text:
Does using a bibliography software actually save you time aside from when converting citation style?
Does using a bibliography software actually save you time aside from when converting citation style?
I have used refworks and endnote for years and from 3 years ago I decided to ditch them both  and do the whole referencing business by hand because of frustrating problems they caused many times (references showing up incorrectly, having to manually add papers, references suddenly missing etc.). I only dump pdf files in them to keep a record of the references. I have been doing fine and I think it has been pretty efficient in three years I have had two change citation style manually twice which was painful but that was it.
I decided using endnote today again because i am writing a major review article. And already its painful! After inputting 15 references manually as the pdf files that can not be identified correctly (beats me why! clear pdf with OCR) and spending 30 minutes inputting the references, and then searching them to add them back in the paper I am doubting my decision!
Can anyone give me some motivation on why to use these tools really? I mean yes style change and finding duplicates can be good. But is that it? I feel like going back to basic but think there must be something wrong with me as it seems everyone else is using them without going insane!

Could you be a bit more specific, for example, if you use something like JabRef+Latex, I've never had much trouble.
Which software are you using, Word, LibreOffice, Latex?

Most of the time I am using Word because I can easily collaborate, get comments etc. I only use Latex when the paper/report is formula heavy and i am the sole author.

I think a quick answer would be to use something barebones, like Mendeley and be sure to constantly maintain your database to amend errors when doing the exporting.
JAbRef->Mendeley->Word probably would be a nice idea, never have tried it myself though.
But I couldn't imagine to go back to maintain reference databases by hand in a paper.

The problems you are having may be specific to EndNote. Try using Mendeley or Zotero to compare.

It depends what you mean by using bibliography software. I think of bibliography software as doing three things:

They help you organize, search, and find your references. While
Pubmed and Google Scholar are quite efficient at finding references
for my field, I often prefer to search my own library of papers I am
familiar with when looking for a reference. I use JabRef for this
purpose and it saves me loads of time even when not converting
citation styles.
They help you create a reference list at the end of a
manuscript/grant/etc. If you have a database you simply need to tell
the software what papers have been referenced and what format you
want the reference list in. This saves you time when you convert
styles (and the first time you create a list). I don't think it
really does anything else. The key is that in my opinion ALL
bibliography software does this stage well for ALL styles. I see no
reason not to use bibliography software to create a reference list
at the end. This is the section where it is easy to make minor
mistakes and can waste a lot of time getting the style correct
They help you with formatting in text citations. This is where most
of the software falls down. In text citation styles have a lot of
variability (book, chapter, article, first time citation, subsequent
citation on a page, citation in a foot note, etc) that make
automation hard. Defining an automated system that can implement an
in-text citation style is no small task. Even if you can create such
a definition, many publishers have small in house tweaks. Create
software that is fully compliant with a style and allows for tweaks
to be made easily, is even harder. If you are lucky enough that your
software has the style you need, or that your target publishers are
easy going enough, then using bibliography software for your in-text
citations is a no brainer. If you are not so luck, you may not want
to use that feature.

In summary I would always use bibliography software for 1 and 2, but only for 3 if I am lucky.

@danier-e-shub I usually use Solo, Scholar, Sciverse, WebofKnowledge, Copernic, Scirus and Google' main search (better at finding reports) for search and yes I run the search on all of them because numerous times I have been surprised what gems i had been missing had I not done an extensive search. I heard about MsAcademicSearch two days ago and want to give it a try but I must confess I have never trusted these software for the actual search. So thanks for pointing me to number 1 it seems it works for you and I want to give it a try. I have just installed mendeley and Jabref.

How easy it is to manage references depends a lot on your working conditions.
If, for instance, you're an academic in a humanities field, where the "standard" bibliographic style is the Harvard or MLA styles, where you just quote an author's name and the page number, then bibliographies are relatively simple, since citations are straightforward, and the bibliography itself is simple and can be created on the fly.
If, on the other hand, you are working in a field such as mathematics or physics, which uses the "numbered" style, putting together the bibliography can be a royal pain in the neck. You need to add a new reference at the beginning of the document, and now all of the reference numbers have shifted throughout the rest of the paper. Then having a tool that will do the referencing for you automatically is a major help.
IF you need to use a package, and your choice thereof is up to you—you should find one that best suits your needs. But the important thing is finding a method that works both for you as well as for any colleagues you might be working with in the near future.

That is funny. I just argued in my answer that AMS is simple and can be automated and MLA is complicated and cannot. I think you are forgetting about things like "ibid" (note used in MLA, but used in Chicago) which require you to know if there are multiples of the citation on the same page.

I think one of the reasons I have been doing OK without using tools for doing citations is precisely because in my field majority of papers are not numbered and perhaps that's why i have been so frustrated with some of the stupidities of these tools. If i was constantly doing numbering I guess it would have been a no-brainer.


text:
Publishing a book based on long journal article
Recently my article has been accepted for future issue in a prestigious journal published by Jhon Wiley and sons. After accceptance of article I received an email from an other publisher based in Germany that they are interested to publish my work in a form of a chapter of a book. They also offer to get roylity money once the book start selling.  The copy right statement of the journal, where my article is going to appear, states that  the author can publish a pre-print version on public libraries and can self archive on own website. Moreover, it has a 12 months of emborgo period.In given circumstances can I publish my work as a chapter of book as well?

Apart from the things mentioned in the answers: Is this sort of thing common in your field? In my field (math), this would almost certainly be just one more in a long line of almost-scams designed to make some money off other peoples academic work.

Why don't you ask Wiley?

@TobiasKildetoft my intention is to increase readership of my work. The journal where article is going to appear has much more prestige compare to book publisher. Moreover it will stated in book that this work was published in xyz journal same way we do for the arXiv submission.

@aparente001 before asking wiley I wanted to if this is a usual case and what are the basic things I may need to settle with them.

I understand your intention. But if it is not common in your field to be contacted by a publisher (and not for example the author of the book) with requests like this, then one needs to be wary of the deal. This might be completely standard in your field, but at least in mine, it is not.

I am not a lawyer, but John Wiley owns the copyright of your current article, and if you just copy larger parts of it into the book chapter, the german publisher will need to obtain permission from John Wiley (that would already be the case for individual figures) and this can well involve transfer of money. That they allow you to publish a pre-print or put it on your personal website is a concession made to you as a person, but not to other (commercial) publishers.
To avoid any of that you would need to re-write (and ideally expand) the article significantly.

Apart from the legal concerns, publishing the same article twice (even when rewritten) is also obviously considered bad academic practice and self plagiarism, unless the book is conceived as a collection of works published elsewhere. In the latter case however the publisher of the book may legally obtain republication rights from the publisher of the journal. Many publishers have a policy which allows issuing republication rights to third parties for a certain fee.

It's not self-plagirsm the work will be cited as it is originally published in xyz journal same way we do for the arXiv submission.

This is strongly discipline dependent. In the disciplines where books and book chapters have much weight on a researcher's cv, it's very uncommon to republish earlier published material as book chapters (in my field - archaeology - only very esteemed professors sometimes publish collections of earlier published articles as books late in their career). However this may be different in your field (in this case you'd better specify that in your original question).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Editor invited after minor revision submitted
According to editor guideline on springer website "Accept with minor revisions is actually a commitment to ultimately publish the paper, provided the authors answer the remaining concerns (which should be relatively minor) in a timely and proper way."
However, one of my article which was accepted with minor revision is now  under "Editor Invited" status after the submission of revised version. I sent an email to editor, who was handling my article, he said he can not see revised version on system.
Is it possible that an article might be handed over to another editor at final stages by journal office without notifying the handling editor?
How it can affect the overall review process? Should I expect more delay and more chances of rejection even the decision was Accept with minor revisions?

I would write a letter to the editor in chief, because he is the person in charge of the editorial process.

I have the same situation now. Would you please share your experience? Thank you.

I think this is meaningless.

There is no way for anyone without access to the journal's editorial system to answer this question.

I think the most likely explanation for what happened is that the journal office is the one who assigns editors, and by default they assign the editor-in-chief / managing editor who then assigns the handling editor.
So paper's status is your revised paper was submitted -> journal office invites editor-in-chief -> waiting for editor-in-chief to invite handling editor.
Unless the handling editor is inactive (which she isn't, since she answered your query), it would be pretty unusual for the editor who handled the original paper to not handle the revised one.

I had a similar story recently. It was with the handling editor who will go through the comments and replies and also reviewers new comments. The final outcome was "accept".
So if authors have responded all the reviewers' comments appropriately, then most probably it will be accepted.

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

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


text:
As a referee, how can I avoid being force-opted into marketing?
Multiple times, for multiple publishers, I have received an automated email, sent through editorial manager software, asking me to referee a paper. When I click on the link in the mail, I am first prompted to agree with the publisher's "Privacy Policy".
This policy, among other things, grants the publisher the right to use my personal data for marketing purposes, and to sell my personal data to third parties for their marketing purposes.
I do not see why I should consent to any such thing, as a condition of agreeing to do review work for free.
Is there any way I can meaningfully push back against this, without antagonizing the scientists on the editorial board? My disagreement is with the publisher, not with them.

You decline and write "I do not see why ...". I'm not sure what else there is to say.

@Allure If I do that, then I presume that the editor will see it and the publisher's staff will not. The editor is someone I highly respect, a very influential person in my field, and the publisher's marketing practices are not under his purview. I'd rather not address my complaint to him.

If that is your concern, write to the journal's email with your complaint. Just be aware that it'll almost surely have no impact. If you actually want to make changes, convincing the editor is the most realistic first step.

I'm not an academic, but I'm a software engineer nad I have to comply with GDPR si I know a couple of things.
Under the GDPR that's illegal, and if you are european you can raise your voice about the privacy issue with the legal entity that manage those things in your country, (or you can tell them that you will report them but not really do so), they will fix their provacy policy right away

it's up to the editor to chose which publisher they go through

Write a snail-mail letter to the publisher, with return receipt, registered mail. That sometimes raises a few eyebrows, makes a few hearts beat a bit faster, and makes people treat the contents with due attention. Include contact details, especially your mobile number in the letter. You may get a call back.

@Bloodday Unless the journal is based in the EU, I don't think this has much legal standing. GDPR does not cover your interactions with sites outside the EU.

@FedericoPoloni sadly, the GDPR can reach outside of EU, like other laws from other countries (US COPA for example). Here you have more info https://gdpr.eu/companies-outside-of-europe/

As suggested in comments, just refuse to review for the journal. If you want to tell them why, it might (or not) have an effect on their policies.
Those scientists on the board will have more clout than you do in effecting change in policies. But they may need to be made aware of the issue and that others consider it important. Just. Say. No.
Those editors have no reason to be insulted as the policies aren't theirs. Simple phrasing of a declining email can make this clear.
But gathering personal information for sale is sadly now ubiquitous. At least they are honest enough to tell you about their policy.
Also note that reviewers provide a valuable service to the publisher (as well as the scientific community). They should treat you better than to sell your personal information.

Also, the editors are the ones who have to worry about finding reviewers. I'd guess they'll be more worried and thus willing to push towards a change than staff at the publisher service email.

If you are in the European Union, the publisher is breaking the law (regardless of where they are based). Some organisations break the law as a calculated move, but most that do do so "accidentally": owing to the ignorance, incompetence or arrogance of employees, or to procedural failings. This kind of situation can often be resolved with an email.
In this email, you may optionally CC your GDPR supervisory authority, and/or the supervisory authority of the publisher's EU headquarters (if they have one). The Italian DPA maintains a list of DPAs. Many data protection authorities have policies you should follow before contacting the supervisory authority; for example, the UK's ICO requires 30 days' notice (and ongoing engagement) before escalating. Do keep these in mind.

To: Publisher's Legal Department <legal@example.biz>
CC: Editors <j.moriarty@example.ac.be>; Own Country Supervisory Authority <contact@example.eu>; Publisher Country Supervisory Authority <kontakt@example.de>
Subject: Refereeing without additional data processing
Dear Publisher's Legal Department,
I have been invited to review a paper for Name of Journal. Before I can accept this invitation, your website requires me (per the Privacy Policy) to consent to "quotation from privacy policy". As per Articles 6 and 7 of the GDPR, this is far from being valid consent for the data processing: you are not permitted to use the data you've collected on EU residents for this purpose, and I'd appreciate if you didn't.
I would like to accept this invitation to referee for Name of Journal, but I object and do not consent to the use of my personal data for these additional purposes. Per GDPR §7.3 and §7.4, please allow me to accept the invitation to referee.
Yours faithfully,

"As per Articles 6 and 7 of the GDPR, this is far from being valid consent for the data processing": What do you mean? If you give consent, they are permitted to do what you gave consent for. The GDPR requires them to ask for consent, and §7.4 requires that to be very clear, but once the consent has been given, they can do anything they want as long as it is covered by that consent.

@terdon But what is described by the question is not consent. (It's not actual consent, or we wouldn't have questions like this in the first place – but it's also not legal consent per GDPR, because GDPR is a half-decent law.) Consent for extra data processing, like selling it to third parties, has to be completely independent of being able to do stuff, or it doesn't count as freely-given (§7.2). That means no clickwrap "agreement" can provide valid GDPR consent.

Do you have any compelling evidence that this works?  It may give you a clear and easy path for reprisal when it's violated, but it may not stop them from selling or sharing your data.

@ScottSeidman  I've got at least three companies to change their policies by just informing decision-makers of the situation and the law – including Stack Exchange (though Mad Scientist, and the employees who actually fixed stuff, deserve at least as much credit). I've not been invited to referee ever, so I can't say it works in this particular case.

I'm all for privacy, but I don't see why this consent would not be valid. The publishers offers OP a contract, where OP hands over their data. Once they've agreed, they have the additional possibility to work for free for the publisher/journal. It's a bad deal, but I don't see how not being able to work without payment can be argued to coerce OP. Also I don't see how  §7.2 GDPR (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-7-gdpr/) is applicable or violated here - the matter of reviewing is kept clearly separate from the matter of consent to selling their data according to OP.

@cbeleitesunhappywithSX The argument you've made has very little to do with the GDPR. Consider articles 5.1(b), 6.1(a) v.s. 6.1(b), and 7.4, in the context of Recitals 42.5 and 43.2. That there's a contract (if this even counts as a contract) is immaterial. (Note: I have not been taught how to interpret GDPR by anyone: while I'm pretty certain this practice is illegal, my reasoning could well be wrong.)

@cbeleitesunhappywithSX the point is that the user must be able to choose whether to accept or not the marketing part. This fits very clearly what §7.4 says (btw, I would quote it in the email): you are being requested to consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary. That they use your personal data for X years, to keep track of who acted as a referee of paper Y makes sense and could be obligatory. That they can also use their data for marketing and sell it to third parties MUST be optional (supposing they do that at all!).

I would probably have asked just the editors and their DPO first how to join without agreeing to that part which is against GDPR, without including the supervisory authorities (DPA) in the first email. OTOH, while the DPA are probably going to ignore the email, seeing them in the email might make the company more interested in complying with the law.

@Angel: when I wrote my comment, teh proposed email text argued that due to §7 (2) the consent was not valid since not freely given. The paragraphs given now were not cited back then. And yes, of course OP is asked to consent to  the processing of personal data that is not necessary. According to GDPR valid consent is the one possibility the publisher has to legally process data that is not covered by the necessities/grounds in GDPR Art. 6 1. (b) - (f). So the remaining question is if that consent is valid. The main criterion for that is whether the consent is considered voluntarily given...

§7.4 and the recitals argue that consent may be not freely given (in other words, the data subject is coerced into consent), if the consent is required for the "performance of a contract, including the provision of a service". I understand this to refer to "pay with your data"-type contracts. But in contrast to that (very common) situation, OP doesn't want to get a service here. Very much the opposite, the publisher wants OP to provide a service to them, for free. I.e., what OP would get "for" selling their data is a disadvantage rather than an advantage. AFAIK (but IANAL), agreeing...

...although the result is a known disadvantage (time consuming professional chore) would rather indicate that the consent is really volountary. But I guess this may be a question better asked on law.sx.

@cbeleitesunhappywithSX I don't see that version in the history, but it isn't really important. I think we are trying to guess the rationale for processing (and selling) of their data for marketing. The site should be stating clearly the reasons they are using (which could be legal or not). I highly doubt that the excuse that selling your data to third parties is part of the contract to review the manuscript would fly (see e.g. the recent case where facebook ended up backtracking). If they argue that it is based on consent, then we get into §7 that there is no choice not to consent.

@cbeleitesunhappywithSX As for the service being provided by the reviewer, I think that the publisher is providing a service: the platform where the the review is performed / the paper is provided. Although even if they were providing nothing, I think §7.4 would still apply there.

My simple solution:  Do not give the publisher any of your personal information.
The only personal information the journal needs to get a peer review from you is your name and professional email address.  This information is likely already on your employer's website and in journal articles you have published.
If you hate browser cookies, you can ask the editor to email the article and then email them back the review.
I do not see any benefits to your privacy from sending complaints or from refusing to review.
Most of the annoying marketing relating to journal publishing uses names and email addresses which are collected by web crawlers.  The annoying marketers do not buy your information from publishers.

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


text:
Legal procedures for foreigners visiting an American university
I am a professor at an American university, and I regularly invite visitors to campus for short-term visits to give seminar, colloquium, or conference talks. Many of these visitors are not US citizens or permanent residents.
Our bureaucracy is flexing its muscles; now I am being asked to ask visitors to provide a copy of their visa or I-94 for approval by HR.
This rule strikes me as overly burdensome, certainly in excess of what I've been asked to do when visiting universities abroad.
Is such a rule commonplace, reasonable, and/or required by the government? And are non-Americans accustomed to doing this when visiting universities in the US?

Are you receiving moneys to host?

Under the Visa Waiver Program, nationals of 40 countries can enter the US for up to 90 days "for business or tourism". A quick search did not turn up whether academic presentations are covered under "business" (but I have regularly attended conferences under VWP, and the CBP people did not mind). Thus, your HR department should not expect everyone to have a visa. I-94, of course, but this your visitors will only get after they have already entered the country, so it's not quite clear what "approval" HR is thinking of.

Usually we pay the visitors' travel expenses, and occasionally an honorarium. Also, this message got passed down by a junior administrator, and it is possible they misunderstood what HR was telling them.

This is over reaching. If CPB lets them into the country they will have one or the other. They are not employees, even if some expenses are reimbursed. Perhaps there has been some misunderstood incident somewhere that has led them there…

Please note reimbursement issues in the question - the IRS does have requirements if visitors are reimbursed for expenses, and further requirements if visitors are actually paid.  It is possible that your university has a system for payment that is unable (i.e. has not been programmed) to have a separate category for people who are receiving reimbursement and not payment for services and treats all its payees as receiving payment for services.

Are your invites employed at another US university/ college or do they come to the US from another country?

Thanks everyone. Usually they are employed elsewhere in the US.


text:
As an advisor, how can I help students with time management and procrastination?
As an advisor, I've worked with students who have dealt with issues including time management, procrastination, and discouragement. (I've also dealt with some of these same issues myself.)
I understand that the transition from undergraduate to graduate studies can be very difficult: there is much less structure, nobody is constantly telling you exactly what to do and when to do it, and the student is largely responsible for devising their own goals.
I'd like to be more helpful to my advisees in this regard. What are some useful strategies which I might adopt?

Indirectly, teach by example.
For example, model time management by not waiting until the last minute.
Set goals.
Model work-life balance.
Break larger projects into smaller projects.
Also, with by example, tell and show your students what you are doing.
You might tell them, I am doing X, to build to Y that will lead to Z.
You can also help them see how they fit into the bigger picture of your research group (if your field operates like this).
Directly, train them to learn these skills for themselves.
For a new grad student, you might have weekly check-in meetings and assign them goals the next week and tell them the big picture goals.
For a more experience grad student, have them set their own short-term goals and have them link these into their own goals.
For an almost complete grad student, possibly no time management is needed.
Furthermore, some students may need more help than others or different help.
Meet students where they are at.
Finally, refer students to resources at your university (and, if possible, show your students these events are okay to attend by telling them about your own professional development activities).
Some have graduate schools with programs and workshops that teach these skills.
My PhD school has activities like an End-of-Semester Graduate Writing Retreat and restorative yoga.

As you say, a big part of the challenge is the sudden lack of structure - so help them build that structure back in. I have ADHD and my supervisors do an amazing job of supporting me. I also have a "specialist mentor", funded by the university, who I meet every two weeks to talk about time management strategies.
Some of the things that help me:

Regular, structured meetings
Emailed summary after each meeting
Breaking deliverables down into smaller tasks
Clear feedback on where I'm doing well and where I need to improve
Setting expectations: what is "good enough" and what is excellent

Regular, structured meetings
We meet every two weeks. They asked me to make a set of slides before each meeting, covering progress, plans, problems and publications. The progress slide covers what I've done since our previous meeting, plans is what I think I need to do next, problems is anything I'm stuck on, and publications is any upcoming publications I'm working on. We go through the slides to structure the meeting, and I edit them as we talk. This means that at the end of the meeting, the plans slide is our shared understanding of what I need to do next, and the problems slide has notes on our discussion of how to solve any problems I'm having. This structure helps me a lot with time management, as I have a clear plan of what I should be working on.
Emailed summary after each meeting
After each meeting I type up the notes from the slides and email my supervisors a summary of what we discussed and what I'm working on next. This helps with accountability, which I find very helpful to avoid procrastination.
Breaking deliverables down into smaller tasks
If I'm stuck on a big chunk of work and don't know how to tackle it, we talk through it and work out smaller tasks that are more manageable. This helps me avoid procrastination, as it's easier to start one small task that I can actually finish.
Clear feedback on where I'm doing well and where I need to improve
My supervisors give me great feedback. They're clear about how my work can improve, especially when giving feedback on writing. They also tell me when I'm doing well, which is important for motivation! The reason their feedback is good is that it's specific about what the problems are and how I can address them. For example, "This paragraph just restates what is in the table, it would be improved if you pull out some interesting examples and discuss those."
Setting expectations: what is "good enough" and what is excellent
I want to do excellent work, but sometimes when I'm struggling I just need to settle for "good enough". If I'm having problems with a particular piece of work, I talk to my supervisors about what is the minimum and what are nice-to-haves. Sometimes it turns out the minimum is actually very achievable, and then I can tackle nice-to-haves without worrying that I'm failing completely. Proactively talking through what adequate and excellent looks like can be really helpful to avoid discouragement, because if you've only talked about what the ideal outcome would be then anything less can feel like failure.

Actually, I'd suggest calling in the professionals. Most universities will have some sort of office that has people with some expertise in this. For individual advisees, you could suggest a visit to the office for advice.
If you are teaching a class, however, it seems valid to me to invite that office to hold a session with your class, taking half an hour or so to give advice. I've had to spend time in class giving pointers on effective note taking (CS course) that helped the students deal more effectively with lectures (a different question, of course) and it was worth the time spent in helping them up their game.
At a minimum, you could visit such an office yourself and get pointers there.

As a graduate student, I faced procrastination issues, lack of motivation issues, occasional self-doubt issues, and ego issues. It got so bad that my PhD advisor had to step in at some point with an email that described my situation at the time and suggested that I send a report every week with my goals for the week, including monthly goals that were supposed to be met every month, which did help me get back on track.
Additionally, something I discovered as a postdoc, was that engaging with 2 to 3 different projects at the same time tremendously helps with my productivity. The projects need not be large, I'm talking about small chunks of some bigger work plus your main project. To make it more concrete, my field is physics. One project might be analyzing data from a fellow graduate student's project, another might be my project, and another might be writing software to calculate something.
Other ideas that can help are regular meetings where you motivate your students' projects and show them how they fit in the bigger picture including the whole field itself. Moreover, try to get them involved in anything you do, such as grant writing, teaching, conferences, etc., and try to be close to them as much as possible (via emails, meetings, group meetings, etc.).

I completely agree about the value of having at least two projects. There was a phase during my PhD when I only had one, and when I was struggling to make progress on that one project it made me substantially less willing to keep engaging with it (because what's the point... it won't work today either), which wasn't great for my productivity or overall mental state.

I recommend handling interactions with the student as if you were managing a project (well-- in fact, you are managing a project, so it's not that tough of a stretch).
Work with the student to develop a timetable for interim check-ins and milestone reviews.  Ask the student to lay out their own dates for the milestone reviews, and to keep a task-list with self-generated deadlines that the student believes are achievable such that progress is constant, ongoing, and transparent.  Teach the student the tools they need to know in order to know whether they are on time, or starting to lag.
Start by encouraging the student to make the deadlines extra generous so you get a few outcomes in the "win" column to start.  Keep track of progress, and help the student learn what their capabilities are.  I teach a projects based course, and I encourage the students to not overestimate their capabilities.  For example, if an inexperienced student believes something will take an hour, it seems far more likely that it will take a day, and if they think it will take a day, it's more likely that a week will be closer to the right number.
For a number of reasons, for people in your situation, I recommend a book called "Project Management" by a guy named Heerkens.  It will teach you about coordinating with a team in a way that everyone who needs to understands who is responsible for what and when.  Even more important, Heerkens talks about something he calls the "accidental manager" -- which really resonated with me when I saw it.  There are a lot of parallels between the accidental manager and the academic mentor.

You did not mention the subject you are teaching.
Introduce them to scrum and kanban if that is not common in your field. While it is not perfect for research tasks, and not designed for single-person 'teams,' it can be helpful to visualize things which should be done, and things which have successfully been done.
If feasible, chair regular meetings with all of your graduate students where they discuss partial results and lines of research. It might be problematic if the research turns into a team effort, but being able to present in front of a small, known audience might help to prepare them for conferences, etc.


text:
How does the choice of grading scale (such as A = 90+, B=80-90, etc.) affect an undergraduate program?
I am a math professor at a mid-tier state university in the US. Most classes here, including math classes, use either a ten-point scale (A = 90+, B=80-89, C=70-79, D=60-69, F=0-59) or something close to it.
Here this is widely considered to be "common sense", so much so that I raised eyebrows when I questioned it. However, I'd never seen it in common use at any of the universities (also in the US) where I'd studied or taught. I was more familiar with a system where assessments would be harder, and the cutoff for an A would usually be between 60 and 85.
The choice of grading system has a lot of potential effects on student and instructor expectations, on what sort of goals may be realistically set, and what students consider themselves accountable for.
Are there any studies as to the advantages and disadvantages of each system?

There may be advantages or not, but consistency across courses is key.  Students need to know what to expect and they aren't happy with some sorts of surprises. If you give a US student a 60, they would immediately think FAIL. Pitchforks will follow.

@Heutl, not a problem if it meets the student expectation.

Using the grading cutoffs that students are familiar with leads to fewer complaints by the students, so I'd highly recommend sticking with it.  There's a lot of anxiety around grades, and the clearer the rules are and the less unusual they are the more comfortable the students feel. The grade scale doesn't actually matter, because you just curve up the exams so that the grades you think the work deserves gets adjusted to the fixed scale.  You can still write exams where a 65% is an A, you just apply a curve so that 65 gets entered as a 90.

Perhaps you'd like to write an answer to this question: What would a good written policy for scaling exam grades look like?. Because to date no one's been willing to write an affirmative answer for it.


text:
Which grants to acknowledge, for papers written over a long period of time?
I often write papers (usually with coauthors) over long periods, say 5-10 years. (In mathematics, this is fairly typical.) Over this time period I've enjoyed a number of research grants, most of them fairly small.
How do I know which of them to acknowledge in my papers? A literal reading of the grant funders' rules seems to suggest that I should acknowledge all of them. However, this seems a bit over the top, and nobody seems to do this in practice.

While it might seem over the top, it also seems to be good politics if you want to keep funders happy and the old lucre flowing your way, even if slowly.
I assume that you are talking about five or so grants, not twenty or more. Try to work up a short paragraph you can include in your work that mentions each agency, at least. If there aren't too many you could probably mention the grants by name instead of just the agencies, especially for the larger ones.
But the rules were set when you accepted the money. It is best to follow them.
It might be good, as a matter of practice, to separate out which grant supports which paper, specifically, though it is a bit hard if you haven't made it a regular practice. But you might be able to reconstruct a timeline from the dates grants were effective and the start of any research project, just by looking at the dates of early versions of paper drafts and correspondence with coauthors on the ideas.
And some of the grant requests likely mentioned specific lines of inquiry that the grant would support. Knowing what you wrote then should help you determine which papers should credit those grants.

What is the downside in acknowledging such contributions? Surely, the more the merrier?

@JeremyC: It feels to me like I'm bragging: "Look at me! Look at all the grants I have!"


text:
When do registrar's offices usually request course schedules?
At approximately what time in the fall semester, do most universities (in the US, say) request that departments submit their spring schedules?
At my university, the date keeps moving earlier and earlier; this year, it is on the second day of classes. This causes difficulties for us, as we don't have adequate time to meet with each other or our students to discuss the department's needs. Is such an early date typical?

I can't answer the question, but I've observed the same thing, and can state a general rule: The larger the university, the more likely it is that administrative departments operate for their own convenience rather than for the convenience of either students or faculty.

@BobBrown - that rule applies to any human organization as far as I can tell. On the other hand, back in the old days, I can remember knowing the spring before what classes I could/would take for the following year. This knowledge was based on printed course catalogs. So, the department figured students' needs in the spring term, so were ready to go on decisions...

It used to be that the administrative departments existed to support the Academic / teaching staff, now it appears that the shoe is on the other foot.. Seems to be the same attitude where I am, admin looking for schedules for next semester before we have even started the final exams of the current semester...


text:
Shifting a review process from one journal to another journal
I have two articles under review. In first round of review both got decision of "minor revision" within 3-4 months. I submitted the revised version 5 months ago but since then the status of both articles is "Under Review". I sent follow up emails but always I got response from Journal Manager that the article is under review and he sent an email to Associate Editor to prompt the review process.
During the course of time I submitted another two articles in IEEE journals; both were accepted and came online within 5-6 months of time. I am thinking to withdraw both under review articles form Springier and Elsevier and submit them to IEEE Journals.
Is it possible to shift review history of those articles to IEEE?
Will it be helpful for further accelerating the review process in IEEE if I submit both articles as new submission and provide review reports as a supporting documents?

Even if you withdraw and resubmit, it will take 5-6 months more to go through the proper channels of reviewing (supplementing the reviews is out of question). I do not know if it makes any sense at this point to go through that.

At this point, it will not be fair to the reviewers that are currently refereeing your paper to receive a notification that the paper has been withdrawn.
Although you might think they are not doing their job properly, reviewers are busy persons and a lot of things can happen in the between. Given that 5 months is not that much time even fr a revision (at least depends on the fields. I my field of applied math/TCS it's OK) I would suggest to wait a little bit more but also bring the issue to the handling editor (which you already did).
On the other hand, even if you decide to withdraw, which is your right, I think that supplementing the current reviews to another journal is way off and I would strongly recommend against that. For start, the new journal would have no idea who is behind that reviews, not to mention the ethical levels of such action.

I am from computer science area and it's something unusual. I am reviewer of several journals i never took more than 3-4 weeks to submit my reviews. It's a volunteer work but reviewer should respect the author effort and time as well.

I agree that it seems much time (and probably is) but we do not know the reason for that (I had revisions ranging from 1 week, to 9 months!). I suggest to ask again the editor why the revisions take unusually more than the expected time.
But retracting and resubmit supplying the other journal's reports is not advisable.

as I mentioned in my question, always  I get response to email by Journal Manager. I am not sure even if editor is seeing my emails. frankly speaking its really frustrating. I am PhD student and going to graduate soon. For next step in my career it can play a vital role.

@MBK we all have been there. What does your adviser says? One time I was reviewing a paper and I got a mail from the editor of the journal to hurry up because one of the authors was on the final stages of his/her PhD and an accepted manuscript would make a difference for that student.
Maybe you can play the same card (but again I do not advise for that).

Five months for a review of the revision when the revisions are minor is way too long, IMO. Typically, the revisions are reviewed by the same people that reviewed the first submission. Given that, I suspect the Editor might be having difficulty in getting the reviewers to submit their reviews and might even be looking for alternate reviewers.
I don't recommend withdrawing the manuscripts from review right away. Instead, it may be better to write to the editor explaining your concerns and when he thinks the reviews will be done. You can check the previously published papers in this journal and see how long the submission-publication periods typically are. If your manuscripts are taking much longer than these periods, you could point that out to the editor as well.

5 months might be relatively lot (not way off, but again depends the case), if you take out the human factor. It might well be the case that something happened to one of the reviewers, or maybe one of the reviewers changed.
In any case, it might be wise the author to try to clarify this, but to re-submit supplementing the reviews from another journal, is highly non-advisable.

Five months for a review of the revision in my field (Mechanical Engineering) is way too long, even if human factors are accounted for.  In my field, some of the top-tier journals  request us  to provide reviews of the revisions in about four weeks!  I agree that  the reviewers may have changed. But then, if the reviewers changed, I think that the Editor would/should have let the author know.

@hcp I think I agree with you that the editor should let the author know if something in the review process has changed. So we have 3 cases:

The reviewers have changed (unlikely but possible)
The reviewers are the same but one of the is unable for one reason or another to produce the report in due time
Somebody is lazy.

In any case, it is good the author to politely try to clarify the issue pointing out that revision time is on average much shorter. But about the 2nd part of the OP's question, things are obvious

-1 for an absolute statement such as "5 months is way too long". Please at least add "in my field".

From previously published articles i came to know The average time vary from 3-6 months. In my case it's almost 9 months has been passed.

@MBK time can vary greatly. It is not uncommon in CS (where I also belong) to see times ~14-18 months and revision times ~6 months even of the revisions are minor. It is possible to raise the issue with the editor saying that a fast answer from their side could make an impact on your further academic steps.

Federico Poloni, you seem to be taking my statement out of context. I clearly say "when the revisions are minor" and"IMO" to suggest my experience as an academic writer and reviewer. The sentence in its entirety was not designed to be absolute. Lifted out of context, I can see why one would read it as an absolute statement.


text:
Copyright policy of conference and sharing of article in public archive
I have few articles published in IEEE conference as well in IEEE Sponsored conference proceedings. I want to share my work on public library such as arxiv. The IEEE copy right policy states that  "The policy reaffirms the principle that authors are free to post their own version of their IEEE periodical or conference articles on their personal Web sites, those of their employers, or their funding agencies for the purpose of meeting public availability requirements prescribed by their funding agencies. Authors may post their version of an article as accepted for publication in an IEEE periodical or conference proceedings. Posting of the final PDF, as published by IEEE Xplore®, continues to be prohibited, except for open-access journal articles supported by payment of an article processing charge (APC), whose authors may freely post the final version". I have three questions:1-The same IEEE policy is applicable to IEEE sponsored conferences or they have their own copy right policy? 2-Few conference papers were accepted in first round of review and published as I have submitted without any modification. In such case what is my version and what is the publisher version?3-What if a conference discontinued and their webpage is no longer available only the proceedings are available on IEEE Xplore®. What kind of copy right policy is applicable to such conference?

Answer to number 2) The publisher version is the one with all modifications from peer review and the official journal layout. The authors version (postprint) is the one with all modifications from peer review but without the journal layout, i.e. for Latex you recompile with another class or style file and for Word you remove all the formats and add your own.


text:
Simultaneous submission short version to conference and full version to journal
I know that it is a common practice in computer science to submit a short version of article in conference and extended version in journal. What if I submit same article one short version to conference and full version to journal simultaneously? The journal has already mentioned that they accept the extended PUBLISHED conference articles; but in my case the conference article is not published at the time of journal submission. Moreover, the review process will complete almost within same time frame for both the conference and the journal. I also want to know what does it mean when journal say that they accept the conference paper if it is 30% extended? It means 70% of text and results can be duplicated in both conference and journal article?

Is the short version essentially a subset of the extended version? If so, that's double submission IMO and a no-no.

Yes it is a subset of extended version. But it is a common practice in CS to submit extended version of conference paper in journal.

It depends on the discipline, and under no circumstances I would say it is a no-no as @tonysdg commented. For example in Electrical Engineering it is very common to present concepts or brief ideas in a conference paper followed by an extended submission to a journal. There are even cases where, once a paper is accepted to a journal, you are invited to submit a short version to present at a conference!

Computer scientists lie to themselves that this is "okay." I'm a computer scientist and do not think this is good. Choose which one is more important to you and publish there. The journal article needs to have more substance, not just more blah-blah about how you implemented such-and-such.

Actually, most CS conferences forbid simultaneous submission to other conferences or journals, even though submission to a journal after the conference paper is accepted is allowed.  There's a fair chance that the set of reviewers for both versions would overlap, which risks automatic rejection from both venues. Read the call for papers carefully.

Computer scientists lie to themselves that this is "okay." -- Publication ethics are social contracts. Computer science, or at least some subfields of computer science, agrees as a community that publishing essentially the same paper in a thesis, and then in a technical report, and then on the arXiv, and then at a conference, and then in a journal is okay. That makes it okay, despite your opinion that it shouldn't be.

@JeffE, the key words there are "then ... then ... then".   That is not the same as simultaneous submission.

You should check the fine print of your conference/journal. In many cases they explicitly mention their opinion on simultaneous submission with conferences.

Submitting a paper to a CS conference and then to a CS journal (usually with extensions, though that's indeed complicated) is clearly accepted. Simultaneous submissions is clearly forbidden and punished seriously. Let me quote from the ACM policy as one example (https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/simultaneous-submissions):

The ACM does not normally permit manuscripts under review in its journals or conference proceedings to be simultaneously under review for another publication. [...] Repeated violations may lead to a ban on future submissions at the discretion of the EiC or PC.

That page does suggest this is misconduct but still threatens a submission ban.
http://www.sigplan.org/Resources/Policies/Republication/
IEEE guidelines are similar (as also mentioned in https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/18440/8966):

As described in Section 8.2.1.B.9, authors should only submit original work that has neither appeared elsewhere for publication, nor which is under review for another refereed publication. [...] Authors in violation of these multiple-submission guidelines are subject to corrective actions.

Your milage will vary on this, but I would advise against it. The spirit of the practice of extending conference submissions to journals is that one can use the conference to discuss a first version of the research with colleagues, go back to the lab, improve the work based on the feedback, and then submit a vetted version to a journal. In your scheme, if you submit both manuscripts at the same time, and they get published about the same time, what's the point of your conference paper? You won't be able to take any feedback into account, and the community also does not really gain by there being a published version of the research that is basically superseded from day 1.
I understand, and sympathize, that for you personally the advantage may well be two additional lines in your CV rather than one, but you should be aware that the academic community gets increasingly more stingy about the topic of "salami-slicing" papers, that is, the practice of trying to squeeze out as many papers as possible from the same research - and your plan, even if not strictly unethical, can easily be seen as salami-slicing, or at least be perceived similar in spirit.

I also want to know what does it mean when journal say that they accept the conference paper if it is 30% extended? It means 70% of text and results can be duplicated in both conference and journal article?

It means that there should be about 1/3 more intellectual contribution in the journal version than in the conference paper. Clearly, this is only a rough guideline, as there is no metric for "contribution". However, you should not understand this as 70% of the text can be verbatim the same. Some amount of text duplication is often tolerated for journal extensions, but 70% seems way, way above what I would tolerate as a reviewer or editor.

In general, I do not quite agree with the first part of your answer. I agree that the spirit should be like that, but in practice we see that conference and journal versions are virtually the same. I asked a related question recently: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/86984/full-versions-versus-preliminary-version-of-result-paper-are-they-considere

Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS) allows simultaneous submission to a journal. In case you have to simultaneously submit your manuscript to ITCS and to a journal, be absolutely honest and transparent in the cover letter.


text:
What is the average salary of Assistant Professor in South Korea?
What is the average salary of Assistant Professor in South Korea? How tough it is for a foreign faculty member to get public and private sector funded projects for his/her lab?

Quite good: $43-50k
Since foreign faculty members are common in South Korea, likely it isn't any tougher than for local faculty.
source: https://www.chronicle.com/article/South-Korea-Brings-in-Foreign/126508

Could you clarify what you mean by "Quite good"?  That sounds like a fairly modest salary by US standards; is it higher by South Korean standards?

@NajibIdrissi Seems silly to assume stuff when it's so easy to just ask.  Ideally, I was hoping for more than just, say, "It's good by Korean salaries", but rather some more explicit qualification, e.g., "It's competitive with other positions a Korean PhD might pursue.".


text:
Flair/Badge for arXiv paper?
This is borderline trivial, but in my attempt to publish my work in a public repository, I've found badges at the top of my README.md to be useful. For example, using Zenodo, I can create a badge that points to a proper DOI that looks like this:

Encyclopedia of Finite Graphs
If I have a critical piece of code, I can publish Travis.CL badges or Coveralls for code coverage.
Is the an equivalent badge or icon I can use to visually indicate that the work has been published on the arXiv?

Not that I am aware of. Feel free to make one!

I don't get what do you want. An icon? Something else?

By the way, ideally the alt text in the Zenodo badge would give the actual DOI, rather than just saying "DOI," so it would be more convenient for copying/pasting or screen readers.  (But this may not be under your control.)

@AnonymousMathematician That's a good point and I'll mention it to them. The markdown is copied from their "badge creator" so it shouldn't be hard for them to fix it (and trivial for me to do it on my side).

I found a service that can create custom badges: shields.io. Using the arXiv background color (Firebrick #B31B1B) I was able to create a badge that looked more or less "official". An example of their template and my specific use case:
http://img.shields.io/badge/<SUBJECT>-<STATUS>-<COLOR>.svg
http://img.shields.io/badge/math.CO-arXiv%3A1408.3644-B31B1B.svg

After converting the svg to png for use on github, I got this:

Minor nitpick: arXiv:1408.3644 is not a DOI, just an arXiv identifier. Do not label it as one.

@FedericoPoloni Thanks for the nit-pick, I thought that was the DOI (this is my first submission to the arXiv). It looks like the DOI is reserved for when you publish in a peer-reviewed journal. I've updated the badge to reflect the category instead.

DOI does not imply a peer-reviewed journal. It's just an identifies that happens to be used by many journals. A publication at arXiv could have DOI and other identifiers (ISBN, URN...) as well.

I don't think that there's any. As well, I think you want to make one visually matching the ones you already have.
There's an XCF (GIMP) file for the arXiv community ad:  http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/11924/43247
I think it could be helpful to you.

Thanks for your suggestion. I've done just that and I've shared the result as an answer. After the moderation period ends I'm going to accept my answer. Hopefully it will help someone else down the line.

To add on to the OP's own answer, it is also possible to use a logo from Simple Icons (which has an arXiv icon) in a badge generated by shields.io. A number of other parameters can also be specified by adding keyword/value pairs after a ? in the request URL:
https://img.shields.io/badge/<SUBJECT>-<IDENTIFIER>-<COLOR>?logo=<SIMPLEICONS NAME>&logoColor=<LOGO COLOR>
Omitting any parameter will set it to its default. Some other possibly useful parameters include logoWidth (specified in pixels), style (default is flat), and labelColor (to change  the color of the lefthand portion of the badge from the default gray).
Using math.CO, 1408.3644, and b31b1b as the subject, arXiv identifier, and primary color, and setting logo=arxiv and logoColor=red, we get a badge that looks like this:

Of course, you can compose it however you'd like in practice.


text:
PhD Thesis based on published articles on different topics
I am in 3rd year of PhD and I was suppose to graduate after 1 year, but suddenly due to some unknown reason my adviser gave me 2 months to write my PhD dissertation. He said I have published 7 SCI journals (as a first author) and what I need to do is just compile all articles into single document.
I know it is common to publish article based on PhD dissertation.  Is it also common to compile a PhD thesis based on published SCI journal Articles? More tricky part is that out of 7 only 2 articles are written on same topic rest of work is totally different. But he insist I can create a link between all articles, which in my opinion doesn't make any sense. It something like saying apple and orange are same fruit.Let say I have no other option except compile my dissertation within 2 months. Is it possible that the PhD dissertation chapters may cover unrelated topics? Let say one part is related to Operating System and other part is related to Future Internet?

So-called "stapler theses" are quite common. Surely the articles are not that different, as you worked on all of them. You need to think of some unifying theme to join them together, even if it is a bit forced. And, you don't need to include all 7 papers if that makes it easier to join them.

A PhD merely shows that you are qualified to conduct research. So, finishing it quickly has advantages. E.g., promotion. Ask your supervisor if there's any reason to finish early. Perhaps he has an agenda that's mutually beneficial (e.g., promotion).

And, the 'stapler thesis' is a real thing - I have several from various colleagues on my shelf. They really are reprints from journal articles stapled between two cover sheets with the thesis title on the front. They all seem to be Scandinavian in origin, so your mileage may vary.

Thank you all for the comments and answer. Seems like there is no particular agenda and I feel maybe it's a kind of funding issue. I am trying to take it positively but feel uncomfortable to see I have a week PhD dissertation. I had some ideas plans for my dissertations which now I might publish in Journal in coming future.

First of all, writing a PhD dissertation in 2 months is one hell of a task. You should probably talk to your supervisor about more time.
I believe it is not uncommon, as Thomas stated in the comments, that people assemble a PhD disseration from the publications they had during their time. Many people work of different topics at the same time, but usually there is something that combines them. The title of your dissertation can be very vague and cover a wide topic. In your dissertation you can split it into different chapters of sections according to your covered topics. Of course, it is good if you find a common thread and can build upon that. Even if you don't, I still think it is okay. After all, that seems to be what your supervisor wants.
If you are really unsure, there is no way around talking to your supervisor about it. Ask for his expectations and tell him about your plans. Then, you will be able to meet somewhere in the middle.


text:
PhD project ownership conflict after changing university
Student starts a PhD at University A, the student is offered a project conceived by University A supervisor. Then student transfers to University B in agreement with University A supervisor that they will keep working on the project together. Student expands and develops the project and after 9 months at University B the external advisor at University A pulls out of the collaboration due to lack of time to properly supervise student. Student wants to keep working on the project independently given the time and money investment (salary from University B) and the interest for the topic but University A supervisor claims the ownership of the project. Student offers maximum flexibility to A supervisor to try to keep the supervisor involved in the project with little time commitment. Student has now developed a sense of ownership to the project.
How should the student handle the situation? Who owns the project? And what happens if the student keeps working on the project even if A supervisor has not given the green light?

Who is left at Uni B to supervise the student there? What do they say?

@BillBarth supervisor at Uni B wants the student to keep working on this project

Perhaps the University B supervisor could take up the ownership/continuation issues with the University A supervisor, professor-to-professor.

this seems to be two questions when it comes to continuing the work without Professor from UnivA permission.

For what it's worth, I don't think either university can own the project directly. Anybody can work on anything, pretty much, but there are many caveats. If code or data were produced, that may be owned by UniA. If there was funding, it's definitely going to stay at UniA. So you may have to find some alternative source of funding to work on the project, but if the supervisor at UniB wants to pay you to work in the same area, you almost certainly can. Now, if you can't come to agreement with the supervisor at UniA, you may also have some trouble publishing when it comes to things they wrote. It would be best to get the two supervisors to come to an amicable agreement to work together on it with you at UniB.

you have made some good points. Just to clarify, UniA did not invest any money in the student nor has any money for the project, UniB did invest money by paying the student stipend. The student only actually started working on the project when he was enrolled at UniB.

Then I don't see that the problem is. If SuperA didn't do anything and all the money, time, and effort was spent by UniB at UniB, I think you're in the clear. Keep working on the project.

Is who "owns" the "idea" of the project at all relevant? UniA Prof came up with the research topic, does that accord UniA prof any ownership of the resultant work, or is it all truly about the funding?

@CGCampbell, you can't own an idea in most jurisdictions, but that was at the core of the question.

@CGCampbell yes mostly my question was about who owns an idea. I don't know if my question was clear enough on that or if there are similar questions.

Is a full proposal with a somewhat general methodology still considered only an idea?

@user4050, the proposal text itself is probably covered under copyright belonging to SuperA/UniA, but the ideas that it embodies cannot be owned by them. Also, if he's abandoned the project, there's morally nothing I can think of stopping others who were involved in the original project from continuing to work on it up to and including writing a new proposal covering the same ideas. Obviously if the proposed work was funded, that funding would stay with UniA.

@CGCampbell IIUC, the only sense in which one can own an idea is in the copyright and patent arenas, where one can prohibit another from profiting from the idea, either by direct sale of the idea (copyrightable works) or by exploitation of the idea in practical manufacturing application (patented entities). There are no constraints on research from either; only publication/production & sale. Again IIUC, performing even industrial-directed research using, e.g., patented concepts cannot be prevented by the patent holder.

@Brian At least in the USA there is also trade secret, bu that is unlikely to apply here.

@Brian, patents and copyrights don't protect ideas. The former protects particular implementations, and the latter protects expressions of ideas as fixed in tangible media.

@BillBarth That's a much better and more concise way of saying what I was attempting to convey -- that it's not the ideas, it's what's done or doable with them in the commercial realm, that's protected.

@PatriciaShanahan Yes, it won't apply, because there's no end product (real or virtual) being sold in-market.

University A can claim ownership of part of the project, because of the work that has been done when the student was in UniA.
UniB can claim the project as well, if they can show that the work is related to what you are getting paid for in UnivB or it is been done by using their resources from library, wifi, computers to their faculty supervisorship and stipend.
Student also owns part of the project.
Rule of thumb, Universities are generally are more laid back when it comes to acting on ownership than claiming the ownership.


text:
Do manuscripts sent for submission in Word format need to be already in two column or a specific font?
I am reading the guidelines for authors on a research journal which is part of Wiley. In the guidelines for authors it is only mentioned it should be submitted in Word format but nothing about font, font size, and if it should be already in two-column format.
Also it says figures should go at the end of the Word file, but I want to insert two figures in the same page to avoid paying twice the color page charge.
How is this supposed to be done?

Formatting guidelines are almost always available via the publisher's website.

@aeismail I read the style guide and formatting guidelines but there is no mention to font size or font type.

If there aren't instructions, pick a "neutral" typeface and size (for example, Helvetica 12 point is the default in Europe).

Journals typically provides guidelines as to what formats are possible, for example, Word and/or LaTeX for text, eps, pdf, TIFF; JPG etc. for graphics. Wiley, for example, provides a guide line for graphics that is general in their Author Services section.
Adhering to the requested file formats may be quite important although with Wiley, I have noted that they accept common formats for graphics although they are not specifically mentioned in the general guide line. As for formatting of text, I would (as editor for a journal) argue that

you should keep it as simple as possible
do not attempt fancy formatting, keep it tidy and readable
make sure your figures are of good quality and reproduced well in the files you provide
follow any instructions for authors, or equivalent, the journal may provide (if such IFAs do not exist, then use a standard font and make, for example headings clearly visible against the main text and check the journal for reference system and formatting)

The review formatting and the final, camera-ready formatting are often quite different. You will probably get a chance to reformat it for publication after it is reviewed. If you have any doubt about that, you should contact the editor.

The most common and universally acceptable formatting for scientific manuscripts is Times New Roman, 12 point, 1 inch margins all around, one column. Certainly don't attempt two-column format! That happens much later, during the typesetting process.
Regarding figure placement, that is also something to discuss with the editor or copy-editor much later, after the paper is accepted.
Right now you are preparing the paper to be read by reviewers. They don't care what page your figures are on, and they certainly don't want to deal with two-column formatting!


text:
what does [citation] mean in google scholar search results?
What does [citation] mean in Google scholar search results and why is it not clickable? I know there is also an option to include citations but I am not sure what that means? If something is cited is should exist somewhere.
example:

[CITATION] Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV.
  Determination of plant cell-wall constituents PJ Van Soest, RH Wine -
  J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem, 1967

I assume it is used to indicate an article that existed at one point but is now a dead link.

That article is from 1967, so sure it exists somewhere, but not online if the publisher hasn't scanned the old archives

Sometimes I find these citations also for conference abstracts (they are cited in a paper but they are not available online)

@laika that is just one example, there are more recent papers that come up as citation, it's unclear what that means since every search result is a citation.

It's quite common for authors to make errors in citing papers.  If Google Scholar sees a citation of a paper that it can't match up with any known publication in its database, it will add that citation to the database even though it isn't sure what the original publication is that the authors were referring to (or perhaps the authors just made it up.)  In my experience, these are often just typographical errors in the citation and you can find the intended citation by checking carefully yourself.

There's a discussion of exactly this question in the help for Google Scholar at https://scholar.google.com/intl/en-US/scholar/help.html#general

[Citation] means that Google Scholar has not been able to find a source for the publication, but that it has inferred that it exists because other publications cite it.
Taken directly from Google Scholar help
"These are articles which other scholarly articles have referred to, but which we haven't found online. To exclude them from your search results, uncheck the "include citations" box on the left sidebar."

I find that remarkably weird, though, given that, just because the article exists and is cited by the other results, the search engine can list it as a result. See this results page. Is there a guarantee that if I track this article down, I will find information about the blank page?

@Compass Big data is a a remarkable sausage-making machine that is both miraculous and a bit sloppy in operation: if you track the article down, you are quite likely to find such information, but there's a chance you won't.


text:
Has there ever been a strike of peer reviewers?
I know peer reviewing is done freely and voluntarily, at least I think for the most part, so I am not sure strike is the best way of calling it, but it gives the idea. With all the recent discussion about open access and overworked researchers that relate to the publishing cycle, I was wondering if there has been any protest, or strike, or talks for a strike by peer reviewers.

Considering how long it takes to review a paper, I believed peer reviewers were always on strike... ;-)

Not en masse. If researchers refused to review en masse, the system would break down and no papers would be published (or they'd be published without review) and the impact would be very visible.
On smaller scales there has been a Cost of Knowledge boycott of Elsevier, an individual publishing house. This was initiated by Timothy Gowers in 2012, in protest of Elsevier's perceived high prices and gross margins. The target is Elsevier because it is the "worst offender" - Elsevier's margins are very high, above 20%. The boycott allows the signatories to say if they're not willing to publish with, to do editorial work, or to referee for Elsevier. It's had minimal impact: as of time of writing, there are 16,946 signatories, a tiny fraction of the number of academics in the world (millions). It did, however, lead to Elsevier lowering its prices slightly for mathematics journals as well as making some old papers available for free.
On an even smaller scale, I've seen researchers decline to review papers because they don't review for non-OA journals, or because they don't work for free. This is a very small fraction however: I've invited hundreds of reviewers, and the number who decline for these reasons can be counted on one hand.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss the Cost of Knowledge boycott's impact so readily. Within the mathematics community, there have been some significant impacts. At a minimum, many Elsevier mathematics journals have improved access for non-subscribers as a direct response to the boycott.

True, I'll amend the answer.

Facebook is an individual social network. There are other networks with hundreds of millions of users, such as Google+, Twitter, LinkedIn, Sina Weibo and RenRen. As for why 16,946 signatories made Elsevier budge, they did it as an act of goodwill. If you think it's a significant number, check Elsevier's annual reports for how much the boycott affected their top and bottom lines.

@Allure Of course, these are the numbers they report.

Researchers have refused to review for Elsevier, as part of the Cost of Knowledge boycott, which

Objects to exorbitantly high prices; and
Objects to measures that restrict free information.

The initial success of the boycott was summarised in 2014 by Sir Timothy Gowers (Fields Medal recipient):

A little over two years ago, the Cost of Knowledge boycott of Elsevier
  journals began. Initially, it seemed to be highly successful, with the
  number of signatories rapidly reaching 10,000 and including some very
  high-profile researchers, and Elsevier making a number of concessions,
  such as dropping support for the Research Works Act and making papers
  over four years old from several mathematics journals freely available
  online. It has also contributed to an increased awareness of the
  issues related to high journal prices and the locking up of articles
  behind paywalls.

Missing in your enumeration of reasons is the (highly relevant) fact that Elsevier is exploiting its de-facto cartel position.

@KonradRudolph I've only listed the reasons that appear on the front page of http://thecostofknowledge.com/ The detailed statement of purpose may provide further reasons.

@user2768 No, that reason is from that page — it’s point 2. Compare: your list only has two points, whereas the list on the Cost of Knowledge front page has three.

@Konrad Any reference to "exploiting its de-facto cartel position" is buried. On the front page, the first point is about "charg[ing] exorbitantly high prices for subscriptions to individual journals." The second point reiterates the first for "bundles." These two points compress into "exorbitantly high prices." I appreciate that I'm oversimplifying, but I didn't want to go into details of Elsevier's business model.

@user2768 Right: the “bundling” is another way of saying that they exploit a cartel position.

@KonradRudolph Ultimately, it boils down to "exorbitantly high prices." Bundling seems like the wrong issue to pick-up on. Elsevier will offer you individual journals or a bundle of journals, they'll charge excessively for each. (Surely they're exploiting their monopoly other distribution, rather than a cartel position?)

I agree with Konrad. You've taken some pretty liberal editorial steps in whittling down a three-point manifesto down to two soundbites. You don't have to call it a 'de facto cartel' if you don't want to, but cutting the reference to the bundling deals is definitely inappropriate here. Your initial comment pretends to only list the original TCoK reasoning, but then you editorialize by deciding which issues are "right" to "pick-up on"?

@E.P. I think I've accurately summarise the three-point manifesto into two points. (I think that's not only appropriate, but the purpose of SE.) If you can convince me that point two isn't a high price issue, then I'll edit. I don't "pretend" that the two items are the original TCoK reasoning, I believe they are the TCoK reasoning. (I'm unsure why you think I "editorialize." I didn't list reasons; I listed reasons. I didn't add material on Sir Timothy Gowers, another user did.)

I don't see why you should need 'convincing' ─ if the TCoK writers had felt that the pricing and bundling were one and the same issue, they would have listed them together ─ unless, of course, you were actually editorializing. You've heard from two voices that your summary is inaccurate and incomplete, to the detriment of your (thousands of) readers, but if that's not enough to convince you to give a fair account of the boycott you're describing, then I don't think there's anything else I can say here that will change things.

@E.P. You claim my "summary is inaccurate and incomplete," but you cannot explain how bundling is not merely a strategy for exuberant profit. I can't see a reason, so I believe I'm serving my readers. That said, I'm open to correction.

Apart from the Cost of Knowledge, which was a while ago now and had a broader scope than just reviewing, more recently there was No Deal No Review by Finnish researchers. They boycotted the task of peer reviewing for traditional publishers in order to put pressure on them while they negotiated with the Finnish universities.
Since the result of those negotiations are widely met with disappointment, it's not clear yet what will happen with the boycott.

@Haz That just says the negotiations have been concluded, which I mentioned already as well...

Sadly, the "No Deal No Review" initiative is no longer active, and the website no longer exists.

We have recently launched an initiative which is very similar to what you ask about: No free view? No review!. This allows researchers to pledge that they will not do reviewing work for venues that do not put their research in open access. It is not specifically targeted to one single publisher or research field.
Disclaimer: I'm one of the people behind the initiative.
Another similar existing initiative is Research Without Walls.


text:
Is it acceptable to paraphrase or include reviewer's comments in revised manuscript?
When you submit a manuscript and receive the reviewer's comments, some of these comments are really useful, and might improve the manuscript with some critical comments.
If a reviewer provides a very useful comment that is very detailed and a few paragraphs long, is it acceptable to simply paraphrase said comment in the revised manuscript? The reviewer has described a concept very well and it is difficult to improve this description.

It would be acceptable to paraphrase the referee's comments, although if you do so, you should take care.  First, the paraphrasing should be thorough.  You cannot quote an anonymous* referee directly (since you do not know their identity to cite them), so what you put in your revised draft should not include any specific extended phrases used by the reviewer, of the kind that would normally need quotation makes.
Second, you should point out explicitly in your reply letter with the revised manuscript that you have followed the referee's way of describing the subject matter carefully.  Make it clear that you have done so because you though the explanation in the referee's report was exceptionally clear.  The referee is likely to be flattered, but in the unlikely event that they have some problem with your having done this, they have been warned and can ask you to make further changes.
Third, you should include an acknowledgement to the anonymous reviewer.  This person has made a minor but specific contribution to your paper and deserves credit at that level.
*I have assumed the reviewer is anonymous.  If not, things probably do not change very much, although you have the option of simply contacting the reviewer to ask whether they are okay with you paraphrasing them this way.

I am not resubmitting the article to the same journal, but I get the general point.


text:
Is it good to write a Critical report on my own published research work?
After 1.5 years of PhD I found some flaws in my PhD published work. The flaws are minor in nature, and an improved work can not be consider novel enough to be publish again.
How can I report those minor flaws and make them available to public?
Few of them came in my notice via email conversation from other researchers. If I can publish a report by some way, then how to give reference the private email conversation?

What field is this?

Is the nature of the flaws such that writing an erratum/corrigendum would be appropriate? As for the referencing, look up how to cite personal communication (though you may want to consider asking first if they'd prefer not to be named).

This is one of the issues that are solved by preprint archives. If your work was on arXiv, you would just post an updated version there, and not worry about the published version, because readers usually go to arXiv. Probably your work is not on arXiv, or you would not ask the question. Then you might enquire whether you are allowed to post it there, and/or consider doing it for your subsequent works.


text:
Submitting short version of an under review journal article in conference
I have an article under review in a journal which is taking very long review time. I want to submit a short version in a conference citing that detailed version is under review in XYZ journal. I know the other way round is common practice.   I want to know if it is an acceptable practice in computer science area?


text:
Patent application file on arxiv
Is it wise to upload the published patent application file on arxiv?
what will be the consequences of copy right?

Won't the patent application be published by the patent office, and become publicly accessible anyway? Is there a difference between that publication and the file you intend to upload to arXiv?

Yes it will be available to public but I want to increase the readership base.

I'm not sure if your typical arXiv reader would appreciate reading a patent application, which uses a different style and language and has a different purpose from an academic paper. Is there an academic paper/abstract associated with the patent application? If so, perhaps that would be a better candidate for arXiv? You can then cite your patent application in that paper.

Doesn't publishing it make it prior art that then stops you from obtaining a patent?

Why are you interested in many people reading a patent application? Is this a form of marketing?

You can't upload your patent application materials to arXiv, because they simply don't accept that kind of submission.
https://arxiv.org/help/moderation:

arXiv accepts only submissions in the form of an article that would be refereeable by a conventional publication venue.

Your file isn't an article, and "conventional publication venues" (journals, conference proceedings, etc) don't publish or referee patent applications.    If you submit it, it will probably be rejected in the moderation process.
Whether it would be legally advisable to make your file publicly available some other way, or to write and publish an article about your invention, and how any of this might affect the validity of your patent, are questions that you need to ask your patent attorney.  It would be very unwise to rely on the advice of random Internet strangers for something like that.


text:
Carrying incomplete research work from postdoc to assistant professor position
I am a postdoctoral research fellow and recently I got offer for aP position. I am leaving the postdoc position before the completion of contract. My postdoc supervisor is saying that after joining the aP position whenever I publish the research work, which I started in his lab, should include funds acknowledgment of his lab and that he should be the corresponding author.  I worked in his lab for just 5 months and I already submitted to SCI journal articles in Q1 level. A week ago I shared my preliminary work which will take another 5-6 months to be ready for submission. In this case I will be spending 90% of time on this topic after leaving postdoc position, why should I add him as corresponding author and why should I add his dictated funding acknowledgment? Is it ethical to make such demands?

You did some work under this funding, so I guess adding the funding is perfectly ethical. Adding him as an author (corresponding or not) is a different thing, which depends (for me) on his involvement in the research published. If you are taking topics with you that he derived, he probably was involved to some extent. If not, that is a different discussion.

What is the role of corresponding author in your field? In my field it's just the person submitting the paper and organizing the communication between authors and editor/reviewers..

@Mark In Korea Corresponding author gets extra points in national research funding system.

You should (indeed, I'd say you must) acknowledge any funding that supported any of the research reported in the paper.  If you (like me) are in mathematics, then you should list as co-author(s) whoever made a substantial intellectual contribution to the research.  If you're in some other field then you should follow that field's conventions for co-authorship.

I am from computer science and the research idea and preliminary results I presented are actually doesn't belongs to any project. It was my independent effort.


text:
Lecture material of another professor
Is it ethical if I use lecture slides of another professor and modify only 15-20% for my lecture and provide an acknowledgment at the end of lecture slides that lecture material was taken from Prof. XYZ Course ABC? In the given condition do I still need to send a personal email to professor to inform that I am using his/her lecture material or acknowledgement is enough?

The lecture slides are usually distributed in pdf, which is hard to edit. How come you've got an editable version? Is author even aware of you having them?

@DmitrySavostyanov not every professor distribute in pdf form and it file format doesn't matter the real question is about ethics. I know it cannot come under plagiarism category but I am not sure if it is ethical or not?

So are you really asking that if you use the material and the students find out that it was actually prepared by the other professor that they would have preferred that professor to do the lecture and not you?

@SolarMike I think I didn't ask what you  said in your comment. Its your assumption. My question is straight forward...BTW they can't take course of that professor because he is professor in Stanford I and  am professor in other university.

Read carefully, I asked a question , long but still a question - it's not an assumption... Why can't you develop your own slides and avoid the issue - which you obviously see as an issue...

The question is: why wouldn't you send an e-mail? Consider you send him/her an email for permission to use the lectures, he/she may:

(most likely) Accept your request providing you reference him/her. He/she might even point some possible errors in the slides.
Deny your request. In that case you just avoided an awkard situation, would he/she ever find you plagiarized (if you modifications don't change the style).

If he/she denies, should you still use his/her slides as a guideline (assuming you do the slides yourself)? Yes you can. And if you wish you can also reference him/her as a reference, in the same way you reference books.

I got response from professor and he said he has no issue with it and asked to share my updated slides with him so he can also get some benefit.

Win win, problem solved!

One of my professors did this last semester. He wrote on the front page of each lecture slides:
Slides originally prepared by Dr.X
Modified and edited by Dr.HisName
I think this is better than an acknowledgement at the end and that there's no problem with this approach.

Yes, putting the acknowledgment after 12/24/however many hours of teaching seems like hiding it and means that the asker is essentially taking full credit for the material for the duration of the course and only then admitting that somebody else deserves that credit.

Dear Professor,
For the assignment for your module we were asked to produce an essay
  of 5000 words. Here's my submission. I used the essay of another
  student and modified 15-20% of words in it. You can find the name of
  the student on the last page of my assignment. He produces a very good
  piece of writing and it would be a shame not to re-use it for my
  assignment.
  It also saved me a lot of time, which I used for other things I enjoy doing more than working on your module.
I hope it's fine with you.
Best regards, your student

If you want to encourage such response from your students, then of course, go for it. If not, be an example and do your own preparation for your teaching.

Two completely different situations. Students do assignments to demonstrate their own understanding, whereas the purpose of lectures is to educate the students. Using another student's essay clearly does not demonstrate one's own understanding; you need to establish why using somebody else's slides doesn't educate the students.

@DavidRicherby You can not teach what you don't understand. You can not even encourage learning if you are not encouraged enough yourself to do your job properly.

Where does the asker say they don't understand? You need to establish why using somebody else's slides isn't doing your job properly.

@DavidRicherby If students use someone else's work for their assignment, it does not imply that they do not understand, right? Maybe they just don't have time to write it. But they still get penalized for it.  How come the same does not apply to lecturers?

@DmitrySavostyanov I agree with the point you make, either you understand the material and can produce your own slides or you are just too lazy to produce your own slides.

@DmitrySavostyanov Originality is an explicitly stated criterion for student work. Teaching is not the same thing as learning so, guess what?, it has different criteria. (Note that I'm not advocating using somebody else's slides; I'm just pointing out that your reasoning is flawed.)

@DavidRicherby My contract says "...develop appropriate teaching materials..." - check yours for a similar clause. Let's think for a second on how "develop" here differs from "get someone else's slides and modify 15-20%". Teaching is a way of promoting learning. An obviously lazy approach will not promote it - hence not fulfil the purpose.

@DmitrySavostyanov What about an instructor  who decides to follow a standard textbook rather than writing his own lecture notes, say, for for an introductory math course? The same case? If not, where's the difference between using a textbook written by someone else and using slides written by someone else?

@Uwe The difference of course is that the University payed for that official textbook and with this officially approved the fact that the lecturer is going to use it instead of developing the materials. It's transparent for all parties involved and the responsibilities are clearly defined.

@DmitrySavostyanov Your academic system seems to be very different from mine. In my academic system, professors don't need any approval of the university in order to declare that they will or will not follow a certain textbook. (And the university doesn't pay for it.)

@Uwe With textbooks or without, lecturers still need a lot of teaching materials, including slides, examples, tutorials, assessments. I guess you can buy them pre-packed, but what's the role of the lecturer then? to me, it's just natural to support my teaching with my own materials, not uncle Ben's.

@DmitrySavostyanov do you really understand what plagiarism is? Its not a copy right or plagiarism issue its just an ethical issue. I was student 6 months ago and I never asked why my professor is using someone else slides. Do you know most of the publishers provide already made ppt to instructors with book. Why not to use experience of a experienced professor? BTW professor responded me positively and said he has no issue and asked me to share my updated version so he can also get some benefit from my work.

@MBK Why are you discussing plagiarism?  I never mentioned it. You seem unconcerned about certain things, but your students can perceive the same things differently from you. I would definitely think that a lecturer not willing to produce their own slides is a lazy and unmotivated person, who is not keen to teach. And students may respond with the same attitude.


text:
Contacting EiC on social media
I am in a very frustrating situation. My article is under review for almost 8 months and I didn't hear any response. The average review time for the journal is 3 months. The journal is highly reputed journal, and based on the average time one can expect a response within 2.5 to 4.5 months.
I sent several emails to Editor in Chief (EiC) but I receive same answer, a kind of auto response. Moreover, according to journal policy I can not know the name or contact information of Associate Editor (AE).
The EiC is with me on various social media plateforms like Linkedin and facebook. We had few conversations on various topics, but I never told him about my article. The question is can I discuss status of my article with EiC on social media in informal text messaging?  Is it ethical and fair? I want to expatiate the review process to same level as journal average time shows. I don't want to get an unfair advantage.

I ran into the handling editor of one of my papers at a conference, and I hadn't heard what was happening for a while so I reminded them that my paper was still awaiting decision. It turns out everything was done except telling me the result, due to busyness.

I personally don't think that neither "ethics" nor "fairness" are at stake here because if I understood your question correctly what you want to do is simply ask a question using an informal method of communication. I don't see how this can create an unfair advantage to you or even raise ethical issues since the question alone doesn't mean things will get done more quickly/unfairly. You simply want a status update on your paper.
However, I also don't see how such course of action can help you. You should also take into consideration that these things to take time and unless you have a pretty urgent reason, it might not be worth asking it again. Sometimes the EiC is having trouble finding a suitable reviewer for your paper or the reviewer itself isn't finding the time to read your paper (keep in mind that they're usually invited to do so, without any remuneration), sometimes older issues of the paper are delayed... my point is: whatever is going on, it isn't good for the EiC either and he's probably already taking the measures necessary.


text:
Changing Citation after acceptance of an article
We submitted an article to a SCI journal 5 months ago. In the article there is a section which is based on a patent which we had submitted to our institute's internal  patent system. We cited the patent application in manuscript as under review patent. However, our institute has rejected our patent application so we converted patent application into an article and published into an international conference. Meanwhile, we received the acceptance letter for our SCI journal article.
As the cited patent application has been rejected and we already published a conference paper based on patent application. Now should we replace the patent application citation with the published conference paper? and do we need to report about this issue to editor?

You certainly should update the citation if it is still possible, so readers can follow up on your references without wasting time searching for an inexistent patent.
Contact the editor. Typically such minor changes can be done in the proof editing stage, but publishers are usually happiest to hear of such changes as soon as possible.
And congratulations on the acceptance of your paper!