text:
Postdoc Offer from NSF Host Institution
I am currently a PhD student. I received a postdoc offer from the host institution in my NSF postdoc fellowship application, and later received the NSF offer.  My advisor mentioned that I might be able to ask the department to "combine" the offers in some way -- for example, staying for a fourth year. Is this a reasonable request to make to the department chair, or is this asking for too much?

Do you have a reason to doubt the advice from your advisor?

Is there a reason you would want to combine the offers, e.g., do you want to stay for 4 years?

You might get some good advice from the persons at the insitutes you are considering going to. Especially the people you are considering working directly with.  Perhaps they have had similar situations previously.

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

Sure, it’s reasonable to ask. In general, combining NSF postdocs with other types of funded postdoc positions is pretty standard and done quite commonly (for example at my department, when I was a department chair, we had a couple such arrangements I think). Departments are generally quite happy trying to make such arrangements work, since an NSF postdoc both saves them money and is evidence of a person with a lot of potential to do good work. (On the other hand, the department will likely have their own considerations and sets of constraints, so of course it’s not guaranteed that they will agree to any suggestion.)
With that being said, it is likely not in your interest from a career advancement perspective to stay as a postdoc in the same department for four years. I’d suggest consulting with your advisor and future postdoc mentor about what sort of arrangement would actually benefit you the most, and then discussing that with the department.
Good luck, and congratulations on the postdoc!

Might be worth pointing out that a NSF grant to an individual person to do a post doc is far more prestigious than working with funds the institution already has.

@BryanKrause sure, you’re right in a sense but I guess I don’t like the word prestige. What’s more relevant to me is that by competing for and winning this very competitive fellowship, OP has shown themselves to be a person with high potential and promise. An academic department should try to maximize the quality of work being done by its members, not its “prestige” (which is a byproduct of doing good work, not a cause of it).

I meant more for OP rather than the department, and that if in any way they have to choose which funding to use it should be the NSF money to them (I can't quite see a case where there would be pressure otherwise, though; certainly the host institution is going to want the outside funding!). If OP wants to continue in academia they'll want to show employers they not only do good research but also can get it funded, and nothing is better to show that than past successful grants.

@BryanKrause makes sense, thanks for the clarification.

If there is an "optimal" length for a postdoc, it will heavily depend on the overall field as well as the specific person and environment. Four years might be too long for some kinds of work; it's barely enough to get started in others.

Having the option of a 4th year is always a good thing, you can always leave after 3 if you get a permanent job!

@Matt my field is math. Can you give an example of a field where a four year postdoc is barely enough to get started? And to be clear, I meant specifically that it’s likely not optimal to be four years as a postdoc in the same department. Doing a postdoc for longer than three years is quite common in math these days, but if after three years you haven’t secured a tenure track position, it may be better to seek another postdoc position somewhere else for one or two years.

@DanRomik, Experimental work often moves slowly, especially if they involve behaving/developing animals. It often takes a year+ to get non-human primates to the point where one can start collecting data--and at least two animals are needed for a publishable paper. Add in some time for setup, data collection, analysis, publication, as well as the inevitable missteps, and four years is quite tight. Big labs can speed this up a bit, but it's very labor-intensive too. My PhD and postdoc advisors were both postdocs for ~8 years, in simpler times w/o a pandemic.

If I read your question correctly, it seems that you want to know if it is appropriate to ask the department offering you a postdoc to delay its start so that you can first fund through an NSF grant.
Given that interpretation, then yes, you can ask, and I'd guess they would be interested in going along, though the term might need to be negotiated. There are advantages for some departments to delay expenses and, if they are interested in you (seems obvious) then having you around for longer might be good for them.
But, your status might need to change at some point from NSF funded postdoc to university funded postdoc. And, how firm a commitment might be would need negotiation.
You'd also do well to seek a more permanent position all along the path.
But, it is certainly appropriate to explore with the department head (and maybe the dean) what options you have. Good luck.

But, you might not be, technically, a postdoc, but an NSF funded visiting scholar for a while. - I don't think you can change the NSF postdoc status.  I sort of combined an NSF postdoc with a "visiting assistant professor" position and the NSF postdoc doesn't morph into anything else.

@Kimball, ah, right. let me patch it up a bit.


text:
I took Pre Calc II and Calculus at community colllege. When I transferred, they accepted my calculus credit but says I need finite math?
The prerequisite for the Calculus class that they accepted was the Finite Math. They accepted my Calculus class with an A. My precalc II and calculus class should suffice the Finite math, right?

Probably not, but it depends on the content of the precalc class.

Read your university's course catalog.

You say that the finite math was a prerequisite for calculus, so presumably you have already successfully completed a finite math course. So: did you present the paperwork for the finite math to the college in the same way that you did for calculus? If so: what reason did they give for not accepting it?

Sorry no.  Finite Mathematics is quite different from the earlier courses. It is required for a reason.
The thinking patterns are not the same. That is, I think, the most important point. Continuous and discrete math require different thought structures. If you don't get a good grounding in both then you limit yourself.
Note that Finite Math as a prerequisite for Calculus is (or was, at least) relatively rare. And in some places that do it, the FM course might be too elementary for future needs.
But the important point is that for some majors, especially math and computing, a solid course in finite math is essential. It is useful both in theory and applications.

At some colleges/universities, the "finite math course" is essentially a minimal-algebra distribution requirement for weak math students majoring in something requiring almost no math competence (i.e. essentially a "math appreciation" course), but this is fairly rare, and in a large majority of places "finite math" is as you describe. Thus, I agree, and the OP's situation is very likely different from that of my wife's situation.

General requirements, core curricula, and degree plans all vary from university to university. For the sake of accreditation, there are common patterns (e.g., at least one first year composition course, at least one math course), but the exact courses required or the prerequisites built in may differ in unexpected ways. When transferring, it is always important to look at both catalogs and anticipate potential issues.
It sounds like you're in a situation where you've taken math courses, the course credits do transfer, but what you took is not directly equivalent to an additional requirement, Finite Mathematics. Usually, this means you have to take that course at the new university, even if it's technically a prerequisite for a course you now have credit for.
Occasionally, if the title and content of the course you took are close to a course at the new university (e.g. "British Literature to 1660" and "British Literature 1") and an automated system rejected equivalency, you can appeal to a university registrar with the syllabus and have them review whether the course is worth direct credit. That said, I agree with Buffy and doubt they would treat Pre-Calculus II and Finite Mathematics as equivalent.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
I'm applying for a job for an Asst. Prof in Canada, and not sure of the protocols for reference letters. Am I supposed to send them, or my referees?
The language in the job posting says, "Applicants must arrange for these and three letters of reference to be sent directly to." I have already requested three referees to directly email their letters to the professor. Is the protocol that I'm not supposed to see the letters of recommendation? Can my referees request confirmation of receipt of their letters?

The language is clear that the letters are sent "directly", rather than through you. So, the writers send the letters themselves.
Even when the protocol is that you shouldn't see the letters, some writers will show them to you anyway, thinking it is harmless. The intent, is that the writer should be able to say whatever they think appropriate, even if it doesn't flatter the applicant. But you can assume that the protocol is that you don't see the letters in advance. Moreover, you give your assent to that "private" communication about you.
Yes, they can ask for confirmation, though whether it is sent or not might vary.

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


text:
Is [sic] used for the citation itself?
I am writing a capstone paper using MLA. I am using a digital file for a source and the file's title seems to have a typo and improper capitalization. The title is "District Demographics all students (preK-13)" however, there is no grade 13 in this US school district, at least according to the district's website. Normally, one would capitalize all words in a title (or at least I would).
Is it improper to add a [sic] to the actual citation and not just a quote? My proposed citation would look something like:

Karjala, Ryan. “Districts Demographics all students (PreK-13)” [sic]. 2021. Google Sheets file.

What does [sic] mean ? (I am new here).

It is used for corrections of inadvertent misstatements, like writing "there" when you mean "their" or "your" when you mean "you're". Why do you (OP) think it applies here. Do you believe PreK-12 was intended and the 13 was inadvertent?

@Buffy, Yeah, I believe 13 was a typo and I don't want the grader to think that it's MY typo :)

@Buffy Saying it is used "for the correction" sounds a bit ambigous. It is used to point out that a typo/error in a quote is from the original quote (stressing "yes, that's what it actually says there"), and not to mark that one has made a correction to the quote.

"Normally, one would capitalize all words in a title": That really depends on the journal's style. When citing, you should follow the original publication, and not whether you think that all words should be capitalized (which I, for instance, often find awkward).

In this specific case, it would be hard to infer from the "[sic]" what you were actually referring to ...

I would say no - it is implicitly assumed that the bibliography entry describes the publication in a well-defined way, however absurd or wrong the original title might be. Its sole purpose is for the reader to be able to find the referred material - no more, no less.
Like Roland said in the comments, if the same sentence or some other excerpt from the paper you believe to be wrong would occur mid-text, then you use [sic]. Actually, there is no need to confirm it is wrong - [sic] indicates your belief that that is the case.
EDIT: Also, the capitalization is a part of the citation style/journal style, as pointed out in the comments.

I think I agree, as long as this is just about the 13. The capitalization issue is separate as that is a question of style.

@toby544 Thank you. Added an edit.

Capitalize a citation the way the citation style guide says to capitalize it.  In academic journals, the copyeditor will change the capitalization to whatever is customary for that journal if the author has not done it.
Do not change "13" to "12."  That just makes it harder to find the reference later.  Search tools understand capitalization, but not grade numbering.
I do not feel a need for [sic] to be included.

It is hard to imagine that an error in the title of a paper would escape notice. I'd be hesitant to suggest that it was. If you have a proper copy of the paper and it, indeed, said "13" then I wouldn't want to second guess it. Perhaps there is something about that district that you don't know.
But for an assignment it might be ok.
For an assignment it isn't a problem until it is a problem, at which case, you could actually verify to the prof. that you were accurate in the reference. In the old days of paper submissions, a sticky note (well, not the old-old days, I guess) pointing to the accuracy would be a solution also.

It's a Google Sheet file so I don't think that there's a hardcopy to reference. It's also a relatively easy fix. Since this is a district file, it doesn't have the rigor required of an actual peer-reviewed source, which is probably why I couldn't find an answer to this question before I asked it here.

Can you ask the author?

Not a bad idea. I'll shoot them an email tomorrow along with my supervisor who has experience grading these portfolios.

It is hard to imagine that an error in the title of a paper would escape notice. -- Some examples from a quick search of some of my personal-use bibliographies: Descriptiove character of sets ... and On some applications of the index conparison ... and Symmetric and approximate symmeric ... and ... et les ensemles H.


text:
My supervisor is blocking my major PhD work from being submitted. What should I do?
I have a 14 page draft sitting there for a year now, which I wrote exclusively. For my work I used specific hardware, which my supervisor got me access to so I cannot take his name off the paper. I have been asking him countless times to review/comment on it, but all he says is that he's busy and he'll look at it when he has time. He doesn't consent to submitting it anywhere, not even on arxiv, since he's 'not convinced of the current state'. I asked two external researchers in the field who flagged minor issues with figure captions or some clarifications, but other than that said that 'it is well written'. My supervisor is oldschool, tenured and doesn't care if something takes years to publish. Submitting without his consent could leave a bad impression on editors if my supervisor intervenes. I changed to industry after my PhD (one year ago), so it's not like I desperately need it on my publication record, but I do feel that I would like to showcase my work. The only way forward I see currently is to take the main idea of the paper and re-write it without the hardware implementation, so that I don't have to put his name on it. Of course this will take time. Is there another way?

I don't see why the hardware gives him authorship. If someone at the upcoming Olympics sets a world record while they're using my skis, I don't win the gold medal.

Kicking him off the paper would be even worse than submitting without his consent I feel like. Not sure that's an option...

Why not? he shouldn't have been on there in the first place. No one but you needs to know that you used to have his name listed.

The odds are unfortunately not in your favour. I can think of two options besides what you are already thinking:
(1) Try to make it sound as if he can get something out of it. Then offer deadlines, cite your reasons for urgency. Perhaps you can say that this paper will open new pathways for your collaboration where you can secure another funding for both of you -- you don't have to, but a convincing offer might get him started.
(2) In some institutions, there are ombudsmen or spokesperson who handle such academic collaboration cases. They may contact this person on a subtle note, asking that they are concerned about the status of your work. Do not take this option lightly.
Since you are an ex-student, I do not think he will bother much about it. If both the above fail in the next 6 months, and you have made sure he has not used that work anywhere else (which you should definitely complain against), you should go ahead with your idea of re-writing. Do not submit anything without his consent, this will put the ball badly in your court.

Thanks a lot for your comment. I think I'll wait a bit more to see if really nothing moves. At the end he does want to see the work published, it's just that he feels like he needs to put his stamp on it and that he simply doesn't make time for it. If it doesn't happen I'll rewrite it, potentially even improving on the original idea.


text:
Is it bad form to use the word exciting in a paper, when discussing other people's results?
When writing a paper with a collaborator, they didn't like that I used the word "exciting" in the abstract since they said that they don't like when people use personal qualifiers in writing papers. In particular, my sentence was

With these exciting results in mind, we study...

(where the 'results' I am referring to are from a few recent experimental papers which I had nothing to do with). I initially wrote it in this way to emphasize that the recent results are interesting. Is this truly something that should be avoided?
Note: If it makes any difference I work in physics.

Let the reader judge!

Just rephrase to emphasize the significance of your results. 'With these results, we thus have P=NP'.

With a fairly common expression on the SE sites, let's say that what is exciting in a paper is primarily opinion based...

Yes, it is bad form to call your own work "exciting".  However, if you feel so inclined, you may use it for the work of others.

@GEdgar: While I probably should have emphasized this in the question, the "results" I was referring to were of other peoples. I was using their exciting results to motivate our study.

Another option is to describe how the results have been perceived by the field in general. "X's results created quite a bit of excitement in the Y community when they were published."

I, for one, have no problem an author displaying enthusiasm.  Furthermore, this is a valuable service to the reader, who may not be as familiar with the field and would like to know your opinion on which results are significant and which are routine.

"Is it bad...?" Not in particle physics! (rimshot)

An established rule on proper writing demands to "show, don't tell". This does not mean that your results can be left to "speak for themselves", but it suggests that rather than simply claiming that your results are exciting, you should demonstrate and argue why they are. The onus is on your interpretation.
Moreover, the attribute "exciting", just as "interesting", is particularly trite because it is over-used and terribly vague. It begs the question as to what it is that is so exciting.

Also, if you still feel for using the word, you can use for the question, not for the result, for instance: ... many people gave partial answers to this exciting question by Doe [Doe08]. We contribute by ...

Regarding your later comment on your question, the answer applies regardless of whether the results are yours or those of someone else. If you motivate your contribution by referring to a preexisting study, briefly explain the motivation further. For example, rather than saying that a previous study is "exciting", write "Previous results challenge the established notion that X always causes Y, and thereby invite the question when X does or does not cause Y. We investigate these boundary conditions." This clarifies what makes previous work exciting and explains how it motivates your work.

Actually I think it's useful for the author to highlight the important part of the work, including the most relevant preceding result. Most of the time when reading a paper one's attention drifts in at least one place, so when the author says "this is the exciting result" at least the reader knows he should pay attention and regard this part as important. If the author leaves it cut and dry then the reader might not even notice it. So when writing it is courtesy to have some sympathy for your reader and leave in a few sign posts.

@Calchas. the point is to say this is the exciting result, not it is an exciting result.

In mathematics, it is not uncommon to attach emotionally charged adjectives to theorems. For example, nobody would raise an eyebrow at phrases such as "beautiful theorem". It goes without saying that such praise is only appropriate when truthful: it would be bad form to call a result "exciting" simply because you happend to be proving it's generalisation. Also, modesty requires that you should never say such things about your own work.
I personally find such language quite helpful. It is useful to know if a given result is something to get excited about or not. Sometimes, results speak for themselves, but this is not always the case (and there isn't always space to explain the reasons properly, especially if you just mention a result to provide context).
I'm not sure to what extent these rules extend to other fields.

Do you do it to your own theorems?  True, Gauss named a result "Theorema Egregium" but do you do likewise?

@GEdgar: Of course I don't. Sorry if I wasn't very explicit about it, but (as far as I can tell) one whould try to avoid praising one's own work as far as possible.

@GEdgar And even if you are Gauss, this strategy may backfire when the connotation of your adjective shifts over time :-)

+1 for the usefulness of emotional indicators. Although I guess this is more useful for the layman (in the field) than the expert.

Describing your own work as "exciting" is crass and inappropriate. People do not appreciate being told how to feel and the reader will decide for themselves whether your work is exciting. If they think it's exciting, they didn't need you to tell them; if they don't, you look like an idiot for hyping it so much.  Looking like an idiot hurts your credibility.
It may be appropriate to describe somebody else's work as "exciting": that comes across more as a very enthusiastic recommendation, rather than as telling the reader what to think. But it should be used sparingly: again, you lose credibility if you describe anything but the very best in such glowing terms.

i wouldn't go so far as to call the use of «exciting» «crass». it's not exactly a curse word, is it?

@henning "crass" has nothing to do with being or not being a curse word.

I don't appreciate you telling me how to feel about the usage of the word "exciting" ;)

@Calchas I'm not telling you how to feel; I'm pointing out how others feel. :-P

Absolutely not. Exciting, intriguing, etc. These are great terms that, when used in moderation, can add some enthusiasm to your writing. To give you a fake example, you could say in an abstract for a Review article something like this:
"This article summarizes some of the recent and exciting developments in the field of cardiovascular medicine, with a particular emphasis on animal models of coronary artery disease."
OR if you are forming your rational within the introduction of a research article, it could look something like this:
"While the latter findings from Jackson et al. are exciting in the context of biopharmaceutical research, there is still a significant gap in our understanding of X.....Y.....Z....etc. Therefore, this study sought to examine...."
In any case, I wouldn't worry too much about these minor details.
Writing is important, but at the end of the day,  the science (your data) should speak for itself.

The word "exciting" is a bit too dramatic for my taste.  How about: important, remarkable, noteworthy, worthwhile, beneficial?

I disagree. I think this is not about "drama" or such. All the words you propose are also personal judgements of the results. As many people here indicated: In scientific writing let the reader judge and just show and explain your results.

I, on the other hand, agree. I think there are two problems with "exciting." 1. It is a personal judgment. 2. It is too dramatic. I think you can get away with a little personal judgment as long as it doesn't stand out too much.

+1 Also, I'm not sure I agree with the first commenter about letting "the reader judge [...]"; if it is known a priori that there are some readers out there who may find "exciting" to be dramatic, then using generally more tolerable alternatives (such as those mentioned in the answer) seems like a good compromise to me.

@MadJack I believe that "let the reader judge" means "let the reader judge whether the results are exciting", not "let the reader judge whether you should use the word 'exciting' in your papers."

@DavidRicherby Fair point. I admit my concern is primarily related to reviewers who might find "exciting" to be a tad off-putting.

Some interested readers will not be knowledgeable enough to "judge by themselves." There's no harm in mildly pointing out that "results" are of particular value.

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


text:
Do universities prefer not to hire their own PhD graduates in faculty positions?
I have heard that universities tend not to hire people who earned their PhD there for professorships (tenured or not). (I've read this question, but it's about postdocs: Is it normal that research institutes do not hire their own PhDs for postdoc positions?)
If one graduated from a university, and then did a few turns as a postdoc or non-tenured professor, would a university/department still be disinclined to hire them 10 years post-graduation?
I know there's a lot of factors that go into hiring professors, as well as many reasons to go to different universities/institutes (addressed in the linked question), so I'm mostly curious about this specific truism I've heard.
Although I live in the U.S., I'm curious about North American and European practices (so as not to invalidate answers already given).

A little research will show that this 'truism' is anecdotal at best. Some places hire more 'internally' than others, but that could just be small-signal statistics. Certainly some departments do it more than others. (Anecdotally, MIT certainly seemed to have many internal folks, but that may have changed in the last 20 years since I bothered to look).

Anecdotal as well, but I feel like the "old boy's network" is quite powerful in institutions such as Oxford and Cambridge (however, perhaps more so for student rather than staff recruitment).

@JonCuster: At MIT, it's a departmental-level issue. Some definitely hire from within; my old department definitely prefers not to.

Possible duplicate of Is it normal that research institutes do not hire their own PhDs for postdoc positions?

@Nij I linked that question in my post. That's about postdocs, my question is about faculty positions.

@aeismail - fair enough, and that just shows how variable it all is... (I could actually see the tendency to hire from within to vary over time as a feeling of being too ingrown shifts to a feeling of being too trendy, and then back again - or something like that).

Anecdote: it’s quite common at my undergraduate alma mater (smaller, selective school)  in the math dept. However, accepting an undergrad for a PhD is unheard of.

This question is just too broad to answer. Different countries, different universities and even different fields of study have wildly different practices.

I suggest that without a country tag and/or list of universities, this question is not answerable.

@PatrickT I added a few tags to restrict it to Western academia.

@AzorAhai, I don't mean to be pedantic, but I have taught in more than 5 different "Western" countries and the systems and standards are not comparable. U.S.A., U.K. Canada, Germany, France, Spain, all Western right: different answers to your question. Perhaps you could ask that people tag their answer by country. Or something. :-)

@PatrickT Well if I asked it again, I'd ask about the U.S. and Canada, but I'd hate to invalidate Oleg's answer (adding the tags already invalidated Ben's). || I'm not sure what's pedantic about that.

At my university - or at least in my department - the norm seems to be that they prefer to hire externally for tenure-track jobs (speaking from experience serving on a search committee for a tenure-track position). The line of reasoning is, "if we're the ones who taught/mentored/molded Candidate X, then they're not bringing in anything new in terms of scholarship."
This is less applicable to non-tenure track jobs, as those faculty members are usually teaching lower level classes and don't have any research obligations. There are several PhD faculty members in my department that were hired internally who work as lecturers.
Anecdotal, of course, but I've studied at/worked at a few universities over the years, and this is the pattern I've tended to see. Tenure-track: external. Non-tenure-track: internal OK.

That’s what they say but do they actually honour that? Some numbers would be good. I have an inkling that the numbers might say something quite different.

Which country/area are you referring to?

@KonradRudolph this was anecdotal, so I don't have any hard numbers. I can think of 3 full-time faculty members in my department who were hired internally (over the course of maybe 10 years or so? I've only been here a couple of years) and they're all non-tenure track. When I was on the tenure-track search committee that I mentioned, the committee chair said (and everyone else concurred) that we would not consider any internal candidates. Because of that, we did have to cross off a couple of candidates from our initial list. And for context, this is in the U.S., in a foreign languages dept.

@Ace At an R-1?

Currently, yes, at an R1.

As there is no "US" tag, the German universities have a general and quite strictly enforced policy that no one may be "simply" given a professorship at the same university where they were postdocs. No Hausberufung.
The rule is about "promoting" people to professors internally. If you were somewhere else, it's not a problem. If you have a position offer from somewhere else it should not be a problem.
The basic idea is to "validate" people in tenure positions from outside and to prevent folks "growing into" a tenured position from a life-long career at the same place.

What is a "Hausberufung"?

The German term for the opposite of what I just described. An "in-house tenure".

That is true, but not that strictly. It is possible to give a junior professorship (maybe even tenure) to a postdoc who is currently working "in-house" if they have previously held positions abroad for at least 2 years.

That’s an answer to a different question though.

skymningen: Yes, but the candidate should have been not in-house at the moment of the tenure-track call ("Ruf"), even if she was in-house before. Some other exceptions are also possible, but seldom.

I'm currently working at a Russell Group university in the UK, which apparently goes against this general trend. I've heard that internal candidates are actually preferred. The reasoning is that hiring an internal candidate minimizes the risk, particularly the risk of personality or culture mismatch. There are plenty examples of former PhD students (or even former students since the undergraduate level) who are now Lecturers, Readers, or Professors.
While this preference itself might be a department-specific thing, it's certain that there are no university-wide policies against it. Also, to my knowledge, this is definitely not typical in Europe (source: previous experience in the Swedish academic system).

I have heard the same thing by way of rumour (never confirmed by any official policy) in my own alma mater in Australia.  My understanding is that this aversion comes from a concern that hiring one's own PhD graduates does not yield any outside academic standard bearing on the process.  This gives rise to a danger that a university could lose its academic standards over time by failing to test its hires against the standards of other institutions.  I would imagine that this concern is obviated if the person holds a position at another university in between their PhD graduation and their later application to the same institution.

Adding my two cents worth: in my English university - internal hires are the exception rather than the norms. That said, several that have been shortlisted or hired have had some experience teaching and clocking up publications with a stint elsewhere. So to this question: If one graduated from a university, and then did a few turns as a postdoc or non-tenured professor, would a university/department still be disinclined to hire them 10 years post-graduation?
Yes, as they are judged, pari pasu, with other worthy candidates.

I'm confused - you say that a department would not want to hire their internal candidates, but then say they are judged "pari pasu" (which is a phrase I've never heard before), but means "on equal footing," which suggests that the department wouldn't consider their status in making a decision.

I did not say they would not want to hire. I said they are the exception rather than the norm. These mean very different things.

I remain confused by your post.

@MHL It sounds like you're describing a "disinclination to hire" that decreases with time and work elsewhere, so 10 years out the department is no longer disinclined, but not inclined either. Is that about right?

Yes @cactus_pardner! You got it perfectly (and written it better) as I intended it to mean.

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


text:
Should a thesis of the author be listed as "related work"?
Suppose I write a paper that contains mostly results that I previously published in my M.Sc. or Ph.D. thesis. The paper contains another author that is not related to the thesis (not the supervisor), who contributed some other results. How should I relate to the thesis when writing the paper?

Should I ignore it altogether since the thesis is not formally considered a publication?
Should I cite this as a "previous work"? It is not exactly previous work - it is the current work.
Maybe I am not allowed at all to include these results, since it is considered re-publication of something that already appeared?

(domain: theoretical computer science).
EDIT: I am interested in two cases:

Case 1: the submission is not anonyomous, so I can mention explicitly that it is my thesis.
Case 2: the submission is anonymous, so I am not allowed to mention that is my thesis..

Write something along the lines of:

A preliminary version of this paper appeared in Segal-Halevi's thesis [1], new results include X, Y, and Z.

That could appear as a footnote on the opening page, in your related work section (perhaps at the end), or maybe even in the acknowledgements. (Placement in the acknowledgements seems like a corner case that isn't relevant to the OP.)
For anonymous submission, replace Segal-Halevi's thesis [1] with one of the author's thesis, optionally adding, (citation omitted for anonymity).

First and foremost, you should fully explain the situation in detail in the cover letter for the article submission. Whether reviewers understand the situation is not as important as that the editor fully understand what is going on.
From your description, it seems that the current paper is essentially your thesis plus some new results. So, I recommend:

For non-anonymous peer review (and for the final accepted version even for anonymous peer review): either in the acknowledgements section or in a footnote on the first page (depending on the journal's style), say something like, "An earlier version of this article was Author's master's/PhD thesis (Author Year)" and give the full citation in the references.
For anonymous peer review: you do not need to say anything at all in the article about your thesis. You would not be able to refer to your thesis without identifying yourself, so it is irrelevant for reviewers. Since you will have already informed the editor in the cover letter, there is no concern of multiple submission. If the reviewer happens to come across your thesis and then thus discover your identity, it should seem quite normal to them that the thesis is now being submitted as a regular paper for formal publication, so there should be no problem.


text:
Literature search engine including citation count, year, and the conference presented at
When I am searching for literature on a particular topic, I'd like to see a list of results together with three main pieces of information: citation count, year, and publication venue (i.e., conference or journal name). In my field (Computer Science), most papers are published in conferences. The conference name is an easy way to assess at a glance: (i) the general area the paper falls into (systems, theory, programming languages, etc.) (ii) the quality of the contribution (higher-tier conferences are associated with higher quality research). Citation count also helps to assess (ii), but is less effective for more recent or more obscure papers.
My question: Is there a literature search tool (software or website) that can be used to provide citation count, year, and conference in a list of results?
Tools I have tried: I currently use Google Scholar (it provides citations favors highly cited articles when returning search results), but it usually does not provide conference information correctly (this may be because it gets cut off). For example, it lists a paper of mine from "LIPIcs-Leibniz International..." and makes it hard to identify the conference, which is "International Conference on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP)". In contrast, DBLP is designed specifically for Computer Science, so it does a good job of telling me the conference; however, it does not list citation count.
If it is possible to fix the result list with Google Scholar so that it provides the conference information more helpfully, that could be an answer to my question as well.

Web of Science certainly has all of those in the results.

@JonCuster I can't find any concrete info, but I can't find any conference proceedings on Web of Science. This is the vast majority of computer science literature. Maybe I am doing the search wrong?

For computer science, the ACM Digital Library seems to be exactly what you are looking for: cleanly indexed computer science conferences and journals with citation counts and year, with extensive coverage of computer science literature. The IEEE Xplore Digital Library also has decent coverage of computer science literature, though nothing comparable to the ACM Digital Library, and I'm not sure if it includes citation counts.
Also, take a look at arXiv for grey literature (that is, not yet published): its computer science section seems to be the number one outlet for computer science working papers (kind of like GitHub for scholarly articles).

Thanks! This is indeed what I'm looking for. There was still one recent conference that didn't seem to be in the database, but the coverage looks overall good.

As commented by Jon Custer, Web of Science has information about citations, conference and publication year in its database and shows it in the results of a search. You can even filter and sort by citations and publication year. Unfortunately, Web of Science is a commercial service and your institution needs to have an agreement with Clarivate Analytics (the provider of Web of Science) to grant you access to the database.

Thanks. I'm trying it out right now. I'm getting disappointing results for my field. My advisor has around 250 publications and it can only find 27: in particular it seems to be missing most conference proceedings. I also cannot find most papers I try searching just by title. Maybe there is a reason it is not used in my field. Probably it would have been better to ask a question on a site or forum specifically for computer science.

Mathematics and Computer Science are in fact special cases for this database which covers all other STEM disciplines relatively well. You could also try to ask an expert in bibliometrics at your institution. You may find one in your library.


text:
Find papers authored by a specific number of authors
For some concrete study, I need to find for some keywords, papers that have just one author. I used PubMed, Scopus and ISI Web of Science, but in any case, I could not find a way to filter bibliographic search results by a specific number of authors, or a number less than some exact number of authors. Anybody knows how to do this with mentioned tools (PubMed, Scopus and ISI Web of Science) or others?

For some concrete study --- When I began reading your question I thought it was about a study involving concrete! (e.g. From a materials science perspective, from an engineering construction perspective, from a business cost perspective, etc.) However, as I was reading your 2nd sentence I realized what you meant . . .

anyway, it could also be related to scientific studies about concrete, asphalt, etc, why not? and ... is it relevant?

I asked this question in chat, Ivvory tower, but my question was about subject, something like keyword or specific topic, and I went to library, I mean librarian there was some kind of conference for web of knowleadge and they explained also your topic in question, but I forogot sicne it was not my focus, give me few days and I will go again to library to ask for this.

After a quick google search: The author of this paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4863) claims that "of the 1.3 million publications [...] 2011 [...] in the Web of Science database, 89% had more than one author.", so it might be worth to ask him how he obtained this number, maybe you can use his method.

that is a good idea, I will ask him/her

What computational resources do you have at your disposal? My suspicion is that the authors in the study mentioned by @DirkLiebhold either brute-forced it (downloaded all the publications' metadata, had a program count the authors, and calculated the distribution of counts) or had a contact at Web of Science run the query.

yes, that might be the reason. and a good approach. what I will do, is just to download the specific results of my search, as CSV, and then process them in excel for one single author records

@flow have you tried to contact support team of science direct or ISI? they are fast with replies

If you are interested in Computer Science papers, DBLP might be interesting (http://dblp.uni-trier.de/statistics/numberofauthorsperpublication.html for a quick count). The DBLP collection can be downloaded and is small enough to process on a desktop system.

Based on @Razvan P's hint, I wrote a little python3-script which solves your problem:
'''
Created on 01.04.2018

@author: OBu
'''

import requests
import json
from collections import Counter # for histogram

eutils_basepath = 'https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/'
DB = 'pubmed'           # please modify for other databases
RETMAX = '100'          # max 100 results - modify if needed, maximum = 100.000
SEARCHTERM = "concrete" # replace with your search term

# Now build the search URL:
search_url = eutils_basepath + 'esearch.fcgi?db=' + DB + \
                               '&retmode=json&retmax=' + RETMAX + \
                               '&sort=relevance&term=' + SEARCHTERM
# for additional search parameters or mor complex search terms see examples in
# https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25500/#chapter1.Searching_a_Database
# or the full doc under
# https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25499/#chapter4.ESearch

s = requests.Session()
r = s.get(search_url)
if r.status_code != 200:
    raise ConnectionError("Search failed with error code " + str(r.status_code))
search_results = json.loads(r.text)

#show some statistics
print(f"{search_results['esearchresult']['count']} publications found.")
if RETMAX < search_results['esearchresult']['count']:
    print(f"Warning: Only the first {RETMAX} publications are processed.")

# walk through all rerieved ids and fetch detailed publication information
# An alternative soloution could use one single query based on the previous search results as shown in
# https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK25500/#_chapter1_Downloading_Document_Summaries_
# This would reduce the server load
histogram = Counter()
for pub_id in search_results['esearchresult']['idlist']:
    #print(f"Fetching {pub_id}", end=" ") # uncomment for a more verbose versione
    # Now build the fetch URL:
    fetch_url = eutils_basepath + 'esummary.fcgi?db=' + DB + '&retmode=json&id=' + pub_id
    r = s.get(fetch_url)
    if r.status_code != 200:
        raise ConnectionError(f"Fetching of publication {pub_id} failed with error code {r.status_code}")
#     else: # uncomment for a more verbose versione
#         print("...success!") # uncomment for a more verbose versione
    fetch_result = json.loads(r.text)
    authors = fetch_result['result'][pub_id]['authors']
    if len(authors) == 1:
        print(f"UID: {pub_id}, author: {authors[0]['name']}, title: {fetch_result['result'][pub_id]['title']}")
    histogram[len(authors)] += 1

print("Histogram: (number of authors, number of papers with that many authors)")
print(sorted(histogram.items(), key=lambda x: x[0]))

You will need python 3.6 or above to run this script (please remove f-strings for earlier versions, and you'll hvae to install "requests" via pip install requests.
The script searches for the SEARCHTERM in pubmed and for the search term concrete (I like this running gag ;-) ) produces an output like
14125 publications found.
Warning: Only the first 100 publications are processed.
UID: 28844248, author: Baroody AJ, title: The Use of Concrete Experiences in Early Childhood Mathematics Instruction.
UID: 28772472, author: Wang XY, title: Modeling of Hydration, Compressive Strength, and Carbonation of Portland-Limestone Cement (PLC) Concrete.
UID: 29159238, author: Paul SC, title: Data on optimum recycle aggregate content in production of new structural concrete.
UID: 27012788, author: Kovler K, title: The national survey of natural radioactivity in concrete produced in Israel.
Histogram: (number of authors, number of papers with that many authors)
[(1, 4), (2, 15), (3, 21), (4, 24), (5, 19), (6, 10), (7, 3), (8, 2), (10, 2)]

It should not be too difficult to modify the script for other search tasks...
If there are questions on how to use the script, please ask!

Search your query on Pubmed
The Display Options button on search results page has option for showing 200 entries. Combined with Show more results button on page bottom, any number of entries in principle can be displayed on the same page.
Open Console in Developer Tools. (Shortcut Ctrl+Shift+J)
Copy below code and Ctrl+V in Console.

let text = document.getElementsByClassName('docsum-authors full-authors'); let result = []; for(i=0;i<text.length;i++){if(text.item(i).innerText.match(/,/g)==null){result.push('%%%'+(i+1)+'%%%'+text.item(i).innerText)}}

If no warning flashes on pressing enter, the code has probably worked and the single-author articles among all articles currently loaded on the page are saved in result variable.
Type result in next line and press enter.

For shorlisting papers with no more than, say; 6 authors,
let text = document.getElementsByClassName('docsum-authors full-authors'); let result = []; for(i=0;i<text.length;i++){if(text.item(i).innerText.match(/,/g)!=null){if(text.item(i).innerText.match(/,/g).length<6){result.push('%%%'+(i+1)+'%%%'+text.item(i).innerText)}}}
where the same code works when replacing <6 with ==7 for papers having exactly six authors.
Haven't checked with other databases, but provided the format of entries is similar (list of authors separated by commas in an html tag with unique class name) above code should work with replacement of class name ("docsum-authors full-authors" for Pubmed) and maybe the loop range/if conditions.
Deep apologies for the simplistic language, no disrespect intended to anyone on the thread. My only intentions were being equally relevant to a broad audience having no familiarity with HTML or Console.
P.S. the second (longer) code is not a generalization of the first, since it can only shortlist papers with at least two authors. Only the first can be used to get single author papers.


text:
Book chapters and theses in literature review: to include or not?
Could/should scholarly book chapters and published theses (dissertations) be included in the literature review as sources?
In theory, those are scientific publications, right? However, those are also usually based on previously published work.

Hi Leysan, welcome to Academia.SE. I have edited your question a bit to remove some of the "padding", we will take it as read that you want people's advice.

(Almost) everything is based on previously published work! But I think maybe you are referring to what we call the "secondary literature", which is review articles, books etc that don't present novel research (the "primary literature") but rather summarise or package up other research articles.
Yes, secondary literature can certainly be included in a literature review, especially if it gives ideas/opinions that have not been prominent elsewhere. However, if you refer to particular results then these should always refer back to the primary literature, even if you also give a mention to how those results have been described or discussed in the secondary literature.
(Note that dissertations/theses very often fall under the category of primary literature, in fact in some areas it is a requirement that they include novel research)

Yes, book chapters and theses are valid for a literature review.
You did not explain in your question why you questioned they might be; perhaps it is because they are included less frequently than journal articles and conference articles in literature reviews, so you might question their appropriateness. Here are a few practical reasons I can think of why they tend to be included less frequently:

Journal articles and conference articles are much better indexed in scholarly databases, and so are easier to find. Book chapters are especially hard to find since they are rarely available online for free. (Theses, though, are relatively well-indexed these days, and they are usually freely available, unlike many journal articles.)
The peer review standards for journal articles and conference articles are usually stricter, and so, in general, their quality tends to be higher on average than for book chapters and theses (of course, exceptions abound). In particular for theses, the better ones are often republished as journal articles after going through significant quality improvements in the peer review process. However, this is probably not the case most of the time--many theses are never republished as journal articles: some disciplines prefer publishing them as scholarly books, and some PhDs do not eventually republish their thesis in journals for various reasons.
Theses are much longer and thus harder to read; so, expecially considering the fact two prior points, they are not worth the extra effort looking for (except if you know somehow in advance that the relevant thesis you seek actually exists somewhere).

However, despite these points, if you find book chapters or theses that are relevant to your literature review topic, do not hesitate to include them in your literature review.


text:
Good slide design for teaching?
When I am preparing slides for a course (as I have been today, weekend be damned), aside from questions of pacing and exposition, I often find myself asking various questions about the layout of slides such as:

Should bullets generally be introduced one-by-one using animations or should the entire slide be displayed immediately?
Is animation generally good or bad for lecture slides?
What is a good approach to take for titling slides?
Should I include "separation slides" to chunk content?
What is the optimal amount of information per slide?
Slides should be numbered, but is it better to give the total number of slides on each (e.g., 4/20) or just the current slide (e.g., 4)?

These are all small questions but I think they add up to something non-trivial in the overall didactic potential of the slides.
I have my own opinions on these questions and I feel that I have a good intuitive sense of how to structure slides, but my hunches are just hunches.
Hence this question is looking for either:

Pointers to scientific studies or other well-argued material on good slide design for teaching
First-hand answers to the above questions (and related ones) accompanied by solid argumentation/anecdotal experience (rather than just subjective preferences)

I'm looking for answers that specifically target teaching rather than research presentations. (For me, there is a significant difference.) I'm also looking for answers that target slide layout and design rather than talk structure.
And though I appreciate that the notion of good slide design varies between different subjects, I still think that there is a meaty intersection of good practices that one could follow across all disciplines. It is precisely this intersection that the question targets.
My students thank you in advance!

On a side note, here's a nice slightly-related question on what to do with the last slide.

It would be nice if someone could provide a well referenced answer. That said splitting the question into pieces might help to get such evidence based answers.

Joseph A. Gallian, Advice on Giving a Good PowerPoint Presentation, Math Horizons, April (2006), 25-27 (there are also design pointers) But remember - design is not the most important - don't overfocus on it.

This morning I watched a video about how powerpoint is killing our ability to teach properly. It can be seen as a lesson in bad slide design. One key message is if you are reading your slides to the students, you are not teaching. Ultimately, slides should just contain key information, and you should tell the rest of the story.
Regarding some of the other points:
animation of text should be left to Walt Disney;  there should be one idea per slide (slides are free!);  separation slides are a good idea to let the listener know when topics have finished, which is especially helpful if the separation slides are blank (or even black!).
Less is more. If you want to give the students more, prepare a handout.

Powerpoint doesn't kill people.  Bullets kill people.

@JeffE I once met a well know faculty member at a conference who had an interesting presentation about "power corrupts, powerpoint corrupts pointlessly". He belonged to the LaTeX camp (as do I) but I digress!

"slides should just contain key information, and you should tell the rest of the story." Why? Imagine Bob has some slides that he is reading to his students, the proposal is removing the non-key parts of those slides, give to the students partial (mostly useless) information and then tell (read or memorize) the old (full) version of the slides. Because teaching is about hiding information, this seems to improve the quality of the lessons because now students are forced to attend, take notes and rebuild the original (full) set of slides (w/ some errors)

In short, IMHO, powerpoint is not killing any ability to teach people, it's just making it obvious. If teaching is understood simply as a flow of information from teacher to students, this can be done better by a book, where people choose the speed, move forth and back, there are diagrams, etc. Not to mention videos, much better. The point of teachers is not to give information, but to be interactive and this means questions, answering questions and (more important) making questions that provide motivation for the seek of knowledge (which is in the books, anyway)

@drN I've sat through enough LaTeX/Beamer based presentations to disbelieve that the solution is to switch to it. Or Keynote. Or anything else. It's not the software that's the problem.

@JeffE Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.

@Fomite I agree with you. However, as far as a professional look goes, I think LaTeX scores big cookies. Obv my opinion.

@drN: LaTeX slides look terrible. Or at least, default Beamer slides look incredibly outdated.

@DaveClarke In your opinion ;). I use LaTeX heavily since my slides are focussed on mathematical modelling - LaTeX makes equations look fantastic on slides. There are several university specific latex slides or tweakable .sty files that one can use. I did the latter and tweaked my beamer class/style files for my specific requirements. At least I know what goes on "behind the scenes" unlike microsoft office suite where the pictures and text have a mind of their own. They are alive and translate as they please with no sense of jurisdiction (MS Office)

@drN LaTeX can look good. I personally, paste latex formulas into Keynote (which is not without problems). I wouldn't touch Powerpoint with an electric cable.

@DaveClarke did not know that! Keynote=mac thingy? I primarily use linux laptops and machines so it is also a matter of convenience and ease to use latex, I suppose.

Keynote is Powerpoint for Mac. Key difference with Powerpoint is, in essence, style and simplicity. That said, it isn't perfect.

Accepted as most popular answer, and it includes a reference, and I generally mostly agree (except the Walt Disney part :P). Was hoping for something a little more "scientific" or with more explicit argumentation but alas, 'twere not to be. :)

@JeffE What's wrong with short bullets, like "fork-join capabilities" or an equation? My personal rule is that bullets are generally okay unless you write sentences.

As a graduate student, I want to share my experience from students' point of view. I am assuming that you somehow make your slides available for students as study material. So if that is the case, the amount of information you put on the slides becomes a crucial trade-off. And we have to accept that some students who are not paying much attention during the lecture use those slides to learn the subject. Given that, I like the slides that somehow gives me a good idea about the topic, independent from the lecture.
I know that you should keep the amount of text on the slides at a minimum level, but to increase the teaching strength of your slides, you can put as many references to other course material or online sources. So that your slides are actually helpful outside of your lecture, too.
As for the layout (again from a students' perspective);

Bullets should be OK to support the flow of ideas, but definitely no animations for bullets.
In general, I am not against animations but they should be subtle and not for text. Maybe you need to explain something on a figure, and a gentle animation helps students to better see what is actually changing from the previous figure.
I would support titling the slides, as it helps students to understand what you are talking about at that moment, in the highly unlikely event of distraction :)
Separation slides are also helpful for students to see what the main topics in the lecture are and how they are separated.
Slide numbers, well I do not think it matters much, but it doesn't
hurt to put a page number like "4/20"

These are what I think about ideal lecture slides. And for the third time this is a perspective from a student, and somewhat my personal preference, but I used to discuss these with my peers a lot.

I do not agree. If there is too much material for a good presentation, but still want it to be available for students, just put them in comments, or make a separated full-fledged article with all the content first and then reduce this content into a presentation.
Slides aren't standalone articles, they are made to support your presentation only.

@user1121352 I understand your point. And frankly, that's better than my suggestion. If the lecturer has well prepared classnotes or other study material that can provide enough for students to self study, slides can have to sole purpose of supporting the presentation. On the other hand, I still would not prefer my professors to hand me some slides as the only source, if they do not make any sense at all by themselves.

Doesn't the x/y page number make it a bit discouraging?

@SimonKuang: I am not sure what your photo is trying to convey, but I think I agree with it: It is very discouraging because you cannot see the end, you have no way to estimate how far along the tunnel you are, and thus orientation is completely missing. Hence, by all means, always do include the total number of slides along with the number of the current slide, to provide the audience with an important indicator of the progress of the explanation. (The total number may be replaced with something more structure-specific; e.g. I like seeing a schematic display of sections and subsections.)

This kind of trade-off is a bad idea, as you'll achieve neither aim: you'll have noisy slides, and students won't be able to learn from them. Make clean slides that support the presentation, and put extensive comments next to them in the online version. This isn't as much work as you'd think it is, and it has the added benefit of helping you to flesh out your story.

I teach mathematics, which is traditionally done using blackboards.  I try to design my slides to recreate the best features of blackboards, as far as possible.

I use LaTeX with beamer rather than Powerpoint
I make the slides appear bit by bit, not even a full bullet point at a time.  Each step in a calculation appears on its own, so I can talk about it before the next step appears.
I have occasional animated diagrams, in contexts where they actually add something to the explanation.
Conventional wisdom says that you should have a small amount of information per slide.  I don't know if that is good advice for other subjects, but it is very bad for mathematics.  Traditionally you can use several large blackboards and thus have definitions, diagrams and all stages of a long calculation or proof visible at the same time.  It is much easier to get lost if you do not have all those things in front of you.  I spend a lot of time tweaking my slides to get as close to that ideal as possible.  Often I have to put a bar across the middle of the slide, with reminders from previous slides above, and new content below.

You can see examples from a number of different courses at
http://neil-strickland.staff.shef.ac.uk/courses/

+1, plus you can always write over the presentation with a pen to explain some equations more in-details.

" I spend a lot of time tweaking my slides to get as close to this ideal as possible." Then I'm confused, why not use blackboard?

@Ri49 I cannot speak for the answerer but in my case it forces me to be as concise as possible, and I often end up with more clear formulations than I first had done.

@Ri49: Firstly, I often teach in rooms that don't have blackboards.  The rooms in the maths building have them, but the biggest courses have to use rooms in other buildings.  Secondly, I find it easier to keep everything well organised if I use slides.

I think the conventional wisdom is more about not overwhelming the audience with too much new information at once. When slides are revealed fully, that means you should have a small amount of information on each slide, but in your scheme where you reveal a slide piece by piece, it's those individual pieces that should be small, and you can still pack a lot of them on to one slide.

Why do you need to use slides? They change the classroom dynamic in a subtle but very important way, making the students look at the slides rather than at you. This is subjective, but none of my best professors used slides, except to show pictures. I strongly recommend using the board whenever possible.

+1 for this. The question really should be lest 'what is the best slide design' and more 'are slides really the best way to teach'?

A good comment, but not an answer to the question that was asked, therefore downvoting. (The OP shouldn't have to explain to our satisfaction his reasons for using slides to get an answer to his question about slide design)

@DA If students look at the presentation instead of looking at you, then that's because you badly designed your presentation or because you present badly. In no scientific meetings have I ever seen a presenter writing all his notes on a blackboard, they all use presentations. I can't see why students should be treated differently.

@user1121352 This comment is based on my experience as a student. Even good presentations change the dynamic. And lectures MUST be different from presentations, as they're aimed at non-experts and aim to convey core concepts or information rather than specific research results. (Also, I think mathematicians sometimes use blackboards in presenting but am not sure, since I'm not one.)

@jaia "What you understand well, you enunciate clearly", Boileau. There's no difference, you always have to gauge the level of erudition of your audience in the content you will present, this defines how deep you go (verticality) rather than wide coverage (horizontality), but in any case you must be concise. And at some point if you work in research, you really are the only expert in your field, thus you always need to be more abstract about your work, even if Einstein was your audience.

@user1121352: I disagree with a part of your statement: If the students look at you, then that is because you badly designed the presentation. A lecture is not a tv talk show, it is not about the person talking, it is about the information they are presenting. In a well-designed presentation, the ears are with the presenter, the eyes with the slides, and the mind with the ideas that emerge from the combination of those two.

@O.R.Mapper: I don't know how you do your presentations, but in mine I am not just speaking, I also do point to important points, draw schemas on the blackboard and use gestures to illustrate my point. Of course a lecture is not about the person talking, but it's not about the slides either, it's about the knowledge you're trying to convey, so of course students should read the slides, but only sparsely. I disagree that the eyes should be with the slides: they should be on the presenter, and move on slides only when the presenter point to them.

@user1121352: I try to avoid adding anything visual that is not on the slides - or at least when I do find I need to add something on the blackboard once, I add it to the slides for the next iteration of the same talk. As a student, I always perceived it as an inacceptable nuisance that someone would provide the visual part of their lecture as slides, but still feel the need to add additional visuals that were not contained in those slides. I always perceived it as a sign of poor preparation; it means the presenter prepared slides but failed to include what they actually want to show.

@O.R.Mapper: of course if you always handwrite the same visuals in every iteration of your lecture, this means that you've badly prepared. But I'm here talking about "tailored visuals", the kind of visuals that you draw on-the-fly because someone didn't quite understand your point, or maybe because the question slightly drifted to another close subject and you try to draw the similarities or dissimilarities. This kind of visuals can't be put in your slides because you can't know every question you may be asked, and anyway you can't put them all in slides.

@O.R.Mapper: and if you're not convinced, a lot of papers have now been dedicated to the effect of gesturing, for example: Novack MA, Congdon EL, Hemani-Lopez N, Goldin-Meadow S. From action to abstraction: using the hands to learn math. Psychological Science 2014 Apr

@user1121352: I don't doubt it can work like that. I dislike seeing that kind of presenting, though; as a viewer, I feel having everything on the slides helps me better understand the material.

From my (student) perspective, there is no such thing as slides that are good both for lecture and self-study. Slides for lecture should contain as little information as possible (following general good presentation rules). This will never be enough material for somebody who did not attend the lecture to learn (if you intend to provide such material).
For example, I had a professor, who made very good presentations. There was the concept of business requirements included in them (just the notion, with no definition, which is good for presentation). I spent 10 minutes arguing with my colleagues who did not attend the lecture that it does not mean only how much money you have to spend for project, but also the whole environment the project will be held in. If they studied without me they would be mislead. I knew what it was supposed to mean because I noted it down on slides copy.
That's when we come taking notes. My favourite workflow for lectures was when I could print the notes before the lecture (from Internet) and then take notes on them. This made me concentrate on the lecture very well, because I had to find the things that require additional notes in what the lecturer was saying, but I didn't have to note everything (I would not have time for this).
Remember that using slides makes yourself faster: you don't have to type notions/names/equations on the blackboard, while your students still have to do this. You must take this into consideration if you want them to have correct notes (and then learn all the facts properly).
If you already have the slides that include definitions, longer texts, you can make them more lecture-friendly fast, by making most important words/terms/ideas bold.

I agree with @David Clarke and I think the thing that will be most beneficial, no matter how your slide show is arranged, is making your slides available ahead of time.  There's 2 reasons I think this is helpful.
1) If I have the slides before class I have a more clear picture of where we are going than that one phrase about today in the syllabus does.
2) When I don't have to worry about trying to write or type every word on your slide it's easier for me to be able to listen to what you are actually saying and ask questions without being scared I'll run out of time to write everything down.

I also teach math, as Neil Strickland said he does.  I use technology in my classrooms daily -- these days, an Android tablet with screen mirrored to a projector via a Miracast device (similar to an iPad with AppleTV/Airplay).  All that said, I consider PowerPoint and its ilk to be bad use of the technology for everyday classroom purposes.  I use the tablet in order to have quick and easy access to software for graphing or other visual demonstrations.  For example, in a geometry class, I use something like the Geogebra app to show constructions and other highly visual content.  But for the basic display of classroom notes, I use the Lecture Notes app for Android to show my handwritten notes, written with a stylus on the tablet screen, like a whiteboard replacement.  This addresses Neil's concern about possibly needing to keep whole boards of definitions showing: the app saves the whole, virtually unbounded sequence of pages of notes, so if I need to refer back to a definition, I just scroll back.  I rarely if ever use slides in a class.  Well, OK, on the first day of class, I put all of the syllabus and other administrative garbage that I have to recite onto slides, because I think my hand would fall asleep having to write it all over and over again for each class.
That said, I think there are times and places when slides are appropriate.  If time is at a premium, such as in a 20-minute research presentation, I will use slides to keep things efficient and on track, but I will also always have the software for handwritten notes available in case audience questions take me in a direction not represented in the slides.  I am also a longtime TeX/LaTeX user, so these days when I make slides, I usually use HTML-based slides with MathJax.

+1 I was going to express a sentiment similar to this, in that the most effective slides I have seen used are those which state the definition or the problem, but the lecturer can (using a tablet) work out the problem. Another advantage is that they can always create a new slide to use as whiteboard for any questions asked.

Why not just put your syllabus and administrivia in a separate page on your course web site? Why show it in class at all?

JeffE -- I do put it all on the web page, AND I give them hard copy, AND I go over it the first day.  And it still doesn't sink in.  A few weeks later, after the first test: "We get to drop our lowest test score, right?" "No! Read the syllabus!" "How much does this count?" "IT'S IN THE SYLLABUS!"

I tell my students on the first day that their grades will be docked 80% if they ask any question which is clearly answered on the syllabus.  The first time such a question is asked in class, I remind them of this.  Of course I'm joking, and the students know I'm joking, but those questions stop.

From 20+ years of Powerpoint use in instruction, here is what I have learned:
Should bullets generally be introduced one-by-one using animations or should the entire slide be displayed immediately?
It depends. If you really know the material and want students to focus on your elaborations rather than furiously write down what is on the slide and thus ignoring you, then use a "slide build". If you are not concerned with that issue, put it all up there at once.
Is animation generally good or bad for lecture slides?
It depends. It can be very useful in adding emphasis to a key point or assisting with comprehension (humans learn best when you tell a story with a beginning middle and end). If you have to explain an sequential concept (timeline, multi-step process etc) animations can help students visualize and retain the sequence.
What is a good approach to take for titling slides?
Titles seem important to keep students on track. Multiple slides on the same topic labeled "Background Information (1 of 3)" seems to be the easiest to follow.
Should I include "separation slides" to chunk content?
Sure. As was said previously, slides are free. Any help with structure is good. The best use would be to include some type of mental "hook" on such slides to pique interest for the next section.
What is the optimal amount of information per slide?
There are a lot of opinions Ive come across. The simplest is one topic with slide content adhering to the "6 x 6 rule" of no more than 6 bullets of 6 words each. Less is better. Slides provide a frame upon which the teacher elaborates with the details. You can always have duplicates of one slide with a slide in between with just a function or some other detail you want students to focus on and flip to it then back to the 6 bullets.
Slides should be numbered, but is it better to give the total number of slides on each (e.g., 4/20) or just the current slide (e.g., 4)?
4/20 works well with more mature audiences. For younger students (K-12) it doesn't seem to matter much in my experience.
Additional thoughts
If you can break up instruction into 5 minute or smaller segments with some other activity then taking 15 minutes or so people seem to learn a lot more and stay engaged. Alternate back and forth for the allotted time.
Walk around in a random pattern ("bumblebee technique," as one of my students called it). I can't find the link but supposedly research has shown that it helps an audience maintain attention.
Use 30 pt or larger font in sans serif. This will keep words to a minimum and make it easy to read. Once again—some research I read a long time ago.
Don't use color gradient backgrounds, it is often hard to read. Use high contrast text and background.
Work in ways to check on comprehension throughout the instruction. Whether you poll students using their phones and texting apps, verbally call on students, encourage questions, etc. You have to think hard about your comprehension feedback loop.
Bottom line, remember it is an assistive technology and only you, the instructor can make it interesting and memorable!

It's hard to answer this without a lot of context--namely the content you will be presenting on the slides.
In general, your slides should enhance and accompany your teaching, rather than attempt to repeat it. The biggest mistake with slide-based presentations is to present the exact same content you are talking about. This leads to an extremely bored audience once they realize they can just read what you have on the slide and then ignore anything you are saying.
I'd suggest two sources of inspiration for you.
The first: Steve Jobs. While he wasn't necessarily teaching, he was communicating in his keynote speeches and a big part of his show was his slides. Google will show you a large collection of them. Again, he wasn't an educator, so don't literally go with what he did, but I do think his emphasis on 'one key point per slide' is a good baseline rule to go with. His slides were there to be a 'succinct conclusion' to what he was communicating verbally. You will also note that he pared down the content and rarely used bullets and other bits of noise.
The second: Edward Tufte. I'd of course encourage you to read all of his works, as he's one of the 'grandfathers' of information design. But specifically, his booklet The Cognitive Style of Powerpoint: Pitching Out Corrupts Within which mentions every graphic/info designer's favorite parable on the evils of powerpoint: How bad powerpoint design may be to blame for the Columbia explosion.
To answer your specific questions, albeit with a healthy dosage of opinion:

Should bullets generally be introduced one-by-one using animations or should the entire slide be displayed immediately?

If you are introducing bullets one-by-one it sounds like you are using your slides as verbatim cue cards. This doesn't serve the attention of your audience very well. It's also tedious and repetitive and ultimately you are just adding more monotony to the visuals rather than getting the audience to focus on what you are saying/teaching. So no, don't do that. It's a distraction, at best.

Is animation generally good or bad for lecture slides?

Depends on what you are communicating. If it's a diagram that can communicate more information via the animation, go for it. If the animation is merely for the sake of animating something, it is likely superfluous chart junk (a term coined by the aforementioned Tufte.

What is a good approach to take for titling slides?

A slide shouldn't have so much textual content that it needs it's own title. :)

Should I include "separation slides" to chunk content?

Not sure what a separation slide is. But, in general, the majority of your content should be coming from you...not your slides.

What is the optimal amount of information per slide?

No more than you need. :)

Slides should be numbered, but is it better to give the total number of slides on each (e.g., 4/20) or just the current slide (e.g., 4)?

The only reason to number slides is to give your audience a countdown as to when it will be over. So, I'd say no, there's no need to number the slides.
One last story: one memorable speaker I've seen is John Maeda He had given a presentation on digital design. When it got to the point of his talk where he wanted to communicate via slides, there was no powerpoint, but instead an overhead projector and a marker. He'd talk and draw. I found that to be one of the more compelling ways to communicate a point and, if you think back to grade school (for anyone over 40) that's how teaching was done. And didn't we all find the overhead projector and the teacher's marker an engaging way to communicate? It was immediate, personal, and directly connected to what was being said at that very minute.

Besides Edward Tufte which was already recommended by Andy W, I also like Five ways to reduce Powerpoint overload.
And of course Nthe Gettysburg Powerpoint Presentation, which tells you how to do everything wrong: http://norvig.com/Gettysburg/index.htm

Best advice I have read, maybe in the whole world:
http://www.garrreynolds.com/preso-tips/design/
I have applied Garr's advice for over 7 years and it has always worked to the point businesses pay me to design, give presentations (and coach senior managers), so he knows what he is talking about.

While I agree with the tips made by Garr, the fact that he is a best-selling author and a professor not evidence that he knows what he's talking about. Plenty of professors give poor presentations.

Since a lot of the answers are perspective-driven rather than evidence-driven, I will give my own perspective and then accept the most popular answer.
First off though, I wanted to address this comment I made in the question:

I'm looking for answers that specifically target teaching rather than research presentations. (For me, there is a significant difference.)

The difference is that for research talks, the meat of the content is in the paper already. The talk is an advertisement: a flavour of the content in the paper. When I prepare research talks, I'm quite happy to keep things at a high level of detail and to avoid bullets almost entirely and let those few people in the audience who are interested in more detail defer to the paper.
For teaching, the meat of the content may be elsewhere: it may be in a book or it may be in handouts. The level of textual detail in the slides does depend on a balance of what other material is made available alongside the slides, what can be noted in the talk, etc. For example, I'm currently preparing a course on a new area that is without an authoritative text-book; I'm preparing the course as I teach it. Though I could provide separate handouts, I prefer to use the time I have to capture the content in the talk/slides. Currently my strategy is to write text-heavy notes and annotations into each slide (where needed) to give the context and some description for the slide. This is lower-effort for me, meaning I can keep the slides for introducing topics and keep everything together, and the students can refer to the slides as handouts without being hit over the head with text during the talk.
Also, the idea of using (only) the board is in principle good for courses that are, e.g., mathematical in nature, and where teaching process is important. However, using the board is far too slow for subjects that wish to cover a lot of factual knowledge. For example, if I need to teach about the table of elements, I'm not going to draw that on the board. (Furthermore, I remember in many a board-heavy lecture as an undergrad, concentrating solely on transcribing everything to read later ... I think a lecture where a student is constantly writing is a bad lecture.)
Anyways, back to answering my own questions (parts of my answers are indeed informed by/similar to other opinions):

Should bullets generally be introduced one-by-one using animations or should the entire slide be displayed immediately?

Bullets should be used sparingly and should contain short material, but they are useful to present taxonomies and high-level summaries. They also save time in preparation (vs. preferable visual slides). Bullets that are logical consequences of other bullets ... that follow from what was discussed ... should be hidden until that conclusion is natural. Bullets that answer questions should be hidden until the answer has been arrived at (interactively).

Is animation generally good or bad for lecture slides?

Animation for aesthetic purposes gives the feel of a board-room presentation in a marketing department. Animations should be as minimal as they can be ... for heavens sake, no whooshing around. However, animation of graphics can work well when explaining, for example, the dynamics of a system. It needs to be done well, however, and in clear stages! For example, here's a self-explanatory animation to teach bubblesort (from Wikipedia):

... it's faster and cleaner than going to the board, and one can even see the worst-case performance.
People who say "never use animation" (or make similar blanket statements) I feel lack imagination.

What is a good approach to take for titling slides?

Since the title of the slide is often the only substantial text on a slide, I use whatever title helps set a context for that slide in relation to others. I don't really believe in slide titles like "Sorting Algorithms I", "Sorting Algorithms II" ... instead ...

Should I include "separation slides" to chunk content?

Yes. I find separation slides (with a short large title) to be very useful to mark the end of a theme, to give a chance for pause and overcap, to emphasise the flow of the talk and to also give a brief opportunity for questions before moving on.

What is the optimal amount of information per slide?

That depends. Slides are generally free and content is easier to consume in sparse slides. Generally a picture or a diagram you can point to while talking is sufficient. But occasionally you might have a lot of content that is interdependent, such as for comparison:

(Taken from Wikipedia.)
This table is dense but it is best presented in it's entirety (with the help of colour) for the purposes of comparison. If the complexity of each algorithm were split over different slides, the comparison would be difficult to see.
A good rule of thumb is to include a minimal amount of content that stands as a cohesive whole: put the question and the answer on the same slide (since one makes little sense without the other), put the comparative data on one slide (since the comparison cannot be drawn otherwise), etc.

Slides should be numbered, but is it better to give the total number of slides on each (e.g., 4/20) or just the current slide (e.g., 4)?

I believe that parts should be numbered rather than slides. For me, 4/20 can sometimes be the psychological equivalent of making an audience watch a pot boil. Progress should instead be emphasised on the level of learning and topics (e.g., using separation slides) rather than an arbitrary slide numbering. "We've looked at X, now we're going to look at Y and Z. ... Okay, now that we've covered Y, all that's left for today is Z."
But slides should certainly be numbered! The audience/students may wish to ask a question or make a note about a specific slide!

+1 for People who say "never use animation" (or make similar blanket statements) I feel lack imagination.  You can't blame PowerPoint for (the legions of) people who use it incorrectly.

In terms of pointers to scientific material, I am unaware of ones that are specifically focused on teaching. That being said, in terms of slide design I do not share the opinion that teaching is fundamentally different than a research presentation - so good advice for research presentations in my opinion are easily portable to the classroom.
Some work I am familiar with are from pioneers in data visualization research, Edward Tufte and Stephen Kosslyn.

Stephen Kosslyn's Clear and to the Point: 8 Psychological Principles for Compelling PowerPoint Presentations. I also see he has a newer book named Better Powerpoint.
Edward Tufte's essay The cognitive style of powerpoint: Pitching out corrupts within. Note this is also a chapter in his book Beautiful Evidence. (As already mentioned by DA.)

Tufte's work is more a diatribe about what is wrong with powerpoint. Kosslyn's writing style is to give autocratic advice in text and then have an appendix that points to scientific literature to back up his opinion. So even if you don't agree with Kosslyn's advice it is a good start to a literature review (which would mostly be oriented towards data-visualization and not necessarily experiments specific to slides).

Should bullets generally be introduced one-by-one using animations or should the entire slide be displayed immediately?

Teaching should be about telling a story.  Whatever you are teaching about should have some sort of flow -- a beginning, a middle, and an end.  I teach IT Networking for a living, and often my three-step "story" is:  Define the problem, Define the solution, Define how the solution fixes the problem.
Assuming you are following something like techkilljoy's 6 x 6 rule and only have a reasonable amount of text on each slide, it is essential to have the bullets appear one at a time.
If everything shows up at once, the students will sit there and read your slide, and ignore your story.  But if there is only one bullet to read (of only 6~ words), they will have read it in the first 10~ seconds, then their attention is back on you, and on your story.  Even the students who insist on writing everything on the slides in their notes will only be writing for 20~ seconds, before they give you the attention back.  Instead of for the next 60-120 seconds and then "come back to" you when you are part way through your story, potentially having missed something important.
Remember, most of the information will come from your speaking and lecturing.  The slides are just little bullet points, often mostly to keep you (the instructor) on track.  But hopefully to give the students "hints" at recreating your lecture when they are studying later.

Is animation generally good or bad for lecture slides?

As a general rule, keep it minimalist.  HOWEVER, do not take that to mean avoid it entirely.  A little animation can create a bit of visual stimulation that simple text can not.
For text, the only acceptable animations are "appear" and "fade", and if you use fade, it should always be set to "very fast" speed (0.5 seconds).  The effect is barely noticeable when compared to simply appearing, but makes for a somewhat more 'graceful' appearance of the text.  It gives the impression of a more fluid presentation.... especially if you do a good job of introducing the bullet before it appears on screen.
For pictures, images, or abstract concepts represented visually, use animation if it makes sense.  One of my classes discusses encryption between two parties.  I actually have a message (a letter) move back and forth between my Sender and Receiver (represented as cartoons or faces) as I discuss what each party does with the message to encrypt/decrypt and verify the contents.  The animations are simply the "move right" and "move left" animations, also set to very fast.
The vivid/blatant animations like woosh, or spinning text, or bounce or, spiral in/out, and the others, pretty much never make sense, and really shouldn't exist in any professional or higher learning teaching setting.

What is a good approach to take for titling slides?

Text slides ought to be titled.  When creating curriculum, most people start with an outline.  Assuming an outline looks like this:
Course Name
 * Chapter 1
    - Section A
        * Idea I

Each text slide will be titled with "Idea I", or "Idea II" (not Idea itself, but the actual content of that idea, of course).
If I have a slide which is pure infographics or sequence animations, then I might omit the slide title.  This cues the students in to watch the screen, and the furious note takers to put down their pen for a second.

Should I include "separation slides" to chunk content?

Yes, absolutely.  There is no reason not to.  If gives the students a visual break and the instructor a 'pause' slide to check in with the students, see if there are any questions, or check the time to ensure you are giving students breaks every 45-60 minutes.
Using the outline example above. I might not put a separation slide between each Idea, but I definitely would between each Chapter and Section.

What is the optimal amount of information per slide?

This is often debated, but can be summarized as "less is more".  I like what techkilljoy said about the "6 x 6 rule".  That is a good guide to follow (but maybe not a hard fast rule).   Again, most of the content should come from the Instructor's voice.  For example, I might use these bullets to "teach" the entire plot of Disney's Alladin:

Aladdin, the street rat, unexpectedly acquires a magic lamp
Aladdin wishes to become a prince to impress Jasmine
Jafar thwarts Aladdin, and tries to marry the Princess
Aladdin outsmarts and defeats Jafar
Aladdin frees the Genie

Obviously, if all you read was the bullets above, you wouldn't see how Aladdin was the most successful film of 1992.  But with the instructor providing the content, you might get an idea.  And if a student was in the class and heard the story, they might be able to recreate it given just the bullets above.

Slides should be numbered, but is it better to give the total number of slides on each (e.g., 4/20) or just the current slide (e.g., 4)?

I prefer "4/20" if the "20" is the number of slides in the current Chapter (see outline above).  This allows adults/students to time their bathroom breaks, etc, knowing a break is coming in 16 more slides, assuming the teacher is nearing the 45-60 minutes of lecture mark.
If the "20" is total slides in the presentation, then using "4" or "4/20" produces the same effect.
But definitely, the slides should be numbered.  Helps for students wanting to refer to a specific slide, or when the students point out a spelling error, you can just jot down the slide number and fix it later.

Honestly, the best slides are those where they contribute to the lesson being taught, but don't reiterate exactly what you're saying. The worst slide design is bullet points that are, ver batim, what you are saying. A common misconception is that powerpoints are designed to use bullets to present everything. While bullet points help to organize some information, generally you don't want enough information on each slide to warrant bullet points. Walls of text stop people from even paying attention to at the very least the powerpoint, at the worst, the presentation as a whole.  Depending on your subject, you can either use short two liner quotes or such for a slide, a mathematical equation, etc.
The best use of powerpoints are for visual cues. Many top tier presenters put no more than an individual picture on each slide. Something simple that either helps drive home their key points or makes it easier for the viewers to remember what is being spoken. The key here though is to make sure the picture is simple, as often times, people end up using pictures that are distracting, drawing the attention of the viewers away from the information being presented.
As far as animations go, they should be used sparingly at best, and it doesn't hurt to not use them at all. Again, this goes back to the distracting aspect of things. In addition, if you do use animations, be certain to not use too long or too many animations in a slide, as it does nothing other than slow down the presentation and break the fluidity of the presentation as a whole.