text:
Asking a complete stranger for a subreview for a conference?
This question is about Computer Science firstly, I don't know if it applies to other domains
I am a PC member of some international conference in my field. I got a large number of papers to review, so I need to find subreviewers for many of them. Most of the time I would give the paper to a colleague that I know would be interested in reading it ... but I know only so many people interested in so many different topics, and there remains some papers for which I have no idea of whom could review it.
So I'm doing the following: search the web for any researcher in this domain who is active, has publications matching the keywords of the paper, does not seem to have any conflict of interest with the authors, and, preferably, published to this conference before.... and ask this person to act as subreviewer.
Is this common practice? I have received conference papers from complete strangers before, but this was only rare occasions (say a few percent), but I feel I'm doing this for almost 1/4th of my assigned papers. Is there any way to address this person, other than the standard EasyChair message?

if (in future) && (need reviewer) && (data science related) { contact_wanderer(); }

contact_wanderer() { send_email_to( byebyeads1@gmail.com ) };

I am a CS guy and can answer this question.
Yes of course. That is what conference chairs do perhaps. As you told the person has already published in past conferences like this. If some researcher is active in the field of his/her research arena and agreeing to review the manuscript. This is what is called peer-review. My recommendation would be to contact the researchers through academic e-mail ids of theirs to make it more transparent.

In my experience it may make sense to send subreviews out for people who are junior than you and you know that they can replace your particular expertise (e.g. your postdocs, possibly senior PhD students). Note that you are responsible for their reviews in this case. Otherwise, unless you are a Scientific Committee Chair, it is not strictly your job to select reviewers, or you would have been asked to do that in the first place.
I personally do not give out subreviews for precisely this reason - if I am editor, or in the scientific committee (which selects reviewers), of course, I do select reviewers, and that's what my job description is; but when I am asked to review, I assume they want me and my expertise and not some variation of me. However, some conferences explicitly permit subreviewers, so it really depends on the situation.
In any case, I probably would consider a subreview to be directly your responsibility, so if the subreviewer messes up, it's your job to fix it - or if it is contentious, but not questioned by you, to defend the review.


text:
How is extra exam time for disability accommodation perceived by professors, especially potential reference letter writers?
Some students with what is considered as academic disabilities receive 30 minutes of additional time for every hour of exam, which is a factor of 1.5 to the exam time.
How is this perceived by professors? Might some of them think that these students get an edge or advantage over other students unfairly?
If a student is looking forward to requesting a reference for grad school from a certain professor, would it generally be better for him/her not to request exam extensions for this professor's course?

Comments are not for extended discussion (or mini-answers); this conversation has been moved to chat. Feel free to continue discussion there.

(I will answer in the context of the U.S., but I hope others will answer for other parts of the world.)

How is this perceived by professors?  Might some of them think that these students get an edge or advantage over other students unfairly?

The US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has stated, "A test should ultimately measure a student's achievements and not the extent of the disability" (www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/auxaids.html).
If some professors are still playing catch-up, that's their problem.  Extended time has been settled legally for at least 15 years (see the Marilyn Bartlett case about accommodations in the bar exam, which was decided TWICE by Sonia Sotomayor, long before she was appointed to the US Supreme Court).

If a student is looking forward to requesting a reference for grad school from a certain professor, would it generally be better for him/her not to request exam extensions for this professor's course?

There is no reason to have a tooth extracted without novocaine, i.e. there is no reason to sacrifice the needed accommodations, just because a professor might botch a letter of recommendation.  I say botch because it would be discriminatory for a professor to judge a student's exam results differently just because the student used a reasonable accommodation to achieve them.  OCR enforces the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, which protect the civil rights of K-12, undergraduate and graduate students with disabilities.
Institutions of higher learning and testing boards do not provide extended time and other accommodations lightly.  It is fair to assume that if the student has an approved 504 accommodation in place, it is in fact needed and appropriate.  College professors are experts in their fields.  We cannot expect them to also be experts in disabilities, and sit in judgment to decide which students truly deserve their legally binding accommodations and which do not.  It would be even more absurd for them to make such judgments without a careful examination of the student's documentation.  And if we did hand off this responsibility to individual professors... why would universities need to set up offices for students with disabilities?

You're speaking from an idealist point of view there. I don't usually comment here but when I was in Uni (very short time only) one of my profs was openly mocking a girl in class getting approved extra time throughout the semester, and even admitted informally to grading her exam harsher (she narrowly failed) because she had had "extra time".

@Magisch  such a professor should certainly receive disciplinary action, and the students work should be evaluated by another professor to see if she deserved to pass.  Totally unacceptable behavior.

@StevenGubkin You sure about that? We complained to the dean for this and other related issues that could fill a book but the dean dismissed our complaints as being salty because about 90% of the course failed the first exam. If it sounds like I'm bitter it's because I am still permanently disgruntled from going to uni again. This isn't isolated to this particular uni, either.

@Magisch - If you're in the U.S., there will be a 504 compliance person, and that would be a reasonable first place to go.  If that doesn't result in the desired changes, a complaint to the US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights is not difficult.  (There is sometimes a backlog, though, so that is usually not an option for an urgent situation.)  For other countries, I would encourage you to pose the question here, how to effect a meaningful change in an institution's attitudes about disability accommodations.

I think, as educators, it is not our place to judge whether this extra time granted to students according to disability services is an "unfair advantage" or not.  I am a mathematician, not a psychologist, so it's not my place to diagnose them or argue with someone else's diagnosis.
There is obviously considerable research done by people who focus on these types of issues that suggests that these are reasonable accommodations for these students, and I think that should be respected.

I agree that "fair" is not the right way to think about it: as an instructor, we are pointedly not being asked to evaluate the fairness of the practice (nor being given enough information to do so) but rather simply being asked to implement it.  On the other hand, in grad school letters you are explicitly asked to evaluate students compared to others.  When doing graduate admissions, I would certainly expect to be informed if someone got time and a half on their GREs....

...While I certainly don't think that mental processing speed is the key to being a successful mathematician, I also think that there are some professional situations in which slow processing would legitimately arise as an issue.  E.g. a graduate student probably can't take 50% more time for their lectures or problem sessions or tutoring sessions.  So that could (in theory) arise in a letter I am writing for a student.

I wasn't talking about mentioning GRE scores in letters.  My understanding is that the ETS itself discloses when extra time has been given.  As I mentioned in another comment, you don't have to explicitly disclose that a student has received extra time.  The question is whether you should take that information into account when deciding how the student compares to other students.  I think it could be reasonable to take that into account -- or perhaps, to decline to write because of it.

Adding to @MorganRodgers, there are also cases where the testing environment puts a disproportionate strain on someone. For the dyslexia example, writing is often a problem as well: when typing on a computer, spellcheck and other resources can help, but isn't available on a pen and paper test. Most students are thinking about the material; someone with dyslexia might not only have to take more time to read, but also spend half their exam time carefully editing every letter they wrote to avoid mistakes. There is also test anxiety, speech-to-text for physical difficulties, and others.

Bottom line: a good recommendation letter makes a convincing case that the writer feels the student will succeed in graduate school in both absolute and relative terms.  If you are for instance evaluating a student for a competitive scholarship on the basis of higher scores than other students, then ignoring the fact that the student got much more time could be a fairness issue.  I think these are very difficult issues, and I have sympathy for all students, but there are fairness and ethical issues on both sides, I think.

Added: I looked up the GRE issue.  Apparently ETS used to disclose when extra time was given.  It says it no longer does.  (Of course I don't know what standards it uses for deciding who gets extra time.)

@PeteL.Clarke It's important to note that both the ADA and Section 504 are based on the notion of a qualified individual, that is to say they protect against discrimination if  "with or without reasonable accommodation, they meet the same eligibility requirements and standards of behavior and performance demanded of anyone else". (1) So, by definition, a person on a course who has accommodations (i.e. extra time)  is qualified, and you can not judge whether they are qualified based on such accommodations.

https://www.wesleyan.edu/studentaffairs/disabilities/Faculty/What%20is%20a%20reasonable%20Accommodation.ht

@tallus - Did you want to link to a specific page?  If so, it didn't work. // Excellent point about qualification.

(1) correct link: https://www.wesleyan.edu/studentaffairs/disabilities/Faculty/What%20is%20a%20reasonable%20Accommodation.html

Timed exams are usually a function of larger, lower level lecture courses. As such, I don't really keep track of who has a letter or not.
The best grad school letters come from professors who've you've worked with individually, in seminar or lab. Evaluations in those cases are individual and less reliant on disability accommodation.
Tl;dr: ask for the accommodations you need to excel in the lecture courses. Try to take small seminars, work in labs, or do a junior or senior research project with a professor if you want a strong letter of recommendation that will help in grad school admissions.

This might vary by field, etc.  In math, for instance, upper-division classes are usually small but still have timed exams.  But at least for me, extended time doesn't make a difference there either.

It is interesting that I've not seen a course without a timed exam on my undergraduate path (4th year now, applied & pure math joint major), even in highest-level courses which used graduate-level reference textbooks and were in some cases combined sections with grad students (that is when grads and undergrads sit in one class). Also, all courses have been lecture courses. In three instances, however, students were offered to do a final project instead of a final exam (provided the timed midterm was written for at least 80% of the mark).

@sequence: Some exams may externally appear to be timed, while the limit actually means "if you had learned how to do this you would have finished hours ago, and there's no way for you to work it out during the exam, so stop making yourself miserable with an impossible task" -- a kindness to the students.

@BenVoigt: I've encountered in some courses exam problems which were quite challenging, which actually did require a fair bit of time to think about. Some professors do make exams quite challenging, when a student can't just write it in autopilot mode.

@sequence: I don't mean to suggest that there are no exams for which the time limit is important, just that you can't identify them based solely on being scheduled in a finite timeslot.

With regard to your first paragraph: in my department (mathematics, UGA) essentially all undergraduate courses have an in-class final exam and at least one in-class midterm.  Also, there are essentially no seminars or labs for our undergraduate students.  Some of the best grad school letters are written by faculty who had the student for multiple challenging courses and compare their mastery to that of past students.

@PeteL.Clark: I disagree that one of the "best grad school letters" in mathematics could be based solely on classroom performance. If you don't have other opportunities at your institution for students to interact with professors, this might be the best grad school letter available there; but that wouldn't invalidate Karen's point.

@sequence Making exams timed is not always (just) because you are trying to put some time pressure on the students, but also there is time pressure on the lecturer with other exams to give, rooms to be booked, meetings to be attended and more generally work to be done. Also focus. You cannot keep an eye on students for infinite time. I have never had an exam that had no time limit at all.

@skymningen: I find exam timing to be a practice mainly motivated not by some desire to pressure students, but rather by natural time limitations of universities, institutions, and life in general. I don't think there's good reason to actually strictly time people when a precise task needs to be done, unless it is naturally time-sensitive.

I have a disability that qualifies for extended time and am no stranger to the unease that comes with asking for it.  I know it can feel pretty uncomfortable asking for something that is inconveniencing the professor and potentially making you look 'needy' or 'weak'.
The truth is, however, that only ignorant or mean-spirited professors will perceive you this way.  These are not the kind of people you want writing your recommendations, disability or not.  If you think they might discriminate against you (and you are not just being paranoid) then that is a pretty good sign that this professor is NOT a good choice for a recommendation.
Honestly, recommendations should not come down to petty details like if you needed more time on exams.  To write a strong recommendation, the professor should know you, your character, and your work ethic inside and out. This fundamental understanding of who you are as an individual should completely supersede something as trivial as needing extra time on exams.  If you are worried about your disability heavily influencing what kind of recommendation you receive, that is a serious red flag indicating you do not have a sufficient relationship with your professor in order to receive a good recommendation.  You either need to develop your relationship with them more, or start looking for someone else.

TL;DR If your professor actually knows you well enough to write you a strong recommendation, something as small as needing extra time on exams will not matter a bit.  If you are worried about it hurting you, that is a warning sign you do not know the professor well enough for them to write you a strong recommendation.  Either develop your relationship more, or find someone else.  A good recommendation is about who you are as a person; your character, integrity, work ethic, intelligence, and drive.  If they know you well enough to write you a strong recommendation, they know you well enough to see past your disability to who you truly are underneath.

I have a bit of a different perspective.  When I design a one hour exam, I make it so that a student who has completely mastered the material can complete it in much less than an hour.  However, most students have not mastered all the material.  As a result, most students spend much less than an hour answering the questions they can answer successfully, and the rest of the time failing to answer the remaining questions.
Often students who receive extra time because of disability do not use the extra time.  I suspect students with accommodations who are using the extra time are simply spending more time failing to answer the questions they can't answer.  This has nothing to do with their disability.  It is just an indicator of persistence.  In short, the extra time makes no difference.
However, there are many kinds of disabilities and each student is different, so I think some students are helped by extra time.

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

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can I, as a reviewer, tell authors to get a native English speaker to proofread their paper?
I am reviewing a paper for possible publication in a respected journal. The English in the paper is very poor. The authors are clearly not native English speakers. I want to write something to the effect of the following in my review.

I advise the authors to find a native English speaker to proofread the manuscript.

My question: Is this appropriate in a review?
On one hand, I think it is good, constructive advice. The paper would be significantly clearer if someone spent a few hours helping them fix it up. I can try to help them through reviewer comments, but it would be much easier if someone could help them in person. The authors are located in a western English-speaking country, so they should be able to find someone.
On the other hand, I don't want to be "the mean reviewer." I understand that English can be difficult to master for immigrants. Perhaps there is a more diplomatic way of saying this.

You may it tell them to. But you can always suggest them to do so.

"Native english speaker" is not 100% accurate suggestion, you should suggest improving scientific english.

"A proofreader with good written English skills". A "speaker" doesn't exactly help with a a written paper, and many native English speakers have atrocious writing. In addition, many people are not good at proofreading and are instead overpowered by the text in front of them.

Related question: what do you do when their English uses idioms prone to misunderstanding outside their home dialect of the language? (My canonical example is the Indian-English use of  "I have a doubt" where others would say "I have a question".)

Suggesting them to seek professional help and give them a short list of major grammatical problems is better. Your recommendation assumes that native speakers read/write well and we all know that it's a couple light years from the truth.

Another question: While it makes sense for say a medical student, would a student of English literature be allowed to use a proofreader for a paper written in English?

If it's a submission to an Elsevier journal then you can refer the authors here.

@Szabolcs "The authors are clearly not native English speakers... The authors are located in a western English-speaking country"

It's obviously appropriate and constructive to comment on writing issues that significantly affect the quality of the paper. The only question is how to do it as constructively as possible.
Personally, I prefer to suggest that "the authors get editing help from someone with full professional proficiency in English" rather than asking for "a native English speaker." I see other reviewers write the latter, so it's not uncommon, but I feel like it sounds a little bit like I'm "punishing" the authors for not having been born in an English-speaking country. There are plenty of academics who are not native English speakers, and don't have the same proficiency as native English speakers, but are still perfectly capable of high-quality academic writing.

I really like the phrasing you suggested, i.e. "full professional proficiency in English". I'm guilty of having asked authors to get their manuscripts proofread by a native speaker, but I've always felt a little weird doing so. In the future, I'll say it your way.

Isn't requesting someone with full professional proficiency in English just as punishing for authors who happen to live in a place where such people are simply hard to come by? I prefer to speak in goal-oriented terms such as the language used is not sufficiently comprehensible and needs to be improved.

I actually prefer to recommend a "native speaker."  I have observed that many nonnative speakers of English can significantly overestimate the English fluency of other nonnative speakers (as well as their own fluency).  While I have not encountered this as a reviewer, I have pointed out English mistakes in manuscripts that I have read, only for the author to insist a nonnative but fluent speaker told him that they were fine.

@Buzz a native English speaker not proficient in technical and academic writing can do worse to a manuscript than a non-native one who is proficient in those two aspects. Thus, better only make a general remark about the need of revision.

Caution: a problem with often using an uncommon phrase such as "full professional proficiency in English" is that it takes away from your anonymity.

@Kimball No worries, we will all start using it now and anonimity will be quickly restored :-)

@O.R.Mapper I'd usually agree, but if the English is very bad (as the OP suggests) there are few alternatives to a proficient speaker.

@O.R.Mapper: yes, but punishing someone who wishes to publish in English, for being unable to find a proof-reader with sufficient English skill to do so, is of a different kind from punishing someone who wishes to publish in English, for being unable to find a proof-reader of sufficient skill and who has a particular characteristic from their early childhood, of speaking English. If someone thinks they can produce good enough English without a proficient English-speakear involved that's arguably up to them, but it's probably how this sub-standard paper came to be, so they need a new plan.

And of course whatever the appearance, they're really being punished for the quality of the English in the paper. The reviewer will never asses their proof-reader. ff524 is just concerned not to sound like a jerk who dismisses all non-native speakers as inadequate. And with good reason, because those who give too much unsound advice find that eventually nobody takes their advice, even if some of it is good ;-)

I know plenty of native English speakers I wouldn't trust with my manuscript – and that includes academics!  I'd say that professional/editorial proficiency in a language is actually stronger than native.

I think the answer somewhat depends on what kind and intensity of problems we are talking about.
First, however, some thoughts on who else could deal with this:

The editor and the initial quality check (if one exists) have apparently judged the quality of English to be sufficient for you to review the paper. Thus, you have to expect them not to address this issue by themselves.
Copy editors can and hopefully will fix many issues, but as they are not experts of the subject, they can only do so much (also, some publishers have lousy copy editing). For example, I had copy editors miscorrect a triangulation to the triangulation, as they did not know that the triangulation was not unique in the context. In another example, I know cases where non-native speakers coined new technical terms making suboptimal use of English that however becomes only apparent to somebody who understands the concept described by the term.
Also, copy editors only act after the paper is accepted, which does not help if the quality of English is so bad that it’s impeding the review.

Regarding phrasing your advice, I prefer to avoid explicit suggestions what to do, but rather state what what problems you had and what has to change. You do not know the circumstances under which the manuscript was created and what ways to improve the language are available to the authors. For example, it may be that one of the authors has a good command of English but wasn’t strongly involved in writing the manuscript. Make implicit hints strong rather than subtle though, as the authors may fail to notice the latter, given their English skills.
In addition to ff524’s arguments against explicitly recommending native speakers, I think that recommending a native speaker ignores the importance of understanding the subject matter. Somebody with decent English skills¹ who understands the manuscript is often much more valuable than a professional proofreader who is not from the field.
To get some idea how to phrase the advice, I suggest asking yourself the following questions:

Did you fail to understand significant portions of the paper due to bad English? – If yes, you should definitely indicate this, as at least in the next round of review, you need to understand the whole paper. I suggest (and consider it appropriate) to write something along the lines of the following:

Unfortunately, due to shortcomings in the language of the manuscript, I could not fully assess its quality.

This is an honest statement of facts that does not explicitly tell anybody what to do, but strongly implies that something needs to be done. Moreover, you are implicitly saying that this is not about the scientific quality of the manuscript and that you would like to assess its quality if only you could.
Is the quality of English consistently bad? – I often see manuscripts where you can clearly tell that certain passages were written by different authors. If some of the passages are good, this suggests that their author has a sufficient command of English to revise the rest of the manuscript. As an author, this person is likely best suited for the job. However, it could also be that the authors had only some passages proofread for whatever reason.
Thus an explicit suggestion may be inaccurate or confusing and I would suggest pointing out which passages are problematic and praising the others. This should make it sufficiently clear what to do:

While Sections 1 to 3 were well written, I found it difficult to understand the English of Section 4.

Are there some kinds of mistakes that occur particularly often? – If yes, point them out. For example, some authors tend to use multiple compounds wherever possible without properly hyphenating them, or mix up definite and indefinite articles. (In both these cases, correcting them often requires a deep understanding of the subject matter and thus cannot be done by a copy editor.)
Did the review take significantly longer due to bad English? – If yes, and you expect to have another round of review, you can save some time by remarking on the quality of English now, which I consider appropriate as you are volunteering to review after all. For example you could say:

Due to language mistakes, the manuscript was difficult to read.

If not, and if nothing else is wrong with the language that cannot be addressed on a per-sentence basis, a comment to the editor or a negative rating of the language quality in the editorial system (if it asks you for this) may suffice.

¹ preferably with a native language that is different from the authors’ one

"I often see manuscripts where you can clearly tell that certain passages were written by different authors." Sometimes even by different authors than those listed on the paper - when I see a few paragraphs or sentences (sometimes even entire sections) with uncharacteristically good English in a paper I'm reviewing, I immediately go to Google to check for plagiarism, and find evidence of such distressingly often. Also see Should a reviewer critique language and text copy-paste issues?

To be honest, I find the sentence "Unfortunately, due to shortcomings in the language of the manuscript, I could not fully assess its quality." overly formal and a little hard to understand (even as a native English speaker). I know something more direct might be less diplomatic, but I'm worried a sentence like that could cause confusion.

I disagree in a subtle but significant way with many of the current answers.  I absolutely agree that it is the responsibility of a reviewer to point out language problems.
I strongly disagree, however, that the reviewer should tell the authors how to solve those problems, any more than they should tell the authors how to solve their scientific problems.  The reviewer should say something like:

This paper has numerous grammar and language issues, which need to be addressed.

Then it's up to the authors to figure out whether they need a native speaker, a professional proofreader, simply more care on the part of the current authors, etc.  If you presume to diagnose why the paper is the way it is, it is just as inappropriate as if you said "the authors need to enlist the help of somebody who know statistics to improve their data analysis."  Even if you do know why and it would somehow be appropriate for you to say to the authors in person, remember that reviews are generally blind, and the authors can't tell you from some random jerk reviewer #3.
In short: constructive reviews state the problem, rather than presuming the solution, and this applies to language as well as technical content.

I fail to see how most existing answers advocate telling the author how to solve their problems. In fact, I would say that two answers argue explicitly against it.

This may be a matter of personal preference - as an author I very much prefer when reviewers offer suggested solutions in addition to pointing out problems, so that's the kind of review I try to write myself.  (Consider e.g. "this article seems to be out of scope for this conference, as X is only tangential to its subject" vs "this article seems out of scope for this conference. The authors might run additional experiments emphasizing the connection to X to make it in scope. Alternatively they might submit to A or B instead, where it seems to be in scope in its present form.")

@ff524 While you are correct in the general case, it is not a reviewers role to identify (or correct) errors in the writing of the paper. Of course significant errors should be/can be indicated but in most cases with poor English the frequency of errors is quite high. As reviewers are taking on the role voluntarily having them identify all those errors is beyond the scope of their task.

@PauldeVrieze Neither I nor this answer is proposing that the reviewer provide an exhaustive list of all the errors in the writing of the paper, so I'm not sure what you are responding to.

I think there's a middle ground. Phrase solutions as suggested options, rather than as orders. E.g., "One possible idea for how to fix this is..."

I've seen a couple of variations of this pattern in articles I have authored or coauthored:

The most useful variation is where the reviewer points out specific places were grammar might not be correct, and specially places where those mistakes can lead to misunderstandings. Just write the paragraph you are referring to, and your preferred rewording. That helps the authors see how you are understanding their manuscript.
Also useful is stating potential terminology  issues, where something is being referred to with terms which are understood differently by the target journal or community. Those can be alluded to, so that they can be fixed throughout the manuscript.

In the cases above, I feel there is no need to call for a ”proficient English proofreader“.
However, if the manuscript:

Is difficult to follow, because the grammar might be correct, but contorted;
Makes you feel unsure about the claims, because of the writing;
Is utterly opaque…

Then say so, and use @ff524's suggestion of professional grade proofreading.
Ps. I have also seen the ”please, let co-author X proofread the manuscript“, when X is known to be a proficient (usually native) English speaker, but doing that is both a slap to the main author, and to X, because if s/he is a co-author, s/he should have already done so. Only write that when you're sure of the implications

doing that is both a slap to the main author, and to X, because if s/he is a co-author, s/he should have already done so — Yes, exactly.  But sometimes it's a necessary slap.

Although I consider myself fluent in English (having lived most of my adult life in English Canada), technically I am not a native speaker, as my mother tongue is not English.
On more than one occasion as a reviewer, I advised authors to have their paper reviewed by a native speaker of English. I always understood that phrase to mean either someone whose mother tongue is English or someone who speaks (and writes) English at a native level, but not necessarily someone whose birth certificate was issued in an English-speaking jurisdiction. I feel compelled to do this when the paper in question contains a large number of grammatical mistakes or odd turns of phrase, too numerous for a reviewer to list or correct (if there are only a few mistakes, I just point them out and list them); and especially when the journal in question is not known for its high quality copy editing.
What good it does, I don't know. But I certainly never felt that it was inappropriate for me to offer this advice. Being an immigrant myself, I don't think that I am prejudiced against non-native speakers. I have done this both for papers that I recommended for rejection and also for papers that I deemed suitable for publication.

I wonder if this is what people mean by "near-native." I'm curious since I'm fluent in a language different from my native language, to the point where native speakers often assume I'm a native speaker for at least a few minutes (after which they might notice something confusing or a slight slip in accent). I often wonder whether I should put "native" down on forms asking for fluency, since it's usually the best approximation to my fluency, even if not technically accurate.

It is not only the case that you can advise the authors to work on improving the level of English of their paper (including getting the paper proofread by others), but I'd argue that you should do so (or even go beyond advising to requiring that they have the paper proofread, or even beyond that to outright rejecting the paper on the grounds of being not comprehensible enough) if you feel that this is a serious enough of an issue. Generally speaking, it is your duty as a reviewer to point out and criticize any flaws in the paper that make it less valuable for the journal and its readers. This extends to all aspects of the paper, from the science, to the clarity of exposition, technical correctness, and the language. In particular, in cases where a major flaw in the paper's ability to communicate otherwise good science to the readers can be removed through the relatively small effort of having the paper proofread by a person with good English proficiency, it seems absolutely appropriate and advisable to advise, ask, or even require the authors to do that.
On the other hand, as ff524 pointed out in her excellent answer, asking for the proofreader to be a native English speaker is an illogical requirement. What matters is that the proofreader should have a high level of proficiency in English, particularly with regards to professional or technical texts.

I always find it useful to tell these type of issues to the editor. If you tell the editor that the document is poorly written in terms of language use, I believe that the editor will find a way to forward your message properly to the writers.

I, as being myself not native English speaker and as a person who has published in a respected journal, would recommend you to politely advise the authors to proofread their paper by a native English if their target journal is published in an English speaking counrty and/or has the requirement for good language. Some journals (for example, respected British journal) do have this requirement.

So, if the journal is published in English but not in an English-speaking country and does not explicitly mention good language as a requirement for publication, you would not recommend it?

I mean that I would formulate the recommendation as 'Please pay attention that if your target journal requires ... I would recommend you to poofread ... '. Really, I, as an author, would definitely listen to such advice (even unasked from my side) from an English speaking person and I would definitely know if my target journal is strict to the language quality.

I would say if a paper is published in English in.a non-English speaking country, then good English is even more important. A German who has no problems understanding correct English will find it much harder to understand English with many mistakes than a British person would. For example, their, there and they're sound the same to an English speaker and it causes no problem if you use the wrong one. A German reader would see them as entirely different words and wouldn't have a clue what you mean if you use the wrong one.

You can ask them to do that, but it may not be appropriate.
As an experienced native English proofreader who is very familiar with the peer-review process, I can say that often what is needed is not a proofread at all but rather a multi-stage substantive edit followed by a proofread.
There are some proofreading companies that will give you a proofread if you ask them for one; I, and most other freelancers, will ask to see a sample of the work and then suggest what the most appropriate service is before quoting on providing that service.
The requirement for native English versus non-native is a different question, and I would say that for publishable work it is normal to require a native speaker.
Hope that helps.

How not to be a spammer.

I do accept 'Nat' comments. As a non-native english speaker, what english do we have to learn. British, American, European, Austrilian or Indian? I strongly feel that content is very important and then grammer comes next.
If you suggest/correct the sentences, it is more appreciated, that is what I do normally when I review papers.

I think this sort of review comment is pretty common, but I dislike it.  The purpose of the review is to advise the editor about the quality of the manuscript.  Advising the authors is beyond the scope of the review.  For most journals, corrections to spelling/grammar are (in theory) provided by a copy editor. For expensive subscription journals, authors should be allowed to use this service.
There are also three ways this sort of comment can make the reviewer look bad:

The paper was written by a bunch of native speakers who have funny names.  Yes, I have seen this happen.
The review has terrible grammar.  This happens > 30% of the time.
An implication of bias, which can be avoided by replacing "native English speaker" with "expert editor" or similar.

"Advising the authors is beyond the scope of the review." - Why? If I have some suggestions I believe the authors would find helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript, why shouldn't I share them?

@ff524 rephrase it as advice to the editor.  Reviewers are not editors and do not make editorial decisions as a matter of journal policy in cases I am familiar with.

"I advise the editor to suggest to the authors..." Really? Why?

@ff524 no, that's not what I am suggesting.

I find it perfectly natural to advise the editor regarding the quality of the submitted manuscript, then offer suggestions to the authors on how they might improve it (regardless of the editor's decision.) I don't see any reason to address the latter to the editor rather than the authors.

I downvoted. 1) Copy editors, when they exist, don't understand the technical content. They have several times introduced severe, meaning-changing errors into my papers in an attempt to "correct" my English (or maybe more than several times - I'm referring to the instances I actually caught). 2) The paragraph about "make the reviewer look bad" makes no sense. 3) Advising the authors how to improve their paper is an essential part of a reviewer's job (e.g., from a recent refereeing request I was sent: "...constructive feedback for the authors is appreciated. ...")

P.S. by analogy, my comment above is meant as constructive feedback for the author of the answer.

In some articles the English is sufficiently bad as to preclude publication. For others, publication should be delayed until the English has been brought to professional standards. A manuscript, the English of which is not up to professional standards, is of low quality, even if its content is of high quality. While correcting this is an editorial task and responsibility, it is appropriate for the reviewer to signal that it needs to be done. This is no different in spirit than indicating that the notation used is poorly chosen.

"For most journals, corrections to spelling/grammar are (in theory) provided by a copy editor." - this is very field-dependent. In some fields, authors are expected to deliver their paper exactly as it will appear in the end, down to the last comma. Fixing spelling mistakes and the like is seen as a task of the authors required to get the paper published, not as a service of the publisher.

The purpose of the review is to advise the editor about the quality of the manuscript — Indeed. And "desperately needs proofreading by someone fluent in English" is a statement about the quality of the manuscript!

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

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


text:
Publication in industry
I am not really sure how research works in industry. I am an early grad student and research is my passion. However, I do want to go into industry once I am done with my thesis.
But, I do want to continue to publish papers or patents with my job. As, I would be going to industry after a Phd, I would be working in a close field. Most of my advisor's students get positions in R&D wings of reputed companies. But, it seems like many of them stop publishing once they leave. I wanted to ask, if it is possible to collaborate with universities and professors and keep publishing during my work.
My area of work is in semiconductor physics and nanoscience.

See Scientific output of researchers in industry and academia

What is your field?

Shameless self-promotion: this answer tells my story about this and may be helpful if you work in the mathematical fields.

It depends heavily on the company. I know some companies that see publishing employees as a benefit and possibility for advertisement. Other companies are afraid that a competitor might steal the work. Thus, they often require that a patent is submitted beforehand and/or supervisors are required to check the paper for secret information. In general most companies do not think that publication is a great benefit and often do not support it, e.g., travel expenses.


text:
I reported plagiarism to a questionable journal. How long should I give them to amend?
I recently sent the following letter to a journal of questionable reputation:

To whom it may concern:
In the [Journal Redacted], in the paper titled [Paper Redacted] by [Authors Redacted], the following section is plagiarized from Wikipedia:
[Text Redacted]
That section is copied from this Wikipedia article: [Link Redacted]
Thanks,
[Signature Redacted]

They replied with the following:

Dear Mr. [Name Redacted],
As you mention that there is plagiarism. Yes, I read the research again but that part is from introduction. Introduction part is not part of the research.
Please read it again...

I replied with:

Sir or Madam,
You are correct that is from the introduction, but any usage of non-original material whether part of the research or not must be properly cited or it is plagiarism. Even if this were an opinion piece and not research, this would be plagiarism. I expect this will be addressed soon.
Thanks,
[Signature Redacted]

They replied with:

Dear sir,
I will inform to author for proper reference citation of the paper.

What do I do at this point? If they take corrective action, it will take some time. How much time is it appropriate to give them before I report them elsewhere?

"report them elsewhere" - like where? There is no organization that polices journals.

@ff524 There are private groups that expose journals that allow plagiarism.

@ff524, Wikipedia might want to chip in...

Is the journal paper author the same as the Wikipedia page author?  Do you know which one was written first?  If the author is the same then I guess it wouldn't be plagiarism, but perhaps a cite would be appropriate or required?

@James The Wikipedia text was written first. I am fairly certain it is not the same author, but I suppose it is not completely impossible.

The responses that you received from the journal show that it is not just questionable but clearly predatory and rubbish. No sane scientific publication venue would say 1) wholesale plagiarism doesn't count in the introduction and 2) it can be addressed just by adding a reference.
The journal clearly has no interest or intention toward rectifying the situation, and it's almost a pure waste of your time to interact with the journal more at this point.
At this point, there are two actions that make sense for you to do:

If it's a "pay-to-publish" open access journal, make sure it gets included in the predatory publisher list by contacting Jeffrey Beall
Report to Wikipedia, who can decide whether they care enough to pursue.

After that, let it drop: the internet is filled with vast sewers of low quality junk, both scientific and otherwise, and you've got better things to do with your time.

This is good advice. I found this paper through a reputable paper search tool that is supposed to filter through only "good" papers. They might also be interested in knowing that this journal is rubbish.

@called2voyage Then yes, that would be another good place to contact.  Basically, report it to the responsible parties who might care and then move on with your life.

Report to Wikipedia? the whole purpose of Wikipedia is being free and copyright-free, allowed to use/re-distribute/modify by everybody (AFAIR, even commercially!). One do needs to add an attribute to Wikipedia; this is not enforced, and as I understand will not be enforced in the future, though.

@RanG. Wikipedia is not copyright-free, it is licensed under CC BY-SA.  It is true, however, they they generally don't bother with enforcement.

@jakebeal Right, I meant "free" as in "free to use, re-use, mix, tweak or build upon even for commercial purposes". Basically - you are free to do whatever you wish, as long as you give the right attribute and keep the modified work CC BY-SA as well (which may be violated when published in a journal).

At this point, it would seem that you, the OP who reported the plagiarism, isn't the one being plagiarized, nor do you seem to have any relationship with the author or journal.  In other words, you are not the injured party, if there is one, and you have no standing, prerogative, or authority.
Basically this means you have done everything you can or should do, and there's nothing further for you to do.

If this were a reputable journal, I would agree with you, but in this case I believe it may be a disreputable journal. As such, this may not be the only case of plagiarism. If they refuse to correct, I would like to expose them, but I would like to know how much time to give them.


text:
Would doing an independent study or directed reading help me get into grad school with a poor undergraduate record?
My goal is to get into a math graduate program within the next 5 years. The trouble is that I have very poor undergraduate grades no research experience, and no current connections, since I graduated 7 years ago.
Would doing an independent study / directed reading / directed study class help me overcome this? This seems like a good way to improve my letters of recommendation and explore topics not covered in conventional courses. Or would some other avenue be better?
If so, how could I find a professor to oversee such a course?

Welcome to Academia.SE. I suggest you cut the length of this question by a factor of 3. For example, your first bullets could be summarized by "I have bad grades and no research experience and am trying to figure out how to get into math grad school." You should also avoid asking multiple questions in one post -- your first two questions could maybe be combined (though this may be a duplicate), while the third and fourth questions could each be their own post.

Hi, thanks for the advice. I will work on that. I wasn't sure how several rapid-fire questions will look but I will do that.

@cag51: Just wondering your thoughts, do you think if I separate the questions they are likely to all be closed as duplicates? I do feel like I am asking some questions that aren't answered in the linked question (which I read before posting this), but I don't want to clog up the forum with closed questions.

@cag51: Thanks, much appreciated.

How long has it been since undergrad? A poor record 20 years ago is very different than if you just graduated.

I updated the question with that information in case it was relevant, I graduated 7 years ago, plenty of time to get my act together :)

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


text:
Switching majors
I am an undergraduate student studying mathematics. I am thinking of switching to engineering for masters or phd programs. The problem is I do not have a single engineering course. I do have knowledge of programming in C. I  do not know if it makes difference, I have a few physics courses as well. I however have more than one year before I graduate.
Which engineering fields are possible to go from the background I have? How can I strengthen the possibility to go into good programs despite such programs?


text:
How to write a practical computer science research?
I'm currently a computer science student at the 3rd/8 level, and there is a competition in scientific researches, including computer researches, at my university for financial aids and I'm thinking of getting involved.
I'm not a fan of theoretical stuff or things can't be applied, instead, I think of writing about Unix and Linux debuggers development and debugging techniques basically something practical that helps to provides the bases and guidelines for someone who want to build Unix debugger starting with the basics of debuggers and then build a proof of concepts small debugger.
I never done such thing before and have a few ideas about writing researches from high-school.
Can this be a research? what type (I need the term so I can look it up) of research is it and it's general structure?

sorry for asking, what's the 3rd/8 level?

@Trylks Third level out of 8 levels.

I think you are thinking more of a tutorial than a research object. You may be interested on this.
Research is about obtaining some new knowledge. This knowledge can be simply a compilation of some things that are already done and existing but were never put together to compare them (a survey) for instance. IMHO survey papers get a good number of citations because they are in fact quite useful.
There are a number of things to do research in that field, for instance you could

put something new in that small debugger (beyond the state of the art) or
try a set of different things in that small debugger to compare them and obtain that comparative knowledge (being new) or
do a survey of the debuggers that exist, or evaluate them wrt something new (e.g. usability)
find open questions in the field of debuggers, define a problem that was not being considered before

Basically it boils down to

finding and defining a problem (which is open in the state of the art (SOA))
finding or creating solutions (and adding them to the SOA)
evaluating and comparing solutions (in the SOA to know better how is it)

I'd say all of them are quite pragmatical, focusing on solutions. The point is to

solve something new (it's quite pointless solving something that is already solved, right?).
evaluate properly (so that we can understand why is it a solution and what properties does it have, when is it useful and when may not be so useful).
finding problems (because the first step to solve a problem is identifying it)

Depending on the approach taken then the research and the paper will look in different ways but basically you need:

an introduction
an explanation of the background that may be required to understand everything else (this is optional)
a description of the state of the art, what is out there that is relevant for the proposal
the proposal (for definition, solution or evaluation of the problem at hand)
the results obtained with that proposal
the conclusions obtained from the results
acknowledgements

PS: If that fails you can simply forget about the state of the art and do research on this as if it was new, without checking properly the literature on the topic before. If you apply the methods correctly and do a good work that could be ok in some contexts (I'm not sure about the context of this question, though). This would not be very practical, because most probably someone did that already decades ago.

Take a look at ACM Crossroads.
It is a student journal. You can start submitting an small article to be published as a column like this. I have not seen other research journals letting these sorts of tutorials get published. They are usually towards publishing papers that solve an issue, done an experiment, provides recommendations, etc. If you want to write a research paper in those sort of categories, then you will have a lot more choices.


text:
Is it common and a good idea to give PhD candidates access to examiners’ assessments prior to their defense?
At my university (in Germany), a discussion is going on for some months. The issue is that some (professors and PhD students) want to establish a policy that, prior to the oral defense of their PhD thesis, candidates should have access to the (written) assessments of their thesis by the examiners (that is the main supervisor and further professors/experts). Others are against this, and want to keep things as they are – the candidate holds their oral defense without prior knowledge of the assessments.
To clarify: the thesis examiners assess the PhD thesis. Afterwards, the defense is held; it is an event open to the public where the PhD candidate first gives a presentation, presenting their PhD research results. Afterwards, the examiners will ask the PhD candidate critical questions about the thesis and beyond. Based on the thesis itself and the quality of the presentation and questions answered, the grade is then decided by the examiners.
This discussion is going on for quite some time now, and no side seems to be able to convince the other that their take on the PhD defense is the better. I personally don’t see any real downside to making the assessments accessible to the PhD candidate, but then on the other hand I am “only” a PhD student and have no real experience with thesis defenses yet.
My question is: Are there any universities that already have a policy like this in place and if so, is it beneficial for the PhD candidates?

At your university, what proportion of students fail their defense?  Outside Germany, the approach varies from "no written assessment" to "no oral defense."

Is the purpose of the defense to grade or peer review? Without a clear definition of what the defense is for, arguing over details is not useful.

@JonCuster The exact purpose of a PhD defense in Germany (which could be open to discussion), could be (as far as it is relevant) part of a good answer to this question. I think it would disservice this question for the OP (a PhD student) to impose their interpretation of the purpose of a PhD defense in Germany, as it may preclude properly including the different sides in the debate.

@mmeent - no doubt, and I am not an expert on Germany. From my experiences in the US and a European country (not Germany), frankly the defense is mostly a ceremony. If the assessments are really poor the advisor should not let the defense occur in the first place.

@JonCuster I clarified the procedure.

@AnonymousPhysicist I don't have numbers. If the thesis was of sufficient quality, I don't think anyone really "fails" the defense.

Your final paragraph narrows the scope of an answer considerably. Very few will be able to answer it as you ask the question.

@JonCuster That truly depends on whether the advisor actually has the power to stop the defense. They can give a fail mark but the candidate may insist on the defense. Especially, if it is their last legal chance (true story).

This is beside the point, but is the defense really open to the (general) public or only  to members of the university?

Short anecdotal evidence. I defended my thesis (CS, Germany) this week and had prior access to the assessments. Four of my coworkers from other fields (Physics, Pol Sci, Geographics, Art History, all different Universities) also knew theirs. For me, this was very helpful to judge which aspects of my work the examiners found most interesting and helped me to prepare some answers for questions I could otherwise probably not have answered.

@CarstenS At my university, it is open to everyone, although it is not advertised anywhere, so only people that know of the thesis defense will attend. Apart from people from the department of the PhD candidate, and other uni-related persons, a candidate can invite friends or family.

Just to clarify, with the current policy, is the PhD candidate entitled to see the reports at some point (e.g. after the defense)?

It doesn't suprise me that you are at loggerheads on this, because I see benefits/drawbacks in each position.  This is also wrapped up in the revisions that the candidate will make to their thesis in response to referee feedback, so some complicated timing issues arise.  As a general observation, allowing the candidate to have access to their referee reports will make the oral defence somewhat like the thesis revisions/response-to-referees that would ordinarily occur.  By being put on notice of the (alleged) problems, the candidate can determine their view on this and their proposed actions.
Here are some advantages and disadvantages I can see with the proposal to allow the candidate to see their referee reports prior to oral defence (compared to the case where they go in blind).  One's view of which method of assessment is better will largely come down to looking at the trade-off between these advantages and disadvantages.

Advantage --- Ability to respond to errors/problems: An obvious advantage of this is that the candidate can prepare a response to questions that will arise from critiques in the examiner's report.  There will be certain aspects of the thesis where it is impossible to give a satisfactory extemporaneous response to an examiner comment, but having access to the report means that a reponse in the oral defence is now feasible. ( E.g., if the referee has pointed out an error in the thesis, the candidate now has time to check if the referee is correct, determine what effect this error has, and formulate a plan for revision.  Even the first part is not really possible in extemporaneous communication.)

Advantage --- Overlap with thesis revisions: Another advantage of this method is that the candidate's preparation for the oral defence will overlap with the revisions to the thesis and response-to-referees.  Indeed, probably the best way for the candidate to prepare for the oral defence is to actually begin constructing the revisions and response-to-referees, in order to ensure that their own response to these issues is going to fix the identified problems.  The advantage here is that the oral defence then provides a kickstart to the process of revisions, and the candidate is able to "kill two birds with one stone" by working on the revisions and the preparation for oral defence concurrently.

Disadvantage --- Narrower scope of review: One of the things you observe in university courses is that students often seek to probe their lecturer to narrow the scope of what will/won't be on the final examination.  They do this because they want to narrow the scope of what they need to study, which alleviates the need to study material that is out-of-scope.  Good lecturers generally resist this kind of strategy, because they want to ensure that any aspect of the material is potentially assessible, which in turn ensures that student will need to study all parts of the material prior to examination.  The advantage of this is that even if a thing does not come up on the exam, there is a good chance that the student learned it well in preparation --- i.e., high quality responses to anticipated questions generally requires mastery of non-anticipated material.
It seems to me that a similar strategic interaction might occur here, where the issues raised in the referee reports largely determine the scope of the oral defence, alleviating the need for the candidate to undertake a comprehensive preparation.  In this latter case, the candidate will probably focus their preparation largely on issues raised in the referee reports --- i.e., high quality responses to anticipated questions generally do not require mastery of non-anticipated material.

and, to the extent that the PhD is preparing you for further research; if you are preparing a speech about your research at a conference, the questions people ask are usually not given to you beforehand

It's interesting that you focus on the thesis revisions - my understanding is that these questions are prepared with respect to the final submitted thesis, and that the original question is about whether to provide the assessments before thesis defence at which the thesis might be accepted or rejected or graded but certainly not altered, the "artifact being defended" i.e. thesis is fixed at that point and any effect of this policy would only affect the presentation and answers to questions in the oral defence itself.

@Peteris: Yeah, it is a bit ambiguous from the question.  It is not clear if the dissertation has already gone through a round of review with referee feedback available or not.  Since the question is about befre-vs-after feedback, I've assumed that there is no referee feedback at all at this stage.

I'd add to this - (1) consider, what is the purpose of the defence anyway? As opposed to, say, ordinary peer review. That's the key. Defence isn't just testing the thesis. Its testing the candidate and their suitability too. (If it didn't, they'd submit it, fix queries with their supervisor, and get a PhD automatically when it passes peer review!) After this much work, they should know their field and thesis material really well, and be able to discuss it and related matters with other experts cogently, professionally, convincingly, and competently.

(2) Knowing this, a candidate has a motive to be master of their field (to that level,as appropriate for a PhD candidate), and to experience discussing and standing by/explaining their work in person "on the spot", not just with time to recheck everything and email back a week later. That's valuable for them too, and focuses them as well. This to my mind is the more useful benefit.

My question is, are there any universities that already have a policy like this in place and if so, is it beneficial for the PhD candidates?

Yes, my university has a policy like that: the candidates receive an assessment of their dissertation and a grade from the reviewers (two), and then have some time to amend it according to the reviewer's remarks. At the defense, the examination board (five members, including the reviewers) decides a final grade (the defense consists in a ca. 45 min presentation from the candidate, followed by 1-2 hours of questions from the board).
Receiving the assessment from the reviewers is indeed beneficial: a purpose of such an assessment is that of allowing the candidate to not only improve the dissertation but also their work at large, to understand what are their weak points that need work.
Does your university want to improve your candidates' skills or not?

Is the benefit observed in the amendment or the defense?

@AnonymousPhysicist In both, but indeed it depends also on the quality of the reviewer's reports. As it happens with journal papers, some reviewers provide detailed reports, with many remarks, suggestions and considerations on how the work fits in the field. Others are more laconic.

is it beneficial for the PhD candidates?

I don't think anyone really "fails" the defense

This is not specific to your university, but:
Nearly always failing PhD students never attempt a defense.  They are gone one or two years into their PhDs.  The defense has largely a ceremonial function, so changing around the rules for defenses is not going to be very beneficial.
More details: Academia varies more than you think it does – The Movie

see https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/181243 and https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/181210/ and https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/181215 i guess give them the assessment if and only if the defense is ceremonial? https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4471/academia-varies-more-than-you-think-it-does-the-movie like maybe in other cultures it is not ceremonial?

It is definitively a thing at my University in the Czech Republic. PhD candidates get the assessment about two weeks ahead of the defence, so that they can prepare for whatever questions came up in the assessment.
The defence then works the following:

The student gives a presentation about their main thesis results.
The examiners give a short summary of their assessment and present the questions they had.
The student answers to the questions from the assessment.
Surprise questions.
The examiners decide on a grade.
Party.

I'm not sure if this is specific to my university or if this is a common approach.

I think it is common. The presentation is usually requested to be shorter than those 45 minutes indicated by Massimo and the discussiin is usually also much less than those 1-2 hours indicated.

Las, FTW, as the students are often allowed to continue their study externally for.a long time, there can indeed be some students defending a weak thesis and a failure is not out of the question.

see https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/181243 and https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/181210/ and https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/181215 i guess give them the assessment if and only if the defense is a ceremony or in your case 'party'? https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4471/academia-varies-more-than-you-think-it-does-the-movie like maybe in other cultures it is not ceremonial?

@BCLC Well the defence are points 1-5. Point 6 is just a humorous addition, because people here like to celebrate their new title. You can still fail the defence, though it's extremely uncommon.

I received the reviewer's documents before my defense in France (I do not remember how much time it was, probably two or three weeks before the defense).
I do not really understand what the intent of keeping that confidential would be. To surprise the candidate? This would be childish.
The defense is a ceremony for the candidate. It should be fun and leave good memories.

see https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/181243 and https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/181210/ and https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/181215 i guess give them the assessment if and only if the defense is ceremonial? https://academia.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4471/academia-varies-more-than-you-think-it-does-the-movie like maybe in other cultures it is not ceremonial?

@BCLC: you pointed me to my answer (and a few others in the same vein). The last link does not say anything AFAICT about ceremonies. Do you know countries where the PhD defense is a true exam, where x% of students fail? (I would be very curious about that because everywhere I went it was always ceremonial and the result is known - I never saw anyone fail a PhD defense)

In the UK the thesis defence (which is usually called the viva) is a genuine exam.  Most people are given minor corrections, some people are required to resubmit with major corrections and do another viva, occasionally people fail outright.

It is worth looking at How to survive a PhD viva: 17 top tips and you will realize there is maybe one tip where having a list of assessment beforehand will help -- for the rest it won't and actually it might hurt. Especially note this tip:

There’s a danger of trying to over-prepare. Don’t learn answers off by heart – it removes the spontaneity and is obvious to examiners. If a student has pre-prepared answers they become a bit like politicians, answering questions they weren’t asked rather than the ones they were.

This policy might be detrimental and make preparation overfocused and (try to) make the viva into a university exam where you are expected to be grilled for what you know and what you don't.

I think at the stage of PhD defense, the candidate has a brief idea of the quality of the thesis. A well-written thesis is obvious for those in the field (both the candidate and the comittee). I don't think it can give any significant advantages just before the actual defense. Also, in many universities, only a "successful" thesis can be defended. Therefore, there is a brief pass/fail situation before the actual defense.

Similarly to @Squirrel, I am based in Czech Republic and all PhD candidates I've know had access to assessment prior to the defense. I even think it is required by law that you get it beforehand (although I can't find the relevant law now, so I might be wrong).
One aspect of the discussion that was IMHO missed in the answer's so far is about the actual goals of the PhD defense. If the candidate is expected to respond to critique they have not seen before the defense, the defense IMHO puts more weight on their ability to improvise and to be resilient to (risk of) public humiliation. I would go as far as say that it gives confident bullshi**ers an edge.
If you give the assessment beforehand, the defense will put more weight on the ability of the candidate to think through the criticism thoroughly and provide careful responses. It also lets you judge the answers of the candidate more critically - if their answer is unsatisfactory, it is most likely because there is an actual problem with the thesis as they couldn't come up with a good answer even when given a lot of time.
Since I think careful response to criticism is usually more important for a scientific career (most notably when writing responses to journal/conference referees) and since I believe good scientists don't necessarily have to be good in improvising, it is probably quite clear which option I find better.
Additionally, I think PhD defense can be stressful enough for many other reasons, so adding an IMHO completely unnecessary element of surprise is especially cruel to people who are having psychological problems at the time of the defense.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
How should I address racist comments from a superior?
After finishing my master’s, I applied for a couple of positions, and the first interview I was invited to was at a renowned research institution in my field. I was living in our capital at that time and the research institute is in a small city quite far from other major cities.
The head of the institute was present at the interview, and at the and of the interview, we had a little “personal” talk (while his other two colleagues that conducted the interview along with him were still there), and he asked me how living in the capital is, and added: “Luckily, in our little city, there are not as many migrants living as in the bigger cities.” From context, it was very clear to me and not only against migrants, but muslim migrants in particular. I was quite shocked to hear such blatant racism from the head of a research institute and was very tempted to say something, but in the end, I pretended as if I had not heard it and only answered his initial question.
I was mad at myself later for not speaking up. But I was afraid, at that time, that doing so might hurt my career (I am quite specialized, and in our field, many people know each other), because one does not simply accuse the head of a research institution of racism (especially as a lowly student fresh out of university).
So my question is: how can racist (or any other offensive) comments from a supervisor / professor or otherwise superior be addressed?
Because I really think ignoring such things is very wrong (even though I did it myself).
Just as added information: although they offered me the position, I declined.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. Please note that continued discussion may be deleted without warning.

My solution wouldn't be to attack the person in any way, not in real time nor later. I would probably be inclined to say (US perspective) "Actually I rather enjoy the multicultural environment that the city provides".
But if you need to accept any offer from such a place then you would be safest to focus on the work and the opportunities. Long term, you can work toward a world in which such comments are less acceptable and accepted.
And, you will find that same attitude nearly everywhere, even if unspoken. You have just gotten information that the person is bigoted and can avoid them as much as possible. Fighting from a position in which you have no power and no known allies is almost sure to result in a loss. Hold fire until it can be effective.

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

You seem to be taking a fairly dichotomous view of this situation where you have to decide whether to “call out racism” or just sit there and do nothing.  In my view, this false dichotomy comes from your underlying false premise, rooted in an overly broad conceptual view of what constitutes racism.  You are also denying yourself and the speaker the opportunity to dig down into the underlying reasoning on the issue.
Let’s start by taking out the power dynamics here, and just pretend that you are talking about a remark by a speaker who does not have any particular standing in your profession.  If you are really uncomfortable with a remark expressing misgivings about migrants, one useful approach would be to (politely) state your discomfort/suspicion with the remark and inquire into the reasons the speaker has for holding those views.  If you frame this in a polite and measured way, it should not provoke conflict.  For example, you could say, “When I hear remarks like that, I get a bit suspicious of the underlying reasoning, and I must say that it makes me quite uncomfortable.  Would you like to give more detail on why you have misgivings about high concentrations of migrants?”  Something like this expresses your discomfort with the remark without assuming it is motivated by racial animus, and it gives the speaker an opportunity to give details of their reasoning or rethink their position.  If you can approach this with sincerity, confidence, and a measured and polite demeanour, it is likely to provoke some genuine consideration from the speaker (and if they were motivated by racial animus, they might be embarrassed about this and start back-tracking).
Now, let’s add the complication of the fact that you are talking to a high-level research in your field who is the head of an institute where you are applying for a job.  In that case, provoking conflict probably has adverse professional consequences, so you are going to have to tread even more carefully.  I may be naïve here, but I think that with most people you could still register your discomfort in a polite and measured way (e.g., like the statement above) and they would not hold this against you, even if they maintain disagreement with your position.  Indeed, it is possible a person might be impressed by your willingness to disagree with an authority figure in a polite and measured way — they know they will not be getting a “Yes-Man”.  (Like I said, maybe I am naïve and underestimating the probability of an adverse reaction; I guess I see the good in people!)
I hope that is helpful in expanding your ability to deal with this situation.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. This thread has gone particularly awry, into ad hominem attacks and well off topic of anything relevant to this forum. Future comments may be deleted without warning.

A significant chunk of this answer focusing on racism rather than directly answering the question has been removed as per this Meta question/answer. OP - If you wish to discuss this edit please feel free to do so on Meta, but please refrain from heavy editing as the current votes are based on what was present. Do feel free to post a new answer if you see fit.

@eykanal: I think you have made an error here.  The linked meta question/answer is for a completely different question.  There has been no meta discussion of an edit to this answer; please revert your edit to this question.

As stated, the linked question directly addresses the handling of off-topic content in an answer. The comment about editing is unrelated. Happy to continue this discussion on Meta.

@eykanal: In accordance with that reasoning, I have rolled back the edit to the form the answer was in when it accrued its votes (i.e., without the additional section I added and also without your removal of the bulk of the answer).  Happy to discuss further on Meta.

@eykanal: Please also note that the linked question solicited user votes to determine if a coercive edit was warranted, and even in that case, no edit has presently been made to the answer.  The present answer is a popular answer for which no edit has been disccussed on Meta.

Please do not engage in edit wars. If you wish to discuss this on Meta please start a question there. This answer is now locked.

I guess you were a prospective PhD student.  Students, or prospective students, are not responsible for the behavior of professors.  You could do something about it, but it is not obligatory.

This doesn't answer the question, "How to address racist comments from a superior?".

@BrtH My answer is "Do nothing."  But I did not word it that way because that is not the only valid answer.

This will be difficult to address formally, in a way that’s gonna have any real consequences for the supervisor if that is what you want.
The main reason is that you have no proof that this actually happened (I assume). If you try to approach anyone with this, the supervisor will probably deny it/say their comments were misheard/taken out of context. In addition, the severity of the offense is relatively low on the scale of infractions towards students so it’s unlikely that anyone will formally pursue this if you complain, unless there’s a pattern of past issues you’re not aware of.
Your best option in my opinion is to send a short and polite email to the supervisor, thanking them for the opportunity and explaining why you ultimately declined the offer. Explain why the comments were hurtful, and express your hope that they were indeed a result of them misspeaking. If the institution has some dean of student affairs/diversity, you may consider CCing them, but do be careful about how you phrase it.
Good luck!

Unfortunately, turning down offers might not be an option for some.

If it were me, I wouldn't cc the dean, that's a really escalating move that is going to make the person completely dismiss what you have to say (and in this case likely to end up with no consequences, or maybe some useless "training").  Simply explaining that their remark had consequences that they care about (losing a good candidate) might actually make them think before speaking down the road.

@Buffy, sure, that’s just what OP did.

"you have no proof that this actually happened (I assume)" -- FWIW, OP did say that the remark was made "while his other two colleagues that conducted the interview along with him were still there".

In that situation, I think the most diplomatic thing to do would be to say "Oh? Interesting" and change the subject. You ended up not taking the position anyway, but you could have done some "detective work" to see what other people at that institute think. For example, you could ask them general questions like, "Do people get along there? Is the atmosphere supportive?" Things like that.

An accusation of racism is serious and should not be made without evidence. As the question stands, it is not clear to me the supervisor was being racist, and this needs to be clarified by directly asking the person in question before you  make accusations.
"Migrants" are not a race and though Muslim may refer to broadly Middle Eastern people, there exist significant Muslim populations in Africa and South Asia. Your supervisor may be implicitly referring to one race of people who make up the Muslim migrants of the area, but he is not singling them out by their race, making concrete evidence of racism harder to provide, as he can claim you were misinterpreting him or taking his words out of context.
Your supervisor may be opposed to Muslim migrants on a theological basis, having nothing to do with race. In this case, by making an accusation of racism, you put your supervisor in an uncomfortable and defensive position that completely misinterprets his viewpoints, and engaging in a theological debate with a supervisor is likely not a good way to build a relationship (unless both parties desire to engage in debate). Similarly, your supervisor may oppose migrants from an economic standpoint, being opposed to migrants for example because they compete for local jobs or make use of more public resources (increasing the tax burden). This is due to their nature of being migrants and is independent of race, so again an accusation of racism is misplaced. Your supervisor may have multiple factors influencing his view, one of which may be racism, but it is not clear from the statement alone.

The first paragraph repeats what Ben is saying with so many words (e.g. the statement in question might technically be xenophobic rather than racist).

You allege there are theological reason against Muslim migrants without giving evidence. I'm not a theologists but as far as I know, there is widespread support in Christian theology for religious tolerance and compassion (you know, with Jesus being a Jewish refugee and all). 2) You allege that migrants increase the tax burden and compete for jobs, again without giving evidence, although prima facie migrants are either not allowed to work, or occupied in niches where domestic supply of highly qualified employees is lacking, or occupied in sectors that few locals are willing to work in.

A debate about whether these concerns are supported belong on another stackexchange. I only claim they exist. 1. I make no claims on the viewpoints being theologically consistent or "evidence-based", if that is even an meaningful term.

The point is that legitimate economic concerns exist, not that they are necessarily justified, but since you insist, here is some evidence in that direction: Angrist, J. D., and Kugler, A. D. (2003), ‘Protective or Counter-Productive? Labour Market Institutions andthe Effect of Immigration on EU Natives’,The Economic Journal,113(488), F318–22. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/ for non-EEA migrants.

*By exist, I mean "exist among a non-trivial proportion of people you may expect to encounter".

sure, unregulated labour migration increases the "reserve army of labour" (Marx) and puts pressure on the wages of low-skilled workers in unregulated or non-unionized sectors. In contrast to the linked paper (of which I've only read th abstract), the effect is more pronounced for intra-eu labor (actually services) mobility, but not huge. Also, wage competition isnt exclusive to labor mobility, it also happens when industrial production is outsourced off-shore, it's just less visible. The link of course is evidence against your claim that migration drives taxes up.

I downvoted this post for three reasons: (1) It does not answer the question. (2) It does not add anything which hasn't already been said multiple times here (for instance, in various comments under the question). (3) It seems to be based, though somewhat implictly, on a biological understanding of the word "race" - which contradicts scientific evidence.


text:
Using an abbreviation of another language in the abstract
I'm writing the abstract of my bachelor’s thesis and need to refer to a German research project. The abbreviation of it refers to a German spelling – so I can’t write it out. The English translation wouldn’t explain the acronym and is super long.
Is it possible to use a footnote for this? Even though it is very uncommon? Or are there other possibilities?
I don't have strict rules to follow but generally APA as guidelines.
The exact abbreviation I refer to is STEER which stands for Erhöhung der STEuerungskompetenz zur ERreichung der Ziele eines integrierten Wassermanagements.
In English: Increasing Good Governance for Achieving the Objectives of Integrated Water Resources Management.

A footnote would make it clear. Clarity is pretty important, probably more than form.

You could refer to the German research project by acronym without referring to the full name or you could omit the acronym entirely. The former is perhaps better when the acronym is well known; the latter when it isn't. Since you'll surely be providing the full name, acronym, and translation later, either should be fine.
I suggest that a footnote be avoided, because abstracts get decoupled and such a footnote will be lost.
Given that

STEER: Erhöhung der STEuerungskompetenz zur ERreichung der Ziele eines integrierten Wassermanagements (Increasing Good Governance for Achieving the Objectives of Integrated Water Resources Management)

isn't particularly long, you could just include, assuming your abstract isn't limited by a word count.

thanks a lot for your answer. I guess I will include it in this case.

As far as I understand, there is no reason why you cannot include the original German with its translation in the abstract, better than in a footnote — which typically don't play well with abstracts.
I would write something like:

In this thesis we refer to X work on the STEER (from its German acronym Erhöhung der STEuerungskompetenz zur ERreichung der Ziele eines integrierten Wassermanagements, Increasing Good Governance for Achieving the Objectives of Integrated Water Resources Management) project.

The only reason not to include it directly in the abstract would be not having enough characters available. In that case, I would do it like:

In this thesis we refer to X work on the STEER (Erhöhung der STEuerungskompetenz zur ERreichung der Ziele eines integrierten Wassermanagements, Increasing Good Governance for Achieving the Objectives of Integrated Water Resources Management) project.

There are no strict rules; you must try to balance clarity, length, and readability according to your own best judgement.  As others suggest, spelling it out in full is not dreadfully long:

This thesis builds on the work of the STEER project (Erhöhung der STEuerungskompetenz zur ERreichung der Ziele eines integrierten Wassermanagements, Increasing Good Governance for Achieving the Objectives of Integrated Water Resources Management).

But if you feel this makes the abstract too long (e.g. if you must follow a strict word count/space restriction), or less readable, then there are many other alternatives, e.g.

This thesis builds on the work of the STEER project on governance for water management.

with the full name and translation either given in a footnote, or not mentioned in the abstract at all — the reader who wants to know can flip ahead to the introduction or a later section.  In the main text, something like this would be too concise (unless the STEER project is extremely well-known), but in an abstract, conciseness and readability are high priorities; giving thorough details is a much lower priority in an abstract than in the body of a text.

I agree with the writers of the other two answers that it is best to avoid using a footnote in the abstract, if possible. However, I do not think it is necessary to write out the full German name of the project in the abstract. An abstract is just a summary, and should be as concise as possible. I think it is best to use only the acronym within the abstract, and then write out the full version (in German, and with an English translation) in the body of the paper, when the project is first mentioned (likely somewhere in the introduction).


text:
How is publishing under a random pseudonym authorized?
Who decides if someone can author/co-author an academic article under a pseudonym, when you want to do so to hide your identity on Google but still want credit for it for your academic advancement?
Is it the PI, department, university, publisher, or something else, who decides if you could do this? Also is it illegal in any country?
And from looking at previous threads here, seems that you cannot pick a completely random name as a pseudonym; it usually has to be somehow tied to you in real life - your maiden name, adding your middle name, abbreviating John Smith into JSmith... things like that. Not much change.
So you can't use names like "spongebob"? How about "JS" or "J" for John Smith?
Someone mentioned you could get your professor to write that you used a fake name in their letter of recommendation. Would they be willing to write "this person published a paper titled so-and-so under a pen name called "[insert a randomly made-up name here]"."

Related: Is pseudonymous publication ethical?

When I first read the title, I wondered if "authorized" meant "assigned an author."

Editor ultimately decides whether your pseudonym is acceptable or whether any pseudonym is acceptable for the journal. But you have to be practical about the decision to use pseudonym. If some professor, even respectable and famous one, writes you a letter saying

"this person published a paper titled so-and-so under a pen name
  called ""."

would this really be convincing to everyone? Would this letter be written in ink on paper? What would you do with the paper letter in the XXI century? Scan and send .jpg's? Or attach it to a CV .pdf, which probably has 2-3 page limit? If it was in a digital form it must come from the professor's academic e-mail to have any credibility. Would he be willing to do that every time you need to prove it is you who wrote the paper? 10, 20, 30 years from now?


text:
As a 2nd year undergraduate, what should I do to enhance my maths grad school application if I don't get into noteworthy summer programs?
Sorry for the long title, but I just received some of my marks for the semester including a C+ in a programming course and F in a cell biology course) and am worried that have ruined all my chances at getting into summer program (I'm in Canada, so I'm looking at the few US REUs that accept foreign students on a limited basis).
What should I do if I don't get into any summer activity to help my graduate school application if I want to pursue mathematics? I'm in second year and haven't taken too many higher level maths courses, so I don't know how that would look when applying for NSERCs at my school.
I was thinking of maybe just doing some reading in mathematics and working on some personal projects that may help me look like I can actually do something on my own. I am also currently self-learning combinatorics and graph theory in the hopes of working with my discrete maths prof who does combinatorial optimization (and has asked and received my CV already).
If anyone has any advice as to what I can do to enhance my grad school application if I get rejected from everything I apply to? I feel ridiculous for doing badly this semester as it was just too much to handle and doesn't reflect my work ethic at all. I want to redeem myself but don't know how? Thanks in advance for the advice!

The C+ in a programming course is probably okay. That  F in cell biology course could hurt. Is it possible to re-take it?

Possible duplicate: http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/45704/19607

Related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/28409/19607

I can retake the cell bio course but I've decided against it as I don't need it and it was an extra course so I don't have any need for it. Should I reconsider this decision?

If you have one bad semester, particularly just a couple of bad grades in non-major courses, it's not going to torpedo your PhD application, though to show it's not a concern, you should do very well in your major courses, taking what advanced courses you can.
For the summer, programs such as REUs can help broaden your perspectives.  These are also nice because they give you money and a chance to work with other interesting students.  However, another common option is to find a professor, say at your university, willing to work with you over the summer on a reading course or a research project (possibly informally).  Several of our faculty do this semi-regularly (I usually travel in the summer, though I've done it a couple of times), sometimes with a group of students, so try asking around in your department.
I personally think reading courses are just as good, if not better than, most undergrad research projects because at your stage the most important thing is to learn a lot of math.  While you can just read things on your own, a professor's guidance can be quite valuable.  Also it will provide an opportunity for you to get a more meaningful letter of recommendation, which is very helpful in applications.

I'd second the endorsement of reading courses and learning, and the importance of guidance. By this year, the currency of "summer REU in " is quite inflated, and the letters that come from these have also lost a lot of their value.


text:
Am I beholden to a professor that helped my application - would it reflect poorly on me if I don't join that professor's group?
I have just joined a PhD program in the US that I am very excited about. I was accepted despite not having the top grades usually required, in part thanks to good results on my GRE, and in part thanks to a discussion with a professor within the university, who gave me an informal interview and put in a good word for me (the professor is not part of the selection committee). He is all but ready to offer me a spot in his research group, but I would like to have a look at different research groups that might be more in tune with my expectations for my PhD. His group is fairly tiny (as an aside, from your experience, does group size have an influence on the quality of research?), and the research seems quite number-crunching-heavy and I was hoping for more experimentation (we're not in CS).
On one hand, I am very grateful for the opportunity I am given; on the other hand I want to make the most of that opportunity and it could mean not joining that professor's group. Essentially, am I acting spoiled by not automatically accepting that proffered hand?

When you spoke to him before admission, did you tell him that you were interested in working in his group?

I did indeed - and I am still interested, but I'm afraid that he understood it as a complete commitment, which is not my position at the moment.

Assuming you've been accepted by the university and the department (and have it in writing, i.e. an acceptance letter) -- the short answer is no, you aren't beholden to them.
The longer answer is that while you aren't beholden to them, it sounds like they already expect that you'll be joining them. How to approach this depends more on the faculty member than anything else. Some faculty members, when told that you "want to shop around and see what the university has to offer", will gladly nod and tell you that makes perfect sense, and they're hoping you'll still join them. Others may consider this a "rejection" of their help, or even a betrayal, and thus your bridge with that faculty member is burned forever.
Here's the trick: you want to avoid the latter category of advisors anyway. So tell this potential advisor the truth, see how they react, and best of luck at your new university!