text:
How to answer questions about whether you are taking on new doctoral students when admission is determined by a committee and a competitive process?
Because I teach at a doctoral institution, I get plenty of e-mails from prospective students asking me if I'm taking new doctoral students in the next academic year.
I'm not always sure how to answer them. Because admissions are done as a committee of the whole, I might have a student, I might not. It depends on my colleagues and on the applicant pool. I also don't want to encourage or dissuade prospective students too much either.
Do you have a phrase or response which encapsulates this complexity?

I have never been in this situation so I will not venture an answer, but here is my thought: "There may be space in my lab [group] next year.  Also, I want to make sure you know about these other members of the department with related research interests to mine that you might want to take a look at (provide links).  I'm sorry I don't have a more precise answer for you at this time.  [name of month] would be a good time to ask again, if you are still interested."

Speaking from a student perspective, I remember emailing and asking this question because applications are freaking expensive. I didn't have a ton of money to spend, so I wanted to be strategic; if the professors whose research most intrigued me weren't interested in taking on new students, period, then I wasn't going to waste my limited funds on applying to that school.

Ah, so you want to be told no. That's a useful data point, thanks Tony.

Sometimes, even with the competitive selection, students are actually asked to contact potential advisors and then in the committee advisors are asked if there are students they would like to take. With this in mind, you could at least tell them if their interests match (or if there is no chance) or what you would say if it was your decision. Of course still tell them the actual selection process is not in your hands.

Does the admission process in your university require to find a potential advisor before applying?

@RoboKaren I wouldn't take that as students wanting to hear no. I feel that your comment was a bit snarky. In any case, you would be surprised by the number of students who actually don't have the money to apply to many schools. Is it fair of us to ask whether or not it would be a waste of money to apply? Yes, yes it is.

@ChrisCirefice -  I didn't mean to sound snarky. I was serious. Even if I know a student doesn't have a serious chance, I don't want to be discouraging - especially when I don't know them well. I've been worrying about hurting their feelings, but knowing that finances are a concern helps mitigate that concern.

@RoboKaren I get that, but it sounded like you were discriminating students based on their financial situation, using it as a sort of excuse to dismiss them. "Oh, you're a decent applicant but if you're concerned about money don't bother because you have only a slight chance of being accepted"; that's kinda what I heard, but I get that that wasn't your intention :)

@ChrisCirefice - Faculty have no way of telling if a grad prospie is a trust-fund-baby or is on Medical. We don't get their financial aid documents - in all the programs I've been on, we've been need-blind.

@RoboKaren Ah, that makes sense. Changes thins a little bit doesn't it?

You give one of the two possible answers:

No, I am not taking on doctoral students.
Yes, I am interested in taking on doctoral students but who actually gets a place is decided by the admissions committee, not by me.

+1: As per tonsydg's comment, I think this would have been the most useful set of answers for me.

Agreed - I think there's an important distinction to draw between the professor taking graduate students and the department taking graduate students. In departments I've experienced, it's definitely been a two-stage process. First you get accepted to the graduate program, and then (after rotations) you get accepted to a particular lab/adviser. So there's certainly a place to say "I am taking students, but you'll have to get accepted by the department first."

I explain that admissions decisions are made by committee and encourage the student to apply.  No matter how strong or weak the prospective student is, the decision is not mine to make.

As to whether or not I'll agree to advise a particular student, I'll make that decision after I've interacted with the student in person.

In my department, no PhD student is admitted without at least one faculty member declaring their willingness in principle to advise the student.  That isn't a permanent advising commitment, but rather insurance against strong students being admitted and then never finding anyone to work with because their interests don't match the faculty's interests.

I answer truthfully either "yes" or "no". Whether or not I am taking students cannot affect whether applicants are accepted, but it can affect whether or not they choose to attend my institution; so I feel it's important to be honest.


text:
Is verbatim copying several paragraphs of text with citation considered plagiarism?
Is it plagiarism if I copy several paragraphs from another's source (let's say a CS paper) into my work and then footnote Source: ..., for example, as background information?

As others have pointed out, it's not clear why you need to copy several paragraphs from a paper into your work. Is it background motivation, or a proof, or a long argument chain, or.... ?

Don't. Just don't.

@Suresh As a way to save time when giving background information.

I don't think that's a reasonable argument for copying large swathes of material.

@JeffE Is it distasteful? illegal?

@SimonKuang you don't need to include that much background information in academic papers. If you are writing a textbook, you should explain it independently.

So long as it is obvious that it is another's work then it is not plagarism. However, depending on the amount copied and a lot of other factors, it may be a copyright violation, and it may break other rules of your school/journal/whatever. Or simply be marked down by your examiners/reviewers, unless there's a good reason for such extensive quotation.

+1 A cited large block quote may generally not be plagiarism, but often it will still not be appreciated at all by teachers or reviewers (for different reasons).

@xLeitix The classic absurd example of copying an entire other paper and quoting it is not plagarism. But it will get you zero credit..

I would be surprised if this caused a copyright issue, as I think this would almost always fall under fair use. The shortest example I know of a quote for which a court rejected fair use as it was "too substantial" was from Ford's biography, and that was over 600 words.

@alex becker  : you're being US-centric. :-) But also, while I don't know much about fair use, I imagine it may depend not just in the length but the purpose & context of the quoting? Hence the "lot of other factors" that I mentioned.

@SimonW Indeed I am being US-centric! That's my fault for forgetting not everyone lives here. In response to purpose and context: I'm assuming that OP would be quoting the result in a research article, which pretty much automatically meats all the criteria of US fair use except "too substantial".

@alex becker ah, right. Sounds like a generous provision. Allow me to envy just that little component of your copyright system ;-)

@SimonW Fair use is indeed one of the best aspect of US copyright law. However, I am not a lawyer and my remarks should of course be taken with a grain of salt.

The original author owns two things:

the ideas in their work, and
the language they used to convey those ideas.

Plagiarism occurs when you use either without proper attribution.  If you paraphrase another author's ideas in your own words (i.e., use #1 only) then you need a citation.  If you copy verbatim another author's words (i.e., use #1 and #2) then you need to put the copied text in quotes and include a citation.
Generally if you are quoting the original author's language then the way that the author communicated their ideas is part of the argument you are making in your article.  If this is not the case then it is better to paraphrase, since your reader will be expecting some discussion of the original author's language and changes in tone can be distracting to the reader.
In your specific case, it sounds like paraphrasing would be more appropriate.

Another thing to consider, even if you correctly quote and cite the source, it may still be considered a form of plagiarism if
1) A signification portion of the paper is made up of quotes (especially 1 quote).
2) There is no original research presented in the paper.
3) If the quote itself provides significant argument towards your point, and you fail to add your own supporting arguments.

I would not call it plagiarism in that case, since there is no intention to deceive (just a very poor quality paper and a possible copyright violation).

I agree with @Peter.  Merriam-Webster defines plagiarism as "to use the words or ideas of another person as if they were your own words or ideas."  Clearly, if someone correctly quotes and cites the source, anyone considering this any form of plagiarism is redefining the word.

Copying verbatim a paragraph or more of research is considered plagiarism. When more than two words in a row are used from the source that is considered plagiarism. It probably would be better to change it up by extensively paraphrasing through synonyms, etc.

The "more than two words in a row" rule is a myth.  And paraphrasing does not cure plagiarism; a citation is still required to acknowledge the source of the ideas.

source: Stack Exchange

license: 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/

sort: votes


text:
Is starting with the abstract and conclusion an efficient reading approach for writing a literature review?
I'm writing a literature review at the moment. I have many many papers to read and I don't have that much time (just one month).
What I do is reading the abstract and then the conclusion and from the conclusion I see what were the key findings and then look them up in the paper and see some details.
Is that good way or should I read them cover to cover?

It is different question.

The essence of that question (depth vs. breadth) is the same as this one (skim vs cover-to-cover). Additionally, the two top answers at the linked question answer this questions also. The added context of writing a lit. review is not enough to make this question distinct.

A question about strategies to write lit. reviews in short time periods would be a different question, and might provide answers closer to what the OP wants.

Your strategy sounds sound to me. You cannot read the papers from end to end. You need to weed out they papers you will possibly need in your review with as little effort as possible. Title and abstract should be enough. Once you have done this you should be left with a bunch of papers that are likely to be of use to you. While you have looked through them you must also consider how the material can be organized. There are many ways of doing this, chronological order (boring), thematic order (are there subfields?), contradictions (are there compeeting ideas) etc. The point is to try to get the information organized. You need some form of organization fo the papers so that you know how you will treat them in your review.
Once you have found all papers you think you need you can start assembling the information into your text. It is at this point you can start reading them in more detail. It is still not necessary to read every detail. you need to focus on the background to the different conclusions drawn.
The goal of the review should be to provide a new perspective on the field you have chosen so your own familiarity with the field (papers) is key. Try to collect as many as you can; not all will be used.

I fill the following template for each article I read. Some of them I fill only partially at first, to potentially come back later if I interested  in spending more time. I found that noting the plan was taking little time and helping enough to be worth doing during the first read.
**** Reference for Humans
**** Abstract
**** Bibtex
     #+BEGIN_SRC bibtex

     #+END_SRC
**** Index Terms
**** Plan
**** Definitions
**** Results
**** Algorithms
**** Questions
**** Summaries
***** By Authors
***** By me
**** My Notes

Hope it helps!

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


text:
Is copying paragraph structure plagarism?
While helping a friend with a research assignment (basically find some studies on a topic, compare them, and then evaluate the work as a whole), I noticed that the professor had provided a sample paper.
They had one paragraph for every study, and they were all in the same exact format. For example:

[Authors] conducted a [type of study] to investigate [phenomena]. The
  study was conducted at [institution] and involved [N] [types of
  people]. The strengths of this study were [...] etc.

Is it plagiarism to copy this exact format? Or is the structure of paragraphs not something to worry about?

I would ask the professor.  Using the format might be mandatory, or it might be a bad example.

I usually study the structure of papers before trying to write them when working with different people/fields/subfields. Easier for someone to work with you if you match their style. I really believe it to be a good idea. However, I, personally, don't really like that specific formula you described, rather bland, but if it is common in the field use it, because it will ease the understanding of your content for readers/reviewers.

It's not "plagiarism" because you are copying a standard format. That is known as scenes a faire in fiction, but can apply to Academia. This is not only allowed, but encouraged, because you are conforming to a "formula."
You should be worried if you were copying an unusual or original format. That's not the case here.

Why not have an introductory paragraph that says the format of the summaries is taken from the example paper.
This intro could also say what papers where chosen and why.

I am not sure of the question exactly, but there are "standards" for writing academic papers.
This is the standard way of reporting studies, but use the primary source rather than the secondary source.


text:
How to remove gender bias from an academic job search?
I overheard some professors discussing the next round of hiring at my university and several were concerned about gender bias possibly playing an issue in the hiring process.  An initial thought is to just go through CV's and black out an applicant's name.  However, an academic job search makes it much more difficult to do this.  Not only do applicants have CV's, but there are also typically 3 letters of recommendations as well as publication lists (which might reveal the identity of an individual if the paper is known by some of the hiring panel).
Some suggestions that were thrown out involve trying to find a way to scan through 2-300 applicant materials and black out/replace gender pronouns and names.  From browsing StackOverflow, there is apparently quite a bit of difficulty with this from a programming perspective.  Still, it seems the most efficient way to remove as much gender bias as possible in the process but doesn't seem to be widely used.

What are some of the best ways a hiring panel can remove gender bias from the application process?

This question could also potentially extend to ways to generally remove other forms of bias, such as ethnic bias.

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

Bias exists at many points of the hiring process. You suggested blinding the search committee to applicant gender but, as you point out, this is extremely difficult to do perfectly and completely broken by even small failures. For obvious reasons, blinding will also not be particularly relevant after you start interviewing candidates. I like the other suggestions to provide training to sensitize the committee to issues of gender bias.
Beyond that — and if your university policies allow it — you might also decide now (i.e., before the search) to interview at least one male and at least one female candidate. This way, you will give the best male and female candidates a full chance to convince you that they are right for your department. This ensures that at the top person of each gender makes it through the earlier stages of the process where gender bias may very well play its biggest role. At the interview stage, blinding would not have worked anyway.
This kind of policy is unusual but not unheard of. The most famous example I know if is the Rooney Rule in the US National Football League which requires that all teams interview minority candidates for head coaching and senior football operation jobs. Although this is sometimes cited as an example of affirmative action, it does not mandate any preference or quota to candidates within the pool of those being interviewed. If you're doing it right, it does mean that the very best candidates from under-represented groups will always have an opportunity to show their stuff at the final round.
If you found out that  best person from the under-represented groups is really not as good as the best person from the over-represented group, at least you'll know that you gave the best member from each group a full hearing.
Update: I will point out that this answer basically assumes that all of your candidates will present as either male or female. As a result, is it very limited in the case of non-gender conforming candidates. These candidates may also be subject to even greater discrimination and this approach will not solve (and could even aggravate) those problems.

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

One simple and extremely effective step is to start tracking metrics on the candidate pool at every stage of the process.
Let's say you're looking at how your department hires assistant professors.  Then you might track:

What percentage of Ph.D. holders in the field are women?
What percentage of the applications you receive are from women?
What percentage of the short-listed candidates are women?
What percentage of the interviewed candidates are women?
What percentage of the offers made are to women?
What percentage of the accepted offers are taken by women?
What percentage of the professors who advance toward tenure are women?

Now you've got actual data on what your pipeline looks like and can look for where the leaks are.  If the fraction of females in the pool changes significantly at any particular stage, then that's where to focus your energy.  Likewise, if the base fraction in the field is lower than you want in your institution, you can use your metrics to decide where to try to enrich the pool with good candidates. Obviously, the same approach can be applied for other disadvantaged groups as well.
I personally think this type of approach is a critical addition to the toolbox of addressing bias, because it lets you scientifically study your institution's process.  You may discover things that surprise you.  For example, the colleagues who I learned about this from discovered that the later stages of the hiring pipeline they were dealing with were actually OK, but that the percentage of women applying in the first place was much lower than the percentage of women in the field.  That meant (to everybody's surprise) that the problem was primarily in the way that positions were being advertised and recruited for, rather than in the interviews themselves, and so
that was the process that fixes were targeted at.

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

I think there are two approaches. The approach your question focuses on is blinding of the panel to the gender of the applicant. Doing this, may actually increase gender bias.  By blinding the search panel to the gender of the applicant, it becomes very difficult for things like maternity leave to be taken into consideration.  The better way to remove, or limit gender bias, is to provide training to the search panel about gender bias in academia and help them become aware of any biases they might have.

No, but if maternity leave is mentioned/implied anywhere,  gender becomes explicit, doesn't it. How are they still blinded then? Rest of the answer, I agree. :)

@New_new_newbie that is my point. In order to blind the panel to gender you need to strip out things like maternity leave.

I am curious about how maternity leave would be visible in such an application. There is certainly no way to see it in the various applications I have sent (and I am not sure what sort of thing I could logically add that would make it visible).

If there is a one-year gap in your academic work, I suppose somebody might infer maternity leave from it.

@TobiasKildetoft If you took maternity leave and that resulted in a funding, publication, or employment gap you would probably be well served mentioning it in your cover letters and having your letter writers mention it. If there was no gap, then you might be better off leaving it out because of the biases in the system.

@Joe Z.: And if you are of any gender and just spent a year at the beach, then you might benefit unfairly from such a presumption.

I was thinking that you wouldn't want the committee thinking about future maternity leave, not maternity leave that has already happened and might have impacted research/degree progress.

A way to implement gender neutral CVs for the first round of selection would be to ask applicants to give a preliminary gender neutral file along their full application. This short CV would be asked to contain only information that does not permit to guess the gender of the applicants, at least not easily (e.g. publication lists with names replaced by the number of author and the position of the applications, etc.)
This can only be used to a very first round of selection, and letters of recommandation would have to be only used in the subsequent round, or the recommandants should be asked to make them gender neutral and without the name of the applicant.

How would you handle a publication gap due to maternity leave with this system?

@StrongBad: well, you could allow the possibility to mention maternity and health problem related leaves, with enabling to discriminate between the two kinds. In any case, this answer is not a complete answer to the question, but a mere way to by pass the computational issue of neutralizing CVs. It obviously has the same flaws as the method suggested in the question, except that it is doable.

@Physics-Compute the difference between acceptable or not is in fact the consequences are different. For example, in my field there are new investigator grants that have limits on the number of post phd years, but acceptable gaps, like maternity leave, do not count.

As a former programmer, I can confirm that it would be quite difficult to do this purely in a programmatic way.  Take my name, for example.  From my name, you can probably guess that I am male.  If you had a computer program looking at my resume, how would you remove the word "Evan"?  Keep in mind that it's easy for a human to know that that's my name, but difficult for a computer to know.  Computers are very fast, but also dumb - they'll do exactly what you tell them to do, no more, and no less.  Sometimes this is problematical with programming when whet you're telling them isn't what you think you're telling them, but that's another discussion entirely.
If you want a truly blind resume / cover letter / letter of recommendation review, you'd need either a manual approach needing humans who aren't involved with the hiring committee and won't report what they saw to black out the names and the pronouns used in all of these documents.  Ideally, they'd be retyped with gender neutral terms such as "that person" instead of "he / she", so you won't have someone trying to squint under a blacked out ink trying to read it.  People are curious - it'll happen if you let them.
There's also a hybrid approach: use computers do to the easy part, and people do the hard part.  The easy part would be getting rid of all the he / she / him / her words in documents and replacing them with a gender neutral word / phrase of your choosing.  The hard part would be doing the same thing with names.
The reason this is hard for computer is simple: how does the computer program doing the parsing know that what it's seeing is a name?  It doesn't, unless you have some way of telling it.  In an ideal world, word documents or PDFs would have metadata with a  field clearly identifying that this is a name, but I doubt such a feature exists - at least in Word.  PDFs probably do support this, but again, whether or not Adobe Acrobat supports this isn't the issue, but rather the issue is whether or not the appropriate metadata is embedded in the document.


text:
How to send a follow up email for postdoc position
I passed the interview for a postdoc position some weeks ago, and the department asked me for various documents so they could begin the mandatory background/references check. I sent in the files pretty quickly (~2 weeks ago), but did not receive any confirmation that they got my email, or any kind of follow up. My references also did not get a call. I assume the international background check part is what's taking so long, since I am very sure that my documents must have been in order (I was very careful in preparing them).
However, I need to decide between this offer and another one this week, and in order to make this decision, I need to see the details of the actual offer they will have for me. I already negotiated a starting date and some other things with the administration, but I'll need to see the proposed contract to be able to compare to the other one. How do I politely ask for an update without annoying anyone or sounding pushy?

Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.

If you want information you need to ask. It isn't being pushy unless you do it constantly/frequently.
Ask for an update. Are there missing documents? Are all necessary sign-offs in place? Is there anything I can help with? When might I expect to see a formal offer?
But, there is little to be gained unless you have other options or need certain information in order to make necessary decisions. If it is nothing more than reassurance you seek, then you can probably wait.

Thank you for your reply! Yeah, I wouldn't usually ask just for reassurance, but since my other offer expires at the end of this week, I need some kind of guarantee from them (the lack of a formal offer of course also means that I cannot yet be 100% sure that I can fall back on this job, so there is  a bit too much uncertainty for me right now).

"I need to see the details of the actual offer they will have for me."
No you don't. The contract as a postdoc is almost standard, it is also so short in time (how long do you plan to be a postdoc?) that the average postdoc wage in country X, which can be translated as "enjoying life in country X", will be always enough.
When accepting a postdoc position, think about planning the next step, because it is the most enjoyable moment in a researcher life, but it is also extremely short.

To be honest, I do, because this is not a standard postdoc offer, and has some conditions I need to see. I do not sign contracts I don’t know, and I do not reject other offers based on what I assume to be true. Weighing one against the other is impossible for me right now.

Ok, then please consider that it will not be the professor (or your future boss) that will decide on these non-standard conditions, because they are bound by their internal rules as well, so you have not to worry in being pushy, just contact/stalk HR because the issue is in their hands and not in the hands of your future boss.

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


text:
Should you list acceptance of an abstract to a prestigious conference on CV when unable to attend due to personal reasons?
I've been just had an abstract accepted to one of the top conferences in my field, but I'm cancelling my participation for personal reasons (short story: my wife is going to give birth to our first child a couple of weeks before the conference, and at that point I'd rather stay at home than spend several days in a different continent; this happened because I neglected to check the actual conference dates when I submitted the abstract; let that be a lesson for all of us). When I informed the organizers, they suggested that I still should add the conference to my CV, with an indication that I didn't actually present, i.e., under "Peer-reviewed conferences", I would write something like:

"A genius solution to an insanely difficult problem". Conference Everybody Wants To Attend XXIV, May 2014, Prestigious American University (unable to present).

What are your thoughts about this? If the organizers hadn't said anything, I would have left it out of my CV; but then, the particular organizer I corresponded with is a big name in the field and way more senior than I am, and she didn't seem to have any problems with it.

Is this a conference in a field like computer science, where conference publication counts, or a conference in a field like mathematics, where it doesn't ?

The custom in this field is that a talk and its corresponding proceedings paper get listed independently of each other (one as a talk, the other as a publication), but abstracts don't get listed as publications at all. That's why, if I list this one item, I have to list it under "peer-reviewed talks".

Is it an option to have a colleague present the paper for you? I mean, part of the 'deal' of the conference is that the attendees get to hear the details of your genius solution to an insanely difficult problem.

As it is a peer-reviewed conference, I think it is OK to mention it the CV.
I am not sure about your particular conference, but in such conferences the biggest step is to get accepted (extended abstract/paper) and you did. So you did the job, they liked your idea and in normal situation you would present there.
It can happen that you are not able to present and you cannot find anyone to do it for you. However, you met all the requirements to be there, so it has its place in your CV.
If you want to be more correct you can mention the abstract as well because not everybody can know if the abstract or whole paper is required.

"A genius solution to an insanely difficult problem". Conference
  Everybody Wants To Attend XXIV, May 2014, Prestigious American
  University (accepted abstract, unable to present)

I am not sure that it is a good idea.  Firstly, it draws attention to your lack of preparation (however understandable). Secondly, it was never presented (however acceptable the organisers found it), and Thirdly, you did not even attend.  It is meritable that you succeeded in getting accepted (& should re-direct the paper to another similar conference), by your CV shows 'where you have been & what you have done', & you did not complete the journey.... do you want to draw attention to this? You should treat being accepted as a personal success, but adding a caveat to something that was never presented is (IMO) not recommended. Your CV mentions actual activities and formal achievements, and although being accepted is an achievement in itself, it is taking part & delivering the information to others that is of note.  I would leave it off & submit the good work you have done elsewhere.


text:
How to get letter of recommendation from current advisor if transferring PhD to another university for family reasons?
I've been in engineering PhD for 6 months and now considering transferring to another university. The reason is not academic, but family -- I'm in a long distance relationship with my boyfriend. We're both serious about this relationship and plan to get married. However if I keep doing my PhD in my current university, we'll be separated for many years
I am considering transferring my PhD to university closer to him. My questions are:

Should I contact the potential future advisor first before telling my boss I'm leaving?
When should I talk to current advisor and how (focus on my family reason?)
Is it possible to get his letter of recommendation, or I'll screw up this relationship entirely?
will it possible to transfer to an university better than my current one? (honestly getting to a higher place is not my purpose, believe or not, but around my BF's place are almost all very good universities (1 tier higher than my current one), which actually refused me when I applied them last time. So I'm very concerned if I could be able to enter them now)

One thing that comfort me is that because I work hard, my current advisor seems have good impression on me. But I don't know whether this will help. If anyone have any ideas, would you share your suggestion?

I am in the exact situation as you, see the other question I asked. The problem I have is that I am currently doing research on exactly what I want, and I am afraid that transferring to another program I will be more of a compromise on research but I will be closer to home. A big dilemma.

@user4050 Thanks for your comment. Yes I saw your question as well. It's always better morally to be telling the truth at the first place. Actually it will be easier as well. However, I'm really not sure whether this will work out. It's a big thing anyway.

No, only after talking with your advisor.  2. Now! 3. Yes. (If it screws up your relationship, good riddance.) 4. Maaaaybe.

Yes, your advisor should be understanding.  If a student I was working with wanted to leave, I would definitely try to help them.  If your advisor holds this against you, maybe it's good you found out only 6 months in?

@JeffE  Thank you for sharing your experience. I decide to talk to my advisor first.

@LevReyzin You're right. I'm now assembling my thoughts, and plan to talk to him in one or two weeks. Hope we can cooperatively make things work.

I did this. I moved to a higher-tier department that had previously rejected me, after two years in my first PhD program, to be close to my SO.  My former advisor and the other faculty in my research area were nothing but helpful and understanding.
The sooner you talk to your current advisor the better. The last thing you want to happen, no matter how friendly and understanding your advisor, is for someone to ask him "So why is Jae leaving?" before he knows you're thinking of leaving.
Be honest and direct.  Keep in mind that you are asking for help—which is your advisor's job—not for permission to leave.  Try to bring your advisor in as a collaborator in your move.  Reassure him that you will finish whatever tasks are still on your plate, and that you are willing to help choose, train, and/or mentor your replacement if his thinks that would be appropriate.  (Follow through.) Try to leave doors open for future collaboration, either through visits or remotely.
Finally, ask for a strong letter of recommendation, and for suggestions for potential advisors to contact.  Since your target schools have already rejected you, you need strong evidence of excellence beyond your undergraduate record.  Your current advisor is the strongest source of that evidence; people will take his letter very seriously.  Conversely, not having a letter from your current advisor will raise a red flag.
Finally, if you can pick up a master's degree before you leave, that will raise fewer eyebrows when people look at your CV in the future.

Thank you for sharing your story! I've had an master before starting this PhD. I asked my master's advisor for advice, and he gave the same suggestion as you gave. It could be hard, but I'm feeling much better now. Hope all the best with you!

If your advisor is generally an emotionally sane person, he should be able to understand your position. If your advisor is not, you're better off finding out as early as possible, and then to run.
That said, the right time to talk to your supervisor is right now, for two primary reasons:

As you're working in a lab, it is quite likely that your supervisor would want to hire a replacement for you, which takes time.
Your supervisor may have contacts to the relevant universities, and be able to help you moving.

When it comes to what to talk about, there are two important aspects besides your wish to be closer to your family:

You'll want to reassure him that you are not leaving unfinished things around. Wrap up your experiments as far as possible before you leave, and be available to work on manuscripts after you're gone, too.
Do you plan to take your thesis topic with you? If so, you probably should discuss intellectual ownership with your advisor. Even if you feel it was your idea, he may disagree.

Finally, is there any risk that your current lab has some "secret techniques" that you'd "hand over" to the competition? If so, try to address potential concerns.

Thank you so much!! Very helpful. To add some details of my situation: 1) I just started to shape my thesis topic, and am now in a transition period that a graduating student is tranfering some of his skills to me. Besides, I'm not live on RA yet, still on program fellowship. So yes I hope to make it happen before I get more involved into the program, and before my boss pays me. 2) I'm not planning to bring my thesis topic with me, and as you suggested, I should make it clear I won't disclose intellectual property of the lab.

One thing troubling me at this moment, is, shall I go to talk to him right away without searching or contacting for potential supervisor in other university, or shall I get in touch with other faculty first? The latter seems not respectful to him, but I'm afraid I'll screw the relationship and have to leave the lab without any plan B. Painful.

Academia is a very small world. If you do ask around for advisors elsewhere, there is a decent chance that your current advisor hears about - and even generally reasonable people could react cross if they hear from a third party that their PhD student is searching for a new advisor. Judging from your addition, it seems that your advisor hasn't invested too much into you, so I don't think you have much reason to fear. I do assume here that your advisor is say well-known for choleric outbursts or other emotional instability. All the best for your efforts!

Thank you! You're right. maybe I should trust more my advisor. I should be more optimistic about my luck as I always meet good people.


text:
Do advisors allow their postdocs to pursue projects outside the advisor's core interests?
I would like to work with a professor in my field as a postdoc after I complete my PhD in Computer Science later this year, who has a remarkable record of supervising PhD students to become faculty at research universities. If I get hired, is he going to oversee me to pursue my most interested project, which is in a different subfield from what he is working on currently, or to carry out his projects? If the former, Why would he hire me as a postdoc then? Just train me to be an independent research even though it may not advance his projects directly?

Related: Should postdocs work only on the projects they are hired for, or can they work with other people in the same research group on other projects?, Collaborating with professors other than the advisor, What is expected of a postdoc?

This is one of those questions that simply cannot be answered in generality. Sometimes, one hires a postdoc to do exactly this one thing that needs to be done. In that case, it will be rather difficult to spend too much time on your own projects. In other cases, one hires a postdoc simply because the funding is there, without a very specific research goal in mind. In these cases, working mostly on your own things may be fine with the professor.
I advise you to clarify with your potential employer. (however, be prepared that he or she might upsell the actual level of individual research that you will be able to do - maybe it is a good idea to also chat with other postdocs in the same group)

If the former, Why would he hire me as a postdoc then? Just train me to be an independent research even though it may not advance his projects directly?

There is actually good reasons to hire postdocs that are not exactly in your field. They open up new research directions for your lab. They allow you to publish papers that you couldn't have written on your own. They strengthen the teaching portfolio of your lab, at least if postdocs routinely teach. All in all, your lab then has expertise in an area that it did not have expertise in before.
I, for instance, traditionally work on topic A. Recently I moved to a research group that is very strong in the quite different topic B. The motivation of the lab head there was simple - he participated in a project on the intersection of A and B. He knows how to do B, he needed somebody that knows how to do A. Our (informal) deal is that I am to spend some amount of time (less than 50%, realistically) on the joint project, the rest of the time I am to teach and develop my own research agenda within our lab - which conveniently is also in the intersection of A and B, although a somewhat different direction than the joint project. I think that this setup is actually quite beneficial, both to our lab and me personally.
Edit: a word of caution, though - I have also seen professors who are not in favor of independent research within their lab at all. So don't assume that because it seems to work for me, it definitely will work for you as well. People differ.


text:
How to get an advisor to finish their part of a publication when they have not done anything on it for over a year?
I graduated from a reputed North American university with a master's degree in 2013. Due to severe personal problems (deaths/illness in the family, war-torn homeland, divorce, financial issues, and so on), it would be fair to say that I did not perform well. My thesis had a critical error which was duly pointed out during my defense by my examiner. My advisor had not noticed it before. I managed to pass but with major corrections to the thesis.
While I was waiting for the situation in my home country to settle down, we improved the results significantly. We wrote much of a paper with the agreement that we would correspond over email when I go back home to finish it and send it for publication.
This was a year and a half ago. I am back home and I have been trying to get her to finish writing her part but to no avail. Once every couple of months she responds with "I need more time" but that's about it. It would be a huge help in my career to have a paper published. But I am paranoid about being rude to her and keep nagging her because I need her reference if and when I decide to apply for a PhD later. Also I believe she's a genuinely a nice person! So my questions are,

Is a year and a half a normal amount of time to write on a paper in
which the research is finished?
How do I politely convince her to hurry up?

She is taking too long. Attempt to write her portion of the manuscript for her, then send it to her for review.

@user11192: I did. She says, "it needs improvement and I need more time to fix it"

Ugh, how frustrating!

Is a year and a half a normal amount of time to write on a paper in which the research is finished?

No, this paper should've been finished a year ago.
The research is done, so you are not waiting for something else to fall into place for your paper. You already tried writing your former advisor's portion of the manuscript to no avail. Your former advisor did not even catch a critical flaw in your thesis. I hate to say it, but it sounds like your former advisor is quite a bozo.

How do I politely convince her to hurry up?

If you've not already done so, send your former advisor your "final" draft of the manuscript (including the parts you wrote for her). Give her a timeline for returning suggestions/modifications to you. If that doesn't work, you might have to get on the phone and talk to her about how important it is for you to submit this paper. If this fails, you may need to move on, and hope that at some point in the next year or two that she finally matures enough to help you out.

In reference to the second point, it would help if you could give her an external reason for speeding things up. You need to publish the paper for a job application, or at least submit it, and so on... Sometimes that can act as a forcing function: academics work best on deadline.

Thank you for your response. @Suresh: I do need the paper submitted to help a job application and I told her that. I did not write the whole story in the question as it started to seem like a rant. I will try calling her (again).

One bit of further advice then is to give her specific tasks ("edit section 1") and a deadline "by friday or else I'll edit it myself", and so on.

Thanks again for your responses. Keeping my fingers crossed

I guess your advisor is not really "procrastinating", just not working on your paper for one reason or another. She may very well be working on other things.
Now, of course the interesting question is why she is ignoring the work on your paper. Some potential reasons that come to mind:

She simply is swamped with teaching or administrative matters
The paper is outside of her research interest
The paper is still too much work
She thinks that the results of the paper are not very strong, and she honestly does not give the paper good chances of acceptance / impact

You say she is a "genuinely nice" person. In my experience, all too often this also implies some avoidance of confrontation (I am certainly guilty of that), which makes the third and the fourth reason more likely. Yes, in theory she should simply tell you when she thinks that material is too weak or the current draft too bad, but for her the "easier" out might be to ignore the paper, especially since you are far away.
Edit: the fact that your advisor apparently did not even read / check your thesis carefully (and missed a critical flaw) rather indicates the second reason.
As for what you should do I agree with user11192 - after such a long time, it is time to essentially give up on getting her to do "her part". Write it for her, and send it to her only for review. Since it has become abundantly clear that the paper is not a priority for her right now (for whatever reason), you can either do it alone or not do it at all. You have no leverage over your old advisor to get her to do her part, especially if you are afraid of burning any bridges.

Thank you for your response. I totally agree with the part about having no leverage over my old advisor. The helplessness is killing me!

But there is help. Do it yourself!


text:
Should I offer to pay (some of) the travel cost from the UK to the US for an interview?
I'm applying for tenure track jobs this year, and unfortunately the silence from universities I've applied to has been almost deafening so far. While I'm sure there are several factors contributing to this, one concern that has been nagging me comes from the fact that I am currently finishing up a postdoc in England, and I've been applying to North American institutions exclusively. My questions are:

Would the potentially high cost of flying me to an interview lead to some institutions passing me over?
If so, would it help if I offer in the cover letter to (at least partially) pay my way?

I am concerned because I feel that by far my best chances are for positions at smaller liberal arts schools or state colleges. My guess is that these types of institutions may have smaller search budgets than so-called R1 universities, and really for the cost of interviewing me they could interview two or three equally qualified people who live nearby.
At the risk of making this question too localized, I should mention that I am working under a very generous grant with a substantial research expense budget, and so the cost wouldn't necessarily be out of my own pocket, assuming I can give a research talk at the interview.

I don't know what field you are in, but isn't it still too early to be hearing back about faculty job interviews?

Related: How do U.S. research institutions typically reimburse a faculty candidate's airfare costs for multi-city trips?

@SashoNikolov I'm in math. It's closer to the midway point of jobs season. I think most TT job deadlines have passed, and a substantial portion of jobs with deadlines not more than 6 or 7 weeks ago (some just 2 weeks ago) have already scheduled interviews, a few even having already made offers. Moreover, many smaller teaching focused schools hold preliminary interviews at a big national meeting only a few weeks away and so I'm sure most have made their invitations for those already. Anyways, when it comes to my question, the earlier that I figure out what to do about it, the better.

Wouldn't they just say "you're invited, but we can only pay your fares inside the US." or "we cannot reimburse travel expenses extending 200$" ?

Would the potentially high cost of flying me to an interview lead to some institutions passing me over?

I believe many universities, especially smaller universities, will balk at flying overseas candidates in for interviews. Often they will move down their short lists and only if they are unable to find a suitable candidate that is higher than you on the list, will they be willing to fly you in. This isn't a huge disadvantage, but it is a disadvantage. In my experience candidates often hurt themselves during interviews and rarely perform so well they substantially move up in the rankings.

If so, would it help if I offer in the cover letter to (at least partially) pay my way?

I would not offer to pay for an interview directly. This would in essence be calling out the search committee for being cheap. A better strategy would be to mention in your cover letter that you will happen to be in the States, possibly even states/cities near by, on a couple of dates and you would be happy to extend your trip and come to them for a visit. It would be nice if you have an academic pretence for those visits (conference, seminar, or visiting colleagues), but even saying you will be in the States for personal reasons is fine. If you do not get an interview, you do not have to go to the States.

Thanks for at least confirming that my fear wasn't irrational and also giving me an option that I hadn't thought of.

This is a great analysis and a very creative and useful suggestion!

In practice it's great - ethically I'm not sure your first contact with a potential new employer should be you lying to them.

@LightnessRacesinOrbit One could say something like "I will be in the US from [date 1] through [date 2], in case you would like to invite me for an interview during that time" which could be considered as a conditional statement, although it is not conspicuously so.  (Or one could replace "in case" with "if".)  Then one can make sure the statement is true without having to make a pointless trip in the case that there is no invitation.

@Trevor: Heh, sneaky.

This surprises me, for long-term faculty positions - because the benefit of getting a better candidate over a 5/10/whatever-year timescale must be so very much greater than the cost of a couple of transatlantic fares. I don't doubt that it's true, though.

I have done lots of international interviews before with skype - it is quite common for university staff. I don't believe cost is a factor or that offering to contribute would help at all. They will set up a skype interview if they are interested in you.
A better suggestion might be to use your research budget to go to some US based conferences and present your work and meet some people. Perhaps stay an extra couple of days at each end. You might also arrange a research visit, where you go to a few relevant institutions to talk about collaborating on some project. That way you have the opportunity to make a good impression with some US based research groups, which is much more likely to land you an interview when they recognise your name among the applicants.

Skype interviews may be common for staff but I think they are very uncommon for tenure track faculty jobs. Faculty interviews take two full days with back to back meetings and an hour long colloquium. The candidate meets with a dozen or more people. Hardly the thing you can do over skype.

@SashoNikolov preliminary skype interviews are common in many fields. I agree though and have never heard of a field that makes TT hires without a campus visit.

We've done Skype interviews for our junior faculty on rare occasions (on one, the candidate was pregnant and couldn't fly). This is at a major R1.

A skype interview can be a prelude to a full on site interview. It's like phone screening on steroids and makes a lot of sense - but it would rarely be sufficient to land a TT job.


text:
Why would a tenure-track job posting ask for an undergraduate transcript?
Recently I came across a job posting for a (mathematics) tenure-track position that asks for both graduate and undergraduate transcripts to be submitted. While this is the first time I've had anyone ask to see my undergraduate transcript for such a position, from a previous question here, it appears to not quite be unheard of.
What I haven't seen addressed is the question of why, generally, would a hiring committee ask for undergraduate transcripts? Are they really going to judge my application based on an errant C in a course unrelated to my field, or do they simply want proof that I have the degree from University X that I claim to have obtained?
The reason for my question is that I am hoping to gain insight into any issues that might appear in my own transcript in order to address them in the cover letter.

I suspect they care more about which courses you took than about what your grades were (assuming they were generally passing)

Some universities reserve the right to retract awarded degrees (for example for academic misconduct discovered after the degree has been awarded).

I had to submit undergraduate and graduate transcripts to several schools each time I applied for jobs in mathematics. I believe the main reason is simply to allow the school to verify that you really have the credentials you claim.
There have been examples where faculty and administrators were caught claiming credentials that they did not possess, so schools are more cautious about such things now. The same is true for background checks - many schools now run a background check before they make an official job offer.
At my institution, when we have a mathematics job search we don't really look at the grades on the transcripts. The cover letter, reference letters, teaching statement, and research statement are scrutinized, but the transcripts just get a cursory glance to make sure the person has the right coursework (e.g. if we want to hire someone in a specific subfield, we might check that they have coursework in that subfield).

Even if you trust faculty credentials (since, for example, a letter from one's Ph.D. advisor is already pretty good verification), there's also the issue of staff.  The administration may be more worried about staff candidates lying about their degrees, but believe that it would insult the staff if all their degrees were carefully verified while faculty candidates were simply trusted.

A letter from one's "Ph.D. advisor" can be forged.  But so can a transcript.

This does not explain why unofficial transcripts are requested, or why they are requested at the initial screening step.

I think they ask for two main reasons:

Course requirements vary from university to university, and this will give them a good understanding of how well your formal education background aligns with what their own program offers.  i.e. did your core requirements match their own?  Will you have vastly different expectations of the students in their program from when you went to college?
It will also give them a good idea of what your GPA in your transcript really means. For example, if you took all advanced classes, and even dabbled in some upper-level courses in other subjects which were not required, your GPA may not be as high as someone who took all the easiest courses and very few advanced ones.  Also, some people have GPA's which are deceiving, i.e. they took many 'easy' classes in yoga and theater to even out C's in their major.  This makes their over-all GPA seem acceptable, but their GPA in their major is low.  This could be a red flag, for the hiring team, (not only is the candidate ill suited in this field, they are cunning)! This leads to point #2:
You may be expected to teach some of those courses/subjects you took in undergrad/grad school.  They need to know that you have taken similar courses before and that you received acceptable grades in them.  Usually a department already has a general idea of what courses they want the person in this position to teach.  They need to know if that will be a problem, i.e. if you got a C in every Calculus class you ever took, and they are specifically looking for someone to teach that, you may not fit the bill in that regards.  But, if they really like your other skills, they might just end up having you teach a different subject, such as complex analysis, etc.  I do not think it would immediately disqualify you as a candidate.

However, I would not be discouraged by a few low marks in your transcripts, if overall you have good ones that outweigh those.  Everyone has been through a time in their studies when they had a professor who they just could not learn from, or get a handle on their testing style... or had a semester when something personal interfered with their studies.  The most important point is to provide correct transcripts, and please know that the people reading them are human, are educators, and have seen it all already!  Personally, I do not think a person's transcripts will be the main factor in the decision making process.  But it is additional information that allows the job search committee to understand the candidate's educational background better.


text:
First Publication as a PhD student
I'm in the process of writing my first paper as a PhD student and was wondering if I could get some general advice regarding the following:

How many Journals to consider submitting a manuscript to and how much impact factor plays a role here. Some say aim high as possible.
How much time should I spend actually writing the paper? Do I continue working on other projects at the same time as writing the paper?
What other considerations should I keep in mind after submitting the manuscript? e.g. should I be writing up another manuscript for another journal-just in case?

I would be very grateful to hear about other people's experiences, etc with their first publication.
Of course,I've read a lot of things on the internet and I've spoken to my supervisors too but I believe you can never learn too much.
My project in the mathematical sciences with applications in biology/medicine.
Thanks.
EDIT: I found the following links very useful: one, two

Have you asked your advisor these questions?

May I suggest this is where your advisor should earn his/her pay? ;-)  Previous experience publishing in the same field should prove invaluable. Previous experience should also be important for your point #2. I certainly would continue on other things while waiting, but precisely what is his purview.

@ ALAN WARD & @scaaahu, Thanks for your comments-I've edited my post slightly. I have spoken to my supervisors but I just want to hear from the perspective of a PhD student as well as from other experienced researchers out there.

What do you mean by "how many" journals to consider?

@ Tobias Kildetoft-I meant how many journals would you consider submitting a manuscript to initially? Or do you just pick one and then submit your manuscript?

You are generally not allowed to submit it to more than one journal at a time (though this is field dependent)

@ Tobias Kildetofy-Thanks for that-I'm aware you can only submit to one at a time. I suppose the question I'm asking is how do you decide which one to submit to? How do you narrow things down? Is there a systematic way of searching for journals related to one's topic?

Take a look at this question, for instance: http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/18148/19607

@Kimball, thanks for much for that link-really helpful! I'll also link it with my post.

Dear student, you have your PhD advisor to sort this out. If he/she cannot help, seriously consider changing your advisor.

A Professor here.

In general, yes, aim as high as possible.  In practice, I do an educated guess as to which journal to send it to after seeing the final product/paper.  If the student is capable and motivated, then I would work with the student to get the paper into the best journal.
As much time as possible.  Papers only get better over time.   There are always avenues to improve it, technically or presentation wise.  This is where your supervisor's experience is critical.  Only he/she will be able to push your paper to the required standard and also steer you away from pitfalls.
Many directions here.  You could beef up the paper with new results, incorporate more assumptions or proof the general case :)  Alternatively, you can work on a new problem or a related problem. Problems tend to reveal themselves as you dig deeper.  All my students start on a new/related problem after they submit a paper.  They might choose to go on a holiday first though.

All the best ...

Thanks so much for your insight, I've learnt a lot from those few lines.


text:
Supply and Demand of Academic Research?
My question needs prefacing. I was thinking about an analogy between research and a macroeconomy.
In the macroeconomy, there's a supply of investment funds from households that ultimately goes toward firms' production of goods and services. Households then consume those goods and services, and judge the value added by those goods and services to their original investment. The cycle repeats. Government acts as a large "resource allocator" by investing some fraction of household investment funds at their own discretion, and the "outside world" likewise contributes to investment funds, consumes, and produces some of the goods and services.
It seems natural to extend this analogy to research funding and "consumption." The private industry produces research "investment" money that is then used by firms and government to fund research. That research is then "judged" for its viability by its spawned correspondence in the short term (forward citations) and the related goods and services ultimately produced in the long run. Some fraction of the value added by that research then goes back into investment funding that repeats the cycle.
An idea follows from this analogy. Just as there's a finite propensity to "consume" and a finite supply of investment funds, there's also a finite amount of productive research that can be performed and a finite supply of research funds. This seems to imply that, though the government can choose to throw more and more investment into any research field, there'll eventually come a point where there aren't enough labs that can draw up useful grants and then reasonably complete them for that investment. Research funding supply "shocks," such as government suddenly quadrupling fundamental research spending in renewables, may have a diminishing return issue.
I understand that there are several conflated classifications here (research vs. R&D) and that many segmentations exist for "research" that may behave differently (laboratories vs firms vs industries). But I'm only interested in the behavior of research grouped as a whole.
So my question is this: are there any analyses of research as a whole that treat it somewhat like a macroeconomy? Is there any value to such an analysis? And if not, why?

"Productive research" is in the eye of the beholder, and is generally not limited per se. A major outcome of research at universities is trained students who go on to do productive work for many entities. I'm not sure your analogy is particularly useful.

You're going to get incredibly biased answers from people on this subforum since their pay check basically revolves around them convincing others what they do has value.

Yes, there are such studies. Here is the result of one. The Economic Laws of Scientific Research by T. Kealey.
His basic thesis is that private firms must find out how to motivate researchers. Only part of this is money. It also includes many things that come under the heading "academic freedom." Freedom to publish, to exchange ideas with colleagues, to be or host a visiting speaker/lecturer, to go to some lab or archive or special site with special resources, etc. etc. etc.
If government takes money through taxes and gives it out, there are many downsides. The persons in government don't usually know what is "good" research. Their motivation is to stay in power rather than doing what is, in any sense, the best thing with the resources. Governing persons do what they calculate will keep them in power. Period. Because anybody who does not do so is soon not in power. Sometimes this results in good things. Usually, mostly always, it results in mediocre things at best, or horrors at worst.
In addition, operating the government funding agencies and tax machinery uses up a non-trivial portion of the total money. And applying for grants uses a non-trivial portion of the university people's time.
Consider a company such as an electronics firm. They want some research done, but don't want to buy a complete specialist lab as they only want it once. So they go to a university that has such a research program. And they must find a way to get those university people to agree to do the research for them. So they drop a stack of cash on the research lab. And another stack of cash on the university. And the only restriction is that the research be held back from publication just enough, and just long enough, so that the electronics firm can commercialize the results.
As to how the lab and the uni spend the money, they literally do not care. The lab can buy new equipment, pay post-doc salaries, buy journal subs, whatever they like. The university can use their cash any way they please. The money can stay in the same department as the research was done. Or go to overhead. Or be used to subsidize some other department that does not have corporate clients. Or be used to fix up the landscaping around campus, or whatever the uni decides.
The important thing is, the uni and the researchers get to decide how to spend the money. The electronics firm gets their research and goes away happy, not placing any restrictions on the  money. And once they have commercialized it, the researchers can usually publish the results, possibly withholding certain details such as detailed measurements required for the commercial process. And even those are usually available to researchers on a non-disclosure agreement basis.
The net result Kealey found was this. Private research funding winds up producing roughly 50% more money for the universities. And the restrictions on how they spend it are far less with private money. And research of every kind is funded more. Not just "practical" things like making better electronics. But abstract things such as philosophy, art theory, linguistics, etc.
What does it mean? It means that, by treating research as a human activity that needs to be negotiated for in the same way as any other good, service, or commodity, you wind up with more and better results. And so, university research can get on the slope of The Most Important Graph in the World. The application of freedom to human interaction results in exponential expansion of human knowledge. That in turn results in exponential expansion of every other measure of human well being. A free market for research is objectively a massively preferred choice.

The argument is appealing but incomplete: it assumes there is a lab just “waiting” for the next “Acme Electronics” to give them a contract.  It is the role of government agencies (not the government itself) to fund reseach with limited or no commercial benefit so that such a lab has the expertise and tools to fulfill the contract of Acme Electronics.  Grants  should be handed out $$ on the basis of expert opinion, but reality is often different not because governments are wasteful but because some researchers have (knowingly or not) agendas and so distort the optimal $$ allocation.

So you are under the impression that labs never existed before government agencies started funding them?  You're adorable.  Also, you think there is some good thing that comes from putting a layer of bureaucracy between the people with official power and the people under that power? You are even more adorable.

Simply pointing out that if you remove government funding there will might not be a lab to help Acme Electronics.  We both agree politicians should get out of the way of research once funds have been allocated.

The question is closed, so it's a fairly moot point. However, the entire point of the book I cited was that governments DECREASE the amount of research of all kinds. With private research funding the total funds are about 50% larger than with government, across the board for ALL kinds of research.  We do not "both agree" that governments should be involved in any part of the process.

we'll have to agree to disagree then.  Best!


text:
Whether to use Dr or Prof when addressing oneself in an email?
I feel awkward addressing myself as Dr. X or Prof X. I know that this is common practice (e.g. in emails, letters, etc..). In emails, I prefer to just use my initials or first name. Is this a common experience (i.e. not wanting to be addressed as Dr. or Professor)?

the only people who ever address me as "Dr. X" are undergraduates or spammers.

PhD comics has an analysis of the situation.

Use whatever you feel comfortable with.  That said, you should also tailor it to the type of correspondence when necessary.  A formal letter should include a formal address for yourself, and less formal can be more or less whatever you'd like.  In dealing with students, I generally sign school related emails as "Dr. G.," (with just the first letter of my last name) but I've also taught classes where I've gone by my first name exclusively, and let the students decide how to address me, after telling them it is fine with me if they use my first name.  More formal student correspondence (e.g., if I'm cc'ing another instructor, or if the matter involves the administration) gets my full last name, and correspondence to colleagues is almost always my first name.
I also have a signature block, that includes my title, full name, email address and (sometimes) my telephone number.

This answer describes exactly the way I handle this issue.

I've been using my initials as the "sign-off" for my emails as long as I've had my email account. The difference between a formal email and an informal one is whether or not I include the "name block" or if I leave it out, which greeting I use ("Dear Prof. X" or "Dear Y"), and which valediction I use ("Sincerely" versus "Thanks" or "Cheers" or the like).
Normally, I don't know many people who sign their full names to an email. For an official letter, however, your address should be your full name, unless you know the recipient well enough to be on a first name basis with them. (And even then you might still opt for the full name!)

Similarly, I go by my first name, except in formal/legal contexts and when signing correspondence to people who don't know me, and then I use my full name with no honorific (like "Dr." or "Prof.").  In particular, I introduce myself to students using my first name.  This informality is nearly universal in computer science, and not just in the US.

@JeffE: re universality: except for German speaking space (DE, AT, CH) and Central/Eastern Europe (eastwards from Germany) where the customs are much more formal.

@walkmanyi: No, not really.  In the four semesters I've spent at various German and Austrian CS departments, I mostly heard graduate students, administrative staff, and other faculty addressing professors by their first names.  (I didn't interact with undergraduates, so there might be a real difference with them.)

There's definitely a difference. I work in an institute with very relaxed standards, compared to the German norm, and undergraduates still call me "Professor."

@JeffE: Well, that's right, in an undergraduate student vs. a professor situation, titles are used, but not among colleagues, most of the time not even between PhD. student and a supervisor. But those same professors would use all their titles as a part of their name in their e-mail address and in their signature blobs, as well as in official non-academic communication (e.g., in correspondence with a city hall, or a tax office). It gets quickly pretty ridiculous especially when the person holds two doctorates, or such. It never goes without a question.

@JeffE: I think what you experienced in Germany/Austria was that PhD students call their supervisor by first name, which is indeed very common. However, notice that the system in the German speaking countries is quite different. A Doktorand-position is considered as your first academic "profession", since you get a reasonable salary and often you do not have to take courses anymore.  So your standing is a bit higher compared to the US system.

There seems to be two questions/issues here.
A lot of people I know do not use Dr/Prof/PhD when referring to themselves and in email signatures. I would say that this is quite common and perfectly acceptable.
The final statement you make is "not wanting to be addressed as Dr. or Professor." I think this is quite a bit rarer. I know a lot of people who tell students that they can call them by first name or Dr, or whatever they are comfortable with. I also know people who say "please call me by by first name". I don't know anyone who ever says "please don't call me Dr. or Professor." I would go so far as to say that demanding someone not use an honorific, or being offended when they do, is uncommon and not proper.

This answer is US-centric and based on my own experiences, so take it with a grain of salt.
"Professor" is a job title; "Doctor" is an academic title. Unless you're dealing with your students (in or outside of class), it's usually not necessary to refer yourself or to be referred to as "Prof. Lastname." It's common, at least in the United States, for anyone from grad students on up (and occasionally undergrads) to refer to each other by their first names, even over email.
A signature block is a good way to get around the issue; something like:
Dr. Firstname Lastname
Florple Professor of Theoretical Blorplonomics
Foobarbaz University, Room 12-345, (555)-123-4567

conveys your rank and title without having to worry about whether you should address yourself as Dr. Prof. X, Prof. X, Dr. X, etc. (In most situations, at least in science in the United States, being a professor implies that you have a doctorate, so the "Dr." above isn't necessary. The same line of thought about the email signature applies to doctors outside of academia, though.)
Personally, I generally just use my name, without any titles, except when (a) I'm in a formal or professional setting; (b) most of the people I'm around don't have similar titles; and (c) it matters professionally that I have such titles. Those situations don't occur very often.

I think that it depends on type of email or letter you are writing.
When you are writing an official email, it is better to use your initial as Dr., but when you are writing to a friend I prefer not to use Dr. or Prof.. However, It all depends on the person. Some people prefer to be called Professor Doctor Name Surname even by their close friends and some other are nicer and using their given name is sufficient for them.


text:
Is a journal that is on Beall's list but is also in Scopus a predatory journal?
I have seen a journal, in the Computer Science field, that is predatory according to the Beall list (sorry if its not well written), but I see that this journal appears indexed in Scopus and Scimago; so I was wondering how to determine if a journal is predatory or not?
For example, I know that even some journals from Elsevier or Springer charge different prices for publishing an accepted article, and according to some colleagues if a journal charges for publication then it could be a predatory one, but the aforementioned editorials charge also so to whom believe?
I was also wondering if the B list is also accurate, I am starting to have my doubts about it.

There's no one criterion or list that definitely marks a journal as "predatory" or not.  You should simply judge for yourself whether the articles it publishes are of good quality and worthy of publication.

if a journal charges for publication then it could be a predatory one your colleagues seem to have a sound approach to scientific publishing.

Indexing in Scopus does not necessarily mean that a journal is not predatory. From the guidelines for being indexed in Scopus:

-The Journal should consist of peer‐reviewed content
-The Journal should be published on a regular basis (have an ISSN number that has been
  registered with the International ISSN Centre)
-Content should be relevant and readable for an international audience (at minimum
  have references in Roman script and English language abstracts and article titles)
-The Journal should have a publication ethics and publication malpractice statement

These guidelines could potentially be satisfied by a journal that Beall's list considers predatory. Many pay-to-publish journals advertise "peer review", but it may not even be solicited/may not matter in the "decision" to accept the manuscript.
There also can be information on why the specific journal or publisher is considered predatory on https://scholarlyoa.com. I generally have high confidence in Beall's list--predatory journals do not have a great incentive to turn legitimate.


text:
How to know whether a visiting professor will charge the university to present a lecture to academic staff?
In the faculty that I am currently working on we have contacted a Professor who would be giving a workshop in my city. Because of that we have invited him for a meeting for discussing collaboration issues for making research in his area of expertise. Also he would be willing to give a lecture to the lecturers of our faculty about the current trends in his research area.
The question that I have is how to know if this lecturer will charge us for the lecture? It is in the field of Computer Science. If this is the case we need to make the necessary administrative paperwork to cover this expenses (my place of work is very bureaucratic by the way). This lecturer has not mentioned anything about charges so how we ask him nicely if he would charge anything for this meeting and lecture? also what would be the necessary arrangements that we should do in this case?

If there are any expenses then he is the person who responsible for informing you about. Since he did not mention anything about it then it's free. But you can write a direct email asking him if there will be any expenses! Don't be shy :)

The usual way is to state explicitly in your invitation which costs you are going to cover. For example:

Dear Professor X
I would hereby like to formally invite you to give a seminar talk at our university on a topic of your choice. We will of course provide you with a hotel for your stay as well as cover your airfare and all other reasonable travel expenses.
Sincerely,  Y

This way, it is clear to everyone what exactly you intend to pay for. If Professor X wants anything else, he will have to ask for it explicitly, and you can then choose whether you think that you want to pay for that as well or not, but at least you put out there what you expect to pay for.

By lecture, do you mean a "talk"? I assume that would last below one hour?
I never have heard of a Professor charging for an invited talk. Especially, if you did not talk about it first. He might need a bus/taxi to get to the university. Therefore you might tell him to keep the tickets, and refund these.
If your university covers this, you might also invite him to lunch / dinner before or after the talk. This would also give further possibility for collaboration.
And if the talk is up to / over two hours, having a bottle of wine or two as a gift that you publicly give him right after the talk, might be appropriate, depending on the size of the audience.
Maybe ask administrative staff whether there is a budget for any of this? At my university we had a budget for all small expenses, where this would have fit in well.

"Bottle of wine" -- not in most public universities in the United States :-)

If it is the US, a good Coors Light might be a nice touch at the half way point. Especially if it is a two hour talk.

@Vladhagen -- well, that's alcohol, too, and the Americans have a rather difficult relationship with alcohol and public institutions. Also: really, Coors Light? Only if you're employed by the Colorado School of Mines :-)

True, Fort Collins is more of a micro brewery town in my opinion.

Usually professors don't charge for lectures to other universities, at least I have not heard of such case. They may charge for lectures to commercial entities, but no, not to universities. The invitation to professor to present lecture at other university is a sign of appreciation/honor.
However, the good speakers are in high demand, so if you are not attractive destination for the speaker to come (e.g. low grade university inviting someone from well established university) the speaker will probably kindly decline due to lack of time. You have to understand - they get a lot of these invitations and will be selective where to go. But I am certain they will not demand payment.
Having said that, the usual arrangement for someone's invited lecture is the offer of covering the cost. Well known, respected and/or older professors may request perks, such as 1.st class airplane tickets (which may be more than you ever expected to pay :). I have heard for case, where professor replied "I will come, but I want 1.st class tickets", and the reply was "We apologize, but this is beyond our budget, so we thank you for your kind offer, but we cannot accept it."
Now, it depends on how eager the person in question is to travel. If you invite someone to EU from US, and offer them 2 days hotel costs + airplane ticket at an attractive location, many professors will grab the opportunity to free visit to Europe.
In some cases, the speakers will cover their costs by themselves, either because they have some kind of grants for exact this purpose (spreading the knowledge, etc), or if they are young, not very recognized in the field, and are eager to get invited talk on their CV.
Sometimes it pays off to invite the professor who is in town for some other event (e.g. conference, business meeting), then perhaps you can get away with only a bottle of wine and/or polite "thank you", but you also risk that he will not be available, since he has other work to do during his stay.

I understand you might be uncomfortable asking, "Will you do it for free?"
But if you can't really afford to pay him, tell him that: "I hope you can visit our institute and give a talk about your work while you're in town.  I'm afraid our budget is extremely limited and doesn't extend to paying honoraria.  But there's a high level of interest here in (name of field)."
If you can afford to pay, ask him how much you should set aside: "If you can spare the time to come to our institute to give a talk about your work, we would be thrilled to have you for a visit.  Would date 1 or date 2 suit?  If you are interested, could you give me an idea what an appropriate honorarium would be?  This is my first time organizing a workshop of this type."
I don't think you should talk about travel expenses since he's going to be in your town anyway.


text:
Should I resubmit a modified computer science conference paper to a journal?
Here is the situation; I made an article that got published in a Computer Science conference; the final decision was that it was considered a borderline paper. After a while I got an email from the organizers of that conference, letting the authors know that there would be the chance to resubmit our articles to a journal, but that the work should contain at least 30% more contribution than the original paper. Long story short, I worked through all the reviewers comments and added more information on my original article.
Actually I am a little bit afraid if my article would make it through the journal, but because I worked hard on doing the asked changes I would not like to leave it like that.
For that reason, I was wondering that in case of a rejection, Could I submit my expanded work to another conference; or should I just leave it like that? I am afraid that maybe the reviewers from another conference could see it like a case of self-plagiarized, even though I am citing my original article.
What to do in this situation? Should I paraphrase all the article again before submitting it with the new material? or should just let it be?

It sounds like you are asking two distinct questions. 1. Should you submit the updated conference paper for publication? 2. Can you submit the updated manuscript to a second conference?

When in doubt talk to your adviser.
It is common in the Computer Science that the delta between conference and journal papers is 30%. That is not updated text only, but 30% of new substantial material, such as new experiments etc.
When submitting paper to a conference, there isn't a 30% rule. Your new paper needs to have a stand-alone novel contribution.
The reason is that CS adopted an iterative publication style workshop -> conference -> journal. So if your extended paper does not get accepted to a journal, you can attempt another journal, but not another conference.

It should be noted that in practice, the 30% new material often are not new "scientific" contributions, but rather better explanations of what was already presented on the conference. For example, a journal paper might add a more complete list of commands supported by whatever was presented where there was only an excerpt before, or a formal listing of an algorithm whose functional basics were only textually outlined before. At least that's my impression from journal papers I have come across.

@O.R.Mapper ... true, but this approach work may or may not work depending on how strict the reviewers and handling editor of the journal take the XX% rule.

For that reason, I was wondering that in case of a rejection, Could I submit my expanded work to another conference; or should I just leave it like that? I am afraid that maybe the reviewers from another conference could see it like a case of self-plagiarized, even though I am citing my original article.

Submitting a conference paper that is only 30% off of another conference paper is not very likely to succeed. It is likely not going to be considered self-plagiarism (at least not if you didn't copy-and-paste large parts of your old paper, just described similar ideas in a new way), but the reviewers are likely going to criticise that the innovation over existing research (often called the "delta") just isn't large enough.
However, you are free to resubmit to a different journal if this one rejects your paper. Getting "invited to submit an extension" gives you sort of a starting advantage, but you can still submit your revised manuscript to any other journal. Just note that some journals require a larger update than 30%, so you should check that you are in compliance with the journal's rules prior to submission.

Although your paper is now an expanded version, it would most likely have the same or very similar findings as that of the version you presented at the conference. Thus, if you present the expanded version at another conference, you'll most likely be repeating most of the ideas you presented at the previous conference. Thus, your paper will lack novelty, and will not be a success.
In case your paper gets rejected, a far better option would be to submit it to another journal. Make sure you go through the peer review comments even if your paper is rejected, and try to incorporate the changes suggested. That way, your manuscript will be further improved and will stand a better chance of acceptance when you submit it to another journal.