text:
Do I need permission from coauthors to present a published paper at conference?
We published a paper last year when I was a student. I submitted this paper’s abstract to a conference this year after I graduated and I did not ask my coauthors about this. Now this abstract get accept and will be presented at the conference. One of the coauthor who is my previous supervisor sent an email to me saying this is ethical problems that I should not present without her permission. She looks very mad. I wonder if she is true that I need all co authors permission to present our published paper at conference. I planned to cite our paper and mentioned this is a teamwork when presenting at the conference. What should I do?

Is it normal in your field to present already published work at a conference without modification?

I think so. I saw my previous supervisor present her students published work after they graduated.

Another reason that I did not even think about to ask them is that she used to present this work without mention other coauthors. I recalled when I made the slides and I put other coauthors names on the cover page and she asked me to remove their name because “only we two” are presenting. So I thought if only I am going to present it I don’t need to ask them…I just acknowledge them is alright…

Only their work? It's common for supervisors to present like all the work from their lab put together.

No there were another professor and his one student. She did not mention them during the presentation and removed their name on the slides.

I think we're getting too far into a different situation.

As far as I can see, once I've published a paper, anybody can read it and report on its content at a conference, provided they appropriately cite the published work. It makes no difference whether they're coauthors or just some random person.  It would be nice if they let me know about it, but they don't need my permission.

@AndreasBlass thank you. That’s what I thought. As I was not trying to hide that this work was done by all of us. Because it’s a published paper, as far as I cite the paper, all coauthors are acknowledged by the audience. But looks like a lot of people believe I should have asked for permission in advance. I had called her and apologized. Moving forward, I will always asked just not be involved in this awkward situation.

Can you clarify if you actually put only your name on the abstract or the names of all co-authors of the journal publication?

@Snijderfrey I only put my name when submit. Because I graduated and relocated and the conference is not at the college area. I don’t think anyone else will go. So I thought I will be the only presenter. As such, I only put my name.

In my view, there are at least two distinct categories of conferences, though they may not be explicitly labeled as such and I'm sure there are examples that fall somewhere in the middle.
The first type are those where people gather from all over (though the geographical extent can vary) to present and learn about new work to their field (however broadly/narrowly defined). These are often regularly scheduled affairs (e.g., annually), may require that content presented be fully original (though in my field the expectation is that it is not published at submission, not necessarily that it is not published by presentation), and typically have some sort of review process (ranging from a basic check "yes this is science", to a full detailed peer-review).
For that type of conference, you submit work with coauthors, so you need permission from all coauthors to submit and present. Just like for papers submitted to journals, it's considered rude or outright unethical to submit to multiple conferences like this.
The second type of conference is usually more local, and more often consists of a collection of invited presenters. They are likely to be ad hoc, or have shifting topics. The attendees may be almost all people who live/study nearby, though speakers may come from further away.
For this type of conference, people present as individuals and credit their coauthors (and cite their own published work and work of others) throughout their talk. The presentations are really no different from other types of invited talks (including interview talks), the only thing that makes anything different is that they are grouped together. Sometimes these talks (just like other invited talks) have original content or in-progress work - I would get permission before using anything that hasn't been shown before - but otherwise they are expected to be on things already presented elsewhere. If all the figures, concepts, etc. presented are already published, then in principle there is nothing that would even prevent someone else from giving a talk about your work, so there's no need to get explicit permission. Implicit permission is already granted by having the work published.
I'm not certain which category you fall into. Your coauthor seems to think it's the first type, as does your submission method: you sent in an abstract for approval, and it was accepted. If you had other people listed as coauthors on that abstract, you need their permission to submit. On the other hand, it seems like this is work that's already published. If the conference expected work to be novel, then you've possibly also broken the submission rules (even if it was accepted, it's possible they didn't realize it was published if you didn't say so).

Thank you for your reply. I think this conference is in the second category. The paper was published in a journal which was in the first category. It was accepted for presentation and publication. And this conference is more like a latest update in our field, not many researchers but more practitioners. But as she is angry, I called and and apologized, and I said I will put all coauthors name in the cover page of presentation and cite our paper. She is satisfied finally. I was surprised to know I should ask permission before submitting to conference. But I know it now. Thank you!

FWIW most of the conferences I've been to are a mix of the two types: they are regularly scheduled annual conferences, national or global, but the presentations are based on work that was already published elsewhere, and each presentation is credited to the presenter, not the other authors of the original work. So I think it's not that there are two types of conferences, it's that there are various conventions which differ from one academic field to another and perhaps between individual conferences.

Put another way: there are many conferences where presenting is an act of publication (it is the first time the public has an opportunity to hear about your work, and your paper may appear in the published conference proceedings), and there are other conferences where that is not the case. You need agreement from all coauthors to publish your joint work in any way, but you don't need their agreement simply to present it (i.e. talk about it in front of an audience), if that presentation is not an act of publication.

I do not agree that the conferences where already published work is presented are more local. In my experience, the exact opposite is true. They are the huge conferences like the annual APS, AGU, EGU or similar meetings. They are huge. And people often show work that has already appeared in journals.

@VladimirFГероямслава Seems to be a field by field difference. In my area the big conferences are all new work. For smaller conferences, they realize people want to save their new stuff for something bigger, so they accept old stuff too.

In life sciences, chemistry, biology and related fields you publish and peer review papers in journals, you don't publish in conferences. Giving a talk about a published paper or displaying a poster about it at a conference would not require asking permission from any of your coauthors. The work is already published, the author list is fixed and the authors are acknowledged in your talk or your poster.
For unpublished work you should make sure everyone is on board with your general strategy around how much you want to present to the outside before it is published. That doesn't necessarily mean asking for permission from everyone every time you show parts of it at a conference, but your collaborators should know and agree with the choice to show this material in general.
In these fields it would usually be assumed that e.g. PhD students show part of the work in progress in posters at conferences they attend. If there are specific concerns about sensitive information, e.g. if you plan to patent something or if there is the perception of a high chance of getting scooped, you have to be more careful about what you want to show. But apart from that the general expectation is that scientist will show their work in progress at conferences.
There are obviously very large difference between fields here, this answer does not apply to any field where conferences are a way of publishing your results and an alternative or replacement for journals.

Thank you for your reply . I agree. This is not a conference to publish results. More like a workshop for discussion and networking. I was so shocked to receive her email saying I am unethical to do this. But even when I called her yesterday, she still blamed me saying if other people know this, they will all think I am an unethical person and I will be over in the academic area (although I am in the industry for a while). I was worried and scared yesterday but did not understand why she was so mad.

As a chemist, I totally disagree with the first paragraph of this answer.

@Snijderfrey then please post your own answer or elaborate. Right now your comment does not help to clarify anything.

Sorry, at the moment it is unclear whether OP put the names of the other co-authors on the conference abstract. I sort of assumed this, and in this case there is no way of not getting the co-authors' consent before abstract submission. From the other answers and comments, it also appears controversial if the other names would have to go on the abstract. But that is another question.

If a result has been published, everyone can present it at a conference as long as the authorship is clearly communicated. In fact, researchers should present works of others in their own talk just to show that the topic is of general interest, and to indicate what progress has been made.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
Should I explain the reason why I am still taking basic computer science courses when applying for graduate school?
I am an undergraduate student double majoring in computer science in my last year of college, but I am still studying data structure, operation system and will study algorithm and computer architecture in the next semester due to conflict of classes. Should I mention that in my Statement of Purpose for graduate school application?
This is what I have right now:
"Recently, I am studying Data Structure and Operation System and will study Algorithm and Computer Organization next semester due to the conflict of classes of two majors. I am confident that I will excel in these courses because I have gained solid background knowledge in the past few years."
I am not sure if this is worth saying. I have written this because I have heard that applicants have to submit the score of these basic subjects, and I want to explain the reasons why they can not see those grades on my transcript. I am applying for my graduate study of CS in the US. Any suggestion is appreciated!

I assume data structures is normally a first- or second-year class. What about the classes that are normally taken during the third or fourth years? Have you already taken those, so you are just out of order? Or are you not going to take those?

Your assumption is right. What I have studied are program design 1 and 2, computer network, linear algebra, discrete math, compiler and a few elective subjects. I have already taken data structure in my in my first major. Taking it now is just for my second degree. Compiler and one of the elective subjects are normally taken during the last two years. The rest are normally in the first two.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it possible to study applied and pure math subjects on single PhD program?
I'm aiming to study in USA mathematics  PhD program .
I love Pure mathematics  very much. I can't live without it but Applied math is more promised and demanded.
Could I study Pure mathematics and applied mathematics subjects together in Single PhD program?

Yes. Mathematics is not binary. It lies on a spectrum (no pun intended). There are plenty of fields that have major theoretical and computational aspects.

More experienced people will chip in, but what about quantum computing? A lot of phyicists are happy there, it must mean the applied mathematics part is quite relevant :)

If you are starting with a bachelors and if you choose your university carefully, then probably yes, it is possible. Harder if you start with a masters since there is less time.
Suppose, however, that the university has a single math department with both pure and applied faculty. (Harder otherwise)
Then, since the first years are normally advanced coursework leading to comprehensive/qualifying exams, there is the possibility to take a few additional courses of your choice.
At some point, however, possibly early, you will probably need to make a choice of an advisor and a specific area of specialization. From that point you will have fewer options (again, time will be an issue).
An alternative, however, is to focus on one from the start and then, once you have a degree and some experience, branch out. It is probably easier to move from pure to applied than the other direction, however. This is just because of the way pure mathematicians think about problem solving. When faced with a "real world" problem they have a lot of tools to bring to the game.
But you may be making a mistake in assuming that applied math is more in demand. I'd guess the opposite is true in academia and even less true than you might think in industry. I don't have statistics, though.

applied mathematics is much more profitable. Can I work for applied mathematics jobs with Pure Mathematics PhD education?

@JohnNash: I think you are overestimating the relation between what you do in your PhD and what you might do in an industry job afterwards. I've seen "pure" mathematicians working e.g. as software developers, or in consulting, or as development engineers for electrical engineering projects. Many of those jobs can be done by anybody who (a) is really interested in the job and (b) has a solid background in mathematics and programming - no matter whether they have a PhD in, say, algebraic geometry, or numerical analysis, or theoretical physics, or a branch of computer science. [...]

[...] This is not to say that a PhD in mathematics would be useless. Apart from certain approaches to solving problems which you learn during a PhD in mathematics, it can also happen on some occassions that using a solid amount of mathematics will indeed help you solve a specific problem. But it's extremely unlikely that the specific piece of maths that you'll happen to need is known to you precisely and solely because of the choice of your PhD topic.

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


text:
If the test agency send the scores today, how long does it take for university to receive it electronically?
I have already received IELTS test score report form.
If the test agency send the scores today, how long does it take for university to receive it electronically?
I am applying into the PhD program,USA.

If it is sent electronically, receipt will be measured in seconds or less. But that doesn't mean it will be noticed or quickly acted upon by a human. That is especially true at the moment as most universities are on break at the moment with (at best) reduced staff. Less than a week for any action would be fortunate. When people get back to work there will be a backlog and some tasks are more pressing than others.


text:
How to avoid over-reading papers and overthinking?
I'm in the middle of my PhD and I am currently struggling in finding "unexplored" areas of research. Despite having one main research topic and other minor projects, I feel like these are somewhat vague and that I have to find how to "walk" through them on my own by finding specific things to do.
Of course I know this is part of doing research, but I feel like I have spent too much time reading papers in order to find something nobody did before, and still haven't.
For being more productive, I am quite certain that it would be better to just work on something, even if this would mean to find again known results, rather than "overthinking" it in advance.
On one hand, I have been talking with other people about this during conferences and they reassured me by saying that it's normal to realise that your work sometimes has been already done by someone else. On the other hand, colleagues of my research group with whom I share the same supervisor are kind of independent: they are more or less able to find unexplored areas of research by themselves (even without reading tons of papers like I do), and the role of the supervisor for them is just to "supervise" and correct their work, rather than "inspiring" them on new things to do. When I speak with my supervisor about these projects, he is kind of optimistic and believes they are "new", but I am sure they are not.
Therefore, do you have any suggestions for coping with this personal issue?

Hi Tailor, and welcome! Your question's title and text seem to be dealing with two different issues: doing a literature review and finding which research problem to work on. They are related but not exactly the same!

"When I speak with my supervisor about these projects, he is kind of optimistic and believes they are "new", but I am sure they are not." Could you specifiy to which projects (yours, or those of your fellow PhD students) "these projects" refers to in this sentence?

Welcome to the Academia community!
DISCLAIMER
I was all ready to give you advice about how to read articles at different level of depth (and select which ones to read more deeply), but then I realized that you are really asking about how to "choose what to work on", which is related (you do that by studying articles describing previous research) but much more an issue of mindset than technique. I will try to answer this later aspect, you let me/us know if you also have issues with the technical ones!
[Disclaimer: My horrible drawings were inspired from the much better and clearer ones from The Illustrated guide to a PhD which I could not find back when I wrote the first draft of my answer: it might be even more helpful than my answer!]
A MINDSET FOR RESEARCH
When you write "I feel like I have spent too much time reading papers in order to find something nobody did before", I understand that your objective is to find "something nobody did before". But before finding answers, you might want to consider the problem of finding  "questions that nobody asked before" first: the question before the answer, and the extensive reading is necessary to know which questions to ask (not just to learn techniques which will help finding answers: most of such techniques you are supposed to  have already acquired).
A CONCRETE EXAMPLE
Let me take a concrete example:

A talented student came to work with me, excited about the idea to improve some aspects of the Flipped Classroom methodology that I used in the course he took with me, where students watch video-capsules at home and solve problems in group in the time we spend together.
We discussed about giving more immediate incentives to students for watching and studying the video capsules before coming to the problem solving sessions, like asking them to answer for-credit "reading questions" about the content of the video before the problem sessions: The student was pretty excited about it.
Doing the bibliography, he found two research projects which did exactly that, validating that when the instructor spend the time to write good reading or concept questions which pop-up at random intervals while watching video capsules, the student's attention and retention is raised, and their motivation to watch the video capsules. The student was slightly taken aback (not to say crushed, but kind-of).
Not in the articles, but in one of the recorded talk about those results, one author mentioned how the bottleneck of such methodology was really about the amount of work required from instructors to write such question (which is much harder and new to them than "just" recording video capsules), which in many case is the main hurdle discouraging instructors to adopt such methodology. An additional obstacle to our research!
As I had results about having students recording and evaluating video capsules for and by their peers, we jumped to the hypothesis that students could write and validate reading questions with only a minor amount of work from the instructor to calibrate the system. The student now has his problem to solve.
The student's first work will be to reproduce the original result with reading questions written by instructors (he is not too excited about it), and the final work will NOT be to find the optimal way for such questions to be written at lower cost. His work will be to explore alternative answers/solutions to the question ("how to improve student's attention and motivation to watch video capsules") and to compare them, hence contributing to humans' knowledge.

SOME ILLUSTRATIONS
I think it helps thinking about research in terms of "pushing the envelope of human's knowledge" rather than "solving problems" (which is more an Engineer's job, anyway).

Caricaturing a lot, you can visualize human's knowledge as a volume in many many dimensions, of which your area of research is only a portion:

Among such an area, your topic/question of research is only one among many:

Among the various answers to the same topic/question, your result might be a new answer, or a unification theory of several existing answers:

And always, always, you feel like you are doing only small steps toward the real target, the final objective, "solving the problem".
But science is literally building on the shoulders of the scientists who came before you, and if you do not need to reinvent all their inventions in order to make a new one, you do need to study many of those in order to even know which question to ask first, and to try to improve an existing answer or to bring a completely new one!
Do discuss this with your advisor: his role is not to "give you the right question" (you would not learn how to find good questions if he did) but rather to advise you, to nudge you, on the way to what could be good questions (it is research after all, it would not be if you were not erring a little bit in unknown territory), and in the process of finding (and communicating!) reasonable answers to such questions.
I hope it helps, keep courage, keep searching, and keep learning!

@AnonymousM EXACTLY! THANKS A lot! (I assume it is ok if I include this link in my answer: we are collaborating to give the best answer possible after all, not competing for points?)


text:
What do maths grad schools ask for as an update after one graduates from undergrad (US)
After getting accepted into a mathematics graduate program (say PhD), what information does the graduate school ask for as an update once one graduates from undergrad (US)? I am aware they ask for a completed official transcript, but do they ask for any other updates, such as status of journal articles submitted and noted in one's application? Do they communicate with one's recommenders at all about the activities of the applicant in the final semester?
I want to know if I can take a sort of break for the semester, and thus what updated information will need to be sent in afterward.

The purpose of these updates is to check that your record didn't get worse than what they saw in your application.  So it makes sense to ask for final grades.  Article status would not be relevant; your publication record can't really get worse.  Even if your submitted article was rejected - to be honest, they probably already assumed that was going to happen.

Successful graduation and transcript are most likely all they need; probably only the former really matters, unless your grades have taken a horrible dive that suggests you aren't prepared to start the program.


text:
Am I allowed to submit a paper to a journal while it is under review at another?
Can you help answer these questions for me: SSRN (https://www.ssrn.com/index.cfm/en/) that is purchased by Elsevier claims of faster peer reviews with authors being notified within 3 days. In the research world, if I have a paper that is currently under publication review, am I allowed to submit that to SSRN as well before it is accepted?

also related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/88871/what-should-phd-students-do-if-they-submit-a-paper-to-two-journals-and-a-reviewe

also related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/132594/can-i-submit-a-paper-to-two-or-more-journals-at-the-same-time

You cannot in general submit papers in parallel at all. The only exception is that law does a form of parallel submission. However, this rule also doesn't apply to SSRN because SSRN is not doing peer review. SSRN is a preprint server. Papers put on their are approved for the server or not, but they are not subject to peer review.

The one word answer is "No". If it were accepted by both journals, whoever would have the right to publish it, the one who accepts it first? What would the correct citation be?


text:
Is "Pure and Applied Mathematics Journal" reputable?
I ask this question because there are at least several journals with similar titles, but I thought about submitting to this one in particular http://www.pamath.org/index. Is this a reputable math journal? It's not quite as big or reputable as publications from the American Mathematical Society or Springer's dynamics journals, but I don't want to assume this one is disreputable just because it has a similar name as other journals.

Following the link in the question to the journal's home page, I found, in the top screenful of content, two links for joining the editorial board. That does not inspire confidence in the journal.

The impact factor of $0.42$ doesn't inspire much confidence either

Hey, it has a 10-page proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem! Great journal indeed!


text:
Is it good practice to have hyperlinks to acronyms in captions of a MSc thesis?
I have inserted hyperlinks to acronyms list (by using the command \gls{acronym:NASA} in my LaTex project) in captions of figures and tables (see images below as example), in this way, if the reader click on the acronym then the list of acronyms appears (note that the hyperlinks are hilighted with a different color). I tought that is better to remove the hyperlink and leave simple the acronym because the list of figures seems to not have a good aspect. What is better to do?

This is really a LaTeX question: How do I make the acronym, including link, also appear in the table of figures without having it all spelled out.

Hi @WolfgangBangerth I simply want ot know if it is a good practice to show the hyperlink in the captions, nothing else.

If it helps your readers, it's good. Whether it is necessary to explain the acronym NASA may be debatable, but things such as ZVC make sense to explain.

Nitpick: I have always found LaTeX default hyperlink colors to be neither here nor there. Take a look at something like acronym for (subjectively) better UX with tooltips on hover instead of following the document back and forth: https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/161478. And keep in mind some readers would prefer to print it out, so it should still be usable in the paper form.


text:
How many times to repeat the expandend form of acronyms in a Master's Degree thesis?
I premise that my University does not indicate a precise guideline for the typographic rules to be adopted; so I'm wondering if it is a good practice to expand the acronyms only in the abstract and then in the first chapter or if it is bettier to expand them at the beginning of each chapter. I also use a list of acronyms before the table of contents. Can you tell me what is the best choice for a good readability?
P.s. I read some questions very similar to mine and I premise that I need to use acronyms because there are many occurencies in my thesis.

Style issues of this type are going to depend on the school, office, etc. Check with how other similar documents have done it in the same place. Your department library likely has a collection of theses. And ask your prof.

It is not an answer for a thesis specifically, but for journal articles, it usually is required to expand on acronyms on the first instance in every different "part" of the article, that is once in the abstract (or in case of a thesis maybe a summary), once in the main body of the text and  again in a list of abbreviations. Of course, if the specific term doesn't appear in the abstract, you do not have to put (and expand) it there.
The reasoning behind this is that some people might only read the abstract/summary and some people only read the main text.

Just a note: In chemistry papers, it is not unusual to define the acronyms for lengthy names of chemicals only once in the experimental section.

@Sursula -they- Do you mean that it is better to exapand for each chapter of the thesis?

No, I do not think  that is necessary.

I take it as a convenience factor. You want people to read and understand your thesis. When I wrote my PhD thesis, I didn't focus on the rule as such; I just tried to see whether the sentence I was writing is better-readable with acronym or not; if not, I expanded it there.

Like others have mentioned, it really depends on the formatting requirements, the type of style guidelines you're using, etc. Take a look at what other theses look like that have been published by others in your program in years past. For my university, it was recommended to have an index of acryonyms and then you would not need to specify what those meant throughout the rest of the dissertation.

Following what others have done is bad advice.   This leads to the blind following the blind.

I disagree. If the OP is publishing a thesis in their department, they want to follow the guidelines that have been seen as correct by others that have already successfully published a thesis. The larger problem is how their university or department somehow lacks guidelines for publishing a thesis.


text:
How correctly write ordinal numbers in a scientific thesis?
I'm wrtiting my Master of Science thesis in Aerospace Engineering and I've a doubt about wrtiting of ordinal numbers?
Let' us consider the following alternatives:$i$th, $i$-th.
What is the correct form, with or without hyphen?

related (on a sister SE): https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/10959/2061

All such style issues will be different place-to-place. Get guidance from the place you hope to publish. For your thesis, that would be your university or department of your school.  Hopefully you are using LaTeX and you can just change style files to update it if you have the wrong one. https://www.latex-project.org/get/

I clicked on this question thinking that you meant "ordinal number" in the sense of "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number." The mathematics tag may be overkill here.

The specific case of "nth" is often written even outside technical contexts, and without a hyphen, see e.g. Merriam-Webster's definition. So I would prefer $n$th, etc.
I don't recall ever seeing a version with a hyphen used, but I have occasionally seen "th" as a superscript. A common error here is to have the "th" in math mode; the right way to use a superscript is $n$\textsuperscript{th}.


text:
Can I name my algorithm after a cartoon character?
I've created a new algorithm and would like to publish it. However, I can't think of any interesting or pronounceable name for the algorithm. Is it acceptable to name the algorithm after a cartoon character?

For comparison, there's a protocol called Kermit — named after the Muppet, but with permission from Henson Associates (and also an unrelated backronym, presumably to avoid trademark issues). Since some entertainment companies are known to be fiercely protective and litigious, it probably pays to get permission and/or legal advice.

The case of Stooge sort, named for The Three Stooges, seems quite relevant as a comparison.

There's the famous "tortoise and hare" algorithm for finding cycles in graphs. Not quite cartoon characters, but from an Aesop fable, that should count as an example.

There is a family of genes first identified in fruit fly mutations. Genes identified this way are named according to the phenotype in mutants, so the first gene in this family was called "hedgehog" after the appearance of these mutant flies.
A related gene and protein was somewhat jokingly named sonic hedgehog. Cute, memorable, maybe moderately funny. But it caused some controversy when it was connected to human disease. Who wants to tell people their kid is sick because they have a defective Sonic Hedgehog gene? Not really the best time for joking and hard to take seriously.
Wikipedia now says the controversy has died down, but I guess I'd just consider the consequences. Yeah, you can name things this way, but whether it sticks or not, does it help people remember your algorithm, or does it distract or create a nuisance association?
Some other related Q&A to consider:
Why the taboo against naming discoveries after yourself?
What are good principles for naming an algorithm?

Don't get me started on the fruitless gene (formerly fruity). Thankfully the human orthologues seem to be pretty boring.

You can, but others don't have to accept or use the name. However, if there is some reason that the name represents an analogy or metaphor suggested in the name, then others might agree and use it. If that is the case, then it might be worth saying why you chose the name.
There isn't really any way to assign an "official" recognized name to such a thing. Names "stick" or they don't.

Let me add an odd example. There is some value in developing terrible algorithms, just for the educational value. Suppose you develop an educational algorithm that "always misses its mark" (whatever that might mean). Calling it the Elmer Fudd algorithm might make a bit of sense. But, twenty (or a hundred) years or so in the future the name would need explanation and the connection wouldn't be so obvious (assuming it still is, actually).
I once gave some thought to finding the least efficient sorting algorithm, not for use but just as a thought experiment, possibly shared with students. A competition in such things can also be fun.
But choosing a random, unrelated, name adds no value to what you are doing.

"in the future the name would need explanation and the connection wouldn't be so obvious"
I think this happens all the time. E.g, What is that rectangle-ish thing used to represent the Save button?

Never.

It will damage the seriousness with which readers will take everything you write.
Character names are private property and the owner of the name will have something to say about your use of it.

As somebody who was previously in a team that called an approach QUATSCH (German word for a silly thing), I disagree with your first point. If anything, a memorable name (even if slightly whimsical) helps getting taken seriously.

Cultural differences between different disciplines may factor in heavily for the first point.

Your #2 would also seem to imply that you can't name an algorithm after an individual.

@Buffy A name (for a real person) is not a private property (there is not document saying that you and only you can use that name), while, say Mikey Mouse, is a name on which Disney has legal rights on.

"Mickey Mouse" specifically is a trademark, and a trademark is a name which has value only in narrow categories (e.g. comics, some merchandise, amusement parks for Mickey Mouse). Algorithms won't be among the trademarked categories for Mickey Mouse.

A natural person would potentially have right of publicity on their name (dependent on jurisdiction), so while not a trademark there still could be other legal implications

@MSalters While that's true, do you think it would stop the Walt Disney Co. sending a shedload (or rather, ‘disputation’) of lawyers your way? They might not be morally justified; they might not even be legally justified, but you probably wouldn't have the time or funds to establish that before being bankrupted. (It needn't be for breach of trademark; IANAL, but maybe they could sue for libel if they had even the slightest grounds for claiming that your usage brought their character into disrepute. Or I'm sure they could find other charges if they didn't like your usage.)

@gidds: The good thing about Disney lawyers is that they are very good. They what is and isn't covered by trademark law. So when they know you know, and they know you know the judge knows, they also know the show is over.  Libel? They'd have to bring that suit to court with a professional disclaimer "my client made me do this, but I know this is nonsense". So that's not a serious threat either.

No. It sounds childish.
Does it need to have a name in your paper? If so, call it by a meaningful name (even if it is not an "interesting or pronounceable" name), or just call it Algorithm 1 or something like that.

Could the 4 downvoters say why they don't like this answer? Do you think naming algorithm after a cartoon character is OK and not childish?

I'm not an expert on these things, but there are definitely instances where people have given a name after a cartoon character and it stuck. One example is the Sonic Hedgehog protein. I'm assuming there are many more uses. Eventually it is name that people should rememeber.

Also, I wasn't one of the 4 downvotes. I just disagree with necessarily not naming things after childish things.

I downvoted. Science is better once people stop being so damned serious about everything.

@Keen-ameteur Indeed - other genes named after fictional characters include Sleeping Beauty, cookie monster, and tinman.

I think it's also empirically wrong. A lot of important ideas and so on have cutesy names. It helps with memorability. Nobody cares about "Algorithm 1" unless it's so incredibly groundbreaking that you actually earn the name in everybody's minds. But lots of people know Bozo-sort even though it's a dumb name for a dumb algorithm. And if nobody remembers your paper / algorithm / etc. you might as well not have written it.

Thanks for your explanations. It reminds me of the professor in The Wire who says he has to go to "the little boy's room" and the police officer Colvin says "I never understood why a grown-ass man gotta talk like that." People should be able to think of memorable names for things that are not childish. Sleeping Beauty and Tinman are OK.

I disagree with it being childish. I agree that it should be meaningful, though.

@toby544 No argument there, no need to be childish; but childish is a matter of taste. I had a professor who kept insisting an argument was "Mickey Mouse" because it involved a Venn-like diagram with big "ears" on the top. It was dumb but we knew what he meant.


text:
Is it a good idea to attach recommendation letters in a cold email to potential supervisors?
Assume that it is appropriate to send an email to potential supervisors to inquire about a research program.
Is it a good idea to attach recommendation letters in the cold email? Or instead, should I write in the email that recommendation letters from my academic referees can be provided if it is requested?

Is this specific to Australia?

It could be @Buffy, but I don't want to limit this question to AUS/NZ as I am going to apply to some other programs (which suggest me to contact potential supervisors in advance as well)

What does a "research program" mean here? Do you want an internship/RAship; or Master's/PhD student positions?

I would assume it is for a PhD position (probably AUS/EU/UK style rather than US style, i.e. you get a position from a particular supervisor to do a particular project rather then get a position in a group of PhD students from a university and finding a project/supervisor is left until later)

Assume that it is appropriate to send an email to potential supervisors to inquire about a research program.

That's fine but...

Is it a good idea to attach recommendation letters in the cold email?

If I were the supervisor in question, I wouldn't be interested in these letters. Everybody can come up with nice recommendation letters and they don't normally mean much if anything. Actually I'd prefer to not get them as any uninteresting line I don't have to read is a good thing.

Or instead, should I write in the email that recommendation letters from my academic referees can be provided if it is requested?

Another completely uninteresting line, don't do that. Every university has a formal admission procedure and normally you will have to submit recommendation letters there. That you can provide them if needed goes without saying.

My experience is quite different and might not be relevant, since it is not common in the US to apply through a professor. I'm assuming here that your situation is the opposite.
But, rather than sending the letters, especially in an initial contact, you could send the names and affiliations of your recommenders, saying that they will supply letters if asked.
My opinion on such things is that shorter emails are easier to deal with and respond to if there is any interest. You won't be accepted into a program based on an initial letter in any case.


text:
Is sending out a paper copy of a survey to respondents an IRB violation?
I am part of a team that is trying to launch a third wave of a survey that was previously declared exempt by the IRB. I have two questions. First, do you think it would be a violation of institutional rules to send out a digital copy of the survey to respondents to review and then follow up with the link to the survey platform once it is approved by the IRB? Second, we realized after the fact that we are basically doing institutional research which is typically exempt from IRB but we already sent in the forms and it is under review. Is it okay or not okay to send it out if it is institutional research that won't be published/contribute to generalizable knowledge if we've already sent in the IRB forms?

There is likely someone at your institution who can answer these questions for you and following their instructions will CYA whereas asking the internet will not. As far as your institution's rules, that entirely depends on the institution and their rules.

You have two, unrelated questions here. Please focus on one.

if it is institutional research that won't be published/contribute to generalizable knowledge if we've already sent in the IRB forms -- there is some confusion here. You position is either: (1) this is internal research that does not require an IRB (this is possible, albeit rare on this site -- e.g., maybe you are a restaurant owner doing A/B testing on your website), or (2) this does require IRB approval/exemption. Which is it? In the former case, why have you sent in the IRB forms? In the latter case, what do you mean by "basically doing institutional research?"

@cag51, it is a survey of other institutions. Not our own institution. People will be filling it out albeit about their institution, not with personal information.

Fine, but my concern is that you seem to be going through the IRB approval/exemption process, but then in your last sentence, you imply that you don't actually need the IRB to be involved at all for what you're doing. You can't have it both ways: it's either one or the other.

You have to ask your IRB
No one here can tell you anything definitive, because we do not know the full context, and do not know your IRB's general policies.


text:
Reference citing guidelines
I recently became the Editor-in-Chief for Cardiac Electrophysiology for an online access publishing company. I wanted to jump in by writing a general article to get my feet wet in their system. My topic actually reflects an accumulation of what I have done, learned, and practiced for the past 35 years. There were no references when I wrote the article but I knew many would be needed. The article contains about 6000 words and the Managing Editor told me that I would need about 20-30 references. He also said that I must use citations provided by or found in PubMed. They are partnered with PubMed. Finally, he said that at least 10 references must be from the past 10 years or the article would be summarily rejected.
Wanting to comply, I could honestly only come up with 16. Four were from the last 10 years but, given the topic "Evaluation of the Patient with Suspected Cardiac Arrhythmia", nothing has really changed in the last 10 years to make that requirement valid. I felt it was rather arbitrary. Then, I found that only 11 articles were even found in PubMed. Their citation software seems primitive in that it has no means of maintaining the proper order of the citation in the document if they don't have it or if you end up adding one in later.
I feel that my managing editor is being rather arbitrary and there is no one to provide guidance as to the workings of their system.
There is plenty of advice out there regarding "when to cite".
I have also noticed that many articles written for the company I work for or for another company known as Cureus contain citations that are absolutely irrelevant. It's as though they think tons of citations=good work!
My question is: what are the rules of the game when it comes to #citations and restricting citations to a specific timeframe (i.e. the last 10 years). And, does anyone know what citation software PubMed uses? Can't seem to reach anyone there.

I am going to speculate that you are the target of a scam.

It's far from my field, but Retraction Watch's posts on Cureus have given me the impression that the journal has... issues with its review process. So irrelevant citations seem likely.

Does this answer your question? Cases when old references are valid? (Also see questions linked from there. That said, the demographics of the cite is light on people in medicine, so it might be that not all answers are applicable.)

Let me comment on a question you have not actually asked, but that I suspect is on the mind of many who are reading your post:

Why did you actually take the Editor-in-Chief role of that journal?

The way I read your question is that you are not an experienced author of scientific publications. I suspect that to be the case because (i) you seem to be unaware of common practices of what to cite, (ii) you take the managing editor's word about what to do, rather than push back and say "I know what I'm doing, this is a well-written article and you better just take it -- I'm the editor-in-chief of the journal after all".
There is then of course the corollary that if you are an inexperience author, being the editor-in-chief will be a rough ride for you. You just don't have the experience to deal with the many publishing-related issues that come up, and I will assume that you probably also don't have the stature in the field to push back on senior authors wanting to have their way.
From this, then, one is led to the following question:

Why would a reputable journal pick you as the editor-in-chief?

Good journals take people who have long experience in both publishing and editing, and who have a reputation in the community as both good scientists and fair and ethical arbiters. It is unclear to me why a publisher would choose someone who is inexperienced as an author to be the leader of a journal. It just doesn't make sense.
What I think happened is that you have fallen prey to a predatory publisher who offered the role to you because they can't get good scientists to take the job, and you fell for it. My suggestion is pretty clear here: Walk away from it. You've got better things to do in life than being the front of a predatory journal.

Wolfgang, you are correct. There is more to the story that I would like to tell you but I only have 501 characters left. Now 476. My email address is krieghmoulton@gmail.com. Contact me, as I would like to continue the conversation

I would not have thought StatPearls was a predatory journal but, to me, it represents an effort to reduce the scientific community to mediocrity by speeding up publications compared to what happens with traditional journals. Cureus is a similar situation. This is an unusual situation that I don't think I anticipated. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt and probably shouldn't have.


text:
Non existing instructor
I'm wondering if I am able to possibly have a lawsuit against the trade school I go to because they haven't provided us with an instructor for the last couple of months. I've gone to the campus numerous times to talk to whoever is in charge and they keep saying they're trying to fix it BUT I'm paying out of pocket for my tuition and need answers to what is possible and not possible????

This would probably be more on-topic at https://law.stackexchange.com/

It's also important that you indicate the country and/or state you are located in.

What would you like them to do? "Provide an instructor" is not necessarily something they can wave a magic wand to make happen; "give a refund" might be more practical. If you need legal advice, though, neither this site nor Law is going to do that for you, you need to ask a lawyer.

Is this a problem with just one course of many or the entire program?

It's just our one course.


text:
Is it recommended to put part-time jobs on resumes?
My former employer and I have a good relationship, and they expressed that they like my work ethic. I asked them to be a reference for me, and they were willing. This and the fact I spent years at the job is the only reason I would list my part-time job, because other than that it isn't "impressive" or relevant for a resume in academia in my opinion.

What degree step are you pursuing? What types of things are you applying for?

It is hard to say because every selection committee/PI is different. If you do not have too many of these, or you worked there for a longer period of time, I think it is a good idea to list them, especially if they are willing to be a reference for you. So, in your case, I would definitely list that job.
If you do a "European" type of CV with few details about the job, the 1-2 extra lines are not that much anyways and people can ask about the job in the interview if they wish. If you do the "American" type of CV, emphasise the tasks and skills that are also relevant in academia or how they are transferable.
I also think that if you worked during your studies, your CV should show this fact, because it is much harder to perform well both at work and your studies.
Depending on the job, your skills might get used by the group. For example, I had a part-time job in HR, which I listed on my CV (also at post-doc level), so I am asked quite often to screen candidates and join interviews and the like. So from this perspective, if you disliked the job, you may want to hide it.


text:
How to become Professor in England
I did Master degree in Economics with 60% from India. Now I live in England I want to be professor here but don’t know what to do for it. Can you help me please
Thank you

Your next step is to earn a doctorate in the field you want to work in. There are more steps after that but it is where you start.
Apply to several universities.


text:
Can I put a rejected paper(manuscript) on my CV?
I am a master student and I haven't published any paper yet. I have a manuscript of research but it recently got rejected. I wonder if I can put this in my CV (I might apply for a PhD) since it's empty in my publication section. Can I mark it as manuscript or something?

Do you have a preprint uploaded anywhere? If so, I would list it with the preprint link and put (to be submitted) in the CV entry if you intend to submit elsewhere.

Some journals will not accept submissions that have been made public as preprints.

OK. Thanks. I will not put it I think!

(Building on comments by @CameronWilliams and others under the question.)
Many journals, including those in the  Nature and Lancet groups, accept submission of a paper uploaded to a preprint service that they approve. So it's worth checking the journal websites. Also, if you submit to a journal you might not get the initial response, never mind reviews, for months. Uploading preprints to  Arxiv, Medrxiv, Biorxiv, etc or to journal own preprint servers  speeds up research dissemination and  is pretty standard nowadays.
If you think your paper is  worth showing to people, I'd put it to a good preprint service and link it up on your CV. Before that, it could make sense to accommodate reviewer's suggestions and others' feedback on your paper (eg, your instructor's, especially if you'd need a reference from them later).

If you are working to improve the paper or its underlying research with the hope of publishing it later, include a "Work In Progress" section on your CV and list the project there instead. Give the project a descriptive name and indicate that you have a paper in preparation. Don't say that it was already rejected, since it would be different in any future submission.
Having work in progress is an advantage in any academic application.

Don't do it - mainly because it's easy to get rejected (just submit something in gibberish) but much harder to get accepted.
Instead submit it somewhere else and put "so-and-so paper, submitted to [big name journal]" in your CV.

-1. I'd strongly recommend against the suggestion in the last paragraph. Some people (including myself) are quite allergic to this "submitted to" thing - for the reason explained in your first paragraph.

Maybe I'm not cynical enough. But I wouldn't assume that people would actually submit gibberish to a journal just to be able to list it on their CV... Plus, if it's listed as 'under review at X' it must have passed editorial review and presumably can't be complete gibberish.


text:
Is it worth to be a co-author in a conference paper abstract?
If I cooperate as the second author of a conference paper abstract, can it be mentioned in a cv?

Your question in the title and body are different.

Yes it is fine for your CV as long as it is described accurately. Not a major item in every case but positive.
Your CV should show that you are intellectually active, but collaboration is also a positive point. And, the abstract may develop into a full paper, I assume.


text:
How much do for-profit companies pay for journal subscriptions?
We have these figures for universities: Reference for annual journal subscription costs paid per university?
Do we have similar figures for companies (in theory, the ultimate end user)? For example, is Pfizer subscribed to any journals, and if so, how much are they paying?

This question is similar to asking how high are the fees a private company is paying when receiving a payment via credit cards. The answer is: it depends, and it is a commercial "secret". Please report back your findings!


text:
Why do academics have to get their own grants?
Usually in industry, we are either employed (in which case our company pays us), or founders (in which case we go look for funding). To the extent that we need to spend the company's money, or hire people, we deal with the company. If we are our own bosses, we co-founders can consult each other for expenses (similar to "peer review"?) if it's important.
It seems like academics are not only employed by an institution, and have to deal with the institution, but also deal directly with e.g. the NSF. This seems to me like being employed as a research lead at e.g. Google, but still having to pitch VCs. Or like the big boss micromanaging skip-level reports. Are these bad analogies?
Why not do one or the other of:

NSF only funds institutions (lower volume of decisions), which make their own choices (e.g. internal peer-review) regarding projects, hiring/resourcing, etc (possibly more informed decisions?)?
PIs have independent labs (no institution)

One way to look at this is that the institution hires the academic to get grants.

What's a "skip-level report"?

@Azor: a "direct report" is someone who reports to you directly (i.e., you are their immediate supervisor); a "skip-level report" is someone who reports to someone (who reports to someone, who reports to someone, ...) who reports to you. University research group hierarchies begin and end with the professor, but skip-levels are more important when there is no tenure and so "the boss" might be gone in a month but the project has to continue.

I feel like - probably because many of the answers come from academics who have to write such grant proposals regularly - the answers are soberly answering you with a straight face, when what I want to say is: Yes! The system really is just that bad! It's dumb and crazy that people put up with it at all! Allure's comment above^ is more than just tongue in cheek: Universities want money and grants are money, so the incentives for employing someone that you're supposed to pay in fact become 'can this person bring in grants'?.

I think this is an excellent question that isn't asked enough.  Being good at research, and being good at attracting funding, are two different things; and it follows that by insisting that academics do both, "the system" is potentially depriving itself of talented researchers.

@cooperised being good at research isn't possible without being good at attracting money.

@ScottSeidman I think that's the point. If there were people whose jobs it was to attract money and give it to those who are good at the other aspects of research, things would be different.

@wizzwizz4  Excepting that the people who get the money would control the direction of the research. TBH, as a researcher whose grant application skills are much weaker than their researcher skills, I am still happy that I have to apply for grants. This way I know that I can research the topics I am interested in, and good at, instead of doing research in the area the Uni would think will help the next grant application.

@wizzwizz4 also, this system would change a not-perfect system (researchers needing to also be good at grant applications) with another system where the university would distribute the money based on likability/internal politics. Who would decide who gets the money then? And based on what criteria?  I would be surprised if for the internal funding distribution you can come up with a system which is not worse than the current one, unless you have the people write something similar to grant applications, which often in small institutions is much harder to judge, and more unfair than the current.

@NickS That seems like an answer. If you copy-paste it into the answer box, it'd be good; though if you could elaborate too, that'd be better. (You can always edit an answer after posting it.)

For clarity, does 'founders who (go) look for funding' describe the members of a company; founders of a business or of another group?
I don't know whether I follow your meaning. In 60 years of listening and reading and 40-odd at work, I've never heard the term 'founders' used in any other than a historical sense… For which I think Jobs at Apple and Gates at Microsoft only-just qualify, and then for the historic importance of their contributions, not for the historical dates of their efforts.
Can you clarify?

How can there be useful, general comparisons between academia and industry, except of specific roles?
Why does anyone here think 'academics' should not be compared to professionals such as sales managers? ('… managers' rather than 'salesmen' for courtesy and respect). The point is that just as rank has privileges, so it has responsibilities.
Is it not true that here, the privilege of seniors includes deciding how grant funds are spent, which by no means applies to juniors who have no responsibility for finding funds?

I believe this is a good question, but is mostly relevant to US, Canada, UK, and possibly other such HE systems.
Indeed, different systems exist: in France the government hires directly civil servants to serve as academic researchers. In central or East Europe the government funds national research institutions.
Therefore, the way the US HE system functions is mostly cultural/historical, or in other words, based on the business model taken by universities (in the US/Canada/UK and similar systems). I believe that this business model on the one hand maximizes "revenue" for the universities, allowing them to run as "businesses" based on student tuition fees (this is the teaching aspect), while on the other hand it provides options for research (which is deemed prestigious, but not essential to the financial functioning of the universities), for only a small part of the employees who are meant to compete on resources on a continuous basis. So that, when they fail to secure research grants, they need to teach more and vice versa.
EDIT: Comment: Although in France and East Europe there is a growing reliance on grant money for research, the extent of which research is reliant solely on grant money is much lower I believe, than in the US. We have to look at it like a spectrum between fully governmental funded researchers, on one extreme, and fully project-based, ad hoc, short-term grant-based researchers in the US (with a clear trade-off between teaching and research) on the other extreme.

Do you have sources for your claim that it's much different in the EU? French CNRS seems to be an exception, and the research in Germany seems to fit well OPs description, for example. "Publish or perish", and "Get grants or perish"

Er, in France, people with a permanent position don't get fired if they don't have grants, but they may not be able to afford going to conferences, hiring postdocs, etc, so we are still strongly encouraged to get grants. Every year the proportion of the funding that goes directly to institutes becomes lower while the proportion that goes to grants increases.

@EricDuminil, I haven't mentioned the EU. Of course, the Scandinavian countries are even more dependent on grant money than the US, probably. I'm talking about CNRS in France, and all sorts of Academy of Sciences in Eastern Europe, Russia, etc.

@MarcGlisse, I guess things are changing slowly, but still you can be researcher in France without grants, while in the US you probably can't (increased teaching or unemployment).

@Dilworth not really. Maybe if you do pure math, perhaps, where all you need is your salary and an office but even then, attending conferences and publishing papers takes money. French CNRS/Inserm etc researchers have a salary and don't rely on grants to pay that salary, but they still need to ask for research grants.

@terdon, yes, pure math is a good example. You don't need to pay for journals and you don't need to go to conferences.

@Dilworth What makes you think pure mathematicians don't go to conferences?

At least some research leads at Google and other similar companies certainly apply for federal and other grants. R&D in the US defense industry gets grants from the US DOD and mostly occurs outside academia. NIH funding is available for pharmaceutical companies for some aspects of research. I've known people that work in these areas and describe their work, and though every area has its own particular norms and procedures, there is far more similarity than the question here implies. Certainly the distinction between who pays the checks and where the money comes from is not unique to academia.

or founders (in which case we go look for funding)

Another way to look at it is that every professor is an entrepreneur running their own lab. In smaller labs, like in smaller companies, they may do almost all of the work themselves. In larger labs, they likely hire much of the work out and take on a more managerial role.
If the government funded institutions directly, it would take decisions about funding away from people who know what's going on in a field (e.g., experts in underwater basket weaving decide which underwater basket weaving grants are worth funding). A given institution is unlikely to have more than one or maybe two labs working in basket weaving, so they don't have the internal expertise to make those decisions.
If the government funded independent PIs, those PIs would have to handle all the administration themselves: accounting, HR, ethics committees, logistics, etc. In the current setup, researchers say "I have the expertise to do this research", but institutions have the clout to tell the government "We have our eye on this, and we'll make sure the money is spent on what you said it should be spent on". There are certainly flaws in this system, but it seems like it's more reasonable to try to fix those systems from within rather than replace them entirely.

They won’t have the internal expertise in the specific field, but it seems like they would clearly know better whether the applicant is honest, hard working, respectful, careful of financial matters, etc… Cumulatively these seem even more important than determining specific expertise.

@Roland By 'They' I meant university administration, staffs, department heads, staffs, etc... Do you not believe they such folks would have more direct, and probably first hand, knowledge?

@Roland Why? To me it seems clear they would have an interest in making sure their personnel succeed, otherwise why did they hire the researcher in the first place?

@M.Y.Zuo It seems you're advocating that funds should be given to whoever, say, a department head likes best. Even within a department, fields of research can be diverse enough that a single person doesn't have any idea what's going on at different ends of the department, let alone at higher levels of organization, and how is it going to be decided how big of a pool each department has in the first place? Based on which department head the dean likes best?

@BryanKrause Presumably in such a case the university administration that already makes budget decisions will be the one with final responsibility. See my prior comment where I enumerate: 'university administration, staffs, department heads, staffs, etc... ' Where did you get the idea that it will be left up to the department head alone?

@M.Y.Zuo They are likely the only person with any personal interactions with individual PIs. But I don't see why you would want to trust in this system if you're a granting organization. You're going to just hand a pile of money over to an administrator with little to no oversight of how that money is spent, with an expectation that it'll just be spent how the university decides it's best allocated based on individual estimates of how honest and hard working each PI is?

@BryanKrause Presumably under a new system there will be more interaction between different departments. Not all of it personal of course. It's odd that you word it that way as I certainly won't be the one handing out money to anyone. Presumably the people responsible for such decisions will take it seriously and only grant money to those they know to be responsible stewards. If the university administrators turn out to be irresponsible then they have appropriate means to punish that kind of behaviour.

It's part cultural/historical and partly a hedging strategy.
When the university was initally invented as an institution, it was entirely an educational establishment, and its professors were employed for one thing: to teach. However the people they employed to teach were generally scholars of their field in their own right. Back in those days there was really only two ways to do research 1. Be independently wealthy or 2. Do it as a hobby in your own time alongside a job. Being a university professor was the ideal job to support your research hobby with. Over time universities would offer time off to do research. Around 100-150 years ago they started offering lab space to scientists as part of those scientists' renumeration packages. But if you needed anything costly for your experiments, or needed an assistant, you had to sort that out yourself.
Now if you are a government you might maintain government research labs (and more or less all governments still do, think the NIH labs in Bethesda, or NASA etc). But sometimes you'd want some research done that was outside their expertise. Or some researcher would write to you with an idea you think would be beneficial, so you issue them with a grant to cover their costs, but it's a rare thing.
As government funded scientific research exploded in the 20th century, it did so against this existing culture.
Even quite recently time and resources to do research was seen as a benefit due to the academic, not a duty or a job responsibility.
But grant income does present a good way for universities to hedge. Say you want to teach a genetics degree. You need someone who can teach human genetics, someone who can teach mathematical genetics, plant genetics, molecular genetics, microbial genetics, etc. but you probably don't have enough work to fill a full time contract for all these people. With grant income, tuition fees only have to cover a part of their salary. And vice versa: someone's research specialty might not always be in demand, but there will always be teaching for them to do.
Block funded research institutes do exist: places like the Sanger and Crick in the UK, CERN in Europe, or Los Alamos or Jenelia farm in the US. But they are few, tend to employ on the absolute crem de la crem, and have a relative narrow research focus, and not be around for that long.

US National Labs like Los Alamos are different from universities, but they too have (internal) grant opportunities over and above their programmatic funding from their sponsors.

This answer is probably limited to the US. You have a misunderstanding about NSF and probably other funders, such as industrial organizations.
The NSF funds projects not institutions (except indirectly). NSF depends on the fact that it need not provide basic salary and benefits for those it funds; the universities (and such) provide that since such institutions have multiple goals, not only research. But the NSF will provide funds for specific things proposed to it by individual researchers provided those things seem to have scientific merit.
I question your "more informed decisions" statement. It is the individual researcher that knows what is needed both in terms of funding and in terms of what is likely valuable to attempt  to explore. Someone up the chain (deans and such) have more general responsibilities and don't normally get involved in the nitty-gritty of actual research. So, if the NSF (etc.) depended on administration for proposals, then two bad things would occur. First, the proposers could likely only make general appeals (Trust us; we do good stuff), and an extra layer of separation would be placed between the people with the ideas and the people with the funds to support those ideas. The researchers would still need to "apply" for funds, but to the administration, rather than directly to NSF.
Your second proposal (independent labs) would require much more funding. MUCH more funding. Universities provide both basic salaries, and the buildings in which those researchers work. NSF funding covers quite specialized things that may be (in the current political environment) beyond the ability of universities to fun. The university provides the "general" funding. Foundations provide the specialization.
Also, peer review works in the current scheme, since people at other institutions are willing to review proposals in their own fields. This gives a variety of viewpoints. If the NSF funded institutions rather than projects, then that would be lost. Each university could, I suppose, develop its own project review system, but it is hard to see how it could attract the same breadth of view or be reasonable to fund itself. It would add to the cost since it is more balkanized.
Companies can fund projects internally since they have a much narrower view (often product based) than a university (the "universe" in "university") does.
Startup companies with a new perspective need a lot of funding if they are to have a chance and the failure rate is high. It is very risky for funders, especially those in the basic sciences.

Orthogonally, researchers being required to get their own grants imposes a certain discipline of thought on them: a good thing. They have to be clear early on about the goals and the requirements. Clear enough to convince their peers of the value. This is also present in other schemes, of course, but it keeps researchers on right path since it requires justification prior to the research and also reporting afterwards.

The NSF and, even more so the NIH, do fund institutions--but via the indirect/overhead costs on the project grants. Without indirects, huge chunks of universities (esp. med schools) would cease to exist, which is why their administration wants you to bring in grants!

IDC funding is not "funding an institution." That's literally paying the bills for a project to exist. Yes you brought in $1M direct costs for your project. Good for you. Would you like to work in the dark? What about heat or cooling? Who is going to order supplies?  Indirect costs are costs and not a profit for the institution. IDC rates are capped on administration and many organizations lose money on the deal. Without IDC no one would do research because it would be a total loss. Research is about prestige/gifts more than profit from grant funding.

Science is expensive, and beyond the means of many universities.  It is so expensive, that it's the traditional domain of governments and kingdoms to fund research. Tycho Brahe, for example, was funded by the Danish Crown.
When researchers are hired by universities, getting and maintaining funding to carry out their research is part of the job description.
As to the last parts of your question -- why not give the universities the money and let the universities decide who it goes to?  Well, in fact, government grants do go to the university, and the PIs are the agents by which the work is carried out, but the review mechanisms usually lie within the govern agencies, and not the institution.  I can't imagine that a university would be able to maintain the tight standards of review that the government can.  Also, funding agencies often need to maintain tight control over how the money is spent.  Different divisions within funding agencies have different mandates to fund different areas of research, and there is congressional oversight (in the US) over the whole process.  The taxpayer's representatives in government need to have some control of how taxpayer money is spent.  A school would not be able to meet these demands.
As to whether a private individual can apply for funding, yes they can, but it's probably unlikely that an individual can meet all the bookkeeping and supervisory tasks that the funding agencies demand.

Expensive, or just unprofitable?

@user -- certainly the first.  The second depends on many things.  Big Pharma finds some biotech research to be extremely profitable.  Most US universities are not for profit, though, so, at least semantically, not applicable.

@user253751 It is probable that 80-90% of research is waste of money for real-life applications, but the other 10-20% very likely cover all costs and more... The issue with science is that most of the times you cannot tell in advance which 10-20% turn out to be the profitable ones...

I think these are not the right analogies because NSF doesn't give grant money to a university employee directly, via direct deposit into their bank account. Rather, the money is given to the university, to be spent based on certain rules that are enforced by the university.
A better analogy is this: Take Ford Motor Company as an example. It has people who produce stuff, people who manage and support those who produce stuff, and then it has sales people who pitch the product Ford makes (cars) to customers. But the subdivision of who does what in the company is by custom and convenience -- there is no inherent reason why a production person could not also have a 10-hours-a-week obligation to work in sales.
Universities are like this. They have a product (research conducted by faculty) and they pitch that product to customers (e.g., a government that wants research be done in certain areas, for example because it thinks that this is in the national interest). It just so happens that the people who produce the product (faculty) are also the ones who pitch the product to the customer (the government). If the customer thinks that the product is good, it pays the company (the university) some money for the company to make the product, and then the company's bean counters (the university's Office of Sponsored Projects) are responsible to using that money in ways necessary to make the product happen.

It is worth pointing out that this is not an uncommon business model outside universities as well. Governments pay many other entities (for-profit companies as well as non-profit organizations) for things that are not a tangible product such as a car. For example, there is a vast complex of companies that are paid for research -- say, the development of specific materials to be used by the military. And then there are entities that take care of building hiking trails in the mountains or forests, and they too often have people who both come up with ideas for where these trails are to be placed and pitch those to the government, and then are also responsible for actually doing the work or at least supervising the work when they land a grant for trail building -- people at many small outfits are jacks-of-all-trades, doing all jobs at once.

I don't think that "it just so happens" that the responsibility lands on the academic faculty. The person who does the research knows and cares the most about it. Businesses can hire and train sales people, but developing a sales strategy that allows them to takes an enormous amount of work up front from those responsible for creating the product.

I think you're assumption that it's different in business is false. Getting a grant is a form of sales. The more complex the sale and the more sophisticated the audience, the greater the effort required to satisfy them.
What happens in business as well as academia is that very qualified people end up spending a lot of their time talking to customers, convincing others internally, or developing sales materials to allow it to be done by other employees. Like you said, the founders of a startup, who often know most about the product and business, focus primarily on raising money and hiring.
So, the academic question, is if you don't go off and convince people that you have great research, then who well? Who knows your research well and can explain to an audience and make them confident you can succeed? Of course, you can employ people to help you along the process, but you just can't outsource that.
The ultimate nerd dream is to go off in the corner and make cool stuff, but nobody will know about the value you produce.


text:
Noam Chomsky's first article (written at age 10)
There are numerous online references (for example here, here and here) to Noam Chomsky's first article, which was written at age 10 (in 1939) and was about the spread of Fascism following the fall of Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War.
Is the article itself available online?
(I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask; if not, any suggestions for a more appropriate place would be welcome.)

Why not ask him? He is pretty public.

You'll have more luck asking on the history stack, I think.  If you agree, flag your question and ask for migration, but read the history stack guidelines first.

tl;dr almost certainly not.
One of the references given in the Wikipedia article (Sperlich 2006,  available on the Internet Archive), states:

[p. 13] Aged ten he contributed an editorial article to his school newspaper concerning the spread of fascism. He still remembers the first sentence as something like 'Austria falls, Czechoslovakia falls, and now Barcelona falls.'

(emphasis added). This suggests

the venue was a school newspaper (not a published journal) (other sources mention the Oak Lane Country Day School, which was famous (closed in 2010) and which slightly increases the chance that archival material is available somewhere)
at the time of the interview (pre-2006), Chomsky apparently didn't have access to the article himself.

I agree that asking Chomsky himself is probably your best bet, or see if anyone in the Oak Lane Country Day School Facebook group has any leads.  Temple University has a digital archive collection from the school but it appears to be only photos (including one from 1940 that includes Chomsky). You could contact the Temple University Libraries’ Special Collections Research Center (scrc@temple.edu) ...

Wolfgang B. Sperlich. Noam Chomsky. Reaktion Books, 2006. http://archive.org/details/noamchomsky00sper.


text:
Where do we draw the line between suspicion, and evidence, of cheating on an exam?
Where do we draw the line between suspicion and evidence of cheating on an exam?
For example, on an online timed essay exam, in a student's essay, 99% of the sentences are identical to sentences found in an online essay (not written by the student). That's evidence of cheating, and warrants consequences, right? What if it's, say, 12%? That's (highly) suspicious, and does not warrant consequences, right? Where do we draw the line between suspicion, and evidence, of cheating?
I know there are academic honesty committees that are designated to deal with this question: so where do they draw the line?
I am looking for an answer that is:

justifiable
as non-subjective as possible
practical

This is a follow-up to Is it fair to have follow-up interviews after a test following suspicions of cheating?.

Would 12% (pick a number) be "highly suspicious" or just indicate the writer had a good memory for phrases and didn't try to reinvent the wheel during an exam ?  There's a difference between that and cheating.

@StephenG-HelpUkraine Yes, that is pretty much what I'm asking: how can we tell if it's cheating, or not cheating"?

@StephenG-HelpUkraine It's still plagiarism if they didn't cite the source of the sentence.

@chepner Depending on the field, certain sentences and phrases are used extremely frequently in literature. Fragments like "Thus we can say without loss of generality, that..." and "Flintstone and Rubble (300,000BC) claim that..." and "the Health Sciences Center at the University of Northern Iowa" can easily account for 12% of an article/essay.

Yes, but it's pretty easy to recognize those compared to more substantial copying.

Do you permit them to do "research" when writing an essay? Have you specifically taught them about plagiarism, what it is and what it isn't? Or is this an entrapment mechanism?

@chepner That's nonsensical.  It's an exam, and not writing a paper.  If I remember a paragraph-long definition from a textbook and render it exactly, word for word, in response to a test question, that's not plagiarism, that's "giving the right answer".

It's an essay exam; I hardly think you are expected to memorize and regurgitate long passages of text.

@chepner there is no plagiarism in an exam at least where I went to school.

Your school was lax on plagiarism, then.

There are basically three possible burdens of proof:

Preponderance of the evidence. This is what is used by the University of California. It needs to be "more likely than not" that the misconduct occurred.
Clear and convincing evidence. This is what is used by New Mexico State University. It needs to be reasonably clear that that the misconduct occurred -- i.e., not just more likely than not, but substantially likely.
Beyond any reasonable doubt. This is required for criminal convictions in the US, but from a quick search, I cannot find any universities that use this standard.

So, either of the first two seem to be justifiable. Personally, I prefer the second, but it probably varies by school; some schools have so much cheating that more drastic measures have to be taken.
The key point, though, is that the burden of proof and the investigation procedure is to be worked out in advance by the institution as a whole. In my answer to your linked post, I advised you against single-handedly inventing an investigatory procedure after an exam had taken place. My objection to your scheme was not that you were being "too unfair"; rather, my objection was that individual instructors should not be inventing schemes on-the-fly. Your institution's policies should provide guidelines for how to approach such cases. For example, under the University of California's guidelines, it looks like you would be allowed to subject your suspected cheaters to a technical interview, but you would have to offload your findings to a third-party committee for a determination of guilt, rather than playing judge and jury yourself.

I'd be curious the history of these choices.  'Preponderance of the evidence' is a frighteningly low standard for something that could destroy your future.

@Chuu I doubt they would directly take any actions that would be future-destroying to the student, if it's an “only probably cheated” case. This phrasing was likely chosen to make it clear that students can't automatically get away with cheating and pass based on the argument that there is a small probability that it could have happened by chance. At least in Europe this sort of thing would generally be handled in a way like, notification of student and examination offices followed by an extra oral exam, but nothing appears on any certificates about it (at least unless this happens again).

Actually, UCLA's policy (linked above) states that even in the most serious cases, the burden of proof is merely preponderance of the evidence. Naturally, the dean will use their discretion, but still. The "history" of this choice is probably from US Civil Law -- and it makes sense in that context, since the two parties in a civil case are on roughly equal footing (in theory). But cheating investigations are closer to a criminal matter than a civil one, so personally I feel that a higher standard of proof (such as clear and convincing evidence) is more appropriate.

More likely than not is quite ridiculous, actually. Just have ppl. literally dice roll (d6) their grades and arrest all of them for cheating as it was more likely not to roll that number.

@DonQuiKong Not at all. Preponderance of the evidence means whatever side has better evidence wins. Only when both sides come up with very nearly the same strength of evidence can you argue the luck of the draw occurred. If the evidence is 66/33, i.e. one side is twice as strong as the other side, you wouldn't call that luck. A conviction on 66/33 would only occur under "preponderance", it would be marginal under "clear and convincing", and nowhere close on "reasonable doubt"

Just to add another case: I know of a state-funded public university in the US with a policy where the student can't face any punishment (beyond being forced to re-take the exam) provided that they don't admit to cheating or self-incriminate themselves in any way during questioning. Which is to say: if they stick to their story and unwaveringly claim innocence until the end, then no amount of evidence against them will cut it. I would call that beyond the "beyond reasonable doubt" situation, even.

@user71659 it's a standard suitable for a dispute between equally equipped parties. But I stick with the opinion that proving I did not cheat but just got lucky is impossible and it would be more than unfair to call that cheating without anything more than 51% chance. Think about it - that student usually got bad grades and now had a good grade. That's unlikely. Can't prove you studied all night? Too bad, cheater.

@DonQuiKong It is unfortunate that the preponderance of the evidence standard is often described as "more likely than not", that is a completely incorrect summary of what the standard actually means. But you're right that if it really meant that, it would be ridiculous. For example, if there were a university where more people cheated than didn't, simply showing that statistic would be sufficient to prevail if the description as "more likely than not" were actually correct. See Smith v. Rapid Transit for more.

@DavidSchwartz The fact that it is more likely than not that a randomly selected student cheated does not imply that it is more likely than not a specifically selected student cheated.  I do not think that "more likely than not" is a completely incorrect summary, in fact those exact words are present on model jury instructions when it is the legal standard a defendant is being held to.

@Chuu Those words are present on model jury instructions because you've reached the step where the case goes to the jury and all the other components of the standard have been already applied. For example, the jury doesn't get to see whatever evidence one side might want them to see, even if it might affect the likelihood that an element is satisfied. And cases don't even go to juries unless there is already proof of every element, that is, evidence that (if believed by the jury) could make a reasonable person believe the fact is actually true, not just likely to be true.

@Chuu The classic example: A person is hit by a bus. All they know is that it was definitely a blue bus. They sue someone who operates 70% of the blue busses in the county. This does not prove that the defendant's bus hit the person by the preponderance of the evidence standard because it cannot possibly make someone believe that the defendant's bus did in fact hit the person regardless of how much they credit the evidence. This would never even get to a jury because there must be proof to subject to the preponderance standard so there's no input to produce output from.

This blue bus discussion is very interesting. As I understand it, suing the Blue Bus Company in this case is not manifestly wrong; this sort of circumstantial evidence is absolutely admissible. The problem is that 70% is not the final number. For example, there will be uncertainty about the victim's recollections / perceptions, and more because they couldn't produce the bus driver, passengers, camera footage, or any other evidence. After adding these factors, the probability is way lower than 70%, probably low enough that the judge would throw out the case altogether as you say.

If a professor strongly suspects a student of cheating but doesn't have solid proof, I think it's better to do more investigation and follow up instead of just reaching a "yes" or "no" conclusion:

The professor can set up a meeting and ask the student a few questions about the assignment. Like if it's an exam, to further explain some of their answers. If the student then has no idea what they wrote it is likely they are cheating. Downside: see the related post, Is it fair to have follow-up interviews after a test following suspicions of cheating?

When multiple students are suspected, some professors send out an email to elicit confessions: something along the lines of "we know that some of you have cheated. If you confess, you will get a 0 on this assignment, otherwise we will give you a 0 for the class". Downside: not all students who've cheated are known, not all will confess, and those who are unknown and haven't confessed will get away with it. IME a lot of students are well aware of this and won't take the bait

Personally I don't like those approaches. What I recommend is, if you strongly believe a student has cheated but don't have solid proof, let them get away with it, but ensure they are monitored much more closely next time. The reason being, students who cheat rarely only do so once, and if a student is cheating to keep up in your class, they likely won't keep up once the cheating is no longer possible. Especially if the assignment in question is not really important in the final grade. Downside: there's still the possibility that the student shapes up for future assignments and just gets away with it. But the fact you suspect cheating but can't confirm it means that, besides potentially prosecuting an innocent student, you don't have many good alternatives.

I very strongly advise against "sending out emails to elicit confessions" as laid out above: It punishes the honest ones, rewards the dishonest and undermindes any future action you take. Student A who has cheated confesses and gets a 0, while Student B who also cheated but does not confess receives full grades. You made being honest a bad choice furthermore, students might "compare notes" and notice the pattern and thus your bluff - and thus be even less inclined to be honest in the future.

I do not think the situation in the first bullet is the same as in the linked question, because in the linked question the professor wants to test the students on just any material related to the course, in contrast with just ask them to explain their test answer.

@tarzh, Your answer mixes good and bad advice (even you yourself say that you don't like half of what you suggest here). For a more useful answer, I suggest that you either delete the parts that you don't like (and probably many voters don't like either), or if you want to leave it, then split this answer into two answers: with one answer only having the parts that you like (and that would probably get more upvotes). You are allowed to give more than one answer to the same question.


text:
What does Theoretical or Conceptual underpinning mean?
I have an assignment to write a Term Paper, and in developing the Title for it, there are guidelines to follow. One of the guidelines read:

Are there theoretical and conceptual underpinnings involved? If so what would their functions be in the review.

What does Theoretical and Conceptual underpinning mean?

Imagine writing about a new kind of car engine. You might describe the mechanics, the company financing, the energy efficiency. The "theoretical underpinnings" in this case might be the physics of the special metals used or the chemistry of the new kind of fuel.
If you were writing about an advance in AI you might describe the problems it's good for, the history of the development, the amount of computer power and memory needed. The "theoretical underpinnings" would be the mathematics behind the algorithms, perhaps the software engineering methods needed to build it.


text:
How do I defend myself from leaving one graduate program for another
I'm a student applying for the 2023 fall Ph.D. program.
While doing my master's degree in 2022, I transferred to A University from B University.
The reason was that I wanted to learn both bioinformatics and biological experiments
when I was applying to graduate schools for a master's degree.
The previous PI at B University told me he is doing both in his lab, so I decided to get in.
However, it turned out that the main focus in his lab was something else, which is different from bioinformatics.
Also, I was able to learn only basic experimental skills, such as cell subculture and transfection. I decided to move to A University where I can learn advanced experiments and corroborate with bioinformaticians at other universities.
Now I'm worried about that the admission reviewers would consider it a bad decision, thinking 'this student will easily quit the Ph.D. program if he is not satisfied'. What words should I use when I defend myself from this situation?

You are far from the first person to transfer, particularly in the Covid years. Not clear that you would need to ‘defend’ yourself. If asked, explaining that A offered greater exposure to bioinformatics seems reasonable.

There is no "defense" necessary. What you have done is reasonable and reasonable people will accept it. Moreover, you haven't quit a program, just moved to another that better met your needs.
But if you are careful in selecting a doctoral program then the same situation is unlikely to recur. There is nothing wrong with high standards, nor a clear view of your future.
In a way you may have been misled at the first place. "We do both" doesn't mean that "We focus on both", of course.
What you write here is all you should need if asked about the switch. Good luck.