text:
How to conduct an effective regular group meeting?
My research group has regular group meeting but I usually think it is not effective. In particular the research area of the group is very diverse, every time I just listen on something I cannot understand and have totally no interest on it, and I believe other members think the same way as I do when I am presenting. While it is a good way to expose to something new, and know other group members what they are doing, this is not effective for my own research. I know group meeting has its point (What is the purpose of the weekly research meetings that advisers often have with their research group?), but how can it be conducted in a more effective way?
As a supervisor:

How frequent should a regular group meeting be? It depends on the field, and I hear something like daily to three months.
When should a regular group meeting be? I know some groups insist on Monday morning, some groups choose Friday evening which is terrible.
How long should a group meeting be?
What level of detail should a supervisor comment to one's work? From every experimental concepts, to a vague conceptual suggestion?

As a student:

What should a student prepare before a group meeting to have an effective meeting? To present every problem he/she faces, or just some significant results (if there is)?
Should a student question other's member work? Sometimes it may be constructive, but it can also be an interruption.

If you are a faculty, how do you conduct your group meeting? As a research student, what can you suggest for an effective group meeting? An effective group meeting can greatly help on one's research work, otherwise it is just a drain of energy, time and motivation.

I am voting to close because I think this should be multiple questions.

I agree with StrongBad. Group meeting time and schedule is one question. Meeting agenda is another question. How a student participate a group meeting is another question.

I agree the question has multiple questions but they are just some of the elements of an effective group meeting.

You have a lot of questions interspersed within your question, but it sounds like the main issue is

the research area of the group is very diverse, every time I just listen on something I cannot understand and have totally no interest on it, and I believe other members think the same way as I do when I am presenting.

I have had the same problem in the past.  I'm a professor who works in a variety of related subfields, some very theoretical and some fairly applied.  Most of my students and postdocs have been focused exclusively on either something theoretical or something applied, and their backgrounds range from computer science to mathematics to electrical engineering, so there is often a disconnect when they try to communicate what they are doing.  Here is my advice.
For students:

Try to broaden your focus and interests.  It is natural that you have a very narrow research focus as a grad student, but if you want to get and keep a job afterward you'll almost certainly need to broaden your focus.  I find that in general the best researchers almost always have broad interests (though they are able to focus their energy narrowly when needed).  Group meetings are an opportunity to become acquainted with topics that are on the horizon of your current knowledge.
Use group meetings as an opportunity to improve your communication skills.  Teaching non-experts about your work is a critical skill in any research career.  Other students in the group do not know nearly as much as you about your research topic, but that doesn't mean that you cannot make it interesting and accessible to them.  Often this means leaving out the "details" and explaining just the essence of a problem.  Trust me, some day soon you will need to make your work interesting and intelligible to people who are much further removed from your specialty.

For advisors:

Help students to present their work in a way that the others can understand.  Often this means prompting the student, especially at the beginning of a presentation, to add important assumptions, motivation, or background.  The student has started to take these things for granted, but without them any non-expert is quickly lost.
Don't let the conversation drift too far into a very specialized discussion.  If you and the student are the only ones who have any idea of what is being discussed, it's probably time to say "let's discuss this further after the meeting".
Use meetings for skills development.  This was already mentioned in this related answer.  Instead of focusing exclusively on research, group meetings can also include discussions of things like:

How to write papers
How to read papers
How to search the literature
How to manage a bibliography
How to give good presentations
How to write a proposal
How to keep a lab notebook
How to keep up with newly published research
How to stay organized and be productive
How to referee a paper
Software tools for all of the above, and for research

These topics are useful and interesting to anyone involved in research.
Answers to other parts of the question

I hold group meetings once a week, and they last 1-2 hours
Students are strongly encouraged to question and comment on each other's work
We meet at lunch time, and there is food.  That doesn't sound important, but I think it is.
I try to save very detailed comments for my one-on-one meetings with students.  Otherwise, the group meeting can devolve into a conversation between the advisor and just one student.

This is a really good answer. I would just like to stress point number 2 (for students). You should have your students present their research in plain English, try to avoid technical jargon. This will help engage everyone.

Group meetings are very important, and I think it is worthwhile to organise them very well, to make sure they are focussed, to-the-point, time-effective, and that everybody participates.  I remember my time as a graduate student as having very efficient group meetings, and most of my points below are based on my experiences back then.

How frequent should a regular group meeting be? It depends on the field, and I hear something like daily to three months.

I think weekly is good.  If people want to discuss significant results, one should not wait too long.  However, too often takes away too much of peoples time.

When should a regular group meeting be? I know some groups insist on Monday morning, some groups choose Friday evening which is terrible.

I've experienced groups with group meetings on either Monday afternoon or Tuesday afternoon, and I think both are good.  However, I don't think it is the most important aspect.  Personally, I don't like to have meetings during lunch.  Although I understand the motivation, I believe it is important to have a break from work at some point.

How long should a group meeting be?

When I was a graduate student, we had group meetings of at most one hour.  We would typically have between 5 and 10 people attending the meeting (normally everybody in the group who was not away travelling).  Each week, one person would be the moderator, and one person would be taking notes.  Those roles would be alternating, providing everybody with useful experience in managing meetings or taking notes.  We'd start with general announcements, and then everybody had the opportunity to present some plots.  Some weeks, few if any people had anything to present any new results or bring up anything for discussion, and we might be done in 20 minutes.  Other weeks, the role of the moderator was essential to keep the meeting to one hour.

What level of detail should a supervisor comment to one's work? From every experimental concepts, to a vague conceptual suggestion?

What I think is great about group meetings, is that it is not only the supervisor commenting.  Naturally, it can happen that discussions lead into details.  Although beneficial for the people directly involved in the discussion, it may be a waste of time for others.  When this happens, the moderator (see above) would intervene (also in the interest of time) and suggest for a discussion to be proceeded "offline".
This hits two birds with one stone: the meeting is limited in duration, and the meeting focusses on overall discussions of broader interest.

As a student:
What should a student prepare before a group meeting to have an effective meeting? To present every problem he/she faces, or just some significant results (if there is)?

I think it is not useful to present every problem he/she faces in front of the entire group.  Some problems are best discussed one-to-one with the most expert colleague (scientist, engineer, technician).  But if you have any significant results — like a first version of a plot that may end up in a paper, or anything warranting scientific discussion — that can be good to show.

Should a student question other's member work? Sometimes it may be constructive, but it can also be an interruption.

Depends what you mean by questioning.  I think a student should certainly comment on other members work if this is helpful.  In the worst case, the comment is not relevant and the student learns something.  Communication is essential to science, and communication with all members in the group has more benefits than communication exclusively between supervisor and student.

As a participant, and this applies to all kinds of meetings inside and outside of academia, it depends on whether it is a structured or unstructured meeting. It also depends on whether it is instructor led or student led. In both cases, having an agenda for the meeting will make it more effective; more on this below.
If the purpose of the group meetings is to brain storm in a collaborative environment, examine each others work, offer insights from unbiased but informed perspectives, and generate discussion, then an unstructured format is generally preferred. This gives participants the freedom for expressing ideas that may have a limited time value and impact. But this is also only valuable if there is a moderator to step in and control the discussion, allocate time to the points to be discussed, and everyone is a participant. If no one is, then there is little value to holding the meetings.
The most effective way to create the agenda for this, as well as determine the length of the meeting, is for the moderator to poll the participants on what points they wish to discuss. This can be during the last meeting, prior to the meeting through a communications medium, or at the beginning of the meeting. In all cases there should be common agreement that the agenda, once decided, is fixed and that all other discussion points will carry over to the next meeting if they are important enough.
Time wise, it should be reasonable; only an hour or two at most. More than that and you start to suffer attention span attrition. Frequency is based on need; if there is no need, then there should be less frequent meetings.
But I will not say that there should be no meetings; because that would signify that all of you have no interest in socializing with your peers, and do not consider peer and instructor review valuable. Which would not be beneficial from a professional standpoint.
If the purpose of the meeting is for everyone to present current findings and receive pointed guidance, then a structured meeting is preferred. The agenda is based on who has something to present; which all of you should, even if it is only current actions undertaken in your research. The danger of structured meetings where everyone is a participant, regardless of inclination or material, is that they can be extremely long if there are a lot of presenters; and also tedious if there really isn't anything to report and they are filling white-space.
The easiest way to create the agenda is to have a roster of the group and to have them brief their findings in the order that they are on that roster. They each have a set time to give out their information. The instructor then gives his guidance and possibly polls the group for opinions. Then the groups moves on to the next presenter.
Structured meetings with definite presentations require some legwork in the background. The most efficient way to get through multiple presenters is to have all of the presentations consolidated to one computer, either merged into one slide deck, or organized by briefer in the same folder. Who does that is something I'm sure the instructor will notify all of you about.
Time should be based on how many are in the group.
There are pros and cons to both approaches. The effectiveness of either depends on the participants and the instructor. If your meetings are not effective for any of the participants, then maybe you need to suggest to the group (off-line, during, or private session with the instructor I leave to your discretion) that the point of discussion for one of those meetings should be the effectiveness of those meetings. And then determine what each of you individually needs to take away from it, as well as what ways you are all collectively going to improve the quality of those meetings.

Frequency: depends on the size of the group. When someone has some new result that they are going to present (in a conference or any other venue) this may be useful to practice, etc. Therefore the frequency depends on how often people are producing results. This is also an opportunity for everybody starting something new to ask whether there is someone with some related expertise that could be useful (I prefer mailing lists for this specific thing).
Time:people have commitments. Chose some time that fits everybody. I'd suggest before lunch to have the chance to continue the meeting while (not instead of) having lunch.
How long should it be?: As long as needed, as short as possible.
General comments: useful for everybody. E.g. in the style of the presentation. What is specific for each person or group should be commented directly to them (thus without boring anyone else).
Student preparation/presentation: Whatever s/he has to present according to point 1.
Questions: Yes, everybody should participate. All questions and interruptions should be at the end of the presentation.

At my group we use some Agile methods from software development industry. Among others, we have short stand-up meetings and longer sprint sessions.

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


text:
Trying other PhD opportunities while accepting an offer from my master supervisor?
I will finish my master study soon, and my master supervisor is happy about my work and would like to give me an offer of PhD. I am also happy on this, but I really want to try other opportunities. Should I give up the current opportunity, and try to apply other universities? By doing this, I have a risk I will have nothing if all my application fail. Is it ethical or appropriate to accept the current offer first, then keep on applying other universities? Is there any way I can balance the risk?

Did you tell your advisor, "I am seriously considering your offer but would like to apply to other universities, too"? If not, why not? If yes, what did he say?

Yes of course. But at what point I should make up my mind? The selection results of other universities span across a large time range, if I wait until all selection results are available, it would be too late to accept my current offer. Another worry is that will he writes a good reference for me if he wants to keep me in his group?

Before getting accepted (in Europe, at least), you are usually shortlisted for an interview. Then you can use the standing offer as a leverage, and encourage them to speed up the process if they want you.

Also, as you have an offer, you can set a minimum threshold in how interesting the project is for you before applying!

Should I give up the current opportunity, and try to apply other universities?

Why do you have to give up this opportunity to apply to other universities? Find out when your advisor needs your decision by; apply to other universities in the meantime; and when the time comes to give your advisor your decision, evaluate that offer as well as any other offers you have in hand at the time.

Is it ethical or appropriate to accept the current offer first, then keep on applying other universities?

Not unless you tell your advisor that's what you're doing.

Another worry is that will he writes a good reference for me if he wants to keep me in his group?

If your advisor is a reasonably competent advisor, then he will want what's best for you. If that means looking into other opportunities, then he should be supportive. If he isn't supportive, then either

he will make a terrible advisor. Consider yourself lucky that you found out now, and get away fast. Or,
he thinks you'll do best staying where you are. If this is the case, ask him why he thinks so. Consider his answer carefully, then make your own decision.

The selection results of other universities span across a large time range, if I wait until all selection results are available, it would be too late to accept my current offer. Is there any way I can balance the risk?

Obviously, you'll have to commit to a choice at some point. But this is highly situation-dependent. The best person to advise you on this matter is your advisor. He can tell you when he needs your decision by, estimate your chances of getting into the programs you're interested in, and weigh the risks of each approach with your specific goals in mind.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Removing co-authors from a new version of the paper
I work in an industry research lab. Some time ago, my team wrote a paper. Despite the core authors of the paper being 2 team members (author A and B), we decided to be inclusive and add 2 additional team members as authors (author C and D), even if their contribution was very limited (basically they took a read and provided feedback on language and grammar).
At that time, the paper got rejected. Now, we wrote a new version of the paper. Some parts are significantly different, others are as before. Also, the two additional co-authors C and D, whose contribution was limited, left the company.
My question: is it fair not to include authors C and D in the new version of the paper?

Look up authorship code --  In Australia, we use https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-responsible-conduct-research-2018

As described, you were wrong to give them honorary authorships in the first place. They should not be retained.

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


text:
Replying to students' emails or ignoring irrelevant questions
I started teaching this year and what surprises me is how often students will just send you emails asking about stuff that I feel they should figure out by themselves.
For instance, they will email me asking when the next lecture is (when they can simply look it up) or if they will get penalised if they submit an assignment late or even not at all! (why would they not!)
Then, they also email me puzzling "academic" questions. For instance, I encourage my students to be autonomous and use google or search answers on websites like stackexchange. But some will email me (in the context of a statistical class) how to use the "google regression", or the "google R library", stuff you just wonder how they got there. Stuff directly from the meta-metaverse.
How do you deal with such questions?
(Giving this issue my assignments have very clear guidelines and clear marking.)
My philosophy at this point is that they should figure these sort of things out by themselves, and I tend not to respond. I feel that answering this is encouraging them not to be autonomous.
Is that a common teaching issue?
Do you explicitly tell your students in class that they should not email you about this kind of stuff? What is acceptable not to reply to?

Removed several answers and side discussions from the comments here; please post your answers an answers.

Imagine a complete absence of answers below because all readers believed that you should be figuring this sort of thing out by yourself.

I had a professor who would turn us in if we used Google or a book for ANYTHING in his class. We were to use his materials only. Just some food for thought.

This will depend on the culture of your department. In my department, the "student experience" carries a lot of weight (for various reasons which are beyond the scope of this question). When students provide course evaluations how responsive we are to questions is a key factor.
I try to be helpful without committing too much of my time. If it's something they should know where to look up I email them a link to the appropriate place to find the information ("You can find your timetable by checking the University timetabling website:  https://xy.z"). Many students are not very organised and don't know where to find things, even if they should. I keep links to common resources to hand so I don't need to waste time finding them myself.
If a student was doing some of their own research on a related topic to what I'm teaching I would try to be as encouraging as possible without committing too much of my time, but making clear that it is beyond the scope of the module. If they were very keen I might even try to recruit them onto a research project.
It's a tricky balance but I don't think ignoring the emails is the best way forward in most cases. I have noticed (as have many of my colleagues) that some students use email in the same way as they text their friends, so a short message pinged over to you without thinking about it too much. If this is the case for your students it would be worth discussing with them communication expectations in a professional environment. In many cases, they genuinely don't know how. If a student seems to be taking advantage of your time you should discuss this with them so they understand boundaries and what is expected of them.
As frustrating as communication with some students is I try to remind myself that they are young (especially undergraduates) and it's our job to teach them. That includes soft skills like how to communicate, etc.

Agreed. You don't even have to give them a link for the simplest things. "Please check your student portal for that information." But don't ignore.

Building on the point in the fourth paragraph about students using email like an instant messenger service; it may be (especially since the pandemic) that there is a platform like Microsoft Teams or Slack which is already well-suited to 'instant' messages, and which also facilitates students asking trivial questions in a space where other students can answer. Encourage them to ask things like "when is the next lecture?" in an open board and most likely someone else will answer for you. This lets you emphasise that emailed questions should be written more seriously.

Over the years I have been used to professors not replying to emails. I think it’s pretty normal in Europe. I come from continental Europe, studied in France, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium and the students experience is not a thing like in American universities. I think you right that students seems to use it like text messages, but I think it can be pretty rude. There is also a consumerist expectation from education, especially from US students, which doesn’t bode well in Europe.

Honestly I recommend leaving out the link, when it's something that students already have easy access to. This is based on the number of people who navigate to websites by putting the name of the website into Google and then clicking the top link (sometimes including me). If e-mailing you and clicking the link in your response is easier than going to the university home page and clicking on the link then students will do that, regardless of how annoyed the text around the link is. (You don't have to be mean about it, but mailing you has to be slightly more work than the behavior you want.)

@giac, the 'texting' email is rude, but often they don't know that (or intend for it to be rude) - nobody has ever told them. If we don't teach them how to professionally communicate they will graduate, get a job, and email their boss or a client like that with more serious consequences.  Unfortunately, in the UK (where I'm based) the consumerist view of academia is government policy, and by extension university policy.

@giac But since not answering is not an exception in those countries, the student will simply assume that you lacked time to answer, or just forgot to. Whereas, with Luke Sawczak suggestion the student will most likely understand that it is not your work to answer such questions.

@giac: The consumerist attitude is precisely why their average standard is so low.

As with all human interactions, if you want people to do something, there is no substitute for telling them. Refusing to answer can be interpreted in too many different ways.

Can you not refer them to stock answers? To individual links, or to a comprehensive passage?

@giac In addition to this answer, templates. You will quickly see a pattern of email types. Make a few templates that you can just copy/paste and send off. Reference to the syllabus, references to student portal or other repositories of information. Maybe even a clear and formal response to incomprehensible/poorly written emails on proper email etiquette. 3-5 templates would probably cover the majority of the irrelevant emails. People hate on cookie-cutter responses, but they work and are useful when properly applied.

In Sweden, where I teach, there is a formal obligation on teachers to answer student queries within no more than three work days, even if the answer is trivial. The answer can of course be "you'll need to figure this out on your own" or "check the syllabus", but you can't silently ignore the question entirely. While this may not be a formal rule in your department or country, I suspect that there is at least an inofficial policy in your department as well. To be honest, I have a hard time envisioning a teaching environment where silently ignoring student questions would be considered ok.
Try to see this from a student's perspective - not only do they not get their question answered, they also get no signal about why their question is not being answered. This way, they do not learn what are good questions to ask (although they may learn not to ask questions at all, since it's pointless - you may know that you would have been happy to answer a more intricate academic question, but how is the student to know that?).
I should also say that handling things this way isn't even particularly smart from your perspective. You may save a few seconds by not pointing a student towards the syllabus, but you miss out on the opportunity to educate the student how to ask better questions, which may save you a lot more time (and nerves) in the future.

That is interesting. I studied in a few countries and professors not replying to emails always seemed fairly normal (both at undergrad and even PhD level).

In the UK just completely ignoring emails from undergraduate students is quite common amongst older academics (although not all of them by any means).

@Tom Let me put it like this. I don't doubt that people do this, and the department probably is in fact  not very happy about it - but the truth of the matter is also that starting from a certain seniority it can be very difficult to change professor's behavior. That's not the same as "this is ok, people should be doing it".

You shouldn't ignore them without telling them which questions you will or will not answer. That is rude and makes it hard to understand when to reach out to you in general, which is not what you want.
I see two ways to address this, one of them already answered nicely by atom44, simple quick emails.
The other one is, at the beginning of the new lecture series, to spend a few minutes clearly talking about communicating with you. You can address the topics that they can ask about, and also the the way that they can approach you and how to approach you properly. You can set clear guidelines, for example:

For any questions on class schedules or homework assignments and grades, the answer should be in the syllabus. Questions like "when is the next lecture?" or "how is this graded?" will be ignored.
etc.
When you contact me, make it an appropriate message with proper greeting and closing.

So make it clear when they can expect an answer, and when they cannot. And of course, also put these communication guidelines in the syllabus.

@OP: If you write these things in the syllabus, you can be 99% sure these students will not read the syllabus, but you will be able to answer almost by default  "please look for the answer to your question(s) in the syllabus" :)

Yes, you need to answer student questions, directly or indirectly. But you also need to make it easy to do so if the scale is large. I have two suggestions.
First, use what you have learned about student requests to update your syllabus with all generally needed information. I'll guess your needs improvement if you are getting questions that could be easily answered. You can even include something about how and when to contact you.
Second, use a mailer that makes some things easy. Most mailers will automatically add a "signature" block at the end of any mail. Some (Mail on the Mac, for example) lets you have a large number of different signature blocks that you can easily choose from a drop-down. Write signature blocks that begin with distinct boilerplate suggestions.

See the syllabus, please.
Professor Buffy
University of the Universe ...

Or

See me during Office hours (details in Syllabus)
Professor Buffy
University of the Universe ...

Then, when a question requires a boiler plate answer, just select the "signature" that gives the answer.
I have about thirty different signatures.

A third suggestion, assuming that you also have a large scale but a number of TAs to assist in the course. Let each TA field questions from a defined subset of the students. In some places this assignment of student to specific TA is already in place so just capitalize on that. "Contact your TA first" is a general rule stated in the syllabus. The TAs can answer a lot of such questions and relay the harder (hopefully rarer) ones to you.
You might even have access to a Senior TA who has a lot of experience who can serve as intermediary between the other TAs and yourself.

Interesting thanks. But do you still do that when you have 200 students?

Scale is hard. First try to minimize the problem via the syllabus. I'll add a bit more to the answer.

There is also sometimes a similar feature called "canned responses".

My own experience is that students, at the moment, are as "needy" as I've seen them.
In recent times, in the US, at least, the "ground rules" have been changing frequently because of covid, and I personally think this has left the students relatively unsure about many things, and it's led to many questions of a type that I haven't seen before.  I deal mostly with seniors, but I'm hearing from my colleagues that 2nd year students have never really learned to function as college students!
So where does that leave us?  I've chosen to double my efforts to be as clear as I can in advance -- better syllabus, better directions in class, better organization of the course structure in the learning management system....  You might ask yourself if there's anything you can do better to make things even clearer to your students.  If you have TA's, maybe you can work to make them the first point of contact for students, and they can either answer the questions if they know the answers, or assemble the questions for you to answer.
Also, I've really tried to encourage students to ask questions in discussion forums in the learning management system (they're encouraged to email directly for issues involving personal issues), and to follow the discussion forums.  This allows me to allocate portions of my time to dealing with these issues in a way that doesn't constantly intrude into my time, usually in the evenings before I call it a day.   Also, if one student has a question, chances are that somebody has the same question, and can benefit from an answer in a discussion forum before they can get around to emailing me.  Often, when I get a question by email, my response is "can you ask that in the discussion forum?"

If it's a frivolous question but only requires a simple answer, like a link to the syllabus, I would provide it and move on.  If it requires more than that and I don't have the time to address it fully or have other concerns, e.g., about their preparedness for the class, I might respond with a suggestion they come to office hours, at which point there's a good chance they'll decide that also requires effort they're not willing to put in and that may be the end of it.  If they  do show up, that opens up the possibility for a deeper discussion of why they're having trouble with what seem like simple matters and what might be done about it.
You can also set rules, e.g., edicting that students in a CS class should not send you their code via email with questions about how to fix their bugs, that you will only accept those questions in OH.  Another good strategy is to use something like Piazza, so students can answer each other's questions without having to ask the instructor.
I agree that even seemingly frivolous questions should get timely, respectful, and helpful responses.

It's in the syllabus!

Welcome to being an instructor :)
What is colloquially known as "frivolous" or even "dumb" is merely a typical human pathfinding strategy: your students evidently believe it is the easiest to get answers from you. Odds are your assignments' guidelines are "very clear" only to you, possibly "clear" to the faculty and might not be clear at all to your students. Perhaps if you expressed the syllabus in a form of TikTok dance, it would get better traction.
Jokes aside, maybe your university/department's website is hard to navigate. Maybe they got thrown off by unclear wording in some announcement which might have had nothing to do with your course specifically. Maybe the alternative would be a phone call and they tried to circumvent that dreaded source of knowledge.
Do not take (almost) anything for granted. Seeking information is a skill, and great many people might fall into an "utterly lacking that skill" category for you. Interpersonal communication is a skill. Being consistently able to comply with well-articulated requests is a skill.
You are seen as approachable - this is good; that gives you a teaching opportunity. Now, not all questions are being asked in good faith: some are obviously probing you for weakness ("maybe we could avoid doing some assignments, this teacher looks young, inexperienced and exploitable"), some try to offload minor work onto you.
I find grouping requests together the easiest: someone is uncertain about the time of the next lecture? Send an email with the link to the website with relevant information to an entire mailing list and say that unless there are concerns about its validity - which then should be stated explicitly - students should just use that. Students start to bombard you with questions about grading and assignments? Take extra five minutes at the start of the next lecture addressing these concerns.
Absolutely do try to address each and every email. But if you can do that, having a policy enabling you to not do so individually and potentially postpone some answers to the next class helps a lot: similar to SE, making the answer visible to a larger group of people can often be beneficial, after all.

"What is colloquially known as "frivolous" or even "dumb" is merely a typical human pathfinding strategy:" Ugh. You see that on the more technical StackExchanges too. Some questions are asked as if they did not spend 5 second Googling it first.

@DKNguyen It irks me a lot as well but well, apparently it's easier for some people to just type in their question than sit down and think for a moment. Unfortunately, there is a cultural aspect as well: if "show your effort" is prized over "get the result, ideally on your own" (and many schools foster exactly that), well, people get conditioned. And I've actually started just folding the conversation once a person follows up their first question with another one in the same thread if it's evident basically zero independent work was done.

I would like to deviate a bit from the other answers here. Although the answers and especially the accepted one are good, there is a clear problem in answering students emails: workload and time consumption.
Assuming, as everyone says here, instructors must answer students emails, then the higher education system is simply broken:

If in a 200 students class, even only 10% of students sends you emails, every week, with back and forth emails. This can lead to about 50 emails per week for each course. So at each working day the professor or instructor needs to answer more than 10 emails, some of them complicated (I have experience with this), because they describe complicated scenarios relating to the course material. This amounts to more than two hours per day for answering emails, for each course you teach.
This is clearly impossible, since then you cannot teach, supervise students, take part in committees, and definitely cannot do research and publish, or even think consistently.

This also means that professors/instructors today are much worse off than their peers 25 years ago, where no emails were available. Did any of us academics got the memo telling us that our workload has now increased 5-folds? I don't think so.

Solution:
This is my suggestion, and it is the usual legal/contractual practice: when students send email simply answer:

Please visit my office hours.

Indeed, office hours were introduced precisely to put a limit on student-teacher interaction to make the workload tenable.
Comment:
Of course, sometimes you can answer emails if the class is very small, or in special circumstances, but don't make it the standard, unless your department demands this. If you are in such
a department, then it is probably reasonable to say that your institute is more of a teaching one than research (unless you have lots of TA's doing this work for you, which is reasonable).

I think it is a good idea to define different mediums for communication to address different needs. Especially, if the students are not on campus and cannot resolve whatever questions they have in a face-to-face chat in the group. Everything falls to an email and you get swamped with frivolous questions.
My solution is to establish a course Discord (or whatever chat tool students are the most used to) server. Let the students resolve trivial stuff among themselves. Chances are that multiple students have the same question and if all communication is visible, they may find their answer without even asking. I monitor the discussions to see what's going on and answer relevant questions myself.
Importantly, if students are not using their real names on Discord their questions can be rude and entitled towards teachers. I find it important to react and set boundaries for what's acceptable. That is a teachable moment for everyone.
Email is reserved for private and serious stuff. Let them know that they should not expect answers outside business hours and on weekends. I am also very strict on not answering any messages outside the announced channels.
Furthermore, in the introductory lecture where you introduce assignments give them an example of how you expect them to approach the task. Sometimes students are used to the system where assignment contains all formulas, etc. and they just have to plug the numbers in. They are used to being evaluated on finding the correct answer.
Let them know how the assignment descriptions are complete and it is their job to find the missing pieces. At uni level, students are often evaluated for how they have solved the problem, not what answer they got.
I think it is futile to complain and expect students to come with perfect information-finding skills, interpersonal skills, etc. that perfectly match your expectations. Frankly, old professors are the worst at these skills.

So… apparently no one answering thinks this is a teaching opportunity.
If you’re tech support and you get ‘my PC crashed” questions the answer is always ‘did you troubleshoot?’…
“What have you tried so far?”
Someone who asks when the next lecture is, assuming it’s the same day and time each week should get ‘I recall you were at the last lecture.” or “How many have you missed?”.
Treat them like a telemarketer and make their time-cost high.
You could reply with a form letter containing a long story about self-reliance or perhaps reply with ‘Would you like an extra credit assignment instead?” Yes? Here’s a list of books about self-reliance. Read one and create a video, around ten minutes, summarizing the main points.”

As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please [edit] to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.

Assume good faith with 'obvious' questions. Maybe the student has some difficulty logging into the Student Portal to find class times and they've already raised a support ticket for it. Maybe there was some misleading information on there the previous year and they want to be sure. Maybe there's some rumour floating around about rescheduling.

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


text:
My paper was accepted, but I found an error affecting all of the figures. What will happen next?
I submitted a paper to a journal, and the decision was "accept with minor revisions."  As I was addressing the reviewer questions to submit a final copy, I realized that I may have misrepresented the data.
Specifically, I may have over-reached with a statistical model.  The model involved repeated measures of individuals who were initially one group (let's call it condition A), but were later split into two groups (B and C).  The model gives me differences between conditions.  My mistake was to calculate the actual values at each condition based on these differences, which was wrong because by dumb luck the 2 groups had a systematic offset at A before they were split (even though the members of each group were chosen randomly).  Hopefully that explanation makes some sense.  I presented the data in terms of "actual" values rather than differences because I thought this would be more informative for the reader.  So, basically, all the numbers are wrong.  It's a stupid mistake in hindsight, since I could find this information in the raw data.
The conclusions of the paper and the statistically significant relationships would still be the same in the corrected version, because I believe the model to be the correct one.  However, almost all of the numbers, tables, and figures would need modification.  And of course the strange systematic offset between randomized groups will raise eyebrows.
I'm certainly going to notify the editor and attempt to submit a corrected version of the paper.  I'm wondering what I should expect to happen, though.  Are journals understanding of this type of error, or does it represent something so egregious that the paper would be rejected and my credibility would be damaged?  Or would it simply be reviewed again?  I understand that it's largely up to the editor to decide, but I'm wondering if anyone with similar experience might give me an idea of what I'm dealing with.  Thanks!

What will happen next if the pictures are wrong? See here: http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-author/olivier-voinnet/

@QuoraFeans You seem to be comparing a case of willful misconduct to an accidental error.

@MarchHo: once you realize the conclusions are wrong and do nothing, it is willful misconduct, not an accidental error anymore.

Though I don't have any prior experience with this, I agree that you should notify the editor and should explain to them how and why this mess happened. Also let then know that it was a mistake and as soon as you realized it, you let them know. Also let them know that you are ready if they want to have the paper reviewed again. I believe that they would understand the mistake and would not make a scene out of it. But yes, you have to choose your words carefully and should politely explain them the point and admit your mistake.

Put in the new statistics.
Check whether the results are the same or deviate.
If they deviate even slightly, the paper is a no go. Withdraw it. Don't try to make the new data reach the old results.
If the results do not deviate, notify the editor of the error and changes, and ensure that you highlight that results do not change.

As the OP mentioned, the conclusions and the statistical relationships are still the same, but the numbers, tables, and figures have to be modified.

The distinction you're drawing between the "statistics" and the "results" seems strange. Even if the sign and tests all point in the same direction, effects of a different magnitude might, or might not, be cause for concern or withdrawal. If you think the substantive takeaways from the paper are different, you should indeed withdraw the manuscript. If you think they are intact, you should highlight the differences so that the editors and reviewers can decide for themselves if they agree. I think this might be what you meant and I'm just confused by your reference to "the results."

It sounds like you screwed up the statistics. I would not want a publication with statistics that I know are wonky. I would withdraw the paper and appologize to the editor. I would ask the editor about resubmitting once the analysis issues are sorted. I would then bring in a statistical consultant to make sure your analysis is correct.

I'm not sure withdrawing is necessary: I think the decision of whether to accept the minor revision, re-review, or re-submit depends on the degree to which the final values and conclusions are actually affected, and should be left up to the editor.

@jakebeal To me withdrawing an unpublished paper is just not that big of a deal. Worse case is you have to submit to a new journal once the issues are fixed. The advantage of withdrawing and asking about resubmitting is you prevent the editor from having to make a difficult decision.

I have experienced a somewhat similar situation. In our case, it was the reviewer (who had given accept with minor changes), who wanted some clarification of a figure. When we started to clarify, we found out that a mistake made that figure, another figure and some numbers wrong.
What we did was to contact the editor and explained the situation, we cleared up the mess, and resubmitted with a letter to the reviewer explaining what had happened, and if the person would please look over the figures again. Both editor and reviewer were very understanding, and the article was accepted with the changes.


text:
Status change from Ready for Decision to under review
I submitted a paper to Elsevier almost two months back. After 15 days I got a mail that Paper has been sent for Review but the status continued to remain "Editor Invited". After further one month, the status changed to "Reviewer Invited". After ten more days i.e around two months from the submission date, I got a mail stating "I have received all the required reviews, which I will now evaluate before making a decision " and the status changed to "Ready for Decision". After two more days the status changed to "Under Review." I am not able to understand the status of my paper. The mails I got were sent from EviseSupport@elsevier.com

perhaps the reviewers disagreed and the associate editor invited a further reviewer. When there is a decision, you'll hear it - try to relax.

Thanks for your comment.What do you mean by "disagreed". Disagree to Review or to accept the paper for publication.

I meant that they might have disagreed about whether your work was appropriate for publication.

The editor received the reviews, but there was some problem that meant that they could not make a final decision about acceptance.  Usually, when all the reviews are in, it is not too difficult to reach a decision, but there are plenty of cases where there is real difficulty.  The simplest explanation is that the two (or more) referees disagreed, and the editor did not feel entirely convinced by either of them.  That would mean some further evaluation of the paper is required.  If the editor is sufficiently knowledgeable about the subject matter, they might evaluate the paper on their own.  They might send it back to the same referees, to see what they think of each other's comments.  However, the most likely alternative is that the editor sends the manuscript out to one or more new referees, and that is probably what happened to your paper.
(There are other situations in which additional review might be needed, but they are less common.  The editor might feel that a referee report is clearly too carelessly done or otherwise unsatisfactory.  The referee might submit a carefully reasoned report, but be unwilling to make a judgement about whether the paper is suitable for publication.  In any case, the editor's response is probably going to be the same; they will most likely send the manuscript out for another round of reviewing.)


text:
Asking for extension in submission of revision
I submitted a paper to one of Elsevier journals. It got major revision and the submission time given to me was two months. Now the time is very near (10 days) and I think I cannot complete all changes to be incorporated. I asked for extension in due date of submission through editorial system using my login. Even after 4 days, there is no response. I am confused what should I do?
Is the deadline really hard and if I submit after a week or so, it will be rejected?

In general, these deadlines are to keep things in a timely and organised manner. It shouldn't be a problem getting an extension. I would send a polite reminder on the date of the deadline.

Counting the days, you asked for an extension on 24.12. Not everyone has to be around during the holidays so next time ask maybe a little sooner.
It may depend on the field and journal, but this summer I asked for an extension and I got it. Also considering how certain deadlines are handled around the academia (like 3 months taking the referee to review a revision of the paper just to say its OK), you are probably going to be just fine.
Edit: I just remembered that some time before Christmas I was sent a proof to answer the questions from Journal of Mathematical Physics with a deadline of 48 hours. I guess it took maybe even more than 3 days to send it back and nobody did complain.

Do you think I should wait before again asking for extension?

If you are sure you sent the message correctly, then probably you do not need to do it again (it may even cause some confusion on the side of the journal). Maybe as pointed out in the comment bellow your question just let them know on the date of the deadline.
If you want to ask for extension for another paper then it is probably best to do it as soon as possible.


text:
Plagiarism Tools in Academia
A colleague of mine noticed that one of his co-authors copied and pasted a discussion from another paper into their manuscript. When confronted, the co-author freely and casually admitted to it. My colleague is understandably distressed, they are at the beginning of their career and the co-author is near retirement. They are concerned that if they have a mutual paper which openly plagiarizes another, then that could severely hurt their chances of getting a professor position in the future.
My colleague was wondering if there are any good tools to check against academic papers, so that they could see if the final manuscripts of their co-author actually contains plagiarized materials.
I know of turnitin, but I assume that just for undergrad essays and what not.
Does the community have any recommendations?

Google will find quite a lot (not all), simply by putting a section of a suspected passage into the search field - in quotes. Of course it can only find things that are visible online.

That would definitely work for suspected passages, but the concern is to find passages that they might otherwise miss.

It's pretty hard to find something that you don't suspect is there. But I suggest this only as a stopgap.

I had not heard of scribr before. Thank you. I’ll take a look.

Just for clarification: Was that another paper written by that co-author or a paper by somebody else?

The same company that sells the TurnItIn service has another product called iThenticate that is widely used by journal and conference proceedings publishers to check for plagiarism in submitted manuscripts.  My institution uses this to check MS and PhD theses and dissertations.

Thank you! I hadn't heard of that before.


text:
How are other graduate students able to think on the spot during lectures or talks?
So this happened to me multiple times.
Scenario 1: I'm sitting in a lecture or listening to a talk (STEM related) which is more or less aligned with my background (so I know the big picture), and then half way through, the lecturer or the presenter asks a question.
At this point, I haven't even really figured out the meaning of various symbols and there seems to be a lot of ambiguity (even undefined symbols) in what has been presented, but almost every time another student is able to provide the answer on the spot. How is the student able to tear through all these ambiguities and absorb all these information in such a short amount of time? Note that by "another student", I don't mean just a particular student, but this happens in every class across my entire (graduate) life.
Scenario 2: The presenter is presenting and midway someone jumps in with a very intricate question about the material just presented. We are all seeing this for the first time, so why is it that some people are able to see the edge cases so much faster?
Maybe I have a study/listen/notetaking habit or concentration problems which are not conducive to learning and I would like to hear your thoughts.

How far are you with your grad studies?

Keep in mind that, assuming I understand the scenario correctly, there are 20 other grad students in the room who are asking the same question you are.  It's really hard to answer questions about the exceptional, because they are the exceptions.

Have you considered that the students who ask questions may have read the material before the lecture and are therefore not actually seeing it for the first time?

Probably not worth an answer, as I can't say "why" or offer a solution, but I graduated a while ago and this still happens to me in conference talks. A good professional acquaintance of mine always has several questions after each talk, and I'm just sitting there, blinking and processing. Usually, the discussion points will come to me a bit later and I'll end up chatting with the interesting presenters at coffee breaks, posters and lunches following the presentation session. Pandemic-online-conferences have been... difficult

Different people learn in different ways. Some people can pick things up in the lecture, others need time to go home after and reconstruct everything for themselves. While it's certainly impressive that some people can "get it" in the moment, it's by no means required for success in STEM, especially as a grad student. You should try to avoid comparing yourself to others, since you may have different areas where you excel. You should also keep in mind that you only see what other people project about themselves to the outside world and you don't have access to their inner monologue; because of this, I think many grad students tend to overestimate the abilities of their peers and underestimate their own. In the end, there's a certain rate at which you can absorb technical information, and there's no point in simply wishing the rate was higher. While you can increase this rate with lots of hard work and experience, that's not something you should expect to happen magically or quickly.
Having said that, if your goal is to be able to ask questions in lecture, here are some thoughts on various strategies to try:

most lectures start relatively easy and then ramp up in difficulty. Try to listen carefully and follow the logical steps of the lecture, see if you can identify the first spot where you start feeling confused. Take a moment and try to pin down exactly what you are confused about as precisely as possible (is it an undefined word; a new concept; an old concept being used in an unfamiliar way...) and ask a question about this.
don't be afraid to ask about ambiguous or undefined symbols; it could well be that simply getting over this "mathematical language barrier" will make the content a lot clearer to you and you can spot tricky steps more easily.
review the material at your pace beforehand so you know what the confusing parts are in advance.
do a lot of problems in this subject so you become more familiar with standard notation and the ways of thinking about it, which in turn will increase the rate at which you can absorb information in this area.
don't try to follow and absorb every detail in the moment, but only try to follow the logical outline of the lecture, since you will be able to fill in details later. If you don't see how the lecture logically flows from one part to the next at a high level, it's probably work asking a question to clarify the logic.
if the lecture is covering a general case of something, try reducing various statements to a special case you understand well and see if you can follow the details there. For example, if a derivation is being done in three dimensions, see if you can follow how the arguments work if you project out one of the coordinates.
try to explain tricky concepts out loud to yourself and to other people. While doing this, try to think of ways you could explain the material that weren't the way that was done in the lecture. This may either lead you to a better explanation, or to a realization of why the material was structured a certain way. Getting a feel for how your lecturer likes to think about and explain things, can give you some intuition for which aspects of what they are talking about are the most important.

To summarize: (a) definitely speak up to clarify unambiguous or undefined notation, since you will have no chance of following anything if the symbols are not defined, (b) working hard outside of class can help you follow things more quickly in class, and (c) try to identify the most important points and focus on those, leaving more detailed calculations or proofs to understand later. This frees your brain up to think about the material at a higher level; it is much easier to ask questions if you are following the structure of the lecture rather than trying to follow every step line-by-line. Note: "higher level" here is not a value judgment that some material is "better" or "more intrinsically interesting," but essentially a kind of coarse-graining of the material where you assume certain calculations / proofs work out and see if you can follow the logical implications of the results that are derived. You want to aim to be able to (a) identify the key results in the lecture and (b) for each result, understand what all the inputs are (and why they are needed), what all the outputs are (and what outputs you'd like to get that you can't get), and what you can do with the result. You do need to understand the details eventually, but you don't need to understand them in the moment, especially if you feel it is hurting your ability to understand the overall lecture. I suspect that many questions you perceive as being very intricate or detailed, are really coming from someone following at this kind of higher level finding that two results don't seem to fit together or making a connection with another subject they know well (again keep in mind you don't know the internal monologue of other people).


text:
Is there a way to do serious social justice-related work or research while working on scientific research?
I am currently working in the sciences (broadly speaking, the STEM field) in the United States as a researcher.
I have been following quite closely to the social-political trend of the US for the past few years, and I am quite troubled at the direction that the administration, as well as a (seemingly) majority of the society, is taking us. I am troubled at the US administration's policy of travel ban, which has affected dozens of my actual colleagues. I am resentful of the lack of empathy of many Americans when it comes to police abuse and political corruption. Overall, I am not optimistic about the increasingly intolerant atmosphere against many racial minorities in the country. They are my colleagues, mentors, friends, family, and peers.
At the same time, I am also troubled by the use of technology to limit people's privacy and to influence people's opinion for the worse. A recent presentation at my University was on the topic of accelerating content ranking algorithms that can be used to influence social networks. I have read about how this automated algorithms can be used to isolate people into an echo chamber and cause extremist views. The presenter had no qualm about the ethical implications of these engineering decisions.
While there is a strong tendency in the STEM fields to ignore the social and the political, perhaps out of fear that it will distract from our work, I know that these things will not be ignoring us. I have read about the consequence of the rise of fascism in Germany, and its steep cost to academic research. I have read many stories of famed researchers becoming refugees, or being sent to concentration camps, or even committing suicide. I fear that this future may seem as far off from us now as it was to the researchers in the early 20th century.
How can I practically contribute to social justice (and human rights in general) while working in the sciences? Scientific research is very meaningful, but it requires a lot of focus and concentration. I understand that a scientific training has potentially stripped me of being educated on many social issues, and I can make up for it by reading about them. However, it there anything more I can do beyond this? Can I use my skills as a scientist to meaningfully contribute to research that can have a meaningful impact on social justice? Has anyone else found a coping mechanism?

Say a bit about your own position. Are you at a university or in industry or ...? Also a bit more about where you stand in the profession. Are you a relative newcomer or an established researcher? Knowing your specific field might help, also.

Very similar question on Maths SE: Can I use my powers for good?

Not a full answer, but you may be interested in the effective altruism movement, especially if your ethics is close to (soft) utilitarianism: https://www.effectivealtruism.org/

Best of luck. It’ll be interesting to learn about the process you’ve made in since 2018.

Can I use my skills as a scientist to meaningfully contribute to research that can have a meaningful impact on social justice?

Yes, you can.
In the USA, there is an entire union dedicated to this: the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Science is essential for the progress of humanity, and social justice is no exception.

The environmental sciences (including, but not limited to, climate science) have informed what is now a huge worldwide and successful green movement.  Where there is pollution or climate change, the poor are hit hardest, as they have least access to adaptive measures.  Therefore, action on environmental issues is closely linked to social justice.
Engineers develop low-cost energy solutions that help bring electricity and education to rural areas of poor countries that previously had no such access.  Or cheap ways to filter drinking water.
Educate members of activist networks.  Many networks of progressive action are lacking in access to science or engineering expertise.  If your knowledge matters to society, it matters to them.  Reach out to those groups.  They will welcome you!

As an arbitrary starting point, you could consider the Craigslist Charitable list.  Are you a satellite engineer?  The space4peace group will welcome you (they will, too, if you are not).  Do you work in agricultural or plant sciences?  Surely some of the farm-related groups would love for you to come by.  Are you a nuclear (weapons) engineer?  Work on research on how to safely dismantle nuclear weapons.  Do you work in software engineering?  There's plenty of charitable programming to do, or to educate members of all kinds of groups how they can protect themselves from being spied upon.  Et cetera!  If you're into it, there's more direct action alternatives as well; a pipeline blockade may have get more attention if it includes a distinguished professor than if it consists entirely of "college dropouts".
You can combine this with an academic career (although depending on where you are and what you do, you may want to limit actions to stay out of jail).  Researchers at all levels from PhD students to professors are active in those groups.  It will be hard work, but it may well be that the volunteer time you spend with grassroots will motivate you, make your life more fulfilling, and ultimately even make your regular research work more productive.

@Stefan They are very much related.  Climate justice is a form of social justice, and climate science is an environmental science.  Similarly, the entire environmental movement (subset of social justice) is informed by environmental science, as it was kickstarted by Rachel Carsons Silent Spring, which is itself an environmental science book.  Environmental pollution and climate change is very much socially unjust, as it's the poor that are hit hardest.

@Stefan Personally, I moved into research related to environmental sciences (from physics) to a large degree for social justice reasons.

@Stefan I disagree, but the fact that we are even debating (which I won't do in a comment thread) whether ES and stopping global warming is beneficial or not for poor nations shows that there are links between the two either way (and I never said or meant to imply ES is the only science to usefully inform social justice movements).

@Stefan They're very, very related.

@Stefan This comment thread is not the right place to discuss whether environmental science/technology has a positive or negative impact on social justice in the short or long term, my answer does rely on the weaker claim that the two are related.

@Stefan Very briefly, environmental exposures do not fall uniformly on the population. Many groups - the poor, minorities, etc., bear the costs of environmental contamination, climate change, etc. disproportionately.

@Stefan The idea that social justice and "policy domain" are not also related is...flawed, imo. And it's not necessarily just policy - I've seen epidemiologists at community meetings, and protests, and in lawsuits. Unless you have an extremely narrow notion of social justice, I think it's really hard to argue that "Poor people shouldn't be subjected to worse outcomes due to their environment" isn't social justice.

@Stefan No, I'm talking about things like contesting whether or not a polluting facility should be placed in a community that will not receive the benefits of it, were not asked, and is both economically and socially disadvantaged.

There are a number of fields that do this - for example, taking a social justice approach to something like social or environmental epidemiology would not be surprising in the slightest, and really wouldn't require stepping outside your normal research as much as it would be framing it in a particular way.
There's also groups you could volunteer for, either locally or nationally.
Finally, there's non-profits that actively combine these two. The first one that comes to mind is the Human Rights Data Analysis Group which does some really cool work around data science for social causes.

@Stefan That a thing can happen does not mean it must happen. The antivaxx movement uses poorly run observational studies. That does not mean all observational studies are a problem. Wakefield was published in Lancet - that does not mean all medical journals are a problem.

In my opinion, the most reliable way to enact social justice as a scientist is through volunteering at your local school districts. The chance of becoming entangled in the political workings of policy while trying to maintain a strong research agenda are minimal. But what you can do is go to your local school district, register to volunteer, submit a background check, and volunteer to coach/assistant coach the local science olympiad, math olympiad, science fair, etc. Even volunteering to read for an hour a week or coming to a classroom to talk about what you do as a scientist can have an influence in a child's life. Or, for example, presenting your research in a way children can understand. You will make science "real" to those children.
Most university towns are large enough to have a title 1 school in the area. This is the school where there will likely be children who need people willing to give of their time.
A second route is to secure a grant to gain funding for a more large scale project.The US house science committee has directed the NIH to set aside grant funding for science education initiatives. Though, this will entail a considerably larger amount of commitment to manage a study/grant.
In short, look locally. It might not be as flashy as other means of social justice, but it will be meaningful. I can tell you that, personally, I find this approach to be exceptionally rewarding and meaningful.


text:
Immigration and tenure track in the United States
I have plans to apply for some TT positions in the US. However, I'm Brazilian and I don't even have a visiting visa. I've never been to the US.
Therefore the whole immigration process is mainly unknown to me, with the exception of a small amount of information I managed to gather online.
Ignoring the CV, merits, etc, which I know play a decisive part in the TT hiring process, my question is :

How much the immigration hassle can change the outcome of the hiring process?

Just to clarify further, I'm interested in the immigration factor only. Is it relevant?
Of course, a foreign superstar would be good enough reason to overcome these obstacles, but I'm no superstar and I was wondering where they draw the line, if it is even worth to do the applications... (If you are extra curious, my scholar : https://scholar.google.com.br/citations?user=0D1ExLoAAAAJ)
Possibly related: Is it more difficult to score a Tenure Track position in the US when applying from outside?

...if it is even worth to do the applications... --> Nothing ventured, nothing gained.  I'm no expert in this area (I'm also a U.S. citizen), but to some extent you'll never know what's possible unless you at least try.  I know for a fact that at my current school, most of the postdocs I work with as a grad student are from various foreign countries (Italy, France, Switzerland, India, Pakistan, etc.).  All of them had to have visas worked out - so it's definitely not impossible.

@tonysdg Yes, but getting a postdoc is considerably easier. Grants are easier to get, a J1 visa is reasonably easy to get. TT is another matter entirely...

@JeffE, I meant immigration institutions, reinforcing the fact that I haven't set foot in the US yet.  I do have a webpage and publications in top tier venues, including in collaboration with US researchers. The focus of my question is the immigration part. I know of US companies that don't even try to hire foreigners unless they are superstars, because of the hassle and shortage of h1b visas, for instance.

I edited the question to remove that ambiguity.

I don't know a lot about this subject, but one thing is that you should not extrapolate the hiring issues for US companies to universities. One major difference is that there is a "cap" on the number of H-1B visas issued annually, but universities are exempt from this cap.

My impression is that large universities usually have staff members whose duties include arranging visas for foreigners. I don't claim all these staff members are competent (I know of one counterexample, from many years ago), but I think the vast majority are competent.  In my own department, I've never heard, in  conversation about hiring at any level, any worries about visas.

@NateEldredge That's something I didn't know. Either way, the answer can be "it is irrelevant". I'd be totally ok with that :)

This question is about visa issues, which aside from being a legal matter are notoriously fraught with subtle technicalities, to the extent that even a lawyer may need many very specific details in order to answer a question on the subject. So let me start by saying that I am not a lawyer, nor a person with expertise on immigration matters, nor someone agreeing to be held responsible for any advice I am offering here. I am just a friendly person with an opinion, which I am happy to offer. I am also currently a department chair at a large U.S. university, so have a bit of experience dealing with visa-related questions on the hiring side.
The main points that I think are relevant for your question are the following:

As Nate Eldredge commented, U.S. universities are not subject to the quota system for H-1B visas. When a university wants to hire a foreigner, they can sponsor them for an H-1B visa. Assuming you are qualified, and assuming that the NSA doesn't know anything bad about you that we don't, I don't see a reason why it should be even remotely a problem for you to obtain a working visa for the U.S.
It is true that sponsoring a new faculty member for a visa costs money. I don't know exactly how much; the $20K figure mentioned by RoboKaren sounds too high to me, but for argument's sake let's assume that it is correct. Well, although it is objectively not a small amount of money, it is in fact very small if you compute it as a percentage of the cost of employing a faculty member. At a good research university, a new faculty member in CS (not my area, but close enough for me to know something about) will typically be offered a startup package of at least $50-100K, and possibly quite a bit more, to pay for startup costs such as relocation, buying some equipment (computers, and other things depending on the kind of work the faculty member does), and to allow paying for travel to conferences, hiring research assistants and such for a year or two until the person is able to secure some grant funding. And then there is the cost of the faculty member's salary, which will be paid indefinitely until he or she retires.
The point is that when you consider the hypothetical $20K expenditure in the context of the total benefit a good researcher brings to the institution, and the total cost of their employment, the $20K is actually a trivial amount of money. For a serious university, even a poor one, I think it is a no-brainer that it is worth making the effort to hire the best possible person for the job, even if that requires a modest extra investment of that sort, compared to hiring a U.S. citizen for whom that expense is not needed but who is slightly less qualified. I have never heard of a department that made the opposite calculation, and I have never heard of a foreign researcher at the tenure-track level who experienced difficulty being hired because of immigration issues. That does not mean such things don't happen, but if they do then that would be outside the realm of my own experiences.
Lastly, you mention that you have never visited the United States. Although you asked specifically about visa issues, and my opinion is that visa issues are mostly or entirely irrelevant to your situation, I think it's worth mentioning that the fact that you've never visited the U.S. is in my opinion (very) relevant to your situation, and is a much bigger complication and potential hindrance to your job applications than anything related to visas. It's not that I think there's anything wrong with not visiting the U.S. -- far from it -- but I do think your lack of familiarity with the U.S. and its culture could be a real problem both when you come for an interview and if and when you move here after getting a position. The very fact of your applying for a high-level position in a country you have never visited could appear quite strange to people considering your applications, leading them to question how well you are likely to fit in at their department and institution. I don't know how much thought you've given to this issue, but I would strongly suggest that if you have a serious goal of securing a tenure-track position in the U.S., if at all possible one of the first steps in your plan should be to arrange to first of all visit the U.S. for a reasonably long period of time, say a month or two, and visit at least a couple of different geographical parts of the country, and certainly include some universities in your visit so that you can experience first-hand what academic life in the U.S. is like.
Note that I absolutely don't mean for this part of my answer to be read as in any way a criticism of your desire to move to the U.S. or of your never having visited. I am merely saying that coming for an extended visit first will (in my opinion) make you a much better job prospect and a much better interviewee, in a way that I think you cannot appreciate given your lack of U.S. experience. By the way, although this opinion I'm expressing is specific to the U.S. and is not entirely symmetric with respect to countries, it would definitely apply in many other analogous situations; for example, I have never been to Brazil, and if I were to apply for a tenure-track position in Brazil without visiting first, my guess is that my lack of Brazilian experience (separately from my lack of knowledge of Portuguese) could be a serious disadvantage for my applications. (Though, of course, never having been to Brazil, I cannot be sure if that is indeed the case... :-) )

I'm accepting this answer, for it seems to be the most complete yet, but the other answers are also relevant. Just a side note, one of the top 2 universities in CS here just hired a professor with zero brazilian experience/portuguese, but, in general, you are not wrong. And I'm on the process of securing funding for a 1 year postdoc somewhere, possibly US or Canada, exactly for #3. Thanks for all the answers.

I would like to add to @DanRomik 's point #3 here. I have been interviewed for TT or equivalent positions at universities in several other countries where I have never been to before the interview (South Africa, New Zealand, Canada (if you count it as a separate country from the US!), etc.). All these were globally top ranked universities. I am no superstar in my field either, and local cultures, traditions, funding procedures are certainly different from those in the US. However, I have certainly (personally, no data) notice a big bias for TT positions in the US against those not been to US.

I've taught at both large R1 universities and small liberal arts colleges. For the large R1s, we don't care -- we simply want the best person for the job, regardless of their nationality. R1s have very competent foreign scholar offices and lawyers who know how to do the proper visa paperwork.
At smaller schools, it's more difficult. Budgets are tighter and the provost has more say over searches. If there are two candidates that are almost equally ranked, then the provost may suggest one over the other for non-academic reasons. There may not even be approval for international airfare for job candidates at the interview stage.
You have to remember that an H1B application will cost at least $10,00-$20,000 in lawyer's fees, staff time,  and application costs. The stack of paperwork for the Department of Labor certification itself is about 3 inches thick. Furthermore, even though there is an exemption, sometimes H1B applications can be very, very slow -- which means that an instructor hired in March might not be able to join the campus by August. This can be deadly for a small school that needs its faculty present.
tl;dr Be the absolute best candidate possible for the position and the visa status won't matter. Otherwise, it is a factor amongst other factors.

At my institution the cost of applying for a visa comes out of the department budget, so there is strong incentive to not pick a candidate who needs to be sponsored for a visa.

Wow, that seems like a system specifically designed to make sure you won't ever hire a foreigner. :-(  I'm in a rich department and even then, $20k is a lot of money.

"There may not even be approval for international airfare for job candidates at the interview stage." This exactly has happened to me, but at a smaller research university, not a SLAC. Worrying about 500 USD of additional costs during a TT search seemed so supremely strange to me that I sincerely hope that this was just an excuse.

Considering exactly these comments, I applied to express entry and got Canadian PR. After that, I got one interview, but no offer. I was in the US at the time, near the border, and I got a feeling that it was a helpful factor. Now I just need to improve my CV :)

Caveat: I'm a US citizen, so my experience with this is from the hiring side and from discussions with colleagues who are not US citizens.
The short answer is that it will not change things very much.  All of the hiring processes I've been involved with paid absolutely no attention to a candidate's citizenship status.  That doesn't guarantee this is true everywhere, but in most cases, I don't think it's a big issue.  Universities have it much easier than almost any other employer under US immigration law (for example, they have an exemption to the H-1B cap), and while there will be a fair amount of legal runaround, I've never personally known someone hired to a TT job in the US who wasn't able to take the job for immigration reasons.

At R1 places, especially, there are very experienced people one of whose primary jobs is to take care of visas. Faculty don't worry about that.
The issue is not so much visas for working here, but that interviews become much more complicated. These days, I think most tenure-track hires (at R1's, at least) include visits to campus for several days, during which the candidate gives talks, goes to lunches and dinners with various faculty, and so on. If you're not already in the U.S. or close by, the airfare may (depending...) be crazily more expensive.
Another impediment for people far away, larger than visas, is experience with the U.S. system in general (students' attitudes, service, etc). There is concern that people who've not done post-docs in the U.S. or not done graduate work here might be unhappy with U.S. students' attitudes (whether or not they're able to adapt to these attitudes).

For example, at my institution we'll only pay for domestic travel for a candidate to come to campus to interview.  If you're currently outside the U.S., you'd have to pay your own way to say New York.  As a practical matter everyone we've interviewed in recent years has already been working in the U.S.

There's a second visa issue that hasn't been mentioned (because it doesn't apply to most applicants).  You're not in the US and Brazil is not a visa waiver country.  This means that you will need a temporary visa in order to go to an interview.  (I think a B-1, but I am not a lawyer.) It is not unusual to be invited to an interview on insufficient notice to get a new visa.  If you think you have a serious shot at a US job, then I would try to get a temporary multiple-entry visa in advance of interview season.

While we're on the subject of Brazil and visas, US citizens should be aware that (unlike the rest of non-Venezuala South America) Brazil requires advance non-electronic visas for US citizens.

Yes, you need a b1/b2 visa. But the average processing time is around 10 days.... Is it normal to schedule interviews with less than 2 weeks heads-up?

Typically you should get enough notice for a 10 day turnaround, though personally I'd be worried about a delay and would want to find a way to play it safer.

For immigration purposes, you do not really need the university to sponsor you and go through H-1B route. If you have good credentials, you can always sponsor yourself and apply for EB2-NIW (which is designed for advanced degrees holders!). You can even apply from outside the US.
For TT positions, most applicants in my field (Engineering) are international students on F1 visa (some might have J1 visa, but that is a different story). Most of the time, fresh graduates will require some sort of immigration sponsorship if they get hired. Keep in mind that many PhD holders (if they have high credentials) will choose to go with EB1, EB2-NIW routes rather than the H-1B visa since it is much faster, cheaper and basically designed for them.
If I remember correctly, professors hired by universities are more likely to apply for immigration under EB1 category. PhD students/post docs will go with EB2-NIW. In theory a PhD holder who works as a professor in a university can apply under EB2-NIW and EB1 (two seperate applications) and at the same time. The main differences between these categories is related to having a contract (i.e., position as in an assistant professor for EB1 or self-sponsoring as in EB2-NIW). Additional information can be found on the USCIS website.
I hope this helps!

Indeed. I just found out about EB GC from another thread, this week. A little weird nobody mentioned here before. Probably I didn't formulate the question properly...   It just leaves a harder, more philosophical question, how good is good enough for NIW?

To be honest, it varies a lot from a case to case. Your best bet is to consult with an immigration lawyer (many offer free consultation). Basically, if you are in a STEM program, you will need to send the lawyer your CV, publication list, awards, schools, patents if any and he/she may request other documents. They will go over your portfolio and give you three options; 1. Your application is strong and then you will pay the fees once you get your GC (once I-140 and 485 are approved). If you do not get it, you do not pay!,

Your application is somehow good and there is a chance to get your GC so you will have to pay 50% of fees upfront and if you don't get your GC, you do not pay. 3. Your application is weak and the attorney will advise you not to apply. Since the evaluation process is free, I advise you contact different lawyers and get as many feedback as you can then go from there. I'm new to this forum so I do not know if I can post any details on the lawyer I used or if I can message you. But a simple google search with immigration lawyer (NIW) should be sufficient.

Most lawyers post their success stories on their website so you can go through them and see each applicant's story and "how good is good enough". You will find that it is varies significantly (no. of publications can be 5 or 100!, citations 20-500, research topic, institution, so many variables), but it is worth the shot! You can also visit (trackitt, an independent (non profit) website dedicate so such cases). I hope this helps!


text:
A very difficult situation: my coauthor "scooped" my proof and theorem in a joint work
I am working in a field of math and have written some papers, some published, some not. I have one small paper finished in 2021, which I forgot to send for publication.
At the moment, I am co-authoring with some other researchers on a similar topic. In a recent update, they came-up-with some theorem very similar to my unpublished paper, with almost identical proofs.
What is the best action to exercise here? Shall I send my working paper to them?

Was my 2021 working paper circulating? Well, an old version was. That paper contained a similar theorem and a very similar proof. A newer version (2021 version) of the working paper was not circulating, and it contains exactly the same theorem.

Sounds like your theorem may finally be published with you as an author, your neglect notwithstanding. What's the issue exactly?

What precisely does "circulating" mean? Did you upload it to arXiv? Or did you just send it to a few colleagues who might have sent it to other colleagues?

Sounds like they read your old manuscript and in the meantime forgot where the idea came from. Now they used it, did some inconclusive literature research, and thought must have been our idea, lets publish before someone else does. ;)

Would you like to publish that proof in the new paper with those coauthors, or do you want to publish it on your own and get cited in that new coauthored paper?

Since there's not actual authorship dispute, I fail to see the problem. I would absolutely tell them about your old paper, but phrase it as a funny coincidence that your old, forgotten work contains a very similar proof. Don't start a priority dispute, it's pointless since you'll be an author on the paper the shows the proof anyway. Yes, you could maybe have been the sole author of a separate paper, but trying to do that now will rob your co-authors of the fruits of their labors if they did indeed find that proof independently. Creating that kind of bad blood very likely isn't worth it.

@Karl Get cited in the new paper

It would be helpful to have more information here. You ask:

Shall I send my working paper to them?

From this, I infer that your paper was not available to these co-authors before. So, they did not "scoop" you. They independently came up with the same result. In this case, it's unlikely that you can publish the result separately. You can't be an author on two different papers that prove the same exact result as a main theorem.

What is the best action to exercise here?

First, in the future, be sure to put your work on arXiv when you finish it, so that others know you proved it. Second, be sure to submit it in a timely fashion. Third, forgive yourself: remember that 2021 was a global pandemic. We all let some balls drop and that's ok. It's possible to have a successful career even if you don't manage things optimally all the time. Fourth, yes, you should send them the working paper. Your co-authors might realize that it has ideas beyond what they came up with, that could strengthen your joint paper.
Lastly, now might be a good time to check if you have other working papers floating around that you should dust off, put on arXiv, and submit for publication.

In my view, "scoop" does not imply "stolen" or anything similar, it simply means someone has beaten you to releasing something. Whether they were aware of your work or completely independent, it's still scooping. Scooping doesn't describe the fault of some other, it describes the situation someone is in when they feel they've lost out on getting credit for something they did.

Sorry for being unclear. An old version of my working paper was circulating. The paper contain similar theorem and very similar proof. A newer version (2021 version) of the working paper was not circulating, and it contains exactly the same theorem.

"independently coming up with the same result" and then they publish first is what people usually called getting "scooped" :D

@BryanKrause That's helpful to know. Clearly, I always felt like it had the connotation "stolen" but I can see most people agree with your interpretation. Glad to learn this.


text:
experience/ability in teaching and securing external funds for getting professorship
I'm a postdoc in Engineering. I am aiming for a tenure-track professorship in research-oriented universities.
But most of the posts require 'demonstrated ability to secure external funds and teach undergraduate/graduate level'.
I feel there is barely a way to gain such experience as a postdoc.
Postdoc fellowships are the only external funds I (as an early-career postdoc) can secure. Teaching opportunity is also limited.
How can I demonstrate/develop such abilities during the postdoc phase?
I found some people have been hired without the evidence of securing funds and teaching experience. So I assume the experience is not limited to actually securing funds and giving lectures.
Are there other ways to advertise(?) the ability in securing funds and teaching, in, say, research statement and teaching statement?
I'm helping my PI write proposals and advise Masters' students. These are usual tasks for postdocs, so I wonder if these suffice.
Does a publication of a tutorial-like book chapter count?
Thank you.

Your question is based on a few statements which I believe are misunderstanding or over-generalisations.

Postdoc fellowships are only the external funds I (as an early-career postdoc) can secure.

A fellowship is definitely the most significant external funding a postdoc can typically secure. If you manage to get such a fellowship, you most likely will tick a "funding" box on your tenure-track application in most places. However, this is not the only type of funding postdocs can go for. You can bid for funds to attend conferences, you can often bid for smaller pots of money to organise workshops, conferences, and share knowledge in science fairs, exhibitions,  outreach events. You can also engage in knowledge transfer and get funding from industries or other end-users of your research. And of course you can collaborate with established professors and get your name as a Co-Investigator or sometimes second PI on the grants they submit.

Teaching opportunity is also limited.

This is true, in principle: postdocs' main aim is to do research and they normally are not expected to teach more than 20% of load. However, although there is a time restriction, it does not limit one's ability to engage fully with various ways teaching is or can be done. If you only do marking for 20% of your time, that does not tick the "teaching" box so well. But if you also conduct tutorials, occasionally deliver a lecture or two, design a (part of) the assessment, contribute a bit to designing the teaching materials, it presents you much better as a well-rounded person who can be put in front of students and trusted with a course. If you also have or start work towards a recognised teaching qualification - even better.