text:
Presenting updated findings (different from the submitted abstract) at an oncology conference
I previously submitted an abstract to an oncology specific conference involving a retrospective review of patients which was accepted. Since then I have had the opportunity to add a few more patients and have now finalized my dataset. This hasn't resulted in any major changes to my findings, other than giving a better sample size for the population being evaluated, slight changes in Hazard Ratios, etc. Given the fact that my overall findings haven't changed, is it acceptable to present the final findings during my poster presentation instead of the data from the original abstract?

I have had the opportunity to add a few more patients and have now finalized my dataset. That is the dataset I will be using. Although this hasn't resulted in any major changes, please do not refer to the abstract for any specific numbers. Here's a link to its current form.

Is this at the ICRR?

Yes, you should present the latest and most complete data. I doubt that anyone would be surprised by this or object to it.
However, in the alternate case, where later data shows the earlier results to be invalid, one should bring it to the attention of the conference committee and ask for guidance. It might be especially important to present such findings, though they might also indicate some important error somewhere.
But in your situation, yes, show the best available data.


text:
Is it usual to use YouTube videos showcasing real life experiences/interviews for research?
I have a research project concentrating on the long-term outcomes of using local medicinal plants among rural communities. I see many YT videos on this topic from many different cultures e.g. short interviews with rural households in Kenya. Being able to gather and highlight these experiences could make a great contribution to the research. But I am not sure whether public interviews on YT are considered as open-licensed or restricted.
So any suggestion on this will be highly appreciated.

Sorry, but if I understand it correctly, it seems a terrible idea and a recipe for bad research: you would have no control at all on your sample.

Agree with @MassimoOrtolano. What you are seeing is anecdotal at best and biased toward "usefulness" at worst. It also seems off-topic as it deals with the content of research. See: https://academia.stackexchange.com/help

But welcome to the site in any case.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What if the school asks the students to submit the letters themselves?
I have been applying to a bunch of grad programs recently and I have noticed that some schools, specially those based in the UK, ask students to upload the reference letters themselves to the application platform, instead of sending an e-mail to the nominated referees.
This puts me in an awkward position because the point of the letters is to be confidential and asking the professors to send them to me would mean that they would either refuse or send me a "plain" letter, as I have heard from colleagues that those are the replies they have been getting.
What is the proper way to proceed in this situation? How do I ask a professor to send me a decent letter that they would not mind me seeing?

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/76342/what-is-the-point-of-a-non-confidential-reference-letter

Also related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/84117/should-i-send-a-letter-of-recommendation-directly-to-a-student

For what it's worth, in the US you are in fact legally entitled to see your letters under FERPA. Most schools ask you to waive your right by checking a box on the application. So it's not exactly true that the point of letters is to be confidential, it's just that programs think the letter is more reliable if it is. A professor who is honest with you shouldn't much care one way or the other.
Most professors already know that different countries have different standards for applications, so they shouldn't think it's weird that a UK school wants you to upload the letter yourself. If you have some concerns about whether they believe you, just send them a link to the instructions.
As for what kind of letter you will get, if a professor balks at giving you an open letter, then you probably don't want the letter anyway. I never understood why people make a big deal out of "confidentiality" when it comes to this.

As an applicant, the best and only thing you can do is follow the application guidelines.
When asking your professors for letters, explain the situation clearly, and perhaps provide a link to the application guidelines indicating that you are supposed to upload the letter yourself. Perhaps you could encourage your recommenders to include their contact information in the text of the letter itself. This is not only a gesture of integrity, but it also assures the recommender that reviewer will be able to contact them to confirm it hasn't been altered.
Ultimately, unless you have previously given your letter writers some reason to think that you will forge their letter (in which case you have bigger problems to deal with), I wouldn't worry about this at all. Although it's usually standard practice to keep letters secret, there are some programs like yours that ask applicants to upload or forward their letters themselves. If your recommenders haven't encountered this situation yet, they are bound to sooner or later.
Finally, some letter writers send a copy to the student anyway, just to offer encouragement or for use in later recommendations. For certain job applications, I used to include a quote from one of my letters of recommendation as a sort of "testimonial" to my work ethic. Depending on the field, you may find this useful—just ask permission first.

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


text:
Would it be frowned upon for a person to hold two full time online teaching positions?
I currently hold a full time teaching position, and recently accepted another full time teaching position at another university. Is there any reason I can't teach for both schools since the workload is mostly online teaching?
(note -- I have been teaching for multiple universities for years, just never holding two "full time" positions).
Location- US. Also, it is the norm in the US for Adjuncts to hold multiple positions at various universities, often teaching over 10 courses a term. But they are not considered full time.

Where are you located? This would be bad in some countries and the norm in others.

Some people argue that this is an illegal practice that amounts to fraud. Many others disagree, and quite a few seem to be getting away with it. On the other hand, it seems reasonable to speculate that at least your employers would frown upon it (or worse) if they found out that you were doing it.

Not telling both universities is a bad idea. They are going to find out anyway, but if they find out rather than you tell them, it is easy for them to assume you acted in bad faith. So, if you are going to tell them, then you can just ask them how they feel about it (or what the local laws allow).

where in the world?

Yeah, there'll be people who frown on this, and people who don't.  Frowners gonna frown.

Read your employment contract.

Why might that be a problem?
If you don't  believe anyone could happily hold down two - or more - on-line positions, why not say so?
Why is "I have been teaching for multiple universities for years, just never holding two 'full-time' positions" not obviously acceptable?

Can you choose the timing of everything you do in both jobs? If you're required to attend meetings, lecture at a certain hour, do anything else at a fixed time, then you run the risk of a collision of times, and at minimum you'd have some explaining to do.

In the US, the expectation for a full-time teaching job is generally somewhat more than 40 hours a week, accounting for a couple hours of preparation and grading time per hour of lecture, plus some service. Unless you are working for disreputable institutions, it is probably impossible to do both jobs simultaneously to a level of quality comparable to your colleagues. Putting aside whether this is an unethical behavior toward the institutions, it seems almost certain that this is unethical behavior toward your students.

You also need to be sure you are not going to short-change your colleagues.  What committees will you be on, and when will they meet?  What is your role in programs assessment?  Not all lecturer positions have these obligations, but many do.

@TerryLoring Absolutely. That's what I was referencing with "some service", but thanks for highlighting this.

I am not sure where you are based, but in Germany (and I assume in many other countries) you have to disclose any other parallel employment in detail to the respective other employer for tax reasons. Not to disclose this second job is thus not only "frowned upon" or unethical, but illegal.
There are also laws in place how many hours you are allowed to work per week (these laws are in place to prevent people from being overworked) and having two fulltime jobs (around 8 hours/day) definitely exceeds that limit (I believe it is 48h/week) by a lot. So another reason this would be illegal.
On top, teaching does not only entail giving lectures, but preparing them, giving exams and correcting them, in some cases being a (co-)supervisor of bachelor or master theses etc. While it might be somehow possible to hold all lectures online for two full-time positions (but that only works out if there is absolutely no overlap), I highly doubt that it would be possible to satifactory fit all those other duties for two full positions into the time one person has. I believe that if either uni were to know about the fact that you took on another full time position with another employer, they would not be happy about it and seriously thinking about terminating your contract.

I know of one case in the US where someone was fired for doing this.

Additionally, as an adjunct any course materials I create while on the clock legally belong to the college. So if I took those same course materials and tried to teach them elsewhere, it would be (I believe) intellectual property theft unless I altered them significantly.

@RobinClower That's interesting. It seems impossible to imagine someone teaching the same course at multiple campuses actually preparing dramatically different materials, though.

In the UK at least you can opt out of the working time directive (the 48 hours/week maximum) https://www.gov.uk/maximum-weekly-working-hours/weekly-maximum-working-hours-and-opting-out

@RobinClower Wow, are you sure? That sounds exploitative. Find another university.

@RobinClower That does not appear to be the case in Germany. Most of my professors just switch the universities logo and maybe update their slides when switching universities

@David In what sense is it exploitative? In almost all cases any IP created on the job is the property of the employer. They are paying you for the work after all. This seems rather universal, it would make it very hard to for example get any software written and sold if the IP of the code belonged to the employees.

@SirHawrk Was gonna write how I believed Germany is the same, but it's not. IP rights differ depending on inventions and copyrighted items. We don't care about inventions here. In the case of copyright in Germany (and some other EU countries) it is nontransferable, but the creator (employee) may sign away an exclusive exploitation right to the employer in the employment contract. If this is not the case the case gets murky (to me anyhow).

@DRF At most universities, at least in the USA, the faculty retain the copyright to their written academic work and course materials, even if they were made with the assistance of the university. Research materials and patents are typically owned by the university. The tradeoff is that even in cases where the university owns the IP, they are obligated to the IP creator to both monetize the IP and then share royalties with the creator. If they don't make a good faith effort to monetize, many universities have a mechanism where the IP creator can claw it back.

for tax reasons – It’s also to allow the main employer to veto the second job in case of legitimate concerns, e.g., conflicts of interest or you being overworked. Going over the maximum legal working time certainly is included here.

@Wrzlprmft But the tax reasons are major. In a secondary job (at least in Germany), you have a different taxation class (worse, where you have to pay substantially more taxes) than for the primary job and if you don't disclose your other job to the respective other employers you will commit tax fraud, which is not a trivial offense.

Unless it's illegal, holding two full-time teaching positions isn't something bad by itself. Sure, it may be difficult to do both jobs to a satisfactory standard, but if you actually do, then what's the problem?
Some people will say it's not good for the work-life balance, but it's up to you to decide on your work-life balance, after all. And if you truly enjoy teaching, then why not to fill your life with what you enjoy?
Some will say you can't do both jobs to a satisfactory standard, but it's up to your employers to decide whether your teaching is good enough. Your teaching is good enough as long as they keep you employed.
And yes, you can do two full-time teaching jobs to a good standard. Preparation for lectures doesn't really take time if your have already taught your courses before. Likewise, grading doesn't really take time if you use automated grading systems in, e.g., Google Classroom. You say that your teaching jobs are online, so you don't need to spend your time commuting to work.
Lecturers are not hired to spend 40 hours a week. They are hired to deliver good teaching. How many hours per week they actually spend preparing for lectures and grading isn't and shouldn't be anyone's business.
If I saw someone's CV saying he or she has been holding two full-time jobs, I'd say, "Wow, you must be very smart and effective to do two full-time jobs to standards satisfactory to both employers!"
In short, don't be afraid to do what you want as long as it's legal, and be confident to explain things should people ask you questions about it.

UPDATE: To avoid a misunderstanding, the main point of my answer is that it is okay to to have two full-time teaching jobs if the quality of your teaching for each of the two jobs is good enough. But this is a very important if!
Of course, if your teaching is bad because of you having two jobs, this is not good. You will be eventually fired then, and before this happens, students will suffer. To accept two full-time teaching jobs, you must be sure you can do both jobs to standards acceptable by the employers!
My point is that having two full-time teaching jobs isn't bad per se; what matters is the quality of teaching for each of the two jobs. And if everyone is happy with your teaching, it's not their place to ask you what you do outside your job and whether you have a second job. The quality of your teaching is the ultimate criterion.
And I personally believe it is quite possible to do two full-time teaching jobs to a good standard. I am speaking from my own experience of studying at a university and making a lot of money by privately tutoring at the same time. The students whom I tutored were very happy with my tutoring and gladly paid me after each lesson. Had they been not satisfied with anything, they would have quickly found another tutor. My friends wondered how I managed to study and do so much tutoring at the same time. If you love what you are doing and exercise reasonable self-discipline, you can do much more than expected by other people!

I think "as long as it is legal " is too low of a standard for teaching.

@TerryLoring I think it is up to the employer to decide what is the acceptable standard of doing the job! If the OP's employers are happy with his work and keep him employed, then I don't see what the problem is

The problem is you cannot easily replace an instructor mid-term.  If there are problems one month into a semester you can't just sack the person and replace them.  Teaching is not evaluated day-by-day so this problem could linger a long time.

@TerryLoring : Of course, if the OP's teaching is bad because of him having two jobs, this is not good. He will be fired eventually then, and before this happens, students will suffer. Of course, to accept two full-time teaching jobs, the OP must be sure he can do both jobs to standards acceptable by the employers!

The point of my answer is that it is okay to have two full-time teaching jobs if the quality of your teaching for each of the two jobs is good enough. But this is a very important if, of course. I've added an update to my answer to clarify this

It's far more complicated than just "quality of teaching". Who owns IP created for dual use? (Some universities assert ownership of teaching materials created by their lecturers.) Who provides benefits? (If the employee is sick, do they get to claim two lots of paid sick leave for the same absence? Does the employer with better benefits end up subsidising the one with worse?) And so on. I would be very surprised if any major university didn't have a clause requiring lecturers to get approval for other employment.

It depends on the schools. Ten years ago, I taught at two schools full time for a year. Private universities usually requires faculty to get approval if teaching elsewhere; You could be fired if you don't comply. While public schools usually do not have the specific clause on the contract, but they do discourage teaching elsewhere.
I was able to attend all my classes (all in-person) and completed all tasks assigned to me. My urgement is that I should be able to arrange my personal time however I want and I used it for another job. I work around the clock and pretty much working more than 14 hours a day. A lot of the reports I submitted were around 2 am. Yes I know people would say, you shouldn't work such long hours, but I think it's a personal choice and I don't think how I want to live my life is what we are discussing here. Being able to keep both jobs is due to the sacrifice I make to my own time, not a cost to the additional job. And there were discussion on how you can go to classes, meetings, committees. I consider that a logistic issue, and it is also not the topic we are discussing.
I think the quality of teaching was not impacted by me teaching in two schools. The textbooks were different and students were different. We, as instructors, need to vary our teaching methods based on the students anyway. I don't see how two teaching jobs would hurt the quality of teaching. And quite frankly, I think teaching students in various background helped me be a better teacher. If the two jobs are labor intensive, I understand there is compromise in quality, but teaching is not that kind of work. In terms of benefits, I paid health insurance at one school and not the other and luckily I did not get sick for the whole year.
I got into the situation not entirely as I wished so after a year I was happy to get out of it.


text:
How to find the opportunity for a PhD visiting research?
I am a Ph.D. student in my third year. I was hoping to find an opportunity to do visit research in some other universities. Are there any suggestions on the way to find an opportunity?

As a student, I'd think there are few opportunities. Personal contact with someone you want to work with is probably the best way to go about it, but blind emails to professors are often ignored. As a student you are asking for something, but may not have a lot to offer in return.
But, if you can get your supervisor/advisor to make enquiries on your behalf then can be possible. It can be a way to initiate collaborations that are mutually advantageous. And, make sure that you know something about anyone you approach so that you are sure your research interests align with theirs.
Funding will also be an issue and you need to resolve that separately. That might be the biggest obstacle unless you have something very important to contribute to someone else's research. That is more likely for professors than students.

Thank you so much for your answer. Yes, I see the difficulties in that matter. Funding is another issue for me, too.


text:
Editor deems my paper not suitable in present form; what should I do next?
After a few months of wait, I received a brief response from a high-ranked physics journal regarding my manuscript: "The [Referee's] comments suggest that the present manuscript is not suitable for publication in XYZ", without further info, and the status of my submission changed to "With Author(s)". In addition, the Referee Report explains why s/he "do(es) not find this paper, in its present form, acceptable for publication in XYZ", and offers a number of pretty constructive and specific suggestions towards an improved version.
The Editor did NOT specify that I may resubmit, nor give me a timeline. What are your thoughts on this matter? I agree with all Referee's assessments and have indeed prepared a revised version in anticipation. Obviously I should resubmit. But a few questions:

Does my submission remain active so that I can resubmit?
Will it go to the same Referee or will it be treated as an brand-new submission/Referee?
I am not affiliated with any academic institution; this info was made clear in my first manuscript submission. How will that be handled and what consequences could it incur?

Thank you very much for your help!

From your description, it looks like one of APS's journals.

As far as I know, this is often not a hard rejection. A rejection from those journals often sounds like 'we conclude that ... not suitable... close the process...'; and instead of 'With authors', it could become 'Not under active consideration' (no such status as 'Rejected'). But it depends on how many rounds you've been through. If it is only after the first round of review, pretty sure you can resubmit. If there are already two rounds, the chance gets lower but the tone still sounds not that bad.
You should definitely use resubmit instead of a new submission. Whether it will go to the same referees depends on their availability (no one knows) and whether you try hard to avoid them when you communicate with the editor (not your case, I guess). Usually people are willing to review again if not too busy. So in your case, it is quite probable it will still go to them.
Not much to handle as far as I know. And from your description, there seems not any noticeable prejudice you might be afraid of.

Thank you xiaohuamao for your detailed answers. Please see my reply to Bobgom too. I got outright rejections before but they went by the explicit line "We regret that..." (again, exactly same down to every letter each time). To your question, my current manuscript is first-round.

Another question: when I resubmit, besides the revised (latex) manuscript, how should I provide my point-by-point response to the Referee (by way of addressing the Editor)? Should it be in a separate pdf file (so that I can put in some equations) or must it be in plain text?

@HoangNguyen Not necessarily in plain text. It can be anything.

If the status is "with author" as opposed to "rejected", then it's a revise decision. Make your changes and submit it through the system. Yes it is probable that the original reviewers will check your revised paper. Not being affiliated with any academic institution should have no effect (in theory - in practice there might be subconscious bias).
Do not start a new submission; that only leads to an administrative hassle.

+1, not (just) for agreeing with me ;) but for your last sentence.

Contrary to the answer of tschwarz, I wouldn't treat this as a reject, but only a "major revision". It was tagged as "with author" after all.
You have a lot of work to do to make it acceptable, of course, and it is good that the reviewers gave you constructive advice.
The lack of a deadline is not material for most journal publications as future issues will require future papers. If yo can produce a good paper, it might be accepted and scheduled for some future issue.
A rejection would be clear. Don't make assumptions.
Whether it goes to the same reviewer or not is up to the editor, but it is fairly likely to go to at least one of them - perhaps the one who made the most extensive comments.
Lack of affiliation isn't an issue for a reputable journal. Scholarship isn't a private club with secret handshakes. The paper is what is important.

That would be my interpretation of the missing deadline as well: "It needs too much revisions to make it to the next issue anyway, so take as much time as you need and we'll fit you in an issue whenever the paper is ready"

Unfortunately, this is a rejection letter. You need to find another outlet for your work. If you resubmit to the same journal, they will probably send it to the same editor who might just do a "desk-reject", meaning that it will be rejected without being refereed. It could also be rejected by an administrator.
Please be aware that the editorial process is not free of errors. Without reading the referee reports and your paper, it is not possible for us to decide whether this is one of these cases.
Not being affiliated with a university or other research agency will prejudice your paper, just because people without affiliation lack the support structure that such a position brings (e.g. colleagues who can read through a paper or with whom research can be discussed) and are less likely to meet the high standards for publication in a reputable journal. This is not how it ought to be, but editors are human beings and acquire certain "gut reactions" that might be wrong in a specific case.

tschwarz, thank you. Here is why I am puzzled... I got rejections before from the same journal; in those cases, Editor was specific: "We regret that in view of these [Referee's] comments we cannot accept the paper for publication in the ...". In this current case, Editor did NOT say that. [2 yrs ago, Editor deemed another manuscript of mine in "present form not acceptable" followed by a detailed Referee Report which explained his/her concerns. I failed to act after that because I thought it was a rejection.] Yes, I sent my draft to senior folks who do not know me; 3 of them replied positively

I think this is wrong in nearly all aspects. A reject will be clear. Don't make assumptions. Lack of affiliation is not prejudiced, though papers by amateurs are often poor.

@HoangNguyen I agree with tschwarz that this sounds like a politely-worded rejection. I would not expect always the exact same form letter rejecting your paper. If you want, you could write briefly to the editor a question like: "Would the (journal) consider a revised version of the manuscript that addresses all the attached referee comments?" but most likely you will be submitting it elsewhere.

@BryanKrause, what is the point of a "politely worded" but unclear rejection? I would think that a high ranked scientific journal would be very (very) explicit if it saw no value in what the OP has written. I actually find it a bit encouraging for the OP that they bother to provide extensive advice and move it back to "with author" status. If they hate it they will tell you to "go away". "Not ready for prime time" is the message I get, nothing worse.

@Buffy Perhaps you are right. In my experience, journals who will let you resubmit are also very clear about that and the next steps to take, e.g., "this manuscript is not accepted in its current form, you can submit a revised manuscript by (link/directions to their submission software)". I assumed that in the case of a lack of clarity it's more likely their politeness has overtaken their clarity, but as you say, that could be wrong.

Thank you all for your kind feedback.

It sounds like this is one of the Physical Review journals, and the 'present manuscript is not suitable' message is one of their standard editorial responses that roughly corresponds to major revisions (although sometimes the required revisions are not so major). In my experience you can resubmit with a suitable response and the editor will likely send it out for review again to the same reviewers (if they are still willing to review). The fact that the status is ‘With Authors' rather than 'No longer under active consideration' also indicates they will likely consider a revised version.


text:
Technical questions about submitting a revised manuscript
I have recently submitted my first (math) manuscript to a Springer's journal, and received an answer that major revisions are needed, together with two reviewer reports. I revised my manuscript accordingly, and wish to submit it, but the technical details of how to do it are unclear to me. According to Springer's website:

You will usually receive a letter from the editor who handled your manuscript outlining the changes they would like you to make and links to the reviewer reports. This letter usually contains information on how to return your revised manuscript including instructions on how to highlight the changes made and when you need to return the revised version.

However I did not receive such a letter. So, my main questions are:

Should I submit a single letter, containing my comments to both reviewers (one after another), or one letter for each reviewer? My main concern about the former is that it means reviewers will be able to see the comments of one another.
How and where should I place my response to each comment? Is it customary to copy the whole reports, which are PDFs, into a LaTeX file, and then add my answers?
For each reviewer, the revised manuscript contains changes he/she didn't request (since these are changes the other one requested). Should I begin my letter (or letters) with a list of all changes?
Since my manuscript is written in LaTeX, tracking changes might be harder than in other file formats. Should I highlight all changes in my manuscript if I am not specifically asked to do so?

Double-check all emails you have from the journal to look for instructions, double-check the journal's instructions to authors which may have resubmission instructions, and then you'll have to ask them what their preferred format is for marking changes made. Generally, though, reviewers are privy to each other's comments once they've submitted theirs, so I wouldn't try to keep anything separate.

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.

The communication suggesting major revisions should have information about how to do that. If there is none, look at the publisher's submission portal for the status of your ms. There may (should) be a way to submit the requested revisions.

I don't think you have any options but to ask Springer, probably through the editor. Perhaps you missed something. Perhaps they are unclear. But it is their rules that apply. If you guess, then, at best, you may get another round of revisions.

The communication suggesting major revisions should have information about how to submit the new draft. If there is none, look at the publisher's submission portal for the status of your ms.
There should be a way to submit a single new ms and a cover letter responding to the reviewer comments. You tell the editor what changes you made and which you rejected (and why). I don't think that any track changes in either LaTeX or pdf is necessary.

I hate to be picky and don't deal with Springer anymore, but some of this seems speculative. Are you writing with authority or experience?  Some of your phrasing seems to suggest common sense guesses, not actual knowledge of the procedures required.

@Buffy Admittedly speculative, but possibly helpful. I wouldn't deal with Springer either.

Perhaps you should revise it then. If my common sense matches your common sense but not Springer's actual procedures, the OP would be ill advised to listen to us.

@Buffy I think all I'm saying is "see what Springer has to say". The OP can follow my advice and find out that Springer doesn't do what you and I think they should be doing. O could delete the answer and post as a long comment instead.


text:
How to label a performance profile
A performance profile is a particular type of plot popular in optimization. Basically, for each ratio R on the x axis, the y axis shows what is the fraction of the number of total tests that were solved within a ratio R of the best result, under a certain performance measure. See for instance this blog entry for an introduction, or Section 22.4 of Higham and Higham's book Matlab guide.
For instance, in the picture below, the blue algorithm gives the best result on about 95% of the examples, and solves the remaining ones within a factor of about 1.2 of the best algorithm.

What is the clearest way to label the axes of such a plot?
I have included an attempt above, but it might be too verbose for a label. The linked blog uses "problems solved" and "performance ratio". Higham and Higham use no axis labels. Other sources put unenlightening letters such as $\theta$ on the x axis.

This question might be more appropriate for the Operation Research Stack Exchange.

Most people call this "cumulative distribution function", or "CDF". A Google image search for "cdf performance" produces many plots of this type with the vertical axes labeled "CDF", which should be understood by people in the field if the field is "mathematically inclined" enough.
A more verbose way for more divulgative works is to label the horizontal axis

Ratio to best performance, r

and the vertical axis

Probability of achieving a (performance) ratio < r.

An additional difficulty of your example is that the measure "ratio to best performance" is not easy to explain in very few words. In such cases, a good idea is to use the caption of the figure to further clarify what the axis labels mean. This way, those who do not understand the labels can quickly get more information from the caption.

Thanks, good suggestion; I had not considered it from that angle. The examples are not drawn from a probability distribution, though; they are just an arbitrarily chosen finite set of benchmarks. (Technically one could define a uniform probability distribution on them but it would be contrived.)

@FedericoPoloni in that case, you might want to call it cumulative frequency, though I do not know how standard that is...


text:
What is considered good/acceptable grade in Germany?
Currently, I have graduated my Bs degree in Computer Science with 3.04 GPA out of 4.00. When I translate my GPA to German grading system, it shows me 2.44, if I consider the lowest passing grade as 2.00, or 2.23 if I take the lowest passing grade as 1.66. Generally, I see that 2.44.-2.23 grade is considered "gut", but is it enough for applying in German Ms in Computer Science? Have I still any good chances? If I even will not apply to the TU9 universities.

Quick comment: That also depends on which university awarded your degree. UC Berkeley or MIT? All universities will welcome you, pretty much regardless of your GPA. Regional for-profit Asian university? Will be difficult at the better CS places, such as Saarland University.

The TU9 do not generally have higher admission standards than other German universities. In fact the TU9 have wasted a lot of their high standards in teaching during the years of the "Exzellenzinitiative", trying to attract hot shot researchers (with very little success), and secure additional funding for them. All German universities are good, but all of them have departments where you don't want to go.

By Bs degree, do you mean Bachelor of Science degree (commonly abbreviated BS or B.S.)?

yes, bachelor of science

While Anja's answer is fine, let me do a more general one which doesn't focus on the grades in particular:

if I consider the lowest passing grade as 2.00,

if I take the lowest passing grade as 1.66.

To take the TUM (TU München, part of TU9) as an example, they usually do not have a point-blank minimum grade for most curricula. Most importantly, they have no waiting lists where even with a lower grade you can rise up by waiting longer, which also means you are not exactly competing against other students so much. This is probably more common in topics like medicine (though I don't know how those handle it these days).
TUM will take your grades, as well as a veritable plethora of other aspects (very much importance will probably be placed on your language skills and motivation), mush them all together, and try to find out how likely it is that you will be able to successfully finish the curriculum, to avoid waisting your and their time.

enough for applying in German Ms in Computer Science?

There is no concept of "enough" in German CS studies. It really depends on all your circumstances together.

Have I still any good chances?

Not even the unis themselves give an indication what marks or other aspects increase or decrease your chances since it is just too complex. If you fail to be accepted, that will probably be more because your application documents, your language skills, your explanation of why you want to study in Germany and so on were considered lacking, and not so much because there were loads of "better" students.

If I even will not apply to the TU9 universities.

You should most definitely apply at the uni(s) which seem most attractive to you. Choices like the city where you will be living (including the price range of housing, and your personal priorities about public life and so on) should probably be high on your list.
While the TU9 use terms like "excellence" and such, there really is not that much of elitism in the public universities in Germany (certainly not in the technical ones), compared to how it is for other well-known unis (i.e., Oxford, MIT, etc.). If a TU9 uni ticks all your checkboxes, by all means apply there. It is online and hence relatively effortless compared to everything else that lies in your future.
Some sources, again for TUM by way of an example. Presumably the other unis will be more or less the same, as much of this is regulated nation-wide, not for specific unis:

TUM's CS Master homepage
Their FAQ
anabin (info on how foreign degrees are interpreted in Germany)
Zulassungsdatenbank (the same, with a form where you can enter your own info)

As someone with a background in Computer Science from Germany, I think it's important to understand how the German university system evaluates international grades, especially when considering applications for Master's programs. The German grading system is quite different from the GPA system used in many other countries. It ranges from 1.0 (very good) to 5.0 (fail), with a passing grade typically being 4.0 or better.
When translating your GPA to the German system, the resulting grades of 2.44 or 2.23, depending on the conversion method used, indeed fall within the "gut" (good) range. In Germany, grades are generally classified as follows: "sehr gut" (very good) for grades between 1.0 and 1.5, "gut" (good) for grades between 1.6 and 2.5, "befriedigend" (satisfactory) for grades between 2.6 and 3.5, and "ausreichend" (sufficient) for grades between 3.6 and 4.0.
For Master's programs in Computer Science, especially outside the TU9 group of leading technical universities in Germany, your grade would likely be considered competitive. The TU9 universities are known for their high standards and might have stricter admission criteria, but even then, your academic background will not solely determine your admission chances. Universities also consider other factors such as your statement of purpose, letters of recommendation, research experience, and any relevant work experience.
It's also worth noting that some universities and specific programs may have their own grading conversion scales or may consider additional factors beyond just the numerical grade. Therefore, while your grades are an important part of your application, they are not the only aspect that admissions committees will evaluate.
Given your GPA and assuming you have a strong overall application, you should still have good chances of being admitted to a Master's program in Computer Science in Germany, particularly if you apply to a range of universities including but not limited to the TU9. It's also beneficial to directly contact the admissions offices of the programs you're interested in to get specific advice and to understand how your international GPA will be evaluated in the context of their requirements.


text:
is this plagiarising an economic model
I am currently writing an undergraduate economics thesis in collective household behaviour. I have found a paper that uses a mathematical utility model very similar to one I have been working on independently.
I really like the structure the author has used, and their mathematics solves some of the issues I was finding in my own work.
All  of their justifications at each stage of the model align with my own thinking.
If state I am using their model, with slight adaptations, and follow the structure they had originally set out in their justifications at each stage is this plagiarism?
I am not extending their work, if anything I am simplifying it to suit my own needs.
Where is the line drawn between building on work and copying? If I am to use a model very similar to theirs, would this be a waste of space in my paper as it appears the thoughts are not originally my own? However, having found the paper is it dishonest to continue with my work not referencing the extreme similarity to theirs?

"I am not extending their work, if anything I am simplifying it to suit my own needs." It sounds like you are applying their work to a problem that allows for a simplification of the model. If that is the case, this is absolutely a (possibly valuable) extension of their work and is perfectly fine.

Plagiarism doesn't care about how you use a model. It cares about whether you take credit for work someone else did. You could copy every aspect of their work perfectly, and it wouldn't be plagiarism as long as you gave them full credit. (It wouldn't be accepted as a thesis, since you didn't do anything, but it wouldn't be plagiarism.)

What you propose is not plagiarism, as long as you carefully cite the source of the material you are using. Clearly indicate what part of the work is yours. Building on previous work is what scholarship is all about.
This sounds like a good use of the literature for an undergraduate thesis.
Check that with your undergraduate advisor. It might not have enough original material for a journal article, but that is not what you are writing.


text:
Can I write from a personal perspective in my bachelor thesis?
I currently finish my bachelor thesis in computer science. And sometimes I wonder if I write too personal, since my thesis should be an academic piece.
More specific, I wrote a computer program (which has no name at the moment) and I often don't know how to refer to that program and me working on that program.
Can I say something like: "My program consists of two parts ...", or "I implemented a function that does ..."?
Or should I be always completely objective and say "The program of this thesis consists of two parts..." and "The program of this thesis has a function that does ...", which feels a bit counterintuitive.

This is about writing style, which ELU doesn't do. Theses and style are more on topic on Academia.

Could you write a couple of example sentences in full? This would give a starting point.

It is your thesis, so the program has been written by you. So you describe the properties of the program "The program can be used to ...", "The output shown in Figure X demonstrates ..."

@FedericoPoloni i edited the post so hopefully it's a bit clearer now.

@Polygnome yes that makes sense. What if I talk about other programs in the same paragraph, then it gets a bit confusing.

@Timo You would disambiguate in the same way you do it when talking about two programs not written by you

Academic style values clarity and conciseness. Calling it "my program" is entirely appropriate according to these criteria as any alternative is much longer without giving additional clarity. If you want, you can use the plural (our program), but this is a bit old-fashioned.

From an attribution perspective, using “my” rather than “our” is better as it leaves no doubt as to the author of the said program.


text:
Recommended ways to arrange celebrations in the lab when getting papers/grants accepted
Whenever we get a grant funded or papers accepted, I congratulate lab members who worked on the project, yet I normally do not organize dinner or parties.
I respect the decision of others to celebrate and advertise paper/grant achievements with everyone around them, and in whatever way they want. I am more reserved, and I congratulate mentees in the same way, in weekly group meetings. If they want to do something else, I invite them to do so, but I think it is up to them.
Are there guidelines to foster celebrations in labs recommended by academic institutions? I care about maintaining group cohesion and fitting with different personality types e.g. always ask the project leader what they want to do, a cake ceremony for everyone, once a month, etc.

What do you mean by "guidelines"? We have academics of all levels here that could offer their advice / perspective; is that what you're looking for, or are you looking for actual guidelines that have been promulgated by some reputable body?

I might be more inclined to celebrate the actual scientific/intellectual accomplishment, rather than success at passing through gauntlets and gatekeepers.

Many academics, including several known personally to me, are introverted, but celebrating the successes of colleagues, including students, can easily be a comfortable and regular thing.
If you have a gathering room, such as a coffee room, it is a place for such things. The department head can announce a gathering when appropriate and could even provide pastries (or such) for those to be celebrated. It can be quite quiet, actually. Participation need not be mandatory, and can hardly be in a large faculty, but some will want a break in any case and it is a nice excuse.
Your idea to do something similar in a working group is also a good one. People may blush to be mentioned, but it is a happy occurrence to be recognized by peers and mentors.
For those who must be remote, an occasional Zoom gathering to celebrate successes is also possible. Again, the head or administration generally, can organize and invite people. Popping in for five minutes to such a meeting is also appreciated by the honorees and is comfortable enough for everyone.
I've also seen such things done at those periodic "all hands" meetings of a department or school faculty, where some celebration is included along with the business.
For large gatherings someone will need to be responsible for assuring that no-one gets forgotten. That can be a clerical function, though.

"Many academics are introverted" citation needed.

@N.I., "almost all academics are extroverted" is the statement that would need a citation, I think. And even that wouldn't be inconsistent with my statement.

Actually, some people are very unhappy to be given kudos in public - one needs to be careful and know your group.

@JonCuster, but I'd guess that is less a factor at a place that does it regularly and consistently. It also serves an additional purpose to encourage others in their research (etc.) efforts. But yes, there are people who will turn down a Nobel or equivalent for such reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

OP's approach is quite similar to what I've met as customary in several groups I've been with or know (in Europe).

On acceptance of a paper, the corresponding author emails all the coauthors, and possibly further acknowledged group members that the paper has been accepted. Possibly also their PI/director/...
This is answered with a round of well-done! Cheers! emails and that's it.

Similar congratulations are exchanged by email on grant funding.

More of a celebration may happen if someone wins, say, a poster prize.
That may range from everyone coming along and look through the book that was won over cookies/cake/pizza at the seminar all the way to a BBQ. That is, the one who won the prize would bring the cake to celebrate the occasion with their coworkers on the project*.
Which also implies (IMHO) that the group/department should make sure such a decision to celebrate is voluntary and not peer-pressure resulting on the proud PhD student who won a 25 € book voucher spending 100 € to feed the whole group.

For important grants or prizes, the PR guys may want to do something as well, such as a press release, blog post, .... or they'll get an extra mention in a larger department meeting.

*Possibly related: in my home culture, it's the one whose birthday it is who has to bring cake for the whole office.

Typically, the "risk" something could go wrong with a celebration, such as an inappropriate comment, could outweigh any benefit. If a celebration is done, it is best to be a voluntary event, and off campus.


text:
How can I get the list of common references from different scientific articles?
I have a question regarding a literature review for my research. I would like to know if there is a way to get the list of common references to different articles automatically.
Example: I have these 2 articles (in Mendeley Reference Manager, as PDF and DOI URL)

Roy, S., Prasanna Venkatesan, S., & Goh, M. (2021). Healthcare services: A systematic review of patient-centric logistics issues using simulation. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 72(10), 2342-2364. https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2020.1790306

Brailsford, S. C., Eldabi, T., Kunc, M., Mustafee, N., & Osorio, A. F. (2019). Hybrid simulation modelling in operational research: A state-of-the-art review. European Journal of Operational Research, 278(3), 721-737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.10.025

And, from the manual/visual check of the references for each article (in the pdf and the web URL), I know that the reference :
Brailsford, S. C., Harper, P. R., Patel, B., & Pidd, M. (2009). An analysis of the academic literature on simulation and modeling in health care. Journal of Simulation, 3(3), 130-140. https://doi.org/10.1057/jos.2009.10 .
is part of the list of common references for the previous 2 articles.
I don't know how to tackle this problem. I know how to use python and I am using Mendeley Reference Manager to manage my research references.
Thank you all
--EDIT---
I have found some different approaches to find a solution.

Citation Gecko (https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/148736/161318)

Solve exactly what I asked for in this question. Free, simple and really easy to use. Recommended when one is starting a literature review with some articles that are related to the research because you can find some precedent and future work-related.

ResearchRabbit (https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/177955/161318)

I have tested this application and it is very great: free, show earlier/later relevant research papers, suggested authors, visualize the connections... I recommended 100% for a nice and user-friendly literature review.
The reader can find more in the following related topics/questions :

Map (tree) of citations/references
List of citation graph browsers?
Is there a tool to visualize the academic citation network around a researcher?

Here is a solution in R (but you can adjust it to Python): https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/92890/how-to-identify-the-publications-that-cite-two-specific-papers/169714#169714

Thank you @anpami. The post that you mentioned is answer the inverse process: they found a list of DOIs that have cited both work1 and work2. I am looking for a list of DOIs cited in both, work1 and work2.


text:
Revision took way too long to finish - how do I handle the situation?
I am a postdoctoral fellow in a STEM field. Quite some time ago, I submitted a long research book project to a publisher. I received two positive referee reports in August 2022.
I have not yet submitted a revision. The reasons why it took so long are the following:

It is a book project and several hundred pages long. One of the referees suggested major revisions, and I agree with their point of view. Changing the manuscript accordingly takes time.
During a large chunk of 2023, I was suffering from severe depression and was not working at all, except for a few (4-5) hours per week.
I have decided to leave academia soon. This is why I did not care about the manuscript anymore. However, now I feel like it should at least be published. (A preprint is available, though.)

To be honest, I could have submitted it a few months sooner, though. I feel like I was being lazy, although I know that's only part of the truth.
My questions are now:

Should I still submit the revision, and what are the likely reactions of the editor? I feel like it will make things look extremely bad, which, to be honest, they are.
If the answer to 1. is yes (which I assume it is): should I justify myself for why it took so long? I mean, the biggest reason is my depression, and this is quite personal; on the one side, I would like to explain the situation. On the other hand, I am a stranger to the editor, and they could not care less about my personal story.

I guess the two questions could be combined to the question "how do I appropriately handle the situation?"

I think most academics would understand that a revision could possibly take over a year, especially for a lengthy publications. If you look at a lot of journals, it's not unusual for there to be over 1 year gap between the revision and acceptance. Note also, if there's a longer gap, the editors might be liberal in deciding what date to list for the revision. End of the day, if the work is good, I think most editors do not particularly care how long the revision takes (within reason).

It may help you to know that your editor (like most people) probably juggles many personal and professional projects, and during the email gap they probably weren't sitting around waiting and fretting about your work -- they would have had plenty of other things to do. If you've been in a similar situation (of just doing other things while waiting for something), you can hopefully see that you probably haven't done them much, or any, harm.

There's very little risk in contacting the publisher with a simple "I let this drop, and feel very bad about it, but I'm ready to pick it back up if you're amenable" note.

Nevermind about the depression for this. It isn't actually relevant other than to yourself and your well-being.
Yes, submit the revision, with an apology for the delay. You don't need to mention depression or make excuses. At a minimum, ask the editor you previously corresponded with if submission of the revision is OK. Things take time. People understand that, especially for books.
It might be that the publisher's needs have changed and they are no longer interested. If so, there may be other publishers to consider.
And, find a way to deal with the larger issues, perhaps by talking to a professional. This might be especially important if your decision to leave academia is mixed up with depression issues.

In other circumstances, one of my books took five years to get out the door. STEM publications in particular may still be relevant after long delays.

Good answer. Important to remember in apologizing is that usually the other person wants to hear that you acknowledge how they were affected; they don't actually care why you were delayed in a situation like this. You apologize because you're sorry that they were kept waiting (even if it's not as if they've had bated breath the whole time), not because you need them to accept your excuse. The effect on them is the same whether you were dealing with mental health or had a different project that was more fun or other job responsibilities or anything else.

I generally agree with @BryanKrause's comment, but, still, intentions (and reasons) might matter to some people...

One can just say "personal/professional commitments" or some such, @paulgarrett. Very generic. In particular you don't need to discuss health. There is, of course, the question as to whether it  is ethical to lie in answer to questions that the questioner has no business asking. And the consequences of the lies are an issue as well. But a publisher has no business in asking about things that don't impinge on the question of publishability of the work. It is worth publishing now or it is not. The publisher was in control of any efforts/expenses caused by the delay.

Oh, I agree, one does not necessarily need to discuss details of personal issues. But I myself would see a distinction between "sorry: personal/professional commitments" and ... for example, no apology at all. Or a dismissive "I've had more important things to do" (even if that is effectively implied).

@paulgarrett, agreed. It would be a mistake to brush it off.

If your publisher is anything like the publishers I've worked for, they care far less about the delay than the fact that your manuscript is arriving after all. So yes: submit the revision with an apology for the delay. You don't need to explain why since they don't really care. (Note the editor you're dealing with is likely an employee of the publisher and not an academic.)
The only thing to keep in mind is that submitting the revision doesn't mean your involvement is over. There's still copyediting, typesetting, proofreading, marketing (since yours is a book project), etc. The work required might be less mentally intensive for you, but you'll still be expected to do something. If you do not care about the manuscript anymore, you might want to cancel.


text:
To break or not to break with advisor at the end of a Ph.D.?
I am a Ph.D. student in the U.S. in my final year.
During my 2nd year, I wasn't very excited with where my project was going, and I had the idea of adding a coadvisor to the mix, whose research I found really interesting (unfortunately, he did not have the funds to support me on his own). My advisor agreed, and we drafted a project of what we would do together to apply for a research grant. The problem was that my advisor had a pet project that he did not want to let go of, and he kept telling me that once that was done, we could move on to do other things. If he had not accepted having a coadvisor, I would not have stayed in his lab beyond my 2nd year.
Fast forward to today, and my advisor essentially managed to string me along with empty promises, and made me spend the entirety of my Ph.D. working on anything except with my coadvisor, or letting me have time to prioritize working individually with him. I realized that there wouldn't be enough time to move on to do other things during my 4th year, but by then it seemed to me that it was too late. I kept hoping that my advisor would realize that this was not what he said we would do, that he could be swayed if I gave him enough work on his projects, or that my coadvisor would eventually fight him if necessary (I can explain why he did not, but I don't want to make this post unnecessarily long, or give too many identifying details).
The point is that I feel deceived. I don't think it's fair for a student to join a lab on the expectation of working on a given project, and that never happening (he's also
used harsh language in a few occasions, but I think that is less important than what I just described). If my advisor was in a moment in his career where he couldn't or didn't want to have a coadvisor, then I wish he had been candid about it, and we would have gone in separate ways. I feel he told me what I wanted to hear just so I would keep working on what he wanted, but he had no intention of working with my coadvisor, if he could avoid it. I told my advisor I wasn't happy with this state of affairs, but they did not  make any meaningful concessions.
The kicker is that my advisor is not tenured yet, and is undergoing tenure review this year. Shouldn't someone somewhere know that he did this to one of his students before he gets tenure? Should I just accept that I was swindled, take my degree and get out?
I feel tempted to just break with him and defend only with my coadvisor, even though that would cost me a letter of recommendation, but I don't know the extent of how this could come back to haunt me in the future. Even if I don't break with him now, I don't want to have any future relationship with this person. How can I go 'no contact' with an advisor if I decide to stay in academia?

What do you want to achieve? You can definitely stop collaborating with your phd supervisor after you complete it without any other strong action, such as trying to prevent him of becoming tenured.

You are not alone that you think your advisor is bad. A couple of month after the PhD defense, you might see it differently. https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1725

Briefly: What would be the best course of action for you? I understand the frustration of dealing with bad advisors, and it is unfortunately more common than it should, but ultimately you have to be responsible for your well-being moving forward. Be strategic and take some time to think what is the best for you.

"Shouldn't someone somewhere know that he did this to one of his students before he gets tenure?" << Now is the time for selfishness and self-preservation, not for vigilantism. Do what is best for yourself, not what is worse for your advisor.

"I kept hoping that my advisor would realize that this was not what he said we would do and that I was unhappy" It's true that if the advisor promised to do X, then he should remember that promise. On the other hand, did you actually tell him that you are unhappy with this state of affairs, or did you just keep hoping that he would realize that you are unhappy (never a good communication strategy)? If it's the latter, then the outcome is probably not terribly surprising, not entirely the supervisor's fault, and not likely to impress their tenure committee.

I should have been more forceful about it, but I did tell my advisor I was unhappy.

This is tough situation. You are in your fourth year. So, if you can defend and graduate, just do it and move on. Don't make any political move. After graduating you can do whatever you want. Since you stayed loyal to him for four years, it's time to reap your benefit from him. So, graduate and move on and ask for letters. You don't have to work with him in the future if you don't want. If you have left your PhD in 1st or 2nd year, that would be a different situation. You could benefit by reporting him but not it's not worthy. Just do what you need to do to graduate and move on-a best revenge.

“Living well is the best revenge.” - attributed to George Herbert
Before I go on to give potentially cynical-sounding advice, I would like to say that I empathise with your situation. It's not uncommon to come in with strong opinions on what you want to work on, and wind up spending your time on different projects. I understand where you're coming from, and I don't mean to dismiss it or downplay the frustration you feel.
Some points to keep in mind for your upcoming decision:

You can't constructively change the past

Whatever you do now, you can't undo not having worked on your preferred project. You might still be able to work on those projects in the future (depending on how many bridges you burn), but there is nothing you can do that will fix the underlying upset.

You are at the most stressful time in most supervisor/-ee relationships

While I'm sure there's someone on this site who absolutely adored writing their PhD thesis and just bashed out 200 pages in a week with nary a typo, most students find the experience taxing. Your supervisor is facing down tenure review, which means they're also under a lot of pressure. This is the worst time to commit the unforced error of adding a difficult conflict to both of your plates. Defend your thesis in whatever setup is easiest for you, get drunk on the nicest alcohol your friends buy you, spend at least a week doing absolutely nothing academic and then see if you still feel the same emotional intensity of frustration.

Consider the horse trade

As the other commenters have pointed out, academia has a lot of subjectivity, grey areas and horse trading (political bargaining). That doesn't mean that you should never stand up for yourself or your projects, but it does mean that you'll sometimes need to barter and compromise. Taken from your framing, I wouldn't consider your advisor's behaviour fair, but it's also not unethical enough that you'd achieve much of a positive outcome by reporting it. Aside from torching your relationship with your supervisor, you'll show that you're willing to go after someone's lifelong career goals/livelihood over a disagreement on research focus. Ouch! That does not encourage people to work with you in the future. You've payed up (worked on the project you cared less about), now you can cash out in terms of getting solid recommendation letters, a boost to your academic network, and having a senior researcher on your side (like getting nominated for awards).
Or you can never speak to your supervisor again- but whatever you do, make sure you defend and take time to cool down first. You can't make the past "fair", but you can make the choices that will give you an easier time in the future.

In the pantheon of bad advisors, your example is a pretty mild one.
First, every grad student needs to understand that the advisor/advisee relationship goes both ways: the advisor provides resources, access to his professional network, writing/editing labor, and of course, advice. In exchange, the advisor gets someone to perform experiments, collect data, co-author with, and if everything goes well, a long-term collaborator. No advisor is obligated to indulge a grad student in a project that the advisor does not believe in, and in fact most grad students would benefit from working with an advisor's pet project.
Working on the advisor's pet project the easiest and most direct way to get funding, resources, and attention from the advisor. Of course, somewhere a line exists between being a trainee in independent research, and being a technician, and different advisors will have different ideas of how much rope to give each student. And every grad student will draw their own line between getting guidance and being controlled by the advisor.
Still, on its face, the situation you describe sounds like the normal and expected conflict between an advisor and their advisee.
If you feel that your advisor manipulated and lied to you (I don't see it that way from what you wrote, just sayin' for argument's sake), you have no obligation to speak with them again.
However, I have a bone to pick with this statement:

The kicker is that my advisor is not tenured yet, and is undergoing tenure review this year. Shouldn't someone somewhere know that he did this to one of his students before he gets tenure? Should I just accept that I was swindled, take my degree and get out?

If you want people to take you seriously in your career, you have to learn to tone down your anger. Pointing a grad student to work on a pet project is not swindling -- at worst it is just bad advice, and at best it's an actual good way to help a student get a footing. And for this, you want to damage their career, by messing up their chance to tenure? Do what you want, but this looks worse on you than on your advisor.

The "swindling" is not having the student work on the pet project, it's doing so after having given the impression that the student would be able to work on other things. Your patronizing "it's for your own good" attitude blinds you to what could be legitimate grievances. As for the tenure thing, why would it mess up his/her chance for tenure if it's as mild as you say?

Even though the statement "In the pantheon of bad advisors, your example is a pretty mild one." is very true, let us not minimize the frustration of the OP from the situation their advisor put them in. Ultimately, their adivsor failed them. Edit: I think Andrew is spot-on. This answer is unnecessarily patronizing, the OP deserved better.

@Andrew OP said " I kept hoping that my advisor would realize that this was not what he said we would do and that I was unhappy, or that my coadvisor would eventually fight him if necessary." I think OP should have taken some time to consider communicating with their advisor before feeling they've been swindled. They 1) waited for their advisor to realize they were unhappy, and 2) hoped the coadvisor would speak for them.

This answer offers very pragmatic perspectives on the subject of matter while the comments above complement it well. Agreed that “at worst it is just bad advice, and at best it’s an actual good way to help a student get a footing.” In most relationships, good alignment is rare, taking efforts to find and maintain. Even when all parties involved come in with good intentions and aim for the win-win, a miss in alignment would show up badly in retrospection. We often don’t know what our utility function looks like. Fewer times we know how to communicate it to others, let alone to negotiate.

An ideal advisor-advisee relationship, in my view, should be mutually empowering rather than “dictating” or “demanding” from either side. As an advisor, offering advice that the advisee needs rather than the advisor wants was supposed to be professionally required. The reality, however, is that this is a very difficult task nowadays and especially when advisors are under lots of other obligations, constrained by time/energy to provide the advice the advisee needs. The problem, in my view, is that yesterday’s protocol does not meet today’s reality. (2/3)

@Roy "we drafted a project of what we would do together to apply for a research grant", "he kept telling me that once [the pet project] was done, we could move on to do other things", "I did tell my advisor I was unhappy". Besides, the student wanted to finish the degree, not get in a fight with the advisor. Escalating was probably not a clear net benefit. We're only hearing one side of the story but professors do this sort of thing all the time.

Any useful answer will have to be filtered through the culture of the country you find yourself in, but also of the field and even the department.
Some universities have an ombudsman to which aggrieved students can go. You feel deceived and others might or might not agree with this. If you professor did in fact deceive you then this could have an impact on the decision to give your tenure.
The problem with complaining is that it will destroy your relationship with your advisor. The facts might also be already known to the department committee or to individual members who might or might not have a say on the tenure decision. (In my school, all tenured members of the department have to write a personal letter about any tenure case.) In this case, a complaint will only lead to a more formal procedure. But before you go and make a complaint, put yourself at least in the shoes of your advisor and see whether there is not a more benign interpretation. Thesis advisors have to guide students, which include saying no to "pet-projects", for their own best interest. For example, I would never "allow" one of my students to spend time proving P = NP (unless they can convince me that they have a truly new idea, in which case I would probably not be able to advise them). If you have access to a senior person that you can trust, you might confide to them in the hope of getting better guidance than we can provide long-range.
After the doctorate, it is fairly easy to "ghost" your advisor. Officially, your relationship has ended with the conferral of the degree. Most advisors remain interested and protective of the career of their ex-advisees, especially if they stay in academia, but there is no formal or informal requirement. No contact might be overdoing it, though. Just be non-committal in your answers and you soon will no longer be contacted, unless it is in your interest such as invitation to be on a PC or as a reviewer.

Navigating the complexities of Ph.D. mentorship, particularly when it involves conflicting interests and broken promises, can be incredibly challenging and disheartening. It sounds like you've been in a difficult situation, trying to balance your academic aspirations with the realities of your advisor's expectations and commitments. Let me share some thoughts based on a similar experience.
Firstly, feeling deceived in a high-stakes academic relationship is not only frustrating but can also deeply impact your professional trajectory and personal well-being. It's clear you entered this arrangement with the hope of expanding your research opportunities, only to find yourself constrained by your primary advisor's priorities. This is a common dilemma in academia, where power dynamics can significantly influence a student's research direction and career opportunities.
Regarding the tenure review of your advisor, it's a complex issue. Tenure reviews often consider a wide range of factors, including research output, teaching, service to the institution, and, importantly, mentorship. If you believe that your experience reflects a pattern of behavior that could affect future students, it might be worth considering a confidential discussion with a trusted faculty member or an ombudsperson at your institution. These conversations can be sensitive, especially given the potential impact on your career and relationships within the academic community. However, universities usually have processes in place to handle such concerns discreetly and professionally.
If you're contemplating breaking away from your primary advisor to work solely with your coadvisor, consider the implications carefully. While it's true that losing a letter of recommendation from your primary advisor could be a setback, the quality and sincerity of your references are also crucial. A strong and supportive letter from your coadvisor and other faculty members who are familiar with your work and character can be highly valuable.
In terms of moving forward and potentially going 'no contact' with your advisor if you stay in academia, it's essential to establish a network of support and mentorship outside of this relationship. Engage with other faculty members, attend conferences, and participate in academic forums to build connections that can offer guidance, support, and opportunities. If you decide to stay in academia, having a broad network can help mitigate the impact of severing ties with your advisor.
Ultimately, the decision to confront these issues directly, seek resolution within your institution, or focus on completing your degree and moving on is deeply personal and depends on your circumstances, goals, and the specific dynamics at play in your department and institution. It's crucial to prioritize your mental health and professional development, seeking support from peers, mentors, and counseling services as needed.
Remember, your worth as a researcher and academic is not defined by this challenging experience. Many have faced similar trials and emerged stronger, more resilient, and successful in their pursuits.

To answer the actual question that was posed ("to break or not to break with your PhD advisor"): The end of your PhD (i.e. a successful thesis and defense after which you go on with your life, academic or otherwise) is the most natural opportunity for a soft break. You can develop other interests, move in a different direction (which it sounds like given that you wanted to work on something else during your PhD already). All of this can be done in harmony with decades of shallow but civil interactions whenever you do bump in to each other.
There is no written or unwritten rule that states that you need to continue to work together, exchange information or send each other Christmas cards. Like any relationship it can just fizzle out or go through a rough patch and that's OK.
Also: give it time - if you do continue in academia and mature as a scientist, you can almost be certain that there will come a time where you will look back on your advisor and the position they were in with much more kindness than you (understandably) do know.
As for whether what you have gone through deserves reporting, either unofficially or via official complaint structures your institute has in place: I would urge you to carefully reconsider.
Redirect your energy towards something more positive: write the thesis, wrap up, and look at this whole situation (which in hindsight will become and increasingly small albeit impactful time of your life) as an opportunity for personal growth and development: you are developing your own scientific mindset, crafting your own research direction, discovering your likes and dislikes -both in area of investigation and in management style- and are ready to seek out new possibilities to continue working on your topic or in your area of interest. And hopefully, you take along with you the things you have learned from what didn't work this time: The need for crystal clear communication and "managing up". Yes, we all wish our advisors had the skills to be flawless in that sense, but you will have it much easier when you realize that they too are just human.
So look ahead, vouch not to make the same errors as your supervisor should you ever be in a position in power and rest assured that you will make plenty of other mistakes once you are in their shoes.


text:
Is writing IT how-to articles relevant experience for engineering CV?
I am a mechanical engineering PhD student doing computational research. I recently had an assistantship which consisted of helping the university IT office install engineering software on our Linux computing cluster, and also writing technical how-to articles for it, and assisting users with problems.
The assistantship ended in the spring, but I actually enjoyed that kind of work so I am considering pursuing it on the side as an "extra" for my CV. Specifically, I am thinking of writing Linux how-to articles for a Linux help website (not specifically high-performance computing).
This would be much less of a time-commitment than the assistantship was, but I'm still wondering if it would be worth-while, relevant experience for my career, since it is more of an IT field than engineering.
From what I have read online, I understand that blogging is relevant experience for a CV, but I'm not sure if writing how-to articles in a semi-related technical field would be viewed as favorably.
What do you all think? Would writing how-to articles for a Linux help website be relevant experience to put on a CV for a career in engineering academia or computational research?

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.

One normally writes a CV, and tailors it, to a particular purpose. If your purpose is a job in IT or in publishing, then it would seem to add value. But, if it is for an academic position or for admissions to a graduate program (if others have the same question) I'd think it would add little if anything. It isn't about research, for example.
So, for an academic career or engineering research, it is a side topic at best. Focus the CV on more relevant things, even if you include a few "possibly related" things.


text:
Does successful entrepreneur's recommendation make a difference in PhD application?
My major is computer science. I'm senior and I want to apply for PhD in CS.
I have 2 recommendation letters right now. One is from a professor that I previously
worked with.
The other is from one of my MATH course teachers. Most universities
require at least 3 recommendations.
My plan is trying to gain 2 more recommendations
by working with 2 more professors in my interested area which is kind of difficult(I
can get one but I don't know whether I will have time for the second).
Based on my experience, the strongest recommendations are acknowledgment from
professors that I worked with. So I would like to have 3 this kind of letters to be
my main recommendations.
My cousin said that he will convince some of his friends and partners who are
successful entrepreneurs to write recommendations for me.
It may help since some of them may be trustees of some universities. But I'm really
hesitant right now. I don't know what number range of recommendations is considered
appropriate. Also, I have a really good relationship with my cousin. I don't want to
turn him down if these letters will cause some negative effects.
Can someone give me some advice?

You want recommendations from people who know you well and know what is necessary to succeed in graduate school.
The best recommendations, then, are from professors who both mentor graduate students and know you well, like someone who has mentored you in an academic research project. Since it's unlikely you'll have 3 such advisors, there are other important people who know you very well (like a boss in a job related to your field, even if they are not a professor) or know you not as well but know what traits make good graduate students (like a professor in a course you've taken) - these can be good supplemental recommenders.
You don't want more recommendations than necessary - this wastes the time of people you want to impress. You don't want recommendations from people who don't know you, don't know what it takes to succeed in graduate school, or worse yet, neither.
The examples your cousin is suggesting sound like they are in the "neither" category, and worse yet, it appears there could be some unethical implications ("some of them may be trustees of some universities") - stay far away from even an appearance that you are making a threat or bribe.
Sounds like you have a much better plan without your cousin, so you're best off finding a way to respectfully tell them "no". Fortunately it's not their decision who you ask for recommendations.

Thank you, sir. You really mentioned sth that I really worried about. I'm really sensitive to academic integrity and have stayed away from any behaviors that may harm it in my college. I'll take your advice seriously.


text:
Top university PhD with preperatory masters OR middle-ranking university straight to PhD
I have a problem with my CS PhD application. My research experience is not sufficient for a top university. But I did some solid work and I'm still doing research with the professor after my summer research program ended. I have 3 choices now:

Going to some middle-ranking universities (below 25 in USA) with some professors that have some influence in the field.

Choosing to go to top universities in their master of research program and pursue a top universities' PhD programs afterwards. I have confidence in myself that I can improve my engineering skill and research ability  significantly while doing a masters.

Going to Upenn for their master CIS program. Upenn has a contract with my university and allows around 10 students to go to Upenn for their master under the engineering department. However, Upenn doesn't have a master of research program or a professional master program which makes it risky. Moreover, if I choose to go to Upenn, I should reject all offers. The advantage is that Upenn will release the offer very soon after the deadline and I can focus on my research and intern in high-tech companies.

I'm determined to pursue my PhD in the long run but I also highly value the process. Like what I mentioned in the post. I do not blindly trust the brand of the university. But I see the relevance of other potential resources here.
Can anyone give me some advice?

Is location an issue? why do you limit yourself to the US for a PhD? why are you not considering at least Canada?

It seems like #3 is the only concrete (sort of) option.  The remaining options are hypothetical.   I think you are influenced by the brand of a university, and incorrectly equating that to superior education quality or indeed that you will graduate from there.

@EarlGrey It's actually about my research interest. It seems that only waterloo has a well-organized research group in Canada.

@AnonymousM It's not actually about poking around for a PhD in my case. I will pursue my PhD anyway. The main problem is how do you feel about doing a preparatory master for PhD if you don't feel urgent about applying a PhD and you don't care about money used in master. The final goal is always PhD :-)

@VitaminE I know that the professor matters more than the university. And as you mentioned, the first 2 choices are hypothetical.  But the chance of going to top universities for their master program is higher than going to middle-ranking universities for their PhD.  Thus, I must weigh the pros and cons here. Of course, I will only apply to universities that have well-organized research groups no matter master or PhD. But I believe that environments are different among different universities. And it will affect me not just in the narrow case.

Like the number of conferences held there, students' quality that I get along with, students' attitude toward research, and their talent


text:
Why is Sorbonne ranked higher than Polytechnique in mathematics?
Looking at the rankings, I saw that Sorbonne and Paris-Saclay are usually ranked higher than ENS and Polytechnique in the field of mathematics. This came as a surprise to me since it's well known that the latter are way more selective than the former.
I get the argument that studying at university the  gives you more freedom of thought than grinding for two years in a prépa because the subjects are more open and you get to interact with actual researchers (your teachers).
However it's a fact that prépas (which are the way to enter an engineer school such as Polytechnique or ENS) are very hard, in spite (or perhaps because) of their strict highschool-like format.
My take is that in the field of mathematics, especially if your goal is to do research, there's no point in grinding for two years in a prépa and that a more appropriate approach is to slowly build knowledge doing licence/bachelor at university; so that might be the reason Sorbonne is ranked higher than the Écoles.
Is there a stronger reason for this?

One needs to look at how the rankings are determined, and then think whether any of those criteria matter. Generally, the criteria are things that can be scored easily, not things that actually matter.

This is a silly ranking for undergraduates.  If you want to become a mathematician, go to ENS.  My French colleagues tell me that something like half of all MdCs and professeur(e)s in mathematics in French universities went to one of the four ENSs.

The rankings are mostly based on the research outputs of the departments, and both of the grandes ecoles have smaller departments that are dedicated (for the rank and file teaching staff) to more intensive teaching.

@AlexanderWoo MdC?

MdC: Maître de Conférence, roughly the equivalent of Assistant Professor in the US system

Those international rankings compare, by design, institutions that are located in very different academic systems and cultures. This is obviously prone to produce a lot of non-sensical results.

How would you compare Sorbonne/Saclay and the Écoles ?

"My take is that in the field of mathematics, especially if your goal is to do research, there's no point in grinding for two years in a prépa and that a more appropriate approach is to slowly build knowledge doing licence/bachelor at university; so that might be the reason Sorbonne is ranked higher than the Écoles." That definitely isn't the reason why it's ranked higher. The reason why it's ranked higher is that if you sum all the points in all the categories of the ranking, Sorbonne ends up with a higher number than the Ecoles. Not anything to do with "slowly building knowledge" etc.

Which ranking are you referring to?

@Allure QS, Shanghai.


text:
Does my contribution to an editorial project merit a more formal acknowledgment?
For the past several years, I've worked remotely and without pay in an archive in order to assist a colleague (who has actually left academia) with a book project. The project consists of compiling an edited edition of an intellectual figure's papers. Because I have access to the papers, am interested in/familiar with the topic, share mutual friends and mentors with this person, and have extensive experience in archival research, I answered a request for assistance they sent to another member of my department.
Over the course of these years, I've spent many hours in the archives assembling, scrutinizing, photographing, and editing materials for this colleague, as well as reviewing and proofreading the final manuscript. I've discovered a number of unknown documents that have now made their way into the final volume. Although the work has occasionally cut into my own research time, I continued it because I enjoyed it, as well as my developing relationship with this person. My colleague and I have exchanged extensive correspondence about the project, during which my contribution was repeatedly characterized as essential to the completion of the volume. What began as a friendly offer turned, over several years, into a more substantial undertaking and partnership.
Relatively recently, I asked my colleague if they would consider adding me as a co-editor to the volume in acknowledgment of my contribution. (As I'm a much more junior person--and, unlike my colleague, still in academia for now--this would also materially help me in obvious ways.) They declined without offering an explanation, although they reiterated their gratitude.
I'm wondering how you would proceed in this situation. Does my contribution sound like it might merit a more formal attribution in the volume--whether as co-editor, associate/assistant editor, or one who receives the designation "with the assistance of"? Am I wrong to even ask? Should I simply cut my losses and take it as a learning experience?
A few things to note:

The book already has two additional editors besides this person: a scholar who has since passed away, and an independent scholar who is no longer involved with the project. The extent to which these two people--from whom my colleague inherited the project--have contributed to its final form are unknown to me.

There is a line thanking me in the book's introduction, but it characterizes my contribution as merely secretarial, which isn't consonant with my understanding of it or with conversations/correspondence I've had with my colleague about it (with respect to having found unknown materials, made substantial revisions to the manuscript, etc.).

I suggest you name or tag a field, as most people on this site are in math or the sciences, and likely don't have much experience with this kind of work.

My opinion, based on the limited information in your question.
I think "editor" should be reserved for people who have contributed substantially to the intellectual content of the work - things like deciding what to include, annotations, context. It does not sound as if your contribution is of that kind.
But it seems to me more than merely secretarial. You might try to argue for a more substantial acknowledgement - one that mentions the particular kinds of contributions you made.

Seems rather late in the process to be asking these sorts of questions.  I think your most reasonable request at this point would be for a more accurate description of your contribution in the intro.


text:
Uploading a preliminary version of a book/monograph to arXiv
Suppose you're working on a lengthy text that you would like to publish as a book or a "research monograph". For example in mathematics stuff like Springer Lecture Notes, Memoirs of the AMS, or any other book series.
Then say you upload a preliminary version of the book somewhere, say arXiv (with the usual non-exclusive arXiv license), or to your personal website. Is there any issue with this, if later you want to submit to a publisher? I am wondering how common it would that a publisher would desk reject your book, if it is already on the arXiv. Most of the publishers do not seem to provide this kind of information very clearly.
And if later you publish, do the agreements with the publisher usually allow you to update your arXiv draft with corrections?
Of course it is best to confirm directly with the publisher that one wants to work with. But I would be interested in any general advice or anecdotes on these issues, especially in the fields of mathematics and physics. I have seen several authors who put all their papers on arXiv, but do not upload books/monographs.

This depends very strongly on the publisher and probably the series in which the book is published. I've seen Cambridge University Press allow this in many of their series, Springer in at least one series, WS not at all, AMS maybe(?) for preliminary versions. And that's just for maths; different subjects will have different habits.

I think you need to decide whether you want to publish it as a book or a long paper.  E.g., Memoirs of the AMS is not a book series, and I think they allow posting preliminary versions online, but you should double check their guidelines first.

I "published" versions of my textbook on my personal website (with an explicit copyright notice) so that students and some faculty elsewhere could use it when it was under development. The feedback was very valuable. No potential publisher objected to this, even after the book was under contract.
When the published book appeared the publisher naturally wanted those versions deleted. I still sometimes see them posted elsewhere, and ask for deletions (same for pirated copies of the actual published text).
I think arXiv would be a mistake. You can't simply "delete" there. Nor would it be the right place to post updates and corrections. That's your publisher's call.

Every publisher has its own standards on whether it will be willing to consider publishing something that has already appeared in some form, including ArXiv. You will need to check their websites and/or editors to see what is acceptable. I suspect that for books, they tend to be a bit more conservative than for articles, since they normally have a larger investment in the production process (copy editors, for example).
But you should also consider, as any publisher will, whether publishing the work, largely complete, will kill most (all?) future sales. I'd be especially careful about publishing complete exercise sets for any text books as those exercises are often the most important part, unless the topic is some advanced one that has few competitors. The latter may be your situation, of course.
But self publishing (ArXiv or other) will limit your choices, so ask before you jump. It is useful in any case to talk to one or more editors about your manuscript to explore their interest.


text:
Second Master in Finance Engineering (US)
I hold a Bachelor degree in Computer Science from a top university (in Europe). I will finish soon a Master degree in Computer Science in another top university, but with a very strong focus on machine learning, data management and statistics. I have had a very strong interest for mathematics modeling and theoretical machine learning. But now I would like to move towards research in quantitative finance, preferably in the United States.
I am now wondering if it is worthwhile (and relevant) to apply for a second a Master degree in Finance Engineering in the US, or if it is better to try entering the industry directly without much experience in finance? I already have a few internship positions in machine learning research and data science area across Europe, would that help for a go-to market?
Any external thoughts are very welcome, thank you!

If you want to work in research, why not a doctorate?

@Buffy This is the tradeoff I am facing now. But as said in the post, I think I would like to move toward research in industry, more specifically in quantitative finance.

Not sure if you want to work in the U.S.
If yes, and if you are not a U.S citizen, it is better to take a U.S master's degree, so that you can have an OPT visa to work in the U.S for 1-3 years(depending on your major)
But in my personal opinion, if you would like to work in the industry, not the academic field, I think you can enter the industry directly since it will make you understand what the industry needs, and what you lack. It is never too late to go back to school!

But how feasible is it to enter the quantitative finance industry in the US without a citizenship?

@RodrigodeAzevedo This is also an open question to say real. I said the US only because of personal first thought or preferences, but London would also be a very good option in Europe i think. Do you have good threads or references discussing the pros/cons of US/UK for quant and finance?

@gnometorule Thank you for that, that's interesting. I really thought that it was hard to get into quant positions everywhere, but that it was especially competitive in the US... Both to get hired and pass the interviews, but also to get a visa sponsorship.

Nope, not worth it, unless you do that second master in USA which can be seen as a form of investment, admitting that your current master was a waste of time and money. There is nothing a master in finance will teach you.