text:
Manuscript revision deadline: how strict are these [at Scientific Reports]
I am a Ph.D. student and presently dealing with my first paper that I had submitted to Scientific Reports.
I received back the reviewer comments together with a note from the editor asking me (as the first author) to revise and resubmit within 4 weeks (exact wording below*). However, my coauthors and I will likely not be able to finish the revision in time (there are only a few days left), and I am wondering how strictly editors stick to these deadlines, and if they are typically likely to close the submission altogether, or rather happy to accept the revision even sometime later. The editor him/herself would obviously be the best person to ask, however, I am not getting a reply to my request for an extension, and I would need to know soon whether to drop everything and just work crazy hours to get the revision to them in time.

We hope to receive your revised paper within four weeks. If you cannot send it within this time, please let us know so that we can close your file. In this event, we will still be happy to reconsider your paper at a later date as long as you haven’t submitted similar or related work elsewhere in the meantime.

It is all about TurnAroundTime.

I had the same issue with Scientific Reports and I contacted the staff asking for an extension. Here is the answer:

Dear authors, Thank you for your email. This will not be a problem –
  we do appreciate that some revisions do take longer than others and we
  would be more than happy to accommodate an extension for you. Please
  submit your revised manuscript when you are ready.

These days, the publication venues are trying hard to maintain two things: (1) the quality-higher, (2) the turnaround time of the publication-lower. Both these parameters decide the popularity of the journal, which further attracts quality research from future authors.
The email that you have received focuses indirectly on the second parameter--the time from submission to acceptance. You could contribute to a small turnaround time by submitting the revision within 4 weeks. If you delay the process, then their turnaround time might get affected for the year (though one article may not impact much, it could be considered somewhat serious).
The above claim is validated by their second line in which they say "If you cannot send it within this time, please let us know so that we can close your file. In this event, we will still be happy to reconsider your paper at a later date as long as you haven’t submitted similar or related work elsewhere in the meantime."-- This is a strong statement (mark the bold text). So, now if you submit a revised version as a "new" submission, they don't have to put much effort and the article TAT will be as low as possible.


text:
Manuscript accepted date is just one day after revision -- How to interpret?
I was reading few journals (in Elsevier) in my field (Biology) and I noticed the time of acceptance period from the revised version is received "Received 8 November 2016; Received in revised form 17 April 2017; Accepted 18 April 2017". Does this mean that the revised manuscript received today is immediately the other day? Or is there any other interpretation for this?
Thanks!

It probably means the editor was happy with the revision and accepted it the next day.

I think it's important to recognize that once a paper is accepted with minor revisions, it really only relies on the review of one person: the editor. Surely, if they are busy it could sit on their desk for awhile, but there is no reason for that step of review to take very much of their time; a day is completely reasonable if they see to it quickly.

These dates hide the intermediate revisions that have had happened during the whole process.
One possible time line could be:

Received 8 November 2016
First revision (Major) 12 February 2017
Second revision (Major) 18 March 2017
Third revision (Major/Minor) 17 April 2017
Accepted 18 April 2017

In few journals, two dates are also mentioned like this: Received 8 November 2016, First Revision received 12 February 2017, Second Revision Received 18 March 2017, Accepted 18 April 2017. It might also happen that the article gets accepted after first revision itself, if the revision is suggested as "Minor". Major revisions are usually followed by peer-review, which takes time.
It is mostly journal specific.

"These dates hide the ... " Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that "These dates might hide some ..."? Your phrasing seems to imply that there were in fact some intermediate revisions, but I don't see how you could know that.

Yep. I had a paper in PRL that was "nothing but net", a couple of typos and done. The process of fixing the remarks of all reviewers took less than half an hour. Rare, but possible :)

I believe I have had papers accepted within a day of receiving revisions.  As others have said, the most likely (and innocent) interpretation is simply that the last set of revisions asked for was sufficiently minor/straightforward that it was immediate to ascertain that they had been satisfactorily made.
I agree with @Coder's answer that it could well be the case that multiple rounds of revisions were made, and it is also my experience that when journals say "Received in revised form on XXX" then XXX is the date of the last revision received.  It also happens -- probably more frequently in some fields than others, and certainly more frequently for some authors than others -- that the first submitted version of the paper is essentially accepted but that the author is asked to correct some typos.  Depending upon the workflow of the journal, they may ask for these typos to be corrected before the paper is formally accepted, even though the outcome is not really in doubt.  How long does an editorial board want to spend checking that a given paper has indeed fixed some typos?  Probably not more than a day.
Let me also say that in my experience good editors are expeditious people -- there are steps in the publication process that all but necessarily have substantial delays, but a good editor will make sure that the paper does not get delayed unnecessarily.  So in my opinion this kind of timeline looks good for the journal.

Not surprised, it is just because of a minor revision, as explained by others. This is a very common case and it is reasonable.
I also want to share one more example, I read a paper, whose acceptance is one day after first submission. Crazy? That journal has only two types of papers: very fast review and very slow review. Most papers are accepted within one month, two weeks, etc. For the others, sorry, 1 month at lease for an initial decision.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Should I consider another Ph.D somewhere else after a year and half into my current Ph.D?
I had asked a similar question after six months into my current PhD. Then, the question was too dependent on individual factors and hence the question was closed. I will briefly explain the situation now after almost a year and a half.
Pros:

I managed to do a detailed literature review and found my research questions. I passed my one year review.

A lot of reading just before the review helped me improve both professionally and personally. I moved through to formulate the narrow scope of research by myself.

I have a simplified boiled down model of the questions in hand. Two other researchers also like the idea of the narrow scope and they are positive that I can solve it.

Cons:

Discouraging environment. Supervisor doesn't know the topic more. Not supportive of creative ideas. Always wants me to remain under his shoes.

The research is so isolated. Buying other researchers' time is not feasible always.

Supervisor's history is also bad. More than 60% of the students had left under him. Rest had inter-department projects.

Lack of motivation because the research area is deliberately redirected towards something that I don't enjoy.

Summary:
The reason I asked this is because I want to finish my PhD in time (within two and a half years more).  I see the research areas and videos of other places (that interest me) and I feel like I should do those things. At the same time, I feel like I should by hook or by crook finish this PhD and get a very good profile and get to the domain I want after two and a half years. This is because I don't have any publications yet. I do have one very good journal paper in the process, which was from my master thesis (Not related to my PhD).

Maybe it doesn't make a difference, but what subject?

@Person It is a subject related to radar electromagnetic (EM) signal processing. The direction I am going for is more statistical signal processing now to solve a real-life problem using radar echoes. The area that interests me more is pure EM and physics-related things with EM.

I'm gonna be honest when you say "I asked this question previously, but it was closed for individual factors" and then there's a giant wall of text, it doesn't give me high hopes that this one isn't also dependent on individual factors.

@AzorAhai-him- I agree that it may seem a lot, but it is more concise in terms of the points. It is a general issue in my opinion and the solution shouldn't be based on individual factors. Going through the text may convince you of this. I am sorry for the long text again.

This is more concise?

@AzorAhai-him- In terms of the points (not the details). I do mention it may seem long, but these are general issues. Does it really matter how long the text is?

"Does it really matter how long the text is?" I don't think there is anything wrong with a really long question, but writing this much I think can unfortunately make people want to invest their time on more accessible ones. Besides, you can always edit more detail in if people ask for clarification :)

I added an answer; I hope you find it helpful. However,  I think you may find our site more useful and less frustrating if you check out a bit about our "ethos": for example, this article and/or this one. The very short summary is that well-received questions here tend to be "boiled down" or "factorized" to the point where they could potentially help other people in the future who have the same problem (just like StackOverflow).

@Trunk here I mean that I'm alone responsible for everything I do in the project. I know two researchers who know the direction I'm opting for. I want to discuss my progress with them as if they are my weekly supervisors, but buying their time is always difficult (because they are not my supervisors). I see other students at least know what techniques to use for their projects, because there's a complete previous understanding there with their supervisors. I simply don't have this. Starting from the research till finding a narrow direction, everything I did myself.

@Trunk this is the second time I got the feedback this is too specific (depends on individual factors) and that's why it's closed. I also don't agree with this. I'm definitely sure many PhD students have the same issue.

Normally your supervision situation should call for at the very least some level of concern from your institution. Even if changing supervisor is not possible, I'd say that having at least some form of co-supervision (even informal) could help, even only to avoid being stuck in a toxic relationship with this supervisor. Don't hesitate to go at the level of university ombudsman for advice, because quite often people at the department level are reluctant to go against a colleague they meet every day (and that they will probably keep meeting after you finish your PhD).
That being said, imho your glass is more than half-full:

Most PhD student discover towards the middle or end of their PhD.that their supervisor is not as knowledgeable as they were imagining. Sometimes it's a worrying realization. You've already reached this stage, so you don't have any false hope and the bad surprise is behind you.
Many PhD students have some kind of relational difficulties with their supervisor. It's certainly not ideal, but apparently you've managed fairly well with this so far.
You're clearly capable of doing your work autonomously, and you're progressing your PhD well despite the supervision issues. To me this means that you're significantly more mature than the average PhD student.

Imho the main problem is that you seem a bit (?) depressed, and while this is also common it's not a good idea to let your mental health deteriorate. The usual advice applies: try to take care if it with a professional if possible, and at least don't forget to manage your time so that you keep some real personal time off work.
About the main question, be careful that the grass always look greener elsewhere. From a very distant point of view, I'd say that you're on the right track to achieve a perfectly decent PhD in your current position, but obviously I'm not in your shoes. And let's face it, to you I'm just a stranger on the Internet ;)

Thank you for the answer. I will try to maneuver. The grass is always greener I agree. To be prepared for the worst, I'll judge it for next few months. If I see that my efforts are not getting recognised and it's too difficult to get past them, I'll go for something else and won't fight through it. If I get some results by discussing with the people who know the direction well, I'll proceed and finish the PhD in time.

@Erwan for mental health, when you mention to take professional help, do you mean consulting a psychologist?

@CfourPiO yes, this is what I mean. Obviously it's up to you, but whatever direction you choose, preserving your mental health is crucial. Note that some institutions offer free counseling services.

Only you can make this decision. But, I think there are two deciding factors that you should definitely reflect on.
(1) Is it more important to you to have a good thesis, or a done thesis? Both are valid options! In particular, there are three possible outcomes:

You choose the good thesis and end up getting a professorship
You choose the good thesis and don't get a professorship -- but you get a permanent, high-paying, interesting job elsewhere
You choose the "done thesis" and get the same job as in option #2

Opinions will vary, but I think the only bad outcome here is #2. Yes, you may get some satisfaction and knowledge from your "good thesis"....but the opportunity cost in money and time is very high. Further, you don't stop learning when you get your PhD. So personally, I would only advise choosing the good thesis if you want a faculty position and think you have a very realistic chance at it.
(2) What are the odds that you can successfully complete your PhD with your current supervisor?
The above discussion assumes that you can get your "done thesis" in 2.5 years as planned, while a "good thesis" would take 4+ years. But your situation may have deteriorated to the point where you will not be able to produce a satisfactory thesis without transferring, and/or your advisor will not accept a thesis from you even if it is satisfactory. In this case, proceeding with your PhD may require finding a new advisor, regardless of the other considerations.

Thank you for this answer. The 2.5 years is not exactly 2.5 years. I already have spent 1.5 years in my PhD. In total, it's a 4 year PhD. I can not change my supervisor and I've discussed this many times with the head (promotor). Based on your category, I want a good thesis, but probably not for a professorship. All I can do based on your opinion is to avoid all the suggestions by my supervisor and discuss progress with the people who know this direction.

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


text:
Difference between research statement and proposal?
I am going to apply for a research grant as a postdoc in mathematics. I would like to know is there any difference between proposal and research statement in the field of mathematics?

This is really a duplicate but I think this answer is most relevant.

Note that I've just updated the tag descriptions (wiki) for both of the tags. Perhaps that will make it more clear.

@Buffy Thank you for your comment

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


text:
Paper resubmission to Special Issues of a journal
I had a submission recently to a special issue of a journal. It was rejected. I noted that there exists another special issue in the same journal and my paper is also within the scope of that. Is it reasonable to resubmit that for another special issue of a same journal, whereas already rejected?

Why was your paper rejected?

on the basis of discipline, novelty and general significance

In theory, special issues have guest editors. Guest editors are often not members of the editorial board, although the editorial board still has oversight and veto power over any accepted paper. That means that if you submit to another special issue, it's similar to submitting to another journal - you'll reach another editor who might decide differently to the first editor.
However, given that it is the same journal, odds are the journal's editorial management system will flag your submission as a duplicate. So your paper might be rejected at this stage - either by the journal staff, or by the new editor (using the old editor's decision).
One can't predict what will happen to your paper reliably, but since the rejection reasons are generic, if you resubmit, you should do serious revision, either by adding more results or by arguing the novelty of your work more convincingly. The more work you do here, the less likely it is that your manuscript will be desk rejected.

If the paper was rejected only (or mostly) because it was a bad fit for the special issue, then it might be a better fit for the new issue, depending. In that case, resubmission might be warranted. But, given your comment that it has novelty and significance issues, I'd say that resubmitting would be pointless unless you can address those issues.
That will take work, however, with limited time for it. I'd guess your better option is to work on those issues for a future submission, probably elsewhere.
I'll also guess that if the paper fit the new requirements that you'd get (actually, might get) an invitation from the editor(s) to resubmit.
I'll also note that another possible reason for rejection from a special issue is that there are too many good submissions to fit them all (print journals primarily). But that isn't the issue in this case.


text:
Re-apply for a position after being rejected
Last year I had an interview for a position at a university. I was not good in interview and I was rejected. After obtaining experience in interviews, I was accepted for another position in another country. Now I am thinking of re-applying for that position I was rejected, ( it is still open). Given the mental background they have about my previous interview, I am confident that if I complete the application form, application will not be considered,  unless I speak to them before submitting a formal application. I want to know whether it is a logical idea to re-apply for that? Or is sending an email to the head of department and ask him to give me another opportunity? Their rejection email was polite, I mean they told me that they impressed by my CV and encouraged me for future applications, but I know that I was bad in that interview, as it was my first interview for a faculty position.

sending an email to the head of department and ask him to give me another opportunity?

I do not see how that can possibly help.

I want to know whether it is a logical idea to re-apply

If you consider that faculty jobs are difficult to get in general, no it is not logical.  But having been rejected previously might not change that situation much.  I have been interviewed in the first round twice for the same job before.

it is still open

This is a clue something is wrong with the job.  Maybe they do not intend to fill it.  Maybe the pay is awful.  Maybe they are bad a hiring.  Maybe they posted the ad by mistake or forgot to remove it.


text:
Follow up email after interview
I was a shortlisted applicant for a faculty position 5 months ago. Then I had an interview, and then I was asked for recommendation letters. I sent a follow-up email after submission of recommendation letter and the head of department told me my profile has been moved to the next step. He said that maybe I will receive some news in early may. I have not received any update about status of my application yet. Shall I send a follow-up email to ask about that? Or it seems that my application has no been accepted.

Sorry, I know it is frustrating to be in such an uncertain state, but no one on the internet can tell you anything helpful. For the pros/cons of follow-up e-mails, there is some discussion in the linked post.


text:
When the letter of recommendation will be asked for by the hiring committee?
I have already applied for a postdoc announcement in Europe. During the online process of uploading my documents, I was asked for the name of two references as well. According to the time table of evaluation process, in the first month the committee will evaluate the applicants. It seems that up to now (one month after uploading documents) the committee have not demand letter of recommendations from my references. What is the meaning of that? Does it mean that my application is unsuccessful? Need to say, after the first month of pre-selection, they will give priority to the pre-selected applicants. Might the committee ask the letters of recommendation during the second stage?

Maybe they will ask later, maybe not at all. Maybe they are disorganized and forgot about this. Many different szenaeios can apply. Question: What would the answer matter to you?

@Thomas Actually, I am asking this question just for my Curiosity.

Nobody outside the committee knows. Maybe you are not under consideration. Maybe they ask for letters at a later point of the evaluation process. Maybe they never actually ask for letters.
I understand that applying for jobs is a high-pressure situation, but trying to infer information from noisy signal like that is, generally speaking, not useful. There are just too many variables that you (and we) have no way of knowing.


text:
How to include showcased work at a conference in a resume?
I am working on adding to my fledgling academic resume and I'm not sure about how to cite one of the work.
My team designed an educational game that was showcased at a conference. There was no presentation per se. People could come take a look and try it but that is all. Is this even worth including in an academic resume? If so, how would I go about including this in APA? I don't want to make it look like I did a presentation when I did not.

I assume that your showcased work was not published in the conference proceedings either online or offline.
If you did not receive any written acknowledgement about this showcased work in the form of a certificate, then it is not wise to write this in CV. There are many activities we do while studying, but not all go to CV.
If you have any proof for the same (in the form of a certificate), you could add the following information into your CV:
(Author, Year, Title, Conf, Venue) e.g.
Lastname1, Firstname1, Lastname2, Firstname2, (2018) "A demonstration on the XYZ Game," in International Conference on Funny Games (ICFG), January 22-23, University of ABCD, Country. [Showcased work, unpublished]

No written form certificate but the professor who brought the work at the conference said it was something that could be put on a CV. Would this change your answer in any way? Should I ask my professor for some kind of written evidence?

@Emilie No. If your professor is aware of this and has advised to put on CV, that's okay. If she is a co-author or co-developer of this work, you may wish to write her name in your CV as well, as given in the above format (Author1, Author2, Year, Title, Conference, Venue)

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


text:
Is it possible to get DOI from ISBN of a book?
I need DOI number of the book with ISBN 9780723437512. There is a kindle edition so it should have some electronic identification.

How can you get DOI from ISBN?

To get it from scihub?

DOI and ISBN are two different identification numbers and can not be translated into each other. A (digital) book need not have a DOI number, and e.g. a journal article that has a DOI need not have an ISBN number.
If you want to look up whether a book (or journal article, etc.) has a DOI, you can query it at http://www.crossref.org/guestquery

Thank you for the link! You can do the search with ISBN and first author name. No DOI found for the ISBN here.

Yes DOI and ISBN are separate. However there is apparently a way to get the DOI from the ISBN-A number which is described at this link: https://www.doi.org/factsheets/ISBN-A.html
Note: the ISBN-A means actionable ISBN so they are deriving some properties from the DOI. See https://www.isbn-international.org/content/other-identifiers for more details

Syntax of ISBN-A
The ISBN-A is constructed by incorporating an ISBN into the allowed DOI syntax:
Example: 10.978.12345/99990
The syntax specification, reading from left to right, is:
Handle System DOI name prefix = "10."
ISBN (GS1) Bookland prefix = "978." or "979."
ISBN registration group element and publisher prefix = variable length numeric string of 2 to 8 digits
Prefix/suffix divider = "/"
ISBN Title enumerator and checkdigit = maximum 6 digit title enumerator and 1 digit check digit.

The DOI website would inform you if

The ISBN-A you are attempting to resolve has not yet been registered although there may be a corresponding ISBN. To find out about how to register ISBN-As, click here.

and 'here' is the ISBN website given above.

Can you get a confirmation for the apparent way to get DOI from ISBN-A?

For some special publishers, there is a relation between DOI and ISBN. For example Cambridge University Press’s online books have the format:

10.1017/CBO[13 digit ISBN]

Of course, if your publisher doesn’t have an equivalent or you cannot find it, that’s the end of the line ...


text:
Is it appropriate to include class presentations in CV?
I have just earned an MA degree in a social science field. I'm planning to apply to American PhD programs (sociology). I'm from a developing country, and my university is quite modest, if not godforsaken, no extracurricular activities, no interest in research. My CV is quite empty. All I have is the  B.A. and M.A. degrees (I'm ranked first in both of them, if it matters), plus a B.A. thesis and an M.A. one; both of which are, I believe, worthy of publication.
I used to jump at every class presentation opportunity in my B.a. and M.A., sometimes in front of more than 100 classmates, at other times around twenty (M.A.). Sometimes, I used to spend half of the session presenting and leading the discussion, sometimes the whole two-hour session.
Is it appropriate to list these presentations (+10)? If so, in what format?

What do you want to achieve by making your CV full with lot of trivial details? Isn't it sufficient to say that these are integral part of your degree?

If you still have any presentation materials from those class presentations, and feel like they are a positive reflection of your work, you might put them up on a personal/professional website under a "Portfolio" section.  You could also include the other elements of your CV on this website, and include a link to it on your CV in the contact details.  This gives you an opportunity to provide further details, for those who want to invest the time in looking for them, without appearing to "fluff" your CV with lines that might be considered inappropriate by some audiences.

I feel your CV is already quite strong based on the fact that you have topped in both the mentioned bachelor and masters degree. Adding this detail in the achievement section would be sufficient to make the CV look strong.
However, I feel that presentation and discussions are integral part of the degree in Arts itself. So, by adding these details (which are trivial in some sense) would not help much. However, you could probably mention something in your strength section of CV under "Presentation skills", "Discussion skills". You don't have to mention the topics that you have presented, as these would look like junk to some people.


text:
Is SCI Impact Factor valid for a year? And, my PhD publication dilemma regarding it
My advisor asked me to publish in an SCI-indexed journal with better impact factor (say more than 1). I found a journal with impact factor as 1.2. But the journal says that its present impact factor is based on 2015 journal citation report (JCR). It does not mention anything the year 2016. I couldn't find their name listed in 2016 report too. But I found a journal with impact factor .4 in 2016 report. My questions are

Is the Impact factor valid only for a year?
If I publish my work in a journal that says having an impact factor (in the year 2015), can I claim it when I publish in 2017?

Some theoretical background regarding the impact factor:
The impact factor released in the summer of year X ist the impact factor X-1 which means, it takes into account all references of the papers published in year X-1 citing papers published in the years X-2 and X-3.
Currently, in spring 2017, the latest impact factor was released in summer 2016 and it's the impact factor 2015. It has analyzed all references of the papers published in year 2015 citing papers published in the years 2014 and 2013.
To make a long story short, the current impact factor of a journal says nothing about the current journal and especially nothing about one single article recently published in this journal.

Since impact factors change from year to year, you typically report the impact factor during the year that the paper was published, when referencing your own article from that journal. Past impact factors often indicate what the future impact factor will be, but is not a guarantee. So, (if impact factor is important) you should base your decision on the last known impact factor.
Also remember (for the future - your advisor suggested a higher impact factor and I'm guessing he or she is a co-author?) that there are great journals without impact factors, but they are specialized to a specific segment of a field. So, publishing in such journals will increase the visibility of your paper with your target audience and may be a high quality journal, but the topic is very specific and the impact factor of the journal will most likely  not increase.

Before answering the question directly as asked, I would like to add few personal comments:

This has been a growing culture for Ph.D. research in many developing countries including India to focus on Impact Factor of a journal before submitting the work.
However, although it makes sense to say about your publication by quantifying the quality of the journal based on so-called "SCI Impact Factor", it is not wise at all.
The Impact Factor is an evaluated value of a function that takes into account all publications till that year under that journal. So, Impact Factor alone is misleading to say that "I have published my work in Journal of X which has an impact factor of 5.095"

Now coming to your questions:

Impact factor is valid only for a year

Yes. Unless the computation results in the same value for the following years.

If I publish in a journal which says having an impact factor (2015), can I claim it when I publish in 2017?

No. Actually, you can not claim anything based on this impact factor. If I were to ask you about it, I would ask you this question: "Did your paper contributed anything to the 2015 impact factor?" If your answer is "NO". You can not claim it.
People may disagree with my answer. My answer is based on my personal understanding in the field of CS and Applied CS.


text:
Self-plagiarism to re-use figures and key phrases on poster
I have submitted a conference paper to an IEEE conference, which will be published in IEEE Xplore, once I have appropriately finished presenting this paper in either a lecture or poster setting (of which I was selected to do the latter). Most questions regarding self-plagiarism on the net are in the context of selecting snippets of text or figures from previous papers.
However, my question is, is it self-plagiarism to utilize key figures/phrases from the paper that I am presenting in my poster? As in, I am presenting research by poster that will later be published in a conference paper (which we needed to submit to get accepted to present at the conference). I have made figures and statements in this paper, which would be nice to use in the poster.
Must I start from scratch? Thanks.

No, you don't need to start from scratch, and even that might still be self-plagiarism. The proper way is to cite the paper even if it is "to appear". For a slide presentation, a slide at the end pointing out that the figures come from ... would be enough. It needn't be intrusive. For a literal poster, a footnote at the bottom.
The way to avoid all kinds of plagiarism is to cite. "Paraphrasing" doesn't do the job since plagiarism is about ideas, not their literal expression. If the source is clear and a reader/viewer has a way to obtain the original then you are safe.

I believe in my IEEE conference, the paper is made available in Xplore after the presentation is given -- does this satisfy your criteria of "reader/viewer has a way to obtain the original"? This is my first time presenting a technical paper, I'm not sure if the paper is distributed during or before the presentation.
Otherwise, what you said makes total sense. Thank you for your feedback.

Yes, that is fine. It is even fine if there might be some time delay in getting the "original" as in works that are "to appear". I've assumed that it is certain that the paper will, in fact, be published.

All the IEEE conferences I’ve been involved with have made the papers available to attendees some time before the conference, or at least on arrival.

Part of "self-plagiarism" isn't plagiarism at all, but the issue of getting double credit for the same work.  The conference paper and the actual presentation at that conference doesn't give two pieces of credit, so that's not an issue here.


text:
Is it a good practice for PhD students in STEM to have supervisors who have no expertise in the students' field?
May I ask if it is a good practice for PhD students in STEM to have supervisors with no expertise in the students' field? I wonder to what extent should a PhD supervisor in the STEM knows about his/her students' research. In addition, I know some PhD supervisors with quite different fields (even in different disciplines) from their students' but they usually say that it is their students' responsibility to do research (as a completely independent researcher) without the supervisors' help in domain knowledge. I wonder if it is true. If so, why would PhD students need supervisors? Any ideas about this will be greatly appreciated.
In terms of some questions from the chatting zone, I think field in this case is a sub-class of a discipline. In other words, a supervisor may have different specific research interests from their students' but they are delved into the same field and the same discipline. For example, a supervisor and his/her student are both delved into econometrics, so they at least share the same paradigm when doing research in the econometrics despite that they may face different problems in specific contexts. Please correct me if there exist some problems/errors in my statement.

There is a question in the same context but I think my questions are definitely different, so please don't close this question. Please find https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/52553/if-supervisor-has-no-expertise-in-your-research-work-is-it-possible-to-do-a-phd

In what situation would having an advisor with no experience in an advisee's area of exploration be beneficial? The student ought to end up deeper in the area than his or her advisor has been, but that's not what you're asking. Probably would be a poor outcome for a student hoping to do a thesis in numerical analysis to be studying under a number theorist.

I think whenever this question comes up there is a big discrepancy in how different people think about the word "field". See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters What is a field to you? What is a discipline?

@Aruralreader Theoretically you're right but I know some PhD supervisors recruit PhD students with quite different research interests but they cannot provide the students with any substantial help in the students' research domain.

Some researchers recruit from outside their fields, yes. Pretty common scenario for a research molecular biologist to recruit software developers, for example, to round out his or her interests and needs. But is it beneficial to the student? Well that's a different issue.

@Aruralreader: Yes, that's an entirely different question. In my experience, what is not going to work if the needs are totally different: e.g. someone who wants to do a PhD in computer science needs to do cutting edge research in computer science. A molecular biology group may have application problems at hand that need such cutting edge computer science research, in which case it may be a good fit. OTOH, they may need quite the opposite: someone who implements methods that are known to work reliably. And that would be a misfit that is a recipe for disaster in terms of a PhD project.

Of course there are exceptions, but overall, the answer to your question is NO. Your supervisor has expertise in certain fields and will be more helpful if you work in that field.

I know some PhD supervisors with quite different fields (even in different disciplines) from their students' but they usually say that it is their students' responsibility to do research (as a completely independent researcher) without the supervisors' help in domain knowledge.

I consider that a huge red flag and would stay far, far away from a supervisor who says that. In my experience, supervisors who say that are just trying to avoid holding any kind of responsibility or accountability. I would like to know whether any of their students manage to find good academic jobs, or whether their students enjoyed their time in graduate school. There are graduate students who lament their PhD advisor decision and say, "I was completely on my own." That is not a good thing!
Being independent doesn't mean that you can't get access to a supervisor's knowledge, or that you can somehow do research without access to domain knowledge. In fact, researchers are constantly asking other researchers questions and getting help. In the acknowledgments section of a paper, researchers will say something like, "I would like to thank Person X for answering questions I had about topic Y." Yet the authors still did the majority of the thinking and work. They may have come up with the questions they addressed in their paper, and they may be exploring areas that have been neglected. They are getting help without anyone holding their hand through it - I think of that as being an independent researcher. My background is in pure math. To prove a theorem, you have to know a lot of theorems. Not all the theorems you need are written down. There will be a lot of hindrances if you can't talk to people and ask. Later on your advisor will write you recommendation letters. How will they write a good letter if they know nothing about your work? You are shooting yourself in the foot if you work with an advisor with no expertise in your subject.

"You are shooting yourself in the foot if you work with an advisor with no expertise in your subject." To add to this anecdotally, as a PhD student I can count dozens of times where my advisor's expertise has saved me months of unnecessary work. There were many dead-ends that I avoided because my advisor had the intuition and foresight to point out potential roadblocks with my ideas, and this kind of foresight only comes with years of experience in the field

IMHO

If so, why would PhD students need supervisors?

is a key to the situation.
From what I've seen, there are substantial differences on how this question would be answered in different (academic) cultures.
E.g. I was told/reminded by my professor early on during my PhD research* that I was a fully qualified chemist - with all professional rights and duties that chemists have by my Diplom (= MSc; here BSc and MSc are usually prerequisites for a PhD). The formal description of Diplom thesis is a 6 months research project that the candidate performs on their own (after "guided" research in the form of obligatory research internships).
Obviously, with a fresh Diplom, one isn't an experienced scientist. But I was largely free to decide my approaches and the discussions we had were typically the group-public discussions similar to the discussions with more experienced researchers (postdocs, PIs) in the group. I guess my manuscripts did need more rounds of polishing the text, though.
From that point of view, it is perfectly fine to have a PhD "student" coming from another field because the group/larger project needs their professional expertise.  And it is also fine to expect the student to be able to get all information in their field they need (including contacting people).
There are other academic traditions that see the PhD as step of the professional qualification. And in particular where you can enter a PhD program with a fresh BSc, it doesn't make sense to expect the level of professional independence I described above.
I've been involved with rather interdisciplinary research, where different people are needed to bring several professional backgrounds (fields) together to tackle the project. It would be rather unlikely to find a professor who is expert in all those fields.
That being said, it does not make sense if there is no relation whatsoever between the PhD researcher's profession/field and the thesis on the one hand and the professor's field/expertise and the PhD project on the other hand.
But the overlap between the professor's background and the student's background may not be that large. The professor can in any way supervise the student on the general aspects of research, and can take care of their part to the project/paper.

In a more Phd-is-still-studying culture, the student may have co-supervisors that cover the (sub)fields not covered by the expertise available in their group.

It's certainly a difficult situation if you are in a lone-wolf position with your profession during your PhD. However, there are some professions where this is the typical working situation (e.g. for me as chemometrician this is certainly the case) and one may argue that the sooner one learns how to deal with this productively the better.
(This is one of the few aspects of professional life where I think the move to online seminar formats due to the COVID situation has lasting potential for improvements - while an online seminar IMHO does not offer the same networking possibilities as an offline seminar, such a student can now at least stay somewhat connected also to their profession, whereas before the decision which conference to attend may have always had the answer "application conference" before.)
BTW, I did my PhD thesis in my orginal profession (i.e. chemistry) - but the specialization into statistics/data analysis chemometrics got me to the level of what was around in the group during my Diplom thesis and when I started my PhD my professor I was not looking for guidance (as opposed to critical questions of the approach I'd chosen) in that aspect in my group any more.
So from that experience, I'd say that you can easily end up in the situation described in the question regardless of matching fields.

What is in my experience also a recipe for disaster: if the management/supervision style doesn't match the level of independence. I.e., as I said it is IMHO fine to recruit a PhD researcher because they bring certain professional expertise that is not available in the group. But that needs to be clearly communicated so the PhD researcher knows what is expected of them and it needs to be
accompanied by treating them on eye level as fully qualified professional - it doesn't mix with a supervision style that would be adequate for guided research done by a student (which could anyways not be provided without domain-specific knowledge of the supervisor).

*in my native language, the term for "Phd Student" = Doktorand doesn't have a connotation of being a student, and indeed you are not required to enroll as student when doing a PhD.

On top of agreeing with the other answers, I'd like to offer a bit different perspective. You might want to narrow down your specialization, because STEM as you write is very broad. In physics, most of the PhD positions are funded from research grants, and academic staff members to whom these grants are awarded become supervisors of the phd students hired within those grants. Obviously, since you have to write an strong application for a grant, you are likely to plan research in your field of expertise, and then the "field of expertise" becomes the same for the supervisor and the phd student.

In mathematics, in the U.S., I'd think that it would be irresponsible of an advisor to attempt to supervise a thesis project completely outside their scholarship, unless the student was very, very unusual.
Keyword is "irresponsible", I think, though, yes, conceivably unethical...


text:
Should we ask ambiguous questions on an exam?
I'm TAing an undergraduate course at a university in the US, and had a disagreement with the professor teaching the course about a question in an exam. Here's an abstract version of the relevant part:

Select the single most appropriate method, out of the list {A, B, C, ...}, to solve problem X.

Both A and B are appropriate to solve X, and objectively superior to any other method on the list. Weak arguments can be made for either of them being more appropriate than the other. After a debate with the professor, we agreed that the question is ambiguous.
My opinion is that we should not be asking such a question. I think students might waste a lot of time trying to find their presumed mistake, since the question asks for a single most appropriate method, and there isn't one. Therefore, I think we should either remove it, remove one of the two methods, or rephrase it to

Select a single appropriate method...

The professor argues that the ambiguity is not an error on our part. They suggest we'll give full credit to either choice of A or B, and say that students shouldn't obsess over this minor detail at the expense of other parts of the exam.
I feel like this is problematic in terms of ethics (because of the possibility of misleading students) and pedagogy (since I would like students to distinguish strong and weak arguments for a method being superior to another). I would like to know others' position and arguments on this issue.
I'm also very interested in references that address the pedagogical aspect, based on either research or experience. The only such reference I could find is this blogpost (in Hebrew), written by a teacher, that defines "what's in my pocket" questions to avoid as teachers.
Edit
I might have overdone the abstraction, and made the example trivial. Consider the question

Select the single most appropriate method, out of the list {A, B, C, ...}, to solve each problem in the list {X, Y, Z, ...}.

{A, B, C, ...} are standard methods, all taught in class. Each other problem, {Y, Z, ...}, has a unique method most appropriate for solving it, and the ambiguity rises only for X.

These seems like an appropriate question where the students would be graded on the strength/clarity of their argument.

@AzorAhai-him- I agree that a question asking them to choose a method and argue for it is very useful. My question is about the question as currently worded, such that they're asked to choose "the single most appropriate method", and are not asked to justify their answers.

So the answer to the Q is literally "A" or "B" out of a list of options?

Is the question just asking "A or B" or is it meant to continue and have the student actually provide an answer to problem X using A or B (or mistakenly C) once they've decided which to use?

I don't understand the point of spending so much time and effort worrying over this. Why not just replace one of A, B with a reasonable distractor and be done with it?

Thanks for the comments, I added more context to the question.

@BryanKrause the students aren't asked to solve the problems, just to identify the method they'd use for each problem.

@DaveLRenfro That specific solution wouldn't work here, since the set of methods is standard. Regardless, my question isn't about possible modifications (I mention three possible modifications in the question), but about the question as it stands. I agree that it isn't a big thing to worry about, but I'd like to form a more informed opinion on this to be better at writing future problems.

This question looks opinion-based to me.

What do you expect the answers to look like? Is it "Method X is appropriate because..." with marks for the justification or is it a simple multiple-choice equivalent: "Method X."?

It seems to me that the real problem was in the directions, not with the multiple correct answers per se. Example: "For each problem P1,P2,... choose one method among M1,M2,... that is suitable to solve it". There is no need for the method to be "best". To be sure, you might have curated the list so that only one method is even suitable for each problem, but you don't really need to tell the students that you did that (except perhaps after the exam).

What kind of an answer do you expect from the students? Is this multiple choice? Do you want a two sentence answer, or a one page discussion? As is, this question is unanswerable.

A simple "Method Q solves problem X", the snippet I wrote is the wording of the question. it's a single-choice question for each problem.

@Allure I was hoping to get a reference to guidelines, ideally evidence based, for dos and don't related to ambiguity, for either purpose of teaching or evaluating students. I found none, but I do believe that most answers here are experience based, rather than opinion based. I learned about what students might think about this kind of question, whether they're likely to waste time worrying about their answer, and what others would have done to improve the question.

@Ariel in that case, perhaps edit the title question to "What guidelines are there for ambiguous questions on exams" or "How to deal with ambiguous questions on exams" or some such.

You could reword the question to "Select the best method..." which rephrases it to be unambiguously subjective.

I think the focus on ethics is a bit misguided. If your professor genuinely believes that asking ambiguous, "what's in my pocket"-type questions (a closely related concept is that of a "gotcha" question) on an exam is an appropriate testing strategy and serves a useful pedagogical purpose, then I cannot say that they are behaving unethically.
So the problem as I see it is not that the professor is behaving unethically, but simply that if they believe such a thing then they are wrong. I can't support this with any scientific argument based on research; but just based on my own experience with teaching, one major reason why I'm pretty sure this plan will not work  as your professor expects is that students in the US (and other countries I'm familiar with) have been conditioned to expect, over their many years in the educational system, that all exam questions, in STEM and related technical subjects at least, have a single, unambiguously correct, answer (unless explicitly stated otherwise).
Now, a professor might be of the view that this is poor preparation for real life, where situations are typically much more vague and nuanced, and a suboptimal way to develop critical thinking skills. So it's tempting to think "why don't I design an exam that simulates real life more closely, and this way test for more of the things that really matter and encourage students to really think". This is well-intentioned, and perhaps even correct in an idealistic sense of being closer to the Socratic method. If you were gathered together with a small group of students on an island somewhere and had all the time in the world to develop their intellect, and no earthly concerns about schedules, tuition, the need to test and grade hundreds of students in X amount of time with Y resources with no easy chance for a do-over if something goes wrong, etc., then asking such questions would be a wonderful method to stimulate their thinking.
On the other hand, here in the real world, the conditioning I mentioned is so powerful, and the conditions under which students are tested so stressful and unforgiving, that asking questions with more than one correct answer (without stating that explicitly in the question) is a very clear recipe for trouble. A lot of students are already so stressed out and anxious taking tests that it's difficult to them to think creatively or be resourceful in an exam setting. What I expect will happen is that many of the students will obssess over whether A or B is really the correct answer (despite your professor saying they "shouldn't obsess over this minor detail"), will get confused and spend unreasonable amounts of time on this issue, will end up not having enough time for other questions they are perfectly capable of solving, and will end up frustrated and hurt and feeling that they have been treated unfairly over this testing strategy. And of course, they could complain, leading to a nasty headache of a problem for you and the professor to have to explain to the undergraduate program chair.
Here's a final thought to consider: it's hard enough -- by which I mean essentially impossible -- to get students to believe you're treating them fairly when you're bending over backwards not to create problems of this type and "just" giving honest, error-free, clear exam questions each of which tests one unambiguous snippet of knowledge. Even then, some students will still manage to come up with explanations for why they did poorly that somehow put the blame on you and your teaching/testing/grading practices and not on themselves for not studying hard enough. So the way I see it, things being hard enough already, why make them intentionally even harder still? This particular headache is easily avoidable. Let the professor try out their creative teaching ideas during the semester and not in the high-stakes, pressure-cooker environment of an exam. For the exam, my advice would be to stick with standard principles for designing exam questions that follow the same conventions everyone else uses and that students are used to. Anyway, that's my unscientific two cents.

I'm an undergrad, and I would've agreed with you at the beginning of my study, because I've written and moaned about some exams that worked this way. But today, I'd say those experiences were valuable. I took them to be accidents, and hence literally how a more "real life setting" would look like. They also force me to think about what I think is best, not what I think  they think is best, which very valuable too imo - apart from making me less stressed out, I felt they improved my self-confidence.

@Nearoo that's good to know, thanks for the feedback. Keep in mind that you are just one student, and I think it's important for a professor to try to be fair to all students. While surely some students would be untroubled by such incidents, and others might be annoyed but appreciate them some time after the fact like in your case, I have met people who were nursing traumas from past exams gone wrong (often for silly reasons), and resented their instructors for the way they had treated them, for many years after the events had occurred.

Nothing wrong with asking ambiguous questions, as long as they are flagged to the student as not having a single correct answer. The problem with this question is that is written as though there is a single correct answer, when there isn't.

@IanSudbery true. To clarify, I was addressing the specific scenario OP described involving a question with more than one correct answer posing as an ordinary multiple choice question. If the question explicitly specifies that there is more than one acceptable answer, that’s totally kosher.

@DanRomik Sorry, my point was that I agree in this specific situation, but its is not necessarily a generalizable point that questions that admit to more than one correct answer are bad practice.

I learned from multiple answers here, but is seems like my question was ambiguous and had multiple appropriate answers. I accepted this answer (that was useful for me) based on votes.

@Ariel If no one answer stands out, you can choose to not accept any answer.

+100 (if I could) for giving so much attention to the harsh conditions of exams.

" Now, a professor might be of the view that this is poor preparation for real life, where situations are typically much more vague and nuanced" - In real life (e.g. in a job situation) the first thing you should do in such a situation is ask for clarification. That you cannot do this in exams is why questions in exams should be more clearly defined.

@IanSudbery I agree completely. Edited to clarify.

In a "select one" style multiple choice question, the expectation will be that there is only one correct answer. So, if you are planning on accepting either A or B as a correct answer, this should be clearly stated on the question, since it is an unusual (and therefore unexpected) format for a MCQ. If you leave it unstated but accept either answer anyway you will prejudice students who end up confused as to why there seems to be two valid answers and waste time trying to figure out which one to choose.
A better choice is to use the more standard "select two" style question. This is straightforward, clear to the student, and actually a better quality question since you are now testing that the student knows A and B rather than A or B. In your question the question would become: "Select the two most appropriate methods, out of the list {A, B, C, ...}, to solve problem X".
Exams exist to test knowledge, not to be tricky and make the student spend time trying to work out what the question means.
Another way to look at it is: is there any need to have an ambiguous question when there is an unambiguous alternative available? What purpose does it achieve?

I think this would be appropriate in a written exam with no explanations of answers possible only if the professor has made a specific point of this issue. If it is actually ambiguous to the student who paid attention and did the exercises and such, then no.
Multiple choice questions normally have one clearly correct answer and a couple of others that are close to being right, but are not, where the reasons should be clear to the attentive student. But that seems not to be the case if a TA is confused.
Alternatively, and this sometimes is used, it would be fine if there are only small differences but the prof is willing to accept either answer as correct.
Simple multiple choice questions aren't the sorts of things to be used to pick out fine subtleties, especially in a case like this, where there are multiple considerations that people make in choosing "best method...", and context matters.

We'll be accepting either answer as correct, though this isn't explicitly stated in the question (which refers to "the single most appropriate method").

@Ariel I feel sorry for any students that spend a large degree of time trying to figure out which of the two answers the arrive at is the "most" correct one. It's like you're deliberately trying to layer on the stress.

@GregoryCurrie, I agree that it would be a potential problem. Such could be warned against, of course, and, there are occasions in which you need to do such things to recover from mistakes in exam statements that aren't noticed until after the results come back and complaints are made.

How about changing the question to "select an appropriate method"? Or perhaps "of the following methods, select one of the appropriate ones." I think that asking for "a single method" is still confusing.
A number of students will absolutely obsess over this detail unless it's made clear that they should not, because they expect a multiple-choice exam to have one correct answer per question. It's fine to change that expectation and have multiple correct answers, so long as you say so.

I agree Ambiguous questions are OK, if the formulation of the question leaves space for ambiguity. Like...Choose one of these methods and justify its choice. If the question is formulated as if there were only one possible correct answer, this would be misleading, and punish the good students over the ignorant ones. Not only for the particular question but for the time resources spend on this, reducing the time for other Q&A.

It sounds like in reality, both A and B are appropriate methods for solving X. If you artificially removed either A or B as options, would you not also be misleading students by guiding them to one specific method for X?
My advice is to accept the ambiguity. Ambiguity exists in reality and there are often multiple correct ways of approaching a problem. If all correct approaches are marked as correct on the exam, then the exam is testing students' preparation for realistic application.
Alternatively, if you want to test students' knowledge of a specific method, ask students to actually solve problem X specifically by using that method.

That's a good argument against dropping A or B, thank you!

The phrasing originally given was “Select the single most appropriate method, out of the list {A, B, C, ...}”.  Notice that “out of the list”.  So removing one of A and B from the list isn’t suggesting there’s a single best method for X in real life (which I agree would be misleading) — it’s just saying there’s a clear best choice among the methods in this list.

I don't have a lot to add to existing answers. I agree with the following point mentioned by others: Students are conditioned to not question the questions on exams, especially if they're not free response questions. Exams don't exist for the purpose of making students question the questions. It's expected that exam questions are straightforward. (I suppose the only exceptions are when the instructor has placed particular emphasis on making students question questions and their underlying assumptions.)
In addition, questions that have more or fewer correct answers than implied are considered to have errors, which then need to be announced to everyone as the grading will be different than expected for the question. For example if there are more correct answers, then all of them are marked as correct. If there are fewer correct answers, then the question is thrown out entirely--and in some cases, if the instructor is made aware of this during the exam or in the time between printing the exam and handing it out, then the instructor will announce that the question should be completely ignored. I speak from personal experience from when I was a student and an undergrad TA, but I think these scenarios should be familiar to a lot of people.
Perhaps this personal anecdote will give you ideas for the future: Some of my professors made multiple-choice questions that could have any number of correct answers, from no choices to all choices. These questions specified that as few as none and as many as all of the choices could be right. Grading was based on how many choices we correctly put in the correct "state", namely checked or unchecked since the choices used checkboxes. (These professors are in the same department and use the same online quiz system that belongs to the department.)

I'm not sure if an anecdotal answer is appropriate here. Many years ago, all children in England had to take an exam called the 11-plus (referring to the age group). This was very important in those days because it led to a binary decision about what sort of secondary education you would receive.
I was never coached on how to do well in the exam and walked in a complete novice. Right from the start I saw that many of the questions had justifiable multiple answers - yet only one check box was allowed for each. I spent a lot of time trying to decide how to answer each question and which answer would most likely be considered the "right" one.
I can't remember the exact questions now but let's invent one. What is the next number in the series?  1, 3, 5, 7, ...  Now, as any mathematician knows, there is potentially an infinite number of answers to this question. We can guess '9' because it is more 'obvious' but, as a child, I spent a lot time looking at all the proposed answers and finding a justification for each.
Luckily I got a sufficient score to go to the 'elite' type of school. However, I'm sure it was touch and go because of the extra load of trying to choose between what I perceived to be multiple, equally justifiable, possibilities.
The solution
Warn the students! Tell them what they should do if they meet a multi-answer question and have to choose one. Students should be taught strategies, not just rote methods.

Apart from the other answers, your premise is wrong.
The question does not have 2 correct answers, it has 0 correct answers. It is impossible to select the single most appropriate method as there is no "single" most appropriate method.
With that in mind, if the students complain, you will have to accept every answer as correct (or remove the question). Even accepting A and B is not correct as none of those are a correct answer to the question.
So your question shouldn't be if you can ask ambiguous questions. It should be if you can ask questions with no correct answer. The answer is obvious.
The question should be removed.

The sentence:

Select the single most appropriate method, out of the list {A, B, C, ...}, to solve each problem in the list {X, Y, Z, ...}.

has very clear implications to typical English speakers. You could expand the sentence a bit, to make the implication more explicit:

For each problem in the list {X, Y, Z, ...}, there is a single most appropriate method in the list {A, B, C, ...}. Select it.

If you agree that these sentences are equivalent -- that any typical English speaker would read the first as meaning the second -- then I think it's very clear what the issue with the question is. If one of the problems does NOT have a single most-appropriate method in the provided list, then this clear implication of the question is false.
Would it kill your professor to add a short note to the question? "If multiple methods are perfectly and equally appropriate, select any one of them."

It seems that this question is in some ways asking for a subjective answer is but worded as asking for an objective one. As a student I would prefer to see the question phrased more along the lines of

Select a single method you think is (most) appropriate from {A, B, ...} to
solve problem X.

If the student has a choice between two similarly appropriate methods then, to me, asking for the single appropriate method seems... strange. Surely if you want them to argue which they think is the most appropriate then asking for that makes more sense.
If there are multiple "most" appropriate, then including wording that asks for the "most" could also be considered unfair (although much less so in my opinion) and could still lead people down a hole of questioning their understanding in a potentially unhelpful way, as others have mentioned. Simply asking for "a single appropriate method" could be "fairer". You suggested that you are asking for many solutions to many problems in the paper, so it may make more sense to include "most" in this context.
Edit: Another option would be something much simpler.

Choose an appropriate method to solve problem X from the following
options: {A, B, ...}. [Explain your answer.]

The original wording I suggested was trying to keep as closely to the question in OP, but in practice that feels clunky. I feel that this wording maintains most of the meaning while reading better.
The problem I see with this is that while "Choose an appropriate method" is not ambiguous, it runs the risk of people thinking they have too much of a choice, and assuming that there are multiple potential answers for all of the questions - which you said is not the case for most of the questions in OP. For this reason I would stick with

...a method you think is (most) appropriate...

as it makes it clear that you are looking for a "most appropriate" solution, but that it may be open to interpretation.

(+1) I like this wording if both A, B are kept and the format is such that only one option can be selected. (4 minutes later) Curiously, I like this a bit less after some more reflection. But I'll keep the upvote.

Directly to your title question ... Not purposely. We can ask open-ended questions. The two (open-ended and ambiguous) are not the same. It appears that you have a good sense of the responsibilities to be clear in how you are phrasing your questions to the students so that you can be clear to yourself later why you are marking their answers for being incomplete.
Unfortunately, we do ask ambiguous questions accidentally. You have a good sense of the fairest approach.  Accept both answers. I would only recommend that you follow up with the students to admit the ambiguity. Subsequently provide a clear statement to the students that presents the correct (unambiguous) question that you should have asked and might perhaps ask in the future.
Finally, I would suggest that even your rephrasing of the question for this case seems questionable. If you really mean to have two answers that have exactly equal merit on their objective arguments alone, then the opening statement must not confuse that more than one answer is a possibility.
You may mean instead to say this:

Select an appropriate method or methods ...

This works if two (or more) of the methods are appropriate and all others are absolutely not appropriate.
You may mean instead to say this:

Select the most appropriate method or methods ...

This works if all methods are appropriate but one or more are MORE/MOST appropriate.

If you say "single" but accept two answers you are lying to them, that is unlikely to end well.
Most multi-choice exams begin with the instruction
"For each question choose the answer which you think is best"
Given that, I think you should rephrase the question to

which method listed below is appropriate.

They already know you want what they think is best.
you also have the option for saying "E: options A and B"


text:
publication without sponsor's permission whether will cause illegal problem
My work is currently sponsored by a company, but i did not sign any type of agreement. Our sponsor always want better results, which had lead us to have no publications record, although our result is quite new. We do not really want our work to go unpublished, but we also worried if we submit our work without the company's approval, we may have illegal problems. Our adviser depends on our sponsor which is not really an option to talk to her. Any advise? we kind of want to submit to a journal and just try.

Are you asking us whether the terms of the sponsorship gives you ownership of the intellectual property and/or freedom to publish without getting approval from them? We can't possibly know that.

@ff524's questions and, in addition: is the sponsor interested at all in publication? Do they have a track record of previously supported published results?

We want to publish the work without approval from them. We've attempted to send them the work, but it stagnates on their desk. We want to know if their would be legal consequences to submit to a journal without their approval.

Sorry, nobody can answer this without knowing the terms of the sponsorship. If they own the intellectual property you produce then sure, there can be legal problems. If the contract they have with your advisor requires approval in publications, then yes, there could be legal problems. But we don't know those terms so we can't say.

Thanks all. Yeah sounds like it may cause legal problems. Sad PhD life.

Just don't do that! The answer most probably is written in the contract and regulations of the department. Perhaps a little patience is advisable. If the sponsor is in the same location and not so far away, probably just arrange a meeting face to face, most e-mails are lost in the inbox.


text:
Is using synthetic datasets in sciences the same as using fake data?
Sometimes, there are good reasons to use synthetic data in research. In my case I am using data from Synthea, a program that simulated patient data including medications, names and addresses. I know that no hospital would hand me such real data, so there is no alternative. In my thesis I want to reveal specific patterns in patient records.
My idea is to test some statistical methods and neural networks to predict which disease a patient will have when he or she comes to the doctor next visit. Therefore a known statistical process in generating those patterns makes sense as I want to test some methods. I also want to infer which factors are the most important ones to predict the next disease. Therefore a mass of data is needed.
I am still not sure if using such data is useful in research. On the one hand, data protection or confidentiality in my case I would rate as positive cases using fake data, same as simulated data. As I have an ordinary private laptop it is a good idea to work with artificial datasets, as there is no need for special data security and data protection. Medical data are very sensitive and should not be stored on students' computers. Artificial data is also good for testing code and programs, as one knows what is going on under the hoods if the data generating source is documented well.
On the other hand, using faked data is considered as betraying sciences a lot of papers are retracted or removed when using faked data. Data fabrication is also listed as a scientific misconduct incident on the English Wikipedia.
What should I do?

This is not answerable without knowing your motivations and how you are communicating the results.  Be honest.

And with a proper collaboration, you could access such data (although there's really no reason to get names or probably addresses more granular than zip/postal code)

I edited your post, and I don't understand the paragraph that is now third.

Synthetic data and fabricated data are different. If you want to use synthetic data, you need to be transparent about how the data is generated and not tailor the synthetic data to support your hypothesis. Fabrication would be false data that is designed to support your hypothesis.
Remember that any statistical analysis will be a reflection of the process used to generate the data. It might be that the trend in the synthetic data reflects real data, but you would have to make that case by examining how the synthetic data is generated.

There is a use-case for synthetic data, but writing a thesis when dataprotection prohibits you from using real is not such a case.
An example of a use-case would be when the organization that does have access to the real data can create synthetic data with patterns from the real data, and give you that synthetic data. This could be all the "data" they can give you, or as an example dataset on which you can prepare your analysis before going on-site at the protected computer where you have access to the real data.
If you just create synthetic data without any relation to real data, then what would you hope to get out of such an analysis? I assume you heard of GIGO.

I think GIGO is important here. It is too easy to build assumptions into synthetic data, consciously or not, that invalidate everything.

If you are using synthesized data and not disclosing that in the finished work, then you are committing academic misconduct. This is essentially the same as using fabricated data.
If you are using synthesized data and disclosing that the data is synthesized, then there is nothing dishonest or unethical about what you are doing. It is not the same as using faked or fabricated data, and not academic misconduct. However, it may be bad science - just because something is not unethical doesn’t mean it is a good idea or a valid approach to doing research. Depending on what you are trying to do with the synthesized data and how the data was produced, your results may have some usefulness, or they can be completely worthless.
In any case, you should not decide to use synthesized data without consulting your advisor. And you should never try to publish anything using data that is presented as real when it is simulated, or that is presented as collected or obtained in some way when it wasn’t.

Sometimes there are good uses for synthetic data in research --- this does not sound like one of them
The project you have described in your question does not sound sensible to me.  "Synthetic data" (also called "simulated data" in some fields) is useful primarily as a way of illustrating how statistical inference methods and other modelling methods perform.  For this purpose it is not necessary to use a real dataset.  However, if the goal of your project is to reveal specific patterns in the variables, then all you are doing is determining the patterns that were generated in the synthetic data.  Since patterns in synthetic data can be constructed however you want, what is the point of that?
Presumably the people at Synthea can specify the exact data-generating mechanism, so the patterns that arise in the data can be described deterministically.  So you need to ask yourself whether there is really a need for inference about these patterns.  If you want to use simulated data I would recommend that you refocus on illustrating the methodological aspects of your work --- e.g., showing that you have developed a good inference method that could be applied to other data.
As to the possibility of "betraying science" with "faked data", there is a world of difference between simulated data (which would be disclosed in the analysis) versus faked data (which occurs when a person attempts to pass off made-up data as real data).  Any project using simulated data should make it clear that these data are simulated, and ensure that the reader does not confuse the simulated data with real data.


text:
Postdoc: established project vs your own
I am considering the pros and cons of two types of postdoc positions I have come cross:

The most common is 1-3 years of work on an established project for which a supervisor PI typically won a grant.
Some departments ask for a 'research plan' and the postdoc who wins the position works alone or with a local supervisor on the project he/she proposed.

The pros of 1 are clear:

In my field, these jobs are usually offered in stronger departments (though not always).
Likely more publishing output with a team and/or invested supervisor.
Contacts.

I was wondering about the pros of 2 and how it is perceived because the independent work is attractive to me.

Do you have your own research plan that you are more interested in working on than joining what existing groups are doing?  And will the department provide sufficient funding for your project?

Kimball that's a fair question - I haven't seen projects like that with funding that exceeds the salary itself, but I have some data that I am allowed to use and I think publications are feasible. Still, it will be a test. I think if I can do it then professorship won't be harder (I have plenty of teaching experience) and if not, maybe it's not for me. Yet I don't know if this approach will be appreciated.

Could you pull off both? Perhaps work on an established project while modifying or aligning your research plan to solicit additional funding?

There are a few pros of the option 2, which could include:

This could be viewed as a "transition" position that is more difficult, given that you'll be PI on your own project vs. working under someone else. When applying for faculty or other independent investigator positions, you may be able to describe how you've already had "independent" research experience with this position.
You would have the opportunity for more solo-authored papers, or even first-authored papers, given that since you proposed the project you would get the first pass at writing up the data.
You could select your own collaborators vs. with option 1 you might not have a choice of collaborators.
Lastly, a major pro is that you would be able to select the topics that are important to you/relevant to your line of research. This could prevent drift in your efforts compared to option 1, which may require you to work on projects not relevant to your line of research.

Your second option many not even have a "supervisor" as such. It might just be an opportunity for an aspiring academic to work with a small research group on questions of mutual interest. This might be especially true in mathematics, for example. It is a way to get some experience, possibly even including teaching a bit.
I've been in a department where a post doc was hired specifically to work with a junior faculty member to boost their mutual CVs and experience.
Another situation involved a person who had an interesting (to some of the other faculty) research program so they hired him to work with the others, bringing new ideas into a research group. It was mutually beneficial as was my other example. In this case the long term intention was to offer the postdoc a permanent position later if possible.
There are hardly any disadvantages as long as the postdoc works well with others as a colleague and both gives and accepts help.

I think it depends entirely on the funding source. Some projects, based on external funding, may have a postdoc written into them from the beginning and will advertise for them like a regular job. In other cases a department may have several annual, full-time postdoc positions that are funded by endowments that are open for applications during a window during the year and last for a fixed time like a junior faculty position. You might search your dream departments and postdoc and see what comes back. They may also call these a “fellowship” rather than a postdoc, so you should search for both. For example, this one  https://oden.utexas.edu/research/programs-and-awards/odonnell-jr-postdoc-fellowship/, is endowed and pretty prestigious if you study applied mathematics.


text:
Attribution in academia
I'm working in a university IT project as a researcher. I'm not pursuing a Ph.D. but rather working as a software developer there, designing and implementing software for the project. I learn a lot and am able to evaluate new technologies what I really enjoy. My work however is considered irrelevant compared to writing papers and project proposals.
When presenting in front of project partners and potential new project partners my work is always shown as it is the only tangible result of the project (there hasn't even been a paper in over a year by other colleagues). Sometimes my work is presented without me and I'm unclear in which context that happens and whether my name is mentioned or not.
Recently most colleagues of the project announced that they will jump ship and switch to a new project which is seen as the successor. I wasn't considered for the project and also not involved in the planning process. I'm staying in the old project which ends in about five months without having a new one, but was asked to present my work in front of an important company that is a potential sponsor of the successor project next week. I think I was asked to present because the company is comming to the same office where I'm working and they wouldn't get away presenting my work whithout me noticing.
I'm unsure how to handle the situation. It could be a chance for me to get important contacts for a potential new project. On the other hand I feel used and left behind. Is it normal to present someone else's work without permission? How to protect against this behaviour? Legally the software belongs to the university.

I'm not clear about what "behavior" you object to. Asking you to present? Not including you in the new project? Both? Something else?

I think it's weird to throw someone out of the window and at the same time asking for a favor. The "behaviour" question refers to the fact that my work got presented without my consent and I'm not sure how I can make sure that it is not happening again.

You said you were "asked to present my work in front of an important company", not that someone else did without your consent. Still confused. Sorry.

@user112529 you probably have a PI/line manager, did you talk to them? You should at least let them know that you're looking for a job after this one, and ask if there's anything for you in the new project. They might mistakenly assume that you're not interested if you don't say anything.

Can you clarify your specific questions?


text:
How to get publication recognition certificate from Springer?
Elsevier provides a publication recognition certificate through the link: A certificate for published work in Elsevier journals can be downloaded from this page.
Is there a similar service available for Springer journals?

Interesting... I normally use the article as recognition, not sure quite what those certificates are used for...

@JonCuster Some universities require these certificates while making appointments or in process of promotion.

That seems very strange as there are many venues that don't bother with such stuff. Why would they, other than as a bit of advertising and encouragement to publish again with them? I wonder if you've misinterpreted something. And a predatory or disreputable journal/conference could issue such things as well.

@IgotiT - I've always used reprints (or a pdf of the article). News to me - perhaps a local or regional thing...

What about DOI, a copy of the conference proceedings (although nowadays are digital) or a copy of the journal volume? I think there are many means to claim authorship together with paper authenticity.


text:
Is it a self plagiarism to reuse a section of my previous paper in a new paper?
I am writing an article in which I need to reproduce a section of my previous paper. This section includes standard math formulations and very little text. Although I am including this section with some minor changes but overall structure of section would be same. I will include proper citation but still I am worried if this could be a case of self plagiarism ?
The Journal in which I want to submit my work have following clause on copyrights/permission:

Authors wishing to include figures, tables, or text passages that have already been published elsewhere are required to obtain permission from the copyright owner(s) for both the print and online format and to include evidence that such permission has been granted when submitting their papers. Any material received without such evidence will be assumed to originate from the authors.

The journal in which my article has been published says like this on copyrights/permission :

Subscribers may reproduce tables of contents or prepare lists of articles including abstracts for internal
  circulation within their institutions. Permission of the Publisher is required for resale or distribution
  outside the institution and for all other derivative works, including compilations and translations. If
  excerpts from other copyrighted works are included, the author(s) must obtain written permission
  from the copyright owners and credit the source(s) in the article. Elsevier has preprinted forms for
  use by authors in these cases.
As an author you (or your employer or institution) have certain rights to reuse your work. More information.. One more thing that this journal says on permission:
As a general rule, written permission must be obtained from the rightsholder in order to re-use any copyrighted material. Typically the rightsholder of published material is the publisher unless it is explicitly indicated otherwise. Copyrighted material can include figures, illustrations, charts, tables, photographs, and text excerpts. Re-use of any borrowed material must be properly acknowledged, even if it is determined that written permission is not necessary.

PS. My research field is Mathematics.

Plagiarism is doing it without citation.  So this is not plagiarism.  But it may be some other violation of the rules of that journal --- why not ask them?

Plagiarism is taking ideas of someone else and pass them as your own. In a way self-plagiarism is an oxymoron; it's yours and you cannot steal ideas from yourself. What's potentially troublesome here is the copyright of your first paper. You'd need to check with that publisher to make sure you have the clear to copy a part verbatim.

Concept of self-plagiarism is an area that is evolving. Twenty years ago, I would have wondered why it matters. These days I've become more sensitized and agree very much with a variety of arguments.  Yes, this sounds like self-plagiarism and you will need to deal with it.

Physical  sciences does not 'quote' text, so putting quotes around a whole section would be beyond the pale, so that leaves that out. Different fields will have different standards. Some sections (methods) don't get a lot of scrutiny as long as some attempt is made (as there aren't a lot of ways to say (X measured Y) so most people are sympathetic! It very much depends on field. If you add more information about your field  and subfield -  that likely will help you get a better answer.

There are a variety of questions answered on self-plagiarism, what would make this different (I think) would be focusing on subfield, and more information about 'section'. (if there happen to be standard sections in your area as there are in say, experimental physics).

@Carol : The question is slightly modified.

@IgotiTi Thanks (I was imagining some long prose  which would be a clear problem). This sounds trickier. If it is important to repeat it all for the reader (for the same reasons methods sections tend to have repeat all the same details because the differences and absences are critical for the reader to see )  it might be OK in your field? Otherwise, if it is the equivalent of background explanation,  cite your prior work and put in only what the target reader needs to have in front of her to continue on to the new concepts. Hopefully there will be some good answers from someone in your field.

Technically, it is not self-plagiarism if you were to cite the relevant material, even if it's your own. It would be advisable if to rephrase the section. If considerable amount of detail is repeated from thee pervious paper, it would be better to have consent from your publisher before hand.
I notice this many times among authors. Those who make a minor improvement over their own research tend to have major portions of their old papers rephrased (some even repeated, but again, that's not encouraged). As long the overall concept is novel this won't be a problem.

The legal issue regarding copyright is what concerns me. You need to investigate that. I don't think self-plagiarism is possible. Could there be partial-plagiarism if your past work involved a partner?

In the both articles the authors are same, me and my supervisor. I have consulted my supervisor but he too is not sure.


text:
I am determined to be a professor, should I quit my low-tier Ph.D. program and go to a higher-tier school for a PhD.?
I have been studying as a computer science Ph.D student for 3 years in a relatively low-tier school. I have done pretty bad during my first 1-2 years as an undergraduate. Even though I have received top grades during my second half of study, the GPA pit cannot be filled up. I end up being admitted to a less ideal school and start doing research there. However, recently I feel like quitting my program (transferring to master) and get into a higher-ranked department. I have the following reasons.

My platform now is not high and people around lack motivation. Environment has huge impact on people. I wish to be at some place where everybody has their earnest enthusiasm for research.
I worked really hard on myself, and managed to publish several good papers. I am among the most productive student in the department. With several years' research experience. I have demonstrated my intelligence capabilities, thus stand a better chance to get to a top-tier department, where I can receive better training and prepare for my future career.
Top-tier departments have much better connections, from industrial, from external labs, from alumni, etc. Connections matter in any place. That is also a reason why people do care about where you get your PhD from. With the same research outcome (paper), a school is most likely to choose a candidate from a more prestigious school. It is just how it works.
I have thought about post-doc. However, I do not think a post-doc will receive better training or so from the advisor. Furthermore, people do have higher expectations for post-docs. People would be surprised a Ph.D has published 5 top-tier papers. For a post-doc, hmmm... Please do not be obsessed with my example, you get the idea.

Something to clarify:
I definitely do not wish to defer my career by another several years. I do not intend to use another PhD as an excuse not entering the real world.
I am 25, I still have some time to follow my heart. I am hardworking and self-motivated. These days a CS guy can easily find a crazily high-paying job. I give it up, and I still wish to set a best path for my future career. So here are my questions.

Will admission committee be hesitant to admit students who quit another Ph.D program? Would I be looked down upon simply because I wish to join a higher-tier department?
I guess I can only re-apply for the next fall, which leaves me a year in between. What should I do to further enhance my chance?
Is completing my current PhD and get to a related field (such as CE, ECE, EE) an option? I somehow prefer this way because I still do not intend to ruin the relationship with my advisor while I get to do what I want. (Assume I get lucky and graduate in 4 years) But again, does it hurt my chance of being accepted to another program?

I know It my not be the best choice I have, but it is what I really want to do. As long as the price is not a leg or arm, I am willing to accept it.
I welcome any comment and suggestions. However, please be REALISTIC. Let's talk about it in a realistic world, where better department does provide a higher platform and help a student achieving higher goals, at least in probability.
Thank you in advance.

"All he has done is to let me read papers, come up with my own research idea, make me do all the job, until he finally spend an afternoon polishing the paper a little for me. " - Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

@ff524 Well.. it depends. For a senior student, it may be ok to let him handle almost all the work. For someone who just got a bachelor with no knowledge about research? No, I really do not think it is a good thing, unless the one is already a pretty mature researcher, which in most cases not true . The result is, my research is mostly ad-hoc. Where there is a possibility to publish a paper, I go there. As such, even for now, I do not have a sustainable topic which is worth investigating years on it.

It sounds like you have bad chemistry with your advisor, which is unfortunate. But that's not because it's a low-tier department; there will also be advisors in top departments with a similar approach to what you describe. If you do try changing, look for an advisor whose style better suits yours, not necessarily the "best" department you're accepted to. (More details)

@ff524 Thanks for the comments. Yes, I agree there is something wrong with the chemistry. My advisor personally is a nice guy. Things are just not clicking.

People would be surprised a Ph.D has published 5 top-tier papers. — In computer science?  Nope.  Not at all.

All he has done is to let me read papers, come up with my own research idea, make me do all the job, until he finally spend an afternoon polishing the paper a little for me. — I assume your complaint here is that he didn't also make you polish the paper yourself.

@JeffE Thanks for the comments. I get it, I have been an asshole complaining my advisor. It is true, and I should not have done so. I respectfully take your mockery and edited the post. However, please do advise instead of playing word games.

These days a CS guy can easily find a crazily high-paying job I'm not so sure about easily. Your question is hard to parse, what exactly do you want to hear in answers?

@CapeCode Yes, you are right. I probably should be clearer in my question.

Now that you've clarified what kind of answers you're looking for, I believe you need to ask separate questions in separate posts. Furthermore, some of your questions have already been asked and answered here. See e.g. Is it bad to apply to one PhD program with the intent of leaving for another (more prestigious) one?, Is transferring to another university an option for an unhappy PhD student?, (to be continued)

(continued)  Hiring a PhD student who left another PhD position, Is doing two PhD's a good path?, Is a second PhD ever necessary?, Should I do a second PhD in Canada or the US?.

I think the question "What should I do to further enhance my chance [of being admitted to a better PhD program if I quit my current program]?" is probably answerable, and hasn't been asked already to my knowledge. But I suggest narrowing/focusing your post considerably if you want to get useful answers.