text:
How should one turn down academic job applicants?
What's a tactful, respectful way to notify job applicants that you won't be hiring them?  I see a lot of angry online discussion of this issue.  Nobody seems to like the common "if you don't hear back, you're not hired" approach, but it's easy to go wrong in other ways (too short, too long, too condescending, too cheerful, too early in the hiring season so it seems insulting, too late so it's no longer useful, etc.).  Of course, part of the problem is that being rejected is intrinsically painful, so nobody's ever going to enjoy a rejection letter.  The question is how to provide useful and timely information while avoiding adding unnecessary pain.

Honesty is the best policy. Just say we only have one opening and it's filled.

Honesty is the best policy, but details (such as the number of openings) that are none of the applicants' business are not.  Unless you've already interviewed them, just say "We regret that we are unable to offer you a position.  Thank you for your interest; we wish you the best of luck."  (If you have already interviewed them, it's a different question.)

How about just saying the job opening is filled. If I were an applicant, my feeling would be a little bit hurt when I read "we are unable to offer you a position".

"The job opening is filled" declares that there is only one job opening (which is probably false) and leaves open the possibility that the applicant may still be considered for another position should one arise (which may not be true).  I agree that wording the rejection gently is important—I would never send a rejection letter that contained only those two sentences—but avoiding hurt feelings entirely is simply impossible.

Just from a perspective of one who has been rejected a lot of times (although from schools and research programmer, then as an undergraduate), fast and informative feedback is the most important.
For me there is little difference between hearing "the competition was very high" and "get  out". Saying that "there was only one place" when if fact you don't want to hire someone is very short sighted. It may make the decision smoother, but in a long run it will create false impressions and hopes; and, in fact, such approach makes it impossible to say that actually you want to hire someone, but you run out of positions (see How to show interest in a candidate when no positions are available?).
Moreover:

waiting long is bad both psychologically and for practical reasons (i.e. other plans); I don't see a reason for not rejecting as soon as you are sure,
it is important to distinguish if you don't want someone now or at all,
any feedback is of great value;
otherwise one gets no idea what was wrong, if it makes sense to apply again and how to improve; I would love to hear "there were 5 places but only 1 funding for someone with your status; I had expected someone with stronger skills in X and Y (but your Z is more than fine)".

Upon looking for a job on the academic market (and to a growing extent, on the private industry market, totaling a few hundred applications over more years that I would want to admit), I have never received a feedback that pointed to the strong and weak sides of my application. In some places that I really cared about, I would follow up with a question of what went wrong, and about 5% of the time I would get a marginally useful response. With several hundreds applications per position (I've heard about 2000:1 ratio in academic economics), the hiring person won't waste their time on this.

@StasK I share your experiences. However, the question is not on how it works but how it should work. When there are many applicants, I understand that personalizing rejections may be not an option. By when they are only a few of them, why not provide some feedback?

I've never seen an academic job search with less than 100 times as many applicants as positions.

It's debatable whether it's useful to get into specifics. This invites the candidate to start a debate, which could get unpleasant. Secondly, I doubt any legal department would allow such a message to go out, because the minute you say, "we didn't hire you because you don't have X,Y", you are vulnerable to a lawsuit trying to establish that the person you hired ALSO did not have X, Y

@Suresh And how about adding explicitly the part "why" is unofficial (and perhaps spoken / in a different e-mail)? Also while "you don't have X" is a risky term (on many grounds) saying that "we wanted someone with a stronger background in X, among other factors".


text:
How to read a textbook for distance learning coursework - do I need to work on fact recall, or is understanding enough?
There's perhaps a better title for this question, but I can't immediate think of one - suggestions for amendment welcome.
I'd like to clarify the purpose of reading textbooks. It sounds obvious at first, but what I mean is opaque to me.
I'm currently reading a textbook describing ~35 problem-solving and improvement methods, as part of this course. It is densely packed with definitions, ideas, procedures etc. I'm highlighting as I go through and occasionally making notes in the margins.
When I finish reading, I barely remember what I've just read, let alone what I've learned. If I was asked to describe the characteristics of a technique I've just read about, I would struggle to put forward a coherent and strong answer.
Even if I condense my notes and read through them, the problem remains - there are too many 'facts' to learn, remember and regurgitate.
This leads me to ask what the purpose of reading textbooks is. Is it to learn and understand 'facts' and be able to remember them? Or is it to learn and understand? That is, it doesn't necessarily matter if you can't remember, so long as you can understand ideas when you revisit them and can argue them in your work.
For clarity, I'm a distance-learning student with The Open University, so the textbook I'm referring to isn't a traditional textbook, but one that is perhaps closely identified by F'x as a coursework book. These books are used in place of lectures, and so are meant to be read in a linear fashion on a week-by-week basis.

Perhaps a better question might be not What is the purpose of reading a textbook?, but What is the best way to read a textbook?

Done! Also updated the question for context.

See my answer to a similar question.

Related: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/866/getting-the-best-out-of-a-book-reading-exercise

I'm surprised that no one's suggested that you ask the course organizers on how this material might show up in an exam. Knowing names/definitions/procedures may gain you more points.

The answer to your question is that there is no point in "brute forcing" through a text book in this manner, unless you're cramming for an examination.
Do not read textbooks in this way, especially if you do not own them. If you borrow a textbook from the library, and then read it cover to cover, and not remember anything, that is a waste of time.
Good textbooks are worth owning, which implies that they will be in your possession for years. You can use them for reference, and study them over the years in piecemeal fashion as your wandering interest returns to the topics from time to time.
If you really want to absorb the material in your textbook, you must do the chapter exercises. You can give yourself a course by going through the book, or you can spread this over years.
Maybe the book is a real tour de force on the subject matter and requires a lot of commitment, such that if you put in the commitment, you become an authority on those problem-solving methods. Is that something you want for yourself, though?
The important thing to memorize from your textbooks is just enough of a summary of the ideas that when you encounter some idea in the world, you can remember which of your textbooks has something to say about that topic.
For instance, this book, let's call it Foobley and Bings, has 35 problem-solving methods.  Can you remember enough about the gist of the methods so that when you see a problem, you can think "Aha! This problem has a general pattern which fits one of the problem-solving methods in Foobley and Bings."  Even if you don't remember the details of the problem-solving method, this can be a big time saver, and the fact that you recognize the pattern shows that you have knowledge. (Even Foobley and Bings themselves may have to crack open their own book to solve that same problem, if they haven't touched the material in years. Maybe the wrote the book to "unload" it from their brains to "make room" for something else, while having something to refer to.)

Your answer seems closest to what I'm trying to appreciate. Having read the material in my book, I can recognise some instances with characteristics that might benefit from the application of a particular technique or at least a family of techniques, but I won't be able to remember the name or describe it usefully.

It might helpful to change the question slightly, into

What is the purpose of writing a textbook?

Usually a textbook is written to lay out a fairly well codified body of knowledge about a topic. The "well codified" part is important: it's expected that this body of knowledge has some lasting value. The textbook is also written (hopefully) in a way that *teaches this knowledge, as opposed to merely dumping it out.
To me it sounds like the book you're reading is of the second kind (a dump of facts). Such a textbook is better treated as a reference book, like a dictionary. No one reads a dictionary (unless they're trying to pass the GRE or win a spelling bee :)), but they will refer to it to get the meanings of words.
Similarly, with a book that describes 35 problem solving methods, maybe reading it cover to cover isn't the best strategy. Rather, you should focus on a few techniques (or even one) and try to understand that well. Then put the book away and revisit it from time to time.
So to answer your question:

A textbook can be a collection of facts, but often it's more than
  that: it's a path through the facts that provides a structure with
  which to process the facts. The goal of reading (and learning) is to
  acquire both the facts AND the structure. The facts will be easier to
  remember if you have the structure in place, and the structure makes
  more sense with the facts as examples.

Presumably by structure, you're referring to the sections of the book (chapters/ sections, headings, sub-headings, lists etc)? Even if you understand it, is it still the case that you need to be able to remember the structure without being prompted?

The structure of the book itself relates to the structure of the material (hopefully), but I'm really talking about the structure of the material.

+1 for the last box. @James: think of structure like the category box at every Wikipedia article.

There are many many different types of textbooks, and they have very different goals. Off the top of my head, I can list the following three main kinds:

Coursework book, used as reference material for learning a rather broad topic. You expect it to bring a general introduction of the techniques in one field, broad overview, enough to understand the challenges in the field, identify the most common solutions and be able to work them on your own. This will surely include many problem sets, with or without solutions. It is also typical for this type of book to “highlight” some of the content, which the author deem essential for the reader to learn.
“State of the art” book. They can be very different in scope, content and style of presentation. They exist to give a summary of the extent of knowledge on a given topic. They are written for experts and wannabe-experts, so more attention is usually given to correctness than than pedagogy. Such work is useful not only because of the text itself, but also because it usually offers a large number of references to seminal and important papers in the field, which offer you a good way to get started. As such, they're also useful to people who are already experts, they give good references for common knowledge (“hey, I know it was established in the 1980’s that co-enzyme X accounts for a nontrivial part of this metabolic pathway, but I wonder who did that work… let's check”).
Reference book. In the most extreme case, it's like a dictionary: examples of such are the Abramowitz and Stegun or the CRC Handbook. Those are not usually called “textbooks”. This is not something you're supposed to read from A to Z, but rather open when you have need.

In the first two cases, if the textbook includes problem sets (or exercises), you should do them. For real, without looking at the answers until you're finished. If you're stuck, give it some time, then come back. Don't give up. This is where you'll learn the most.

+1 for doing exercises. Reading a textbook has little value unless you immediately practise what you've learned. The goal of reading a textbook is to be able to solve problems in a particular field.

You should be getting several things out of this on the first pass

That there are many variation on this theme
That the problem has odd corners where a specialized approach is much better than a general approach
You should recall some of the more important ways of categorizing the problem in order to select an approach.
You should probably remember a couple of the most general methods and their limitations.

On subsequent reads--and you won't master a complicated field without going over it several times--you should have a better idea of what to be looking for and should start concentrating on either the kinds of problems you expect to deal with (if you know and/or are doing independent research) or the kinds of problems that your instructor indicates will be important.

Thanks for your reply, dmckee. Just to clarify, when you mention 'problems', are you referring to the ideas set out in the books?

It sounded to me that you're reading about the solutions to some set of real world problems (or perhaps the abstract mathematical problems you end up with when attacking the real world issues). Those are the "problems" in my answer.

Ah, I see. I've updated my question to clarify the context (the book is about actual 'problem-solving', rather than a specific set of problems to solve).

Most of the above comments still apply: there are many tools and they have different strengths, though now you have to rely on art, experience and intuition to select the tool rather than being able to categorize them in a objective way.

Reading a textbook is reading for academical purposes. In many ways this is very different from reading for leisure.
Unfortunately, they don't teach you that in your first days at university, thus many students still try to read ALL books on a reading list from A to Z - and fail.
What really differentiates academic from leisural reading is, that you have four phases:

Prepare what you will read - What questions should the textbook answer?
Academic Reading itself - Read only the text that may answer your questions. Read it, mark elements, take notes, read again until you got the gist.
Post-processing of what you read - Did the text answer your question?
Application of what you read - Academic reading is the basis for academic writing, so archive your notes, tag them, classify them.

In terms of "what questions should the textbook answer", should cues be taken from the 'aims' and 'outcomes' of a course? This question seems a bit silly, having read it to myself, but I'd like to be clear.

To paraphrase what I was often told at university: a good higher education won't teach you everything you need to know, but it will teach you how best to find it. Even a passing familiarity with the literature on any given topic is a good start down that path.

I follow this cycle. YMMV. For me, if I am able to solve all exercises then I am good about it.

First I start with reading Wikipedia page [for ex. Process Synchronization]
Then I try to think about it in practical scenarios
Then I read the course book which is suggested by my university. I underline important points
I start solving exercises. Usually I will have answers manuals too, so first I just check whether I am doing correctly or not.
If I am not able to solve a question, then I mark down the words which are specified/related to the question & read them all.
Try solving the question again.
Repeat it till you get the idea, doesn't matter actually if you come up with a wrong answer, but approach should be right
Read reference books on same topics & underline new points found
Prepare short notes of underlines points & important keywords
Try to write everything in own words.

When I read a textbook, I read through an entire chapter quickly, just getting an overview of what will be shown and then go back through the chapter section by section, doing exercises (if the book has them) and trying out each idea to make sure it fits in with what I already know.
I try to link it to something I already understand well, so that the knowledge "sticks". Drawings at this stage nearly always help me. Especially if they're strange links; My mind seems to be better at remembering very odd things.
Once I'm done with a chapter, I revisit it about 20 minutes later, then an hour later, then a day, a week, and a month later. Once the month repetition is done, I tend to find that I can remember everything in that chapter.
Perhaps a little long winded, especially the repetition, but it has been said that repetition is the mother of learning.
Scott H Young has some excellent resources on how to study textbooks. He seems to be very, very good at learning. His free chapter of "Learn more, study less" has some excellent tips in.

This is the wrong way around. To understand you need to have the (relevant, important) facts at hand. So "knowing facts" comes before (is a lesser ability) than "understanding". Also, "understanding" includes weeding out the irrelevant facts.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to decide whether to publish your paper in conference proceedings, as a journal article, or as a book chapter?
I thought that this simple question has been already asked here on Academia, but it seems to that it did not happen (or, I was not able to find it).
So, I will ask it.
You have accomplished some good results in your scientific project, and you want to publish a paper about it.
How do you decide you would like it to be published into some conference proceedings, or as a journal article, or as a book chapter?
I am considering that all these three options envisage peer review, and are all top-A destination for your paper.
I work on computer science so any particular advice and opinion in this area are strongly appreciated.

I think IEEE transactions worth more than other materials. @DavideChicco.it

Depending on the subfield of computer science, you may be able to publish the paper both in a conference proceedings and (perhaps after suitable expansion) in a journal or book.

I support what @JeffE says if it's a least a bit the standard in your subfield.

Yes, what @JeffE said. Conferences are good for quickly advertising your results, journals are good for getting proper feedback from reviewers so that you can prepare the final, polished version of your work.

As one of your fellow computer scientists, I often think of it this way:

Start with a conference paper: the page limits mean you'll likely only be able to present the core elements of the work, but it's a fast route to feedback, publication, and beginning to get your results noticed by the community.
Next, upgrade to a journal paper: this is where you put out the nice full version of the work, with all of the details and supplementary information.  Generally a bad idea to do before you've got a version in print somewhere else, because many computer science journals are dreadfully slow (I think this might be because we've got conferences for a fast option, so journals feel less pressure than in other fields).
Use book chapters only for reviews and similar.  The problem with book chapters is that they're generally much more difficult for people to find.  Most conferences will either be open access or will go into an archive like IEEE Xplore or ACM DL that most institutions have access to.  Books, not so much, and it seems to make a quantifiable difference.

There is also the option of workshops, which you did not mention.  These, I think, are a great place for preliminary work or for work that you want to discuss with a very particular community.

That's a very interesting and true point about book chapters. Is there any particular benefit to book chapters? If not, why publish in them at all?

@ff524 Honestly, I'm not sure.  I've written a number essentially because people that I know are putting together a collection and it's a nice opportunity to get my own thoughts in order writing a review paper.  The only one of these with any significant number of citations, however, is the one that's also got a preprint on arXiv.  I think book chapters is a publication model that hasn't figured out how to live in the internet age yet, and I don't know what their future will be...

The problem with book chapters is that they're generally much more difficult for people to find — It is? Google can still find the PDF on the author's web page, can't it?

@JeffE Assuming you feel comfortable with civil disobedience against your copyright agreements...

@jakebeal Yup, sure am.

@JeffE Me too... but many aren't.

Thanks to all for your comments, very interesting. I was thinking... perhaps we could consider a conference proceedings paper and a book chapter as the same thing, what do you think? May we consider a conference paper as a chapter of the conference proceedings book?

@DavideChicco.it Nope.  I mean, you could probably technically argue the point, but nobody that I know in CS would agree with you.  Especially because the only 'book' about conference proceedings these days the is the "booktitle" line in the BibTex entry.

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


text:
Why do some research centres and university department publish a multi-year future strategic plan?
I noticed that a few research centres and university departments provide a multi-year strategic plan document on their websites.
For example, IIT (Italian Institute of Technology) and Stanford Computer Science Department.
The plan usually describes the main goals and purpose of the institution, both in science and in research management.
Why do they actually do it?
Is it just a way professors and researchers try to predict their future?
Or is it a solid way to show their future scientific directions to the world?
What happens if the strategic plan is not respected by scientists and events during the following years?
And why so many institutes actually don't do it?

Another reason may be funding at a large scale. Governments sometimes have plans to strengthen the research in a certain area (ex. biosciences). By making an institution-wide plan, you can make a very strong case for the funding agency and possibly secure a large amount of money. The time scale is also important. If you have money guaranteed for seven years, you can buy expensive equipment and hire experts knowing that you will not have to let them go after a year, for example.
In the particular case of Stanford I imagine their main target is private investment. The aim of the plan is then showing off a strong commitment to their objectives.

Writing plans can be useful for a department to come together and find common goals. Putting them in writing and publishing them is way for a department and its faculty to commit to those plans. Evaluating a couple of years later to see whether the plans were actually implemented, can be good way to evaluate the last couple of years. Not implementing the plans is not necessarily bad, unpredictable things always happen. The plan can however be a good way to structure that discussion (why did we not meet our objectives? What did we do instead? Is that equally good or better than our original plan, or did we make a mistake?)
As a tool such plans can play a positive role. They can also go horribly wrong. If it is seen by the faculty as a bureaucratic waste of time, than writing it will be a waste of time. Nobody will then feel committed by that plan. Evaluating it will also be just a waste of time because nobody felt bound by that plan anyhow so what is there to evaluate. Worse, such plans can lead to lots of unproductive fights between faculty and rip a department appart.
So there are good reasons why some departments do it, and there are also good reasons why other departments avoid doing it.


text:
Where to Place Master-class Certificates in Curriculum Vitae?
I shall soon get my degree in Biochemistry. Recently I attended several professional master-classes on film-making and producing, and now I want to get a MA in Film. For this masters, my CV is needed. Thinking that the master-classes I attended will help me in my admission, I am unsure under which sub-category I should place the names of the certificates; under 'Certificates & Awards', 'Education', 'Experience', or something else?

Why not simply create a separate section for 'Masterclasses attended'? That helps them stand out, and avoids the (obvious) difficulty of deciding which other category they fit into.
Compare: academic CVs usually have sections entitled "Conference Presentations" or "Invited Seminars" or similar.

My $0.02-- Education appears to be the most relevant category in this instance. A master-class, unless I am mistaken, is neither a certificate nor an award, so wouldn't truly fit there. 'Experience' could certainly be a valid option also, but since you are moving from one discipline to another, it may benefit you more to be able to show some educational experience in film-making and producing as you apply for the Master's program.


text:
How to respond to PhD offer emails politely
So it is the season where PhD offers are doled out (for US universities anyway). I am lucky enough to have received a number of offers via email. These typically comprise of a polite email from a member of faculty, normally the director of postgraduate study (or similar), along with an offer letter attached.
My question is, are replies to these emails expected? I felt compelled to respond with a quick thank you - I wish I could have asked some insightful question about the program but I couldn't reliably find something to ask.
How should one respond to these offers? What about schools that I will not likely attend as I was offered a school I prefer - should I decline at this stage?

If you know you are not going to accept an offer, please, do tell them as soon as possible, so they can pass it on to the next person on the waiting list.

To piggyback, all of the rejection email suggestions I've seen include a "I have chosen X instead" or similar line. Is there a polite way to let them know that their school is not in consideration even though I haven't yet made a final decision?

If you already know, for sure, which school you are going; simply respond to others by thanking them and telling them that you already chose your school. Something like the following:
Dear Sir/Madam,

Thanks for the offer. However, after extensive consideration, I chose the university X for my Ph.D.

Kind Regards,

Your Name

'Loads of consideration' is quite informal; 'considerable' or 'extensive' consideration would be more appropriate.


text:
MSc Programme without a Postgraduate Certificate or Diploma
I'm currently applying to an MSc programme at Imperial College London but at the bottom of the page for each of the programmes I am considering, it states the following:
"A Postgraduate Certificate and Postgraduate Diploma are not available on this programme."
Is this usual for MSc programmes? What exactly does it mean?

In my country, a Postgraduate Certificate or Postgraduate Diploma usually doesn't require a student to submit a thesis.

What are postgraduate diplomas and certificates?
Postgraduate diplomas (PGDip, PgDip, PG Dip, PGD or PgD) and certificates (PGCert, PgCert, PG Cert, PGC or PgC) usually follow Bachelors study in a similar subject. They are both at level 7 on the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) and generally vocational in nature, which makes them a popular choice for professionals looking to boost their CV.
The key difference between the two is that a postgraduate diploma is more extensive. Postgraduate diplomas require that you gain 120 credits, the equivalent of 30 weeks' full-time study. Meanwhile, a postgraduate certificate usually requires just 60 credits, the equivalent of 15 weeks' full-time study. Diplomas take around 6-12 months to complete when taken on a full-time basis, but part-time study can take up to a few years. Both diplomas and certificates are usually classified into distinction, merit and pass.

The exact structure of each PGDip/PGCert usually depends on the university itself, but as @kitty said, in most of the cases a thesis is not required. On the contrary, this is usually in what your PGDip differs from the equivalent Master's Degree.
However, many universities now offer the option to their students to go on after they have completed their PGDip commitments and write up a thesis, in order to reach the 180 credits a Master requires.
It is worth noting all these qualifications are of the same level (NQF level 7). For more, see:

How does it differ from a Masters degree?
The postgraduate diploma is often vocational, or at least allows the student to pursue a new study direction. It is, however, on the same level of the NQF as a Masters, and students often complete a dissertation to reach 180 study credits and turn their diploma into a Masters.

I am not familiar with UK terminology, but the probable American equivalent, the Post-Master's Certificate, is usually taken after a Master's degree and reduces the number of courses taken.
The graduate certificate may indicate a program that can be taken after graduating with a Bachelor's, and would fit between an BS and an MS in terms of education level.
I guess the better way to say it would be it's the Master's-level equivalent of a Bachelor of Arts vs a Bachelor of Science in terms of course load.
In most cases, if you're applying for a Master's program for MSc, you probably don't need to worry about anything regarding a PGCert or something similar. Those are separate degree programs that you're not going for.
As always, contact the advising department to make sure.


text:
Does editing someone's paper improve your own writing?
You get asked to read and edit papers (more or less form the same research area) to become a co-author. The editing requires a lot of rearranging of paragraphs, rewriting sections, new/updated figures, lots of grammar and spelling mistakes, recalculating numbers, and so on.
I am curious to know what your experience is, does your own writing get better from editing papers?
I have heard opinions that it actually decreases your own writing ability - any references for that statement?

Prima facie, I don't see why it would decrease your ability.

"You get asked to read and edit papers (more or less form the same research area) to become a co-author". You what now?

"I have heard opinions that it actually decreases your own writing ability." That seems like an incredibly suspicious statement.

@TobiasKildetoft: I am doing my Post-Doc, basically just writing papers and helping others with their writing.

@xLeitix Actually I heard this statement from a senior researcher who is now working as an editor for scientific papers.

@Michael That seems very shady, bordering on academic dishonesty. To get credit as a coauthor you should be involved in the research, not just editing the paper. Editing should get you an acknowledgment, not coauthor status. What area are you working in?

@Johanna In my field (engineering) it is quite common to have a team of engineers and researchers working together - and we are usually, to some degree, involved in the research of other team members.  Co-author status and position are often decided based on contribution to the paper. I should have mentioned in the question that I am in the same research group.

Everybody, can we please not have the same discussion every time publication practices in lab-oriented fields come up? Is it really so hard to accept that what being a co-author means is different in engineering than in, say, maths?


text:
How to cite and build on the work of another paper that is still under peer review?
I've written a paper which I submitted to journal ~5 months ago and is still in peer review. I have a follow up piece of work that is similar, but uses a different formulation of a problem (so I can show the results are similar and draw attention to the positive/negatives of using one formulation or the other).
How can I cite this in my new paper? I have published the first paper on arXiv, but it hasn't even got to the first round of reviews. I also have a need to publish as soon as possible as my Ph.D. funding runs out in 6 months - so I'd like to complete before then!

I've read many, many references to sources "to appear" in bibliographies of books. Is that not permissible in journals?

Cite your arXiv preprint, just like you would cite any other prior work.  Peer review is not a prerequisite for something to be citeable.

Ok, thanks. Is it worth noting it has been submitted? My feeling was that if I submit this paper, it may not be viewed well that it's being compared to work that hasn't yet been through peer review.

Is it worth noting it has been submitted? — [shrug] Can't hurt.

I wouldn't mention that it has been submitted, because it may have been rejected and resubmitted elsewhere by the time someone reads the citation.

@user2768: Well, then? The statement "This paper has been submitted." is still true. Even if it were not resubmitted elsewhere, "This paper has been submitted." tells the reader exactly what it says - at the time of publication of the work at hand, the other paper had been submitted, but it had not yet been accepted, so what would eventually happen to that other paper is still open.

I used to write "submitted for publication" in the bibliographic entry of a paper that was, well, submitted for publication.  Eventually I realized that knowing whether the paper has been submitted is not nearly as useful as being able to see the paper, so now I much prefer to give a weblink to the paper, and when I can find one I don't write "submitted" anymore.  By the way, I also cite weblinks for things that have not been submitted, e.g. some of my own online notes.

@O.R.Mapper, I generally recommend against writing "submitted to X," since it might later reveal rejection by X. I also recommend against writing "under submission," since I don't find it useful. Like Pete, I favour an online version of the paper. (That's already been covered by the OP: they intend to follow JeffE's advice and cite a preprint.) That said, if you write "submitted to X" for peer-review and remove for camera-ready, then you largely avoid my concerns.

@user2768: I am not sure I see the issue with revealing rejection by X. But then, I do generally write only "under submission" (if only for brevity), because I think that information is necessary to explain why there is no more precise information about the referenced work in the bibliography - no year of publication (not yet determined), no venue (not yet confirmed), and no weblink (in my CS subfield, preprints such as arXiv are largely unheard of and accordingly unusual). Of course, either the referenced work needs to get published at some point or otherwise released "informally".

@PeteL.Clark Thanks - this is what I have done. :) I would like them to read the previous piece!

@O.R.Mapper Yes, I will just state the paper has been submitted, not to where. I don't ever expect acceptance! :-)


text:
Ph.D. candidate publishing preprint to link papers
I have two papers that I'm looking to try and publish soon. I would like to cite my own paper as the work is fairly closely linked. Is it worth publishing one as a preprint on something like Arxiv so I can cite? I've read that it is more beneficial to publish preprints if you are already an established researcher whereas these would be my first two publications (if accpeted).

In general, you can post the preprints version of the paper before submitting if the journals do not have a policy which require you not to publish the preprint on repositories like arxiv, vixra, etc. See for example International Journal of Modern Physics D, where they have a policy of embargo which is explained. From this link you can see the author rights "After an embargo of 12 months, you may post the accepted author manuscript on your personal website, your institutional or subject repositories of your own choice or as stipulated by the Funding Agency.
"
To be clear, when you publish on arxiv, you give the an irrevocable license to distribute the article to arxiv, which means that you cannot withdraw the paper from arxiv unless there is a crucial mistake on it (see here ).
Here you can see the policies for many journals, for example
"Author's Pre-print:    green tick  author can archive pre-print (ie pre-refereeing)
Author's Post-print:    green tick  author can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing)
Publisher's Version/PDF:    green tick  author can archive publisher's version/PDF
General Conditions:
On author's personal website, employer's website or institutional repository
Publisher's version/PDF may be used
Publisher's version/PDF may be used on author's personal website or employer's website only
Link to publisher version required
Publisher copyright and source must be acknowledged with citation"
Finally, you need to check with the policy of the journal where you have submitted the 2 papers, and if you cannot publish on arxiv, you can cite with something like "_authors, paper name, submitted".
In the present, the world will go to open access, and we as authors have to encourage these movements and to publish the preprints online on free repositories.

Thanks, that's a great answer. So the journals I'm looking at do accept arxiv; would you recommend a Ph.D. candidate to look to preprint? Personally, I'm all for open access - I think apart from the ethics of sharing knowledge it's also a great way to get your work out there.

@MikeMiller what do you mean by "would you recommend a Ph.D. candidate to look to preprint"?

As in would you recommend doing this or just submitting to a journal.

IMHO you can submit to arxiv and to the journals. Nowadays, people look for papers more on arxiv since it is more convenient. Good luck with your work!

when you publish on arxiv, you give the copyright to the paper to arxiv for good -- No, you don't. You give Arxiv an irrevocable license to distribute the article, but you keep the copyright. See here: https://arxiv.org/help/license

@FedericoPoloni Thanks, I have updated the answer.

@Mike Since you do math, you should always put your papers on arXiv when they are ready (i.e just before submitting to a journal) and you can then update with whatever changes are suggested by referees. Journals which do not allow this can safely be ignored in our field (there are always equivalent journals which do allow it).

This is still not quite accurate as to arXiv's withdrawal policy.  An author can withdraw a paper from arXiv at any time and for any reason (it doesn't have to be a "serious error", though that would be the most usual reason).  But that doesn't remove the paper from the site; previous versions remain available forever, it just takes one extra click.  There is no way at all to completely remove a paper, even if it does contain a serious error.  (Maybe arXiv would remove a paper if it violated copyright or something, but that would be up to them, not up to the author.)


text:
Postdoc before PhD completion
I am in a situation where my PhD funding runs out in 5 months and I need to have secured a job regardless of whether I have submitted due to having a family.
Although I think I may be close to submitting by then, it may take longer. Is it worth applying for postdoc positions or would universities not consider you until you have completed the PhD? I assume that the pass rates of PhDs are very high if the candidate has got to the submission stage.
Edit: This question is aimed at the people that are are the submission stage but haven't yet defended their thesis. It is not a question asking if I can get a post-doc without a PhD.

"Postdoc" is meant for after completion of your PhD, so I would assume that your chances would be low since you'll be competing against those who have their PhD.

@MichaelC. I know that, but I've seen instances where people have got a postdoc in the stage between submitting and defending their viva.

This may be a duplicate, if not, then it's related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/34768/postdoc-without-phd

Possible duplicate of Postdoc without PhD?

It is common to apply for, be offered, and accept a postdoc position before  completing the PhD. (I did.) However, the PhD should essentially be done before you actually begin the postdoc appointment.

I think you should clarify the question. Are you asking "can I get a postdoc without ever having a PhD" or "can I get a postdoc before my PhD is finished, but I still intend to finish it."

@Thomas Thank you - I've edited the question. Out of interest, were there stipulations in your contract that you had to complete within a certain time frame?

My postdoc did not have any formal requirements regarding my PhD. However, a close friend of mine was unable to start his postdoc appointment until he could provide a letter from the university registrar confirming that he had completed all the PhD requirements (i.e. defending and submitting the thesis). So it varies from institution to institution.

I should add that my experience is in the US and in computer science, but I expect it will be similar elsewhere.

Usually this sort of a situation is dealt with by the advisor arranging a temporary position for you.

@CountIblis Unfortunately I have a director of studies that doesn't appreciate my work/direction, so this isn't an option.

Hmmm, if you want to complete your Ph.D. and need a job to finance this, you'll probably find it easier to find some job that doesn't require using much brainpower, as that leaves you free to max out your brain for another 8 hours per day.

@CountIblis Thank you for the advice. Hopefully(!) I won't need this though - I have a few papers that will be either submitted or I hope accepted! So I'm quite confident of completing the research side of the PhD at least.

@MichaelC. I don't think this is a dupliacte. This question is "Can I start a postdoc before I've finished my PhD?"; the other one is "Can I do a postdoc without ever studying for a PhD?" Two very different situations.

@Thomas The title is "Postdoc before PhD completion". It seems completely clear that the question is about your second case (starting a postdoc, then finishing the PhD) and this seemed equally clear even before the edit.

Groups seeking postdocs will absolutely consider you as an applicant before you have completed your PhD. They will, however, want to be certain that you have completed the entire process and all its requirements prior to officially beginning your new job, as the comments above have said. Be as honest with them as possible about when you expect to finish.
Universities will vary in terms of how they expect you to prove you've completed your PhD: some will accept official letters while others will want a photocopy of your physical degree (I was asked for the latter and found it rather, er, surprising). Luckily, none of that is likely to happen during an interview.

Apply now!!! In my experience (sciences in US), postdocs are usually interviewed fairly far before they finish. I think I applied in December, interviewed in February, defended that summer, started the next fall. (This was a pretty early start, and it's possible to go faster, so don't panic yet.) Getting a postdoc offer also serves as pretty strong encouragement to your advisor to ensure you can defend and leave in a timely manner.
If you can defend prior to your funding running out, that would obviously be the best. However, there are other options:

Your advisor finds more funding - nearly as good.
You find a nonacademic job, and finish your thesis in your spare time. Possible but not great (common in humanities PhDs, which is why they can take ten years).
You could start with your postdoc group prior to graduating - they might be able to hire you as a "technician" before you finish. You could then write up your thesis in your spare time. Some groups will be OK with this, since they get a PD-level person to start out at a lower salary - but others will object to not having 100% of your focus, or will have grant funding that isn't flexible on this.

Options 2 and 3 are going to be much much easier if you don't have much scientific work to finish - i.e. you mostly need to write up and defend, with maybe some additional computation/analysis. They will be near-impossible if you have additional in-lab work to finish. (I do know of one unusual case with a super nice postdoctoral advisor, where the student finished some of their thesis work in their new advisor's lab. This is very much the exception to the rule.)

would universities not consider you until you have completed the PhD

You should take a look at advertisements about postdoc/researcher positions to have an idea. What I have seen so far is only "close to finish a PhD".
I started applying for postdoc as soon as my advisor said my contribution was enough to graduate. However, I kept track of open positions long long before that.
I did onsite interviews with 2 groups, and got one offer before started writing my thesis. At that time, I was so scared that I would blow my chance, so I nervously asked this question, but everything was OK.


text:
Which tenure-track jobs would a new math PhD have a shot at?
I will be finishing my PhD in pure math next semester, so I'm applying for jobs. I've noticed that on Mathjobs.org, listings for tenure-track positions do not say that one must have experience beyond completing the PhD. In some cases it will say this is preferred, but I have not seen any listings saying it is required, and most don't even mention it.
According to my adviser, one of the first things done by a hiring committee for a TT job, is to toss out an annoying quantity of under-qualified applications. He said I should not bother applying for most of those jobs. Yet he also said that my teaching qualifications are above average, so that I would actually be considered for some "teaching" tenure-track jobs. I asked him how I identify these jobs, and he said they will be at small colleges and have little research activity. But it can be hard to tell if this is the case just looking online.
Is there some good indicator that a certain position might consider me for a TT position, even though I'll be a new PhD? On the one hand it costs me nothing to submit applications to TT jobs, but on the other hand I don't want to waste people's time. I'll include what I've been going by: if a TT position does not require a publication list, I've been considering it worth applying to.
I also wonder why this state of affairs exists. If hiring committees are in fact burdened with such a quantity of under-qualified applications, why don't they filter some by clearly delineating what they are looking for in the job listing?

If you are interested in the so-called teaching positions, make sure to check also EIMS in addition to MathJobs.

@WillieWong I actually had no idea that site existed! Looking into it, I'm finding some appealing jobs but I need a teaching portfolio for them. I'm currently debating whether I want to create one... I was pretty happy to be done with making application materials and get back to working on my thesis.

If you don't already have a teaching portfolio, December of the hiring year is a bit late to start creating one (no offense), unless you are the meticulous type that already have all your past syllabi, sample past homeworks, past exams, student/peer/faculty evaluations etc. all filed away conveniently at your finger tips. On top of that you still need to write a reflective essay on your teaching. See e.g. http://cte.virginia.edu/resources/developing-a-teaching-portfolio/teaching-portfolio-faq/ (OTOH, EIMS may still be useful to you on a future date!)

@WillieWong Actually I do have all that stuff saved and organized both as computer directories and in binders, but still the time investment may be too great since my focus is now supposed to be on my thesis.

You've gotten solid advice from your advisor.  At the math departments at many research universities, it is very rare to seriously consider an applicant straight out of a PhD.  However at most teaching jobs this is not rare at all.
These are rules of thumb, not absolutes.  Eleven years ago in my department (UGA) we hired someone straight of a PhD program.  This was a joint hire with engineering.  Sixteen years ago we seem to have done something like this: we hired someone to be an NSF postdoctoral research fellow and an assistant professor.  Nevertheless I think the chance that we would hire someone straight out of graduate school in 2015/2016 is essentially zero, and when someone decent applies only for an assistant professor position who is still a PhD student, I sometimes write to them to tell them that they should apply for a postdoc instead.
The number of postdoctoral jobs is safely smaller than the number of tenure track jobs at research universities, so we can conclude that some research universities are hiring tenure track faculty straight out of their PhD.  For top 50 departments, this is very rare, but not impossible.  On the other hand, you should feel free to apply to any university without a PhD program straight out of a PhD.
If you are not sure whether you are too junior to be seriously considered, what should you do?  You should apply anyway.  I've been on the "seeing hundreds of applications" side of it, and yes it is slightly annoying to see an application from someone who is too junior to be seriously considered.  But that's ten seconds of annoyance, and it carries no lasting stigma against the applicant.  In fact, often my reaction when reading the application is "Definitely not this year, but..."
I will risk a personal anecdote.  When I was a graduating student, I was so naive about things that I assumed that even departments that didn't advertise postdocs nevertheless had postdocs to offer. (Oops.)  In one case I got a reply, from a professor at an Ivy League school thanking me for my application for a tenure track job but telling me that they would go for someone more senior.  (I will not name names, but suffice it to say that he wrote the book on elliptic curves, then wrote its sequel, and has written several other seminal texts in the years since.)  He was remarkably gracious.  About ten years later he visited my department, and during a group lunch I told this story.  His response: "You never know who the young student will turn out to be in the years to come.  So you might as well be nice." (Which was really a nice thing to say!)  Anyway, clearly I had burned no bridges with my silly application.  You shouldn't worry too much about this.

I also wonder why this state of affairs exists. If hiring committees are in fact burdened with such a quantity of under-qualified applications, why don't they filter some by clearly delineating what they are looking for in the job listing?

Job postings are heavily scrutinized for EEOC issues.  If what you wrote last year got approved and worked decently enough, it is easiest not to mess with it.  Here is a line from this year's job posting in my department:

A Ph.D., or equivalent foreign degree, in Mathematics or a closely related field is required.

I have asked in the past what a "closely related field" means and been told "Maybe nothing; we'll know it when we see it." I think I was involved in adding the "equivalent foreign degree" part: I believe that in Russia the degree is not called a PhD...The idea here is that if you list something as a requirement and then hire someone that doesn't meet the requirement, all hell could break loose.  So even if we think that the chance that we'll hire someone without post-PhD training is 0.01%, that's still probably enough not to make that training a requirement.
Added: David Z points out that the possibility of taking multiple postdocs shows that the "we can conclude" above is not a watertight proof.  I think a more protracted analysis of the number of tenure track jobs versus the number of postdocs and the number of postdocs one can take and still be competitive for a tenure track job would lead to the same conclusion.

Thanks for the thoughtful response! Assuming I've put together who that prof. you mentioned was, I exchanged emails with him as an undergrad at an RTG and got a friendly answer, he is a really nice guy. Still your point remains that there is no reason for someone to blacklist you based on a naive application.

Also I now remember my adviser saying to look at what degrees the school offers. If the top degree they grant is an MA, it's possible to get hired, if it's a BA it's more possible. I think this gives me what I need to know.

Although there are more TT jobs than postdoc positions, I would think there more postdocs being hired per year than faculty positions, because postdocs are short-term. That would mean it's not necessarily the case that some departments are hiring fresh PhD graduates for faculty positions. (Of course they do, I'm just saying that if the numbers work out how I think they do, this argument doesn't prove it.)

"in Mathematics or a closely related field is required"  could be a PHd in Comp Sci or Physics if it included advancing mathematical knowledge, but the candidate was just in the "wrong" department.

I once got an e-mail back saying You might want to apply for a job for which you are qualified..  Oops.

I will answer your second question first:

I also wonder why this state of affairs exists.

In a math department at a research-intensive university in the U.S., the quantity and quality of research that one needs to have published in order to be seriously considered for a tenure-track position is such that in practice, 99% of qualified candidates will have some postdoctoral experience. However, this is not an absolute rule, and every once in a while there will be a new graduate who is sufficiently impressive to be worth hiring (this has happened a couple of times in my department, and is an option that is occasionally discussed). In any case, it seems virtually impossible to delineate a minimum set of achievements, since neither the number of publications, nor a specific set of journals one might have published in, is either a necessary or sufficient indicator of the quality of a candidate's work.
As for your first question, I am not aware of an indicator that guarantees that you would be considered seriously for a tenure-track position. But you needn't feel too sorry for search committees (hint: MathJobs has some pretty good filtering mechanisms...), so if in doubt, just apply.

Is there some good indicator that a certain position might consider me for a TT position, even though I'll be a new PhD?

Not really - this is one reason that many people apply so broadly. If you knew ahead of time which schools would like you, you could apply in a much more focused way.
The other answer(s) are correct that most "R-1" schools look for more experience than just a PhD. So, you may be able to deduce you are not likely to find a position at one of these schools. But, there are many schools that are not R-1 schools.  The Carnegie classification is an imperfect tool, but it can help you tell the general level of a school. Of course, some schools may have a few doctoral degrees (e.g. in education) but not have one in mathematics.
You mentioned in the question that you were considering only schools that do not require a publication list. This might be because your only publication is your dissertation?  I think you may be setting the bar too low. Many programs will ask for a publication list, but that does not mean it absolutely needs to have more than your dissertation.  And your publication list will be on your vita anyway, so it is no secret. I think that some schools may ask for a separate list (duplicating your vita) just to make their job easier.
Unfortunately, it seems you have waited until now to begin thinking about the type of school to apply to. That is a little late. Fortunately, your advisor thinks your teaching is above average - and can presumably write something to that effect in a letter.  That can only help.
Two kinds of schools to consider for a tenure-track position directly after your PhD are:

Public comprehensive universities - including many of the "directional" public schools such as fabled "Northeast Idaho University". Not all of these have states in their name (e.g. James Madison University).  Look for programs with the maximum degree being a master's or bachelor's degree. The U.S. News magazine on undergraduate colleges has a comprehensive directory at the back with info at your fingertips.
Non-elite liberal arts colleges - there are a lot of small liberal arts colleges you have never heard of. Some of them are exceptionally selective, others less so.

These types of schools often look for very different things, so you should talk to advisors about how to tailor you application for each kind of school.

This is the first I'm hearing of the Carnegie Classification. It's not accurate to say I waited until now to think about... I started applying in November and spent a long time preparing application materials. My question is arriving from trying to decide if I should bother making additional application materials such as a teaching portfolio, to apply to certain additional positions.

Fair enough, I apologize for my misinterpretation. Good luck!


text:
What is the best way of breaking a mathematical development into a sequence of articles?
I am currently in the process of turning my math doctoral thesis into articles to submit to journals. This is my first time writing anything mathematical for publication.
My thesis was on the long-side, and referenced a lot of background material from areas of math that do not often communicate. (The principle field is topology, but it draws heavily on some specific corners of algebra, number theory and relativity theory that most topologists do not study.) It also has a historical component and the first result is a completion of a somewhat archaic classical idea. I then go on to develop that idea to obtain results pertinent to current active research.
Due to this, as well as the common advice of not making an article too long (especially one's first article), I am breaking my results into two articles. The first one will say something about what I intend to do in the second for motivational purposes, and lay all the groundwork, but is focused on generalizing a classical theorem. Then the second will focus on results more relevant to current topology, referencing results form the first but not weighed down by them.
My question is about what I should include in my setup at the beginning of the second article. I summarize a bunch of standard ideas at the beginning of my first article, which really does need to be there because it is not typical for someone working in any one of the fields to be familiar with the other concepts. I also introduce notation. Then in my second article I use all the same stuff, plus some more.
Is it okay to leave out a repetition of that background info, and refer the reader to my first article? I figure I should re-define any original or unusual notation, but I don't want to have all that repetition in the first section of both articles. On the other hand, I want people to read the second one, and not be off-put by being referred to the first one, or feel the background is not well established.
Is there a standard protocol for writing a series of two or more articles that develop a concept continuously, which draw upon the same set of background definitions and theorems? Would it be better to just write one very long article after all?

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

@eykanal Right on. I'm hoping eventually somebody posts an answer.

I think the best person who can answer your questions is your advisor. If you really think that two separate articles is the best way, then in the second one you do need to include at least the notation. You can definitely refer to your first paper for background or other content. Now, it seems to me that your results are really one big chunk of stuff that should go into a single paper. If you divide in two, you risk the first one to be a little un-substantial. Perhaps a good idea would be: long thesis, and abridged version in the form of a longish article. Or a small book as well.

Synthesizing the complex web of inter-dependent principles and findings into both a convincing argument and a compelling read is difficult in one paper, let alone inter-dependent papers. I would recommend one article, brutally edited to the essentials, with appropriate call outs to a web site that dives deep on the details.

A good example of a respected author(s) with a series of articles like this? Neil Robertson and Paul Seymour, Graph Minors I – XXIII. (Most of these have subtitles.) Their big theorem is eventually proved in Graph Minors XX: Wagner's Conjecture.

@dbluesk It was my advisor who suggested that I turn the thesis into 2 articles. It's difficult to explain exactly why this is a good idea without delving into the mathematical details, but I guess I'd like people to take that part on assumption and just help me out with the aspects I specifically asked about. You've got a good point that he is the one to ask about that too, but my PhD career was a little strange in that I was given a lot of independence. Rather than solving a known problem I developed my own construction that I thought was interesting... which has lead to such complications.

@PeterShor Thanks for that example, looking at those articles does help with some questions I had about style and structure (though those guys were already established). Would you happen to know though whether Robertson-Seymour knew how they were going to prove Wagner's conjecture before publishing part I? An important concept I'm learning is the huge difference between the processes and discovery and of explaining.

@j0eq1nn: I don't think they actually had a proof of Wagner's conjecture when they published part I. But they certainly knew they were writing a series of papers that would form the foundations of the theory of graph minors—parts II through V are referenced in part I as "submitted", and I suspect they knew the results in the next few papers already.

@PeterShor I see. Well this is a great example for me to look at even though it's not my field. Just having a template for simple things like when to say "see [ref] for...," as opposed to rephrasing something for the current purpose, is very valuable.

@j0eq1nn. Maybe they did have a proof. They submitted their first Graph Minors paper in 1982; they announced they had a proof a few years later (mid-1980s), and they submitted the paper containing the proof in 2001.

@PeterShor Wow. And I've been complaining that I'm still writing up my results from 2 years ago. Makes me think of Thurston's "Proof and Progress" article.

Each journal article should "tell a story". Break the thesis up into coherent stories.
It looks like you're already doing that. The first article concentrates on generalizing the classical theorem, and the second gives the results that are relevant to current research.
I would suggest just putting the groundwork you need for the generalization of the classical theorem into the first article (unless you can save a lot of space by developing some of the groundwork for the second article at the same time as the groundwork for the first). And you should definitely mention the second article to provide more motivation for the groundwork. But putting groundwork that's not needed in this first article will detract from the "story".
In the second article, you should include a quick review of the groundwork developed in the first article, and refer the reader to the first article if they want more details. Then add the extra groundwork needed for the second article, and  proceed to the results of the second article.
One comment from experience: if you put a result that does not fit the "story" into a paper, when people read your paper, they are very likely not to even notice this result. So it's much better to put it in a separate paper.
On the other hand, as you can tell from the comments here, many people consider it bad form to spread one story over two papers. So you should split a long result into several papers only if you can formulate it as several related "stories".

Some time had gone by since my post, and many revisions later I've ended up doing much of what you recommend. So it's nice to see it recommended by someone who is experienced. In defense of 2 articles rather than 1, I really do have two different stories and moreover, they appeal to different audiences.

You have several considerations here. First, where will you publish?  It sounds lengthily, and a two-parter will take up valuable real estate, so I'll start by suggesting you send some pre-prints/feelers out beforehand to journals to gauge interest. These pre-submission inquiries can save you tons of time and may even grease the wheels. It would help if both parts were published together in the same journal, but I've seen cases where parts I and II appear in different publications, sometimes with considerable lapse in time. Working the field beforehand will give you an idea how this is going to go.
In terms of a standard format, I've never heard of one, but in general I find some consistency. One is that they are often named 'Theory of things I: A solution to bob's paradox'. Then 'Theory of things II: Extension to Wendy'.  Besides the conjecture (I've heard) that titles with colons get higher citation counts, this course adds a certain gravitas that can't be overlooked.
Next, both articles need to be able to stand alone as a piece of work. It's not feasible to do part I as background and II as the theory or solution, but it sounds like you're already preparing for this. Lay out your background and first contribution in part I. Hopefully, part I will be very intriguing and whet interest for part II. Then, in part II, refer to pt I extensively but don't be shy about reprinting very important parts that are integral to comprehending the current (pt2) material. For example, an equation might be reprinted (and referenced) while a general idea might just be referenced to your original paper. If you've played the pre-submission inquiry well, you might already have some leniency  on space constraints, so use them.

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


text:
How do I interpret multiple meetings with a potential research advisor?
I have had one meeting with a potential research advisor that went really well. They want to touch base again and go over my work experience that is applicable to my research interests before I apply. How do I interpret this? Is this a good thing to have multiple meetings? I know they are considering multiple applicants for the position.
Info: this is a small department, and the advisor also serves as the head of the department. Any insight into how that would play into admissions is also welcome!

A good sign at least.

This is, most likely, a good sign. If they weren't interested at all, they wouldn't want to spend time in another meeting with you, just to reject you afterwards.
The advisor being the head of the department can mean anything or nothing, so don't read to much into that.

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


text:
What is the grammatical number of an inline citation?
Which of the following is correct?

a) Johnson et al. (2010) prove that all snow is yellow.
b) Johnson et al. (2010) proves that all snow is yellow.

I suppose the question boils down to whether I'm citing the authors or their paper. If the paper is the subject of the sentence, it's singular (b). If the authors are the subject, then it's plural (a).

A previous question on this: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/99886/is-et-al-used-as-a-singular-or-plural-subject

@Ric Thanks. That is helpful. In that post, though, there is no year included so it seems more obvious that the subject is the authors, not the paper. With a year included, it seems more natural to me that the article is the subject. Indeed, it is a particular article by the authors that proves that all snow is yellow. There may be another article by those same authors that proves that all snow is green. Having said that, the accepted answer does include a year and still favors the plural. So maybe this is a duplicate. Think I should delete?

Good point. But what happens if both those articles are published in the same year? =)

Johnson et al. (2010a) proves that all snow is yellow. Johnson et al. (2010b) proves that all snow is green. At least that's how I've seen it done in economics (which, as is well known, reduces to the study of snow color). You can see I favor using the article as the subject and therefore the singular.

Version (a), where the authors are the subject, should probably be in past tense. They proved it, in the past :-)

I personally am comfortable with both ways, for exactly the reasons that you give: it's entirely reasonable to refer to either the authors or the paper.  The important thing is to be consistent with your usage throughout a manuscript, else your readers may wonder why you feel it appropriate to refer to some authors directly but not others.

I'd offer another alternative:
c)  Johnson, et al. (2010) a proof of yellow snow.
The paper penned and published by Johnson and his buddies back in 2010, entitled "An analysis of the purity of driven snow" does not PROVE that all fallen snow is tainted, thus is "yellow."  His paper OFFERS A PROOF that all fallen snow is tainted.
I believe, though I reserve the right to be ridiculed and otherwise piled on by both Chicago and MLA acolytes, that when you first cite a reference, it is of the general form:
1) Johnson, et al. "An Analysis Of The Purity Of Driven Snow" (2010) p.544. (optional summary descriptive text)
...and subsequent cites can be shorthand:
2) Johnson, et al. (2010)

Your answer would not fit in a paragraph using an author-date format. You seem to be giving a reference list rather than an in-text reference.

I'll second @Emilie's point - the question is specifically about the the agreement of the paper reference with a verb in a sentence. The paper is singular, the author list may or may not be...

@Emilie, Custer et al.  You seem to have missed my point.  The point is that the reference should be a NOUN-ish word, not a VERB-ish word.  i.e. "proof" versus "proves"

Maybe I've missed your point, but I never seen a sentence such as the one you propose in c so I don't understand how this can be applied.


text:
What to bear in mind while publishing a research article in SCI journal?
I want to submit my article in a reputed journal indexed in the science citation index (SCI). Is it necessary to read and cite only articles from journals indexed by SCI when submitting your article to journals indexed by SCI?
I am asking this because there are a lot of non-SCI indexed journals (including predatory and just-for-profit fake journals) and, if I cite some data from those fake journal articles, will it cause my article to be perceived as having a poorer quality and hinder the chances of my article being accepted in an SCI-indexed journals ?

You should be aware of the "good" or "best" journals in your area already - source, reference and publish with those...

(Originally this answer presumed that by "SCI journals" OP referred to journals published by the Society of Chemical Industry. OP has clarified that they meant journals indexed in the Science Citation Index, I have modified this answer to reflect that.)
Cite articles on scientific merit and relevance alone. You should have a good idea which journals are accepted authorities in your field. You will, naturally, find yourself citing predominantly from these.
Authors, editors and reviewers will often use the reference list as a shortcut to assess whether a particular paper is suitable for submission to/acceptance in a particular journal. They're not necessarily only looking for their own journal, but looking at the fields and pedigrees of the journals cited helps them quickly estimate the field and importance of the manuscript. As an author, you can use this to help you decide which journal you wish to submit a manuscript to; although it will only work if your citation are genuinely made on scientific merit, not on your subconscious desire to submit to Nature! This technique should also help you avoid submitting to predatory journals.
As for citing from dubious journals, this is a thorny issue. One the one hand, one doesn't want to associate oneself with them (or appear to endorse them) and the papers may not be very robust; on the other hand, one does have an ethical obligation to cite relevant prior work - especially where it something you build on or advance past. Various questions on Academia stack exchange deal with this issue, for example:

Is it a good idea to cite paper from publisher listed in Beall’s list?
Possibly fraudulent journal: cite or not to cite?

This paragraph that was included when assuming SCI referred to a publisher. Less relevant to the clarified question, but still relevant to the question of what to cite:
Citing publications from a particular journal or publisher is never a requirement for publication in a legitimate journal. Journals that engage in such practices risk getting themselves lots of bad publicity and removed from indexing systems. Equally, you should have absolutely no hesitation in citing papers from legitimate, non-SCI journals.


text:
What is a good way to scan a lot of exams?
Due to COVID, we have to convert a large number of hand written exams into PDF.
Does anybody have experience with this?
What could be a good strategy?

Some computer connected printers will do this. They have a feed tray and will scan to pdf. Some will handle two sided scans.

Yes, as Buffy said, there are printers with feed trays that will email PDF to you ( or put on a flash drive). You can then use PDF editors to “break” the exams into separate files if needed.

Can you pay some students a small amount to do this work? As in, are they allowed to do this if they sign an NDA-like document?

Isn't this a standard feature of modern scanners? You can feed them as many pages as the tray can handle, and they scan it. The resulting file might be JPG, TIFF, or many other formats, but there are ways to convert those to PDF (e.g. https://tiff2pdf.com/ converts TFF to PDF).

Put the papers in the top tray of the copier, press scan, wait, and you are done? I must be missing something.

At ours, the students use their mobile phones to scan their papers right before submission. Then, they submit the PDF to some dedicated online LMS (e.g., Moodle).
There are some downsides here. One is the quality of the scans, which may vary.

You've just made having a mobile phone with a camera a requirement for the class.

True, true. In certain countries, this will not be a problem. In others, this would indeed be impossible.

A few years ago I was using Crowdmark for grading, which required scanning a lot. It's a bit of a pain, but using a fairly standard retail scanner with an automatic feeder (HP, I don't remember the model number) we were able to scan hundreds of exams/thousands of pages in an hour or so with two people working on collating, rescanning misfed sheets, etc etc etc. (Looking back at my notes, it took two people 90 minutes to scan 2400 pages when the scanner settings were suboptimal so that we had a lot of misfeeds; would have taken about an hour under better conditions). I think we stored the files on a network drive (we did the scanning in batches, don't remember exactly but I think there were about 200 pages per batch) for later retrieval.
Crowdmark has some Crowdmark-specific scanning tips, but generally scanning in grayscale with the lowest resolution that will work for you will speed things up.
The only possibly non-obvious tip is that our exams were stapled when they were administered; we took them to the university publishing office, which was able to chop off all the stapled corners at once with one of their machines to save us the trouble of removing staples (Crowdmark puts a unique QR code on every page, so we didn't have to worry about getting pages mixed up between tests).
(I am not affiliated with Crowdmark.)

(A Crowdmark related aside: I regularly scan thousands of pages for it too, but manually cut the stapled corners with scissors (if only we had access to a machine...), so a protip is to put the stack of tests into the feeder upside down, with the cut corner facing away; due to the QR code Crowdmark doesn't care that they're not in the "right" orientation, and your feeder gets a full page height to pull on.)

DIY isn't always better.
Take the box of exams to a copy shop and tell them what you need. They'll take care of the rest.

A good suggestion (+1), but generally the university should be funding this.  I suspect that they would usually prefer their own administrative staff to do the copying rather than  fund an outside copy-shop to do it.

Generally, a good idea. But it might too expensive and take too much time.

Gradescope is a good option. It requires quite a bit of preparation, though.


text:
Is it ethical to request partial reimbursement to present something from my previous position?
I'm a postdoc based in Western Europe, and I'll be going to a far foreign country in South Asia for two weeks to present something related to my previous postdoc. The conference is paying for my flight tickets and accommodation, which form the brunt of expenses. However, transport to the local airport (back and forth, in respective countries) and expenses like local transport and food won't be reimbursed by the conference. My previous postdoc manager is in the organizing committee, and he informed me that the rest of the cost would be born by me.
I've already informed my current postdoc manager long ago and he allowed me to attend the conference.
Given the above, I was wondering whether it's at all ethical to request my current postdoc manager for reimbursement for the expenses that won't be born by the conference? I do understand that the answer can be a resounding no, but I'm still checking in to see. Will it at least hurt to ask, or will it be unethical in the first place?

The fact that your airfare and accommodation is covered is a huge help. Your per diem will add up, though over two weeks. Have you asked your previous institution? || I wouldn't phrase it as a "request for reimbursement," but rather "are you able to partially fund my conference?"

Personal experience: in a somewhat similar situation, there was a kind of negotiation between my previous and current PI. They agreed to share the cost, but with the condition that my affiliation would be something like: Prev affiliation X, now working in affiliation Y (as footnote).

@AzorAhai-him- Thank you, there doesn't seem to be a per diem :( I'll rephrase the question accordingly and discuss what I can give back; possibly a mention  of this work under the funding from the current place as well, but only after checking with my ex manager.

Usually conference expenses are paid by some form of grant. Usually, grants have expectations about how travel funds are used, the exact language is going to vary but there will ordinarily be some sort of requirement that the goals of the grant are served by the travel.
Some PIs may be willing to push the boundaries of that requirement more than others, but I'd recommend thinking ahead of time about what purpose this travel serves towards however you are currently funded. You're presenting work from a previous postdoc, but if you can attend sessions related to your current work I think it's an easier sell.
All that aside, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask, far more reasonable than it is for your old supervisor to be okay with making you pay your own way. Echoing Jon Custer's comment, the boundaries between academic jobs are often a bit fuzzy, unlike an industry job where the expectation is that as soon as you move on to a new job you completely stop working for your employer unless they're paying you to continue to consult. In academia, it's appreciated that different stops and funding sources along the way are in some sense funding you as a person, and as a result it's normal to be working on "old" stuff when you move to a new position: conference presentations, paper submissions and revisions, support for people taking over your old role. If your current supervisor is willing to fund travel for your past work, you should also be willing to contribute to work with that supervisor (in a limited scope) when you move on to your next position: presenting work, moving work you've done through the publication process, etc.

I will echo some of the other answers.
I think it is perfectly fine to ask. The only limitation may be by the "color" of the money your PI would have to use. Some grants have strict restrictions (and regular audits) on what is a reasonable justification for sending you to a conference, if what you are presenting is unrelated to currently funded work.
From my perspective, I keep several lines of unrestricted funds which I use for situations like this, which I justify as "professional development". Your PI may or may not have such funds. They may however have funding that is otherwise liberal in supporting your development. In addition to that, it never hurts to ask your Department chair if there are any small pots of money to support partial conference travel. After all, if you are presenting, presumably attending poster sessions and interacting with various academics and students, you are representing your current department, and may even be doing "recruiting".

In general, an ask that doesn't involve deception isn't unethical. So, yes, it is ok to ask, while giving complete information.
However, turning you down is warranted as you probably get some benefit from the presentation that is worth as much or more than your costs. The current PI and their projects may not benefit much.
A partial reimbursement might be helpful, but the accounting for expenses that the PI needs to make might make even this impossible. But a discussion and an ask isn't unethical.

I always supported my (new) postdocs going to conferences to present previous work. It kept them out in the field, and I knew that in 6 months or so they would have our work to present instead, and likely they would present that for 3-6 months after they moved to their next job. All part of trying to make sure they had a good position to move to.

@JonCuster, certainly an enlightened position. Good if it is widespread.

"turning you down is warranted as you probably get some benefit from the presentation" I think I know what you're getting at, but this is a little confusingly phrased.

I, on the other hand, have no idea whatsoever what that sentence is meant to mean. It benefits you academically so they should turn you down? What?

@N.Virgo, If all of the benefits of the attendance accrue to the individual and none to the institution then that institution is justified in not funding. That is, perhaps a big "if", but that is the meaning. And I didn't say that the "should" turn you down.

I guess there might be some institutions that don't see a benefit to their members as a benefit to themselves, but I hope I never have to work at one


text:
Writing Sample and Presentations in Mathematics Graduate Application
I am currently applying to graduate schools for a Ph.D in math. One of the schools to which I am applying has a section in which I can upload a writing sample. The description says "Please upload a sample of written work that is relevant to your application (e.g. seminar paper, report, magazine/newspaper article, book excerpt)." Unfortunately, I am not published, but I have written several expository papers on relatively advanced topics for different classes. For example, I wrote a ten page paper on the Riemann-Roch theorem for an algebraic geometry class. Is that the sort of thing I should submit in lieu of a published paper, or should I leave the section empty in my application?
In a similar vein, there is a section titled Publications and Presentations where I can submit material. The description for this says "Provide a list of publications and/or presentations related to your academic or professional background (include the PubMed ID if applicable)." I gave a presentation on my research (the triple bubble problem) at an undergraduate research conference a few years ago. Should I submit the slides for the presentation under this section, or should I leave it empty as well?
I know that math is sort of an interesting case for undergraduates in terms of original research, seeing that it takes quite a while to really start doing meaningful research. I didn't know if I should consider this when thinking about whether or not to submit presentations/papers that are by no means completely original ideas, but are more of the expository nature. Thanks for the help!

My understanding is that "writing sample" sections are a way to judge how well the applicant communicates in writing, especially if they don't have published papers (or official "publications") to refer to in their CVs or otherwise. I believe the paper you are talking about is exactly the kind of thing they expect to be submitted in such a section.

Excellent, thank you very much for the help!

It just asks for a sample, and your ten-page paper fits the bill. So yes, go with it!
As for the second section: Sure, put your slides there too. It may not be exactly what they're looking for, but it's also not totally out of the picture, so there is no harm -- but possibly something positive if someone ends up liking your slides.

Great, thank you for the advice!

The instructions are to provide "a list of publications and/or presentations" and so I think uploading the slides is inappropriate for the second section.  I would make a list with just talk titles and where presented.  Even a list of one can look good.


text:
9 vs 12 months distributed pay options and quiting your job before the end of the school year
What if you opt for the 12-month pay but quit your position before the end of an academic year? (For example, give 30-days notice in December). Do you forfeit your 3 months of distributed pay that would have been paid over the summer months?

Hi and welcome to Academia SE. Could you please specify the country? The answer to "what if" questions is fairly dependent on the country, and frequently on the institution too. Further, what kind of position?

This would be a question for a lawyer, but I would be surprised if you keep the pay.

In my experience, your pay stubs will actually itemize "summer savings" separately -- so you'll see the full 9-month salary, and then among your other deductions (taxes, etc.), you'll see that 1/4 of your salary is applied to a "summer savings" account. Whatever money is in that savings account when you quit will be paid out to you; it is your money that was paid in consideration of duties already performed. Whether it is paid out immediately or over the summer as planned will depend on your institution's policies (though I suspect immediately is more likely, so they can "close the book" on you).

This probably depends widely on country (etc.), but the most logical solution would be that if you have fulfilled X% of the contracted duties then you are due X% of the agreed upon salary.
There might be penalties charged, however, if you cause disruption and it is expensive to find a replacement. But that isn't related to pro-rating. But any signed contract should spell that out, perhaps in a clause referring you to a stated policy.
But pro-rating the salary, when there are no duties over the extra three months is just an accounting trick that makes it possible for faculty to have a regular paycheck, easing their own financial considerations. It isn't a "gift" in any way that can be withheld. You have earned the money for the work you've done.
The HR department can help you answer the specifics if you are actually contemplating this. It probably isn't necessary to consult a lawyer unless bad things actually happen.


text:
What does "O" stand for in this paper from 1961?
I'm currently reading "Perceived Order in Different Sense Modalities" (Hirsh and Sherrick, 1961). In they repeatedly use the abbreviation "O" and I have no idea what it stands for. It seemed to have been in common use back in those days, but fallen out of favor since. Some usage examples:

To investigate the limits of the ability to distinguish successive from simulateneous events, we need only a pair or series of events about which we can ask O whether there were one or two [...].
The question for Exp. I was: how much time must intervene between two visual stimuli for O to report correctly the order in which they occur?
Four trained Os, between 18 and 30 yr. old, were tested singly.

Obviously, O means something along the line of "subject" or "participant". However, I'm wondering what it stands for exactly. My best guess would be something like "observer".

I'd go with observer, too.  Unfortunately, the article's behind a paywall or I'd look closer.

I have zero familiarity with this field, but I found this (see point 2): https://dictionary.apa.org/observer . Someone else might be able to confirm if that applies to your context.

Observer. It seems so from the examples.


text:
Resurrecting old research done at another university. Do I need permission from previous supervisor to publish, and how should I credit?
About 5 years ago, I did a Masters of Research (MRes) part of which was a supervised research project. Because of time constraints (Masters degrees are only one year in the UK) I was unable to gather enough data to generate any publishable material (though I did produce a thesis which I believe is in the university library probably gathering dust).
Fast forward to today, and after a lengthy break from academia I'm now doing a PhD at a completely different university at the other end of the country, but in the same field. I would like to (workload permitting) try and finish what I started and publish a paper from it using the expertise and equipment I have available. My concern is because this is a continuation of research started a long time ago at another university, whether this would present any issues or barriers to publication or even conducting the research itself.
Regarding my previous supervisor, I am intending to inform him of my intentions at least as a courtesy, and I honestly can't imagine he'd have any objection, but if he did, would I have trouble publishing any work from it? Would the university itself have any grievances? Some of the work he did on the project concerned a novel sensor design which was mostly unrelated to the main scope of the project, I will not be including this work in my publication, would this be a problem?
I'm also wondering how to credit him. Since I'll be writing a new paper from scratch, I'm not sure if I should include him as a co-author. I would at least like to include him in the acknowledgements if it's appropriate.
My current supervisor is happy for me to do this as a side project, so there are no issues there.
P.S. Before anyone asks, yes I have done due diligence and checked that my research is still novel (so I've not been "scooped" by someone else).

If I were you, I would suggest to your previous supervisor to make him a co-author if he gives some help in the redaction process of the new version of the paper. He did contribute to generating the data of the previous work (or at least supervised you while you were doing this). This way he will be informed of the process and there are few reason he would refuse such an offer. If he refuses he will most likely just go ahead and offer your to write it on your own without his name.

There should be no problem whatsoever, but it would be correct to both inform your previous supervisor and make him/her a co-author. Importantly, they should read and be allowed to suggest edits to your manuscript which may both enhance it scientifically and its chances of success at review. It's a win-win approach in my experience since you both benefit. In no way does this dilute the level of your 'ownership' of the paper or your intellectual input, and indeed, if your supervisor is well known in their field, you may also benefit from the association.

Thanks. My previous supervisor is from a physics background though he did teach robotics classes. He originally wanted to put in details about a novel sensor in a paper along with my research, which was something else entirely. I personally thought this was a bad idea, not that his idea was bad, but that it belonged in a separate paper. I honestly think any paper that combined the two would be rejected on the basis that the two topics in the paper are unrelated. I suspect he's probably already published his findings on that, so I hope he's not going to try and add it in to this one.

When I first started my Master's degree, my research design class had an assignment that required students to discuss topics like this with their advisor. I can't speak for the UK, but in my case at an American university, my research was funded by a grant my advisor received, so the university technically owns the data (along with the outside group that funded my particular project). Just because I worked on the project does not mean I have a legal right to use the data as I wish. So unless you can unequivocally state that you have a legal right to the data, I would strongly suggest clearing it with your former advisor before trying to do anything with it.

My masters was not funded, I paid for it myself.

Talk to your old supervisor, say what you have in mind and try to come to an agreement regarding the nature of your proposed paper. Collaboration and cooperation are so important in research and forging links the key to success in future.