text:
Do you have to have a PhD to be a "research scientist"?
I'm graduating from my master's degree at MIT this summer and I have a chance to stay for another year as an employee in my current lab while I apply for PhD programs. I'd love to do that because I love the current grant I am working on, I love the topic, the people and the PI.
My only hesitation is that there seems to be very limited titles in academia for one who is not a graduate student and does not have a PhD. The truth is, I do not want to be a "lab tech." I want to start becoming autonomous in the field I did my master's and becoming a lab tech is the exact opposite of being an independent researcher (based on my understanding).
I feel like if I start my year-long employment with the agreement with my PI that I'll continue work on my current research but with the "lab tech" title, the post-doc who supervises my work will treat me like a lab tech!
Therefore, I'd like to be a "research scientist" for the next year, but do I have to have a PhD for that? Or, what other titles are there besides a lab tech for people who wants to do research without a PhD in academia?

yes, @Najib. I added the details to the last paragraph of the question above as an edit.

@user93363 Your question was fine before, you should focus a little bit on editing it down to be more concise and remove the rant at the end.

All I meant to say in that verbose paragraph was that I want the responsibility and the title that comes with it, which is not a lab tech (also, I do not want to be derogatory towards the labtech title, it's just not what I want).

@user93363 I suggested an edit that will make your question more readable and more inviting to others to respond.

@Azor oh, thanks very much for taking the time to edit my initial post! It's my first time posting a question here and I had gone into some tangential details as I composed my inquiry I guess.

It depends. At least SOME place would let you become a RS w/o a PhD.

@user93363 No problem. People here like to see polished questions.

Titles depend on institution. In industry, you can be a "research scientist" with no particular degree. In a university, a "research scientist" may be a catch-all term for scientific employees, or it may be a parallel track with similar prestige to a professorship (with similarly high standards). I do not know what MIT's system is.
Your job responsibilities will depend on your boss (advisor) far more than your title. If your advisor is on board with you continuing your current research, then great; this will be true regardless of your title. If they are doing you a favor allowing you to remain employed while you apply for PhD programs, then they may expect you to do "lab tech" type work.
It's certainly a good idea to discuss your title, responsibilities and goals with your advisor before accepting the position. But I wouldn't be too concerned about the title. If this were a permanent position for you, I might agree that "lab tech" would be an unfortunate title, and might have unfortunate implications about your ability to participate in original research (especially since you would have to consider your position if your supervisor moves on). But since this is just a temporary stop-gap until grad school, I would focus this conversation on your responsibilities and goals.

The short answer is no. You only need someone willing to hire you for the role to have it. I know people with only a BS who transitioned from technician in an academic lab to research scientist there (and got a big pay increase in the process). Conversely you don't need a different title to be given independence. I know of technicians (who went on to grad school) who were relied on to make major decisions and suggest new projects.
A longer answer is that you will always be at a disadvantage in the research world without those letters, and constantly feeling like you must prove you are deserving of independence before you get it. A PhD is commonly described as training to be an independent researcher. Some of the smartest people I know never advanced beyond the BS and as a result were beset by headaches such as your concern about the postdoc. In academia such pecking orders tend to get taken to the extreme, too.

I could not find a description for MIT specifically, and I'm sure this varies by university and country, but no, a PhD is not a universal requirement for the title "Research Scientist."
At the University of Washington, the only requirement is a bachelor's degree to be a Research Scientist I. In fact, it's not until Research Scientist IV that a PhD is a minimum qualification, and even then, "Bachelor's degree candidates with exceptional qualifications may be considered."
A PhD is required to be a Senior Research Scientist, however.
On the flip side, at Harvard, a PhD is required to be any level of a "Research Scientist."
So, in short, this will depend on the policies at your institution, and you should look them up before you bring up with your PI about her hiring you on as a "Research Scientist" and not whatever the official title for a "lab tech" is.
Personally, I wouldn't be as dismissive as Najib is in the comments. Having a conversation about your role/responsibilities is a good thing to have, and if you don't want the role of a lab tech, then you'll know you should look elsewhere.
In terms of other titles, you may also look for a "Research Analyst" or "Research Technologist."

Thanks for your response Azor, I did check the MIT policies on "research scientist" positions, but it was a bit ambigious (https://policies-procedures.mit.edu/node/45/#sub2).

Oh also, I did not take Najib's comment as dismissive at all. Thanks you both for the responses.

@NajibIdrissi I didn't mean to cause offense. I thought it was fairly clear the OP didn't want to be a lab tech, and wanted their title to reflect that. I don't think any part of the original question suggested they "really only wanted a better title" (did you mean "question," btw?), which may explain why I interpreted your comment differently than you intended it to be read.

@user93363 check out section 5.2.3 your title would probably be technical assistant or research specialist

Under "5.2.2 Research Scientist, Research Engineer, Research Associate" it says the following: "They hold an advanced degree appropriate to the field of research or a combination of related education and high-level research."
When I google "advanced degree" for its definition, it seems to be a graduate degree --either a master's or a PhD. Since I have the former (in fact, I have a dual master's degree, both from MIT), I figured I might be eligible for a research scientist position. I'm curious why you thought otherwise @StrongBad ?

@qwerty In practice, the MIT policy is that "research scientist" requires a a doctoral degree (or other terminal degree).  They do leave things a bit hazy, so that they can hire people who have slightly lower academic qualifications but already have extensive career accomplishments.  For somebody with only a masters degree and no outside accomplishments, "research scientist" is at least two pay grades too high to aim for.  To wit, a graduate student would normally be a "research assistant"; above that, a normal post-doc is a "research associate"; and "research scientist" is yet higher.

Job titles and the associated requirements will vary from university to university (and possibly within schools of the same university). For MIT those policies are given at https://policies-procedures.mit.edu/. For your type of position, the relevant sections are 5.2.2 Research Scientist, Research Engineer, Research Associate and 5.2.3 Research Specialist, Technical Associate, Technical Assistant. The wording of sections is very similar, with the key difference being Research Scientists

contribute significantly to the design and execution of experiments in research projects. They work in collaboration with the principal investigator.

and Research Specialists

provide professional, technical, or other support service to a research project or program under the direction of a principal investigator.

For the position you are describing, while a PI may informally say you are a collaborator, when push comes to shove it is an unequal relationship and you are working under the direction of the PI.
That said, what you do is generally more important than the title you hold. Your treatment within the group will not depend so much on your title as on the roles and responsibilities your PI assigns you (possibly through the post doc). If the PI expects you to do your own thing, then you will be independent, regardless of the title. If the PI expects you to turn the crank while observed by the post doc, then you will be a monkey regardless of the title. You need to discuss your roles and responsibilities prior to taking the job.

Nope. Being a scientist requires no formal degree. It is a systematic approach to data analysis and interpolation. While a degree could help teach you how to think, it’s very apathetic to what is needed. Based on most research today, I’d argue many who hold the title are not even science driven. If you are able to objectively look at data with no bias and draw a conclusion based on the data, technically you are a scientist.
People value too much what other people choose as your title. That is all just people, and true science does not need validation, to create a theory. Validation comes from the repeatable of the scientific process and deduced conclusions. Everyone here is talking about clout and validation though a governed body that almost certainly has bias built in.
Ask yourself, what formal training did all of the most revered scientists have? None, they went against the grain and let the data guide them. I hate people think universities have a monopoly on science. They are not the gatekeepers. They should be informed by science, not police it and decide what is right based on the current accepted principles. That is a flawed way to think.

The  other  tittle   is   "research assistant"   Yes, people   with master's   degrees   do  get hired  as   research  assistants.   I know  one  person   who  was  hired   by  the  Oklahoma   Geological  survey   as   research  assistant  while  he  was  working  on  his  M.S.  in geology   and   he  remained   employed  as  a  research   assistant. "Research  assistant"  is  his  job  title,  or  was.
How  you   are  treated  by  someone   else  often   depends  on  how  you  treat  them,   if  you  have  no  personal  respect  for  the  post-doc  who  is  directing  your  research,  why   should  that  post-doc  respect  you.  The  post-doc  has  more  life   experience  in   academia  than you   do.
You   don't  HAVE  to  stay  in   academia.   y\ou CAN  go  to  work  for  the  federal   government  I  am  assuming   you  are  in  the  United States)  or  industry   or  businesses   with  master's   degree.   I  talked  to   someone    within  the last  month   whose  daughter   got  two   bachelor's  degrees  and  master's  degree     and  her  mother  says  she LOVES her  job.
I  have  THREE  bachelor's   degree  AND   an M.S.  in   geology.   Yes,  i  wanted  to  get  Ph.D  18  and  15  years   ago.   but  I   would  have  had  to   apply    and  to  another   university's  Ph.D.  program  AND   be  admitted    and  then  i  would  have  to MOVE  to  another   state...  I've  come  to  accept  the   fact   that  i no longer  have    the  physical  stamina   to   get   a  Ph.D.   and  now  my  knowledge  is  OUTDATED   because  i haven't  really kept  up   with  academic  literature.  Even   second  master's  degree    may not  be   worth  the  investment  of   another 3 years  of TIME,  especially since  i might  end up  in   assisted  living  before  i   could  graduate.,   and   that master's   degree  program  REQUIRES   at  LEAST   2  internships.  In August,  2003  i  was  told  by  an  assistant    graduate  college   dean  that  if  i  wa NOT  admitted  into  college  degree  program,   the university  did not  need  ow  want  me  because  Everyone   was  going  back   to  school.   that  was  !5 YEARS   ago.  That  is  still   true  TODAY.
You HAVE  a  job. Do you   want  to keep    that  job,  even if you   are  doing  SOMEONE ELSE'S   research,   or  not  just   because    you     think   you   will be    treated     and  not  get  the  respect   YOU  think you  deserve/  Respect  is  EARNED,  not   granted.   You CANNOT DEMAND    respect and kindness  form  someone  else. I've   had  that  happen   TO ME,   and  it   was   the MOST  INSULTING   thing   that  I've   EVER  had  happen  to me.


text:
Submit an academic paper to arXiv built over a patented idea
We have our idea patented with the company we are working currently for. But, we have also been writing a paper draft on the theory and the mathematics behind the idea with practical results, plots, comments, and future directions. Can we submit the paper to arXiv linking it to the original patent? I am confused because arXiv is for open publishing but having the core idea patented doesn't, probably, allow open usage of the algorithm. Does it then contain the same academic value and worth putting on arXiv? Does arXiv allow such a thing at all? Thanks

I don't know one way or the other, but the third comment to Patent application file on arxiv looks like it's suggesting doing what you're asking about.

Just to be clear, you have the patent granted already?

No. That's not yet patented. I was thinking of first patenting it and then publishing it on arXiv. But again I was concerned if it was at all ethical academically, and against arXiv's rules.

To the best of my knowledge, arXiv has no rules against posting preprints that discuss patented material.  The only requirement is that you grant them a license in the copyright of the text you posted, so that they can distribute the article without having you sue them.  They have no such strict "open publishing" rules as you suggest.
However, in many jurisdictions, if you publish your invention (i.e. make it public in any way) before applying for the patent (or maybe before having it granted?), your patent can be invalidated.  Thus, you should consult with your patent attorney before publishing anything.

+1 The second part is important. Making public knowledge part or all of your invention can make it difficult to make claims during the patent process and even invalidate the patent due to lack of proprietary claims (you made them public knowledge). For European patents, the paradigm is first-to-file, which can be nightmarish if you divulge IP and plan to file in Europe (i.e. someone takes your idea in EU and files before you do, which is why companies file in parallel). And in parts of Asia, all a company needs is the IP and they can reproduce it without constraint or need for a patent.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to identify studies that should be replicated?
In psychology voting on which studies should be replicated is established on a website. The ReplicationWiki (that I founded) offers a voting option for studies in economics and related fields, but it is not yet used much. I already saw a couple of questions on specific papers here in the academia stack, in the cross validated stack (c1, c2, c3), and in the quantitative finance stack, and added the studies to the wiki and a link to questions here (1, 2, 3, c1, c2, c3, quant).
There are many other places where such questions on replication of specific studies can be found, e.g., in the forums for specialized software (d). To get further suggestions I would like to know if you have already replicated studies yourself or with your students. What would you think would be a mechanism that motivates to share such experience and help to identify the studies that should be replicated? And the replications that are already available somewhere but not yet listed in the wiki? Where would be the right place to ask?

If I was going to look into replicating a study, I would look for one that satisfies some mixture of these two ideas:

Is there something to gain from the replication? Do I find the original study/results important? Would a replication add to the field? Have I ever wished someone would replicate this?
Is there reason to believe something would be different? Do I think their conclusions are wrong? Or could I generalize the original result by changing something?

For example, there is a paper that I heavily cite in my work but it is getting relatively old (software engineering does change with time, I think!) so I have wished someone would replicate it. It isn't possible for me to replicate it completely but regardless of the result, I think it would help the research community.
Note: This is coming my from perspective in a field that doesn't particularly value replications (unlike medicine and psychology).

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


text:
How to react when a team of colleagues obviously made up some results?
In a recent paper, a team of colleagues published results that are clearly made up. I am 100 % sure of that because my position at the university involves the management of the animals they used in the study, which grants me access to the native data.
Actually, the statistics were so poorly handled you have hints something is definitely wrong just by reading the abstract.
My name doesn't appear on the paper, but I could be indirectly associated with that team through my position.
So how to properly react? Close my eyes and move on? Write to the journal they published in?

Are you saying that they're outright fabricating data, or are you saying that the published statistics do not support their conclusions?

Clearly used data made up out of the blue just to get significant results, but even though you can tell statistics are screwed up. Example: out of 3 main parameters compared between 2 groups of 15 individuals through several months, each single parameter had a similar (and very small) standard deviation in both groups, which is totally impossible considering the fact these particular parameters are quite highly variable within a single individual through time

Does your university have a code of ethics and/or an honor code that would allow you to report them without fear?

Is this in academic/government/ or commercial setting? (in research-active university setting in US, there will usually be a process that is pretty detailed and is designed just for this situation - that most faculty/staff probably won't know about - (except the faculty who've served on the various research ethics committees for some prior complaint).  It is usually initiated by someone privately bring a concern to the research ethics officer (typically the Dean of Research) who then carries though any initial inquiry deciding  whether to convene the next stages of the process.

Consider contacting your university's omsbudperson (if such a position exists) -- if it's anything like my university, they should be able to confidentially advise you on what to do/who to report this too. Additionally, what country is this in? We may be able to tailor our advice (e.g., by stating which government agency to report to if the work was publicly funded).

Related (not a duplicate): My professor is rigging data and plagiarizing. What can I do?

my position at the university involves the management of the animals they used in the study

If your immediate supervisor is to be trusted, go to him or her.  If not, pick someone higher up in the university hierarchy.  You are looking for someone who will

protect your identity as a whistleblower

investigate discreetly

have enough influence within the university to be able to trigger effective action

Edit (in response to some comments): I should really have suggested that you look up your university's policy and procedures.  Let's look at what MIT has to say about "Research Misconduct" as an example.

Unethical behavior in research and scholarship strikes at the heart of the scholarly and educational enterprise. [...] Supervisors must enforce the highest standards for conducting research and creating and maintaining records of the research [...] specifically, laboratory and center directors....
Definitions: [...] Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
Duty To Report: Each member of the MIT community has a responsibility to report any conduct that he or she believes in good faith to be Research Misconduct at MIT. Ordinarily it is appropriate in the first instance for a Complainant to report his or her concerns to the supervisor of the prospective Respondent. [...] Consultation and guidance is always available from the Office of the Vice President for Research or from senior academic officers (deans, department heads, laboratory directors)....
A supervisor who becomes aware of possible Research Misconduct, either from his or her own observations or because of reports, has a responsibility to bring allegations of Research Misconduct directly to the Vice President for Research in order to ensure that proper procedures are followed.

If there is an established regulation/code of ethics, shouldn't the OP follow this instead of speaking to someone in his/her hierarchy? (Unless of course the latter can really be trusted on a personal level. But then again his/her role would be merely supporting in case the code exists.)

There is typically a designated person, often with a title like "ombudsman", for discussing such matters with.

I feel that this should also simultaneously be reported to the journal. And potentially to the general public. Both institutions and journals have been known to, ah, ignore evidence of misconduct. The scientific public should know about this, and they should know about it as soon as possible (without neglecting due diligence of course).

@KonradRudolph, the institution may have a procedure for notifying publishers, so surely this path is favourable. (Of course, if the procedure is disregarded, then notifying the journal directly is the next step.)

Follow your University's Reporting Protocol
Most Universities, as well as most businesses, government agencies, non-profit organizations, and organized religions, have established protocols to help you through this reporting process and, generally, to ensure some combination of proper and timely handling of the issue, image protection, protection against attempts at retaliation towards whistleblowers, and protection against people being accused of things without basis.
For example, Humboldt State University provides the following relevant policy (source):

The Dean of Research, Economic and Community Development will serve as the RIO who will have primary responsibility for implementation of the institution’s policies and procedures on research misconduct.

and later it's specified that:

All University members will report observed or apparent research misconduct to the RIO. If an individual is unsure whether an incident falls within the definition of research misconduct, he or she may meet with or contact the RIO to discuss the suspected research misconduct informally, which may include discussing it anonymously and/or hypothetically. If the circumstances described by the individual do not meet the definition of research misconduct, the RIO will refer the individual or allegation to other offices or officials with responsibility for resolving the problem."

(RIO = Research Integrity Officer.)
Your University likely has a similar policy in place specifically for situations like this, and following the procedure in your University's policy is the best way to ensure your complaints are taken seriously.

The link you provided is the  Policy and Procedure for Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct.  I tried to find the policy and procedure for reporting an allegation, and couldn't.  If you know this university better, perhaps you could find it?

Thanks, that helped me find it.  "Responsibility to Report Misconduct: All University members will report observed or apparent research misconduct to the RIO. If an individual is unsure whether an incident falls within the definition of research misconduct, he or she may meet with or contact the RIO to discuss the suspected research misconduct informally, which may include discussing it anonymously and/or hypothetically. If the circumstances described by the individual do not meet the definition of research misconduct, the RIO will refer the individual or ...

allegation to other offices or officials with responsibility for resolving the problem."  (RIO = Research Integrity Officer.)  I like your idea of adding this to your answer.

Are your colleagues federally funded? If yes, sue them on behalf of the federal government Qui Tam.  Other nations may have similar laws.

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


text:
If I'm key personnel on an NIH grant . . . can I put that on my CV?
I'm a postdoc in the sciences.
My supervisor submitted a grant renewal to the NIH recently and listed me as "key personnel" on it.  The renewal received very high marks and is likely to be approved.
Although I have received fellowships in the past, I've never applied for a grant, and I've never been key personnel on a grant before.
Would it be appropriate for me to list on my CV that I'm key personnel on this grant (if the renewal is officially approved)?  If so, how should this be stated?  Examples from actual CVs would be much appreciated.  (To be specific, I'm not sure whether I should list this alongside my fellowships, in my "Awards" section . . . or start an entirely new section for "Grants" or something like that.)
EDIT: This question is similar in flavor to this one, but I'm looking for a more specific answer than that question received . . . It's possible this should be marked as duplicate.

I think I've found what I'm looking for, but I'm still interested in other answers/feedback.
I think a new section in my CV that looks like this would be appropriate:

Grants

National Institutes of Health, AXZ-1394 (2018-2021)
"Awesome Grant Title"
Role:   Key Personnel

Good answer, and it's explicitly encouraged to answer your own question :D

Would it be appropriate for me to list on my CV that I'm key personnel on this grant (if the renewal is officially approved)?

My answer to this, like all CV questions, is which CV. I have a big CV which has everything on it (including failed grant proposals for which I was listed as key personnel). I then delete things as I tailor the CV to a specific purpose. Every once in a while you will get an odd request from your department about things like we need a list of every grant application you have been involved with in the past 10 years by tomorrow. Having a single CV that I can cut from is much easier than going through all my files on my computer.
The next question then becomes, how useful is it to let people know that you were a key personnel on a grant. The answer is it depends on your funding history and what you are applying for. In my opinion, the extent to which not having applied for much funding will hurt you will depend on your role in the funding you have had (being a key personnel on a single grant is much better than having been shuttled from grant to grant and never named).

Yes, it’s good to do so, and don’t be afraid to put all your grant/funding activities up front and center, even before your pubs. I’d put them all together under a more general ‘external funding’ section.

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


text:
PhD application lots of publications, mediocre grades
I am currently applying to PhD programmes to Computer Science departments in the area of Natural Language Processing.
My grades are rather mediocre, though during my bachelor (3yrs) and master (2yrs) studies, I managed to publish several papers as the main author (two of them to the top-level (ACL) conferences in the field).
As a consequence of my publishing focus, my grades are not perfect.
This is made more confusing by the fact that my undergraduate school uses 1-4 best-worst grading scale (I have 1.24 average) and my graduate school yet another grading system but with a similar average.
At most department websites it is stated that the department faculty do not take care of the admissions and that they are handled by the admission committee. This makes me wonder whether my application (and publication history) will even make it to closer inspection or whether the first filtering happens at the level of grades.
I believe that this altogether makes the application somewhat confusing and less competitive, especially when the schools I am applying to (top institutions and Ivy League) mention that they receive hundreds of applications every year and that every part of my application should be strong, otherwise there is no point in applying (and paying the application fee and bothering my supervisors to upload their letters of recommendations).
Finally, I do not have any GRE scores as for this and last year admission rounds, most of the schools stopped requiring it and the majority of them do not even accept it.
Question:
In total, I am applying to 15 top-tier graduate schools for a PhD.
All these schools list roughly 5% acceptance rate. Assuming that my application comes from the same population, this gives me only a little over 50% chance of getting accepted somewhere.
This makes me wonder whether I should change my selection strategy because apart from my research and some teaching experience, my application has little to offer (e.g. no awards or internships at Google) and I am not sure whether it's going to make it through the first pass.

With such a narrow range of applications, you are very likely to be disappointed. Too much competition for too few slots.

you need to clearly explain the marking scheme in your cover letter, hopefully with reference to the transcript or school website where details on the marking scheme can be verified..

Besides applying also to some less selective schools (which you should obviously do), in a case like yours it is crucial to write the faculty who might be interested in working with you so they can, if interested, put a word in in favor of your application.

My strong recommendation is to modify your application strategy. There is nothing wrong about applying to top tier schools, but you limit your chances of getting any bid if you limit it to that.
The US (where it seems you will be applying), has may very fine schools, often state universities, within the top 100 institutions. Some are stronger in some fields than in others, of course. But they tend to have larger faculties than many of the top (but smaller) schools, so you get a wider set of choices in advisor.
It is impossible to predict how you will do, since the members of admissions committees all have their own views. But for top tier schools, most of the applications that are seriously considered are near perfect. Some (sadly) have GPA cutoffs.
A broader search gives you more options and a greater opportunity for success.
Yes, 'lots' of papers is a plus, but the selection process is broad based.

What distribution of applications would you suggest? 5 in top 20, 5 in top 50, 5 in top 100? Or should one go further down?

Maybe top 50 or so, but it doesn't need to be a uniform distribution.

I'm not sure I understood your comment. Are you suggesting  to stay in top 50 or to go to top 150?

No, I'm suggesting that your distribution can be biased toward the top schools with a few further down. Just don't make it narrowly focused.


text:
Is it OK to re-submit my own work to the same class that I am retaking?
I'm retaking a class because I flunked the final which was worth most of our grades. The papers I'm resubmitting will be slightly edited, but mostly the same as I got good grades on them. Would this be considered plagiarism?

Welcome to Academia SE. We cannot really answer what your institution or whoever runs the course considers acceptable, so you have to ask them (more on this). As for the ethics, please take a look at the proposed duplicate questions.

@Buffy: Let us continue this discussion in chat.


text:
Can my choice of co-authors affect how often my article is cited?
I am a post-graduate student in dentistry; planning to publish an article either in an Indian journal or an international one. How does having co-authors like our seniors or our professors affect number of citations for my published article?

Welcome to Academia SE. I edited your question to be more focussed on one question that has not been asked here yet. Please see whether everything is still according to your intentions. As for other implicit questions, I suggest that you browse the [tag:authorship] tag and in particular take a look at this and this question.

Everything else equal; more authors usually means more (self)citations, and more authors coming from different backgrounds and separate networks will mean more citations, since they will continue publishing independently afterwards. Citations (even if they are selfcitations) usually also leads to further citations, since each citation gives the paper exposure. This is naturally not a recipe for how authorship should be granted, but merely a couple of observations.

First of all, let me make it clear that I'm addressing your question with the hope that you tacitly mean co-authors who made significant enough contributions to deserve authorship, and not talking about gifting co-authorship to people who haven't. Ethically, the latter is wrong, even when the person in question is the PhD supervisor, and hasn't contributed enough to deserve authorship. Thus, what I'm referring to below is the issue of publishing with or without co-authors who deserve to be co-authors.
In an ideal world, what should matter is only whether the content of article is scientifically sound, and not the brand value of the authors. What is wrong does not become right when stated by a bigshot. But in parallel, there is a question of credibility, and that is generally higher for people who are known to have done some good work in the past, as opposed to a newbie. But even with that, it is not that people do not read the works of newbies, just that in the real world, people are less likely to be as critical of a bigshot, as they would be of a newbie. That's just to say that we do not live in an ideal world. However, if the science in the newbie's work is accurate, it will fetch respect too. That's how eventually everyone grows in stature.
However, we should distinguish between exposure and citations. Even with my arguments above, being on the same wagon as a bigshot may ensure more exposure (i.e. more people look at it, even though it may not go any further than that), citations are not really entailed by a greater exposure, but are more reflective of the utility of the article. Thus, a useful work is going to get cited irrespective of who is on the author list, and exposure only increases the odds of the same.

the issue of publishing with or without co-authors who deserve to be co-authors — And this in turn means the issue of doing research with or without others who might make a significant enough contribution to deserve co-authorship.

authors: Евгений Міненко


text:
Is it plagiarism to copy the form and structure of an article?
As an undergraduate student, I wrote a science paper. Because I was learning to write, I used the form and structure of a paper on a completely different topic; in fact, it was a slightly different discipline all together. So my paper has a similar layout, transitions, and structure as said paper, though the information, content, subject matter, and topic are different.
Is this plagiarism? I later contacted the original author, upon discovering the similarities, and he said that it was okay, that he learned the form from others, and that I should go on with life.

There are a phrase bank maintained by the University of Manchester to help scientists in writing papers. Why would you feel soo bad about it, if this is something encouraged among  academics? Look: http://www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk

What others have said about it being ok to copy the structure is all true.  Overriding that, though, is the fact that you told the author of the original and he said it was ok.  That's all you need to hear.  Get on with your life.

I would add that you have already shown your honesty and integrity by contacting the author and following through on your misgivings. Many people would simply have put it out of their mind and moved on.

What do you mean by "upon discovering the similarities"?  How could you "discover" these if you intentionally put them there from the start (as your first paragraph says)?  I think you should clarify the real sequence of events.

Okay, I guess you mean "rediscovering" then.

I feel this depends on how you interpret "form" and "structure". If you mean you basically just copied this other person's article EXCEPT that you swapped out all of the words pertaining to the subject matter (sort of like Mad Lib), then I guess that is somehow dubious. But the fact that you've checked with the author and he said you should go on with life probably means it's okay. Although as an author myself I would not feel comfortable if someone "mad-libbed" my paper (although I wouldn't throw a fit either).

If someone truly took an article and just swapped out words, the paper would be both unintelligible and would be treading on a "patch work plagiarism." That would be ridiculous. This was an undergrad paper where I referred to another on how to sequence and write and years later came across it and thought meh, not so great a method. It was very generic language, but that doesn't mean I'd recommend the same method.

You've done nothing wrong; most manuscripts follow the same structure.
Consider the following recommendations for structure: (1) Introduction, (2) Materials and Methods, (3) Results, and (4) Discussion. Would it be wrong to adopt that structure? No. It's a very common style and is widely adopted.

The OP added:

It's not just the [structure] that I followed, but the language - i.e. transition words.

Transition words, e.g., https://msu.edu/~jdowell/135/transw.html, are standard, so they shouldn't create an issue.

The order of the introduction is the same, for example.

That's just a different form of structural issue, hence, this isn't a problem.

I said why the world needs the paper in a similar language even though there was two totally different topics and subject matters.

Such a style is advocated by many, e.g., Simon Peyton Jones, so that shouldn't create an issue.

Note: Without seeing the texts, we cannot comment on specific issues.

Yes.  AFAIK, just about every scientific paper follows exactly the same form and structure.  Likely enough your research supervisor will give you the template to follow.  (And the same is true for magazine & newspaper articles &c: there are a few standard forms that almost everyone uses, which are taught in writing classes.)  As for "transition words", exactly how many of those do you suppose there are in the English language?

I generally agree with this answer, but the beginning of the sentence He told me it was inappropriate but not a big deal... makes me question whether one can say the OP actually did nothing wrong.

@Kimball We won't definitively know whether the OP did something wrong unless they provide more details. Others have assumed the OP has done something wrong, e.g., https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/108671/22768 Reality might be somewhere in the middle.

If the originial author read through your paper and said it was fine, there shouldn't be much more to worry about.

I showed the article to a professor who more or less agreed with the other senior researcher, and with your comments here, that both articles were standard scientific structure and that the author was right not to be concerned. This is not a reason not to be considerate, however. Thanks for your help.

Academic writing is fairly standardized. Most disciplines follow a standard template, usually a variety of the following:

Introduction

Why the world needs this paper
What the literature already says on the topic and what this paper contributes
How this paper is organized

Background: An elaboration in roughly five paragraphs on the first paragraph of the introduction, setting the stage for the analysis and making the reader aware of the context needed to understand the paper
Theory: An inventory and perhaps formalization of the theoretical concept(s) or model(s) used in the subsequent analysis in roughly five paragraphs
Methods

How the theory was operationalized
How the data was generated
How the data was analyzed

Analysis: Two or three subsections, each making one major claim that relates to the overall research question. Explains how the data/observations inform the theory and/or vice versa.
Conclusion

Restatement of the main thesis and argument in theoretical terms
Discussion of the contribution to the literature
Implications for future research

If you used a format similar to this one, you didn't plagiarize; you just followed academic writing convention, which is good. And so did the paper that you used as a template.

It's not just the formal template that I followed, but the language - i.e. transition words. The order of the introduction is the same, for example. I said why the world needs the paper in a similar language even though there was two totally different topics and subject matters. It was inappropriate, now maybe we don't retract articles for this sort of thing, I don't know.

@henning I would add to your answer that there are a phrase bank maintained by the University of Manchester for scientific writing. So this is something encouraged among academics. phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk

Is it really true that "most disciplines" follow this structure which really only makes sense for experimental science?

@DavidRicherby You're right; that format isn't used in mathematics. But another format is fairly standard in math: Introduction, background, my great new theorem(s), proofs. So I still agree (and I imagine you do too) with henning's conclusion that the OP should stop worrying.

@DavidRicherby Few experiments in political science, but it's a standard format for us (data/observations can be quantitative but also case-studies). You're right, it won't fit maths.

@TheDoctor That's www.phrasebank.manchester.ac.uk (The original omits www and doesn't work (for me, at least).)

@user2768 You're right, for me works without the www because safari inserts it automatically and then omits it when I copy from the address bar.

The phrase bank certainly solidifies the fact that the generic phrases as standard and thus my paper is not an issue. I still can't see promoting academics to use it, though, because we should be encouraging people to develop their own voice. I can see how it would be helpful for undergraduates. Thanks for the link.

@Science12345 While standardized language sounds dull, it is also efficient in transmitting information.

This is something that has come up in comments, but not yet in answers: you should not have written that paper that way. You copied parts of the other professor's wording (perhaps at long stretches) and plugged in your own material. The content and the quality of writing (e.g. persuasive style, apt wording) are both important in academia. In fields like philosophy or literature, both may be equally important, whereas in experimental sciences many authors and readers would be happier if articles just consisted of figures, tables, citations, and bullet points. In all fields, though, there are people who put extra effort into writing well and would be particularly annoyed at having their structure and unique wording copied.
This is in the realm of plagiarism, but it does not make the top 28 guidelines for avoiding plagiarism offered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Research Integrity. Because you appropriated the peripheral wording and not the content, this is more of a gray area (depending on exactly how much was borrowed), and it does not impact whether the scientific record should be corrected: your results still stand, and your ideas are still yours. This is one of the reasons no one so far seems to be in favor of retraction.
I've even heard writing advice that you SHOULD copy the argumentation structure of other papers, but usually there are caveats about not taking everything from the same place. In creative writing classes, there are often assignments to write in the style of some other author, as practice, but the goal is to help the writer pick up different tools of expression, and in the final work for public consumption it shouldn't be obvious that the writer was mimicking someone else.
This issue probably still feels unresolved. The first time I misjudged a traffic light and essentially ran a red light, I was shaken and pulled over and expected the police to immediately find me and ticket me. But I realized that mistakes happen, and sometimes the correct way to rectify them is not to seek out appropriate punishment for yourself but to be vigilant about not making the same mistake again.
You did a good thing by reaching out to the original author, and because they do not want a retraction, you can consider this matter resolved. (You may want to save a copy of that correspondence, on the exceedingly remote chance that someone raises this as an issue later, after discovering it through a natural language processing exercise or something. Plus, if this article ends up in your "Collected Works" someday, as GEdgar suggested in a comment, you can then quote that author's kind correspondence in your commentary.)

@Science12345 - you contacted the author and he said it was not a huge deal and no need to retract, just don't do it again. You asked here and dozens of people have said the same thing in different ways. And yet you're still arguing! Take yes and for an answer and move on with your life. If you really find that difficult, it seems like you might be showing signs of scrupulosity. Good luck!

If it helps, it's quite possible that the author was flattered that a student used their article as an exemplar, and the author could probably tell from your sincere concern that this was a mistake you made early on and would not repeat.

@Science12345 - You said, "Yes, this X100," but then you went right into the throes of angst again. I suggest you follow your own guidance, and read the part in bold print one hundred times.

Also, a world where "I own that generic phrase" and "I own that generic phrase" would not be a world worth living in, though of course, I say, be considerate and don't copy other people's styles.

@Science12345 Again, it really depends on how much was copied. If it's "Strikingly... However... Therefore" it's different from using much more distinctive phrasing and argumentation structure.

I'm not sure what your discipline is, but in experimental science, the argumentative structure isn't distinctive. But as said before, I agree with you in spirit. I believe we should write in our own words. I hope that I did not overstep into non-generic stuff (I certainly was not plugging in information on top of someone). Regardless I was right to email the original, and I will follow your advice to be diligent not to make the same mistake (or anything similar). Thanks.


text:
Switching to host university during master’s after research internship project?
I am currently a top master’s student at one of the Middle Eastern universities and due to lack of research facilities in my country, I am going to Japan to join a research project this summer for three months at the University of Tokyo. Deep inside, I want to continue my master’s and PhD there, directly after the project ends and I am planning to work very hard to prove my eligibility for the opportunity.
But I don't know how applicable this is and how this would happen.
I would like to ask if somebody had a similar experience and also if I should ask the professor directly at the end of the project.

Why don't you ask your supervisor at Todai instead? You will be much better off doing that than asking strangers on the Internet.

It depends on your field, too...

Asking for similar experience is very much like a poll and not likely to get you any answer for such a specific situation. Rather focus on a specific choice you have to make, e.g., how and when to act.

Also, do I understand correctly that you wish to seamlessly continue in Tokyo after the project? (I am asking because you are suggesting to take steps at the end of the project and I cannot imagine any procedure being that fast.)

It's impossible to answer definitely without (a) knowing the exact way that you will be studying in Japan for 3 months and (b) the thoughts that the people you will study with both have now and will have at the end of your 3 months.
With that being said, I want to suggest two reasons to not get your hopes up.

you state that you will be at the University of Tokyo. This university has the highest prestige ranking in Japan so there are many Japanese people that want to study there or go there to continue graduate school. This means that they have a harder time playing fast and loose and admissions are competitive (some Japanese universities have rather non-competitive graduate admissions).
many funding sources that would bring you for three months have an expectation that you go back to your own institution after that. Some may have terms that prohibit staying (if the idea was to stick around immediately) or terms that prevent receiving further funding to study in Japan (most everything here is run by MEXT so the same people would know).


text:
What are the benefits of taking textbook notes?
Taking notes based on the textbook obviously helps to organize and summarize info in the textbook. But if I highlighted the most important areas of the textbook, and while revising I only look at these parts, won't it have the same effect as taking textbook notes (as far as summarizing goes)? Ultimately my question is, for students who have achieved good grades by taking textbook notes, what are the benefits of doing it and why is it better than just reading the important parts of the textbook?

In addition to the benefits mentioned by fgysin, you might want to include in your notes information that is not explicitly in the textbook, for example alternative ways to think about some of the textbook's material, details that are omitted in the textbook, special cases of the facts in the book, or connections between different passages in the book.

Personally, writing something down in my own words helps my understanding tremendously. It forces me to actually, properly understand the concepts and formulate them differently.
Furthermore I often use graphical aids like drawing diagrams, graphs, etc. This is often hard to do on textbook margins due to space limitations.

Apart from the features explained by @AndreasBlass and @fgysin, there is one more advantage I would like to add concerning customised notes on a textbook.
A textbook author usually try to cover a wide range of readers. Hence what might seem sufficient to some might seem inadequate to others, yet superfluous to some others. Hence an avid reader of the subject would make concise what one is familiar with and expand more in detail on the topics that one feels difficult (probably by referring more references) by separate note-taking on the textbook that may be more efficient than highlighting right on the book itself.


text:
Course of action after failing a (non-maths) course in hopes of entering grad school for maths?
I'm currently a second year student in a general science program with a specialization in mathematics (it's kind of like a double major, almost). I'm hoping to go to grad school for combinatorial optimization, operations research, or some other pure math stream.  The problem is, I failed a cell biology course this semester (that just ended).
There are no medical reasons as to why I failed, just a matter of poor judgement when it came to choosing courses (I took an extra course than needed - the cell bio one - so that I could get it over with and take a computational biology course next year which requires this cell bio course), as well, I'm part of a major faculty society at my school and I'm doing research (non-math) with a group. All these factors lead to cell bio being my last priority and to sum it up, I have a U (0) in it, because I didn't pass.
My question is, how will this look on my grad school application? Overall, I'm a good student, I had about a 3.8 cgpa last year and at most I think this will bring it down to about a 3.4-3.5. I'm sure the next few years I'll do much better in my courses and can hopefully bring my cgpa back up to it's original glory, but for now I'm kind of at a loss as to what to do, especially given that there isn't really anyone to talk to at my school (Canadian) about maths grad school (I went to see an adviser and was told I'd get an email with some helpful info, but haven't received anything yet). I am going to write the GREs and hopefully do well in that and I'm considering taking the Putnam to further enhance my application.
I'm very sorry if this is a duplicate of a question, but so far, people have had different (I'd think more severe) circumstances, i.e. medical, failed course was taken as a high school student, etc. If anyone was in a similar situation or have dealt with this and could help me out, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you!

In my experience, this should not have much/any impact on your grad school applications (assuming you do well in all of your other courses).  A single failed class in an unrelated area just doesn't say anything about your ability to do research in mathematics.  (This is predicated on all of your other grades being very good, and the F being unrelated to any sort of academic misconduct, of course.)  As for course of action, I think you've already identified it: make sure this is a single F in an otherwise excellent transcript, particularly high marks in challenging courses related to your intended area of graduate study.
Personal anecdote:
I am currently in my first year of a pure math phd program in a (roughly) top 20-25 program, and I failed a non-math class in my junior year of undergraduate (something to do with neural networks) for reasons along the lines of yours.  My overall GPA by the time I applied was a 3.75 or so.  I didn't say anything about the F in my applications since it was not particularly relevant to mathematical research.  (In my Statement of Purpose, I wrote about research I had done and areas I was interested in pursuing further research.  A failed neural networks class didn't seem worth noting.)  I did get rejected from two top 10 programs, and maybe that was the reason, though I doubt it.
Hopefully some people who have served on graduate admissions committees in math departments will weigh in on this since my experience may not generalize.

authors: דניאל אוזיזק


text:
Has there ever been a successful copyright infringement suit against someone using a small amount of a protected work in an academic publication?
I am familiar with what the US Code says about copyright and fair use, and am specifically interested in actual practice regarding academic publications which use small amount (under 10% of the original) of a protected work, without obtaining permission. Specifically, I would like to know if an infringement suit has ever been successful when the amount of copying has been under the prevailing "substantiality" threshhold, and the copying was in an academic publication. I'm not asking what might happen or whether I should ask permission. U.S. cases and non-U.S. cases would be relevant (to the extent that "fair use" concepts exist in other systems). Alternatively, if you know of a case where the copier prevailed specifically because the use was in an academic publication, that would be relevant.

+1, I would love to see if any examples can be given. That being said, the case doesn't have to be successful against the alleged infringer to be damaging to them. Depending on their agreement with the publisher, it might be very costly to defend the suit, and/or the article might be withdrawn. These possibilities might occur independently of whether the author ultimately wins the lawsuit.

What's your underlying question here? What difference will the answer make to you? As it stands, this is very broad, and it's hard to see the usefulness of an answer that says "in Judisdiction X, Y happened" if you're not in Jurisdiction X. NB "under 10%" is not necessarily a "small amount": to reuse one single image from a protected work without permission is going to raise concerns.

Bill Barth, I did want to exclude settlements and withdrawals, because I'm looking at the legal issue and not the practical "what should I do" question.

EnergyNumbers, the underlying question is whether academic publication is de facto if not de jure a bullet-proof defense against infringement. If the courts have ever found a journal / author of an academic work to have infringed, given an "insubstantial" amount of copying, that would argue against this hypothesized "rule"; if this has happened many times, it would refute the conjecture, and depending on the cases, could obliterate alternative conjectures. Available evidence so far shows a lack of decisive cases. I'm trying not to separate text and image right now.

This is not an answer to your question, but two considerations are still in order: * What matters is not whether you copy a certain fraction of the original work (say, 10%), but instead the amount you copy. If you copy half a page without attribution from a 500-page book, then that's just as wrong as if you copy half a page from a 6-page conference proceedings. * There are doubtlessly far fewer legal actions about copyright infringements than  cases of academic misconduct investigations because someone points out that you copied a page from somewhere else without attribution.

As you say, this isn't an answer to the question.  You are addressing plagiarism, not copyright.

Even if there has never been a lawsuit over academic fair use, I wouldn't consider that as strong evidence that it is a good defense.  My impression is that academic publishers are extremely risk averse regarding fair use.  If they see even a small chance of being sued (and even if they think they would likely win), they typically insist on getting permission in advance from the copyright holder.  This means fair use never even comes up in more than a small fraction of the cases in which it might have been relevant, so it hasn't been tested as thoroughly as one might wish.

AnonMath, that is absolutely correct. I'm basically asking for any amount of high-hanging fruit. This is a situation where silence is uninformative, and only specific decisions for or against reveal anything about the nature of the legal rule.

One case in a similar direction is Sundeman v. The Seajay Society.  A researcher included quotations from an unpublished work in a presentation; this was upheld as fair use.  There's some discussion of the case and the outcome from the Columbia copyright office (have to scroll down a little bit).  There are some other related cases listed on the same page, e.g. involving fair use of copyrighted images in less academic publications.

Half an answer...
I no longer have a copy of Permissions: a survival guide (lent it to someone and never saw it again) but from memory, it discusses a few cases along these lines, particularly from the scholarly-art-monograph world.
(While the XYZ estate can't stop you writing about XYZ, they can make it very difficult if they refuse you the rights to use any of their visual artwork... and publishers get nervy about claiming fair use on things they would normally expect to pay fees for.)
Unfortunately, it's been a while since I read it and so I don't recall if any of them got as far as a legal case; I suspect the publishers usually folded. Worth taking a look if you can find a library copy, and seeing if it names specific cases, as these might be just what you're after.


text:
For graduate admissions, is it better to attend a well-known undergrad program with advanced coursework or one where I can write a bachelors' thesis?
I am currently enrolled in a 4-year mathematics undergraduate program in a university (let's call it A) in South Asia and here are the circumstances:

There are very few math majors in the program. I suffer and feel the lack of peers.
Professors are extremely friendly. They work on harmonic analysis, representation theory, Fourier analysis, analytic number theory, functional analysis, category theory, game theory and C* algebra. However, we don't have people working in commutative algebra, algebraic geometry, algebraic number theory and other areas.
At the end of four years, I can at best get courses in real analysis (in one and several variables), complex analysis, general topology, discrete mathematics, analytic NT, ODE and PDE, linear algebra, groups, rings, fields and other courses from the research interests of my professors.
To get an Honors degree, I'll additionally write a Bachelor's thesis.
There are two other places in our country (Let's call them B) which are really good- their programs are tougher, they offer more grad courses, have the best peer group, etc.,have some of the best researchers in the country, cost much less. To move to B, I will have to sit for an admission test and start afresh.

However, they do not have a provision for Bachelor's thesis and are 3 year programs.
My primary concerns are:

Since I want to apply to the top universities in the US, I feel not getting courses like differential geometry, algebraic geometry, algebraic topology at my current institution A will severely affect my application. But I will write a Bachelor's thesis.
If I move to B, not writing a bachelor's thesis will make my application weaker as I will have no proper independent project or something like that to show my research potential but I will get grad level courses.

Here are two questions:

Should I try moving to B or stay at my current institution, A?
Am I at a significant disadvantage being at A compared to B?

I am willing to provide further details without divulging my id.

@scaaahu, to be honest, I have no idea. In this part of the world, admission tests are the norm.So, I will sit for the admission test for B next year depending on the answer of this question.

Check my profile. I am in the same part of the world you are in. I understand what admission test/transfer test means. Are you going to do transfer test or re-admission test?

No, it is an admission test for fresh admission.

What prevents you from writing a bachelor's thesis if you switch to University B?

@Kogesho It's my fault that I should not have deleted my previous comment. Your question is the same as I asked before. The OP's answer was "I have no idea". Please refer to his first comment.

The admissions test sounds similar to that in Korea.  If the situation is similar, going to a better school and learning more is much preferred, and there are many chances to do internships at research labs that will make up for your lack of a bachelor thesis.

Unfortunately, many US researchers are only familiar with the top 2-5 universities in even large south asian countries; it will make a big difference if they respect University B but have never heard of University A. However, if you're not making that particular jump, I'd say that the reputation is less important than other factors, like your likelihood of getting great letters of reference, publishing in international journals, or having a good backup option in case you can't go to the US.

If I were you, I would try to move to B based on the assumption that B is better than A and A is probably less recognizable in the US than B schools.
You are right that research potential is an important factor the admission committees of top schools will pay attention to. However, bachelor thesis is not the only way to show that you can do research. You can do research papers with professors' supervision at school B if you want.
I suggest B since you can learn a lot more in B than in A. Building the foundations during undergrad stage is more important than doing research prematurely.
When you apply graduate schools, you need to provide GPA, GRE/TOEFL scores, recommendation letters and any evidence that you can do research.  One of the first things the admission committee will look at is your transcript to determine if you are competent in math. If you stay in A, all you can show is basic to intermediate level math courses. Given that all other conditions will be equal, i.e. you'll get the same GRE/TOEFL scores, about the same recommendation letters (I am not too sure about that), the only thing you can use to beat other applicants is your very good quality bachelor thesis. But, how can you write a very good thesis without having solid math knowledge?
Thus, I am suggesting B. I do understand how tough is the admission exam in that part of the world. It's bloody. Good luck!


text:
Article based on thesis and co authorship
I graduated 8 months ago with 7 SCI article published. Recently, I submitted another article based on my thesis work. My supervisor, who actually has no supervisory role in my thesis except for providing a monthly stipend, wants me to add him as a co-author. He argues that he supported my research,  but in fact I paid him back more than he supported me, in the form of my work on various projects (totally different than my thesis topic).
During my PhD he never took an  interest in my PhD thesis, rather he always used me for his short term industry projects. In 4.5 years we didn’t have a single discussion/meeting on my PhD thesis.
Is him asking me to add him as an author morally correct? What if I refuse his request? Can my action be consider an unethical act?

Related: When should a supervisor be an author and Co-authorship for not very involved supervisor

In some fields of study, the one who provides the funding is automatically included as co-author.  But not in other fields.  I can only assume your advisor knows what is standard in your field.

The most suitable thing to do is thanking him inside the acknowledgement part of your article.

I am ready to add his name in acknowledgment but he want to be author.

Funding was not provided for my thesis topic. As I said I worked for him on various small industry projects. He was not interested in serious thesis topic. I did research independently with coordination with professors and researchers from other universities

Didn't you have to defend your thesis?  I would think that involved a "discussion/meeting on [your] PhD thesis".  Exaggerating or glossing over what really happened will only reduce our ability to give you a good answer.

David he don’t anything about my thesis. I already defended my thesis. And why you think it require meeting and discussion? Yes he just ask me what are suitable dates for me to appear in front of committee. Do you think this qualify someone to be author of an article?

If this is the case, what he is doing is not morally correct. You can refuse his request and thank him inside the acknowledgement part of your article for helping you. An author of an article should make some major contributions to the work, even if he is not writing any part of the article. Minor contributors should be mentioned in the acknowledgement section.

If I were to publish any of my thesis works as article, I would be adding my supervisor as co-author; to avoid any future conflicts of interests. I am anyway loosing nothing by doing so. In fact, I would expect a stronger recommendation from him. The relationship between supervisor and PhD student extends beyond just the thesis and degree. So, I would not affect it in this way.

I am anyway loosing nothing by doing so — Yes, you are losing full credit for your work.  Gift authorship is unethical.  Buying recommendations with coauthorship is unethical.

@JeffE I know these. But, I don't see any business here as the person in the context is my phd supervisor and the work is a part carried out in the phd thesis under his able guidance (officially).


text:
"Official" journal abbreviation of MAGMA
I am struck by the use of "Magn Reson Mater Phy" as an abbreviation by the journal "Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine" (a.k.a. "MAGMA"). See here for an example.
Their instructions for authors say:

In order to have all citations to the journal taken into account in
  the calculation of the Thomson-ISI impact factor and citation index,
  please always refer to MAGMA as Magn Reson Mater Phy in all your
  publications. Magn Reson Mater Phy is the only official abbreviation
  of the journal.

That use is of course reflected in the Web of Science.
On the same site, they say:

Always use the standard abbreviation of a journal’s name according to
  the ISSN List of Title Word Abbreviations, see ISSN.org LTWA.

Using the LTWA and ISO-4 rules, I determine "Magn Reson Mater Phys Biol Med" as an abbreviation; note "Biol Med" and the extra "s" in "Phys". "Physics = Phys." is even an explicit example in ISO-4 (section 3.5) and often used, for example, in the abbreviation of "Medical Physics" ("Med Phys").
So, I wonder why Springer says the "official abbreviation" is one that is different from the LTWA. Is that for historical reasons, and MAGMA just sticks to it because the ISI impact factor is so powerful? Is there a title history that I may have overlooked? Or is there another reason Springer uses a different abbreviation for "Physics" and omits everything after the comma? In the whole ISO-4, I have not found any indication to do anything like that.
Update:
A little bit of history. MAGMA was born as "MAGMA" in 1993 (with no explanation of the meaning in the first editorial). The NML catalog says that "Issues for Apr. 1994- have subtitle: Magnetic resonance materials in physics, biology, and medicine." So there is no indication of any title not involving "Biology and Medicine".
The header line read MAGMA in all papers until the end of 1997 (see that year's last paper), and had been changed to "Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine" in the first editorial after the publisher had changed to Elsevier in 1998. It remained like this until issue 15 (some time in 2002), when the publisher changed to Springer; they started using "MAGMA" again until issue 18; since issue 19, they have been using "Magn Reson Mater Phy" in the header line until today. Note that the ISO-4 standard has not changed since 1997.
Also, the Web of Science says in the JCR:

Titles
ISO: Magn. Reson. Mat. Phys. Biol. Med.
JCR Abbrev: MAGN RESON MATER PHY

So there is no doubt the abbreviation I determined is correct. (Yes, there is! Note the difference in "Mater" [my abbreviation, according to LTWA] vs. "Mat" [ISO abbreviation according to JCR].) But still my questions remain:

Why does Springer/JCR use a different abbreviation?
Who was the first to use it?
And why do they still recommend using it?

And a bonus one:

Why does the JCR use a wrong ISO abbreviation?

Update: More facts.

MAGMA appears in the JCR for the first time in 1998, already as "MAGN RESON MATER PHY"
A fact that I have ignored so far is how the journal uses it's own name in references of their papers. Late 1997, MAGMA was cited "MAGMA", but I can't find self-citation after that (and before the JCR). So did the JCR ultimately define that abbreviation?

Interesting.  There is also "Magma International Journal in the humanities and social sciences" as well as a medical journal called "MAGMA".

I did not know about the first one; but I am pretty sure Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine IS the one medical journal called MAGMA. (It's called so in the PubMed/NLM catalog.)

There is probably nobody but the particular administrators of the various organizations involved who can speak to the exact details of why this journal's abbreviations are inconsistent.
I suspect, however, that the answer that you would get, if you could track them down would be something along the lines of:

I don't think it's inconsistent... hmm, I guess maybe it is?  We should probably try to figure out how to get that sorted out at some point.

The point is that curation is hard, curation of periodicals is harder, and curation of periodicals over long time frames and across multiple organizations is particularly difficult and easy to get wrong.  Worse yet, repairing a problem will often create more problems for the future (e.g., an inconsistency might get fixed by hard-coding in an alias).
Even within a single organization, it's difficult to handle different parts of a process consistently: for instance, yesterday I proofed my final version of a paper for a major journal and found that some of the links to instructions that the production staff supplied were incorrect.
All of this is a long way of saying: probably it's just an unintentional mess.  You can point it out to the people involved, and they might be able to fix it; they might also have work-arounds in place already and not care.  At the end of the day, however, it need not be your problem, unless you are in charge of curation of the journal or other resources involved.

You are saying somewhere near the beginning that

"Using the LTWA and ISO-4 rules, I determine "Magn Reson Mater Phys
  Biol Med" as an abbreviation"

Apart from the differences that you point out later, I believe you should also add "and the NLM rules", because the ISO-4 and Medline abbreviations differ due to NLM editing:
As of March 1, 2007, NLM establishes title abbreviations based on the
form used by the ISSN Centre as their abbreviated key title, whenever
this is available , editing only for format as described below:
 - The first letter of each word in the title abbreviation is capitalized.
 - All punctuation is removed, except for parentheses used when a
qualifier is supplied.
 - All diacritics are removed.
 - Qualifying elements which refer to format, such as (Print) or (Online) are omitted.
(Source: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/constructitle.html)


text:
How relevant is "moving on" as an argument in peer review?
For me, publishing results only when they are final, complete, and positive is more of a tradition than a necessity. I would find it valuable if others were able to publish what they have tried, even if they have not achieved what they (initially) aimed for. Unfortunately, this is very often not possible, at least in peer-reviewed journals.
I always pity the results that are lost because of this; in particular, when reviewers ask for additional research that is feasible in general, but infeasible because the authors are busy with other projects, moving to a different institution, leaving academia, or whatever other reasons. If I were an author in such a situation, I would probably share this reason with the reviewers to explain why additional work is not possible. As a reviewer, I might consider this in my recommendation. My question is: how relevant is this? Does this happen a lot? How likely is it to influence the reviewers' decision? And will the editor care?
These questions are very hard to answer, so good answers might be based on experience rather than hard facts. I would very much welcome those.

If the reviewers find that the work is not worth publishing without additional things, why would they care why the author did not and does not plan to do them? That will not change that they find the work incomplete.

Depending on the situation, the reviewers may be satisfied if you simply identify the additional research as a possible "future direction". They may just want to make sure that you considered the additional research, even if you chose not to do it.

@TobiasKildetoft I have edited the question and included "As a reviewer, I might consider this in my recommendation." I am unsure how I should and would consider this exactly, though; this is part of my question :)

The way I see it is as follows: the reviewer's primary job is to judge whether the main claims made in the paper are borne out by the evaluation. The editor's primary job is to fill the conference/ journal with the papers that had the most interesting claims and passed review.
If you send in a paper, and the reviewer complains that additional research is needed, you actually have two options: you can add the research, or you can reduce the strength of your claim. If the editor complains that the claims are not interesting enough, you should look for a less prestigious venue.
So in short, it's perfectly fine to publish unfinished or negative research, but you need to be very honest about it.

Well, in my experience (math), the editor asks the reviewer for their opinion on the importance / interest of the results.  It would not be uncommon for a reviewer to say something like "the results currently claimed in the paper are correctly proved, but are not interesting enough; to reach the necessary level for this journal the paper should answer the following stronger question..."  Of course it's up to the editor to agree with this.

@NateEldredge That's a good point. The editor usually uses the advice of the reviewers to assess novelty. But I would say it's not the primary role of the reviewers.

Some journals have a preliminary review stage in which the reviewers are only asked to assess novelty, significance and interest.  If their responses convince the editor that the paper would likely be acceptable if its results are correct, then there is a second, longer review cycle to determine its correctness.

@NateEldredge I did not know that. I guess it's sometimes more efficient to assess novelty first.

It is not a reviewer's business why an author did not expand their research in any of a dozen different directions that invariably good research can be expanded in. Perhaps the author intends to do this in the future, perhaps at this point they are more interested in other research directions, perhaps they are about to leave academia, are suffering from a terminal illness and busy writing their memoirs, or whatever the case may be. None of this information ought to have any effect on the reviewer's decision.
The reviewer's job is to evaluate the actual paper and what it actually contains, and decide if it is correct and good enough research for the venue it is being considered for (or potentially could be made good enough with a small amount of extra work). It is also helpful, but not strictly required, if the reviewer can also offer useful feedback to the author.
In other words, "moving on" is completely irrelevant in the context of peer review.
And as for your "pity [about] the results that are lost because of this", it is understandable, but also irrelevant for peer review decisions. In any case, personally I don't see great cause for concern; researchers are human and lead human lives, with all the complexity and messiness that that entails, and research threads that were not pursued to completion by one researcher will, if they are interesting enough, eventually be picked up by other people.

I think a lot of this is ultimately up to the editor, not the reviewers.
If the reviews are mostly positive but are suggesting additional work that would elaborate on a particular conclusion, the authors could suggest to the editor that they merely add a suggestion for that research in the future and clarify where they are speculating vs. concluding; it would be up to the editor to decide if the paper in this state is still a good enough fit for the journal.
On the other hand, if the additional work is necessary to correct a major flaw or a control experiment to verify the absence of a likely confound, then it seems the authors must either complete the work or abandon the paper.

Appealing to "the graduate student left" or other sorts of "moving on" can be successful, but only in response to some referee requests.
There are two common types of referee comments:

 To prove your claim X, you need supporting data Y [e.g. added control, missing step in proof.]
 To make this a better paper, you should do Z. [e.g., study more populations/animals, identify a biochemical mechanism, etc.]

Type 2 also comes in the flavor: "To make this a paper interesting enough for [Journal A], you must do something like Z."
To answer comments of type 1, you must either do what the referee says, or successfully argue that it's unnecessary (e.g. that control is already covered by our data in a different context, etc...).
Though this is not ideal, comments of type 2 are much more common in my experience. And the critical point is that a comment like this are mostly resolved by negotiation between the authors and referees, with the editor making the final call. This is where I think context like "moving on" could be useful. If a referee asked you to do something that would be a good idea, but take two years, that would not be reasonable (and I have seen this explicitly rejected by editors). Even without mitigating circumstances, this is where authors often write, "We believe this is outside the scope of the current paper, and plan to address it at a later time." In the same light, as a referee I would take into account a response like "This would take a major investment of time which is not currently possible because the graduate student now has a real job." There is a cost/benefit tradeoff to some revisions - and the referee does not know all of the costs!
However, as with claiming "outside the current scope," if the referee or editor believes this is truly essential, this can lead to rejection. This rejection is also more likely to occur in fancier journals. ("The graduate student left" isn't going to fly at Nature, or even [Field] Letters, but it might work at your default society journal or PLOS ONE.)