text:
How to let researchers know that they need to cite my paper?
I've recently noticed that some researchers are publishing papers in the same (or similar) IEEE journals where I've previously submitted (a year ago), covering topics closely related to my work. However, none of these papers cite my relevant paper on the same subject.
For instance, I recently found a paper in early access (not the final version) that I believe lacks a thorough analysis. In my view, referencing my work would have strengthened their discussion, as I addressed the same question a year ago. I’m genuinely puzzled as to how they could have overlooked such a relevant piece of research.
What would be the best way to address this with the journal? Would it be inappropriate to inform the authors directly?

Related: Are 'please cite my paper' emails socially accepted?

"I’m genuinely puzzled..." in my area, I couldn't read every relevant paper if that was all I did 24/7.  Readers need to be selective in their use of time and energy - sadly it doesn't always come down to the quality of the work.  Has your work been well cited?  Are you well known in your field?  Do you "network"?

Its a little bit of a pointless task, it will happen.

If they haven't used or referred to your work then they technically don't "need" to cite it. It might improve their work if they do, but that is a different question.
The journal isn't involved, absent plagiarism. It is the authors who may have missed something that might improve their own work.
Write to them and express interest in their work, pointing out that you have related, published, work that they would be interested in. You might even suggest collaboration in the future.
I suggest that you don't phrase it as a complaint, but as an opportunity.
Authors don't need to cite "all relevant work" in a paper. It is only those papers that they refer to, assuming that they aren't plagiarizing, of course.
In some fields, with a large literature, citing "all" relevant work would be largely impossible. Cite what you use.

I strongly disagree with your statement that they don't "need" to cite.   Citations are not only to refer to material that is directly used in the paper, an independent purpose of them is to give credit where it is due by citing previous work on the same subject (even if unrelated to the present paper).  In practice it is impossible for all previous work to be cited, but the authors should at least make a good faith attempt to cite a good number of them.  Of course this may be highly field dependent, but this is the case in my field.

@Aqualone: It depends how closely relevant OP’s work is to the other work.  If OP’s work is very close, then once the other researchers are made aware of it, they should certainly cite it.  But in any field I’ve seen, most papers have a huge grey area of moderately-related works, within which it’s an authorial judgement which ones to discuss/cite.

@Aqualone What you write is highly field depending. Specifically, "an independent purpose of them is to give credit where it is due by citing previous work on the same subject (even if unrelated to the present paper)" definitely isn't the purpose of citations in my field(s) and would rather be an artificial/dishonest inflation of citation statistics. The only section in which one would cite papers that aren't directly used or built upon is the aptly named "Related Work".

Thank you everyone for the discussion. Just to clarify, the topics are really very very close. So, for example, we both use and develop estimators, for the same parameter for the same research field and for the same application. When I wrote my own paper one year ago, it was very hard to miss all the other existing estimators to be honest. That is why I was surprised. However, I also agree with everyone here to some extent. My assumption also can be really strict and it is indeed not very difficult to miss this research.

In some cases a letter to the editor might be exactly right. The editor might choose to publish it as a comment. If an article misses some research that bears directly on their conclusions, then such a letter might be especially important.

@MisterMiyagi you're right, this is highly field dependent.  For the benefit of the OP or anyone who needs this info, what I said is relevant to much of physics (both experimental and theoretical).  What MisterMiyagi says (I believe?) applies more to math and CS (which are hugely overrepresented here on Academia.SE, but that's a different story...

@Aqualone My background is CS and physics. (That said, recent interactions here have made it obvious to me that "physics" itself is not a sufficient domain label.)

@Aqualone If the paper doesn't cite another paper, you don't use it (excluding misconduct) so it doesn't need to be cited. But you can cite most of stuff as in a paper you use a lot of stuff. Some of stuff you use is for solving the problem - these are the most obvious citations nobody disputes and must be there. But there is also stuff for defining the problem. Or alternative solutions to the same problem. And showing how the same solution works for other problems. Etc etc, down the slippery slope leading to citing everyone and everything.

@Aqualone even if someone is doing something very very similar to you, they have no duty to have read your paper or use it. If they don't draw anything from your paper they don't owe you any "credit". In many areas there's so many papers that even if you did nothing but read papers 16 hours a day you couldn't read everything being published. Indeed the academic publishing cycle is often so slow that the work for a paper may be complete a year or more before a paper actually ends up in a journal.

I'm always interested to hear from people doing work similar to mine. I think it's fine to reach out to other authors working in your area to bring attention to your work.
However, usually when my colleagues and I receive a message along the lines of "please read my paper and cite it in your work", I find their paper doesn't actually relate that closely and may not be useful at all. It leads me to question whether they actually understand their own work or mine. I get the impression more that they're taking someone's misguided advice to promote their work through mass email. So, be wary that these people exist and that you want to avoid getting clumped up with them.
Instead, you many need to pay more attention to the social aspects of research. People find other peoples' work through conferences and networks, not just through keyword searches. Approaching someone at a conference to discuss similar work may come off a lot more friendly than a "cite me" email.
Also, remember that projects can develop over years, and publishing takes time; if your work is only a year old, it's possible the project was complete and the paper entirely written before yours came out.

to add: there’s nothing more annoying than receiving a  “begging for citation” email.

I'd like to emphasize your last paragraph, the OP should consider the length of time from submission to publication of some of their work and as an exercise search for how many works they might have usefully cited during that period.

Thank you for the answer and also the discussion. I appreciate it. I already emailed them without sounding desperate for citations; because that is what I am not looking for exactly. It is just a pity that people so close to this field is not reading the research, which is a bit unfortunate. I can not assume that they have ignored it, which I am also not ruling out.

@CfourPiO There is an absolute firehose of information out there now. It's very easy to miss things, even in a small field, because there is insufficient organization of information into what is useful and what is not.

If you are not a reviewer, there should be absolutely no problem with you writing directly to the authors.
Just tell them you saw the paper and thought they would be interested in your related work, without being pushy (or it may seem you are just fishing for citations).

Thank you for the answer. I have already emailed them.


text:
How to say politely not to doze off during progress meeting?
In my PhD, I have two supervisors who I meet every week. One of them knows my topic very well from one perspective, but usually not too involved with the mathematical design or methodology.
The other one has little knowledge about the application, but usually understands the mathematics behind it clearly. Till I produced my first journal paper, he was the one because of who I progressed in my PhD very well. He taught me the right research attitude if not the intricate details.
I’m in my fourth year and I am trying different things. He once told me directly that sometimes he’s not able to go through all what I’m doing because he thinks I’m becoming independent and he doesn’t have a lot of time. I totally respect it.
However, during my meetings now a days, when I’m discussing things with my first supervisor, he’s dozing off. I have been observing it for quite a while now. It really feels weird. And the way he looks at the screen when he’s conscious makes me feel like either I’m stupid, or the way I approach the problem doesn’t attract him much. Probably as he’s a mathematician, he feels whatever I’m doing is too simple for him?
As soon as I start discussing things about my private life or vacations, he is active again. I’m slightly intimidated by him so standing up to him to say this sounds not so nice. When others in the past never encouraged me to pursue a good research attitude, he did and that’s how I progressed.
How can I ask him about this politely but fearlessly? It doesn’t feel nice. To be honest, I feel it’s disrespectful also no matter how knowledgeable a person is. It shows indifference.

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

I have two supervisors who I meet every week

What is the purpose of these weekly meetings? Given that you are "becoming independent" and otherwise seem to be on a good trajectory, it may be that such a high frequency is no longer needed. Or perhaps the weekly cadence is okay, but you can shorten the meetings and make your requests more actionable. Beginning students usually need to give detailed and frequent progress reports because they need detailed and frequent feedback. But as students mature, they no longer require such close supervision.

Probably as he’s a mathematician, he feels whatever I’m doing is too simple for him?

I wouldn't assume this. You are neck deep in this stuff, but it sounds like your advisor isn't tracking the project at all except by listening to your updates. Which means that one of the following is true: (1) you are awesome at explaining things, (2) he is asking a lot of questions so that he can follow what you're doing, or (3) the words are washing over him and he only takes in a tiny fraction of what you're saying. So I think his boredom is more likely to be because he's not following you at all, rather than because he's ten steps ahead of you.

How can I ask him about this politely but fearlessly?

I wouldn't necessarily ask him why he's dozing, but I would ask about changing the meeting frequency or format. If that doesn't resolve the problem, you could try asking for feedback or advice about your communication / presentation skills. Saying something like "I want to make sure these meetings are useful for you, and I also want to make sure I'm doing a good job giving progress updates. Do you have any suggestions for how I could improve my progress reports in future?"

I appreciate this answer. Indeed sometimes it feels like a lot of work making a broad presentation every week. I can’t help myself from making it detailed. So the best solution is to reduce the frequency.

@CfourPiO learning to explain what you are working on in a way a beginner would understand is an essential skill to aquire, don't give up!

@DavidRaveh This is a very important and, still, a very neglected skill. This is the level that in almost all circumstances the level a presentation should be.

Totally agree with the others…rather than focusing on the bytes you transmit, focus on the bytes that get received and understood. Better to emit 10 ideas and they understand half than to emit 100 ideas and they only understand 2. Even an expert audience will take in less than you think. You can combine this with the reduced meeting frequency - should be a nice change all around

As a follow up to the excellent answer provided by cag51, as well as something you said in a comment by way of reply to cag51's answer:

...making a broad presentation every week. I can’t help myself from making it detailed.

This might be an indicator that you need to work on your presentation style. I see so many talks where the author really does not understand the concept of information density. There is a huge amount of detail on every slide, which almost seems to be deliberately presented in an opaque a way as possible -- the cynic in me sometimes thinks that this is a deliberate ploy to make oneself look clever, but it can be innocently done as well -- we are all sometimes guilty of making a "talking to the expert in the room" type talk.
Whether at conference or group meetings, when the presenter goes into too much detail, I find myself switching off!
Some of the best talks I have seen hare the most simple, bare bones outlines of what the author has done. Tell a story, have a beginning a middle and an end. One strategy I employ is I give the most simple version of the talk: focusing on what have we done, why do we want to do it, and a VERY basic how we did it, and a brief conclusion. As a general rule I tailor the level of my talk to what I would expect a clever undergraduate to be able to understand, because when you are the expert, that's the position your audience is most likely to be! Even in related fields, the audience isn't privy to your specific research. I then prepare supplementary slides which go in to the detail of how I did the things specifically, in case someone asks
You said you find you're unable to stop yourself going into detail, that's fine I have that problem too (its often a good tool to help organise your own thoughts, so it isn't wasted effort). But instead relegate the detailed slides to the supplementary section and just present the general overview first as the main event, and then if your supervisor has questions, then flick to the supplementaries. As a rule I think 10 minutes on the main talk is more than enough, especially for a supervisor update.

I watched a talk of a Fields medal winner and he did this quite well.  Why do we care about this?  How close are we to proving this conjecture?  Not close at all.  What about a weaker conjecture?  In this case, maybe it is a bit easier.  Here is roughly speaking what I did on this with some pictures of the overall strategy without too many details.

It's really the way to go with talks in my view: less is, very nearly always, more! I don't know if you are able to post links in the comments, but could you post the name of the talk?

I agree with the last part you said. Thanks for the answer. I will work on it. However, at the same time I should say that it’s a progress meeting. I usually want to discuss things that didn’t work or if I am confused. Doing a whole talk every week will just drain my energy. My presentations in public are actually well received. I know how much effort goes into it. Doing it every week is not possible. I usually do a 5 minutes recap. Doing it more is just inefficient. So, first I think I’ll ask them feedback on my content and if it’s hard to follow. Secondly, I won’t do many meetings.

@CfourPiO I was using the talk as an analogy, but throwing together a few slides a week is not much effort at all. They don't have to be conference level. You don't really explain what goes on in the meetings. If you're just talking at him, then maybe this is the issue? How is one supposed to follow detailed material, again, I'm not surprised he switches off. Based off what you have written, it still sounds like presentation style is your problem; whether that is specific to slides or meeting format I cannot say as you didn't provide that information.

@user27119 thanks for the reply. Actually, it’s still a presentation style and I spend 5 minutes for a recap. However, I see your point and that’s why I agree with the last part of your answer. I will spend time to make graphical slides in the beginning to go from a broad to a narrow scope of the research. I will definitely work on it. Thanks a lot  :)

Don't guess. Don't waste any effort on making value judgments. Diagnose and fix the problem instead.
When someone dozes off during a meeting, clearly the meeting isn't effective at engaging them. You can ask them to change, but that would be rude and ineffective. Their behavior and the circumstances that lead to them being sleepy are out of your control and, frankly, none of your business.
What you can change is the meeting. Do they need to be there? What for, exactly?
I would ask them for a one-on-one meeting to discuss what sort of feedback you both think you need from each other and how the meetings can be restructured to provide that feedback in the most effective manner without them having to sit through parts of the meeting they don't need to participate in. That way, you can optimize things for both of you without anyone's feelings getting hurt.

Thanks for the answer. I think I am coming to the same conclusion now. I can’t change them but at least I can ask feedback if it’s not interesting. I do a recap every time I start talking and I know I need him for specific issues. Even though he has a recap, he dozes off. I need to know why but indirectly.

In a communications course, I was taught that in order to communicate effectively, you shouldn't "start talking" in the first place. What you should be doing is ask questions and listen. Make the session as interactive as possible. The audience should be in the driver's seat as much as possible. You are serving them. What do they need? What do you need from them?

He is tired, I wouldn't spend any time worrying about it especially because he is friendly still when talking about non-academic stuff.  Its not worth dragging up why he isn't getting enough sleep because it could be a hundred reasons, and it is usually involuntary so we just let it slide it could just be a phase.
There is an advantage in everything though, and with this it can be a good opportunity to practice your presentation style or delivery with a safe audience, but with a sleeper in it so that you even have a tangible metric for your progress.  See it like a challenge on what type of presentation will keep him awake, and note the times that he falls asleep and see if it is during the same part of the presenation.
Shun details.  Leave out all data points, statistics, process descriptions as possible.  Counterintuitively, the less we say and the less we go in to detail about what we're working on the more others perceive us to be doing... that is, their imagination will fill in the blanks and if they ever do want to drill in to some statistics or details you will be able to effortlessly respond like a zen monk with all of the details you supressed earlier.

Oh and one thing I want to add, and this may or may not be possible to do, but if he is responding well to talking about vacations and some non-math stuff like that, if you can somehow incorporate that into your presenation that may work... I don't know what your application is but if it could be talked about in the context of a vacation, just as an example here, then tying in some non-math content is maybe something to consider.

Thanks for the answer. We usually discuss something private before starting. Although I may not want to know the reason for his dozing, I still need to know why it’s boring even if I do a recap. It matters because he’s one of the supervisors and he has to approve my thesis in a few months. I find it unprofessional, so I definitely can’t let it go.

First of all, there’s cultural element, here. In Japan (where I live) it’s very common for people to sleep during presentations. It’s not considered especially rude. Sleeping in a three-person meeting  might be considered a bit odd, but still not offensive.
Do you really need guidance from the sleepy guy, or does he just have to approve the work you’re doing? If the latter, sleeping might be a good sign — it indicates that he’s not worried about your progress. If the former, see below.
Other than that, I’ll (mostly) just repeat what others have said:

Keep the content high-level. Omit details. Make it brain-dead easy to follow. This is a useful skill for you to develop, anyway.
Focus the discussion on areas where you’re looking for help/answers. Ask questions (especially to the sleepy guy). Make the meeting interactive.
Establish a pattern of posing a question and then asking each of the two profs for their opinions, in turn. If the sleepy guy perceives this pattern, he’ll know that he’s going to have to speak, and that will probably keep him awake.
Understand that you just reporting what you did is pretty boring to most people. Talk about the significance of what you’ve done. Why is it important? Why would anyone care? Where could it lead?
Show your excitement for what you’re doing. Be animated. Laugh. Vary the pace and volume of your speaking. If you’re not excited about what you’re doing, then don’t expect others to be, either.

I find this answer so useful, really. It is broken down so logically. I wish I could vote for all answers as all of them are so clear. `` Do you really need guidance from the sleepy guy, or does he just have to approve the work you’re doing? If the latter, sleeping might be a good sign — it indicates that he’s not worried about your progress. If the former, see below. ": This made me think a bit more about the situation. Indeed, once he mentioned that he didn't have time to see all my reports as he believed I was good at going deep into the topic.

However, culturally, here (EU), it is still a bit weird to sleep. As long as he doesn't mention that it is because my style of presenting is boring, I can never know. However, if there is no reason coming from his side now, it means that I do not have to worry.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it possible to get a bachelor's degree just by having more than the required credit hours?
I have around 126 completed credit hours and I know the required amount is 120. My major is in education and I was originally planning on becoming a teacher however I am no longer sure if that is the route I want to pursue and I have not entered the teaching program at my university. I have not been back in the classroom for at least a year mainly because I don't want to waste money and time continuing something that I'm not sure I want to do for a good chunk of my life. I know not every university is the same but is it possible to acquire a Bachelor's just by having more than the required credit amount or will I have to change my degree plan around?
PS. i have emailed the last advisor i spoke with but it's been awhile and i havent recieved a response

Generally speaking, no, a degree requires more than just a certain number of credits. There are usually specific requirements for certain courses, and more requirements for credits and courses within a "major". A minimum GPA is a requirement and there may be a separate GPA-in-major requirement.
But, you may have actually accumulated all of the requirements for a degree in some field if you don't care what it is. There is also some shortest path to graduation for you in any case. Someone like the university's "registrar" knows all of these things and can give you advice. But your advisor should be able to help, or even a secretary in one of the departments in which you have a lot of courses.
So, yes, you may need to change your plans, but you need specific advice from the institution offering the degree.

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


text:
Three reference letters, two academic and one professional
I am applying to a highly prestigious university in the UK for a PhD position. The usual norm here is that PhD's usually (unlike the US) require 2 rec letters, however this specific program asks for 3, and these 3 are for the course itself, it's not like one is for a scholarship and the other 2 are for the application, all three are for the application.
The PhD is in bioelectronics/neuroscience, and I have 2 solid rec letters from my uni supervisors, so that's fine but I don't have a third one! so I'm thinking of asking my manager at an oil company I have worked at before, ofc the letter won't have as much impact as the first two, but would something like this be really bad? or really wrong?
Thanks in advance for your time.

Have you read other Q&A here under the tag [tag:recommendation-letter] ? Maybe adding the term "who"? How did those Q&A help and what are you still unsure about?

@BryanKrause Thank you for the links, They were helpful however I still don't know if asking someone within the industry (who is at a managerial level and not that technical) is a good idea for a PhD position, provided that his letter is third to the first two which are from people with a strong record (high citation numbers, awards and so on).

There are many many people who have asked exactly the same question here: "who should be my third referee", given similar circumstances to what you describe.

A professional letter is fine. It can focus on your personality, your characteristics, your leadership, and your willingness to do hard works. All of those are highly valued by a PhD program. It would be even better if you've led some research projects under his supervision or leadership.
It would be even better better (double betters) that he assures your ability of seeking funding or other research supports (such as data, instruments, and manpower) from the industry.
However, if he cannot say those things, I would like to suggest you to find a professor in one of your seminar course or project course that you did a small research project in that course.

Thank you for the answer, I guess I never looked at it from that angle! :) but it does make sense.


text:
How do I continue work if I love my research but hate my peers?
I am an established researcher in my discipline, which is a sub-field of computer science. In the last years, I have successfully published papers and generally enjoyed doing research, as in developing methods, coding, running experiments, etc.
However, unfortunately, I have come to hate my peers in this discipline because of bad experiences I made on multiple fronts. I am not speaking about my colleagues at work, but rather my fellow researchers around the world. As author I have witnessed (primarily at venues with very high reputation)

Reviews asking you to cite irrelevant papers (presumably published by the reviewer)
Minimum effort reviews that are useless for improving the manuscript: Some extremely positive (Accept + "I could find no flaw here" (the paper definitely had several flaws)), some extremely negative (Reject + "This is not novel. Let's move on." (the other reviewers praised the novelty))
A desk rejection after waiting 11 months for a peer review, arguing that the paper is out of the journal's scope.
Reviewers demanding a revision in a conference rebuttal where the rules forbid me from providing one.
Upfront discrimination based on my nationality.
General closed-mindedness and unwarranted hostility towards fundamentally novel ideas, paired with a strong preference for minor extensions of existing work while simultaneously complaining about the prevalence of incremental results and salami-slicing publication tactics.

As reviewer I have witnessed

Authors who write elaborate response letters but are unwilling to significantly change a single paragraph of their manuscript, even if all reviewers demand it.
Not a single response letter / rebuttal comment that is not full of boot-licking. (Many reviewers get emotional when authors are not extremely polite and submissive, so the authors are not really to blame)
Fake results (I ran their experiments using their own code, and their method was not best like they claimed, but worst).
Fellow reviewers not responding to a single comment by the authors or chairs, thus completely undermining a conference's rebuttal phase where authors are supposed to get a chance to defend their work.
Every single paper I review shows clear signs of data-dredging (see here). This is perhaps unsurprising – authors are forced to do data-dredging because the baseline performances they compare their methods against were also achieved using data dredging, and negative results, i.e., bad performances, get immediately rejected, without exception.

The list goes on. I think that it is quite clear that I have a very bad impression of my fellow researchers around the world, and that my experiences have made me a bitter, and perhaps petty person.
Nowadays, a researcher's productivity is mostly assessed by counting the number of publications and citations thereof (Publish or Perish), so I am more or less forced to write, submit, revise and review papers. And I enjoy the scientific and technical work. But interacting with my peers in the same discipline, especially via peer review, just fills me with bitterness.
So, my question is:
How do I continue working on my research when I completely and utterly despise my peers in the discipline?
Have any of you been in a similar situation, and what did you do to move on?

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.

I have experienced the majority of the problems you describe in your post, in some cases even worse (e.g., over a year for a perfunctory referee report, over two years in total for a referee report).  I've also experienced a number of other types of unprofessional conduct that you haven't listed.  While these things are certainly annoying, and cause one to despair for the state of academia sometimes, it has not led me to despise people in the profession.  Instead, let these inconveniences wash over you and accept that sometimes you will need to deal with the foibles and bad conduct of others.  Use these negative experiences as signposts for what not to do in your own work and let those bad experiences be a driver for you to perform your own work in a professional, ethical and timely manner.
I notice that many of the issues you raise involve unprofessional conduct in review processes in academic journals.  I've also experienced this over the years and I'm also familiar with more general critiques of the entire academic publishing industry (see e.g., Scholar Nexus).  As a result, I've developed a stronger preference for publishing work directly to ArXiv in cases where the journal system performs poorly in dealing with my work.  In most cases when I publish now, I submit to journals initially to see if I can get something published in an appropriate journal in my field, but if I get mucked around then I'm happy to publish directly to ArXiv, even if this harms the impact of my publications.  This can have some negative repercussions in terms of impact and academic performance, but it can be a useful trade-off in some cases.  (It is also a good way to encourage a move away from closed-access academic publishing systems.)  If you are at breaking-point on these issues, you should consider whether you might regain some enjoyment of your profession by publishing outside of the traditional academic publishing system.
As a more general observation, it might also be worth your while to step back and think more broadly about the relationship you would like to see exist in society between the evaluation of personal value and professional work.  I have always felt that society tends to judge people too heavily on the status of their job and their competence in that job.  Naturally, some people are not competent in aspects of their work.  (Indeed, there is a famous management principle that people rise to their level of incompetence.)  Professional shortcomings, in relation to work tasks, should be seen as a professional development areas for people, but it shouldn't generally cause feelings of hatred or bitterness.  If you can step back and re-evaluate the distinction between personal value and professional work, you might find that it gives you some peace of mind and allows you to enjoy your colleagues more.

"I have always felt that society tends to judge people too heavily on the status of their job and their competence in that job."  If I don't know you, there's not much else to go on besides others' personal opinions of you, and things that are illegal to judge you on.

@RonJohn: If you don't know someone, then how about simply not judging them at all?

@JochenGlueck we quite easily get away with having no opinion on billions of people, but there absolutely comes a time when one must form an opinion on someone before you meet them.  For example, do I go to this lawyer or that lawyer?  Successful lawyers are usually (not always, but usually) successful for a reason: they're good at their job.  Thus, you choose to go to that lawyer based on "the status of their job and their competence in that job".

@RonJohn: Yes, sure - but this seems to be very different from what Ben comments on in his last paragraph. OP doesn't say "Some of may colleagues behave unprofessionally, so I don't want to work with them"; OP essentially says "Some of may colleagues behave unprofessionally, so I hate them". Ben doesn't suggest that people's professional performance shouldn't be evaluated based on their, well, professional performance. He rather suggests (or at least, this is my understanding of what he suggests) that one shouldn't judge people's personal value based on their professional performance.

@JochenGlueck I don't care if you're a loving husband and father, but lazy and ineffective professor and teacher.

@RonJohn: "don't care" in which context, though? If I decide whether to cooperate with a colleague C on a research project, then it's relevant for me whether they are "lazy and ineffective". If, however, it comes to very intense and personal feelings - OP used the word "hate" - then no, I won't hate C just because they are lazy and ineffective, because people are much more than just their professional lifes (for instance, as you write, parents and spouses).

@JochenGluek, RonJohn: Thanks for discussion guys.  Per Jochen, I can confirm that I had in mind a more holistic evaluation occurring in broad contexts outside performance evaluation.  There are indeed some decision-making contexts where professional competence is the only matter at issue.  I take it that OP's feelings have spilled beyond a mere evaluation of professional performance by others, which is why I mention the latter point in my answer.

I am afraid that what you are describing here is (a probably slightly pessimistic and dramatic view of) the current general state of academia. I have been authoring and reviewing in different fields (space technologies, and then machine learning and computational neuroscience), and many of the flaws you identified (e.g. reviewers asking for self-citations or providing unhelpful comments, long review process, or reproducibility crisis - and yes, even in computer sciences: What should I do when I can’t replicate results from a conference paper?) have been well identified across fields. Even to the point of turning into comedy:

https://twitter.com/thirdreviewer
https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=581
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/science-2

As the popular saying goes, we, as researchers, need to accept what cannot be changed and have the strength to change what can be.
To accept what cannot be changed: innisfree's comment is spot on. You don't hate your peers, but you rather dislike several aspects of academia. As in any complex system involving a lot of people, there is a "pyramid of irresponsibility" in academia, in which you have nice peers but end up with a system having several flaws. Regarding the hostility towards novel ideas that you mentioned: note that there is often a very thin and blurry line between self-claimed novelty and crackpottery.
To change what can be changed: some obvious steps to be taken involve reporting unethical publishing practices, refusing to submit or to review for discutable journals and venues, and supporting initiatives or travel grants that aim at reducing discrimination in academia. Other interesting initiatives have been taken:

To protest against publishing fees: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01391-5
To make peer-reviewing more efficient by having all reviewers collaborate, instead of having them submit individual reviews: https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/741dbe4d/elife-s-new-model-open-for-submissions?gclid=CjwKCAjw1YCkBhAOEiwA5aN4AVPbbGPgyCDO0tLFx3MTQ0pkohifAnxPXxMjPgvVPYttzRkeHs-XchoCh5oQAvD_BwE
To change the model of academic publishing: https://neural-reckoning.org/reviewing.html

Since you did not say that you hate all your peers, I assume that you hate some of your peers. They may be many and even the majority, but I still suggest:
Find peers that you like, meet them more often, avoid the ones that you actively hate.
As for me, I do not really hate any peers, but I can definitely relate to some of your words. My tactic was and is: find a nice group of peers with which you interact. This group makes me feel welcome enough and also helps me to shrug off experiences like underwhelming effort of reviewers.
Re-reading the body of the question, it now appears that you may have more problems with peers during peer-review only, and not in general. For this, I do not have good advice other than "continue to be professional, act in the positions where you can act, keep speaking up if something is not right".

Your complaint is about the behavior of authors and reviewers.  Authors and reviewers are supposed to be supervised by an editor or conference chair.  If authors and reviewers are persistently doing a bad job, that means the editor is doing a bad job.  That fits with my experience that most editors do almost nothing.
If you want to improve the situation, become an editor or conference chair.

I think that is actually quite good advice. If you are annoyed of the review-process, try to act. You can act a little as a reviewer, but even more as editor or chair. Of course you can't change the world. But honestly: Nobody can. But you can still act - and if others act as well, the world will change.

Sometimes as editor sadly you only have the choice between low quality reviews written on the quick (or no reviews at all) and letting the author wait for ages because nobody with really good competence agrees to review (or worse, people agree and then don't deliver).

@ChristianHennig The third choice is to spend more time recruiting or coaching reviewers.  That is always a possibility.

@AnonymousPhysicist How would "coaching reviewers" look like? The first issue is invited reviewers don't agree to review, in which case you can't coach them. And I doubt that a reviewer who takes next to no time for their task because of other more urgent things (reviewing doesn't help their career, other things do - at least that's what most of them believe) will be keen on being coached, or that it will help.

The bulk of science is done by PhD and PostDocs. Afterwards, the researchers become something that can be described as "research managers" and there is all this theater you are describing.
It is an hypocrital system, the ones "leading" it are the ones playing by the rules, so they are researchers accepting (and preserving, with or without the intention) this theather and at the same time providing resources to PhDs and Postdocs.
How to move on? Move on!
Look for a position in the industry or in regulatory bodies/public entities/foundations. Look for application of your research and publish in other venues, if you think it is a people thing limited to your subfield and not a systematic thing.

In the interests of being constructive :
Find the peers you do like and consider starting a purely online peer-review journal of your own.  You can set the rules and standards you and your like-minded peers want.
This might be one way to address (in a small way) your issues with the current state of peer-review publication.  Create an outlet for like-minded academics and see if it gains traction, either as a publication in it's own right or as a concept that others try.

Starting an own journal is definitely feasible! One can use episciences, for example. Here is an example two colleagues of mune fundedn: Journal of Nonsmooth Analysis and Optimization, https://jnsao.episciences.org/ It's now index in the important math databases.

With having a by far less experience, I will just express my point of view which is: simply we enjoy what we do. All aspects have something negative and here is well described situation(s) that are negative within academia in general. Thus the question is how we can act differently and how we can inspire others to act differently

How do I continue work if I love my research but hate my peers?

I suggest that you consider your options. You may find that, compared to peers in other areas, such as business, public sector, and so on, your current peers that you hate so deeply are quite decent people:-) Or maybe this is not so, then you may have some real options:-)

You have to distinguish:

the game you play that is called "career in academia"
actual sensible, correct (and maybe even useful) research

You haven't invented the game, you cannot really change the rules, and -- unless you are tenured and do not care about getting grants -- you need to follow the rules of the game.
Thinking of it as a game actually makes it a lot easier. You just follow arbitrary rules and then you can "win" a tenured position somewhere, or a grant. This is not a about truth, it is just playing by the rules.
Depending on your position and your time and your research interests you may spare some time for the real research, even maybe finding some overlap between the real research and the game. This then rewards your inner truth seeking self. And is of course a lot more fun than the other part.

This is much the same point of view that also causes e.g. the political system of China to continue. Sure you could argue that it's ok, the system kind of works... but then, clearly there has to be some point where it just crosses into the unethical.

In particular, if that career-game actively prevents sensible&correct research from being conducted (or at least from getting a voice) then surely one should question whether it's justifiable to keep playing.

@leftaroundabout Sure, but being in academia and fighting the system will probably make your life miserable. Unless, of course, you are tenured. There are indeed some professors who stopped caring about what people expect from them from the point the reached tenure. And, to be clear about this, "the system" still produces a lot sensible research.

Even if you play the game "right," you can still lose. I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing it out.

I had thought this is about colleagues at work. Alas, it's about colleagues I can relate to. On many fronts, I relate with your description. There're certain journals and conferences I don't bother about anymore: I just skip 'em.
 PS: I have a computing background (at masters level). I've moved on more towards social sciences and IS

However, unfortunately, I have come to hate my peers in this discipline because of bad experiences I made on multiple fronts. I am not speaking about my colleagues at work, but rather my fellow researchers around the world

All I can say, which is what I do, keep putting in your utmost best in research work, research writing and especially in reviewing.
Though I might not change the world, I positively consciously influence the dots/bubbles within my sphere.


text:
How to Prevent Peer Review Misconduct under Time Constraints
In peer-reviewed computer science conferences, there is typically a strict schedule for peer-reviews, e.g., by when to submit reviews, during which period should reviewers discuss.
Question: As a chair, how do I prevent reviewers / PC  from "abusing" the time constraints of the conference format in unethical ways?
Example: Three reviewers are given strictly one week to compare their reviews and come up with a joint recommendation. One of the three reviewers does not participate in the discussion, but instead waits until 5 minutes before the deadline of the discussion phase to post an essay-long comment detailing why the one reviewer totally disagrees with the other two without giving them the chance to respond.

It seems like you should use the same system that the NSF uses when they review grants: have two deadlines. The first deadline is for individual reports, then the discussion follows, then the next deadline is for revised reports based on the discussion. We use the same system in my department when we evaluate other professors for tenure.

Thank you for the answer. But wouldn't that be three deadlines? One for reports, one for discussion, one for revised reports?

Sure, you can think of it that way. The NSF has the discussions happen at a fixed time, via a Zoom panel. In our department, the discussions happen during a meeting. So it only feels like two deadlines plus a meeting in between.


text:
Unhelpful and Overoptimistic PhD Supervisor
I am currently in an unbeneficial situation with my PhD supervisor/advisor. At the beginning of my PhD, I've targeted non-top but reasonable venues for my papers and quickly succeeded with 3 publications. Since then, my supervisor has encouraged me to target top-10 Computer Science conferences or h-index > 100 journals for further papers. I've submitted 3 papers to such venues and have received 2 rejections and 1 major revision, which is not great, but better than 3 rejections.
In our regular meetings, my supervisor and I used to discuss the content of my papers. However, every since I started targeting top venues and trying to do research at the required level, my supervisor was clearly not able to follow/understand my work. This went so far that, now, during our regular meetings, 95% our time is spent by me (unavailingly) trying to explain my work to my supervisor.
I don't expect my supervisor to understand my papers as good as I do, yet in my opinion there should at least be a certain minimum understanding. After all the reviewers at the top venues seemed to understand the paper quite well and gave me accurate feedback.
Regardless, my supervisor keeps pushing me to submit at top venues and over-optimistically states that my work will be accepted there. However, I typically know where my paper's flaws are, and I receive no help there from my supervisor. After submission, the (meta)-reviews stated precisely these flaws as main reason for rejection.
How do I get more qualified feedback on future manuscripts before submission? Changing supervisor is not really an option, since they are my employer and since my PhD is anyway soon complete.

Three rejections is not many.

Congratulations. You're ready to graduate.

Apart from the other answers: do consider that maybe your explanation skills can be improved. Usually your supervisor is not supposed to have all the details of the previous meeting in the head, so it is important that you have a good narration if you want somebody to follow. Also (I dont know if this applies), if you state something as fact, it better be fact (verified beyond doubt by your research). The first is difficult because you have everything in your head, but try to see your presentation from the other perspective. Summarize key findings.

If you had there submitted three papers and gotten three accepts at first try, now that would be bad, as that would indicate that you could have (and thus should have) sent them to more selective venues and gotten a better publication out of the same work.

I think you are on your way.   I say this because you seem to know problems that you need to address to go up to the next level.  So work on those problems, and you'll be OK.  You don't need your supervisor's help.   The downside is that your path to these top venues won't be a smooth but you'll pick up the required skills with more submissions and rejections.  March on!

Regard finding specific improvements with communicating with your supervisor as the first instalment of a very common real-world problem, so start improving it. If their attention, time and recall are limited, then start and end the meeting with summaries, and send them a summary minutes after. When you say "95% of our meetings is me trying to explain my work to them" that's a very unproducive pattern. What specifically is the cause? Is it too much information? stuff they consider irrelevant? Maybe explain less, then send them a summary or Cliff's Notes with hyperlinks to terms or concepts.

As a side note, consider using a more obscure name when talking about your supervisor online. I am 99% sure I found out who he is and it turns out I actually know him. Just sayin.

Or maybe the other way round, are you overpessimistic about yourself?

Sounds like you are just fishing for a pep talk to be honest with this question, I see a lot of posts like this.

Thank you for your comments. I will try being more concise and clear with my explanations. Some topics we discuss though are really complex, and I'm not sure how to explain them in a simpler way. I'll try my best.

After all, this only means you've reached the level of your supervisor in academic knowledge. Of course - you're graduating from Ph.D. soon!

Is your supervisor overly optimistic? At least not obviously so. Getting a major revision and two rejections is a 1/3 success rate. That is actually pretty good for a round of first submissions, especially to top venues. But in the end it's of course your choice where you submit your work, and if you don't plan on staying in academia, you may wish to be more pragmatic.
Is your supervisor unhelpful? At least not less helpful than other supervisors of advanced PhD students. It's not uncommon for PhD students to eventually surpass their supervisors with respect to their research topic. At some point, you become the foremost expert on your specialization. All your supervisor can then do is offer hands-off guidance and mentoring, which they seem to be doing by evaluating your papers on an abstract level and suggesting suitable venues.
How can you get better substantive feedback? I understand you also need substantive feedback that goes beyond soft guidance. Here are some sources:

Submit early and often to respected journals to get feedback by reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their specialization, so the feedback will be more specific than what you seem to get from your supervisor. (You're already tapping this source, good.)
Attend specialist workshops and conferences (especially if, like me, you're in a "journal field" where conferences are largely for work-in-progress).
Approach selected specialists and ask them for feedback on one of your drafts. The worst that can happen is that they ignore you, but many people are surprisingly generous, and specialists are often interested in what people in their subfield are working on. As incentive, you could also offer to reciprocate. (Even if you feel you're not senior enough to offer them advice, there's often something you can do - be a discussant in a panel, read a draft for overall consistency etc.) And who knows - this might even lead to a cooperation.
Share drafts with other students on your own level. Even if they don't have the specific expertise you are looking for, their feedback can improve your paper, and their misunderstandings can improve the clarity of your exposition (and thinking).
Finally, you might also consider looking for a more specialist co-supervisor. I know of some graduate programs that even require a second supervisor that can be selected at a later time.

I really don’t understand what the problem is here.  What are you’re career goals?  If you want to work in industry just apply for jobs and graduate when you get one and stop worrying about more papers. If you want an academic job, then your advisor is right, you’re going to need to publish in top venues and you clearly weren’t being aggressive enough about where you were sending papers since they weren’t all rejected. It’s natural that a strong student who is ready to graduate is going to spend a lot of their meeting time explaining things to their advisor, so again it’s not obvious that there’s a problem there either.  You may have already learned most of what you’ll learn from your current advisor, but that’s fine because you’re about to go do a postdoc with someone new.  You’re ready to move on to the next stage of your career, so do that!

I agree that this is not an issue. Regarding explaining work to your advisor, this can help you publish in a higher impact venue, because a clear and concise exposition helps you to write a better paper.

Great point, Dawn.  It’s possible that OP struggles at giving good explanations.  If that’s the case, then they should focus some on improving their explanations, for example starting a student seminar and giving more talks.

The question OP should remember that an adviser can not be all things and that an over reliance on the adviser at the expense of networking and branching out for other niches of support will only make a student frustrated with the adviser.
My read is that the question OP should be doing a lot more networking at conferences.

Thank you for your answers/comments. I guess my main issue was that I was apparently not aware of how positive my situation actually is. I guess I will have to do more networking.

After submission, the (meta)-reviews stated precisely these flaws as main reason for rejection.

So you know what was wrong with the article. Which is good because you understand what you are doing.

How do I get more qualified feedback on future manuscripts before submission?

Since you are one of the very few (if not the only one) who completely understands the  topic, you have a great person to discuss these topics: yourself.
In software development, and IT in general, we have the rubber duck technique: you explain to a rubber duck what you are doing, speaking loudly. Since I do not have one handy, I have a dog who is enthusiastic about what I am saying (and it is annoying because he obviously does not understand so I have to do better), and a cat who is not cooperative and always seems surprised by what I am saying (so I have to explain better).
This works wonders to make sure that what you want to do is more or less consistent.
I am writing all this to say that research is sometimes a lonely journey - you can discuss with some people about general topics, but you are on your own when it comes to the tiny bump you are making to human knowledge in your specific field.
Do not underestimate your PhD advisor. They may help you with areas where they are good (administrative stuff, grants, teaching).
I had two supervisors because of the novelty of the work I was doing for my PhD. They were not helpful to my research because this was something nobody did before. They were extremely helpful in helping me to navigate the muddy waters of academia.

my PhD is anyway soon complete

As others stated: if you plan to leave academia afterwards, it does not matter at all. Nobody will ever ask you about your papers. You will be lucky if someone asks you about the topic of your thesis. Depending on the country, the PhD can be a great asset, or just a diploma like others.

" Nobody will ever ask you about your papers" -- depends where you go in the industry. Most research labs/private research groups will ask aboutthem (although they might as well be considered an extension of academia). If said individual is working in a startup/company related to the field of their PhD that might matter too  (ex: theoretical cs student going to a cs startup that needs algorithmic engineers might end up getting asked to explain "what did you actually do?").


text:
Combining two problems/topics in a thesis title
Recently, my PhD supervisor suggested that I should start finishing my PhD. There are several necessary organizational steps, but the most important part is likely that I should summarize the contributions of my best papers in a single document--my PhD thesis.
While it is quite clear what the content of the thesis should be (my papers), we are both struggling to come up with a reasonable title. The problem is that my (best) papers address two different problems--let's call them A and B. In particular, I have

2 papers that exclusively address problem A.
2 papers that exclusively address problem B.
1 paper that addresses the combined occurrence of A and B.

Moreover, all 5 papers contribute a "solution" that has property C, either for A, B, or both. Property C even appears in the title of 4 out of 5 papers. My question: How do I combine all this into a single thesis title?
Of course, problem C is what connects the papers and should appear in the title. One the one hand, it seems wrong to me to write something like "Using C for A and B" because this would give the impression that A and B are handled separately, which they are not in the one paper addressing A and B. But on the other hand, if I write something like "Using C for the joint occurrence of A and B", then I as a reader would wonder why papers/results are included that exclusively address A or B.
Please note that I am not asking for a concrete suggested title, but rather I would appreciate general advice and maybe experience from someone who has faced a similar problem.

How about "Using C: A, B and A and B"? Though this is quite hard to answer without knowing what A, B and C are. I had a similar problem with my thesis title -- in the end, you just have to keep brainstorming and asking friends/colleagues for suggestions.

@astronat Thank you for your suggestion. It was indeed a good starting point and has inspired me to a reasonable solution that also my supervisor likes. If you bother to upgrade your comment to an answer, then I will likely accept it.

@mto_19 how about skipping A and  B altogether and just naming the thesis something along the lines of "C - a novel approach to problem solving" or, "Using C to solve aspects of D" where D is an umbrella term (if such exists) for A and B


text:
How to apply for Habilitation positions in Germany - Physics/Chemistry
I'm a postdoctoral researcher in physics in the USA right now (my Ph.D. is in physical chemistry). I want to move to Germany and eventually become a research professor. I am aware that one route I could take is by applying for Junior Professor positions, but my understanding is that a Habilitation is a bit more collaborative with your advisor. As I am planning to move to an entirely new system, I think it would be good for me to have a few years working closely with someone who already knows the system so I will be in a better place to help my students navigate it. Anyway, I can find Jr. Prof. positions on the job boards, but I have no idea how to find Habilitation positions. Can any of you help me with this?
Many thanks!

The following is about habilitation and junior professorships in general, not particularly about physical chemistry.
A few things about junior professorships first:

Depending on the field, a habilitation is no longer a strict necessity. Having done a successful junior professorship is formally sufficient for a professor position as well. You of course don't know in advance if the hiring committee for the position you will be interested in at some point isn't preferring candidates with a habilitation, though.
There are nowadays also tenure-track junior professorships. They ensure that if you do good work, you get a permanent professorship afterwards, without the need to have a habilitation. Once you showed that you can do a good job on a permanent professorship, the habilitation should then cease to be important if you apply elsewhere later.

But more importantly:

There are no designated "habilitation positions" in Germany. Rather, there are positions as "wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter" (scientific employee) that you can hold while working towards your habilitation. The possibility to write a habilitation thesis while holding the position may be mentioned in the job advertisement, but is also often not. If you see a position that may be suitable offered somewhere, you will have to ask (the respective professor) if he/she thinks if you should apply as someone interested in working towards a habilitation.
The important part for writing a habilitation thesis is that you have a position with a perspective to stay for a longer period of time, as necessary for this purpose. A position in a newly started EU starting/consolidator/advanced grant would be suitable, for instance. A "Landesstelle" (not directly attached to a third-party funded project) is suitable, too - but you will have to convince the professor having such a position that giving it to you is a wise investment for him/her.
Sometimes you see a position for an "Akademischer Rat", which is a permanent somewhat glorified postdoc position and should be suitable for writing a habilitation thesis. These are very rare, though.

Note that positions suitable for habilitation are not always publicly announced, and it's not uncommon to have your current professor/advisor phone up a few colleagues in the area you want to move to in order to check if there are any suitable not yet announced free positions upcoming in their research groups.

According to the GDCh (as the relevant professional society), there were about 3x as many people doing a habilitation than junior professors (end of 2019). The ratio is even more in favor of habilitands in physical chemistry.
So you definitively want to discuss the possibility of doing a habilitation.

According to wikipedia 1/3 of the junior professors is working towards their habilitation in parallel.

In addition to the job descriptions mentioned by @DCTlib, (Nachwuchs)gruppenleiter is something to look at as well.

You may find that some professors tell you that they'd want to collaborate for a while with you (there) before proposing you to start a habilitation.

Habilitations are (in their beginning) possibly somewhat informal. Like for a PhD, the German system allows one to show up with basically a finished thesis. You still formally need to find a mentoring professor, though, and of course you need to get the required teaching experience. But the formal procedure really starts only when you hand in the thesis.
As always, details are specified in the local Habilitationsordnung.
Thus a professor may suggest to their PI that the work already done there may be used also towards habilitation, in which case the Habilitand will seem to start halfways through the habilitation.


text:
Is it appropriate to call a research professor by phone or to email one of his postdoctoral assistants if he doesn't reply to emails?
I've just completed the first year of a biological sciences PhD program and I still haven't chosen a lab for my doctoral studies since 3 of the labs I rotated in were not good fits and another had insufficient funding. I recently reached out to another professor and on May 13th we had a Zoom meeting wherein he seemed very interested in me and said he would gladly let me rotate in his lab this summer and I would be welcome to do my doctoral studies if it turned out to be a good fit. Before we wrapped up our conversation, he said he would email me some scientific papers related to his research for the coming weekend and reach out to one of his postdoctoral assistants whom I would be working with to arrange a meeting time, presumably the following week.
However, a week has passed since our Zoom meeting and I haven't yet heard anything from him or the lab assistant he said he would contact. On the 16th I emailed him a friendly reminder about the papers he said he would send to me and on the 18th I asked if he had reached out to the lab assistant to arrange a meeting time. But as of this writing on the 21st, he still hasn't replied to me. If he doesn't respond by the 24th, I plan on sending another friendly email reminder. I'm very and anxious and unsure what to make of the professor's lack of response.
It's important to mention that this professor is the PI of a lab and head of a University department so I know he must be an extremely busy person with a lot of responsibilities. I should also note that before our Zoom meeting, he often required email reminders and one time did not respond at all to an email. In fact, he even forgot about the Zoom meeting we had on the 13th at first and had to reschedule for the following hour before we spoke.
If he doesn't reply to the reminder that I plan to send him on the 24th, I was wondering if it would be appropriate to try calling his office phone. I'm also considering emailing the postdoctoral lab assistant. During the Zoom meeting I asked if he wanted me to reach out to this assistant but he told me that he would do it himself because the assistant doesn't yet know me. I'm concerned that calling his office phone might come across as stalking or that reaching out to his lab assistant may violate the preference he expressed to contact him himself at the Zoom meeting. Would doing these things become appropriate after two weeks have passed since our last contact?
I'm generally a very anxious person by nature but this situation is significantly exacerbating it since my standing in the PhD program depends on me finding a lab by Fall. My ultimate fear is that his lack of replies in the past week means that he's no longer interested in having me in his lab but I don't know if this fear is well-founded or if I'm just being overly anxious. So, in summary, what do you think I should make of his lack of response in the past week and should I reach out to his assistant or call his office phone if he doesn't respond by next week?
Thank you so much!

A word of pessimistic caution: think carefully about whether you want to be supervised for the rest of your PhD by such a disorganised/unresponsive person.

3 of the labs I rotated in were not good fits and another had insufficient funding

Definitely be in contact with your department about this. They need to be aware you're having trouble finding a lab; doing 4 rotations without a home is a concerning circumstance, though I've known people in that same situation that found a lab and did quite well.

a week has passed

A week is almost nothing in academic time, especially for a busy professor and especially around this time of year when for many universities the semester has just ended and people are either finishing up with end-of-semester business (grades, graduations) or perhaps taking some time off after their semester responsibilities have ended.

No one knows what that prof thinks. They are just human like anyone else. Just send a brief email, with something like "sorry just wondered if my earlier emails hadn't arrived since some have been getting lost". Then if no response, call the office and explain. If it pisses them off then they are unreasonable and, unfortunately, you can't do anything about that.
There are a million possible reasons they have not responded. When I worked in academia my colleagues' email answering ran from, all emails answered ASAP students too, through, never answers any emails to anyone other than superiors.


text:
Industry job right after PhD: will it affect my chances for a postdoc in the future?
I just graduated with my Ph.D. in Physics from a highly reputed (although not top 10) university in the U.S. My dissertation research was in optics and photonics. I am currently looking for jobs and postdocs. My current long term goal is to find a faculty position (if I can manage that in this job market...)
I'm in a bit of a tricky work-life situation right now.

For a variety of reasons that I won't get into, I wasn't able to start looking for postdoc positions until 2-3 months ago, and given how "random" the timing of academic postdoc openings can be, I likely haven't given myself enough time to get multiple decent options to choose from. Fortunately, it looks like I will very likely get an offer soon from a well reputed group at a top university (located on the east coast of the U.S.)
However, my partner recently relocated to the Bay Area for a really good term-limited but prestigious job that she landed, and I'm really happy for her. Ideally, I was hoping to find a postdoc position at one of the universities there so I could be with her, but given that I only gave myself 2-3 months for this process, I haven't succeeded in finding anything in that geographical area for now.

As a result, one option I'm considering is to take up an industry position for 1-2 years while my partner finishes up her appointment, and I want to look for postdoc positions after that to continue with my original goal of finding a faculty position. Taking this "break" might would allow me enough time to do a more thorough search.
Here is my question: Assuming that after 1-2 years in the industry I'd still want to return to academia, would I be considered "less desirable" for postdoc positions at very active research groups than I am now? Or am I better off going with the postdoc position that I'll have (i.e. on the east coast) instead? Of course, I know that this is ultimately a personal decision, but I'm wondering to what degree my academic prospects would be hurt if I "take a break" from it at this stage in my career.
TL;DR: Would spending 2 years in the industry right after graduation hurt my chances of landing good postdoc positions later on?
Additional info:

I'm currently 27, soon to be 28, years old, if that matters
My research is in photonics, and there are a number of good photonics companies in the Bay Area now, so I'm sure I'll get to do good technical (albeit not publishable) work

Thanks in advance for your time!

Not directly related to the question, but looking further ahead another thing to consider is that many postdoc and fellowship funding opportunities for early career researchers are time limited starting from the time you gained your PhD (in Europe at least), and so even if you have no trouble getting your first postdoc you may find your options limited later.

It’s too late now for you, but for other people in a similar situation one good option is to just not graduate. Take the job, then file for PhD when you’re ready to start a postdoc.

@JackAidley that is true! From what I've seen in the U.S. though, many (but not all) postdoc fellowships seem to limit applications based on the number of postdoc years you have under your belt, as opposed to just the number of years after graduation.

@Trunk: It sounds like photonics may be genuinely different from fields that I'm familiar with, so maybe it's fine.  In math, you'd absolutely do better on the postdoc market if you delay graduating, rather than graduating and then having a gap where you have no academic position.  All the clocks run on PhD date, and you're just not going to get a postdoc if you're two years out of PhD without a lot of publications to show for it.

Why not try to focus on the concrete subjects you want to work on, and search for positions that have to do with those? If it's post-doc, fine; if it's in industry, also fine (probably).

If you find a good job in industry, then after a couple of years you'll want to stay there rather than return to academia.

It could be a problem, but you have some control over the outcome. If you are doing research in such a position, research that academia might value, it would be a plus.
But you also need to keep in contact with your advisor and any other collaborators you have in academia. If you are forgotten in a couple of years it will be much harder to get good letters. And research oriented contacts are best. And watch out for the fact that most companies doing research are involved in product-oriented studies, which really isn't like academic research.
A potential negative, however, is if you get used to a big salary and make financial commitments that make a return to a more modest lifestyle harder.

I think my advisors (PI + collaborators) from my Ph.D. years have liked me/my work ethic etc. enough that they'd give me a good recommendation in the future too, but what you said about doing research that academia might value makes a lot of sense. Luckily in my sub-topic in photonics, there seem to be a decent number of such opportunities in the industry. I'll keep that in mind, thanks for sharing your thoughts!

There's also a certain appeal to industry work aside from the financial, which may be difficult to see or understand until you've left academia

Your worry will be non-disclosure clauses.  Basically, you might not be able to directly leverage your industry experience in the near future especially if you go for a postdoc after leaving industry.  You will still learn valuable techniques in industry, but will likely not be able to continue any of the projects you worked on with your employer.  The NDA may extend for some years after you leave, simply because your employer would not want you to “steal” any of their ideas or projects.
On the other hand, there is an advantage in going from industry direct to academia: your former employer could become a partner and underwrite some of your research or some of your students, and you will understand the more applied side of research (v.g. what “delivering a product” really entails).  In this scheme, your former employers see you as an academic doing the risky stuff, in part using government grants, and they scoop up the good students who will have worked under someone they know.

That makes sense. So long as I can leverage the skills that I'd acquire while in the industry to make a good case to a potential future academic PI to hire me, I'm not too worried about wanting to continue working on those projects. Your point about knowing what "delivering a product" entails is valuable, especially as I do have inclinations toward applied research. I hadn't thought of it before.Thanks for sharing your perspective!

I think that taking up an industry job will hurt your chances of finding a postdoc position down the line.
I also think that it will not hurt your chances of an academic career down the line.
I am not from the US nor have I performed research on the American continent so my view may not reflect all the quirks that the US system specifically has. However, where I have been there is only a relatively limited postdoc window (typically around five years after defence) and once you are past that window you are no longer considered a typical early-stage postdoc researcher. Instead, however, you would now qualify for the next step in the career ladder: junior professorship, tenure track or habilitation.
Of course, you would have to somehow remain connected with academia to be considered for these positions. However, industry experience is valued more. So for every position after postdoc, I think advantages and disadvantages of having worked in industry at least balance each other out if they aren't favourable to the industry side.

General answer: no.
In fact...
You may pick up skills and knowledge and contacts during those few years that make you even more desirable.
If your industry background can get the lab you are applying to, to be the very first academic facility operating a funkumverdilerisorator, they may just be ecstatic.
I have known people who got offered a full professorship just because they came with a cool bit of kit. Absolutely true story.

Thanks, that gives me some hope! Of course, what you said makes logical sense: someone that worked in the industry can indeed bring value to academia by way of unique skills/expertise, but it's a little intimidating nonetheless (at least for me) to weigh that against the "publish or perish" mentality. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

After I moved into industry and worked there for a few years, I was never able to get a scientific position again. There are some things in scientific culture I liked, so I wrote a number of applications, also do not minding a lower salary. I am under impression I was actually never considered as a possible candidate.
This is one of these "glass ceiling" things where kind of nothing is standing on the way but there are barriers that cannot be crossed. You will never be explained why and only learn by the experience. The other two similar barriers are that you cannot start the second PhD after you have one and you cannot continue through more that two or three post doctoral positions.
This may be EU specific, but as far as EU is concerned, this is true for all researchers I personally know.

I’m sorry to hear that you weren’t able to get back into a scientific position again. I’ve heard from many people here in the U.S. too that leaving academia is mostly a one way door. It’s a real shame, and it is why I’m thinking so hard about this decision too.

Universities sell PhD's. It's the business they are in. In order to sell PhD's, they have to pretend that there are post-doc job opportunities.  Post-doc job opportunities are for recent graduates, to add value to PhD programs.  If you are several years post-doc, you aren't in that group of job-seekers.
Universities also do research to boost their research standing, allowing them to sell more PhD's. To get a job like that, you have to demonstrate that you are better than a recent graduate. Either by having research success, or by having relevant industry experience.
If you take time off after your PhD, you have to spend the time doing something that will make you more attractive as a post-doc.

If universities sell PhDs (to the PhD candidates, I assume?), then by which means do the PhD candidates pay the universities for it?

By they hard work that is usually both underpaid and overtime, if to view it just as a job. In ETHZ Switzerland (biology) some years ago 50 % salary was the norm with very clear understanding that over 100 % of work commitment is expected. The idea is, a PhD student gets much more than just a job.

@h22: I see your point. But I don't see how this supports that claim that it were universities' business to sell PhDs. If it's A's business to sell B, this means that A gives B to customers and gets money from the customers in return. Universities give PhD's to PhD candidates, but they do not get money from the PhD candidates in return. They might get cheap labour from the candidates - but getting cheap labour in return for certificates cannot be a business on its own since it does not generate revenue on its own (and revenue is not even mention in david's answer).

@JochenGlueck Surely there is revenue in papers, citations, visibility and associated fundings/grants. Whose benefits rank higher - the university's or the cheap employee's - is an interesting question I'm afraid is almost impossible to answer.


text:
Ask for some advice on reapplying for a PhD
My current situation is that I am studying a PhD in statistics in a school in Canada. Because I did not pass the qualification examination, I switched to a master's degree. At present, my transcript will record that I am studying for a PhD. But it will be recorded as a master's degree from the new semester. The main reason is that my doctoral qualification exam is a course, and the result will be a failure (59/100) on my transcript. The statistics courses I have taken before having good scores (90+) and I have taken 5 courses in statistics.
I did a master's degree in mathematics before, and had a mathematics thesis published. I have a recommendation letter from a professor at my current school, but not my advisor. The professor at the current school will help me explain why I transferred to a master's degree, focusing on My interest is in mathematics rather than statistics.
Q1: My current plan is to reapply for a PhD in mathematics. I would like to ask how not to hurt my PhD application in mathematics? Like in my SoP?
Q2: How can I explain my failure in a course (which is actually a qualifying exam, but the name is not a qualifying exam) that will make the committee think I can succeed in the Math PhD program?

What do you mean by 'make up for my current situation'? It is what it is, and you want to move on. You likely will need to explain to some degree why you failed quals in statistics, but are those related to a math PhD?

@JonCuster I mean how to explain my current situation that will not hurt my application.

@JonCuster Do I need to explain why I didn't pass the PhD in Statistics? But I failed one of my courses (which is the PhD qualifying exam)... But the name is not a PhD qualifying exam. This exam is definitely not related to math.

Are you asking how best to lie/mislead about what happened with your PhD? Why should failing a previous PhD not hurt your application for another PhD?

What subject was the course/qualifier for. Somewhat specific would be helpful.

@BryanKrause No, I mean how to explain that. But I apply for another different program. My previous degree is about math but not stat.

@Hermi How to explain what?

@Buffy It is about applied statistics. It is about summarizing an applied statistics paper and doing related research. Then we need to prepare a presentation for that and defense it.

@BryanKrause Explain that my previous failure will not cause me to fail my future PhD in mathematics as well... But my previous experience was all about math and not statistics, and I was in statistics for some employment reasons. I still prefer math.

@DaveLRenfro Thank you! What about the courses that I failed on my transcript? (The name of the course is Doctoral Research skills, but it is actually a doctoral qualifying exam)...

@DaveLRenfro Thank you! What do you think about this way of my writing: "Since I was unable to attend the class presentation and had already missed the deadline to drop the class, I ended up failing the STAT 501. Also, STAT 501 is a course on applied statistics, and I struggled with the statistical way of thinking due to my lack of prior experience with applied statistics."?

@DaveLRenfro And can I also add that I learned something from this failure? "However, I have learned a lot from this experience and have gained a deeper understanding and knowledge of applied statistics through my hard work studying for this course."

@DaveLRenfro It looks like you should make an answer of the things you wrote here. Comments are not for actually responding to the question.

(slightly expanded and edited version of comments)
Maybe write something brief that says initially you were studying statistics based on what you had been told about its marketability, but in doing this you seriously misjudged your interest in statistics and failed to pass your doctoral qualifying exam (i.e. Stat 501 — Doctoral Research Skills). Then say that you learned from this experience that, for you, it is more important to pursue what you truly like, which is mathematics.
You’ll want to minimize verbiage in discussing this, so resist the temptation to write another sentence that makes the “qualifying exam / course” relationship more explicit than given by the parenthetical i.e. part. Proceed immediately to your strong points relevant to the program you are applying to by providing statements that give evidence you can succeed in THEIR program, and don’t dwell on statements that give reasons for your failure in ANOTHER program.
In a comment you asked about saying the following: “Since I was unable to attend the class presentation and had already missed the deadline to drop the class, I ended up failing the STAT 501. Also, STAT 501 is a course on applied statistics, and I struggled with the statistical way of thinking due to my lack of prior experience with applied statistics.”
I think it would be best NOT to delve into such reasons. For example: (1) "unable to attend the class presentation" — This raises the question of why you were unable to attend. Moreover, if there is a legitimate reason for why you couldn’t attend, then this raises another question, namely why you were not otherwise accommodated regarding the class/qual-exam. (2) "missed the deadline to drop the class" — This introduces another failure on your part, that of not keeping up with deadlines. (3) "lack of prior experience with applied statistics" — This suggests a weakness in being able to independently learn necessary background knowledge in something, which you don't want to convey when applying to a Ph.D. program.
In summary, briefly acknowledge your failure and what you learned from it. However, don’t continue by providing more details and explanation, as this is wasting their time (they want to know whether you can succeed in THEIR program, not whether you could have succeeded “if only . . .” in some OTHER program) and this could introduce unintended suggestions of possible shortcomings that would be of concern to them.
Naturally, in a more extended in-person or video interview, you could go into more detail, but even then do so carefully — you’ll make a better impression by owning up to your mistakes/shortcomings than by trying to explain them away.

+1 for "You’ll make a better impression by owning up to your mistakes/shortcomings than by trying to explain them away."


text:
Withdrawing from the first-year PhD program, what explanation is required to not hurt my reapplication?
In the first year of my Ph.D. this year, I am at a Canadian University. Previously, the background has always been in the direction of Mathematics , and both masters and undergraduates are mathematics.
I now want to quit the following considerations when reapplying for a new PhD program:
Currently, what I am doing in the Statistics Department with my current supervisor is stochastic analysis, which I have never been exposed to before. So I have been learning basic knowledge for the past year, and I feel that I have learned well. I have also studied in the Graduate course. Research progress has been made in recent months, but currently has nothing to do with statistics.
I don’t have much interest in the current research. My previous master’s work was on discrete probability, and I co-authored a thesis with my master’s supervisor at the time.
The funding in the department is too small. After deducting tuition fees, there is still rent, which is not enough for daily living expenses. Moreover, our department does 6 TAs a year.
Before the first year of our department, there was a qualify exam. A professor of the exam method assigned you an essay, let yourself find a statistical problem that can be simulated, and write a report and defense within three weeks. The final result also failed because that the problem I was looking for was not enough statistical. The articles assigned by other students are all classic statistical articles, which include simulation. Some simple regression models. I feel that this exam is very unfriendly to students with a mathematical background or who want to do theory.
My current thinking is to quit this program now, and plan to re-apply for a Ph.D. program in a Canadian/US university in mathematics or machine learning. Currently looking for 2023 fall admission, if it is 2023 spring admission is better.
Can you give me some suggestions?
Withdrawing from the first-year program, what explanation is required to not hurt my reapplication?

what does “our department does 6 TAs a year” mean?

@ZeroTheHero Each term we need to do two TAs (two courses). There are three terms in one year. So we need to do 6 TAs.

I'm surprised that if you have to TA for six sections per year that you are charged any tuition. That would be unusual (in US, at least).

@Buffy This situation is common in Canada.

Given what you say this might be difficult. The only issue I see is that you will want a good letter of recommendation from your current advisor since the time is short (2023). You don't say anything about your relationship with them, but doing poorly on the qualifying exam might be an issue.
If there are other faculty members who think highly of you and can write a very supportive letter then it might not matter how strongly your current advisor supports you.
But wanting to move to a different area is always a valid reason for quitting a program that doesn't meet your needs. And insufficient financial support is another.
You will need good letters to move on. Without those it will be difficult. With them, the rest shouldn't matter too much when changing research directions.

I was able to get a letter of recommendation from my advisor when I was in my Master's program, and we worked together on an article that has been accepted by a journal.
I feel that I may not be able to get any letters of recommendation from my current supervisor, since we haven't had any research collaboration. I'm not sure I'll be able to get letters of recommendation from other professors, even though I got good grades in all five courses.

I still have one more time to pass the qualify exam, what if I pass?

Then you have choices to make. But think long term about the career you want.

I am now transferring from a PhD program to a Master's degree. I have also gotten letters of recommendation from other professors in the department. Do you think this situation will be beneficial to my application? I am already planning to reapply for the PhD.

Looking forward to your reply!


text:
How to Change Labs Within The Same Field?
Short version: I started a PhD with an advisor who I am no longer interested in working with. Can I still leave this lab and find another lab in the same field (how)?
Long version: I am an American student at an American university. My PhD advisor, who I met during my masters, told me he had two projects and I could be on whichever one I chose. Project A was fully funded and in an area that I was very interested. Project B was not fully funded, would require me to TA, and the research area was not that interesting to me.
I specifically told him I would come to his lab if I could work on project A. He agreed and so I worked on this project for over a year. The project is massive and involves lots of other labs from the same field all working together collaboratively. There has not been a time when my advisor expressed disapproval of my work.
Recently, my advisor tells me I am going to be working on project B now which can only fund me part time. He also hired a new PhD and promised him he could be funded by project A like he did for me. I asked him why this sudden change. He simply says not to "worry about it" and I will be fine working on project B. So I guess I got baited?
Also, since I have joined the lab, my advisor's demeanor has changed from friendly to somewhat aggressive with some of the other students, however he has not targeted me yet. Still, I don't want to keep pressuring him for an explanation because I am afraid that I may get on his bad side.
I would very much like to leave this lab. I don't have any interest in project B and I can't help but feel that my advisor is a bit of a shyster.
I spoke to some other faculty about it at the university. They offered to write me a LOR in my applications to other labs. This is because it is highly unlikely my advisor will respond well to me announcing that I am leaving based on how he has responded to other "bad news" in the past. I wouldn't expect him to write me a LOR.
I was also told that there is no way that a new lab in the same field won't know about my history with my advisor, and they likely won't accept me because of it. "A graduate student is not worth crossing another professor".
Unfortunately, it's true. When I apply to other labs in the same field they will certainly see my past work with my advisor. He is well known by this community and they will certainly reach out to him.
My question is this: Is there any way I can continue in the field of research which I have already spend thousands of hours studying? Or do I have to completely start fresh just to get away?
I have seen some threads opened up about changing labs (I am sure I could probably find a new lab in a completely different area of research). However, None of these threads seem to have addressed the issue of staying the same field. (Except on Quora which says it cannot be done)

It is probably possible, but very difficult and likely disruptive. It may mean changing universities and finding a new supervisor, with the danger that they won't be a lot better, though that may be a small risk. But it may mean moving to a different place and some setbacks in your graduation date as well. It would also be dependent on getting good letters of recommendation in many places, probably from your current supervisor.
There is risk in any choice you make. Consider whether you should just tough it out or jump ship. If you decide to stay, find other faculty members, perhaps in the same lab, who can support you when any difficulties arise. Or even have a quiet talk with the department head or dean, though that has its own risks. It is useful, however, if others at your institution know what is happening, especially if they can exert some influence on your behalf.
Changing institutions will usually imply some setback, but possibly not a fresh start from zero. Good luck.

Buffy thank you for your answer. I completely expect to change universities, and yes there was some risk in talking to the faculty, but they seem to support me. It would be very helpful if someone could suggest me some things I may say which will bring a new advisor to trust me. For example, I am not going to bash my old advisor to the new one. I will just simply say that the project changed or something to that effect. I want to be honest, but not look like a quitter or a backstabber which I'm not in this scenario, right?


text:
What is the 'correct' way to caption stacked images for comparison?
I am editing my thesis, and cannot find any resources on the best way to caption multiple images stacked side-by-side or top-to-bottom for comparison. I quickly put together an example of how I think I should do it.
stacked top to bottom
stacked left to right
I think if each image was non-related, then it would be appropriate to caption them as different images, but if they are similar, then I am thinking of using one caption but labelling each image alphabetically.
I am in the UK and the thesis is MSc level, in case that makes a difference.

I'm not sure I follow; what is wrong with either of these?

Doesn't it purely depend on the shape of the images?

@BryanKrause, I am asking if there is some sort of academic standard or best approach to follow when it comes to captioning multiple images.  I provided those as examples, and wanted to know if I followed an appropriate style.

The idea is that a "figure" can be composed of many "images", because the possibility of visually inspecting them at the same time is what conveys the message of the figure.
You can find many examples in peer-reviewed papers, for example multiple similar images:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Image-compression-comparison-of-Lena-image-a-Original-Image-Image-compressed-by-b_fig7_228959932
or figure 6 here for heterogneous pictures that needs to be seen together:
https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/21/3465/2021/#&gid=1&pid=1