American but perhaps I may look and sound like one to many of them, and also my family name is English.

During my stay I was constantly asked for language revisions and suggestions on manuscripts. I am a critical person, and local culture is refractory to open criticism. Still, whilst my suggestions were generally ignored and apparently made others uneasy, lab mates would frequently ask for my opinion on manuscripts under preparation. They usually acknowledged my contributions in the acknowledgments section. Why they would ask for my suggestions when they didn't seem to like them always puzzled me.

Perhaps they found your honest criticism valuable, even if it wasn't culturally appropriate to agree with it.  Thanking you in the acknowledgements sounds like a low-key way to show their honestly felt appreciation that they were't comfortable showing in person.  Maybe you had a lasting effect on them that continued on into work you didn't directly review.

Sounds inspiring but I did not get that impression -- usually non-linguistic suggestions were not incorporated. And the published manuscripts have issues that seem glaring to me that I am sure they know I'd disapprove of (mainly regarding statistics).

Since we don't know the text of the acknowledgements, I'm assuming it was a general 'for valuable suggestions' type acknowledgement, not 'for suggestions towards making this manuscript more readable', the latter being specifically for language suggestions.
In that case, I speculate that they may want to avoid later contradiction/opposition from you. As you are well-known in the field of the paper, and have had some less-than-great experiences with them, they may be insuring themselves against possible backlash from you. Of course this is not foolproof, but they may hope that you'd turn a blind eye if acknowledged.

That is possible but I'd think acknowledging someone for something inexistent would open a (public) breach instead of offering any protection. But I am sure my logic is different from theirs, thus it is hard for me to understand. It is worth adding here that these manuscripts are nothing "groundbreaking", nor paradigm-shifting nor of the sort that would attract special attention or enquiries. I would never comment on them in particular... otherwise.

Hi, I have added the excerpt from their latest, and they specifically thank me for suggestions on the manuscript.

Thanks for adding that information. I didn't mean ground-breaking work, rather some overstated claim with little proof, or something that is not fully substantiated but made to look perfect. Those sort of grey areas that you, as an expert may point out, having worked with them and possibly being aware of such tendencies.

Being too frank I do not think their results on the quoted manuscript are real. Especially because I never heard or saw of the project happening, and it looks like a lot of trouble to have coordinated. The raw data being all numeric, it may have easily been tampered with. But one cannot point that out without any hard evidence.

Comment by Axeman converted to an answer:
Your colleague may have been told by their supervisor to ask you for feedback or said they were asking you for feedback for some reason.
Then they decided not to ask you, for example because they don’t like getting comments or heard of your critical attitude from others.
Now, to keep up the appearance of having got your feedback, they added you to the acknowledgements.

Also sounds possible. I am actually finishing some pending business with these people (regarding $) and will eventually directly enquire them about the whole affair. Then perhaps I can answer my own question here!