text:
When to decide quitting academia?
I am in my third year of postdoc in Germany. Working in CS, I published only very few papers (3 in A* venues) during my postdoc. There are several reasons why I couldn't publish a lot of papers including a lot of teaching and working in industrial projects and no collaboration (due to the difference in topics between me and my colleagues), etc. Also, my published papers are not cited too much and comparing to other colleagues who publish in lower level venues, my publications get 1/4 of citations without knowing what are the reasons. I assume the number of publications, the quality of publications and the number of citations are the criteria to evaluate researchers.
My goal was to pursue a career in Academia and apply for a professorship but with this achievement, it does not seem feasible. I am thinking to quit academia but I am not sure whether it is the right decision because it is not what I want but what I think I have to do.
I am afraid if I wait longer, I won't find a place in industry and cannot get a professorship/tenure position.
EDIT
To generalize this situation with direct questions:

When is it too late for a researcher (postdoc in patricular) to catch up?
What to do to increase the number of citations (or it is not important) given that the papers are published in well-reputed venues.
Should a researcher focus more on paper quantity over quality when the low quantity is noticeable? (with the assumption that a good paper need more work, time and effort)

For (3), chosing quality over quantity will obviously lead to less papers and less citations.

When you vote -1, at least leave a comment what is wrong with the question!

Does this answer your question? Shall I quit academia or continue doing research without too much luck?

I didn't downvote, because I think the question is important. However, it is difficult to phrase in a way that is general enough to make it somewhat independent from individual factors and preferences. Have you checked other questions under the quitting tag yet?

@henning--reinstateMonica Thank you for referring to the other question but let me point that most of the questions are depndent on individual factors especially when talking about these topics where every situation is different from the other. Even slight difference makes a big change.

@henning--reinstateMonica My question is different because I don't feel I am a bad researcher but whether the circumstances that didn't allow me to publish a lot of papers will prevent me from getting a position in the future. Another side of the question is whether it is late to catch up and compensate these years.
When is it too late for a researcher to catch up? What to consider to increase the number of citations (or it is not important) given that the papers are published in well-reputed venues. Should a researcher focus more on quality over quantity when the low quantity is noticeable?

For question (1): here Stack Exchange is not so good, but have you tried looking in the Internet? I found some claims when one should stop. For question (3): Could you ask this somebody you know in real life and not in the Internet: On the Internet, people will rarely say "focus on quantity instead of quality" because this is just not the right thing to say and most people will not want this associated to their name, so you might get skewed answers on the Internet.

Generally, I would suggest talking to your friends and mentors (those who know something about Academia).

Three questions are two too many.


text:
Losing confidence after a series of paper rejections
I don't think I have a concrete question to ask but I want to hear other researchers' opinions. I am pretty sure that there are many researchers who went through this and others will go through it in the future unfortunately.
I am a postdoc researcher with a limited contract and aim to apply for professorship positions. Therefore, I am actively submitting papers (working more than my contracted hours as there are no PhD students to co-supervise and publish papers with) to come up with a good and long list of publications. However, a lot of my papers are getting rejected with a huge disparity in the reviewers' scores. As a reviewer in almost all conferences I submit my work to, I find that my submission is better or equal to top accepted papers (I don't know whether this is a bad lcuk or just an illusion).
I focus mainly on top conferences with acceptance rates of less than 30% or 25%. I was almost sure that my last paper would be accepted because I am an expert in the area and because I learnt to assess paper quality, but it got rejected a few days after another rejection. Now, I am doubting my research capability (although I used to publish easily to these conferences when I was a PhD student). I am wondering whether I am a bad researcher or just an unlucky author.

You do not mention your supervisor at all. What is their role in this story? Are they co-authors of your submissions? Have they checked your work?

@Capsule In that case I will rephrase the question: do you have (former) colleagues, co-authors, or other people that can help you getting the paper published (by proof-reading, suggesting a journal or venue, critically reading the paper, ....)

I am assuming you are in computer science and in Australia?  People should stop using A*.   In my opinion, an acceptance rate of >20% is not A*.  It's more like B, 'A' at most.

Just keep at it. Either it will start to work out or it won't. That's how life is, it isn't unique to academia.

I’m voting to close this question because it is a complaint and not a question.

This sounds like a pretty common case of the human condition.  In my single days, I used to think of dating like "strikes and gutter balls".  That is, either I was getting many dates in rapid succession or going through a prolonged dry spell.  In the former, I was feeling pretty good about myself and was quite down in the latter.
In my current research days, I find a similar emotional oscillation.  This is the nature of research, in my opinion, and it builds character.  You actually sound quite productive, and the results will come.  In fact, I would encourage you to try to get more enjoyment from the process of seeking truth rather than putting all your eggs on the often opaque 'accept/reject' decision.  If I may with another analogy, it's like learning golf.  It's a slew of mishits, duffs, shanks, slices, hooks, flubs, and ineptitude until suddenly you smash a beauty down the fairway and are the envy of your friends.  If the one great shot makes up for the many bad shots, you're hooked.  If not, you're probably going to quit.
Also, pragmatic advice holds: get sleep, review diet, practice self-care, take mental health breaks, seek advice from colleagues/advisors, confirm writing and presentation adequately represents results, etc.

It is likely that you are neither a bad researcher nor an unlucky author. The repeated rejections you describe are common in academia: even for the best postdocs it can be a long process to get papers accepted, and it is really (really really) hard to get a professorship (depending on the country and field of study).
Of course it is hard to know what is going on without further information, but reasons for the rejections could be, for example:

a less than perfect match between conference/journal subject and submitted paper,
a research subject that is not "fashionable" enough to be accepted by the best journals and conferences,
conference organisers and journal editors could be biased towards people they know or have met before,
you are focussing too much on A* conferences, maybe accepting a "lesser" conference or journal could get you started,

Also, there is more than one way to get a professorship: experience in the private sector is often highly valued, getting noticed during a non-tenured teaching position (with a percentage of time allocated for research) is a possibility, and looking for positions outside your home country could also help (if your personal circumstances permit this, of course).
In addition, there are other very nice jobs that are not professorships (arguably, there are many better jobs). It is not a failure to find a job in the private sector or to take a different (research or non-research) position at a university. It may help to look a little broader than focussing on the professorship alone.
Finally, as mentioned in the comments and other answer(s): get some rest: working 16 hours per day is not healthy and not productive. You (anybody) will perform better when they are well rested. It is better to focus and concentrate for 8 hours per day (or even less) and you will get more done than in 16 hours while tired.

It is not as hard to go from academia to the private sector as people say, although you may need to prove your skills with a certificate or clear story. I think looking for alternatives could be beneficial for you.

There is nothing called a bad researcher or an unlucky author. Getting a paper published or in general, having a successful career is less to do with sheer talent or hard work and more to do with management. Most successful academicians are excellent salesmen. And becoming an excellent salesman requires training.
My Ph.D. supervisor has 1000 papers to his name and sits on numerous committees and gets a felicitation every odd year. He has close to $15M funding currently. He gets funding not because of his technical expertise but because of his mastery in writing, connections, and excellent man-management. I hate that but it is the system we work with.
He is a bad researcher but a highly successful academician. I say bad because I did my Ph.D. under him and had to ignore him and rely on my co-supervisor because he simply does not know any of his research areas in-depth; but could talk for hours on the future possibilities, research trends, and research directions like an expert. He spends all his time collecting specific keywords from his connections and thanks to his excellent communication skills knows how to weave a story to get the funding.
My supervisor is an extreme case. But to be a good academician you need to get many things right. So firstly start collaborating. Appear as a second or third or tenth author in a number of papers. Look for A* conferences but also submit some ideas to A- and B-ranked conferences. Start building a citation network. It is criminal to engage in I cite you-You cite me, but this is how a large number of academicians thrive. You need a high H-index in your job application and for future promotions.
You are living on the other extreme. Spending long hours in a dingy room, alone working like a mad scientist won't get you anywhere. You may be good at what you do but that is simply irrelevant.
Find a balance between these two extremes. Once you are established as an academician, focus on your research, your style. You need to spend a few years doing this drill.  Who knows, maybe a Turing award or a Nobel awaits you. But, even Nobel laureates or other award winners, win their prize only when recommended by their colleagues: People like my supervisor.
Be it academia or any business only people who communicate, collaborate, and establish quid pro quo relationships, thrive. Talent, scientific expertise, in-depth knowledge of a field are secondary.
In conclusion, it does not matter if you are a good or bad researcher. You need to take certain actions to become a successful academician. And believe me, those actions are a lot easier than solving a complex problem, which I assume you are good at.
Best of luck!

Whenever I criticize academia in this forum it gets down voted. Truth hurts.

This answer is too cynical. It presents some outliers as the norm in academia. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but it is probably not the norm. And why would you want to play this game in academia when you can play it in the industry for a lot more money?

Unfortunately, they are not simply outliers. The majority of second-tier universities in the world follow these bad habits.

From your answer it seems like you believe that this behaviour is the mainstay of academia. If that were the case, these people should have been a majority in top-tier universities not just in second-tier universities.

It is clearly written that I am referring to my professor as an "extreme" case. Also, top-tier universities are far fewer in number. I suggest you read the response with an open mind. What is your experience in academia? You are sharing your opinion and I am sharing my experience. It's a harsh truth that academia, most of it, is mediocre across the spectrum. I know it hurts the academicians who read this.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to cut ties with abusive supervisor?
While I read through a similar post written by K.Grayson, I couldn't find a response that overlaps with my case.
In all honesty, I don't know in what way to explain how the situation with my M.Sc. graduate supervisor has escalated to what it has gotten. There are a lot of factors and interference by people who have nothing to do with our problems that muddled communication. Things escalated to a point where I was on the receiving end of a racist declaration from him, at which point a few breaches of my privacy had set me up on a vulnerable path.
My graduate supervisor has actually admitted to some of the abuse and said that he wouldn't do it again with his new students. (At this point, I suspect that someone in the department had found out, ousted his behavior, leading to some disciplinary action.) Unfortunately, by then, my time was up and I had already submitted my thesis, which I later defended successfully.
Leaving the lab, I actually gained nothing more than whom not to work with and whom not to be in the future. As far as my scientific development goes, I gained absolutely nothing, as extreme as that sounds. I figured since my graduate supervisor had at least admitted to some of his mistakes (mainly withholding information and exclusion from project development discussions, grant/article writing, and experiment designing) that he wouldn't stop me from getting that training I had missed somewhere else. I was wrong. In applying to a PhD program in my field, I had asked him if he could write a strong recommendation later (through e-mail) for me, explaining that this is a field I would like to dedicate myself to, and asked if he could be objective despite his personal reservations. He wrote that he would.
I was rejected, unfortunately. I grew suspicious, however, of the rejection. I went back to the previously mentioned e-mail, where he had forwarded the PhD department's request for the letter. (He forwarded the e-mail to me initially to convince me that the deadline was not what I was informing him to be. I sent him a link to the department's website to see for himself that I wasn't lying to him.) In the e-mail there was a link, and I clicked on it and read the letter. I know that what I did was unethical, and there is probably no excuse that I can offer to justify it. I know why I did it and I have come to terms with that. However, now I also know that my graduate supervisor does and will not have my best interest at heart, and thus I cannot trust him. I also know that, given that most of the things that have happened with him would require that witnesses corroborate my experience, I essentially cannot relate what I went through in that lab.
I am currently seeking psychiatric help since the culmination of what happened at that lab has left me cynical, enraged, and depressed. I am also having a hard time with the psychiatrist who suspects that I have gone through a psychotic break that left me delusional. Honestly, I don't want retribution or anything; I just want to move on and continue research in my field of interest. It feels like all doors are closing on me, and I just want a clean break from anything that has to do with him and his influence. Is it even worth staying in the same field? If even a psychiatrist is skeptical that a graduate supervisor would do that, is this uphill battle too steep for me to climb?
Thanks.
Edit:  I provided the background info I thought necessary for a stranger to understand my position right now. To clarify my question: what are my chances of getting into and continuing research in the same field considering that:
1. I don't have the primary reference expected by grad schools to be the best source of information on my performance; and
2. I cannot relay what has happened since I am afraid it would be dismissed the same way as with my psychiatrist?
Also, Dawn brings up a good question. How do I go about building new research mentors using a diplomatic approach to discuss my M.Sc. experience?

This is not a question. It's a rant.

There are nasty supervisors, and my commiseration for being in this situation. However, you committed (at least) two grave mistakes: 1. you asked him for a reference, despite your distrust. Bad move 2. Now, your distrust was so deep that you found it appropriate to click a link that was not yours to use. If you wanted to see your reference, you could have requested it officially in many legislations. You understand yourself how this is patently wrong and unethical, be the superviser what they are. Get other referees. Do not ask him for favours. Cut him out of your life. Go somewhere else.

I think you need to edit the post with a more specific question in the body of the text. Do you want to know how to proceed into a PhD despite this bad relationship? Do you want to know how to find a better support system (psychologist, research mentors)?

I am also having a hard time with the psychiatrist who is skeptical that... — Find a new psychiatrist!

_ I know that what I had done was unethical, and there is probably no excuse that I can offer to justify it._ — Don't be so hard on yourself.  You had excellent reasons to suspect that your former supervisor lied to your face and then stabbed you in the back, and you were right.

@user72102 The whole point of abusive people (incl. supervisors) is that they are self-contradictory (or they would be perhaps be called harsh and strict, but not abusive). They think they will do something, perhaps they really believe it (e.g. be neutral in writing a recommendation), but they cannot actually do it, but nevertheless fool themselves they can; they cannot stop being themselves. One should stay away from people like that. Whoever asks for a favour from such a person, and clearly a person one does not trust, exposes oneself to the whims of their abusive compulsion.

I was going to just leave this as a comment, but I feel like it's worth an answer (even if it's effectively only one half of the answer), given the other current one:
Your current therapist (psychiatrist) has tried to guide you through this in a way that has caused you to mistrust them, by calling your account into doubt in a way that questions your grounding in reality and as a sole means of directing that line of inquiry, rather than something such as a strategy leading you to find (should they even exist) other symptoms that can serve as evidence of differences between what you recall and what may have actually occurred, should there even be any such discrepancies. All they have done is put you purely on the defensive and add an element of antagonism to a situation where you are already highly pressured from external sources, and where your issues stem from a situation where your trust was horribly abused. From how you are discussing the experience, it sounds like you are unlikely to receive meaningful therapy with them at this point, if trust with your therapist can't be re-established.
Find a good Clinical Psychologist. (PsyD or PhD)
If you do not have other, local avenues of seeking a referral you trust (and assuming that this is in the US), the APA maintains a Psychologist Locator service. You should probably first check if there aren't any state based referral networks available to you, if you can't get a personal referral from someone you trust. One avenue can be through your University's psychology department, not necessarily in terms of seeking care but at least a trusted referral.
A good psychologist will also be positioned to help you move on socially and professionally/academically from this as specific to your situation, with setting up both coping strategies and boundaries, and helping reflect on your own behavior, thoughts, and feelings in relation to both what happened and in moving forward from it. Not every psychologist is a perfect fit for everyone, and not every form of therapy as administered is a perfect fit personally or situationally: it's ok to tell a psychologist who you're trying to work with that things aren't working out with them and you feel you need to see someone else. Every clinical psychologist I personally know would be more than happy to refer you to a colleague who might be a better fit, in that situation.
If you feel you need medical (psychopharmaceutical) support to help manage things like immediately severe (acute) emotional issues while working on recovering, then seek a referral to a psychiatrist for that. There's nothing wrong with needing more or more immediate help than what therapy alone can offer, but I would suggest being upfront with your psychologist about that too (and usually they can be a good source of a referral to someone who can handle the medical side of things in a balanced manner) as it will affect how therapy proceeds in relation to corresponding changes.
A Psychologist will also be able to administer any well validated instruments that are appropriate, or refer you to someone who specializes in related testing, if there is a need for any.

I cannot relay what has happened since I am afraid it would be
  dismissed the same way as with my psychiatrist?

This is, ultimately, part of why this answer focuses on seeking out a psychologist to help you through this, because while your focus is on what happened (which is completely understandable), you may need to work on processing it as something unfair and unjust that happened to you and work on moving past it without relying on the particulars of the event as justification for how you choose to do so.
Sometimes when we are in the middle of a situation, all of our attention remains riveted on what happened, and we lose sight of simple answers to moving forward where what happened isn't a relevant matter to doing so. Some of @aparente001's answer focuses on suggestions that would fall under this.
I can think of at least a couple of Psychology Professors who also do clinical work, who I'm personally well acquainted with who have "seen it all" in academia and would give whatever story you have complete face value credence: if you can't find someone willing to give what happened to you a fair listening without immediately jumping to questioning your grounding in reality simply on a basis of what happened, then keep looking, because they are out there. At the same time, it's important to understand that questions of whether your perception of what happened might differ from the actual events is also not necessarily an attack on your state of mind. We are all prone to remembering things in ways that are not perfectly genuine to actual events.
Someone who approaches that line of questioning should manage to do so in a way that doesn't leave you completely distrusting them, however.

Things escalated to a point where I was on the receiving end of a racist declaration from him

It's unfortunate that you apparently have no documentation of your supervisor's behavior (although there may be more evidence of that behavior than you believe exists), because I realize the reality is that it can make filing a grievance difficult. I do think it's likely that you probably should file one either way (not about the letter, but about the behavior you experienced) from even the little you've relayed here, depending on the political situation within the department, but given how that may impact you professionally it's probably best to explore a discussion of that with someone you trust and with whom you can discuss it confidentially (which again, leads to the recommendation of seeking out a clinical psychologist you can form a strong working relationship with). I think if I had friends/allies in the department who were familiar with the Dean in particular and the political situation with your adviser in relation to the rest of the department, I would sound things out with them after receiving some counseling, and then make a decision of how to proceed with anything more formal based on their feedback.

Well, you've had a nightmare of an experience so far in grad school, and your therapist is alarming you by speculating that you are delusional.  You know, it's possible that both things are true.  It's possible that you were badly treated, AND your grasp on objective reality is tenuous.
Of course I don't know; but perhaps a visit to your primary medical doctor could help.  In other words, perhaps you could take a step back and get an initial mental health screening from a generalist.  S/he might recommend that you get a more specialized evaluation.  When a person has a mental health condition, it can be helpful to be aware of it and learn more about it.
I don't know if this psychiatrist is a good fit for you or not; but I do know that it can't hurt to get a second opinion.
As for cutting ties -- I don't see that you have any ties, currently, with your advisor, given that you complete your master's degree.  Is there something I'm missing?
With regard to your PhD applications -- I suggest you ask a department administrator or another member of your thesis committee for a letter of recommendation.
If necessary, you could look for someone else to write your letter, by taking or auditing a class, helping someone with a project, doing an internship, etc.

I would add that (good) friends are grounding-- they know you best and are in a position to say whether they think you might have a mental health issue.

Please get another doctor. I hope you were able to move on from that creep. There are too many criminals in academia today, sadly. I dropped out of grad school and had my own mental health emergency because of the abuse and toxic environment within. The imbalance of power between advisor and student sets up too many opportunities for corruption.

First, it is good that you recognized the need for and sought out counseling.  Kudos to you for making that big step - many people can't get that far.
Second, sort out the psychiatric stuff first, so you are sure you have a clear head to deal with the academic issues.  Or at least get to a state where you are sure you are able to operate objectively.
Thirdly, it is possible the psychiatrist is just not a good fit.  Not your fault - it happens.  Try another one, at least for an initial second opinion. A diagnosis of delusions is serious enough to warrant a second opinion.
Fourth, as someone who had issues with a PhD adviser myself, I found a sympathetic ear and good advice from another professor who at the time held the title of Head of Graduate Adviser (within my department). He provided good advice and was sympathetic to the issues at hand. In my case, the right person was available and known to me (and me to him).  There might be another faculty member, a department staff person or someone a level up in the Deans office to whom you can talk who will maintain your confidentiality.
One last bit of advice: if you don't feel confident enough to pursue this through the academic faculty channels, search out the Dean of Student Affairs or the equivalent.  As an undergrad I had to "rescue" a friend who became a danger to them-self and I turned to the Dean of Student Affairs. In total confidence they helped me get help for my friend and to workout some of the related academic issues.

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

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


text:
How to politely encourage academic integrity in non-academics?
To give context for the question I have volunteered to do some work for a local charity. The work they do is literally lifesaving and almost certainly something the government should be responsible for, but the reality is that various charities are filling the breech.
What I will do for them is data processing, they have messy data and they want some estimates for things they didn't record at the time. They will use the results to apply for funding for further work.
In one of our meeting the topic of negative findings came up, for instance, what if their work isn't cost efficient compared to charity Y? The immediate response was a sort of joking "Oh we will bury it!".
I was too uncomfortable to say something at the time, but I absolutely do not want to bury any findings. I understand that other charities may be burying bad findings, and refusing to do so may put this charity at a competitive disadvantage. Having read about what this has lead to in the pharmaceutical industry I know that this is probably more serious than anyone in the charity realises. In the long term it could completely undermine the causes they work for.
Unlike scientists in the pharmaceutical industry this work is not my primary research topic, and I'm not being paid for it. My continued employment at my university is not threatened anything this charity do. So I could just read the them riot act, however I suspect if I do that they will say "Oh sure" and then ignore it later. I need to be diplomatic and convincing. They care about the work they do, but they also care about their own organisation, and asking them to do this is good for the work but bad for the organisation.
How can I best approach this?

What are you/they going to do with the findings (other than apply for funding)? Will they be published? It’s in their best interests to act on any negative findings and improve, but it may not be in their best interests to publicly broadcast their weaknesses immediately (before acting to improve on them). Publishing takes time and they can take action in the interim.

@Pam, they will be published in informal ways. Think info graphics, and funding bids. I guess I'm mostly worried about them convincing the counsel and other funding bodies that something they are doing is an excellent solution when the data says it's actually not that great.

I think you are discounting the difficulty of doing useful research in this space! Are you a social scientist? What is your research background? I would be shocked if you could make any definitive conclusions from post-hoc data comparing impact or cost-effectiveness of two organizations. Because everything will be a grey area, you should have fewer concerns!

What country are you in?

"Academic integrity?" You probably haven't met many Academics, have you? :p

Ask for another meeting. Explain politely that you were very concerned by the "bury it" remark.  See what they say.  With a little luck, it'll end there.
If you're not satisfied, you can ask for a letter explaining how they will handle any negative results and make your continued volunteer work contingent on getting a letter that's satisfactory to you.
If you don't get it, walk.  The inefficiencies you're worried about will eventually come to light, and you don't want to be tarred with that brush.
Edit: The remark from Pam to the question has very good advice for conducting the meeting I suggested.  A positive approach early-on is quite likely to lead to a satisfactory conclusion, without need for letters, etc.

I think the most reasonable thing to request is that any negative findings are acted upon, not buried or publicised. They’re not academics but they have got one on board to provide rigour and objectivity, which is a good indicator of good intentions (or over confidence). But clarification is needed, if only to reassure the researcher that their findings (good or bad) will have some positive impact.

Pam is right. You might also look at the new book out by Gugerty and Karlan. It thinks about the multiple kinds of research that can be useful to nonprofits. It might help to clarify your objectives and concerns.

Pam has a great point in the comments.
Different publications have different purposes -  marketing materials, grant applications, etc. serve the purpose of advertising and attracting funding, not adding to the academic body of knowledge about best practices. They should focus on positives.
An internal report is an appropriate place to show negative results. It can guide strategy and planning, hopefully steering the organization to a more effective path.
Maybe they partner with another organization to adopt more effective practices. Maybe they do an internal review and make program adjustments. Maybe, after they've had a chance to course-correct, they make a peer-reviewed publication about the best practices, showing the negative results. Maybe they find confounding factors that weren't accounted for in your analysis and decide the conclusions weren't correct.
Do talk more with them and make sure there is a mutual understanding about appropriate courses of action for different results. Present possible negative results as learning opportunities, and indications of areas that need additional analysis. Maybe you help them set up automated regular metrics, so they can track their own performance and improvement.
I don't know the depth of work you are planning to do, but don't presume that (small) negative results are damning. The work and rigor of analysis is very different for an infographic vs a program evaluation.

I have worked with and mentored recent hires from academia in both government and private organizations. They often have similar kinds of concerns. This is the kind of advice I typically give them:
Fulfill the Request Honestly
First, your stakeholder asked you to perform some analytical task. The most important thing is that (if possible) you return the kind of value they requested. This is basic customer service - give them what they asked for.
For example, if they asked you to estimate how long the average child spends in a foster home you should respond with:

"The average child spends X days in our foster home".

Feel free to flesh out your conclusion as much as you like (are there different sub-populations with interesting and different trends?)
Provide Appropriate Caveats
During your analysis, you will likely become aware of limitations in the data or your analysis. Disclose them to your boss - but only if they are material to the organization's decisions.
For example, the hypothetical foster care analysis might have been limited because data for an entire subset of children was unavailable (maybe all of March's records were wiped out, or the organization didn't record arrival times when kids were escorted in after normal business hours).
This sounds like a big deal!  Would knowing that these records were not included in the analysis likely lead to a different conclusion than assuming they were? If so, disclose it.
Talk About Resolutions
Here's the thing with mentioning problems: you were probably hired to provide solutions, not problems. When you disclose limitations or problems you should focus on something actionable. How can the organization solve the problem? What would it matter?

"I ran the numbers on the average time kids spend in our foster homes.
  We have quite a few kids arriving after hours in emergency situations,
  and we don't record when they arrive. I'm concerned about this because
  those kids may spend far less time in our foster home than other kids.
  We could be over-estimating.  Why don't we talk to the case managers
  and see if we can improve this?"

Data quality is likely only important to your stakeholders if it will improve their business process. If they push back, connect data quality (or any other concern) to their operations:

"I understand keeping track of these records may seem unimportant, but
  we use the this number when we build financial forecasts. Right now we
  are overestimating how long each kid spends here, so we are probably
  overestimating our costs also. We could tighten that up and save the
  Board a lot of stress if we improved our record keeping."

The Boss Decides What is Important
Finally, the function of executives or managers in an organization is to set the priorities of their organization. It is entirely up to them whether what you disclose is important or not.  Respect that they have this authority and that you don't.
If you followed my above steps, you should have a pretty solid case. You would have given them the information they wanted, shown them the limitation, explained why the limitation harms their operations, and provided a solution.
They may decide that your solution is important and they will look into it. They may decide that the fix isn't worth the cost. Or they may disagree that it's really a problem. Respect their decision.


text:
Is it alright to cover some information in the defense but not the written thesis?
I will soon finish my thesis and I researched a lot in this technological area. Basically I want to say: “I have these n methods that all didn’t work out; that’s why I’ve decided to pursue this final method.” However I’m lacking time for extensively testing all these misleading alternatives, thus I could only state that I barely had empirically tested these hypotheses (which is a bad style to write down in my opinion).
Since part of the thesis is giving a presentation of it, I could imagine to mention all the dead-ends I went in before and describing the difficulties that occurred. But then again I'm not sure if its alright to present data in the presentation that the document never covered.
Hence, would it be acceptable to present the methods I didn’t dare to write down (because of the missing tests) as some kind of introduction to my final choice, or is it a total no-go?

I wouldn't include this in the presentation but if somebody asks about other methods etc. I'd mention all the dead ends.

Usually the (final version of the) document  has more information than the presentation, because the presentation is considered as a "short version" of the thesis (this may vary)... If you don't want to write it down because you didn't do it properly, why would you draw the attention of the committee to it by including that on the presentation?

@Dias solely to give an insight that I have made extensive researches about it and didn't just caught up at the first idea. After I've seen that the method worked I simply have forgot about evaluating the other approaches. Btw. Here it is you give in the document and a few weeks afterwards you hold the presentation, thus I'd have time to fix the missing parts - but just for the presentation

I would keep the alternative methods and their evaluation as supporting material in case you are asked about alternatives you considered. It is usually tough enough to explain the essentials of your thesis in the available time.

How long is will your thesis presentation be? Mine was barely long enough to give an overview of the problems, the context, and a summary of the results in the thesis.

I barely had empirically tested these hypotheses (which is a bad style to write down in my opinion). — Bad style or not, it's the truth, arguably more so than writing that they "all didn't work out", which implies failure after a good-faith effort.

@AntonioVargas I have this idea in mind of one slide with all the methods at the very beginning, as some kind of introduction to the actual problem (as mentioned). My intention is rather to leave the solid impression that I have done enough to chose this way, than to really conduct the mechanisms of each variant.

Is it alright to cover additional information in the thesis-presentation than in its document?

No, that would probably not be a good idea.
As mentioned in the comments above, your presentation will be time-limited enough as it is, so wasting precious time in your defense on things that are not covered in your thesis is not a wise choice.
Assuming that your committee members read your thesis beforehand, if they read it carefully enough, they may notice that your presentation contains information not in the thesis text, and that will open up a can of worms that you most assuredly do not want to be dealing with on this very important day in your career.
Having said that ...

basically I want to say I have these n methods that all didn't work out, that's why I've decided to pursue this final method. However I'm lacking time for extensively testing all these misleading alternatives, thus I could only state that I barley had empirically tested these theses

It sounds like you should mention something in your thesis text about these other methods; surely, there must be some rationale behind why you chose the method you eventually selected, even if you did not extensively test the others.
So, go ahead and add a brief summary of the other methods to your thesis, along with some rationale about why you eventually chose the method you did. Once you do that, you'll be ready discuss this matter briefly during your presentation and be able to confidently provide some much-needed rationale for your choices in your defense.
Good luck.

I would not worry about any committee member knowing your thesis text well enough to uncover a small discrepancy. (of course there is still little reason to talk about this in the defense in the first place)

n+1 methods were trialed; Method X [the one you ended up using] was the most promising [say in what sense], so it was chosen for further study.

I would not plan to cover something verbally without documenting it in your written thesis.  However, if someone asks you about something that's not in your written thesis, you may go ahead and answer to the best of your ability, even if the thesis doesn't have the answer in writing.

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


text:
How much does the future career of a PhD student matter to the advisor?
I am struggling with my Post-PhD career. I am still looking for positions and I getting zero response. My advisor is giving me no leads and I don't know if she's even bothered about my career prospects. She has offered me a one year postdoc position in my current lab. Apart from that, there's no further help.
I don't know if a PhD advisor even cares for their students. I feel so unsupported and lost.
Edit: The problem is I work on a modeling technique and research area that's not in her expertise. I started the entire work and now she has other PhD students working on the topic due to the multiple papers I published. I have already staying around 6 years with her. My PhD went so long due to my own faults. Now I am absolutely lost and disillusioned.

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

Supervisor A always has 20 or more PhD students in their group, and time only for those who deliver stuff that can be published in a top-notch journal.
Supervisor B usually has less than 5, a door that is always open, and all the students have at least three manuscripts published in good journals by the time they defend their thesis.
--
Which do you think cares more about their students' futures?
Bonus question: which do you think prospective students will flock to? (The answer may surprise you.)

It seems that your advisor has not done a great job mentoring you in your post-PhD job search. It's typical for advisors to at least forward on job announcements to students on the hunt, and these tend to be pretty widely circulated. I'm a postdoc and I get emails like this asking me to forward on to good candidates, so even junior professors should have some leads.
I'm also concerned that you feel she doesn't seem bothered at all. That's a breakdown in either communication or in actual mentorship. Your advisor should care about you career (even if caring means telling you she doesn't think you should continue in academia). Doing nothing there is in my opinion not doing a good job.
She did offer you a postdoc, which is something, but you need some mentorship. I'd try talking to her about this to see if her lack of interest in your job search is intentional or just something she isn't on top of.
Sadly, while my opinion is advisors do have this obligation to their students, the academy has very little structure to hold advisors accountable to these standards (and in fact what standards apply to advisors are not talked about often and there is little widespread consensus).
There is vague incentive to treat graduate students well in order to attract talent to your group, but this is hardly enough to guarantee advisors will follow through (as many questions on this site demonstrate). Beyond that there's not much to ensure your advisor cares.

Sorry but advisors have no obligation to help students or postdocs with their careers.  They have contractual obligations to postdocs, and academic obligations to their students, but no other obligation.  Sure, some will help but to suggest it is an obligation is too strong.

@ZeroTheHero I strongly disagree that advisors have no obligation to professionally mentor students. That doesn't mean a student will be a good fit for an academic career, but the professional development should be part of the education. PhDs on average do not provide enough financial value to offset the years of low pay. The system is just not moral if education and mentorship aren't being given to the grad students who provide a huge value to the university in producing research and teaching for extremely low pay.

@ZeroTheHero I also think I provided plenty of wording to indicate this is my view of the obligation advisors have and the direction the academy should go, and I explicitly said there is no widespread consensus. Your comment and downvote seems to indicate that you think there IS widespread consensus against the idea that advisors are meant to be professional mentors as well, which is just not true and a poor characterization of the academy.

(your post does not currently have a downvote, and if it ever did it was not from me). Mentoring  students yes, and even mentoring former students once they have a job yes, but helping with careers is not mentoring.  I agree with much of what you say, except the word “obligation”.  The flip side of some of your observations is I have seen too many students implicitly waiting for their supervisors to find them a job.  There are bad actors (students and faculty) on both sides of such situations.

Some advisors are more engaged than others; some think that talented students ought to be able to find positions on their own, and will provide minimal direct guidance but strongly supporting former students when they apply.   There are so many variables that one must sympathize with OP but at the same time realize the advisor cannot be judged on the basic of lack of applicant success.


text:
Referencing mistake in masters dissertation
I handed in my masters dissertation a few weeks ago and I’ve now discovered a referencing mistake in my literature review. A medical publication I’d been citing has had a number of updates over the years and instead of citing the earlier year (2009) I’ve cited 2018. I could kick myself. I’m very anxious about this and not sure if I should just wait it out or speak to my advisor? I had mentioned to him that I couldn’t stop re reading it (before I realised about the year thing and he told me stop it and I wish I had listened. I realise that nothing can be done to rectify it and I’m willing to accept I’ll lose marks if found but I’m worried something more serious will happen. I’m so mortified and hoped to apply for a PhD next year ( I was on track for a first) I honestly can’t believe I’ve made such a careless mistake. Marks are due out at the end of Nov.

If you are feeling very anxious you should discuss that with a mental health professional.

What's your question?

So the only issue is that the year of publication for a single reference is incorrect?

No I’ve used the source a few times and cited them all as 2018.

It’s referenced in the ref list as 2018 so I guess the only way it will be flagged at this stage is if they check the quotes or if the marker is very familiar with the guidelines and realises the mistake. I’m more concerned it will be picked up later if someone chooses to read it from the share folder in the library - not that I think it would be widely read but my advisor does circulate previous dissertations so that students can get an idea of structure etc.

Because it’s a medical publication it updates every few years. The direct quotes I cited can be found in the 2009 guidelines - they were adjusted and some were removed for the 2018 edition (the year I gave after the quote). Therefore, if you attempted to look up the direct quotes they can no longer be found on the 2018 edition. Maybe I’m making more of it that needs be, my university is very strict re referencing and I’m pretty annoyed at myself for making such a careless mistake.

I don't have enough reputation to comment but we are all human and we make mistakes, you could ask your advisor about submitting an erratum but it is generally done only for peer-reviewed publications.
Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about a typo in my citations. Unless the entire conclusions of a section really depended on the results from this particular reference.

Thanks, it’s part of my literature review so not directly related to my thoughts/conclusions.

Your school may have a procedure for submitting updates/corrections to your dissertation.  This will probably require contacting the committee who reviewed the original work, and also the library that archives copies of the dissertation.
This citation error, however, is pretty minor, and while you reference a newer copy instead of the old, most researchers may figure it out from context.

Thank you, although I don’t think this happens at masters level at my university. I think if it’s not picked up at marking I will suggest to my advisor that I spotted a mistake and can I put an update on it?


text:
A current PhD applicant in a dilemma between current lab and other programs
Some of my backgrounds: Currently a master's student in a good but not top school. Now in a research group that could have been more productive. I am applying for PhD programs in this round of application (applying in 2020 and entering in 2021).
My current professor invited me to join his lab as a PhD student. However, I am quite done with computational chemistry and I am indeed interested in doing other topics in the future. I want to talk with my advisor about this but I don't want to be completely insecure with my options. Any suggestion?

Just because someone invites you to continue at their school does not mean they will not support you in applying elsewhere, especially if the other places are higher rated. This is a common confusion for students and gets asked a couple times a year on this site. If they did not refuse to write you a letter then you should say you appreciate the offer and then go ahead and apply widely as you had planned.

You are not turning down, you are waiting to see what the full choice set entails.

I would suggest that you be as open and honest with your current supervisor as you can. No surprises, no evasion. Tell him your list of schools. Tell him you want to aim as high as you possibly can. From your current A+ school, possibly to an A++ school.
I have known some students in your position. A student who excels under a professor makes the prof look very good. If that student goes on to one of the very tip-top schools after working with the prof, the prof's reputation grows. Maybe he is sad to see you go, but he should also be glad to see somebody he taught go on to Big Things.


text:
Mention incomplete PhD in Europe in the Statement of Purpose for PhD in USA?
I started a PhD project in Europe. However, as the project was going in a direction quite different from what I had expected, I spoke to my supervisor and converted it into a research position for a year. In Europe one does not get to change topics in a PhD as one is technically a temporary employee for a fixed research topic. I am now applying to PhD programs in the United States. Leaving a PhD project is generally looked down upon, but I do want to tell my future supervisor these things. I have 2 options to do so-
Option 1 -  Mention all this in my Statement of Purpose. This might be risky as every individual has a different way of interpreting the written word.
Option 2- Mention this in my Statement of Purpose as a research project and if I manage to get an interview. Mention this verbally (online).
Which one shall be looked at as a better option ?

@Roland Yes that is correct. The funding was from a specific project.

First, the SoP is not the place to explain the past, especially problems in the past. The SoP should be entirely focused on future plans, both for study and thereafter. It isn't normally a document of unlimited length, so use the available space there to show what you intend to do in doctoral study as well as future career direction.
However, a short phrase of a few words might be used as a lead in to focus on those plans. "Since my earlier doctoral study was interrupted by ... I intend to return ...". You can probably state it better, but there is no real need to explain and certainly no need to make excuses.
Another short phrase about the research project itself might be used to lead in to write about the future. But, I'm suggesting less than full sentences and certainly not a paragraph to explain such things. And the research position is likely mentioned in the CV also.
Be prepared to give a longer explanation in an interview, of course.
Your change and interruption seem perfectly logical to me, but I won't be on the application committee. Note that you will likely be asked to provide transcripts of all previous education, and so the dropped doctoral study may show up there.
For more on doctoral applications in the US see the answer for the United States here.


text:
Dealing with the psychological stress of faculty applications
I am applying for faculty jobs. As you all know, it is a stressful and frustrating experience. Many institutions explicitly state that they will not contact candidates who were not selected for an interview. It is like feeling my way around in the dark: I do not know if I was already rejected, I can only suspect it. If I was rejected, I can never be certain about why this happened, and whether it is because of a reason that I have any control over. Is my application simply weak, and if yes, can it be improved at all? Did they have a particular profile in mind even if they did not state it? Did they already have a preferred candidate? Am I too old, in real or academic years (it matters, regardless of what they say)? Am I being disadvantaged by not having networked enough (which does not come to me naturally)?
I have not yet managed to secure any interviews. I am losing hope that I will ever succeed. I have no doubt that this is what I want to do, and I think that I am capable of doing it, but I find it more and more difficult to believe that it will work out for me. This causes a psychological block that makes it difficult to keep going, to keep rewriting applications, to keep working over weekends to get papers out in time to include in applications, etc. Don't get me wrong, I am not consciously giving up, but again and again I find myself having spent a day in front of the computer trying to work but not making much progress. This should not happen, it's been a while since I was a student. Yet writer's block and unintentional procrastination are worse than ever. By the end of the day I loathe my documents and find it hard to trust that they are any good, and just can't make yet another revision. What makes the application experience stressful is that I do not have a very solid basis to judge how realistic my chances are. My supervisor is generally encouraging, but that is not sufficient at this point.
To make this question concrete: I am certain that my problem is far from unique. How have you dealt with this, and how did you manage to keep positive and keep pushing forward? How do you decide in a non-emotional way when it's time to stop and give up?
I sometimes wonder if the fact that I am affected so badly by the situation, up to some psychosomatic symptoms, is a sign that I am simply not suited for a career in academia. One must have better resilience to stress and a better fighting spirit. A professor is responsible not only for themselves, but also for their students, and must support their students and postdocs through similar crises. If I cannot manage myself, how could I support others? This thought does not help at all.

+1 for username

How is that about Academia rather than stress, please?

"...again and again I find myself having spent a day in front of the computer trying to work but not making much progress. This should not happen..."
If it's any consolation, I've been a faculty member for a couple years and this still happens to me some days.

I'm in a field where some positions get close to 1000 applications.  Here are the two pieces of advice I have for everyone on the job market.

Probability does work.  If you're a slightly above average applicant, the odds of getting any job from your point of view (in other words, not having any insider information) are at most 5%.  For most jobs, it's considerably lower.  However, if you send out 100 applications, all those 2-3% chances, plus all those 0.5% chances, actually do add up to something approximating a pretty good chance for a job.  (In particular, they are actually pretty close to probabilistically independent.)  This means you really should not think about any particular job; your chances of that job are tiny.  It's the mass of applications that gives you a chance.

Before the whole process even starts, you should have some idea what you will do if you don't get an academic job.  Having a plan is more reassuring than having no plan.  Also, having a plan gives you some baseline to compare any prospective job against, so that you don't end up in an unsuitable job.

As a professor at a university with a low-ranked PhD program, I make sure students understand how bad the job market is before agreeing to advise them.  I will only agree to advise a student after I've made sure they understand they most likely will not find an academic job after their PhD.

In the year 2020, there are not 100 jobs advertised.

"I will only agree to advise a student after I've made sure they understand they most likely will not find an academic job after their PhD."  Well done.

I understand that a faculty search is not a one-dimensional horse race, but if we stay in the framework you mentioned, a "slightly above average applicant" has in fact a 0% chance of getting the job (on merit). Because if the position has a 1,000 applicants, you still have 400 in front of you that are much "better" than slightly above average. There's no chance by accident your number gets pulled. That's probably even true if there are 'only' 100 or 30 applicants per job... In such a scenario increasing the number of times you play this game will not really improve your chances much.

And yes, I totally agree that the "quality" of an application is hard to judge and depends on many random factors as well as a mysterious "match" with what the search committee wants (without knowing it themselves...). However, it is important to keep in mind that in order to win in the game of job applications you actually have to land in the top three or so, not just decently high up in the field. That extremely non-linear payoff is important to keep in mind.

@user2705196: You are very much not understanding how different the preferences of different positions are.  When 100 US universities hire, their top choices will be 70 or 80 different people, not the same 5 or 10 for all of them.

Also, the top three or so applicants can only consume three jobs. While there are certainly more jobs than applicants, and some institutions will simply hire no one rather than take a candidate they aren't at least somewhat happy with, some of those jobs are being filled by someone's second, third, etc choice.

@AlexanderWoo This isn't really consistent with my own experiences on the job market and as part of hiring committees. At least for the kind of jobs I have experience with (research-intensive, CS, Europe) people indeed have different preferences, but it mainly makes them make a different choice among the 2-5 finalists. I have never seen somebody from the middle of the pack get picked due to "preferences".

I do agree that "playing the odds" is a key element of job hunting (never put all your eggs into one basket), but realistically your application still needs to be quite a bit better than "above average" to have a real shot.

@xLeitix: The US has a greater diversity of jobs - not all jobs are research-intensive, or not equally research-intensive.  Also, math has a history of advertising without specific subfields requested, when in fact there are hidden preferences for various subsubsubfields (across various diverse subfields) based on what existing faculty might want to learn about.  Teaching-oriented jobs come with their own preferences, because what makes a good teacher at a liberal arts college with good students in Georgia might be completely different at a comprehensive with mediocre students in California.

@AlexanderWoo I mean, Europe also has very diverse jobs. But I assume that as a candidate you don't apply for jobs that you aren't qualified for or not interested in? So the kind of jobs you actually apply for will necessarily be a lot more homogeneous than all academic jobs that are out there.

Applying for jobs is a stressful job in itself, especially during a time like this. You're certainly not alone in your concerns and anxieties.
In terms of the lack of response/feedback from potential employers, it can be frustrating to not know whether or not you should write them off. Unfortunately, it's just the way it is, and not only in academia. In my own experience on the job market (3 years in a row), if I didn't get a response 4-6 weeks after applying for a job, I would assume that they've moved on to other candidates. In terms of figuring out if there are ways you can improve your application materials, I would suggest having someone (like your supervisor) look over your documents. You can also consult resources like The Professor is In. For example: https://theprofessorisin.com/2017/11/18/your-academic-cover-letter-dont-fall-into-the-cliche-trap-about-teaching/ (though there are a ton of helpful posts about different types of job documents, so spend some time on there searching if you haven't explored her website before)
I would say, however, that more often than not, rejections have more to do with fit than qualifications. I've served on a job search committee before, and you get so many applications for a single job, many of which reflect extremely qualified and experienced candidates, but they simply don't match up with what the search committee is looking for, or at least they don't match up nearly as well as other job candidates. So, please don't think that a lack of response necessarily reflects deficiencies on your part.
Coming to some of your concrete questions: for me, it was definitely rough-going, but I kept pushing on because I was certain that I wanted a career in academia. However, I was also certain that I didn't want to suffer financially/get stuck in unstable positions for it, so I was also resolved to leave academia if I couldn't find the right job. In my case, it wasn't until my 3rd year on the market that I had made that decision, and it was only because at that point, I finally had my PhD in hand but had a job where my contract wasn't going to be renewed. My mindset was that - as much as I love teaching and research - I wasn't going to be forced into unemployment or into an underpaid, exploitative job just to stay in academia, because I'd rather be able to pay my bills. In my case, I did end up finding a tenure-track job just as I was starting to prep for non-academic job applications, but I was definitely ready to leave.
Regarding the question of being able to help students when you're struggling yourself: I understand that, but we're all human. We all struggle, and no one is in the position to pass judgement on that. I'd also add - while you might be struggling now - with time, you'll learn to manage, and you'll come out of all of this a bit wiser and in a better position to support others based on your experiences. If anything, the people who offer the best support or the ones who've actually experienced struggles themselves.

Apply for a position in Norway (or Sweden)
As a matter of politeness: Please don't apply to positions that are you not interesting in taking if offered.
Every time I have applied for a position in Norway I have received the report of an external committee that has given a ranking of the candidates with a more-or-less brief description of every candidate; whether they are qualified or not and how strong they are (perhaps in comparison to the other candidates), with more attention on the top candidates. I have not received such a list consistently in Sweden, or maybe I have forgotten an instance.
This list gives you an idea of your strength as an applicatant. If you were lucky enough to have some other people you know apply for the same position, you can get an idea of how they compare to you. Furthermore, you may get an idea about how well you managed to communicate with your application materials.
This applies to permanent faculty positions on assistant/associate professor level (førsteamanuensis in Norway), at least.
This does not remove all the stress
There is still the matter of being called or not for interview, how did the interview go, and even if they say they would like to offer you a position, there is still a commitee meeting where they usually check that the recruiting process has followed the relevant laws. And the process is not fast. But at least you get some information.

Would they really do this for, say, 500 candidates?

@AlexanderWoo I guess it is required by law. The amount of (qualified) applicants has not been as huge as 500 in the situations I have seen. Maybe on the order of 100 at most, but I am not going check particular numbers.

Thanks for the tip. In fact, I did apply there and received a rejection with no other information than that I was too old in academic age, and therefore disqualified. Sweden seems to have a hard cutoff on the time since obtaining one's PhD. I do appreciate that they at least emailed me about the rejection.

@Tommi The rejection letter also stated the number of applicants, which was in fact over 500 ...

@WishfulThinking How old is too old in academic age?

@AlexanderWoo Yes, they do (by law), but in my experience the "detail" and usefulness of these reports isn't what you would hope it is. I.e., you should not expect a review report but rather a couple of generic bullet points, and more often than not the real reason why you were not selected gets scratched by HR :)

In my experience (mostly from Norway) there have been from a couple of sentences of description (several applicants, weaker ones get this) to half a page (the strongest candidates). Since the committee is independent of the university, there is no HR, only politeness. Sweden seems to not be quite as reliable with this.