text:
I am an editor for a lousy paper and I found a better algorithm than theirs. Must I share it with them?
I am handling a paper as an associate editor that proposed an algorithm that I find to be weak.  In fact, I was able to show that a very simple, brute-force approach actually has a better running time than their algorithm.  Therefore, I will recommend rejecting this paper.  Do I have an obligation to share my proof that the brute-force running time is better?  I want the higher-level editors to have confidence in the rejection, but it also occurs to me that I might be able to improve my own result and publish it independently.  Is this a violation of ethics?
UPDATE:  Well this certainly took off!  I would like to add the following:

The overwhelming consensus is that it would be unethical for me to "scoop" the other authors, so I will not do that. The advice from all is greatly appreciated.
The journal is the top in its field, so we have to be extremely selective. The problem proposed is fairly interesting, but overall the paper does not meet our threshold.
When I say that brute force is better than their method, I mean it in a provable, big O sense.
The authors' proposed scheme is not only inefficient, it is written in a very confusing way. In fact, I asked them to compare their approach to brute-force as a way of helping them clarify their argument, and they did a bad job of it, which is what led me to look into it in the first place.
The fact that brute force performs better than their scheme is not totally trivial because it relies on a combinatorial argument that is not amazing, but not completely obvious either.
I will share my proof with the Editor in chief, but I have decided not to give it to the authors; I will consider publishing independently in the future if their work ever appears elsewhere.
Their paper is not on arXiv or any other website.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

I think you are treading on thin ice, ethically speaking. Obviously you, as an editor, have no obligation to help the authors in any specific way, and you are free to tell them about your improvement or not, but rejecting their paper, taking the idea/problem, applying a different method to its resolution, and then publishing this under your own name seems problematic.
As an editor, you are usually expected to treat the papers you are handling as privileged information, and you are specifically expected to not use your knowledge of rejected papers to scoop the authors - which is exactly what you plan to do. Say you reject the paper with comments along the line "important problem, solution is too simplistic". The authors now go back to the drawing board, come up with a solution similar to what you had in mind, and get their paper accepted. If you publish your idea first they obviously can't do this anymore - you have effectively made use of knowledge you learned as an editor to pull the rug from under the people who initially thought of the research project, even if they did not do a great job with the first submission.
I understand that it sucks that if you told them about your idea you would be giving away information that, in different circumstances, may be sufficient for co-authorship. However, I would argue, as a reviewer / editor we sign up for helping the authors "for free" to some extent (that is, without expecting recognition).
If you really don't want to tell the authors about your idea your best hope is that the authors get their work accepted somewhere else. In that case you are free to write your follow-up paper and cite the original paper.

What about telling the authors, and subsequently collaborating on a paper? As it’s the editor’s idea, I don’t think they can reasonably be opposed.

@JNS "As it’s the editor’s idea, I don’t think they can reasonably be opposed." And that's also the problem. I would consider it majorly inappropriate if a person with so direct power over my manuscript would come with a proposal that, in essence, boils down to "I'll reject the paper, but if I can join in as a co-author we can talk about it again."

What about: “I must reject the paper given there’s a better idea I know about. I can share this and we can work on a paper for a separate journal where I have no influence?”

@JNS I don't think there is a variation of "I must reject this, let's work together on it" in which you don't come off as using your position to bully into a research project.

Though the authors must be able to sympathise with the editor’s impossible position. I think there’s no resolution that keeps both parties happy and is what’s best for scientific progress.

+1 But the problem is that the alternatives are also ethically problematic: if you’re not rejecting an (unsalvageably) bad paper, you’re violating your responsibility as an editor. And if you’re not publishing relevant findings then you’re doing a disservice to science (human progress and all that).

@KonradRudolph I would consider the ethical problem of not publishing a minor finding to be very small to non-existent. If we go down that rabbit hole, we quickly end up in a world where we would be acting unethically whenever we have an idea but don't find the time to work on it.

@xLeitix Your extrapolation isn’t altogether valid (slippery slope fallacy). I agree that it probably isn’t a huge concern. But lack of publication of relevant findings is a real problem.

@xLeitix I agree that there's no real way to phrase that without risking it sounding like an ultimatum.  Which is unfortunate since a collaboration here presumably results in a better paper.  But the OP is only an associate editor, and thus not the only editor on staff.  They could recuse themselves from the decision on this paper due to the conflict of interest, and then contact the authors if the paper is rejected, explaining the situation (and if it's accepted, they can just write their own paper and cite the original).

Also the problem would allow a win-win solution, if the authors had a preprint of their work online. You could then write up your own improvement immediately, citing the preprint or offer collaboration without identifying yourself as the reviewer (and thus without the implied ultimatum). In both cases it would still be IMHO preferable to recuse yourself from the review. Preprints. Their good.

I disagree that there's no way to propose without an ultimatum. You can reject, and tell them exactly why, along with your proof. Request that you work with them on the revision and hope that they respect your request. This way you do not seem like you are holding acceptance over their heads. While this does risk them saying no, it's much better than abusing your power.

If the paper is overall lousy then simply reject it. I'm sure the reviewers would give you plenty of reasons for this.
However, if all it is, is a weak algorithm but otherwise well written, then it might still be worthy of publication (depends on the journal). Once published, you can then publish your own work and cite the paper. After all, your algorithm is indeed inspired by theirs.
Also, how sure are you that your algorithm is "better"? Always better? 90% of the time better? On CPUs? What about GPUs? How does it scale?
As an example, think about all the sorting algorithms out there. There is not a best algorithm. Depending on the dataset being sorted, any number of algorithms could give the best result.

Does running time actually matter?
It's a program for a paper, not something to be distributed and run commercially on many machines. Perhaps they coded it the way they did because that algorithm is more readable and understandable than a brute force approach.
For example, if something in my paper required me to do something simple like add up the numbers from 1 to n, we all know the sum is equal to n(n+1)/2, but having a loop that goes from 1 to n and adds them together is simpler to read.
Assuming this is the only 'lousy' thing in the paper that you take issue with, I don't see it as a reason to reject. If you could come up with a brute force approach that quickly, surely they could as well. Perhaps ask them why they chose that algorithm, or ask a senior editor at your paper for a second opinion, not random strangers on the internet.
As far as using the algorithm you wrote yourself goes, the other answers have adequately stated that that would be incredibly unethical.

"Does running time actually matter?" Usually to at least some extent. For example, I've published papers establishing that there's a polynomial-time algorithm for some problem, without pinning down the degree of the polynomial. But "polynomial" made it a significantly stronger paper than "exponential" or "no analysis". In the case of the paper in the question, the running time is worse than what is normally the dumbest possible algorithm. Being out-performed by brute force is usually really bad.

At the least, I'd expect the paper to acknowledge that the brute force solution is faster and to justify their alternative approach -- that is, if the authors were aware of this fact. If the algorithm is the major contribution of the paper and this isn't discussed, I'd withhold any recommendation of acceptance until the authors have clarified the manuscript.

This is one of the most feared and contentious acts in the publication of science.  We all have heard stories of the paper that was rejected, only to serve as impetus for a subsequent publication by one of the rejecting reviewers. The worst case, which you would not be guilty of, is rejecting the paper for the sole purpose of benefiting from the idea. That's not the case here. If the optimality of the algorithm is the point of the paper, and you can clearly demonstrate their logic is flawed, you have every right to reject the paper on those grounds.  But you should lay this out for them in the review, and give them a chance to rebut.  If your logic is iron-clad, you'll win the argument.
Whether it is ethically sound to then move forward with your own publication on the topic is unclear.  Did the authors present this work at a conference? If so, and had you seen that talk, you would be justified in moving forward. If not, the manuscript is considered confidential, and your idea was spurred only through a confidential review process. It would be wise to discuss this with the general editor of the publication for guidance. Some day, they may review your own paper.

If the work has been presented in public, it's public. It's not necessary for the asker to have seen the talk: they might have been told about it by somebody who was there, for example.

I believe rejecting a paper just on the basis of poor performance of their algorithm and then publishing your brute force algorithm is highly unethical because: to me it sounds like you tried the idea of making an algorithm only after getting an idea from that work. Secondly, brute force algorithm are not science and they can never win over a smart procedure, it is not ethical to reject a research work to just get yourself a publication.
Then again, you can very well communicate to the authors that you have something better. Collaborate with them. Tell high level editors you can't handle this with as you are working together with them. That's ethical way to do it.

'Secondly, brute force algorithm are not science and they can never win over a smart procedure" - I think this is a sweeping generalization, and dismisses the opinion of the OP and the comments by e.g. David Richeby made elsewhere

Why not share the outline of your proposal in the review correspondence and ask the editor to share your contact details with the authors? In this way you entrust them with the decision to contact you and thereby solve the moral  issue of bullying the authors (you re-establish the level playing field by letting them contact you).
In this way, they are the one who have to up the ethical stakes by responding in kind. They might not do it, sure, but your review letter will be known to the editor and the other reviewer(s) and this should nudge the authors on the safe side.
In any case, if the alleged existence of a brute force solution informs your opinion of the paper, you're duty bound to put that (and sketch some evidence of your claim) in your review.
Certainly, many reviewers have shared useful suggestion with me in the past. These can make for lovely diner table conversations in conferences later on should you chance on the person.
On the whole, you will not be worst off for it: it's not like you planned on inventing that brute force algorithm before you got privy information trusted to you.
I know it's a low bar, but it seem to me this course of action would at least  pass the golden rule test (which I suppose is really why you are asking on a public forum about it).

The first two paragraphs sound like "I'm not bullying, just nudging from an advantaged position". It isn't clear to me why this is less of a problem.

@trichoplax: they are nudged. But no longer from an advantaged position (they are free to contact the reviewer and at that point the referee report/decision has been send to them. So back to being colleagues. No more from an advantaged position).

The first thing you should do is to "recuse" yourself from the editorial process. That is, have someone else in the organization make the accept/reject decision since your own work now creates a conflict of interest. Put another way, you have an "axe to grind."
After the decision is made, then you can make your move. Let's say that your paper makes a decision to accept/publish. Then you can publish your improvement later, citing the original paper.
If your paper's decision is to reject, then you can approach the authors with your improvement, and honestly tell them that you had nothing to do with the rejection. (That's why you need to "recuse" yourself.) If they agree, you might offer to "run interference" for a second try at your shop; otherwise, you and they might publish elsewhere.

Assuming that you do not especially care about the topic of the paper that you reviewed, and that the idea that you had while reviewing is not exceptional and did not require huge amounts of work, I think the best course of action is simply to write up concisely that idea as part of your review, and give it away to the authors of the original submission.
If they use it, I agree it's too bad that you won't have credit for it, but you will have gotten other people to polish and write up your idea -- which is probably significantly more effort than what it will take you to concisely describe the idea in the review.
I'd say the main problem is if they don't use it, and you'd like the idea not to die off. I don't know what's a good solution in this case. Wait for their paper to be accepted somewhere, or wait for several years to be sure that they have given up?

You have a valid reason to reject their paper, but no obligation to share your information. If you wanted to pursue it as research, wouldn't the best option be to privately contact them outside of your official duties, and ask to work with them?

There are additional ethical complications to this recommendation discussed in other answers.

The fact that the article inspired your own results that you believe are publishable suggests that their article is also publishable. If their article is not good enough for the specific journal, you may recommend publishing it in a less prestigious journal.

I think you have an obligation to academia to disprove his algorhithm with a brute force algorithm. Give your brute force proof to everybody and put it in the public domain. After you disprove it, if you have an algorithm that's better than his and better than brute force, you could offer to help him write a better algorithm. You and him can both be coauthors of the new paper with your new algorithm. Wait until everybody accepts that his original algorithm has been rejected before offering to coauthor with him the new algorithm. Tell him that you have a new, better algorithm, but don't tell him what it is until he agrees to coauthor with you in a written, signed document. That way, you get credit for helping, but are not taking away his idea. However, remember that some ideas are proposed in odd ways because of a need to avoid similar patents. An inefficient algorithm that is patentable is better than an efficient algorithm that looks like someone else's invention.

How do you "disprove" an algorithm with another algorithm?

@user10691 I guess Russell means something more like "disprove the usefulness".

As addition to xLeitix very thoughtful answer I would give the authors a period of grace (say half a year or so, depending on the typical time scales of your discipline).
If by then they did not publish an improved version matching the performance of your ideas from now, I would regard the confidentiality period to be over and the subject to be fair game for everyone including you.
If they published the poor version somewhere else you should cite them. Do not copy from their submitted previous manuscript. Conduct your own research and present it as such.
If you tell them now about a possible way to improve it's because you want them to improve and publish a better version. If they don't, you could still do it on your own then. But you would have to wait to find out.
The waiting period is the key here and without it you are indeed acting unethically. The waiting period must be really quite generous. However, it should not be infinitely long because otherwise as an editor (or reviewer) you would unfairly restrict yourself in possible research if all topics you ever got to see were inaccessible to you in the future.

Confidentiality periods are not something open to interpretation.

Six months would be a very fast turnaround. Even if the authors wrote their new version today and submitted it, it probably wouldn't be publicly available within six months unless they posted a preprint.

Downvoted.  There is no statute of limitations on the confidentiality of submitted results. Unless/until the authors publish their contribution, you cannot use it in your own work.  In particular, you cannot claim sole credit for anything described in the paper, but you cannot cite the authors without breaking confidentiality. While this eternal embargo may seem "unfair", that's the risk you take when you agree to be a referee or an editor (or a grant proposal reviewer, or a thesis committee member, or...).

@Mast I agree in principle but then something else doesn't work out here. Then it's probably unclear to which extent the confidentiality is meant. Otherwise a lot of editors and reviewers would not be able to virtually work on anything, or what would you say?

@JeffE Downvoting is your right. Still I didn't say you should use their work. Instead I said you should do your own research. I think you might have misunderstood me.

@DavidRicherby Yes, six months might be too short, that's why I wrote it should be adapted to the discipline and should be rather very generous. Computer science is one of the faster disciplines. In mathematics for example even two years might not be enough.

Writing the new paper would require attributing the problem to the original authors, which can't be done as @JeffE explains in his comment. The new paper can't be written without using some of the original paper.

@DavidRicherby Maybe the problem is already known. From the question this does not become clear.


text:
What happens if a PI has already reached the NSF two-month summer salary cap and a new proposal is being recommended for funding?
National Science Foundation (NSF) has two-month salary cap known as the two-ninths-rule:
``Summer salary for faculty members on academic-year appointments is limited to no more than two-ninths of their regular academic-year salary. This limit includes summer salary received from all NSF-funded grants.''
What would happen if an individual has already reached the maximum limit of two months of summer salary from NSF and a new proposal is being recommended for funding? While the distinction between "current and pending" support should make this situation clear, is it necessary for the principal investigator (PI) to communicate this separately with the program officer? Moreover, could this potentially result in the rejection of the new proposal?

Some guidance but I don’t have experience in how this works myself. https://finance.uw.edu/pafc/nsf-2month-rule

@Dawn Yes, this is usefule! It has "a grantee can internally approve an increase or decrease in person months devoted to the project after an award is made, even if doing so results in salary support for senior personnel exceeding the two-month salary policy. "

Well I think it says you need NSF approval unless the overage is a result of budget changes.

I checked this with others and it seemes we can decrease effort by 25% in any one year without requiring approval.

Right but the situation you have isn’t a change in effort on an existing project. It is adding a new project. Unless by decreasing your effort on each project you can get within the 2 months?

That's correct. This should be done in existing projects too.  Meaning that if you have 1+1+0.5 (for example) you could reduce the first two 25% to make the total salary 0.75+ 0.75+ 0.5 = 2.

Research admin here. Essentially, this rule is very fuzzy and interpreted differently by different folks. Some schools are strict, others generous. NSF wrote a clarification in 2017 that clarified nothing.  I tend to find in CISE that the Program Officer (PO) makes you promise not to charge more than 2 months prior to taking the new award. At some institutions, this means you have to cost share the effort to track an effort commitment.   If it is less than a 25% reduction from the commitment, there is no requirement for prior approval. Thus we usually cut 24% across each fund to get the time back. Personally, I do not charge more than 2 if the effort was committed up front. I only let folks charge more in a true rebudget situation.
Being over-committed generally doesn't result in the proposal being turned down unless it's really bad (usually total commitments). Still, they will ask you about the commitment. It's not a cold rejection email. This process is called a "just in time" or JIT.  When you get the request, you should forward it to your assigned research administrator for assistance.

Thank you. Let's say you are overcommitted but you do not want to charge more than two months. What happens to the remaining fund? What happens to next proposals in terms of PI salary? Can one ask zero money for themselves?

@Bob, yes, some faculty will request 0 effort on the budget, and you can put a statement in the Facilities page that you are not making a large quantifiable commitment of time, but will be giving effort as needed.  A research administrator should be able to help with the phrasing to avoid the implications of committing voluntary cost share. If you are not in the budget, you have to delete your name from the budget pages in Research.gov. On the Current and Pending file, you have to give your voluntary effort even though $0 will be charged. NSF is pretty good about rebudgets to spend on the lab.

If you are overcommitted (truly), you can put in a formal request through Research.gov to lower your effort, but you need a justification.  E.g., if you are a junior PI who was able to hire a fantastic postdoc, maybe you go from 1 month to 0.50, and use that funding on the postdoc instead.  This is a routine sort of adjustment -- just make sure your request makes sense.  You don't want to have the PO come back and say "you really think a second year grad student can replace your expertise on X?" The main thing is you need to make sure you do not create a change in scope.

First of all, "recommended for funding" is not funded yet.
Part of the (long, multi-party) process following the recommendation involves a bunch of checks by NSF "career" people (i.e., not academics in rotation at NSF), which includes compliance with all the regulations. This does not answer your question, but it's an important distinction.
Since your proposal is recommended for funding, you should be able to see the panel reviews in research.gov, and also who the program manager who administered the panel was (in case you already don't know).
I would suggest getting in touch with them, and ask.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it possible to reallocate NSF funds from the graduating PhD student to support the postdoc?
An NSF grant budget includes funding for two PhD students, with one student graduating soon and transitioning to a postdoc position within the group. Is it possible to reallocate funds from the graduating PhD student to support the postdoc for a few months? If so, would this change to the budget allocation require approval from NSF?

You should contact the grant point person at NSF in your field and ask directly.

You are asking for technicalities involving a contract, i.e. legal advices specific to a certain countries. Free legal advices from people in the internet may potentially bring you enormous benefits, in their absolute value.

@EarlGrey You meant to say "malefits", I assume.

@CaptainEmacs That's why Earl Grey mentioned the absolute value.

The authority to make such a budget change belongs to the NSF. In some cases, the NSF delegates some of this authority to the institution that receives the grant. I don't know whether your case is covered by such a delegation. I'd guess it's not, and it might vary from one grantee to another.

@AndreasBlass I realized, but I thought it might help some to see the misdirection.

You need to ask this question to NSF. Right now, you are risking an answer by a chatbot here that might give you unfounded legal advice.

As an AI, I am not qualified to give a formal answer, but [fill as required]

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


text:
Is mild credential embellishment from industry considered academic dishonesty?
One of my coworkers has a part-time academic/research position at a major university where they supervise PhD students and postdocs even though they do not have an advanced degree, or a degree related to the field where they are working.
Their listed credentials on their profile prominently include two groups affiliated with our company and they are listed as a 'founder' or 'co-founder/lead' on both. This is probably an embellishment of their role, which was mostly junior, but with a fair amount of administrative/coordination work. They also changed the name of one of the groups (which is internal to the company so not noticeable by someone outside it) to sound more broad than it actually is.
Technically I could see an argument for either title since the terms are kind of vague--'founder' since they were one of the members when each group was started, and 'lead' since they did some coordination work. But the overall role did not involve technical, thought, or academic leadership and this is hard to describe without revealing internal company information. I am concerned that they are passing themselves off as a thought leader in this (emerging) field, but wonder if my concern is overblown.
Is this considered 'academic dishonesty', or 'unethical'? Or is this normal for people coming from industry (as opposed to a direct academic pipeline where one is a grad student, then a postdoc, then an assistant professor, etc.)

What kind of academic position do they have without a degree? I don't understand how they can supervise junior researchers. Afaik this would mean that they are a PI and have access to academic funding, but that seems unlikely with their profile. The only way I can imagine this is that they are actually co-supervising and there is another academic who is the official PI.

They are a 'co-founder' and 'co-director' of this group with someone who does have a PhD in the field. I guess that person is probably the actual PI and I'll double check how the 'supervision' relationship is worded and presented.

Update: they have been promoting grad student/postdoc positions on their social media, but the positions are with the research group (presumably under the PI/other cofounder). The PI, however, seems more involved with their industry job than with the Institute--my coworker is more involved with the day-to-day group management.

That makes sense, thanks for this clarification. I'm not confident giving an answer because I'm not sure that my perception is representative, but from my point of view it's the fact that they try to pass themselves as a qualified researcher which is the most questionable from an academic perspective.

I find it unlikely that your colleague got their academic assignment based on the role in the company. It is more likely that their contributions/research/innovation/pedagogic ability was recognized and they were offered the opportunity.
Don't generally assume that an advanced degree is an absolute prerequisite for academic affiliation. I know a guy who doesn't hold a PhD yet is the director of a major research lab at a prestigious private research university in the US. He simply "never got around to it". True and extraordinary merit is still recognized in academia, advanced degrees are just another (arguably easier) contribution to that merit.
That being said, I wouldn't call that academic dishonesty and embellishment is also a strong word for it. This could be labelled as inflation, because, as you said, their stated position is a bit 'stretched'. Unfortunately, such things are seen quite often, people feel the need to stress their influence and position. However, for the world outside your company, the distinction makes little difference, and for people who care within, your colleague either doesn't care or can plausibly defend the vague statements. From the standpoint of ethics, this falls arguably into a gray zone, where it is understood that it is not ethical, yet it is tolerated, as long as the stretch isn't blatant.


text:
Should I use a pen name or pseudonym on my papers as a form of semi-anonymity?
This question is very nearly a duplicate to "Taking an academic pseudonym?", however, my name is already sufficiently unique, and I am wondering if it makes sense to use a pseudonym even if I don't need to? (Perhaps this is too subjective for stackexchange...)
I have a (potentially unfounded and/or irrational) fear of publishing on my official name, which is also the name I use in social situations. This is partly since I am at-present "un-Google-able" and I'd very much like to stay that way. I'm thinking about this a lot now since I am soon going to publish my first paper, and I know that it's important to have a consistent academic identity.
Suppose my full name is "Sheldon Lee Cooper", and I normally go by "Sheldon Cooper". I've been thinking I could publish under "Lee Cooper", and then Googling "Sheldon Cooper" would still return no results. I'd use "Lee Cooper" on my academic webpage too, and I would ask to submit my PhD under this name also.
Alternatively I could publish under "Sheldon Lee". (As in this answer.)
This is like Tony Hoare, who's full name is Charles Antony Richard Hoare. Note that Googling "Charles Hoare" gives very different search results.
My academic research is focused on a niche area of (pure) mathematics, so am I being irrational in wanting to remain somewhat anonymous on the internet? Should I acknowledge that publishing niche mathematics is unlikely to harm my reputation and just publish under my legal name as-is? Or does it makes sense to publish under my middle and last name, or even an entirely unique pseudonym? What are the advantages and disadvantages either way?

Some related questions I've seen on academia.stackexchange include:
Pen name similar with real name: Zu Yangzu instead of Zu Yang for papers
This is about having a unique name. My name is sufficiently unique in either variation.
Is it possible to be known in academia by a different name?
Short answer: Yes.
If I publish under a pseudonym, can I still take credit for my work?
Short answer: Probably yes, though not fully anonymous in that case. This will become your academic identity.
Separating academic identity from social identity
My scenario differers in that I currently have no Google results, and if I publish under my own name then that will become my Google results. If I take up publishing erotic novels then I am in a position to do that under a pen name that doesn't conflict. So I don't already have a different identity conflicting, as the author of this question does.
Choosing my name as an author when publishing a scientific paper, can I use my “unofficial” first name?
What are reasonable alternatives to changing your name for academic publishing when you have a common surname?
Taking an academic pseudonym?
This is very similar to my question, the key difference being that the author has the motivation of avoiding confusion with other people who have a similar name. My only motivation is fear of being Googled easily (in a non-academic context). Is that fear irrational?

If you are planning to have/already have a PhD, does this mean that your name from your dissertation and degree will be different from the remainder of your published work?

In case you didn't already know about it, and at the risk of really panicking you, there are sites such as the Mathematics Genealogy Project and ProQuest that could derail your attempts. In fact, many departments list their Ph.D. graduate using full legal names, or at least the names used on Ph.D. dissertations. By the way, +1 for the detailed info. with "Some related questions I've seen on academia.stackexchange include".

@KevinMiller I do not yet have a PhD, I would ask for my thesis to have my academic name on it, and my certificate would naturally have my full legal name (of which my academic name would be a subset).

@DaveLRenfro Related to that, I do actually hope to have an Erdős number after publishing, though I would be fine with that being listed under my "academic name". I don't necessarily require it to be impossible to find out my legal name...indeed that seems far to impractical and I cannot foresee downsides of my legal name being found out. The Google search is really a motivating example, though it seems rather trivial.

I do actually hope to have an Erdős number after publishing --- What I brought up had essentially nothing to do with one's Erdős number, but I guess that's another list you could be on. However, unless your Erdős number is 1 or 2, or you get famous enough to be listed here, that's not likely to be a problem. In fact, my Erdős number is 3 (by several routes), but googling some just now out of curiosity, I wasn't able to find a way to prove this (using 7 or 8 variations of my name) without listing an explicit paper path.

I will go as far as to say that I know some people with an Erdős number of 2 who are not listed on that Wikipedia page, but can easily be verified via https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet/collaborationDistance.html and Google Scholar.

Interesting! I didn't know that such a mathscinet page was freely available. Maybe I missed it, but none of the web pages I found yesterday mentioned it, only that you could find collaboration distance using mathscinet, which I knew, but I assumed this function was behind a paywall. For example, the explanations at this web page do not provide this freely available web page that I can determine. FYI, I've used the freely available MR Lookup since it became available, early 2000s I think; I don't have mathscinet access.

I noticed now that the link given at the web page I cited gives the freely available collaboration tool where "or by going directly to the collaboration distance calculator" (with embedded link) appears. However, this occurs AFTER saying "using MathSciNet if your institution has access" and WITHOUT saying that some of the links they provide, including the most relevant link for their entire discussion, do not require access.

So your question is "am I being irrational in wanting to remain somewhat anonymous on the internet?" The answer is that in the end it is your trade-off. There is benefit to keeping private and professional live separate, but I have been able to so to my satisfaction while not hiding from Google & Co. To me the effort I would have had to put into this (for me it is too late now) was not worth the benefit, but preferences differ between individuals.
When you make this decision try to get an idea of what kind of effort you will have to maintain in order to maintain your online cover and what the potential downsides are if people find it hard to find you. Also try to get a list of all the bad things that can happen if your cover is blown, i.e. what horrible things will happen if Google knows who you are. If you have those two list you can decide for yourself if the benefits outweigh the costs.

+1. It seems like if I start now, using a variation à la Tony Hoare would have minimal effort. That said, the only "bad thing" I can think of happening is that Googling my legal name returns some of my academic work. Beyond that I don't know of downsides to my cover being blown. This is partly why I wonder if my fear is irrational.

A variation in Tony Hoare style is not necessarily incompatible with having my full name on my PhD, though it would reduce the anonymity somewhat. There is a precedent for a PhD student in my department going by his middle name (though he did so everywhere, not just in academic publications).

@freddy "It seems like if I start now, using a variation à la Tony Hoare would have minimal effort." Don't underestimate that, it will require constant vigilance. Either you will completely switch to your new name for all occasions (private and public), which defeats the purpose, or you will have two names that you need to keep separate at all times. Moreover, you will not always be in complete control over what name is used in large bureaucracies like universities, and your "wrong" name may well end up on the university website without your knowledge.

"[...] complete control over what name is used in large bureaucracies like universities [...]". My legal name is already on the departmental website. I guess I'm not expecting the division to be perfect, and I'm hoping the department will be willing to use my pen name where I ask them to.

I am accepting your answer – either I will just publish under my legal name, or I will use a variant of my legal name (à la Tony Hoare), without worrying too much about not having a perfect division. As you said, it's a trade-off, and I guess I have to figure out exactly what trade-off to make for myself.


text:
How do you properly put your published work in to your PhD thesis?
I have previously published a couple of papers in my PhD. I want to put them into my PhD. thesis as is. Is there any proper way to include the papers without doing any self-plagiarism?

Some institutions allow this practice and others do not.  Most journals will give you permission to reuse your published papers but others will not.  The answer to your question depends very much on the particular policies of your institution and the journals you have published in.  Thus we can’t answer your question.


text:
Tons of People Cheating on Exams which hampers my grade
To give you some context we recently had our final exams and I barely managed to cross the threshold to get a 10 GPA in the course. I later found out tons of people had cheated on that course and cruised through it. These groups of people formed towards the end of the semester but now I'm worried they'll do this again from the beginning of the next semester which will make it even more harder for people who don't. Even our teacher acknowledged that cheating has happened but can't take any actions due to 2 reasons majorly, numerical based questions have more or less the same way to solve and identical calculations and proofs are bound to be similar in a class of 600-700 students.
To sort of counter this for some reason the professors decided to make the paper more difficult and more lengthy by adding more parts to each questions compared to previous years but this only made it more difficult for people who're attempting it honestly as when 5 people group together even if each person handles 1-2 questions they can easily finish them off.
Now I know the standard BS that focus on learning and I do but grades do matter, they matter everywhere and they matter in the long run as well and I'm genuinely worried that over time this will hamper by grades over time. Proctored exams also don't really make a difference as they can't really look at what a person is doing with like his other devices and there are tons of excuses people have. I even know a guy who tried solving a question got some wrong values then copied the second part correctly from some other person. He got through by making up some excuse with the TA.
How can I approach the professors or the administration or even try to suggest ways to make the process more fair, I don't want to snitch on others specifically and neither do I know everyone who cheats, I only know some people who would mention this at times and even invited me

There is no question here, just a rant.

I'm sorry I totally forgot to ask my question i ended up just writing the context @BryanKrause I've added the main question at the end

Related, possible duplicate: Other students can easily cheat on a test and the grading system is relative - should I cheat, and what else can I do?

Isn't 10 the max?

@Buffy yup I got it this time because we are all new here and didn't have friend circles till like the end of the semester. So people cheated in the later half more while I worked consistently over the semester so my requirements from the final exams were less, but even still it was difficult to cross that since the exam level drastically increased. I'm more concerned since now these groups already exist they'll most probably share this from the very start of the next semester

First, "I heard that tons of people are cheating" is not very confincing. Imagine having to take action on that basis. You need more. It does not have to be proof that will stand in court, but it needs to be much more than what you said here. Second, you need to think about what you want them to do.

Do you have any proof (e.g. message, email) of their invitation to you to cheat with them?

@MaartenBuis The people who approached me told me that almost everyone is doing that when I turned them down. A close friend of mine who would almost always fail in the weekly tests all of a sudden aced the end semester exams which were after a week and he's the guy who was caught in that last bit

@GoodDeeds It was over call so I don't but even if I did the issue is if i share the snapshot they can easily get away by saying it was a joke but I'll be isolated by all the circles in college

Is your grading relative, i.e., do the scores of others influence your grade in any way?

@GoodDeeds In this course No but in other courses yes so if people are cheating here I think it's safe to presume they'll be doing that in other places too

@cag51 Yeah it does deal with some aspects but not all of them

Umm why was this question closed? I feel it has a background as well as a question

If you can get perfect marks (10), then the cheaters don't really hamper your grade. They don't, in the short term, inconvenience you at all. You are doing the work to learn and your marks show that. All is well. Long term, you might be competing in some marketplace with unethical people, of course.
I suggest two options. Direct and indirect.
The direct action is to find a few people in the same situation and make a joint appeal to administration. They are likely aware of it, of course. But you can point out "how" people are cheating without getting in to the "who". Ask for steps to be taken. No guarantee of success. But this is something for group, not individual action.
The indirect action is to spend some effort becoming known to faculty for your hard work and skills so that they are assured that you are there to learn, not cheat. If you are successful at this, then you will have access to good support in those marketplaces, including, especially good letters of recommendation.
I highly recommend the second (indirect) action. I only point out the first.

More or less I also want to go with the second option as the first one would make it more difficult for me over the next few years. Thanks!


text:
Common practice for references to oeuvres with multiple titles
Many historical oeuvres are known by multiple names and/or multiple variations
of each name. For example:

The title of Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur was originally written as
Le morte Darthur, inaccurate Middle French for The Death of Arthur

Jeoffrey of Monmouth's Historia regum Britanniae (en. The History of the
Kings of Britain) was originally called De gestis Britonum (en. On the
Deeds of the Britons)

La mule sans frein is also known La demoiselle a la mule (en. The mule
without a bridle and The damsel with the mule)

What is the way (or multiple ways) to decide which of these titles to use in
your own work when you citing, referencing, or simply discussing these works?

Does "oeuvres" have a specific meaning here? Other than "works"?

"Le Morte" oh funny, did that word use to be masculine? Or is that part of the "inaccurate"?

SHORT ANSWER:

Whichever you prefer in the text of your work (but be consistent and use only one, except when the variability of names is relevant);
However many are necessary to help the reader understand and find which work you are referring to in the references/bibliography.

LONGER ANSWER:
There might be some particular cases where it might be adequate to list, in the body of the work itself, the various titles given to the same text (this question being one!). But in general, when the variability of names across time and geography is not the focus of the work, it is better

to mention in a footnote on the first mention of this work that it is also known by other names;
to use only one of those names in the rest of the body of the document (for the sake of brevity, to better focus on the main topic of the work and not lead the reader on irrelevant side tracks); and
to list such alternative names in the references or bibliography at the end of the document, so that scholars validating your work have all the information required available.

I hope it helps!


text:
From post-assessment to interview in a faculty recruitment in Denmark
I have heard about cases in Denmark where candidates for a faculty position got through an assessment by some committee members as "qualified" but did not get interviews eventually. What is the process to go from post-assessment to interview in a faculty recruitment? For example, is there a ranking from the assessment committee? I am just curious since this procedure (post-assessment -> interview) seems obscure and hardly written in a university's hiring policies, even in a highly transparent system like in Scandinavian countries.

Can you explain more what your question is? Indeed, not all positively assessed candidates are invited, so there's a filtering. But that's already given from what you've heard. So what's left to clarify? Or do you just want a confirmation that what you've heard is correct?

Often there are formal qualifications you must have before you can even be considered for that job. These minimum qualifications can come from the law, or from university policy, or are specific to that position. So those who do not meet those criteria are first removed. The remaining candidates are than often ranked based on the material they provided, and the top X candidates are invited for an interview. You cannot invite everybody, otherwise we would be in selection committees all day and not get any teaching and research done.

@lighthousekeeper See my edits.  I would like to know about the usual procedure from post-assessment until interview, since universities' policy statement usually misses it.

The University of Copenhagen documents that part of their recruitment process as follows:

Assessment

• The Assessment Committee makes a non-prioritised assessment of the academic qualifications of applicants with respect to research, teaching and outreach and other requirements listed in the advertisement.
• HR undertakes legality checks and sends assessments out to applicants for consultation.

Interviews

• The manager tasked with recruitment decides in conjunction with the Appointments Committee which of the applicants submitted for assessment are to be invited for interview and possibly a trial lecture.
• Academic and personal characteristics are assessed and explored in more detail at interview.

So, there is a selection, but no ranking.


text:
How do (STEM) professors keep up with the latest tech or development in order to publish research?
From an outsider/student's view, STEM professors are:

not taking courses
mostly not doing things outside of their research comfort zones
not (?) studying up much except for their research, certainly not doing exercises from the back of a book and looking up solutions somewhere
some graduated 40 years ago or even more.
teaching the same course for past 20 years, which let's face it, is sort of like teaching history with numbers.
not visibly getting taught by their research students or anyone else for that matters.

How is it that a lot of the professors are publishing cutting edge research (especially in STEM) involving the latest tech and gadgets? If I am not reading the news, I wouldn't know what Apple is doing right now let alone develop an algorithm that mimics what their Face Recognition AI is doing.
How is it possible that a professor with a PhD in analog circuit back in the 70s could do research in today's massive microchip fabrication process when a tremendous amount of information/material is needed to get up to speed both in terms of theory and practical knowledge? Do these professors have fabrication facilities in their garage or something? How would they know without being in industry or taking a course?
How is it possible that a professor with a PhD in numerical optimization from the 80s where the latest and the great was quasi-Newton method is doing research on the latest deep learning algorithm? How can this person even be proficient at this? Are they taking courses on Coursera or something?
How do you do it?

Profs have Research Fellows, PhD Students and MSc students. And good profs have an instinct for where things are going to be in 10, 20 years, not where they are now.

Short answer: we don't stop learning.  We learn from our students, research papers, and do pick up textbooks occasionally to re-learn concepts and indeed do exercises!   A lot of professors are at the forefront of knowledge, and they are generating new knowledge; usually, they have the necessary skills and tools to push the boundary of knowledge.   If not, they learn or get someone who has the skills/tools.  Think of a Prof as a general purpose CPU that can be used to run a 'research' software on hot topics. :)

How is it possible for a new student to ever catch up to somebody with a 40-year head start?

@FoundABetterName I approved your suggested edit. However, I have a note for you. Your comment says "Grammer mistake fixed". Shouldn't it be "Grammar"?

In short, your premises are wrong.

Professors read papers to learn.
Professors meet with their peers, both at conferences and informally, and learn from them.
Professors do learn from their research students.

These are slow methods of learning, but over many years they add up.
Further, in fast-moving fields of research, nobody "keeps up" in the sense of knowing everything that is going on.  It isn't necessary to know everything that is already known to create new knowledge.

By having PhD students and post docs. Not saying professors don't do research but a big part is having the idea then handing it off to a student/post doc who does the research. PhD students gets to spend 3-4 years becoming the expert in their tiny subfield. At some point the PhD student will start teaching the professor new things. Post docs help to really push an idea forward and make progress. Master students are also helpful in "testing the waters" in new areas. It doesn't matter so much if their research goes no where but can be a helpful probe to see if an idea has some merit.
Professors are also usually usually the ones organising conferences and sitting on the committee's deciding who gets to speak and who gets money. So not only do they get a front row seat to learning what people are doing, and where the field is going they are also the ones helping to direct where their field goes.


text:
What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing a PhD project V.S. own dissertation?
In Europe, normally PhD students are going into two tracks -- taking a contracted PhD position with a given research project OR joining a well-structured PhD program to write up his/her own dissertation.
The later is analogous to the PhDs in the US but not 100% equivalent since many students in the European PhD programs are funded by 3rd parties (e.g. government scholarship) and so they probably never act as TA/RA but fully dedicated to his/her own research.
Besides money, such as paid PhDs earn more, how would you think of the pros and cons of these two tracks?
For me, I got accepted to both a PhD project and a PhD program. The former is an H2020 project led by a young PI at a decent Univ (nationally reputable but fairly new, so not yet very research-intensive), while the later is in a relatively more prestigious b- school (nationally top 1 but internationally not top-tier 1). The supervisor is pending - students can make an agreement in the first year.
I decided to accept the offer of the project since I think it can enable me to have a deeper involvement in the research team during the PhD stage. Of course, I enroll in a PhD program as well but is not that structured. I am unsure if I make the right decision, maybe I am too naive, but I won't change it. There is no much difference in the level of two institutions, so my opportunity costs won't be very great. Yet I am always wondering how you guys think over it when you're faced of such options?
I am new to here. Before posting this question, I searched the keywords but not found a same one.


text:
How to deal with a professor who delayed my contract signature until I received better postdoc offers?
I just got my PhD 2 weeks ago. Last April I discussed with a professor about an offer to join her team. However, this offer was pending a certain project acceptance (I was supposed to work mainly on that project).
The project got accepted on July and I accepted to start working beginning of December. Since September I sent 3 emails asking when can we start with the official procedures of preparing and signing the contract. I always received the same answer 'whenever you want', I would reply that I need to start it early so I can settle and finish the boring paperwork, then I receive nothing back.
Until 2 days before my PhD defense when she suggested to start the procedures of preparing a contract (these procedures would take at least 3 weeks). Meanwhile this professor asked me to do minor tasks for the project, I did it. But when she kept delaying the official procedures, I felt worried. I thought maybe she is not sure yet about hiring me, so I made other interviews and already received two much better offers and I'm comparing between the three offers now.
My question is, how rude, professional-wise, my situation is? I already talked to her by phone and described that I'm deciding between various offers and that I will finally decide in two days but she wasn't ok with that at all. She said you are already committed with me (even without a contract). I really don't want to burn bridges.

Can you clarify if this is a post-doc position or a position that requires a doctoral degree?

Thanks a lot @Penguin_Knight for answering. It's a postdoc position. In fact, in my current school it's not uncommon for PhD candidates who have a fixed defense date to move to a postdoc position sometime before graduation. So I didn't have to have my PhD before signing with her.

This may be a blessing in disguise.  This could be a strong indication of how this professor runs their team.  Would you be okay looking for guidance or clearance to proceed and having things go the same way?

Oral contract is no less binding than written contract. By "accepting to start working at beginning of December" you had entered a contract. A very imprecise one, but still.

Absolutely disagree with the @Agent_L. If she really wanted you, she would have started the contract procedures already. An oral "contract" shows only your motivation to work with her; nothing more.

@onurcanbektas That's not an opinion, there is nothing to disagree here. From legal point of view a contract doesn't need a written form. It's hard to prove existence of such contract, but it's still there.

@Agent_L Just out of curiosity, how would anyone prove the validity & existence of such an oral agreement (in your terms a contract), legally?

@onurcanbektas ektas As I said, it's hard to prove it. First of all, people often don't realize that merely saying something can be a contract and/or don't want to lie. So when an attorney asks "have you said this and that?", surprisingly often they respond truthfully, and that's the best way. If they lie "I never said that", then witness testimony or sometimes a recording can be used.

@onurcanbektas And there are implied contracts, ones that were never written nor said aloud, but they still exist. Eg. every time you buy groceries you enter a buy-sell contract with the shop. That's why it's unwise to sell expensive things to a 6-year-old, because the parents can come and claim that a 6-year-old cannot enter a binding contract and demand money back.

In my opinion neither party has behaved very well.  You received an offer and accepted it.  Then you asked for a contract and it was not provided in a timely manner.  However, from your descriptions it doesn't sound like you conveyed how important it was to you to sign the contract at a certain time.

I would reply that I need to start it early so I can settle and finish the boring paperwork

This is not very clear: early and late are entirely subjective terms.  It is plausible that the professor thought she was acting early.  You should have said "I need to sign the contract by Date X, or I will have to consider other offers."  Yes, this is a somewhat strongly worded statement, but step back and took a look at the situation: is being firm about getting a contract on a job that has been offered and accepted going to place the job in any jeopardy?  Almost certainly not, and if it does then perhaps you're dodging a bullet by not taking this job.  Also, interviewing for other jobs after you've accepted a job offer is a significantly more precipitous action.  It is understandable but only ethically watertight if you made best efforts to nail down the job you've accepted, and it's not clear that you did.  Moreover, having the professor find out that you interviewed elsewhere -- which is extremely likely in most academic communities, by the way -- risks annoying her much more than a "Please stop dragging your feet" email.
Moreover, doing work for a job before you've signed a contract is a very bad idea.  How do you signal more interest in a job than actually starting the job?  If you pull out after doing work then the professor is almost certainly going to be surprised and a bit miffed (unless she has been playing games with you all along).  On the other hand, if you end up never signing the contract and not taking the job, the work that you've done goes down the drain.  Good luck getting paid for it, and good luck maintaining an academic collaboration with the professor.  But for the record, I blame the employer more: a wizard professor should know better.  She is not behaving professionally.
In my opinion this is not the start of a beautiful friendship.  If you have another job offer that you think is significantly better, in my opinion yes, you can take it.  You haven't signed anything, and you made inquiries about signing which were not handled in a timely manner.  You should expect that if you pull out of this, the professor will be displeased with you.  But that happens sometimes, and it should not stop you from acting in your own professional best interests.  Still, you should be thinking about how not to get into this same situation in the future.

You received an offer and accepted it: No. A verbal promise of an offer is not an offer. A contract is an offer. The professor cannot hold the OP to a higher moral standard than she holds herself, by acting evasively, delaying the contract, asking OP to do things for free in the meantime, and then act all outraged when OP reacts in the obvious way any other person would react to such abuse. So, your (mild) criticism of OP's behavior is unwarranted in my opinion. I agree with the rest of the answer though.

What @DanRomik said.  Symmetrically: A verbal promise to accept a job offer is not the same as accepting a job offer.  And good luck getting paid for any work done without a contract, even if you do eventually sign a contract.

@Dan: There are different degrees of seriousness of offers.  Legally speaking, verbal contracts can sometimes be binding, and part of the difficulties come from lack of enforcement.  The OP didn't say "verbal," and I think it is likely that there was an email exchange.  I think that an emailed offer is a "real offer" and an emailed acceptance is a "real acceptance." While I wouldn't act legally on it in either direction, in my experience this is the way the academic community functions.

For example, about a week after I accepted (by email) my postdoctoral offer in a different country, I got another postdoctoral offer from an American university, with a 50% higher salary.  I did not think the second offer was better enough to renege on the first offer.  While I would have felt legally defensible in reneging, morally I still think it's a renege, because someone gave their word and I gave my word in return.  This is how academics behave: by giving their word, not primarily by signing contracts.

Note also that I didn't enumerate any negative consequence for the OP beyond the professor being displeased.  Nor is it a question of very immoral behavior on her part: I just think she could have behaved better.  You live, you learn.  @JeffE: It is possible to sign a contract that says that you start work on a certain date, even if you sign it after that date: the contract documents the agreement.  If the OP wanted to get paid for her work in December (i.e., now), this would be the better way to do it.  I doubt that is a significant consideration in this case though.

@PeteL.Clark yes, good points and as a general rule I agree that honest academics behave this way. In this case however I have serious doubts as to whether the professor was acting in good faith. In my opinion her unprofessional behavior mostly or entirely relieves the OP from the responsibility to abide by his/her (weak, or nonexistent) commitment. I'd advise the OP to take the other offer and thank his/her lucky stars for being saved from what might well have turned out to be an abusive working relationship. The professor has only herself to blame.

@Dan: Sorry to disappoint, but I agree with you. :)

I think I'll get over it... :-)

@PeteL.Clark Thanks a lot for answering. In fact, while I accepted her offer via email and again verbally in a meeting with her, three months have already passed without any official move from her side, with my constant inquires asking when are we going to start with the official procedures. I honestly felt that either there's a funding issue or she simply changed her mind about hiring me. This is why I accepted other two interviews and received positive feedback from both. Finally, I agree with you that I could have dealt with the whole situation better.

@Dina I can also see a disturbing possbility that the reason for the professor's delay and evasiveness could have been that she herself was trying to sign on another postdoc whom she would have preferred over you, and might have been the one to leave you hanging without a job if her plan had worked out. All things considered, it sounds to me like you behaved pretty responsibly whereas she behaved unprofessionally and maybe unethically. Your careful consideration of your next actions by asking this question here also shows a good sense of ethics and reflects very well on you. Good luck!

@Dina: I don't see any reason why the prof cannot communicate with you if there is some unexpected delay in getting the funding. Such things happen, but that doesn't mean that you cannot talk openly about it and find a solution to deal with that delay.

I sent 3 emails asking when can we start with the official procedures of preparing and signing the contract. I always received the same answer 'whenever you want', I would reply that I need to start it early so I can settle and finish the boring paperwork, then I receive nothing back.

Based on what you've written here, it sounds like one possible explanation for these event is simple miscommunication: the professor told you that she was willing to start the procedures any time you wanted, but you never replied with a specific date, so she just assumed that you weren't quite ready yet, and that you'd tell her when you were.
If you did, in fact, want to start immediately, you should have told her so; instead, you used vague expressions like "early", which the professor may have interpreted as "soon, but not yet".
That said, even if this is the real explanation, I wouldn't call it entirely your fault; the professor should have become concerned when you told her that you wanted to start the procedures early, and then never followed up with a "let's start now", and she should have written back to you sooner to explicitly ask you whether you still need it done early, and if so, to name a specific deadline.  Still, it's quite possible and understandable that she may have been distracted by other, more pressing matters, especially if you weren't in frequent communication and if there was no particular deadline involved for her.

Regarding what you should do now, I agree with the other answers that the damage is basically done already.  One option, if you want to take it, is to simply walk away and take one of the other offers.  You may be leaving a burned bridge behind you if you do so — but that bridge is already aflame, and there's no guarantee that you can put it out at this point.
If you do want to try and mend your relationship with this professor, what you need to do is sit down and talk with her.  Explain what you believe has happened, from your viewpoint, and ask her to explain how she sees the situation, and be willing to accept that those two viewpoints might look very different, and that the misunderstanding may not be entirely her fault.
Before you do that, it may be a good idea to make up your mind on which postdoc position you want to choose, and make that clear to her from the beginning.  If you're going to take one of the other offers, make that clear from the start, and say you're sorry — don't give the impression that you're trying to make the professor bargain to make you stay.  And conversely, if you do want to stay and work with her, also let her know that from the start.  Either way, make it clear that this isn't a negotiation, but that you just want to figure out what went wrong and how you can avoid making the same mistakes again.
(That's not to say that you should irrevocably commit to a particular choice before the discussion; it is, after all, possible that some new information might come up during or after the discussion that could legitimately make you re-evaluate your choices.  But do at least make a definite choice first, and make it clear that you're not expecting to change your mind unless something truly unexpected comes up.  The point is that you're not sitting down to bargain, but to clear the air and figure out how to move on.)

It boils down to how sure are you that it was she who delayed the procedures, and why. Did she delay by lack of organisation or intentionally? Some people are not intentionally delaying procedures, but just disorganised. Or it may be possible that she didn't think you would finish at a certain time and the procedures require a completed defense.
If you have grounds to believe, however, that she may have done that intentionally, then you probably will have a snapshot of how your collaboration may look in the future when even more critical issues are at stake (publications, credit, funding, references).
What you need to make sure is that it was not you that, somehow, by negligence, caused the delays. If you are confident that this is not the case (BTW, nothing in your mail indicates this, I am just suggesting to make sure), then it is necessary to identify her responsibility in the situation. "Burning bridges" is not the right term to use here, but rather whether the fair and justified interest of the parties involved was respected. Did you keep your side of the bargain? Do you feel the other side upheld their side of the bargain?
The whole appearance of the story is that she wanted to be in control of the situation, and now circumstances (and your talent) put you in control instead.
You ask how rude you would be to take advantage of that. Yes, you may be "rude" (in some sense), and end up happy or be polite and end up unhappy. It is your life, and, unless in your country spoken agreements count as contracts (there are places where this is the case), you can legally pull back. Even if it is an agreement, you could make the point that she didn't uphold her part of the bargain.
In any case, if you decide to go for the original offer, after all, don't let yourself be tempted to turn down the other, better, offers until you have got your contract in hand, though.

Thanks a lot for answering. In fact, early when I accepted her offer she mentioned that even though the project is accepted, yet funding is still a couple of formal signatures away. So when she kept delaying the contract signature I thought maybe funding is not ready yet or she simply changed her mind about hiring me. It turned out later that she already hired 2 PhD students to work on that project as early as September. So that was awkward and it encouraged me more to accept interviews. I will keep your advice in mind, I won't feel tempted to turn down other offers.

Above message about a possible misunderstanding brought up also an important point. It is worthwhile to make sure that the whole issue is not just an innocent miscommunication (that happens more often than one would think).

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


text:
Am I morally obliged to report myself of a perceived violation of good academic practice?
I am the original poster from this question on a new account. I tried registering the account, but for some reason it made me have a fresh account with no rep and did not acknowledge my original post, so I couldn't comment further.
Now, this is a question on the academia stack exchange, and I can absolutely understand if it is off-topic for this board. However, I just feel the commenters and answerers here being academics can provide a good appeal to authority for me (and seeking a professional is also something I am taking seriously about this as this is certainly something worth talking about). If it is thought this question should be posted somewhere else I'm perfectly happy to do so regardless.
The comments and answers in the thread have been very insightful and helpful for me, and have helped me get to the core of what was bothering me. People have been telling me that it's fine to forgive myself and move on with my life, but I've realized that this thought has been so gripping for me if I try and dig deep and understand the root of my worry: "You can forgive yourself, but it only matters if the institution that you've 'wronged' forgives you. That's the only forgiveness that can 'exonerate' you, because they're the institution that you have wronged in some way." In the same sense that if I've wronged someone in the past without them knowing that I have, it isn't good enough to forgive myself for it -- I need the person's forgiveness. Someone who has committed a crime but wasn't convicted for it can't simply forgive himself -- he needs to do his time! The previous sentence seems to encapsulate my psyche best -- particularly that last clause. To me, this is an almost objective idea (cautiously aware that 'objective ideas' are a fallacy in themselves) and blatantly true. I know my 'violation' (which many have said would simply be thrown out if I even mentioned it to the university) isn't comparable to a crime or anything, but it contains the core of my message.
So my question essentially is: do I even have the authority to pardon myself for not 'doing the time' for an academic wrongdoing, even if minor? Because a criminal surely doesn't have the authority to pardon himself for not 'doing time' for a crime he's committed. I anticipate that people will say I'm really reaching here and hyperbolizing. I am, but I do see a connection here that still sticks with me.
I understand this is probably a personal question, but I realize I may have a slightly warped or overly harsh moral compass. I anticipate some will say you can allow yourself to 'get away with it' for a violation this minor -- but doesn't this require some arbitrary line to be drawn? A declaration of 'this is not bad enough to feel one needs to punish himself if never punished'? One might get the sense that I wish to have a reason to feel like I don't need to report myself because it is objectively fine rather than I forgive myself and feel that it's fine because the latter still makes me feel like an unpunished wrongdoer. I hope this doesn't sound too much like I'm making the community my therapist, but the opinions of academia-minded people here are important to me. A therapist can help me get down to why I hold so much value in the idea that 'someone who has been unpunished needs to do his time' but this forum can serve as holding that idea's feet to the fire in academia.
The eponymous question remains: am I morally obliged, where are the lines drawn if the violation is minor and (to my example) nearly meaningless to pursue in practice, and how can one feel their academic integrity can remain in tact by giving oneself the authority to decide not to report themselves when surely it is incumbent upon the university to decide whether the violation is legimiate enough to be taken serious or not as the wronged party?

You seem to be asking a question about moral philosophy, not academia. Perhaps it would be better at: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/

Does this answer your question? Realizing possible academic misconduct after degree award

Why post again when you had a more than reasonable answer before? See https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/151008/72855

@Louic I am the OP of the thing you linked.

@Solar Mike I feel that the question posed here is unique to that of my previous and so deserved a different question thread. I also can no longer post on the old account's comments to pose this question if I had the word space.

You should probably register for the site so that you can maintain continuity. You can do so and maintain anonymity.

https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/18232/349058

You are in a tight mental bind. If we tell you, yes you have the authority to forgive yourself (whatever that means), you will find some other reason to beat yourself up over your perceived misdeeds. We had a similar user recently who was obsessed with the concern that his former advisor might think badly of him, to the extent that he tried to move heaven and hell in his attempt to set a perceived misunderstanding right, all the while anyoning a great number of people. The only advice we could give was to let go and move on. Not an academic advice, but one based on empathy and common sense. ..

... And this is the only advice we can give you, too. Tragically, letting go seems to be exactly what is hard for you. And we can neither help you to understand the reason for this, nor can we teach you how to do it. Talk to a therapist or a religious councilor, if you are so inclined. Good luck!

I'm interested in discussing/answering this question (although I completely agree it's off-topic and agree with the closure). Would a chat be a good place to do that?

@RaynaGrayson I am the OP (I've finally registered my account and it keeps not listing me as the original poster of the questions I write before registering. I'd be happy to chat.

I have just read your original post and I believe that you are overthinking this a bit.
The reason why people should not look at others’ papers during exams is because they shouldn’t cheat. Cheating- answering a question with someone else’s knowledge (correctly or incorrectly)- is ethically unacceptable.
If you peered at another student’s paper absentmindedly- were you cheating? I think not. That can happen to anyone just looking around. If seeing another persons paper even if you did not look for the answers was completely unacceptable then we would have students take exams in isolation (which is a bit too much of a precaution don’t you think).
If you looked at someone else’s exam to see if you are behind- were you cheating? Again no, since looking at where they are in their exam did not put you in an advantage over others in the class that you did not deserve.
If you looked at another student’s paper because you were extremely overwhelmed and wanted to know the answer- were you cheating? Yes.
The next and final question is- did you see their answer and write it down without any guilt as if it is your own answer? Did you repeatedly exhibited this behavior in most or all subsequent exams? If answer to this is yes - I am surprised you were not caught and congratulate you- maybe you should consider being a spy- after reporting yourself to the university.
However, if you did not write the answer down, or even if you did and the next time you did not do it again and felt an overwhelming guilt as you do- I think you have not cheated or learned a lesson by yourself- in which case you do not have to report yourself.
Now relax and keep your eyes on your own paper from now on.

Do I even have the authority to pardon myself for not 'doing the time' for an academic wrongdoing, even if minor?

Yes you do: as an imperfect human being in an imperfect world, it is vital that you learn to accept your imperfections. It's likely that you will face harder challenges than that in your life, everybody does. It's even possible that other people' wellbeing will sometimes depend on your actions. If you can't forgive yourself, if you constantly question and blame yourself as a person, if you let your mistakes define you, there is a high risk that this will prevent you from being present to others and participate in meaningful ways to society.
Rules are meant to guide, not to define right from wrong in any kind of definitive way. Following the rules is good, but an occasional involuntary victimless slipup is nothing to obsess with.

how can one feel their academic integrity can remain in tact by giving oneself the authority to decide not to report themselves when surely it is incumbent upon the university to decide whether the violation is legimiate enough to be taken serious or not as the wronged party?

Academic integrity is not like a formal demonstration, a minor mistake doesn't invalidate the whole thing.
Academia (and life) requires people to have a moral compas and use it. But if all the academics had your pathologically exacerbated moral sense, everybody would resign and there would be no academia anymore.

+1 for 1st sentence. As an example, my friend A shared something with their partner B, that A's friend C had told A in confidence. A thought it would be ok with C, but it wasn't and C did not forgive A. A felt very guilty, but eventually forgave themself and learned from it. @impost, would you say A is morally obliged to never forgive themself and must forever consider themself a bad friend? Humans make wrong judgment calls sometimes (especially under pressure, like an exam). The important thing is how you respond to it, and you've already shown you understand that intention to cheat is wrong.


text:
Can I republish what is already published on ArXiv after a copyright transfer?
I will explain the case (because it is unique):
If I publish an article in arXiv under the arXiv license (not under CC license), consequently I retain the copyright.
Four months later, I write other article (a different one), but I use/include parts from the first article. And this second article is not published in arXiv, it is published in a journal (transferring the copyright to the publisher and exclusive publication rights, which is possible since the author is the copyright holder).
Now, if we go back to the first article (which is in arXiv before the second article was published), and we need to modify (for whatever reason) the comments in arXiv... for this it will be necessary to create a second version (v2) and publish again the fulltext file and accept the ArXiv license (certifying that you have the right to grant that license).
If the first article had never been published in arXiv (it would have simply remained on the author's PC), the author would not be able to publish the first article in arXiv, since he would be publishing the first article including content (since the second article was partially a derivative work from the first one) whose copyright was transferred (and the journal allows the publication in arXiv of the second article that is published in the journal, which has nothing to do with the first article).
But, taking into account that the first article was published in arXiv (and is already in arXiv)... can the author republish it (and accept the arXiv license again) or would he be doing something illegal due to the transfer of copyright relative to the second article that included content from the first one?

Does the journal's copyright transfer agreement mention anything about allowing posting on arXiv / personal webpage? Some allow this as an exception.

The journal allows the publication of the article in non-commercial repositories, including arXiv. But this applies to the second article.
My question is whether it would be possible to re-grant the arXiv license to the first article after having included part of its content in the second article (whose copyright was transferred).

If it was the first time that the first article was to be published in arXiv, I think it would not be possible. But, since the first article was already in arXiv before the second article was published...There is my doubt ...

Can someone give some help with this matter? Thanks in advance.

Teresa, please don't use answers to bump your question: non-answers are deleted on Stack Exchange (in this case, I converted it to a comment). If you want to draw attention to a question, follow the advice given in this FAQ.


text:
What is the fair way to grade in this pandemic?
I am a second-year student at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research.
There's been a lot of discussions among students and faculty in my institute regarding the grading system to be employed due to the coronavirus pandemic. As only the midterms could be taken, and as the number of cases has been rising daily, there aren't any plans to open the institute anytime soon to take the end semester exams.
What is the most appropriate thing to do in this situation?
Is it fair to use the midterms to decide the final grade?
Edit :
My institute follows the conventional A/B/C/D/F grades for grading, there are some suggestions by the institute and I am listing them below:

The institute wants to award grades on the basis of midterms but if you aren't satisfied with your performance, you can give an end sem exam for any particular course whenever the institute resumes (which no one has any idea), but the grade boundaries do not change.
The students have to inform two weeks after the grades are assigned that they want to take the end sem exam or not.

Did the course end early, or did it continue to the normal end?

@Buffy the course up to midterms was taught at the institute but no teaching was possible at the institute after this. Although online teaching continued, there were problems with internet access for a significant proportion of the population, no quizzes or exams were taken with online teaching.

The pandemic is unfair.  You can't fix that.

Why do you assume there is a fair way to grade, with or without pandemic?

It depends, of course, on what you mean by "fair". If you mean correctly distinguishing top performers (high marks) from average or low performers, I don't think it is really possible without assessment. Certainly depending on a mid term exam is not fair.
But if, by "fair", you mean "not disadvantaging any student" then something like a universal "pass" for everyone is fair. This would come with a note on any transcript that grading was cancelled for this term.
One university in the US has decided that there will be three possible grades for the term just ended: Pass, Fail, and Incomplete. But even there, it depends on some sort of assessment to make the distinctions.
Even cancelling the term and returning everyone's money isn't fair.
The bigger problem, of course, is that we (myself, at least) no longer trust that this situation is temporary and we may need a fundamental re-thinking of both course delivery and student assessment. But, in the short term, some sort of bridge to whatever will follow is necessary.
Chaos requires extraordinary action.
One thing that can be done, I think, is an informal, personal, assessment to each student making suggestions about what they have missed and where they need improvement to continue. This doesn't scale well, of course. But even an ungraded "exam" will give the student some feedback that they can use, if they choose, to advance their education. But making "grading" decisions on such things is difficult to do as, then, cheating is difficult to control.


text:
Requirements for getting into a German physics MSc
I am in my second year of a BSc in Physics in India. I want to pursue my physics graduate degree (MS) in Germany. I want to know what graduate schools are looking for in my application there.

What I mean is, what criteria do they use to find out who is good at physics and research. what are they looking for in my applications?

As I commented on a similar question: An MSc is not considered a graduate degree in Germany, but as the second part of an undergraduate study that prepares for the research-only PhD. As such, you only need to satisfy the formal requirements (i.e., an equivalent of that university's BSc, possibly including specific courses). For details, you need to look at the specific university's examination regulations (Prüfungsordnung in German).

Thank you very much. @ChristianClason. I think u should have posted that as the formal answer to this question.

@ChristianClason Can you also tell me if universities(like yours) look for anything specifc while selecting cadidates for the physics M.Sc program?

@PranavSinghal It's a completely formal procedure: If you meet the requirements set out in the regulations, you're in. None of the universities I know have limited admissions to Masters programs (in physics at least), although most have a minimum grade on the BSc (equivalent).

This seems to be a common misconception: An MSc is not considered a graduate degree in Germany but the second part of an undergraduate study that prepares for the research-only PhD. As such, the universities are required by law to admit all applicants that satisfy the formal requirements as specified in the examination regulations (Prüfungsordnung in German). (The only exception is if the number of applicants exceeds the capacity of the department, which to my knowledge is not the case for physics in most places.)
These regulations vary somewhat between universities and disciplines (and even different courses of study within a discipline), so you really need to look at the one of the specific university you're interested in (or google Masters physics admission $UNIVERSITY, if you don't know enough German), but it boils down to holding a sufficiently successful Bachelor's degree that is reasonably similar to the one offered by that university. What this means depends on the course of study, but as a rough guideline

the degree must be recognized as equivalent to a Bachelor's in scope (number of credits, mostly 180 ECTS) and depth (university-level);
the transcript must show certain courses deemed crucial by the department (the regulations will contain the list of courses, whose contents can then be looked up in the Modulhandbuch);
the diploma must show a minimum grade (again, this will be given in the regulations; I've often seen 3.0 or better according to the German grading system which goes from 1.0 (best) to 4.0 (barely passing).)

In addition, you need to

show proficiency in the teaching language as given in the regulations (this could be either German, English, or both). Most regulations I've seen also explicitly require a German language certificate
for the Deutsche Sprachprüfung für den Hochschulzugang (DSH).

Although these requirements will be checked on a purely formal level, there's usually some leeway in the proceedings; e.g, if you are missing some courses from point 2, you might be admitted under the condition that you catch up on them within the first year, and a grade worse than required by point 3 might be compensated for by a brief oral examination where you show that your academic performance from here on is likely to be better than in the past. (But it's important to stress that this is not required if you already meet all the formal requirements.)
As an example, you can look at the admissions page of the TU Munich (which is regarded as one of the more "professionalized", as these things go).

ty for the answer, this is what I was looking for. Can u also tell me if I need to learn German?

That depends very much on the course of study (again, look at the Prüfungsordnung) -- for some, the teaching language is German, in which case yes, for others its English, in which case you need to show proficiency in that. (Needless to say, learning German is highly recommended if you want to spend several years in the country...)

@PranavSinghal Actually, yes, (some) German language proficiency is often a separate, explicit, requirement.

Do colleges in germany ask for gre scores? subject and general?

Again, this very much depends on the university and the degree. You really need to ask the specific admissions office what precisely they require. But, yes, some do (in which case it's usually the general, not the subject), although many don't (or only list it as one possibility of demonstrating the necessary language proficiency).

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