text:
What name should I give to be acknowledged in a paper?
I am a first year PhD student and I was recently working on reproducing some results from a paper which is still being reviewed. In the process I noted a number of issues with the paper which should be clarified or fixed. I have been asked how I would like my name to appear in the acknowledgements. My full legal name is Kristian Tyn-Kai Chung, but I do not ever use the name Kristian, I have always gone by Kai to everyone I know besides by mother and grandmother who call me Kristian (with a Norwegian pronounciation). Should I use my full name? First and last? Should I use Kai? Any suggestions appreciated.

If you have already published papers, then use the same name as on your papers.
If you haven't, then now is a good time to decide what you want your "professional name" to be.  There's no particular need for it to match your legal name.  You might just think about what you want people to call you in academic or professional situations.  (And if it's a common name, you may want to choose a more unique variant; e.g. including a middle name or initial.)
But if possible, choose something that you think you'll be comfortable using for the rest of your career. It's awkward to change your professional name, because you can't go back and change your name on papers you've already published, and people will have  a hard time connecting the work you've done under the two names.
(This matters less for an acknowledgment, though, since it's not really that important for people to know that it's the same person as on your later papers.  So you don't actually have to worry about it too much right now.  But it's a decision you'll have to make eventually; might as well do it now if you're ready.)

And since it’s just an acknowledgement, it’s not really binding anyway.

I have published a paper under the name Kristian Chung (I didn't think about it too much at the time and I wasn't the one who wrote my name on the paper), so I suppose I'm stuck with that.

I've seen others who go by their middle name publish under the form "F. Middle Last". You could choose to publish as K. Kai Chung, or K. T.-Kai Chung or some other variant. It shouldn't be confusing to readers if you change your publishing name now, as long as the change from your first paper is relatively small and you last name is unchanged.

@Kai: No, you're not stuck with that name. One minor paper as an undergraduate does not lock you into a name for your career—particularly if it's not in an area you're going to pursue later on. But once you start to publish regularly, you'll want to decide on something and stick with it.

Let me reinforce the comments to the effect that you're not stuck with the form of your name that you used on one paper. A few of my earliest papers have my name in the form "A. R. Blass", because they were joint papers with a teacher who always used the analogous form for his name. But apart from those few papers, I've used "Andreas Blass" on my publications.

Thanks, that makes sense, it was the end result of my master's thesis and I have changed fields now.

Also note that it should be convenient for English naming conventions: nobody understands that in Spain there are two family names.

choose a name, and register an ORCID for it... https://orcid.org/


text:
Possible reasons for second meeting after a postdoc interview
After having conducted interviews for a postdoc position, what could be the reasons for which the academic researcher involved in the hiring process would ask for a second meeting with an applicant? The applicant was not informed during their first interview about the possibility of a second meeting.

"The applicant was not informed during their first interview about the possibility" are you 100% sure? did they not mention "you may meet person X" or similar phrases? maybe they were ambiguous in the formulation... however, you can still be optimist. They would not invite you again to say to you "your profile does not match"

Have you considered asking them?  Something like "is a second I review routine for postdoc positions?" would work fine.

In addition to the answer by @ThomasSchwarz, this scenario can sometimes arise if the outcome of the interview is more complex than a straight "yes, you've got the job" or "thanks, but no thanks".
Examples might be:

"You are our first-choice candidate but our HR department has frozen the hiring process due to internal issues, and so we don't know when we'll be able to give you a final answer."
"You didn't get the job you applied for but would you be interested in this other position?"

If you were invited for a second interview, you are still in the running for the job, but not yet selected.
A likely scenario is that the interviewer decided that (s)he could not make up their mind after the first round of interviews or that the academic researcher on looking back at the interviews decided that information was lacking.
Ultimately, only the ones conducting the search can give you the reason.

I understand that the hiring committee can tell the real reason. But as they did not mention any reason when asking for the second meeting, it seems kind of inappropriate to ask for it. If they wanted to reveal the reason, they would have done it when asking the applicant for the second meeting.

@vyali - if you feel the request is inappropriate you can turn it down. That choice of course has ramifications. “I’d like to talk some more” is a reason though.

@vyali I think your reaction might be unnecessarily sensitive. Hiring decisions have far-reaching consequences, in academia even more than in industry, since positions are usually bound to specific projects. If one meeting wasn't enough for them to come to a conclusion, that's completely reasonable and understandable, and they don't need to cite particular reasons for an invitation to a second one.

@lighthousekeeper What reaction are you talking of? The only reaction I gave to the interviewer on being asked for a second meeting was to agree to it. As I'm curious to know what the second meeting could be about, I asked about it here.

I think they are talking about the comment where you said it "seems kind of inappropriate"

@Dawn It seems like that comment was misinterpreted. What I was trying to say was that as the interviewer did not specify the reason for the second meeting, (which they could have done if they wanted to), it seems kind of inappropriate for the job applicant to ask the interviewer for the reason.
I re-read my first comment on this thread. I can now see how it could have been misunderstood. Unfortunately I can't edit it now. So clarifying in this comment.

@vyali I don't mean your reaction the interviewer, but your assessment of the situation as inappropriate (usually that is an emotional reaction, but I, in fact, want to question the factual assessment that leads to this emotional reaction).

@lighthousekeeper based on the clarification above that was a misinterpretation. There is no assessment that the second interview request is inappropriate.

@Dawn and vyali Ah, I now understand, thanks for clarifying. Sorry!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Questions asked in Postdoc Interviews
Generally what kind of questions are asked in a postdoc interview, especially in the area of theoretical physics?

I would ask: Please explain what you did in our PhD. What were the major findings?

Why did you choose this subject?

Voted to close because there's no general rule. Usually there's a mix of "soft" questions (e.g. tell me about a time you overcame a problem, describe how you work in a team etc) and technical discussion related to the project or your own work.

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


text:
International Recognition of MMath degree
I am currently weighing two options for my undergraduate study in mathematics, the University of Oxford and ETH Zurich. In Zurich, I would be graduating after three years with an Bsc., at Oxford I would have the opportunity to graduate in four with an integrated Masters, an MMath.
I have however heard that some European universities (e.g. Bonn) do not consider an MMath sufficient qualification for beginning a PhD in mathematics and require students complete their own Msc. before beginning their dissertation.
Since I am keen to continue in the world of research and obtain a PhD, and many of my friends have recommended ETH to me for PhDs, would obtaining an MMath degree bar me from directly beginning a doctorate?
Is it considered to be equivalent to an Masters degree in Europe?

If I were you, I would choose based on more immediate concerns such as content and rigor of the courses, cost of living etc. It might also be worth contacting someone in the maths department at Oxford to ask if they regularly send people to the EU/Europe for PhDs after the course, or if a second Master's is a more common destination.

@user438383 I should have specified my question. I am German myself and am focusing on Switzerland and Germany.

I strongly suspect that the problem is not about the MMath specifically. In Germany, getting a BSc + MSc would take 3 + 2 years, while in the UK it is only 3 + 1 years. It will vary from university to university how much of a problem this is for PhD admissions - the more the box tickers are in charge, the more complicated it is going to me. However, at any place where admission decisions are made on individual merits, an MMath from Oxford should be a very decent qualification for starting a PhD.


text:
Trimming my CV; or, what is appropriate to have in a CV at a given career stage
I've been more or less adding material to my CV since I started it while in grad school.  As I am now a much more senior person, I am starting to feel it is a bit cluttered and perhaps larded up with inane facts about my (academic) life.  For instance does it really make sense to continue to include a prize I won as an undergraduate fifteen years ago?  Did it ever?
I'm curious what people think is an appropriate amount of information to include at each career stage: PhD student, Post-doc, Tenure-track, Tenured or if it doesn't make a difference.
I'm in math if people think the subject area matters.

I keep everything on my CV and then trim it down before sending it off to someplace. Funders, hiring committees, and tenure/promotion committees are all looking for different things.

As has been suggested above, keep one version of your CV which is complete with everything you've ever done, and then trim it down as needed for a particular purpose.  I keep my CV up-to-date with lists of publications, conference presentations, grants, courses taught, graduate students supervised, committees served on, etc.  It's a very long document, but its easy to cut/paste what I need in various situations.

You'll rarely be faulted for having too much in you CV, awards included. Very senior academics will sometimes trim off things that's seem inconsequential in retrospect, but the cutoff is often undergrad (i.e., graduate school accomplishments, however small, are often included). Sometimes even these are omitted, but it's not necessary. It's your record of accomplishments -- be proud.

Depends on the context. Sometimes a shorter CV is better, because it conveys your point more quickly (that you are good). Full professors usually have a "full CV" that is several pages long. The people I've seen usually send a short tailored CV unless a full is asked.

Sure, there's a place for a full and abridged.  I was assuming the 'full' version.

Yes, but that is kind of the point. "CV" defaults to full CV for "entry level" scholars, but usually to short version for more experienced ones. But where are the lines ? (that's the OP question in my view)

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


text:
Giving tenure if you know the faculty member is leaving
We had a tenure track professor announce she was leaving at the start of the academic year. Documented in faculty meeting minutes. Job posting appeared shortly thereafter. Candidates brought in and offers were made. This person was up for tenure. The committee voted no for tenure since she was leaving. Is the committee in error here?

My department has written guidelines for tenure and promotion, and it would go against them to vote no for a candidate who had otherwise earned tenure.

They may vote "no" on someone who has not submitted the necessary documentation for her tenure case.

Is the committee in error here? — There is absolutely no way to answer this question without the professor's tenure package, which we don't have.

@GEdgar At my university, if a candidate didn't submit the necessary documentation for a tenure case, there would be no vote at all.  "The committee voted no" suggests that the documentation was submitted.

I don't think there's enough information in the question to answer it.  How do you know why the committee voted no?  You haven't told us how you know in the question, or whether this is something you know for sure or are merely assuming.  Also, you haven't told us whether the individual submitted the material for being considered for tenure, or what the written guidelines for tenure and promotion say.  I encourage you to edit the question to provide this information and context.

Usually people leave before they are up for tenure when they think the answer won't be a good one. A tenure package that doesn't get you tenure at Princeton might get you tenure no-questions-asked at state school. If you make that move as fast as possible, everything you have in the pipeline can be attributed to your new institution and help with promotion there, rather than throwing your output down a poisoned well. During my time at Mid-Ivy university tenure candidate A (best candidate) was denied, future tenure candidates B and C (weaker candidates) promptly left as soon as they lined up offers elsewhere.
Is the committee at error here? Ethically if they have submitted their package, I suppose it "should" be evaluated without respect to what the candidate does afterwards. However in the real world any offer of tenure or permanency is only provided at a cost of significant intraorganizational capital all the way up to dean & potentially president level and is only offered when the expected returns on such investment are likely.
At my previous job my colleague was up for a permanent scientific position in government and had completed his entire package when he started having stomach pains. Turns out he had stage 4 cancer, and the division did not put forth his package. We all donated our sick leave to him so he could keep his salary and insurance. When I resigned I brought up that he was not put up for the permanent position he had worked over a 6-7 year period to attain and my director said "well, when he beats the stage 4 cancer and can come back to work we will put his package forward" (paraphrasing). While extremely cold, I took it to mean that he would not create a permanent position for a terminally ill employee because then he wouldn't have the capital later on to get another one. So certainly if someone is unlikely to accept the offer of tenure the tenure process would not continue. For example, try interviewing for a job and then telling the hiring manager that you were going to take an offer elsewhere. Do you think you would still get a formal offer from this hiring manager?

That whole cancer situation sounds like it's illegal discrimination, at least by US standards.

I agree but what are you going to do about it

@zibadawa timmy If he is on permanent sick leave until either cured or dead, then it makes sense to not promote him until more information is found especially if the timeline is months or weeks.

The committee voted no for tenure since she was leaving. Is the committee in error here?

Whether it was "in error" or not clearly depends on your tenure regulations. They probably don't cover this case explicitly, but some do give committee members a fair amount of freedom to say "no" if they for some reason think that granting tenure to the applicant would be detrimental to the department.
However, more importantly, I wonder why the committee made this decision, and why it matters. Was the committee, or individual members, annoyed by the applicant leaving? Was it perceived as a pointless hassle to give tenure at this point? Maybe the decision wasn't even voted on but thrown out on formal grounds (my university would not allow somebody to go up for promotion who has handed in his resignation)?
Why does the decision matter to the applicant at this point? Would they have received faster promotion in their new place if they formally joined as associate professor? If so, was the committee made aware of this in time? It would be unfortunate if the applicant hoped to leave with tenure and the only reason why the committee threw out the case was because they falsely assumed it wouldn't matter anymore anyway.
All things considered, it's certainly possible that the committee purposefully decided to throw some sticks into the applicant's new career path, but honestly, some sort of miscommunication is probably more likely.

We don't even know if this person submitted a final tenure packet to their committee.  If they didn't, then the local rules might require them to deny tenure.

TL;DR: I cannot say anything conclusively. But if I assume the premise of your question in its most literal form ("The committee voted no for tenure since she was leaving"), then the possible explanations I can think of are that either the committee was in error, or they acted out of malice and/or vengefulness, or they were simply acting in accordance with the procedures of the institution where this took place.

Detailed answer: the question is missing many details about the situation, so I can only give a rather conditional and speculative answer, but as a general rule, a tenure vote should be based on the tenure candidate's achievements alone and on nothing else. To the extent that any committee member voted no because the faculty member would be leaving, I would regard such a vote as likely indication of either malice, or incompetence, or both. Calling it "in error" sounds about right.
With that said, there are other possible interpretations for what took place, which are not necessarily inconsistent with the details you included in your question, namely:

It is possible that the committee members who voted no had a sincerely held belief that the faculty member has not earned the tenure on the merits of her actual work, and that this had nothing to do with her announcing her departure.
It is possible that the "no" vote was a formality and meant to indicate that given the faculty member's announced departure, there is no reason to proceed further with her tenure review. The vote might still have been necessary according to the institution's policies, so people voted no to put the case to a formal rest. If this is the institution's tradition of how to handle such bizarre situations, then it may not be an indication of malice or any sort of error. (Note that I am referring to the situation as bizarre because that's how it seems to me; normally, if a faculty member is formally announcing their upcoming departure then only an institution with rather bizarre procedures would proceed with a tenure review for that faculty member when the outcome of that review is for all practical purposes meaningless.)

Yes, it is possible (in the U.S.) that a "no" vote from the committee (not the faculty) is not a "denial" of tenure, but just a vote to not proceed with a faculty vote about it. So, procedurally, it is possible that it is correct.

Unless you were on the committee, you have no way (or at least shouldn't have any way) to know why they voted no, so there's no way to evaluate if they made a mistake or not.
If there is a mistake to point out, it would be by the faculty member, or perhaps the chair, letting the matter get to the tenure committee at all, knowing that the faculty member was leaving.  I would think that from the faculty member's point of view,  a negative decision is worse than the issue never coming up for vote.

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


text:
Where can I find the editors of Machine Learning conferences proceedings?
I am in the process of publishing an article in a journal. The editorial team is asking me to add editors to many references coming from the proceedings of conferences such as AISTATS, MICCAI, ICLR, NeurIPS, etc.
I wrote the references following the pattern illustrated on their website:
AuthorA, A., AuthorB, B. & AuthorC, C. Title. In Proc. nth Conference of Something VOLUME, startpage–endpage (Publisher, YEAR)

How can I find the relevant editors they ask for ? Is there a correspondence between General Chairs and editors ? Does it even make sense for proceedings ? What can I answer the editorial team ?

I realize this is a non-answer, but I just Googled AISTATS and found the editors of the proceedings pretty quickly. YMMV for the other ones.  It does seem odd to request both the authors of the papers AND the editors of the proceedings, though the IEEE reference style guide does have a variant that includes them. Look for "Conference Proceedings With Editors".

@PeterK thank for your answer ! Just found this as well which might answer the question https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/31716/is-it-possible-to-reliably-find-editorial-board-for-the-conference-proceedings


text:
I plagiarized in my Bachelor's thesis, and after a year,went back and redid it unofficially. Should I push for some official action?
My supervisor does not want to push this further and take official action since this was a lone incident and I had health issues at that point. However, since I am not getting closure, I do not feel like I have a go-ahead to re-apply to universities. I feel that future advisers/people I write to for grad school should be aware of this but do not know how to bring it up, since there's no official record of this. By plagiarized, I do mean that there's no question/argument about it, there's some straight up copy-paste. I have reworked it now, but feel like I have put an end to further education for myself. I also turned down some grad school admits (this + monetary issues). Any advice/clarity would be appreciated.

Please don’t write answers in comments. It bypasses our quality measures by not having voting (both up and down) available on comments, as well as having other problems. Comments are for clarifying and improving the question; please don’t use them for other purposes.

Can you tell us more about why you think further advisors should know about it?

I wonder what is your REAL question. It seems you have several unresolved issues about academic career, and instead of making a decision of committing yourself fully or choosing another career, you want to put this decision to others and want potential supervisors to reject you based on this incident. If I misjudged you, then you should explain what do you actually want to achieve, why do you want to tell people you are ethically not suitable for this career when you apply to them.

@Greg Guilt's a hell of a thing. Especially if you've got the impression that only the pure and honorable deserve anything good, and everyone else should be punished.

@ff524 question if possed in the way that only Yes or No is applicable as answer

If you had an STD you wouldn't go telling every random person you met ... honestly, they dont want to know.  This isnt to say that you should lie about it if questioned, however, you may want to consider better life choices in the future.

@Greg I would doubt whether I want to invest years in an academic career as well if I had to live with the possibility that it all comes shattering down because someone reads my bachelor thesis and there has never been an official inquiry about it. I see no need to second-guess OP's intentions in asking this question.

No. You should not push for further action. The university holds the authority to determine whether or not to take disciplinary action with respect to violations of its own policy. As far as the university is concerned, the matter has already been settled. Personal closure is a separate matter that neither your university nor another university can provide for you. Accept and appreciate your advisor's kind judgement, learn from your mistake, and keep moving forward.
In general, you should not deliberately call attention to this when applying or interviewing for graduate school. It is normal and expected for applicants to 'put their best foot forward'. Disclosure is fine, if asked or if it would contribute something constructive to the interaction. Most of the time,  bringing it up is likely to distract from more important topics, such as what you hope to get out of the program, how you expect to contribute, and so on.


text:
Conference proceeding in a regular issue of a journal (pros and cons)
I am a graduate student considering submitting a paper either to Bioinformatics as a typical refereed journal article or to Bioinformatics as a refereed conference proceeding. A webpage providing information about submitting as a refereed conference proceeding (https://www.iscb.org/ismb2018-submit/proceedings) states the following:
"Accepted papers will be published as conference proceedings in an open access, online-only, section of a regular issue of the Bioinformatics journal with an electronic version distributed to conference delegates. The proceedings will be available online approximately one month prior to the conference opening."
and
"Publication of the proceedings as an online part of the Bioinformatics journal will result in fully citable articles, indexed by Medline and ISI. See the conference proceedings for https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/33/14/i1/3953992 for an example of online-only publication by Oxford University Press."
As a graduate student preparing for a career in academia, I am unsure whether I should submit my work as a typical refereed journal article or a refereed conference proceeding. I generally feel that conference proceedings have less impact, but in this case, I would also be able to present my work orally at the conference.
Moreover, I am unsure how I would handle such a conference proceeding publication on my CV in an honest manner. Could it still be included as a "refereed journal article" on my CV or would it need to go as something else like a "refereed conference proceeding". I am unclear as the statement "Accepted papers will be published as conference proceedings in an open access, online-only, section of a regular issue of the Bioinformatics journal" seems to imply it can be considered a regular refereed journal article.
I would be grateful to hear any advice on this subject matter!

After the passage you quote it says

ISMB 2018 provides authors of accepted papers an oral presentation to provide an oral summary of their work. All presentations should be no longer than 20 minutes including 3-4 minutes for discussion.

It seems like this organization has both a regular journal and a conference. If you submit as a journal article it would be a peer-reviewed journal article. If you submit as a conference paper it would be a peer-reviewed conference presentation.
In my field (computer science) these would likely be viewed as being the same in terms of prestige, but this is not true in most fields. Your advisor would be a good resource for feeling out how people in your field view conference papers vs journal papers.

In my field is often possible to do both. The publication shouldn't be right replica of course. It can be not straightforward but timing of events and content of the papers make it possible.  Sometimes I skip proceedings. It should be field independent otherwise conference would be deserted.


text:
Manually adding citation of my work on Google Scholar
I recently noticed that my work was cited in a working paper uploaded to arXiv about five months ago. However, the citation format is incorrect (wrong year, missing repository), and it has not been reflected in my Google Scholar citation count.
I have already contacted the authors of the arXiv paper to request a correction in their next version. In the meantime, I am wondering if it is possible to manually add this citation to my Google Scholar count.


text:
Uploading the same working paper again after some years
In 2022, I uploaded a working paper to my university's working paper series. Since then, my experience has been somewhat unsatisfactory. Each time I needed to update the paper (which happened a couple of times), it took several weeks just to receive a response from those managing the series. Additionally, I feel that this platform offers less visibility compared to arXiv.
Now, in 2024, I have revised the paper and would like to upload the new version on arXiv. This would offer several advantages: (i) better control over updates, (ii) increased visibility, and (iii) easier citation and discoverability through platforms like Google Scholar.
My concern, however, is that arXiv will label the paper as "Author (2024)," whereas the correct citation should remain "Author (2022)." Could this affect citations? According to this post, Google Scholar may recognize it as a version of the original paper, not a new one. Still, I am worried that people who find the paper directly on arXiv might have difficulty realizing it is an updated version of the 2022 paper.

Wouldn’t your new version cite the previous working version?

@Aruralreader as far as I know, in my field (economics/econometrics) this is not common. New versions of the same paper replace older versions. I am aware of a couple of exceptions, but in that case the authorship changed (a new author was added). Also, how would I list the two versions in my cv? They share the same title and most (about 90%) of the contribution.

Do you mean for the purposes of the BibTeX citation generated by arXiv, for people manually citing the preprint, or for the purposes of Google Scholar?

I guess all of them. Releasing the new version as a new paper could also be seen as an attempt to boost my citation count in my field.

You can use the "comment" field in the arXiv submission process to say that this is a revision of the earlier version, and to say where the earlier version can be found.  You can also put this information in the paper itself, perhaps as a footnote.

I did not know that, that is a great suggestion! Thanks.

@AndreasBlass that should have been an answer :)

@Aruralreader, no need to cite as long as one replace the old version by a new version in arxiv because the identification number remains same. I have several versions of my articles in arxiv. One may add a comment in the the comment section. If one submit comparably major revision of some previous version in a "new identification number" or number then citation is required, otherwise not

@Learner yes but in my case the older version is not on arXiv, so the identification number would be "new."


text:
I am currently in a provisionally accepted school, can it still lose accreditation? And will that will affect my practicing as a PA?
Do I stay in this program, we are getting a new faculty & director. I already completed 5 months of the program & invested money. Do I transfer out to another PA program that is established? More time and money.

Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.

What does the institution say? Are they currently accredited, seeking accreditation, or recently removed from accreditation? What, specifically, is required in your field?

We currently have provisional accreditation until the first cohort sits for the PANCE and takes the boards. If they do close down for some reason, we have to get dispersed to another program because of the standards ARC has in place

I am deciding whether I should just stay at the program I started with all though there is a lot of uncertainty with the new faculty & im scared I won’t get the quality education I need. Or to move to the new program, but having to restart, longer commute, and an extra year.

It sounds like you have the information you need to make a decision; we can't really make it for you.

At a minimum you need a sense of how committed the institution is to getting the program accredited. They are (or should be) well aware of the stakes not just for them but for their current and all future students .Normally there should be some evidence of starting up the program being a major, well funded initiative. Were most of the new faculty experienced hires from other accredited programs?


text:
Former colleagues listed me as a coauthor on a paper without consulting me. Should I make an issue of it, or let it go?
Google Scholar notified me this morning that I had a new paper in my profile, which I was not expecting. The work in question was published by a collection of former colleagues and regards work done a few years ago.  I participated in the early stages of the work, but I have no recollection of having seen the manuscript before it was submitted or at any time during the revision process.
Additional relevant facts:

The journal shows the paper as having been submitted over two years ago, when I was still working for the research group the authors belong to.  Two years is a long time, and I no longer have access to my email from that institution.  So, if I pursue the matter the first step is obviously to ask the corresponding author if they have any record of my having approved the manuscript before submission.  Note, however, that the paper has a contributor roles taxonomy (CRediT) statement, and I am not listed as having any writing, review, or editing role, which would be highly irregular if I had agreed to be on the paper.

I left the group over a year ago due to a hostile and abusive work environment created largely by some, but not all, of the authors on the paper.  At the time, I informed them and the management of the host institution that I did not wish to be included on any further papers coming from that research group.

A few months ago I received an enquiry about a paper that in retrospect must have been this one.  The enquiry was from a colleague that I have remained on good terms with (and who isn't one of the authors of the paper).  They informed me that some former coworkers were revising a paper that I was a coauthor on and wanted to know what my current affiliation was.  I reiterated my request not to appear on any further papers from the group (the go-between did not mention that the paper had been submitted before I left).  I also reminded them that listing someone as a coauthor without their approval is highly unethical.

The journal shows the paper as having been revised and accepted earlier this month.  My name appears with my new institutional affiliation, which suggests to me that they were aware of my conversation with the go-between, though they could have tracked it down from other publications.

I am torn on whether I should try to get this rectified.  On the one hand, making someone a coauthor without their approval is not ok, and the group shouldn't be allowed to get away with such cavalier disregard for the rules.  On the other hand, having my name on the paper isn't really causing me any material harm, and making an issue of it will likely dredge up old animosities that, frankly, took a long time to properly bury, so maybe it's best to drop it.
With all of this in mind, my question is, should I pursue this matter, or just let it go.  If the former, how should I go about it (assuming I don't get a satisfactory response from the corresponding author)?  If the latter, is there any potential for harm (i.e., from having my name on the paper) that I'm not seeing?

Assuming the paper looks fine, and given that you were, in fact, a contributor, would you rather be (ethically) right and fight incorrect process, or at peace and keep what was in the past, in the past, while focusing on your current life and career?

It's inappropriate to put you on the paper if you wish to be off it. Maybe the authors feared to be even more inappropriate to leave you off, but didn't want to kill the paper (which, strictly spoken, they would have had to do if you refuse to be an author but substantially contributed to it). A dilemma. Unless the quality of the paper is substandard, you disagree with the conclusions or you really didn't contribute at all (but why would they add you then), you might let it slide. If you hate the authors, it means you do not want to work with them in the future. But this work is done.

@gnometorule Well, if I had a firm answer to that, I wouldn't have had to ask the question. You are, of course, right that fighting over this would cost time and aggravation and gain me nothing directly, but then again what good are ethics and norms if we don't enforce them? We know from behavioral economics that people do sometimes incur tangible costs to enforce norms, and if you've ever been in such a situation it's easy to see why.  There is something deeply distasteful about watching somebody behaving unethically and just getting away with it.

It is possible that the paper can only be published ethically with you as author. This would depend on whether you made clear intellectual contributions to it.
I suggest that you first get a copy of the paper and look for your own contributions. I suspect you may find them. If you do, I'd let it go, even though you don't want to be associated with them anymore.
It would seem odd if they gave you "gift authorship" under these circumstances.
Of course, if you think the paper itself does harm then you need to disassociate yourself from it and you can object to its publication under the circumstances you list.

Thanks for your perspective. It's a little ironic, this coming up now, after we butted heads over almost this very topic a couple weeks ago. (FWIW, the conversation with the go-between was a big part of what I had in mind when I was arguing with you then.) I think you're right about letting it go. I skimmed the paper, and it's fine. Not very good, IMO, but nothing obviously wrong. They used an algorithm that I developed. The worst I can say about it is that they didn't cite the paper that inspired the algorithm, but the algorithm wasn't directly based on the other paper; it was more like ...

... "That's an interesting approach, but I don't think it's quite right.  Here's how I would do it instead."

I would first read the paper. If it is a reasonable paper and you would be happy to be a co-author on the paper then it might be easier in your situation to let it go. I wouldn't normally suggest that, but sometimes it's better to take to the easy path (if it's not causing you harm).
If you think it's a bad paper and you would not have approved it, had you been asked, then I would first contact the other authors. If they refuse to help or explain the situation (maybe they thought you had agreed), then contact the journal. At the end of the day only the journal can actually remove your name, but asking the author's first gives them a chance to explain any possible misunderstandings


text:
Advice on adding user stories to Masters thesis
For my masters project I utilized user stories as a means of requirements gathering. I have roughly 100 of these along with the acceptance tests to go with them.
I'm currently writing my thesis and detailing the methods I used to gather these requirements. My question is: Do I include these user stories as figures in text or add them to my appendices, or not at all?

I don't like including large amounts of "raw" data in a thesis, paper, or any other printed medium, because it does not contribute to the main text, and if you've already summarized the essential data in the thesis, then you don't need to explicitly include the data.
That said, you do want to make the data available in some medium. Perhaps you can make it available as an online repository (perhaps your school allows for "attachments" or "supporting information" to be included with your thesis. You could then scan the surveys (or bundle them up into a single file if they were generated electronically, etc.) and post them somewhere that readers can access.

Yeah I like this. Perhaps give one example in text with explanation and then direct the reader to the repository where they are all available?

To add a little bit to the nice answer of @aeismail:
In general, they should be included and referenced somehow. My general guideline to a thesis is: I want to giv the thesis to the next person working on the project and it should contain all relevant information to a) understand and reproduce all design decisions and b) proceed from that. This would include all data gathered.
In your main text, you should give one or two illustrative examples of how your user stroies look like and how they are used.
A 100 page appendix would be overwhelming. If you can consense them to ~20-30 pages (which I would not assume), you could consider them as appendix.
In my university, we usually require a CD in each thesis containing the thesis as pdf plus all source code, executable files, data used etc. This would be a perfect place for the user stories. You can reference the CD in your text.

Yeah well to be fair I could comfortably get four to a page. So that is possible.


text:
How long should I wait before accepting a PhD admission offer in the US?
I have been offered admission in a top-25 university, and a RA position in a lab that works on my area of interest. I am pretty happy with this offer and I would feel comfortable accepting it. However, I still have not heard back from some top-10 institutions.
I am concerned that the professor might feel upset if I take too long to answer the offer. What should I do?
I should mention that I am an international student applying to Engineering PhD's.

Contact any place that you might potentially prefer to the current offer. Tell them you have an offer and ask for the status of your application.

The phrase " a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" comes to mind...

You should ask both institutions.
Some institutions will fast-track deciding on if they’ll accept you if you tell them you have an outstanding offer. By contacting the outstanding offers, you can probably find out sooner.
Additionally, you should contact the department that made you an offer and tell them that you’re interested and honored by their offer, but have some outstanding applications and ask when they want you to get back to them by.
EDIT: I completely missed that the title says “in the US.” As the other excellent answers have stated, you very likely have until April 15th or later to make a decision. A large number of universities (see the 2014 list here) have agreed to give all students at least that long to decide to respond.
It is worth noting that the April 15th Resolution applies to offers of payment and funding, not acceptance. However, since in the US virtually all engineering PhDs are funded, it de facto applies to admissions as well. If you were applying for an unfounded masters program, it wouldn’t apply.
Some schools give longer than April 15th to decide, while others will pressure you to accept on the 15th or soon after. So for now, I would advise you to wait. If in early April you still haven’t heard back from a school you really want to go to, I would advise you to contact them as I said at the beginning.

OP also mentions receiving an RA (research assistantship), so this is an offer of funding and the April 15 resolution definitely applies.

Following on Weiwen Ng's answer:
Your offer should have stated a deadline to reply.  That deadline is almost certainly April 15.  You're under no obligation to reply earlier, and should not feel pressured to do so.  Nobody is expecting to hear from you before that.  Neither the professor nor anyone else will be upset if you wait until the deadline.
Take as much time as you need, up until the deadline.
Stella Biderman's answer is good advice for most job search-type situations, but in view of the April 15 Resolution, I don't think it's quite relevant here.  There isn't much point in contacting other schools to let them know of the offer in hopes of them speeding up their process, because they know you have until April 15 anyway, and they are certainly planning to send out their acceptances well before that date.

Thanks for pointing out about the April 15 resolution. I missed the fact that the title of the OP says “US” and have amended my answer.

In my field (public health), they gave us a deadline of April 15 to respond to offers. It seemed like it was perfectly acceptable to respond on that day. (And yes, I am in the US.)
A funny story: one of the universities I applied to only accepted 4 students a year, and it invited about 10 students to go interview. I figured out, after a while of not hearing back, that I was on their wait list. I had got an excellent offer from another university, and at some point in late March, I decided that further information would not change my decision, so I accepted that offer and sent my regrets to two other programs that had offered me admission. I forgot to do so to university number 1, and on April 15 I got a call from them.
As I said, I determined that further information would probably not change my decision, so I am fine, but that serves as evidence for paragraph 1.

The April 15 resolution is widely observed by US institutions, and represents a commitment not to require or pressure applicants to respond before April 15.  I would be pretty surprised if there is a "top 25" university that hasn't signed on.

Thanks for pointing out the April 15 resolution. I missed that the OP had specified the US in the title.


text:
Google scholar citation and title issues
First question: I have an important article on arXiv and I updated its title in the 2nd version. But after that Google never updated the article title and I know people are citing my 2nd version and because of this issue with Google citations are not visible. How can I force Google scholar to refresh my article list and update any possible change/citation?
Second question: I cited a previous work of mine in an article that is already published and Google detected it but Google didn't catch the citation. How can I make Google scholar to catch the citation?

Contact Google Scholar : they must have a help desk, we are not it...

Answer to your first question: you want to import your second version (which Scholar considers as a different paper), and then merge it with the first one.
To import the second version, on your profile page click on the squared + in the line just above your list of publications, then the new title in the search bar should get you the paper.
Once imported, tick the first and second version, and click on "merge".

I already tried it, but I couldn't find the second version of my article.

Ok, it is difficult to tell what is happening. I can suggest a hack: put the second version on another archive (e.g. Zenodo, you can do it in a few click using https://dissem.in/ ); this should trigger (or you should be able to import) this version, and citation should go to it. If the second version on the arXiv pops up, you will be able to merge it to keep your record clean.


text:
How to respond to reviewer's comment that "magnitude of effect too small"?
We received a decision letter of major revision recently. One of the four reviewers raised many comments like "Fig. XX, magnitude of effect too small." or "Fig. XX, scale condensed, magnitude of effect is very small", etc.
I have to say that the P-values are highly significant (P < 0.001 in many cases) and our statistical analyses are solid as recognized by another reviewer in his or her comment. Although the absolute differences of measurement between two groups are quite small. The variation in each group is also very small. Therefore, if we quantify the magnitude of effect with effect size (a stanardized version of magnitude of effect), the effect size for the observed differences is medium of large based on the criteria here.
The reviewer has no specific comment about what we should do. How to respond to such comment properly?

Your comments read to me like you are possibly forgetting the distinction between statistical significance and practical significance. I can't tell from what you've written whether the effect you've found is big enough for anyone to actually care.

@JessicaB, I am afraid the reviewer is thinking this way. He or she may thought the differences are too small and of little practical use although it is significant.

I do not believe the reviewer is impugning the significance of your results. Instead, it sounds like the reviewer is suggesting that the scaling used on the graph makes it too hard to see the magnitude of the effects you're talking about. Perhaps he wants you to show a blown-up subset of the graph?

I would be happy if it is the case you are talking about. However, we have only displayed range of measurement (min to max, like the "blown-up subset" in your answer) in order to highlight the differences rather than a range from 0 to max. Maybe the word "condensed" is quite confusing.

Or perhaps it's the reverse, but the word "scale" definitely implies that the problem is with the representation, not the significance.

That sounds likely - the might consider the blown-up subset to be misleading because it exaggerates the magnitude compared to what it actually is (which is what they might mean with "too small")?


text:
Should I give up on my PhD dreams?
My background -
I performed very poorly in my undergraduate CS degree. It was due to a mixture of family circumstances and severe OCD/health anxiety. Anyways, I performed very poorly, graduated two years late with a disgustingly low 65%.
I went on to do my masters in a fairly decent UK university (ranking 250-300). Graduated with distinction. Now have about 2 years of research experience in a field I am very passionate about (speech processing). I have published about 3 papers and have good reference letters from the supervisors.
Over the past year I have applied to various PhD programs very relevant to me. I tick all the boxes for their requirements. However, I have only got rejections. In fact, I did not even get a single interview. I'm starting to think the admissions committee don't even bother considering the rest of my application after seeing my undergrad scores(I do fulfill their entry requirements though).I am applying for funded places since I'm too broke to afford paying for a PhD.
Should I even bother applying again this year ? Am I doomed forever because of my poor performance in undergrad ? Should I give up ? If not, what can I do to boost my chances ?

Welcome to Academia. Where did you get your UG. In the US or Scandinavian, since you mentioned you went on to do Masters in the UK.

Is your masters a research or taught masters? Where are you applying for PhD: Studentship in the UK, funded in US/Can, Scandinavian or Europe

Being rejected for a PhD positions is unfortunately the norm. You are not especially unlucky or fundamentally less suitable than other candidates.

Have you published 3 papers or have you published "about 3 papers"? Committees care about these things...

Are you doomed. Nope. Keep calm and keep going at it.
Applying for PhD comes with being proactive. Are you engaging prospective supervisor beforehand. It's not uncommon to turn down doctoral application where there's no one on the committee or in the school/dept willing to take on. (NB: I'm aware in some places, prior engagement/interaction isn't required/mandated).
How are you developing your research proposal.
Even for some funded that don't require research proposal, how enticing and aligning is your (one pager) research brief and/or research statement and/or personal statement?
You indicated you have good references from your supervisors. You can start there.

See if they are willing to take you on.
See if they can use their network.

I strongly doubt that admissions staff are going to be influenced much by undergraduate performance when you have since completed a Masters degree with distinction.  Performance in the higher-level award is usually the thing that academics would focus on in assessing performance, because it is more recent and because it is with respect to courses that are more advanced.  This is the same reason why we typically assess people with an undergraduate degree on their results in that degree, without worrying about their grades in high school.
Based on the accomplishments in your mention in your question, you sound like you would be competitive for entry into a PhD program.  Keep applying to programs with funding at universities of interest to you.  Entry to a PhD program can be very competitive at some universities, but your background sounds sufficient to warrant putting in applications.  Ultimately, you will need to decide if there is a limit to the number of unsuccessful applications you want to make, but I see nothing in the information in your question that would make your application uncompetitive.

I don't know how it works in the UK, but where I'm from, you'd be hard pressed to get into a PhD program with weak undergrad grades unless you

hugely turned things around during your Master's and
somebody at the university you are applying to vouches for you (i.e. expresses interest in supervising you / funding you).

Consider this: most students that apply for PhD programs at halfway decent universities have excellent grades from at least halfway through undergrad. Their Masters also probably went well enough, too. You need to therefore win points in some other way. Use your network; if nobody can take you, ask them to introduce you to somebody that can. And if it doesn't work out, remember that you don't need to do a PhD right out of a Master's. You can go to industry and come back later, and at that point, your CV will stand out for different reasons.

This answer makes a couple of important general points, but they do not answer the question, since OP already did that, see statements I went on to do my masters in a fairly decent UK university (ranking 250-300). Graduated with distinction. Now have about 2 years of research experience in a field I am very passionate about (speech processing).

True, which is why I perhaps too subtly emphasized that point 2 is more important. I know plenty of people that had an unproductive Master's (i.e. no publications) that got into a PhD program more or less because somebody in the target department vouched for them. OP's mileage may vary, though.

I can assure you that your undergrad performance are well obliterated by your following master degree experience and your research-working experience.
I would go as far as saying as "don't put your Bachelor degree marks, do not discuss them in your cover letter". It's so long ago that who cares. And if someone is so pedantic to care about it ... maybe better not to work with such people so interested in your remote past.
Your undergrad experience may play a role in some individual comitee decisions on which you cannot have a control, but that are not statistically significant and they will not be the cause for the (statistically normal) rejections you are receiving.
Did you check how many Master degree are awarded each year? and how many PhD's positions? Not all master graduated will pursue a PhD, but not all people pursuing a PhD will be given the chance to pursue one.
However, since you are so motivated to pursue a PhD, what can boost your chances of being admitted is not waiting for an open position, but buliding your own. Go after all possible funding chances you can apply to.
ERC, Marie Curie, Scolarships, not-for-profit foundations, consulates and embassies, tech-companies consortium, leave no stones unturned.
Good luck!

From the perspective of the hiring committee, knowing more about the undergrad is helpful apart from the grades, because it shows where the candidate has solid knowledge and in which areas they may be lacking (e.g., whether all your undergrad courses where in software engineering vs theoretical CS vs statistics etc.). So I wouldn't leave it out.

Also, "leave no stones unturned" is a bit drastic. Applying for a professorship at MIT would be a waste of time (and I would say the same about applying for an ERC).

@morxa which part of " Go after all possible funding chances you can apply to." is unclear to you? clearly OP cannot apply to a professorship at MIT, because OP has not the prerequisites (I am fairly sure having completed a PhD is a necessary requirement to apply for a professorship at MIT ...)

@morxa and which part of "don't put your Bachelor degree marks" made you infer that I am suggesting to OP not to show what was their bachelor degree about?
Plesae note that a comment should add value to the question or to the answer ... not show the (lack of) reading skills of the commenter ;)

"Your undergrad experience may play a role in some individual comitee decisions on which you cannot have a control, but that are not statistically significant and they will not be the cause for the (statistically normal) rejections you are receiving." This suggests that the undergrad experience often does not play a role.

Also, you can become a professor without a PhD (although it's rare nowadays): https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/180563/associate-professors-without-a-phd
The point is more general: Applying to programs where the chance of acceptance is very low is often a waste of time, especially if it requires a lot of effort. Of course, sometimes it's difficult to judge how high your chances are. But just applying for everything possible does not seem to be the best strategy.

Your undergrad experience play a role, you will not be rejected because at the undergrad you did CS instead of Algebra, but you may get some points because you did Algebra instead of CS. Never discussed about becoming professor or whatever open position. Your general point is moot: I was discussing applying to grants and fundings which at the PhD level is fair game, where it only depends on how good is the project (especially true for Marie Curie grants). In fact, "wasting" time applying to these programs is a good thing and a great preparation for whoever dreams of staying in the academia

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

I take it you are an "international applicant" as per UK norms. That makes things harder, as the funded positions are generally capped at 30% out of all seats for international candidates.
Possibly apply for a RA role at one of the unis then try converting that into a PhD. (A very common path for many candidates in the UK). The RA positions generally pay more than enough for rent/food and living expenses in general.

No one really cares about your undergrad performance. No one. Not even your supervisor. The only important thing is to get the job done.
Also, most people do not need phds. And it is wiser not to waste your early years trying to get one. It is always possible to get one later down the line as a side hustle thing. But it is much harder to later join the workforce without any prior non-academic experience.


text:
Difficulty reading scientific papers in two columns
It sounds stupid, but I came to realize that it's significantly more difficult for me to read scientific papers when they are typeset in two columns than papers in which the text appears in one column. Something about multiple columns feels too "packed" and wearisome to the point that it takes me a lot more time to read than a single-column paper.
Each publisher chooses its own style, obviously (an interesting discussion about it here), but what I want to know is if there is any way to transform a two-column paper into a one-column paper for an easier read? Are all papers being published with a single typeset according to the publisher's preference, or perhaps there may be different versions in different databases?

There's always http://www.willus.com/k2pdfopt/ (converter), but the quality of figures is often very bad.

If you are starting out in research then it would be cumbersome at first but will be accustomed to it as you move along. In short: you'll get used to it.

This is curious, because for "non-technical" text, readability is increased by reducing column widths. Some sources claim the optimum width is around 45 characters per line. This is why newspapers are typeset with many (e.g. 7 or 8)  narrow columns per page.

A quick solution is to just zoom in in one of the columns. That's what I do, but I do use an external monitor, so the paper is a little far from my eyes, and the bigger letters actually help reading.

@alephzero This is emphatically true for technical text, too (with notable exceptions being equations and source code). OP’s subjective impression is almost certainly not in agreement with actual ease of reading.

Are you reading on screen, or on paper?

Might be something that can be addressed with glasses. What is easier/preferable for a person with good eyesight can be quite the opposite for people without such great eyesight (a category that will include all of us when we get old enough).

Many journals (in some fields at least) have webpages with html versions of the articles. These are always single column.

@Axeman, yes I am aware of that. However, these html version always seem to be more cluttered than most pdf files. This cluttering of too many things before my eyes does not make it easier to read a difficult paper.

@Don_S Interestingly, many people dislike the html version because they are single column! (I agree they are cluttered with side-bars and whatnot. Ugh.)

If the paper has a preprint on on https://arxiv.org/
you can select to download "Other Formats".
Then you can probably get the LaTeX source (if it was typeset in latex),
and from there you can modify it (likely very simply) and recompile it.

Furthermore, you can look for preprints/older versions on Arxiv or on the authors homepage, they are often not yet set into two columns. Especially if there is a page restriction for the publication, some authors like to publish a longer, more detailed version online for everyone interested to look up.

While the comments (and also Lyndon's answer) give you some ideas that you can try, I suspect the most realistic answer will be that converting a 2-column paper into a format that's slightly easier to read for you will not be worth the (considerable) effort on a consistent basis. So, unless you actually have a disability that makes this impractical, I am afraid you will have to get used to reading papers in this way.

I am aware of the fact that many papers are published in this way, and what you say is of course true and valid. I posted the question to see whether there are some alternative databases or formats I was not aware of.

If it's a LaTeX paper on the arXiv, Lyndon White's solution is probably worth it, it can be easily done in around a minute.

If the paper is in arxiv, you can give Arxiv Vanity a shot.
It tries to convert papers into webpages.

adobe acrobat has read mode, which rearranges columns in papers into just wall of text as you would like.

There a few different ways to do this, depending on affordability and convenience. Since LaTeX has been covered in a previous answer, I'll mention some ways that work for (readable) PDFs.
(1) Get Adobe Acrobat Pro- it allows a lot of direct manipulation within the page.
(2) Acrobat Pro also allows you to export to MS Word, where columns can be easily adjusted.
Now for the free, less convenient options:
(1) Open the PDF through a browser (Chrome and Firefox work, don't know about others). Now export as a text file, copy to a word processor and save back to PDF.
(2) Some free PDF readers allow exporting to text files, which you can then process in a word processor and save back to PDF. Most likely, you won't be able to copy pictures/tables- but since readability is the major issue, you can make do with two files open in adjacent windows, one text-only, one with figures/tables.

Here's what I do if I want to read a paper only viewing one column at a time:

Set the display to portrait mode. (I have 2 displays, one is always in portrait mode and the other in landscape mode)
Set the zoom factor to about 280%. (The best zoom factor to use varies a bit depending on how the journal typeset the paper and the dimensions & aspect ratio of your display.)
Use the horizontal scrollbar to center the column.
Read


text:
Why don't authors include in their publications the duration of the research?
I've noticed that most papers do not say explicitly (or at all) how much time did the research take. This excludes certain types of studies, such as epidemiological studies that usually say that the study's cohort was followed for some-and-some months etc., but what I mean is that in most papers there is no actual indication of how much time the study\set of experiments took.
I believe this type of information could be useful for readers, especially for readers that would like to perform similar experiments for their own research.
So why is this information not required from authors?
(I realize that it's sometimes hard to pinpoint the date when a person begins and finishes a research project, but it could still be useful to give an approximation in months. This way a reader could get a better estimation if such a project is reasonable for their own research, at least from time investment considerations.)

The time to design & build an experiment from scratch is not necessarliy the same as that required to repeat an experiment when the issues have been solved.

That's true, but it still would be helpful to know if what I'm reading took 1 year or 5 years to complete. Even rough estimations of the length of the experiment(s) can give some idea about its complexity, tediousness, etc.

If you know what to do then you can make your own estimate of how much time it will take. Much of the time in the original article will have been spent on figuring out what to do, so that information is not going to help you.

Well, if you have an experiment that takes on average 4 hours, and you plan to run it 10 times, you can assume that the entire set of experiments will have taken any time between a few days and a month (due to all these other events you mentioned). In that case, it would be helpful for a young researcher\student to know that a single run of the experiment is supposed to take a few hours (and not days, for example), and that the entire experimental part of the study is expected to take about a month (and not 6\9\12 months). I agree it can't be accurate, it would be more a matter of scales.

@corey979 - and, likely, in that 4 year gap you were doing things that somehow related to the stalled project but were not directly applicable...

@corey979 It's not clear that stating the amount of compute time required does much beyond memorializing how slow computers were in the past.

You might want to specify the field where you're (not) seeing this. In most social sciences, for example, it would be extremely unusual not to mention the period of time covered by the study, whether it's a two-hour intervention, a two-year participant-observation, or a multi-decade longitudinal study.

If  you want to replicate an experiment, the important question is how long it will take you to do the replication, not how long it took the original experimenter. The only person who can answer that question is you. The tools you have available, and your experience of doing similar work, may be orders of magnitude higher or lower than what was used in the original paper.

In one paper, I wrote "The dataset, obtained on 25 January 2013, took approximately 11 min to collect." https://peerj.com/articles/67/ Of course, it took many hours of testing to create the script that collected the data, and much longer to think about the results, visualise them, and write the manuscript...

who cares and why is this relevant to value or validity of the research?

In a paper I wrote 35 years ago, I remarked that there ought to be a strong connection between a certain pair of concepts. After doing nothing with that idea for a long time, I recently worked out the connection, in a few days. I'm about to start writing this up, but first I had to check the relevant literature in order to cite it properly. One item was available only by inter-library loan, and the time spent waiting for it was roughly similar to the time spent actually proving the theorem. If someone asked me how much time it took to do this research, I could truthfully answer "a few days" and I could truthfully answer "35 years".
Furthermore, neither of those answers would be useful for my readers, because confirming my result will not involve repeating experiments but rather just reading and checking the proof in my paper. How long will that take? Maybe an hour or so for an expert in the relevant area, but much longer for someone unfamiliar with the area who needs to read a lot of prerequisite material first.
So I'd say that, at least in mathematics, information about the time required for research is likely to be meaningless and useless.

Because it is simply impossible to give an estimate on that time in research.
Only when you have finished the theoretical research, the thinking, the experiments, you can start planning and measuring the time needed for experiments to verify your claim, the time needed to write everything down, etc.
But for theoretical research and discovering new things, that is impossible. You can think about a problem for years and never get a solution, or you can stumble over it one day while doing something totally different and get an idea for a solution in a few days only.
Another point to add is the background of the researcher. Say two people have the same idea how to tackle an unsolved problem. One is a professor and big expert in the field, having access to a lab full of PhD-students and post docs to run experiments, the other is a Master student having, maybe, a laptop. Can you really compare the time these two need? Furthermore, when measuring the time needed to solve a problem, how do you measure the years and years of learning all the skills necessary to actually do it, how do you count all the failed attempts, all the ideas that didn't work out until you finally find one that actually works?
So my point is: It is almost impossible to measure how long it takes to get a theoretical result. You can measure things like study times, times to replicate something in the lab, running times of algorithms, etc. - but in many cases, these are either easy to deduce from the experiment description or they are given in the paper.

A further issue with your professor to Master student comparison is: my observation has been that more experienced people come up with ideas faster.

It would be difficult to pin this number down precisely. Most research projects contain an incredible number of false starts, changes in direction, and obvious-in-hindsight errors, so knowing that these authors took two years to produce a paper tells you fairly little, because

You may have more (or less) experience,
Your subjects/specimens might be different in some subtle but important way,
You may not need to search around for parameters that work, since they already did—or you may have to optimize something that "just works" for them.
and so on....

However, while this information doesn't go in the paper, you can often find it out. Researchers usually have a rough idea of what their close colleagues are working on and for how long, as in "eh, it took him about a year to get those experiments going."
An even better solution is to ask! This may get you context that would be difficult to put in a paper: no one is going to write "9 months, but the postdoc is an idiot" in a paper, but they may say "only two months, but she is amazingly good at training animals; it took the new folks more like 4-5 months and even then, the behavior hasn't totally stabilized" in conversation.  You don't need to know the authors well--you could email them, ask on Twitter, or even just bump into them at a conference. People are generally happy to answer this because they either get to brag ("look how clever we are") or complain ("Yeesh, what a slog") both of which are popular conversation options. Asking may also produce an offer to collaborate, or share the actual protocols, which are probably more detailed than whatever went into the paper. So…ask!

The answers above do a great job of explaining why it is difficult to estimate time taken. I will add two points:
(1) Time taken would including ideation time, feasibility study time, vetting time, experiment design time (if applicable), experiment set up time (man, machine, material availability), experiment running time, data analysis time, compilation, writing and consent-acquiring time.
The majority of these are highly individual specific, and some (set up, consent) are organisation/institute/lab-dependent. These would not be useful if specified, since they are unlikely to be applicable in a different environment. The only (somewhat) universal factor is experiment running time- there is indeed a case for specifying this. In some fields, such as prediction of long-term material properties, this experiment time is crucial to mention.
(2) I don't have a citation on this, but it seems that payoff (academic or pecuniary)and material resources(man, machine, material again) dictate project choice more than time.

+1. Don't forget grant acquisition time. And submission-rejection-submission-waiting-for-review-revision-resubmission-rejection-banging-head-against-wall-reworking-resubmission-yet-another-rework-and-resubmission-final-acceptance-celebration time.

Not to contradict many of the good answers above, but I'll add one more consideration, at least in the case of mathematics.  Even if it were possible to give an accurate count of the number of "brain-hours" it took you to solve a problem (not including ancillary research that had to be done beforehand), you might not want to offer that information, simply out of a sense of self-consciousness.  Most "average" mathematicians (including myself) are keenly aware that a problem that might take them weeks or months to solve themselves, could perfectly well have been solved in an afternoon by a mathematician of greater ability.  Conversely, if you are one of those mathematicians of greater ability, mentioning the short amount time it took you to solve the problem would probably be considered bragging.
One thing however that I think mathematical writing could benefit from is in including, not the time spent, but the motivation and overall trajectory that brought them to their conclusions.  Most articles in mathematics give the impression that the author just took a nap one afternoon and woke up with a fully-formed proof.  It is almost always the case that the author happened upon several intermediate results that led them to their eventual conclusion, and this indeed could help to give the reader a fuller understanding of the result.  But, that's just the way we write these days, and journal editors by and large don't like it when you include that kind of meta-information.
But ultimately (in the case of mathematics), who cares how long it took you?  The coin of the realm is proving quality theorems, not proving those theorems in the shortest possible time.  Time spent has absolutely no bearing on the usefulness, or impressiveness, of a proven theorem.  It may be useful information to know in some of the natural/social sciences, but in mathematics it is simply not relevant.

Because efforts on most research projects are interspersed with other activities (e.g. other projects, grant-writing, reporting, teaching, grading, serving on committees, attending conferences, reviewing, organizing events, interviewing, advising [even other students, informally] etc.) the time between starting and finishing a research project often seems embarrassingly long when stated without all that other context.
Authors want to avoid readers' sensible reactions of "What?  That took how long?  I could've sat down and done it in a tenth of that time!"
None of the other context is relevant to the contribution that the work is making to advance the common state of knowledge, so it doesn't need to be included.  Further, the amount of time invested in getting that advance in knowledge isn't necessarily correlated to the value the work has in advancing common knowledge, and the latter is what really counts.
Also, a researcher will spend a LOT of time reading a body of literature that informs more than one paper.  This means the first paper takes longer start-to-finish than another paper which is the same amount of work beyond the literature review.  How would one properly allocate that common background time to multiple papers, especially when they don't know how many there will be in the future at the time of writing any current one?  How would you count all the time spent searching for, starting, or reading papers that turned out to be dead ends and not particularly informative?
The backstories sometimes come out in less formal settings, but even then the number of hours/weeks/months/years it took researcher X to do something doesn't necessarily help researcher Y (who has a different set of other tasks going on) determine how long it would take them to do something similar.

To avoid cognitive bias.
Unfortunately, humans are just humans. The problem with human psychology is that we must compare, evaluate and decide "what's better". If there are no meaningful and measurable qualities to compare, we compare any qualities that we can get our hands on. There are many mundane examples, e.g. cameras being compared by useless property of megapixels, just because it's a solid, available and easy to compare number while the property we want (quality of pictures) is not easy to measure, quantify and compare. Many of us would not be able to help but to judge research by it's duration where judging its merit would prove too hard.
Length of research would enable superficial comparison of unrelated research and that could lead to bias. Possibly shorter research being treated as "not as serious" as longer ones.


text:
How can I tell if a paper is too old to be a reference for my research?
Current scientific databases hold papers that were published over the past few decades (I haven't checked what is the oldest paper available, but I remember seeing papers from the 1960s, there might even be older papers than that which are cataloged in current databases - not talking about the principia...). One can come upon such old papers either when searching through a database or as a reference in a more recent paper.
My question is: how can I tell if a paper is too old such that I had better not rely on its findings while performing a more contemporary research?
(It probably differs between disciplines, so I'm looking for some general advice.)

In my field, I still see people citing Gerhard Gentzen's paper on cut elimination occasionally! (FWIW that one's from the 1930s)

Yesterday I read a computer science paper whose oldest reference was from the 12th century. I regulary cite publications from the 18th and 19th centuries.

@JeffE: Care to share what you were reading yesterday?

The age of the paper per se should have no relevance. However, the researcher had better be certain about whether the conclusions of the old paper have been superseded or even invalidated by more recent work. This sort of problem is unlikely in, say Mathematics, but other fields can be different. There are Philosophy papers that, to my knowledge, have invalidated old work. The old work said "X is impossible". The new work said "X is indeed possible and here is an important example." This wasn't mathematical philosophy (logic) of course, but observations about learning (epistemology).
The fact that a paper hasn't been cited in 50 years is of little importance, especially in a narrow subfield  of some larger field. The fact that it is no longer relevant is of vast importance. However, there are some studies intentionally done to compare the old with the new and here, citing both is the essence, of course.
One reason for not finding old papers is just the difficulty and expense of properly indexing them in databases. For "popular" things someone is likely to want to go to the trouble, but for arcane things, not so much as there seems to be little payback for the effort.
And yes, you normally don't need to go back before the Principia, but, you know, Euclid was an interesting guy.

Note that another question here asks about finding more recent papers than the one you are reading.

Thanks, that question is one of mine as well... ;-)

how can I tell if a paper is too old such that I had better not rely on its findings while performing a more contemporary research?

It may be a little difficult to give a general guideline. However, a few points may come in handy here.

If you look into most contemporary work, you could find some patterns in their references. In other words, may of them would have some very common papers which they cite. It is reasonable to know for what reasons these papers are cited by checking where in the text they are cited.
The references of this contemporary work may also have some old references cited for specific reasons, for this reasons you may also cite these references.
Citing very old references may be very beneficial if you are able to properly trace developments in the area over the years. However this may be a bit difficult as a lot of literature may have to be reviewed.
Another thing is that, sometimes, the author may come up with something absolutely novel which changes a fundamental notion or aspect from those "old references". Such papers will draw the attention of the research community to a completely different finding which may impact on the domain for years to come.

In summary, in my humble opinion, it is not easy to say that papers from a particular year becomes absolutely obsolete for research today. As a general rule, based on my experience, new researchers are usually encouraged to extend their research from a recent (say now till five years back) publication. However, for some of the reasons mentioned above, there are circumstances where new values may emerge from those very old research papers.

Mostly, the age of a publication should not be an argument against citing it, as mentioned by Buffy and Abdulhameed. I agree with their answers but I'd like to add that for certain statements about state-of-the-art or recent developements, you absolutely need up-to-date references.
An example for why this is necessary is that it would make no sense to cite a 20 year old paper to show how widely used a particular software is used, because the information from the paper is outdated. You could, however, look for more recent publications citing this paper. That way, you'd get better evidence for whatever it is you'd like to show.


text:
Searching for papers on a subject I'm about to start researching myself but nothing comes up. How do I know that I've searched enough?
I'm about to begin my master's research, and I'm in the process of formulating my research question. Therefore, I am searching for papers about the same topic to make sure that what I am planning to do has not been done before (at least not the way I am planning to do it), but so far I cannot find such papers.
How can I make sure that I've searched enough and that I am not missing anything obvious? I have chosen characteristic keywords from my topic and ran them in Google and Google scholar. Should I perform the same search in other places, or should that suffice?

do a search with something other than google - why would you assume that google is exhaustive?

That's exactly what I asked. I'm used to Google, like anyone else, but for scientific searches I figured I should use other databases, only wasn't sure which would be best.

Find as many others as you can, then use them or just the “best” ones...

@Solar Mike, out of curiosity, can you give an example of a paper such that if you google its title then it does not come up in the first few search results?

@tom are you implying that every paper, article, journal entry every written or published is available on google?

@tom yes - searched for this paper and it does not come up directly but only as linked to by other papers, so google is not omniscient : Prediction of local heat transfer coefficients in the exhaust downpipe during engine warm-up

Flippant response: The only reliable way to find research on a topic is to spend a few months working on it yourself, write it up, and then glance at a literature search system one last time...

What work/paper is your proposed work based on? Looking at which papers cited those papers will give you a good idea of how the field has progressed and whether your proposed work is original or not.

Search your institution's library catalogue. Many/most institutions will have online access to journals and publications that are not open-access and may not be well-indexed in Google (maybe unlikely but still possible).
Depending on your field, search arxiv.org.
Search related topics. If you find related papers, or papers which could be precursors to your topic, you can then search for papers that cite those precursor papers.

Even better. If you have access to an academic library, ask the research librarian. if such a position exists (it probably does). These folks will likely have a conversation with you about your real needs and they normally have access to a lot of places you won't think to look. Librarians are information professionals, not book cataloguers.


text:
How can I make the introduction of a paper more "scientific" and less "popular"?
I am a master's student about to start writing my thesis. After I wrote my research proposal, my advisor said that when I write my thesis, I should make it less "popular" (I believe he referred mainly to the introduction, where I presented the field and the subject in a rather detailed manner and broke it down in a way that average people could understand why I am proposing to do this research) and more "dry" and "scientific".
So I'm assuming he means that I should strive to direct the text to experts (as scientific publications usually are), and not begin from the very beginning of the subject and not "build up" the introduction too slowly.
The problem is that I always feel that I DO need to explain the background when starting to write a new piece, as each text stands on its own and should be complete in itself. I need to find some way to set the stage on one hand, but not too tediously on the other hand. I guess this is part of the art of writing, which develops through experience, but I was hoping someone here could offer some helpful ideas to achieve this.
I found this question and its answers related to my question and interesting to read, but that doesn't answer my question.

"each text stands on its own and should be complete in itself", obviously given some assumed previous knowledge

I had exactly the same problem when I wrote my thesis. I think what you are trying to do is a great idea, but my supervisor did not like it either. I fixed the problem by including more references to the literature.

"So I'm assuming he means [...]" Don't do that. Ask him what he means.

"(...)  each text stands on its own and should be complete in itself." --- when you're writing a thesis, yes. When you're writing an article, much less so. My impression is that the abstract should be very dry and to the point. The introduction can be a bit more "popular", in the sense that it should give a non-specialist a feel of what you are doing. But it should not be so popular as to dumb things down to the level of someone outside of your field (unless it goes beyond one field).

This is a common issue when inexperienced people write their first papers. It's tempting to write down everything that went into your personal understanding of a subject, rather than just starting from what's known and focusing on the new things you did.
Imagine if you looked up a recipe for a pie and the first 80% of it detailed the history of wheat cultivation, how wheat is made into flour, the way the tablespoon and teaspoon were defined as units of measure, statistics on the average consumption and enjoyment of pie throughout the 20th century, and so on. Imagine if you looked up the text of a new regulation and it started with "This law could be passed in our state legislature because, in 1773, the Boston tea party...". Imagine if a car repair manual started with the history of the wheel.
It's important to tell the public why science is important and why your studies make sense, but a paper isn't the place to do it. It's also not the place to give a full exposition of every technique you used. If you must, just put references to review articles or textbooks.

With the commonality of this issue in mind, I'll note that it's fair to accept this approach as a crutch to start writing, and then edit down the text to the point that it's not reciting ideas that are common knowledge among the target audience.

Have you ever looked up a recipe online? That's exactly what they do

I am a master's student about to start writing my thesis...my advisor said that when I write my thesis, I should make it less "popular"...and more "dry" and "scientific".

I think you need to establish exactly what your supervisor wants. As you've described it, I strongly disagree with your supervisor. But, I suspect the situation is more nuanced. Ultimately, I think the best style combines popular and scientific, especially in a thesis, which I think should be more accessible than a research paper.
Good writing delivers the idea to the widest audience.

I'm assuming...

Check that assumption!

...he means that I should strive to direct the text to experts...and not begin from the very
  beginning of the subject and not "build up" the introduction too
  slowly.

As described, I again strongly disagree with your supervisor, but, again, I suspect the situation is more nuanced. You probably cannot start from "the very beginning of the subject" (at least for many subjects), because the subject might be millennia old and starting from the beginning probably merits an entire book, but you need to start from a reasonable point, perhaps one that anyone can understand or perhaps one that your fellow students can understand (it depends what the subject is).

"Good writing delivers the idea to the widest audience." I would challenge this idea. Good writing delivers to exactly the audience it's supposed to target. Writing every piece of text so that the most possible people can follow it does not lead to good, targeted writing.

@xLeitix I preempted such a comment. The widest audience might not be the audience with the most participants, it might be the widest audience able to comprehend the idea, which is my way of explaining that I was too lazy to craft a more precise statement ;-)

"a thesis, which I think should be more accessible than a research paper." Why?

@DavidRicherby because the audience differs

Most theses are read by precisely zero people, apart from those forced to do so by the degree-conferring procedure. A published research paper is far more likely to be read by somebody - even if the reader doesn't read anything except the introduction!

Whenever you present something - be it in writing, a talk, or a lecture - consider your audience. A fairly common rule of thumb for a Masters thesis is that you can assume that your readers have all the background knowledge that everyone with a Bachelors degree in the subject would have. (Adjust as needed if you're in an interdisciplinary field.) The other, more crass rule is that the most important audience you're writing the thesis for is the set of examiners (possibly just your professor). If you now write a thesis in a way that includes everything, so that it's readable by everyone, well, guess what? It now becomes a very tedious read for your actual audience, because it just repeats stuff they already know.
So, no, not every every piece of writing needs to stand on its own. It is fine to assume some knowledge, but it does require striking a fine balance. For a thesis introduction I think you can cast a fairly wide net - in a combination of scientific and popular style as user2768 puts it - but too much is always too much. Indeed, figuring out how to write the introduction is often one of the hardest parts. Even if you have a good idea of what your audience knows, you still need to figure out how to write it. Is there a "hook" you can use, a fascinating question to start off with? See the question on How to write a strong introduction into a research paper? and links therein for some ideas.
Concretely, in your case, I'd ask your advisor to recommend a couple (in their opinion) good example theses (either from previous students in the group, or from elsewhere). That should give you a better idea of what your advisor expects and values. Do this soon! The earlier you do this, the more time you have to think about how to improve on this style.

An important concept that every aspiring writer should be aware of is Genre Theory. Genre Theory deposits that for every field and purpose, one or multiple different "genres" (types of text pieces) exist, each geared towards a specific audience and with a structure that has emerged to serve a specific purpose. Writing a thesis proposal in your field is one such genre. Before writing, it is key to understand what exactly your genre is. This includes:

The typical outline (not just the section headers, but what content and line of argument is actually expected below each header)
Typical terminology and phrasing
The purpose of the text
The target audience

The best way to understand your genre is through text analysis. Go over existing proposals (both, good and bad examples can be useful), and carefully examine not only what they write, but also how the argument is structured, what recurring phrases there are, in which order content is presented, and towards what audience they write.
In your case, it sounds like you have some misconceptions regarding, at least, the target audience and purpose of the text. A thesis proposal is not written for the general public. The goal of such a text is not to communicate to the general public, but to your advisor and/or committee.

Closely linked with this is the problem of "sounding like an expert". I had a Prof who wrote beautifully clearly and made difficult concepts seem simple and obvious: and a lot of his readers, in consequence, didn't realise quite how smart he was. By contrast, some papers are written in language so dense that no-one understands them, which can make the writer look very erudite. You have to find your own balance on this spectrum - but the more you need to establish your reputation, the greater the need to sound like an expert.

@MichaelKay Writing for a specific audience (which may well understand dry technical writing more easily than flowery prose) is an entirely different beast than overcomplicating things to sound smart.

@MichaelKay It's awful that even now writing unreasonably dense, dry texts is considered good in any way. Defeats the purpose of sharing knowledge. "Smart" words should be used only if they are needed for precision.

What seems important about the Genre Theory to me is that it gives you a starting point. If you understand the genre well enough, you can break any rule if it will be better for your readers. Unless you are graded by conformity to given rules...

Half way through my career in software development, I noticed that some people were starting to write user manuals in a completely different style, addressing the reader/user directly in the 2nd person. I started to do the same myself, and initially met fierce resistance, but the barriers eventually came down. Someone has to break with convention occasionally: but you need to consider whether the right person to do it is you.

I think it's great to want to explain a topic from the beginning, but a thesis (or research paper) is not the right venue for this.
I would assume the knowledge of an above average final year undergraduate in your field at your institution for a thesis. So I wouldn't explain things they already (should) know. Ideally the thesis would also be interesting to such an audience. But ultimately it is up to your supervisor who may have a different view. Naturally a research paper would assume more advanced knowledge.
I sometimes find writing about a topic from 'the beginning' is helpful for me to understand it better. So it can be worth doing. For example, I have written rough sets of course notes in various topics which I could refer to or even develop into teaching materials if the need arose in the future. You may also find being involved in outreach activities to schools rewarding.

Assume whoever is reading has the same level of expertise as you (minus what is in the paper) and continue with that tone throughout the whole paper.
Then have an addendum with personal history on the topic. Mention/summarize the addendum in one sentence in the the introduction.