text:
Why some university asks for recomendation letter directly to be sent from the recommender?
When I was applying for PhD I was considering Germany, UK, Austria and Switzerland in my search for a position. So far, I found that each university/region has their own policies in application submission process.
For instance, I found that most of the Swiss universities ask for a direct recommendation letter from the recommender and it is not acceptable to submit it as a general one and it is only acceptable if it's sent directly from the recommender's institute email to the target university. In contrast, in Germany where applying now at a higher ranking university than the Swiss one, professors, and universities are more flexible and accepts them as a general one, so no need to be specifically produced for the particular university.
I tried hard to find a place in Swiss universities, but I ended up rejected with no response from my previous professor as it considered time consuming for him, and I don't blame him since general recommendation letter is enough in other universities.
Do universities that ask for such a thing consider them self better than the others and will lead them to better candidates?
The question is, why such universities make it hard for the student who apply for PhD? Is a general recommendation letter (I have 4 letters from different professors) from your previous professors where they indicate positivity about the candidate enough for such a PhD application?

Differences in policies do no suggest difference in status. Maybe its just a Swiss thing.  BTW what is the difficulty, besides spending 2 minutes, for a professor to transform a general rec.letter to one specifically addressed to a particular university?

Also, could u please clarify what do you mean with "general ones"? You mean recommendation lettres that you submit on your application and are addressed to whom it may concern?

@PsySp being a professor with a very busy schedule will not help. Filling up the forms to two/three different swiss universities and then send them will be frustrating. And yes , General one means as you indicated.

But that's the job/duty/responsibility of an academic adviser. They can't simply say "oh i'm bored".

@PsySp but it is really bored... Filling forms for several students who applies to different universities is too boring since others accept them as general one.

I do not sympathize with it. I agree its tedious and borderline boring but if a prof. agreed to provide recommendation letter, that's it, there are no excuses. It's part of the duties.

@PsySp some universities ask for a form to be filled, others asks to be filled with each course that student took and in which semester took it with his notes, and most important thing that they associated this document with deadline.. so having a lazy professor will affect your dream job!

In some cases, they may think the recommender may be more honest in his evaluation, if he believes the candidate cannot see the letter.

In the US, there are services that help professors draft, keep track, and submit different versions of recommendation letters to different institutions. This makes that work easier for the professor, but this is also to ensure that the student doesn't get to see the letter and so the letter is actually taken much more seriously that way. Are you sure that in Switzerland that they don't use similar systems?

Your actual question is why Swiss universities require letter too be sent by the recommender, while German ones don't

@PsySp: "But that's the job/duty/responsibility of an academic adviser."; "It's part of the duties." - there have been some other discussions related to this topic elsewhere on this site. It seems that the degree of obligation to write letters of recommendation varies considerably by culture, covering the full spectrum from "definitive duty" to "generous voluntary favour".

@O.R.Mapper I meant: in case the prof. agreed to provide a rec. letter, then it's his duty to be consistent.

@PsySp: Hmm, well ... I keep what I initially promised to do, but I'm not always cooperative when I suddenly see myself drawn into also doing all kinds of follow-up tasks popping up once the initially promised task is done.

@O.R.Mapper I get your point but agreeing to provide rec. letter should prepare you of such processes. This is not an unknown practice.

@O.R.Mapper promising and not delivering, especially in such sensitive task, is highly irresponsible in my opinion.

@PsySp: "This is not an unknown practice." - but it is not the only one, not generally the default one in all places, and thus not necessarily the implied one when originally asking for the favour. "promising and not delivering" - nowhere did I suggest that, so that is beside the point. On the contrary, I wrote: "I keep what I initially promised to do"

@O.R.Mapper Fair enough. I misunderstood your "but I'm not always cooperative". I think we agree.

By forcing the letter to be sent directly from the institutional email of the Professor, the university makes sure it is a truthful recommendation and not a modified or faked one. Such practice of faking documents in unfortunately happening in any recruitment environment, not only academia.
Even worse and common practice in academia, my own phd adviser asked me to write my own recommendation letters because he lacked time, and he just signed them.
Such practice as described in your message partially prevent this.

"Such practice as described in your message partially prevent this": such practice surely don't prevent that".

At least you are sure of the identity of the senders, so for sure it prevents the case where people make up previous experiences

Its common to have writers write general letters (To Whom it May Concern) tailored for particular kinds of applications (i.e. PhD programs in the field of your major). Some programs, such a fellowship programs, involve funding for a very specific topic and want letters tailored for your participation in that particular program. When you're applying to PhD programs, the same letter usually suffices (I'm writing from experience as a US academic, so I could be wrong about the rest of the world). But the applicant is very rarely allowed to submit their own letter. The letter should come directly from your writer to ensure that the writer can write honestly. This is standard practice in the US, and its also my experience in the UK. To avoid asking your writer to submit dozens of letters, you can usually use a dossier service like interfolio to upload the letters. Sometimes it doesn't work, but then you're only asking your writer to manually submit a handful of letters.


text:
Insulting email from another graduate student
I'm first year international graduate student in US and recently I have received an insulting email (for example including "be thankful and keep your mouth shut") from a domestic student who is my teammate in a class project. The email was a follow up to my debate with another teammate, however there wasn't any context for anything like that (I consider all of university email as public records and I'm careful about what I write), and initial conflict was going to be resolved with few email exchange. When I brought up the issue to the class professor, he (the student) claimed that he was angry because of my position in the debate and he was defending the other team member, but overall he (the student) defended his email. The professor tried to calm us down and avoid escalating the conflict.
I have experienced similar but milder situation with other domestic students and in one case a young professor as well. The general hostility pattern is that, they expect me to keep my mouth shut and be second class citizen. I have heard from other international students that our small city/university is not a good place regarding this issue. My question is, can I do anything about it?

@dan1111 I generally agree with you, but when someone makes a direct and insulting attack it is difficult to take a conciliatory approach.

Voting to close, nobody can help you here without knowing the specifics. Plus any answer that will try to generalize to all "American" students is going to be inherently useless.

@CapeCode I replaced American with domestic. What specifics you expect?

Well you got into a fight with other people, the only information you give us is that it was by email and that the other people are American. This information is completely irrelevant. But if you were giving the specifics, it would be off topic because it would strongly depend on aspects only you and the other people involved would know. Not to mention the whole thread would be useless to anyone else than you. Don't get me wrong, I hope that you're issue will be fixed, I just don't think it's a fit for this site.

@CapeCode No, I wasn't fighting, it was a discussion/debate about a team work issue with another international student, but because the domestic student's view was totally different from mine, he jumped in with an insulting email, as if he has the right to final say and also to insult me.

"A dispute" then. Same comment apply.

@CapeCode yes, but my question is not about the dispute itself, it is about his insulting email, when no one else was using that language.

Are you sure that this person is indeed trying to insult you? Can it be just a form of expression? I would first check with an American that this is not some kind of misunderstanding due to cultural differences.

+1. Key quotes that are ignored in the discussion here are "...he was defending the other team member", and to be "thankful" (for what?). There is more to this story, and its omission makes me uncomfortable.
It's unfortunate to jump to full-blown PC mode and criticize this reasonable answer just because. Thanks for saying what I find a reasonable person would read into the question w/o thought control.

@Bitwise: As an American I can confirm that the phrasing used is rude.

It seems like you've already decided that the problem is international students being treated badly by domestic students and staff at your school. In that case, the solution is move to another school. If you want a useful answer, you should describe the facts of the matter and not jump to conclusions like "I bet it's because I'm international!"

I would like to add that for conduct with private citizens (especially in private institutions, government funding or not) it's generally not acceptable to say whatever you want to someone else. As an American, I can confidently say that people misinterpret freedom of speech, as it's really intended for freedom from the government, not for interactions with other private citizens. Perhaps the problem here is bidirectional? As in you've both misinterpreted what's acceptable to say to other people.

I wonder if this question would be off-topic, if it would be about gender or sex discrimination, not racial/national one. While it is true that the question is very general or that OP may misjudged the situation, however it is still a valid question about what is the proper procedure to resolve race/national based hostility (either true or perceived) in American universities.

@Bitwise Yes, that was overall theme of his email, I showed the entire email thread to some of my friends and they had same idea.

I have to say that some of your comments on here are coming across as rather defensive and argumentative.
Sometimes trying to place blame, or argue about who was in the wrong, is just counter productive - you can't change what has already happened. It sounds clichéd, but sometimes the best way to deal with a situation like this is to be the bigger person, apologise for any offence and walk away. Hold you're head high that you're not stooping to the level of sending insulting emails.
But do consider @Alexandros' advice. Consider the situation, and consider other ways that you could perhaps have de-escalated it earlier. This isn't victim blaming, just self-improvement. We can all improve how we behave. Perhaps there is nothing that you could have done, and that's fine, but consider it.
In terms of your general situation, I don't think that anyone here can answer that.

Thanks for your advice, I agree with you, in many cases it is easier to solve an issue by not arguing. But a pattern of hostility from domestic students here still exists, they somehow believe they have the right to be hostile and they can be prude of it.

@Pahil, honestly, don't lower yourself to their level. Beat them by conducting yourself well and professionally. Hold your head high in the knowledge that you're the better person. If they want to be hostile, let them. Try not to react to it. I know it's hard, and I wish you all the best - I hope that things get better for you.

You are right, already I regret about every single time that I have reacted and I'm glad about every time that I didn't. Thanks for advice!

I cannot give you advise on what to do in this situation as it depends strongly on the context, and you cannot give that information on an open forum like this.
However, I can make one comment: in general I would never try to solve such a conflict through email. Email is great, but when you sense that a conflict might start you immediately need to stop using email and try to speak with the person directly. Small misunderstandings that are easily resolved in face to face communication tend to get blown out of proportion very quickly in an email conversation.

s/resolved/suppressed by someone being embarrassed into giving up his or her position/ and then I would say +1. It's reasonable advice.

Recently I have received an insulting email (for example including "be
thankful and keep your mouth shut") from an ... American student who
is my teammate
The email was a follow up to my debate with another teammate...
I have experienced similar but milder situation with other American
students...
...and in one case a young American professor

Do you notice the pattern here? It seems as though you a have a problem with many people you meet in a work environment (academia) that is generally tolerant of other cultures, international students and people with different backgrounds. Have you even considered the possibility that instead of blaming everyone else, that the only common element of all those cases is you? If not, you should probably start considering the possibility that you are also doing something wrong. Then try to fix it ASAP.
On the other hand, there are always obnoxious people in every work environment out there, so in those cases try to be professional and limit your interactions with them at a stricty professional level. Not all people can get along and be friends. Limiting unnecessary interactions with people you cannot get along can help you avoid further "debates" in the future.

-1 This is really obnoxious victim-blaming.  There certainly are a non-trivial number of jerks amongst American students (as one might expect in any student population).

I don't think that this is obnoxious victim-blaming at all. In a conflict situation, it is always a good idea to reflect on ones own actions and consider how the situation could have been dealt with differently to avoid the conflict happening in the first place. You are only in control of how you deal with a situation, not the other person. Even if the other person is just a jerk, there are always ways better and worse to deal with that. Unfortunately as an international student, the OP has certain cultural differences to deal with. It can take some time to adjust.

With that said, there is rarely a situation where an email along the lines of be thankful and keep your mouth shut should be considered acceptable, but we just don't have the context leading up to that point.

@Pahil I do not know you or the other students. In my workspace, I try not to be confrontational and even though you there are things that you cannot let slide, if I do not really like someone I minimize contact outside what is required by professional courtesy. I avoid escalating personal confrontation to supervisors because that makes me also look bad. But I have not really faced any serious bullying (that I could not handle myself) in the workplace, so your case might be different.

@zelanix There was not really any context allowing that language, especially that I know every thing I send through university email is somehow a public record.

@Alexandros Actually the first time that I faced a similar situation I peacefully walked away and didn't talked about it, but they went to our professor and thrown me under the bus, which was really supersizing for me.

If "be thankful and keep your mouth shut" is a verbatim quote, then in the absence of some significantly extenuating context, the person who wrote that appears to be at fault.

@jakebeal I don't think this is victim blaming. Considering if one is doing something to trigger this behaviour is a good idea; where the answer may very well be "no, they are all jerks".

+1. Key quotes that are ignored in the discussion here are "...he was defending the other team member", and to be "thankful" (for what?). There is more to this story, and its omission makes me uncomfortable.
It's unfortunate to jump to full-blown PC mode and criticize this reasonable answer just because. Thanks for saying what I find a reasonable person would read into the question w/o thought control.

@Moriarty Yes, without context, it's very hard to tell what's meant.  At the same time, that exact phrase could easily be used in a much less rude manner.  E.g., if someone says, "yes, you have a good point, but in cases like this, sometimes all you can do is be thankful and keep your mouth shut" wouldn't really be offensive at all.  I don't think there's really enough context here.

If you've made a complaint and aren't happy with the resolution then you can escalate. That's not to say you should, though, you should only do that if you're unhappy with the resolution and you think the professor handled the incident so badly that a different handling is needed. It's not unusual for nobody to be happy with the outcome of an incident like this.
The other student acknowledged he acted in anger. Maybe he'll reflect more carefully about ever doing it again, in which case you have a modestly positive result. But what are you hoping for, an apology? A formal warning to the student? Tarring and feathering? A complete end to American exceptionalism in any form from any person? ;-)
Depending what you want affects what options are available to do something about it. But if what you want is for the other student's wrongness to be formally acknowledged and warned/punished, then really you need to start by going to someone familiar with your own institution's disciplinary system and asking what they would expect the outcome of such a case to be.
There isn't anything in the fragment you quote to tie this aggression against you (that you are somehow ungrateful and should not speak) to the fact you're not American. If the context does tie it in (for example if the intention is in context clearly, "you should be grateful to have been allowed into the country, and immigrants should not have the right to speak in this University"), then you might have an example in which the University authorities would take an interest. They take foreign students, they probably therefore don't want them kept quiet. But the professor who's already seen the case thinks it's not that bad, so personally I wouldn't bet on it. It's "just" speech, so I expect has to meet a fairly high bar to be censured, albeit that such principles have been known in some places to be applied patchily and unfairly.
If there's a wide pattern of hostility from certain of the domestic students, against foreign students, then you aren't going to establish it from a single incident. The only productive option really is for you, other people who've experienced it, and preferably allies who don't experience it but would like it to stop, to make a sustained attempt to raise awareness that it's going on and to convince people that it's a bad thing. I'm not an experienced civil rights activist and I don't want to advise you how to conduct that campaign. It needn't necessarily be protests and banners and formal complaints. I do want to point out that as long as the narrative is, "these isolated incidents do not reflect the values of this institution" then they will continue. Only by turning the narrative into "the values of this institution are not yet adequate to address these continual incidents and should change" does anything happen.

I don't seek punishment but I'm just getting tired of repeating pattern of hostility, they generally expect me to keep my mouth shut and be a second class citizen. There were not anything racial directly in email, I just said I have seen this behavior from only a specific type of people. Thanks for your comments anyway.

@Pahil: yes, I imagine it's really tough, but that realistically the situation might be, "does not reflect the values of this institution but also not something this institution is interested in doing anything about". If there's no recourse and you must suffer, then suffer in company. It seems like the problem is recognised by the other international students you mention. But even jerks and even racists get to go to University somewhere, so recognising it won't end it.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What to do if you have a troubled relation with your postdoc supervisor?
It seems my relation with my postdoc supervisor has hit troubled waters after an amazing start. Things started to turn towards the worse since our first publication together, particularly after I took a parental leave. I'm not sure, if I could do my second paper, as my post-doctoral fellowship is coming to an end by the end of this month.
I'm worried about my career, as his reference would play a big role. Any ideas on how to deal with a bad reference?
(In the time remaining, I hope to fix our relation as much as possible...)

What do you mean by "a troubled relationship"? I don't think anyone can advise without at least some indication of the problem. Do you two argue a lot? Does the supervisor seem upset with the quality of your work? etc.

@ff524: It is a bit difficult to explain... When we made our first paper, he was interested in particular formatting, on which I had reservations. As I expected, the editor asked us to reformat the paper, which I did. Then was a major review, followed by minor one. During this entire episode, I was chastised for using Endnote...! Then when I applied for my parental leave, the lab rejected even when I had made it in well in advance. Then it went for review and they granted it after the date he approved. I tried to contact him before accepting it but he was on vacation and wouldn't respond.

@ff524: Then the lab asked me to contact his second in command, who agreed with the dates proposed by the lab. When my supervisor returned he had been chastising and belittling that I had taken the leave without his permission. Then came the work for our second paper. He made me process data (>TBs), only to find that the data was crap, and I have been blamed for time spent on processing that data. Again, I was asked to download data (TBs) and I wrote program to unzip them automatically. When the disk ran out of space, I'm chastised for that too...It seems he is blaming me for each&everything

I voted to reopen, but you might have better luck starting fresh (if that's allowed -- if in doubt, ask on Meta).  I would focus on the reference aspect.

From your comments it sounds like a Setup-to-fail syndrome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setting_up_to_fail
The Wiki article is a bit iffy, but it basically means that he somewhat has low expectations of your performance after some incident. Thereby, when something happens he assumes is your fault because he has low expectations nevertheless.
Is usually a toxic relationship because is self fulfilling (you'll end up making mistakes, because he wants to) and self reinforcing (the mistake you just did helps him reinforce the idea that you'll make more).
Is a vicious circle that has to be addressed by both you and your boss (PI, manager, etc). But is usually a good idea to have some other people on your side.
Ultimately, if he is unwilling to change, it is better for you to leave for a less toxic environment.

I'm leaving and there is no time to fix the relationship, anyway. I worried about my future, as he could literally give a bad reference and screw me up badly...!

@Samuel If you're asking about how to avoid a bad reference, you should edit your post to say so. Right now it sounds like you're asking how to fix the relationship.

@ff524: Thanks... I modified my question... hope it is clear now..!

Even if you are leaving, I commend you to try and fix as much as you can the relationship. If even as a sign of good faith before you leave.

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


text:
How to manage relationship with post-doc supervisor when applying for a tenure-track position one year before post-doc ends?
I currently hold a post-doctoral position in the UK, which is 3 years long, and I am in my second year. I am wondering how bad would it look for my employer if I apply for a lectureship post that I just saw announced and caught my interest? They ask for my current employer as a reference, so there is a slight chance they will contact them.
I am not sure how it would look, considering that I supposedly signed up for a 3 years job, and would be leaving a year earlier. I don't want them to think that I don't like my current place or anything like that. If I do get that other job, it wouldn't be too terrible even if they don't like it. But there is also a great chance that I won't get the job and will stay in my current position for another year.
EDIT: this is my second post-doc position.

Are you even eligible for a tenure-track position with less than two years postodoctoral experience?

Well, this is not my first post-doc :)

Ah. You might want to add that to your question.

@terdon: I don't know of any academic field in which any positive amount of postdoctoral experience is mandatory before being considered for a tenure track position.  Do you have such a field in mind?

@PeteL.Clark I wouldn't call it mandatory, as such. Just expected. In my field, biology, you don't start applying for professorial positions until you have a bit of post doctoral experience under your belt. There are exceptions, of course, but that's the norm in my experience.

In my experience supervising post-docs the goal has been to get the post-doc into a tenure-track position.  I've seen post-docs apply for tenure track positions and get them before the end of our funding for the post-doc, and I've considered that to be a success, even though we had go out and find a replacement for the post-doc.
I would encourage you to discuss this with your current supervisor.  If they're not supportive then you probably won't get the kind of recommendation you would need, and there might not be any point in applying for the position.  If they are supportive then you can apply with some confidence.  Even if you don't get the job, you'll have some experience with the application (and perhaps interview) process.

A supervisor who does not support their postdocs getting on the shortlist for a tenure-track (or equivalent early lecturer) position is not a supervisor I'd like to work for. Especially not after 2 of 3 years. That being said, the balance side is to give them the earlier chance to know that you need to leave the post. But then, there are many fish as well as supervisors in the sea, and you may have to somehow downplay it when applying.

I think this answer is biased towards the US mentality. In the UK "honoring" your contract is a much bigger deal.

That's a fair comment- my experience is in the US context.  Research post-docs in the US are often treated as employees and don't sign contracts like faculty.  However, even in a situation where a post-doc was under contract, my experience is that the contract is typically only binding on the employee for one academic year at a time.

It might be a contract, but the very nature of postdocs, IMHO, is temporary. I often explain it as an internship to non-academics... I have most of the responsabilities of a professor (except administrative stuff) and none of the perks! (I don't even have vacations, but that's another a whole other conversation)

@StrongBad In my experience at least, job applications are far enough ahead that you would still be able to work your notice period before the end of the year. If that's not the case, you could reasonably ask to delay the start of the new position, if you were offered it.

@StrongBad, as a UK postdoc (and national), I would say that all the supervisors that I have had would have been very happy for me to get a lectureship part way through.

"I would encourage you to discuss this with your current supervisor." This seems like a bit of a risk. We hope that the supervisor is supportive, but if they are not, then the relationship is soured because the supervisor is now aware that you are looking for other posts. Is there a way to address this without revealing that you are actively job-searching?

Well, the application process in this job has an interesting feature. It gives me the option to request the references not to be contacted unless I am shortlisted and successful at the interview. So I could just try with that.


text:
Junior faculty/senior faculty grant sharing
I am a junior faculty (research assistant professor) in a full professo's lab. I was a postdoc in this lab and got promoted to Asst. Prof. due to the grants I brought in to the lab. Oct 2017 I wrote an NIH R01 grant (the whole grant - people from USA would know this)  - the full professor just looked at it briefly and suggested very minor changes, basically did not have time to look at it. I was the key senior person and the prof was PI. Though being Assistant professor, I was not allowed to be co-PI as the prof mentioned I might lose early investigator status.
We got the good scores in Feb/March (not fundable) and around same time I got a tenure track faculty position in another university that I will be joining in Jan 2019. Meanwhile, for the resubmission of the R01, I asked  the full professor if I can be co-PI instead of key personnel as I was the lead on the project and wrote the whole grant. However at the point the prof mentioned that I was very junior and it would not look good on an RO1 to have my name as co-PI. Furthermore, the prof said if the grant was funded there could be a subcontract given to me at this new unviersity. So I  wrote the grant (with revisions etc.) and submitted it as key person. Now we got the grant funded.
Two main questions:

The prof has announced that I will be managing the grant even after I move to my new position at a faculty meeting, but "managing" can mean getting free work done. I have been subservient to the professor many times but now how do I ask my share? or should I just give up the project and look after my own tenure etc.

If my professor agrees for a subcontract (I dont know if this will happen) on this grant will I lose early investigator status?

What are R01 and "early investigator status"? Are they specific to some country or funding scheme?

R01 is a National institute of health grant ~1 million -2.5 million direct costs. This is in USA

Thanks. You might want to specify the country in the question, or perhaps replace the postdoc tag with USA tag. I believe this would improve the question and help it to find its audience.

Relevant but not an answer: NIH has policies for faculty who change institutions. I include links in an answer to another question. https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/119309/nih-grants-moving-to-another-institution-as-pi/119315#119315

I would discuss this with the sponsored research office at your new institution and the chair or whoever the chair recommends as a research mentor there. That would preferably be someone with both EI and R01 experience.  The office will handle the subcontract, which is very routine.  You should not be working for free on this.

In my experience, PIs are generally not very up on the specifics of policies.  Much of what they know is based on what others have told them (as we see here).  Amazingly, much of it can be remedied by a Google search, as you can see here:
https://grants.nih.gov/policy/early-investigators/index.htm
The definition of an ESI (Early Stage Investigator) is limited to the position of PD/PI (Program Director/Principal Investigator).  If you are included as Co-I, that will not affect your status.  This would have been the appropriate status for you, as you have a significant role in the research, and were possibly going to be given a sub later, where you will need to have co-I/co-PI status.  [This is of course subject to whether your institution grants you PI rights in the first place.]  Had you applied for this R01 as a PD/PI and gotten the award, you would have lost your ESI status.  You got the award, so it's no big deal, and it will help you going forward.
In fact the FAQ on NIH's site has the following info as well:

If I become a lead PI of an R01 due to a change of investigator action (e.g., the lead PI retired and the institution received
  approval from NIH that I become the lead PI, am I still eligible to
  qualify as an ESI since I did not compete for funding?

Yes. The definition of ESI states that the individual must not have
  “previously competed successfully as PD/PI for a substantial NIH
  independent research award.” Therefore the individual may still
  qualify if all other aspects of the ESI definition are met.

https://grants.nih.gov/policy/early-investigators/faqs.htm#5339
So because you didn't compete as a PD/PI, you still have ESI status.
The lesson here is understanding what topics your fellow researchers are well-versed in and when to seek advice elsewhere.  Administrative policies of sponsors are not usually their strongest suit, as policies update on a regular basis, often unbeknownst to them.  Your research administrator and sponsored programs folks should be trained to assess if your role is appropriate without knowing your science.  Your PI was not entirely wrong, but wasn't entirely honest either.  You should have been made a co-I, not senior personnel. This blog post at NIA from 2015 has an interesting perspective on the composition of research teams on R01s:

That started me chasing another thought. How many investigators does
  it take to write an R01? I looked at the 100 top-scoring R01
  applications across NIH in January 2015 and compared them to a similar
  set from January 2005. R01 applications have been bulking up! In 2005,
  more of the top scoring applications had a single principal
  investigator listed as the faculty on that application—just Professor
  X and the students and postdocs—than had two faculty, or three faculty
  or any other number. By 2015, Professor X needed more help. Now, three
  faculty is the most common number of faculty members on an
  application. By 2015, the “average” top-scoring R01 at NIH had more
  than four faculty listed as participating on it.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/blog/2015/04/r01-teams-and-grantee-age-trends-grant-funding
Investigator status is a particular question that affects other policies, such as financial conflict of interest (FCOI).  Because the  FCOI policy is driven by PHS, of which NIH is a part, many institutions that accept PHS funds make admins declare if each person named on the grant is an investigator or not, so admins should know how to define an investigator.
Going forward, start by researching the NIH grants policy statement (which is long, but can give you better answers) and talk to your research administrator.  Over the years, many faculty have come to me with a situation in which I need to be the impartial arbiter (discretely of course).  Here's the definition of co-I.  Does this sound like you?

An individual involved with the PD/PI in the scientific development or
  execution of a project. The Co-Investigator (collaborator) may be
  employed by, or be affiliated with, the applicant/recipient
  organization or another organization participating in the project
  under a consortium agreement. A Co-Investigator typically devotes a
  specified percentage of time to the project and is considered
  senior/key personnel. The designation of a Co-Investigator, if
  applicable, does not affect the PD/PI's roles and responsibilities as
  specified in the NIHGPS, nor is it a role implying multiple PD/PI.

https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/HTML5/section_1/1.2_definition_of_terms.htm?Highlight=Co-investigator
Here's how you argue getting salary on the subcontract from an administrative point-of-view.  If you have committed effort on this grant, but no salary was appropriated, the institution you submitted under has committed cost share.  While your PI may be able to grease wheels at your current institution to get this approved, that is not going to be possible at another institution without approval.  If you speak to the sponsored research folks at your new institution, ask them about their cost share policy. Odds are very good that they will tell you to ask for the money--use their answer to help ask for the money.  You should google it first, btw-- they probably have much of it publicly posted.

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


text:
How much is too much when it comes to diagrams in a research article?
This is actually specific to mathematics. In particular, in the sub field of category theory, differential geometry, algebraic geometry.
Question is as mentioned above.

How much is too much when it comes to diagrams in a research article?
Do more diagrams annoy a reader?

I did not expect this question to create so much confusion. May be some one who has experience (don’t ask how much) in reading research articles in mathematics (pure mathematics, if that makes some difference) can say something relevant as it differs from one field to another field.
By diagram, I do not mean graphs. I want to explain the setup in diagrams. I do not know if it reach correctly but,  I want to add diagram of heart and not graph of case study how many times it beats in different persons of different age or something like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_without_words

1,000,000 is too much. That is not a sharp upper bound. Anything that claims to be a sharp upper bound is probably absurd, hence your question lacks a precise answer. What sort of answer were you expecting?Something definite like 42?

@JohnColeman Please see edit.

In the three fields you mention, graphical explanations are very well-established. So "too many" is going to be entirely a matter of personal taste. I've seen plenty of of papers that seemed like they were half pictures.

@ElizabethHenning Thanks for your comment... I do feel the same, just wanted to see other persons view...

Probably differential topology more so than differential geometry.

@ElizabethHenning Oh. If you are free, can you give link to some article (preferrabely arxiv link) in differential topology which has decent numbr of diagrams..

I don't work in differential topology and I haven't actually read this paper, but maybe this helps https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.05937

@ElizabethHenning thanks madam. I will see :)

That entirely depends on the article itself. In some cases diagrams aid an explanation and make it clearer. In others they offer little insight. If an article depends on having many diagrams of the former kind, then I don't see that "too many" is an issue. But even a few of the latter kind may just get in the way of understanding.
Words and pictures can be complementary. It is a judgement call by the authors as to which is best in a given case. They may err a bit, but that is human nature.
In general, think about whether words or pictures/figures better convey your meaning and act accordingly. Sometimes both are needed. Examples illustrating (note the word) a concept are often best presented in figures. Imagine a Calculus textbook without figures. Now imagine one without formulae. Would either work?

Thanks for your suggestion. I will keep in mind.. I have not much to ask on what you said...

I looked at 5 papers of mine in experimental science.  The results:

As you can see, it's about ~1-2 figures per typeset page.  I did count "panels" (a), (b), etc. as separate figures even though not numbered that way as they are separate on the page.
I never got any push back or even questions on figures from journals or reviewers.  Had one co-author on D ask me to pull 3 modeled regressions (or number would have been higher).  But the objection was not visual impact but just that he disagreed we needed to show a negative relationship.
In terms of what to show, they were almost all just data graphs and are in the results section.  Maybe once or twice I showed a "cartoon" in discussion.  Intro, methods, and conclusion tend to be figure free.  So the figures are concentrated in the middle of the paper.
I really never wondered what to show--felt intuitive.

Thanks for your suggestion. I will keep in mind.. I have not much to ask on what you said...

+1 thanks for the work, good approach, as you have to explain the figures also in the floating text

Um yes.  "Figure 1 shows the change in X with Y.  It is linear from a to b.  Blabla."  I also use detailed figure captions that clearly mention axes, symbols and main insight.  Figure captions are high gain text for a science paper reader.  (This is normal practice in good experimental reports.)

What do you mean by figure captions??

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/styleforstudents/c4_p12.html See examples here: https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.northwestern.edu/dist/f/44/files/2012/10/2003_Ijjaali_2.pdf

Thanks. That looks good. I will try to follow that..

Nice work, Corey.  Can you clarify the definitions?  Would think there are more subfigs than figs.  Thus p/subfig (blue) should be lower than p/fig. (Same pages but divided by more subfigs than figs.)  But it is the reverse.  Wonder if you have the colors backwards or the fraction upside down in key.

Personally, I like more diagrams in a paper with good captions.
More complex mental visualization can be aided greatly with diagrams.
If I am skimming through a paper, a diagram will catch my attention more easily, and if the caption does a good job of explaining by itself (with fewer prerequisites from the text of the paper), I am more likely to read other portions of paper in more detail.   This is especially true for experimental results. Conversely, not having good captions defeats the purpose of the diagram. My opinion is based on computer science research papers in my small area, however, one of my favorite example is from mathematics

I'm assuming by "diagrams" you mean computations done in graphical rather than inline symbolic form. In this case the answer depends on the field and on the reader--some people find a multi-page diagrammatic calculation annoying if it could be expressed more succinctly (if also more opaquely) using standard symbolic notation. However, there has been a general trend towards diagrammatic calculations, so it's a bit more au courant even if it annoys the old guard.
If on the other hand you mean "illustrating pictures," I think it's safe to say everybody likes looking at those.

Thanks for your answer.... I like “it is a bit more au courant even if it annoys the old guard”.. :) :)

I suspect there will be a practical limit related to experimental/theoretical sciences. You should also consider how peers start to read an article. This will vary a lot, I will often read the abstract first and then take immediately a look on the figures, then, maybe, I switch to conclusion, then, maybe, I start from the introduction. If your results are important and understandable easily, your paper will become cited many times in any way and peers are more inclined to read it, if you present a new method as a unknown researcher, I would apply a poster strategy and think thoroughly about what the 1-2 key statements/messages are you want to present instead of bombarding the reader with redundant figures. The attention span you get is the unknown parameter. Basically, there should be not much redundancy in your paper, therefore the the data/figures IMO should be compressed as much as possible withoug looking cluttered. This is an art and science you have to practice and you should carefully analyse how it can be improved whenever reading other papers. Asking how much figures are too much is leading away from the key problem here, which is attainable attention.

What do you think one should do for “attainable attention “

@PraphullaKoushik you cannot "do", you should be aware of limited attention and that some readers of your article only overfly it, so the quality/amount of your figures and that the reader is able to fastly deduce the main statements of your paper is really important to increase its chances to get cited!

There are fashions in these matters. When I was an undergraduate over 50 years ago, the presentation of pure mathematics was very strongly influenced by the Bourbaki school, which emphasised extreme abstraction. Diagrams were not allowed! If you wanted to study geometry in the two-dimensional Euclidean plane you first should master the geometries in n dimensions (no diagrams possible) and then set n=2.
The reasoning behind this idea, which I must say rendered some of my courses incomprehensible, was that diagrams can mislead.
The question to ask yourself is what you are trying to communicate and to whom. If you know your audience than you will know whether they like lots of pictures or, like the Bourbaki crowd, hate them. If, as is most likely, you do not know your audience, you can bet that what they most want from you is writing, with or without pictures, that is easy to understand.
In short, put in graphics to aid understanding amongst your readers not just to make the paper look pretty.

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


text:
Have any major universities around the world announced a transition to a remote-first model?
Numerous companies around the world have announced they're getting rid of office space and allowing their employees to work from anywhere in the world, if their roles allow it (https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/05/tech/google-office-remote-work-pandemic/index.html). Have any major universities around the world announced a similar transition? It would be impossible for, say, cancer research to move "into the cloud" but there's no reason why theoretical math research would need any in-person interactions.
Obviously there's still the question of how to teach students but this was also executed successfully (in terms of technical feasibility, how good the outcomes have been, is unclear to me (Did any universities publish an official analysis on how successful remote learning has been during the pandemic?) during the pandemic so in theory an institution might choose to shutdown large swaths of their campus altogether or switch to a hybrid model.

Somewhat related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/168129/do-universities-make-fully-remote-contracts

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

You don't count the Open University (U.K.)?

@GEdgar feel free to an answer

I don’t really have a good public sources but my institution never jumped off the New Work wagon and are at an up-to-80%-remote-work agreement now. (See e.g. the FAQ here). That’s still not "allowing their employees to work from anywhere in the world" though. What do you consider similar enough and especially notable enough as an institution?

@MisterMiyagi any institution with a total staff of at least 500 people would count as notable enough

How about PragerU? ;o)


text:
Will journal editors contact you if your book review has been rejected?
I was sent a book to review for a journal. Book reviews of the particular journal are peer-reviewed. It has been 3 months after my submission but I still haven't heard from the editors.
How long does it take to decide if a book review is accepted or not? Since a book review is rather short in length, I am wondering if the time frame for peer review will be shorter too... Is it a common practice that editors will contact author even if the book review is rejected?
Many thanks.

Ask back, if in doubt. The email might have been lost into a spam trap, or somehow lost otherwise. Or it is just slowly working its way through the machinery.

Thank you. I will wait until late January to ask again then.

I have emailed them in mid-January this year and the editor replied that they have not yet reviewed my essay due to a considerable amount of backlog. It's almost been another 2.5 months. Will I sound pushy if I contact them again in late April?

@Les-M What's the latest on this question? Would you be able to answer your own question?

@G-E The review was published 13 months later. It seems that they had a huge backlog to process.


text:
How would an undergrad fund a conference trip with a single author paper?
I am considering submitting a single author paper to a computer science conference that would be very expensive for me to attend based on travel costs alone. If accepted, is it realistic to expect that I could find some grant or other means of covering the entirety of the cost? I really cannot afford it on my own. The conference has a student volunteer position which I will definitely apply for, but it does not cover travel costs, only registration costs.
Also, the project is not quite finished – I anticipate a couple more months of work.

Is there some reason you have one particular, very-expensive-to-travel-to, conference in mind?  If the work is several months from being finished, it's not even clear that you'll be able to submit to this particular conference in time.  Why not spend more time completing the work, raising money, and keeping your eye out for a conference which would also be appropriate but is closer at hand?

There are two top conferences in my field. The other conflicts with final exam period, and would also not be cheap to travel to unfortunately.

CS = Computer Science?

You'd have to ask your advisor for suggestions. It very much depends on your local environment, and the quality of the work.

@BCLC - yes, computer science.

Many universities have funds specifically for student travel to conferences. (For example: University of Washington, Wayne State University.) Even if there is no special fund at the university level, your department may be willing to sponsor all or part of the trip. While it's more common in my experience for student travel to be funded directly by their advisor from their research grants, my department has, on occasion, been willing to pitch in (e.g. under circumstances where a student has no advisor, or the advisor can't sponsor the trip.)
Many ACM SIGs (special interest groups) and IEEE societies offer student travel grants including travel costs (up to some amount) for their conferences. Many conferences in computer science arrange student travel grants from a government funding agency and/or industry sponsors. So you might consider submitting to one of those conferences instead, if there is one relevant to your field. There are also special grants for minorities, e.g. this one from ACM's women in computing.
Regardless of the funding issue, I encourage you to find a faculty advisor to give you feedback on your work. (Also, every travel grant I have ever applied for required a letter from an advisor.)

Thanks for the advice! Found out that my university will give me up to $1500 for conference travel, so I think it should work out if it gets accepted.

@carlp123 That's great news! Good luck with your submission.

Are you planning to apply for graduate school in the fall? If so, I'd definitely submit to the conference. There are some potential avenues for funding (see below), but even if you have to pay for it out of pocket, it's likely worth doing. You may end up with an extra $1,000 in student loans, but if that increases your chances of getting into a good program, it's money well spent. Conference attendance at this stage is an investment.
Possible sources of funding:

Check your college's website for travel grants. There's unlikely to be anything for undergraduates, but you should check to make sure.
Are you part of any honor societies? Sometimes, they have funding for their members that you can apply for.
Ask your undergraduate adviser if they have some funds for student development or know of any available travel grants.
The conference may offer travel funding for minorities. Although in my experience that tends to be available to graduate students, not undergraduates.
Is there an office promoting diversity on campus? They may have access to resources for minority students and some of them may be discretionary. Doesn't hurt to ask if they can pitch in and subsidize your conference.
Once you have ruled out those 5, contact the dean of your college. My very first conference was funded out of the dean's discretionary budget. It's not that common for undergraduates to present their own research and I'd think universities would generally be supportive of that.
If that also fails, you can try a long shot and contact the research office on campus. They usually promote faculty and graduate student research, but they might be interested in promoting undergraduate research or getting a small press release out of it. Doesn't hurt to ask.

I would strongly advise against adding a co-author just for conference funding. Having a paper on your own at this stage is quite valuable as it will set you apart from other applicants. Don't give that up for pocket change, even if the amount right now seems like a lot.

Thanks for the advice! There did turn out to be travel grants for undergrads offered through my university, so hopefully it will work out.


text:
Which is better: PhD in university or PhD in institute?
Are there any benefits of getting a PhD from a university over getting it from an institute?
Note that, at least in the case of Germany, some institutes are considered better than universities and have more strict rules in admission and normally owned by a private organization. So, is a PhD from a governmental/public university better than a PhD from private institute?

PhD is better at the place where you will produce the best results. Especially in academia, the place of the PhD is somewhat irrelevant, in contrast with the actual research.

The answer to this depends on which field, topic, university and institute.

@Roland I am pretty sure the MPIs are degree granting

@Roland Still, it's a difference if your research was at MPI (or any other institute) or not, even if at the end of the day your certificate would have the name of a university.

@Roland Actually that's exactly what I meant: even if the degree is awarded from a university in both cases, the difference is the research done (and the group you were). So, the name of the university/institution does not make a difference, in my field as well (TCS)

Probably better to do it in a university than in an institute. All those psychoactive drugs will probably make you woozy and not let you concentrate. Also, the selection at the library will likely be poor and they won't have subscription to many on-line journals and archive. I'd say wait till you get out, then have a go at it.

Do you mean if a PhD from a higher ranked institution is potentially better?
The answer is: it is better the one which has the potentially better supervisors/equipment at the field of your interest. An institute being more prestigious does not guarantee that will have the best personnel at the area of your interest.
Do you mean which one is better in terms of the quality of the graduates and the prestige in academia?
This depends on the actual research of the student. Many stellar students go to the best institute and they don't produce anything for one reason or another. At the end of the day, in academia, what would matter would be the actual content of your demonstrated research and not the particular institute/university.

In short: actual research is ranked higher than institute. Having saying that, in case of ties, these are sometimes broken by the fame of the adviser and/or institution/university.
So: NO, an institution is not better a priori since there are many variables to consider. It might be better in cases where what matters is the place of PhD (but I cannot think of any such scenario).


text:
Is it considered normal to refuse Feedback after rejection on academic positions in EU public funded positions?
I recently applied to the CERN prestigious Fellowship program (Programme des Boursiers).
A few words on my background: I am a PostDoc in Algorithms/TCS/Network Systems. I have > 10 papers and 2 years of PostDoc experience and I really thought I am a very good fit for that position. I was asked to provide 3 recommendation letters and my advisors where very happy to provide them. I provided a detailed letter on why I consider my expertise fit for the purpose of CERN.
I received a message "After very careful consideration of your application, we regret to inform you that we are not able to offer you a position at the present time."
The rejection e-mail did not include absolutely no evaluation information, in the form of a score or text,  as to why my application and my file were rejected. After sending an e-mail to the Recruitment Service, I received the unclear answer that “we don’t have any personal feedback to give, but this decision in no way reflects your abilities.” At this point, I kindly protested to this very vague answer for the following reasons:

This is a job description for highly qualified candidates. It is a common practice, even in private companies, to give a small personal feedback. This serves many purposes, for example to consider the possibility to apply again or not, and also on a personal level so the candidate does not feel completely ignored. Given the profile and the importance of the job, I would have hoped some short explanation based on some evaluation criteria, but absolutely nothing was given to me.
I still do not know if this is a matter of fitting in the needs of CERN, or that my qualifications were considered low, with respect to the other candidates, or both, or any other reason. I have absolutely no clue regarding whether or not I should considered re-applying to this position in the future.

After that, the Recruitment Service hinted that my profile was not as good as the other candidates, and that “Fellowship positions cover a wide spectrum of projects and scientific domains for which there are different suitable profiles so the selection criteria can vary depending on the project. Not being selected doesn’t necessarily mean that your qualifications aren’t suitable for CERN but that the projects currently available require different profiles so I encourage you to reapply in the future if you wish to do so.” At this point, it is natural to ask, which are these mentioned project? Why they were not mentioned in the job description page so I can judge in a better way if I am a good fit or not (and so that the professors that provided the letters and a better clue on what to write to support my application). I asked to provide a complete list of these projects but, unfortunately, the recruitment service decided to completely ignore my request.

At a relevant point, it is not known to me who is the “Selection Committee” that decided to reject my application. I have no idea on which are these members (and also which are their criteria of acceptance a file).

Given that this is a job offer from a public founded institution, I expect that claims and hints that “The number of post-doctoral applicants exceeds by far the number mentioned in your email and most of them come from distinguished universities around the world with very high qualifications”, that directly hints that my qualifications are low with respect to other candidates, to be supported by concrete evidence, otherwise this directly raises an issue of transparency, which is of the utmost importance in such public institutions.
Still, I have no clue (among other things) on how I compare with the selected candidates both in fitting and in qualifications.
The Recruitment Service wrote that “ Transparency is a value highly appreciated at CERN so if you have any more questions don’t hesitate to come back to me.” After I raised my particular and above mentioned issues, my queries were completely ignored, so this statement made by your service is completely worthless.

A more serious issue is that the 3 professors that provided me recommendation letters ask me why I was not selected and I do not have any answer to give them. I invested a respectable amount of obligation by asking these people to support my application so I assume that they deserve an answer for the decision. By not giving any feedback, either on the personal or on the professional level, these people will hesitate to provide again the same letters for a potential future application for obvious reasons.
The Recruitment Service politely encouraged me to re-apply “if I wish to do so”. I wonder, how it would be possible a rejected candidate to re-apply when crucial information is hidden from that candidate. How can I convince the professors that provided the recommendation letters to re-write them, when they have absolutely no clue on the criteria imposed by the selection committee and on the particular projects (that the committee decided that I am not a good fit for)? How could I improve my file and my CV so I can increase my chances? This is crucial and important information that your Organization decided, deliberately or not, to hide from me.

Unfortunately, 3 or more weeks after the rejection letter I was in complete dark as to why my application was rejected and which are the criteria of acceptance/rejection of the application (among other issues raised above). By just sending  extremely vague and multi-purpose messages, that seemed completely automated to me, the service thought that they fulfilled their obligation. But given the profile of the job and the nature of the organization, I am afraid that these practices are not in due course with what is expected from an International Public Founded Organization.
Personally, I consider these issues extremely important for me, on a personal development level, as well as for CERN.

After that, I sent an official complaint to the HR department of CERN. I told them that I am willing to publish my experience with CERN so that everybody knows the treatment that I have received from such an international and public institution that takes pride from it's scientific discoveries.

3 weeks after sending the letter, I received an e-mail from an HR responsible person saying "After reviewing your application in detail and bringing your concerns to the attention of the Chair of the Fellows committee, I am able to inform you that the major weakness in your application was in its motivation. I stress that you were applying for a programme and not for a specific position. There is a huge amount of information about CERN, its activities, and the kinds of projects we do available on the CERN web site. We consider it essential that a candidate has informed themselves, and can show how their research is linked to the research at CERN. Unfortunately, you did not demonstrate that you had tried to inform yourself of our mission and activities and did not explain how your proposed research in applied mathematics could be relevant."
Right...
My Question: Is the behaviour of CERN normal? Is it OK (from a transparency point of view) that I have no clue who the Committee was, even after many mails exchanging? Is it normal that even after requested a list of successful candidates, I still have no info about it, so I can personally compare myself to the profiles of those they are accepted? Is it normal that still I have absolutely no clue about their selection criteria (besides the "motivation" part, which seems just like a poor excuse to me)?
EDIT most of the people confuse this situation with the admission system in US Universities. The situation is slightly more different in EU. For all public calls and openings, there should be a record of who applied, what are the criteria, how individuals scored under these well defined and known criteria and who was selected. This is true in virtually ALL European countries. I (apparently wrongly) assumed that I should be given at least a minimal feedback and information (that should be nevertheless available) on how I scored and which are the criteria, so that I could see if I could apply or not, on next round. The answer that I have received (after some mail exchanged and after stating that I would publicize my experience) does not satisfy me the slightest and seems just an arbitrary excuse to "get rid" of me. It saddens me that these practices are going to go unaffected and people at CERN can continue their, seemingly, arbitrary hiring process, not being accountable to anybody.

"Story of my life" questions are not very appropriate for the SE format. Consider asking a more general question on what is the normal level of feedback to be expected in the academic job market after a rejection. Otherwise, chances are that people won't even read your question till the end.

You are clearly upset. But, you have received feedback. Did it help you? You seem to believe it did not. What level of feedback are you expecting? A long detailed letter? I have had to go through a hundred applications for one position - it is a long slog with decisions made pretty quickly.

Lack of motivation (or, better: context-setting) is a pretty strong reason for rejection. Most advisors for job applicants nowadays make clear that putting into context how the applicant's application fits into the overall position advertisement is a core requirement. The response seems to indicate that the application lacked in this respect. Tone and mood of above question (apart from it being far too long) indicate that the OP also sets unrealistic expectations on the job selectors and undue importance to their own application. CERN will see a lot of highly qualified applicants. Cont'd.

The behaviour of public institutions during a selection process is frequently regulated by a country's law, but I don't know if there are specific laws applicable to international institutions like CERN. In my experience, the feedback in selection processes is frequently kept to a minimum level, and I would consider CERN's behaviour as normal. Further information could be probably obtained by filing some kind of formal complaint against CERN, but it's not something I'd suggest doing.

Frankly, the demanding tone of above question would raise a red flag with an employer if it shone through during the feedback request (of course, the OP may just be venting here on SE). I know of cases where an applicant rejected in the first round was accepted at a later advertisement round, or cases where the rejected applicant later collaborated from outside with the group that rejected him; however, I would have thought it unlikely that this would have happened if the applicant would have radiated a sense of entitlement during the procedure, even if technically being in the right.

It is absolitely not common practice to give "small personal feedback" when interviewing in industry. I failed to get into Goldman Sachs about 2 or 3 times. In no case did I receive official feedback, only through a friend at GS. Had a I berserked after any of these rejections though like you appear to have, I wouldn't even have gotten one second chance. Also, we (my firm) did not provide helpful feedback either. It's a litigation risk, if nothing else. Asking for constructive feedback once is fine ("Anything I can do better?"), but you take whatever comes back, and shut up.

For all the commenters so far: What I initially wanted was a tiny feedback: I do not consider it such an unrealistic request. They rejected me because they evaluated my dossier as inadequate. I was very VERY politely asking for a minimal evaluation of my dossier. I consider it illogical that I had to go through a VERY lengthy process to get "lack of motivation" that does not convince me (but that's personal). I did NOT want to challenge their decision.

@PsySp In your story, could you make explicit how many exchanges between you and CERN happened in total (apart from the original application and the original response)? It was hard to follow, but it looked as if there were quite a few. You say you did not want to challenge their decision, but if there was more than one more exchange, that's how it will have looked to them. With - likely - several hundred applications, CERN will have to assume that perhaps 5% or more (it is a very competitive field) will have thoughts about challenging the decision. For 200 applicants, that'd be 10 appeals.

@CaptainEmacs: My initial intent was to send a single mail asking IF there is a possibility for potential feedback. After receiving a message that considered completely automated to me, I exchanged 2 more with them, till finally I contacted the HR where they answered me about "lack of motivation". I sincerely and explicitly did not want to challenge their decision (I already got another good PostDoc position). Just, I get rather frustrated with their attitude. And my questions were simple: which are the criteria, which is the committee and who are the successful applicants

@ user37208
I did not ask for much: just the evaluation matrix of my dossier (they should have a rather simple matrix giving scores to applicants). In the case I wanted to re-apply, I wanted to know, if possible, what I did wrong (if I did any, maybe just too many good applicants!)

@PsySP In some countries, the criteria must be clearly delineated in the official application material. Not sure whether this is the case for CERN; but this is a reasonable request (although would have been more useful beforehand). The committee usually need not to be known beforehand, but typically the information is auditable. It is nevertheless a question that, from a candidate, creates a strange impression. Finally, as who has been selected: this question would be entirely out of order; this is strictly confidential until the candidates take up the post or choose to divulge it.

@ CaptainEmacs: Come to my position. They hint that I was not good enough (based on which criteria??). All my 3 professors asked me why I was not selected, I had nothing to answer to them. This feels humiliating. I asked about the committee afterwards, and still I have no clue. There should be some public record afterwards about the successful candidates. After all it is a public institution and they are payed by tax-payers money. If it was GOOGLE  I couldn't care less. But it's "funny" when there are NO selection criteria to criticize motivation (after a lengthy cover letter...)

@PsySp Many here at SE have been in your position. Many here have applied to positions at some point and often not even heard back, not even so much as a short rejection. Even not from publicly funded institutions. The fact that your references ask you about your application shows they care about you - but this may have also created undue pressure on you to justify not being taken. There are a lot of highly talented people out there, with supportive mentors. I am sorry for your position, but it's more typical than not. If you are as talented as you imply, you will find something good soon.

@PsySp However, I strongly recommend to take such rejections in stride. If they cause you - even in the heat of the moment - to cross the line (as e.g. asking about who has been selected, which is none of your business), you'll end up raising more red flags than a Soviet October parade. For the future: if unclear, try to clarify the selection criteria beforehand and: Good Luck!

@Captain Emacs. First of all, thanks for the constructive comments. 2nd, it's not about the rejection, it's about the attitude. In my opinion there is something really shady there, otherwise they would not have absolutely no reason to hide very relevant information. It is important, in public affairs, everything to be on display and being judged and criticized (in constructive way). I did not imply I was good, It's up to others to judge me, according to well define and applicable to all criteria. Just, as a European tax-payer I expect a little bit more transparency from them.

For all hiring, not just academic, there may be more candidates who are good enough to justify hiring them than there are open positions. Candidate A is the best fit for a position. If A had not applied, Candidate B would have been selected. There is no way to explain the decision to B without revealing confidential information about A.

From the same side: I've been rejected from literally hundreds of academic jobs in my life (mainly in the US, many public).  None has offered any feedback whatsoever.  I'd have been really grateful to have as much information as you got in the email you did receive - it's a bit harsh, but it points out a weakness they perceived in your application, which you evidently didn't notice yourself.  You may feel you are entitled to more information, but the fact is that the standards of the academic community don't agree.

According to your words, you were accepted to 1-2 postdoc positions. Did you make sure that those who got rejected for the same positions, received the feedback you demand? Probably not. If not, wasn't it unethical on your part to accept a position on an institute that did not meet your high ethical standards? Or ethical obligations only apply to your rejections?

@Alexnadros. I am asking IF it is a common practice when you ASK for relevant Feedback/selection criteria that are UNKNOWN on a publicly appointed position, to get denied access to relevant information. Otherwise it raised issues of transparency. Your comment does not make much sense I am afraid.

If you mean to ask a question specifically about European academia, please make that restriction prominently in the question (ideally, in the title) and add an appropriate tag.

Could you provide some reference for the facts stated about European positions and admission? I have never heard of anything as structured as that, especially the scoring part (except for some stories from Italian universities which were mainly used to highlight how absurd the bureaucracy has become). Also, I was certainly not aware of anything like a public record of who applied, though I may just have nevr bothered to find such.

@Tobias On the top of my head: here is the list of accepted PhDs at the graduate program of my former university (in Greece) + individual info for some of the candidates http://www.cs.uoi.gr/upFiles/uploads/06_01_2016_13-09-17.pdf  Moreover, look at the complete info and evaluation on the pdf of the following document  https://diavgeia.gov.gr/decision/view/7%CE%9C%CE%A3%CE%92469%CE%927%CE%97-4%CE%A6%CE%A7 for publicly appointed position at the same university (by the Greek law, everything must be posted online on that site. Diavgeia means "transparency")

That does not really answer my question. You claimed this as something required on a European scale, not in specific European countries. And there is a big difference between a list of accepted PhD's and a list of who applied to the PhD.

Check the 2nd link. According to the Greek law, it is a requirement. I thought that Greek law is on the same lines with the European one (isn't it? I am not a lawyer)

The second link is entirely in Greek, so I have no way to know what to look for (and how do they ensure transparency by having everything in Greek anyway?). And since you are talking about an application at CERN, I assumed that you would at least have something related to the laws there (no idea if the relevant things would be EU law or ones more local).

This was an example but you can clearly see the evaluation matrix. Since these are publically appointed positions in Greek universities (Greek citizenship required afaik) it makes sense to be written in the local language. That was basically the core of my question: What info can be legally be given away? What are the actual laws in these situations? In what law system the CERN regulations fall in? I am certainly not aware, and this is the reason of my questions. My experiences probably "misguided" me but I still believe it's a matter worth figuring out.

"The situation is slightly more different in EU. For all public calls and openings, there should be a record of who applied, what are the criteria, how individuals scored under these well defined and known criteria and who was selected. This is true in virtually ALL European countries"
Hm. I have a completely opposite situation (theoretical physics). All the EU universities who refused my postdoc applications did not send even a formal email, so the only way to get any information was to look at "postdoc rumor mill".

Yes, as someone who is a professor and university department chair (in the U.S.) and who is directly involved with recruitment processes, I can tell you that it is normal and, at least according to currently accepted norms, ethical. I can't address your complaints in detail, but you seem to be very misguided about many of your beliefs concerning academic recruitment processes, how they are and should be carried out, and how you as a job candidate should be treated. A few points that I think need to be clarified are the following:

Academic employers are not required to, and often have strong legal incentives not to, provide any feedback to applicants about their applications.
I am not aware of, and have never even heard of, any academic employer who uses an "evaluation matrix" or anything similar for a recruitment to an academic position at the postdoc level or higher. Evaluation for these positions doing very specialized kinds of research is highly subjective, with different applicants often being completely incomparable to each other in almost any imaginable parameter, and often members of the search committee and other academics participating in the search may disagree strongly about the ranking of applicants. Somehow, a decision is eventually reached, but there is a lot of arbitrariness in the process, which is something that (as I have witnessed on many occasions) is often hard for the people on the other end of the process to accept.
Even if the evaluation was less subjective and arbitrary and truly meaningful feedback could in theory be provided, in many cases the sheer number of applicants can make it completely impractical to respond to each one individually with this kind of feedback. Imagine being an overworked search committee chair having to review something like 700-800 application files (each one containing 30-40 pages of materials) to fill 3-5 positions, and you may start seeing what I mean. That is why many search committees will not even send rejected applicants an email notification to tell them they were not selected.
There is absolutely no reason for you to feel humiliated or embarrassed by not having feedback to relay to your letter-writers. If they are experienced academics, they must know that this is how the system works and will not be expecting any such information, or even if they are then surely they will understand that you cannot be blamed for not receiving such information to relay to them.

To conclude, I should add that there is nonetheless a kernel of philosophical, and perhaps legal, truth in your complaint and frustration. It is true that it is regrettable that employers can't offer job applicants useful feedback that helps them calibrate their approach and perhaps do better in the future, and having been in similar situations myself in the past, I certainly empathize, but that's how things currently stand. It is also true that having such a low level of accountability creates an opening for abuse of various sorts, which I'm sure does in fact exist in some places. Legally speaking, in some countries job applicants may have certain rights to demand disclosure of at least some of the information you ask for, either through filing a request or, in an extreme situation where they feel they have been gravely wronged, by filing a lawsuit. Even when the information is not provided, employers will often keep on record some information of this type for use in the event that they are called upon to defend their hiring decisions. My university certainly does. You may want to look into what legal rights you have and see if you have in fact treated in accordance with the law in your jurisdiction. At the same time, I think you need to understand that your current views about how much feedback you should be entitled to get are misguided and, frankly speaking, mostly wrong. In any case, good luck and I hope you have more success with future applications.

Thank you for the very helpful comment. Technically, you are of course 100% right. A few points: I was in fact encouraged by my references to ask for any potential feedback. I did not want to challenge any decision (in the meantime I was offered a very good position). Just I was very surprised to receive, what I perceive, arbitrary answers for a job without clearly defined criteria, that my file "seemed" appropriate according to the high level description of the job. I sincerely put a lot of effort for that application and I -wrongly- thought I deserved a bit of an answer.

@PsySp I understand. You did nothing wrong by asking for feedback, and as I said you have nothing to feel embarrassed about. You are in the same boat as (probably) hundreds of applicants, many of whom are like you very hardworking and talented. Anyway, glad you found my answer useful, and congrats on the position you ended up getting.

Thank you for your message. I would also like to add that prior my CERN application, I was probably "spoiled" in the sense that I was rejected by 1 PostDoc positions and 2 industry ones (both as research scientists on big corporations as Yahoo) and in all these 3 cases I have received actual feedback on why my application was unsuccessful, which actually helped me in my future steps. I was wrongly expecting something similar from a public institution, and this "magnified" my surprise on their behaviour

@PsySp: Based on what you write, you currently hold a postdoc position and are/were applying for another one...and you have only been rejected from one other postdoc position?  I am flabbergasted by this.  In my experience, people apply for postdocs 20-100 or so at a time...of course because there is such a high rejection rate.  Have you really not applied for any other postdocs at public institutions?

The situation outside the US might be quite different. In Spain, for instance, all academic positions are awarded after a formally appointed commission scores the applications according to purportedly objective criteria. In most cases who the candidates are is published officially, the candidate rankings and scores are published, and the candidate evaluations are usually available upon formal request or formal protest. Similar systems are in place in much of Europe. Someone coming from such a system could find a typical US job application process opaque.

@DanFox: that was exactly my point! This was what I expected and asked for and what I did NOT get (not even mildly). Thus my question. People judged my question based, mostly, on the US system of admission.

@Pete L. Clark What can I say. I was finishing my 1st PostDoc and was looking for the next career step, thus my applications. After the CERN rejection I, thankfully, was offered another PostDoc appointment, which I took without hesitation. At a side note, not to my surprise, my 2nd appointment was much more transparent than the CERN one. Still, nobody knows what are the criteria of CERN and why they refuse access to information that should be otherwise publicly available.

@PsySp: That was what I imagined was the situation. Many of those posting here seem insufficiently aware of the radical differences in mentality underlying academic systems in different countries. Many of the practices regarded as normal in the US are considered problematic in other countries, the use of recommendation letters being a prime example.

@DanFox. I hope all of the people posted here (I guess primarily from the US) understand that for us, Europeans, it's somewhat "shocking" such a behaviour, especially when it comes from a public institution like CERN. We are much more sensitive in public administration issues. Anyway, unfortunately it seems that nothing is going to change. People suggest "deal with it", "it's how it is" and CERN can continue their unreasonable and arbitrary (to me) practices of hiring that are the opposite of meritocracy. Caesar's wife must be above suspicion.

@DanRomik Great response.

@PsySp you have a right to be shocked, but empirically CERN's recruitment policies are similar to what we see in the US, not to what you imagine should happen in Europe. Respectfully, even considering DanFox's comments I stand by my opinion that you are quite misguided about your belief that you deserve to get feedback. Your statement "We are much more sensitive in public administration issues" is also patently false, for many reasons I have no room to discuss. Administration in US academia is generally very ethical and well-functioning, certainly at least as much as in Europe.

@DanRomik. I have no experience about US public administration, besides the comments received here and have no reason to believe that something is not ethical. Everybody seemed to judge the situation based on what happens in US, but this might not be the correct approach since CERN is based in Europe. Anyway, I agree with all your comments (and I thank you for them) I just try to make my case from my point of view and my current experiences. In any case my statement ""much more sensitive.." is a crude exaggeration and I retract it. I apologise!

@PsySp Speaking as someone trained in the UK system, who now works in the UK system, and who knows people working in the European academic system (in mathematics) I would like to say that your comments "I hope all of the people posted here (I guess primarily from the US) understand that for us, Europeans, it's somewhat "shocking" such a behaviour" are extremely presumptuous. I have refrained from commenting on your post, but can only say that even when I was seeking my first permanent job I did not share your attitude nor your expectations

@PsySp In short: please don't make this into a USA vs non-USA issue. I have worked in both North America and the UK and am aware of some differences. This, in my view is not one of them, and -- let me completely blunt -- I find the sense of entitlement in your whole post quite striking, regardless of whether you were fairly or unfairly treated by those to whom you applied.

@Yemon Choi Probably my expectations, based on my experiences so far, are wrong. Thus the question, because I wanted to clarify in my head what is normal and what is not. Otherwise I wouldn't have asked. I tried to analyse why I had the attitude. I would never have this attitude for any academic job but I thought that more appropriate criteria should apply in this particular case. I did not want to put CERN and any other academic job in the same bag. Probably that's false, and I should have treated it as everything else.

@Yemon Choi Maybe my tone seems demanding but in all honesty it is not. I am sorry if my tone failed to communicate my message.

@PeteL.Clark While it is certainly not the norm that people end up rejected from only a few positions, it must happen for at least a few (if nothing else because occasionally there will be an "off-season" posting that someone gets even though it is the first place they apply), and questions about this sort of thing is more likely to come precisely from someone with less experience from rejections (as a comparison, I only got rejected from 3 or 4 positions before getting my current one, so low numbers do happen even in math).

@TobiasKildetoft I think that is basically the reason of "misunderstanding" thus the question. It was certainly the first time that such info was disclosed, something that was very different from my experiences so far. This together with the encouragement from my references to try to get any info, if possible, led to that situation. I wanted to know what is the norm. It seems that my few previous experiences were the exception and not the rule. At the same time, It would be nice to know what info can in principle be legally obtained (I would definitely not go to extreme measures).

Yes, this is considered both normal and ethical.
Perhaps the most salient reason is that hiring/admissions decisions are based on direct comparisons between applicants, and application materials are strictly confidential.  If my department doesn't hire you, we are forbidden to tell you that it's because we thought X, Y, and Z were better fits for the position — although that might very well be the precise reason — because we are forbidden to reveal who applied for the position.  Of course, you might eventually notice that we eventually hired Y, but we are forbidden reveal Y's application materials, especially their reference letters, which we can't even reveal to Y.
(I'm deliberately using "better fit" to encapsulate all the metrics that people use to make hiring/admission decisions: GPA, standardized test scores, research statements, recommendation letters, teaching experience, publication and citation records, awards, specific research interests/skills/results, "pedigree", constraints imposed by funding agencies or university bureaucrats, demonstrated familiarity with the institution, behavior at the interview, and so on.  Ultimately, every academic hiring decision is a judgement call; there isn't and can't be a hiring algorithm.)
We could legally say "Other applications were a better fit for the position than yours", but that's a rather obvious conclusion from the fact that we didn't hire you, and we're legally forbidden to provide evidence to back up that reasoning.  If you don't find that explanation satisfying, there's really nothing we can do.
Another reason is that direct criticism in this context is just considered rude.  The academic job market is highly competitive; for almost all applicants, most applications end in rejection.  Unlike publications, where brutally honest feedback on the work is a necessary part of the process, critical feedback on your application is really about you, or at least your professional persona.  Direct personal criticism, no matter how accurate, is much more likely to lead to hurt feelings (as demonstrated by your post) and possibly even lawsuits than criticism of any specific piece of work.  (This argument is sometimes oversimplified as "CYA".)
The right people to give you direct critical feedback on your application are your advisor and/or close senior colleagues, not your prospective employers.

A more serious issue is that the 3 professors that provided me recommendation letters ask me why I was not selected and I do not have any answer to give them.

Actually, you have at least two reasonable answers:

"I don't know."
"What? Why are you asking me?  You know these people better than I do!"

How could I improve my file and my CV so I can increase my chances?

Do better research.  Publish better papers.  Give better talks.  Apply to more positions.  Get brutally honest feedback on your application from your advisor and other experienced colleagues, and take that criticism seriously.  Contact colleagues at your target institutions in advance to get a clearer picture of their needs, goals, and culture.
Accept that you will not, and cannot, have complete information about hiring criteria at any particular institution; you can only increase your chances on average across the field.  Accept that neither you nor anyone else deserves any particular position.

Unfortunately, you did not demonstrate that you had tried to inform yourself of our mission and activities and did not explain how your proposed research in applied mathematics could be relevant.

Your response ("Right.") suggests that you don't find this explanation credible.  That is a very serious mistake.
[I am the recruiting committee chair at a highly-ranked computer science department, at a public university in the U.S.  Our hiring processes are scrutinized to ensure compliance with state and federal employment laws, in particular: (1) that we have a fair, consistent, and internally well-documented decision process, and (2) that applications are strictly confidential.]

"we're legally forbidden to provide evidence to back up that reasoning": in certain countries (mine, for instance) an applicant can formally ask to review the proceedings of a public selection process, which should contain the assessments of the candidates as given by the committee. Sometimes, this is the first step toward an appeal against the committee's decision. However, as I stated in a comment above, even if  this were possible in the OP's case, I would advise against such a request.

Additional possible answer to the references: "I don't know. Do you have time to review my application to see if you have any ideas?"

@Patricia Shanaha. I was in fact encouraged by my references to ask for feedback, if any of course. My file seemed "technically sound".

@PatriciaShanahan I don't consider tht a reasonable answer, because of course OP already asked for that feedback before applying.

@JeffE. Thank you for your answer, for which I mostly agree. The point is that for public appointments there should be some public record (as Massimo points out and that was the point of my post). Also for the last point: I did not find their explanation credible: I spent a lot of effort and time for that application, and on writing a lengthy cover letter on why and how I fit in CERN's missions. Sorry, for me sounded as a cheap excuse since they have nothing better to say. And my references certainly agree with that view (in fact they all had the same reaction when I told them: laugh...)

Hopefully you tailored your actual application, and not just your cover letter.  But in any case, how much effort and time you put into the application Does Not Matter; all that matters is whether they were convinced.  Their reply is probably polite-code for "We were not convinced by your explanation of how your proposed research is relevant." or more simply, "We don't think your proposed research is relevant."