text:
Is it possible for a postdoc to propose to supervisor to spin-off the lab into a startup?
How common is it for a postdoc in the AI area to propose and create a spin-off from a university lab with their supervisors?
How usual the process is to do so if any?

The headline asks if it is possible but the body asks if it’s common. Those are quite different.

is it possible first? then secondly do you know any examples? how common is this in real world?

It is possible to "propose" anything. That is meaningless.

I would need to press no clarifying the title. As the title stands, the answer is a very clear "yes": You can propose it, communication in academia should be at least as open as being able t o propose ideas. But the question is very different. Please reformulate it to ask clearly what you're interested in.

Research administrator from the US here.  I am currently experiencing this with a graduate student in AI who is trying to create a startup from work based on a paper supporting his dissertation.  It's a nightmare because the student is not working openly with the administration to spot and address issues.
Startups are part of the science world now, and the administrations are adapting, however, you have to be open to working with the university.  There are tons of intellectual property (IP) issues that you will not have thought about.  You need to understand how to keep firewalls between your work.  Your PI also may need to have a management plan, conflict of interest disclosures, and many other types of paperwork.  I know of a PI who has a startup that is a subaward on his federal contract.  Our institution will not let him approve the invoices--we have a disinterested 3rd party who reviews and approves them.
I can assure you that there are so many things you haven't thought about, but many people at the university are paid to think about them for you.  Talk to your PI, and let them take it to their research administration team for further discussion.  This is the only way you will know what is possible and what is not--it's all about your own institution's policies.

@DanielHatton I would guess it mostly means that the student is perceiving the institution's policies as overly bureaucratic. They probably want to do a startup, and they don't want somebody to "spot issues" in their plan. That's probably not a smart move, but also not particularly surprising.

Yes in this case, the student has hidden the intentions to launch this company, even from their PI, and is actually using a paper published with other university faculty as the basis of the startup--you can't do things like this without talking to someone. There may be options that satisfy everyone, but not talking to the university about this isn't the option here.  People are often afraid the university is going to just kill the idea, which isn't the case, but we have rights too and they should be respected.  We pay these people's salaries, give them facilities--it's expensive to support.

Not only is it possible, some universities even have dedicated support programs for commercialising research.
After all, if researchers have just invented the next MP3 or the next PageRank, they'd love to get some equity in that.
There is also, of course, a shadow option: Keep your great idea to yourself, don't use a single second of university computer time or inch of office space or page of journal access to plan your startup, and then launch it only after you finish at the university.
Some people prefer this if they think the spin-out process would drown them in red tape rather than helping them, or if they're leaving academia for industry because of frustration with academia.

If the work was done as a part of the studies, and especially if the student received scholarship, the professor and the University have intellectual property rights. Professor as the co-author, and the university as the employer. Thus, they simply cannot be bypassed - but there is likely a specific person/office in the University responsible for handling such activities (I vaguely recall having to sign agreement about the intellectual property rights immediately after being accepted to a PhD program.)
On the upside, the University may handle and even pay for some expenses - e.g., if a registering patent is involved, it may incur costs well above the graduate student yearly income.


text:
The unreasonable effectiveness of physical exercise for post graduate student?
I am a graduate student who is currently doing a lot of research works. I understand that academia is a stressful place and it is normal to feel unmotivated and depressed. Recently, I have incorporate a 25 minutes uphill jogging into my daily schedule (an advice from a recent PHD graduate). Although, this reduce the amount of work I can do everyday but all of my stress, sadness and insomnia disappear magically.
I do not understand why such simple exercise could elevate my mood so much despite the fact that I still cannot solve my research problem. Is there really any reasonable explanation for this phenomenon ?
Thank you very much !

https://www.apa.org/topics/exercise-fitness/stress

This is a question about medical science, not academia.

Not only for grad students, but for people in general, it has been well established that exercising causes your brain to release endorphines that trigger a positive feeling and help with reducing stress. See here for example.

Hi @Jeroen, when including links in Stack Exchange answers it's considered good practice to give a summary of what the link contains. This helps the answer to be complete even if the link dies in the future.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it okay to ask a coworker/supervisor to give a talk?
I'm a staff scientist in a medium-sized lab and I'm organizing a large event for high school students at my university, a large public research institution. I'd like to invite a professor or senior researcher to give a talk at the event.
Is it generally considered okay to invite your close collaborators (e.g. PI, direct supervisors) to give a talk?
I have no misconceptions about the importance of my event (it's not) but I don't want to violate some etiquette by asking someone in my lab to give a talk. What about other events, small conferences, etc.?

Yes, I think it's perfectly acceptable that you invite colleagues to give a talk at an event or conference.
There are many advantages for them if they give such a talk, for example:

disseminating their work
practising speaking to a non-expert audience
networking
free coffee/ lunch/ biscuits

If they don't want to do it, they'll decline your invitation and you can ask someone else-- a good choice might be PhD students who will actively want or need to practice outreach and public engagement.
Anyway, whoever you decide to invite, I don't think you've got anything to lose by asking.

We don't have any PhD students, but good suggestion.

In fact - it generally is viewed as an 'honor'  that you consider someone capable of giving a good presentation on their research to a general audience at a school or organization you are supporting. (As opposed to, for example, using the work place as a place to find people to guilt into  buying chocolate bars, popcorn, or the fund-raising item du jour etc to help support your organization)

Yes, I think there is no more-reasonable thing than to ask a colleague to explain their work or related things, to various audiences. The colleague may also reasonably decline, thinking that they cannot provide a suitable context, or that they do not feel comfortable attempting to communicate well to the anticipated audience, but these are secondary issues.
That is, some people will, reasonably, feel that their current work is not easily consumable by any sort of general audience... and that they cannot, or are not interested in, giving a talk that gives the more digestible background. Not every expert has a good "narrative" about their work.
But it is certainly reasonable to inquire. At best, one has experts "spreading the good word". At worst, experts will be disinclined. Nothing lost.

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


text:
Is there an IRB/ethics career path?
Suppose I was back at the beginning of my undergraduate career, and I decided that while I was willing to do human-subjects research, my real career goal was to sit on an IRB and guide lost souls who can't be trusted to figure out right from wrong.
Is there a typical or expected career path for IRB members? More specifically,

Would I be expected to first "make a name for myself" as a researcher in a field involving human subjects and then get additional ethics training (e.g. Advanced Introduction to Intermediate Best Practices in IRB Ethics for Geneticists)?
Would I be expected to concentrate my efforts on gaining a broad and deep education in ethics (majoring in philosophy, etc.), and then top that off with subject matter-specific training (e.g. Introduction to Genetics for Ethicists)?

Not a full answer, but at many Universities most members of an IRB are just temporary part-time members - being on the IRB is just a form of service for a faculty member (usually a tenured one). However, at larger institutions you can have everything from medical doctors, lawyers, statisticians, and psychologists solely employed to sit on the board, deans, and a veritable platoon of administrative staff that work as part of the board (though not all are explicitly on the board making accept/reject/revise decisions), and more. I don't think anyone majors in IRB, though :)

@BrianH if the answer is that there's no answer - that every IRB makes up their own qualifications and procedures - some poaching researchers off of projects, others contracting with renowned philosophers, others setting up their own professional degree programs (e.g. Master of Research Ethics) to grow their own, etc., that's an answer.

I'm actually trying to find a list of who is currently sitting on one of my own institution's many review boards to check to ensure this is true - and it turns out its a surprisingly hard piece of information to find. They don't have a Careers page, either. Until your question I was not aware of how rather opaque the precise details can be, which I suppose is at least partially intentional.

You get asked to serve - one of 2 « p’s » promotion (of sorts) or punishment (keep you away from something else...)

There are administration jobs involved in the ethics processes.  My university employs several "Ethics Officers" which facilitate the various ethics reviews.  Most of them do not have PhDs.  While these employees may not directly decide ethical issues, they do provide advice to researchers before the application is made which ensures the application is successful.  Knowledge of local laws is at least as important as knowledge of ethics; researchers usually need more help with the legal aspects than the ethical aspects of their ethics application.
If this sort of job appeals to you, then yes it exists, no you do not need to be a researcher to hold it, and I doubt you need to study philosophy.

What are the typical qualifications expected for an "Ethics Officer"? You mentioned that studying philosophy is probably not necessary. What is necessary or expected? Does one have to pass certain qualification exams in ethics? Is there a formal apprenticeship or training program?

@RobertColumbia find one and ask them.

The notion of IRB is actually international and covers many different situations. I don't know all of the variations that are used, especially by large companies that conduct medical and pharmaceutical research. But I doubt that there are very many people in the world who are specifically hired as IRB (or equivalent) members. Hence, I doubt that there is really a career path for this.
However, if you are interested in doing it, I think there are two ways that you can work towards being selected for it. The first is to become a prominent scientist in your field of interest, perhaps psychology. The other is to become a prominent philosopher of ethics. Then your skills and opinions would be seen as valuable to those making up an IRB.
That isn't to say that you can't be paid as an IRB member. Some people might be hired as (part-time) consultants to serve on an IRB or to give advice in some situations. Faculty members who serve (part-time) on an IRB, can get released from other duties and hence paid indirectly. Or you might even be a full-time member in a large institution, but likely for a limited period, returning afterwards to normal research.
The requirements in the US, require that a team consist of at least five members, with at least one scientist and at least one non-scientist. A full time  career would mean that you aren't really a scientist anymore, so that you wouldn't qualify for the scientist slot if it were full time over a long period.
But if you want to do this, learn a lot about science (and practice it) and learn a lot about ethics (and practice that too).

I'll also note that one of the problems with being a full time IRB member in a for-profit organization that needs to monetize its research is that that there can be a lot of pressure to allow things that should not be done. Standing in the way of what some vice-president really, really, wants to do doesn't make for a secure future.
But one of the most valuable things an IRB can do is to look at a problematic proposal, decide what is fundamental in the research goals, and then suggest an ethical way to meet those goals. That sort of thing takes a lot of experience and sound judgement.

The IRB is only one portion of of regulatory oversight. I think the career you are looking for is a regulatory officer. This webpage lists a number of programs that offer an MS is Regulatory Science. The best place to get information might be the Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society (RAPS).

Depending on the size of the institution or the amount of research it does, there are a number of professional roles. A graduate degree in bioethics, medical ethics or similar would be one way to go in terms of training.

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


text:
Ethics of trying to trick/sabotage students into failure
Once in a while, I will hear stories (usually of the "friend of a friend" type) about some bold instructor who took some specific action in order to entrap or trick their students into poor academic (not behavioral/conduct) performance. Typically, this involves the instructor breaking traditional implied rules of trust in the classroom (i.e. that the instructor will guide the students in good faith, rather than try to trick and "catch" them). This may be analogous to Sting Operations in law enforcement.
Examples may include:

Planting fake resources in the library as a critical thinking exercise. Students found to be citing said materials would receive a lowered grade for not inquiring into their provenance ("Ha! There is no Advanced Journal of Trans-Neptunian Objects! The measurements you cited were made up by my 5 year old. You lose 20 points for basing your paper on unreliable findings.").
Assigning material known to have flaws to students as course reading material. Students simply accepting the truth of the "knowledge" provided in these readings and regurgitating these on exams without confirming their correctness would be penalized (e.g. "Yes, the assigned textbook said that Woofer's Theorem proved that x < 5 when y > 3, but if you actually read a sampling of textbooks used by other instructors or had bothered to read Woofer's original paper, you would have known that it only proved that x < 5 when y is between 3 and 6. You lose 10 points for incorrect answers.").
Sabotaging laboratory chemicals or equipment (on the theory that the students should always test everything they get). Students using these materials "off-the-shelf" would receive lowered grades on the theory that in the real world, you can't just trust what you see printed on the label (e.g. "Yes, that bottle was labeled One Molar Hydrochloric Acid, but how could you just trust that that was true? You are a grad student! Do you believe everything you see posted on the Internet?").
Pretending that they have more authority than they have. For example, an instructor may falsely claim to a student that they can exempt them from or alter certain requirements that are actually set at the department level or higher ("Ha! Why did you trust me when I told you I was giving you permission to be late to the final exam? Chapter 4, Paragraph 6, Subparagraph R, Clause E of the Standardized Universal Academic Policies states clearly 'Students arriving late for a final exam will receive an automatic failing grade. Only the dean has authority to dispense a student from this regulation.'. I'm not the dean. Here's your failing grade, see you next semester. Try to wisen up! Ha ha ha!")

To what extent is this kind of underhanded behavior ethical? On the one hand, I can see the pedagogical wisdom behind some of these ideas - to make the university more like the "real world" and to instill some (healthy?) mistrust and skepticism of authority, but on the other hand, undergraduate and lower-level graduate courses have as one of their purposes to guide and educate someone who is still immature academically and not yet ready to do real academic research on their own.

These example seem a bit far-fetched to be believable... I can't imagine anyone actually doing any of them except some version to catch cheating (something like leaving an incorrect document labeled "ANSWER KEY" someplace...). Your friends might need some more reliable friends. I don't think a question based on these sorts of hypothetical examples is all that great for Academia.SE answers.

@BryanKrause I agree strongly and hope you (and others) will close this question.

@StrongBad If you don't like the question you can use the downvote button.  Please do not vote for "unclear what you are asking" when it's not unclear.

" educate someone who is still immature" typically students, even undergraduates, are adults and should be treated as such. Treating them as if they are immature would be unethical. The examples you give would probably be unethical regardless of the level of maturity of the students, but I agree with Bryan: your friends need some more reliable friends.

@AnonymousPhysicist I did down vote. As a mod, my close vote automatically closes questions. While I do not think this question is a good fit, I didn't want to unilaterally decide.

I can find no circumstance in which any of it is ethical. Not even putting out fake "answer keys". Your job is to teach. Those examples have nothing to do with teaching. Sadly, some "teachers" think their main task is to "sort" people into grade classes, rather than to actually educate them. This basically assumes the students don't need to be taught, just graded, and they will learn on their own or with minimal effort on the instructor's part. Such people worry more about catching "cheaters" than they do about actual education.
Imagine instead, that your job is to teach every student, even if you have to spend more effort with some students than with others.
If you tried to present any of those to an IRB as a part of research they would shame you out of the room. If a tenured professor tried some of them and a student brought it to the attention of the university authorities, the prof might be in danger of losing tenure for moral transgression. Some faculty would certainly vote that way. The chemical case in particular.
There are ethical ways to teach critical thinking and resource evaluation. Use those.
The only variation I can envision in which any of it is valid is if the professor specifically points to a set of resources and advertises that some of them are "broken" and the task is to sort them into the ones with value and those without. But here there is no deception at all. Another variation is a "find the error here" sort of exercise. Again, no deception.
Note that there is a vaguely related question at CSEducators for which I also provide an answer. It is about lying to novices as part of teaching.

The "sabotaging" and "false authority" examples you have given are highly questionable and probably unethical from the viewpoints of most academics (to the extent I can guess their opinion). They certainly are from mine. Ultimately, they boil down to lying. The justification you provide:

to make the university more like the "real world" and to instill some (healthy?) mistrust and skepticism of authority

(arguably not your opinion but a best guess of how these behaviors would be justified) is too weak: There are less damaging ways to get the same results. Skepticism of authority can be taught by confronting students with existing failures and misbehaviors, which are so easily found if one knows where to look that it is almost ridiculous to create one's own lab-grown ones. Finding fatal statistical errors in published medicine papers, for example, has become so commonplace it could be assigned to students as homework. There is your skepticism and mistrust! After all, you don't randomly kill people just so that medicine students have fresh bones to dissect.
The "fake resources in the library" example is more in the grey zone: Here, at least, no "implicit rules of trust in the classroom" are being broken, since the library is not the classroom and any graphomaniac can leave whatever stuff they want there (that is, until some librarian finds it). You are no longer claiming something in your name, but merely claiming that someone else claimed something. To me, the freedom to do such hoaxes is part of academic freedom. Still, from a teaching perspective, the damage probably outweighs the use -- what exactly are you achieving? Fake journals aren't exactly rare; why concoct an artificial one when there are real ones all over the internet? (That said, the idea of leaving easter eggs for your students to find in the library is seriously worth it. Just don't make them so subtle that they will be taken at face value.)

For the library one, I do recognize there are limited opportunities to do this. My thoughts were in cases where students have been assigned to write on a topic that is very new or that has very little written on it, or where a classroom or department sponsors its own library.

In my view, the ethical line is crossed when you impose irreversible grade penalties on students who fall for these tricks.
I think you could ethically use most of these tricks if when a student falls for one, you explain the issue and allow them to correct their work without penalty or excessive additional labor.  I also think it will be more effective at helping students actually learn about the issue - their takeaway message will be more along the lines of "this is an important issue to watch for" instead of "the instructor is a jerk".
Even with such a modification, I'm still not sure it's actually a good idea - it may very well tend to annoy students more than to teach them.
These tricks might also be nearly as effective in a "full disclosure" version.  "Your assignment is to synthesize this compound.  However, some of the reagents have been replaced with inert substances, to simulate the possibility of mislabeling."
Obviously, the laboratory chemical version should certainly not be done if there is any possibility of a risk to health or safety from using the wrong substance.
And your #4 (pretend to have more authority) is completely unacceptable.  Temporarily misleading someone regarding academic content, as a way to help them learn it, is one thing; misleading them as to the administrative regulations of the university is entirely different, and is educationally unjustifiable.

To consider any of these would be a waste of time. They seem closer to the urban myth category and rarely have a basis in fact. They are all unethical if they did indeed occur at all.

If one is teaching undercover scientific misconduct investigation, this may be the right strategy.
Generally, however, research is a cooperative endeavour, and one assumes a priori that there is no intention to mislead, misdirect, confuse or fool fellow scientists.
As an occasional exercise, with some advance hints, such entrapment may be a useful addition to the standard educational repertoire - however as a standard strategy of education, all one will get will be students that will be paranoid, suspicious, prone to conspiracy theories and, at best, will have acquired skills in hunting down academic offenders; effective scientists, however, they are not likely to become.


text:
When does one go for a double doctorate?
I would love to know the circumstances under which people opt for a second doctorate degree.

Could a professor working in a university write up a thesis and submit it to his department to earn a second doctorate?
Do only those who want to remain in the university forever as students go for a second doctorate?
Are there any general merits/downsides to earning 2 PhDs, if you are perhaps assured of a research career after a good first one?

I know someone who has 3 professorships and 2 doctorates. His title is Prof. Prof. Prof. Dr. Dr.

@DaveClarke: I know you can't reveal the identify of your acquaintance with such stellar credentials, but could you at least tell us what were the fields of his doctoral degrees (something related like Maths and CS perhaps)?

His PhDs are in CS and Maths. He holds professor positions at CS departments of 3 different universities.

"Are there any general merits/downsides to earning 2 PhDs, given you are assured of a research career after a good first one?"  The premise is very questionable: a good PhD by no means "assures" a research career.

@PeteL.Clark: Point taken. In fact there is potential for a Q there, I think.

You go for a double doctorate when your first postdoc ends and you still haven't found a job, and you're fine with living off a stipend for another five years.

@DaveClarke: Excuse me, but that's Herr Professor Professor Professor Doktor Doktor.

There are some departments at certain schools that won't even accept you to their PhD programs if you already have a PhD.

@cartonn Probably because they'd have to pay you more.

One does see "M.D., Ph. D." sometimes.  But I think other than that, it would be seen as peculiar.

One of the professors I had in graduate school had two Ph.D,'s in math. His advisor switched universities mid-degree, and he got degrees at both institutions writing separate theses on different topics.

Does this answer your question? Is doing two PhDs a good path?

Generally you cannot get two PhDs in the same field. One could get a second PhD in a second field.
People who want to do research in multiple fields or in a multidisciplinary topic or wish to change fields may obtain multiple PhDs. Alternatively, as you suggest, people who want to remain students forever do that.
The main downside of doing multiple PhDs is that people may not see that you are moving on with your career. There is a career after getting your PhD, and obtaining a PhD is a small step along that career path. Hovering around getting multiple PhDs would be akin to getting multiple bachelor degrees. People may see you as a permanent student, not someone growing into a mature researcher.

What do you mean by "same field"? For example, how about Mehanical engineering and aerospace engineering? or ME and EE? It is not clear to me how "same field" is defined. After all, most degrees in field of physics and engineering are based on same core equations and fundamentals (For example, in M.E. we use F=ma, and also the physics students use the same equation, does this mean one can't have a PhD in Physics and a PhD in engineering?). And who decides if the field is the same or not?

I think the answer is "it depends". Not me, that's for sure.

@Nasser, I've never seen a case where it was cut so fine as different fields of engineering. I've seen a physicist move to philosophy, so obtained PhDs in both. The decision whether to allow enrolment in the second PhD seems to be a judgement call by the university where the criteria is that the research is sufficiently different that the candidate would, in a sense, be "starting again" - so their prior PhD is in theory no advantage. Again though, it's up to the institution. Of course no of this applies to higher or professional doctorates.

@DaveClarke In the UK, you can get two PhDs in the same field (at least I see one case in Computer Science).

@qsp: Ooooo. But why?

@DaveClarke I have no idea, I just happen to know such a case. I would imagine his first PhD supervisor was not happy at all, but somehow he could do that.

"obtaining a PhD is a small step along that career path": I'd have to disagree, actually, at least for certain cases. If you have a PhD in, say, sociology, and you obtain a PhD in statistics to support your research, that is by no means a small step. In fact, this would boost one's career quite a bit, even outside the original field.

I think it really depends on what the person actually wants to do with the two different degrees. For example if someone has both a PhD in chemisty and biology to become a biochemist, their understanding of the subject would be much more versatile. It is absolutely not nessesary by any means, but it would just depend on the person and how many angles they want to approach a subject; some people prefer more than one way of looking at something.

Most universities in the US prohibit awarding of duplicate or comparable degrees. For instance; one might have earned a PhD in Management from Papua New Guinea University, and planning to earn another PhD in Management from Yale. In this particular case, Yale won't admit that student. Similarly, HBS, NYU Stern, Berkeley Haas MBA program FAQ sections clearly state that they won't accept students who already hold an MBA degree from another institution.
"University policy prohibits awarding of duplicate degrees. If you have an MBA or comparable degree from an institute of higher education, your application will be ineligible for consideration."
http://mba.haas.berkeley.edu/admissions/faq.html

This is, in fact, a general rule.  American universities will not give degree X in field Y to someone who already has degree X in field Y.  You already have an MBA?  Then you can't get another MBA.  You already have an MS in applied math?  Then you can't get another MS in applied math.  You already have a PhD in business admin?  Then you can't get another PhD in business admin.

Not entirely true. I know of many people who got an MBA from the top management schools in India, discovered that the value of this degree isn't so great on the international scene, and did another MBA in the US or elsewhere. My cynical side thinks that an institution granting a professional degree merely wants your money in exchange for the certification, and doesn't care about your prior qualifications.

@Suresh If you referring to the IIMs, don't they technically grant a PGP degree and not a MBA per se (by a quirk of governmental bureaucracy) and are thus, able to get escape the no-MBA requirement? I like your cynicism (and share it) so +1. :D

it's entirely possible.

Recently was I asked to check into the possibility of this in my department (mathematics, University of Georgia): is there a specific regulation against admitting a student into our PhD program who already held a doctoral degree in mathematics?  The answer turned out to be no.  (This is not to say that I endorse the practice or would necessarily have wanted to admit a student under such circumstances.)

Most schools don't like duplicate degrees, especially ones in the United State. Schools in Africa or the UK usually allow it.
I know a Professor that had 5 doctorates (not honorary doctorates).

Professor Blight (PrEng) was an A-Rated researcher who held five doctoral degrees, and who was considered as one of the world’s leading thinkers in Geotechnical Engineering. He held BSc(Eng) and MSc(Eng) qualifications from Wits. He completed his PhD in Soil Mechanics and his DSc(Eng) in Geotechnical Engineering at London University, before returning to Wits. In 1985, he obtained his DSc(Eng) in Materials Engineering from Wits and another DSc(Eng) qualification from the University of Cape Town. In 2001, he obtained a D.Eng, degree from Wits focusing on the Application of Research in Practice.
With over 330 papers published in accredited journals, Professor Blight was internationally renowned as a researcher of the highest standing around the world. He was well published internationally and the author or co-author of several books.

In answer to this part of the question:
"Could a professor working in a university write up a thesis and submit it to his department to earn a second doctorate?"
Where that is allowed he would need to have been registered as a PhD student for the required period of time, which in many British institutions is three years if the research is full-time and longer if it isn't. Universities can't just dole out PhDs at the drop of a hat. The department and probably the higher degrees committee would also want to know in what framework he had carried out the research. I think he would have to do it outside of what he gets paid to do as a professor.
I am not sure how easy it would be to get round the requirement that a PhD student should have an appointed supervisor during those three years either. Of course he may not wish to do that, but if he did there might possibly be a way at some institutions.

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


text:
If I decline admissions at a program that doesn't allow deferment, will I be accepted next year?
I've been accepted to a top 20 Computer Science department with a RA, TA and fellowship. I decided to defer my admissions a year due to unforeseen circumstances. I was informed the school does not allow deferment, and my adviser told me to simply reapply next year. If I was accepted to the university this academic year, should I be able to get accepted next Fall? My application will be the exact same as it was this year including my recommendation letters, personal statement, and research experience.

What does "with a RA, TA and fellowship" mean? What are RA and TA ?

Research & Teaching assistantship

Possible duplicate ? http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/768/advice-on-computer-science-graduate-school/769#769

I'll address the chances of being admitted again next year at a school that accepted you this year.  Certainly they aren't 100%, or even 95%, since if they were that high, then the department would save itself the trouble and simply allow deferrals.  As Aeismail points out, it also depends on the strength of the applicant pool, and that can fluctuate from year to year.  For example, in a bad economy, or if the department hires a star faculty member, it can become harder to get admitted.
Department admissions procedures vary greatly.  In some departments, having strong support from a single faculty member may be enough to guarantee admission.  That is not true in my department, and I'd estimate that the average chances of being admitted again in this department are about 75%.  (Don't take this figure too seriously, but it's a better estimate than 50% or 100%.  It's based on experience and thought experiments rather than data.)
Roughly, the top 25% of the class is admitted quickly and easily, with little debate.  The next 25% involves more discussion, but the answers are probably pretty consistent, and the main issue is ranking for things like fellowships.  It's the bottom half that involves increasing amounts of randomness.  The number of plausible acceptances - people where nobody would think it strange if they were admitted - is substantially larger than the number we will actually accept.  Near the dividing line, there are a lot of people whose applications are really pretty comparable.  We arrange them in order, after a lot of discussion, and draw lines for admission and waiting list.  The order is not completely random, of course; the stronger your application is, the higher you are likely to be ranked.  But there's a lot of arbitrariness to it, since it's a matter of small distinctions.  The trickiest cases are the applicants who have notable strengths and weaknesses, and their positions depend sensitively on who is on the committee: getting a high ranking depends on having some committee member who strongly supports your case, and nobody who is strongly opposed.  (Admissions committee are often risk averse, so opposition counts more than support.)
Overall, I'd guess that as many as half of the people in the bottom half of the list might have been replaced with someone else if another committee had examined the applications from scratch.  That would correspond to a 75% overlap between the decisions.
Of course, this figure is pretty much meaningless for individuals.  If you are a star, then you will definitely be accepted again.  If you were the most controversial and lowest-ranked person last year, then your chances of being lucky next year as well are not good.  The truth is most likely to be in between.

Thanks for the response. I doubt I am anywhere near the bottom of the applicant list since I received multiple assistantships including a research assistantship. I believe in the department I applied for (which may not be true for other departments) it is enough for an individual professor to accept you. In which case I wouldn't mind working with the advisers that initially accepted me. Also, my major GPA will increase when I reapply. I believe my overall GPA will remain about the same. When I reapply should I re-contact my advisers and inform them I'm applying again?

That sounds very promising.  You should definitely contact the advisors again.  You can explain that not accepting this year was due to circumstances beyond your control, rather than a lack of interest.  It's helpful to make it clear that these circumstances won't occur again, since they may worry that you might just turn it down again.

If you have the time and financial resources to apply, there's no reason not to apply to schools that you think you have a chance to be admitted to. One thing that you could do is to see if you can get an appointment to talk with a graduate admissions officer at one of the departments you're interested in; you'll find out pretty quickly what the officer thinks of your admission chances. (It was how I learned not to worry about my credentials when I applied way back when.) In addition, the initiative may be appreciated by the officer, which may help your chances of admissions in the long run.
As for deferment policies, those are strictly school- and department-dependent. I would hope that you would be considered equally both years, but the truth is that you are usually compared to other applicants in the year that you apply. Therefore, a weaker application next year will not help. (Although if your grades in the major are strong, weaknesses outside the major won't hurt you so much.)

I would assume that your chances to be readmitted are not high: the graduate committees would probably remember that you did not come last year, and will not want to risk another deferral. It is not like a faculty position re-application in which the recruiting committee has more time to think through process, and would have time to evaluate the chances that an applicant that deferred in the past would come this year. In graduate school admissions, I believe decisions are made quite fast.


text:
What advantages and disadvantages should I consider in deciding whether to publish my academic book traditionally or self-publish?
I am an amateur mathematician. I am writing a research monograph in the field of abstract mathematics (general topology, specifically).
Should I publish it traditionally or self-publish?
There are many benefits of self-publishing (e.g with Lulu) an academic work:

No need to tremble awaiting my book to be rejected by a peer review. No responses like "first publish in articles, only then make a book". I am in full control what I want to publish.
I don't pay the publisher 80-90% of my revenue. (This also may make AdWords marketing of my book profitable and thus I can do a rather huge advertisement of my book myself using AdWords. I suspect, this may over-perform traditional publishers in the number of sales.)
I am in a full control of my book. No forced need to change something, if an editor's opinion differs from my own.
No need to convert it to LaTeX, I can use my preferred software such as TeXmacs.
The book goes into Amazon and other distribution channels anyway.

I can pay a professional scientific editor to edit my book for paid, as a kind of business investment.
Peer review is intended to choose which books are published and which are not. I can do fine without peer review, allowing the buyers of my book to decide for themselves.
Well, a potential buyer may prefer books published by a big publisher, but it (in my opinion) can be well replaced with big red letters "Edited and checked for errors by professor XXX."
Drawbacks which I know:

It may not be as good for my academic carrier as traditional academic publishing. (It does not matter for me anyway, as I am not a professional academic.)
Not sure if my book goes into university libraries (please comment on this issue).

I've pointed many benefits of self-publishing. What are drawbacks (except of pointed by me)?

And one more specific question: Is the number of books sold if using a traditional publisher, likely to greatly overperform the number of books sold if self-publishing? If yes, why?

Well, I've just checked cost of Google AdWords keywords related with general topology. They cost too much for a reasonably great traffic. My idea of using AdWords to advertise this my book was probably wrong

Why are you writing the book? Are you trying to make money, help the world, or improve your CV? Is it original research or a textbook based on research published elsewhere? Is publishing it in ArXiv a possibility?

@JukkaSuomela I write the book to store down my research results and to spread my new knowledge. To make money is not the main aim, but it would be nice. My CV does not matter because I am not a professional academic. It is original research, but written in texbook style understandable for beginner university students.

Related (possible duplicate): Is there any value in self-publishing a book as an academic?

@JukkaSuomela Concerning arXiv. As soon as I received approval for arXiv I submitted there 8 or so my articles. After this I was banner from arXiv without an explanation of the reason. Maybe I submitted too many articles in one day. Maybe, they disliked my bold voice about superiority of my research in comparison with more traditional theories.

You might be interested in what Robert Ghrist has done (see http://www.math.upenn.edu/~ghrist/notes.html). He's self-published a book on applied topology, although I must add that he's already a major player in the field.

It's very unlikely that any university library will purchase your self published book unless (perhaps) a faculty member asks them to do so.

@porton: If you write to the managers of the arxiv, I'm sure they'll give you an explanation of why you cannot post there any longer.  I can assure you that neither of your suggested explanations is the right one.  Very likely it has something to do with the fact that one has to have institutional affiliation or specific endorsement from someone who does to publish on the arxiv.

@PeteL.Clark This happened after I've received endorsement from someone who does to publish on the arxiv.

@porton: Endorsement is not necessarily an eternal guarantee.  You should ask them what happened.

Your claim 'I am in a full control of my book. No forced need to change something, if an editor's opinion differs from my own' definitely clashes with 'but it (in my opinion) can be well replaced with big red letters "Edited and checked for errors by professor XXX'.

Maybe, they disliked my bold voice about superiority of my research in comparison with more traditional theories — Yeah, that would be my guess.  There is very rarely room in mathematics for bold claims of superiority for nonstandard approaches to completely standard material.  Your nonstandard approach might eventually replace general topology, but publicly making that claim on your own behalf only labels you a crank.  Compare, for example, Wolfram's A New Kind of Science (crank) versus homotopy type theory (not crank).

@JeffE: What you say would be very reasonable if the OP were trying to publish his work in a journal.  But the arxiv just doesn't evaluate the content of submissions beyond the most superficial / automated level.   If Wolfram had institutional affiliation (for all I know, he does), I think he could certainly divide up his book into suitably sized chunks and upload it to the arxiv.  Nor do I agree with the fact that ANKoS is a crank work.  (I do agree that it's overblown in a way which turns mathematicians off: that was exactly my reaction to it.)

As an example, I uploaded a manuscript to the arxiv on Tuesday.  It appeared last night, less than 24 hours later; no one contacted me in the meantime.  A few hundred other math papers got uploaded in that period.  What could they have possibly done with my paper under these circumstances?  I believe they checked electronically for duplicate content.  I believe that there is a chance that someone looked at the title and the abstract and agreed that it was about number theory.  That's about it: I do not think for a second that anyone affiliated with the arxiv has vetted or endorsed my work.

@PeteL.Clark  I'm an arxiv moderator myself. Moderators do check basic formatting issues; in particular, does the paper have a title, an abstract, and references? If the formatting test fails, then moderators do look briefly at the content to see if the paper is in scope. If an author repeatedly submits papers that are out of scope, they can be banned. Grandiose claims are not in themselves reason to ban, but they can sway the moderators opinion, because moderators are human. (I have recommended arxiv papers for rejection, but I have never recommended banning an author.)

It seems for me that I can sell MANY copies of my work with Facebook ads (putting the profit of sales back into ads). I have received many arguments against self-publishing, but doesn't this overweights everything just by great volume of sales (and also my great personal profit)? Please discuss

@JeffE: Great, thanks for your response.  I learned from it, and we agree with each other: a paper which is reasonable in format and that made grandiose claims would not be a problem for the arxiv.

great volume of sales — You're talking about a math book.  There will be no "great volume of sales" no matter how you publish it.

@JeffE Certainly I may mistake on this, but in my opinion it seems reasonable that 1% of people who click the ad "A radically new way of doing general topology" may pay $50 to buy the book. Please also specify, what in your opinion would not happen: buying the book after clicking the ad, or not clicking the ad link at all

I mean Facebook page "Topology".

After all, I may try first self-publish and if this does not work, remove my book from distribution and then attempt to publish traditionally

Well, now I am (almost) convinced that self-publishing of a book about topology makes no sense. There are only 13383 people who like "Topology" on Facebook. If  success to sell the book to 1% of them (what I consider much), it would be only around 100 sales.

Please take extended discussion to [chat].

Should I publish it traditionally or self-publish?

Why do you want to publish at all?  You answered

I write the book to store down my research results and to spread my new knowledge. To make money is not the main aim, but it would be nice.

Given that: the answer is that you should certainly not self-publish your work.  You can store your results and spread knowledge by having the material freely available on the internet, as I believe is already the case.  The arxiv is one nice place to put work, but it is not the only one: you could put in on github or any number of other repositories.  You can just put it on your own website and make sure that google indexes it.  That means that billions of people can access it at any time.
Let me be clear with you: you are not going to make money self-publishing works of mathematics that you have not been able to publish traditionally.  It is exceedingly rare for any mathematical text beyond the undergraduate level to make a profit that is worth the time taken to write it.  (Maybe a few of Serge Lang's books qualify; probably not.)  If you go self-publishing rather than traditional publishing, you will lose money, and what you're paying for is the vanity of being a published author.
The bar for interest by the mathematical community is much lower than the bar for the type of public interest needed to generate any real sales.  The thought that you have "My ideas are too bold for the mathematical community, so I need to take matters into my own hands; they don't know the value of my work as well as I do" is not only crankish but actually specifically damaging to you: it makes you ideal prey for predators of various kinds.  You told us in a previous question that you literally fell prey to a diploma mill and thereby lost money.  The same mindset that you have now is going to cost you more money in the future.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but this has been going on for several years now, so I feel I should be plain: no one in the world has found your work to be of significant mathematical value.  This means that, with probability slightly less than one, that your work does not have significant mathematical value.  But in the unlikely event that your work does have value, you're not doing what is necessary in order to show it.  Mathematical research is not about simply writing down structures that generalize other structures and proving results about them.  You have to solve old problems or pose new ones that are of interest to the community. Bold statements of superiority would be a positive thing if they are specific and factual: for your work to be "superior", it should solve at least one problem that others have posed.  If you've done that, please explain yourself properly and then your work can be published in the mathematical mainstream.  If you haven't: please start to be honest with yourself about the value of your work.  Your livelihood is at stake.

I've pointed many benefits of self-publishing. What are drawbacks (except of pointed by me)?

The scientific community will very likely ignore your contributions. That is, your book will have approximately zero impact. The combination of "I speak in a bold voice" and "I did not let my work get peer-reviewed" screams "crank" to professional mathematicians.
Your business plan of "I get 100% of the profits instead of 10%, hence I make a lot more money" is a bit naive. If your book is not distributed and advertised by a known publisher, you can also expect to sell much less copies, so it is no clear that you will make more money (if any at all) using self-distribution.
Relatedly, it is true that "the book goes into Amazon and other distribution channels anyway", but there is a large difference between "is hidden somewhere on Amazon" and "is advertised by Springer".
You are in full control over your book, but you also don't get professional feedback. You seem to falsely assume that peer review is a mechanism to somehow suppress books and ideas. This is not the case - largely, peer review improves published work by forcing an author to take comments of other, independent researchers from the field into account. You seem to think that this is a bad thing, but most people would probably disagree.

If your book is not distributed and advertised by a known publisher, you can also expect to sell much less copies — [citation needed]!  See, for example, Robert Ghrist, Radiohead, Louis C.K.  Of course, your statement may be true if you are not already well-known in your field, but then you're comparing deltas to epsilons anyway.

@JeffE Yeah, of course self-publishing can be great for some people that are already well-known enough to essentially do their own marketing, but the OP is presumably no Radiohead of maths. I still stand by my assertion that the OP will sell substantially less under a self-publishing model.

I don't have time to look at your work in detail, but I have at least skimmed through parts of it.  I would recommend against self-publishing if you hope for mainstream acceptance of your work (but if you don't care about that and self-publishing would make you happy, then go for it).  What you write looks like mathematics, not the sort of nonsense one sometimes sees from amateurs, and it might plausibly be correct, but the motivation is absolutely unclear to me.  To put it bluntly, I can't think of anyone who would want to read it, since I can't identify what they would learn or get out of it.  I imagine this is the reason traditional publishers are reluctant to publish it, namely that there's no apparent market for this book in its current form.
Of course this doesn't mean your work isn't good.  I don't know, since I haven't actually understood it, and it is possible that there are good reasons why it should be more popular than it has been so far.  However, if you'd like your ideas to spread and be used by others, then you need to communicate them more compellingly:

If you can address problems or topics other people have cared about in the past, in a way that couldn't be done without your work, then that will attract readers.
It's important to give interesting or beautiful examples, whose attraction does not depend on already having an emotional commitment to this work.
If you can't give great examples or make connections with previous work, then it will be difficult to attract readers, but at the very least you need to give clear, intuitive explanations of the concepts you deal with and why they are important.

In its current form, I don't think your book does any of these things.  If you self-publish it, I do not expect it will sell many copies at all, and almost exclusively to people who are unlikely to contribute to mainstream acceptance of your work (such as friends or family).  I would expect it to sell zero copies to professional mathematicians, and I'd be very surprised if it sold more than a handful.
One major contribution the publisher can make is to enforce clear and well-motivated communication.  You are too close to the work to be an objective judge of this.  You've spent years thinking about these ideas, so deeply that they now feel comfortable and natural to you, but nobody else has developed this perspective on them yet.  If you want other people to take up these research topics, then you need to attract their interest.  Reviewers or editors might be able to help refine an already attractive manuscript, but they can't add motivation from scratch (you have to convince them before they can help you convince anyone else).  Until you reach the point where a traditional publisher would accept the book, I don't think it will have the impact you desire.  So the fundamental questions are whether you can reach this point and whether you want to try.

If you publish traditionally, you make it much more likely that the audience with the background to understand your work and an interest in the topic will find it and read it.  The very fact of making it past the gatekeepers of traditional publishing serves as an advertisement of the quality of your work.
I say this based on personal experience from years of publishing philosophy non-traditionally.  You can potentially reach a general audience outside of academia if your work is truly of broad general interest, but if you want to reach the experts in your field (or if you're working in a niche that is only accessible to the experts!) you 100% need to publish in the places they publish.
For a field like mathematics, even amateurs are unlikely to take a chance on reading something not peer-reviewed.  If you disagree, ask yourself a question: When is the last time YOU purchased a self-published mathematics text by an unknown author?

Your mathematics might be wrong, and since you're too close to it and too steeped in it, you might not notice.

You have not read the following paragraphs in my question: "I can pay a professional scientific editor to edit my book for paid" and "Well, a potential buyer may prefer books published by a big publisher, but it (in my opinion) can be well replaced with big red letters "Edited and checked for errors by professor XXX.""

I read both of those things. A scientific editor is not likely to check your math, and a professor is unlikely to take money to serve as a named referee. I think you'll have better luck by following a more traditional route.

I think Lulu publishing would even better to do with errors than traditional publishers, because if I (or my reader) find an error, it is easy to do a new edition of my book. Even if somebody found 100 errors, I can make 100 editions :-)

What if your whole theory is wrong? I'm not talking about typos here and there. Self-publishing of new mathematics is often the sign of a crank, especially when it comes to amateurs working outside academic or industrial mathematics. It sends up red flags for professional mathematicians. I'm not saying you are a crank, but the traditional process has generally proved to lead to solid results over the 100+ years and self-publishing has not.

I have a high level of confidence that my theory is not completely wrong for the following reason: I do not prove one ore two "main" theorems in my book. Instead I prove a few hundreds small (mostly easy at the point of their appearance) theorems. If one of the theorems is wrong (what is quite possible), it does not render the entire theory wrong.

I don't think it matters how big or small the theorems are. If you want people to take you seriously, you'll probably need to follow the traditional forms. If there's something groundbreaking here, you'll want it in the journals and to have it peer reviewed. If there's nothing groundbreaking, you're still more likely to have your work seen if it goes through the peer review process. You've already been banned from ArXiv, so you might want to consider playing by the norms of the mathematics community.


text:
Is it legal in the US for a professor to publicly reveal a student's performance in PhD comprehensive exams?
Is it legal (for a faculty member) to publicly reveal a student's performance in PhD comprehensive exams? In the US, isn't this in violation of FERPA, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974?

I'm not completely sure whether this is off-topic in its present form, but i'll let others decide.
Could you post a link to any report in which this alleged violation has been done?

As written, this is not "off-topic," but it is "too localized." Please edit to remove references to the specific event; there is a general question about releasing information that can be asked without reference to the incident.

The audience for stackexchange includes people who are not familiar with acronyms such as FERPA (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, a U.S. federal law).  In the future, please provide some context.

After rephrasing the question is IMHO worth reopening, bur please add "in US" in the title and the content (FERPA is a US law, not an international one).

I would be interested to know if there are similar laws in other countries.

This sounds like you are asking about the legality of revealing your own performance, which of course is legal.  Given the history, I think you are asking about the legality of revealing someone else's performance.

@NateEldredge: I had edited the original q. that pertained to the Colorado shooting incident. It is about the legality of a faculty member revealing a student's performance.

Edit, again: The question seems to have changed, yet again. :)

A student can reveal their own performance in an exam. That information is their property.
Faculty cannot publicly reveal students' performances, as that would, indeed, violate the "FERPA" laws. (As parent of over-18 college student, whose tuition I'm paying, I do not have access to her grades without her permission!)

Edit: Hm... the sense of the question is radically changed. [Initially, it was about faculty publicly disclosing students' performance results. When this answer was written, it had become about whether one could disclose one's own results.] Sure, one is at liberty to reveal one's own quality-of-performance on an exam in the U.S. The "FERPA" laws would only prevent your examiners from revealing your performance publicly or to anyone who did not have a legitimate operational professional reason to have access.
It might be that the content of the exam might be partly confidential, but that is a different issue.

I can think of three reasons why a faculty member might reveal how a student performed on a qualifying examination.

When writing letters of recommendation requested by the student. Ideally you will have students provide you with written or electronic documentation stating what areas will be touched upon in a letter of recommendation. Assuming the student consents to you mentioning the qualifying examination, then you should be covered from litigation.
When approached for a reference that the student hasn't informed you that they have requested. Often students list individuals as references, but then don't let the potential referees know. As of two years ago, my school has advised us to say nothing in these cases. While this initially hurt our students, they are now aware of the policy, and the number of surprise requests is greatly diminished. If you chose to ignore school policy and reveal information about the student, then you can presumably be held liable.
Gossip. It can be accidental where you implying that someone failed his qualifying examination: "John is no longer a student here". It can also be intentional: "Don't be so quick to write off John's theory, he aced his qualifying exam." Both can get you in trouble. As with most gossip, you need to be careful with what you say and who is listening.


text:
What to do when reviewer wants p-values, but I prefer to use significance stars to prevent clutter in table?
My regression tables have coefficient estimates, standard errors, and significance stars indicating the range of p-values (e.g. two stars means p < 0.05).
A reviewer wants the exact p-values. I personally think it would make the table more cluttered than it already is, and I have 12 regression tables.
Should I adopt the reviewer's suggestion, simply because they are the ones who will play a big role in determining whether my paper is accepted? Or should I attempt to explain, saying that the p-value can be calculated from the coefficient estimates and standard errors (besides, the significance stars already give a good guide to the p-value?)
=====
Edit: I decided to get rid of the significance stars and insert the p-values. Thanks for the feedback! (Interestingly, the paper was accepted, and the reviewer recommended the paper for acceptance, but they suggested I have both the significance stars and the p-value. But I didn't take their comment)

Are you dead-set on your opinion and want to know what a good strategy is to get your paper accepted without taking this reviewer comment into account? Or are you asking about other opinions regarding the pros and cons of providing exact p-values?

(Hint: one of these two alternatives is off-topic here.)

Are these exact p-values written elsewhere in the paper? Otherwise you are potentially hiding part of your data, which seems like a poor idea.

@TobiasKildetoft if I understand correctly, the p value can be calculated from the provided values so all the needed info is there.

About how many p-values in total are we talking? Would it make sense to pick a representative selection of p-values that could be given in the text?

@StrongBad Ahh, right. I suppose this reveals me as someone who never works with any of these things :)

A related discussion, with some points on both sides: https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/94974/is-the-exact-value-of-a-p-value-meaningless

can you add the p values to the review response (so the reviewer can see it) but not to the manuscript?

Since you mention many p-values, I hope you are aware of the multiple hypothesis testing correction. That may reduce significantly the significance of your findings, and it may be one reason why the reviewer wants you to include the exact values.

Dear lord, the amount of rubbish in some answers here is disturbing. There is no such thing as more significant, an observation either IS or IS NOT significant. I may be cranky but I get really annoyed when I see people putting things like * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01 and etc because it DOES NOT SAY what I need to know when reading your results, namely was it significant AFTER your multiple testing correction.

@SinanÜnür I agree and I never meant to say that the p-value should be omitted (even if it could be calculated based on the information present). I was argueing against the use of *, ** and etc as it is meaningless. I personally advocate listing the p-value and the (corrected) alpha, as this will allow me to see if the p-value of 0.049 is significant or alternatively if the p-value of 0.0013 is not significant (because the alpha was 0.0012 after bonferroni correction == personal example).

After reading some of the notions in comments and the content of some answers, I was about to advise asking on stats.SE but (reading further) I think Fomite (who has high reputation there) has given a useful summary of much of what a good answer on stats.SE would probably say -- so perhaps it's not necessary after all.

@lighthousekeeper I don't think there is such a thing as a "representative set of p-values", and even if there is, it's not commonly used.

@wwl My assumption was that you discuss the table's contents in the text of your article, and doing so, you discuss some, but not all entries of your table specifically. So for the ones you do discuss, you can give the p-value in brackets. This is a solution I actually have seen in software engineering. But to be fair, the authors in our domain are often not the world's leading statistics experts.

In general you are not obliged to comply with all reviewer wishes in your revision, unless maybe the editor has mentioned such a point explicitly in the decision letter. If you don't want to follow a reviewer's suggestion for revision, just explain in your response letter in a factual way why you choose to do so, and see what the editor and reviewer think about it. You have good points for such a response in your question already.
I would nevertheless suggest to make the reviewer's life as easy as possible. Even if you don't want to have them in the paper, you could maybe add a list of p-values to the response letter for exactly that comment, stating that for the convenience of the reviewer you calculated the p-values from the data given in the paper (instead of expecting the reviewer to do this). You could also offer to put such a list in any supplementary material if the journal has such and the reviewer thinks it's important that readers see that.

+1 for "put such a list in any supplementary material". Everybody, who wants to see the p-values, can read them there but they do not disturb the flow of the relevant information in tables in the article.

Supplementary materials was my first thought as well. If the reviewer really wants those p-values easily accessible, it may just be best to incorporate his suggestion. Adding it to the supplementary materials won't change your paper at all, but will arguably make it more complete and will satisfy the reviewer. Everyone wins!

Something like this should not influence the final decision of the editor. Further, this is not a fight worth having with the editor/reviewer so you should be flexible and accommodating.
You should check past issues and see what the format is. If p-values, regression coefficients, and standard errors are typically provided, you should probably do that. If only 2 are provided, go with those. Assuming regression coefficients and standard errors are typically provided, in your rebuttal letter a statement along the lines of

Following what we think is the standard format for Journal Title, we have only included the regression coefficients and standard errors. As the p-value can be estimated from these values, there is no loss of information. We would be happy to make a change if our understanding of the standard format is incorrect or if an exception should be made in this case. For your convenience we have attached a copy of the tables with the p-values included to this letter.

should not influence the final decision, but it may still. So why putting up a fight for such a trivial matter?

Subject Matter Answer:
You should do as the reviewer asks. Regression stars are vague and non-specific, and amplify differences that are actually trivial. They are a coarser version of the same information, and considerably less useful.
I'm also skeptical that the difference between "*" and "0.46" is what's going to make your table too cluttered.
If anything, the most defensible answer based on "the p-value can be calculated from the coefficient estimates and standard errors" is to drop both.
Academia Answer
The answer to what you should do will depend very much on the reviewers, and how big a deal they want to make of this - as well as the journal's stance on it. There are journals I review for where this objection (and indeed, the p-values generally) are likely enough to derail the entire paper. There are others where this is of less concern.
The question then becomes "Is another round of review worth potentially not having to reformat my tables?"
I can't imagine a circumstance where I would answer "Yes" to this, but YMMV.

best answer so far (an by far)

For a dissenting opinion on your first paragraph, take a look at Boos & Stefanski (2011, TAS). Basically, $p$ values are statistics just like coefficient estimates and others, and they exhibit sampling variability. Boos & Stefanski argue that in the light of this sampling variability, the precision of "significance stars" may be just what is warranted, whereas giving the exact $p$ values implies a precision that simply isn't there. More on this here.

+1 Sometimes you might run out of "rounds" and the paper just gets straight rejected by the editor. Is it really worth the risk?

@StephanKolassa good points, and the paper The Meta-Distribution of Standard P-Values by Taleb claims to show that  a p value of 0.05 makes no sense anyway.

@StephanKolassa Personally, I've simply stopped reporting p-values, but that seemed too far for the ops question. I'm mostly opposed to stars at the boundaries. p = 0.055 gets ' ' and p = 0.05 gets '*'

@crobar: thanks, that article looks interesting - will take a look. The abstract kind of reminds me of the dance of the p values.

In addition to the suggestions to include the exact p-values to make the referee happy, I also want to add that including the p-values explicitly (rather than making your readers calculate it themselves if they want to know) will make your readers more happy as well.
When I read a paper, I hope the author has included as much information as I need to understand what I need to from the paper without having to do a lot of footwork myself.

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

Explain that the table would be too cluttered and include a full table with the p values in the response.
Sometimes requests like these are there to determine if the values (p values in this case) are acceptable in all cases. "I want to see the values" does not always mean that they must be in the paper. He/she might literally mean that he/she wants to personally see the values for review purpose.
As a reviewer, I have asked extra info just to see if everything is alright and as an author I have provided reviewers with extra information on the reply to assure that everything is alright and missing things are really not there only because it really does not fit into the page limits.

I don't think having info in the response to the reviewer only is sufficient, if it is necessary, it should be available to the reader as well.

@Davidmh Certainly, but sometimes there is no way around, some tables are too big to fit into any page. Readers are allowed to assume everything is in order.

"Readers are allowed to assume everything is in order." I strongly disagree. Peer review is not a guarantee of quality, and readers are strongly encouraged to treat every paper critically. And without open reviews, I have no way to know what did the reviewers think of, or what is their expertise (for example, they may be very knowledgeable on the domain at hand, but weak in statistics).

First of all, let me defend my answer by saying that this is (reviewer asking info for him/herself) sometimes the case. Then let me continue with saying you are right on everything you have said. Peer review should be a guarantee on the quality, but, I have witnessed enough to know that's not the case.

I understand your objection to putting in redundant information, but are your tables as-is really all that cluttered? With just coefficients, standard error, and some coded asterisks, along with a label for each row, that sounds like just 3 columns (no need for the asterisks to be their own column).
Unless I am missing something, I'd recommend just adding the p-values to appease the reviewer in your revision. If it causes a problem with typesetting and organization, you could ask the editor for their preference, which might overrule the reviewer or result in a movement to supplementary material.
Just as a personal preference, I'd usually rather see coefficients and confidence intervals rather than standard errors, p-values, and significance stars, if we are limiting to just a couple items. Confidence intervals are much more flexible.

It is a correlation table which usually is the upper/lower triangle of a symmetric NxN matrix so could have a very large number of rows and columns. Each entry of the table probably looks like x.xx (y.yy)*

@StrongBad That makes sense; I've rarely if ever seen those tables included in the body of a paper, anyways. OP referred to "regression tables" which I assumed was a table of factor coefficients, though I suppose those could also be arranged horizontally in levels and vertically in factors, I have seen both.


text:
How to politely enquire how serious someone is when they say "work for me as a postdoc"
I am a PhD student that is about to graduate. Sometimes professors whom I know personally (and/or have collaborated with before) will say "Come work in my lab as a postdoc!".
However, when I approach them after a few days/weeks/months, they inform me they would like to hire me, but do not have any funding.
Personally I would rather they not have not said "Come work in my lab as a postdoc" if they weren't sure they would have the funding, but I understand their reasons for saying such things.
However, in future, how can I politely enquire how serious they are about how interested (and able) they are in hiring me?

I would interpret that sentence as "I encourage you to apply", nothing more.

How can you see how serious they are? Ask them if they have or will soon post a job. On the other hand, my post-doc job was gotten in a very short conversation, when the director I knew of an interesting institute came up to me at a conference and asked me when I could start...

I would follow up the verbal conversation with an email.  For example

Thanks for the encouraging words the other day about a possible postdoc.  I wanted to check, were you talking about a funded position?  Where would I find instructions for submitting an application?

Depending on the vibes you got, you might want to start with something less formal, for example

Thanks for the encouraging words the other day about a possible postdoc. I was wondering whether the position might be available for the upcoming semester.

Ask them!!! If you're having a conversation, and they mention that, it could be a serious proposal or could be a throwaway compliment. You could ask "I would be interested in that - did you mean it seriously?" or "I'd be interested - do you have funding available?"


text:
Does the time taken to do a PhD affect post doctoral applications?
I am a non EU PhD Student in Germany in Global Studies. I am now in my 8th year of a PhD program, which is quite dysfunctional. However, with a lot of difficulty, I am about to complete the PhD and hand it in.
I am looking at post doctoral opportunities but am worried that the long time I took to complete the PhD would affect me negatively. I have published quite widely, presented work at international conferences, and am in my late 40s now. I began my career as an academic (masters in 2008) after a long career as a journalist.

Does it affect postdoc career prospects? Certainly, yes. Is it the only factor? Certainly no. Is it an important factor? Most likely no.

If you have a good working relationship with your advisor, you should have a frank conversation with them about how they view this issue, how it will affect their letters of support for you, and so on. (If you do not have a good relationship, that may be a bigger issue to face than the length of your PhD.)

The fact that you took 8 years for your PhD, the fact that you barely managed to finish it and also the fact that you are in your late 40s influence your chances of getting a post doc.
However, from the given information alone, it is not possible to tell how strongly.
If we assume about 5 years of study for bachelor/master/other and 8 years for PhD, there are still 15-20 years missing here to get you in your late 40s. What you did in this time might play an important role on your job search.
Furthermore, it is important if you just wrote down something that was barely accepted as a PhD thesis, or if you took 8 years to work everything out properly and write the perfect thesis. I think the quality of your thesis will play a bigger role than the time you needed to finish it.

In Germany you can by law only be employed for 12 years as a PhD-student / PostDoc. So this leaves only 4 years to either land a professorship or move from one third party funded project to the next. Also a professorship typically means "verbeamtung" which gets harder the older you get.
The academic market in Germany is very unforgiving and you have to be careful not to end up in an impossible position where you are basically kicked out of academia, but at the same time have been in academia too long to be attractive outside academia.
I am not saying you shouldn't pursue your dreams. I am certainly not saying that the current situation in Germany is right (it is not). But I am telling you to be careful, and to at least have a plan B ready and not wait too long to activate that plan B.

I was not employed throughout. My funding ended in 2012. After that, I have been just a registered student. Does that count?

Hi,  I was employed only till 2012. Since then I have funded myself through odd jobs etc. No academic position after 2014, but 2012 to 2014 was in the English department teaching English.

That depends on so many details, that is hard to say. You need to talk to the personal department at your university, to start figuring out exactly how much time you still got and what your options are.

"In Germany you can by law only be employed for 12 years as a PhD-student / PostDoc."
This statement as it is now is wrong. In Germany you can be employed at a university and similar for max. 6 years from direct state funding without a qualification change. PhD is a qualification change, habilitation is a qualification change, sort of (ask your department). Being funded from other governmental or private agencies does not count. Having children amends the deadline. I am quite sure that getting a PhD abroad does not count.

Thank you Oleg. From 2008 to 2010 I had a grant, which I think does not count towards the limit. Then I was employed from 2010 to 2012. Then taught English at the University in a different department from 2012 to 2014. So is it four years of the 12 that I have used?

@OlegLobachev thanks. However, any short description of a law will be wrong. No one should base their actions on any description of a law found on the internet. Your description is probably a bit less inaccurate as mine, but still the bottom line is that there is a potential problem and the OP needs to talk to a professional.

Did it happen in Germany? The law is relevant for time spent at German universities. Ask your target university.
@Maarten Buis: Sure, best idea is to ask the HR of the university where OP wants to work.


text:
Is mistakenly attributing something to an author that they did not say misconduct or simply bad scholarship?
Related: Miscited in a bachelor thesis
In the above question, the OP mentions that,

...my bachelor thesis had been cited....I have been attributed a conclusion that I haven't drawn, and is indeed counter-indicated by the data I've collected.

Most people are familiar with ordinary plagiarism, where a writer will fail to cite a source for something that actually came from that source. What kind of a violation occurs if a researcher cites a source that says something other than what they claim it does, especially if done inadvertently? For example, suppose Smith (2003) found that "By applying Woot's Theorem to the equation above, we see that the area under the curve is bounded by n to the x where p>3". I, in a rush to get my paper out, mistakenly say, "Smith (2003) found that the area under the curve is always bounded.", not realizing that it had been qualified with the "p>3" condition and that the area might not be bounded in cases where p<=3.
Is this research misconduct or simply sloppy scholarship? That is, if a researcher is "caught" doing this, is the maximum penalty generally article rejection and/or a lowered course grade, or is this a grave mark against the researcher's future career in the same way a founded accusation of plagiarism or falsifying data would be?
My instinct tells me that intent must play a big part in this, and that inadvertent mistakes are simply poor scholarship while an intentional mis-cite ("I'm too lazy to find a real source for this, so I'll just claim that Stephen Hawking said it.") constitutes some type of plagiarism, but most definitions of plagiarism that I have encountered emphasize that intent is not an element, i.e. "Oops, I forgot to cite that" is as much plagiarism as intentionally printing out a copy of a Wikipedia article and submitting it as your thesis.
If this is misconduct, but not plagiarism, what specific kind of misconduct is it? Falsification of data would also seem to not apply, since a citation is not data, and a reader can more easily verify the correctness of a citation than they can verify that the data you claim to have collected in the field was actually collected by you under the conditions that you claim.

This specific example is very cut and dry. There is no reality where this is plagiarism, this is certain.
This could be a case of research misrepresentation if the matter of always bounded vs conditionally bounded is extremely important for the main treatise of the work; if not, it’s just an oversight, maybe sloppiness but not necessarily characteristic of the entire paper.
Authors can:
1) proactively offer the change of MS if still under review
2) submit errata note if paper is published
3) do nothing, laugh about the mistake over beer, and deal with the occasional email from angry colleagues calling out their gaffe
Mistakes happen and the scientific literature is not immune. There are procedures for correcting this when not caught in advance.

Yes, intent matters, but scholars need to do due diligence in their studies. If they don't then their infractions become more serious. There are some things that scholars should know and there are some things that scholars should do. In some cases it is just sloppiness. In some cases it is intentional misconduct.
But there is a broad area in between in which the culpability varies even if there is no evil intent in the action.
Like anyone, a scholar needs to take care. We are trying to extend the range of what is known to be true in the world. We are also trying to give originators of ideas proper credit when they are able to advance truth.
So, intent means a lot, but it isn't everything. And if you exercise due diligence but still err, it is just an honest mistake. Worth apologizing for, of course.
In some fields, such as math, it is impossible for a person to know everything. That hasn't been possible for about 100 years. So, research is needed in narrow areas to make sure that you know the background of what you are doing. So, unintentional plagiarism is possible, but sloppy.
But "sloppiness" is an infraction of its own. It isn't "pure as the driven snow". Not the worst infraction possible, but still a blot on your reputation if you do that. So "just" sloppiness might give the wrong impression.


text:
Is there such a thing as a permanent academic assistantship position?
It's common for graduate students and postdocs to fulfill various "assistant" positions in academia. They may grade papers or conduct research under the direct supervision of a faculty member who is ultimately responsible for the work product. These are functions that require real academic skills, but not up to the level expected of a faculty member. The important thing about these positions is that they are intended to be temporary, a type of brief apprenticeship training on the road to professorship rather than an actual stable career that one could stay in for a few decades.
Is there such a thing in academia as a permanent, full-time assistantship, one not temporary or tied to student status? That is, is it reasonably possible for someone to do this as a career? Obviously, this sort of thing probably wouldn't pay as much as a full-time, regular faculty appointment, but that is neither here nor there for this question.
I'm not thinking about Adjunct Professors. Adjuncts are usually temporary, part-time employees that actually hold faculty-level responsibility. I'm talking about a situation where a person might hold a full-time, indefinite appointment grading student papers, finding citations, or checking petri dishes for bacterial growth under the supervision of faculty, but wouldn't do (and isn't in training to do) their own research or teach unsupervised.
I also recognize that academic departments often have general office positions such as secretaries, human resources professionals, IT help desk technicians, etc., but these sort of roles do not typically involve the use of advanced academic skills.
There are various reasons a person could want to do this. They might want to work in academia but lack the talent to do truly original research, or they might actually have it but realize part-way through their PhD that they hate doing original research but truly enjoy grading papers or holding tutoring sessions. They might like going out into the field and applying best practices in digging up soil samples but enjoy the fact that their career is not in jeopardy if the research hits a dead-end (rather, the faculty that decided to dig there faces the setback).
As an example, someone might say, "Ok, I'm wrapping up my MS in Chemistry and I don't want to go for a PhD, my thesis was hard enough! I'd really like to spend the next ten years grading freshman homework, TA'ing the Organic Chemistry I lab, and designing data-gathering protocols for others' research projects. Those were the parts of the past two years that I truly enjoyed."

Some departments may have supervisors for undergraduate labs (oversee safe operations, maintain equipment, etc.). Research center directors will often be tenured professors, but there is usually an assistant or two to perform much of the day-to-day work keeping things going. Academia is pretty diverse, so many things are possible.

I think it would be a tiny target to aim for if you want a career. Certainly there are lab assistants in large labs. But funding might be grant dependent. For positions that don't require long term continuity, students are likely preferred.

Maybe it isn't official. But I have certainly seen people who worked as non-tenure-track researchers for decades. I remember one guy in particular who had been at the department for more than 20 years, working for the prof he got his PhD under.

Yes, this absolutely exists in my field. Such people are typically called "Research Scientists" or "Research Associates." At my last university, a PhD was only a requirement for Research Scientist III. The level of independence depended on your own experience, and I suppose your PI's desires. That is, I would expect each one to have their own pieces of a project, and be on a few papers a year.
I have not heard of one having teaching responsibilities (even just grading) without holding a PhD, since those are often used for grad student funding. I do know of a few people who had lecturer responsibilities without holding a faculty position technically.

I have done a lot of grading as PhD student. Small oral exams by myself, bigger written exams were usually graded by the whole insitute staff (all PhD students, postdocs and permanent researchers), typically assigning everyone their "own" question(s).

I have a position that sounds similar to these, though I do have a PhD. I would say the main requirement for these positions is "a department or professor who will pay the bills" - if you can convince someone to fund your position, these jobs exist. Except for some very high-demand skill sets, like statisticians (who often fill these jobs with just a MS or maybe even a BS), most people in these jobs were known to the person funding them ahead of time.

@cbeleitessupportsMonica I've never heard of staff grading anything, but I spent most of my time in a non-degree-granting department.

Who does the grading depends a lot on the school. My school offers PhDs in very few departments, so Master's candidates do most of the grading, under supervision of the course instructor. I personally do all my own grading, because I feel the feedback is critical to student learning, but I know I'm in the minority on that.

These positions exist, but at least here in Germany they are rare.
In, German, we call everyone in a research or teaching position at a university who has graduated and is not a professor Akademischer Mittelbau. I'll translate this for now as mid-level faculty (but would be happy to receive better translation suggestions). Mid-level faculty includes what would be an assistant professor in the US, and also researchers/teachers working on their habilitation but not junior professors.
If you look up the fraction of such positions that is permanent, you'll see quite some variation depending on whether the fraction is given for mid-level faculty without PhD students (who are are counted in this mid-level group unless they volountarily enrolled as student; PhD "students" basically always on fixed term positions) and whether the fraction is given for mid-level researchers paid by the Land or includes also positions in third-party funded research (the latter being  fixed term for the project duration).
Of the mid-level positions paid by the Land Thüringen in 2017, 53 % were fixed term.
FAZ from March 2018 about the situation in all of Germany (so not specific Länder) says the fraction of fixed term positions among those paid by their respective Land (Grundfinanzierung) rose from 67 % -> 75 % from 2005 -> 2015.
If you include positions on third-party funded projects, you'll find fractions around 80 - 85 % of the mid-level staff being on fixed-term positions.

In my experience, mid-level faculty permanent positions are maybe an Oberassistent being the head of the labwork practica, often also teaching a lot, or they may be the "keeper" of delicate large instruments where at some point the professor was able to negotiate with the Land that such an expensive instrument also needs someone alongside who doesn't change every few years (these ones are involved in ongoing research). They are often approaching pension age (because some decades back, there were more permanent positions in academia) - but once they retire, there often won't be a permanent contract any more.
The other type of permanent positions are technical staff (which still may require a PhD).
The chance to get a permanent contract as researcher but not professor is IMHO higher if you consider non-university research such as research institutes run by the federal government or the big research societies (Max Planck, Leibniz, Fraunhofer, Helmholtz). It may also be higher if you consider a University of Applied Science (Fachhochschule) rather than a normal university.

I also recognize that academic departments often have general office positions such as secretaries, human resources professionals, IT help desk technicians, etc., but these sort of roles do not typically involve the use of advanced academic skills.

Yes, but: as I hinted at above, there are also technical positions that require at least a Master or even a PhD. E.g. I know

a physicist holding a technical position in a deprtment of psychology (building measurement instruments for their experiments)
a computer scientist half on a research position and half on a IT technician position (didn't ask exactly what they do there, but the institute does quite heavy computations)
another physicist who's "keeper" of a research laser.
some chemists looking after similarly delicate machinery, and practicum and teaching (of whom I don't actually know whether they are on a permanent position, but if not they are at least sufficiently high up on the priority list whom to keep by the responsible professor to be there since at least 15 a)

"Ok, I'm wrapping up my MS in Chemistry and I don't want to go for a PhD, my thesis was hard enough! I'd really like to spend the next ten years grading freshman homework, TA'ing the Organic Chemistry I lab, and designing data-gathering protocols for others' research projects. Those were the parts of the past two years that I truly enjoyed."

My experience as a chemist is that chemistry is one of the very few fields where the PhD is pretty much unavoidable. This plan has a few practical problems:

grading freshman homework, TA'ing the Organic Chemistry I lab: yes, that's done by fresh Masters. But these TA positions are usually reserved for PhD students who have to earn their living somehow. Someone who doesn't want to go for a PhD will typically not get such a position.
designing data-gathering protocols for others' research projects: unfortunately, for all I know chemistry is still very blind with respect to data, curation, and programming resources needed for their projects. Again, a PhD student doing this and pointing out the need during their research will be welcome (highly appreciated even; I've done that), but getting a (full) position for this that isn't involved in PhD research will be extremely hard.
I've hardly seen any permanent teaching staff at higher levels (i.e. not the PhD student TAs, but those responsible for their own lecture series) that did not have a PhD, and many even did/had their habilitation.

So from what I've seen, it is easier to transition from a point where you've proven to be capable as researcher to doing more and more teaching, or more and more of the high-level technical stuff.

UK life science here:
Such positions do exist, but with Germany (@cbeleites above), they are rare.
In research these positions are sometimes known as Staff Scientist or Scientific Officer. They are more common at research institutes than universities and generally require a PhD. The key point is that you generally can't be grant funded grant funding, by its nature, is time limited. 99% of science is grant funded in UK Life Science universities departments.
An alternative is the so called perma-doc. These are people that attach themselves to a senior academic and basically move from one time limited postdoc contract to the next with the same boss. As long as the boss keeps getting money, you keep getting a job. This can work out, but is risky as the academics work might fall out of fashion, and the grants dry. Also, the academic will almost always be older, and so will retire before you. And then you are in trouble.
Without a PhD, you are basically talking about research technicians. These are sometimes employed on permanent contracts by departments, sometimes on grant money (with the assumption of renewal).
There are also permanent, non-faculty jobs in teaching. Although again, they are rare. Our department employs 2 teaching lab technicians and 2 permanent demonstrators. The demonstrators are "fresh out of PhD" kind of level, work 9 months a year (we are lobbying to change this), but are permanent. I don't know about the level of qualifications for the teaching lab techs.