text:
A theorem exists in a book but not in a journal - is this considered as a publication?
When I was undergraduate I proved something which was non trivial (but I have to be honest, it was not something very important) in mathematics and i presented it to a professor at the university. He found it correct and he included the theorem in his new book (it was new - this happened in 2008) with my name along the theorem. Now you can find this theorem in another book published from Springer.

I was wondering if this is considered as one of my own publications.
If I submit it to a journal, should I mention the situation with the books?

I think the question is: can I publish it again in a Journal? And the answer is: it depends on the journal, but most likely not unless there is some additional new contribution to the previous work.

@Trylks On the other hand, you get extended abstracts in conferences transformed to full papers published in a journal very often, and it seems fine to everybody. But as you say: the journal can do as they wish.

When you say "considered as a publication", do you mean "Is the theorem considered to be published" or do you mean "Can I count this as one of my own publications"?

@OswaldVeblen the second question is what I am asking.

First, you should take pride in proving a theorem that was significant enough for someone to attach your name to it. Even if it was "not very important", as you say, it was still enough to be worth mentioning. Not many undergraduates achieve that.
When you submit to a journal, you don't submit a theorem, of course -- you submit a complete paper. A typical paper has more than one theorem, unless the one theorem is particularly good. In this case, if you describe your theorem as nontrivial but "not very important", it seems unlikely to make a paper on its own.
If you write a paper, you could certainly include the theorem in question. Because the original book attributes the theorem to you, everyone knows it's your theorem, so there is no issue with 'stealing credit'. In the paper, you could say something like

The following theorem has appeared in Smith [1, Theorem 4.5].

just before you state and prove the theorem.  This sort of thing is routine, and as long as the theorem fits nicely into the paper it is unlikely that the referee will complain.  To answer part of the question, you should mention that the theorem has appeared in the book already.
At the same time, you will need to make sure that the new content of the paper is enough to merit publication (that is, the previously unpublished results that you put in your paper).   As you read more papers in your area, you will get a better sense of how this works in practice.
I think you have also asked whether you can include the book in your vita. The answer is no. But at various times you are asked to write a research statement or research narrative. Because the book attributes the theorem to you, you can state and take credit for the theorem in your research statement. This is particularly relevant if you are applying to graduate schools.

+1 This really sounds like something the OP should be more proud of.

Thank you very much for the responce. I upvoted every answer since they are very usefull but I cannot resist to thank you 15 times more.

@KonstantinosGaitanas - you are a (budding) mathematician, so you should realize you are thanking Oswald "1.5 times more" than the others...?!!

@Floris yes I reallized this later but I am sure that everyone undesrtands what I mean!

"The following theorem has appeared in Smith [1, Theorem 4.5]." Stated like this, I would never imagine that the theorem had been first proved by the OP. Especially if, as you write it, the proof of the theorem follows, I will not bother looking at the book by Smith (do I own it? Is there at the library?), and assume the OP put it in the paper for the sake of completeness. Is it too much to write in a paper something like "The following theorem had been first proved by the author as a contribution (Theorem 4.5) to [Smith]" ? I think this emphasizes the OP is the original author of the proof.

I was wondering if this is considered as a publication.

Yes this is a published work and can be referenced by other publications. You are not the author of the published work in this particular case.

If I submit it to a journal, should I mention the situation with the books?

Yes it should form a part of your bibliography / references or some other citation within the paper as it is relevant

How can a book by person A be part of the publication list for person B?

I wasn't implying that it could

I am not sure what someone's "bibliography/references" would be, apart from their list of publications - could you expand or clarify the answer to explain that?

"My own publications" generally means "publications by me, for which I receive credit and which I include in the publication list for myself". So by saying "yes" to the first question, you very much imply that the book should be part of the publication list for the questioner. However, I don't think that's what you intended to imply. I think you just intended to say that it can be referenced from the questioner's future publications, but answering "yes" to 1. is a confusing way to do that.

Thanks - Question had changed between my answering and editing, altering the context of my answer. I've updated for clarity.

If you ask whether the theorem is considered as published, then the answer is yes, it is, and it can be cited from either of the two sources you know.
If you ask whether it can be considered as your publication, then the answer is no, it cannot. Proving a theorem and having a publication are two different things. It is just a bit strange that the professor published it in his book without your consent (or have he asked you beforehand?), as a matter of politeness, I would consider it better if he asked you beforehand☆. You could have asked him to list you as a co-author for instance of the chapter in the book; then you could list the chapter as your publication.
I would be very careful about submitting it to a journal, since it is obviously a previously published work. It probably can be treated similarly as a conference extended abstract re-published as a full paper so you may be fine, but the journal may as well decide to reject the publication as "not containing original work"/"previously published". Certainly, however, you can publish it on arXiv or similar repositories; this is not a full publication, but it can be cited and included in your list of publications.

☆ Originally, I said that it was unprofessional from the professor. After the comment by Oswald Veblen, I realized that it's really not so uncommon.

I don't see it as unprofessional to include a relevant and interesting theorem in a book with an attribution to the person who proved it, even though the theorem is not otherwise published. This happens all the time.

The whole concept of extending conference abstracts to full papers is not really used in mathematics, so I don't see how it would be applied here.

@TobiasKildetoft Probably depends on which part of mathematics you are in. I'm on the boundary of maths and TCS, and we do that all the time.

I see that you have published a paper in the arxiv. You could certainly write up your theorem, optionally with background and/or example(s), and submit it. That is certainly a common thing to include in a publication list.


text:
I did not contest a wrong but inconsequential accusation of plagiarism – can this come back to haunt me?
I’m studying for my bachelor’s in computer science in Germany.
Last semester one of my assignments was flagged for plagiarism. I had given my code to a friend for reference purposes, but he ended up copying and submitting it. I didn’t contest the plagiarism because I didn’t need the points for the submission as it was just extra work; so I didn’t think much of it. We both got a zero in the assignment, but there was no follow-up from the university, no contact from the professor nor the examination office. I passed the course as well.
Now at my university, the policy is that, if you get caught plagiarising twice, you get expelled; so I’m wondering if my plagiarism from back then counts towards this? Because I didn’t receive any official decision from the exam board, it would be weird for them to take notice of the plagiarism and flag it as such without doing anything (like a warning or kicking me out of the course) or at least informing me of their decision.
Would something like this be contestable in court if it comes to that?
Further clarification:

The assignment was a homework assignment that basically offered bonus points which you needed to gain entrance to the main exam. The points in the assignment don’t count towards your final grade. With each assignment there is a feedback you receive as a downloadable file on the university’s portal for assignments and I downloaded the feedback and it said that the submission was flagged for plagiarism.

The rules for plagiarism are the same at my university as Wrzlprmft pointed out, namely it says that the student must be notified of any decision in cases of plagiarism (this decision can be to kick the student out of the course and such or whatever penalty the board wants to enforce) and that repeated or severe plagiarism can result in expulsion. The rules are about both plagiarism and deception so it kinda covers everything.

In the assignment we could help each other out; that was not forbidden; but yeah he took it too far. I should have contested it at the time but again I didn’t need any further bonus points for qualification as I had already qualified.

I didn’t receive anything else like some scary warning or hearing; so I didn’t think much of it at the time. There was no contact from the professor either as to whether I admit or deny; he just gave me and my friend a 0, and neither of us contested it.

I talked to some other people and it does seem unlikely that the exam board took notice of the case, didn’t inform me about any decision, and just handled it internally somehow. That is why I asked: if they did notice it and raise this issue in the future, is it contestable? On the grounds of me not actually plagiarizing and them not following policy of not hearing me out before coming to a decision and then subsequently not informing me of their decision.

"if you get caught plagiarising twice, you get expelled" Were you planning to plagiarize (or assist others in doing so) a second time?

@Ray Irrelevant since he wasn't planning to plagiarise (or assist others in doing so) the first time either.

You definitely want to check your examination rules on this, but usually these do not differ much on such matters (across Germany). For example, the examination rules from my university (in Germany) clearly state that:

Sanctions for cheating (in exams) can only be issued by the exam board.
The student must be heard before any decision on cheating (by the exam board).
The student must be informed on any decision on cheating (by the exam board).
Repeated (or grievous) cheating (in exams) can be sanctioned with expulsion.
Sanctions can be issued retroactively, including when an admission to an exam was acquired through cheating (as opposed to cheating on the exam itself).

Note that except for the last point, the rules do not mention cheating in coursework (i.e., anything leading to the admission to the exam). It is left to whoever runs the course. (Note that the common attitude in Germany on cheating in coursework is that it is impossible to prevent it and a cheating student mostly harms themself.)
If your university’s rule are any similar, your cheating incident is not on record – since you were neither heard nor informed on this. Moreover, you did not use the assignment in question to obtain admission to an exam (as you got zero points); so there is no issue even if this is dug up for whatever reason. Should you receive any official sanctions that count this incident as a first strike, I see extremely good chances for you contesting this.
However, please be aware that there are more consequences to cheating than receiving zero points and official sanctions. Instructors tend to remember such incidents and talk to each other. In particular when you are applying for a thesis, the responsible professor may enquire about your amongst their staff and close colleagues. If they learn about this incident, they may reject your application without telling you the reason or giving you a chance to explain yourself. On the other hand, there is a decent chance that whoever graded the assignment also remembers that the incident happened on a bonus assignment you did not need and thus had no motivation to cheat for your own benefit.

It could also be that assisting another person with cheating has the same consequences as plagiarizing.

@Buffy: Generally yes, but for supplying your solutions to be considered an assistance in this sense, this would need to be specified beforehand. Either way, my entire answer barely depends on whether the asker actually cheated or not.

Should it be “can’t” in the last bullet point about retroactive sanctions?

@schrödingcöder: No. Retroactive sanctions are possible.

-1 I'm skeptical of the assumptions in this answer and would advise the OP extreme caution in relying on it. Your overall argument is that coursework doesn't matter in the German system and (from another comment) "does not influence the grade... I have never heard of a system for tracking cheating with coursework". But the OP has been penalized with zero points already, and explicitly notes "if you get caught plagiarising twice, you get expelled". How is plagiarizing even possible on anything other than an out-of-class coursework? This answer contradictory to the OP's facts.

@DanielR.Collins: How is plagiarizing even possible on anything other than an out-of-class coursework? – First of all some overdue clarification of terms: You have exams (“Prüfungen”), which include written exams, oral exams, theses, presentations, project work, essays, etc. Those come with a grade and decide about whether you fail or pass a course. Then you have everything that is required to be admitted to an exam, which is often counted in points. This is what I referred to as coursework so far. The distinction is almost always strong and rather clear.

@DanielR.Collins: You can plagiarise on many modes of exams, in particular theses, project work, essays, etc., and thanks to the pandemic, we also had this in written (online) exams. Now, you won’t find some of these in fields like computer science, and the two-strike rule in question is not only triggered by plagiarism but also other sorts of cheating. However, this is usually not communicated very well. For example, I have heard students in the natural sciences speaking about a two-strike rule for plagiarism at my university, even though I know for a fact that this is not entirely accurate.

@DanielR.Collins: Had the asker’s assignment been an exam (in the above sense), they would have failed the course on account of receiving zero points, but then they would have talked about a grade instead. If the assignment had been part of a multi-component exam, they would also likely have failed the course and at least received a lower grade, in which case they would not have stated that contesting the plagiarism was “just extra work”. Even if all of this is incorrect and the assignment was part of an exam, what I wrote about being officially heard and informed applies.

Frame challenge: The university's decision was correct, so there's no merit to contesting it.
At every university I've worked at, there are policies connected to plagiarism that can apply to the person who supplied the material that was plagiarized from. In a stereotypical case, if person A gives their completed assignment to person B and allows person B to copy it and submit it as their own, then person A is guilty of academic misconduct (not literal plagiarism themselves, but assisting another student in their plagiarism). Moreover, those policies are public information that students are made aware of and responsible for knowing.
I'm very willing to believe the OP that they did not intend for their friend to plagiarize. At the universities I've worked at, this is irrelevant to the judgment. The OP provided their friend with the means to plagiarize, so when the friend did so, the OP became an accomplice to that academic misconduct.
Does that make the OP a horrible person?—of course not. One could argue that the OP wasn't even morally wrong, just irresponsible or naive. But from a matter of university policy, I'm confident that the OP's actions did indeed violate their university's academic misconduct policies.

This assumes a different academic system in which coursework is more valuable and there are very detailed policies against cheating. I have never witnessed or heard of such a system in Germany. In particular, I can dispel the confidence expressed in your last sentence as there is at least one German university (mine) at which there is no such policy (on coursework). Also, the asker states in the question: “In the assignment we could help each other out; that was not forbidden”. Finally, see this comment.

@Wrzlprmft Regardless of the academic system I'd take the message of this answer as either the case has not been filed anyway or if it was, the unversity was right. In each situation there's no point in contesting the case - either there is no case, or the case is valid. What you say seems to imply that there is no case, which may well be, but in my view it is not in contradiction with this answer.

@ChristianHennig: either the case has not been filed anyway or if it was, the unversity was right – I disagree with that. If the case has been filed (which is very unlikely either way), the university was not right about this, not only on account of not following proper procedure, but because the asker did not break any rules – contrary to the main point of this answer. For example, if I wanted to prevent my students from sharing their solutions (to coursework), I would have to proclaim an explicit rule for my course and could not rely on any general university policy.

@Wrzlprmft The statement "in the assignment we could help each other out" does not contradict my interpretation: there are permissible forms of help and impermissible ones, and that is not a blanket statement that all possible forms of help are permissible.

This needs to be made more clear I think.   Same thing happened to me in college.   Class had to write a pretty simple program for a 101 programming class.  The guy asked to look at my code and I figured the guy was just stuck on something or his program wasn't producing the correct output so he would look at mine to give him some ideas and have a good program to compare his outputs to.  I had to go to work so I just handed it to him on a floppy.  What he turned in ended up being a copy of my program.  The thought that he would be dumb enough to do that never crossed my mind.

This essay in morale has nothing to do with the question asked.

@GregMartin While it’s true that there are permissible and impermissible forms of help, letting a fellow student see some code you wrote in order to give them an idea of how you structured your solution would generally fall into the former category, at least in Northern Europe (and I’m guessing Germany too, based on Wrzlprmft’s comments). From experience, it is ubiquitous, a complete non-issue and even encouraged  to do this; students do it on pretty much every assignment they have, and it’s understood that the code is made available for reference, not for plagiarism.

@JanusBahsJacquet "Let them see some code you wrote" is not the same as "hand over a complete solution".  B implies A, but they are not equivalent.  "Let them see some code you wrote for reference" is an example of minimizing language: you make a statement that is consistent with the behavior but minimizes the wrongdoing.  It is like saying "speaking is legal" in response to someone shouting fire in a crowded theater, planning a murder, or fraudulently selling a good: sure, the behavior involves speaking, but describing it as speaking is frankly dishonest.

@Yakk No one says they handed over a complete solution either; that’s an example of maximising language. Without further clarification, we don’t know how much code was shared, how big a part of the total code it constituted, and how much of the whole assignment was code at all.

@JanusBahsJacquet "I had given my code to a friend for reference purposes, but he ended up copying and submitting it." - "my code" not "some of my code", and "copying and submitting" not "finishing and submitting".  It is grammatically plausible that the OP gave a partial solution and wasn't very clear in how they worded it: but that is not the clear obvious meaning of what the OP typed, which is he shared the completed assignment, the friend copy-pasted and submitted it.

I think it's quite likely this counts as one of the OP's two strikes. As an example, I'll share the standard process flow where I am (U.S., community college that's part of a large R1 urban university and shares a common academic integrity system).
When we catch students violating rules, the instructor is required to investigate and contact the student. We're highly incentivized to get the student to admit to the infraction. If so, the process is simple; we can assess an academic penalty at our discretion (like zero on the assignment), file a form with the academic integrity officer (checked "resolved informally" and "advocate no further action"), and the process ends.
If there was a rule about two infractions, then the first report on file would certainly count as number one of two. (Where I am it's not immediate expulsion, but probably escalating penalties, and contact by the integrity officer becomes more likely.)
Now, there's no reason to think that the OP's institution shares any particular part of our academic integrity protocols. It's a bit unclear how OP was informed of the plagiarism violation, or exactly what they mean by "didn’t contest the plagiarism". But I'm certainly working in a context where if I ask a student "It seems like you plagiarized", and they say "Ok", then I can assess a zero and have a formal report on their permanent university file without any further contact.

Germany doesn’t work like this at all, as there is a strong difference between coursework and exams. Coursework is mostly seen as a way for students to learn and usually is only required to be admitted to the exam (but does not influence the grade). While blatant cheating in coursework will be penalised within the course, the common attitude is that it’s impossible to prevent it and a cheating student mostly harms themself. I have never heard of a system for tracking cheating with coursework. Cheating in exams (or theses and similar) on the other hand in taken very seriously.

@Wrzlprmft: Respectfully, I think you're being overconfident in your assessment of the OP's situation. They'd be better off tracking down their college's specific policies (which can vary more than you think), than relying on your 3rd-party opinion when their educational life is possibly one strike from termination.

My answer (like yours) accounts for differences in rules and doesn’t claim certainty (“If your university’s rule are any similar“). However, while I deduce what is likely from my familiarity with academic systems in the same country, you deduce it from a considerably different one. I can therefore claim with some confidence that your initial “quite likely” is not accurate: The vast majority of German systems don’t work this way.

I've taught at three universities in Germany (though math rather than computer science) and agree with @Wrzlprmft. If a TA notices that a student copied their homework from someone else, the common reaction is "give them 0 points". I'm certainly not going to file a report or something in such a case, and I know no one who does. I would also consider this counterproductive because I actually tell my students that they should collaborate on their homework as long as they don't blatantly copy from each other. So the line between what is allowed and what is not automatically becomes blurry.

However, since we don't know the details of OP's situation and since OP probably wants to be sure, an easy solution would probably be to ask the "exam office" ("Prüfungsamt" or "Prüfungssekretariat" or whatever it is called at their university) where such a "first strike" would be recorded and how they can look up their record.

@JochenGlueck: Does your institution have a rule like the OP's that, "if you get caught plagiarising twice, you get expelled", and in what kind of circumstance would you foresee that being enforced? I don't see how that's even an issue in a (proctored) exam.

@DanielR.Collins: Agreed, the rule being explicity about "plagiarism" rather than about "cheating" is a valid point - although I would expect such a rule to be targeted mainly towards seminar papers rather than course homework. I'll ask the OP for clarification.

@JochenGlueck The rule about plagiarism covers everything that could be counted as deception or an attempt to gain an unfair advantage.  I didnt expect it to be so strict either but it is, if the exam office notices 2 cases of plagiarism, then expulsion is the norm. My question is that since I didnt receive any contact from the professor (to hear my side before forwarding to the exam office for ex.) nor the exam office about the case then maybe it didnt get reported to them? And if it did get reported but maybe because of oversight the office failed to contact me if it would be contestable?

Since you have of course learned your lesson so won't be tempted to violate plagiarism/cheating rules again, it does not matter whether this will count toward the two incident limit.

Well, let’s assume the asker is in a system where their actions did violate cheating rules and count towards a two-strike limit. Then it is also possible that they get another strike in a similar manner without any fault of their own, e.g., by somebody maliciously obtaining their material and then plagiarising it. The leniency of two-strike limits doesn’t only allow for students to learn from their mistakes but also reduces the impact of wrong assertions of guilt. Moreover, there are consequences beyond official sanctions, see the last paragraph of my answer.

@Wrzlprmft That is exactly what I am worried about. University is very hard and I often discuss solutions with friends because it helps me to learn. And in some cases the solutions to questions are very straightforward, so you can very easily come up with the same code (eg. in a recent assignment we had to make JUnit tests and for one of them it was only a few lines of code and me and my friend came up with the same code without even discussing with each other). Anyways, it seems likely that this case was not reported from Wrzlprmft's experience. I'll try and inquire further and report here.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to remove the word "we" when discussing results in an academic paper?
I was given feedback by a reviewer that the article I had submitted shouldn't contain we-type sentences, as they made the article sound less scholarly (yes; I know; it’s a peculiarity of my field).
I want your advice on how to rewrite the following phrases to be more “scholarly” sounding:

From Table 1 we can infer that …

In Table 1 we can see that …

How about "Table 1 shows that" or "Table 1 suggests that" (depending on how strong the inference from Table 1 is)? Alternatively, replace "we" with "one" and you'll be in the area that some people call scholarly and others call pompous.

@AndreasBlass some people call scholarly and others call pompous LOL!

@user1883050 you can rest assured that reviewers who give stupid feedback are decidedly not a peculiarity of your field.

Just do what the French do; "we" and "one" are interchangeable.

@NajibIdrissi "One" in english does translate as "on" in french (except when it means "1" of course). In the spoken language, it is used as a familiar form of "we", but in written, it will usually be read as the impersonal pronoun.

@NajibIdrissi I think that Sana's point is that in spoken, "on"="nous", and in written, "on"="one". And in the OP's situation, this triangle collapses nicely, so that (were he writing in french) he could switch from "nous" to "on" without any effort, and magically sound more professional. (And I know that "on" never means "1", but "one" sometimes does)

"shouldn't contain we-type sentences" - did they actually say/mean that, or are they just referring to inclusive-we sentences (i.e. sentences where you write we and mean "everyone, including the reader")? I'm asking because exclusive-we sentences (where we refers to the authors, not the reader) should be a different case. Incidentally, both of your examples sound more like inclusive-we sentences.

As authors, we always have the option to ignore stylistic complaints by referees; those are matters of taste, not correctness.  But to be on the safe side, we should ask the editor first.

I had the same struggles. The general solution would be to start using the passive.

It can be inferred ...
It is Apparent from Fig/Table ...
The results depicted in X would be always true ...

I actually dislike this style (since it is more boring; even though it is assumed the correct style to write academic reports, paper, thesis, dissertations etc. in Germany)

2 and 3 are not passive, in part because passive sentences require a verb.  (One could argue that 1 isn't really passive either, but rather an active-voice sentence (describing the ability of "it" to do something) with a passive-voice dependent clause.)

I'm not sure you can just write the number 2. It should be "It is apparent from fig.". Also, although depicted sounds nice to me, I had our english correction change lots of these depict, demonstrate... Maybe it was his peculiarity. For me it sounds nice.

Yes sorry, just jotted them down.

A few examples:

"From Table 1, it can be inferred that"; "From Table 1, one can infer that"; "As can be inferred from Table 1".
"In Table 1, rows X and Y show that"; "In Table 1, it can be observed that".

Do they better convey the meaning with respect to your choices? Not in the slightest. But maybe they will make the reviewer happier.

Also "From Table 1, it can be inferred that," and "Table 1 implies that."

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


text:
Withdrawing a chapter proposal: Is anything else required here?
I have been invited to write a chapter with a publisher, so I wrote a proposal for the chapter using the abstract of a write-up (short primer paper) I had. After sending the proposal, I eventually found out that the publisher’s reputation is controversial.
So I gave it a second thought and wrote an email shortly (within two days) indicating I will like to withdraw my proposal. The next day after sending the email, I got an email from the author service manager stating that the editor has accepted my proposal and 'he has no further suggestions for you at this time. Please continue with the writing process' and that after the review of the chapter, I will get an email of definitive acceptance.
Now, I am about to send the short paper to a magazine. Is there anything else required of me with respect to the first publisher to absolve my work from their publication process.

Are you writing a chapter in a review volume? You also refer to "send the paper to another venue", which makes me wonder what exactly is involved here.

Thanks for the comment. I have edited the question. Its a book chapter. However, I wanted to use an 'unsubmitted' manuscript I had.

Tell the author service manager again that you are withdrawing your proposal. Use clear language: explicitly say that you're no longer willing to contribute to the book. It sounds like the author service manager didn't realize you're withdrawing and is still expecting a submission from you, and it would be unethical to not correct them.

Thanks for the answer. I have been communicating with the author service manager and not the editor. I have now included that in the question.

@Abdulhameed when you wrote the email saying you'd like to withdraw, who did you address it to?

The "support" email on the publisher's website and the "author service manager". However, since then correspondence has been with the "author service manager".

@Abdulhameed do I understand correctly that someone (was it the author service manager?) invited you to write, but when you wrote to say you were withdrawing, you did not respond to this person?

Thanks for your comment. Yes it was the author service manager. Initially, I submitted the abstract of the paper, then after a rethink. I sent an email and forwarded the 'author service manager' indicating that I wanted to withdraw from the commitment to submitting the chapter.

@Abdulhameed I'd do the same thing then: tell the author service manager (whoever that is) that you are withdrawing with clear language.

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


text:
How to deal with students who didn't attend the exams?
My course require students to take 2 mid-term exams and one final exam. What should I do if some students didn't attend the first mid-term exam or the second one. Should I mark them Zero or repeat the exam for them? What is the best strategy in this regard?
Update: Although I gave them instructions from the beginning of the course. Some of them said that they were absent when I gave those instructions. Some of them said that they were sick and some said that they had an appointment with a dentist at same time of the exam, for example!

Were these requirements clearly known to them or could they have known them without problems? If yes, then zero. But what are the reasons they missed a midterm?

Your institution may have a standard policy for dealing with such things. Check whether such a thing exists first before, otherwise the students might have legal recourse against whatever you decide to do.

Maybe next time you could add this kind of information to your syllabus. This makes any attempt to deny existence of the mid-term impossible.

I don't know about illness case. For the dental appointment case, I wonder if the midterm exam date was the same as the class date. If so, why would your student make a dental appointment on the class date in the first place?

Surely this is a joke? They fail. Why is there even a discussion?

If the instructions were only given orally, and not recorded in written form that is globally accessible (either in a printed syllabus, or an online forum), then you don't have documentary evidence of the instructions being given.
If this is the case, I would follow the standard university procedures, if there are some available, governing this situation. If there are none, then For this offering only, and only in the case where no printed instructions were given, I would allow students to take a make-up exam.
On the other hand, if there is documented evidence of your policy, then you should follow the policy as it's given.
In any case, however, it's always a good idea to allow "documented" reasons (for example, illness, court appearances, schedule conflicts if exams are scheduled outside of regular time slots) to be excused, with a clear policy for what will happen (students can take a makeup exam; other grades are reweighted).

Even with most of the documented reasons you list, I wouldn't see a reason to accept those unless I were notified of the justified absence before the exam.

@O.R.Mapper: This is true, except for illness. However, the original situation also involved the policy only being announced orally, and was thus officially undocumented. Some latitude should be given in such circumstances that would not be true if a formal policy was in place.

I will talk from my own experience:

Being absent in the first class, is by no means a good excuse, back in my student days (before ubiquitous email information and professor's webpages) if you missed the first class, you would at least ask the sensible question of when the hell the midterm exam is.
As a student, their prime responsibility is to, well.. study! And while I understand that some of them would have conflicting issues if they have to work (which are usually solved if you have a nice enough boss), other scheduling issues like an appointment with the dentist (that can be done any other day) are also not a valid excuse.
Being a teacher of a 50+ student class, has a high likelihood that at least one of them may be sick the day of the exam, in those cases (hell, I've had teachers that were sick on the mid term's day), I agree that there should be some kind of Doctor's certificate around.

If you think the absence is somewhat justified, you can always make them retake the exam.
In my school, most teachers would make the student do this over finals.

+1 for being absent not being an excuse. I always tell my students they are responsible for everything I say in class. If they don't come, they better have a friend who takes really good notes.

I would argue for consistency and responsibility.
You need to be consistent on how you apply the rule (i.e. what you told your students about missing exams at the beginning of the semester).
It is the responsibility of students to ensure they meet the requirements of the course (in order to obtain a satisfactory outcome). If there are any adverse circumstances, they need to be able to give you evidence (e.g. doctor's certificate).
Do remember, though, that we are all humans. A good teacher is also one who understands! (You hold the power in this case.)

Depending on the reason they weren't present at the tests, i would take the decision of giving them a Zero unless they provide a plausible reason on why did they end up missing those tests, and apply common reasoning. If they were sick or somewhat binded by "higher forces", you can lend them a hand, but if they missed because of something else (even a doctor's appointment) and did not justify themselves BEFORE the date was due, a Zero it is. You might be their teacher, but you have to tell them to be open about things and be able to ASK YOU if they need help on something.
As someone already said, you are not at fault for them not showing to your first class (Sylabus class), and they could simply "ask around" for information about your class (at least ask you about some guidelines). Take it like an employee: If someone misses a day of work, they must bring themselves "up to speed" on whatever happened on that missing day, and cannot abide by the "i wasn't here" to cover their asses. University courses should not be considered an exception (you can consider that for students, their courses should be like having a job, and adjust accordingly to those responsabilities).
Now, if you gave sufficient notice on which dates your tests would be done, and they have the means to contact you and let you know of any problems they might have, then there is no excuse for them to miss your tests.

If the information regarding the exam was published, then fail them and if no other screw ups, allow for makeup on last day of class. Kidnaping and torture by evil Nuns may be excepted with video proof. Life is tough and it is very unforgiving and it is their job to grow up and become responsible, it is not your job to teach them responsibility. It is your job to impart knowledge. You are not doing your job by allowing them leniency, nit to mention it is unfair to the others.

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


text:
What to change between Conference and Journal Paper?
If one is extending work previously published in conference proceedings, what must be changed?
Specifically, does one need to change the Introduction, Background Work, or similar sections that are not actually the new material being presented?
I understand that some journals use a plagiarism detection system that would throw serious red flags if sections were untouched; so, how do editors view this?
It seems reasonable to not have to modify every sentence, especially where the material has not changed.
Thoughts?
Edit: Typically, 25-30% new material should be presented, but does this have to come at the cost of rewriting some portions of the work that remain the same?

Yes, that is the status quo; however, I am referring to sections that possibly have no material (such as the Introduction or Background that I mentioned). Perhaps I should rephrase.

Excellent question that I had intended to ask myself.

I would go out of my mind if I wrote papers that were 70% old material!  If you're asking this question, I strongly recommend reading this advice (written by a mathematician, but applicable in part to any field).

There is no good reason to simply copy large portions of an existing publication to make a new. By rewriting everything, you have the opportunity to rephrase your thoughts and most likely produce a better paper, at least from a writing point of view. Some journals definietly look at plagiarism and in this case self-plagiarism and the only way to avoid it is to rewrite. I think the benefits of rewriting clearly outweighs the possible time-saving by just copy-pasting.
Just to provide an example. I have written tens of papers about the same natural physical object that I have studied. In each paper, I have to provide a descritpion of the locality and characteristics and not once have this been copied. It is in fact interesting to see how many dofferent ways the same (dull) information can be conveyed.
As for a percentage of new material, I really would advice against relying on a numbr. It is possible this is a silent understanding in some fields but in general, only new insights and conclusion should warrant a new publication. Another year of data or something similar to that is in itself not enough. The paper might be published but such publication strategies are not looked upon favourably in the long term.
So, I strongly recomend rewriting each paper and not rely on copy-pasting. I am convinced you will develop as an author and also generate better papers by doing so. consider each paper a separate new entity.

Excellent answer to a question I had myself.

I agree with @Peter Jansson, and I believe there is significant reason to rewrite the paper. That said, some of it is simply tedious!
I'm just going to add an answer here that I received after reaching out to an editor about this question.
Summary of their response:

Good question! I will give you my point-of-view as an editor:

The delta will be evaluated semantically not textually.
There is no definitive need to rewrite sections; however, since you are not subject to the same limitations as a conference paper,
  detailed explanations are highly welcomed, specifically in unclear or
  shortened sections.
Also, since an extended paper contains something new, it is unlikely that Intro and Conclusions will be the same, and changes
  should be made accordingly.

Quite likely, when you were writing the conference version of the paper, you found yourself having to compress and cut here and there, ultimately telling a different story than the one you would have liked to tell. These cut will have occurred throughout the entire paper. When writing the journal version of the paper, you will have the chance to expand on those previously compressed sections. Indeed, you probably have better ways of explaining things or new insights. Now is the time to give those explanations and insights.


text:
How do admissions committees evaluate coursework?
What steps are taken to evaluate an applicant's coursework?

Are graduate-level courses weighted higher?
Is this a significant part of the decision process (outside the major
components of research experience, personal statement, and LORs)?

I'm interested in what adcoms look for as good signs, red flags, etc.
Any information, particularly for CS PhD programs, is appreciated!

This is more of a general answer.
Graduate-level coursework should carry additional weight in a graduate school application, because it normally suggests that you are capable of doing work at a higher level than the standard undergraduate curriculum. However, it should be pointed out that more weight will be given to a full graduate-level course than a "shared" course that regularly offers both undergraduate and graduate enrollment.
The primary red flag would be poor performance in one or more "core" courses in your discipline, while encouraging signs are taking more or harder classes and doing well in those.
As for the relative importance of this in an application, I'd put coursework in general somewhat behind the letters of recommendation and research experience. However, this is something that may vary from school to school, and even department to department.

I am part of an admissions committee in the field of applied math.  Since there are very few undergraduate programs in applied math, our applicants have a wide variety of backgrounds -- mathematics, engineering, physics, and others.  My main interest when looking at the transcript is:

First, do you have good grades in the most relevant courses?
Second, how well-prepared are you in terms of course coverage?  It's typical for students from outside math to have one or two gaps.

Also, we interview promising applicants, so I look at the transcript to see what the student should know, and quiz them on typical course material.


text:
Who gets accepted to top universities to do a PhD (STEM fields)?
I would like to ask what are some general requirements, level of know-how, etc. that students must fulfil/have to get accepted in the top universities? I'm particularly interested in the STEM fields.
While I understand this varies per position, I would assume that this can be answered with either statistical information or experience.
For example, assume that a student has good grades, a publication or two, 1-2 letters of recommendation. Any chances?

Most graduate school applications require at least three recommendation letters.  If you have less than that, your application may not even be seen by the admissions committee, no matter how strong it is.

Voting to reopen.  The linked question asks about logistics of applying for PhD and postdoc positions; this question asks about qualifications.

STEM stretches from engineering (which in the US is usually put into a separate school; @Namey explained their process below) through biology (also lab/grants centered) to pure math and statistics (paid for by the tuition of students taking the required math courses, and hence a VERY different funding model). If you have a basic degree in math, you can try other disciplines. If you have a basic degree in industrial engineering, I doubt they would take you to a biology or pure math program. Define your problem more concretely -- if you can't, you won't become a good researcher.

This probably varies by field.  I went into an Engr/CS department.  I will say that grad school apps are a bit of a crap-shoot at top schools.  There are certainly "talent picks" (e.g., people so amazing many schools would grab them without knowing where they'd fit), but in my experience top programs often have labs that have particular needs and "draft" PhD candidates who might fill them.  If you expect to be funded with a stipend through grad school (and in my opinion, in STEM, you should be), somebody in the faculty needs to step up and allocate their limited grant funding on a candidate within the first year.
Since your tuition is going to be paid by one of the profs on the faculty, there's obviously going to be some level of preference toward students whose interests and skills match their needs.  Hence, part of your likelihood of being accepted (and most of your probability of being funded) depends on who will have slots for PhD students and how those slots match up with your interests/skills.  Or, in other words, you need to convince somebody that you are worth at least $70k over 4-6 years (in reality, more than that, as professors invest their time in training you to be useful).
In that light, you're really not applying for a "top grad school."  You are actually applying to one or two labs in a grad school... with no idea if they can even take you on board.  In my opinion, your statement in your application should directly reflect a lab (or two) that you would want to do work with.  The whole remainder of your materials help  support the claim that you would be an asset to those labs.  This also means that you generally need to apply to quite a few grad schools if you want to get into a top one.  Unless you know a program closely already, there is no way to know who has funding coming in, who is on sabbatical, or a hundred other things that could sink an otherwise solid application.
Obviously, good grades, good GRE scores in relevant areas, and prior research experience are all your first foot in the door.  But none of them are enough, on their own.  You need to write well (e.g., have a good statement), have great independent work ethic (e.g., leading teams, not just working on them), and your letters of reference need to be excellent.  You'll also need three letters of reference at almost any top school.  I don't think I applied to a single place that took less than that (though that was some years ago, so it could even be up to 4 in some programs!).  If you can't find three profs who will speak highly of you, you're in trouble.  If having a personal reference vouch for you even crosses your mind, don't even bother applying to a top program.
Finally, if you're applying to MIT or a few other places, you had better keep track of all the texts that you have ever used.  They ask you to list them.  Which is a huge pain to try to rustle up 3 years later, for the record.

I will also note that I was accepted to a top school with full stipend at the lab I was most interested in.  However, I was also outright rejected from a number of "less brand name" schools.  Despite the time cost involved (each app needs to be custom-tailored and you need to research each program carefully), I would apply to at least 8-12 schools.

At least in engineering, you're not typically tied to a group until after matriculation. So it's not necessarily helpful to target a few specific labs, when it's not guaranteed you'll end up working for them in the long run.

It varies by department and school.  I started a PhD directly from BS in a CS/Engr track and was linked to a lab from day 1.  This may be different in other schools where you start on an MS track and then need to later "upgrade" to a PhD track.  I would also say that targeting specific labs is overall a good thing as it shows: 1. You are interested in the program, 2. You have some idea of your research interests, and 3. What is the point of getting into any PhD program where the labs you're interested in wouldn't take you?

I would also posit that anywhere that you first need to complete an MS track is likely a completely different animal.

@Namey, in the last paragraph of your answer, what do you mean by "texts"? Do you mean books?

@ILOVEMATH: Yes, books.  Though typically they mainly want the "major texts" rather than a multiple books, to my recollection.  I assume this is to get an idea of how well your professors choose books and correspondingly your depth of knowledge on a subject (e.g., are you reading intro stuff or advanced texts in your courses).


text:
Is there a way to ethically hire somebody to write "rough drafts"/"extended outlines" for your PhD dissertation?
My girlfriend (let's call her Rose), who is a graduate student, got approached by a person of influence in Rose's industry (call her Elizabeth) who is currently working towards her PhD. Elizabeth asked Rose to "help" her write her literature review and she will receive monetary compensation. Rose, wanting to make a good acquaintance with Elizabeth, agreed to "help." Elizabeth asked Rose to write 30(!) pages of literature review -- a "rough draft" -- which Elizabeth will use to write her literature review.
I already told Rose this is unethical behavior. However, Rose doesn't want to burn this bridge. Is there a way for Rose to ethically help Elizabeth? Possibly, in a way that Rose's credentials also grow?

Your question is quite misleading, in that yes, there are ways to receive help on a Ph.D. dissertation, however, the scenario that you propose in your question is most definitely unethical.

I agree @J.Roibal, I guess with that "tone" Rose got sold the idea that it was just "help". I'll think of a more explicit question.

One has to ask the question: does Rose really want to be tied to someone who engages in unethical behavior? This doesn't sound like a particularly valuable bridge. What does she hope to get out of this relationship?

Is this a bridge that Rose would want to keep unburnt? Imagine working for Elisabeth later, what kind of boss would she be? My opinion is that Rose should walk away.

And I'm sitting here asking myself why has Elisabeth not reviewed literature before starting her research...

Someone else writing your lit review?? Is this seriously a question of ethics?
Several of the ideas above sound great in the abstract - but seriously - writing the lit review and then getting it published - how many lit reviews have you seen published lately? Co-authoring and publishing the work with Elizabeth - has the same problem - where will this "co-authored" work be published? The idea that anything can be ethical as long as it's done open and above board - uhmm - no - there is no ethical way to lie AND be open and above board. So the question for Rose is, how bad does she need the money

I agree with Chris White. The influence thing doesn't make sense. Also, refusing to help someone with academic fraud shouldn't burn a bridge. The main issue here is that Rose doesn't seem to have boundaries. The second issue is that Rose could easily end up being exploited. No doubt, this is going to be a lot of work, and Elizabeth probably won't be satisfied with just a rough draft. Also, this is what some dishonest people do, they claim to be of influence, and make all kinds of promises, in order to avoid paying cash upfront, and never pay up (or only pay a fraction of what they owe you).

@ChrisWhite In applied fields, it is not at all uncommon for "persons of influence" to not have a PhD (and, yes, some of them decide to do a PhD at a later stage). For instance, Grace Lewis (http://www.sei.cmu.edu/about/people/profile.cfm?id=lewis_15752)  is currently in a PhD programme and at the same time a Steering Committee member of ICSOC, a major conference in her field. (I should note that I am sure that this is where the similarities between Grace and "Elisabeth" stop, as I have never experienced Grace as anything but highly ethical)

@ChrisWhite: in some Education programs, it is very common for the Ph.D. students to be school principals. I would consider that "a position of influence".

The OP didn't say that Elizabeth was a person of academic influence. She might, for example, be a potential future employer.

Your girlfriend could write an independent literature review in the same area that Elizabeth is working. She could publish this and then Elizabeth could use it as a helper with her own literature review. It's still in a gray area, but it's less unethical than being hired to write someone's thesis. Rose would get a publication out of it and Elizabeth would have a citable guide for her thesis's literature review.

probably the best route for this particular situation.

Only thing is, you have to get accepted or at least have a confirmation that  the literature review paper will be published by a certain date to be able to use it and cite accordingly in the PhD Thesis. And we all know how much time certain journals take until they publish anything. By that time, the thesis deadline might be well exceeded..

Indeed, the best route of an utterly bad selection of routes - the independent literature review has been done specifically with the originator's agenda in mind. It's made to order. This can be ok as a part of a funded research project, but a PhD needs to prove that one can do this work oneself, not that they know how to outsource it.

A preprint of the paper can be put up on the web and cited from the PHd, if the published paper is not excepted in time.

Elizabeth asked Rose to write 30(!) pages of literature review -- a "rough draft" -- which Elizabeth will use to write her literature review.

Let us all acknowledge the elephant in the room. No, there is no ethical way to handle this, as Elizabeth does not want to handle this ethically. It seems painfully obvious to me that Elizabeth is outsourcing the writing of her dissertation, or at least parts of it, under a thin veil of "help" and "drafting". Given that Elizabeth is giving Rose clear length instructions and everything, I would be surprised if "draft" in this context is anything else than an euphemism for "please write this for me, and I will do some cosmetic changes and hand it in".
Any of the proposed solutions (publishing the material beforehand, claiming authorship of this chapter, ...) will not be accepted by Elizabeth, as it will not accomplish the goal she is rather evidently going for, which is getting her literature review without having to actually write it. Besides, it seems extremely dubious to me that any serious thesis committee will allow some of the proposed solutions (e.g., explicitly having a different author for chapters of a thesis - the reaction of any committee in any university I attended would be between bewilderment and anger if you proposed that).
As such, there are only two ways forward for Rose:

Tell Elizabeth friendly but in no uncertain terms that she cannot do this. She can get a little creative with the reason if she does not want to tell Elizabeth that she finds the proposal unethical, if she must.
Go forward with writing the literature review, but be aware that she is actively involved in a case of academic misconduct, and that there really isn't a way to rationalize this differently.

Spot on! The literature review is the starting point (the meaty starting point!) of any dissertation work. It shows you really did your job, got interested in the subject and scrutinized what has been done in the field. How in the world does one expect to be called a "Dr." if they don't even care to know the field they got their PhD in? One cannot trust a person that outsourced the basis of their entire work to someone else.

A surgeon student asks another student to prepare the instruments, the cuts, do some of the core tasks in their stead. They themselves will clean the wound, do some stitching up etc. Would you want this person to get the license to perform surgeries? I am surprised that people even contemplate that. But then, it's the epoch of outsourcing; a kind of Uber-PhD.

Absolutely; it's refreshing to see straightforward ethics on Academia SE every once in a while.

The only ethical way I can think of requires three steps from Elizabeth:

checking if the university rules allow such a contribution;
speaking with her adivsor to see if they, too, permit such a contribution, and if they think whether the examination committee might like it or not;
explicitly acknowledging the contribution of Rose in the preface and
in the chapter where the literature review appears; for instance,

Introduction

(§1.5 by Rose)

Advisor's permission go out the window if the examination committee doesn't like this.

@Ketan Yes, of course, but hopefully the advisor knows if the committee might like it or not. I'll modify the answer in a more stronger form.

Regarding (3), I would suggest that in addition to what you suggest, Rose publishes her document online (e.g. arXiv or similar) and a full citation including link is provided in the thesis. Then the committee can judge for themselves how much Elizabeth added on top of Rose's contributions.

@ff524 Yes, good advice. I suspect, though, that nothing of the above is part of Elizabeth's intentions...

It might be okay if they publish it as a paper as co-authors (or even as a manuscript on arXiv) and this is acknowledged, complete with the author list, in the PhD.

Only if both have contributed to the project and both participated in writing it.  Given the question, it doesn't sound like this is what Elizabeth had in mind.  Giving "gift" co-authorship is unethical.  In general, we prefer detailed answers that are accompanied with explanation and/or reasoning; if the answer fits in one sentence, that's often a good indicator that it'd be worth thinking about how to flesh out your reasoning in more detail.

I disagree that it would be a gift co-authorship if, as the question claims, the lit review produced by Rose would be a rough draft to be used as source material by the student, Elizabeth. Rose should presumably be the first author, but Elizabeth would also make a significant intellectual contribution. Of course, we could read between the lines and guess that the question is being over-generous about Elizabeth's actual contribution, but I was taking it at face value.

If all the work of finding and analyzing and synthesizing prior literature is done by Rose and then Rose writes a rough draft and then Elizabeth  edits it... that sounds a bit sketchy/borderline to make Elizabeth a co-author.  It's possible it could be made to work, and I realize it all depends on the details of how the "collaboration" actually works, but I think your answer needs more careful disclaimers about what's needed to ensure this approach will be ethical.

Almost anything can be ethical if it's done openly and honestly and nobodies contribution is misrepresented to anyone involved.
If Elizabeth makes it absolutely clear to anyone judging the thesis exactly what has come from Rose and in what context then there's no ethical breach.
There could however still be a breach of rules since the rules can still forbid this kind of "help" from third parties for a thesis.
The difference between a breach of ethics vs a breach of rules is important since it can mean the difference between a simple "fail" or rejection for including too much material from a 3rd party or in breach of some rule vs being investigated for grossly unethical behavior. One is actively attempting to mislead someone, the other is just screwing up.
If Rose were certain that Elizabeth was going to be open and honest then there would be no ethical issue for Rose, it would be up to Elizabeth to make sure that everything fit the rules of her institution but practically speaking given the context Rose should reasonably expect that perfect disclosure may not be what Elizabeth plans.
Hypothetically if Rose were to provide this "help" in a context where it seems unlikely that Elizabeth will act perfectly ethically it would be fair to also consider Rose's actions unethical and it may reflect badly on her if the situation came to light.
If Elizabeth has no problem with Rose meeting with, say, her advisor/supervisor and/or someone else senior from her institution and discussing how it will work then it may be ok.
Otherwise run a mile.

While completely agreeing with xLetix's answer (Elizabeth doesn't want to do this ethically), here are two practical options which don't give Elizabeth all of what she wants:

Tell instead of write: Rose offers Elizabeth to coach her on the literature and previous work in the field - to have one-on-one sessions explaining what's been done. A sort of private tutoring.
Presentation, not review: Instead of writing a 30-page literature review, Rose creates a long(ish) presentation in Beamer/Powerpoint/LO Presentation about the state of the art.
No access to text: Write the review, but only allow Elizabeth to read it, not to get a copy of it. So ELizabeth would still have to write her own survey, from memory regarding the survey prepared by someone else.

This is all a bit borderline ethically, still, so I would not actually recommend it unles a gun is being put to your head, metaphorically speaking.

I don't see how this is significantly more ethical than simply handing in the review. Should Elisabeth not be able to answer questions about the review during her defence and admit she was helped by Rose, it wouldn't matter much whether the help was written or oral.

@DmitryGrigoryev: The point is Elizabeth would not be able to submit her literature review without writing it herself, even if it's based on what Rose has done. She would need to invest effort on her own - and would then probably be able to answer questions.


text:
another master's or PhD?
Here is my situation, I have obtained a MSc in Computer Science in Europe with some publications in the field. Actually I would like to follow PhD studies, but the problem is that a lot of them are asking to have a proven track in Machine Learning (also in Europe). I have not followed any course on that topic and the things that I have learned about that field was from books, Coursera, or the Internet. I really like the field, but I regret that I did not follow any course beforehand, even though I know theoretically and practically the basics.
How I can address that in my PhD applications? or should I follow another MSc with specialization in Machine Learning?
Any suggestion?

It's very odd for applications for Ph.Ds to ask for specific prowess. But then maybe you're not in the US ?  can you specify your geographic area ?

Although it is odd for universities to ask you this, assuming that they did
you have several options

Attend credit courses pertaining to Machine Learning or Artificial Intelligence and re apply
Get some industrial experience in those fields and re apply
Select a program that does not require Machine Learning background.
Talk to dept advisers telling them that you will attend these courses
when you are admitted, probably get a conditional acceptance or
you do not want to do PhD in machine learning fields but something else
(assuming that is the case) and approach the faculty member to back you up.


text:
What to choose: PhD or unemployment?
My name is Andrzej and I am going to graduate in July with MSc in physics from one of major Polish universities. Last holidays I thought a lot about my future and what transferrable skills I have that could get me a job after graduation. I identified that two main are:

ability to code (a few courses related to numerics / C++
programming)
analitical and critical thinking, good numeracy.

Therefore last academic year I was applying to a lot of jobs in two fields: IT and finance to try to squeeze something from my coding and analytical skills respectively. However, sadly, I got turned down from any of the positions I applied for. I managed to get invited to a couple of interviews but that was it.
In the meantime, I applied for PhD position at my university under the supervision of the same PI I am now finishing masters with. The topic is pretty interesting, however I do cannot imagine myself following an entirely academic career path. For example, I don't think I'll ever be able to lead my own research group.
I got this position without any major problems. The PhD position is fully funded. The stipend is 1800 PLN net (around 400 EUR) monthly. However as this is a stipend, they do not pay any kind of pension/insurance contributions. IT/finance jobs usually compensate better: around 3000 PLN (670 EUR) net and many times do provide pension and insurance.
Now the question comes: what to do? I think there are three possibilities:

Go for the PhD and fully concentrate on it, and not write any IT/finance applications during the PhD.
Go for the PhD and apply to IT/finance during the PhD; quit PhD once being hired for a decent position in commercial sector.
Reject the PhD offer, graduate unemployed, apply for government benefits and fully concentrate on the job hunt for IT/finance positions.

Which option would you recommend? If option 2 or 3, do you know any really good pieces of advice how to increase chances of getting industry job with a theoretical physics MSc?
Zero is a good first-order approximation of my job experience: I did two unpaid internships, one during BSc, second during MSc, both in local research institutes.

Yes, of course I am considering this and this is sort of inside number 1. I can't say for 100% what I'll do after PhD.

I see, I rewrote your possibilities to make it clear that 4 is part of 1.

Suppose that the money didn't matter and you weren't going to be awarded a doctorate at the end of the process. Would you dedicate years of your life to researching this topic? If you didn't, would you regret it in 10 years' time? I propose this exercise because you should first know how desirable your PhD is without considering money or career – and then add those considerations in.

No, I wouldn't want to dedicate years of my life to this topic without getting the PhD and I would definitely regret it. I do enjoy doing research however I am not 'crazy about science' type of folk.

Either way, please don't do 2 "Go for the PhD and apply to IT/finance during the PhD; quit PhD once being hired for a decent position in commercial sector.". There are many perspectives in the industry with a theoretical MSc, for example in aerospace. Knowing C++ opens many directions in Java for example, JSP, web programming, etc. Also, if you know Matlab I am confident there should be some jobs related. Concerning the research part, I don't think anyone is fully prepared to lead a research group only within a few years after PhD. It takes time and dedication.

If you are uncertain, do not get a PhD.

Make an in depth analysis of your needs and wants and also look at your attitude, motivation and passion. If you are motivated and you like doing research then go for it without taking care of any job opportunity. When you will be doing PhD with a passion there is likely possibility you can come up with some interesting findings which will open many new horizons for you and new opportunities. In case you want to do PhD just to kill time then it is better to be unemployed and job seeking

Job hunting is a long process, and depends on your luck, skills, and networking. I would go for getting a certification if you intend to pursue computer science jobs. This will help you get extra skills. Another option is a coding boot camp with a project to work on - you can include this on your CV. There are many that are free and will help you get a job. A final option is a paid internship to learn and work on the same time.
From another perspective, your master's in physics can help you, if you intend to do a PHD. Quantum computing is a subfield of physics, and you could use your master's degree to enter quantum computing research. If you like physics and you are interested in this research field, I think this is a better long term path.

Go for the option 1. Try to do as good as you can. In the meantime, study whatever you need (for programming that would be i.e. Java and databases, I don't know anything about finances). Then after four years you will have some knowlegde and it will be easier for you to find a job.
If during the four years you decide you are fed up with working in academia, you could consider having a non-academic job and leaving your PhD. But if you can have some income now, it doesn't make any sense to graduate unemployed.
Also, I think you should try to find a better PhD position. Students often stay with their master thesis advisors, because it's convenient for them. I suggest you at least try to find a professor who can offer you an additional scholarship (~2 000 zl). It's pretty common- many professors realize that the scholarship offered by the university is pretty low, so they pay their PhD students from a grant. Then you would have a decent salary. It's worth to consider it.

Get the Ph.D.
As long as you won't hate the experience (it is stressful at times) you should get it - a Ph.D. makes you very marketable. You could then go into Finance (which is what I did) or do what graduates are doing these days which is Data Science.
It doesn't even matter what your Ph.D. is in as long as an employer considers it "technical". Physics / Math / Computer Science are all interchangeable for a lot of jobs, certainly for Finance or Data Science.

"a Ph.D. makes you very marketable"- definitely not in Poland. If I were to hire somebody, I'd prefer someone with four years of experience than someone with a PhD. Of course, that depends on the person, but the mere fact of holding a PhD won't give the OP any advantages when looking for a job.

Is that so? I didn't know that... not even for finance and data science? I don't know the Polish job market at all.

Maybe if the OP had a PhD in statistics that would be helpful to get a job in data science. But anyway, four years of experience would be much better. I don't know about finances. It may be specific to the Polish job market, but would holding a PhD in Maths make anyone marketable? Such person wouldn't have any practical skills (apart from reasoning, etc).

Ah this I do know because my PhD is in Math! MathPhD < CodingSkills < MathPhD + CodingSkills. And many employers believe that it's easier to teach a PhD how to program (whether or not they become a serious developer) than to teach a developer "PhD-skills" (however those are defined).


text:
Creating a schematic figure based on an existing one
In the context material chapter of my masters dissertation, between other things, I must write about the state of the art on the thematic presented. There are some very expressive and simple schemes in other authors works that I would like to use. I was wondering: is it legitimate if I create schemes by myself that convey the same structure and information and reference the sources in the following manner: "Image based on [Reference]" ?. The result would be different looking (colors, shapes, and several other visual elements) schemes that would express the same content.
I've looked at How much do figures need to differ to avoid copyright claims? but I wasn't sure if the context of that question is enough for the answers to apply for me.
Thanks.

No, I think it would be insufficient to say : "Image based on [Reference]".
Because, from what you've written, it's not just the image you're using: you're also using the intellectual content that is the structure and information.
So, not only do you need to cite your reference for the image, but you also need to credit the origin of the structure and the information explicitly in its own right.
So do say:

Image based on [Reference]

And also say something like (using the example of the image being a classification of the existing literature):

In creating this classification, I have followed the classification scheme set out in [Reference], using information from [Reference] and [other Reference]

While this makes perfect sense, I don't quite see how different it is from writing a paragraph that expresses the same ideas of a paragraph in other work using a different wording. (and conventionally, when people do that they just mention the reference)


text:
How to add mathematical rigor to systems research?
My research focuses on wireless networking and designing various protocols. I primarily build systems. I, sometimes, analyze the performance of those systems, using techniques from probability, statistics, and algebra.
I want to improve my understanding of the mathematical underpinnings of my work. Specifically:

Derive and prove theorems on properties of a system and prove it;
Model a system.

This post differs from SE posts like this and this because I'm looking for concrete steps to incorporate math rigor into my systems research. I found the answers in those posts to be too abstract.
Other posts, such as this and this, provide concrete but scattered advice, suggesting:

take theory courses;
read math-heavy papers and learn.

For (1), what types of courses are likely to be useful? Is Great Theoretical Ideas In Computer Science a good source?
For (2), I find it difficult to lead from reading a proof to writing one of my own, or from reading about a model to creating my own model. Input is easy, output is still hard. Any good examples (papers, books, or online courses) to learn how to output theoretical results?
Besides these two lines of suggestions, any other specific suggestions on how to be a more mathematically fluent researcher for someone like me who is from systems background?
Some more context for the whole question: I'm working on my first theory-oriented paper and I have great difficulty in proving the optimality of my proposed protocol. Thus I'm asking to see if there is a general way to hone my proof skills in the short term and my general math skills in the long run.

I think there are two questions here, one about how to learn theory (perhaps applied mathematics) and another about a specific paper.

Not enough for a full answer, but for your 2nd query, I've found that the book "How to Solve It" by George Pólya helped me to develop some of the types of skills you are interested in developing (I come from an electrical engineering background).

You sound like me five years ago! Here's what I did to become more theoretical.

Go back to basics.  I went back and relearned Calculus and Linear Algebra.  Watch YouTube videos on different subject matters. Mathematical maturity is the key.  You get this by reading lots of maths (any maths will help).   I also started learning Real Analysis.
Search Google for books/resources on 'how mathematicians think?'  Also learn how to do proofs.  There are plenty of books available.
Start reading theoretical CS papers/books, and learn a math tool; e.g., a branch of math programming such as linear program, non-linear, etc...

Best of luck with it.  Unfortunately, there is no short term solution, but the payoff is well worth the effort and frustration!
Proofing stuff in general is hard.  Otherwise, any man and his dog will be able to do it!  Books on how to construct proofs will help here.  They will get you into the correct mindset and also provide the framework that will allow you to 'hang' your proof.


text:
Reject after major revision, reason is that the journal is not suitable for this kind of work
I submitted a paper in a renowned journal. The first decision was a major revision (revise and resubmit) asking questions. I answered them all and the reviewers were happy with the answers. The second decision was reject and the reason told by the associate editor was that this kind of work is not in correct place in this journal and we should try some other journal. My point is that they could have rejected that in the first review only if this is the reason of rejection.
My question: Is such a rejection common?

What is your question?

In principle, this should happen very rarely - as you say, whether a paper fits the journal scope should be clear upon submission or after first review. I can imagine it happening if the edits significantly clarified the paper, and changed the editor's understanding of the paper's main purpose, or place in the context of the literature.

Maybe the major revisions improved the paper.  If so, it will be a better paper when you submit to another journal.  Thus, you gained by this!