text:
Left a PhD for a second one from which I got fired. What to write in the CV?
My situation is a bit particular and I am suffering from it. I do not know exactly what to do with my CV.
I started a PhD in October 2021. After almost a year, I realised that the project was not for me (I always wanted to study plants but it focused on fungi). Plus, my relationship with my supervisor was awful. So, I decided to apply for another PhD position abroad, which I really liked and subsequently got accepted for.
After nine months of this second PhD, my supervisor ended my contract due to my slow progress in the research project, despite recognising my dedication and enthusiasm. He tried to convince me to apply for a third PhD, but I refused because I did not have the right motivation anymore.
I would like to move on and apply to companies. I know that I cannot lie on my CV, so I should list my two failures. Honestly, I fear no one will hire me if they see these not finished PhDs. How should I mention them on my CV?

"ended my contract due to my slow progress ... tried to convince me to apply for a third PhD,"  That makes no sense.

I suggest you seek advice from people who are working in the field you are now intending to work in rather than from academics. The approach to CVs, as well as what is favoured, tends to be quite different in industry and academia.

@AnonymousPhysicist Why? That seems plausible.

What country? Are you really sure it's a CV in the sense of a 10+ document asking for every detail of your life? Usually, US companies ask for a resume, which is a brief (1 page) list of your highlights (so no need to bring up things that didn't work out). Confusingly, some countries say CV but actually mean a resume (short).

I don't understand why Anonymous Physicist's harsh and unnecessary comment gets 32 upvotes: it's easily conceivable that the OP's second research topic was again outside of his/her specialisation and/or interest and that the slow pace of progress has no relation whatsoever on his/her capacity to do original scientific research.

@Vergilius: For what it's worth, I understood Anonymous Physicist's comment to be harsh towards OP's supervisor (and rightfully so, I'm inclined to think), not towards the OP.

@Vergilius not my field, but the focus of a person's Phd research can generally change rather drastically a year in. Demanding a formal reset does seem odd, and pointing it out does not imply against the OP's capacity.

@Vergilius Being fired for slow progress inspite of dedication and enthusiasm sounds like the supervisor just thinks OP is not good enough to finish a PhD and if they fire OP after less than a year, the supervisor doesn't think it is a maybe case, they think it is way out of OPs ability range to ever get there. This is a very harsh judgement from an advisor. Combining that with a recommendation for another PhD makes no sense whatsoever.

As somebody who has a PhD and has hired people with PhDs, without PhDs and some with terminated PhDs, I say be honest:
"I stopped the first position since I felt it was the wrong subject and in the second PhD Project my work would not be funded since the progress was slower than expected - I decided to leave academia instead of continuing in the same chair."
I prefer people who make a conscious decision to end their academic career and do not ride a dead horse (e.g. staying in certain chair) over those who do a mediocre and uninteresting PhD for 6 years with meager results to bore me in the interview.
Added after comments:
It is my assumption that they would not sort out your CV if you mention 2 positions which you shortly held after each other (if you were employed put it as employment history and not as studies), but I expect that the question will come up in the interview. So in the CV

2020/1-2020/5  (title) at ...
2020/6-2020/10 (title) at ...

should be enough. You don't want to work with companies who sort out your CV based on this anyway.

That would be an appropriate answer if you were asked about it.  That is not an appropriate statement to include in a CV.  CVs are lists of facts without explanations.

@AnonymousPhysicist: I assume a cover letter/motivation letter comes with all CVs.

Honestly, I fear no one will hire me if they see these not finished PhDs.

Nearly all the time, the person hiring also has not finished a PhD.  All large organizations hire people with unfinished degrees.  All you need to do is write

PhD student, University Name

Write them as research assistant positions.
Describe what you did and what you learned, at the interview you will be asked about them, clarify them, especially the my supervisor ended my contract due to my slow progress: slow progress in themselves are not the reason for your dismissal, there must be a deep reason for this initially slow progress (topic too vast, lack of infrastrucure, lack of guidance, lack of skills on your side).
Think of them impersonally, and good luck.

Wouldn't that be dishonest? Unless hired as a research assistant, that description should not be used. It's far worse to be dishonest on a CV than to be unimpressive.

In the US, you're usually paid as a "graduate research assistant." It's what I always put on my taxes as my profession during my PhD. Also, I don't think it's dishonest to include a description of what you did as the job title of the job title is not readily recognizable or doesn't really represent what you did. You might put the true title in parentheses, but it's normal to put the "essence" title on a resume in the US.

@Argalatyr to which country do you refer? a PhD is performing research under supervision, so I cannot see what is wrong with that. OP was employed as a PhD (not sure if they were paid, it does not matter).
A PhD is a worker, the work is "do research", even doing literature review is "research work", let's stop considering a PhD simply a student.

OP said that they haven't yet received their PhD - that they left during training for a PhD (at least, that's the way it seemed to me). Your comments seem to apply to some sort of post-doctors position, which doesn't seem applicable here. Perhaps I'm mistaken?

@Argalatyr Exactly. If OP would have completed their PhD, they would write PhD student in their job for the time. Which often in the industry is perceived by clueless HR as "student" (safe assumption: HR employee are clueless of everything apart the direct benefit of their employer).
If you write research assistant, you explicitly say you were working an assistant. Which is true and also understandable for clueless HR: in the industry, you are a project collaborator (assistant) until you are promoted to project leader.

I think you should never write things in your CV that are not true. Instead, especially when making the switch to industry, you should add your motivations to make the career switch. Make sure to emphasize your skills and interests. Especially in the US, PhDs are not seen as work experience anyway and industry mainly focuses on work experience. The fact that you didn't publish papers may not make much of a difference to them, barred jobs that require a PhD, such as field engineers and folks in R&D.
Industry often works with resumes instead of CVs, that makes resumes ideally suited to emphasize your skills and strengths, so you can more easily avoid putting to much emphasis on the things that didn't go as planned.
In Europe, PhD research is more often seen as work experience. But again, don't try to hide the past and emphasize they were conscious decisions to terminate the PhD research in both cases. Emphasize you now know what you want and have the skill set to do just that.

"In Europe, PhD research is seen as work experience." No, it is not (well it depends but often, no)

@Yacine I toned that statement down a little. At least in Holland, people tend to take a PhD more seriously; salaries nowadays for a PhD candidate are not at all bad any longer

I think an honest answer is the only solution. Sometimes people get bored by the topic, lose motivation, and it's normal. You are fired not because you are not smart; people already hired you because you are smart. Might be the topic is not yours, might be internal issues, might be personal issues, lack of soft skills, whatever can happen. Be honest, not only are you chosen for a job, but you also choose a company, thus why do you need a team which doesn't want fired PhDs, etc.? Select the team which chooses you to work with based on your skills and fit of the project and team at the time of your interview.

People in the industry don't really care about PhDs unless the position is "R&D scientist" and the job description says "PhD required". Everything else, up to and including "PhD preferred but not required", it's not really a big deal. I mean if you had completed it, it would be an extra little bump to your application, but since you're not even close, you need not stress about it.
What they really care about is evidence that you have skills and experience relevant to the job you are applying for. I don't mean here, "you're really smart and the job is accountant so it helps to be smart when doing that". I mean "the job is 90% hacking at SPSS code, and it says you spent 2 years in PhD school mucking around with SPSS, so you must know the SPSS pretty well". So they're not asking what stuff you could quickly pick up on the job, they're wondering what you already know and won't have to be taught on the job. Carefully read what's listed in the job description, and see which points you can say apply to you, and focus on those.
In that sense, if you mention your PhD attempts at all, it would be as work experience. You never received the degree, so no sense listing it in "education", because that's normally for completed degrees. If you decide to claim your PhD work was relevant experience, you will be listing it as "research assistant", because that's what your job was. Even I write it as assistant on mine, even though I actually completed my PhD, because my stipend checks said "research assistant" not "PhD student".

If they ask you why you left, you can say that you had disagreements with the supervisor and did not like the work (research). That's safe to say, because probably the job you're applying for is not research, so they don't mind that you don't like things that aren't your job.
If they ask why you started in the first place, you can say you wanted to increase your experience and knowledge in the field, which presumably is true.
If they question why you failed twice, you can say that the first one you thought the research group was a poor fit. After the second you came to realize that research in general is not for you. This shows maturity and learning from setbacks, so it makes you look good. It helps to have some cute reason like what you hope to learn and accomplish in the industry, so it doesn't sound like you were just desperate for any kind of job.
If they ask you, "was this a PhD you tried to do and failed?" you can of course confirm that yes working as an assistant was required by a PhD studentship and you did not complete the degree. No need for details like fired vs. quit or whatever else. They probably won't ask this, because it's not useful for hiring you, and a waste of valuable interview time - obviously you do not have a PhD, or your application would say so.

Context:
I left PhD because funding was stopped, and I didn't want to beg for it.
Before that, I dropped out of my first MS program, but completed second MS and dropped out of third MS again.

Honestly, I fear no one will hire me if they see these not finished
PhDs.

This is subjective opinion, because real people do fail.

How should I mention them on my CV?

01/2023 - 09/2023, Name_of_University, PhD Student
1-2 lines of your activities

12/2021 - 12/2022, Name_of_University, PhD Student
1-2 lines of your activities

Do not write reasons, be objective.

Context: I'm an MS student graduating this year and looking for work, so take this answer based on its logic, not its authority.
I agree with the other commenters on this question that you should definitely not lie. Mubeen Shahid's response is pretty much all you need in terms of resume/cv. But when it comes to what narrative you would tell an employer i.e. in an interview, cover letter, etc. is also relatively simple.
This narrative must also be true. I assume you actually have a plan to continue past this setback of losing two PhD programs and that you have put in some work to transition into the next phase in your career. Explain your reasons for switching into the position you are in now and why it is the best fit for you (i.e. why you made the decision for yourself). In general, your reasons should be good, so the narrative should also be good for your future employers. Try not to make it seem what you are aiming for now is just a backup plan, but rather something you really want to do. Add some pizzazz. You should be fine.


text:
How to contact journalists for a press release in the UK?
I have some articles coming out and I would like to contact journalists but I am not sure how.
The people in charge with the media relations at my university are unhelpful, so I have to do it myself.
I tried Twitter but most of the journalists I spotted on that topic seemed to have disabled the messaging function. I could not find their emails on the newspaper website. Is there a way to get some attention from newspapers or journalists? Can you yourself send around a press release?
[Update] I did manage to contact a journalist via Twitter on my own and it really wasn't that hard to communicate my research. Now a few newspapers have picked up the story from that journalist. In the end it was good that I pursue sending the story out. I am just surprised how difficult it is to simply contact journalists. I feel that once your story is out, everybody wants to interview you.

It would be interesting to learn how your institution's media relations group proved unhelpful. Seems like this sort of thing would be right up its alley, so maybe there's more here than meets the eye? A controversial topic? Internal politics? Your status within the university?

In the sense that they say, yes we well try to contact journalists and never really do it. They probably have lots of things to deal with. I am a junior researcher and my topic is not at all controversial. Maybe it is because I am junior? I feel that I would need to find journalists myself. I am just surprised how difficult it is.

Off the top of my head I can imagine a situation or two in which a journalist was in fact contacted but decided, for one reason or another, not to pursue the lead. Have you run your announcement or story by the department chair for feedback? Best of luck!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the best way to confront students that I believe are cheating?
I have a very strong suspicion that a final written exam of a student was written by another student of mine. The style, the wording, even font, etc. are just way too similar to be random.
I am wondering what is the best way to confront them in order for them to feel comfortable to admit it instead of perhaps being defensive and denying it.
Do you have experience in confronting students in what works and what definitely does not work?
--- more context ---
The context is a Data Science class where students have to do a data science paper. Allegedly, one student, who is very good, did the work of another student who is a very beginner.
That very good student for instance wrote their code in a very specific rather advanced way and used a lot of extra libraries that we never discussed in class. When I reviewed both of their programming codes, they were written in the exact same way, with the same variables names and the same odd libraries. The newbie student could never have written this themselves in my opinion. On top of that they are family related.
How much more evidence do you need for your cognitive Bayesian model?

What would you "offer" them if they admit it? Is there any upside for the student to admit cheating? What power/authority do you have over the other student?

It's not gonna happen. You'll not be able to "prove" the cheating to anyone else's satisfaction, in any case. Just nevermind... if anything, just think about how the set-up next time could make such cheating harder.

No country was named in the question- this answer is from a US perspective.
Start by reviewing your institution's policies and procedures for dealing with academic dishonesty.  Do whatever these policies and procedures require you to do.  Do not act on your own outside of the official procedures.
Typically, you'll be required to report the incident to an office that handles cheating cases.  One important reason for this is that students who cheat in one course often cheat in others.  When it becomes apparent that a student is a repeat offender, the punishments may be much more severe than anything you could mete out.  Another important reason for this is procedural- it gives the student an avenue to appeal against your judgment.
These policies typically require you to speak with the student about the incident before filing a report.  Your conversation with the student might result in the student admitting guilt.  Or, the student might convince you that they did not cheat.
Policies on assigning punishments differ between institutions.  In some institutional policies, the instructor assigns a punishment (such as a grade of 0 on the assignment or even failure in the class), but the punishment might be adjusted after a student appeal.  In other policies, the punishment is determined by a higher authority, perhaps based on the instructor's recommendation.
In this case, you actually should talk to both students since you think you know who wrote the exam.  If one or both of the students admits guilt, then you're in a position to move forward with the process.
However, if they both deny it, then you have only weak evidence to support your accusation and it is unlikely that a higher authority would support punishment for the students.   Knowing my institution's policies, I'd abandon the case at that point since I wouldn't have sufficient proof.
You should also consider whether you want to continue giving exams to students in this insecure fashion.  If the exam had been conducted under your direct supervision, it would not have been possible for one student to prepare an exam paper for another student.

I hesitate to give advice with so little information.
That said, I have taught for years. When I was new at it I tried to resolve these kinds of questions on an ad hoc basis. What do I know about the student? How advanced is the course? How sure am I? Do I want to punish (and how much), or make sure the student never cheats again? How much will I be swayed/convinced by protestations of innocence or regret?
Over time I found it better to follow university policy. Here is what I tell my students at the start of the course. The first homework assignment asks for a paraphrase of what it says.
In your case, perhaps ask colleagues or your chair for direction.

I can improve this answer dramatically if you give examples of what you found
If you have proof they are cheating, call them into your office.  Explain they cheated and explain consequences.
it sounds like you don't have proof, but a suspicion.  Go to your department head and ask for guidance on if this is enough to report them for cheating.
Personally, I do not believe that style, wording and font similarity are enough to prove cheating.  That could be the result of word processor choice and having the same English teacher in high school.  To support cheating I think you'd need the same sentence or phrases appearing in assignments from both students.
Try calling the student into your office and ask what their paper is about.
Tell the student you've go some questions about their final exam.  Don't give it to them, but ask what it's about.  If they wrote it they should have a decent understanding of its content and should be able to  discuss it with you without looking at it.
If they cannot, that may be enough to prove cheating with the other similarities.

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


text:
My advisor talks about me to his colleagues in their native language
I am in a country where English is not the native language. I have some proficiency in that language but none of the team members know this since I have always communicated with them in English.
Recently, I have been struggling with certain tasks. During a lunch, my advisor was talking about my progress to his colleagues in their native language, and how I was unable to get some basic facts correct. What he said is technically true but I feel insecure to be exposed like that and humiliated that he is willing to talk about me behind my back.
The idea of responding in their native language came across my mind, but confrontation is too scary to me.

Did he talk about "one of my students" or did he mention you by name? Do you know the other professors, is there a chance that they are discussing how to best help you? Where they laughing about you or did your professor sound like asking for advice on how to best teach and coach you?

Your advisor needs to be aware that having a second (third or fourth) language is no guarantee of privacy...

What is your question here? How to be treated with more respect? Or to just have them stop talking "behind your back" when you are present? Because the latter is a simple problem to solve.

what do you want to happen?

Best if you speak to him about it in private.  You don't want to get angry then and there as it will make you look really bad.

which language?

Without knowing more about what was actually said, or the tone of it, I would dismiss it as your advisor concerned about how best to advise you. I think these sorts of conversations are relatively common when a prof, especially an inexperienced one, has a problem helping a student that s/he can't resolve.
Unless you think they were joking about you or implying you weren't adequate to the task, you should probably just forget it. But discussing your troubles with colleagues can be a valid way for the professor to actually find the best way to be of assistance.
There are worse interpretations, of course, but don't assume the worst unless it is really necessary.
I've had students, actually, who missed some essential things in their early education. They can be hard to advise since there isn't time for them to go back and fill in those gaps. It is an important problem.

I personally avoid giving someone the "benefit of the doubt", especially when the student/advisor relationship is so important, and instead prefer to keep a neutral position and just observe until I have enough data to be sure of the situation. I would at least make it known that you understand some of the native language.

@AndrewBate I think what you're saying is what "benefit of the doubt" is generally intended to mean. Edit: to be clear, I realize this obviously varies by usage trends that we've been exposed to in our lives, and I presume you felt the need to comment as you did because in your life experience the phrase seems to be used differently often enough - I'm just reporting my understanding of what the phrase means (and also am asserting what I think is most useful for the phrase to mean, in as far as we can course-correct language through out own usage).

@mtraceur I do agree with what you have written. To clarify, in my comment I've taken "benefit of the doubt" to mean that the default assumption is to believe that a person’s intentions are honest, correct or justified, and not to assume malice even when there is uncertainty but the contrary has not been proven. IMO, giving this "benefit of the doubt" is pretty unwise in real life, and you are better off remaining neutral (i.e. not making assumptions either way about intentions) and appropriately cautious until you know.

@Andrew, so you are saying something like .. ~"if you hear something that you perceive as potentially negative towards you, set your attitude to remain neutral until you have more facts to know better.  Nuetral, meaning that do not ascribe undue assumption of positivity/correctness/etc to what you've heard, nor undue negativity/wrongdoing/etc, until you know better".... .  Does that sound right?  "Neutral" the way I see you using it, means kind of being a passive disconnected observer.  Is that about correct?

@Dennis Yes, your summary does accurately describe my opinion on it. I'm always quite surprised how few people seem to follow that approach.

Since you always communicate with your colleagues in English, I'm assuming that "some proficiency" in their language is simply not enough to carry daily life in this language. Having experienced that, I'd be very careful with assumptions, just as others have said, the tone and soem specifics of how he was discussing it can make a lot of difference.
Responding to people in a language they assume you don't speak is also something to be careful of. In principle, people will find ways of talking behind your back if they mean to. You should prefer to have access to these discussions rather than not to have it, but should should be mature to deal with them. That being said, you should occasionally demonstrate that you know a few bits of the language, as pretending to understand absolutely nothing might be seen as a lie. Don't enter a discussion in a foreign language if you won't be able to hold your ground through the whole discussion (which might become a heated one).
Furthermore, if your advisor notices that you have gaps in your education that you need to fill, it is part of his role to communicate this to you, and either provide references your could study on your own or (if these gaps are not that relevant) he should make peace with you having small difficulties here and there.
That being said, think to yourself if this might actually be a matter of "repertory questions", i.e. I can always pick obscure details about a subject you think you are good at and start asking you questions with no previous warning. For people inexperienced in the field, our conversation will make you look like you are not knowledgeable in a subject you actually know a lot about. People sometimes do this deliberately, but also unintentionally, if the asker believes the details to be relevant. The point is, talk to your advisor on whether he thinks those matters he was discussing were relevant or not.

wasting a trump card on retaliation +1

Before trying to determine the best course of action, see if you can identify a goal. It's difficult to see what this would be from outside the situation (as is evident by the other answers and comments) -- that is, hard to tell whether the professor is sincerely seeking guidance, or having a laugh at you with colleagues, or somewhere in between...or something else entirely.
I imagine the goal would be to coax your advisor into giving you better advice or guidance, and perhaps communicating more openly with you about his concerns and his goals for you. If that's the case, I'm not sure that embarrassing him by surprising him in the moment with the information that you can understand him will help.
You would probably do better to cultivate him as an ally. This might mean, for instance, telling him in private that you can understand him and overheard some of what he said, and ask him to comment. By doing this in private you show him some respect and give him an opportunity to redirect his approach into something more respectful toward you.

As a second-generation immigrant whose facility in my family's native language is very limited, I can relate to this frustration. In those circumstances, it is very easy to try and latch onto what little you understand and make assumptions. Can you be sure that they are talking about you, and that they are really as derogatory as you think they are being?
To be honest, the best solution is to become fluent in the native language (obviously, this will not happen overnight, but, with practice, it should be possible, assuming you live in the country concerned). Unless you are on a very-short-term contract or only on campus occasionally (e.g.: because the institution is a 2nd/3rd/4th/nth affiliation with very limited duties), you really should make an effort to become fluent in the official language of the country where you are working. It is not right to expect everybody else to speak your language.


text:
How best to approach an industry based research program at another university (with independent ideas)
I am an engineering masters by coursework student. For my final project I have implemented something I have since found is a current topic of research for another university (their project aim aligns with mine exactly). They have partnered with a company specifically as it seems to be a something that the industry is particularly interested in. Furthermore, it looks like the company in question is part funding the PHD involved. (i.e. there is a commercial concern at some level)
At heart, my project is the definiton of a conceptual backbone, a collection of ideas put forward in a way I am yet to encounter. Work—perhaps above my level of knowledge at this stage—would be required to optimize it, but I have implemented a working example of it. My goal would be involvement with the university research (co-authorship?) and/or involvement with the company itself (work + potential income). Of course this depends on if my project is actually worthwhile and aligns with their approach; there is only one way to find out…
So, without advice I’d simply contact both the head of the company involved and the research head at the university. My question pertains to the fact that I don’t know what I don’t know about this situation.

How can I both protect and further the interests of all parties?
Is there anything I should be aware of regarding intellectual property? According to my university, we own the IP for our projects.

Other details: My project was 1 year long and I am just a masters (it is the equivalent of 2 standard courses in terms of grades). The deadline to apply for the PHD program at the (foreign) university is over (2 months past), and regardless I am not interested in doing a PHD. I am more interested in getting involved in the industry.
Additionally, I gave a formal progress report of my project to my supervisor and examiner yesterday and there was immediate discussion about submitting it to an upcoming robotics conference (I would work with someone to make sure it has the required academic rigor). If it were successful, would conference proceedings impact the situation in any way?

In case you hadn't noticed I am a glass half full personality! I may be looking for problems where there are none, but I do this with the goal to optimise everything for everyone involved :)

Is there anything I should be aware of regarding intellectual property (according to my university we own the IP for our projects) — Sounds like you will need to execute a nondisclosure agreement (NDA), possibly a three-way NDA, between you/your institution, the other institution, and the company. I suggest getting your advisor in the loop to help you navigate the logistics of such an arrangement and to help you establish contact with the other parties involved. Getting the others on board may be a challenge, though; it really depends on what you bring to the table and what their needs are.

It's hard to gauge where they are at in terms of development, or where my implementation would sit comparatively. Maybe it's naive and already in the collective knowledge base, maybe with a small adjustment here and there it's the conceptual breakthrough they been looking for ... As my project didn't require a unique contribution to the field (it is coursework) I simply found something I was interested in that would 'show off my skills'....

... As such, I didn't do a comprehensive search of the literature, I only looked at commercial implementations (of which I found none). The initial industry I was applying the project to is smallish, secretive and competitive. But interestingly, I've since realised my solution could generalise to other fields.

@LamarLatrell, lead times to commercial use are normally several years. That you haven't found current applications doesn't mean they aren't in the last year of a ten year plan to launch next quarter,

@vonbrand - Fair enough, although I've developed it over 6 months and have a commercial application already ...  (well, non-profit, but that's my decision). It's funny your comment comes just now, I only just sent the email to them, for the moment I'm choosing to (perhaps naively) expect the best. Developments in this industry are usually initially used in-house, and sold as a proprietary and exclusive service. If there is enough general interest they'll develop a good interface and sell licences and training, the price then drops drastically, but then the volume ramps up...

One aspect of research to be aware of is it patentability. If you publish your results in a paper, it may become ineligible for a patent. If you feel that your research has significant commercial value, it would be best to go through your institution's patent department. It would also work best as a point of negotiation between all parties involved.

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


text:
How to proceed when reviewers reject your manuscript but you believe there is no scientific basis for their objections?
I am doing my PhD on a small field in engineering where even if the review process is double blinded you would know who is going to review your paper.
This incident that I am going to mention is very odd and this is the first time that happened to me since I switched my research area. I am currently struggling to get my work accepted in a conference knowing that I have already 10 papers published among them 2 journals and most of them I wrote them when I was doing my master (I am mentioning this to let you know that I have already a little experience with the review process)
There are two groups in our field who are doing the same work that we are doing but they are applying an existing approach naively whereas we came up with a big novelty.
So they rejected our paper twice: once for conference submission and another time when we submitted an extension of the same work to transactions since it got rejected for the conference so we thought that we could argue with the reviewers in a journal but it didn't even go through the pre-screening process and these reviewers gave same arguments.
"First reviewer reason from the first group: Your method is very effective and definitely you have tested your model with the training data"
"The other reviewer reason from the second group is pretty much the same: Your model is over-fitting or you are using the training data to test your model"
However we explicitly stated in our manuscript that we use a testing data that was collected separately and was not used for training the model.
On top of that they mentioned also things that prove they did not even bother to read the manuscript for instance one of them said that we should run an experiment that we have already included it in the paper with a big figure.
My advisor has emailed the Editor-in-Chief of the journal but as we have expected he didn't even read his email and he replied with one sentence mentioning that we can consider re-submitting the manuscript.
So I am wondering are there other means and ways to win such a battle when the scientific field which is supposed to be decent and fair turns to be unfair.
EDIT:
I forgot to mention that as opposed to the review policy which clearly states that reviewers are supposed to not know each others or read other reviewer's comments, one of them discussed the comments of another reviewer and he clearly referred to them in his comments.

Obviously if multiple reviewers misunderstand your work in exactly the same way, then you aren't doing a good enough job of explaining it well. So fix it and resubmit the manuscript, as the EiC suggested. (You might want to read this answer)

@ff524: Thanks a lot for your reply but that's what we did when we resubmitted for the journal and we made sure to write everything explicitly and clearly but still they insisted. I used to think that these kind of things are very fair and I need to work harder on the manuscript to make it clear but this time they gave ridiculous scientific reason and we even thought the first time me and my advisor that the reviewer's PhD student did that given the comments.

Convince the editor that they are wrong and he needs to find other reviewers. If you can't, then you need to find another journal.

Quoting Pete Clark: "the reviewers are always right, even when they aren't". If they got the wrong impression, your paper isn't clear enough and further readers may think the same and reject your paper as sloppy.

I disagree that it is obvious that OP isn't doing a good enough job of explaining their research. In most cases, this would be the likely explanation, but, having personally encountered what the OP describes, I'm not so sure that that is what is happening here.

I agree that it is most likely that (as ff524 notes) the reviewers are both misunderstanding your work in the same way because it is not clear enough. (Remember how little time most reviewers dedicate to reading a paper.) However, if you are convinced this is a different group attempting to sink your paper [unlikely], it is possible to ask the journal to specifically excluded named referees because of potential conflicts. Look into this more, though, because just saying "we disagree with them a lot" is not enough to exclude referees, usually!

You can complain to the editor, but you should not expect too much from it. Remember that reviewers work for free, so unless there are a lot of complaints about one reviewer, the editor will not take action because the reviewer would just stop reviewing for this journal. Moreover the editor, who quite often is  also working for free, may not take your complaints seriously, or judge that your case is not important enough for him to invest some hours of work - remember that he has to read your article to judge your case.
So the easiest thing to do is to submit your paper somewhere else, there are plenty of possibilities. However, if it is rejected again, and you didn't aim at the best journals, you should think really hard about trying again. There are many articles that should not have been written.

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


text:
Is it normal for a PhD thesis' methods chapter to show a high similarity index on iThenticate?
I'm just about to submit my thesis to the library and after putting my entire materials and methods chapter to iThenticate, I found quite a bit of overlap with previously published papers from my lab (i.e. 20-27%) Sure, there were many false positives of common buffer and reagent names. On the other hand, there were sentences with technical jargon that were not easy to paraphrase (think: LC-MS/MS set up) or things I've grown accustomed to saying in lab after four years ("I then used this assay to measure concentration" or the list of set procedures used for raising cells). There's only so many ways to say certain things and while writing a thesis, one might not have a chance to see all these similarities until the end. My two supervising profs and assessors didn't flag these issues as well.
I guess my question is, how worried should I be that some sentences of my Materials chapter are very similar to those found in published literature? If I've completed my defense and can't change my thesis (per university rules), but what should I do if I feel really bad about this?

In some fields, methodology is pretty standardized. Gather some data, do some statistical analysis, report the results. The creativity and innovation isn't in the methodology, per se, but in the questions asked and the possible impacts of the answers.
In such a field, it would be common to see similar wording in the required methodology section. Since you are referring to a single lab, where people also discuss things like methodology, I wouldn't be at all surprised - or worried.
In some ways the "methodology" in a field like math is so standardized that papers don't need a section on it. It is just understood. In some, the methodology is itself innovative at the moment, perhaps in machine learning. But in fields like biology and the humanities where statistical evidence may be the main driver for some threads of inquiry, you can expect similar words.
Similarity doesn't imply plagiarism. You aren't misattributing ideas by using common methodology.
What you should do is relax and except the world as it is.


text:
Is describing a different method in the same format as a published paper considered plagiarism?
I've honestly been losing a bit of sleep over one of the sections in my materials chapters because I think it has some similarity to text from a published paper. To compel myself to write this section a few months ago, I looked at a paper with the same method and rephrased each sentence in that paper into a question. I then answered each question with methods I optimized from my own research, combined them to form the section, and moved on. So for example if I was writing about western blot, the questions I gave myself to answer were:

What reagents or equipment did you use to run the blot?

Where did you get your antibodies and samples from?

How did you exactly run the blot?

How did you analyze your western blot?

I split each response into four paragraphs like above. If I used the format or order that a former student used to describe his Western Blot to describe how I ran my Western blot (different antibodies, concentrations, incubation times, samples, etc...), would that be considered plagiarism?

Is the other, published paper written by you?

Was the method in the other paper unique and did that contribute something to the literature of your field? Or was it standard stuff?

@Snijderfrey No

@Buffy It was just a standard Western blot protocol, performed differently than mine

@Buffy... different in terms of some reagents, incubation times, antibodies used, samples/size and membrane. The former student left before I joined and I made/performed  this protocol myself.

Certain aspects of publishing are formalistic. For an experiment for example, one needs to give a description that is sufficient to repeat the experiment. The question of what is necessary and what is superfluous is decided by the "sense of the community", embedded by what paper reviewers and thesis readers give as feed-back. If you are still learning academic writing, using good examples as templates is perfectly fine and even advisable. My suggestion would be to not look at only one example.
As far as plagiarism is concerned: Give credit where credit is due. You might put yourself in the shoes of the author from whom you take your inspiration. If it is about what data is needed to describe an experiment or simulation, I would not be wronged if you were to use this as a template, because I just followed a common recipe. Now, if I use a smart trick to make the experiment work, you should give me credit. If I use a bon mot, you might want to ascribe it to me, because I am rather proud of it. But if I give a recipe for Butter Chicken, and you use this as a template for your recipe for Mumbai Dal, no credit is due, because recipes are written in a very formalistic way and what matters is the mixture of ingredients and sometimes the way they are cooked. You just learned how to write recipes using mine as an example.
Now, in an ideal world, you would be able to speak with an advisor about all of this. In fact, if this were to happen at my university, the fact that you could not resolve your doubts easily would indicate a break-down in the relationship between advisor and advisee. I just assume that you are not in these circumstances.

your recipe analogy makes quite a bit of sense. I'm not sure there were any smart tricks in his blot; it was quite standard. With the exception of some overlapping reagents/equipment (Imager, and skim milk) the amounts added were different. I think my advisor is a bit fed up with my Qs this week; I thought I would test the waters here first before escalating the situation.

Don't expect much originality in a Materials and Methods section! [1]
The main goal of this section is to describe what you did, so that readers can understand how it might affect your results and the conclusions you draw from them. Precision, rather than originality, is the overarching goal. Consequently, if you use the same method as Jones et al. (2022), your methods section is probably going to look somewhat like theirs too. You certainly should not copy text verbatim [2], but no one should be alarmed or suspicious if the organization and details are generally similar. There are only so many ways to describe doing a Western Blot, even if you make heavy use of a thesaurus. In fact, some tools are now even suggesting that users describe the methods in a standardized way, so that it is easy to compare within/across papers; check out this page from NIPreps.
In other writing, you might be tempted to avoid this issue by including just a citation. However, this isn't ideal for Methods sections because it means the reader now needs to flip through other papers to figure out what you did--and it probably isn't exactly the same either.
Instead, I prefer a hybrid approach. Start with an overview paragraph that cites the paper(s) from which you derived your methods. Note any major changes here. In the subsections that follow, provide a complete description of your/their methods, adding in other references as needed. The methods section does not have to be purely procedural--you can also briefly discuss why you used specific approaches, or mention other methods that did not work as well. This can help make these sections feel more "original" if it's bothering you.
This ticks all the boxes:

Credit is prominently and appropriately given to other work, so no one can complain about plagiarism.
The paper contains a complete description of what was done.
Readers know where to direct their attention. Someone familiar with cited work can skip the Methods entirely--or jump straight to the differences. Others who haven't read it gets a complete description, without having to chase papers.

Good luck and don't overthink this. Your advisor or committee should be able to help you with any specifics too!
[1]: The bar is obviously higher if you're claiming that the method itself is novel. Even there though, you'd probably test it against standard methods and those can have pretty formulaic descriptions.
[2]: Copying between your own paper and your thesis might be an exception. Some places permit "sandwich" theses where you literally include the published manuscript. If so, even literal copying might be fine (with a citation, of course).

Thanks for this description. I was tempted to add a citation but this student had no involvement in my project and I optimized the conditions for this assay. I felt Western blot was so standard and giving the reader a citation might mislead them to reading a protocol that works less optimally with my study. I don't think you can give a citation for sentence or paragraph structure, right?

Rephrasing is normally not enough to avoid plagiarism. The kinds of paragraphs used with different specifics should be fine. But when in doubt add a reference. It will protect you and actually can improve the quality. A method from someone else has been tried before, so has some additional validity.


text:
Quitting a PhD program for another PhD in Business
I am currently a Ph.D. student of business at University X. Although my professor is great and well-known in the field, their offer was explodable and I had no time to think about it and wait for my other results (because of my situation and some personal pressure I accepted it), also the rank and placements of the university are not that good, so I was not sure about University X from the first moment. Also, I am not happy in this city at all and it is affecting my performance. I want to know my options, Can I transfer to a better university and city? or Should I drop this program and reapply? Do I have to pay back my tuition (I know that I do not have to pay back my stipend) if I quit this program?
Also, I am kind of worry about the reaction of my professor and the university. I deeply appreeciate it if you help me.

Regarding a PhD:
Generally speaking, it is common for people to realize that the chosen PhD is not the right one for them after they worked on it for a while.
You should reflect and be sure about why you want to change your PhD.
It could be a phase; any PhD will test your endurance and persistence to finish it. A lot of my co-PhDs were really frustrated during the PhD and some wanted to quit. Some didn't and were happy that they hadn't. Some others did and were happy with their decision too.
I only know one person who quit their PhD and started another one at another Uni. However, that person didn't finish the second either and dropped out in the end.
Regarding Uni and Ranking:
Ranking/Prestigiousness is not everything. Your supervisor is more important. I did my PhD in a field, where the world-leading scientist(s) is/are in Belgium. He is far more influential than his counterpart at Harvard/MIT. If you did a PhD under him, you have a guaranteed assistant professorship (or at the very least countless post-doc offers) job afterward.
Regarding changing:
Commonly, you cannot take your research and move to another Uni and finish it there. I doubt it is possible, but there might be some odd cases where it was done.
So, I believe that you would need to reapply for a new PhD.
Regarding Tuition:
That depends on your founding body/contract, and I advise you to read it yourself and, when in doubt, look for legal advice. Some Unis have student unions that help with that.
FYI: In the Uk, for instance, you don't need to pay anything back.
Regarding supervisor:
Talk to him and be honest, that you are not happy, and you want to move somewhere else. They are professionals and won't hold a grudge against you.
Just be sure you pay attention to how you deliver it.

Thank you so much for your time and answer. Since The first two years of the program are mostly studying and passing some courses, I have not delved into my research yet, and I am open to changing my research direction toward other university faculty members that have mainly common interests with me.


text:
My research supervisor has asked if he can submit a paper on my work to a journal, should I be named as an author?
My research supervisor has asked me if he can submit a paper on my work to a journal.
I just want to know how that works. Do I get authorship if he is the sole writer of the paper, even though it is my research?
As my supervisor, I would include him as a co-author on any paper I published as I have relied a lot on his guidance and used his intellectual property to form my paper, but does it work the other way around? We have worked together throughout my degree to come up with the idea and brainstorm directions to take the research. We also co-wrote one paper together, based on my research. But I have done the literature review and primary research (interviews) myself and I have completed some analyses and still working on the rest, so my thesis is a work-in-progress.
So how does it work if he submits the paper to the journal based on the research for my thesis? When I have tried to read about this online, it mostly says authorship depends on who has contributed the most. But if he writes the whole paper himself based on my work, but I don't actually contribute any writing to the paper he submits, should I expect to get credited as an author? And if so, should I be first author as it is my research?
Also is this normal practice?
Edit* when we discuss this, should I request to be first author? I don't want to ask to be first-named author if that isn't normal practice or if it is unreasonable of me to expect to be. Is it normal to be second author if someone else writes the whole thing, even if it is based on my work? Or should I expect to be first author still?

Specifying the field might be helpful. What kind of involvement is grounds for authorship can be highly field-dependent.

Maybe he took your authorship for granted, maybe not, have you asked him?

Is this your supervisor? https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/183966/team-member-has-done-the-work-but-wont-write-it-up-what-to-do

@user3067860 no, my supervisor hasn't encouraged me to submit to the journal before, he has now just asked if he can do it.

Yes, if it is your work, you are an author and should be acknowledged as such. But you probably want to stay in the loop in the writing, or at least in the editing. Whether you are first author or not depends on some things, including your field and on the content of the paper.
It would be an ethical lapse to exclude you if your intellectual contributions are the subject of the paper.
Offer to contribute to the production of the actual paper. Ideas, outlines, editing, writing sections, ...
Authors are not, primarily, the people who have their hands on the keyboard. It is the people whose ideas are discussed. So, a proper answer to his question is "Sure, with my assistance."

You didn't mention the possibility, but I'm wondering if he wants to write a summary paper of the work of several people, including yourself. If that is the case then it might work a bit differently than if it is only your work. But in that case the bunch of you should get together with the supervisor and work out authorship issues.

To add to this, you joining the writing process would be a valuable lesson in technical/scientific writing and is something you'd like to learn I guess. Authorship is not solely based on who wrote the article, but the work encompassed in it. Writing, lab work, theorizing, etc.

what do you think should make me first author then? even if I do contribute to writing the paper, but he is the one who submits it, should I be the first author as it is on my work or should he as he is mainly writing/submitting it?

That is field dependent, but in general, the one that has the most fundamental contribution. Sadly, there is no objective way to measure that. It is why, in pure math and theoretical CS we prefer alphabetical listings.

I just want to know how that works. Do I get authorship [...]

Discuss it explicitly with your supervisor.
If you browse this SE for authorship disputes (and phrases like "should I be the author..."), you will find how many people got burnt by trying to sidestep this. There is no good reason not to ask.

Probably we are missing an important piece of information in the question. In general, supervisors write papers together with their students. The students are the experts on their field, why exclude them? Then they are naturally authors.
This might be different, if the supervisor writes a chapter for a book or some broader article, where your work is only a tiny fraction of what he is writing. Then he should cite your published work (or cite you with personal communication or add you to the acknowledge section).


text:
Do active researchers in mathematics read a paper in detail?
Context:
As a researcher you need to read many research papers by others. In the case of mathematics, a paper consists of:

Results (theorems, lemma, propositions)
Proofs that consist of the technique or method by which the researcher obtaining their result.

Clearly, results can be used without learning the proof. However, understanding a proof may help you develop future results (but not necessarily always).
Ideally, it is best to learn the proof and techniques used in detail in order to fully understand the reality.
Question:
Do researchers (graduate students, professors, research fellows) in mathematics have a detailed understanding of the proofs/techniques outlined in contemporary journal papers? What is the convention in math?
Please note that my issue is not whether the proof is correct or not, I want to know what most academics do in the most of the cases when a result is published in a peer-reviewed journal paper. Do they read and understand the proof or they just skip the proof and remember the result? (provided that the proof technique is not out of the box)?
Example: I was reading Simon Singh's book on Fermat's Last Theorem, he wrote that only half dozen people understood the proof of Andrew Wiles. (The number maybe slightly erratic since I read the book long ago.) But the modularity conjecture was proved by him at the same time, I guess this is quite important. This made me think how much actually people understand contemporary work? How much it is actually important? Mathematics is a very very technical subject now a days.

As a thought experiment, suppose that you take the premier textbook in some field of math and memorize the statement of every theorem in the book. Do you suppose that you know that domain? That you can use it effectively? You can almost certainly trust that the author(s) got it right, of course.

@Buffy Text-Books and Journal-Papers are 2 different things, you build your basic reading books in detail, doing exercise, journal paper is not same, research paper might not be compared with books, you don't learn basics from research paper.

Why do you think learning is different? Ok, then. Take 50 papers in some field and memorize the statements of every theorem stated. Do you think you are now conversant in that field?

@Buffy this what I want to know, that is why I posted the question here, and it seems researcher do prioritize which paper the should learn (see other answers).

You seem to be resisting something obvious to most mathematicians. Mathematics isn't about facts. It is about discovery and the establishment of some truths. A process, not a thing. But a paper that is interesting to me, and worth a serious examination, may not be to you, so a skim will do. Or even ignoring it.

@Buffy 2 fun facts, I am 1. not resisting anything 2. not  a mathematician, I have elaborately asked a question with a context derived from an anecdote.

"As a researcher you need to read research paper of others." Why? It seems that you are really out of what is mathematics. For any expert it is usually trivial to just have a look in diagonal to have a good understanding of what is going on. Otherwise you are not an expert!

Addressed on Math.SE here and off SE here.

The answer, of course, is that it varies with each reader and with the specific needs of each reader. For many people, a skim is sufficient for most papers. The question is "does this seem reasonable" and if so, there may be little need to go into the details.
This is especially true about proofs. If an overview of the proof suggests that the techniques are standard for the field, and the results don't seem to clash with what the reader knows, then it is unlikely that the reader will spend the time on every detail.
The exceptions, of course, are many. Students want to learn new proof techniques that they are relatively unfamiliar with. Surprising results require a close look. Long standing problems, when finally proven, also require a close look.
And, in many cases, the way something is proven is more important than the result itself. If a skim of a proof suggests that there is something new here, then experienced mathematicians will want to examine it in detail as well as look for gaps and errors.
But if you are a student, or otherwise feel the need for an answer to this question, then I'd suggest that you err on the side of completeness. Keep your skeptic hat on until you are satisfied.

Please note that my issue is not whether the proof is correct or not, I want to know what most academic do in the most of the cases when a result is published in a journal pepper? Do they read and understand the proof or they just skip the proof and remember the result (provided that the proof technique is not out of the box)?

@Jim But rarely is one interested in the results without also getting a feeling for how trustworthy these results are. If your question is "how often does a mathematician read the results without caring whether they are right or wrong", my assumption is that the answer is "basically never".

@xLeitix if something is published in peer reviewed journal, I think  assessing correctness is the last objective of the reader, is  not it?

Not for a serious mathematician. Maybe it is a bit flip but: Theorems are boring. Proofs are interesting. The most interesting part of my doctoral work was one of the proofs, which broke new ground. The statements were fun, but that one proof is what gave it value. Don't assume reviewers never make mistakes. See this recent question, for example: https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/143215/75368

@Jim In most cases most academics just skim the paper and skip large parts of it. However asking for the average is highly misleading. Perhaps 90% of the papers I'll read, I'll never use. And in general those are the papers I skim. In theory I could move the average to reading all papers in detail by simply not looking at those 90% at all and still do the same mathematics as before. It's just that the best way to gauge if a paper is worth reading in detail and has results or techniques that can be used, is skimming it first.

Maybe to add to my last comment. Things are also source dependent. As a student, papers generally get recommended to you. Assuming the recommender knows what they are doing, those will be relevant and worth a detailed reading. As an active researcher trying to stay at the "state of the art" (whatever that may be), most of the papers you read are whatever just has been published, which as said often have a promising abstract but then turn out to be less relevant after a few pages.

@mlk good point! To stay at the state of the art even the word published needs further specification. I was once in the situation that I waited for a paper to appear on ArXiv to be able to submit my own paper to the journal because I already used the result while being personal communication (of course I checked the result really carefully).

From personal experience, I read a few papers very carefully and understood the proofs in full detail. For most papers a rough look at the results was sufficient. It depends mainly on the goal of reading the paper.
The ones I read very carefully were usually the ones where I wanted to apply the technique to a similar setting for my own research. In order to do that it is not sufficient to know the result in the paper is true, I needed to understand the nitty-gritty detail of the proof to see where I could just use what is there and where I needed to adapt something to fit to the new setting.
For most of the various other situations where I looked at some paper just reading the big theorems and maybe skimming the proofs was usually enough.

Like anyone else, mathematicians by and large read papers selfishly, i.e. to the level needed to advance their own thinking, and no more.
So if the result matches my intuition, I may or may not even read past the initial statement in the introduction.
If it seems to open up intriguing vistas, or is a bit surprising, I will read enough to understand the method of proof, to "visualize the scaffolding" so as to be able to consider whether this scaffolding could be broadened in some way.
If it's surprising, unexpected, or I find it suspicious, I will read deeper into some areas of the proof, basically to figure out where my intuition needs correction.
I will read technical parts of the proof in detail if and only if I feel those technical elements are important to the above aims (e.g. they introduce a methodology that I would like to apply, mutatis mutandis, more so than the actual result, or I can't figure out why my intuition is misleading without digging into technical details); if I feel a sense of responsibility (reviewing a manuscript pre publication, or the paper is surprising and published in a journal where I'm not sure I can trust the review process); or -- rarely but sometimes -- the exposition is so elegant, I don't want to put it down.
(All of this written in the present tense; however, I'm actually no longer active in pure math. However, it describes what I did, what I continue to do in my new area, and what I believe many other math academics continue to do.)

In my opinion, your question contains a false assumption. You say that it is not about correctness, and that one can safely use the results of peer-reviewed papers, but reality shows that still enough papers are published that contain at least in details some flaws, need extra assumptions or similar stuff, and if this happens you are also in the boat! Hence, if I want to use a result and am not sure that it is correct (may it that I know that close colleagues who I trust have verified it or I know that the relevant experts really have read it) then I check it myself.

Mate, you got it wrong, I am not saying peer reviewed papers are flawless, but that is not my concern in this post, I want to know how much professional mathematician read the paper.

I think you missed my point ;) As far as I understand you, you proclamate that the central point to read a peer-reviewed paper carefully is to understand techniques for broadening the own understanding or for adaptation. But I say that verification is also an important point (which is ignored too often from colleagues in my opinion). And there is no general measure for this effect, if I work in a rapidly-developing field, there are more new result which cannot be that intensively checked by the community, hence there I´d have more often the need to carefully read the stuff myselfs.

Agreed.  If I don’t personally know that the proof is correct, I dare not use the result as a step in one of my proofs.

@Jim: you’re asking about how much professional mathematicians read papers, and, implicitly, about their motivations for that choice.  So an answer saying that correctness-checking is an important motivator for (at least some) mathematicians seems completely on-topic.

Usually, I read all the paper I cite when I write a paper. However, the word "read" does not have the same meaning in function of the kind of citation. The more the reading of a paper can help to enlarge the vision of a field and improve the understanding, the more carefully I will read it.
One can also not read all the paper he cites in detail.
The hierarchy (to my mind) is as follows.

We cite a paper in the introduction in order to talk about more or less closely related works. In this case, one can only read the abstract or the main results of the paper.
We cite a paper in which a quite similar work was one, but using different assumptions and we want to compare them. In this case of course we have to read in detail the results and the examples of applications. And also the idea of proof, which can help to understand more deeply the differences between the other assumption.
We used a result in an other paper P during a proof. The contribution of this paper is not decisive, in the sense that for example, if the result of the paper P is wrong, the proof can be saved without more assumption. Just that the use of the paper P made the proof shorter. In this case, we can read the ideas of the proof to be convinced that it works.
We used a result in an other paper P during a proof. The contribution of this paper is important; for example, if paper P is correct, then one can prove a result under the assumption that a random variable has a finite moment of order two, but without this paper, one need moments of order higher than two.
In this case it would be wise to read the proof into details.
We used a result in an other paper P during a proof. The contribution of this paper is crucial, in the sense that if paper P is wrong, then all the paper that we are writing is wrong. Then one should read into details the proofs and also look at the references therein to be sure that everything works well.

Overall, we always have to read with criticism, in the sense that we should not take anything for granted. I mean even a paper written by big names or accepted in a good journal, whatever it means.


text:
What is the difference between a lecture and a seminar?
I understand the main difference is the amount of active engagement of the students (questions, interaction, etc.).
But is there more, to describe the difference?
In a lecture there will be questions and answers, and in a seminar there will be times when the teacher talks. So, how can we describe the difference in a more articulate way.

What definitions do you have so far? So we don't duplicate...

Mostly, what I have so far is that the participation of students/audience makes the difference: it is little in the lecture and substantial in the seminar.

@corey979 Sorry, I am not a native speaker, with "participation" I meant "the amount of active intervention of the students".

The fine details can be very different country by country, and context also can make a difference. Generally, lectures are given by teachers, profs, PIs, while seminars are often built on the talks by students (eg on assigned topics). Again, context matters, there are other situations, too.

Both of them can cover a wide range of events, and there’s a big overlap in their usage.  So there’s no clear cut-and-dried line between the two.  The typical usage of them varies between fields, countries, and individual institutions or evengs; I’ve known things which were called a seminar at one place that would have been called lectures at another.  That said, trying to set down the differences in what they’re typically used to mean:

as you say, a lecture usually means less interaction — typically one person lecturing at the front of the room, perhaps taking questions from the audience.  A seminar can be like this, but can more often also involve more substantial interaction, up to general discussion.
a lecture typically has more difference in expertise between the lecturer and audience: a professor lecturing to students, a professional to a lay audience, or an expert on some topic to researchers who aren’t necessarily specialists in it.  A seminar is more likely to have its presenter as a “first among equals”.
some more specific senses: a coherent series of talks presenting a single topic is usually called a lecture course; a one-off general-audience talk is usually called a public lecture; a regular series of research-level talks is more likely to be called a seminar series, or a research seminar.

Again, these are all differences in typical usage; I’ve seen most of these tendencies broken sometimes, and I’m sure that beyond my experience (mathematics and computer science, in Western Europe and North America) their usage varies more widely still.  But these are a start.


text:
What can I do if I want to publish my PhD thesis work as is, but my advisor wants months of additional work?
I recently completed my PhD thesis with minor corrections and I presented most of the data in international conferences (posters and talks). Now I am focused on writing up the data for publication in a journal.
For the publication, 2 of 3 supervisors want me to change the direction of the analysis from data driven to theory-driven which will take several months and still might be rejected. They say the data is publishable as it is but that they want to fit the data to a theory that they are pursuing for other research grants (i.e. independently from me), and it may (or may not) lead to a better cited paper. I want to try to publish the data as it is, because that is what is in my thesis, I have presented these results before and they fit with my career interest.
I was wondering whether it is acceptable to push for publication how I want it, i.e. if we do not agree on this, who takes the lead decision? At the moment, I am in danger of not publishing this work because we cannot agree, but I don't feel this re-analysis is to do with the quality of my thesis work, and is more of a hidden agenda. My supervisors had involvement and that is not the issue. If I were still a PhD student, a re-analysis would likely happen (out of interest) but since I am a post-doc in another research group, I'm not keen on a re-analysis for the fun of it.

Welcome to Academia SE. I do not think your question is answerable as it stands, as it all depends on the scientific contribution of your supervisors. Can you please edit your question to elaborate this. I also suggest that you browse the [tag:authorship] tag to get an idea of what is relevant or to even find an answer to your question.

So, you have completed a PhD dissertation that 2/3 members of your committee do not believe that is publishable as it is. You should probably thank your lucky stars that they signed / agreed that your work is worth a PhD, instead of arguing with them that there is nothing that needs improvement before your work gets published.

@Alexandros it is a matter of opinion that they think this study could be analysed a different way, not that the study is not publishable as it is. I should also thank my lucky stars I passed independent review should I?! My question relates to how much authorship rights we have for PhD research - i.e. I would like to try to publish my data as is because it fits with my thesis/research interests. I will edit the question to elaborate my issue further.

@Alexandros you make huge assumptions here. I have published twice from my PhD and this is only 1 paper/study. My supervisors do not actually work in the field that is my PhD topic - it was a random project that none of them had any experience in. Therefore, as it happens when you do a PhD anyway, I have become the most experienced and know the work in depth, and have become acquainted with the experts of my field (my reviewers). So as you can see, these issues are not all black and white. My paper is publishable in their opinion, but they want a publication in a theoretical journal

I voted for re-opening. However, needed to say, the background of the question is still not 100% clear. Could you please move all the relevant information from the comments to the question text?

Naive question: Can you release what you've got as preliminary findings, flagged as such, and follow with the final version? Or would the former kill the market for the latter, or simply not be considered worth publication space when a revision is expected fairly soon?

For the publication, 2 of 3 supervisors want me to change the direction of the analysis — Since you've finished your PhD, aren't they your former supervisors?  If they are coauthors on the paper, then you need to work out the issue as you would with any other set of coauthors.  If they are not coauthors, you can thank them for their recommendations and then publish your research as you see fit.

As usual, the first piece of advice I can offer is to talk to your graduate advisor to get his take. That said, it sounds like you're getting advice which will increase your chances of getting a paper accepted from people who have experience in the field.
Your theory that they're asking you to do work related to a "hidden agenda" seems a little far-fetched... when considering the extra analysis, writing it up, and publishing, you're looking probably 18 months into the future. Your committee is well aware of this. The likelihood of all that happening in any timeframe that would be beneficial to them is pretty darn small. Even more so, they have their own students who can work on their stuff. They wouldn't hang their hat on the chances that a graduate student who has already moved on will do some research that may or may not result in a publication. Long story short, I wouldn't worry too much about ulterior motives.

As a postdoc, you are now in the driver's seat of your research career.
"I am in danger of not publishing this work because we cannot agree" -- can you explain this?  Is this because they're wearing you down, or because they have the capability of stopping you, or getting back at you?
You need an ally.  Look around.  Good luck.

@Louise - Would burning your bridges with your former supervisors leave any lasting harm to your collaborative network?


text:
How to handle gift authorship?
I am seeking advice for the following situation:
I finished my PhD in microbiology in September 2021, just before I submitted a paper to eLife with me being first author and my PhD advisor as corresponding author.
The results of the first review round came in just after I left the lab and additional experiments were asked for by the reviewers. These were performed by another PhD student and resulted in two figures in the supplementary material and did not alter any of the conclusions of the paper. The additional experiments were performed using the exact same methodology and data analysis pipeline developed by me during three years. Merely the bacterial strain was different.
Yesterday I received the revised manuscript which states the other PhD student as co-first author with equal contribution (nobody informed me or asked for my opinion). I replied immediately to the PI that I cannot accept this, stating that an authorship is justified but certainly not an equal contribution. I hear from the lab that the other student's projects are not going well and that they are looking for a way to get her on a paper...
Now I am wondering if there is any chance that the revised paper could be accepted without my consent and what I should do if the PI refuses to "downgrade" the authorship of the other student. And should I also inform all other authors, that I don't agree with the author list?
EDIT April 14 I informed the PI that I did not agree on the order of the author list with respect to the authors' contributions and that I refused resubmission of the manuscript until I could seek further advice.
The PI backed down and agreed on removing the "equal contribution" for the other student, not without trying to make me feel guilty.

In general, a reputable journal won't publish a paper without the consent and agreement of all authors.

What do the other authors think about this?

More important, how important is sole first authorship of this one paper important to your career at this moment? Are you desperate for this? Are you in a position to be generous? Do you value future collaborations?

@Buffy As for now, I answered directly to the PI only. But I am wondering whether I should check with the other authors as well.

That is probably a good idea, but I'd suggest you ask for their views rather than starting with a complaint.

@Buffy I will do that, thanks for the advice.
Besides that, this is the latest move in a long line of personal, professional and academic misconduct of the PI and to me it feels like after making my time as PhD student very difficult (not to say hell), he now tries to steal my work, as usual for his own benefit.

On the other hand, I am not in academia any more, so this first authorship is not crucial in any way to my carrer.

Well done! It sounds like it went well, despite bringing back bad memories

Based on the comment stream attached to the question, I'll recommend that your best option is to just let it go. There are several factors, of course.
One is that you are unlikely to change the PIs behavior no matter what you do, though you could probably make trouble for them if you want to by making a complaint to the university.
Another is that you aren't in academia, so few will know the difference between shared or sole first authorship.
Third, is that  bit of a boost to another student isn't necessarily a bad thing. Generosity is a good thing.
It is in your power, of course, to prevent publication. In general, all authors need to agree on authorship and reputable publishers respect that and ask for permission. So, your consent is required.
But a fight will cost you emotionally, I'd guess, and for little actual benefit to your career going forward.
I hope the PI didn't sabotage an academic career for you.
If the PI is plagiarizing your work that is a different matter and should be addressed to the university and to any publisher.
Bad things can happen and sometimes all you can really effectively do is to avoid damage to yourself.

Why do you think a fight will cost OP emotionally? It seems like you are recommending to give up very easily. All that has happened so far is the PI has added the other student as a co first author, and OP complained.

@gib, because an angry ex-PI can take some vindictive action, perhaps and it will bring back memories that might not be pleasant. As to "giving up easily", fight the battles you have a chance of winning.

The angry ex-PI taking vindictive action doesn't seem very likely as OP is not in academia, and the memories have already come back. All this fight involves is sending a few emails, and it sounds like OP is in the right, so I think he/she might easily win. It might even benefit his/her emotional health, if the PI backs down. Of course I don't know for sure.

Thanks for your answer. You and @gib were both right. see my edit for the outcome. It definitely were some difficult days but the bad memories came back the moment, the PI tried to belittle my contribution.


text:
Duration of Initial Quality Check period for "Scientific Report" Journal
I have submitted a manuscript to Scientific Reports at the "Initial Technical Check Stage." So please give me an idea of how long it usually takes for this stage to be over.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/55665/what-does-the-typical-workflow-of-a-journal-look-like-how-should-i-interpret-a Does this answer your question?

@Allure Thanks a lot! My paper is on its checking way.. please pray...I'm so worried!!


text:
Summer opportunities before applying for a PhD
I'm a 4th year physics major from India. My degree is a dual one - 5 years and both Bachelor's and Master's. I want to take up theoretical physics in the future and pursue a PhD after I graduate - around 1.5 years from now.
I am a decent student with a somewhat decent CGPA. My undergrad research experience was mostly carried out at my home institution and a couple other places I visited during the summer - both in India. I presented some of our work at an international conference this year (albeit online since it was a question of funds that I didn't have) and another of my work is currently on the arXiv while me and my supervisor look for journals. My summer experiences were more passive - one was a basic reading project and the other involved some work but nothing too novel.
I am inclined to look for a PhD outside of India and convincing potential advisors is a big thing, of course, along with compatibility with said advisor. I was wondering if I should email potential advisors in places abroad to ask for a summer opportunity. The way it seems to me, it would be a good way to convince them and it would give me a good idea of how compatible I am with them. Even if I do not finally pursue a PhD with them, it nevertheless counts for a good experience and is good networking. Of course, I'm going to apply to the international summer programmes as well but they tend to be very selective and there can be a clash of timings.
This is especially important because I'll complete my Master's as well when I graduate - as far as I know, places in the US or Canada do not actually have a direct PhD program and one needs to spend the first 2 years taking courses. I was looking at pure research institutes like Perimeter - it doesn't actually mention a lot about its PhD program except that you've to convince a professor and manage to get into one of the affiliated institutes and qualify for their personal criteria for a PhD as well but I've seen it being mentioned that Perimeter prefers students if they've gone through their 1 year Master's program. In case that is true, having a summer experience with one of the professors may also help since I don't think I'm going to apply for another Master's program, especially since I'll need to undertake two years of courses again if I get into a PhD there. In Europe, I'd guess such an experience would definitely give me an edge since they have mostly direct PhD programs but if I'm not wrong, they don't have a lot of vacancies or funds to support summer students - so unless I do secure funding from international programs, it'll be for naught.
The cons to this are that I don't know if mailing people like this is even common or looked upon favorably. Then there is the question of funds. I'm also not sure what to say to a professor with whom I manage to spend the summer but decide not to do my PhD. Finally, I'm aware that getting a reply, and a positive one at that, from such mails is very difficult - I've mailed a lot of professors (even at my home institution) over the last 3 years and haven't really gotten a lot of affirmative replies.
So, I would like to ask if this is a feasible option to look at or not and any advice for the same.

You are more likely to be successful in securing a research opportunity through funded summer research fellowships rather than emailing professors out of the blue. Some funded research opportunities I know about:

DAAD Working Internships in Science and Engineering (WISE) program (Germany)

Caltech Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) program (Caltech, USA)

MITACS Globalink Research Internship (Canada)

Nevertheless, if you do decide to email professors, check with your current supervisor if they know the professors you are interested to work with. An email from your supervisor recommending you is likely to be taken more seriously than you directly emailing the professor. It's also a good idea to have a conversation with your supervisor, if you feel comfortable enough, about your area of interest and future plans, because they know more, and can provide you with good recommendations.
If this is also not feasible, then email only those professors whose work genuinely interests you and with whom you see yourself working. Send a succinct email talking about what you like about their work, and how your past experiences are relevant and useful. Do NOT send no-effort emails with the intention of casting a wide net, you will not get a response.

Thanks for the advice! Unfortunately, our institute recently started their undergrad program (they've had a PhD program for a long time), and they aren't yet eligible for either DAAD or MITACS (apparently the latter will not register any more institutions from India). I will definitely ask my supervisor if I decide to mail people though.

Sorry to hear that those programs won't work. There is still the SURF program, and many universities and research institutes have info about summer internships on their website. Be sure to check them out as well.


text:
Withdrawal of a research article from the journal
How to withdraw a submitted (but not under review) manuscript from a journal? The reason being it has taken a lot of time (around 5 months) and has not gone under review process as of yet.

Does this answer your question? How to withdraw an under review manuscript from a journal when you decide you want to submit to another journal with a higher impact factor?

You email the journal/editor. That's it.

The precise answer depends on the publisher. Usually if you log into the website where you can view your submission, there is also an option to withdraw. Presumably since you are able to check that it is not yet under review the journal in question is using this sort of system. If you can't find an option to withdraw, there should at least be an option to send a message to the handling editor, where you can request this.


text:
Books about teaching at university following quality standards?
What introductory books are there for a new university lecturer to know about teaching with quality assurance in mind?

This question is likely going to be closed as a 'shopping question'. There are many many books on university teaching. Narrowing by subject/discipline may help somewhat. Do you have any specific questions about university teaching that could be answered?

@atom44 updated and edited

It's difficult to know exactly what you are wanting to discover but two books I have found useful and interesting are:

A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing academic practice -- edited by Marshall, Fry and  Ketteridge
Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Contemporary Debates --- edited by Rosa and Amaral

They are both about 10 years old now, so the "contemporary" in "contemporary debates" might not be quite what is at the cutting edge now!


text:
open access vs journal meaning for authors
I'm planning to publish my first paper, and while choosing a journal, I noticed that the journals can be open access or not.
As far as I understand it, open-access journals can be read for free (i.e. without paying subscription fees) by anyone.
Does it imply that I can be published in such a journal for free? Can free-for-authors journals be non-open access?

Most journals require some fees for authors. For most open access journals the fees can be quite high. Journals have expenses and the author generally shares those. But open access journals don't give the publisher a revenue stream after publication, though the expenses may not be reduced. Thus more of the burden falls on the author.
Some open access publishers have an alternate revenue stream (sponsors, advertising,...) so that authors don't need to "contribute" to the cost of publishing and maintaining web sites and such.
But, in reality, most established academics, realizing this, will find a way so that the charges don't fall on them personally. Including publication charges in a grant is typical. Some universities will absorb fees for faculty, perhaps.
I don't know how receptive open access publishers are to claims of poverty, but ordinary publishers will often forgive page charges in an author indicates they would need to pay them personally.
But, each publication has its own rules. In fact, for some publications sponsored by professional organizations, the general membership fees partly cover some of the expenses.
But, in general, expect some fees for publication - especially in open access publications. As a student, you could ask your university to cover fees. If they refuse, then ask the journal to forgive the fees. If you worked with a professor or in an established research group, they may have funds to cover publication expenses.
Forgiveness of fees is more likely to be successful for non-open-access, I'd guess.

"Most journals require some fees for authors."  Not in my experience.  What is the basis for this claim?

The usual pattern is that authors pay for open access publication.  The money comes from their institution's funds.  If it's not open access, you should not be paying.
"Green" and "Diamond" open access are usually free.  "Green" open access does not provide ready access to the article.  "Diamond" is rarely available, in my experience.

@Roland Sure, and the institution is the copyright holder before the publication agreement.  I'm not sure this clarification is relevant to the question.

@Roland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire Any copyright holder can enter a contract to transfer a copyright to another owner.

@Roland That is jurisdiction dependent.

"Green open access does not provide ready access to the article."  No; see any definition of green OA, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access#Green_OA.

@DavidKetcheson I did.  Self-archiving is definitely not ready access.

I don't understand.  For instance, arxiv.org is much easier to access than most publisher sites.  No login required.

@DavidKetcheson In my opinion, the journal's website makes it harder to find an arXiv article by polluting search engines and citations with paywalled content.  They actually reduce access.


text:
What does the following editor response mean in Physical Review journal? Major revision or minor revision?
After the third round review of my paper, I receive the following letter from the editor of physical review journal (not PRL)

The above manuscript has been reviewed by one of our referees.
Comments from the report appear below for your consideration.
When you resubmit your manuscript, please include a summary of the
changes made and a brief response to all recommendations and
criticisms.
Yours sincerely,

It seems to be different from the ordinary editor letter I used to receive, which tells me that revisions are necessary:

The above manuscript has been reviewed by one of our referees.
Comments from the report appear below.
These comments suggest that the present version of the manuscript is
not suitable for publication in the Physical Review. However, if you
can provide a convincing response to the criticism, we will give
further consideration. Please accompany any resubmittal by a summary
of the changes made and a brief response to all recommendations and
criticisms.
Yours sincerely,

We are puzzled by the first letter from the editor, because the editor does not tell us whether revisions are necessary or not. What is his attitude? What does the first letter from the editor mean? Is it a major revision or a minor revision or a rejection (because it is already the third round of review)?
Edit: The report from the referee is simple, it only asks about one of our figures because of some confusion from the referee's side.  From our perspective that can be easily fixed. But we are quite worried because from our understanding, 3 rounds of review in APS is maximum and paper are either rejected or accepted after 3 rounds of review. Has anyone ever encountered more than 3 rounds of review when submitting to APS journal?
And I understand that both of the letters are just templates. But I assume that different templates  correspond to different scenarios. So I would really appreciate help from any one probably familiar with the APS journals.(For example, you have submitted articles to APS journals and received both kinds of editor's response)

I think you greatly overestimate the amount of thought the editor put into this.

It does not really matter whether it is major or minor revision.  You are required to revise your paper, respond to reviewers, and reviewers will have another pass at your paper. Anything can happen.  They may recommend reject your paper because they finally 'understood' your paper after clarifications or they noticed a new error.  They could recommend acceptance.
Alternatively, the editor could invite new reviewers.  I wouldn't read too much into the letter.  It looks to be a standard reply template.

Are you sure that there will be another round of review, I mean for physical review journal, I heard that 3 rounds of review is already maximum. But I am not sure whether there are exceptions

@TanTixuan - even if just the editor looks at it, it will be ‘reviewed’. And since the editor is asking you to revise and send back, they aren’t going to turn around and reject it.

Literally, the comments are "for your consideration". If you respond adequately to all concerns without any edits then you may be fine, depending on what those comments say and your response. But, I'd guess that at least some revisions will be necessary since it wasn't immediately accepted.
"Adequate revision" is probably a better description than either "minor" or "major".
I'd treat the response from the editor as encouraging, but seriously consider every reviewer comment.