text:
Is it wise for researchers to thank Alexandra Elbakyan (founder of Sci-Hub) in the paper acknowledgements?
Alexandra Elbakyan founded the site Sci-Hub, which allows bypassing publisher paywalls.
If this service is used by researchers to access papers that would otherwise be out of their reach - due to their university not having subscribed to publishers or not being able to buy papers due to budget constraints - is it a good idea / wise to thank Alexandra in the Acknowledgement section of a paper citing the otherwise unattainable papers?
For example, "We would like to thank Alexandra Elbakyan for her work / contributions to science" without explicitly mentioning any specifics.
A similar question was already asked with the top rated answer pointing out that it would be unwise for paper authors to admit to illegal activity in a formal document.
This seems like a reasonable point.
Reseachers thanking someone for their contribution to science does not seem illegal and might get some readers of a paper to research the background of the acknowledgement.

Did you read the answers of the question you linked to? The answers cover all that you ask...

I am not sure whether it is 'wise', but it is definitely a very good idea. I should do that as well. (Maybe an attentive editor will ask you to be more specific about her contribution or to remove that acknowledgement, but give it a try.) As Solar Mike said, with this formulation you do not admit any illegal activity.

@PuzzledBiologist I said no such thing, also, the first answer points out one has to live with the consequences ie raising the flag of a bad idea... I would NOT make such an acknowledgement for the reasons outlined in the answers to the other question.

Thanks for your comments! I was wondering about using the acknowledgements in a subversive way, i.e. not admitting to an illegal activity specifically, which I agree would be a bad idea. I think @Buffy's answer makes a good point. I also agree that my question was very similar to the related one (hence why I linked it).

I think this question should be re-opened, because it asks about a specific case which can be handled in a specific way. Nowadays it's pretty common to include her in acknowledgements. You can just say "for her support" or something similar which doesn't imply anything problematic.

Not a dupe, because the other question's title is "websites which host illegal book downloads" - and it is certainly not established that Sci-Hub is that, universally.

An lawyer assured me that downloading from SciHub is legal, only uploading is not. Obviously, one can't distribute the downloaded material, but individual use for academic purposes is within the fair use provision of US copyright law.

I'm hoping here that you want to express your opinion that we need a site on which broad copyright license is granted by authors, rather than held closely. I hope you aren't expressing favor of a site in which copyrights of others are simply ignored and not respected and on which illegal activities occur.
I, too, think a site on which people voluntarily agree to a broad license to their work is granted would be a very valued thing. But I wouldn't praise any site that actively encourages the disrespect of authors and their rights.
I don't have a lot of use, either, for journals and other publishers that demand the rights from authors, but that is a different problem.
But, to answer the question directly, associating yourself professionally with behavior treated by many as unethical and even illegal, is probably a mistake. Tactical, if nothing else. You won't really effect the needed change that way.

Thanks for your answer! I think your the viewpoint of seeing it as a tactical professional mistake is valuable.

"You won't really effect the needed change that way": I don't think that's obvious. Publicly acknowledging your use of Sci-Hub helps making it acceptable (by protecting the other people who do it), which casts a spotlight on the problem of access to scientific literature. The more people who do it in their paper, the stronger the effect.

@a3nm, hmmm, does robbing corner bodegas make it more acceptable or protect other people who do it? How about other things that may not be explicitly criminal, but are frowned upon by most people. Publicly berating your children, for example.

@Buffy I'd be interested in a source for the implicit claim that using Sci-Hub is "frowned upon by most people". My own experience is that people are usually fine with it, and agree that it shows a problem with the system; they're just not comfortable saying publicly that they use it because it's illegal, not immoral. (And about the content of your answer: I have yet to meet a scientist who doesn't want their work to be read as widely as possible, given they don't benefit from subscription money. Making this about the rights of authors, rather than of publishers, is nitpicking at best, IMO.)

Are authors and copyright holders the same?


text:
How to find journals that only require a PDF for their final submission?
Almost all journals I have published so far have required either Word or LaTeX source files after acceptance (but with present-day OCR technology it is straightforward to generate Word or LaTeX files from a PDF). Thus, where and how to find journals that are content with just a PDF (or a link to a pre-print repository) for their final submission?
EDIT: The reason I am asking this is because a *.tex file can be compiled in different ways and what worked on creation, need not work at the production team's office. And the need to submit separate source graphics when it is already possible to embed it in a high-quality PDF seems superfluous.

There is a name for this class of journals.  No need to list all such journals, so this is not a shopping question.

"with present-day OCR technology, it is straightforward to generate Word or LaTeX files from a PDF." ha!!

Indeed, the OCR bit is not close to reality.  The question in the title is seems valid, however.

@TerryLoring - well, really? Nobody (well, almost nobody for sure) writes their paper directly as a PDF - it usually is written in Word or some TeX variant to begin with, so those files are available. Conference proceedings (camera ready copy) are the big counterexample, but those would not do any OCRing much less editing of the paper.

I'll at least reopen and let the community decide now that the post has been edited.

If you want your work to be taken seriously, I advise you to prepare it using LaTeX. See #1 here: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=304

@TerryLoring why do you say the OCR technology is not close to reality? Software from Mathpix.com is quite good and much better than Adobe and MS-Word for equations.

If you can get a complex equation parsed by Mathpix.com, I would love to know.  Something like this: https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/5183/split-like-environment-inside-cases-environment

I don't think there is any reason to downvote this question, but this sounds very much like an XY problem to me. Are you sure the appropriate response to whatever problem you're experiencing isn't ensuring that your .tex file compiles correctly on all computers (e.g. by avoiding various non-standard packages) rather than looking for a journal which accepts pdf submissions?

@Cel I'm confused why anyone would ask this question. Why is this relevant to you?

There are journals called overlay journals.  All the formatting is done by the author which can be a lot of work. Anyhow, you can look on the web for overlay journals.
I have never heard of a journal that takes a PDF, reverse engineers a latex file and proceeds from there.  Simple equations perhaps can be dealt with, but OCR is going to have a hard time dealing with kappa vs k, double subscripts, commutative diagrams, that sort of thing.
Also, most authors do not know enough about color-space conversion to deal with images correctly.
I think there should be more overlay journals, but be aware these are not exactly friendly to authors.  You have to make it look good, and if you fail, whom are you to blame?
Added later:  The journal I am familiar with, SIGMA, seems to have changed how they work (or I just forgot).  I think they do fiddle with your latex file.
https://www.emis.de/journals/SIGMA/about.html

To get and idea of color profiles, read this.
If the journals is to be online only, this stuff gets easier.
Getting printed paper images and online images to mathc is a job for someone who is not me. https://helpx.adobe.com/acrobat/using/color-managing-documents.html

Thank you, for this great answer. Indeed, I wish there were more overlay journals too!

You still need to fiddle with a style file, most likely, but need only involve your computer and the arxiv computer.  There is one figure in my book that is blurry because the publishers computer could not handle the tex code.  One survives.

I think an overlay journal collects content from different sources and does not receive authors' contributions and manuscripts in their own formatting style.

@Younes To clarify:  you have to do the formatting; you don't get free reign to pick the format.  Edited to clarify that point.

Are you sure this is correct? As far as I know (and Wikipedia confirms), an overlay journal is one that essentially just gives a "stamp of correctness" to submissions to a preprint server such as Arxiv. But even Arxiv will reject your submission in the first place if it's a pdf generated from tex without the corresponding source.

You have to use the style file, which means you have to use latex.  Of course, there may be non-latex overlay journals.  No idea how those might work.

@Federico Poloni  By my logic, an overlay journal is accepting a pdf submission, or at least a pointer to a pdf as submission.  Now you have to upload the latex file to the arxiv, but I think young academics assume they need to do that anyway.

@TerryLoring So what's the difference with respect to a "traditional" journal? You still need to submit a .tex.

In a tradition journal, the latex needs to run on the journal's system, and the journal will edit your latex file directly.  Thus you need to make your latex run in three environments.  On the overlay journal, you end up doing more of the work, but only need to deal with your system and the arvix.

@Federico Poloni  Of course, some journals don't use latex for the final product.  I think the OP did not live through submitting to math journals in the days before latex.  Overlay or not, the modern systems are a lot better.   (Now the referee report systems....)

@Federico Poloni Checking a journal website, I see I had it wrong, or that my answer was a bit dated.  Y'all can read about this overlay journal 'cause I added a link.

Remark: the journal Sigma mentioned here is not to be confused with Forum of Mathematics: Sigma.

The premise of the question is triply false.

It is NOT trivial to convert technical documents to OCR in a systematic way.  OCR works for 99% of the regular text (enough for indexing and searching) but still struggles with small fonts, specialized fonts, indices and the placement of indices, and a lot of the technical stuff that goes into technical writing.

Many journals that accept .tex files have publicly available LaTeX templates, style files and packages that will produce local versions very close to the eventual published version.  All the journals I know also handle various external packages or are explicit about packages they do not handle.

Producing a pdf does not guarantee the published version will be identical to the submitted version.  Most editors have house rules to enforce some measure of uniformity between articles when it comes to referencing, figures, tables, and the labelling of them, abbreviations, or use special sets of fonts which inevitably lead to small changes between the final accepted version and the production version.  (Even overlay journals have house rules.)

To the user who raised Low Quality Post flag on this answer, please explain why. After reviewing this post, I see no problem at all. If you believe there is something wrong, please point it out.

I disagree with your point 2: in my experience, incompatible packages (amsthm, tikz, mathtools...), quirky syntax (author/institution, keywords) and spurious text (criminally false "copyright (c) 2001 someoneelse" lines) are still an annoyance, when one uses journal styles.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Seeking career advice on transitioning to work/postdoc in a new country after a PhD
Hello Academia community,
I am a soon-to-be holder (next week) of a PhD in zoology (mammalian biomechanics). Following my graduation, I would like to move to the UK. Ideally, I would like to continue my research in a postdoc position. However, I would not mind taking up non-academic work, in a relevant field, if possible.
Probably, I need to clear some things up:

Why move? I currently live in Greece. Working conditions are terrible, and funding is scarce. As a postdoc researcher, if I successfully get a position, I can expect a salary of ~600 euros a month (it is hard to live on this budget, and impossible to live relatively comfortably). There are incredible limitations in research expenses as well, and my work requires some high-tech equipment. Plus, huge uncertainty for my future.
Why the UK? I will be making the move with my girlfriend. This is very important to me - perhaps more important than my work. She works in education, and is fluent in English, therefore the limitation. I have had suggestions to apply in other European countries, but I am not seriously considering.
What actions have I taken so far? I have been invited to apply for a Newton fellowship by a lab I have contacted. However, getting the fellowship is highly uncertain. I have also applied to some openings for Lecturers in zoology in various universities, but I think it is highly unlikely I will get one without a postdoc. Other than this, nothing.
What are my qualifications? My PhD project has gone quite well. I have 8 (soon to be 9, hopefully) papers published or accepted for publication in some of the best journals in zoology. I have a Masters in biological anthropology, from a very prestigious university in the UK, and a Bachelors in biology from a university in Greece. Apart from this, I only have limited work experience in conservation research (<6 months).

I am in a very stressful place right now, due to the uncertainty and the lack of current employment - I expect to be unemployed in the near future, unless I get a job in the tourist industry for this spring/summer season. This might seem strange to some, but my qualifications mean next to nothing due to the high unemployment rates here.
Thus, the question.
What should my next step be?
How should I approach the move?
I was considering writing to relevant departments in universities, zoos, natural history museums, etc.

Should I do this, even if they do not advertise positions
Should I ask for postdoctoral employment or let them now I am fine with working in other, less specialised positions as well?
What outcome should I expect from this?

Anyway, I am open to any suggestions, and hope to learn from your experience. Please ask me for more information, if you need any.

First let me express my sympathy for having to endure the brutalization Greece has been undergoing by Capitalism generally, and the EU, Germany and the banks particularly. It saddens me to learn that academics have to move out across the globe to avoid material want.
My background for the sake of this answer: I'm a post-doc in Europe, and I moved out of my country a while after concluding my PhD. I differ from your case in that I'm in Computer Science, and I worked in industry for 3 years between my PhD and my post-doc; and my current research does not continue what I did in my PhD.
To the point, though:

The fact that you only speak English (in addition to Greek) should not dissuade you from considering moving elsewhere. This is true even for your girlfriend, but is definitely true for you as an academic. Academia is much more accommodating to people who don't speak the local language (although I guess it might not be as cosmopolitan in Zoology as it is in Comp Sci; can't say for certain).
Specifically, some European cities have large numbers of expatriates,  patriated immigrants, or migrant/guest workers, who don't speak the local language - and the most common language they're likely to use is English. Plus, you have Greek expat communities in a bunch of places. So Britain is not at all your only option. As an extreme example, I live in Amsterdam, at which - so I'm told - 1 in every 4 residents is not Dutch-born. Just tomorrow there's a large Expatriate fair.
With apologies to the British, I know that the UK has cut funding to academia tremendously over the past several years. In some places, entire departments are closing. I might be overstating this since I don't follow UK academic affairs much, but that's what the rumors say. Plus, now there's Brexit, so Britain is likely to lose access to some EU research budgets.
Try to find a place to work rather than a country or region. Figure out which universities, research centers, or zoos (?) have activities / research groups which you believe you could be part of, and apply to them. Yes, all of them, or at least many of them. Some will not reply, some will reject you outright, some will be indecisive, and some will interview you.
When you have one or more concrete job offers, your perspective will change quite a bit. You might decide not to accept, but at least you'll have a good idea of what you're giving up (which means you'll need a good idea of what you're giving it up for).
You're in a very stressful place right now, but realize that the fact that you're under stress is clouding your judgement and may lead you to the wrong choice. I remember how stressed out I was during my period of unemployment at the end of my PhD when I was no longer had the pseudo-salary (a.k.a. research stipend) coming in; and when I wasn't sure I would find work, and what kind, and thinking about my limited savings being eaten away every day. Not a fun experience. But - try to think about it this way: Suppose your future self has loaned your current self a relatively large sum of money. Now you have a(n imaginary) financial cushion; use it to be more patient and try to choose the best option for you and your spouse, career-and-life-wise. Granted, you can't know in advance what that ease, but you must allow yourself a bit of breathing space.
Remember that while moving to another country takes time and effort, and is quite stressful - if it doesn't work out, it's not the end of the world. I'm going to move on after my current post-doc to someplace else (haven't figured out exactly where yet). The second time you do you'll be a lot less stressed out than the first.
Another point regarding looking for employment: You need to contact specific researchers, as in people, no less, or even more, than sources of funding. And even if someone can't/won't hire you they're not unlikely to give you good advice.
On that note, have you talked to your PhD advisor? To faculty you've collaborated with on research? They could point you in some directions and/or put you in touch with their colleagues abroad (in Britain or elsewhere).
If you have more specific questions about life abroad as an expat, in the UK (you do mean Britain, right? Not North Ireland I'm guessing) - head over to expats.stackexchange.com which is another useful site on this network.
Have you thought about short/mid-term employment as a professional Zoologist or Biologist, rather than a researcher, outside of Academia? In the equivalent of what we in Engineering disciplines would call "the industry"? That's also a kind of an option.

That's what I got for now, I hope it helps.

Thank you very much for taking the time to write down all this advise. It is vastly helpful, especially now that I have just graduated and been stressing out tremendously.
I have been contacting people, and will be applying to any relevant job opening I encounter. I am giving myself a couple months to look for jobs in the UK only, and if this doesn't turn out well I will be exploring possibilities elsewhere.
Once again, thank you for all the advise. I am reading it again and again, and find it extremely helpful!

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


text:
Can I enroll in just the second year of a master's degree program in Germany?
In the french academic system, master's programs last for 2 years and one can start from the second year (if he/she fulfills the academic requirements, such as having already studied the first year or has already another master's degree in the same specialization). From what I saw in some german universities websites, master's degrees in germany last 2 years, but they don't precise whether one has the possibility to apply for an entry from the second year (if for example one has already a master's degree in the same field). Is it possible to join from the second year?

The best way to answer your question is to explain that it's a two-step process:

First, you need to be admitted to the master's program. If you're coming in as an international student, this can be in and of itself very difficult, particularly if you are applying to what is known as a "consecutive" master's degree program, for which the usual prerequisite is a bachelor's degree in the same field from a German university. If you are coming from a different field, or from outside Germany, you need to have the university recognize and accept your credentials as substantially equivalent to the bachelor's degree in question.
After you have gained admission, you can then proceed to establish that courses you have taken are equivalent to the master's courses offered in the degree program of interest. Normally this has to be approved by the instructor of each course you're interested in getting "transfer credit" for.

Thus, you won't be admitted into the "second year" or "semester n" of a given master's program, but you can get the equivalent credit, which will thus shorten your overall time-to-degree accordingly.

Admittance is usually to a nominal semester, with 30 credits necessary for a semester. So for admittance to the third semester 60 credits of level 2 (master's) work will be needed.

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


text:
Old PI's coauthorship on a paper after finishing the postdoc, a preliminary idea developed then but rejected by him
I understand that according the ethical rules, obtaining the funding does not automatically entitle the principal investigator (PI) for authorship. But I don't understand the unwritten rules.
I was on a postdoc. During the postdoc, I was paid from a grant obtained by the PI. At the beginning, he told me to find a good research topic and write a paper ("this will be your child"). I spent some time on literature search and very preliminary computations. I presented my idea to the PI but he told he doesn't want me to continue this topic. He even repeated this several times, on different occasions. He said my idea was too losely connected to what his group was doing. So I gave up that topic and did not do it any longer. Finally, I published a paper on quite different topic, together with the group members, and the PI was also a co-author.
One day I talked to a colleague from that group and I mentioned my old research idea. I said I would like to develop it anyway, when I finish the current postdoc. He told me that the PI should still be a co-author because I spent some time working on this idea in his group and I was paid by his money.
Now, it's been a couple of years since I finished that postdoc. I have independence and I can publish myself as the corresponding author. I would like to publish a paper on the idea I once had. Should I somehow credit the old PI? (And his grant? It's over already.)
The whole idea of the research is mine. The PI did not contribute whatsoever to it. I feel that crediting someone just for his funding is not ethical. The more so that he rejected my idea. But I understand the words of that colleague as a sort of a warning because he has been working with the PI for a long time and probably he knows his attitide. And that guy (the old PI) is quite well-known person in the community. Do you think I should somehow negotiate with him? Or stick at nothing and just publish the paper as entirely mine?

I cannot see why the former PI should have co-authorship on a paper they did not support or had any interest in. You are not a slave (or at least should not be) when on a post-doc (or any other position) and should retain the freedom to take own initiatives. As long as you fulfil any obligations within the position you are holding, no-one can prevent you from developing your own ideas. I can see an issue if you use materials that involve costs that you are not covering, for example, lab equipment or chemicals, electronic resources that removes capacity or resources otherwise used by the project. I do not count, for example, using a computer and printouts as such resources.
So, for me there is no question you can use the research as your own and you should add only authors that fulfil reasonable contributorship criteria, that is have contributed to the science of your work (see posts under the authorship tag for such criteria).

In (pure) mathematics, if you began working on this project while supported by the PI's grant, but without or even against his advice, then your publication about it would ordinarily include a footnote on the first page, saying something like "Partially supported by grant 314159 from the Munificent Funding Agency, John Doe principal investigator."  I actually often see such footnotes without the name of the PI, but I see nothing wrong with including the name if it helps to placate him.  CAUTION: Conventions may be different in other fields.

PI's grant ... 314159 ... I see what you did there!

Most disciplines have either a "Funding", "Financial Support", or a general "Acknowledgements" section that people use to note the source of funding for the research in question. Since the initial research that led to this paper was supported by your previous PI, you should note that in the paper and thank the funding agency and your former advisor for their assistance and support as you developed the idea.
Since the PI in question repeatedly decided to not support or become involved in the work when they had the chance, I don't see how there could be any reasonable expectation of co-authorship and it's very unlikely that they will be upset.

In my time, I've known one or two academics who could be highly unreasonable about "credit".  But in general you are correct.  I don't think your PI would have reasonable grounds to be upset with not being offered secondary authorship.

@StephenC, I've edited the answer to include the term "reasonable" and to hedge a little bit in the direction you are pointing.

I believe the PI does not qualify for authorship. However, there is nothing to be lost by a little civility. You could send him a note - something like this (fill in the blanks)

Dear Professor <name>
  I hope you are well. It has been <some time> since I moved from <old institution> to <your current institution>, and I am settling in well. <some personal details about your life>.
  You may recall that we once discussed <the idea>, but since it did not align with the research direction of <old group>, we dropped it and instead I focused on <what you did in postdoc>. Now that I am at <new institution> I have dusted off the old idea, and actually was able to turn it into a paper that shows <some salient details>. I intend to publish it in <journal, timeframe>.
  Now since the idea had originally been formed while I worked in <old group>, I thought it would be appropriate to make a mention of this in the acknowledgements; I hope that you agree that this is the correct way to indicate the link to <old group>, given that we did no research on this topic while I was there.
  I hope everyone is well. Please send my particular regards to <friends> - I miss <whatever you enjoyed>. Best wishes,

If he thinks he ought to be included in the authorship list, such a note leaves the door open. It is usually not worth ending up in a fight with someone who is well established in your field - and it's their transgression, not yours, if they insist on being named a co-author.
That said - I stand by my first sentence: what you describe does not qualify the former PI for co-authorship in this instance.

So far, there is only a vague hearsay (through the postdoc colleague) hint of a claim to authorship. If in fact the PI himself would make such a claim in response to this message, I believe one should stand one's ground and at the very least let the PI substantiate the claim. E.g. by referring to the journal's authorship policy, or to the intellectual ownership clause in the old postdoc contract. The PI's reputation would also be at stake if he tried to force the issue, especially if your new PI is already a real co-author.

@TemplateRex - you make very valid points. If a new PI is involved, then if things do get to a head, letting the two of them fight it out (especially if the new one is a real co-author) might be a good approach.

Send them the manuscript when it is ready for submission but before you submit it with a note explaining that you feel s/he warrants a mention in the acknowledgement or even a co-authorship.
Their response will tell you a lot about their character.
But if they want to be on it, put them on it, and if you later regret doing this, just do not deal with them again in future.

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


text:
Getting letters of recommendation for a master's degree if I don't get along with my current advisor
I'm currently in my final undergraduate year and I really want to go to graduate school, but there are some problems: I'm not sure if I can get recommendation letters.
< rant>
My current advisor is insane and unfair. She didn't let me take part in a conference paper that she and another student worked on. That was a very good chance for me to improve my chances of getting to graduate school, but now it's lost. She slightly modified the Caesar cipher and the other student just wrote a program that demonstrates her "algorithm", and it took him several days, while I could've done that in 4-8 hours.
Second time around, I decided(took her advice) to take the research category in a course where we have to make a project my the end of the semester. She didn't guide me or provide me with any references or resources that could help me. She just tells me "write it and I'll read it" or "look it up and understand it". I spent most the semester trying to get my head around the research topic and implement the algorithms, until I finally had to change to the development category because I was going to fail the course otherwise. Now she tells me that "she lost trust in me" and that she won't waste her time with me again.
< /rant>
So obviously my relationship with her is not very good, but what can I do now? Is doing research(or "research" in this case) at the undergraduate level mandatory for applying to graduate programs? My previous advisor liked me and my relationship with him was very good, but he left. If I could find him, can I get a recommendation letter from him? There is also another professor that is no longer at my school, can I get a recommendation letter from him as well? I've never worked on something with them or been their assistant, though.

A paper about a slight modification of the Caesar cipher? WTF

I didn't even believe it will ever be published, probably it was some insignificant conference. It was something about XORing the original data with the encrypted data and then maybe using that as the key or something like that. I just can't believe it actually got published.

A few points regarding your questions:

Presenting a weak conference paper is only very slightly better than presenting no paper at all. It may even be worse, if someone evaluating your application saw the presentation and came away unimpressed.
There is no requirement that you get a letter from someone like your present advisor. Such a relationship is clearly not productive for either of you, and including a letter would definitely not help.
You do need to get letters from people who can comment on your work skills, so your old advisor would be acceptable. Other people with whom you have worked—so long as it's technical in origin, even if it's not explicitly research—could also write letters for you. If you can't get three such letters, then you should get them from people who know you beyond taking classes with them. Only if you exhaust all other possibilities should you rely on people who know you only from classwork.
Finally, find yourself a new advisor, if at all possible.

Presenting a weak conference paper is only very slightly better than presenting no paper at all. — Or more accurately, only slightly worse.


text:
Should I opt for physics as minor for better mathematical intuition?
Context: I intend to study mathematics and do research as a career. I am studying analysis and abstract algebra now and I shall begin my undergraduate studies shortly.

Should I opt for physics as minor for better mathematical intuition?

I have been told my friend that physics may lend one intuition into a few mathematical structures though I am not sure. I can only think of differential equations as an example. In particular, please tell me if physics can serve as a source of motivation and if it is crucial enough.

If you don't want to study physics, I don't see why you should. If you don't find it interesting, you probably won't remember enough for it to be useful later anyway. If you do find physics interesting, go ahead and study it. It can be useful for motivation, intuition, applications, in a number of fields of mathematics.

You didn't tell us your level of study (late/upper- undergrad?) or anything about your institution - or exactly what you mean. If you're already interested in maths, then you don't need motivation; it's true that physics has often been a motivation for maths, or at least that they have developed together (Calc and Newtonian mech, for example). I think the answer depends a lot on how much you like physics and how you like your school's physics dept (I like physics, but hated the undergrad teaching I saw). +1 to StasK, especially that CS might be a good choice.

It is not only differential equations! Whole linear algebra (and a lot of functional analysis), a lot of group theory and thinks related to symmetry, countless things related to 'approximations', many aspect of meta-approach where you rather need to tinker with assumptions to get the result, than just set assumptions and only see what follows...  But I guess you get intuition only if you put heart in it, at least a bit.

@hunter2 I shall begin my undergraduate study shortly.

Hmm. Then, unfortunately, your question doesn't belong here (tricky, I know - I just realized this when I was told a few days ago).  Otherwise/more prosaically ... There's good answers here. / Keep an open mind, try and sit in on a variety of lectures (CS, Phys, etc.) in your first term to see what you like. / Note that 'topic' and 'department' aren't the same; you might like to read some books on topics, rather than getting the minor. / Give some good hard thought to the prospect of a career in academia/the math department.

No, you should opt for computer science.  (Ha ha, only serious.)

While essentially seconding StasK's points, I'd be inclined to make a stronger claim about the utility of looking at not-so-elementary physics. That is, in addition to all the "mechanics" applications of the 18th and 19th centuries, and Maxwell's late-19th century electromagnetism (which provided a huge impetus to ideas about vectors!), many aspects of quantum theory focused attention on differential equations which have proven to be important examples of mathematical phenomena, in addition to applications to physics. This important-example-intensely-studied phenomenon continued with Bargmann's and Wigner's studies on representation-theory of specific Lie groups, which provided the backdrop for Harish-Chandra's vast program. This specificity was in marked contrast to the "generalism" that mathematicians of the time were embracing, e.g., Weil, Godement.
I think it continues to be the case that physical considerations suggest very-specific examples meriting intense study... which provide test cases for "purely" mathematical ideas.
Witten's (and others') relatively recent "physics" programmes have had a large impact on algebraic geometry (moduli problems, mirror symmetry).
Although I'm also fond of the crypto application/motivations of algorithmic number theory, the breadth and depth seems not as great as the math-phys connection, although of course the elapsed time is much less than for math-phys.
(The optimization and math econ, and comp sci and category theory applications/connections are less familiar to me.)
Still, I must confess that I dropped an undergrad physics minor while studying mathematics, because it seemed dreary to me at the time. Partly this was due to my inability to see the physics ideas underlying the tricks to evaluate integrals, but perhaps partly due to the accidentally-dumbed-down viewpoint promulgated in the physics courses ... presumably aiming at "accessibility".
And, yes, there is a similar common risk/disappointment in mathematics courses that give up ideas for the sake of "tractability". The risk is that it gives the wrong impression.
(Yet, yes, sometimes I've been told that what seems to me insanely fussy detail-mongering is the very essence of mathematics, and that perhaps I insufficiently appreciate "proof".)

There's a range of applications for mathematics around many disciplines. In the XX century, physics was definitely the biggest consumer of mathematics, from the photoelectric effect and the black body spectrum in the early century through nuclear bombs and space exploration of the second half. The XXI century looks to shape around biology and life sciences.

Physics leans heavily on PDE, real and complex analysis. Some areas may require abstract algebra, but they could turn out to be somewhat exotic (quantum Hall effect and other solid state physics stuff), and you would need to study physics for about 5 years to get to understand what it is if you are starting from ground zero. (School physics IS ground zero, in my books.) Until you know what Green's function is, there may be little point approaching physics for you.
Economics leans heavily on real analysis and optimization. There's some use of abstract algebra, although again to get to the areas where it is really needed (welfare economics, may be some very abstract macro), you need to get very deep into grad school in economics.
There's quantitative biology, in which separate fields may require way separate math tools: ecology uses some PDEs, while protein structure is computation that could be using abstract algebra, too, to describe the spatial structures (where it overlaps somewhat with material science).
Computer science is another big obvious consumer of mathematics, and abstract algebra is very immediately used in various codes. If you want to have an immediate gratification from having learned simple groups, you can go ahead and figure out how the PGP algorithm works.

Another comment about computer science is that studying (and programming) algorithms can give you a very good feel for growth models of different functions, which shows up all over the place in the math world.

@CharlesStaats, I am not quite sure what you mean here. Can you elaborate?

I mean, roughly, that you develop a good sense of which functions dominate which others as x goes to infinity. This is often handy for making estimates (in the technical sense).

This may come from some serious mathematical physics... as well as series expansions, basis function representations and other approximations. But, again, that's five years from ground zero. I would not expect even "calculus-based" physics, which would be the first class offered, by default, to user3498582397523754, even mention these in passing.


text:
Why are grants not given via a centralized and organized system?
Grants are currently given via an application process.
Grants could be given via a more efficient process: A single website - much like the patent database, filled with brief research proposals, categorized just like the patent databases, possibly restricted to one or several proposals per researcher to keep things lean. This database would be so organized that any grant giving agency could merely select which areas of research it wishes to fund and the browse the latest ideas in that field.
A large strength of this model is that researchers would not be bothered with a detailed proposal until the grant agency already established interest in the idea - this removing the waste associated with an obscene number of rejected proposals.
There are many small details that would have to be ironed out, but why is this system not used?

I don't really understand the question. Currently, funding agencies do already establish interest in a research area before soliciting proposals in that area. In most cases, they call for proposals in a specific area that they are interested in funding. I also don't see how your proposed system would lead to every published paper being "automatically categorized."

@ff524 If I submit a research proposal to an agency, only that agency can see it. If I submit it to a database, anyone can see it. Good question.

(Also, in some cases funding agencies do multiple proposal rounds, with interested researchers submitting a brief pre-proposal for a given call, and then some of these are invited to submit a full proposal.)

Um, because there is (much) more than one funding agency for grants and different agencies have different requirements?  I also find the idea that a given agency would decide to fund certain areas and not others by reading brief proposals rather counterfactual.  In my experience, to the extent that an agency is truly committed to funding research in one area versus another, they make that clear.  Most of their evaluation is not deciding what area they what to fund but which individual proposals are most compelling.

any grant giving agency could merely select — As I tell my students when they read papers, the word "merely" is code for "Here's a half-baked idea I thought of in the shower this morning; it won't actually work."  (Similarly, "obvious" and "trivial" and "clearly" all mean "false".)

@JeffE not to mention "There are many small details that would have to be ironed out, but.."

What country are you in? Also, have you seen http://www.grants.gov/ which tries to do this in the US?

First, let us consider why there are many organizations that fund research, rather than a single research-funding organization. This is a matter of evolutionary organizational structure.  In most countries, research has a non-trivial budget and applies to many different concerns of government. That means there has to be some (probably largely hierarchical) structure for organizing it.  Now, let's consider two prototypical organizational structures for government-funded research.  First, we might have a general research agency, which contains subdivisions addressing the research needs of various other governmental tasks:

Alternatively, each government department might have its own research agency:

Almost everywhere, we see organizations more like the second structure than the first---there might well be some countries in the world where research is so small or so controlled that is it organized in the first way, but if so, I am not aware of them.  Why might that be?
Consider what happens if you are a leader in the department of agriculture, and you want to expand your agency's research work.  Unless strong regulation prevents you from doing so, it's much easier to create or expand a research organization within the agriculture department than it is to get an independent research department to do it for you.  A research sub-department within agriculture is also more likely to serve the peculiar needs, time scale, market structure, etc. as relates to agriculture.  It's also easier and more rewarding to go to government leadership and fight to get resources for your own organization, where you can explain exactly how you plan to utilize them, than to fight to give them to somebody else.
Since both government structure and research needs evolve over time, we may thus expect research organizations to multiply, both across the government as a whole and also within individual sub-organizations. They are in fact occasionally reorganized and combined with the goal of making them simpler and more efficient to interact with, just as other government agencies are, but that will typically not reduce the number down to one, just to a smaller "many."  Moreover, we've only discussed government funding, not industry funding or funding by foundations and NGOs, which all have their own separate needs and desires and further complicate the funding landscape.
Now, to the second aspect of the question: why is there no central database for applications?  Sometimes there are, at least partially.  For example, in the United States all government requests for proposals go through FedBizOpps.  Most research solicitations can thus be found there (though not all, due to the diversity of mechanisms), along with requests for things like security guards for the US Embassy in Costa Rica.  As you might guess, however, the sheer breadth means this often isn't a terribly efficient method of searching.
Likewise, every agency has different sorts of information it's looking for in research proposals.  Again, taking the US as an example, the NSF really wants to know how its funds will support graduate student and postdoc education, since that's a key part of its mandate.  AFRL, on the other hand, usually doesn't care much about supporting students, and has a mandate instead focusing on how its funds will affect current military concerns.  As a result, a "universal" proposal would likely be quite cumbersome even if the bureaucracies were somehow reconciled.
Bottom line: "research" is too complex and pervasive a set of needs to readily stay contained within a single unified organization.

I think the only aspect missing from this otherwise excellent answer is that, unless we are looking at an extremely tightly controlled structure, nothing is stopping your first schema from "devolving" into the second schema in no time. Even if there is a central "research agency", the (w.l.o.g.) agriculture department may, as one of its task, look into creating more farms. For funding these projects, it needs to decide what types of farms and what technologies to use in them. Among the different options for technologies, there might be one that is not well-tested yet, but that promises ...

... a much higher production rate than the other technologies. As a result, the agriculture department decides that 10% of the new farms are to be run with the new technology and also asks those farms to produce reports about the observed efficiency and perceived potential for optimization of that technology. There we are. We now have something conspicuously similar to a research project, funded by an agency unrelated to the central research agency, and without even officially creating a research department in the agricultural agency, or anything labeled research upfront from the start.

@O.R.Mapper This is exactly the point I was aiming to make about how we can expect research agencies to multiply: "both across the government as a whole and also within individual sub-organizations"

I don't understand your concept of databases, but there are websites and systems for grant and scholarship/fellowship search!
I don't know if it is allowed to put names here?
I think in the USA you have similar systems. All websites I know are for Europe grants, but I also know one huge database (not free) that is available all over world.

The question is asking why grants are not administered with a single database and adjunct website, and not about websites for grant search.

They are! but these database are not free to access, unfortunately! @Wrzlprmft

@SSimon: It is completely allowed to put names of resources or services relevant to the question here (in fact, your answer, as it stands, is more like unverifiable hearsay due to the lack of a concrete reference). If you are affiliated with such a resource or service, you should, however, say so, and asking for open-ended lists of services is discouraged, as well. So, if you can actually point out a service that serves as a global, complete distribution system for all research grants, this might be a valid answer - even though personally, I doubt this exists in the extent being asked for.

I didnt want to make public advertisement for such a company @O.R.Mapper some of universites are subscribed to database of that company ( http://info.researchprofessional.com/funding-opportunities/) I was told in META dsccusion that I shouldNOT write names of institutions and organisations in STACK exchanges or post a question conserning it, I am suprise that you told me that I should put!

@SSimon: As you did not link to the particular Meta discussion, I can only guess what it was about, but in general, naming particular institutions is discouraged when you are reporting about questionable procedures or other problems - and many questions are about such issues. That is usually a different case than citing a particular institution as a verifiable example of something non-questionable. Likewise, linking to a company could come across as an advertisement, which is why I mentioned you should reveal any affiliation you have with that company, and the reference should, in your ...

... opinion, really be on-topic. Now, as for the service you linked to, I agree with @Wrzlprmft; that website seems to simply allow for searching for grants or funding agencies. Once found, researchers still have to send individual proposals to those funding agencies. The website does not seem to provide a centralized entry point for researchers to apply for grant money, and for funding agencies to distribute their available money based upon abstract factors/topics, as described in the question.

@O.R.Mapper I am sorry, I dont know how to link topic on other sites, about OP I dont really understand question and what OP needs to know, most of other governmental or supra governmental grants,( example HORISONT2020) goes through centralized systems


text:
How to run a fiscally independent research department?
I spoke with a professor and learned that The University of Tennessee chemistry department turns a net profit. It receives zero tuition money.  It has patents and research grants. How does it achieve this? Is this a common thing?    How to find/execute profitable patent producing research?  And How to win grants?
How to find/execute profitable patent producing research?

Do you have any sources for your question? To me, it seems unlikely that the department "It receives zero tuition money".

As part of a non-profit state sponsored university, it is unlikely that it makes a "profit". Certainly the (total dollars in) must be greater than or equal to (total dollars out), or somebody in the university finance office (or the legislature) will get very interested in them.

@richarderickson I spoke with a professor.

This is a really interesting question, though its statement above doesn't include much in the way of references or information.  Editing in some background might help to improve its reception.

@Dale your question lacks information. You mention "the...chemistry department turns a net profit" from just "patents and research grants," and question how this is possible. Assuming the University of Tennessee provides buildings and equipment, pays salaries, etc., there are approximately zero outgoings. Further assume revenues from patents and grants are the only incoming revenue. It follows that the department "turns a net profit." But, this is a meaningless calculation. Your question is interesting nonetheless, but without detailed financial information it is difficult to answer.

@nat what do you mean by background?  I am not sure what to reference or what info to cite.

@user2768 the question is strategic. How do they keep grants? How do they obtain monetizable patents? How does the system keep money flowing?

How do they keep grants? Grant money isn't distributed equally. Those with a history of bringing in grant money are likely to continue doing so. How do they obtain monetizable patents? They produce good, commercially viable research and have talented people that can license that research. How does the system keep money flowing? You keep brining in grants and producing more patents. These are all trivial answers. Perhaps you can ask a more precise question.

@user2768 how do they keep research commercialy viable?

@Dale, do you mean how do they keep the revenue streams? (They do what the market wants.) Or how do they keep producing commercially viable research? (They tackle problems that are likely to produce revenues, they listen to the market, ...) Your question seems like a shopping question.

#user2768. I could have asked two separate more specific questions.   How to find/execute profitable patent producing research?  And How to win grants?

There are a large number of soft-money research centers that are essentially stand-alone - they have to bring in enough research money to cover their costs, and don't receive tuition support, TA lines, etc. I suspect the most common place to find them is in the biomedical field. I worked for one when I was a postdoc.

How does it achieve this? There are a number of ways to do this. A generous initial endowment can help. Patents, and the licensing revenue that comes from them are, for some fields, a major source of income. And then there are grants. Lots and lots of grants.
Do they have strategies that get them here? Yes. One does not get there by accident.
Is this model reproducible? Given there is more than one such organization, the answer is clearly yes.

Whether it's desirable or sustainable is, on the other hand, another question. In my experience, there is an immense amount of pressure on the senior leaders of such organizations, because if grant funding doesn't come through, there's no safety net, and you're immediately talking about firing people. And because the operating expenses for any academic unit are quite high, they often depend on a small number of large grants to support them (for example, where I was a postdoc, I don't think it was possible to write enough NIH R01-scale grants to cover things).
That's a very high risk position. If a program gets cut, funding falls through, etc. there's suddenly a massive hole in the budget.

I was hoping patents played a larger role.

@Dale Patents can be involved, and a lucrative licensing agreement is a big deal, but it would have to be something wildly successful to subsidize a whole department, and it's not something you could count on from the outset.

This is an incredibly complex question.  The only way to get a near accurate answer would be to ask to meet the department chair and ask him or her.  Given that UT is a public university you might be able to use the Freedom of Information Act to get your questions answered.


text:
Are there any universities in US/Europe which will give PhD in Engineering in 3-4 years?
I know that PhD is not like other degrees which ends in a span of 2-4 years.
Also, one cannot control the span of the program which entirely depends on topic and guides.
But I heard from some where that some universities offer PhD within 3-4 years and there is no minimum journal requirements.
I would like to know if such universities really exist and a comment on the university will be highly appreciated.

So you want to get a PHD with minimum or none publications. Why?

In (Continental) Europe, PhD typically lasts 3-4 years. Journal requirement - usually it is up to a professor.

United States Data: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvydoctorates/
Less than 5 years is unusual.  Typically publications are not formally required.

In the UK (or at least in my Uni) now one MUST finish his PhD before 4 years.

In Europe a Phd normally last from 2 to 4 years. But to be admitted to it you must have a Master degree.
The American and the European system are pretty different I think.
check this link about education in Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_Process

I have Masters already.

So you should have no problem in being enrolled in a PhD program in a European university. They last 3-4 years.

If you have funding for your PhD, it will usually have a fixed duration of 3 or 4 years.

Where is Europe is a two-year PhD normal?

for example in Switzerland (Veterinary medicine) and in Poland (Philosophy)

In Germany, some students require up to 6 years from diploma or Masters to PhD, although many do it in 3 - 5.

@BiA: Not sure if this is universally applicable to all European universities. In some unis at Germany for example, foreign Masters degrees (esp. from Asian countries) are first evaluated. If the candidate is not suitable to start a PhD immediately, he/she needs to attend a few courses and give a test (normally after an year of enrollment).

@jayann those matters are usually regulated by each university. There isn't a rule that is valid in every case. My experience tells me that it strongly depend on the subject you want to do the PhD in.

A PhD in 2 years? Never heard of that, and usually there will be a minimal duration of 3 years (maximum varying between 4 and 5)

This seems to be a trick question. Are there universities which will "give you a PhD" in a short time? Well, yes. If you work hard enough to "earn a PhD" in a short time.
That said, it is quite common in continental Europe for PhD positions to be offered for a period of 3 years. That's nice if your Masters degree has already prepared you with the relevant graduate-level concepts. You will still have to find a PhD topic and complete your investigations in the stipulated time.
On the down side, PhD supervisors (who may even be a Postdoc or a researcher with individual grant) usually find it difficult to arrange for additional funding if you are unable to produce satisfactory results within 3 years. At good universities, and in well-funded disciplines, this is usually not a problem. But this really happens, and if you do not come from a first-world country, it may get difficult to sustain yourself.
Publication limit? It again depends upon your field. In theoretical fields, like pure mathematics, theoretical physics, some branches of computer science, etc. it is difficult to publish, so you may get a PhD with one or two papers. But in experimental fields, it is difficult to put a number. That shouldn't bother you though, because your supervisor is usually there to help you out.
And PhD is after all a training in becoming an individual researcher. So why bother about number of publications already? What you should worry about is, do you really want a PhD? There, your query suggests only a superficial motivation.

Is there anywhere in Europe where you PhD supervisor might be a postdoc? I don't want to speak for all disciplines in a whole continent but I've not heard of that happening in the UK in computer science.

Also, in terms of papers, the usual deal (again, in the UK) is "By the time you're ready to submit a thesis, you'll probably have submitted about X number of papers," where X varies by field. It's not a causation or a requirement but a correlation.

Okay, I didn't mean someone who's currently pursuing their first Postdoc, but someone who has completed one (or two Postdocs) and is not a professor yet. Such people are usually employed as Researchers but sometimes also as Postdocs. In Germany, it suffices if they have been granted their own funding by a funding agency. They may then supervise a PhD student. Although I am not sure whether or not they are also allowed to be the official "first evaluators" of the thesis.

In the UK, it is common to go straight from a Bachelors degree (3-4 years) to a PhD (minimum 3 years). Not many complete their PhD in 3 years, but in that time you are expected to reach independent research level and have published papers. Certainly I and my colleagues followed this path and published papers in that timescale, although some of us took a lot longer to finally finish.
At our university, you start technically on an MPhil (Masters) course, and there is a review around 12-18 months in; if your work is on course for PhD grade (i.e. you have published or are soon to publish), you are switched to the PhD. If it is not going so well you can just finish the Masters and move on.
The best option in the UK is to get a sponsored studentship with a company; they will pay a lot of cost of the degree (we got a bursary whichever way) and usually assist with materials, funds, direction during the course itself.

AIUI in the UK it's required for the work to be of a publishable standard but it's not actually required to turn it into a journal/conference publication.

In the Netherlands, PhD programs are usually salaried four-year programs (though typically requiring 3-4 journal publications to get the degree in the end). For example, good universities for engineering are located in Delft and Eindhoven.

In France the average length of a PhD in engineering is ~3.5 years
Source 1:

Dans le domaine des « sciences dures », la durée moyenne des thèses
  est de 42 mois (3,5 années). Le taux d’abandon est de 5%. Le taux
  d’insertion professionnelle est de 90 %

Source 2:

une durée moyenne de thèse de 41 mois

In the US, in most places it is hard to be complete the PhD in less than 4 years.

In Cambridge University in the UK it is (well, was, in the '80s) not uncommon for students to do most of the work for their PhD in 3 or 4 years - but nobody "gives" you a PhD, you have to work for it (quite hard), and earn it.
A PhD, in the end, is a piece of paper that testifies you have a "license to learn on your own". You are expected to have developed the skills needed to be a successful researcher; while it is important to develop your ability to document your work and write coherently about it, I don't think it should be necessary to have first-author publications to graduate.
Skeptically, one might suspect that organizations that demand publications may be more concerned about their own publication rates, than about the careers of their students (but see below)...
Having said that - if you want to get a job as a postdoc, it is advisable to have some publications under your belt. This may be less important if you want to work in industry - not an unlikely course of action with an advanced engineering degree. And given the salary jump from student to industrial engineer, you may want to "get it over with" quickly.
In summary, you need to take a look at your own career aspirations before choosing a program based on their graduation requirements. The piece of paper is just that - but whether you will have, at graduation, the demonstrated skills needed for the next step is something only you know.


text:
What exactly are academic librarians?
I completed my postgraduate studies in France where, unless I am mistaken, librarians that work in an academic library do more or less the same work as, say, librarians that work in a public library.
When I started to seek information about faculty jobs in Canada, I was struck by the fact that librarians seem to be pretty much considered as faculty.
Is that a fact? Is it the same in the United States? Is in the same in different types of institutions, i.e. more or less research/teaching-oriented?
I have looked at a few faculty collective agreements, and it seems like they usually include librarians. They seem to have pretty much the same working conditions, e.g. in terms of salary, sabbaticals and workload. The last agreement I read specified that librarians have a maximum of 12 hours of "scheduled student contacts", in the same article that specifies that professors teach a maximum of 12 credits per year.
I would like to know what exactly is the job of an academic librarian, besides acting as "regular" reference librarians. I suppose they must keep up with the progress in their field and be able to assess the relevance of journal subscriptions and book purchases, but that probably doesn't account for the missing 23–28 hours a week.
Do librarians actually perform and publish research? If so, would that be mostly in their respective field, or in library and library science? Do they have tenure, and is the process similar to the one applied to professors?
Also, how does one become an academic librarian? Do you need an MLIS like a "regular" librarian? Do you need a PhD, and if so, must it be a PhD in library and information science, or in a field related to the position?

+1, nice question. I think I could answer most of these questions with respect to librarians at my institution (US), but I don't know whether that would be more broadly representative.

@NateEldredge, I frequently see questions here that end up requiring more than one answer because things are different in different places. I would suggest, if nobody has felt confident to provide a more general answer in some time, you could answer w.r.t. to your institution and, if it turns out other institutions are the same, I suspect people will point it out in comments and you'll be able to update if you want to. If it turns out to be specific, it's still relevant—and interesting.

Keep in mind that some academics don't find the sort of job they originally envisioned, and eventually find a niche that works for them, and such a niche might be in a library position.

@aparente001, That's actually a pretty interesting fact. In your experience, do they go through the process of acquiring an ML(I)S? If you have some further information or useful anecdotal evidence, you could consider making that an answer.

At many (but by no means all) universities in the US and Canada, professional librarians (usually with a terminal Master's of Library Science degree or perhaps a PhD in some academic discipline) are treated as members of the faculty, including eligibility for tenure, participation in shared governance, etc.
In many other universities, librarians are staff members and not considered part of the faculty.  In a few places, there is a mixture with some librarians on the tenure track and other librarians who might have an MLS degree who are strictly staff members.  Most libraries also have lots of support staff and student employees who aren't professional librarians.
In places where librarians are considered faculty, they are usually expected to be involved in some kind of scholarly (research) activity and in teaching students.  For example, a librarian who specializes in archival collections might produce a catalog of a special archive and publish it.  Librarians often teach courses in how to use the library to do research and might be involved in teaching courses in library science to future librarians.

At my institution, librarians are simply staff members, although the director of the library is an ex officio member of the faculty senate.

I've known at least one librarian who had a PhD in English and no degree in library science.  However, most academic librarians I've worked with have an MLS degree.

Librarians are awarded tenure at the City University of New York. The educational requirements are an MLS and a subject Master's degree or an MLS and/or Ph.D. Like tenured professorships, librarians must publish. I suppose there are a few exceptions, but most follow these requirements.

Are they expected to perform research and publish in their respective field or in library science?


text:
How to handle a PI who constantly threatens to kick me out of their lab?
I am a first-year PhD student in Biology and I am currently working in a lab for a very hard-to-please PI (a new PI who started a couple years ago and only just recruited her first few graduate students). I am very interested and excited about this line of research and I really want to do what I am doing. But my PI's way of managing people makes everyone miserable and I am not sure what to do.
Background: Last fall, I rotated in a lab which I really enjoyed working in and generated some great data, but had to leave, along with the other rotation student, because PI had no funding. In the spring, I rotated with a brand new PI, whose lab I helped set up and started on a project, but did not stay in his lab because his management was very poor - was never around, didn't know or care what was going on with projects, etc, and I was also advised to join a different lab by the academic coordinator who said they thought this PI was not "ready" to handle a graduate student. So then, I started a THIRD rotation in another "new" PI's lab and have been here for three months.
This person's research is really great, but their management seems to focus heavily on threatening language and negative reinforcement. They often send very angry emails to the lab. When this person is feeling "iffy" about you because you didn't get fantastic results or you responded to an email too slowly, they will tell you to your face that you are not worth their time to mentor if you don't "try harder." I recently gave PI a sequence alignment, but accidentally gave them the wrong version of the sequence, and as a result, they said they would not be willing to fund me as an RA. PI actually made the same mistake when they did the sequence comparison (which is OKAY! It is an easy mistake to make!), but they were just so harsh on me for the mistake. All their communication with me makes me feel that, despite my good merits, progress or improvements, they disapprove of me or are angry with me. They deal with my labmates in the same way and my labmates have often expressed their worries and stresses to me over this. I should note that some of my labmates are well-accomplished, highly dedicated post-doctoral researchers who devote ALL of their time and efforts to their work. The dynamic in the lab overall is not very good, in part because people feel increased anxiety from the PI's anger or lack of professionalism in expressing themself. It is really a huge distraction from my work whenever PI is talking about kicking me out of the lab. I go from focused on an experiment to panicking about what to do or who I should talk to.
I still respect this person as a scientist, but I feel at times that this harsh style of management/dealing with people is too much for me. I am not perfect, but I am trying very hard and have made so much progress on my work, I just wish PI would recognize this. Almost in my second year of graduate school, and with the school potentially not able to support me with a TA in the future, and with me working in my third lab, I am extremely stressed out by this situation. I feel that, if I do not make it work in this miserable lab, I will be kicked out of the school and then lose my chance to earn a PhD.
What is a good way to deal with this type of advisor and how to keep clam and focused in the lab with this kind of stress? Any advice is appreciated.

As several professors here have previously pointed out in other questions, Don't Walk, Run !

@Shion The OP's problem is where to run. It's already his third rotate. IMHO, he needs to figure out a way to stay.

Hi. I don't mean this critically, but did you check to see what this PI was like before joining his lab? Talk to the other grad students etc.? It is possible this person's employees would lie to you, or be too afraid to be candid, but it is worth doing this anyway. In any case, I suggest, if possible, try checking on people before working for them in the future.

Don't walk. Run. Abuse is simply not acceptable. Don't accept it from your PI.  You need a new advisor, and from the sound of it, a new department that doesn't hire so many jerks who aren't "prepared" for students. Get out.

@user8088 Your question title "How to handle a PI ..." suggests to me that you don't want to leave your current lab yet even you know you're being abused. Is there any reason you don't want to leave?

P.S. I really like this kind of questions. in part because it shows that academia isn't always about success. One thing I know for sure: You can't be good researcher and have good results under such harsh environment.

I just thought I should add that this PI is not just threatening/talking. They do indeed have a history of kicking out a lot of people (EIGHT people, I've learned).

The PI's job is to be a manager, not to be a scientist.  Sounds to me like they may not be a PI much longer.

I have sometimes had a manager with a very dramatic, apparently angry, way of expressing himself. That can be handled by adjusting one's own interpretation - no comment means "you are doing great" etc. However, the no RA funding thing sounds like this one's bite is just as bad as the bark.

Don't walk, run.
This kind of behaviour should be viewed as entirely unprofessional and unacceptable in any working environment; it astonishes me what gets politely overlooked in the academic world. What you describe is bullying. While the work may be exciting, it is doubtful that you will ever be able to flourish as an independent researcher facing daily abuse from your supervisor and suffering the toxic secondhand effect of your supervisor abusing your colleagues. I cannot imagine that after several years of that you will still be able to maintain the same level of enthusiasm for your work, and perhaps for academia altogether.

First off, I'm really sorry about your situation. It's certainly not a nice boat to be on, metaphorically speaking...
Since you have omitted any information about where you live and work, I don't really know what rules and regulation apply, likewise what the "norm" of a PI - grad student relationship is over there. So I will try to keep it as general as possible.
Let's start by looking at your options, you can:

keep wishing that the PI will eventually realize your efforts and give you a break
accept the constant stress and harassment (yes threatening someone is a form of harassment)
leave the lab
communicate your concerns to the PI

(1) and (2) are pretty self-explanatory. Let's consider (3) for a second, why would you want to work in a lab like that? I know that cultures vary and level of respect and fear professors command is scary at certain countries/cultures but I honestly don't get why you would be willing to put up with that. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that working in a lab like that will make you work harder and get better results (and I sincerely doubt this will be the case in the long run), who cares that you got a publication in a fancy journal if you hate your life every day. I am possibly dramatizing it a bit to make my point clear. Honestly if you have been doing research with 3 different PIs and none are sound to work with, I'd consider some other uni/lab.
Lastly (4); communicate your concerns. You have mentioned that other people have similar problems with this PI. Gather some good arguments; enriched with facts, numbers that cannot be easily denied... Then try to get a 1-to-1 meeting with the PI, and simply tell the person that s/he is terrorizing the lab, and it's hurting peoples mood and ultimately effectivity. If you make good, logical points without diving into emotions and thoughts and beliefs, you could actually make your concerns heard right there and then.
If the PI in question completely ignores your concerns, and ultimately tells you "my way or highway" then one option would be go pursue your legal rights. I don't know what the situation is where you work, but in Sweden PhD students are actually employed by the university, and thus by the state (exceptions exist, but that's beside the point). So you have certain rights assured by your employment. Even without a formal employment, i.e. only a student, you should have some rights and some representation towards the faculty. The student unions here in Scandinavia are pretty strong and well connected. They actually work together with the faculty and university administration to catch up, and deal with issues like this. I would recommend you to try and see if there is a similar concept in your university.
That's all I got, hope the situation resolves itself soon.
Good luck!

Sorry to hear about your situation. But as others pointed out, based on my own experience, I have following pointers:

In my personal experience, there is no way the situation will get better. Your PI is less likely to be punished for her behavior. So when a thief is not caught while stealing from a cookie-jar, the encouragement for the thief is to steal more, and more, and more. So, you should assume that you are in for abuse for a very long time. It would be a wishful thinking that she would change, and you cannot base your decision on something that you can't control (i.e. change in behavior of your PI).
The second question: How common are these situations? Answer: Shockingly common. It is one of the biggest shames of modern academia. It really stems from a general culture of immunity and impunity - a "cozy club" in which faculty members operate and protect each other. This does not mean you have to accept it as a fact of life and continue to take abuse. Road accidents are also common. It does not mean we stop driving in a car. The key is to be more careful while driving, more careful while choosing the next PI: do your research, meet students, email former students/postdocs, keep thinking of alternatives. Academia is like a lawless country: if you complain against your adviser, her friends and colleagues would be the judge, jury and prosecutor. There is no hope of a fair trial. During the course of your complaint process, you will face character assassination, slander and even more harassment. So, do not even try to "handle" the situation by going through the official complaint process unless you have resources for legal recourse.
Things have gone so bad these days that I see news of lawsuits by grad students every now and then. For example, check these ones out:

http://chronicle.com/article/My-Adviser-Stole-My-Research/135694/
http://www.gwhatchet.com/2014/02/23/in-rare-court-appearance-gw-will-face-former-graduate-student-alleging-emotional-distress/
https://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/blog_posts/1747
As is the case with other fields/sectors, only appropriate laws and legal action can flush the corrupt advisers out. Turns out there is more awareness on such issues these days, and this has not escaped the attention of even some lawmakers. For example, see this:
http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/photo-gallery/student-right-to-know-before-you-go-act-introduction-and-discussion

Suppose you decide to stay and take the abuse for several years or even a decade. Would that make you a successful researcher? Most likely the answer is in negative. Your PI's exploitative conduct and toxic work environment would not let you think independently. The very fact that you currently think this is a good lab and you are working on the best topics is already a sign of some brainwashing you might have suffered. A lab is not good if its citizens are mistreated. Period. A thesis topic or research field is not good if you work on it in an environment of fear. Period. Compare this with scientists forced to work in a concentration camp: they are mistreated, they don't publish and nobody knows such researchers. Look around you - you will find that most the successful students who came from reputed labs have stories of how good their relationship with their advisers were. Do you have such a story to tell? No. Would you eventually have a nice story to tell? Less likely.

Having analyzed the situation, let's come to the solutions:

Is there a way you could quit this lab, say today, and have your studies continued? Is there any such way? If the answer is yes, then you have to "run" to that solution. Like someone said, "don't walk, run". The sooner the better.
As a student, you don't want to lose any of your years, and want to build on whatever best you have got. People like your PI know this and take advantage of the student's psyche by making false promises, threats, baits and harassment. You have to liberate yourself from this psyche. If you could transfer to another university, may be credit a few more courses, go through the admission again, it would benefit you as an independent person and researcher. You have to understand that the situation would not improve, and there is a good chance you will get a better PI in a better place.
Finally, instead of feeling inferior, you have to realize that your PI indeed likes your work. But she thinks it is beneath her to appreciate your efforts. Also, she has figured out that she can get more work out of you by berating you. That itself tells you two things: you will not gain anything by trying to "impress her", and that you are really good to go somewhere else.

I encountered an abusive adviser in my PhD. It took me five years to come to terms with a sad fact that I was being exploited, that there were no returns or brighter future prospects, and that I was really a good student who could easily transfer to other universities. So, I changed to a better university and benefited a lot from working with the best in my field. Looking back, I feel I could have taken this decision much earlier if there was a stackexchange thread on this topic :-) It is never too late. Run, run and run to something, not away from something.
However, the "clean break" that I was looking for didn't happen: after I quit my previous lab, my adviser tried to take back my thesis citing "national security concerns" (yes, he did play that card). I complained to the Dean, and my thesis was published. My adviser contacted my new advisers and tried to put a negative recommendation. He slandered my character before my colleagues. When he found out that there was not much he could do, he turned to something completely unthinkable: my brother was a PhD student in the same department. My adviser contacted his adviser (who was another jerk) and conspired to kick my brother to out of the university on false accusations - all in broad daylight. I and my brother went through the official complaint process, but nothing happened. No one heard our side of the story. In the meantime, 8-10 more students quit my former adviser's lab in less than two years. A few months later, the university gave the highest recognition to my former adviser. This is what a "cozy club" does.
I wish you good luck. Just RUN.

+1 for excellent, candid summary of the situation. "Academia is like a lawless country". Well said. Having said that "you have to realize that your PI indeed likes your work". There is no way of knowing what the PI really thinks.

That's true. But my experience tells me that only the most productive and bright students are at the receiving end of the harshest harassment. What does that tell us? That their work has more value for the PI. So, in this context, I said that PI actually likes the student's work, otherwise there is nothing to gain by harassing the student.

Well, the PI might be a horrible person and treat everyone like that. Without more data one cannot say anything. And if a PI harasses a student to work harder, it might be because he/she genuinely believes he/she is lazy/unproductive, and the PI just wants the student to work harder.

Agreed. But why would a PI constantly threaten to kick out a student, if the PI really has best interests of the student at heart. Should the PI use only "stick", or both "carrot and stick", if the student is indeed lazy?

Who says the PI has the students best interests at heart? I don't quite follow your point  here.

Just taking a leaf from what you said: "if a PI harasses a student to work harder, it might be because he/she genuinely believes he/she is lazy/unproductive, and the PI just wants the student to work harder." This would imply that the PI wants the student to improve (= shun the laziness).

No offense, but I find that a curious argument. If you were a slave in the American South, and your master told you that you were lazy and should work harder, would you then assume he was concerned for your welfare?

Not to belabor the point, but i find the direct comparison with slavery in south fascinating and somewhat out-of-context. If a student is lazy and unproductive, that hurts student's interests as well. Irrespective of who the PI is, how would such a student succeed on his own? A slave in American South could remain lazy for he is resigned to his destiny of being a slave for life. But a student would not be a student-for-life, he has to graduate and find a job with upward mobility in career ladder.

Yes, I take your point that the comparison is a bit of a stretch in some ways. I guess what I was trying to say is that many (most?) PIs are focused on their own benefit, not the student's benefit. When the PI is saying to a student, work harder, he may simply mean, do more work, publish more papers, so I can put my name on them. It doesn't mean he thinks well of the student's abilities. I suppose he must have some minimal appreciation of the student's ability, otherwise he would have some other student there. And yes, the student may benefit from this pushing, but as a side-effect.

It really does sound like you are better off leaving. For one thing, since he really does kick people out, what will you do if this person does kick you out later on in your PhD? I'm assuming here what you seem to be implying in your question, but have not stated explicitly - that this lab will be your home for the remainder of your PhD.
I've also suffered abusive conditions, though as a post-doc. (Although the PI in question did not generally kick people out.) I think it is unlikely to get better. These kind of people don't change unless they are forced to, and academia tends to be very undemocratic, and my experience is that department officials are loath to interfere unless they benefit in some way. E.g. if they want to get this person for some reason, they may use his behavior towards his juniors as an excuse, but they won't really care. (Something like this actually happened in a department I was in.) Your setup certainly sounds very undemocratic. Even if the PI is pressured into behaving better (unlikely by the sound of it) it will still probably not be a positive working environment.
If if it already late in your PhD, I suggest you discuss funding problems with your department, and sooner than later. Maybe something can be figured out, but the longer you wait, the more difficult your position will become.
As I said in a comment above, if you do move again, check the PI in question out, as far as practicable.
Also, as Jack said, there is a significant possibility that this treatment will end up ruining your appetite for research altogether. You should take that possibility seriously.

Here's my quick story with a nightmare PI:
I'm at an R1.
I switched labs after my first year because my advisor was a tyrant. This PI was very unethical and emotionally abusive, and I would have reported her to our IRB in regards to research integrity issues that I saw if my program had a way to do that anonymously (as an aside: it still baffles me that they don't have such a process!). I talked with our department chair who helped facilitate me leaving the lab when I gave her the ultimatum that I'd be leaving the program if I could not move labs. Schools don't like that, especially when you are pre-dissertation because it makes their programs look bad. The department chair basically told me not to speak up to higher levels in the university about what I was experiencing, and quietly helped facilitate meetings with other PIs so that I could move to another lab.
After that, she lost an existing student every semester. Another student took the issues to the Dean, and things seemingly "hit the fan" with this professor and our Department. Two years later she had no students, and was finding it hard to recruit. The thing that still baffles me to this day is that she faced NO repercussions from the graduate school. She lost 5 students in 2 years, and nothing happened to her. They tried to convince her to take an easy high paying administrative position and cruise into retirement, but she refused. Now she has a beautiful lab space that no one occupies, and she still brings in private funding that no one does any work with other than failed post-docs who take a side gig with her as a consultant to move something along for her ever so slightly. I guess this kind of behavior really is tolerated in Academia?
Honestly, I think the best thing to do is leave the lab and go somewhere else. I won't lie and say that it always works out, it might not. Your current PI might make a stink in the field and you might find that moving to another lab doing related work is not possible. You might find that in the department if the PI brings in enough money and has power that moving to another professor is difficult. You have to leave quietly and make it about your interests and a lack of a match in where the work was going, etc. You have to play the hand you have been dealt as shrewdly as you can.
Best of luck to you.
P.S., if your PI is not a rational person then don't expect any direct conversation with him/her to go well. The best predictor of new behavior is...?

I have to wonder, how does this person "brings in private funding" if she can't find anyone to do the work?

@Faheem Mitha: Research was based on the arts. People giving money were doing it more out of being able to say "we have this great project and are having researchers from this prestigious university look at it." In reality nothing ever happened with money and deliverables never happened. People giving money had no clue they were being taken for suckers. Of course, university didn't care because all they see is green.

That seems rather strange, but ok. My impression is that even with grants, some results are expected at the end of the day, reports and so forth. But maybe it depends on the funding agency.

@Faheem Mitha: I wish there was a way to private message you because I'd tell you parties and project involved and I promise it would make sense. But I've probably already said too much here to be identified if anyone I knew read these.

Oh, I believe you. I'm just saying it seems a bit strange. But it's a strange world.

You would not come here, if you thought the situation acceptable. Unfortunately the isolation of the PI will have given rise to a wrong self-perception. If you are ready to search for yet another PI, and again some criticism on another person arises, wait (not too long) till you can talk to the PU alone, and say:

you are the best PI till now, you have gotten,
I have no experience, but isn't the tone quite harsh? - especially as there are still professional unsurities on the side of the coworkers,
I am a bit longing already for a bit collegual tone at work

English is not my native language, so formulate the above as short and open as feasible, maybe in question form.

that you are missing a bit of lightness, humour, in the day-to-day operation,
whether the current team is a bit disappointing; in what respects.
Also be sure to give the PI his say, listen: if the PI does not react on a pause: what do you think?
Stop if the PI cannot reach over (in that moment). Leave the case open "just wanted to air my mind; thanks for the patience".
On a negative reaction: "you are the best PI I had till now."

I doubt, that such a deviation of normal lab behaviour, will come easy, and the appropiate formulation will be difficult.
Of course this advice is a risk, but all other measures are less direct, being less open-minded towards the world.


text:
Doubts about PhD advisor and unsure how to continue
tl;dr I think my supervisor has a severe lack of knowledge, does too many things instead of focusing heavily on just a few things and hence I can't really focus on my research project.
Long Story I started my PhD a few months back and was hired specifically to work on a certain project. We have a few very outstanding research groups as collaborating teams but all in different research areas.
After a few weeks into my PhD, I was hit by all the different side projects my supervisor tries to kick off. They are extremely time consuming and not research related at all. Besides, I noticed that my supervisor has a severe lack of knowledge in one of our core research areas. As a consequence, I can't discuss any of my ideas with him. As the other PhD students feel the same way, we have mentioned the lack of time quite a few times in our group meetings. And although he agreed that we need more time on proper research, things didn't really change yet. As a consequence, my motivation for the project starts to decline, although I continue to be extremely passionate about the project's overall goals!
So my question is, how I should cope with this situation? I thought about leaving his group, but I'm kind of stuck in a dilemma: I'd love to work on the project, and I don't want to let my collaborating teams down.

It's your project, not your advisor's.  Your lack of progress/motivation and supposed lack of time have nothing to do with him.
Nevertheless, you must sit down with your advisor and have a serious talk about both of your expectations. Be honest about your lack of motivation, be honest about your disappointment, be honest about your intellectual loneliness.  Ask for suggestions. Listen.
You have other senior collaborators that you can work with, so if you need senior collaborators, work with them. Ask your advisor to fly them out to visit you, or to fly you out to visit them.  Schedule regular Skype/Gchat meetings. Similarly, get to know other faculty in your department, who might serve as more experienced mentors/advisors, if not collaborators.
You're surrounded by colleagues who are excited enough about their research to want to draw you in, and you turn them away because you feel stupid?  What a wasted opportunity! Of course you feel stupid.  Everybody feels stupid listening to other people talk about their ongoing research, because by definition, they're talking about stuff that nobody understands (yet).  You're simultaneously complaining about intellectual loneliness and turning away potential collaborators.  So what if they're not working on your project?
Of course you're constantly forgetting important things you once knew well.  It is totally unrealistic to think that you can keep everything you've ever learned/read fresh in your mind. Don't even try. Write things down. Maintain a library of papers, or at least a close personal friendship with Google Scholar. Let yourself forget details, confident in the knowledge that they'll come back amazingly quickly when you read them again.
Since your feeling is shared by other students in your group, it sounds like your advisor is a bit overexcited and has bitten off more than he can chew. All the more reason to sit down and talk with him directly, and to develop mentoring relationships with other faculty in your department and elsewhere. Also, start looking into other potential advisors, even if it means moving to another university.

For 6., what I understood when I read it was that the OP spent time explaining the other PhD student's project to the advisor, but I can see that it doesn't actually say that.

Thanks for your answers! I edited my initial text quite heavily after scaaahu's remark so you may find new insights there. To your points: Although I know that it's my project, the major problem is the lack of time to work on it. The problem with the other collaborators is that they have completely different research areas (by different, I mean different as in computer science vs biology).
To 6.: Our supervisor didn't get the other PhD student's research although it was explained in very simple mathematical terms. I had to "take him by the hand" to guide him through some basic equations.

I see only two possibly justified complaints here: "supervisor incompetence" and "overloading with routine work". Unfortunately, without knowing both the supervisor and the subject in question, I cannot really tell you anything about the first (beyond the general statement that it may or may not be true and that if it is, nothing short of changing the adviser will cure it). The second can and should be discussed directly with your adviser, or, if it doesn't help, with the department chairman. Remember however that if the load you are talking about is a common rule for all PhD students in the department, you cannot request an exception for yourself without a really good reason laid out in a very convincing way.
I believe JeffE said everything else there is to be said here already.

You are right about the two complaints. The act of refining my text as suggested by @scaaahu actually helped my narrow down my thoughts. In essence, I'm extremely unhappy with my work as I'm doing nothing I'm really interested in. As you and JeffE suggested, I will seriously talk to my supervisor and draw the consequences.